text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Ever since Beckenstein’s suggestion  that the area of the event horizon of a black hole is proportional to its physical entropy, the relationship between a configuration of the gravitational field and its thermodynamic disorder has provided fertile ground for research. When combined with Hawking’s demonstration  that black holes can radiate with a blackbody spectrum at non-zero temperature (once quantum effects are taken into account), the correspondence between black hole physics and equilibrium thermodynamics becomes particularly robust. Despite this, the origin of black hole entropy in terms of an underlying microphysical explanation remains inconclusive, though a number of intriguing suggestions from both string theory and loop quantum gravity have appeared in recent years.

Gravitational entropy can be regarded as arising from the Gibbs-Duhem relation applied to the path-integral formulation of quantum gravity. While such a formulation is undoubtedly not the last word on this subject, at least in the semiclassical limit it should yield a relationship between gravitational entropy and other relevant thermodynamic quantities. In employing this relation, Hawking and Hunter  proposed that gravitational entropy arises whenever it is not possible to foliate a given spacetime in the Euclidean regime by a family of surfaces of constant time. This situation can occur in $`\left(d+1\right)`$-dimensions if the topology of the Euclidean spacetime is not trivial – specifically when the (Euclidean) timelike Killing vector $`\xi =/\tau `$ that generates the U(1) isometry group has a fixed point set of even co-dimension. If this co-dimension is $`\left(d1\right)`$ then the usual relationship between area and entropy holds. However if the co-dimension is smaller than this the relationship between area and entropy is generalized.

Such situations occur in spacetimes containing NUT-charges. In four dimensions they not only can have $`2`$-dimensional fixed point sets (called “bolts”), they also have $`0`$-dimensional fixed point sets (called “nuts”). Here the orbits of the $`U(1)`$ isometry group develop singularities, of dimension 1 in the orbit space, and of dimension $`2`$ in the Euclidean spacetime. These singularities are the gravitational analogues of Dirac string singularities and are referred to as Misner strings. When the NUT charge is nonzero, the entropy of a given spacetime includes not only the entropies of the $`2`$-dimensional bolts, but also those of the Misner strings.

In $`4`$ dimensions the resulting quantities are finite although the different contributions typically diverge with the size of the system, due to the fact that the solutions are not asymptotically flat but asymptotically locally anti de Sitter. These divergences have been addressed within the framework for conserved quantities and entropy due to Brown-York (see ) by computing the quantities relative to a background spacetime of appropriate topology; for example a bolt-spacetime relative to a nut-spacetime .

The $`4`$-dimensional case has also been addressed in terms of Nöther’s theorem (see refs.  and references quoted therein). Provided that a background is introduced, conserved quantities are considered as quantities relative to the background, and the covariant first order Lagrangian is used (see ). In this framework the entropy is defined à la Clausius as the quantity that satisfies the first law of thermodynamics. In later work the relationship between Nöther currents of the covariant first order Lagrangian and the Brown-York framework was analyzed (see ).

However, it has also been shown that such quantities can be computed intrinsically, without reference to a background, for both non-rotating  and rotating  cases. This can be done for asymptotically anti de Sitter (AdS) NUT-charged spacetimes by employing the AdS/CFT-inspired counterterm approach , and for their asymptotically flat counterparts via a suitable generalization of this scheme . The resultant thermodynamic behaviour has some surprising features. Although the entropy can be intrinsically computed it is no longer positive definite for all possible values of the NUT charge. Instead there exists a finite range of values for the NUT charge for which the entropy and specific heat are both positive; outside of this range at least one of these quantities is negative. This occurs for both non-rotating  and rotating  solutions.

Motivated by these unusual results, we consider in this paper an analysis of the thermodynamic behaviour of higher–dimensional NUT – charged spacetimes. These spacetimes were first considered by Bais and Batenberg  in the asymptotically flat case, and then generalized to asymptotically AdS situations by Awad and Chamblin . Despite the fact that the two methods based on the Nöther theorem and the counterterm approach share a priori very few features, we show they provide the same results. An off-shell comparison between these two approaches will be postponed to a future paper.

We compute the action, conserved mass and thermodynamic quantities for Taub-NUT-AdS and Taub-Bolt-AdS spacetimes in six, eight and ten dimensions, and consider the general properties of the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional case. We find the qualitative thermodynamic properties of NUT-charged spacetimes alternate between dimensionalities of $`4k`$ and $`4k+2`$. For example all of the six-dimensional quantities have an overall negative sign to their four dimensional counterparts, whereas those in eight dimensions have the same overall sign. The bolt cases do not share this property. We then extend our study to the general $`(d+1)`$-dimensional case, and find general expressions for the action, the conserved mass, the entropy and the specific heat for the NUT and bolt cases.

## 2 Conserved Charges

For later convenience we briefly summarize the Nöther and counterterm approaches (see  and  for details).

The Nöther framework is based on the covariant first order Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2\kappa }[(R\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{g}+\text{d}_\mu (w_{\alpha \beta }^\mu g^{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{g})(\overline{R}\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{\overline{g}}]\text{d}s$$
(2.1)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the dynamical metric, $`\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the background, $`R`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ are the scalar curvatures of the metric and the background respectively, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{d(d1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}`$ is the cosmological constant, and $`w_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =u_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \overline{u}_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ is a tensorial quantity defined by

$$u_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \delta _{(\alpha }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta )\lambda }^\lambda \overline{u}_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \delta _{(\alpha }^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta )\lambda }^\lambda $$
(2.2)
The constant $`\kappa `$ depends on unit conventions and it becomes relevant when coupling to matter fields. In this paper we shall set $`\kappa =4\pi `$.

We remark that the Lagrangian (2.1) is the sum of three terms

$$L_1=\frac{1}{2\kappa }(R\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{g}\text{d}sL_2=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\text{d}_\mu (w_{\alpha \beta }^\mu g^{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{g})\text{d}sL_3=\frac{1}{2\kappa }(\overline{R}\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{\overline{g}}\text{d}s$$
(2.3)
each of which is a covariant Lagrangian on its own. Hence in a geometrical well-defined way, the total conserved quantities $`Q`$ associated with the total Lagrangian $`L`$ will split as $`Q=Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$, each term being associated to a partial Lagrangian $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`L_3`$, respectively.

We also remark that $`\text{d}s`$ is the standard local volume element associated with the coordinates used on the spacetime $`M`$ of dimension $`d+1`$. The equality $`\text{d}s=\text{d}^{d+1}x`$ holds. The double notation is maintained for coherence with the quoted references.

The Nöther theorem, when applied to this Lagrangian, has proved to be effective in solving the anomalous factor problems  known for the Komar potential (see ). By choosing a suitable background it has been shown to be effective in the case of non-asymptotically flat solutions generalizing the standard ADM conserved quantities.

The conserved quantities are defined as the integral of the following superpotential

$$𝒰(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }[^\alpha \xi ^\beta \sqrt{g}+\xi ^\alpha w_{\mu \nu }^\beta g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}\overline{}^\alpha \xi ^\beta \sqrt{\overline{g}}]\text{d}s_{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.4)
for any spacetime vector field $`\xi `$. We remark that this superpotential inherits a splitting $`𝒰(\xi )=𝒰_1(\xi )+𝒰_2(\xi )+𝒰_3(\xi )`$ from the splitting of the Lagrangian, i.e.

$`L_1`$ $``$ $`𝒰_1(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }^\alpha \xi ^\beta \sqrt{g}\text{d}s_{\alpha \beta }`$
$`L_2`$ $``$ $`𝒰_2(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\xi ^\alpha w_{\mu \nu }^\beta g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}\text{d}s_{\alpha \beta }`$ (2.5)
$`L_3`$ $``$ $`𝒰_3(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\overline{}^\alpha \xi ^\beta \sqrt{\overline{g}}\text{d}s_{\alpha \beta }`$
By specifying $`\xi `$ the energy-momentum and the angular momentum of the spacetime with metric $`g`$ relative to the background metric $`\overline{g}`$ are obtained. Here $`^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{}^\alpha `$ are the covariant derivatives with respect to the dynamical metric and the background respectively.

The superpotential $`𝒰(\xi )`$ (computed along the dynamical and the background metric) defines the conserved current (relative to the background $`\overline{g}`$) within a closed $`(d1)`$-dimensional submanifold $`D`$ of spacetime

$$Q_D(\xi )=_D𝒰(\xi ,g,\overline{g})$$
(2.6)
In the limit that $`D`$ bounds a leaf of the foliation of the full spacetime (e.g. $`r\mathrm{}`$ in Minkowski) one obtains the global conserved quantities $`Q_D_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )`$. For a fixed ADM slicing a time translation generates the mass $`M`$ while an asymptotic rotation generates the angular momentum. By imposing suitable boundary conditions one can also define the conserved quantity in a finite spacelike region .

The entropy is defined when the relevant thermodynamic potentials are provided. In particular the temperature $`T=\beta ^1`$ has to be provided by some other physical means (e.g. from the radiation spectrum of a black hole). In general the momenta conjugate to the angular momentum and the other (gauge) charges have to be provided as well. For Taub-bolt (NUT) solutions the (inverse) temperature is identified with the period of the Euclidean time, chosen so that the Euclidean manifold is regular at all degeneracies of the foliation.

For a family of solutions of the Taub-bolt type described below, the first law of thermodynamics is of the following form

$$\delta M=T\delta S$$
(2.7)
from which we can obtain the entropy $`S`$ by integration. This method, introduced in  and generalized in , proved to be effective in many situations (see also ).

Notice that since the entropy is obtained as an integral quantity, in this context it is defined modulo a constant not depending on the solution under investigation but possibly depending on the model (e.g. on the cosmological constant).

Turning next to the counterterm approach we modify the above action in $`d+1`$ dimensions to be

$$I=I_B+I_B+I_{ct}$$
(2.8)
where

$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }+_M\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\right)`$ (2.9)
$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (2.10)
and $`_M`$ is the Lagrangian for matter fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The first term in (2.8) is the bulk action over the $`d+1`$ dimensional Manifold $``$ with metric $`g`$ and the second term (2.10) is a surface term necessary to ensure that the Euler-Lagrange variation is well-defined, yielding the Einstein equations of motion with a positive cosmological constant. The boundary $``$ (with induced metric $`\gamma `$) of the manifold in general consists of both spacelike and timelike hypersurfaces. For an asymptotically AdS spacetime it will be the Einstein cylinder at infinity; for an asymptotically dS spacetime it will be the union of spatial Euclidean boundaries at early and late times.

The term $`I_{ct}`$ is due to the contributions of the counterterms from the boundary CFT . The existence of these terms is suggested by the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, which posits the following relationship

$$Z_{AdS}[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_0]=_{[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_0]}D\left[g\right]D\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right]e^{I[g,\mathrm{\Psi }]}=\mathrm{exp}\left(__dd^dx\sqrt{g}𝒪_{[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_0]}\right)=Z_{CFT}[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_0]$$
(2.11)
between the partition function of any field theory on $`AdS_{d+1}`$ and a quantum conformal field theory defined on the boundary of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ . The induced boundary metric and matter fields are respectively denoted by $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ symbolically with $`𝒪`$ a quasi-primary conformal operator defined on the boundary of $`AdS_{d+1}`$. The integration is over configurations $`[g,\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ of metric and matter fields that approach $`[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_0]`$ when one goes from the bulk of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ to its boundary. This conjecture has been verified for several important examples, encouraging the expectation that an understanding of quantum gravity in a given spacetime (at least an asymptotically AdS one) can be obtained by studying its holographic CFT dual, defined on the boundary of spacetime at infinity.

The boundary counterterm action $`I_{ct}`$ arises from the counterterms of the CFT. It is universal, depending only on curvature invariants that are functionals of the intrinsic boundary geometry, leaving the equations of motion unchanged. By rewriting the Einstein equations in Gauss-Codacci form, and then solving them in terms of the extrinsic curvature functional of the boundary $``$ and its normal derivatives to obtain the divergent parts , it can be generated by an algorithmic procedure. The entire divergent structure can be covariantly isolated for any given boundary dimension $`d`$, since all divergent parts can be expressed in terms of intrinsic boundary data and do not depend on normal derivatives . By varying the boundary metric under a Weyl transformation, it can be shown that the trace $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ of the extrinsic curvature is proportional to the divergent boundary counterterm Lagrangian. No background spacetime is required, and computations of the action and conserved charges yield unambiguous finite values intrinsic to the spacetime, as has been verified in numerous examples .

The result of this procedure is that

$`_{\text{ct}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\{{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathsf{\Theta }\left(d3\right)}{2(d2)}}𝖱{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^3\mathsf{\Theta }\left(d5\right)}{2(d2)^2(d4)}}(𝖱_{ab}𝖱^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4(d1)}}𝖱^2)`$ (2.12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^5\mathsf{\Theta }\left(d7\right)}{(d2)^3(d4)(d6)}}({\displaystyle \frac{3d+2}{4(d1)}}\mathrm{𝖱𝖱}^{ab}𝖱_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{d(d+2)}{16(d1)^2}}𝖱^3`$
$`2𝖱^{ab}𝖱^{cd}𝖱_{acbd}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4(d1)}}_a𝖱^a𝖱+^c𝖱^{ab}_c𝖱_{ab})\}`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3/\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`𝖱`$ is the curvature associated with the induced metric $`\gamma `$. The series truncates for any fixed dimension, with new terms entering at every new even value of $`d`$, as denoted by the step-function ($`\mathsf{\Theta }\left(x\right)=1`$ provided $`x0`$, and vanishes otherwise). As is the case for its AdS counterpart, conserved charges on the spatially infinite boundaries of an asymptotically dS spacetime can be defined using (2.13).

Taking the variation of the action (2.8) and carefully keeping account of all boundary terms, a conserved charge

$$𝔔_\xi =_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{d1}S^a\xi ^bT_{ab}^{eff}$$
(2.13)
can be associated with a closed surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (with normal $`n^a`$), provided the boundary geometry has an isometry generated by a Killing vector $`\xi ^\mu `$. The quantity $`T_{ab}^{eff}`$ is given by the variation of the action (2.8) at the boundary with respect to $`\gamma ^{ab}`$, and the quantity $`𝔔_\xi `$ is conserved between closed surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ distinguished by some foliation parameter $`\tau `$. If $`\xi =/t`$ then $`𝔔`$ is the conserved mass/energy $`𝔐`$; if $`\xi _a=/\varphi ^a`$ then $`𝔔`$ is the conserved angular momentum $`J`$ provided $`\varphi `$ is a periodic coordinate associated with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Details of this formulation can be found in refs. .

We can proceed further by formulating gravitational thermodynamics via the Euclidean path integral

$$Z=D\left[g\right]D\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right]e^{I[g,\mathrm{\Psi }]}e^{I_{cl}}$$
(2.14)
where one integrates over all metrics and matter fields between some given initial and final Euclidean hypersurfaces, taking $`\tau `$ to have some period $`\beta _H`$, determined by demanding regularity of the Euclideanized manifold at degenerate points of the foliation. Semiclassically the result is given by the classical action evaluated on the equations of motion, and yields to this order

$$S=\beta _H𝔐_{\mathrm{}}I_{cl}$$
(2.15)
upon application of the Gibbs-Duhem relation to the partition function. The gravitational entropy $`S`$ is defined to be the difference between the total energy at infinity $`𝔐_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the free energy $`𝔉=I_{cl}/\beta _H`$ multiplied by $`\beta _H`$, which can be interpreted as the inverse temperature. This quantity will be non-zero whenever there is a mismatch between $`𝔐`$ and $`𝔉`$.

Note that in this approach there is no freedom to shift the value of the entropy by a constant. We shall find in the sequel that all Bolt AdS-spacetimes have an additional constant independent of the NUT charge. This constant has no effect on the first law of thermodynamics (in which only changes of entropy are observable); its physical value is such that the entropy vanishes for the ground state (vanishing NUT charge).

In the sequel we shall analyze the conservation laws of Taub-NUT/bolt solutions in dimension $`6`$, $`8`$ and $`10`$, both by Nöther theorem and counterterm methods. We stress that there is no a priori reason for these methods to provide the same results, though, as we shall see, in this case the methods completely agree. The entropy is computed, both by the Gibbs-Duhem relation and by the first law of thermodynamics. These two methods provide two expressions for the entropy which are in agreement apart from the aforementioned integration constant.

## 3 Four Dimensional Taub-NUT Spacetimes

We begin by briefly recapitulating the results from four dimensions , , and . The metric is given by

$$ds^2=F(r)\left(d\tau +2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\varphi \right)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(3.1)
with

$$F(r)=\frac{r^2+N^22mr+\mathrm{}^2(r^46N^2r^23N^4)}{r^2N^2}$$
(3.2)
The general action was found to be

$$I_4=\frac{\beta }{2\mathrm{}^2}\left(\mathrm{}^2m+3N^2r_+r_+^3\right)$$
(3.3)
where $`\beta `$ is the period of $`\tau `$, given in four dimensions by

$$\beta =8\pi N$$
(3.4)
and determined by demanding regularity of the manifold so that the singularities at $`\theta =0,\pi `$ are coordinate artifacts.

There is an additional regularity criterion to be satisfied, namely the absence of conical singularities at the roots of the function $`F(r)`$. This can be ensured by demanding that the period of of $`\tau `$ is

$$\beta =\left|\frac{4\pi }{F^{}\left(r_+\right)}\right|=8\pi N$$
(3.5)
where $`F(r=r_+)=0`$, and the second equality follows by demanding consistency with eq. (3.4). It is straightforward to show that there are only two solutions to eq. (3.5), one where $`r_+=N`$ and one where $`r_+=r_b>N`$, referred to respectively as the NUT and Bolt solutions. In the former case we have

$$m_n=\frac{N(\mathrm{}^24N^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(3.6)
whereas solving (3.5) in this latter case gives two possible solutions

$$r_{b\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{}^448N^2\mathrm{}^2+144N^4}}{12N}$$
(3.7)
with the limit on $`N`$ being

$$N\frac{(3\sqrt{2}\sqrt{6})\mathrm{}}{12}=N_{max}$$
(3.8)
since we want the discriminant to be real.

The actions can be calculated for these two solutions, using the NUT and Bolt masses (found by solving $`F(r=N)=0`$ for $`m=m_n`$ and $`F(r=r_b)=0`$ for $`m=m_b`$; see tables 1, 2 at the end of the paper).

The actions in four dimensions are

$`I_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi N^2(\mathrm{}^22N^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (3.9)
$`I_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_b^4\mathrm{}^2r_b^2+N^2(3N^2\mathrm{}^2))}{3r_b^23N^2+\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (3.10)
The entropy and specific heat for the NUT and Bolt solutions have also been calculated , :

$`S_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi N^2(\mathrm{}^26N^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (3.11)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi N^2(\mathrm{}^2+12N^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (3.12)
Note that that the entropy becomes negative for $`N>\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{6}}`$  and the specific heat negative for $`N<\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{12}}`$. Thus, for thermally stable solutions, the value of the NUT charge must be in the range

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{12}}N\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{6}}$$
(3.13)
For the Bolt, the entropy and specific heat are found to be

$`S_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (3r_b^4+(\mathrm{}^212N^2)r_b^2+N^2(\mathrm{}^23N^2))}{3r_b^2+\mathrm{}^23N^2}}`$ (3.14)
$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_{b\pm })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}^4}{36N^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi (\mathrm{}^824N^2\mathrm{}^6+144\mathrm{}^4N^410368N^6\mathrm{}^2+41472N^8)}{36N^2\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{}^4+144N^448N^2\mathrm{}^2}}}`$ (3.15)
where we recall in $`S_{Bolt}`$that $`r_b=r_{b\pm }`$; $`C_{Bolt}`$ has been given explicitly for each $`r_{b\pm }`$. A plot of the entropy and specific heat vs. $`N/\mathrm{}`$ indicates that the upper branch solutions ($`r_b=r_{b+}`$) are thermally stable, whereas the lower branch solutions ($`r_b=r_b`$) are thermally unstable. As these plots are qualitatively similar to the six-dimensional case (see figures 4.2, 4.4, 4.4), we shall not reproduce them here.

The analysis via Nöther theorem was carried out assuming no cosmological constant (see ). Here we shall generalize to the case of non-zero cosmological case. We set $`\xi =_t+a_\theta `$ and we compute the relative energy between Taub-bolt and Taub-NUT solution within the spatial sphere $`\{\tau =\tau _0,r=r_0\}`$. We obtain $`Q_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )=Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$ where

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }}\left(2r_0^32N^2r_0+{\displaystyle \frac{r_b^4+r_b^2(\mathrm{}^26N^2)+N^2(\mathrm{}^23N^2)}{r_b}}\right)+O(r_0^1)`$ (3.16)
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_b^4+r_b^2(\mathrm{}^26N^2)+2N(4N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b+N^2(\mathrm{}^23N^2)}{r_b}}\right)+O(r_0^1)`$ (3.17)
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }}\left(2r_0^3+2N^2r_02N(\mathrm{}^24N^2)\right)+O(r_0^1)`$ (3.18)
The total relative energy in the limit $`r_0\mathrm{}`$ is

$$Q_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\left(r_b^3+(6N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b2N(\mathrm{}^24N^2)+\frac{N^2(\mathrm{}^23N^2)}{r_b}\right)$$
(3.19)
Hence we have $`Q_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }(m_bm_n)`$ and no angular momentum, as expected.

Assuming the temperature $`T=\beta ^1=(8\pi N)^1`$ the resulting entropy is

$$S=\frac{2\pi ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\left(\frac{(\mathrm{}^4144N^4)r_b}{3N}+4N^2(12N^2\mathrm{}^2)\right)$$
(3.20)
Hence, comparing to the results above, we obtain

$$S=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }\left(S_{Bolt}S_{NUT}+\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2}{3}\right)$$
(3.21)
Hence the same classical entropy is obtained by the two methods up to an integration constant.

## 4 Six Dimensional Solutions

In six dimensions, there are two possible forms of the metric (as given by ). One form uses $`S^2\times S^2`$ as a base space, and has the following form;

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`F(r)(d\tau +2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)d\varphi _1+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)d\varphi _2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{F(r)}}+(r^2N^2)(d\theta _1^2`$ (4.1)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)d\varphi _1^2+d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)d\varphi _2^2)`$
The second form uses $`=^2`$ as a base space, and generalizes the metric to include a negative cosmological constant. It has the form,

$$ds^2=F(r)(d\tau +A)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2$$
(4.2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ is the metric for the $`^2`$ space, with the form

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2=\frac{du^2}{\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)^2}+\frac{u^2}{4\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)^2}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\varphi \right)^2+\frac{u^2}{4\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\varphi ^2)$$
(4.3)
and the one-form $`A`$ is given by

$$A=\frac{u^2N}{2\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\varphi \right)$$
(4.4)
Both forms of the metric use the same form for $`F(r)`$, given in six dimensions by

$$F(r)=\frac{3r^6+(\mathrm{}^215N^2)r^43N^2(2\mathrm{}^215N^2)r^26mr\mathrm{}^23N^4(\mathrm{}^25N^2)}{3\mathrm{}^2(r^2N^2)^2}$$

and yield exactly the same action and and total mass, the only difference between the calculations being that each base space has a different volume element associated with it.

Using the method of counter-terms, before specializing to NUT or Bolt solutions, the action is found to be

$$I=\frac{2\pi \beta (3r_+^5+10N^2r_+^315N^4r_++3m\mathrm{}^2)}{3\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4.5)
with $`r_+`$ the value of $`r`$ that is the largest positive root of $`F\left(r\right)`$, determined by the fixed point set of $`_\tau `$. The quantity $`\beta `$ is the period of $`\tau `$, which in 6 dimensions is given by

$$\beta =12\pi N$$
(4.6)
The flat space limit of the total action (4.5) can be calculated by substituting in the largest positive root of $`F(r)`$; this value is given by $`r_b`$ (4.16), and yields

$$I2m\pi \beta $$
(4.7)
As the metric is not rotating we have only the conserved total mass/energy $`𝔐`$, which from (2.13) is

$$𝔐_\xi =\frac{1}{8\pi }_{M_{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }}T_{\mu \nu }u^\mu \xi ^\nu $$
(4.8)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the boundary stress-energy (see ), $`u^\mu `$ is the timelike unit vector, and $`\xi ^\mu =[1,0,0,\mathrm{}]`$ is the timelike killing vector. Inserting these into the integral, along with $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ for six dimensions, $`𝔐_\xi `$ becomes

$$𝔐_\xi =\frac{1}{8\pi }(4\pi )^2_0^\pi 𝑑\theta _1_0^\pi 𝑑\theta _2\sqrt{\gamma }\left[\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{(d1)}{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}\right]u^\mu \xi ^\nu $$

which, upon explicit calculation will yield

$$𝔐=8\pi m$$
(4.9)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\gamma _\mu ^\rho \gamma _\nu ^\sigma n_{\sigma ;\rho }`$ is the extrinsic curvature, evaluated on the boundary .

### 4.1 Taub-NUT-AdS Solution

When $`r=N`$, the fixed-point set of $`_\tau `$ is 2-dimensional and we have a NUT. This implies $`F\left(N\right)=0`$, yielding

$$m_n=\frac{4N^3(6N^2\mathrm{}^2)}{3\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4.10)
for the mass parameter. Note that, in comparing this to the four dimensional NUT case done in , we see that the overall sign in (4.10) is minus that of the $`m_n`$ found in four dimensions (eq. (3.6)) in both the large-$`\mathrm{}`$ and large-$`N`$ limits.

Imposing regularity at the root $`r=N`$, we find that (4.6) holds for the NUT-AdS metric, and the action (4.5) becomes

$$I_{NUT}=\frac{32\pi ^2N^4(4N^2\mathrm{}^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4.11)
Using the Gibbs-Duhem relation (2.15) and the expression $`C=\beta _\beta S`$ for the specific heat, we obtain

$`S_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi ^2N^4(20N^23\mathrm{}^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (4.12)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{384\pi ^2N^4(\mathrm{}^210N^2)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (4.13)
It is straightforward to check that the above equations satisfy the first law of black hole thermodynamics, $`dS=\beta dH`$.

We see that the action becomes negative for $`N<\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$. More importantly, the entropy becomes negative for $`N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{3}{20}}`$, and the specific heat for $`N>\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{10}}`$. The relevance of these values is more clearly seen in Figure 4.1, where it can be seen that nowhere are the entropy and specific heat positive for the same values of $`N`$. This means that the six dimensional Taub-NUT-AdS is thermodynamically unstable. Of course a negative specific heat is more palatable – even the Schwarzschild solution has a negative specific heat. In situations where this is physically admissible, it means that there is an upper bound $`N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{3}{20}}`$ to the NUT charge if the entropy is to remain positive. It can also be seen in this plot that the high temperature limits ($`N0`$) of the entropy and specific heat are zero; the action also goes to zero in this limit.

Finally, in the flat space limit as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, the action, entropy and specific heat become

$`I_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`32\pi ^2N^4`$
$`S_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`96\pi ^2N^4`$ (4.14)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`384\pi ^2N^4`$
again indicating that asymptotically locally flat spacetimes with NUT charge in six dimensions are thermodynamically unstable for all values of $`N`$.

### 4.2 Taub-Bolt-AdS Solution

In the case of the Bolt solution, we require that the fixed points of $`_\tau `$ be $`4`$-dimensional, implying $`r_+=r_b>N`$ and

$$m_b=\frac{3r_b^6+(\mathrm{}^215N^2)r_b^43N^2(2\mathrm{}^215N^2)r_b^23N^4(\mathrm{}^25N^2)}{6r_b\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4.15)
The conditions  for a regular Bolt solution are (i) $`F(r_b)=0`$ and (ii) $`F^{}(r_b)=\frac{1}{3N}`$. From (ii), $`r_b`$ is

$$r_{b\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{}^4180N^2\mathrm{}^2+900N^4}}{30N}$$
(4.16)
where reality requirements imply

$$N\left(\frac{\sqrt{15}}{15}\frac{\sqrt{30}}{30}\right)\mathrm{}=N_{\text{ max}}$$
(4.17)
since $`r_b>N`$.

We obtain from (4.5)

$$I_{Bolt}=\frac{4\pi ^2(3r_b^6(5N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^43N^2(5N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+3N^4(\mathrm{}^25N^2))}{3(5r_b^2+\mathrm{}^25N^2)}$$
(4.18)
for the Bolt action, where regularity requires

$$\beta _{Bolt}=\frac{4\pi }{F^{}(r_b)}=\frac{6\pi \mathrm{}^2(r_b^2N^2)^3}{3r_b^79r_b^5N^2+N^2(4\mathrm{}^215N^2)r_b^3+9m\mathrm{}^2r_b^2+3N^4(4\mathrm{}^225N^2)r_b+3m\mathrm{}^2N^2}$$
(4.19)
and the temperature for the two solutions is the same. In fact by substituting the expression of $`r_b`$ and $`m_b`$ into $`\beta _{Bolt}`$ one readily obtains $`\beta _{Bolt}=12\pi N`$.

The Bolt entropy is then

$$S_{Bolt}=\frac{4\pi ^2(15r_b^6(65N^23\mathrm{}^2)r_b^4+3N^2(55N^26\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+9N^4(5N^2\mathrm{}^2))}{3(5r_b^2+\mathrm{}^25N^2)}$$
(4.20)
and it is straightforward (albeit tedious) to check that the first law is satisfied. However since $`r_b=r_{b\pm }(N)`$, there are two “branches” for each quantity, and these must each be separately checked.

In computing the specific heat for the Bolt we obtain a longer expression. The two branches for the specific heat are:

$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_{b\pm })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{50625}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^6(90N^2\mathrm{}^2)}{N^4}}`$
$`\pm ((\mathrm{}^2+30N^2)(\mathrm{}^2+30N^2)\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}^8180\mathrm{}^6N^2+5400\mathrm{}^4N^4162000\mathrm{}^2N^6+810000N^8)}{N^4\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{}^4+900N^4180N^2\mathrm{}^2}}})]`$
Since $`r_{b+}`$ diverges as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, we must consider only the $`r_b`$ branch in the flat space limit. We find $`r_b`$ $`r_0=3N`$ and

$`I_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`32\pi ^2N^4`$
$`S_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`96\pi ^2N^4`$
$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`384\pi ^2N^4`$
and the Bolt mass parameter (4.15) is

$$m_b\frac{(r_b^46N^2r_b^23N^4)}{6r_b}=\frac{4}{3}N^3$$
(4.22)
confirming the results of ref. .

As with the NUT case, we again require that the entropy and specific heat both be positive for a thermodynamically stable solution. The upper branches for the entropy and specific heat are both positive (for $`0<N<N_{\text{max}}`$, see Figure 4.2), and thus the upper branch solution is thermodynamically stable. However, although the lower branch entropy is positive (in this range), the lower branch specific heat (Figures 4.4, 4.4) is negative, giving a thermodynamically unstable lower branch solution in 6 dimensions.

### 4.3 Nöther conserved quantities

Consider the Taub-bolt solution (4.1) with mass parameter given by eq. (4.15) and identification period by eq. (4.19). We shall use the Taub-NUT metric (4.1) as the background, with mass parameter and identification period respectively given by (4.10, 4.6). Note that, despite the name, the mass parameters $`m_b`$ and $`m_n`$ have a priori nothing to do with the mass of the solutions (except perhaps via some Newtonian approximation, whose meaning is not clear in this context). We shall shortly see that the Nöther theorem furnishes us with justification for these names.

Let us then choose a spacetime vector field

$$\xi =_\tau +a_{\theta _1}+b_{\theta _2}$$
(4.23)
which by definition produces the Nöther conserved quantity $`Q=m+aJ_1+bJ_2`$ of the corresponding dynamical metric relative to the background. We evaluate the superpotential (2.4) on the solutions $`(g,\overline{g})`$ and then integrating on a spatial region $`(\tau =\tau _0,r=r_0)`$, expanding in Taylor series around $`r_0=\mathrm{}`$. By keeping the three contributions of the superpotential separate, we obtain $`Q=Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$, where we set:

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4\pi ^2}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}(2r_0^54N^2r_0^3\frac{2r_0}{3}N^2(21N^24\mathrm{}^2)+\frac{1}{r_b}(3r_b^6(15N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^4`$
$`+3N^2(15N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+3N^4(5N^2\mathrm{}^2)))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4\pi ^2}{3\kappa r_b\mathrm{}^2}(3r_b^6(15N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^4+3N^2(15N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+`$
$`8N^3(6N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b+3N^4(5N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4\pi ^2}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}\left(2r_0^5+4N^2r_0^3+\frac{2r_0}{3}N^2(21N^24\mathrm{}^2)8N^3(6N^2\mathrm{}^2)\right)+O(r_0^1)`$
Although $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ diverge as $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, the total conserved quantity $`Q`$ does not. In fact

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{16\pi ^2}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}(r_b^5\frac{1}{3}(15N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^3+N^2(15N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b\frac{8}{3}N^3(6N^2\mathrm{}^2)+`$
$`+\frac{1}{r_b}N^4(5N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
No contribution from the angular parts of $`\xi `$ survives, hence $`J_1=0`$ and $`J_2=0`$. According to the interpretation of $`Q`$ as relative mass, we have

$$Q=\frac{32\pi ^2}{\kappa }(m_bm_n)$$
(4.24)
The first law of thermodynamics then gives

$$\delta S=12\pi N\delta Q$$
(4.25)
which can be interpreted as the relative entropy of the two solutions. We obtain

$`S=\frac{16\pi ^3}{3375\kappa N^3\mathrm{}^2}(r_b(\mathrm{}^890N^2\mathrm{}^6300N^4\mathrm{}^427000N^6\mathrm{}^2+540000N^8)+`$
$`+N(30N^2\mathrm{}^2)(3\mathrm{}^6+80N^2\mathrm{}^4+1500N^4\mathrm{}^218000N^6))`$
This is different from the relative entropy $`S_{Bolt}S_{NUT}`$ given from eqs. (4.20,4.12) However, the difference is an integration constant

$$S=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }\left(S_{Bolt}S_{NUT}\frac{112\pi ^2}{675}l^4\right)$$
(4.26)
The two methods provide the same classical entropy, up an integration constant as discussed earlier.

## 5 Eight Dimensional Solutions

As in six dimensions, there are again two possible forms for the metric (). The $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`S^2\times S^2\times S^2`$ gives the following form;

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`F(r)(d\tau +2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)d\varphi _1+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)d\varphi _2+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _3)d\varphi _3)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{F(r)}}+(r^2N^2)(d\theta _1^2`$ (5.1)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)d\varphi _1^2+d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)d\varphi _2^2+d\theta _3^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)d\varphi _3^2)`$
There is also a second form using the base space $`=S^2\times ^2`$, given by

$$ds^2=F(r)(d\tau +A)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)\left(d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)$$
(5.2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ is again the $`^2`$ form (4.3), and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric of the 2-sphere $`S^2`$;

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2=d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)d\varphi _1^2$$
(5.3)
$`A`$ is given in eight dimensions by

$$A=2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)d\varphi _1+\frac{u^2N}{2\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\varphi \right)$$
(5.4)
(where $`\theta _1`$, $`\varphi _1`$ are the coordinates for the 2-sphere). The form of $`F(r)`$ is again the same for either choice of metric;

$$F(r)=\frac{5r^8+(\mathrm{}^228N^2)r^6+5N^2(14N^2\mathrm{}^2)r^4+5N^4(3\mathrm{}^228N^2)r^210mr\mathrm{}^2+5N^6(\mathrm{}^27N^2)}{5\mathrm{}^2(r^2N^2)^3}$$
(5.5)
Also, as in six dimensions, these metrics give exactly the same results, with the only difference in the calculation method being the volume element used.

The action (2.8) before specializing to either the NUT or Bolt case is

$$I=\frac{8\beta \pi ^2(5m\mathrm{}^235N^4r_+^35r_+^7+35N^6r_++21N^2r_+^5)}{5\mathrm{}^2}$$
(5.6)
where the period is now

$$\beta =16\pi N$$
(5.7)
In the flat space limit, again using $`r_b`$ as the largest positive root of $`F(r)`$, (5.6) becomes

$$I8m\pi ^2\beta $$
(5.8)
We also obtain

$$𝔐=48\pi ^2m$$
(5.9)
for the conserved mass in 8 dimensions.

### 5.1 Taub-NUT-AdS Solution

The mass parameter for the eight dimensional NUT solution with $`r_+=N`$ is fixed to be

$$m_n=\frac{8N^5(\mathrm{}^28N^2)}{5\mathrm{}^2}$$
(5.10)
Notice this has the same overall sign in the large-$`\mathrm{}/N`$ limits as the four dimensional case. The action for the NUT is

$$I_{NUT}=\frac{1024\pi ^3N^6(6N^2+\mathrm{}^2)}{5\mathrm{}^2}$$
(5.11)
and the entropy (which again satisfies the first law) and specific heat are

$`S_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1024\pi ^3N^6(5\mathrm{}^242N^2)}{5\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (5.12)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6144\pi ^3N^6(5\mathrm{}^2+56N^2)}{5\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (5.13)
Note here that the overall signs of the above quantities are the same as the four dimensional quantities, as noted above. In eight dimensions, the action becomes negative for $`N>\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{6}}`$. Now, though, the entropy is negative for $`N>\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{5}{42}}`$, and the specific heat for $`N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{5}{56}}`$. Hence in eight dimensions there is a range of $`N`$ for which the entropy and specific heat are both positive, as can be seen in Figure 5.1;

$$\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{5}{56}}<N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{5}{42}}$$
(5.14)
and thermally stable solutions exist within this range of parameters. The high temperature limits for the action, specific heat and entropy are all still zero.

In the flat space limit, (5.11), (4.12) and (5.13) are

$`I_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1024}{5}}\pi ^3N^6`$
$`S_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`1024\pi ^3N^6`$
$`C_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`6144\pi ^3N^6`$
indicating that asymptotically locally flat pure NUT solutions in 8 dimensions are thermally unstable.

### 5.2 Taub-Bolt-AdS Solution

We obtain

$$m_b=\frac{5r_b^8+(\mathrm{}^228N^2)r_b^6+5N^2(14N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^4+5N^4(3\mathrm{}^228N^2)r_b^2+5N^6(\mathrm{}^27N^2)}{10\mathrm{}^2r_b}$$
(5.15)
for the mass parameter in terms of the bolt radius. Regularity implies that $`F^{}(r_b)=\frac{1}{4N}`$, which has two solutions

$$r_{b\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{}^4448N^2\mathrm{}^2+3136N^4}}{56N}$$
(5.16)
each of which must be real, with $`r_b>N`$. This implies

$$N\frac{\mathrm{}}{28}\left(\sqrt{35}\sqrt{21}\right)=N_{\text{max}}$$
(5.17)
The Bolt action in this case is

$$I_{Bolt}=\frac{16\pi ^3(5r_b^8(\mathrm{}^2+14N^2)r_b^6+5N^2r_b^4\mathrm{}^25N^4(3\mathrm{}^214N^2)r_b^25N^6(\mathrm{}^27N^2))}{5(7N^27r_b^2\mathrm{}^2)}$$
(5.18)
where now

$$\beta _{Bolt}=\frac{10\pi \mathrm{}^2(r_b^2N^2)^4}{\rho }$$
(5.19)
with

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`5r_b^920r_b^7N^2+2N^2(\mathrm{}^2+7N^2)r_b^5+20N^4(7N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^3+25m\mathrm{}^2r_b^2`$
$`+5N^6(49N^26\mathrm{}^2)r_b+5m\mathrm{}^2N^2`$
The Bolt entropy is

$`S_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^3}{5(7r_b^2+\mathrm{}^27N^2)}}(35r_b^8+(5\mathrm{}^2182N^2)r_b^65N^2(5\mathrm{}^284N^2)r_b^4`$ (5.20)
$`5N^4(154N^215\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+25N^6(\mathrm{}^27N^2))`$
and the specific heat is

$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_{b\pm })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^3}{150590720N^6}}[\mathrm{}^8(190512N^42240N^2\mathrm{}^2+5\mathrm{}^4)`$ (5.21)
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{}^4+3136N^4448N^2\mathrm{}^2}}}(193434623148032N^{16}`$
$`31087707291648N^{14}\mathrm{}^2+771024486400N^{12}\mathrm{}^4`$
$`+8260976640N^{10}\mathrm{}^6+36879360N^8\mathrm{}^816332288N^6\mathrm{}^{10}`$
$`+574672N^4\mathrm{}^{12}3360N^2\mathrm{}^{14}+5\mathrm{}^{16})]`$
As in six dimensions, the upper branch Bolt quantities are all ($`\pm `$) infinity in the high temperature limit; the lower branch quantities are all zero. We find (figure 5.2) that the upper branch solutions for both the entropy and specific heat are again thermodynamically stable for $`0<N<N_{\text{max}}`$, and the lower branch solutions are again unstable, as can be seen in Figures 5.4, 5.4.

The flat space limits for the lower branch solutions are,

$`I_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{48976}{5}}N^6\pi ^3`$
$`S_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`48976N^6\pi ^3`$ (5.22)
$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`293856N^6\pi ^3`$
where the lower branch Bolt radius now goes to $`4N`$. Hence in the flat space limit, the Bolt mass becomes

$$m_b\frac{r_b^65N^2r_b^4+15N^4r_b^2+5N^6}{10r_b}=\frac{3061}{40}N^5$$
(5.23)
These solutions have negative specific heat, and so are unstable for all values of the parameters.

### 5.3 Nöther conserved quantities

We now consider the Taub-bolt solution (5.1) as the dynamical metric with mass parameter and identification period given by (5.15, 5.19). The Taub-NUT metric (5.1) with mass parameter (5.10) will be taken to be the background. Choosing the spacetime vector field

$$\xi =_\tau +a_{\theta _1}+b_{\theta _2}+c_{\theta _3}$$
(5.24)
we evaluate the superpotential (2.4) on the solutions $`(g,\overline{g})`$ then integrating on a spatial region $`(\tau =\tau _0,r=r_0)`$ as before, taking the limit $`r_0\mathrm{}`$. By keeping the three contributions of the superpotential separate, we obtain $`Q=Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$, where we set:

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^3}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(2r_0^76N^2r_0^5\frac{2}{5}N^2(N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_0^3+\frac{2}{5}N^4(139N^218\mathrm{}^2)r_0`$
$`+(5r_b^7(28N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^5+5N^2(14N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^35N^4(28N^23\mathrm{}^2)r_b`$
$`\frac{5}{r_b}N^6(7N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{16\pi ^3}{5\kappa \mathrm{}^2}(5r_b^7(28N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^5+5N^2(14N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^35N^4(28N^23\mathrm{}^2)r_b`$
$`+16N^5(8N^2\mathrm{}^2)\frac{5}{r_b}N^6(7N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{16\pi ^3}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}(2r_0^7+6N^2r_0^5+\frac{2}{5}N^2(N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_0^3\frac{2}{5}N^4(139N^218\mathrm{}^2)r_0`$
$`+16N^5(8N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
Again, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ diverge as $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, while the total conserved quantity $`Q`$ does not. In fact

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{96\pi ^3}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(r_b^7\frac{1}{5}(28N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^5+N^2(14N^2\mathrm{}^2)r_b^3N^4(28N^23\mathrm{}^2)r_b+`$
$`\frac{1}{r_b}N^6(7N^2\mathrm{}^2)+\frac{16}{5}N^5(8N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
No contribution form the angular part of $`\xi `$ survives, hence $`J_1=J_2=J_3=0`$. We find that

$$Q=\frac{192\pi ^3}{\kappa }(m_bm_n)$$
(5.25)
Again, from the first law of thermodynamics

$$\delta S=16\pi N\delta Q$$
(5.26)
we can obtain $`S`$ as the relative entropy of the two solutions. Explicitly,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{\pi ^4}{1344560\kappa N^5\mathrm{}^2}((5\mathrm{}^{12}2240N^2\mathrm{}^{10}+187376N^4\mathrm{}^8+702464N^6\mathrm{}^6`$
$`+46713856\mathrm{}^4N^8+2202927104N^{10}\mathrm{}^246261469184N^{12})r_b+`$
$`4N(+5\mathrm{}^{12}1715N^2\mathrm{}^{10}+3136N^4\mathrm{}^8+208544N^6\mathrm{}^6+9834496N^8\mathrm{}^4`$
$`+1170305024N^{10}\mathrm{}^211565367296N^{12}))`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }\left((S_{Bolt}S_{NUT})+{\displaystyle \frac{17\pi ^3}{343}}\mathrm{}^6\right)`$
## 6 Ten Dimensional Solution

In ten dimensions, there are three possible forms for the metric (). A $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`S^2\times S^2\times S^2\times S^2`$ gives the following form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`F(r)(d\tau +2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)d\varphi _1+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)d\varphi _2+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _3)d\varphi _3+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _4)d\varphi _4)^2`$ (6.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{F(r)}}+(r^2N^2)(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1)d\varphi _1^2+d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2)d\varphi _2^2`$
$`+d\theta _3^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _3)d\varphi _3^2+d\theta _4^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _4)d\varphi _4^2)`$
A $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`S^2\times S^2\times ^2`$ can also be used, giving a metric with the form

$$ds^2=F(r)(d\tau +A)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)\left(d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}_{}{}^{}2\right)$$
(6.2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ is again the metric over $`^2`$ (4.3), and the $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ are the metrics over the two 2-spheres (5.3). For this fibration the one-form $`A`$ is given by

$$A=2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)d\varphi _1+2N\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)d\varphi _2+\frac{u^2N}{2\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\psi \right)$$
(6.3)
(where $`\theta _1`$, $`\varphi _1`$ are the coordinates for the first sphere, $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$ for the second, and $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ are the coordinates for $`^2`$).

A third form of the metric in ten dimensions can be calculated using a $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`^2\times ^2`$:

$$ds^2=F(r)(d\tau +A)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)\left(d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2+d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}_{}{}^{}2\right)$$
(6.4)
with $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ being another metric over $`^2`$, and $`A`$ given by

$$A=\frac{u^{}{}_{}{}^{2}N}{2\left(1+\frac{u^{}^2}{6}\right)}\left(d\psi ^{}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ^{})d\varphi ^{}\right)+\frac{u^2N}{2\left(1+\frac{u^2}{6}\right)}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d\varphi \right)$$
(6.5)
In all of these metrics, the form of $`F(r)`$ in ten dimensions is given by

$`F(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{35\mathrm{}^2(r^2N^2)^4}}[35r^{10}+5(\mathrm{}^245N^2)r^8+14N^2(45N^22\mathrm{}^2)r^6`$ (6.6)
$`+70N^4(\mathrm{}^215N^2)r^4+35N^6(45N^24\mathrm{}^2)r^270mr\mathrm{}^2+35N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)]`$
All three metrics will give the same results for the action and other quantities to be calculated, apart from the overall volume factors from the compact spaces.

The total action before specifying to the NUT or Bolt case is

$$I=\frac{32\pi ^3\beta (35r_+^9180N^2r_+^7+378N^4r_+^5420N^6r_+^3+315N^8r_+35m\mathrm{}^2)}{35\mathrm{}^2}$$
(6.7)
Counter-terms for $`I_{ct}`$ have only been computed up to 9 dimensions . Rather than extend this expression to 10 dimensions, we have found (see section 7) that for these class of metrics, only the first term in the counter-term expansion (2.12) is necessary to compute the finite action; the remaining terms of the expansion will only cancel divergences, making no contribution to the finite part.

The period in 10 dimensions is given by

$$\beta =20\pi N$$
(6.8)
The conserved mass, found from the general expression (7.13) (again, see section 7) is

$$𝔐=256\pi ^3m$$
(6.9)
The above expression for the conserved mass can be shown to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics for black holes in both the NUT and Bolt cases.

In the flat space limit, again substituting the root $`r_b`$ (6.15), (6.7) becomes

$$I32m\pi ^3\beta $$

### 6.1 Taub-NUT-AdS Solution

The mass parameter in 10 dimensions is

$$m_n=\frac{64N^7(10N^2\mathrm{}^2)}{35\mathrm{}^2}$$
(6.10)
upon elimination of conical singularities at $`r=N`$. Using the methods of sec. 7, the action is

$$I_{NUT}=\frac{8192\pi ^4N^8(8N^2\mathrm{}^2)}{7\mathrm{}^2}$$
(6.11)
and the entropy and specific heat are

$`S_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8192\pi ^4N^8(72N^27\mathrm{}^2)}{7\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (6.12)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{65536\pi ^4N^8(7\mathrm{}^290N^2)}{7\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (6.13)
The overall signs here are the same as in the 6 dimensional NUT case, as expected. Note that the action becomes negative for $`N<\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{8}}`$, the entropy for $`N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{7}{72}}`$, and the specific heat for $`N>\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{7}{90}}`$. A plot of the entropy and the specific heat as functions of $`N/\mathrm{}`$ (Figure 4.1) is similar to the 6 dimensional case: there is no region in which both are simultaneously positive, and so the 10 dimensional Taub-NUT-AdS solution is thermodynamically unstable. As before the high temperature limits of the entropy and specific heat are zero, as is the high temperature limit of the action.

The flat space limits ($`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$) of these quantities in 10 dimensions are

$`I_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8192\pi ^4N^8}{7}}`$
$`S_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`8192\pi ^4N^8`$
$`C_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`65536\pi ^4N^8`$
indicating that asymptotically locally flat spacetimes with NUT charge in ten dimensions are thermodynamically unstable for all values of $`N`$.

### 6.2 Taub-Bolt-AdS Solution

Setting $`r_+=r_b`$, the mass parameter in 10 dimensions is

$`m_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{70l^2r_b}}[35r_b^{10}+5(\mathrm{}^245N^2)r_b^8+14N^2(45N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^6`$ (6.14)
$`+70N^4(\mathrm{}^215N^2)r_b^4+35N^6(45N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+35N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)]`$
Condition (ii) now becomes $`F^{}(r_b)=\frac{1}{5N}`$, forcing $`r_b`$ to be

$$r_{b\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{}^4900N^2\mathrm{}^2+8100N^4}}{90N}$$
(6.15)
As before, we require this to be real, and $`r_b>N`$, which gives

$$N\frac{\sqrt{30}2\sqrt{5}}{30}=N_{\text{max}}$$
(6.16)
Employing the methods of section 7 the Bolt action becomes

$`I_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{35(9r_b^29N^2+\mathrm{}^2)}}[35r_b^{10}5(\mathrm{}^2+27N^2)r_b^8+14N^2(2\mathrm{}^2+9N^2)r_b^6`$ (6.17)
$`70N^4(\mathrm{}^23N^2)r_b^435N^6(27N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b^235N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)]`$
Regularity implies $`\beta =\left|\frac{4\pi }{F^{}(r_b)}\right|`$, which gives

$$\beta _{Bolt}=\frac{70\pi (r_b^2N^2)^5\mathrm{}^2}{\rho }$$
(6.18)
with

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`35r_b^{11}175r_b^9N^2+2N^2(4\mathrm{}^2+135N^2)r_b^7+14N^4(15N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b^5`$
$`+35N^6(8\mathrm{}^275N^2)r_b^3+245mr_b^2\mathrm{}^2+35N^8(8\mathrm{}^281N^2)r_b+35m\mathrm{}^2N^2`$
We again note that by substituting in $`r_b=r_b`$ and $`m=m_b`$ into $`\beta _{Bolt}`$, the temperature is the same as in the NUT case. The Bolt entropy is

$`S_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{35(9r_b^29N^2+\mathrm{}^2)}}[315r_b^{10}+5(7\mathrm{}^2387N^2)r_b^8+14N^2(369N^214\mathrm{}^2)r_b^6`$ (6.19)
$`+70N^4(7\mathrm{}^2117N^2)r_b^4+35N^6(333N^228\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+245N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)]`$
(with $`r_b=r_{b\pm }`$). The specific heat is, explicitly,

$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_{b\pm })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{256\pi ^4\mathrm{}^{10}(326592000N^63564000\mathrm{}^2N^4+9450\mathrm{}^4N^27\mathrm{}^6)}{117705877734375N^8}}`$ (6.20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{256\pi ^4}{117705877734375N^8\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{}^4900N^2\mathrm{}^2+8100N^4}}}\times `$
$`(34867844010000000000N^{20}4649045868000000000N^{18}\mathrm{}^2`$
$`+99007458300000000N^{16}\mathrm{}^4+1147912560000000N^{14}\mathrm{}^6`$
$`+25509168000000N^{12}\mathrm{}^8+141717600000\mathrm{}^{10}N^{10}43040160000N^8\mathrm{}^{12}`$
$`+1318032000\mathrm{}^{14}N^67136100N^4\mathrm{}^{16}+12600N^2\mathrm{}^{18}7\mathrm{}^{20})`$
The flat space limits for the lower branch solutions are,

$`I_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{19914752N^8\pi ^4}{7}}`$
$`S_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`19914752N^8\pi ^4`$
$`C_{Bolt}(r_b=r_b)`$ $``$ $`159318016N^8\pi ^4`$
The lower branch Bolt radius goes to $`5N`$, and so in the flat space limit, the Bolt mass goes to

$$m_b\frac{5r_b^828r_b^6N^2+70r_b^4N^4140N^6r_b^235N^8}{70r_b}=\frac{155584}{35}N^7$$
(6.21)
As in six dimensions, the upper branch Bolt quantities are all ($`\pm `$) infinity in the high temperature limit; the lower branch quantities are all zero. In ten dimensions, the upper branch solutions for the entropy and specific heat are thermodynamically stable; the lower branch solutions are thermodynamically unstable. The plots of these are qualitatively similar to the six and eight dimensional cases.

### 6.3 Nöther conserved quantities

We take the Taub-bolt solution in 10 dimensions (6.1) as the dynamical metric with mass parameter (6.14) and identification of period (6.18). The background is the Taub-NUT metric (6.1) with mass parameter (6.10). Now the spacetime vector field is

$$\xi =_\tau +a_{\theta _1}+b_{\theta _2}+c_{\theta _3}+d_{\theta _4}$$
(6.22)
which by definition produces the Nöther conserved quantity $`Q=m+aJ_1+bJ_2+cJ_3+dJ_4`$ of the corresponding dynamical metric relative to the background. Evaluating the superpotential (2.4) on the solutions $`(g,\overline{g})`$ then integrating on a spatial region $`(\tau =\tau _0,r=r_0)`$ and expanding in the limit $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, we obtain $`Q=Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$, where

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(2r_0^98N^2r_0^7+\frac{4}{35}N^2(4\mathrm{}^2+65N^2)r_0^5\frac{8}{35}N^4(12\mathrm{}^285N^2)r_0^3`$
$`+\frac{2}{35}N^6(232\mathrm{}^22285N^2)r_0+\frac{1}{5r_b}(35r_b^{10}+5(45N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^8+14N^2(45N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^6`$
$`+70N^4(15N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^4+35N^6(45N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+35N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{35\kappa \mathrm{}^2r_b}}(35r_b^{10}+5(45N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^8+14N^2(45N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^6+70N^4(\mathrm{}^215N^2)r_b^4+`$
$`+35N^6(45N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b^2+128N^7(\mathrm{}^210N^2)r_b+35N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(2r_0^9+8N^2r_0^7\frac{4}{35}N^2(4\mathrm{}^2+65N^2)r_0^5+\frac{8}{35}N^4(12\mathrm{}^285N^2)r_0^3+`$
$`\frac{2}{35}N^6(232\mathrm{}^22285N^2)r_0+\frac{128}{5}N^7(10N^2+\mathrm{}^2))+O(r_0^1)`$
We see again that $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ diverge as $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, while the total conserved quantity $`Q`$ does not. In fact

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi ^4}{\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(\frac{1024}{35}N^7(\mathrm{}^210N^2)+`$
$`(8r_b^9+\frac{8}{7}(45N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^7+\frac{16}{5}N^2(45N^22\mathrm{}^2)r_b^5+16N^4(15N^2+\mathrm{}^2)r_b^3`$
$`+8N^6(45N^24\mathrm{}^2)r_b+\frac{8}{r_b}N^8(9N^2\mathrm{}^2)))+O(r_0^1)`$
As before, no contribution from the angular part of $`\xi `$ survives, and so $`J_1=J_2=J_3=J_4=0`$. Interpreting Q as the relative mass, we find

$$Q=\frac{1024\pi ^4}{\kappa }(m_bm_n)$$
(6.23)
As before, from the first law of thermodynamics we have

$$\delta S=20\pi N\delta Q$$
(6.24)
where $`S`$ is interpreted as the relative entropy of the two solutions. After a tedious calculation we find

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{256\pi ^5}{2615686171875\kappa N^7\mathrm{}^2}((1456542000\mathrm{}^8N^8+3443737680000000N^{16}88573500000\mathrm{}^6N^{10}`$ (6.25)
$`2869781400000\mathrm{}^4N^{12}143489070000000N^{14}\mathrm{}^2+3555900\mathrm{}^{12}N^4`$
$`318573000\mathrm{}^{10}N^69450\mathrm{}^{14}N^2+7\mathrm{}^{16})r_b3443737680000000N^{17}`$
$`10975500\mathrm{}^{12}N^535N\mathrm{}^{16}+16183800\mathrm{}^{10}N^7+296544078000000N^{15}\mathrm{}^2`$
$`+984150000\mathrm{}^8N^9+31886460000\mathrm{}^6N^{11}+1594323000000\mathrm{}^4N^{13}+39690\mathrm{}^{14}N^3)`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }\left(S_{Bolt}S_{NUT}{\displaystyle \frac{216064\pi ^4\mathrm{}^8}{20503125}}\right)`$
## 7 General Solution

The pattern obtained so far for the Taub-NUT/Bolt-AdS solutions can straightforwardly be extended to arbitrary even dimensionality . We consider in this section the basic thermodynamics of this general solution.

The general form for the Taub-NUT/Bolt-AdS class of metrics for a $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`(S^2)^{\left(n2\right)}`$ is

$$ds^2=F(r)(d\tau +2N\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i)^2+\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+(r^2N^2)(d\theta _i^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _i)d\varphi _i^2)$$
(7.1)
with $`i`$ summed from $`1`$ to $`n2`$. For convenience we have set $`n=d+1`$. The general form for $`F(r)`$ is

$$F(r)=\frac{r}{(r^2N^2)^k}^r\left[\frac{(s^2N^2)^k}{s^2}+\frac{2k+1}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{(s^2N^2)^{k+1}}{s^2}\right]𝑑s\frac{2mr}{(r^2N^2)^k}$$
(7.2)
where $`n=2k+2`$, and the parameter $`m`$ is an integration constant. From (7.1), general expressions for the Ricci scalar and metric determinant can be found, as well as general expressions for the Ricci scalar and metric determinant on the boundary (as $`r\mathrm{}`$). From the expressions for the metric determinant and Ricci scalar of the $`d`$-dimensional boundary metric,

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`F(r)(r^2N^2)^{n2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _i)`$ (7.3)
$`R(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`(n2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r^2N^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(r)N^2}{(r^2N^2)^2}}\right]`$ (7.4)
it is straightforward to show that, by expanding the combinations of these functions in (2.12) for large $`r`$, the only finite contribution from the counter term action (2.12) comes from the first term as $`r\mathrm{}`$. All of the other terms will either go to zero or diverge, and hence be used to cancel the divergences from (2.9), (2.10).

The reason for this can be seen as follows. From (7.2) we have

$$F(r)=\underset{j}{}r^{2p_j}\frac{2m}{r^{2k+1}}+\text{terms that vanish (even after integration) as }r\mathrm{}\text{ }$$

where the $`p_j`$’s are positive integers. All divergences must therefore be cancelled by terms that are even powers of $`r`$ in the large-$`r`$ limit. Any term appearing in one of the counterterms that depends on $`m`$ must also depend upon an odd power of $`r`$, because of the above expansion of $`F`$. It therefore cannot cancel a divergence. Because of dimensionality, all non-divergent counterterm contributions that depend on $`m`$ must be down by at least one power from $`\frac{2m}{r^{2k+1}}`$, ie they must at least behave like $`\frac{2m}{r^{2k+2}}`$. These will all vanish upon integration, since $`\sqrt{\gamma }r^{2k+1}`$in the large-$`r`$ limit. Likewise all non-divergent counterterm contributions that do not depend on $`m`$ must be down by two powers, so they will vanish as well after integrating. We have explicitly checked these statements up to and including $`20`$ dimensions.

We thus obtain

$$I_{ct\text{finite}}=\frac{(n2)(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{8\pi }m$$
(7.5)
for the general finite contribution from the counter-term action.

For the finite contribution from the boundary action (2.10), a general expression for the trace of the extrinsic curvature $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be obtained from the metric (7.1)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{F^{}(r)}{2\sqrt{F(r)}}+(n2)\frac{r\sqrt{F(r)}}{(r^2N^2)}$$
(7.6)
Expanding $`\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for large $`r`$, the general finite contribution from the boundary action is

$$I_{B\text{finite}}=\frac{(n1)(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{8\pi }m$$
(7.7)
Finally, using the general expressions for the metric determinant and $`R(g)`$,

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`(r^2N^2)^{(n2)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _i)`$ (7.8)
$`R(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (7.9)
the general expression for the finite $`I_B`$ term can be found. (Note that $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _i)`$ from both $`g`$ and $`\gamma `$ contribute to the volume element $`(4\pi )^k`$). Substituting these into (2.9), we get

$$I_B=\frac{(n1)(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{8\pi \mathrm{}^2}𝑑r(r^2N^2)^{(n2)/2}$$
(7.10)
The integrand here can be expanded using the binomial theorem and integrated, term by term, for the range $`r=(r_+,r^{})`$, where $`r^{}r\mathrm{}`$, and so the general expression for the finite contribution from the bulk action is

$$I_{B\text{finite}}=\frac{(n1)(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{8\pi \mathrm{}^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{(n2)/2}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{(n2)}{2}}{i}\right)(1)^iN^{2i}\left[\frac{r_+^{n2i1}}{n2i1}\right]$$
(7.11)
Adding together (7.11), (7.7) and (7.5) as in (2.8), the general expression for the action in $`n=d+1`$ dimensions is

$$I=\frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{8\pi \mathrm{}^2}\left[m\mathrm{}^2(n1)\underset{i=0}{\overset{(n2)/2}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{(n2)}{2}}{i}\right)(1)^iN^{2i}\frac{r_+^{(n2i1)}}{(n2i1)}\right]$$
(7.12)
The expression (2.13) can also be used to find the conserved mass for the Taub-NUT/Bolt-AdS class of metrics in any dimension. The divergence cancellations take place in a manner analogous to that described above for the action. We find

$$𝔐=\frac{(n2)(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}m}{8\pi }$$
(7.13)
and we have explicitly checked that it satisfies the first law of thermodynamics for $`n=4\mathrm{}20`$ (even dimensions) for both the NUT and Bolt solutions (see below).

### 7.1 General NUT Solution

Using the binomial expansion on (7.2), and the condition $`F(r=N)=0`$, a general formula

$`m_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{n3}}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\left[\mathrm{}^2nN^2\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{(n2)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{(n2)}{2}}{i}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(1)^i}{n2i3}}`$ (7.14a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{n3}}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}^2}}\left[\mathrm{}^2nN^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}{\left(n3\right)}}`$ (7.14b)
for the NUT mass can be obtained. From this, and from the identity
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{i}\right)\frac{(1)^i}{(2k2i+1)}=\left(\frac{2k+2}{2k+1}\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\frac{(1)^i}{(2k2i1)}$$
(7.15)
which can be proven by induction, we see that the general form of the NUT mass will remain the same ($`\left[\mathrm{}^2nN^2\right]`$), since the sum in (7.14a) is a constant. However the overall sign will change (in the large-$`\mathrm{}/N`$ limits) alternating between the (even) dimensionalities.

Using (7.12), the general form for the NUT action is

$$I_{NUT}=\frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)N^{n3}\left[(n2)N^2\mathrm{}^2\right]$$
(7.16)
where, as with $`m_n`$, there is an alternating sign between even dimensionalities, though its overall form remains the same.

It is now an easy matter to find the general form of the NUT entropy, using (7.13) and (2.15). We find that

$$S_{NUT}=\frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)N^{n3}\left[(n1)(n2)N^2(n3)\mathrm{}^2\right]$$
(7.17)
Likewise a general expression for the specific heat can be found, using the relation $`C=\beta _\beta S`$ and the general form

$$\beta =2n\pi N$$
(7.18)
for $`\beta `$; we obtain

$$C_{NUT}=\frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)N^{n3}\left[n(n1)(n2)N^2(n2)(n3)\mathrm{}^2\right]$$
(7.19)
Examining (7.16), (7.17), and (7.19), we see that the NUT quantities all vanish in the high temperature limit as $`N0`$. Notice also that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)`$ will produce a minus sign for every odd value of $`k`$ (recall $`n=2k+2`$). This will mean that, for odd $`k`$ ($`n=4,8,12,\mathrm{}`$), the entropy and specific heat will both be positive in the following range:

$$\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(n3)}{n(n1)}}<N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(n3)}{(n1)(n2)}}$$
(7.20)
Hence, for odd $`k`$, the NUT solutions will be thermally stable in this range, which becomes increasingly narrow with increasing dimensionality. For even $`k`$ ($`n=6,10,14,\mathrm{}`$), however, no minus sign is produced, meaning that the entropy will be positive for $`N>\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{n3}{(n1)(n2)}}`$, and the specific heat will be positive for $`N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(n3)}{n(n1)}}`$. Since the second value will always be larger than the first, this means there is no range in which both will be positive, and thus for all even $`k`$, the NUT solutions will be thermally unstable.

Also, the general flat space action, entropy and specific heat will be given by

$`I_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3n}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)N^{n3}`$ (7.21)
$`S_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3n}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)N^{n3}(n3)`$ (7.22)
$`C_{NUT}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3n}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)N^{n3}(n2)(n3)`$ (7.23)
Notice that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)`$ will give the same sign change with an increase in (even) dimension in the flat space limit values for $`S_{NUT},C_{NUT}`$. This means that in any dimension, the asymptotically locally flat pure NUT solutions will always be thermally unstable, for any dimension.

### 7.2 General Bolt Solution

The conditions for arbitrary ($`n=d+1`$) dimensions that give a regular Bolt at $`r=r_b>N`$ are $`F(r_b)=0`$ and $`F^{}(r_b)=\frac{2}{nN}`$.

The first condition implies from (7.2) that

$$m_b=\frac{1}{2}\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\frac{(1)^iN^{2i}r_b^{2k2i1}}{(2k2i1)}+\frac{(2k+1)}{\mathrm{}^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{i}\right)\frac{(1)^iN^{2i}r_b^{2k2i+1}}{(2k2i+1)}\right]$$
(7.24)
from which a general expression for the Bolt action can be obtained

$`I_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi \mathrm{}^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2k+1)(1)^kN^{2k+2}}{r_b}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}}\right)(1)^iN^{2i}r_b^{2k2i}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r_b(2k2i1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_b(2k+1)(k2i+1)}{(2k2i+1)(ki+1)}}]\}`$
by substituting $`m=m_b`$ in (7.12). Next, using eq. (2.15), and substituting $`m=m_b`$ into (7.13), we find

$`S_{Bolt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi \mathrm{}^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)(2k+1)(1)^kN^{2k+2}}{r_b}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}}\right)(1)^iN^{2i}r_b^{2k2i}[{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)\mathrm{}^2}{r_b(2k2i1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2k+1)(2k^2+3k2i+1)r_b}{(2k2i+1)(ki+1)}}]\}`$
for the general expression for the Bolt entropy in $`n=d+1`$ dimensions. The explicit expression for the specific heat is extremely cumbersome; we shall not include it here.

An analysis of the general bolt case is somewhat awkward, though it is possible to deduce some general trends. For example, we see that the relative entropies ($`S_{Rel}=S_{Bolt}(r=r_b)S_{NUT}`$) increase (with increasing $`N`$) faster as we increase the number of dimensions. This can be seen in Figure 7.2, where we plot the relative entropies from four to ten dimensions. From small values of $`N`$, the entropy increases with decreasing dimensionality. However this rapidly changes once $`N`$ becomes sufficiently large, in which case the entropy rapidly increases with increasing dimensionality like $`N^{d2}`$. In Figure 7.2, we have plotted the relative entropies with the prefactor of $`N^{d2}`$ scaled out (so that all relative entropies are unity at $`N=0`$) – we see that entropy still increases with increasing dimensionality.

## 8 Conclusions

Our general investigation of the thermodynamics of the $`\left(d+1\right)`$ -dimensional class of Taub-NUT-AdS metrics has yielded a number of specific results which we recapitulate here. We have shown consistency between the Noether-charge and counterterm approaches despite the a-priori distinction between the two methods. The surprising results  obtained in four dimensions carry over to higher dimensionalities, with certain qualifications. For $`4k`$ dimensions there is a finite range of $`N/\mathrm{}`$ for which both the entropy and specific heat are positive

$$\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(n3)}{n(n1)}}<N<\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(n3)}{(n1)(n2)}}$$
(8.1)
for the NUT cases. Outside of this range at least one of these quantities becomes negative. In $`4k+2`$ dimensions no such range exists: either the entropy or specific heat (or both) is negative for a given value of $`N/\mathrm{}`$ . In contrast to this, for all bolt cases there exists a thermodynamically stable region in which both the entropy and specific heat are positive, as well as a thermodynamically unstable region. The general behaviour is illustrated in figs. 4.2, 4.4, 4.4. For large $`d`$, the magnitudes of all thermodynamic quantities diverge, with $`C_{\text{NUT}}dS_{\text{NUT}}`$. $`d^2I_{\text{NUT}}`$, with an overall factor of $`N^{d1}`$ common to each.

It is difficult to know how to interpret such results. Since they depend sensitively on the analytic continuation of the NUT parameter to imaginary values, it is not clear to what extent they can be carried over to a Lorentzian framework. The appearance of negative entropy for a rather broad range of values of $`N/\mathrm{}`$ in the NUT cases is particularly troubling. We have taken this to mean that such spacetimes are thermodynamically unstable. However we find from both the Noether charge and counterterm approaches that the entropy difference between the NUT and bolt cases is always positive. It would be useful to confirm (or refute) these results by other methods that do not depend upon analytic continuation.

We close with some comments on the relationship between the Noether-charge and counterterm approaches. The former approach invokes a background spacetime in order to make all quantities well-defined. A Noether-charge result for $`(d+1)`$ dimensions is rather tedious to obtain. However based on the earlier results for $`4,6,8`$ and $`10`$ dimensions, we conjecture that

$$Q=\frac{(d1)(4\pi )^{(d1)/2}}{8\pi }\left(m_bm_n\right)=𝔐_{bolt}𝔐_{NUT}$$

The entropy is then computed up to an overall constant of integration by assuming the first law to be valid, in which case we then obtain

$$S_Q=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }(S_{Bolt}S_{NUT})+c_l$$

where $`c_l`$ is an $`N`$-independent constant. Although it can have no effect on the first law of thermodynamics, (since this law is only sensitive to changes of entropy) it is important in ensuring that the ground state of the theory (ie the small $`N`$) limit is not degenerate.

We can see this as follows. From eqs. (7.13), (7.14b) and (7.17) that if we define a quantity $`\widehat{S}`$ such that

$$d\widehat{S}=\beta d𝔐_{NUT}=\beta \frac{d𝔐_{NUT}}{dN}dN$$
(8.2)
then upon inserting (7.14b) into this relation and integrating we find

$$\widehat{S}=\frac{(4\pi )^{(n2)/2}\beta }{16\pi ^{3/2}\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)N^{n3}\left[(n1)(n2)N^2(n3)\mathrm{}^2\right]=S_{NUT}$$
(8.3)
which is the general formula for the pure NUT entropy. Consequently it is the Bolt solutions that have the additional constant, since the relation

$$dS_Q=\beta dQ=\beta d𝔐_{bolt}\beta d𝔐_{NUT}$$
(8.4)
implies that

$$S_{bolt}+c_l=\beta \frac{d𝔐_{bolt}}{dN}𝑑N$$
(8.5)
It is easy to obtain this constant from the Gibbs-Duhem relation (2.15) by inserting the explicit functional form of $`r_b(N)`$ into this relation and isolating the $`N`$-independent term. This has the form

$$c_l=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}^2}C_{d+1}\left(\pi \mathrm{}^2\right)^{\left(d+1\right)/2}$$
(8.6)
in $`\left(d+1\right)`$ dimensions, where we have computed these coefficients up to $`d=19`$:

$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`1/3,\text{ }C_6={\displaystyle \frac{112}{675}},\text{ }C_8={\displaystyle \frac{17}{343}},\text{ }C_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{216064}{20503125}}\text{ }C_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{22672}{13045131}}`$
$`C_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{930414592}{3975084764287}},\text{ }C_{16}={\displaystyle \frac{58253}{2187000000}},\text{ }C_{18}={\displaystyle \frac{7092488372224}{2702551358937608649}},`$ (8.7)
$`\text{ }C_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{28736819456}{126049881944921875}}`$
and these constants are the same for both branches $`r_{b+}`$ and $`r_b`$ . We have plotted them in fig. (8.1).

It is straightforward to check that the constant in eq. (8.6) ensures that the Bolt entropy vanishes in the small-$`N`$ limit. This ensures that there is no ground-state ($`N=0`$) degeneracy in the associated CFT. The Noether-charge method, of course, is insensitive to any such $`N`$-independent constant, as is clear from eq. (8.5). An off-shell comparison between the two approaches should shed further light on these and other issues.

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by INdAM-GNFM.


format: text

text:
# Different definitions of the chemical potential in the action with identical partition function in QCD on a lattice

## Abstract

It is shown that starting from one and the same transfer matrix formulation of QCD on a lattice, it is possible to obtain both the action of Hasenfratz and Karsch as well as an action where the chemical potential is not coupled to the temporal links.

Numerical simulations of QCD at finite baryon density have met with long standing difficulties . It is then natural to inquire whether the situation cannot be improved by modifying the action used in the path integral. Special attention deserves the coupling of the chemical potential, whose form is due to Hasenfratz and Karsch . They noticed that if in the euclidean path integral of relativistic gauge theories regularized on a lattice the chemical potential is coupled to the fermi fields as in classical systems, specific counterterms are necessary which would be extremely unconvenient in numerical simulations. To avoid this shortcoming, guided by the analogy between chemical potential and temporal gauge field, they coupled the chemical potential in the same way as the gauge fields in the Wilson regularization. They showed that this definition does not require any counterterms, at least in the free theory. After some further analysis , this definition has been accepted as essentially unique for practical purposes .

The feature of the Hasenfratz-Karsh prescription which attracts our attention is the point splitting which implies that the chemical potential must be coupled also to the temporal gauge links. It has a topological consequence, in the sense that only the temporal Polyakov loops give contributions to the path integral which depend on the chemical potential. This looks like a mere lattice artifact, because it does not have any known counterpart in the continuum. But if the interplay between chemical potential and Polyakov loop is an artifact it could be eliminated. This appears an interesting possibility from the point of view of numerical simulations because a term of toplogical nature is expected to affect them significantly.

Therefore we started a systematic investigation of QCD at finite baryon density. We first avoided the use of the chemical potential by considering QCD in a given baryon sector . The resulting effective action differs by the unconstrained action by terms with a quite different structure with respect to the coupling of the chemical potential in the Hasenfratz-Karsch action. Encouraged by this result we reconsidered the definition of the chemical potential starting from the transfer matrix formalism. The passage to the path integral, as far as the fermion fields are concerned, is based on the insertion of the identity expressed in terms of coherent states in the trace of the transfer matrix. But this can be done in different ways. A possibility which leads exactly to the Hasenfratz-Karsch prescription has been fully investigated . The point splitting and the exponentiation of the chemical potential are in this case a consequence of the properties of Grassmannian kernels of fermionic operators . But among other possibilities we show here that there is one where there is no point splitting and the chemical potential is not coupled to the temporal links. For Kogut-Susskind fermions in the flavour basis it is not coupled to the gauge fields at all.

We start from the definiton of the grand canonical partition function at finite baryon density according to the ordered product

$$Z=Tr\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu a_0}{T}\widehat{Q}_B\right)\underset{n_0}{}\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)\right\}.$$
(1)
$`a_0`$ is the lattice spacing in the temporal direction, $`n_0`$ the temporal component of the site position vector $`n`$, $`N_0`$ is the number of links in the temporal direction, $`T`$ the temperature

$$T=\frac{1}{a_0N_0},$$
(2)
$`\widehat{Q}_B`$ is the baryon charge operator and $`\widehat{𝒯}_q`$ is the quark transfer matrix. The pure gauge part of the transfer matrix has been omitted because it does not play any role in the problem. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is determined by the condition that the expectation value of the baryon number be

$$q_B=Z^1Tr\left\{\widehat{Q}_B\mathrm{exp}(\mu N_0\widehat{Q}_B)\underset{n_0}{}\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)\right\}.$$
(3)
$`\widehat{𝒯}_q`$ can be written  in terms of an auxiliary operator $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$

$$\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)=𝒥^1\widehat{T}_q^{}(n_0)\widehat{T}_q(n_0+s),$$
(4)
where $`𝒥`$ is a function of the gauge fields which will be defined later and $`s=\pm 1`$ for Wilson/Kogut-Susskind fermions respectively. This difference in sign does not reflect any intrinsic difference, but is only due to the different conventions adopted by Lüscher  and Montvay-Münster , which we maintain for easy reference. The case of Kogut-Susskind fermions will be treated in the flavour basis, because we do not know a suitable formulation of the transfer matrix in the spin diagonal basis. Obviously it is very simple to reexpress the result into this basis, but this introduces awkward nonminimal gauge couplings of the type discussed in .

$`\widehat{T}_q`$ is defined in terms of quark-antiquark creation-annihilation operators $`\widehat{x}^{},\widehat{y}^{},\widehat{x},\widehat{y}`$ acting in a Fock space. It depends on the time coordinate $`n_0`$ only through the dependence on it of the gauge fields. In fact the creation and annihilation operators do not depend on $`n_0`$. They depend on the spatial coordinates $`𝐧`$ of the sites or, in the case of Kogut-Susskind in the flavour basis, of the blocks, and on Dirac, flavour and color indices, $`\alpha ,f,c`$ sometimes comprehensively represented by $`I`$.

In the transfer matrix formalism often one has to do with quantities at a given (euclidean) time $`n_0`$. For this reason we adopt a summation convention over spatial coordinates and intrinsic indices at fixed time. So for instance we will write

$$\widehat{x}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{x}=\underset{𝐦,𝐧,I,J}{}\widehat{x}_{𝐦,I}^{}M_{𝐦,I;𝐧,J}(n_0)\widehat{x}_{𝐧,J},$$
(5)
where $`M`$ is an arbitrary matrix. In this notation the baryonic charge $`\widehat{Q}_B`$ and the auxiliary operator $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$ can be written

$$\widehat{Q}_B=\widehat{x}^{}\widehat{x}\widehat{y}^{}\widehat{y}$$
(6)
$$\widehat{T}_q(n_0)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\widehat{x}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{x}\widehat{y}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{y}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\widehat{y}N(n_0)\widehat{x}\right].$$
(7)
Their form is the same for Wilson and Kogut-Susskind fermions but the matrices $`M`$ and $`N`$ are different in the two cases and will be specified later. The expression of $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$ is valid in the gauge $`U_0=11`$ which is not admissible. But Menotti and Pelissetto  extended the proof of reflection positivity to the gauge $`U_011`$ where $`U_0=11`$ with the exception of a single time slice. In the construction of the path integral formulation of QCD at finite baryon density we do not need to fix the gauge, but to lighten the formalism we will nevertheless put $`U_0=11`$ and we will reinstate $`U_0`$ in the final result. The reader can check that keeping $`U_0`$ in the intermediate steps one arrives at the same result, provided some care is exercised: for instance when $`U_011`$ the expression $`\widehat{x}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{x}+\widehat{y}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{y}`$ appearing in Eq. 7 changes and does not commute with $`\widehat{Q}_B`$ any longer. We anticipate that $`N`$ is hermitean and also $`M`$ is hermitean in the gauge $`U_0=11`$.

Before transforming the trace into a Berezin integral it is convenient to “distribute” the exponential of the charge operator among the factors in the trace

$$Z=Tr\left\{\underset{n_0}{}\left[\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu \widehat{Q}_B\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(8)
Now we introduce between the factors in the above equation the identity

$$11=[dx^+dxdy^+dy]\mathrm{exp}(x^+xy^+y)|xy><xy|,$$
(9)
where the basis vectors

$$|xy>=|\mathrm{exp}(x\widehat{x}^{}y\widehat{y}^{})>$$
(10)
are coherent states and the $`x^+,x,y^+,y`$ are Grassmann variables. They will be labeled by the time slice where the unit operator is introduced. For the other indices they are subject to the same convention as the creation and annihilation operators.

Different realizations of the path integral arise depending on the way this insertion is performed. The one leading to the Hasenfratz-Karsch prescription has been discussed in detail . Here we consider another possibility based on the following way of writing the exponential of the charge operator

$`\mathrm{exp}(\mu a_0\widehat{Q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [dx^+dxdy^+dy]\mathrm{exp}(\delta S)}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(x^+xy^+y)|xy><xy|`$ (12)
where

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a_0)\right)(x^+x+y^+y)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\mu a_0)(x^+xy^+y).`$ (14)
The above expression is obtained by expanding the exponential of the charge operator, ordering all the annihilation operators to the left of the creation ones and inserting in each monomial the unity between the set of annihilation and the set of creation operators. For the rightmost exponential of the baryon charge one has to move the creation operators to the leftmost position before taking the trace. Replacing the operators by their Grassmannian eigenvalues one gets the above result.

Now the construction of the path integral proceeds in the standard way , yielding the action for zero chemical potential plus the term generated by $`\delta S`$. To write down this term we must distinguish the case of Wilson fermions from that of Kogut-Susskind.

For Wilson fermions we set $`s=1`$ in Eq. 4 and assume

$`M_W(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\left(2K\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{1}{2}}(n_0)\right),`$ (15)
$`N_W(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`2KB(n_0)^{\frac{1}{2}}c(n_0)B(n_0)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (16)
where K is the hopping parameter and

$`B(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`11K{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\widehat{U}_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}+T_j^{()}\widehat{U}_j^+(n_0)\right)`$ (17)
$`c(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}i\sigma _j\left(\widehat{U}_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}\widehat{U}_j^+(n_0)\right).`$ (18)
The link operators $`\widehat{U}_\mu (n_0)`$ have the standard Wilson variables $`U_\mu (n)`$ as spatial matrix elements

$$\left(\widehat{U}_\mu (m_0)\right)_{𝐦,𝐧}=\delta _{𝐦,𝐧}U_\mu (m).$$
(19)
We have introduced the translation operators $`T_j^{(\pm )}`$ with matrix elements

$$\left(T_j^{(\pm )}\right)_{𝐧_1,𝐧_2}=\delta _{𝐧_2,𝐧_1\pm e_j},$$
(20)
$`e_\mu `$ being the unit vectors

$$\left(e_\mu \right)_\nu =\delta _{\mu ,\nu }.$$
(21)
Next we define the quark field $`q`$ by the transformation

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`B^{\frac{1}{2}}P_0^{(+)}q,y=B^{\frac{1}{2}}P_0^{()}q`$ (22)
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`q^{}\gamma _0`$ (23)
where

$$P_0^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \gamma _0\right).$$
(24)
The jacobian of this transformation is the function $`𝒥`$ introduced in Eq. 4. The partition function takes the form

$$Z_W=[d\overline{q}dq]\mathrm{exp}\left(S_W+\delta S_W\right),$$
(25)
where

$`S_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{K{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}[\overline{q}(n)(1+\gamma _\mu )U_\mu (n)q(n+e_\mu )`$ (27)
$`+\overline{q}(n+e_\mu )(1\gamma _\mu )U_\mu ^{}(n)q(n)]\overline{q}(n)q(n)\}`$
is the Wilson action with Wilson parameter $`r=1`$ and zero chemical potential and the contribution of the chemical potential is obtained from Eq. 14

$`\delta S_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{\overline{q}(n_0)[(1\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a_0))`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\mu a_0)\gamma _0]B(n_0)q(n_0)\}.`$ (29)
The first term breaks the chiral symmetry, but this is only a consequence of the breaking by the Wilson term. Indeed we will see that the corresponding term for Kogut-Susskind fermions respects the chiral invariance. Notice the ”plus” sign in the exponential of the action, to comply with Lüscher’s convention.

The case of Kogut-Susskind fermions will studied only in the flavour basis. The $`n_\mu `$ are now the block coordinates and the gauge fields are defined on the block links. We set $`s=1`$ in Eq. 4 and assume

$`M_{KS}(n_0)=0`$ (30)
$`N_{KS}(n_0)=\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\gamma _5t_5t_j+\gamma _j(P_j^{()}\widehat{U}_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}`$ (31)
$`P_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}\widehat{U}_j^+(n_0))]+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{K}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}111+\gamma _5t_5t_0\},`$ (32)
where $`m`$ is the quark mass parameter and K the hopping parameter. In the tensor product the $`\gamma `$-matrices act on Dirac indices, while the $`t`$-matrices

$$t_\mu =\gamma _\mu ^T$$
(33)
act on flavor indices. The projection operators $`P_\mu ^{(\pm )}`$ are given by

$$P_\mu ^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1111\pm \gamma _\mu \gamma _5t_5t_\mu \right].$$
(34)
The quark field $`q`$ is obtained by the transformation

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{K}P_0^{(+)}q,y^+=4\sqrt{K}P_0^{()}q`$ (35)
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`q^{}\gamma _0`$ (36)
whose jacobian is the function $`𝒥`$ introduced in Eq. 4. The partition function takes the form

$$Z_{KS}=[d\overline{q}dq]\mathrm{exp}\left[16\left(S_{KS}+\delta S_{KS}\right)\right],$$
(37)
where

$`S_{KS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K\{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{q}(n)(\gamma _\mu 11\gamma _5t_5t_\mu )U_\mu (n)q(n+e_\mu )`$ (38)
$``$ $`\overline{q}(n)\left(\gamma _\mu 11+\gamma _5t_5t_\mu \right)U_\mu ^{}(ne_\mu )q(ne_\mu )`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`2\overline{q}(n)\gamma _5t_5t_\mu q(n)+am\overline{q}(n)1111q(n)\}`$ (40)
is the Kogut-Susskind action with zero chemical potential and the chemical potential contribution is obtained from Eq. 14

$`\delta S_{KS}`$ $`=`$ $`K\{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{q}(n)[(1\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a_0))\gamma _5t_5t_0`$ (42)
$`+\mathrm{sinh}(\mu a_0)\gamma _011]q(n)\}.`$
The factor $`16`$ in front of the action accounts for the fact that the volume element with Kogut-Susskind fermions is 16 times larger than in the Wilson case.

Let us emphasize that the partition functions with the present action and with that of Hasenfratz and Karsch are identical with one another. It is worth while checking this identity in the free case and comparing to the “naive” definition. For simplicity we will consider only the Wilson case neglecting the mass and the spatial Wilson term. But notice that we cannot omit also the temporal one, because otherwise we cannot construct the transfer matrix. We then consider the quark matrix

$$Q=\gamma _0(a_0_0+\sigma )+a_0\gamma +\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\mathrm{}_0+1R$$
(43)
where

$`(_\mu f)(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a_\mu }}\left[f(n+e_\mu )f(ne_\mu )\right]`$ (44)
$`(\mathrm{}_\mu f)(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_\mu }}\left[f(n+e_\mu )+f(ne_\mu )2\right]`$ (45)
and

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\mu a_0),R=\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a_0),\mathrm{new}\mathrm{definition}`$ (46)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mu a_0,R=1,\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{naive}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{definition}.`$ (47)
We now evaluate the energy density $``$ at zero temperature, setting $`a_\mu =a`$. Normalizing at zero baryon density

$$=\frac{1}{2\pi ^3a^4}_\pi ^\pi d^3qs^2\left[(\mu )(0)\right],$$
(48)
where

$$s^2=\underset{j}{}\left(1\mathrm{cos}q_j\right),$$
(49)
$`(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑q_0\left[(\mathrm{sin}q_0i\sigma )^2+s^2+(\mathrm{cos}q_0R)^2\right]^1`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{A^2B^2}}}[1\theta (RA)].`$ (51)
$`\theta `$ is the step function. With the new definition

$`RA`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[s^2+2(1\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[s^2(\mu a)^2]`$ (52)
$`A^2B^2`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}s^2\right]`$ (53)
while with the ‘naive” definition

$`RA`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[s^2(\mu a)^2\right]`$ (54)
$`A^2B^2`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu a)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu a)^4}{4s^2}}\right].`$ (55)
Therefore in the “naive” case the energy density has a quadratic divergence, while with the new definition

$$=\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\mu ^4$$
(56)
is equal to the value obtained by the Hasenfratz-Karsch prescription in the presence of the temporal Wilson term (without the spatial one).

In conclusion we have shown how starting from one and the same transfer matrix we can realize identical path integrals with different actions for QCD at finite baryon density. In the action constructed in the present work the chemical potential is not coupled to the temporal links, in contrast to the Hasenfratz-Karsh prescription. It might therefore have quite different properties in numerical simulations which it could be interesting to investigate.