text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well-known that string theory in the pp-wave background can be obtained  for type IIB theory by taking the Penrose limit  on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 and has many interesting features. The most notable one is that the corresponding Green-Schwarz (GS) action in the light-cone gauge is exactly solvable . So one can quantize the theory and obtain the string spectrum in a straightforward way. By the Maldacena conjecture  taking a Penrose limit (on the string/gravity side) amounts to going to a particular subsector of the $`𝒩=4`$, $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory where both the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the $`U(1)`$ R-charge $`J`$ of the gauge theory operators scales as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`J\sqrt{N}`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, keeping $`g_{YM}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ fixed. Thus using the BMN  conjecture of exact correspondence between string theory in the pp-wave background and the subsector of gauge theory one can compute the anomalous dimensions of the gauge theory operators from the exact string spectrum and this has been generalized to many other AdS/CFT-like examples.

The consequence of taking Penrose limits and their implications in the subsector of dual nonconformal theories have been discussed in refs. . In most cases Penrose limits on the gravity duals of these theories lead to string theories in time dependent pp-wave backgrounds. For a large class of such backgrounds, the equations of motion of the GS action can be solved exactly, but the quantization for such systems and the construction of states are still not well-understood . However, there is an intriguing connection between the associated time dependent quantum mechanical problem and the RG flow in the dual gauge theory . On the other hand, it has been noticed that in six dimensions there exists a special null geodesic, for the gravity dual of both local  (ordinary YM or OYM) and non-local (Little String Theory111The existence of this theory has been argued in . (LST) , noncommutative YM222The gravity dual of 4-dimensional NCYM theory has been obtained in  and in other dimensions in . (NCYM)  and open D$`p`$-branes333The existence of OD$`p`$ theories have been shown in  (see also ) and their supergravity descriptions are given in . (OD$`p`$) ) theories, in the neighborhood of which the Penrose limits lead to string theories in time independent pp-wave backgrounds. These are very similar to the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave limit of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5. Since string theories in these cases are exactly solvable, it is straightforward to obtain the string spectrum and extract information about the states of the above mentioned theories in the subsector corresponding to the Penrose limit. Such discussions can be found for LST in , for 6-dimensional NCYM in  and for OD5 in .

In this paper we study the Penrose limit of the gravity dual of another class of non-local theories, namely, the noncommutative open string theory  in six dimensions (NCOS6) . The supergravity configuration is given by the (F,D5) bound state  of type IIB string theory in the so-called NCOS limit. We describe the phase structure of this theory and show how at various energies the theory is described by OYM6, LST, NCOS6 and OD1 theories. We obtain the Penrose limit of NCOS6 theory in the neighborhood of a particular null geodesic by defining a scaling parameter in terms of the known parameters of the theory. We show that the Penrose limit in this case leads to an exactly solvable string theory in a time independent pp-wave background unlike the case of four or other dimensional NCOS theories. Here we find that the two of the eight bosonic coordinates of the string theory are massive and it contains both NSNS and RR three-form field strengths. We also discuss Penrose limits at different phases of this theory and as is known they all lead to solvable string theories. We study the quantization of the bosonic sector of the gravity dual of NCOS6 theory in the Penrose limit, obtain the string spectrum and discuss their relations to the states in NCOS6 theory in a particular subsector. Similar discussions are given for the different phases of this theory including the OD1 theory. Finally we obtain the Penrose limit for a more general null geodesic of both NCOS6 theory and the OD1 theory. In this case we obtain string theories in time dependent pp-wave backgrounds which are not solvable. We briefly comment on the RG flow in the dual theory.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we give the gravity dual description of NCOS6 theory and describe its phase structure. The Penrose limit of this theory and various other theories at different phases for a particular null geodesic is discussed in section 3. The quantization of the bosonic sector and the string spectrum for the NCOS6 and other theories at different phases are described in section 4. In section 5, we discuss the Penrose limits of NCOS6 and OD1 theories for the general null geodesic and comment on the RG flow. Our conclusion is presented in section 6.

## 2 Supergravity description and the phase structure of NCOS6

The gravity dual description of NCOS6 can be obtained from the (F,D5) bound state configuration of type IIB string theory in the so-called NCOS limit and is described in refs.. The string metric, the dilaton and the other gauge fields have the forms,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(1+a^2r^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}ar\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{r^2}}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right]`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_o^2(ar)`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(ar)^2dx^0dx^1`$
$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵM\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}ϵ_3`$
$`A^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{G_o^2(1+a^2r^2)}}dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5`$ (2.1)
Here the parameter $`ϵ`$ is defined as $`ϵ=\alpha ^{}/\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$, where $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ is the string length scale and $`\sqrt{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}`$ is the length scale of the NCOS6 theory. The parameter $`a^2=\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}/(MG_o^2)`$, where $`M`$ is the number of D5-branes and $`G_o^2`$ is the coupling constant of NCOS6 theory. ‘$`r`$’ is the energy parameter defined by $`r=\stackrel{~}{r}/(\sqrt{ϵ}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{})`$, ‘$`\stackrel{~}{r}`$’ being the radial coordinate transverse to the (F,D5) world-volume. $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the line element of the unit 3-sphere transverse to (F,D5) world-volume and $`ϵ_3`$ is its volume-form. Note that in the NCOS limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, with $`G_o^2`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ fixed and so, $`ϵ`$ is a small parameter.

The above supergravity description of NCOS6 theory is valid as long as the curvature of the metric in (2.1) measured in $`\alpha ^{}`$ unit as well as the dilaton remain small i.e.

$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{MG_o^2ar(1+a^2r^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}1`$ (2.2)
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_o^2ar1`$ (2.3)
We will discuss the two cases (i) $`ar1`$ and (ii) $`ar1`$ separately. For case (i), the condition (2.2) implies $`ar1/(MG_o^2)`$ and so, along with the relation $`ar1`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{MG_o^2}ar1$$
(2.4)
where the curvature remains small. On the other hand the condition (2.3) implies $`ar1/G_o^2`$. So, if $`G_o^21`$, then we have the whole region (2.4) where both the curvature and the dilaton remain small and we have a valid supergravity description. However, we note that this conclusion is not quite correct. The reason is, in the region $`ar1`$ we expect the NCOS6 theory to reduce to OYM6 theory i.e. the supergravity configuration (2.1) should reduce to simple D5-brane configuration in the OYM-limit. It is easy to check that this would happen only if we set along with $`ar1`$ and $`M\mathrm{}`$, $`G_o^2\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}0`$, such that $`G_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=g_{YM}^2/(2\pi )^3`$. In this limit, (2.1) reduce to

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{3/2}r}{\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}}\left((dx^0)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{YM}\sqrt{M}r}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{r^2}}+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right]`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{YM}r}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{M}}}`$
$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha ^{}Mϵ_3`$ (2.5)
with $`B`$ and $`A^{(4)}`$ vanishing. This is exactly the D5-brane configuration in the OYM6 limit . So, when $`ar1`$, we take $`G_o^21`$. Therefore, the supergravity description remains valid not in the region (2.4) but

$$\frac{1}{MG_o^2}ar\frac{1}{G_o^2}$$
(2.6)
Note that since we are in the OYM6 region, $`a`$ and $`G_o^2`$ do not have any obvious meaning. Substituting $`a^2=\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}/(MG_o^2)`$ in (2.5) we find the range in this case as ,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}r\sqrt{M}$$
(2.7)
When $`ar1/G_o^2`$, the dilaton becomes large and we have to go to the S-dual frame in order to have a valid supergravity description. In this case the D5-brane configuration will go over to the NS5-brane configuration by S-duality and OYM6 limit will become the LST limit. Therefore, we will have the LST description in the region

$$\frac{1}{G_o^2}ar1$$
(2.8)
We will discuss how to obtain the LST supergravity description from OD1 theory later.

Now consider the case (ii) where $`ar1`$. Here we will assume $`G_o^21`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=`$ fixed for the weakly coupled NCOS6 theory. Note that the curvarture condition (2.2) in this case implies $`ar1/(MG_o^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Since for large $`M`$, $`1/(MG_o^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}1`$, the curvature condition is always satisfied. Also, the dilaton condition (2.3) implies $`ar1/G_o^2`$ and so, combining with $`ar1`$, we have the following range of $`ar`$ for which NCOS6 supergravity description remains valid,

$$1ar\frac{1}{G_o^2}$$
(2.9)
But when $`ar1/G_o^2`$, the dilaton becomes large and we have to go to the S-dual frame to have a valid supergravity description. Under S-duality the (F,D5) supergravity configuration becomes the (D1,NS5) supergravity configuration and the NCOS6 limit goes over to the OD1 limit. To obtain the supergravity dual of OD1 theory we make an S-duality transformation in (2.1) which gives ,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵG_{o(1)}^2(1+a^2r^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{r^2}}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)\right]`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{o(1)}^2}{ar}}`$
$`dB`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵNG_{o(1)}^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}ϵ_3`$
$`A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(ar)^2dx^0dx^1`$
$`A^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2G_{o(1)}^2}{1+a^2r^2}}dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5`$ (2.10)
Note that in writing (2.9) we have made use of the S-duality relations among the parameters of the two theories as ,

$$G_o^2=\frac{1}{G_{o(1)}^2},\mathrm{and}G_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}$$
(2.11)
where $`G_{o(1)}^2`$ is the coupling constant and $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}`$ is the length scale in OD1 theory. Also, $`N`$ is the number of NS5-branes and is equal to $`M`$. The parameter $`a^2`$ in NCOS6 theory should be written in terms of the parameters of OD1 theory i.e.

$$a^2=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{MG_o^2}=\frac{G_{o(1)}^4\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{N}$$
(2.12)
Note that when $`ar1`$, $`G_{o(1)}^20`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=g_{YM}^2/(2\pi )^3=`$ fixed and this is precisely the LST limit. The supergravity configuration in this limit becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(dx^0)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}N({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{r^2}}+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{N}}{g_{YM}r}}`$
$`dB`$ $`=`$ $`2N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}ϵ_3`$ (2.13)
with the other fields vanishing. This is exactly the supergravity configuration of LST. Note that in writing (2.12) we have multiplied by the $`g_s^1=1/ϵG_{o(1)}^2`$ of OD1 theory (with $`g_s`$, the string coupling constant), both the metric and $`dB`$ in (2.9) so that both the S-dual metric of (NS5,D1) and the original metric of (F,D5) remain Minkowskian .

So, to summarize, the phase structure of NCOS6 theory is as follows. We have OYM6 description in the range $`1/(MG_o^2)ar1/G_o^2`$ and LST description in the range $`1/G_o^2ar1`$. On the other hand we have weakly coupled NCOS6 description in the range $`1ar1/G_o^2`$ and we have weakly coupled OD1 description if $`ar1/G_o^2`$. In the first part when $`ar1`$, $`G_o^21`$ and for the second part when $`ar1`$, $`G_o^21`$.

## 3 Penrose limits

In this section we obtain the Penrose limit of NCOS6 supergravity description given in (2.1) for a particular null geodesic and discuss the same for the other theories at different phases mentioned in the previous section. To obtain the Penrose limit of (2.1) we first scale the coordinates $`x^{0,\mathrm{},5}`$ as $`x^{0,\mathrm{},5}\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}x^{0,\mathrm{},5}`$. Then by defining a new variable $`ar=e^U`$ we write (2.1) as,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2(1+e^{2U})^{\frac{1}{2}}e^U\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2U}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+dU^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right]`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_o^2e^U`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`R^2e^{2U}dx^0dx^1`$
$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{G_o^2}}ϵ_3`$
$`A^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{G_o^2(1+e^{2U})}}dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5`$ (3.1)
We write $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ and look at a null geodesic for the metric in (3.1) restricted to $`(x^0,U,\psi )`$-plane. So, we set $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}=0`$, $`\theta =0`$ and so, the effective Lagrangian associated with this geodesic has the form,

$$=(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^U((x^0)^{})^2+(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^U(U^{})^2+(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^U(\psi ^{})^2$$
(3.2)
where ‘prime’ denotes the derivative with respect to the affine parameter along the geodesic. Since the Lagrangian does not depend explicitly on $`x^0`$ and $`\psi `$, we get two constants of motion as,

$$(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^U(x^0)^{}=E,(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^U\psi ^{}=J$$
(3.3)
Substituting these in (3.2) and equating it to zero for the null geodesic we get the evolution equation for $`U`$ as444It should be mentioned here that the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`U`$ yields a second order differential equation, since $``$ explicitly depends on $`U`$. In general, the equation of motion for $`U`$ is different from the null geodesic condition given below in (3.4). However, since the form of the metric in (3.2) has $`g_{00}=g_{\psi \psi }=g_{UU}`$, it can be easily checked that the equation of motion for $`U`$ is equivalent to the null geodesic codition as given below.,

$$(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}e^UU^{}=\sqrt{1l^2}$$
(3.4)
where we have defined $`l=J/E`$ and scaled the affine parameter by $`E`$. Eq.(3.4) denotes the one parameter family of evolution equation for which $`l^21`$. We will discuss the general case $`l<1`$ (we take $`l0`$) in section 5, and here we consider a special null geodesic for which $`l=1`$. So, we have $`U^{}=0`$ or $`U=`$ constant. Therefore the null geodesic is now restricted to $`(x^0,\psi )`$-plane as in the case of maximally supersymmetric AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5. The null geodesic is given by $`U=U_0=\mathrm{constant}`$, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}=\theta =0`$ and $`x^0=\psi =x^+`$, where $`x^+`$ is the affine parameter. We now define a set of new coordinates as,

$`U`$ $``$ $`U_0+(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}e^{U_0/2}x`$
$`\theta `$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}e^{U_0/2}z`$
$`x^1`$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}e^{U_0/2}x^1`$
$`x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}e^{U_0/2}x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$
$`x^0`$ $``$ $`x^++(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}e^{U_0}x^{}`$
$`\psi `$ $``$ $`x^+(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}e^{U_0}x^{}`$ (3.5)
By further rescaling the coordinates as $`x^+x^+`$, $`x^{}x^{}/R^2`$, $`xx/R`$, $`zz/R`$, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}x^{1,\mathrm{},5}/R`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$ and taking $`R\mathrm{}`$555In this limit, it is clear that we are in the neighborhood of the null geodesic just mentioned above., the supergravity configuration in (3.1) takes the form,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\stackrel{}{z}^2(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+dx^2+d\stackrel{}{z}^2`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_o^2e^{U_0}`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`dB=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dx^+dx^1dx`$
$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{G_o^2\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dx^+dz_1dz_2`$
$`F^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3.6)
This is the Penrose limit of the NCOS6 supergravity configuration. In the above $`\stackrel{}{z}^2=z_1^2+z_2^2`$ where $`z_1=z\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`z_2=z\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. We note from the metric in (3.6) that only two of the eight bosonic coordinates, namely, $`(z_1,z_2)`$ have constant masses and the rest are massless. This will lead to an exactly solvable string theory. We can introduce arbitrary masses for $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ by scaling $`x^\pm \mu ^{\pm 1}x^\pm `$ and then (3.6) become,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}^2(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+dx^2+d\stackrel{}{z}^2`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_o^2e^{U_0}`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dx^+dx^1dx`$
$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{G_o^2\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dx^+dz_1dz_2`$
$`F^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3.7)
We would like to mention that in taking the Penrose limit we have taken the scaling parameter $`R^2=ϵMG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\mathrm{}`$. This can be achieved by taking (a) $`M\mathrm{}`$, $`G_o^2`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ fixed or, (b) $`M\mathrm{}`$, $`G_o^2\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}0`$ such that $`G_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=g_{YM}^2/(2\pi )^3=`$ fixed. For case (a) we are in NCOS6 theory but for case (b) $`a^2=\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}/(MG_o^2)0`$ and so $`ar1`$. This is the region, as we have seen in the previous section, where we have OYM6 supergravity description if $`1/(MG_o^2)ar1/G_o^2`$ and LST supergravity description if $`1/G_o^2ar1`$. Note that for the OYM6 supergravity description in the region mentioned, the metric and the dilaton remain the same as in (3.7) in the Penrose limit, but we have to replace $`G_o^2e^{U_0}=G_o^2ar_0=g_{YM}r_0/((2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{M})`$. But looking at the NSNS and RR 3-forms we find that $`H=2\mu (ar_0)dx^+dx^1dx`$ vanishes, but, $`F^{(3)}=(2\mu /(ar_0G_o^2))dx^+dz_1dz_2`$ does not vanish since $`ar_0G_o^21`$. This is precisely the Penrose limit of the D5-brane (in the near horizon limit) discussed in . For LST supergravity description in the region $`1/G_o^2ar1`$, we have to go to the S-dual frame and we will discuss how to obtain this from the OD1 theory later.

We have mentioned in the previous section that for $`ar1`$ and $`G_o^21`$, we have NCOS6 description in the range $`1ar1/G_o^2`$ whose Penrose limit we have already discussed. But when $`ar1/G_o^2`$, the dilaton becomes large and we have to go to the S-dual description which is nothing but the gravity dual of OD1 theory given in (2.9). We now discuss the Penrose limit of this theory. In this case we scale the coordinates as, $`x^{0,\mathrm{},5}\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}x^{0,\mathrm{},5}`$, define a new coordinate $`e^U=ar`$ as before and define the scaling parameter as $`R^2=ϵN\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}G_{o(1)}^2`$ (this is not the same as in NCOS6 case), then (2.9) takes the form,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2(1+e^{2U})^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2U}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+dU^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right]`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{o(1)}^2}{e^U}}`$
$`dB`$ $`=`$ $`2R^2ϵ_3`$
$`A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{G_{o(1)}^2}}e^{2U}dx^0dx^1`$
$`A^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{G_{o(1)}^2(1+e^{2U})}}dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5`$ (3.8)
To obtain the Penrose limit we proceed exactly as in NCOS6 case. The evolution equation in this case takes the form,

$$(1+e^{2U})^{1/2}U^{}=\sqrt{1l^2}$$
(3.9)
The parameter ‘$`l`$’ was defined before and the the ‘prime’ denotes derivative with respect to the affine parameter along the geodesic in $`(x^0,U,\psi )`$-plane. Again we notice that for $`l=1`$, $`U^{}=0`$ or, $`U=`$ constant is a solution to (3.9). The null geodesic is given by $`U=U_0=`$ constant, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}=\theta =0`$ and $`x^0=\psi =x^+`$ (the affine parameter) and is restricted to $`(x^0,\psi )`$-plane. The set of new coordinates we now define are as follows,

$`U`$ $``$ $`U_0+(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}x`$
$`\theta `$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}z`$
$`x^1`$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}x^1`$
$`x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$ $``$ $`(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/4}x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$
$`x^0`$ $``$ $`x^++(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}x^{}`$
$`\psi `$ $``$ $`x^+(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}x^{}`$ (3.10)
By further rescaling the coordinates as $`x^+\mu x^+`$, $`x^{}x^{}/(\mu R^2)`$, $`xx/R`$, $`zz/R`$, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}x^{1,\mathrm{},5}/R`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$ and taking $`R\mathrm{}`$, the configuration (3.8) takes the following form in the new coordinates,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}^2(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2+dx^2+d\stackrel{}{z}^2`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_{o(1)}^2e^{U_0}`$
$`dB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dx^+dz_1dz_2`$
$`dA^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu e^{2U_0}}{G_{o(1)}^2\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}dxdx^+dx^1`$
$`F^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3.11)
This is the Penrose limit of the gravity dual of OD1 theory and has also been obtained in ref.. In order to recover the Penrose limit of gravity dual of LST from here in the region $`G_{o(1)}^2ar1`$, we also have to set $`G_{o(1)}^20`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=g_{YM}^2/(2\pi )^3=`$ fixed. The metric would have the same form as given in (3.11). The dilaton $`e^\varphi =G_{o(1)}^2/(ar_0)=(2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{N}/(g_{YM}r_0)`$, $`dB=2\mu dx^+dz_1dz_2`$ which remains finite, but $`dA^{(2)}=(2\mu G_{o(1)}^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}/N)r_0^2dxdx^+dx^1`$ vanishes. This is exactly the Penrose limit of the gravity dual of LST discussed in .

## 4 Quantization and the string spectrum

In this section we discuss the quantization of the bosonic sector of the closed string theory obtained in the previous section by taking the Penrose limit of the gravity dual of NCOS6 theory as well as various other theories at different phases. We will obtain the string spectrum and discuss their relations to the states in various dual theories. The GS action for the bosonic part has the form,

$$4\pi \alpha ^{}S_b=d^2\sigma \left[\eta ^{ab}G_{\mu \nu }_ax^\mu _bx^\nu +ϵ^{ab}B_{\mu \nu }_ax^\mu _bx^\nu \right]$$
(4.1)
where $`\eta ^{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ is the world-sheet metric and $`ϵ^{\tau \sigma }=1`$. We first rename the coordinates as $`(z_1,z_2,x^5,x^4,x^3,x^2,x^1,x)(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5,z_6,z_7,z_8)`$ and then for the background (3.7) the above action takes the form in the light-cone gauge as,

$$4\pi \alpha ^{}S_b=𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}𝑑\sigma \left[\eta ^{ab}_az_i_bz_i+\mu ^2z_k^2+4\mu \frac{e^{U_0}}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}z_8_\sigma z_7\right]$$
(4.2)
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$ and $`k=1,2`$. We have also used the light-cone gauge $`x^+=\tau `$. Let us define $`Y=(z_7+iz_8)/2`$, then the equations of motion following from (4.2) are,

$`\eta ^{ab}_a_bz_k\mu ^2z_k`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{for}k=1,2`$
$`\eta ^{ab}_a_bz_l`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{for}l=3,\mathrm{},6`$
$`\eta ^{ab}_a_bY+2i\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}_\sigma Y`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\eta ^{ab}_a_b\overline{Y}2i\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}_\sigma \overline{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.3)
We solve these equations by Fourier expanding the various coordinates as,

$`z_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4p^+\omega _n}}}\alpha _n^ie^{i\omega _n\tau +in\sigma /(\alpha ^{}p^+)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4p^+\omega _n}}}(\alpha _n^i)^{}e^{i\omega _n\tau in\sigma /(\alpha ^{}p^+)}\right]`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4p^+\omega _n}}}\alpha _n^+e^{i\omega _n\tau +in\sigma /(\alpha ^{}p^+)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4p^+\omega _n}}}(\alpha _n^{})^{}e^{i\omega _n\tau in\sigma /(\alpha ^{}p^+)}\right]`$
and similarly for $`\overline{Y}`$, where,

$`\omega _n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}}},\mathrm{for}z_1,z_2`$ (4.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|n|}{\alpha ^{}p^+}},\mathrm{for}z_3,\mathrm{},z_6`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}}+2\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}},\mathrm{for}Y,\overline{Y}`$
and we find that the oscillators obey the commutation relations,

$$[\alpha _m^i,(\alpha _n^j)^{}]=i\delta _{mn}\delta ^{ij},[\alpha _m^+,(\alpha _n^+)^{}]=[\alpha _m^{},(\alpha _n^{})^{}]=i\delta _{mn}$$
(4.6)
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},6`$. So, the bosonic part of the light-cone Hamiltonian takes the form,

$$2p^{}=\underset{n}{}\left[N_n^{(k)}\sqrt{\mu ^2+\frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}}+N_n^{(l)}\frac{|n|}{\alpha ^{}p^+}+(N_n^++N_n^{})\sqrt{\frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}+2\mu \frac{e^{U_0}}{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}\frac{n}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right]$$
(4.7)
Now in order to relate the string spectrum to the states in NCOS6 theory we write from (3.5)

$$\frac{}{x^+}=\frac{}{x^0}+\frac{}{\psi },\frac{}{x^{}}=\frac{e^{U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}{R^2}\left(\frac{}{x^0}\frac{}{\psi }\right)$$
(4.8)
In terms of the generators of the original $`x^0`$ (before rescaling by $`\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}`$) we get,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2p^{}}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^+}}=\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}EJ_1`$
$`2\mu p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}{R^2}}(\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E+J_1)`$ (4.9)
where we have used $`i\frac{}{x^0}=\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E`$ and $`i\frac{}{\psi }=J_1`$. We thus find a correspondence between the string spectrum and the states in the NCOS6 theory with energy and $`U(1)`$ R-charge,

$$\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E,J_1MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\mathrm{},\mathrm{with}\sqrt{MG_o^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}EJ_1=\mathrm{fixed}$$
(4.10)
Thus the spectrum of strings in the background (3.7) is the same as the spectrum of NCOS6 theory in the regime (4.10). For $`R^2\mathrm{}`$, we have,

$$\mu p^+R^2=e^{U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}J_1\alpha ^{}p^+=\frac{e^{U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}J_1}{\mu MG_o^2}$$
(4.11)
So, the light-cone energy now takes the form,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2p^{}}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[N_n^{(k)}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2G_o^4e^{2U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})n^2}{J_1^2}}}+N_n^{(l)}{\displaystyle \frac{|n|MG_o^2e^{U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}{J_1}}`$ (4.12)
$`+(N_n^++N_n^{})\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M^2G_o^4e^{2U_0}(1+e^{2U_0})n^2}{J_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{2U_0}MG_o^2n}{J_1}}}]`$
There are three terms in the light-cone energy expression in (4.12). The first term corresponds to the two massive bosons $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, the second term corresponds to the four free massless bosons $`z_3,\mathrm{},z_6`$ and the third term corresponds to the two complex interacting bosons $`Y`$, $`\overline{Y}`$. The massive bosons when written in terms of two complex massive bosons $`z=(z_1+iz_2)/2`$ and $`\overline{z}=(z_1iz_2)/2`$, will carry a $`U(1)_2`$-charge corresponding to the angular coordinate $`\varphi `$, while the rest of the bosons are $`U(1)_2`$-charge neutral. Actually the gravity dual of NCOS6 theory before taking the Penrose limit has $`SO(4)SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ isometry of $`S^3`$ and $`U(1)_1\times U(1)_2`$ is the subgroup of this group corresponding to the isometries of $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$. The first one corresponds to the R-charge $`J_1`$ introduced earlier. Also, we note that the NCOS6 theory does not have the full 6-dimensional Poincare invariance because of the presence of the electric field along $`z_7`$-direction which is proportional to $`z_8`$ (or vice-versa) as can be seen from (3.7). Thus we have another $`U(1)_3`$-charge carried by the bosonic fields $`Y`$ and $`\overline{Y}`$ and the other bosons are neutral under this charge. This is the reason we have a further splitting of the light-cone energy (the last term in (4.12)) for the bosons $`Y`$ and $`\overline{Y}`$. We would like to point out that such a splitting did not happen for the case of 6-dimensional NCYM theory studied in  and the effect of magnetic field there was unobservable in the spectrum. The reason might be that we obtained the spectrum only for the closed string sector and the effect might be observable in the open string sector. However, in this case, we see the effect of electric field even in the closed string sector.

We have seen that if $`ar`$ lies between $`1/(MG_o^2)ar1/G_o^2`$, then the Penrose limit of NCOS6 theory (3.7) reduces to that of OYM6 theory and the metric has the same form as given in (3.7), the dilaton is given as $`e^\varphi =g_{YM}r_0/((2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{M})`$, while $`dB=0`$. The RR 3-form is non-vanishing. So, the GS action for the bosonic sector will have the same form as given in (4.2) without the last term. The bosonic part of the light-cone Hamiltonian will then be given as,

$$2p^{}=\underset{n}{}\left[N_n^{(k)}\sqrt{\mu ^2+\frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}}+N_n^{(l)}\frac{|n|}{\alpha ^{}p^+}\right]$$
(4.13)
where $`k=1,2`$ correspond to the massive bosons $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$ and $`l=3,\mathrm{},8`$ correspond to the rest of the free massless bosons. To relate the string spectrum with the states of OYM6 theory we first find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2p^{}}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^+}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}EJ_1`$
$`2\mu p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{R^2}}(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }})={\displaystyle \frac{e^{U_0}}{R^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}E+J_1)`$ (4.14)
The states of OYM6 theory have energy and $`U(1)`$ R-charge

$$\frac{\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}E,J_1\frac{Mg_{YM}^2}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{},\mathrm{with}\frac{\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}EJ_1=\mathrm{fixed}$$
(4.15)
Taking $`R^2\mathrm{}`$ in (4.14), the light-cone energy takes the form,

$$\frac{2p^{}}{\mu }=\underset{n}{}\left[N_n^{(k)}\sqrt{1+\frac{Mg_{YM}^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{2U_0}n^2}{J_1^2}}+N_n^{(l)}\frac{|n|\sqrt{M}g_{YM}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}J_1}e^{U_0}\right]$$
(4.16)
Here $`e^{U_0}=r_0`$. A similar form of light-cone energy has also been obtained in .

We next discuss the spectrum for the OD1 theory in the Penrose limit by looking at the configuration given in (3.11). The light-cone GS action in this case takes the form,

$$4\pi \alpha ^{}S_b=𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}𝑑\sigma \left[\eta ^{ab}_az_i_bz_i+\mu ^2z_k^2\frac{2\mu }{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}z_2_\sigma z_1\right]$$
(4.17)
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$ and $`k=1,2`$. Defining $`z=(z_1+iz_2)/2`$, the equations of motion following from (4.17) have the forms,

$`\eta ^{ab}_a_bz_l`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{for}l=3,\mathrm{},8`$
$`\eta ^{ab}_a_bz\mu ^2z+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\mu }{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}_\sigma z`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\eta ^{ab}_a_b\overline{z}\mu ^2\overline{z}{\displaystyle \frac{2i\mu }{\sqrt{1+e^{2U_0}}}}_\sigma \overline{z}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.18)
We can solve these equations by Fourier expanding the coordinates $`z_{3,\mathrm{},8}`$ as the first expression in (4.4) and $`z`$, $`\overline{z}`$ as the second expression in (4.4), where now $`\omega _n`$ will be of the forms,

$`\omega _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|n|}{\alpha ^{}p^+}},\mathrm{for}z_3,\mathrm{},z_8`$ (4.19)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}},\mathrm{for}z,\overline{z}`$
and the oscillators satisfy the commutation relations,

$$[\alpha _m^i,(\alpha _n^j)^{}]=i\delta _{mn}\delta ^{ij},[\alpha _m^+,(\alpha _n^+)^{}]=[\alpha _m^{},(\alpha _n^{})^{}]=i\delta _{mn}$$
(4.20)
where $`i,j=3,\mathrm{},6`$. So, the bosonic part of the light-cone Hamiltonian would be given as,

$$2p^{}=\underset{n}{}\left[N_n^{(l)}\frac{|n|}{\alpha ^{}p^+}+(N_n^++N_n^{})\sqrt{\mu ^2+\frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}+\frac{2\mu }{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}}\frac{n}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right]$$
(4.21)
To relate the string spectrum with those of the OD1 theory we first find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2p^{}}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^+}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }}=\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}EJ_1`$
$`2\mu p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{(1+e^{2U_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{R^2}}(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }})={\displaystyle \frac{(1+e^{2U_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{R^2}}(\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E+J_1)`$
where we have used $`i\frac{}{x^0}=\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E`$ and $`i\frac{}{\psi }=J_1`$. The corresponding states in OD1 theory will have energy and $`U(1)`$ R-charge

$$\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}E\mathrm{and}J_1N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\mathrm{},\mathrm{with}\sqrt{N\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}EJ_1=\mathrm{fixed}$$
(4.23)
Thus the spectrum of strings in the background (3.11) is the same as those of the OD1 theory in the regime (4.21). For $`R^2\mathrm{}`$, we find

$$\mu p^+R^2=(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}J_1,\mathrm{or}\alpha ^{}p^+=\frac{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}J_1}{\mu N}$$
(4.24)
The light-cone energy therefore takes the form,

$$\frac{2p^{}}{\mu }=\underset{n}{}\left[N_n^{(l)}\frac{(1+e^{2U_0})^{1/2}N}{J_1}|n|+(N_n^++N_n^{})\sqrt{1+\frac{(1+e^{2U_0})N^2}{J_1^2}n^2+\frac{2Nn}{J_1}}\right]$$
(4.25)
We have seen that in the regime $`G_{o(1)}^2ar1`$, the Penrose limit of the OD1 supergravity description reduces to that of the LST supergravity description. This is described after eq.(3.11). The spectrum of LST from the quantization of GS action has already been discussed in ref. and we will not repeat it here.

## 5 Penrose limits for general null geodesics

In the previous sections we have discussed the Penrose limit of NCOS6 supergravity description and various other theories at different phases for a particular null geodesic corresponding to the parameter $`l=1`$. In this section we extend it for $`l<1`$ and discuss Penrose limits of NCOS6 and OD1 theories. The gravity dual of NCOS6 theory is given in (3.1). By restricting the null geodesic in $`(x^0,U,\psi )`$-plane we obtained the evolution equation for $`U`$ in (3.4) for the general value of the parameter $`l`$. Eq.(3.4) can be solved as,

$$\frac{1}{2}e^U\sqrt{1+e^{2U}}+\mathrm{sinh}^1e^U=\sqrt{1l^2}u$$
(5.1)
where $`u`$ is the affine parameter along the null geodesic. One can use this relation to formally express $`e^U`$ as a function of $`u`$ and let us call that function as $`g`$, i.e., $`e^U=g(u)`$ which satisfies (5.1). Now we make a coordinate change from $`(x^0,U,\psi )(u,v,x)`$ by the relations,

$`dU`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1l^2}}{g\sqrt{1+g^2}}}du`$
$`dx^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g\sqrt{1+g^2}}}du+2dv+ldx`$
$`d\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{g\sqrt{1+g^2}}}du+dx`$ (5.2)
By further rescaling the coordinates $`uu`$, $`vv/R^2`$, $`\theta z/R`$, $`xx/R`$, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}x^{1,\mathrm{},5}/R`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$ and taking $`R\mathrm{}`$, the metric in (3.1) reduces to

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dudv{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{g\sqrt{1+g^2}}}\stackrel{}{z}^2du^2+g\sqrt{1+g^2}(1l^2)dx^2+g\sqrt{1+g^2}d\stackrel{}{z}^2`$ (5.3)
$`+g\sqrt{1+g^2}(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{1+g^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2`$
This is the form of the metric in ‘Rosen’ coordinates666By ‘ ’ we mean that strictly speaking the metric in Rosen coordinates should have $`g_{uu}=0`$ (see for example,  and references therein) which is not the case here and also later in (5.9). However, that does not prevent us to obtain the desired Brinkman form of the metric in (5.5). The reason is, since $`u`$ is merely renamed by $`x^+`$ to go to the Brinkman form, this term just shifts the mass2 of the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{z}`$ as given in (5.6).. To write it in Brinkman form we define a new set of coordinates as,

$`u`$ $``$ $`x^+`$
$`x^1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}x^1`$
$`x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+g^2)^{1/4}}{\sqrt{g}}}x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$
$`\stackrel{}{z}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}\stackrel{}{z}`$
$`x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1l^2}\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}x`$
$`v`$ $``$ $`x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(g\sqrt{1+g^2})^{}}{g\sqrt{1+g^2}}}(x^2+\stackrel{}{z}^2+(x^1)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{g}{\sqrt{1+g^2}})^{}}{(\frac{g}{\sqrt{1+g^2}})}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(x^i)^2\right]`$ (5.4)
Then the metric takes the form,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\left(m_z^2\stackrel{}{z}^2+m_x^2(x^2+(x^1)^2)+m_{2,\mathrm{},5}^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(x^i)^2\right)(dx^+)^2`$ (5.5)
$`+(dx)^2+d\stackrel{}{z}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2`$
Where the mass2’s associated with various coordinates are given as,

$`m_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{g^2(1+g^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}]^{\prime \prime }}{\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{e^{2U}(1+e^{2U})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)(1+4e^{4U})}{4e^{2U}(1+e^{2U})^3}}`$
$`m_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}]^{\prime \prime }}{\sqrt{g}(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)(1+4e^{4U})}{4e^{2U}(1+e^{2U})^3}}`$
$`m_{2,\mathrm{},5}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\sqrt{g}/(1+g^2)^{1/4}]^{\prime \prime }}{\sqrt{g}/(1+g^2)^{1/4}}}`$ (5.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)}{4e^{2U}(1+e^{2U})^3}}(1+8e^{2U})`$
where ‘prime’ in both (5.4) and (5.6) represents derivative with respect to the affine parameter $`u=x^+`$ along the geodesic. The second line in each of the mass2 expressions in (5.6) are obtained by using the evolution equation (3.4). The important thing to note here is that all the mass2 expressions are positive for $`l<1`$ at all energies as opposed to some cases noted in the literature. However, since they are time dependent, it is not clear how to quantize and obtain the spectrum for the associated string theory. In this sense, for these general null geodesics the Penrose limit does not lead to a solvable string theory.

Now we discuss the Penrose limit of OD1 supergravity description for the general null geodesic. The supergravity configuration for OD1 theory is given in (3.8) and the evolution equation for $`U`$ is given in (3.9). The solution of the equation has the form,

$$\sqrt{1+e^{2U}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{1+e^{2U}}1}{\sqrt{1+e^{2U}}+1}\right]=\sqrt{1l^2}u$$
(5.7)
Let us formally define $`\sqrt{1+e^{2U}}=f(u)`$ and make the following coordinate change,

$`dU`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1l^2}}{f}}du`$
$`dx^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}du+2dv+ldx`$
$`d\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{f}}du+dx`$ (5.8)
By further rescaling the coordinates $`uu`$, $`vv/R^2`$, $`\theta z/R`$, $`xx/R`$, $`x^{1,\mathrm{},5}x^{1,\mathrm{},5}/R`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$ and taking $`R\mathrm{}`$, the metric in (3.8) can be written in Rosen coordinates as,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dudv{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{f}}\stackrel{}{z}^2du^2+f(1l^2)dx^2+fd\stackrel{}{z}^2+f(dx^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(dx^i)^2`$ (5.9)
To write it in Brinkman form we define a new set of coordinates,

$`u`$ $``$ $`x^+`$
$`x^1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}}x^1`$
$`x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{f}x^{2,\mathrm{},5}`$
$`\stackrel{}{z}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}}\stackrel{}{z}`$
$`x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1l^2}\sqrt{f}}}x`$
$`v`$ $``$ $`x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}(x^2+\stackrel{}{z}^2+(x^1)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(f^1)^{}}{f^1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(x^i)^2\right]`$ (5.10)
In these new coordinates the metric (5.9) takes exactly the same form as in the NCOS6 theory given in (5.5), but the mass2 expressions for the various coordinates are different and are given as follows,

$`m_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{f})^{\prime \prime }}{\sqrt{f}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{1+e^{2U}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)e^{2U}}{4(1+e^{2U})^3}}(e^{2U}4)`$
$`m_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{f})^{\prime \prime }}{\sqrt{f}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)e^{2U}}{4(1+e^{2U})^3}}(e^{2U}4)`$
$`m_{2,\mathrm{},5}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{1/2})^{\prime \prime }}{f^{1/2}}}`$ (5.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1l^2)}{4(1+e^{2U})^3}}e^{2U}(43e^{2U})`$
Here also ‘prime’ denotes derivative with respect to the affine parameter $`u=x^+`$. The second expressions of mass2 in (5.11) are obtained by using the evolution equation (3.9). We note here that unlike in the NCOS6 case the mass2’s are not always positive. In particular, we see from (5.11) that in the IR, $`m_x^2`$ becomes negative. However, we have seen in the previous sections that in the low energy the proper supergravity description should be that of NCOS6 theory and not the OD1 theory where all the mass2 are indeed positive. The presence of negative mass2 indicates a quantum mechanical instability of the associated world-sheet theory and so OD1 theory in that case flows by RG to NCOS6 theory where all the mass2 of the world-sheet bosonic fields become positive. However, we would like to point out that in the UV where we know that OD1 is the proper supergravity description, the mass2 are not always positive. For example, we note that $`m_{2,\mathrm{},5}^2`$ becomes negative in the UV. So, the appearance of negative mass2 can not always be avoided by an RG flow argument. Some comments on the isuue of negative mass2 has been made in ref., but a better understanding of this is clearly needed.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we have studied the Penrose limit of the gravity dual of a class of non-local theories, namely, the NCOS theory in 6-dimensions. We discussed the phase structure of this theory and have shown how at various energies the theory is described by OYM6, LST, NCOS6 and OD1 theories. In particular, at low energies when $`ar1`$ and $`G_o^21`$, we get OYM6 theory in the range $`1/(MG_o^2)ar1/G_o^2`$ and LST in the range $`1/G_o^2ar1`$. On the other hand, at high energies when $`ar1`$, we have NCOS6 theory in the range $`1ar1/G_o^2`$ and OD1 theory for $`ar1/G_o^2`$. We have obtained Penrose limits in the neighborhood of a special null geodesic and have shown that Penrose limits of the gravity duals of all these 6-dimensional theories lead to solvable string theories. We would like to emphasize that this is a specialty of 6-dimensional theories only. In fact, it is easy to see that Penrose limits of gravity duals of NCOS theories in other dimensions do not lead to solvable string theories. We have quantized the string theories obtained this way, constructed the light-cone Hamiltonian and discussed their relations to the states of various theories at different phases of NCOS6 theory. Finally, we also discussed Penrose limits of the gravity duals of both NCOS6 and OD1 theories for the general null geodesic. In these cases Penrose limits yield string theories with time-dependent masses for the various bosonic fields corresponding to the target space coordinates and so they are not solvable (in the sense discussed in the paper). We have pointed out the appearance of negative mass2 for OD1 theory and discussed the RG flow by which the mass2 become positive in some cases.


format: text

text:
# Borromean molecules11footnote 1Talk given at the XVIII European Few-Body Conference, Bled, Slovenia, September 2002, to app. in Few-Body Sys. Suppl. preprint ISN 02-73; Archive physics/0210018

11institutetext: Institut des Sciences Nucléaires, Université Joseph Fourier – CNRS-IN2P3, 53, avenue des Martyrs, F-38026 Grenoble Cedex, France

## Abstract

For some values of the constituent masses $`m_i`$, the hydrogen-like molecule $`(m_1^+,m_2^+,m_3^{},m_4^{})`$ is stable with respect to spontaneous dissociation into two neutral atoms, while none of its three-body subsystems such as $`(m_1^+,m_2^+,m_3^{})`$ is stable. This occurs in particular in the neighbourhood of the $`(M^+,m^+,M^{},m^{})`$ configuration with $`M/m=2`$, as for instance for the molecule $`(p,d,\overline{p},\overline{d})`$ involving an antiproton and an antideuteron.

The word “Borromean” is often used to identify bound states whose subsystems are unbound . It comes after the Borromean rings, which are interlaced in such a subtle topological way, that if any one of them is removed, the two others become unlocked. For instance, the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{He}`$ isomer of ordinary Helium is stable, while $`{}_{}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ is not. In a three-body picture, this means that the ($`\alpha ,n,n)`$ system is bound, while neither $`(\alpha ,n)`$ nor $`(n,n)`$ are stable against dissociation.

For short-range forces, Borromean binding occurs explicitly in simple quantum-mechanical models. Let $`g`$ be the strength of the pair potential $`V`$ acting between $`N`$ identical particles and containing attractive parts. Binding two bosons requires a certain minimum strength, say $`g>g_2`$. For three bosons, this is $`g>g_3`$. The remarkable observation is that $`g_3<g_2`$. Typically, $`g_30.8g_2`$ for simple monotonic potentials such as Yukawa, Gaussian, exponential, etc. See, e.g., , and references therein. It can be proved that $`g_3/g_22/3`$ . This lower limit is approached for potentials with an external barrier, whereas $`g_3/g_21`$ for those with a strong repulsive core . Similarly $`g_4<g_3`$, etc. A 4-body system is Borromean for $`g_4<g<g_2`$, if one adopts the following definition: A bound state is Borromean if there is no path to build it via a series of stable states by adding the constituents one by one.

The phenomenon of Borromean binding is intimately linked to the Thomas collapse  and the Efimov effect . Let $`E_N`$ be the ground-state energy of $`H_N`$. For $`gg_2+`$, $`E_2/E_30`$, thus if $`E_2`$ is kept fixed by rescaling, $`E_3\mathrm{}`$. The occurrence of many excited states near $`g=g_2`$ implies that the ground state already exists at this point.

Borromean binding is hardly conceivable for long-range attractive potentials. For the gravitational $`V(r)1/r`$ potential, the critical strength is $`g_N=0`$, $`N`$, by scaling considerations. The situation is less obvious for a superposition of attractive and repulsive terms, and different masses. Still the existence of a bound state survives any overall rescaling of the strength factors or masses, but depends rather crucially on the balance between the repulsive and attractive terms, and on the mass ratios.

The systems of three unit charges have been studied extensively. See, e.g.,  for a comprehensive review. While He$`{}_{}{}^{+}(e^{},p,p)`$, Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(e^+,e^{},e^{})`$, and H$`{}_{}{}^{}(p,e^{},e^{})`$, for instance, are stable against dissociation into a neutral atom and an isolated charge, configurations such as $`(e^{},e^+,p)`$ or $`(p,\overline{p},e^{})`$ are unstable. Only coulomb forces are considered here, and finite-size effects, strong interaction, annihilation, etc., are neglected. The stability frontier is shown in Fig. 1. Thanks to scaling, any state is represented by its normalised inverse masses $`\alpha _i=m_i^1/_km_k^1`$. The domain $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3=1`$, $`\alpha _i>0`$, is limited by an equilateral triangle, see Fig. 1. There is a stability band around the symmetry axis, in between two instability domains which are convex .

The $`(m^{},M^\pm ,m^\pm )`$ configurations have been studied in some detail. They correspond to the oblique symmetry axes in Fig. 1. For $`m=M`$, one gets the stable Ps-. For $`Mm`$, $`(e^{},p,e^+)`$ is unstable. For $`Mm`$, $`(p,e^{},\overline{p})`$ is also unstable. The stability range has been estimated by Mitroy ,

$$0.70M/m1.63,$$
(1)
using a powerful and reliable stochastic variational method \[Varga95\].

There are fewer rigorous or empirical results on $`(m_1^+,m_2^+,m_3^{},m_4^{})`$ systems with charges $`\{q_i\}=\{\pm 1,\pm 1,1,1\}`$. Still, valuable information exists in the literature . The configuration $`(p,e^+,\overline{p},e^{})`$ is unstable, as it cannot compete with the deeply bound protonium associated with the lowest threshold $`(p,\overline{p})+(e^+,e^{})`$. On the other hand, the hydrogen molecule H$`{}_{2}{}^{}(p,p,e^{},e^{})`$, the positronium molecule Ps$`{}_{2}{}^{}(e^+,e^+,e^{},e^{})`$, the positronium hydride PsH$`(p,e^+,e^{},e^{})`$ are known to be stable. Any configuration with two identical particles, e.g., $`m_3=m_4`$, are stable against spontaneous dissociation. In particular, any hydrogen-like state $`(M^+,M^+,m^{},m^{})`$ is stable with respect to its lowest threshold $`2(M^+,m^{})`$, with stability improved if $`M/m`$ is increased or decreased, starting from the Ps2 case $`M/m=1`$

The above examples share a common property: Ps2 contains the $`(e^\pm ,e^{},e^{})`$ subsystem, which possesses a stable bound stable; for H2, both $`(e^{},p,p)`$ and $`(p,e^{},e^{})`$ have at least one stable bound state. For PsH, $`(e^{},e^+,p)`$ is unstable, but $`(p,e^{},e^{})`$ and $`(e^+,e^{},e^{})`$ have a stable bound state. Any $`(m_1^+,m_2^+,m^{},m^{})`$ state is stable, with at least $`(m_1^+,m^{},m^{})`$ and $`(m_2^+,m^{},m^{})`$ having a stable bound state. It is tempting at this point to conjecture that any stable molecule has at least one stable 3-body subsystem, i.e., can be build step by step with stable intermediate states: single charge, atom, and 3-body ion.

This conjecture is wrong, as can be seen by examining the second set of $`N=4`$ configurations with two masses. This is $`(M^+,m^+,M^{},m^{})`$, which is invariant under charge conjugation. For $`Mm`$ or $`Mm`$, it corresponds to the unstable $`(p,e^+,\overline{p},e^{})`$, while for $`M=m`$, it leads to a rescaled Ps2 which is stable. The critical mass ratio at which instability occurs has been estimated by accurate methods

$$\frac{1}{2.2}\frac{M}{m}2.2.$$
(2)
Comparing the results (1) and (2) indicates a window for Borromean binding. In particular, for $`M/m=2`$, which corresponds for instance to a deuteron and a proton, the molecule $`(M^+,m^+,M^{},m^{})`$ is bound, but neither $`(M^\pm ,m^{},M^\pm )`$ nor $`(m^\pm ,m^{},M^\pm )`$ are stable. The molecule experiences a new type of binding mechanism, which is more fragile. It would be interesting to investigate the wave function in some detail, and study to what extent it differs from that of the positronium molecule.

One could also resume the numerical investigations of Ref.  and determine the position of stability border of $`(m_1^+,m_2^+,m_3^{},m_4^{})`$ in the vicinity of the $`(m_1=m_3,m_2=m_4)`$ line. Already, some minimal extension of the domain of Borromean binding can be made without any new 4-body calculation, provided the stability border is accurately known in the 3-body case. Consider for instance the configuration given by the inverse masses

$$[(A\pm ϵ)^+,a^+,(Aϵ)^{},a^{}],\text{or}[A^+(a\pm \eta )^+,A^{}(a\eta )^{}],$$
(3)
where $`A=M^1`$ and $`a=m^1`$ links to the previous notation, for $`ϵ=\eta =0`$. If $`|ϵ|<|aA|`$, the lowest threshold remains given by $`[(A\pm ϵ)^+,(Aϵ)^{}]+[a^+,a^{}]`$, which has the same energy as for $`ϵ=0`$, since the inverse masses average out when building the reduced mass for each atom. On the other hand, the four-body Hamiltonian for the first configurations can be written

$$H(ϵ)=H(0)\pm \frac{ϵ}{2}(𝐩_1^2𝐩_3^2).$$
(4)
The second term breaks charge-conjugation symmetry and lowers the ground state. This can be seen by applying the variational principle with the symmetric ground-state wave-function of $`H(0)`$ as a trial wave-function for $`H(ϵ)`$. Hence, the 4-body molecule has an improved stability for $`ϵ0`$ in (4). As $`ϵ`$ departs from 0, the 3-body subsystems follow transverse and longitudinal paths starting from the $`\alpha _1=\alpha _3`$ or $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$ symmetry axis of the triangle, as pictured schematically in Fig. 1. It should be not too difficult to determine up to which values of $`ϵ`$ the 3-body systems remain unstable. The same reasoning can be applied to the second configurations.

For example, if the mass ratio of the protonium molecule $`(p,p,\overline{p},\overline{p})`$ is modified by replacing a proton and an antiproton by a deuteron and an antideuteron, the resulting molecule $`(p,d,\overline{p},\overline{d})`$ becomes Borromean, without any bound 3-body subsystem. This can be compared with the observation by Bertini et al. that if one screens the Coulomb potential in the hydrogen molecule, that is to say, $`r_{ij}^1\mathrm{exp}(\mu r_{ij})/r_{ij}`$ for all pairs, there is a range of values of $`\mu `$ for which H2 remains bound while neither H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ nor H are stable .

This investigation grew out of discussions with Dario Bressanini and André Martin. Comments by E.A.G. Armour, A.S. Jensen and K. Varga are also gratefully acknowledged. I benefited from the stimulating atmosphere of the XVIII European Few-Body Conference at Bled, where this work was presented and discussed with my colleagues.


text:
# Fractal Dimension of 3-Blocks in 4d, 5d, and 6d Percolation Systems

## I Introduction

Percolation is a classic model for disorder Ben-Avraham ; Stauffer ; Bunde and Havlin . Recently it has been recognized for bond percolation that clusters and blobs are the $`k=1`$ and $`k=2`$ cases of $`k`$-connected graphs ($`k`$-blocks), graphs in which all vertices are connected to every other vertex in the $`k`$-block by at least $`k`$ independent paths Paul ; Jacobsen2002 . The fractal dimension $`d_3`$ of 3-blocks in 2- and 3-dimensional percolation systems at the percolation threshold were found to be $`1.20\pm 0.1`$ and $`1.15\pm 0.1`$, respectively Paul .

The fact that the fractal dimensions are identical within error bars is consistent with the possibility that $`d_3`$ might be independent of dimension. The focus of this paper is to determine $`d_3`$ for $`d=4`$, 5, and 6 using Monte Carlo simulations.

In the next section we study $`d_3`$ for percolation on the Cayley tree in order to gain insight into the behavior of 3-blocks in very high dimension. In Section III we discuss the methods we use to generate large 3-blocks in 4d, 5d, and 6d. In Section IV we discuss our results.

## II Cayley Tree Results

Percolation on the Cayley tree has been used as a model for percolation for $`d6`$, the upper critical dimension of percolation. The cluster fractal dimension and blob fractal dimension, as well as a number of other critical exponents on the Cayley tree, are identical to those of percolation for $`d6`$ Ben-Avraham ; Stauffer ; Bunde and Havlin . Below we argue that for percolation on the Cayley tree $`d_k=0`$ for $`k3`$ suggesting that while $`d_3`$ may change little between $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$, eventually $`d_3`$ decreases more rapidly approaching zero for $`d=6`$.

To show that $`d_k=0`$ for $`k3`$ for percolation on the Cayley tree, we make use of the concept of k-bone. Reference Paul  generalizes the concept of backbone by defining a $`k`$-bone as the set of all sites connected to $`k`$ disjoint sets of points by $`k`$ independent paths. Thus clusters and backbones are $`k`$-bones with $`k=1`$ and 2 respectively. For a given $`k`$, the fractal dimension of $`k`$-bones and $`k`$-blocks are equal Paul .

To see that for percolation on the Cayley tree the fractal dimension of a 3-bone is zero, we choose any 3 points on the boundary (Fig. 1) and observe that there is only one site which is connected to these points by independent paths. This result is independent of the size of the tree, even if the tree is fully populated. Hence the fractal dimension is zero. Clearly this argument holds for larger $`k`$ and is meaningful as long as the branching factor in the Cayley tree is greater than or equal to $`k`$, and holds independent of size.

## III Simulation Method

### III.1 Statistical Enhancement Method

Randomly generated realizations in which large 3-blocks are present become more and more rare as the system dimension increases. In fact, if traditional techniques are used to generate realizations, for $`d`$ as low as 4 the range of the values of the masses of 3-blocks created are so small that one cannot determine $`d_3`$ either by finding the best collapse of plots of the distribution of masses or by inferring $`d_3`$ from the slope of the power-law regime of the distributions.

To overcome this problem, we use a “go with the winners” method of statistical enhancement described in Ref. Grassberger . The basic idea of this approach in the context of a percolation cluster growth algorithm is as follows:

* Before we start growing a cluster, assign a value of one to the weight $`W`$ of the cluster.
* We use the Leath method to grow clusters Leath . While the cluster is growing, we calculate certain properties of the state of the cluster after every interval of $`n`$ chemical shells of growth.
* If certain criteria on the properties of the state of the cluster that are described below are met, we “clone” the state so we have $`m`$ copies (including the original) of the state, adjust $`W`$ accordingly to $`W/m`$ and continue growing each of these $`m`$ clones. If these criteria are not met, simply continue growing the non-cloned cluster.

Cloning can take place multiple times during the growth of a cluster; the result is a tree structure of realizations where the leaves of the tree represent the completion of cluster growth.

Here $`m`$ and $`n`$ are parameters which can be tuned to achieve the desired level of “rareness” which can be reached. If $`n`$ is large and $`m`$ is small, there will be little cloning and we will generate clusters with weights only moderately smaller than without enhancement. If $`n`$ is small and $`m`$ is large, there will be much cloning and we will generate clusters with weights very much smaller than without enhancement. However, if $`n`$ is sufficiently small and/or $`m`$ is sufficiently large, cluster growth will effectively never end naturally, and we will not be able to extract useful information from the simulation.

From an implementation standpoint, it is not necessary to actually create copies of the state of the system in computer memory to create the clones; as noted in Ref. Grassberger  we can effectively walk the clone tree in a “depth-first” manner, completely treating a given clone before we begin treating the next clone. What is required is that we save the state of the system before we begin growth based on a clone so that we can return to that state when we begin growth on the next clone. This saving of state is accomplished naturally with a “last-in-first-out” stack in which we maintain information about sites in the cluster.

We first attempted to create realizations with large 3-blocks by creating very dense clusters. We set as our criteria for cloning the condition that the number of occupied bonds actually created during the $`n`$ shell interval be larger than the number of times we determined whether a bond should be occupied times the bond occupation probability. While this algorithm is very effective in creating dense clusters, it did not result in large 3-blocks within the clusters. We were, however, successful in creating clusters with large 3-blocks by using a criterion which results in the creation of large blobs: clone if the most massive blob found in the cluster at the end of the interval is more massive than the largest blob created before growth in the interval is begun. That is, either an existing blob grows, one or more blobs merge or a new blob is created which is more massive than any existing previous to growth in the interval.

### III.2 Incremental Cluster Decomposition

The decision whether to clone depends on a knowledge of the mass of the largest blob in the cluster. It would be unacceptably inefficient to decompose the entire cluster into blobs starting from scratch each time we must make a cloning decision. Instead, we use a new algorithm for cluster decomposition which allows us to incrementally decompose the cluster into blobs. At the end of an interval of $`n`$ chemical shells of growth, we need only consider the effect on the cluster decomposition of the sites and bonds we have added to the cluster during the interval. The algorithm, based on the algorithm of Ref. Porto  for determining the cluster backbone, works as follows:

* During the growth of the cluster we identify “loop sites.” Loop sites are sites which are reached from two or more different growth sites simultaneously Porto ; HermannandStanley .
* At the end of an interval of growth, we use the burning algorithm HermannandStanley ; Porto  to walk back from each loop site toward the origin of the cluster. When we reach a state during the walk when only one site is burning, all sites traversed so far compose a blob. If during the walk we hit an existing blob, that blob is incorporated into the blob associated with the loop site from which the walk started.
* When we have exhausted all clones created at the end of an interval, we must restore the system to its state at the beginning of the interval. That is, we must:

+ destroy all blobs created,
    + separate any blobs which were merged, and
    + reduce any blobs which grew during the interval back to their size at the beginning of the interval.

This is all accomplished by carefully maintaining the appropriate state information during the growth and cluster decomposition processes.

## IV Results and Discussion

Using the methods described in the previous section, we generate percolation clusters on hypercubic lattices for 4d, 5d and 6d at their respective percolation thresholds pzs ; Grassbergerx .

In Fig. 2a, we plot $`P(N_3|L)`$, the distribution of 3-block mass $`N_3`$ in a system of size $`L`$ for various $`L`$ for $`d=4`$. In Fig. 2b, we plot the same distributions collapsed using the estimated value $`d_3=0.7`$ which, visually, yields the best collapse. We show analogous plots for $`d=5`$ and $`d=6`$ Figs. 3 and 4. Based on the value of $`d_3`$ which yields the best collapse, we estimate

$$d_3=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.7\pm 0.2\hfill & \text{(4d)}\hfill \\ 0.5\pm 0.2\hfill & \text{(5d)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
If we fit our results for 6d with a power law, then we find the best collapse is obtained for $`d_3=0.25\pm 0.2`$. However it it difficult to numerically distinguish between power-law scaling with a small exponent and logarithmic scaling. Hence in Fig. 4c we also collapse the distributions for 6d assuming $`d_3=0`$ with logarithmic corrections to scaling

$$N_31+A\mathrm{log}L\text{(6d)}$$
(2)
with $`A=1.0`$. The quality of the collapses for power law scaling and logarithmic scaling seem to be comparable; however, the facts that $`d_3=0`$ for the Cayley tree and that logarithmic corrections to scaling are common at the upper critical dimension favor the conclusion that $`d_3=0`$ for $`d=6`$.

Finally, we make two observations:

(i) We note that the behavior of $`d_3`$ with dimension is qualitatively the opposite of the behavior of $`d_2`$, the blob fractal dimension, in the following sense: $`d_2`$ increases significantly between $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ but increases very slowly between $`d=3`$ and $`d=6`$ Stauffer ; Grassberger99 ; Moukarzel ; Janssen , while $`d_3`$ is slowly decreasing between $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ but then decreases significantly between $`d=3`$ and $`d=6`$.

(ii) Since $`k=0`$ corresponds to the entire system, which scales as $`L^d`$, we note that for $`k=`$0, 1, 2, and 3, the fractal dimensions $`d_k`$ for 6d are 6, 4, 2, and 0 respectively, that is, a series of decreasing consecutive even integers.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Don Baker, Sergey Buldyrev, Shlomo Havlin, Greg Huber, and Sameet Sreenivasan for helpful discussions and NSF, BP, and Intevep for support.


text:
# Vacuum Plane Waves in 4+1 D and Exact solutions to Einstein’s Equations in 3+1 D

## 1 Introduction

Recently a full list of spatially homogeneous spacetimes in 4+1 dimensions was given . Also, for the spacetimes with simply transitive spatial hypersurfaces, all the equations of motion were written down. In this paper we will use these equations and solve them for an important class of spacetimes: *vacuum plane-wave spacetimes possessing a covariantly constant null Killing vector*. These spacetimes – which have been studied in the literature lately (see e.g. ) – have many interesting properties. For example, the covariantly constant null vector $`k^\nu `$ satisfies

$`C_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }k^\nu =0,k^\nu k_\nu =0,`$ (1)
where $`C_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ is the Weyl tensor; thus they are also algebraically special111The 4+1 dimensional plane-wave are also algebraically special; of type 1111 according to De Smet’s scheme . However, it should be noted that this classification needs further refinement due to some pathologies..

In 3+1 dimensional cosmology algebraically special solutions usually play a particular role; they are equilibrium points, or sometimes even attractors, for more general classes of solutions . In particular, the vacuum plane-wave solutions of dimension 3+1 are attractors for non-tilted222For tilted fluids the situation is still unsettled, but for a recent work on the futures of tilted Bianchi models, see . non-inflationary models of Bianchi class B. Hence, general solutions of Einstein’s equations of Bianchi class B containing non-tilted non-inflationary perfect fluids can be approximated with vacuum plane-wave solutions at late times. For higher dimensional models the situation is still unsettled as no stability analysis has been done to date. However, if plane-wave solutions in higher dimensions play the same role as they do in 3+1 dimensional models then that would definitely increase the physical relevance of spacetimes of plane-wave type. This paper will provide a first step in such an analysis; we will identify them and describe them within the framework set in . A stability analysis for 4+1 dimensional vacuum plane-waves should then be straightforward (although it might be somewhat lengthy).

A different motivation for considering higher dimensional models comes from string theory . String theory requires higher dimensional models of space-time and plane-waves spacetimes are perhaps the simplest spacetimes not being maximally symmetric. Yet, despite the fact that they are not maximally symmetric, the plane-wave spacetimes still admit supersymmetry which makes them so interesting for string theorists. Furthermore, the fact that all spacetimes have a plane wave as a limit  has caught many theorists attention lately due to its implications for the AdS/CFT correspondence 333It has also recently been suggested that higher dimensional models may explain the acceleration of the universe observed at the present time ..

According to Kaluza-Klein theory , the assumption of an extra small spatial dimension has an interesting consequence. From a 3+1 dimensional perspective two new fields will arise; a two-form field $`𝐅`$ – which can be interpreted as an electromagnetic field tensor – and a scalar field $`\varphi `$. The scalar essentially measures the size of the extra dimension – which has to be really small in order not to be detected experimentally – and couples to the kinetic part of the field $`𝐅`$. This field is often called the dilaton and in the special case where the dilaton is constant, the theory reduces to ordinary Einstein-Maxwell theory.444A light-like reduction, similar to the Kaluza-Klein reduction, of these plane-wave solutions give also some interesting results .

In this paper we show that this reduction is highly effective when it comes to generating solutions to 3+1 Einstein gravity. For Bianchi type models containing a tilted perfect fluid, there are not many exact self-similar solutions known. However, by using insight and knowledge of plane-wave solutions we can obtain vacuum plane-wave solutions in 4+1 dimensions. Upon reduction these solutions turn out to correspond to Bianchi type models of class B containing an extremely tilted fluid. The solutions describe plane-wave solutions in 3+1 dimensions containing a null electromagnetic field . Even though these solutions have been found before, the reduction procedure provides us with a geometrical interpretation of their nature; these plane-wave spacetimes with a null electromagnetic field are nothing but vacuum plane-waves in one dimension higher. By studying the Einstein-Maxwell equations, this interpretation is well hidden and therefore not easily recognizable. Similarly, we will also consider a different special case of the Kaluza-Klein reduction. Assuming that the electromagnetic field vanishes, the Kaluza-Klein reduction results in Einstein gravity with a scalar field. The 3+1 dimensional scalar field solutions are conformally equivalent to Bianchi class B spacetimes.

This paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we review some properties of homogeneous plane-wave spacetimes and use these to simplify the equations of motion. In section 3 we list all the solutions obtained which describes vacuum plane-wave solutions in 4+1 dimensions. Then in section 4 we do a Kaluza-Klein reduction of the spacetime. This leads to exact solutions for the Einstein-Maxwell equations describing plane-wave spacetimes of Bianchi class B with an extremely tilted fluid and scalar field spacetimes conformally equivalent to Bianchi type B spacetimes.

## 2 Spatially homogeneous spacetimes

Our focus will be on spatially homogeneous spacetimes, thus we will assume that there exist a group $`G`$ acting simply transitive on the spatial hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. Following a previous paper 555For a different approach to the simply transitive models, see ., which was based on a procedure by Ellis and MacCallum  in the 3+1 dimensional case, we write the spacetime (at least locally) as a warped product

$`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }_t\times .`$ (2)
The time-direction $`𝐮`$ can be chosen to be orthogonal to the surfaces of transitivity. Choosing a spatial vierbein666We will use the notation where Latin indices run over the spatial hypersurfaces while Greek indices run over the full spacetime manifold. $`𝐞_a`$, we can form an orthonormal frame in spacetime $`\{𝐞_\mu \}=\{𝐮,𝐞_a\}`$. A particular useful choice of frame, is to choose $`\{𝐞_a\}`$ to be a *left invariant frame*. If the surface of transitivity is spanned by the Killing vectors $`𝝃_b`$, then a left invariant frame is obtained by Lie transport

$`\mathrm{\pounds }_{𝝃_b}𝐞_a=[𝝃_b,𝐞_a]=0.`$ (3)
Note that we also have

$`[𝝃_b,𝐮]=0.`$ (4)
The corresponding dual one-forms $`𝝎^\mu `$ obey

$`𝐝𝝎^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{ij}^k𝝎^i𝝎^j`$ (5)
where the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k`$ are constants on each orbit of transitivity.

We define the volume expansion tensor of the unit normal $`𝐮`$, equivalently the extrinsic curvature tensor $`\theta _\nu ^\mu `$ of the spatially homogeneous hypersurfaces, by

$`u_{\mu ;\nu }=\theta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (6)
One can easily check that this tensor is symmetric and purely spatial. We split the expansion tensor into a trace part and a trace-free part

$`\theta _{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta h_{ab}+\sigma _{ab},`$ (7)
where $`h_{ab}`$ is the metric on the four-surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, $`\theta =\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ is the volume expansion scalar, and $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the shear tensor.

Using this orthonormal frame formalism, one can derive all the equations of motion. These equations are derived in  and listed in the generic case.

The structure constants $`C_{ij}^k`$ determine, via their Lie algebra, the isometry group of the spacetime. Hence, using one of the four-dimensional real Lie algebras, we can construct a spatially homogeneous spacetime . For the plane-wave spacetimes, the most relevant Lie Algebras turn out to be777We will use the notation in Patera et al  for the enumeration of the 4-dimensional Lie algebras. See also MacCallum’s report . $`A_{4,n}`$ where $`n=2,3,4,5,6`$. The reason for this is, as we shall see later, that they are all non-unimodular rank 0 Lie algebras. Rank 0 means that these algebras have a 3 dimensional abelian Lie subalgebra. Thus they have three linearly independent vectors $`𝐗_A`$, $`A=1,2,3`$ for which all the commutators vanish identically

$`[𝐗_A,𝐗_B]=0.`$ (8)
This enables us to write the structure constants as a matrix

$`C_{B4}^A=\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A.`$ (9)
For all of the rank 0 Lie algebras, except for $`A_{4,6}^{pq}`$, this matrix can, with an appropriate orientation of the orthogonal frame, be put onto an upper-triangular form. In Table 1 the matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$ (in the particular gauge mentioned) are given for the types $`A_{4,2}`$ to $`A_{4,5}`$. The various invariant properties of this matrix determines the group type. The type $`A_{4,6}^{pq}`$ has two complex conjugate eigenvalues for the matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$, but can always be put onto the form

$`A_{4,6}^{pq}:\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^1& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^1& \mathrm{\Theta }_3^1\\ 0& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^2& \mathrm{\Theta }_3^2\\ 0& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^3& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^2\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\Theta }_A^A=3a`$ (10)
where $`p\mathrm{\Theta }_1^1=q\mathrm{\Theta }_2^2`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_2^2\right)^2=q^2\mathrm{\Theta }_2^3\mathrm{\Theta }_3^2`$.

The Lie algebra is *unimodular*888A Lie group where every left-invariant vector field preserves volume is called unimodular. if Tr$`(\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A)=0`$, and *non-unimodular* if Tr$`(\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A)0`$. For non-unimodular Lie algebras we can define the vector

$`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_{ji}^j,`$ (11)
which, according to the contracted Jacobi identity, obeys

$`a_iC_{jk}^i=0.`$ (12)
We will see that there exists only non-trivial plane-wave solutions for non-unimodular Lie algebras.

### 2.1 Tracking down the plane waves

Homogeneous plane-wave spacetimes possessing a covariantly constant null Killing vector are spaces with higher symmetry than usual. We can use this fact to simplify the equations of motion and find a large number of plane-wave solutions. In fact, the technique leads us to three-parameter families of plane-wave solutions for each of the non-unimodular Lie algebras of rank 0 discussed in the previous section.

The plane-wave spacetime possesses three commuting Killing vectors $`𝐗_A`$ spanning the wave front. Thus in a suitable chosen frame, the three left-invariant vectors $`𝐞_A`$ will also be commuting. The fourth left-invariant vector $`𝐞_4`$, has to be orthogonal to $`𝐞_A`$ by the Jacobi identity and parallel to the vector $`a_i`$. We transform the orthonormal frame into a frame with two null vectors by the transformation

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐞_+\\ 𝐞_{}\end{array}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐞_0\\ 𝐞_4\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}𝜼^+\\ 𝜼^{}\end{array}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}𝝎^0\\ 𝝎^4\end{array}\right].`$ (13)
In this frame the metric can be written

$`ds^2=2𝜼^+𝜼^{}+\delta _{AB}𝝎^A𝝎^B`$ (14)
For the plane-wave spacetime there does also exist a null Killing vector which is orthogonal to the three commuting Killing vectors spanning the wave front. Hence, $`𝝃=e^\chi 𝐞_{}`$, where $`\chi `$ is a scalar. The wave front is spanned by the three Killing vectors $`𝐗_A`$, so $`𝝃`$ must be constant along the wave front. This implies that $`𝐗_A(\chi )=0`$. Furthermore, we require that the null Killing vector must commute with the left-invariant vectors $`𝐞_A`$; i.e.

$`[𝝃,𝐞_A]=0.`$ (15)
Inserting the transformation eq. (13) implies the following restrictions on the structure constants of the orthonormal frame:

$`C_{0A}^\mu =C_{4A}^\mu .`$ (16)
The requirement that the Killing vector $`𝝃`$ is covariantly constant, together with the orthogonality condition imply that

$`C_{0A}^0=C_{4A}^0=C_{0A}^4=C_{4A}^4=C_{AB}^4=C_{AB}^0=0.`$ (17)
Hence, we get the following relation between the volume expansion tensor and the spatial structure constants

$`\theta _B^A+\mathrm{\Omega }_B^A=C_{4B}^A,`$ (18)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}`$ is the angular velocity in the $`ab`$-plane of a Fermi-propagated axis with respect to the triad $`𝐞_a`$. By taking the trace of the above equation, we get

$`\theta \theta _4^4=3a.`$ (19)
We also have

$`C_{BC}^A=0,a_i=a\delta _i^4,`$ (20)
so the only non-zero commutators are therefore

$`C_{04}^a,C_{B4}^A\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A,\mathrm{\Theta }_A^A=3a.`$ (21)
Thus we can restrict ourselves to study the types of rank 0 which we discussed in the previous section. Combining eqs. (18) and (21), the expansion tensor, the rotation tensor and the structure constants have to relate via

$`\theta _B^A\mathrm{\Omega }_B^A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$ (22)
In solving the equations of motion, we have put $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$ onto an upper-triangular form as explained earlier. This can be done for all the rank 0 types, except when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$ has two complex conjugate eigenvalues. When $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B^A`$ is of this form, the rotation tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^A`$ can easily be expressed in terms of the shear components and thus eliminated from the equations of motion.

## 3 Vacuum plane-wave solutions

Using the above procedure, the equations of motion reduce drasticly, and the question of finding plane-wave solutions basically reduces to solving a very simple set of differential equations. First of all, the 5D Jacobi identity and the $`R_{0a}`$-equations (see eqs. (22) and (29) in ) imply the constraints $`\theta _A^4=\mathrm{\Omega }_A^4=0`$. The shear equations, using the constraint equations, all reduces to the same form,

$`\dot{\sigma }_{AB}+\theta \sigma _{AB}3a\sigma _{AB}=0.`$ (23)
The equation for $`a`$ is

$`\dot{a}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta a+\sigma _{44}a=0.`$ (24)
Hence, in principle, there are only two types of equations that needs to be solved, subject to the constraint equations.

In the following the solutions for the rank 0 non-unimodular Lie algebras are given. The metrics correspond to vacuum plane-wave solutions where the gravitational wave propagates in the $`w`$-direction. They all possess the covariantly constant null Killing vector

$`𝝃=e^{t+w}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}\right).`$ (25)
These spacetimes are also self-similar; hence, they possess a homothetic vector field. This homothetic vector field is given by

$`𝝃_H={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}+x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+y{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}+z{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}`$ (26)
as can be easily verified.

### 3.1 Type $`A_{4,5}^{pq}`$

Let $`\beta _+,\beta _{},Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$ be free parameters such that

$`8(\beta _+^2+\beta _{}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)1.`$ (27)
A five parameter set of plane-wave solutions can be given by (in upper triangular form)

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)+e^{2s(w+t)}`$ (28)
$`\times `$ $`[e^{4\beta _+(w+t)}(dx+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{P_1}}e^{P_1(w+t)}dy+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1Q_3+P_3Q_2}{P_3P_2}}e^{P_2(w+t)}dz)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{})(w+t)}\left(dy+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{P_3}}e^{P_3(w+t)}dz\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2(\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})(w+t)}dz^2]`$
where

$`s(1s)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\beta _+^2+\beta _{}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)`$
$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`3\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`3\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}`$
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{3}\beta _{}.`$ (29)
The group parameters are related to these parameters as follows

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s+(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}{s+(\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}}`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s2\beta _+}{s+(\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}}.`$ (30)
The requirement that $`p1`$ leads to $`P_30`$ (see Table 1). Similarly, $`q1`$ and $`pq`$ lead to $`P_20`$ and $`P_10`$ respectively. If $`P_i=0`$ then we have to set $`Q_i=0`$ first.

Hence, two of the parameters define what group type the spacetime belongs to. For each group type we have a three-parameter family of plane-wave solutions (roughly given by the parameters $`Q_1,Q_2`$ and $`Q_3`$).

In the unimodular limit (where the trace of the commutators is zero) we have $`s0`$. The only way to obtain $`s=0`$ is when $`\beta _\pm =Q_i=0`$. Thus these plane-wave solutions approaches the Minkowski spacetime in this limit.

We can recover the VI$`{}_{h}{}^{}`$ plane waves by requiring $`q=0`$. Thus we set $`s=2\beta _+`$ and the metric simplifies to

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`\left(dx+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{P_1}}e^{P_1(w+t)}dy+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1Q_3+P_3Q_2}{P_3P_2}}e^{P_2(w+t)}dz\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{(3s+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})(w+t)}\left(dy+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{P_3}}e^{P_3(w+t)}dz\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{(3s\sqrt{3}\beta _{})(w+t)}dz^2.`$
Hence, in general we can have VI$`{}_{h}{}^{}`$ plane-wave solutions where the extra dimension is tilted. This is exactly what will lead to the electromagnetic field when we reduce this metric to the 3+1 case. To recover the VI$`{}_{h}{}^{}`$ plane waves where the extra dimension is trivially added, we must put $`Q_1=Q_2=0`$.

### 3.2 Type $`A_{4,2}^p`$

Let $`\beta _+,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$ be free parameters such that

$`8\beta _+^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)1.`$ (32)
A four parameter set of plane-wave solutions can be given by (in upper triangular form)

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)+e^{2s(w+t)}`$ (33)
$`\times `$ $`[e^{4\beta _+(w+t)}(dx+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{P_1}}e^{3\beta _+(w+t)}dy+[A+B(w+t)]e^{3\beta _+(w+t)}dz)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2\beta _+(w+t)}\left(dy+Q_3(w+t)dz\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2\beta _+(w+t)}dz^2]`$
where $`s`$ and $`P_i`$ are given in eq. (29) with $`\beta _{}=0`$, and

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta _+Q_2Q_1Q_3}{9\beta _+^2}}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1Q_3}{3\beta _+}}.`$ (34)
The group parameter is given by

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{s2\beta _+}{s+\beta _+}}.`$ (35)
In the limit where $`p0`$ we end up in the decomposable case IV$``$. Also in this case the plane-wave solutions describe in general a tilted extra dimension.

### 3.3 Type $`A_{4,3}`$

Plane-wave solutions for the Lie algebra type $`A_{4,3}`$ can be obtained by taking the $`p\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`A_{4,2}^p`$. In this limit we get $`\beta _+=s`$ and thus the metric can be written as

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`e^{6s(w+t)}\left(dx+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{P_1}}e^{3s(w+t)}dy+\left[A+B(w+t)\right]e^{3s(w+t)}dz\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`\left(dy+Q_3(w+t)dz\right)^2+dz^2`$
where

$`s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(1\pm \sqrt{12(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)}\right),`$ (37)
and $`A,B`$ are given in eq. (34) with $`\beta _+=s`$.

### 3.4 Type $`A_{4,4}`$

The parameters $`Q_i`$ are free parameters and $`s`$ is given in eq. (29) with $`\beta _\pm =0`$. There is a three-parameter set of plane-wave solutions given by

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)+e^{2s(w+t)}`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`[(dx+Q_1(w+t)dy+(w+t)[Q_2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1Q_3}{2}}(w+t)]dz)^2`$
$`+`$ $`(dy+Q_3(w+t)dz)^2+dz^2].`$
In the limit where the trace of the structure constants go to zero, $`a0`$, and thus $`s0`$. Hence, we have $`Q_i=0`$ and we recover flat five-dimensional Minkowski space. $`Q_i=0`$ yields also the possibility $`s=1`$. In that case the above metric reduces to the five-dimensional Milne universe.

### 3.5 Type $`A_{4,6}^{pq}`$

Let $`\beta _+,\omega ,\beta ,Q_1,Q_2`$ be free parameters and let $`s`$ be given by

$`s(1s)=2\beta _+^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^2\mathrm{sinh}^22\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2).`$ (39)
Define also the two one-forms

$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}.`$ (40)
The plane-wave solutions of type $`A_{4,6}^{pq}`$ can now be written

$`ds^2=`$ $`e^{2t}(dt^2+dw^2)+e^{2s(w+t)}`$ (41)
$`\times `$ $`[e^{4\beta _+(w+t)}\{dx+e^{3\beta _+(w+t)}(q_1e^\beta 𝝎^3q_2e^\beta 𝝎^2)\}^2`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2\beta _+(w+t)}\{e^{2\beta }\left(𝝎^2\right)^2+e^{2\beta }\left(𝝎^3\right)^2\}]`$
where

$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1\omega +3\beta _+Q_2e^{2\beta }}{\omega ^2+9\beta _+^2}}`$
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_2\omega 3\beta _+Q_1e^{2\beta }}{\omega ^2+9\beta _+^2}}.`$ (42)
The group parameters are related to these constants via

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _+(s2\beta _+)}{\omega (s+\beta _+)}}`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _+}{\omega }}.`$ (43)
In the VII$`{}_{h}{}^{}`$ limit, we have $`s=2\beta _+`$. The spacetime has in general a tilted extra dimension and we will recover the VIIh plane waves only if we simultaneously set $`Q_1=Q_2=0`$.

## 4 Kaluza-Klein reduction

Kaluza-Klein theory considers a five-dimensional spacetime which possesses (at least) one spatial Killing vector $`𝝃`$. If, say, this Killing vector has the corresponding left-invariant form $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$, when the metric can be written as

$`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }𝝎^\mu 𝝎^\nu +\varphi ^2(\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}+A_\mu 𝝎^\mu )^2.`$ (44)
The Kaluza-Klein reduction can now be performed if we identify the space under a translation in the $`𝝃`$-direction. The fifth dimension is assumed to be small and its size will in general define the electromagnetic coupling constant. Also, the field

$`𝐀A_\mu 𝝎^\mu `$ (45)
can be interpreted as a vector potential for an electromagnetic field. Geometrically this vector potential arises whenever the Killing vector $`𝝃`$ is not orthogonal to the reduced four-dimensional spacetime. This vector potential is related to the electromagnetic field strength, $`𝐅`$, in the usual manner,

$`𝐅=\mathrm{𝐝𝐀}.`$ (46)
In general we will have a non-constant dilaton field $`\varphi `$ which couples to the electromagnetic field in a way not standard in Einstein gravity. However, we will consider two special cases, both of which can be interpreted within the standard Einstein gravity.

### 4.1 Exact solutions to the Einstein-Maxwell equations

We have already a set of vacuum solutions in 4+1 dimensions. These must correspond to a set of solutions in 3+1 dimensions to the Einstein-Maxwell-dilatonic equations of motion; according to the Kaluza-Klein theory, it is only a matter of reinterpreting the solutions. In general we will obtain a dilatonic field $`\varphi `$ but we will first require $`\varphi =constant`$. The analysis can trivially be expanded to include a non-constant $`\varphi `$. After reduction the solutions must therefore be solutions to Einstein’s field equations in 3+1 dimensions with an electromagnetic field. Hence, they are solutions to the *Einstein-Maxwell* equations!

By inspection of the vacuum plane-wave solutions in 4+1 dimensions, we readily see that the constraint $`\varphi =constant`$ can be fulfilled by requiring

$`s=2\beta _+`$ (47)
when we are compactifying along the $`\frac{}{x}`$ Killing vector. The compactification can in principle be along any of the Killing vectors spanning the wave-front999We also have to require that the action of the Killing vector acts freely on spacetime, otherwise the resulting spacetime will have orbifold-singularities., but we see that up to permutations all the non-trivial solutions with $`\varphi =constant`$ can be obtained this way. Hence, there is no loss of generality to assume that we compactify along $`\frac{}{x}`$.

Apart from the requirement $`s=2\beta _+`$, there are no further restrictions on the parameters. Performing the reduction on $`A_{4,2}^p`$, $`A_{4,5}^{pq}`$ and $`A_{4,6}^{pq}`$ (the others lead to trivial spacetimes) yield a Bianchi type IV, VIh and VIIh spacetime, respectively. The spaces possess an electromagnetic two-form field (renaming the $`w`$ direction as $`x^1`$) given by

$`𝐅=\mathrm{𝐝𝐀}=e^t(𝝎^0+𝝎^1)(Q_1𝝎^2+Q_2𝝎^3).`$ (48)
Here, we have introduced an orthonormal frame $`𝝎^\mu `$, so that

$`ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }𝝎^\mu 𝝎^\nu ,`$ (49)
and $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric. The solutions are

$`IV:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{s(w+t)}[\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+Q_3(w+t)\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}]\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{s(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\hfill & \\ s(1s)=\frac{1}{4}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)\hfill & \end{array}`$ (50)
$`VI_h:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{(s+b)(w+t)}[\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\frac{Q_3}{2b}e^{2b(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}]\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{(sb)(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\hfill & \\ s(1s)=b^2+\frac{1}{4}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)\hfill & \end{array}`$ (51)
$`VII_h:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^t\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{s(w+t)}e^\beta \left\{\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right\}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{s(w+t)}e^\beta \left\{\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right\}\hfill & \\ s(1s)=\omega ^2\mathrm{sinh}^22\beta +\frac{1}{4}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2).\hfill & \end{array}`$ (52)
Note that all these solutions are self-similar, since they all possess the homothety

$`𝝃_H={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}+y{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}+z{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}.`$ (53)
One can readily verify that the source-free Maxwell equations

$`\mathrm{𝐝𝐅}=0,𝐝^{}𝐅=0,`$ (54)
and the Einstein field equations are satisfied (for the specific choice of constants $`16\pi G=e=c=1`$).

The type IV, VIh, and VIIh metrics are the same as those in 101010Thanks to Professor MacCallum for bringing this paper to my attention. and generalise Harvey and Tsoubelis’ , Collins’, and Lukash’s  vacuum plane-wave solutions, respectively.111111Note that all these solutions are given in , but they are all given in the more general Brinkman form,
$$ds^2=2dudv+H(u,x^i)du^2+dx^idx_i.$$
In the paper , Araujo and Skea used these exact solutions in Brinkman form and identified the ones admitting a simply transitive group of isometries. The source is an electromagnetic field which is of a very particular type. The electric and magnetic fields are (in the orthonormal frame)

$`E_i=e^t(0,Q_1,Q_2),B_i=e^t(0,Q_2,Q_1).`$ (55)
Thus this is a *null* field where all invariants composed of the two-form field vanish121212$`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }=0`$ is, in fact, a direct consequence of the requirement $`\varphi =constant`$.

$`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }(F)^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (56)
The energy density of the field is

$`\rho _{EM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^2+B^2)=e^{2t}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2).`$ (57)
These solutions describes plane-wave spacetimes with a plane-wave electromagnetic field propagating in it. Generally they are non-vacuum plane-wave solutions of Bianchi types IV, VIh and VIIh. They interpolate between a one-parameter131313These solutions are axisymmetric and hence one of the parameters can be gauged away by a rotation. family of electro-magneto-vacuum spacetimes of type V and the well known vacuum plane-wave solutions of type IV, VIh and VIIh.

Note also that the energy-momentum tensor is given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }=\rho _{EM}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (58)
and hence, describes a universe containing a fluid with extreme tilt. According to an observer comoving with the homogeneous hypersurfaces, there will be a stream of photons in the $`𝐞_1`$-direction. The momentum-flow is therefore null, and thus describes a fluid with extreme tilt.

We know that the vacuum plane-wave solutions in 3+1 dimensions are attractor solutions for a large class of spacetimes containing *non-tilted* perfect fluids . However, what happens for spacetimes containing a tilted fluid is still uncertain. A recent work indicates that tilted fluids stiffer than radiation may be important for the late time behaviour of Bianchi cosmologies class B . What is certainly the case is that these solutions provide us with examples of type IV and VIIh spacetimes which do not asymptote a *vacuum* plane-wave at late times. Hence, the vacuum solutions of Lukash cannot be global attractors not even within the Einstein-Maxwell field equations.

### 4.2 Exact solutions to the Einstein equations with a scalar field

There is another case where it is possible to interpret the solutions after the reduction procedure classically. Consider the case $`\varphi `$ non-constant. Let $`ds_5^2`$ be a 5 dimensional vacuum solution and $`ds_4^2`$ be the reduced 4 dimensional metric; i.e.

$`ds_5^2=ds_4^2+\varphi ^2(\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}+A_\mu 𝝎^\mu )^2.`$ (59)
Then, if $`𝐀=0`$, the 4 dimensional conformally related metric

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}_4^2=\varphi ds_4^2,`$ (60)
will satisfy the 4D Einstein equations with a free scalar field. Alternatively, the scalar field can be thought of as a stiff fluid with equation of state $`\rho =p`$.

Again one get three cases where the metrics are all conformally related to Bianchi type IV, VIh, and VIIh metrics. However, in general the conformal factor breaks the spatial homogeneity so the solutions are no longer spatially homogeneous. In all the cases, the requirement $`𝐀=0`$ implies $`Q_1=Q_2=0`$. Using an orthonormal frame $`𝝎^\mu `$, the solutions are

$`𝒞IV:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{s(w+t)}[\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+Q_3(w+t)\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}]\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{s(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\hfill & \\ s(1+2\mathrm{\Omega }s)=3\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\frac{1}{4}Q_3^2\hfill & \end{array}`$ (61)
$`𝒞VI_h:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{(s+b)(w+t)}[\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\frac{Q_3}{2b}e^{2b(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}]\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{(sb)(w+t)}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\hfill & \\ s(1+2\mathrm{\Omega }s)=3\mathrm{\Omega }^2+b^2+\frac{1}{4}Q_3^2\hfill & \end{array}`$ (62)
$`𝒞VII_h:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}𝝎^0=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^1=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)+t}\mathrm{𝐝𝐰}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^2=e^{s(w+t)}e^\beta \left\{\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right\}\hfill & \\ 𝝎^3=e^{s(w+t)}e^\beta \left\{\mathrm{sin}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}[\omega (w+t)]\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right\}\hfill & \\ s(1+2\mathrm{\Omega }s)=3\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega ^2\mathrm{sinh}^22\beta .\hfill & \end{array}`$ (63)
The scalar field is given by $`\phi =2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Omega }(w+t)`$, and the energy-momentum tensor has the same form as eq.(58). Hence, the scalar field is extremely tilted.

These solutions can be interpreted as stiff fluid solutions which can be generated using the generation techniques described in Theorem 10.2 in . They reduce to the ordinary vacuum plane wave when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and this is the only case they are spatially homogeneous. There are, however, always an abelian $`^3`$ acting simply transitive on the null hypersurfaces $`w+t=\text{constant}`$. The metrics are all conformally related to Bianchi types of class B as indicated in eq. (63).

What role these solutions may have for the evolution of generic cosmological models is unknown to the author.

## 5 Conclusion

We have found 5 classes of homogeneous vacuum plane-wave solutions in 4+1 dimensions. For each non-unimodular Lie algebra of rank 0, there is a three-parameter family of solutions to the Einstein field equations. An open question which we have not addressed here, but nonetheless would be very interesting to answer, is: Are these solutions the late time attractors for a more general set of models? We know that the 3+1 dimensional vacuum plane waves are late-time attractors for non-tilted perfect fluid cosmologies of Bianchi class B . Therefore we might wonder if the 4+1 dimensional plane waves plays the same role in 4+1 dimensional cosmology? To this date, no such stability analysis has been done mostly because the lack of understanding of spatially homogeneous cosmological models of dimension 4+1. However, by the previous work , and this work, such a stability analysis seems to be within reach. Such an analysis will hopefully give us some hints whether 3+1 dimensional is special or if it has the same features as higher dimensional cosmology.

By doing a Kaluza-Klein reduction, we showed explicitly that some of these solutions correspond to the exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations found by Araujo and Skea  using a different type of analysis. These solutions describe spacetimes containing an extremely tilted fluid. The benefit of the Kaluza-Klein theory is therefore twofold; not only can we obtain exact solutions in 3+1 dimensions, but in doing so we also give a geometrical explanation of their nature. The obtained solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations are nothing but vacuum plane-waves in one dimension higher. Amazingly, this sets the 4+1 dimensional cosmology in an incredible context. The study of 4+1 dimensional cosmology may help us to understand 3+1 dimensional cosmology. In this context the plane-wave spacetimes in homogeneous form have a great advantage with respect to the more commonly used Brinkman form.

Also 3+1 dimensional solutions with a massless scalar field were derived using the Kaluza-Klein reduction. These solutions were not spatially homogeneous in general but they possessed three commuting Killing vectors acting simply transitively on null hypersurfaces. These are solutions that can be obtained by well known generation techniques .

Notwithstanding, this may indicate that cosmology in 3+1 dimensions may simplify and be a lot more comprehensible by increasing the dimensionality by one. Hence, the study of 4+1 dimensional models may be more down-to-Earth than we originally might have thought.

## Acknowledgments

The author deeply acknowledges the insightful and useful comments made by S.T.C. Siklos, J.D. Barrow and A.A. Coley. Thanks also to James Lucietti for reading through the manuscript and making useful comments. This work was funded by the Research Council of Norway and an Isaac Newton Studentship.