format: text

text:
# Contents

## Introduction

String theory is a candidate for a fundamental theory that unifies all the forces present in Nature. Three of them, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions, are well described by a consistent quantum theory, the Standard Model, which agrees with experiments. However, the fourth interaction, gravity, is not included in the Standard Model. Gravity is described as the dynamics of spacetime by the theory of General Relativity, which is a classical theory. This interaction can be neglected at the energy scale of the interactions of the Standard Model but at higher energies both quantum and gravitational effects are relevant, making thus necessary a quantum theory of gravity. The energy at which quantum effects are not negligible in the description of spacetime defines the Planck scale, which is of the order of $`10^{19}GeV`$. However, when one tries to quantize gravity one finds a non-renormalisable quantum field theory, and a new physics is expected to appear at this energy scale.

In string theory particles appear as vibration modes of the string, and among these modes there is a massless one with spin 2 which can be identified with the graviton. These strings propagate in spacetime describing surfaces, called world-sheets, which generalize the world-line described by point particles. The string interactions are constructed by joining or splitting these world-sheets, and then the interaction is smeared in spacetime. This is an intrinsically perturbative picture which generalizes the one of point particles.

The formulation of a quantum theory of relativistic strings generalizes also the one of point particles. The action describing the propagation of a string in spacetime has as dynamical fields a set of real functions which describe the embedding of the string in spacetime. This theory is required to have the symmetries of general relativity and the Standard Model, that is, diffeomorphism invariance and gauge symmetry. However, more symmetries appear in this formulation such as conformal symmetry and supersymmetry, the latter being introduced to include fermions in the world-sheet. Superstring theory is only consistent in ten spacetime dimensions and one finds that there are five consistent superstring theories, all different at the perturbative level. Moreover, in order to get an effective four dimensional physics one has to compactify the six extra dimensions, which can be performed in many inequivalent ways without a preferred one. Thus, all this is against the hope that string theory is a fundamental theory of Nature.

The problem of the number of string theories is solved by duality. String dualities relate different string theories and show that they are unified in a single theory. They also provide information on the strong coupling regimes of the different string theories, since some of these dualities map the weak coupling regime of a superstring theory to the strong coupling regime of another one. The different string theories have been conjectured to be different limits of an underlying eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.

One can obtain effective actions describing the dynamics of the string modes. If one computes the effective action for massless modes with small energies compared to the string tension, one gets the different ten dimensional supergravities. These actions have classical solutions which can be identified as solitons of the full string theory. Some of these string solitons can be interpreted as extended p-dimensional objects which are called p-branes. These objects are non-perturbative, since their mass goes as the inverse of the string coupling constant, and are important tools to test dualities among different regimes of string theories. Indeed, p-branes are useful because they are supersymmetric objects and some of their properties do not vary when the string coupling constant changes. A particular case of p-branes are the Dp-branes, which are extended objects carrying charge under certain fields appearing in the supergravity actions.

On the other hand, D-branes can be identified as hyperplanes on which open strings with certain boundary conditions can end. Indeed, when one computes the masses and charges of these objects they match with the ones of solitonic extended Dp-brane solutions. D-branes become then true dynamical objects, their fluctuations in shape and form being determined by the dynamics of the strings ending on them. One can use this to compute an effective action for the fluctuations of the branes. In this thesis we will use the low energy effective actions for the branes of string and M-theory to study some relevant configurations of brane probes in different supergravity backgrounds, and some aspects of the dynamics of branes will be discussed.

This Ph.D. thesis is based on papers  and . It is structured as follows. In chapter 1 we give an introduction to string theory, discussing briefly the dualities among the different string theories and the appearance of M-theory. The low-energy effective actions for the two possible closed string theories will be reviewed and some of their BPS solutions will be listed. We are interested in extremal solutions corresponding to stacks of coincident branes and in some of their non-threshold bound states, since these solutions will be used as supergravity backgrounds in which our brane probes propagate. To end the chapter some aspects of Dp-branes are discussed and the Maldacena conjecture is introduced.

In chapter 2, the supersymmetric effective action for bosonic Dp-branes will be constructed. This action posesses a local fermionic symmetry, called kappa symmetry, which guarantees that the number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom coincide. It will also be presented a proposal for the non-abelian generalization of the above action which describes the dynamics of multiple coincident D-branes. The dynamics which results from this action implies that Dp-branes can be polarized by external fields. This is the so called Myers polarization effect. To end the chapter, it will be given a kappa-symmetric Born-Infeld-like worldvolume action for the bosonic M5-brane of M-theory.

In chapter 3, we study the embedding of D(8-p)-branes in the background geometry of parallel Dp-branes for $`p6`$. The embeddings we obtain represent branes joined by tubes. By analyzing the energy of these tubes we conclude that they can be regarded as bundles of fundamental strings. Our solution provides an explicit realization of the Hanany-Witten effect.

In chapter 4, we study some wrapped configurations of branes in the near-horizon geometry of a stack of other branes. The common feature of all the cases analyzed is a quantization rule and the appearance of a finite number of static configurations in which the branes are partially wrapped on spheres. The energy of these configurations can be given in closed form and the analysis of their small oscillations shows that they are stable. The brane configurations found admit the interpretation of bound states of strings (or M2-branes in M-theory) which extend along the unwrapped directions. We check this fact directly in a particular case by using the Myers polarization mechanism.

In chapter 5, we study giant graviton configurations of brane probes in the background created by a stack of non-threshold bound states. We show that for a particular value of the worldvolume gauge field there exist configurations of the brane probe which behave as massless particles and can be interpreted as gravitons blown up into a fuzzy sphere and extended over a noncommutative plane. We check this behaviour by studying the motion and energy of the brane and by determining the way in which supersymmetry is broken by the probe as it moves under the action of the background.

## Chapter 1 Superstrings and M-theory

The aim of this chapter is to make a very short introduction to string theory and M-theory. Special attention is paid to p-branes. Section 1.1 is devoted to the presentation of the five different superstring theories and their respective low energy effective actions for the massless fields. The standard references to this material are . In section 1.2 a short description of the dualities among the different string theories is presented and this leads to the appearance of M-theory in section 1.3. In section 1.4 some solitonic extended solutions of the superstring effective actions and 11 dimensional supergravity are listed. These solutions can be interpreted as extended objects (p-branes) and are BPS states preserving some fraction of the target space supersymmetries. Some bound states of p-branes are also written, since they will be of interest in the following chapters. In section 1.5 some facts about D-branes are discussed and finally, in section 1.6, we comment about the Maldacena conjecture.

### 1.1 Perturbative string theory

We want a classical and quantum description of a string moving in a flat spacetime of D dimensions. A one-dimensional object sweeps out a two-dimensional worldsheet, which can be described in terms of two parameters $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$. The simplest reparametrization invariant action one can construct, the Nambu-Goto action, is proportional to the area of the world-sheet,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{det(h_{ab})},$$
(1.1.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the world-sheet and $`h_{ab}=_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The tension of the string is $`T_f=1/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$. One can simplify the Nambu-Goto action by introducing an independent world-sheet metric $`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\sigma )`$. In fact, the action

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1.2)
is equivalent to (1.1.1) when the equation of motion of $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is used in (1.1.2). The variation $`\delta _\gamma S=0`$ implies that $`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\sigma )`$ is proportional to the induced metric:

$$\gamma _{ab}(\gamma )^{1/2}=h_{ab}(h)^{1/2}.$$
(1.1.3)
The action (1.1.2) is called Polyakov action. Apart from the reparametrization invariance this action has D-dimensional Poincaré invariance and two-dimensional Weyl invariance

$`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\tau ,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),`$
$`\gamma _{ab}^{}(\tau ,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\omega (\tau ,\sigma )}\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (1.1.4)
for arbitrary $`\omega (\tau ,\sigma )`$. The Weyl invariance has no analog in (1.1.1) and this is because eq. (1.1.3) determines $`\gamma _{ab}`$ up to a local rescaling, so Weyl-equivalent metrics correspond to the same embedding in spacetime. One can use two reparametrizations and one Weyl rescaling to fix the three independent parameters of $`\gamma _{ab}`$ such that $`\gamma _{ab}=\eta _{ab}`$, where $`\eta _{ab}`$ is the two dimensional Minkowski metric. The action (1.1.2) then becomes:

$$S=\frac{T_f}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \eta ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1.5)
Varying $`X^\mu `$ in (1.1.5) one gets

$$\delta S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \delta X_\mu \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }X^\mu \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau \delta X^\mu _\sigma X_\mu |_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =\pi },$$
(1.1.6)
where we have taken the coordinate region corresponding to the world-sheet to be $`\mathrm{}\tau \mathrm{}`$, $`0\sigma \pi `$. The volume term gives the equation of motion

$$\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }X^\mu =0.$$
(1.1.7)
The second term is a surface term. It vanishes automatically for a closed string, since in this case the fields are periodic:

$`X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`X^\mu (\tau ,0)`$
$`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,0)`$
$`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,0)`$ (1.1.8)
In this way the endpoints are joined to form a closed loop and there is no boundary. For the open string one can have two sets of boundary conditions:

$`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,0)=_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Neumann},`$
$`\delta X^\mu (\sigma =0)=\delta X^\mu (\sigma =\pi )=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Dirichlet}.`$
The Neumann boundary conditions for the open string mean that there is no momentum flow through the endpoints of the string. Dirichlet boundary conditions break Poincaré invariance and require the endpoints of the string to be fixed to a hyperplane.

Different boundary conditions correspond to different spectra. The massless spectrum of the closed string contains a particle of spin two which can be identified with the graviton, an scalar field $`\varphi `$ (the dilaton) and an antisymmetric two-form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, the NSNS two-form. The spectrum of an open string moving in flat spacetime with Neumann boundary conditions in all directions contains a vector field $`A_\mu `$. A theory of open strings contains necessarily closed strings since one can join the endpoints of two open strings to form a closed string.

One can include fermions in the worldsheet by making the action supersymmetric. The world-sheet action for the superstring, with the world-volume metric gauge fixed to flat Minkowski metric, is

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left\{\eta ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu +i\overline{\psi }^\mu \gamma ^a_a\psi ^\nu \right\}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1.10)
where $`\psi ^\mu =\psi ^\mu (\sigma )`$ are the world-sheet spinors carrying a vectorial index of the SO(1,9) spacetime Lorentz group. This action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations

$$\delta _ϵX^\mu =i\overline{ϵ}\psi ^\mu ,\delta _ϵ\psi ^\mu =\gamma ^a_aX^\mu ϵ.$$
(1.1.11)
This symmetry closes on-shell to the momentum operator. In two dimensions the spinors $`\psi `$ can be Majorana-Weyl, and if we denote by $`\gamma _2`$ the chirality operator in two dimensions, then the spinor $`\psi `$ splits in two chiral components, $`\psi =\psi _L+\psi _R`$ or, in two component notation

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R\\ \psi _L\end{array}\right).$$
(1.1.12)
The fermionic term of (1.1.10) can be rewritten as:

$$\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left\{\psi _R^\mu _+\psi _R^\nu +\psi _L^\mu _{}\psi _L^\nu \right\}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1.13)
in terms of the light-cone coordinates $`\sigma ^\pm =\tau \pm \sigma `$. The equations of motion $`_+\psi _R^\mu =0`$, $`_{}\psi _L^\mu =0`$ imply that the fermions with positive and negative chirality are respectively right and left moving. The boundary condition for the case of the open superstring is

$$0=(\psi _L^\mu \delta \psi _{L}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\psi _R^\mu \delta \psi _{R}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{})|_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =\pi }.$$
(1.1.14)
One can impose two different sets of boundary conditions for the fermionic fields: $`\psi _R=\pm \psi _L`$. If at both ends of the open string we have the condition with the same sign, the fermionic fields $`\psi ^\mu `$ will be integer moded. This is called the Ramond (R) sector. If, on the contrary, they have opposite sign, the $`\psi ^\mu `$ will be half-integer moded. This is called the Neveu-Schwarz (NS) sector.

For a closed string we have two possible choices of the periodicity condition for the fermions: $`\psi _R^\mu (\sigma =2\pi )=\pm \psi _R^\mu (\sigma =0)`$, and similarly for $`\psi _L^\mu `$. The $`+`$ and $``$ sign correspond respectively to the R or NS sector respectively. However, we have now two independent choices to make. There will be thus four different sectors, namely NS-NS, R-R, R-NS and NS-R.

In the R sector of the open string the ground state has to be a representation of the algebra of the zero modes of the fermionic fields $`\psi _0^\mu `$, which is actually the Clifford algebra for the space-time Lorentz group $`SO(1,9)`$. If we classify the states in terms of the representations of the little group $`SO(8)`$, we see that the ground state of the R sector can be chosen to be either in the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_+`$ or in the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_{}`$ representation (which differ by their chirality). On the other hand, the ground state of the NS sector has a negative vacuum energy of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ (when the minimal gap for the bosonic fields is 1), and it is a singlet of $`SO(8)`$. This state is hence a tachyon. When acting on it with a $`\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ mode, a massless state is created with the indices of the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v`$ vectorial representation of $`SO(8)`$.

Spacetime supersymmetry requires the same number of on-shell bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom at each mass level. This is achieved when the GSO projection is performed, which basically corresponds to set to zero all the states in the NS sector which are created by acting with an even number of fermionic creation operators on the vacuum, and fixes the chirality of the R sector of the ground state. The tachyon is then eliminated from the spectrum. The massless sector of the open superstring consists of the states $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+`$ and realize $`𝒩=1`$ $`D=10`$ chiral supersymmetry. They correspond to a massless vector boson and its fermionic superpartner. The fermionic superpartner of the gauge boson is a ten dimensional spinor with 16 independent components, which reduce to 8 when the equations of motion are used, matching the 8 physical components of the gauge field.

In the closed superstring theories the right moving and the left moving sectors decouple, and each one is quantized in exactly the same way as for the open string. The massless sector of a closed string theory is then a tensor product of two copies of the open string massless sector. There are however two different tensor products that one can make, depending on whether one takes the Ramond ground states of the opposite chirality on the two sides or of the same chirality. Since the effective theory of the open superstring has $`𝒩=1`$ spacetime supersymmetry, we will have a theory with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. For the closed string we will have then 32 independent spinor components. The GSO projection acts independently on each sector of the two copies of the open superstring, and then one can choose the R sectors in the left and right movers to have the same or opposite chirality.

##### Type IIA

This theory corresponds to choosing the R states with opposite chirality and then the spacetime theory is non-chiral. The massless particles are classified along the following representations of $`SO(8)`$:

$`(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_v)_{NSNS}+(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_v)_{RR}`$ (1.1.15)
$`+(\mathrm{𝟖}_++\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_{})_{NSR}+(\mathrm{𝟖}_{}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_+)_{RNS}.`$
The bosonic particles of the NSNS sector are respectively a scalar field related to the dilaton $`\varphi `$, a rank-two antisymmetric tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ and a rank-two symmetric traceless tensor related to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the graviton. In the RR sector we find a vector and a 3-index antisymmetric tensor, which correspond to the fields $`C_\mu ^{(1)}`$ and $`C_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)}`$. The space-time fermions are in the RNS and NSR sectors, the $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_\pm `$ representations corresponding to the two gravitini. Thus the theory at the massless level has $`𝒩=2`$ spacetime supersymmetry. Moreover, since the gravitini have opposite chiralities, the theory is non-chiral. The action for a ten dimensional non-chiral theory with $`𝒩=2`$ and gravity is completely fixed and is called type IIA supergravity. This action reproduces the interactions between the massless fields computed from string theory amplitudes. The effective action for the massless modes can be also obtained from the string world-sheet action in a curved background and requiring that conformal invariance is not broken quantum mechanically, i.e., the $`\beta `$-function must vanish. The action for the bosonic sector is:

$`I_{IIA}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_N}}[{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g}\{e^{2\varphi }(+4(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{(3)}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{(2)}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}F_{(4)}^2\}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }B_{(2)}dC^{(3)}dC^{(3)}].`$
(1.1.16)
We have defined the field strengths in the following way:

$`H_{(3)}=dB_{(2)},`$
$`F_{(2)}=dC^{(1)},`$
$`F_{(4)}=dC^{(3)}H_{(3)}C^{(1)}.`$ (1.1.17)
The metric in the action above is the string metric, which appears in the string action in a curved background. The fields coming from the NSNS sector have a $`e^{2\varphi }`$ factor in front of their kinetic term, while the RR fields not. The Newton constant appearing in (1.1.16) depends on the only arbitrary dimensionful parameter of the string action, $`\alpha ^{}`$, through $`G_N(\alpha ^{})^4`$. The string coupling constant is actually the vacuum expectation value of the dilaton, $`g_s=e^\varphi `$. It is thus determined dynamically. The action (1.1.16) is the leading term in both the $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the $`g_s`$ expansion.

##### Type IIB

In this theory both left and right moving sectors have the same chirality. The massless particles are classified in representations of $`SO(8)`$:

$`(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_v)_{NSNS}+(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_+)_{RR}`$ (1.1.18)
$`+(\mathrm{𝟖}_{}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_+)_{NSR}+(\mathrm{𝟖}_{}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_+)_{RNS}.`$
The NSNS sector is exactly the same as the one of the type IIA superstring. The RR sector is different. It contains a scalar (or 0-form) $`\chi `$, a 2-form $`C_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}`$ and a 4-form potential $`C_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}^{(4)}`$. The field strength of the 4-form potential has to be self-dual in order that $`C^{(4)}`$ fits into the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_+`$ representation. The space-time fermions of the NS-R and R-NS sectors are two gravitini, now of the same chirality. We have thus a chiral ten-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ theory with gravity. This is type IIB supergravity . One can write an action that reproduces the field equations of motion but the condition of self-duality must be imposed by hand. The bosonic truncation of the low-energy effective action of the type IIB superstring is:

$`I_{IIB}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_N}}[{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g}\{e^{2\varphi }(+4(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{(3)}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\chi )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}F_{(3)}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{240}}F_{(5)}^2\}+{\displaystyle }C^{(4)}dC^{(2)}dC^{(2)}],`$
(1.1.19)
where the RR field strengths are defined by

$`F_{(3)}=dC^{(2)}\chi H_{(3)},`$
$`F_{(5)}=dC^{(4)}H_{(3)}C^{(2)},F_{(5)}={}_{}{}^{}F_{(5)}^{}.`$ (1.1.20)
##### Type I

This is a theory of open and closed non-oriented strings. The massless spectrum of the type I theory contains the spectrum of open non-oriented strings and closed non-oriented strings. The type II closed strings cannot be coupled consistently to the open strings, since they have $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry whereas the massless modes of the open superstring realize $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. It is necessary to divide by two the supersymmetry of the closed theories. This can be done if we require the closed strings to be non-oriented. To construct a theory of unoriented strings we define the world-sheet parity operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which changes the orientation of the string ($`\sigma 2\pi \sigma `$ for the closed string and $`\sigma \pi \sigma `$ for the open string). This operation interchanges the left and right moving sectors of the world-sheet of closed strings and interchanges the two ends of the open string. The parity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a symmetry of the type IIB superstring, since left and right movers have the same chirality. Then if we project the spectrum by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we are left with invariant states only, corresponding to a theory of unoriented strings. Only half of the massless states survive:

$$\frac{(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_v)_{NSNS}+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟖})_{RR}+(\mathrm{𝟖}_{}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_+)_{RNSNSR},$$
(1.1.21)
We are left with a graviton, a scalar and an antisymmetric tensor in the bosonic sector and a Majorana-Weyl gravitino and a Majorana-Weyl fermion completing the (chiral) $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity multiplet in ten dimensions.

One must add open strings to achieve consistency at the quantum level. They originate a gauge sector in the theory since they can carry charges at their endpoints in way consistent with spacetime Poincaré invariance and world-sheet conformal invariance. This is performed by adding $`n`$ non-dynamical degrees of freedom at the ends of the string labeled with an index $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$. These are called Chan-Paton factors. One can define an action with a $`U(n)`$ symmetry in these factors. If the factors are taken to be in the fundamental representation of the $`U(n)`$ group, an open string state becomes an $`n\times n`$ matrix transforming under $`U(n)`$ in the adjoint representation. The massless vector of the string spectrum becomes a $`U(n)`$ Yang-Mills field in the low energy action. If the string is unoriented, the group becomes either $`SO(n)`$ or $`Sp(n)`$ but the only anomaly-free theory is the one with the group $`SO(32)`$. Thus, the low-energy effective action of the type I superstrings is $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity in 10 dimensions coupled to a super Yang-Mills theory  with gauge group $`SO(32)`$. It has only one free parameter, $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the bosonic part of the action has the same structure as the type II ones, with a $`e^{2\varphi }`$ factor in front of the NSNS fields, and nothing in front of the RR one.

##### Heterotic Strings

This is a theory of closed oriented strings. This construction exploits the fact that in closed string theories the quantization of the right and left moving sectors can be carried out independently. The heterotic string is an hybrid of a bosonic string in one sector and a superstring in the other. For both sectors, the quantization is consistent if the central charge of the corresponding Conformal Field Theory vanishes. This means that the central charge for bosons and fermions must cancel the one coming from the ghosts, which is -26 for the bosonic string and -15 for the superstring. Each boson and each fermion contributes respectively 1 and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to the central charge and then, there must be 26 bosons for the bosonic string, and 10 bosons for the superstring. One can consider that supersymmetry is present only in, say, the right moving sector. As the number of bosons is the same as the number of dimensions of the spacetime we have that the superstring is only consistent in ten dimensions. However the left sector is only consistent in 26 dimensions. We must add something to make this sector consistent in ten dimensions. We use the freedom to choose the fields which will build up the $`c=26`$ central charge in ten dimensions. Ten of these fields are the left-moving part of the bosonic embedding coordinates. In order to complete $`c=26`$ we add 32 chiral fermions carrying an $`SO(8)`$ scalar representation. In this new fermionic sector one can impose periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions. If we choose the same for all the fermions then the system is invariant under $`SO(32)`$ rotations. This is the $`SO(32)`$ heterotic string. If we had imposed periodic boundary conditions in half of the fermions and anti-periodic in the other half we would have the $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string. Performing the tensorial product of the right moving sector with the left moving space-time vector we get:

$$(\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+)_R(\mathrm{𝟖}_v)_L=(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_v)_B+(\mathrm{𝟖}_{}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}_+)_F,$$
(1.1.22)
where all the particles in the r.h.s. are singlets of the $`SO(32)`$ or $`E_8\times E_8`$. The remaining left moving massless states are in the adjoint of one of the two groups above, and are $`SO(8)`$ scalars. We obtain the $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity multiplet plus $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet of an $`SO(32)`$ or $`E_8\times E_8`$ gauge theory. The massless state content of the heterotic string is the same as the one of the type I superstring. The low-energy effective action for the heterotic strings is then $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity coupled to super Yang-Mills with the Yang-Mills fields in the adjoint representation. There is an important difference with the other string theories: there are no RR fields in the spectrum.

We have briefly presented the five consistent supersymmetric string theories. All them seem to be unrelated. However we restricted ourselves to the perturbative regime of the theories and we do not have a description at strong coupling. In section 1.2 we will see that all the string theories are related to each other by dualities. Some of these dualities relate the perturbative description of a theory with the non-perturbative regime of the other, thus giving information of this regime without an explicit formulation. The picture left by the dualities among the different string theories leads to the conjecture that the five string theories can be interpreted as different limits of an underlying theory, which is M-theory.

### 1.2 String dualities

Two theories are related by a duality if there is a one-to-one map between their physical spectra, and if their dynamics are also equivalent. They are thus two different descriptions of the same physics.

A theory is described by a set of parameters called moduli. For the case of string theory these are the string coupling constant, the parameters of the background metric and the value of the remaining background fields. Dualities are specified by some sets of rules relating the two moduli spaces of the theories such that some region in the moduli space of a string theory is mapped to another region of the moduli space of the same or another theory. In the former case the duality is a symmetry of the theory. Some dualities involve a map between a weak and a strongly coupled theory, and thus only the knowledge of non-perturbative regime could establish the existence of such a duality.

A particular example of duality is the electric-magnetic duality of the Maxwell theory, in which two different regimes of the same theory are related. Maxwell’s equations of motion are invariant under the change of the electric and magnetic fields and the simultaneous change of the sources (if we are not in the vacuum). The sources for magnetic flux are the magnetic monopoles. They are solutions of the classical equations of motion of Yang-Mills theories. These solutions satisfy a BPS bound in their masses which relates the mass of the monopole to its charge through a proportionality relation. Otherwise, the coexistence of electric and magnetic charges is quantum mechanically consistent if the Dirac quatization condition $`eg=2\pi n,n\mathrm{ZZ}`$ is satisfied. This means that the monopole is a solitonic particle with its mass going as $`1/g_{YM}`$, where $`g_{YM}`$ is the coupling constant of the theory. Thus in the weakly coupled theory the monopoles are very massive particles. If one goes to strong coupling the monopoles become very light.

The electric-magnetic duality maps particles of the perturbative spectrum such as the bosons of the broken gauge symmetry to magnetic monopoles (one has to consider $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory for this map to be consistent). This map takes the coupling constant $`g_{YM}`$ to its inverse $`g_{YM}1/g_{YM}`$. Thus there is a duality symmetry of the theory which interchanges strong with weak coupling and solitons with perturbative states.

The proof of the duality discussed above would involve the knowledge of the strong coupling dynamics of the theory. However, supersymmetry gives some information about this regime. Extended supersymmetry allows the presence of central charges in the superalgebra and this implies the existence of massive BPS states which preserve some of the supersymmetries and fit into short massive supermultiplets. The key point is that the dimension of a supermultiplet cannot depend on a continuous parameter such as, for example, the coupling constant, and then these states remain at any value of the coupling. If two theories are related by a duality, then this duality must relate the BPS states of both theories. Indeed, the relation between the mass and the charge of a given state does not change when the coupling constant varies.

##### T-duality

Let us consider a closed string moving in a spacetime in which one of the spatial directions is compact. We can take this direction to be $`x^9`$ and if we compactify it on a circle of radius R then we make the following identification:

$$x^9x^9+2\pi R.$$
(1.2.1)
We have seen that the equations of motion for the bosonic fields of the string action imply that they split into a right and a left moving part

$$X^\mu =X_L^\mu (\sigma ^+)+X_R^\mu (\sigma ^{}),\sigma ^\pm =\tau \pm \sigma .$$
(1.2.2)
For the closed string one has to impose periodicity conditions in the non-compact directions.

$$X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma +2\pi )=X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),$$
(1.2.3)
The mode expansions for the closed string consistent with the periodicity conditions are

$`X_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`x_L^\mu +\alpha ^{}p_L^\mu \sigma ^++i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\alpha _n^\mu e^{2in\sigma ^+},`$
$`X_R^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`x_R^\mu +\alpha ^{}p_R^\mu \sigma ^{}+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu e^{2in\sigma ^{}},`$ (1.2.4)
where $`x_{L,R}^\mu `$ and $`p_{L,R}^\mu `$ are real and $`(\alpha _n^\mu )^{}=\alpha _n^\mu `$, and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$. The total momentum carried by the string is $`p^\mu =p_L^\mu +p_R^\mu `$.

On the other hand, the string has the possibility to wrap around the compact direction a certain number of times and the periodicity condition for this direction changes into

$$X^9(\tau ,\sigma +2\pi )=X^9(\tau ,\sigma )+2\pi wR.$$
(1.2.5)
The number $`w`$ is integer valued and is the number of times the string winds around the compact direction. The momentum in the compact direction is quantized in order for the wave function $`e^{ip^9X^9}`$ to be single valued. We then have $`p^9=n/R`$ with $`n`$ an integer. Therefore, the solution of the equations of motion allowing for this boundary condition is

$$X^9=x^9+\alpha ^{}\frac{n}{R}\tau +wR\sigma +i\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\underset{l0}{}\frac{1}{l}\left(\alpha _l^9e^{2il\sigma ^+}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_l^9e^{2il\sigma ^{}}\right),$$
(1.2.6)
The separation in left and right modes is then

$`X_L^9(\sigma ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^9+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Rw}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)\sigma ^++i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\alpha _l^9e^{2il\sigma ^+},`$
$`X_R^9(\sigma ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^9+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{Rw}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)\sigma ^{}+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_l^9e^{2il\sigma ^{}}.`$ (1.2.7)
There are two quantum numbers, $`w`$ and $`n`$, which describe the momentum and winding modes respectively. The Hamiltonian for the closed string is

$$H=\alpha ^{}\frac{P^2}{2}+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\left[\frac{n^2}{R^2}+\frac{R^2w^2}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\underset{l0}{}(\alpha _n\alpha _n+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n)\right],$$
(1.2.8)
where $`P^\mu `$ is the 9-dimensional non-compact spacetime momentum. Using that $`P^2=M^2`$ and that the Hamiltonian must vanish on-shell, one can obtain the mass of a closed string wound $`w`$ times in the compact direction:

$$M^2=\frac{n^2}{R^2}+\frac{R^2w^2}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(1.2.9)
The spectrum of eq. (1.2.9) is invariant if we perform the simultaneous change:

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{R}},`$
$`n`$ $``$ $`w.`$ (1.2.10)
Momentum and winding numbers are exchanged. The fixed point of this transformation $`\mathrm{}_s=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ is the minimum length in string theory since any string probing a smaller distance can be reformulated in a length scale larger than $`\mathrm{}_s`$.

The left and right moving momenta can be read from eqs. (1.2.4) and (1.2.7):

$`p_L^9={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Rw}{\alpha ^{}}}\right),`$
$`p_R^9={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{Rw}{\alpha ^{}}}\right).`$ (1.2.11)
They transform in the following way under (1.2.10):

$$p_L^9p_L^9,p_R^9p_R^9.$$
(1.2.12)
Then the spectrum is also invariant under this T-duality transformation provided that

$$\alpha _n^9\alpha _n^9,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^9\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^9.$$
(1.2.13)
Thus T-duality can be seen as a spacetime parity transformation acting on the right moving degrees of freedom:

$$X^9=X_L^9+X_R^9X^{}_{}{}^{}9=X_L^9X_R^9.$$
(1.2.14)
We can now see that because of the world-sheet supersymmetry, the fermionic superpartner $`\psi ^9`$ also has to transform under T-duality, as $`\psi _L^9\psi _L^9`$ and $`\psi _R^9\psi _R^9`$. The parity transformation has also the effect of changing the chirality of the right-moving RR ground state, thus mapping type IIA superstring theory to type IIB and viceversa.

We have seen that T-duality is a symmetry of closed string theory since the spectrum remains invariant. T-duality is perturbative since it maps the perturbative spectrum of type IIA closed string theory compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$ to the perturbative spectrum of type IIB theory compactified on a circle of radius $`1/R`$. Since there is only one supergravity in nine dimensions, the T-duality symmetry is realised at the level of low-energy effective actions as a mapping between the fields of type IIA and IIB supergravities.

One can see how T-duality relates the string coupling constants of IIA and IIB theories if one requires the Newton constant in nine dimensions to be invariant. The form of the supergravity actions (1.1.16) and (1.1.19) determines the relation of the Newton constants in nine and ten dimensions:

$$G_{10}\frac{G_9R_{10}}{g_s^2}.$$
(1.2.15)
The nine-dimensional Newton constant derived from the IIA and IIB theories must be the same:

$$\frac{g_A^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{R_A}=\frac{g_B^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{R_B}.$$
(1.2.16)
The radius of compactification are related by (1.2.10) $`R_B=\alpha ^{}/R_A`$. Since the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$ does not change, we get

$$g_B=g_A\frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{R_A}.$$
(1.2.17)
The same relation follows if we exchange $`AB`$.

##### T-duality in Type I theory

The open strings have no winding modes and then it is clear that an open string cannot be T-dual to itself. However, one can see how T-duality acts on the modes of the open string. As we have seen in (LABEL:strbc) one can impose two sets of boundary conditions for the open string:

$`_\sigma X^\mu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,\mathrm{Neumann},`$
$`_\tau X^\mu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,\mathrm{Dirichlet}.`$ (1.2.18)
The Neumann boundary conditions impose $`\alpha _n^\mu =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ and $`p_L^\mu =p_R^\mu `$ causing the left- and right-moving components to combine into standing waves

$$X^\mu =x^\mu +2\alpha ^{}p^\mu \tau +i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\alpha ^\mu e^{in\tau }\mathrm{cos}n\sigma .$$
(1.2.19)
On the other hand the Dirichlet boundary conditions at both ends of the string impose that $`\alpha _n^\mu =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ and the most general expansion has the form

$$X^\mu =x^\mu +\frac{1}{\pi }(y^\mu x^\mu )\sigma +i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^\mu e^{in\tau }\mathrm{sin}n\sigma .$$
(1.2.20)
In terms of the left- and right-movers the boundary conditions are given by:

$`_+X_L^\mu _{}X_R^\mu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Neumann},`$
$`_+X_L^\mu +_{}X_R^\mu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Dirichlet},`$ (1.2.21)
with $`\sigma ^\pm =\tau \pm \sigma `$.

Let us consider type I theory, that is, open strings with Neumann b.c. in all directions. The most general open string expansion for left- and right-movers is

$`X_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x^\mu +y^\mu )+\alpha ^{}p_L^\mu \sigma ^++i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\alpha _n^\mu e^{in\sigma ^+},`$
$`X_R^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x^\mu y^\mu )+\alpha ^{}p_R^\mu \sigma ^{}+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu e^{in\sigma ^{}},`$ (1.2.22)
where we have introduced the constant vector $`y^\mu `$ which does not appear in $`X^\mu =X_L^\mu +X_R^\mu `$. Let us compactify the 9th direction in a circle of radius R. The momentum along this direction will be again $`p^9=m/R`$. As for the closed strings T-duality acts as a world-sheet parity transformation

$$X^9=X_L^9+X_R^9X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}=X_L^9X_R^9.$$
(1.2.23)
After T-duality in the 9th direction and taking $`y^\mu =(0,\mathrm{},0,y^9)`$ we get

$$X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}=y^9+2\alpha ^{}\frac{m}{R}\sigma +i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^9e^{in\tau }\mathrm{sin}n\sigma .$$
(1.2.24)
This component carries winding but no momentum and is of the form (1.2.20) and then it satisfies Dirichlet boundary conditions. Indeed the endpoints of the strings are fixed at points

$$X^9(\sigma =0)=y^9,X^9(\sigma =\pi )=y^9+2\pi m\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R}=y^9+2\pi mR^{},$$
(1.2.25)
where $`R^{}`$ is the dual radius.

It is remarkable that T-duality for open strings exchanges Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions. We have seen that open strings with Dirichlet b.c. in some directions have their endpoints constrained to live in hyperplanes. D-branes are precisely the hyperplanes on which the open strings can end and, as we will see later, they are true dynamical objects. Thus D-branes appear naturally when T-duality acts on open strings. If one starts from a theory of open superstrings and T-dualizes on $`9p`$ directions one gets the string endpoints constrained to lie on a $`p`$-dimensional hyperplane which corresponds to a Dp-brane. If there is only one brane the two endpoints of the string are constrained to lie on the same hyperplane ($`X(\sigma =0)=y`$ and $`X(\sigma =\pi )=y+2\pi wR`$) with $`w`$ an integer. However only the mode $`w=1`$ is topologically conserved, since for higher $`w`$ there is the possibility for the string to break when it crosses the D-brane.

From the analysis above we see that when T-duality is performed on a direction transverse to the Dp-brane, then this transforms it into a D(p+1)-brane, while if the T-duality is performed along a direction longitudinal to the worldvolume of the Dp-brane then it becomes a D(p-1)-brane.

When $`R0`$ the states of the open string with non-zero momentum along the compact direction become infinitely massive. This leaves a theory in $`D1`$ dimensions whereas the closed strings live in D dimensions. What happens is that the open strings have their endpoints constrained to move in a hyperplane and the scalar field describing the embedding of the worldsheet into the T-dualized direction is fixed by the Dirichlet boundary condition. Thus the string still vibrates in D dimensions but with their endpoints constrained to lie on the hyperplane.

##### S-duality

This is a duality specific of type IIB theory. In the type IIB spectrum (1.1.18) we have two scalars (the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the RR 0-form potential $`\chi `$), and two 2-forms (the RR potential $`C_{(2)}`$ and the NSNS potential $`B_{(2)}`$). The equations of motion of type IIB theory are invariant under a $`SL(2,\mathrm{IR})`$ symmetry. If we arrange the RR scalar $`\chi `$ and the dilaton in a complex scalar $`\lambda =\chi +ie^\varphi `$, then the $`SL(2,\mathrm{IR})`$ symmetry acts like:

$$\lambda \frac{a\lambda +b}{c\lambda +d},$$
(1.2.26)
where the parameters $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are real and $`adbc=1`$. The 2-form potentials transform as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{(2)}\\ C_{(2)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& c\\ b& a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{(2)}\\ C_{(2)}\end{array}\right).$$
(1.2.27)
The NSNS 2-form potential $`B_{(2)}`$ couples to the fundamental string and the corresponding charge is the winding number, which is quantized. The $`SL(2,\mathrm{IR})`$ group is then broken to $`SL(2,\mathrm{ZZ})`$.

For the particular case in which the RR scalar is taken to zero and taking into account that $`g_s=e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ the $`SL(2,\mathrm{ZZ})`$ transformation becomes:

$$g_s\frac{1}{g_s},B_{(2)}C_{(2)},C_{(2)}B_{(2)}.$$
(1.2.28)
Thus, we see that this duality is non-perturbative, since it exchanges weak and strong coupling. The change $`B_{(2)}C_{(2)}`$ transforms an object charged under a NSNS field to another one charged under a RR field. There are not such states in the perturbative spectrum and then there should exist non-perturbative objects carrying RR charge. The string scale of the dual theory is obtained if one requires the 10 dimensional Newton constant $`G_{10}g_s^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ to be invariant. We then see that the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$ transforms as:

$$\alpha ^{}g_s\alpha ^{}.$$
(1.2.29)
Therefore, the fundamental string is then mapped by S-duality to a solitonic $`(0,1)`$-string with its tension going as $`1/g_s`$.

##### U-duality

It was conjectured by Hull and Townsend in  that S-duality and T-duality fit into a larger group of duality symmetries, called U-duality. In particular, they conjectured that the duality group of type II string theories compactified on a d-dimensional torus $`T^d`$ is

$$G_d(\mathrm{ZZ})SL(2,\mathrm{ZZ})\times O(d,d;\mathrm{ZZ}),$$
(1.2.30)
where $`G_d(\mathrm{ZZ})`$ is a discrete subgroup of the Cremmer-Julia group of the $`10d`$ dimensional maximal supergravity. All the maximal supergravities (except the ten dimensional type IIB) can be derived from 11 dimensional supergravity and the Cremer-Julia groups arise as the symmetries of 11 dimensional supergravity compactified on $`T^{d+1}`$.

We have seen that type IIA and type IIB theories compactified on a circle are equivalent at the perturbative level, and are related by T-duality. If the two theories were compactified in a d-dimensional torus $`T^d`$, the T-duality group extends to $`O(d,d,\mathrm{ZZ})`$. This can be seen in the following way. If there is only one compact direction, the components of the left- and right-moving momenta, given in (1.2.4), satisfy the relation

$$(p_L^9)^2(p_R^9)^2=\frac{n\omega }{\alpha ^{}}.$$
(1.2.31)
If there are $`d`$ compact directions the equation above is generalized to

$$\stackrel{}{p}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{p}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{n_i\omega _i}{\alpha ^{}},i=1,\mathrm{}d,$$
(1.2.32)
which displays $`O(d,d,\mathrm{IR})`$ invariance. On the other hand, the S-duality of type IIB theory in ten dimensions is inherited by the compactified theory and this extends to the $`SL(2,\mathrm{ZZ})`$ duality group. The larger group denotes the fact that now one has the freedom to change some of the moduli of the torus $`T^d`$, still keeping the $`10d`$ dimensional physics invariant.

U-duality maps the fundamental string states to non-perturbative objects. In particular, some higher dimensional solitonic objects, called p-branes, which saturate a BPS bound in their masses belong to the same orbit as the fundamental string, and any of these objects, can then be considered as fundamental as the fundamental string itself. Strong and weakly coupled regimes of different theories are also mapped by U-duality. This is because U-duality mixes all the moduli of the compactified string theory, including the coupling constant.

### 1.3 11 dimensions and M-theory

It is known that all the maximal supergravities (except the 10 dimensional type IIB) can be derived from the 11 dimensional supergravity. The Cremmer-Julia groups arise from this point of view as the symmetries of 11 dimensional supergravity compactified on $`T^{d+1}`$. The strong coupling regimes of any of the string theories can be mapped by means of U-duality to the weak coupling limit of another string theory. Indeed, S-duality maps the strong and weak coupling regimes of type I and heterotic $`SO(32)`$ and the S self-duality of type IIB theory maps each one of both regimes of the same theory to the other. However, the strong coupling of type IIA and $`E_8\times E_8`$ theories is described by an eleven dimensional theory whose low energy action is 11 dimensional supergravity. This eleven dimensional theory is called M-theory.

The bosonic part of the $`D=11`$ supergravity has only two fields, the metric and the 4-form field strength $`F_{(4)}=dC_{(3)}`$. The action is

$$I_{11}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{11}}\left(d^{11}x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{48}F_{(4)}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right\}+\frac{1}{6}C_{(3)}F^{(4)}F^{(4)}\right).$$
(1.3.1)
The Newton constant $`G_{11}`$ defines the Plank length ($`G_{11}\mathrm{}_p^9`$). Dimensional reduction of 11 dimensional supergravity yields IIA supergravity. Indeed, the number of physical degrees of freedom in 11 dimensional supergravity is the same as in IIA supergravity. However, the bosonic sector of the IIA theory contains a scalar, the dilaton, whereas in 11 dimensions there are no scalars. To explain this let us consider an 11 dimensional spacetime with an isometry along the $`y`$ direction and split the spacetime coordinates as $`z^\mu =(x^\mu ,y)`$. By means of a Kaluza-Klein reduction one can obtain an action in 10 dimensions. This procedure assumes that the fields do not depend on the $`y`$ coordinate, which is compactified on a circle of radius $`R_{11}`$. The scalar arises in the KK reduction as the metric component along the $`y`$ direction:

$$g_{yy}=e^{\frac{4}{3}\varphi }.$$
(1.3.2)
The string coupling constant $`g_s=e^\varphi `$ is related to the compactification radius in Plank units since from (1.3.2) one has that $`g_s{}_{}{}^{4/3}=g_{yy}(R_{11}/\mathrm{}_p)^2`$ and then

$$R_{11}g_s^{2/3}\mathrm{}_p.$$
(1.3.3)
One can relate the 11 dimensional units $`\mathrm{}_p`$ and $`R_{11}`$ to string units $`g_s`$ and $`\mathrm{}_s=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ since the 10 dimensional effective Newton constants have to coincide. Thus

$$\mathrm{}_p^9G_{11}G_{10}R_{11}g_s^2\mathrm{}_s^8R_{11},$$
(1.3.4)
which together with (1.3.3) implies:

$$\mathrm{}_pg_s^{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{}_s,R_{11}g_s\mathrm{}_s.$$
(1.3.5)
Thus we see that at weak string coupling, $`g_s1`$, both the 11 dimensional Planck scale and the radius of the $`11^{\mathrm{th}}`$ direction are small compared to the string scale. This means that at perturbative level the theory is ten dimensional. When $`g_s1`$ the radius $`R_{11}`$ becomes large and the $`11^{\mathrm{th}}`$ dimension effectively decompactifies. In this limit the dynamics of type IIA theory is effectively 11 dimensional. Thus the different string theories can be seen as different limits of an eleven dimensional theory, which is denoted as M-theory.

### 1.4 Branes as string solitons

In this section we will list some classical soliton solutions of the supergravity actions which can be interpreted as extended objects . These solutions are the classical p-branes and are solutions of the bosonic truncation of type IIA, IIB and 11 dimensional supergravities. The equations of motion have an electric-magnetic duality symmetry in terms of the Hodge dual field strength $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$, which is related to $`F`$ by

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{Dn}}^{}=\frac{e^{a\varphi }}{n!\sqrt{|g|}}ϵ_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{Dn}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _n}F^{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _n},ϵ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}D1}=1,$$
(1.4.1)
defined in general $`D`$ dimensions. There are two kinds of ansatze for the field strengths compatible with the Killing vectors associated to extended p-branes, either electric or magnetic. If the brane is extended along directions $`i_1\mathrm{}i_p`$ it will be electrically charged under a $`(p+2)`$-form $`F^{(p+2)}`$ if it is of the form

$$F_{ti_1\mathrm{}i_pr}^{(p+2)}=ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}_rg(r),$$
(1.4.2)
where $`r`$ is the radial coordinate prametrizing the distance transverse to the brane. The electric-magnetic duality of the equations of motion implies that if there is a certain solution of the supergravity equations of motion then the same solution with $`F^{(p+2)}`$ replaced by its Hodge dual field strength will also be a solution. The Hodge dual of the $`(p+2)`$-form (1.4.2) is a $`(8p)`$-form which has components in the sphere transverse to the brane and is proportional to the volume element of the unit sphere

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _{(8p)}}^{(p+2)}=f(r)(\mathrm{sin}\theta _1)^{(7p)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{(8p)},$$
(1.4.3)
where $`\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{8p}`$ are spherical coordinates parametrizing the sphere. This form of $`F`$ corresponds to a magnetically charged brane.

The supergravity actions (1.1.16) and (1.1.19) with the dilaton factor multiplying the curvature scalar are said to be in the string frame. One can rewrite this actions in the canonical form (or Einstein frame) by Weyl rescaling the metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }^S=e^{\varphi /2}g_{\mu \nu }^E,$$
(1.4.4)
and then one can give the metric corresponding to some solutions in either of both frames and one passes from one description to the other with (1.4.4).

We are interested particularlly in solutions which preserve some part of the supersymmetries. All the fermion fields were set to zero and the requirement of supersymmetry to be preserved is that the supersymmetry variation of the fermionic fields vanishes. The fermionic fields of type IIA and IIB supergravities are the dilatino $`\lambda `$ and the gravitino $`\psi `$. Their supersymmetry variations in the Einstein frame for type IIA supergravity are given by :

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{2}D_\mu \varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{3\varphi /4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2}ϵF_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{\varphi /2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}ϵH_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{\varphi /4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}ϵF_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}^{(4)},`$
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}e^{3\varphi /4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mu _1\mu _2}14\delta _\mu ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵF_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}e^{\varphi /2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}9\delta _\mu ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2\mu _3})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵH_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{256}}e^{\varphi /4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}\delta _\mu ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4})ϵF_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}^{(4)},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ are the $`D=10`$ Dirac matrices, which appear in antisymmetrized products of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _n]}.$$
(1.4.6)
The ten-dimensional Dirac matrices can be written in terms of constant Dirac matrices in flat space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\nu }},$$
(1.4.7)
where $`e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}`$ are the viel-beins, which form a local basis of orthonormal tangent vectors such that $`g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\sigma }}e_\nu ^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}\eta _{\underset{¯}{\sigma \rho }}`$. In what follows underlined indices will denote flat space indices. The covariant derivative is given by

$$D_\mu =_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu \rho }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\nu \rho }},$$
(1.4.8)
where $`\omega _\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu \rho }}`$ is the Lorentz spin connection, whose expression in terms of the viel-beins is

$`\omega _\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu \rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\sigma \underset{¯}{\nu }}(_\mu e_\sigma ^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}_\sigma e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\sigma \underset{¯}{\rho }}(_\mu e_\sigma ^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}_\sigma e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\nu }})`$ (1.4.9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\sigma \underset{¯}{\nu }}e^{\delta \underset{¯}{\rho }}(_\sigma e_{\delta \underset{¯}{\lambda }}_\delta e_{\sigma \underset{¯}{\lambda }})e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\lambda }},`$
where $`e_{\mu \underset{¯}{\nu }}=e_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\sigma }}\eta _{\underset{¯}{\sigma \nu }}`$ and $`e^{\mu \underset{¯}{\nu }}=g^{\mu \sigma }e_\sigma ^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}`$. The chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ in type IIA supergravity is defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{9}}`$.

In the type IIB theory the spinor $`ϵ`$ is actually composed by two Majorana-Weyl spinors $`ϵ_L`$ and $`ϵ_R`$ of well defined ten-dimensional chirality, which can be arranged as a two-component vector in the form:

$$ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_L\\ ϵ_R\end{array}\right).$$
(1.4.10)
We can use complex spinors instead of working the real two-component spinor written in eq. (1.4.10). If $`ϵ_R`$ and $`ϵ_L`$ are the two components of the real spinor written in eq. (1.4.10), the complex spinor is simply:

$$ϵ=ϵ_L+iϵ_R.$$
(1.4.11)
We have the following rules to pass from one notation to the other:

$$ϵ^{}\sigma _3ϵ,iϵ^{}\sigma _1ϵ,iϵi\sigma _2ϵ,$$
(1.4.12)
Using complex spinors the supersymmetry transformations of the dilatino $`\lambda `$ and gravitino $`\psi `$ in type IIB supergravity are (Einstein frame) :

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ^{}P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}ϵF_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3},`$
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1920}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵF_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}^{(5)}+`$ (1.4.13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}\delta _\mu ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2\mu _3}\right)ϵ^{}F_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}.`$
In eq. (1.4.13) the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$’s are again the ten-dimensional Dirac matrices with curved indices, $`F^{(5)}`$ is the RR five-form, $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative given in (1.4.8) and $`P_\mu `$ and $`F_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}`$ are given by:

$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[_M\varphi _D+ie^{\varphi _D}_\mu \chi \right],`$
$`F_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\varphi _D}{2}}H_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)}+ie^{\frac{\varphi _D}{2}}F_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)},`$ (1.4.14)
where $`\chi `$ is the RR scalar and $`H^{(3)}`$ and $`F^{(3)}`$ are, respectively, the NSNS and RR three-form field strengths.

In 11 dimensional supergravity there is only one fermionic field, the gravitino $`\psi `$, whose supersymmetry variation is given by

$$\delta \psi _\mu =D_\mu ϵ+\frac{1}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\delta _\mu ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _4}\right)ϵF_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}^{(4)}.$$
(1.4.15)
In eq. (1.4.15) the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^M`$’s are eleven-dimensional Dirac matrices with curved indices, and $`F^{(4)}`$ is the four-form field-strength.

##### BPS states

We will be interested in solutions of the supergravity equations of motion which preserve some fraction of the supersymmetry. This kind of states satisfy a bound in their masses, which are related to their charges, and then these states are completely characterized by its charge. This kind of solutions are called Bogomoln’yi-Prasad-Sommerfeld (BPS) states and the bound in their masses is the Bogomoln’yi bound. However, not all the states saturating the BPS bound preserve supersymmetry. BPS conditions coincide with the preservation of some supersymmetries only if the theory is sufficiently supersymmetric.

The relation between the preservation of supersymmetry and the BPS bound can be seen if one considers the most general anticommutation rules of the supersymmetry charges . For the the particular case of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry algebra in eleven dimensions they take the following form:

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu C)_{\alpha \beta }P_\mu +\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }C)_{\alpha \beta }Z^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{5!}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}C)_{\alpha \beta }Y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}$$
(1.4.16)
where $`P_\mu `$ is the momentum operator, $`Q_\alpha `$ are the 32 component Majorana supercharges, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ are antisymmetrized products of gamma matrices satisfying the Clifford algebra, $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix and, $`Z`$ and $`Y`$ are the central charges, which commute with the supersymmetry generators, and are grouped into representations of the Lorentz group. The solitonic solutions will have some charge and then the commutation algebra of the supersymmetry generators should contain a central extension .

Let us take, as an example, the M2-brane of M-theory lying in the 12 plane. The central charge associated to it is given by the integral of a current density

$$Z^{\mu \nu }=q_{M2}𝑑X^\mu dX^\nu .$$
(1.4.17)
Our M2-brane is then associated with a non-zero $`Z_{12}`$. Let us choose the Majorana representation of the Dirac matrices, in which $`C=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$. Then, for a static membrane the algebra becomes

$$\{Q,Q\}=P^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{012}Z_{12}.$$
(1.4.18)
In the Majorana representation $`Q`$ is real, so the left hand side is manifestly positive. Since the sign of $`Z_{12}`$ can be flipped by replacing the membrane by an anti-membrane we must have $`P^00`$ and $`P^0|Z_{12}|`$ which is equivalent to

$$T_{M2}|q_{M2}|$$
(1.4.19)
In the case that the membrane saturates the bound the anticommutator becomes

$$\{Q,Q\}=P^0\left[1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{012}\right].$$
(1.4.20)
Spinors $`ϵ`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{012}ϵ=\pm ϵ.$$
(1.4.21)
are eigenspinors of $`\{Q,Q\}`$ with zero eigenvalue. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{012}`$ squares to the identity and is traceless the condition (1.4.21) is a projection condition and thus, a membrane saturating the bound (1.4.19) preserves $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries of the vacuum.

In general, a BPS state $`|\psi `$ will be, by definition, anihilated by some linear combination of supercharges,

$$Q|\psi =0.$$
(1.4.22)
If we take the expectation value of the corresponding commutator of supecharges in this state

$$\psi |\{Q,Q\}|\psi =0$$
(1.4.23)
and, for a static brane ($`P^0=M`$), this is equivalent to solve the eigenvalue problem

$$M|\psi =\mathrm{\Gamma }|\psi ,$$
(1.4.24)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ involves a certain combination of Dirac matrices and central charges which depends on the explicit form of the algebra. The possitivity of the commutator $`\{Q,Q\}`$ implies the bound in the rest mass

$$M|Z|,$$
(1.4.25)
where $`Z`$ is the corresponding central charge, which is saturated by the BPS states. Taking $`M=|Z|`$ in eq. (1.4.24) we get the supersymmetries preserved by the state.

##### Extremal branes

A p-brane is said to be extremal if it saturates a BPS bound in its mass. Extremal branes are, in theories with enough supersymmetries, BPS states and they are conjectured to correspond to fundamental objects such as, for example, the fundamental string. In the context of ten and eleven dimensional supergravities extremality coincides with supersymmetry for the elementary branes . These supersymmetric properties of p-branes are crucial in relating the classical solutions to the quantum objects. There is a no-force theorem for extremal branes which states that two parallel branes can remain static at an arbitrary distance from each other without feeling an interaction. The static force between parallel branes cancels precisely because of a balance between the atraction due to gravity and the electrostatic-type repulsion due to the RR charges of the branes. This balance is possible only when $`T_p=|q_p|`$, where $`T_p`$ is the tension of the brane and $`q_p`$ is its charge density.

There will be one magnetically and one electrically charged extremal solution for each one of the field strengths appearing in the supergravity actions. The electrically charged solution under the NSNS 3-form field strength $`H_{(3)}`$ is called the F1-string. It can be identified with the fundamental string, since is couples to the NSNS 2-form potential $`B_{(2)}`$. The corresponding magnetically charged solution is a five-brane called NS5-brane. The objects charged under the RR forms are the Dp-branes, where $`p`$ odd corresponds to the type IIB theory and $`p`$ even to the type IIA. The metric and dilaton of the F1, NS5 and Dp-brane solutions are given, in the Einstein frame by

$`ds_{F1}^2=f^{\frac{3}{4}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2)+f^{\frac{1}{4}}(dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),e^\varphi =f^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`ds_{NS5}^2=f^{\frac{1}{4}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_5^2)+f^{\frac{3}{4}}(dx_6^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),e^\varphi =f^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`ds_{Dp}^2=f_p^{\frac{7p}{8}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)+f_p^{\frac{p+1}{8}}(dx_{p+1}^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),e^\varphi =f_p^{\frac{3p}{4}},`$
(1.4.26)
where $`f`$ and $`f_p`$ are harmonic functions, which are given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^6}{r^6}}(F1),`$
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{r^2}}(NS5),`$
$`f_p`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}}(Dp).`$
The F1 is extended in the $`x_1`$ direction, the NS5 in the $`x_1\mathrm{}x_5`$ and the Dp-branes in the $`x_1\mathrm{}x_p`$.

In eq. (1.4.26) the Dp-branes up to $`p=2`$ are charged electrically under the respective RR field strengths, the D3-brane is charged under the $`F^{(5)}`$, which is self-dual and the Dp-branes with $`p>3`$ are magnetically charged. The respective field-strengths are given by

$$F_{x^0x^1\mathrm{}x^pr}^{(p+2)}=_r(f_p^1),$$
(1.4.28)
for the electrically charged branes and

$$F_{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{8p}}^{(8p)}=(7p)R^{7p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(8p)}},$$
(1.4.29)
for the magnetically charged ones. In (1.4.29) we have taken $`\widehat{g}^{(8p)}`$ to be the metric of the unit $`(8p)`$-sphere transverse to the Dp-brane and the coordinates $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}`$ are spherical coordinates parametrizing the sphere.

The F1-string and the NS5-brane have the following non-vanishing components of the NSNS 3-form field strength $`H^{(3)}`$

$`H_{x^0x^1r}^{(3)}=_rf^1(F1)`$
$`H_{\theta ^1\theta ^2\theta ^3}^{(3)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R^2\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(3)}}(NS5),`$
with the respective radius and with $`\widehat{g}^{(3)}`$ the metric of the unit three-sphere transverse to the NS5-brane.

The solutions (1.4.26) can be written in the string frame and have the following form

$`ds_{F1}^2=f^1(dx_0^2+dx_1^2)+dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2,`$
$`ds_{NS5}^2=dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_5^2+f(dx_6^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),`$
$`ds_{Dp}^2=f_p^{\frac{1}{2}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)+f_p^{\frac{1}{2}}(dx_{p+1}^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2).`$
(1.4.31)
All these solutions are BPS states saturating the BPS bound (1.4.25). The central charge is related to the corresponding p-brane charge $`q`$ through the expression

$$Z=q𝑑x_1\mathrm{}dx_p,$$
(1.4.32)
for a p-brane extended in the directions $`x_1\mathrm{}x_p`$. The charge of a p-brane with an electric field strength $`F^{(p+2)}`$ is

$$q_e=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{S^{8p}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)},$$
(1.4.33)
where the integratation is over the unit sphere transverse to the p-brane, $`G_{10}`$ is the ten-dimensional Newton constant and $`1/16\pi G_{10}`$ is the factor appearing in the different supergravity actions. For a p-brane with $`F^{(8p)}`$ magnetic the charge is

$$q_m=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{S^{8p}}F^{(8p)}.$$
(1.4.34)
The mass of a p-brane is related to the tension or mass density of the brane by

$$M=T_p𝑑x_1\mathrm{}dx_p.$$
(1.4.35)
The saturation of the BPS bound implies the following relation between the tension and the charge

$$T_p=|q|.$$
(1.4.36)
This equation determines the value of the radius $`R`$ for the different p-branes. For an electrically charged Dp-brane the RR charge is given by (1.4.33) with $`F^{(p+2)}`$ given in eq. (1.4.28) and $`f_p`$ given in eq. (LABEL:strharmf). The Hodge-dual field-strength is:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}}^{(p+2)}=(1)^{p+1}(7p)R^{7p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(8p)}},$$
(1.4.37)
where $`\widehat{g}^{(8p)}`$ is the metric of the unit sphere transverse to the Dp-brane. The integral of (1.4.37) over the $`(8p)`$-sphere gives

$$_{S^{8p}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}=(1)^{p+1}(7p)R^{7p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p},$$
(1.4.38)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}`$ is the volume of the unit $`(8p)`$-sphere, given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{9p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{9p}{2})}.$$
(1.4.39)
The Newton constant $`G_{10}`$ is related to the string parameters by

$$G_{10}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi ^6g_s^2(\alpha ^{})^4,$$
(1.4.40)
and finally, the result for the charge is

$$|q_{Dp}|=\frac{4}{(2\pi )^7(\alpha ^{})^4g_s^2}R^{7p}\frac{\pi ^{\frac{9p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{9p}{2})}.$$
(1.4.41)
For a stack of N coincident Dp-branes the mass density is $`NT_{Dp}`$ and the tension is given by

$$T_{Dp}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^pg_s(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}.$$
(1.4.42)
The BPS condition for the stack is then

$$|q_{Dp}|=NT_{Dp},$$
(1.4.43)
and from this condition we get the following expression for the radius of a stack of D-branes:

$$R^{7p}=Ng_s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{5p}\pi ^{\frac{5p}{2}}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{7p}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{7p}{2}).$$
(1.4.44)
One can also check that the Dp-brane solutions do indeed preserve one half of the supersymmetries. This is because the condition $`\delta \lambda =0`$ is a projection condition over the supersymmetry parameter. The explicit form of this projection for the Dp-brane solutions of type IIA supergravity is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x_0x_1\mathrm{}x_p}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{\frac{p2}{2}}ϵ=ϵ,$$
(1.4.45)
in terms of the ten-dimensional constant gamma matrices. On the other hand, the supersymmetry projection for the Dp-brane solutions of type IIB supergravity is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x_0x_1\mathrm{}x_p}}(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(1.4.46)
The condition $`\delta \psi _\mu =0`$ determines the explicit form of the Killing spinors. If one parameterizes the space transverse to the Dp-brane in terms of polar coordinates this equation yields

$$ϵ=g(r)e^{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{7p}{}}e^{\frac{\theta _i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^i\theta ^{i+1}}}}ϵ_0,$$
(1.4.47)
where $`g(r)`$ is a radial function which depends on the frame and $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant spinor satisfying eq. (1.4.45) or (1.4.46) respectively for type IIA or IIB supergravity.

The fundamental string F1 is electrically charged under the NSNS three-form $`H_{(3)}`$, with $`H_{x^0x^1r}^{(3)}=_rf^1`$ and $`f=1+R^6/r^6`$. This form appears in the type II supergravity actions (string frame) in a term with form $`\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi }H_{(3)}^2`$ and the charge is, in this case, defined by

$$q_{F1}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{S^7}e^{2\varphi }{}_{}{}^{}H_{(3)}^{}.$$
(1.4.48)
The BPS condition for a single fundamental string is $`|q_{F1}|=T_f=1/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ and we get the following value for the radius

$$R^6=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}(2\pi )^2(\alpha ^{})^3g_s^2.$$
(1.4.49)
The NS5-brane is magnetically charged under the NSNS three-form $`H_{(3)}`$

$$H_{(3)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R^2ϵ_{(3)}.$$
(1.4.50)
The NS5 charge is given by

$$q_{NS5}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{S^3}H_{(3)}.$$
(1.4.51)
and the tension is

$$T_{NS5}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5(\alpha ^{})^3g_s^2}.$$
(1.4.52)
The BPS condition for a stack of NS5-branes, $`|q_{NS5}|=NT_{NS5}`$, determines the radius to be

$$R^2=N\alpha ^{}.$$
(1.4.53)
In 11 dimensional supergravity there is only a 4-form field-strength. This 4-form gives rise to two extremal solutions, the electrically charged M2 and the magnetic M5. They are given by

$`ds_{M2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{2}{3}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+f^{\frac{1}{3}}(dx_3^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{10}^2),`$
$`F_{x^0x^1x^2r}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`_r(f^1),`$
for the M2-brane solution, with the electric components of $`F^{(4)}`$ excited, and

$`ds_{M5}^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{3}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_5^2)+f^{\frac{2}{3}}(dx_6^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{10}^2),`$
$`F_{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^4}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`3R^3\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(4)}},`$
for the M5-brane, with magnetic components of $`F^{(4)}`$. The $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^4`$ are spherical coordiantes parametrizing the sphere transverse to the M5. The harmonic function $`f`$ is given by

$$f=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{R^6}{r^6}(\mathrm{M2}),f=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{R^3}{r^3}(\mathrm{M5}).$$
(1.4.56)
In 11 dimensions there is no dilaton and the Einstein metric coincides with the string metric. Both solutions are extremal and we can check that they preserve one half of the supersymmetries. The requeriment of supersymmetry to be preserved is that a supersymmetry variation of the gravitino vanishes. The projection conditions are given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0x^1x^2}}ϵ=ϵ,(\mathrm{M2}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}ϵ=ϵ,(\mathrm{M5}).`$ (1.4.57)
One can compute the charges and equate them to the respective tensions. The M2 is electrically charged under $`F^{(4)}`$ and the corresponding charge is given by:

$$q_{M2}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{11}}_{S^7}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}.$$
(1.4.58)
If we parameterize the space transverse to the M2 in spherical coordinates the Hodge-dual of the electric $`F^{(4)}`$ is:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}=6R^6ϵ_{(7)},$$
(1.4.59)
where $`\widehat{g}^{(7)}`$ is the determinat of the metric of the unit 7-sphere transverse to the M2. The charge is then given by

$$q_{M2}=\frac{6R^6\mathrm{\Omega }_7}{(2\pi )^8\mathrm{}_p^9},$$
(1.4.60)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_7`$ is the volume of the unit 7-sphere and $`\mathrm{}_p`$ is the Planck length in 11 dimensions. The BPS condition is $`|q_{M2}|=NT_{M2}`$, where $`T_{M2}`$ is the tension of a single M2 and is given by

$$T_{M2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}_p^3}.$$
(1.4.61)
Equating equations (1.4.60) and (1.4.61) one obtains the following expression for the radius of the M2

$$R^6=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^5\pi ^2N\mathrm{}_p^6.$$
(1.4.62)
The M5 is magnetically charged under $`F^{(4)}`$. The charge is given by

$$q_{M5}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{11}}_{S^4}F^{(4)}.$$
(1.4.63)
For the M5, $`F^{(4)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}R^3ϵ_{(4)}`$, where $`ϵ_{(4)}`$ is the volume form of the unit four-sphere transverse to the M5, and then

$$q_{M5}=\frac{3R^3\mathrm{\Omega }_4}{(2\pi )^8\mathrm{}_p^9}.$$
(1.4.64)
The tension of the M5 is

$$T_{M5}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5\mathrm{}_p^3},$$
(1.4.65)
and the BPS condition $`|q_{M5}|=NT_{M5}`$ gives the following expression for the radius:

$$R^3=\pi N\mathrm{}_p^3.$$
(1.4.66)
#### 1.4.1 Intersections of branes and bound states

There are solutions of the supergravity equations of motion which are charged under several antisymmetric tensor fields. These solutions represent elementary p-branes which intersect each other with some rules. The intersections can be orthogonal, in the sense that each brane lies along some definite directions, but there are also configurations in which the branes intersect at angles. A set of branes can also form a bound state when the different branes are not well separated. Some of these bound states are configurations of branes which feel an attractive force between them, and then there is a non-vanishing binding energy. They are called non-marginal bound states and their massess are lower than the sum of the masses of the constituent branes. Indeed, if $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the masses of two branes which form a non-marginal bound state, then the mass $`M`$ of the bound state goes like $`M\sqrt{M_1^2+M_2^2}`$. In general, the bound state configurations preserve a number of supersymmetries determined by the projection conditions of their elementary building blocks. However, there are some configurations which are still extremal. Each of the ‘basic’, 1/2 supersymmetric, objects of M-theory or type II superstring theory, with a given orientation, is associated with a constraint ofthe form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ`$ for some traceless product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Dirac matrices with the property that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1`$. Given two such objects we have two matrices with these properties. Let us call them $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Let $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta ^{}`$ be the charge/tension ratios of the objects associated, respectively, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Then the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ anticommutator takes the form

$$\{Q,Q\}=P^0\left[1+\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }+\zeta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\right].$$
(1.4.67)
Positivity imposes a bound on $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta ^{}`$, but the form of this bound depends on whether the two matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ commute or anticommute.

If $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\}=0`$ then

$$(\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }+\zeta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^2=\zeta ^2+\zeta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(1.4.68)
so the bound is $`\zeta ^2+\zeta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1`$, which is equivalent to a bound of the type

$$T\sqrt{Z^2+Z^{}^2}$$
(1.4.69)
where $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are the charges of the two branes. Since the right hand side is strictly smaller than $`|Z|+|Z^{}|`$, unless either $`Z`$ or $`Z^{}`$ vanishes, a configuration saturating this bound must be a ‘bound state’ with strictly positive binding energy. It is a non-threshold bound state and is associated with a constraint of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }ϵ=ϵ`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}$$
(1.4.70)
for some angle $`\vartheta `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ is traceless and squares to the identity, the ‘bound state’ is another configuration preserving 1/2 supersymmetry. Such configurations are for example the bound states $`(Dp,D(p+2))`$, $`(F1,Dp)`$ for $`(p1)`$ and $`(NS5,Dp)`$ for $`(p5)`$, the first bound state denoting a set of Dp-branes embedded in another set of D(p+2)-branes and so on. These configurations can be interpreted from the point of view of the bigger brane as a flux of a field strength on its worldvolume. In this section we will show the explicit solutions corresponding to the (D(p-2),Dp), (NS5,Dp) and (F, Dp) bound states since they will be used in the following chapters as supergravity backgrounds to test brane probes.

If $`[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}]=0`$ then

$$(\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }+\zeta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^2=(\zeta +\zeta ^{})^2,$$
(1.4.71)
and then, a configuration saturating the bound

$$T=Z+Z^{},$$
(1.4.72)
has a vanishing binding energy. These are called threshold bound states and correspond to intersections of branes. The supersymmetry preserved by the state is determined by the constraints imposed by the separate branes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}ϵ=ϵ`$. Thus, these states preserve $`1/4`$ of the supersymmetries.

##### (D(p-2),Dp) bound state

This supergravity solution corresponds to a stack of N non-threshold bound states of Dp and D(p-2) branes for $`2p6`$. The metric and dilaton (in the string frame) for such a background are

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{1/2}\left[(dx^0)^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^{p2})^2+h_p\left((dx^{p1})^2+(dx^p)^2\right)\right]+`$
$`+f_p^{1/2}\left[dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2\right],`$
$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_D}`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{\frac{3p}{4}}h_p^{1/2},`$ (1.4.73)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ is the line element of a unit $`(8p)`$ sphere, $`r`$ is a radial coordinate parametrizing the distance to the brane bound state and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_D=\varphi _D\varphi _D(r\mathrm{})`$. The Dp-brane of the background extends along the directions $`x^0\mathrm{}x^p`$, whereas the D(p-2)-brane component lies along $`x^0\mathrm{}x^{p2}`$. The functions $`f_p`$ and $`h_p`$ appearing in (1.4.73) are:

$`f_p`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}},`$
$`h_p^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi f_p^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi ,`$ (1.4.74)
with $`\phi `$ being an angle which characterizes the degree of mixing of the Dp and D(p-2) branes in the bound state.

This solution is also endowed with a rank two NSNS field $`B`$ directed along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ (noncommutative) plane:

$$B=\mathrm{tan}\phi f_p^1h_pdx^{p1}dx^p,$$
(1.4.75)
and is charged under RR field strengths, $`F^{(p)}`$ and $`F^{(p+2)}`$. The components along the directions parallel to the bound state are

$`F_{x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^{p2},r}^{(p)}=\mathrm{sin}\phi _rf_p^1,`$
$`F_{x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^p,r}^{(p+2)}=\mathrm{cos}\phi h_p_rf_p^1.`$ (1.4.76)
It is understood that the $`F^{(p)}`$’s for $`p5`$ are the Hodge duals of those with $`p5`$, i.e. $`F^{(p)}={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(10p)}`$ for $`p5`$. In particular this implies that $`F^{(5)}`$ is self-dual, as is well-known for the type IIB theory. It is clear from the above equations that for $`\phi =0`$ the (D(p-2),Dp) solution reduces to the Dp-brane geometry whereas for $`\phi =\pi /2`$ it becomes a D(p-2)-brane smeared along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions. The Hodge-duals $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ have the following components:

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{x^{p1},x^p,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}}^{(p)}=(1)^{p+1}(7p)R^{7p}\mathrm{sin}\phi h_pf_p^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(8p)}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}}^{(p+2)}=(1)^{p+1}(7p)R^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\phi \sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(8p)}},`$ (1.4.77)
where $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}`$ are spherical coordinates of the $`S^{8p}`$ and $`\widehat{g}^{(8p)}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the unit $`(8p)`$-sphere.

The parameter $`R`$ is determined by the RR charge and the BPS equation $`|q_{Dp}|=NT_{Dp}`$ . The charge, computed from the $`F^{(p+2)}`$ given in (1.4.76) and (1.4.33), is given by

$$|q_{Dp}|=\frac{4}{(2\pi )^7(\alpha ^{})^4g_s^2}R^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\phi \frac{\pi ^{\frac{9p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{9p}{2})},$$
(1.4.78)
and the BPS condition determines the radius to be

$$R^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\phi =Ng_s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{5p}\pi ^{\frac{5p}{2}}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{7p}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right),$$
(1.4.79)
where $`N`$ is the number of branes of the stack, $`g_s`$ is the string coupling constant ($`g_s=e^{\varphi _D(r\mathrm{})}`$) and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the Regge slope.

Eq. (1.4.33) cannot be applied to calculate the charge associated with the D(p-2)-branes in the (D(p-2),Dp). The reason is that there is an infinite number of parallel D(p-2)-branes in the bound state. In 1 + 3 dimensional electrostatics, in order to use the Gauss law to obtain the charge per unit length for a uniform line distribution of charge, one has to choose a cylinder as the Gauss surface rather than a two-sphere as for a point charge. For the present case, let us choose the integration in (1.4.33) over $`𝒱_2\times S^{8p}`$ rather than over an asymptotic $`S^{10p}`$, where $`𝒱_2=(2\pi \mathrm{}_s)^2`$ is a two dimensional area in the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane. Then, we have the following charge, measured asymptotically in the string frame metric,

$$q=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{𝒱_2\times S^{8p}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}=(1)^{p+1}NT_{D(p2)}\mathrm{tan}\phi .$$
(1.4.80)
Since the (D(p-2),Dp) bound state is a BPS state, the total charge associated to the D(p-2)-branes should be equal to the number of D(p-2) times the the tension of a single D(p-2). We therefore conclude there are $`N\mathrm{tan}\phi `$ D(p-2)-branes per $`𝒱=(2\pi \mathrm{}_s)^2`$ of two dimensional area in the bound state.

##### (NS5,Dp) bound state

This is a bound state  generated by a stack of $`N`$ NS5-branes and Dp-branes for $`1p5`$. The bound state is characterized by two coprime integers $`l`$ and $`m`$ which, respectively, determine the number of NS5-branes and Dp-branes which form the bound state. We shall combine $`l`$ and $`m`$ to form the quantity $`\mu _{(l,m)}=l^2+m^2g_s^2`$. Moreover, for a stack of $`N`$ (NS5, Dp) bound states we define $`R_{(l,m)}^2=N\left[\mu _{(l,m)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{}`$, in terms of which the harmonic function $`H_{(l,m)}(r)`$ is defined as

$$H_{(l,m)}(r)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{R_{(l,m)}^2}{r^2}.$$
(1.4.81)
The solution reduces when $`m=0`$ to a stack of NS5-branes and the radius is then the one given in (1.4.53). The metric of this background in the string frame is

$`ds^2=\left[h_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}[\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}}(dt^2+(dx^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^p)^2)+`$
$`+h_{(l,m)}(r)\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}}((dx^{p+1})^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^5)^2)+\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{3}{4}}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)],`$
(1.4.82)
where the function $`h_{(l,m)}(r)`$ is given by

$$h_{(l,m)}(r)=\frac{\mu _{(l,m)}}{l^2\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}+m^2g_s^2\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(1.4.83)
The NS5-branes of this background extend along the $`x^1\mathrm{}x^5`$ coordinates, whereas the Dp-branes lie along $`x^1\mathrm{}x^p`$ and are smeared in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ coordinates. The integers $`l`$ and $`m`$ represent, respectively, the number of NS5-branes in the bound state and the number of Dp-branes in a $`(5p)`$-dimensional volume $`𝒱_p=(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^{5p}`$ in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ directions. We shall choose spherical coordinates, and we will represent the $`S^3`$ line element as $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$. Other fields in this supergravity solution include the dilaton:

$$e^\varphi =g_s^1\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{p5}{8}}\left[h_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{p1}{4}},$$
(1.4.84)
the NSNS potential $`B_{(2)}`$:

$$B_{(2)}=lN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )ϵ_{(2)},$$
(1.4.85)
and two RR field strengths $`F^{(8p)}`$ and $`F^{(6p)}`$, with components

$`F_{t,x^1,\mathrm{},x^p,r}^{(p+2)}=(1)^p{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mu _{(l,m)}^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^1,`$
$`F_{x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5,\theta ,\theta ^1,\theta ^2}^{(8p)}=(1)^{p+1}Nm\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(l,m)}(r)}{\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}},`$
$`F_{x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5,r}^{(6p)}=(1)^p{\displaystyle \frac{m}{l}}_r{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(l,m)}(r)}{\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}},`$ (1.4.86)
where $`\widehat{g}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the unit two-sphere.

The charge of the NS5-branes is esily computed from eq. (1.4.85). The corresponding value of the NSNS three-form field-strength is $`H_{(3)}=2lN\alpha ^{}ϵ_{(3)}`$, and then, looking at eqs. (1.4.50) and (1.4.53) we conclude that

$$q_{NS5}=lNT_{NS5}.$$
(1.4.87)
In this bound state there is an infinite number of parallel Dp-branes. Furthermore, there are $`mN`$ Dp-branes per $`𝒱_p=(2\pi \mathrm{}_s)^{5p}`$ of (5-p)-dimensional volume in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ directions. To see this, let us choose the integration in (1.4.33) over $`𝒱_p\times S^3`$. The charge, measured asymptotically in the string frame metric, is then

$$q=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{10}}_{𝒱_p\times S^3}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}=(1)^{p+1}NmT_{Dp}.$$
(1.4.88)
##### (F,Dp) bound state

This bound state is generated by a stack of $`N`$ Dp-branes and F-strings. The string frame metric and dilaton for this bound state are

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{1/2}h_p^{1/2}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+h_p\left((dx^2)^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^p)^2\right)\right]+`$
$`+f_p^{1/2}h_p^{1/2}\left[dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2\right],`$
$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{\frac{3p}{4}}h_p^{\frac{p5}{4}}.`$ (1.4.89)
The Dp-brane of the background extends along the directions $`x^0\mathrm{}x^p`$, whereas the F1 component lies along $`x^0x^1`$. The functions $`f_p`$ and $`h_p`$ appearing in are the same as the ones given in (1.4.74):

$`f_p`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}},`$
$`h_p^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi f_p^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi ,`$ (1.4.90)
with $`\phi `$ being an angle which characterizes the degree of mixing of the Dp-branes and the F1-strings in the bound state and the radius $`R`$ is given by (1.4.79). The NSNS three-form $`H^{(3)}`$ is $`H^{(3)}=\mathrm{sin}\phi _rf_p^1dx^0dx^1dr`$ and the RR field-strengths have the following components

$`F_{x^2,\mathrm{},x^p,r}^{(p)}=(1)^{p+1}\mathrm{tan}\phi _r(h_pf_p^1),`$
$`F_{x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^p,r}^{(p+2)}=\mathrm{cos}\phi h_p_rf_p^1,`$
$`F_{\theta ,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(8p)}=(1)^{7p}(7p)\mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{7p}}`$ (1.4.91)
The value of $`F_{\theta ,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(8p)}`$ is formally the same as the one given in (1.4.77) for the (D(p-2),Dp) bound state. One can compute the RR charge form (1.4.33) and the result is the same as the one in (1.4.78), thus fixing the radius to be the one in (1.4.79).

##### (M2,M5) bound state

There are also solutions of eleven-dimensional supergravity carrying more than one charge as the ones of ten-dimensional supergravities corresponding to bound states of branes. In particular, we are interested in non-threshold bound state configurations which preserve one half of the supersymmetries. Such a bound state is the one generated by a stack of M2 and M5-branes, which is called the (M2,M5)- bound state. This solution will be used to study giant graviton configurations in the last chapter. This configuration can also be interpreted from the point of view of the M5-brane with four-form flux on its worldvolume.

The corresponding solution of the D=11 supergravity equations was given in ref.  and used as supergravity dual of a non-commutative gauge theory in . The metric generated by a stack of parallel non-threshold (M2,M5) bound states is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{1/3}h^{1/3}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+h\left((dx^3)^2+(dx^4)^2+(dx^5)^2\right)\right]+`$ (1.4.92)
$`+f^{2/3}h^{1/3}\left[dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2\right],`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the line element of a unit 4-sphere and the functions $`f`$ and $`h`$ are given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{r^3}},`$
$`h^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi f^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi .`$ (1.4.93)
The M5-brane component of this bound state is extended along the directions $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^5`$, whereas the M2-brane lies along $`x^0,x^1,x^2`$. The angle $`\phi `$ in eq. (1.4.93) determines the mixing of the M2- and M5-branes in the bound state and the “radius” $`R`$ is given by $`R^3\mathrm{cos}\phi =\pi N\mathrm{}_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$, where $`\mathrm{}_p`$ is the Planck length in eleven dimensions and $`N`$ is the number of bound states of the stack. The radius $`R`$ reduces when $`\phi 0`$ to the one of eq. (1.4.66). The solution of D=11 supergravity is also characterized  by a non-vanishing value of the four-form field strength $`F^{(4)}`$, namely:

$`F^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _r(f^1)dx^0dx^1dx^2dr\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}R^3\mathrm{cos}\phi ϵ_{(4)}`$ (1.4.96)
$`\mathrm{tan}\phi _r(hf^1)dx^3dx^4dx^5dr,`$
where $`ϵ_{(4)}`$ represents the volume form of the unit $`S^4`$.

The parameter $`R`$ is determined by the charge and the BPS equation. Comparing the magnetic component of the $`F^{(4)}`$ given in (1.4.96) with the one corresponding to the M5, one easily concludes that $`R^4`$ must be the one given above. In the bound state there are $`N\mathrm{tan}\phi `$ M2-branes per $`𝒱=(2\pi \mathrm{}_p)^3`$ of three-dimensional volume in the $`x^3x^4x^5`$ directions. Indeed, the Hodge-dual of $`F^{(4)}`$ has the following component:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{x^3x^4x^5\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^4}^{(4)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}R^3\mathrm{sin}\phi hf^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(4)}},$$
(1.4.97)
and then, we have the following charge measured asymptotically,

$$q=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{11}}_{𝒱\times S^4}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}=NT_{M2}\mathrm{tan}\phi .$$
(1.4.98)
### 1.5 D-branes

A theory of open strings must also contain closed strings and then D-branes should couple to closed strings. It turns out that open strings with Dirichlet boundary conditions couple consistently to closed type II strings. Indeed, it was shown in  that D-branes carry RR charge and that their charge is equal to their tension, i.e., they are BPS states. The fact that two parallel D-branes can exchange RR bosons which cancel the exchange of NSNS particles causes the force between the two static branes to vanish. The Dp-brane tension computed in  is given by

$$T_{Dp}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^pg_s\mathrm{}_s^{p+1}}.$$
(1.5.1)
This expression for the tension could also be obtained by applying a chain of dualities to the RR charged (0,1)-string (the D1-brane), which was obtained in the IIB theory as the S-dual of the fundamental string. The Dp-brane tensions satisfy the relation

$$T_pT_{6p}=\frac{2\pi }{16\pi G_{10}},$$
(1.5.2)
which agrees with the Dirac-like quantization condition of the Dp-brane charges. The Newton constant in ten dimensions can be determined, in terms of string parameters, by using eqs. (1.5.1) and (1.5.2). It follows that

$$G_{10}=8\pi ^6g_s^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}.$$
(1.5.3)
It seems to be inconsistent that D-branes couple to closed string modes because open strings with Dirichlet boundary conditions can only have one half of the two supersymmetries of the closed strings. What happens is that far away from the D-brane we have two spacetime supersymmetries but their generators are related to each other on the world-sheet of the open strings. The relation between the two supersymmetry generators can be derived by considering the action of T-duality on D-branes. Neumann boundary conditions for type I open strings impose that the two generators of spacetime supersymmetry $`Q_L`$ and $`Q_R`$ must be equal, $`Q_L=Q_R`$. This is consistent if both generators have the same spacetime chirality.

T-duality acts on closed strings as a parity reversal acting on the right-moving sector and, on open strings, changes Neumannn and Dirichlet boundary conditions. Thus, the effect of introducing Dirichlet boundary conditions on the generators (in, say, the $`X^9`$ direction) is:

$$Q_L^{}=Q_L,Q_R^{}=P_9Q_R,$$
(1.5.4)
where $`P_9`$ is an operator which anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9`$ and commutes with all the others. It can be taken to be $`P_9=\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ is the chirality operator. Acting with T-duality on the directions $`X^{p+1},\mathrm{},X^9`$ yields a D-brane lying along $`X^1,\mathrm{},X^p`$ and the following relation is imposed on the supersymmetry generators:

$$Q_L=\pm P_{p+1}\mathrm{}P_9Q_R.$$
(1.5.5)
Using that $`Q_R`$ is chiral or anti-chiral the above relation can be rewritten as:

$$Q_L=\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_pQ_R.$$
(1.5.6)
The massless sector of the open strings contains a vector $`A_\mu `$, giving rise to the ten dimensional vector multiplet. The effective low-energy theory of open strings with Neumann boundary conditions is then $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills (SYM) in ten dimensions. The quantization of open strings with Dirichlet boundary conditions is similar. The main difference is that the zero modes of open strings with Dirichlet boundary conditions in some directions are not dynamical and the low-energy fields corresponding to the massless modes of the open superstring are arranged into representations of $`SO(1,p)`$. The vector components along directions with Dirichlet boundary conditions become scalars and we are left with a vector $`A_\mu `$ with components along the directions which have Neumann boundary conditions. These fields are the bosonic components of a vector supermultiplet in $`(p+1)`$ dimensions. The low energy effective theory is then a supersymmetric theory in $`(p+1)`$ dimensions and the fluctuations of D-branes is described by the the scalar fields, which are transverse to the D-brane. This action can be computed if one requires that the non-linear sigma model describing the propagation of an open string with Dirichlet boundary conditions in a general supergravity background is conformally invariant. This gives a set of constraints in the fields which are the same as the equations of motion derived from the following effective action:

$$S_{Dp}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)}.$$
(1.5.7)
This is the Dirac-Born-Infled (DBI) action, where $`g`$ is the induced metric on the world-volume and $`=dAB`$, with $`B`$ the pull-back of the NSNS two-form and $`A`$ the U(1) gauge field. $`T_p`$ is the tension of a Dp-brane and in what follows we shall use $`T_p`$ for Dp-branes. Apart from the massless modes of the open string this theory contains also their coupling to the massless closed string modes.

The DBI action is an abelian $`U(1)`$ gauge theory which reduces, to leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, to YM in $`p+1`$ dimensions with $`9p`$ scalars fields, when the target space is flat. To see this let us take the NSNS 2-form $`B`$ in (1.5.7) to be zero. Then, the low energy worldvolume action becomes

$$S_{Dp}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{detg}\left(1+\frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}_\mu X^i^\mu X_i+𝒪(F^4)\right).$$
(1.5.8)
The Yang-Mills coupling constant $`g_{YM}`$ is related to the string parameters by

$$g_{YM}^2=(2\pi )^{p2}\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{p3}{2}}g_s.$$
(1.5.9)
If one includes fermions, then the low energy action for the D-branes becomes $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in $`p+1`$ dimensions. For $`p=9`$ we have a D9-brane filling all the space and the open strings have their endpoints free to move in all the spacetime. In this case there are no scalars transverse to the D9 and the DBI action becomes $`U(1)`$ Yang-Mills in 10 dimensions. The DBI action for a general Dp-brane can be obtained by dimensional reduction to $`p+1`$ dimensions of this $`U(1)`$ SYM theory in ten dimensions. In this procedure the components of the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$ in the directions along which we reduce become scalars.

A generalization of this is to consider a stack of N D-branes of the same kind. This is possible since the D-branes are BPS objects and then they can remain statically at any distance from each other. This introduces a new quantum number which distinguishes the branes on which the open strings end. This number is precisely the Chan-Paton factor. If one has N parallel D-branes labeled by an index $`i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$), the massless fields ($`A_\mu ,X^i`$) will carry a pair of indices $`i,j`$ which refer to the branes to which the strings are attached. The strings are oriented and therefore there are $`N^2N`$ components for each field. If the N D-branes are coincident, the effective theory becomes $`U(N)`$ SYM in $`p+1`$ dimensions. The scalars become massless in this case and fit into the vector supermultiplet of $`U(N)`$ gauge theory. The scalar fields are then $`U(N)`$ matrices. The diagonal values of these scalars represent the locations of the branes in transverse space. If the branes are separated at some distance then the gauge group is broken to $`U(1)^N`$. This is because the scalars acquire an expectation value. Since the scalars are in the adjoint representation, the gauge group can be broken maximally to $`U(1)^N`$.

### 1.6 The Maldacena Conjecture

D-branes are massive objects and then they give rise to a curved geometry. The dynamics of the fields in this background is described by the classical supergravity equations of motion. On the other hand, the low energy dymamics of D-branes is described by the DBI action, which reduces to SYM theory when $`\alpha ^{}0`$. The Maldacena conjecture identifies both descriptions by taking into account their respective validity in the string theory moduli space.

The simplest example is type IIB theory compactified on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. This corresponds to the near horizon geometry of a stack of parallel D3-branes. The boundary of $`AdS_5`$ is 4 dimensional Minkowski spacetime. Then, the low energy dynamics of the massless closed string modes is described by ten dimensional supergravity in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and that of the open string massless modes by the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM action. The closed string modes propagate in the bulk and the open string massless modes are confined to live on the four-dimensional worldvolume of the brane. The interaction between the brane and bulk modes is obtained through the explicit dependence of the DBI action on the graviton through the pull-back of the background metric. It becomes, in the boundary, flat Minkoski metric plus fluctuations associated to the gravitons. That is $`G=\eta +\kappa _{10}h`$, where $`h`$ is the graviton.

One can see that in the limit $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}_s^20`$, with the parameters $`g_s`$ and $`N`$ fixed, both theories decouple. This is because in the limit given above $`\kappa _{10}\alpha ^{}0`$. The limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ corresponds in the supergravity side to small curvature radius in string units. The radius is given, for a stack of D3-branes, by $`R=4\pi g_sN\mathrm{}_s^4`$. In the gauge theory side the DBI action reduces to $`𝒩=4`$ U(N) SYM since all the higher derivative corrections have possitive powers of $`\alpha ^{}`$. Thus, we are left with two decoupled theories, supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM on the boundary of $`AdS`$. When we take the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ we are looking at a small portion of spacetime very close to the branes which is blown up, since the metric has to be rescaled to get a finite result.

Type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is a quantum theory with an isometry group $`SO(2,4)\times SO(6)`$. On the other hand $`𝒩=4`$ SYM on 3+1 dimensions is a conformal field theory with conformal group $`SO(2,4)`$. Furthermore, the $`SO(6)`$ of the sphere can be identified with the R-symmetry group of the gauge theory. Thus, both theories have the same spacetime symmetries. The Maldacena conjecture  states that type IIB superstring theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ U(N) super Yang-Mills (defined on the boundary of $`AdS`$) are exactly mathematically equivalent. However both descriptions are valid in different regimes of the string moduli space. In terms of the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda g_{YM}^2N`$, which is the relevant parameter for large N Yang-Mills theory, the radius $`R`$ of $`AdS`$ and of the sphere is given by

$$R^44\pi g_sN\mathrm{}_s^4g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}_s^4=\mathrm{}_s^4\lambda .$$
(1.6.1)
In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`\lambda `$ fixed, then $`g_s0`$, and one can perform calculations in string perturbation theory. We would obtain the quantum non-perturbative description of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM in terms of the classical limit of string theory. If we furthermore consider the strong coupling limit of SYM ($`\lambda 1`$) with $`R`$ fixed, then

$$\frac{R^4}{\mathrm{}_s^4}g_sNg_{YM}^2N=\lambda 1,$$
(1.6.2)
and we are therefore dealing with the $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}_s^20`$ limit of string theory and, in this limit, classical string theory becomes classical supergravity.

## Chapter 2 Effective Brane Actions

The low energy dynamics of the small fluctuations around a classical supergravity brane solution is given by a $`(p+1)`$-dimensional supersymmetric field theory. The action describing the dynamics of these fluctuations must fulfill certain requirements. It must be invariant under world-volume diffeomorphisms and it should be classically equivalent when the brane propagates in two target space configurations related by a target space gauge symmetry.

As was mentioned in section 1.5 the D-brane effective action can be obtained by requiring conformal invariance, that is, requiring the vanishing of the $`\beta `$-functions for the string ending on a D-brane. The relations among the fields implied by this conditions are the same as the classical equations of motion derived from the action

$$S=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}d^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)},$$
(2.0.1)
which is called the Dirac-Born-Infeld action. Here $`g_{\mu \nu }=_\mu x^m_\nu x^ng_{mn}`$ is the pull-back of the spacetime metric on the world-volume, where greek indices $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$ are worlvolume indices and indices $`m,n\mathrm{}`$ are target space indices. We will keep this notation for the rest of the chapter. The action (2.0.1) must be multiplied by a constant $`T_p`$, the D-brane tension, with dimensions $`mass\times (length)^p`$, making the action dimensionless. We see that the one-form gauge potential $`A`$ enters the action through the modified field strength $`=FB=dAB`$, where $`B`$ is the pull-back to the worldvolume of the target NSNS two-form potential $`B_{\mu \nu }=_\mu x^m_\nu x^nB_{mn}`$. The form $`=FB`$ is invariant under the combined gauge transformations

$$\delta B=d\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta A=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(2.0.2)
Dp-branes are charged under RR potentials and their action should contain a term coupling the brane to these fields. However, the RR fields are subject to gauge transformations and the coupling should be gauge invariant . In order to find a candidate for this coupling let us define $`C`$ to be the formal sum of the background RR fields

$$C=\underset{r=0}{\overset{8}{}}C^{(r)},$$
(2.0.3)
where $`C^{(r)}`$ is a differential form of degree $`r`$. The fields $`C^{(r)}`$ are the RR gauge potentials of either IIA ($`r`$ odd) or IIB ($`r`$ even) supergravity. Their gauge transformation is

$$\delta _{RR}C=d\mathrm{\Lambda }H\mathrm{\Lambda }+d\mathrm{\Lambda }e^B,$$
(2.0.4)
where $`H=dB`$ is the NSNS 3-form field strength and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a formal sum of arbitrary forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(r)}`$ with degree $`r`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{r=0}{\overset{7}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(r)}.$$
(2.0.5)
The field strengths of the RR fields, given by

$$R(C)=dCHC=\underset{r=0}{\overset{10}{}}R^{(r)},$$
(2.0.6)
are invariant under the above transformation. The form expansion of $`R(C)`$ yields all the modified field strengths of the IIA and IIB potentials and their duals. To relate the potentials to their duals we impose

$$R^{(p)}=^{}R^{(10p)},p5,$$
(2.0.7)
where * is the Hodge dual in ten dimensions. This also implies that $`R^{(5)}`$ is self-dual. The RR field strengths given by (2.0.6) satisfy the Bianchi identity

$$dR=HR.$$
(2.0.8)
The requirement of target gauge invariance and the fact that D-branes possess electric charge determines the coupling to be of the form

$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}Ce^{},$$
(2.0.9)
where $`C`$ denotes the pull-back to the worldvolume of the corresponding target space potentials. The integral (2.0.9) over the worlvolume can be written as an integral over a $`(p+2)`$-dimensional manifold $`M_{p+2}`$ whose boundary is the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional worldvolume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}`$. Indeed it can be proved that

$$R(C)e^{}=d\left[Ce^{}\right],$$
(2.0.10)
and then it follows that (2.0.9) is equivalent to

$$S_{WZ}=_{M_{p+2}}R(C)e^{},$$
(2.0.11)
which is manifestly gauge invariant. Moreover, despite of the fact that $`Ce^{}`$ is not invariant under the RR gauge transformations, its variation is a total derivative, thus making (2.0.9) gauge invariant. Actually,

$$\delta _{RR}[Ce^{}]=d[\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{}].$$
(2.0.12)
The term (2.0.9) is a topological term of the Wess-Zumino type and it will be denoted by $`S_{WZ}`$. If the Dp-brane has RR charge $`q_{Dp}`$ the total action will be the sum of a DBI and a WZ term in the form

$$S=T_p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}d^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)}+q_{Dp}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}Ce^{}.$$
(2.0.13)
Extremal branes satisfy the BPS bound $`T_p=|q_{Dp}|`$ and their action will be given by

$$S=T_p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}d^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)}\pm T_p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}Ce^{},$$
(2.0.14)
where the $`+`$ sign is for branes an the $``$ for anti-branes.

### 2.1 D-brane actions with kappa symmetry

We have discussed the coupling of the bosonic degrees of freedom of the D-brane to the bosonic background fields, and now we are concerned with its supersymmetric extension, appropriate to describe the low energy dynamics of the fluctuations around the classical brane solution. One can adopt two types of formalisms: the Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond formulation, with manifest world-sheet supersymmetry and the Green-Schwarz (GS) formulation with manifest target space supersymmetry. Both lead to the same theory but the second one makes target space supersymmetry manifest, and upon quantization, bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom are unified in a single Fock space. The crucial ingredient in the GS formulation is a local fermionic symmetry of the world volume theory called “kappa symmetry”. It was first identified by Siegel  for the superparticle , and subsequently applied to the superstring  and the super 2-brane in eleven dimensions , followed by all super $`p`$-branes (without world-volume gauge fields) .

We want to formulate a generalization for D-branes of the previous description. In the case of super $`p`$-branes, whose only degrees of freedom are $`(X^m,\theta )`$, $`(p+1)`$\- dimensional actions in a $`d`$-dimensional spacetime have been formulated that have super-Poincaré symmetry in $`d`$ dimensions realized as a global symmetry. In addition they have world- volume general coordinate invariance, and a local fermionic symmetry called “kappa symmetry”. Manifest target space supersymmetry requires the introduction of more physical fields than the ones needed to fill in the supermultiplet. We can use the local symmetries of the theory to eliminate the extra degrees of freedom. Indeed, one can choose a physical gauge in which all the remaining fields represent dynamical degrees of freedom of the world-volume theory. Specifically, one can use the $`(p+1)`$-domensional diffeomorphism invariance of the world volume theory to identify $`p+1`$ of the space-time coordinates with the world-volume coordinates. This is called the “static gauge”. In such a gauge the remaining spatial coordinates can be interpreted as $`9p`$ scalar fields representing transverse excitations of the brane. In fact, they are the Goldstone bosons associated to spontaneously broken translational symmetries. The main distinction between D-branes and the previously studied super $`p`$-branes is that the field content of the world-volume theory includes an abelian vector gauge field $`A_\mu `$. The gauge field $`A_\mu `$ gives $`p1`$ physical degrees of freedom, so altogether there is a total of 8 bosonic modes.

The role played by $`\kappa `$-symmetry is to eliminate the extra fermionic degrees of freedom. Indeed, the 32 $`\theta `$ coordinates are cut in half by the equation of motion, and in half again by gauge fixing local $`\kappa `$-symmetry (gauge fixing $`\kappa `$-symmetry involves, as we will see, a projection condition), giving rise to 8 physical fermionic degrees of freedom. The crucial step is to make the right choice of which half of the $`\theta `$ coordinates to set to zero in the static gauge. If one doesn’t make a convenient choice, the formulas can become unwieldy. This symmetry reflects the fact that the presence of the brane breaks half of the supersymmetry in $`d`$ dimensions, so that half of it is realized linearly and half of it nonlinearly in the world-volume theory. The physical fermions of the world-volume theory are the Goldstone fermions associated to the broken supersymmetries.

Fortunately, at least for D-branes in type II theories, there is a gauge choice for the $`\theta `$ coordinates that leads to simple tractable formulas. Specifically, we set one of the two Majorana–Weyl spinors ($`\theta _1`$ or $`\theta _2`$) equal to zero. Then the fields of the remaining gauge-fixed theory are just the gauge field $`A_\mu `$, the remaining $`\theta `$, and the $`9p`$ scalar fields mentioned above.

##### Flat superspace

We will obtain kappa symmetric actions for D-branes embedded in a flat non-compactified 10 dimensional spacetime before generalizing them to the case of curved backgrounds. The DBI part of the action is not invariant under kappa symmetry and this determines the WZ part of the action such that the full action is invariant.

As before, the $`X^m`$ are the coordiantes of the ten dimensional spacetime. The fermionic coordinates of $`N=2`$ Type IIA superspace, $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, are Majorana-Weyl spinors of opposite chirality and we can group them in a unique fermion $`\theta =\theta _1+\theta _2`$, where now, $`\theta `$ is Majorana but not Weyl. In the IIB case there are two Majorana-Weyl spinors $`\theta _\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =1,2)`$ of the same chirality. The group that naturally acts on it is SL(2,R), whose generators we denote by Pauli matrices $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$.

Superspace forms may be expanded on the coordinate basis of 1-forms $`dZ^M`$, or on the inertial frame basis $`E^{\underset{¯}{M}}=dZ^ME_M^{\underset{¯}{M}}`$, where $`E_M^{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ is the supervielbein and $`\underset{¯}{M}`$ are flat indices. The basis $`E^{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ decomposes under the action of the Lorentz group into a Lorentz vector $`E^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$ and a Lorentz spinor $`E^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$. The latter is a 32-component Majorana spinor for IIA superspace and a pair of chiral Majorana spinors for IIB superspace. Thus

$$E^{\underset{¯}{M}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(E^{\underset{¯}{m}},E^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})\hfill & \text{(IIA)\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \\ (E^{\underset{¯}{m}},E^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }I})I=1,2\hfill & \text{(IIB)\hspace{0.17em}.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1.1)
The pull-back to the worldvolume of the super-vielbeins is given by

$$E_\mu {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}=_\mu Z^ME_M{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}.$$
(2.1.2)
The superfields in the NSNS sector of type IIA supergravity are the superspace forms

$$E^m=\mathrm{\Pi }^m=dX^m+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta ,E^\alpha =d\theta ^\alpha ,$$
(2.1.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^m`$ are 32$`\times `$32 Dirac matrices and the two-form potential $`B`$, given by

$$B=\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \left(dX^m+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta \right).$$
(2.1.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9`$ is the chirality operator ($`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11},\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\}=0`$). All the indices are already flat. The NSNS fields of type IIB supergravity are the same with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ replaced by $`\sigma _3`$.

Let us denote the world-volume coordinates by $`\xi ^\mu ,`$ $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ and take the world-volume signature to be $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$. The world-volume theory is supposed to have global IIA or IIB super-Poincaré symmetry. This is achieved by constructing it out of manifestly supersymmetric quantities. The superspace supersymmetry transformations are

$$\delta _ϵ\theta =ϵ,\delta _ϵX^m=\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\theta ,$$
(2.1.5)
and two supersymmetric quantities are $`_\mu \theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^m=_\mu X^m\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m_\mu \theta `$. The DBI term of the D-brane action is

$$S_{DBI}=d^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{\mu \nu }+_{\mu \nu })},$$
(2.1.6)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced world-volume metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=E_\mu {}_{}{}^{m}E_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\eta _{mn}^{},$$
(2.1.7)
and

$$=FB=dAB,$$
(2.1.8)
with A being the U(1) world-volume gauge field. The quantity $``$ in which the gauge field appears is required to be supersymmetric. The variation $`\delta _ϵB`$ is an exact differential form. In fact under the transformations of (2.1.5)

$$\delta _ϵB=\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \left(dX^m+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta \right)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta .$$
(2.1.9)
and then $`\delta _ϵ=0`$ is satisfied for an appropriate choice of $`\delta _ϵA`$, namely:

$$\delta _ϵA=\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\theta dX^m+\frac{1}{6}(\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\theta \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta +\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\theta \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta ).$$
(2.1.10)
As we have seen, the world-volume theory of a D-brane contains also a Wess-Zumino type term describing the coupling of the brane to RR fields

$$S_{WZ}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1},$$
(2.1.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$ is a $`(p+1)`$-form. To understand the supersymmetry of $`S_{WZ}`$, it is useful to characterize it by a formal $`(p+2)`$-form

$$I_{p+2}=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1},$$
(2.1.12)
which is typically a much simpler and more symmetrical expression than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$. It will be entirely constructed from the supersymmetry invariants $`d\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m`$ and $``$. This implies that the variation $`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$ must be exact, and therefore $`S_{WZ}`$ is invariant.

The two terms $`S_{DBI}`$ and $`S_{WZ}`$ are then supersymmetric and worldvolume diffeomorphism invariant. However, we will not require them to be individually kappa symmetry invariant. It is the sum of them what must be invariant. Just as for the cases of super $`p`$-branes we require that, whatever $`\delta _\kappa \theta `$ is

$$\delta _\kappa X^m=\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\delta _\kappa \theta =\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\theta ,$$
(2.1.13)
Then, in terms of the induced $`\gamma `$ matrices $`\gamma _\mu E_\mu {}_{}{}^{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m}^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ we have

$$\delta _\kappa g_{\mu \nu }=2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }(\gamma _\mu _\nu +\gamma _\nu _\mu )\theta ,$$
(2.1.14)
and the kappa variation of B is given by

$$\delta _\kappa B=2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^m+d\left(\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^m+\frac{1}{2}\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\theta \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^md\theta \frac{1}{2}\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\theta \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \right).$$
(2.1.15)
To obtain a simple result for $`\delta _\kappa `$ we can choose the transformation of $`A`$ such that it cancels the closed form in (2.1.15) and then

$$\delta _\kappa =2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_md\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^m.$$
(2.1.16)
In the type IIB case (p odd) one should replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ by $`\sigma _3`$.

Using eqs. (2.1.14) and (2.1.15) we compute the kappa transformation of the DBI term in the action

$$\delta _\kappa _{DBI}=2\sqrt{det(g+)}\delta \overline{\theta }\gamma _\mu \{(g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^1\}^{\mu \nu }_\nu \theta ,$$
(2.1.17)
where now, for the type IIB theory, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ should be replaced by $`\sigma _3`$, (the sign appears because it has been moved past $`\gamma _\mu `$). The (2.1.17) can be rewritten in the following form,

$$\delta _\kappa _{DBI}=2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\gamma ^{(p)}T_{(p)}^\nu _\nu \theta ,\left(\gamma ^{(p)}\right)^2=1,$$
(2.1.18)
where $`\gamma ^{(p)}`$ and $`T_{(p)}^\nu `$ can be represented in terms of antisymmetric tensors as follows:

$`\gamma ^{(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}},T_{(p)}^\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}ϵ^{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _p\nu }T_{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _p}.`$
(2.1.19)
From eqs. (2.1.17) and (2.1.18) it follows that $`\rho ^{(p)}\sqrt{det(g+)}\gamma ^{(p)}`$ and $`T_{(p)}^\nu `$ have to solve the equations

$`(\rho ^{(p)})^2=det(g+),\rho ^{(p)}\gamma _\mu =T_{(p)}^\nu (g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\nu \mu }.`$
(2.1.20)
The solution to eq. (2.1.20), obtained in , is given in terms of the matrix valued one-form $`\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma _\mu d\xi ^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ and the following sums of differential forms

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\rho _{p+1},\rho _{p+1}=\sqrt{det(g+)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+1)!}}\gamma _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}d\xi ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}d\xi ^{\mu _{p+1}},`$
$`T={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}T_p,T_p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}T_{\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _p}d\xi ^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}d\xi ^{\nu _p},`$ (2.1.21)
where $`p`$ runs with even or odd values for the IIA or IIB case respectively. The solution is then given by

$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`e^{}S_A(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })T_A=e^{}C_A(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }),(IIA)`$
$`\rho _B`$ $`=`$ $`e^{}C_B(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })\sigma _1T_B=e^{}S_B(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })\sigma _1,(IIB)`$ (2.1.22)
where

$`S_A(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{l+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }^{2l+1}}{(2l+1)!}},C_A(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{l+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }^{2l}}{(2l)!}},`$
$`S_B(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{}}(\sigma _3)^l{\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }^{2l+1}}{(2l+1)!}},C_B(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{}}(\sigma _3)^{l+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi }^{2l}}{(2l)!}}.`$ (2.1.23)
In order to implement kappa symmetry, we require that the WZ term of the action transforms as

$$\delta _\kappa _{WZ}=2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }T_{(p)}^\nu _\nu \theta .$$
(2.1.24)
In this case, the variation of the complete action under the kappa transformation has the form

$$\delta (_{DBI}+_{WZ})=2\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }(1\gamma ^{(p)})T_{(p)}^\nu _\nu \theta .$$
(2.1.25)
From eq. (2.1.20) we see that $`(\gamma ^{(p)})^2=1`$ and then $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma ^{(p)})`$ are projection operators. The transformation

$$\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }=\overline{\kappa }(1+\gamma ^{(p)})$$
(2.1.26)
makes the complete action kappa symmetry invariant.

We want to find a WZ action such that its kappa variation is the one given in (2.1.24). This variation can be written in terms of the p-form $`T_p`$ as follows:

$$\delta S_{WZ}=2(1)^p\delta \overline{\theta }T_p𝑑\theta =\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1},$$
(2.1.27)
Then, the variation of the (p+2)-form $`I_{p+2}=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$ is given by

$$\delta I_{p+2}=2(1)^pd\left(\delta \overline{\theta }T_pd\theta \right)=2(1)^p\left(\delta d\overline{\theta }T_pd\theta \delta \overline{\theta }dT_pd\theta \right),$$
(2.1.28)
and this equation is solved by

$$I_{p+2}=(1)^pd\overline{\theta }T_pd\theta .$$
(2.1.29)
Using the results for $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$ given in (2.1.22) it follows that

$$d_{WZ}=Re^{},$$
(2.1.30)
with, $`R=d\overline{\theta }C_A(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })d\theta `$ (IIA), or $`R=d\overline{\theta }S_B(\text{/}\mathrm{\Pi })d\theta `$ (IIB). This RR field strengths satisfy the respective type IIA or IIB supergravity equations of motion.

Eqs. (2.1.13) and (2.1.26) give the kappa-symmetry transformations of the worldvolume fields, obtained in the flat superspace case, namely,

$`\delta _\kappa \theta =(1+(C^1\gamma ^{(p)}C)^t)\kappa =(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa ,`$
$`\delta _\kappa X^m=\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\delta _\kappa \theta =\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\theta ,`$
(2.1.31)
where C is the charge conjugation matrix ($`\overline{\theta }=\theta ^tC,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^t=C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_mC,C^1=C^t=C`$) and the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =C\gamma _{}^{(p)}{}_{}{}^{t}C^1.$$
(2.1.32)
Given the arbitrary variations $`\delta Z^M`$ of the worldvolume fields $`Z^M`$, let us define

$$\delta E^{\underset{¯}{M}}\delta Z^ME_M{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}.$$
(2.1.33)
The transformations (2.1.31) can be rewritten in terms of the pull-backs of the super-vielbeins. It follows from eq. (2.1.3) that $`E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\delta _\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ and $`E_\mu ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=0`$. Then eq. (2.1.33) gives

$`\delta _\kappa E^{\underset{¯}{m}}=0,`$
$`\delta _\kappa E^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa .`$ (2.1.34)
It is illustrative to obtain explicitely the form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$. We will do this for the type IIB theory. From eqs. (2.1.22), (2.1.23) and (2.1.19) we see that $`\gamma ^{(p)}`$ takes the form

$`\gamma ^{(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{det(g+)}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^nn!(p+12n)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}\times `$
$`\times _{\mu _1\mu _2}\mathrm{}_{\mu _{2n1}\mu _{2n}}\gamma _{\mu _{2n+1}}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _{p+1}}\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}n}(i\sigma _2).`$
We will use here the following identity given in :

$$ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k\lambda _{k+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{p+1}}\gamma _{\lambda _{k+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{p+1}}=(1)^{\frac{k(k1)}{2}}(p+1k)!\gamma ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)},$$
(2.1.36)
where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}=\frac{1}{(p+1)!}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{(p+1)}}\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{(p+1)}}.$$
(2.1.37)
With the form of $`\gamma ^{(p)}`$ given in (LABEL:rhop) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\gamma ^{(p)},$$
(2.1.38)
and we get finally the form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ in terms of the bosonic worldvolume fields and the pull-backs of the background fields:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{1}{\sqrt{det(g+)}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{p+1}{}}\frac{1}{2^nn!}\gamma ^{\mu _1\nu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n\nu _n}_{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n\nu _n}(1)^n\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}n}(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}.$$
(2.1.39)
The same expression is valid for type IIA theory if one replaces $`(1)^n\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}n}(i\sigma _2)`$ by $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{n+(p+2)/2}`$.

##### D-branes in curved backgrounds

In the generalization to curved gackgrounds all the target space fields are functions of the superspace coordinates. The super D-brane action is given by

$`S_{D_p}`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\xi e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g_{\mu \nu }+_{\mu \nu })}}+T_p{\displaystyle Ce^{}},`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`E_\mu {}_{}{}^{m}E_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{n}g_{mn}^{},`$
$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }E_\mu {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}E_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{N}}B_{\underset{¯}{MN}}^{},`$
$`C^{(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r!}}dZ^{M_1}\mathrm{}dZ^{M_r}C_{M_r\mathrm{}M_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r!}}E^{\underset{¯}{M}_1}\mathrm{}E^{\underset{¯}{M}_r}C_{\underset{¯}{M}_r\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{M}_1},`$
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ in the induced metric on the world-volume.

In the case of curved backgrounds the transformations will depend on the superspace coordinates and they are defined by

$`\delta _\kappa E^a(x,\theta )=0,`$
$`\delta _\kappa E^\alpha (x,\theta )=(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa ,`$ (2.1.41)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ satisfying that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )^2=1`$, such that $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )`$ are indeed projectors.

In refs.  it is proved that the above transformations (2.1.41) leave the super D-brane action (LABEL:kappasdbal) invariant, with the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{1}{\sqrt{det(g+)}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2^nn!}\gamma ^{\mu _1\nu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n\nu _n}_{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n\nu _n}J_{(p)}^{(n)},$$
(2.1.42)
where $`g`$ is the induced metric on the worldvolume and $`=FP[B]`$ (P\[$`\mathrm{}`$\] denoting the pullback) and $`J_{(p)}^{(n)}`$ is the following matrix

$$J_{(p)}^{(n)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{n+(p2)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}\hfill & \text{(IIA)\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \\ (1)^n(\sigma _3)^{n+(p3)/2}i\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}\hfill & \text{(IIB)\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1.43)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(0)}=\frac{1}{(p+1)!}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{(p+1)}}\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{(p+1)}}.$$
(2.1.44)
Recall that in the type IIB theory the spinor $`ϵ`$ is actually composed by two Majorana-Weyl spinors $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ of well defined ten-dimensional chirality, which can be arranged as a two-component vector in the form

$$ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_1\\ ϵ_2\end{array}\right).$$
(2.1.45)
The Pauli matrices appearing in the expression of $`J^{(n)}`$ act on this two-dimensional vector. Moreover, in eqs. (2.1.42) and (2.1.44) $`\gamma _{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}}`$ are antisymmetrized products of the induced world-volume Dirac matrices which, in terms of the ten-dimensional constant gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{M}}`$, are given by

$$\gamma _\mu =E_\mu {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{m}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{}=_\mu X^mE_m{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{m}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{},$$
(2.1.46)
where $`E_m^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$ is the ten-dimensional vielbein.

The proof of refs.  asumes that the background fields satisfy the corresponding type IIA or IIB superspace constraints, which are equivalent to the equations of motion. Thus kappa symmetry invariance of D-brane actions requires the brane to move in on-shell supergravity backgrounds. We see that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ depends on the background fields (the vielbeins and $`B`$) but also on the worldvolume fields.

As we have seen, it is necessary that the DBI and WZ terms in (LABEL:kappasdbal) are multiplied by the same factor $`T_p`$ in order to their kappa variations cancel each other and the total action remain invariant. In general, the coefficient multiplying the WZ term of the action is the charge density $`Q_p`$, which determines the strength with which the brane couples to the RR potentials. Then, kappa invariance requires that $`|Q_p|=T_p`$, and thus, the brane must be a BPS state. The ambiguity in the sign is because we can have a brane or an anti-brane. In all our discussion we have considered the case $`Q_p=T_p`$ . If we had taken $`Q_p=T_p`$ then it would appear $`(1+\gamma ^{(p)})`$ in eq. (2.1.25) and then the variation $`\delta _\kappa \theta =(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa `$ would leave the action invariant.

##### Bosonic configurations

It was mentioned that we must gauge fix local kappa symmetry in order to remove the extra degrees of freedom in the (GS) formulation of the worldvolume theory of the brane. The extra bosonic degrees of freedom are removed by choosing the “static gauge”. In this gauge the world-volume general coordinate invariance is used to equate $`p+1`$ of the target-space coordinates with the world-volume coordinates $`(X^\mu =\sigma ^\mu )`$.

We will be interested in bosonic configurations ($`\theta =0`$) that preserve a fraction of the spacetime supersymmetry. We need the transformation of the $`\theta `$ field up to terms linear in $`\theta `$. The supersymmetry and kappa variation of $`\theta `$ are

$$\delta \theta =ϵ+(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa .$$
(2.1.47)
In general, kappa symmetry and supersymmetry transformations will not leave $`\theta =0`$. For any supersymmetry transformation with parameter $`ϵ`$ one can choose a value of $`\kappa `$, such that $`\delta \theta =0`$. This is equivalent to gauge fix kappa symmetry. Actually, we shall impose a gauge fixing condition of the form

$$𝒫\theta =0,$$
(2.1.48)
where $`𝒫`$ is a field independent projection operator, $`𝒫^2=𝒫`$. Then, the remaining non-vanishing components of $`\theta `$ are given by $`(1𝒫)\theta `$ and, clearly

$$\theta =𝒫\theta +(1𝒫)\theta .$$
(2.1.49)
The transformation (2.1.47) becomes a global supersymmetry transformation. In order to preserve the gauge fixing condition (2.1.48) is then

$$\delta 𝒫\theta =𝒫ϵ+𝒫(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa =0,$$
(2.1.50)
which determines $`\kappa =\kappa (ϵ)`$ and is equivalent to having unbroken supersymmetry. The condition of unbroken supersymmetry on the remaining non-vanishing components of $`\theta `$ is

$$\delta (1𝒫)\theta =(1𝒫)ϵ+(1𝒫)(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa (ϵ)=ϵ+(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa (ϵ)=0,$$
(2.1.51)
where we have used eq. (2.1.50) in the third equality. We can project the above condition to the $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )`$ subspace to obtain the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ.$$
(2.1.52)
No more information can be obtained by projecting to the $`(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )`$ subspace. We will call (2.1.52) “kappa symmetry condition”. If we had considered the case of an anti-brane the transformation of $`\theta `$ would be $`\delta \theta =ϵ+(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )\kappa `$ and the condition for unbroken supersymmetry $`ϵ+(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa (ϵ))\kappa =0`$, so that, projecting onto the $`(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )`$ subspace we obtain the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ(\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{brane}).$$
(2.1.53)
The eqs. (2.1.52) or (2.1.53) can be applied to determine the fraction of space supersymmetry preserved by bosonic membrane configurations. The spinor $`ϵ`$ is the target space supersymmetry parameter. For brane probes eqs. (2.1.52, 2.1.53) are the only supersymmetry conditions that arise. However, for supergravity configurations with branes as sources we have the D-brane action coupled to supergravity and the conditions above must be complemented with the Killing spinor equations of the supergravity theory. Thus the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by a D-brane is determined by the number of solutions of (2.1.52) with $`ϵ`$ being Killing spinor solutions of the background.

### 2.2 Dielectric Branes

The usual world-volume action for a D$`p`$-brane can be extended to the case of N coincident D$`p`$-branes, where the world-volume theory involves a U(N) gauge theory . The action is constructed such that it is consistent with T-duality. The resulting action has a variety of potential terms, i.e., nonderivative interactions, for the nonabelian scalar fields. This action also shows that D$`p`$-branes naturally couple to RR potentials of all form degrees, including both larger and smaller than $`p`$+1. This mechanism is responsible of the fact that D$`p`$-branes can be “polarized” by external fields.

T-duality is most easily implemented in terms of the ten-dimensional matrix $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ defined by:

$$E_{\mu \nu }=G_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.2.1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the background metric in the string-frame and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is the NSNS 2-form potential. The action will be formulated in the static gauge, i.e., we use first spacetime diffeomorphisms to define the fiducial world-volume as $`x^i=0`$ with $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$, and then with world-volume diffeomorphisms, the internal coordinates are taken as the remaining spacetime coordinates on that surface, $`\sigma ^a=x^a`$ with $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$. The scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, which descibe the embedding of the branes in spacetime, are identified with the coordinates transverse to the worldvolume through $`x^i=2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$. In this way the scalars and the gauge fields have dimensions of $`length^1`$.

The approach of  was to take the D9-brane action as the starting point. The D9 fills the entire space and there are no transverse directions. Therefore, there are no worldvolume scalar fields. Then a T-duality transformation is applied in the $`9p`$ directions $`x^i`$ with $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$ to produce the corresponding Born-Infeld action for a Dp-brane. The resulting action is more easily written in terms of the quantities

$$Q^i{}_{j}{}^{}\delta ^i{}_{j}{}^{}+i\lambda [\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^k]E_{kj},$$
(2.2.2)
where $`\lambda =2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2`$ and the $`E_{kj}`$ are the ones given in (2.2.1). The final T-dual Born-Infeld action becomes

$$S_{BI}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma STr\left(e^\varphi \sqrt{det(P[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}]+F_{ab})det(Q^i{}_{j}{}^{})}\right),$$
(2.2.3)
where $`P`$ denotes the pull-back to the worldvolume of the branes and the second index in the expression $`(Q^1\delta )^{ij}`$ has been raised using $`E^{ij}`$ (rather than $`G^{ij}`$), where $`E^{ij}`$ denotes the inverse of $`E_{ij}`$ ($`E^{ik}E_{kj}=\delta ^i_j`$).

The Born-Infeld action (2.2.3) is highly nonlinear and is incomplete without a precise prescription for how the gauge trace should be implemented. In the above action the symmetrized trace prescription suggested by Tseytlin  is adopted. This trace is completely symmetric between all nonabelian expressions of the form $`F_{ab}`$ and $`i[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]`$. This prescription does not seem to capture the full physics of the infrared limit but, on the other hand, in configurations with supersymmetry, it seems to describe properly the physics of the nonabelian Yang-Mills fields and even provides solutions of the full open-string equations of motion.

The non-abelian generalization of the Chern-Simons action consistent with T- duality is given by:

$$S_{CS}=\mu _pTr\left(P\left[e^{i\lambda \mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }}C^{(n)}\right]e^{}\right),$$
(2.2.4)
where $``$ is given in our conventions by $`_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }`$. Apart from the generalization of all worldvolume fields to their abelian counterparts and the inclusion of the overall gauge trace, $`e^{i\lambda \mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ appears inside the pull-back. Here $`\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denotes the interior product by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ regarded as a vector in the transverse space. Acting on forms, the interior product is an anticommuting operator of form degree –1. The interior products in eq. (2.2.4) must act on both the Neveu-Schwarz two-form and the RR potentials. The exponential makes a nontrivial contribution in eq. (2.2.4) because of the nonabelian nature of the displacement vectors $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$. For example, one has

$$\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }C^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Phi }^j\mathrm{\Phi }^iC_{ij}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_{ij}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Phi }^j,\mathrm{\Phi }^i].$$
(2.2.5)
It is clear that this action reduces to the form appearing in (2.0.14) for the abelian theory of a single Dp-brane. The integrand is to be evaluated by considering the expression in each set of brackets, from the innermost around $`C^{(n)}e^B`$ to the outermost for the gauge trace. In particular, this means that first $`C^{(n)}e^B`$ is expanded as a sum of forms in the ten-dimensional spacetime, and so only a finite set of terms in the exponential will contribute. Then the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda \mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ acts on this sum of forms, and so again only a finite set of terms in this second exponential will contribute. As with the Born-Infeld action, the proposed action (2.2.4) is given with the symmetrized trace prescription.

From the action (2.2.4) it follows that Dp-branes couple not only to the RR potential with form degree $`n=p+1`$ or $`n=p1,p3,\mathrm{}`$ that follow from the action (2.0.14)), but can also couple to the RR potentials with $`n=p+3,p+5,\mathrm{}`$ through the additional interactions involving commutators of the nonabelian scalars.

### 2.3 Worldvolume Action of the M-theory Five-brane

The complete Born-Infeld like action for a bosonic five-brane in a background of gravitational and antisymmetric gauge fields of $`D=11`$ supergravity was proposed in  and is called the PST action of the M5-brane. The M5 carries in its worldvolume a second-rank antisymmetric gauge field whose field-strength is self-dual (or chiral) in the free field limit. When one tries to incorporate the self-duality condition into an action a problem arises with preserving manifest Lorentz invariance of the model. The lack of manifest Lorentz invariance will result in the lack of manifest general coordinate invariance of the worldvolume of the five-brane, which can substantially complicate the construction and study of the complete supersymmetric (and $`\kappa `$-invariant) super-five-brane action in such a formulation.

In  a $`d=6`$ worldvolume covariant action of a Born-Infeld type for a five-brane with a chiral boson in its worldvolume was proposed. In their approach, $`d=6`$ covariance is achieved by introducing a single auxiliary scalar field entering the action in a polynomial way. This auxiliary field ensures not only worldvolume covariance but also that all the constraints of the model are of the first class, which is important when performing its covariant quantization.

The five-brane can be coupled to the antisymmetric gauge field of $`D=11`$ supergravity. When the five-brane couples to the rank-three antisymmetric gauge field $`C^{(3)}`$, the local symmetries require the addition to the action of an appropriate Wess-Zumino term. Upon a double dimensional reduction of the five-brane worldvolume from $`d=6`$ to $`d=5`$ and of the target space from $`D=11`$ to $`D=10`$, the five-brane action reduces to the Born-Infeld action with a Wess-Zumino term for a D4-brane given in (2.0.14).

In the PST formalism the worldvolume fields are the three-form field strength $`F`$ and the scalar field $`a`$ (the PST scalar). The bosonic action is the sum of three terms:

$$S=T_{M5}d^6\xi \left[_{DBI}+_{H\stackrel{~}{H}}+_{WZ}\right],$$
(2.3.1)
where the tension of the M5-brane is $`T_{M5}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/(2\pi )^5\mathrm{}_p^6`$. In the action (2.3.1) the field strength $`F=dA_{(2)}`$ is combined with the pullback $`P[C^{(3)}]`$ of the background potential $`C^{(3)}`$ to form the field $`H`$:

$$H=FP[C^{(3)}].$$
(2.3.2)
Let us now define the field $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{ij}=\frac{1}{3!\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(a)^2}}ϵ^{ijklmn}_kaH_{lmn},$$
(2.3.3)
with $`g`$ being the induced metric on the M5-brane worldvolume. The explicit form of the three terms of the action is:

$`_{DBI}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij})},`$
$`_{H\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24(a)^2}}ϵ^{ijkmnr}H_{mnr}H_{jkl}g^{ls}_ia_sa=H\stackrel{~}{H},`$
$`_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6!}}ϵ^{ijklmn}\left[P[C^{(6)}]_{ijklmn}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}H_{ijk}P[C^{(3)}]_{lmn}\right].`$ (2.3.4)
The axiliary field $`a`$ can be eliminated by gauge fixing the corresponding local symmetry at the price of the loss of manifest spacetime covariance.

The gauge transformations of the potentials $`C^{(3)}`$ and $`C^{(6)}`$ are given by

$$\delta C^{(3)}=d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)},\delta C^{(6)}=d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}F_{(4)}.$$
(2.3.5)
Clearly, $`\delta H=0`$ provided that $`\delta A_{(2)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$ and then, the first two terms in the action (2.3.1) are invariant under these transformations. The field-strength $`F_{(4)}`$ satisfies the following supergravity equation of motion:

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F_{(4)}^{}=\frac{1}{2}F_{(4)}F_{(4)},$$
(2.3.6)
where  is the Hodge dual in eleven dimensions, and then, we can write $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{(4)}^{}`$ in terms of the potentials $`C^{(3)}`$ and $`C^{(6)}`$ in the following way:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{(4)}^{}=dC^{(6)}\frac{1}{2}C^{(3)}F_{(4)},$$
(2.3.7)
which is invariant under the gauge transformations given in (2.3.5). The Wess-Zumino term transforms under these transformations as a total derivative. Actually,

$$\delta \left[C^{(6)}+\frac{1}{2}HC^{(3)}\right]=d\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}\frac{1}{2}H\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}\right),$$
(2.3.8)
thus making (2.3.1) gauge invariant.

The form of the action (2.3.1) and the fact that its double dimensional reduction results in the action (with Born-Infeld and Wess-Zumino terms) for the D4-brane in $`D=10`$ suggest that it should be possible to construct a $`d=6`$ covariant $`\kappa `$-symmetric action for a super-five-brane of M-theory analogous to that found for the super D-branes. This action would describe the embedding of the five-brane worldvolume into a superfield background of $`D=11`$ supergravity.

Once all the terms of the five-brane action have been completely fixed at the bosonic level, one can generalize it to a supersymmetric action by replacing background fields with the corresponding superfields in target space parametrized by supercoordinates. It has been checked in  that the supersymmetric action (2.3.1) posseses also a worldvolume fermionic $`\kappa `$-symmetry, and hence describes BPS 5-branes configurations preserving half the $`D=11`$ supersymmetry. The corresponding $`\kappa `$-matrix is however not uniquely defined. The most suitable form of this matrix is the following:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{\nu _m\gamma ^m}{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+\stackrel{~}{H})}}\left[\gamma _nt^n+\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2}\gamma ^{np}\stackrel{~}{H}_{np}+\frac{1}{5!}\gamma _{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_5n}\nu _n\right],$$
(2.3.9)
where we have defined the following quantities:

$$\nu _p\frac{_pa}{\sqrt{(a)^2}},t^m\frac{1}{8}ϵ^{mn_1n_2p_1p_2q}\stackrel{~}{H}_{n_1n_2}\stackrel{~}{H}_{p_1p_2}\nu _q.$$
(2.3.10)
In eq. (2.3.9) $`\gamma _{i_1i_2\mathrm{}}`$ are antisymmetrized products of the worldvolume Dirac matrices $`\gamma _i=_iX^ME_M^{\underset{¯}{M}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{M}}`$.

As common to all super-p-branes the $`\kappa `$-symmetry of the brane action requires the background superfields to satisfy constraints. In this case the $`\kappa `$-symmetry is compatible with $`D=11`$ supergravity constraints which put the background on the mass-shell.

## Chapter 3 Baryons from Brane Actions

The interplay between gauge theory and gravity is on the basis of the Maldacena conjecture . Indeed, Maldacena has argued that there is a remarkable duality between classical supergravity in the near-horizon region and the large $`N`$ ’t Hooft limit of the $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. In particular, the near-horizon geometry of parallel D3-branes is equivalent to the space $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, whose boundary can be identified with four-dimensional Minkowsky space-time. In this case one gets the so-called $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence between type IIB superstrings on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ non-abelian super Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions . Within this context, one can compute Wilson loop expectation values by considering a fundamental open string placed on the interior of the $`AdS_5`$ space and having its ends on the boundary . This formalism has been used to extract quark potentials both in the supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric theory. Moreover, Witten  has proposed a way to incorporate baryons by means of a D5-brane wrapped on the $`S^5`$, from which fundamental strings that end on the D3-branes emanate . This is the string theory counterpart to the gauge theory SU(N) baryon vertex, representing a bound state of N external quarks.

The baryon vertex can be described by a worldvolume approach, allowing a unified description of the D5-branes and strings. In ref. , the problem of a D5-brane moving under the influence of a D3-brane background was considered. The equations of motion of the static D5-brane are solved if one assumes that the fields satisfy a certain first-order BPS differential equation that was found previously by Imamura . This BPS condition can be integrated exactly in the near-horizon region of the background D3-brane geometry and the solutions are spikes of the D5-brane worldvolume which can be interpreted as bundles of fundamental strings ending on the D3-branes. Actually, these kinds of spikes are a general characteristic of the Dirac-Born-Infeld non-linear gauge theory and can be used to describe strings attached to branes .

The BPS condition for the full asymptotically flat D3-brane metric was analyzed numerically in ref. . As a result of this study one gets a precise description of the string creation process which takes place when two D-branes cross each other, i.e. of the so-called Hanany-Witten effect . These results were generalized in ref.  to the case of baryons in confining gauge theories. Moreover, in ref.  the BPS differential equation was obtained as a condition which must be fulfilled in order to saturate a lower bound on the energy.

This chapter is based on . Here, we shall study the worldvolume dynamics of a D(8-p)-brane moving under the action of the gravitational and Ramond-Ramond fields of a stack of background Dp-branes for $`p6`$. The D(8-p)-brane is extended along the directions orthogonal to the worldvolume of the background Dp-branes. For $`p=3`$ this system is the one analyzed in ref. . By using the method of ref. , we will find a BPS first-order differential equation whose solutions also verify the equation of motion. Remarkably, we will be able to integrate analytically this BPS equation both in the near-horizon and asymptotically flat metrics. For $`p5`$ the solutions we will find are similar to the ones described in ref. , i.e. the D(8-p)-brane worldvolume has spikes which can be interpreted as flux tubes made up of fundamental strings. Our analytical solution will allow us to give a detailed description of the shape of these tubes, their energy and of the process of string creation from D-brane worldvolumes.

The organization of this chapter is the following. In section 3.1 we review the baryon vertex construction of . In section 3.2 we formulate our problem. The BPS differential equation is obtained in section 3.3. In section 3.4 this BPS condition is integrated for $`p5`$ in the near-horizon region. The $`p=6`$ system requires a special treatment, which is discussed in section 3.5. The solution of the BPS equation for the full Dp-brane geometry is obtained in section 3.6. The detailed analysis of this solution is performed in appendix 3.A. In section 3.7 we analyze the supersymmetry preserved by the BPS configurations obtained in section 3.3. Finally, in section 3.8, we summarize our results.

### 3.1 The baryon vertex in $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory

The bayon vertex is a finite energy configuration with $`N`$ external quarks. Finding a baryonic vertex in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory does not mean that the theory has baryonic particles, or operators. Baryonic particles would appear in a theory that has dynamical quark fields (that is, fields transforming in the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$); in their absence, we get only a baryonic vertex, a gauge-invariant coupling of $`N`$ external charges. Introducing dynamical quark fields would require breaking some supersymmetry. It has been argued that Yang-Mills theory with $`SU(N)`$ gauge group has a large $`N`$ limit as a closed string theory, with an effective string coupling constant $`\lambda 1/N`$. If elementary quarks are added, it is believed that there are also open strings (describing mesons), with an open string coupling constant $`\lambda ^{}1/\sqrt{N}`$. Baryons of an $`SU(N)`$ theory with dynamical quarks are $`N`$-quark bound states, which one would expect to have masses of order $`N`$. As $`N1/(\lambda ^{})^2`$, such states can be interpreted as solitons in the open string sector. The question is how external quarks in $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills are described in terms of Type IIB on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. With Lorentz signature, the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ is $`S^3\times \mathrm{IR}`$, where $`\mathrm{IR}`$ is the “time” direction; $`S^3\times \mathrm{IR}`$ is a universal cover of the conformal compactification of Minkowski space. External quarks are regarded as endpoints of strings in $`AdS`$ space. Thus, to compute the energy for a time-independent configuration with an external quark at a point $`xS^3`$ and an external antiquark at $`yS^3`$, one considers configurations in which a string inside the $`AdS`$ space connects the boundary points $`x`$ and $`y`$.

The strings in question are elementary Type IIB superstrings if the external charges are electric charges, i.e., particles in the fundamental representation of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. External monopoles would be boundaries of $`D`$-strings, and external charges of type $`(p,q)`$ are boundaries of $`(p,q)`$ strings.

We now want to find a “baryon” vertex connecting $`N`$ external quarks, with their color wave functions combined together by an $`N^{th}`$ order antisymmetric tensor of $`SU(N)`$. For this purpose, we place external quarks at boundary points $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N`$. We consider a configuration in which each of the boundary points is the endpoint of an elementary superstring in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, with all $`N`$ strings oriented in the same way. We want, as in figure 1, to find a “baryon vertex,” where these $`N`$ strings can somehow terminate in the interior of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$.

The baryon vertex is simply a wrapped fivebrane. The reason why the wrapped fivebrane is a baryon vertex is the following. In Type IIB superstring theory, there is a self-dual five-form field $`F_{(5)}`$. The $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ compactification which is related to $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory has $`N`$ units of five-form flux on $`S^5`$:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^5}F_{(5)}=N.$$
(3.1.1)
On the $`D`$-fivebrane worldvolume, there is an $`U(1)`$ gauge field A. It couples to $`F_{(5)}`$ by means of an interaction of the type

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^5\times \mathrm{IR}}AF_{(5)}.$$
(3.1.2)
Because of this coupling and (3.1.1), the $`F_{(5)}`$ field contributes $`N`$ units of $`A`$-charge. Since the total charge of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field must vanish in a closed universe, there must be $`N`$ units of charge from some other source.

Such a source are elementary strings ending on the fivebrane. The endpoint of an elementary string that ends on the fivebrane is electrically charged with respect to the $`A`$-field, with a charge that is $`+1`$ or $`1`$ depending on the orientations of the string and fivebrane. To cancel the $`F_{(5)}`$ contribution to the $`A`$-charge, we need $`N`$ strings, all oriented in the same way, ending on the fivebrane. The fivebrane is thus a baryon or antibaryon vertex, depending on its orientation.

We have thus provided evidence that the gauge theory on $`S^3\times \mathrm{IR}`$ that is dual to Type IIB on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ has the property that it is possible to form a gauge-invariant combinations of $`N`$ quarks, i.e., of $`N`$ particles in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. This is in agreement with the fact that the gauge group is believed to be $`SU(N)`$ (and not $`U(N)`$, for example).

Let us estimate the energy of the baryon vertex in the ’t Hooft limit (the string coupling $`\lambda `$ going to zero, and $`N`$ to infinity, with $`\lambda N`$ fixed). Since the $`D`$-brane tension is of order $`1/\lambda `$, that is of order $`N`$, and the volume of $`S^5`$ remains finite for $`N\mathrm{}`$, the baryon vertex for $`N`$ external electric charges has an energy of order $`N`$, as expected for baryons in the large $`N`$ limit of QCD. For $`N`$ external magnetic charges, the energy of the baryon vertex is controlled by the tension of an NS fivebrane, and has an extra factor of $`1/\lambda `$ or $`N`$; this factor seems natural, as magnetic charges are boundaries of $`D`$-strings, whose tension is $`1/\lambda `$ or $`N`$ times the tension of the elementary strings. In each case, the energy of the baryon vertex is comparable to the energy of the $`N`$ strings that are attached to it, and hence a dynamical study of baryonic states would involve balancing these two energies.

### 3.2 Worldvolume Dynamics

The ten-dimensional metric (in the string frame) corresponding to a stack of $`N`$ coincident extremal Dp-branes in type II superstring theory was given in eq. (1.4.31). If we parametrize the space transverse to the Dp-brane by spherical coordinates, then it takes the following form

$$ds^2=\left[f_p(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(dt^2+dx_{}^2)+\left[f_p(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2).$$
(3.2.1)
In eq. (3.2.1) $`x_{}`$ are $`p`$-dimensional cartesian coordinates along the branes, $`r`$ is a radial coordinate parametrizing the distance to the branes and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ is the line element of an unit $`8p`$ sphere. The harmonic function $`f_p(r)`$ appearing in eq. (3.2.1) is given by

$$f_p(r)=a+\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^{7p},$$
(3.2.2)
where $`a=0,1`$ and the radius $`R`$ was given in eq. (1.4.44) in terms of the number $`N`$ of branes, the Regge slope $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the string coupling constant $`g_s`$. The value $`a=1`$ in eq. (3.2.2) corresponds to the full geometry of the stack of Dp-branes. Actually, in order to have an asymptotically flat space-time, we shall restrict ourselves to the case $`p<7`$. Taking $`a=0`$ in the harmonic function $`f_p(r)`$ is equivalent to approximate the Dp-brane geometry by the near-horizon metric of the ‘throat’ region of (3.2.1).

The Dp-brane solution we are considering is also characterized by a dilaton field $`\varphi (r)`$ and a Ramond-Ramond (RR) $`p+2`$-form field $`F^{(p+2)}`$. The corresponding values are

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[f_p(r)\right]^{\frac{p3}{4}},`$
$`F_{t,x_{}^1,\mathrm{},x_{}^p,r}^{(p+2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[f_p(r)\right]^1,`$ (3.2.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(r)=\varphi (r)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the value of the dilaton field at infinite distance of the Dp-branes (i.e. $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=lim_r\mathrm{}\varphi (r)`$). As was pointed out in ref. , in order to trust this type II supergravity solution, both the curvature in string units and the dilaton must be small. This fact introduces restrictions in the values of the radial coordinates for which the correspondence between the supergravity and gauge theory descriptions is valid (see also ref. ).

Let us now consider a D(8-p)-brane embedded in the transverse directions of the stack of the background Dp-branes. The dynamics of this D(8-p)-brane is determined by its action, which is a sum of a Dirac-Born-Infeld and a Wess-Zumino term

$$S=T_{8p}d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}p}\sigma e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+F)}+T_{8p}d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}p}\sigma Ce^{},$$
(3.2.4)
where $`g`$ is the induced metric on the worldvolume of the D(8-p)-brane, $`A`$ is a worldvolume abelian gauge field and $`F=dA`$ its field strength. The Wess-Zumino term in eq. (3.2.4) couples the (7-p)-form potential $`C^{(7p)}`$ to $`F`$. In this particular case $`C^{(7p)}`$ is related to the pullback of the Hodge dual of the background RR (p+2)-form $`F^{(p+2)}`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}=dC^{(7p)}`$. Notice that this RR field acts as a source for the worldvolume gauge field $`A`$. The coefficient $`T_{8p}`$ appearing in the action (3.2.4) is the tension of a D(8-p)-brane, which is given by

$$T_{8p}=(2\pi )^{p8}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{p9}{2}}(g_s)^1.$$
(3.2.5)
Let $`\theta ^1`$, $`\theta ^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta ^{8p}`$ be coordinates which parametrize the $`S^{8p}`$ transverse sphere. The worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}p)`$ will be taken as

$$\sigma ^\alpha =(t,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{8p}).$$
(3.2.6)
We shall assume that the $`\theta `$’s are spherical angles on $`S^{8p}`$ and that $`\theta \theta ^{8p}`$ is the polar angle ($`0\theta \pi `$). Therefore, the $`S^{8p}`$ line element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ can be decomposed as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2=d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}^2,$$
(3.2.7)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}^2`$, which only depends on $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}`$, is the line element of a $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. We are going to consider static configurations of the D(8-p)-brane which only depend on the polar angle $`\theta `$. Actually, we shall restrict ourselves to the case in which the only non-vanishing fields are $`r(\theta )`$, $`x(\theta )`$ and $`A_0(\theta )`$, $`x`$ being a direction parallel to the background Dp-branes and $`A_0(\theta )`$ the component of $`A`$ along the time direction. It is straightforward to verify that the action for such configurations can be written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`TT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}{\displaystyle }d\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\times `$
$`\times \left[r^{7p}f_p(r)\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{f_p(r)}}F_{0,\theta }^2}+(1)^{p+1}(7p)A_0R^{7p}\right],`$
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $`\theta `$ and $`T=𝑑t`$. In eq. (LABEL:bardiez) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}`$ is the volume of the unit (7-p)-sphere, given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{8p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}.$$
(3.2.9)
It is interesting at this point to remember that we are considering static solutions of the gauge field that only depend on $`\theta `$. The electric field for these configurations is

$$E=F_{0,\theta }=_\theta A_0.$$
(3.2.10)
Let us now define the displacement field $`D_p`$ as

$$D_p(\theta )\frac{(1)^{p+1}}{TT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}}\frac{S}{E}=(1)^{p+1}\frac{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)E}{\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\frac{x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{f_p(r)}E^2}}.$$
(3.2.11)
The extra factors appearing in the definition (3.2.11) have been included for convenience. The Euler-Lagrange equation for $`A_0`$ implies an equation for $`D_p`$ which is easy to find, namely

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }D_p(\theta )=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}p)R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}.$$
(3.2.12)
Notice that the right-hand side of eq. (3.2.12) only depends on $`\theta `$. Therefore (3.2.12) can be integrated and, as a result, one can obtain $`D_p`$ as a function of $`\theta `$. We shall work out the explicit form of $`D_p(\theta )`$ at the end of this section. At present we only need to use the fact that $`D_p(\theta )`$ satisfies eq. (3.2.12). Actually, substituting $`(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}p)R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}`$ by $`_\theta D_p`$ in the Wess-Zumino term of the action and integrating by parts, one can recast $`S`$ as

$$S=TU,$$
(3.2.13)
with $`U`$ given by

$`U=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta }`$ $`[(1)^{p+1}ED_p(\theta )+`$ (3.2.14)
$`+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{f_p(r)}}E^2}].`$
Notice that, as is evident from their relation (3.2.13), $`S`$ and $`U`$ give rise to the same Euler-Lagrange equation. Actually, since we have eliminated $`A_0`$ in favor of $`D_p`$, we can regard $`U`$ as the Legendre transform of $`S`$ and, therefore, $`U`$ can be considered as an energy functional for the embedding of the D(8-p)-brane in the Dp-brane background. The fields $`E`$ and $`D_p`$ are related, as is obvious from eq. (3.2.11). It is not difficult to invert eq. (3.2.11) and get $`E`$ in terms of $`D_p`$. The result is

$$E=(1)^{p+1}\sqrt{\frac{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\frac{x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{f_p(r)}}{(D_p(\theta ))^2+[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)]^2}}D_p(\theta ).$$
(3.2.15)
Using this relation we can eliminate $`E`$ from the expression of $`U`$

$$U=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\theta \sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\frac{x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{f_p(r)}}\sqrt{(D_p(\theta ))^2+[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)]^2}.$$
(3.2.16)
Recall that $`D_p(\theta )`$ is a known function of $`\theta `$ (see below). Therefore eq. (3.2.16) gives the energy functional $`U`$ in terms of $`x(\theta )`$ and $`r(\theta )`$. These functions must be solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from $`U`$. From the study of the functional $`U`$ in several situations we will determine the shape of the D(8-p)-brane embedding in the background geometry. Let us consider, first of all, the near-horizon approximation, which is equivalent to taking $`a=0`$ in the harmonic function (3.2.2). In this case $`r^{7p}f_p(r)=R^{7p}`$ and $`U`$ is given by

$$U=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\theta \sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\frac{r^{7p}}{R^{7p}}x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\sqrt{(D_p(\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}R^{2(7p)}}.$$
(3.2.17)
By inspecting eq. (3.2.17) one easily concludes that $`U`$ transforms homogeneously under a simultaneous rescaling of the radial and parallel coordinates of the form

$$(r,x)(\alpha r,\alpha ^{\frac{p5}{2}}x),$$
(3.2.18)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant. It follows that the equations of motion derived from $`U`$ are invariant under the transformation (3.2.18). Moreover, the homogeneous character of $`U`$ under the transformation (3.2.18) implies the following scaling law

$$x\frac{R^{\frac{7p}{2}}}{r^{\frac{5p}{2}}},$$
(3.2.19)
where the power of $`R`$ has been determined by imposing dimensional homogeneity of both sides of (3.2.19). Eq. (3.2.19) is precisely the holographic UV/IR relation found in ref. . According to eq. (3.2.19), for $`p<5`$, large radial distances ($`r\mathrm{}`$) correspond to small values of the parallel coordinate $`x`$. For $`p=5`$, the distance $`x`$ is insensitive to changes in $`r`$, whereas, for $`p=6`$, $`x`$ increases when $`r`$ grows. The consequences of this relation for the correspondence between field theories and near-horizon supergravities have been discussed in ref.  (see also ref. ). In our approach we shall see that, indeed, the $`p=6`$ case is special and the embedding of the D2-brane in the D6-brane background geometry has new characteristics, which must be studied separately.

Let us finish this section by giving the expressions of the displacement fields $`D_p`$. The $`\theta `$-dependence of $`D_p`$ can be obtained by integrating the right-hand side of eq. (3.2.12). The results one gets for the different cases are

$`D_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^7\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}^6\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}})+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\right],`$
$`D_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^6\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}^5\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}\mathrm{sin}\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}(\pi \nu \theta )\right],`$
$`D_2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^5\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}})+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\right],`$
$`D_3(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^4\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}^3\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\pi \nu \theta )\right],`$ (3.2.20)
$`D_4(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^3\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\right],`$
$`D_5(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R^2\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\pi \nu \theta \right],`$
$`D_6(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right],`$
where we have parametrized the additive constant of integration by means of a parameter $`\nu `$. We have chosen the $`\theta `$-independent term in $`D_p(\theta )`$ in such a way that the value of the displacement field at $`\theta =\pi `$ is given by

$$D_p(\pi )=2\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}R^{7p}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu ).$$
(3.2.21)
Eq. (3.2.21) allows to give a precise meaning to the parameter $`\nu `$ . In fact, as we shall verify below, there exist solutions for which $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`x^{}0`$ when $`\theta \pi `$ in a way that simulates a ‘flux tube’ attached to the D(8-p)-brane. The ‘tension’ (i.e. the energy per unit radial distance) for one of these spikes can be obtained from the expression of $`U`$ in eq. (3.2.16). Actually, as $`\theta \pi `$ one can check that the terms with $`r^{}`$ dominate over the other terms in the first square root in eq. (3.2.16), whereas the second square root can be approximated by $`|D_p(\pi )|`$. As a result , the tension of the spike is $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}|D_p(\pi )|`$. Using the value of $`D_p(\pi )`$ given in eq. (3.2.21) and the fact that (see eqs. (1.4.44), (3.2.5) and (3.2.9)):

$$T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}=\frac{NT_f}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)},$$
(3.2.22)
we conclude that the tension of the $`\theta =\pi `$ spike is $`(1\nu )NT_f`$, where $`T_f`$ is the tension of the fundamental string. This result implies that we can interpret the $`\theta =\pi `$ tube as a bundle of $`(1\nu )N`$ fundamental strings which, from the gauge theory point of view, corresponds to a baryon formed by $`(1\nu )N`$ quarks. It is clear that, although in the classical theory $`\nu `$ is a continuous parameter, upon quantization $`\nu `$ should be a multiple of $`1/N`$ taking values in the range $`0\nu 1`$.

Let us finally point out that there exist other solutions for which $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`x^{}0`$ when $`\theta 0`$. The asymptotic tension for these solutions is $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}|D_p(0)|`$. The value of $`D_p(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =0`$ can be obtained from the values given in eq. (3.2.20). The result is

$$D_p(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}R^{7p}\nu .$$
(3.2.23)
Using again eq. (3.2.22), one can verify that $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}|D_p(0)|=\nu NT_f`$, which corresponds to a bundle of $`\nu N`$ fundamental strings. This fact provides an interpretation of $`\nu `$ for this second class of solutions.

### 3.3 BPS conditions

In the remaining of this paper we are going to study solutions of the equations of motion of the brane probes which are not extended in the directions parallel to the background branes. This amounts to take $`x^{}=0`$ (i.e. $`x(\theta )=`$ constant) in our previous equations. From the expression (3.2.16) of $`U`$ we can get the differential equation which determines $`r`$ as a function of $`\theta `$. Indeed, the Euler-Lagrange equation derived from $`U`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}[{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}\sqrt{(D_p(\theta ))^2+[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)]^2}]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}\sqrt{(D_p(\theta ))^2+[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)]^2}+`$ (3.3.1)
$`+(7p)a{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}f_p(r)}{\sqrt{(D_p(\theta ))^2+[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}r^{7p}f_p(r)]^2}}}.`$
Trying to obtain a solution for such a complicate second-order differential equation seems, a priori, hopeless. A possible strategy to solve eq. (3.3.1) consists of finding a first integral for this system. Notice that the integrand of $`U`$ depends explicitly on $`\theta `$ (see eq. (3.2.16)) and, therefore, there is no first integral associated to the invariance under shifts of $`\theta `$ by a constant. Nevertheless, we will be able to find a first-order equation such that any function $`r(\theta )`$ satisfying it is a solution of the equation (3.3.1). This first-order condition is much simpler than the Euler-Lagrange equation (3.3.1) and, indeed, we will be able to solve it analytically, both in the near-horizon ($`a=0`$) and asymptotically flat ($`a=1`$) geometries. For $`p=3`$ and $`a=0`$, the first order equation was found by Imamura  as a BPS  condition for the implementation of supersymmetry in the worldvolume theory of a D5-brane propagating in a D3 background. This condition was subsequently extended to ($`p=3`$, $`a=1`$) and ($`p=4`$, $`a=0`$) in refs.  and  respectively. In order to generalize these results, we shall follow here the approach of ref.  (see also ref. ), where the BPS equation was found by requiring the saturation of a certain bound on the energy functional.

Following ref. , let us define the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )r^{7p}f_p(r)(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}.$$
(3.3.2)
In terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )`$, we define the function $`g_p(r,\theta )`$ as follows:

$$g_p(r,\theta )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta +D_p(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.3.3)
Making use of the function $`g_p`$, it is easy to verify that the energy can be put in terms of a square root of a sum of squares. Indeed, it is a simple exercise to demonstrate that $`U`$ can be written as

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}{\displaystyle }d\theta \times `$ (3.3.4)
$`\times \sqrt{𝒵^2+r^2[\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ]^2[{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}g_p(r,\theta )]^2,}`$
where $`𝒵`$ is given by

$$𝒵=r\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta \right]\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{r^{}}{r}g_p(r,\theta )\right].$$
(3.3.5)
In view of eq. (3.3.4), it is clear that the energy of the D(8-p)-brane is bounded as

$$UT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\theta \left|𝒵\right|.$$
(3.3.6)
This bound is saturated when $`r(\theta )`$ satisfies the following first-order differential equation:

$$\frac{r^{}}{r}=g_p(r,\theta ).$$
(3.3.7)
It is straightforward to prove that any function $`r(\theta )`$ that satisfies eq. (3.3.7) is also a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation (3.3.1). Notice that the condition (3.3.7) involves the displacement field $`D_p(\theta )`$ (see eq. (3.3.3)). The expressions of the $`D_p`$’s have been given at the end of section 2 (eq. (3.2.20)). However, in order to demonstrate that the solutions of eq. (3.3.7) verify the equation of motion (3.3.1), we do not need to use the explicit form of $`D_p(\theta )`$. The only property required for this proof is the value of the derivative of $`D_p(\theta )`$, given in eq. (3.2.12). The electric field acquires a very simple expression when the BPS (3.3.7) is satisfied. To see this let us invert eq. (3.2.11) and obtain the electric field $`E`$ in terms of $`D_p(\theta )`$ for $`x^{}0`$. This is given by

$$E=(1)^{p+1}\frac{\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\sqrt{(D_p)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_p)^2}}D_p(\theta ).$$
(3.3.8)
Now eq. (3.3.7) is equivalent to

$$\frac{\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\sqrt{(D_p)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_p)^2}}=\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.3.9)
Putting together (3.3.8) and (3.3.9) we arrive to

$$E=(1)^{p+1}\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(3.3.10)
As pointed out in ref.  for the $`p=3`$ case, $`𝒵`$ can be written as a total derivative:

$$𝒵=\frac{d}{d\theta }\left[D_p(\theta )r\mathrm{cos}\theta +\left(\frac{a}{8p}+\frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}\right)(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{8p}\right].$$
(3.3.11)
It is important to stress the fact that eq. (3.3.11) can be proved without using the condition (3.3.7) or the Euler-Lagrange equation (3.3.1) (only eq. (3.2.12) has to be used). Eq. (3.3.11) implies that the bound (3.3.6) does not depend on the detailed form of the function $`r(\theta )`$. Actually, as a consequence of eq. (3.3.11), only the boundary values of $`r(\theta )`$ matter when one evaluates the right-hand side of eq. (3.3.6). The functions $`r(\theta )`$ which solve eq. (3.3.7) correspond to those D(8-p)-brane embeddings which, for given boundary conditions, have minimal energy. Due to this fact we shall refer to eq. (3.3.7) as the BPS condition. The search for the solutions of the BPS equation and their interpretation will be the subject of the next three sections.

### 3.4 The near-horizon solution for $`p5`$

In this section we are going to solve the BPS first-order differential equation in the near-horizon geometry for $`p5`$. It will become clear in the process of finding the solution that the $`p=6`$ case is singled out (as expected from the holographic relation (3.2.19)). This $`p=6`$ case will be discussed separately in section 5.

Let us start by defining the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ by means of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\frac{1}{R^{7p}}\left[R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\right].$$
(3.4.1)
The right-hand side of eq. (3.4.1) is known and, thus, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ is a known function of $`\theta `$ whose explicit expression can be obtained by substituting the values of $`D_p(\theta )`$, given in eq. (3.2.20), in (3.4.1). Moreover, the BPS condition (3.3.7) for $`a=0`$ can be written in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ as

$$\frac{r^{}}{r}=\frac{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.4.2)
A key point in what follows is that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ has a simple derivative, which can be easily obtained from eq. (3.2.12), namely,

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p)(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{5p}.$$
(3.4.3)
By inspecting the right-hand side of this equation we observe that $`p=6`$ is a special case. Indeed, when $`p6`$, we can represent the $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}`$ term appearing in the BPS condition as

$$(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{6p}\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta ),(p6).$$
(3.4.4)
After doing this, the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.2) is immediately recognized as a logarithmic derivative and, as a consequence, the BPS condition can be readily integrated. The result one arrives at is

$$r(\theta )=C\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\right]^{\frac{1}{6p}}}{\mathrm{sin}\theta },$$
(3.4.5)
where $`C`$ is a positive constant. For $`p<5`$ there is a fractional power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ in the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.5) and, thus, the solution we have found only makes sense for those values of $`\theta `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )0`$. Moreover, it is clear from eq. (3.4.3) that

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }_p}{d\theta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(p<6,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\theta \pi ),$$
(3.4.6)
and, therefore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ is a monotonically increasing function in the interval $`0\theta \pi `$. The values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\pi `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_p(0)}{R^{7p}}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_p(\pi )}{R^{7p}}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (3.4.7)
where, in order to establish the last inequalities, we have used the fact that $`0\nu 1`$. From this discussion it follows that there exists a unique value $`\theta _0`$ of the polar angle such that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta _0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(3.4.8)
The form of the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ has been displayed in figure 3.2. It is clear that the solution (3.4.5) is valid for $`\theta _0\theta \pi `$. Notice that $`\theta _0`$ depends on $`\nu `$ and, actually, is a monotonically increasing function of $`\nu `$. In fact, from eq. (3.4.7) one concludes that $`\theta _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for $`\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, whereas $`\theta _0=\pi `$ for $`\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$.

For $`p=5`$ the function appearing in the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.5) is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_5(\theta )=\theta \pi \nu .$$
(3.4.9)
Thus, our solution in this case is

$$r(\theta )=C\frac{\theta \pi \nu }{\mathrm{sin}\theta },(p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}).$$
(3.4.10)
As the radial coordinate $`r`$ must be non-negative, from eq. (3.4.10) one immediately concludes that, also in this $`p=5`$ case, $`\theta _0\theta \pi `$, where now $`\theta _0`$ depends linearly on $`\nu `$, namely

$$\theta _0=\pi \nu ,(p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}).$$
(3.4.11)
The solution we have found coincides with the one obtained in refs.  for $`p=3,4`$. Our result (3.4.5) generalizes these solutions for any $`p<6`$ (the solution for $`p=6`$ will be given in the next section). By inspecting eq. (3.4.5) it is easy to conclude that, for $`\nu 1`$, $`r(\theta )`$ diverges when $`\theta \pi `$. Actually, when $`\theta \pi `$ and $`\nu 1`$, $`r(\theta )`$ behaves as

$$r(\theta )\frac{C\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\pi )\right]^{\frac{1}{6p}}}{\pi \theta },(\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}),$$
(3.4.12)
which corresponds to a “tube” of radius $`C\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\pi )\right]^{\frac{1}{6p}}`$. We will check below that the energy of these tubes corresponds to a bundle of $`(1\nu )N`$ fundamental strings emanating from the D(8-p)-brane. When $`\nu 0`$ the critical angle $`\theta _0`$ is greater than zero and, as a consequence, eq. (3.4.5) gives $`r(\theta _0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Actually, when $`\nu 0`$, the solution has the shape represented in figure 3.3a. On the contrary, when $`\nu =0`$, the function $`r(\theta )`$ takes a non-vanishing value at the critical value $`\theta _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Notice that, in this last case, both numerator and denominator on the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.5) vanish. The behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ near $`\theta =0`$ can be obtained by a Taylor expansion. The successive derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ can be easily computed from the value of its first derivative, given in eq. (3.4.3). It is easy to prove that the first non-vanishing derivative of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =0`$ is

$$\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p}}{d\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p)!.$$
(3.4.13)
Moreover, the $`(7p)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =0`$ vanishes, i.e.,

$$\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}p}}{d\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}p}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(3.4.14)
Therefore, the expression of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ for values of $`\theta `$ close to zero takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})+\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p}+c_p\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}p}+\mathrm{},$$
(3.4.15)
where $`c_p`$ is a non-vanishing coefficient. Substituting this expansion in the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.5) for $`\nu =0`$ leads to the conclusion that

$$r(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=C,(\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}),$$
(3.4.16)
i.e. $`r(0)0`$ for $`\nu =0`$, as claimed above. Moreover, $`r^{}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ vanishes in this case,

$$r^{}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).$$
(3.4.17)
The shape of the solution for $`\nu =0`$ has been plotted in figure 3.3b. Notice that the $`\nu =0`$ tube corresponds to the ordinary baryon with $`N`$ quarks.

The solution of the near-horizon BPS condition written in eq. (3.4.5) is not the only one. Following ref. , we can construct a new solution, valid for values of $`\theta `$ in the range $`0\theta \theta _0`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )0`$, as follows,

$$\stackrel{~}{r}(\theta )=C\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\right]^{\frac{1}{6p}}}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.4.18)
Eq. (3.4.18) describes a spike at $`\theta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. We shall refer to the solution (3.4.18) as a “lower tube” solution, in contrast to the “upper tube” solution of eq. (3.4.5). Actually, these two types of solutions are related. In order to verify this fact, let us point out that the functions $`D_p(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ change their sign under the transformation $`\theta \pi \theta `$, $`\nu 1\nu `$,

$`D_p(\theta ;\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`D_p(\pi \theta ;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta ;\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\pi \theta ;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu ),`$ (3.4.19)
and, therefore, the solutions (3.4.5) and (3.4.18) are simply related, namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{r}(\theta ;\nu )=r(\pi \theta ;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu ).$$
(3.4.20)
It follows from this relation that the lower flux tubes correspond to $`\nu N`$ quarks.

Let us now evaluate, following ref. , the energy for the two types of near-horizon solutions we have found. These solutions saturate the bound (3.3.6) and, thus, the energy is precisely the right-hand side of this equation. Moreover, when $`r`$ is a solution of eq. (3.3.7), $`𝒵`$ can be written as

$$𝒵=r[\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ]\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\left(\frac{r^{}}{r}\right)^2\right].$$
(3.4.21)
It is obvious from this equation that, for our solutions, the sign of $`𝒵`$ is just the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Moreover, using the definitions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ (eq. (3.3.2)) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ (eq. (3.4.1)), one can prove that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta =ar^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\theta +R^{7p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(3.4.22)
where we have used the general harmonic function (3.2.2). In the near-horizon case ($`a=0`$) the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.22) is absent and, therefore, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(r,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta D_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ is just the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$. In the solutions (3.4.5) and (3.4.18), the angle $`\theta `$ can take values in a range such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ has a well defined sign. Therefore, we can write

$$𝑑\theta \left|𝒵\right|=\left|𝑑\theta 𝒵\right|.$$
(3.4.23)
If we now define $`Z`$ as

$$ZT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\theta 𝒵,$$
(3.4.24)
it is immediate that the energy of our near-horizon BPS solutions is

$$U_{BPS}=|Z|.$$
(3.4.25)
In order to evaluate $`Z`$ for the near-horizon solutions, we make use of the representation (3.3.11) of $`𝒵`$ as a total derivative. Recall that $`\theta `$ varies in the range $`\theta _i\theta \theta _f`$ where $`\theta _i=\theta _0`$ ($`\theta _i=0`$) and $`\theta _f=\pi `$ ($`\theta _f=\theta _0`$) for the upper (lower) tube solution. It follows that $`Z`$ can be written as the sum <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The labels $`s`$ and $`gs`$ refer to “spike” and “ground state”, according to the interpretation given to these two contributions in ref. .,

$$Z=Z_s+Z_{gs},$$
(3.4.26)
where $`Z_s`$ and $`Z_{gs}`$ are given by

$`Z_s`$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}D_p(\theta )r(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta |_{\theta _i}^{\theta _f},`$
$`Z_{gs}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}r(\theta )(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{8p}|_{\theta _i}^{\theta _f}.`$ (3.4.27)
It is clear that $`Z`$ only depends on the values of $`r(\theta )`$ at the boundaries $`\theta =\theta _i`$ and $`\theta =\theta _f`$. In this sense we can regard $`Z`$ as a topological quantity which, for fixed boundary conditions, is invariant under local variations of the fields .

Let us now compute $`Z_{gs}`$. After substituting the solutions (3.4.5) and (3.4.18) of the BPS equations, we get,

$$Z_{gs}=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}C(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\left[\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\right]^{\frac{1}{6p}}|_{\theta _i}^{\theta _f},$$
(3.4.28)
where the $`+`$ ($``$ ) sign corresponds to the upper (lower) tube solution. The angles $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _f`$ can take the values $`0`$, $`\pi `$ and $`\theta _0`$. For $`\theta =0,\pi `$ the right-hand side of eq. (3.4.28) vanishes due to the $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}`$ factor, whereas $`\theta =\theta _0`$ gives also a vanishing contribution because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta _0)=0`$ (see eq. (3.4.8)). In conclusion, we can write

$$Z_{gs}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(3.4.29)
In the same way one can obtain the values of $`Z_s`$. One can check in this case that the contribution of $`\theta =\theta _0`$ to the right-hand side of the first equation in (3.4.27) vanishes and, as a consequence, only $`\theta =0,\pi `$ contribute. After using eqs. (3.2.21)-(3.2.23), one gets the result

$$Z_s=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1\nu )NT_fL,\hfill & \text{ (upper tube)\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \\ & \\ \nu NT_fL,\hfill & \text{ (lower tube)\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4.30)
where $`L=r(\pi )`$ ($`L=r(0)`$) for the upper (lower) tube solution. It is now evident that $`U_{BPS}=|Z_s|`$ is equal to the energy of a bundle of $`(1\nu )N`$ or $`\nu N`$ fundamental strings. Notice that this result is the same as the one found at the end of section 3.2 for the energy of the $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ spikes. Let us finally mention that in ref.  it has been argued in favor of interpreting $`Z_s`$ as a central charge in the worldvolume supersymmetry algebra.

### 3.5 The near-horizon D6-D2 system

In this section we are going to integrate the BPS condition for $`p=6`$. Notice that, according to the definition (3.4.1) and the expression of $`D_6(\theta )`$ given in eq. (3.2.20), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\theta )`$ is constant, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\theta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu .$$
(3.5.1)
For $`p=6`$ we cannot use eq. (3.4.4) and, hence, we have to deal directly with eq. (3.4.2). Actually, eq. (3.4.2) makes sense only for $`\nu 1/2`$ since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\theta )`$, and therefore the denominator of eq. (3.4.2) vanishes identically for $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$. With this restriction<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 The fact that the $`p=6`$, $`\nu =1/2`$ BPS condition is ill-defined is an artifact of the near-horizon approximation., the $`p=6`$ BPS condition is

$$\frac{r^{}}{r}=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.5.2)
It is not difficult to realize that the right-hand side of eq. (3.5.2) can be written as a total derivative, namely,

$$\frac{r^{}}{r}=\frac{d}{d\theta }\left[\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\left(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{12\nu }}}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\right]\right].$$
(3.5.3)
Therefore, the BPS equation can be immediately integrated. It is convenient to put the result in the form

$$r(\theta )=A\frac{\left[\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right]^{\frac{2\nu }{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu }}}{\left[\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\right]^{\frac{2(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu )}{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu }}},$$
(3.5.4)
where $`A`$ is a positive constant. The nature of the solution (3.5.4) depends critically on the value of $`\nu `$. First of all, the range of values of $`\theta `$ is not restricted, i.e. $`0\theta \pi `$. If $`0\nu <1/2`$, the $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ term present in the denominator of (3.5.4) makes $`r\mathrm{}`$ at $`\theta \pi `$, whereas for $`1/2<\nu 1`$ the solution diverges at $`\theta 0`$. Actually, the solution for $`0\nu <1/2`$ is related to the one for $`1/2<\nu 1`$ by means of the equation

$$r(\theta ;\nu )=r(\pi \theta ;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\nu ).$$
(3.5.5)
Eq. (3.5.5) can be checked easily from the expression (3.5.4). Notice that for $`0<\nu <1/2`$ ($`1/2<\nu <1`$) the D2 brane passes through the point $`r=0`$. This behaviour is similar to the $`p<6`$ case. However, the present solution differs substantially from those studied in section 4. In order to make this difference manifest, let us introduce the cylindrical coordinates $`(z,\rho )`$ as follows:

$$z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\rho =r\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(3.5.6)
The behaviour of the coordinate $`\rho `$ in the region in which $`r\mathrm{}`$ is of special interest to interpret the asymptotic behaviour of the brane. It is not difficult to find how $`\rho `$ depends on $`\theta `$ for the solution (3.5.4):

$$\rho =A\left(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{12\nu }}.$$
(3.5.7)
Clearly, when $`\nu <1/2`$, $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ for $`\theta \pi `$, whereas if $`\nu >1/2`$ the coordinate $`\rho `$ diverges for $`\theta 0`$. This implies that our solution does not behave as a tube <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3A similar calculation for $`p<6`$ gives $`\rho \mathrm{constant}`$ at the spikes.. This fact is more explicit if we rewrite our solution (3.5.4) as a function $`z=z(\rho )`$. After a short calculation, we get

$$z=\frac{\rho ^{2\nu }}{2A^{12\nu }}\left(\rho ^{2(12\nu )}A^{2(12\nu )}\right).$$
(3.5.8)
When $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, the function $`z(\rho )`$ behaves as:

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}z(\rho )\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho ^{2(1\nu )},\hfill & \text{ if }\nu <\frac{1}{2},\hfill \\ & \\ \rho ^{2\nu },\hfill & \text{ if }\nu >\frac{1}{2}\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5.9)
and thus, as expected, $`z+\mathrm{}`$ ($`z\mathrm{}`$) for $`\nu <1/2`$ ($`\nu >1/2`$). Moreover, eq. (3.5.9) implies that the asymptotic shape of the solution is that of a paraboloid <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 Strictly speaking, only for $`\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1`$ eq. (3.5.8) represents a paraboloid. rather than a tube. We have thus an “upper paraboloid” for $`\nu <1/2`$ and a “lower paraboloid” for $`\nu >1/2`$. In figure 3.4 we have plotted the $`p=6`$ solution for different values of $`\nu `$. Notice that for $`\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1`$ $`z(\rho )`$ has an extremum for some value of $`\rho 0`$, while for $`\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1`$ the extremum is located at $`\rho =0`$. This extremum is a minimum (maximum) for $`\nu <1/2`$ ($`\nu >1/2`$). It is interesting to point out that, although the solution for $`p=6`$ differs from the ones found for $`p5`$, the energy $`U`$ is still given by $`|Z_s|`$, where $`Z_s`$ is the same as in eq. (3.4.30).

It follows from our previous analysis that $`\nu =1/2`$ is a critical point in the behaviour of the D6-D2 system. The BPS condition (3.5.2) is not defined in this case and we have to come back to the equation of motion (3.3.1). Fortunately, we will be able to find the general solution of the field equation in this case. The key point in this respect is the observation that, for $`p=6`$ and $`\nu =1/2`$, the near-horizon energy density does not depend on $`\theta `$ explicitly. Indeed, a simple calculation shows that

$$U=T_2\mathrm{\Omega }_1R𝑑\theta \sqrt{r^2+r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},(\nu =\frac{1}{2}).$$
(3.5.10)
This $`\theta `$-independence implies the “conservation law”

$$r^{}\frac{U}{r^{}}U=\mathrm{constant},$$
(3.5.11)
or, using the explicit form of $`U`$ given in eq. (3.5.10),

$$\frac{r^2}{\sqrt{r^2+r^{}^2}}=C,$$
(3.5.12)
where $`C0`$ is constant. It is not difficult to integrate the first-order equation (3.5.12). The result is

$$r(\theta )=\frac{C}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\alpha )},$$
(3.5.13)
$`\alpha `$ being a new integration constant. The solution (3.5.13) represents a cone with opening half-angle $`\alpha `$ and with its vertex located at a distance $`C/\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ from the origin (see figure 3.5). This fact is neatly shown if we rewrite (3.5.13) in terms of the cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,z)`$ defined in eq. (3.5.6). In these coordinates, eq. (3.5.13) becomes

$$\rho \mathrm{cos}\alpha z\mathrm{sin}\alpha =C.$$
(3.5.14)
It is clear from figure 3.5 that $`\alpha `$ can take values in the range $`\pi /2\alpha \pi /2`$. When $`\alpha =0`$ the cone degenerates in the cylinder $`\rho =C`$, while for $`\alpha =\pm \pi /2`$ the solution (3.5.14) is the plane $`z=C`$. Notice that eq. (3.5.14) is invariant under the transformation $`\alpha \alpha `$, $`zz`$. Thus, for $`\alpha >0`$ ($`\alpha <0`$) $`z`$ goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$) when the angle $`\theta `$ takes the value $`\pi \alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$). It is interesting to point out that, when $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`z`$ diverges linearly with $`\rho `$, which is, certainly, the limiting case of the $`\nu 1/2`$ situation (see eq. (3.5.9)). This softer behaviour for $`\nu =1/2`$ will be also reflected in the solution for the full Dp-brane metric, as we shall check in the next section, where we will find the solutions of the BPS equation for the full Dp-brane metric (3.2.1). We will check that for $`p=6`$ and $`\nu =1/2`$ this solution is equivalent, in the near-horizon region, to our general solution (3.5.14) with $`C=0`$, i.e. only those cones passing through the origin correspond to BPS solutions of the asymptotically flat metric.

### 3.6 Asymptotically flat background

In this section we are going to study the solutions of the BPS condition beyond the near-horizon approximation. Recall that the full metric of the Dp-brane background is obtained by taking $`a=1`$ in the harmonic function (3.2.2). The full Dp-brane metric is asymptotically flat and, therefore, one expects that a brane placed far away from the location of the background branes is not bent by the gravitational field. We shall concentrate first in the study of this asymptotic behaviour and, afterwards, we will consider the complete solution.

It is convenient for our purposes to rewrite the BPS condition (3.3.7) in the coordinates $`(z,\rho )`$ of eq. (3.5.6). In these coordinates, the D(8-p)-brane embedding is characterized by a function $`z(\rho )`$. The BPS equation gives $`dz/d\rho `$ in terms of $`(z,\rho )`$. Actually, it is not difficult to relate $`z(\rho )`$ and its derivative to $`r(\theta )`$ and $`r^{}(\theta )`$. By using only the relation between both coordinate systems one can verify that

$$\frac{dz}{d\rho }=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{r^{}}{r}}{\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{r^{}}{r}}.$$
(3.6.1)
By substituting the value of the ratio $`r^{}/r`$ given by eq. (3.3.7) for $`a=1`$ on the right-hand side of this equation, one arrives at the following first-order differential equation for the function $`z(\rho )`$,

$$\frac{dz}{d\rho }=\frac{[\rho ^2+z^2]^{\frac{7p}{2}}}{R^{7p}+[\rho ^2+z^2]^{\frac{7p}{2}}}\frac{D_p(\mathrm{arctan}(\rho /z))}{\rho ^{7p}}.$$
(3.6.2)
It is now elementary to evaluate the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.2) in the asymptotic region in which $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`z/\rho 0`$ (and $`\theta \pi /2`$). In this limit, eq. (3.6.2) takes the form

$$\frac{dz}{d\rho }\frac{D_p(\pi /2)}{\rho ^{7p}}+\mathrm{},$$
(3.6.3)
where we have only kept the first term in the expansion in powers of $`R/\rho `$. Notice that $`z^{}(\rho )0`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, according to our expectations. However, also in this approach, the behaviour of the $`p=6`$ case differs from that corresponding to $`p<6`$. Indeed, for $`p=6`$, $`z^{}(\rho )\rho ^1`$ and $`z(\rho )`$ diverges logarithmically in the asymptotic region while, for $`p<6`$, $`z(\rho )`$ approaches a constant value as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. Let us specify further these two kinds of behaviours. The coefficient multiplying the power of $`\rho `$ on the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.3) is $`D_p(\pi /2)`$, which can be computed from eq. (3.2.20):

$$D_p(\pi /2)=2\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}R^{7p}(\frac{1}{2}\nu ).$$
(3.6.4)
Using this result we can integrate eq. (3.6.3). For $`p<6`$, we get

$$z(\rho )z_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{1}{2}\nu )\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{6p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}R^{7p}\frac{1}{\rho ^{6p}}+\mathrm{},(p6),$$
(3.6.5)
where $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a constant representing the asymptotic value of $`z`$. From eq. (3.6.5) one concludes that the sign of $`z_{\mathrm{}}z`$ depends on the sign of $`\frac{1}{2}\nu `$. i.e. if $`\nu <1/2`$ ($`\nu >1/2`$) the brane reaches its asymptotic value of $`z`$ from below (above). If $`p=6`$ we get the expected logarithmic dependence:

$$z(\rho )(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu )R\mathrm{log}\rho +\mathrm{}.$$
(3.6.6)
Notice that when $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ in eq. (3.6.6), $`z+\mathrm{}`$ if $`\nu <1/2`$ while, on the contrary, $`z\mathrm{}`$ for $`\nu >1/2`$, in agreement with our near-horizon analysis of section 5. It is interesting to point out that, although in this case $`z`$ diverges as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`z/\rho `$ still vanishes in this limit, as assumed in the derivation of eq. (3.6.3).

For $`\nu =1/2`$, the leading term in the asymptotic expansion vanishes and we have to compute the next-to-leading term. This does not change significantly the analysis of the $`p<6`$ case. However, for $`p=6`$, things change drastically when $`\nu =1/2`$. In fact, one can prove from eq. (3.6.2) that, in this case, $`z`$ approaches a constant value $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ (and, actually, $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ decreases as $`\rho ^1`$ for $`\rho >>R`$).

Let us now see how one can integrate exactly the BPS condition for the full metric. The resulting solution must reproduce the asymptotic behaviour we have just described. For $`p=3`$, eq. (3.6.2) was integrated numerically in ref. . As we shall show below, our analytical solution agrees with these numerical results. It is more convenient to come back to our original $`(r,\theta )`$ coordinates. The basic strategy we will adopt to integrate the BPS equation is to write it in terms of the same function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ that we have already used to find the near-horizon solutions. For illustrative purposes, we will do it for a general value of the parameter $`a`$ of the harmonic function. After using the definition (3.4.1), eq. (3.3.7) can be put in the form

$$\frac{r^{}}{r}=\frac{ar^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{8p}+R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}R^{7p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }{ar^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\theta +R^{7p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(3.6.7)
Notice that eq. (3.6.7) for $`a=0`$ is identical to eq. (3.4.2). Let us now isolate the terms of (3.6.7) depending on $`a`$ in one of the sides of the equation. Doing this, it is elementary to prove that eq. (3.6.7) can be rewritten as

$$ar^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=R^{7p}\left[r(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\right].$$
(3.6.8)
On the right-hand side of this expression we recognize a term containing $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}`$, whose representation as a derivative of the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ was crucial to integrate the near-horizon BPS condition for $`p6`$. Actually, assuming that $`p6`$ and using eq. (3.4.4), our differential equation becomes

$`ar^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{6p}}\left[r\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )(6p)\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\theta }}(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\right],(p6).`$
(3.6.9)
Taking $`a=0`$ we recover the solutions (3.4.5) and (3.4.18). From now on we shall put $`a=1`$ in all our expressions. In this case we can pass the $`r^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}`$ factor in the left-hand side of eq. (3.6.9) to the right-hand side and, remarkably, this equation can be written as

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}\frac{d}{d\theta }\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )}{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}}\right],(p6).$$
(3.6.10)
The integration of eq. (3.6.10) is now immediate:

$$r\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )}{(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}}z_{\mathrm{}},(p6),$$
(3.6.11)
where $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a constant of integration which can be identified with the asymptotic value of $`z`$ introduced in eq. (3.6.5). Actually, in terms of the coordinates $`(z,\rho )`$, our solution (3.6.11) can be written as

$$z=z_{\mathrm{}}\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{arctan}(\rho /z))}{\rho ^{6p}},(p6).$$
(3.6.12)
Eqs. (3.6.11) and (3.6.12) give the analytical solution of the BPS differential equation for $`p6`$. It is easy to verify that eq. (3.6.12) for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ is reduced to eq. (3.6.5). Moreover, by derivating both sides of eq. (3.6.12) with respect to $`\rho `$, one can extract the value of $`dz/d\rho `$. The result in terms of $`(z,\rho )`$ is precisely the one written in (3.6.2), i.e. the function $`z(\rho )`$ defined by (3.6.12) is a solution of the BPS condition in cylindrical coordinates.

Let us now study the analytical solution we have found and, specially, how it interpolates between the near-horizon and asymptotic regions. Notice, first of all, that eqs. (3.6.11) and (3.6.12) give $`r(\theta )`$ and $`z(\rho )`$ in implicit form. In particular, eq. (3.6.11) determines $`r(\theta )`$ as the root of a polynomial of degree $`7p`$ which, for $`p3`$, can be solved algebraically. However, the implicit equations (3.6.11) and (3.6.12) are much easier to handle and, actually, can be used to plot the embeddings. In figure 3.6 we have represented these embeddings for different values of $`\nu `$ and $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$. Moreover, by studying eqs. (3.6.11) and (3.6.12) we can characterize the general features of our BPS solutions. The detailed analysis of these solutions is performed in appendix A. It follows from this analysis that our solution (3.6.12) coincides with the near-horizon embeddings in a region close to the origin. Actually, as can be seen from the plots of figure 3.6, the integral of the BPS differential equation for the full metric contains cylindrical regions which resemble closely the tubes found in the near-horizon analysis. It is not difficult to relate the parameter $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ of eq. (3.6.12) to the constant $`C`$ appearing in the lower and upper tube solutions (eqs. (3.4.5) and (3.4.18)). For large $`|z_{\mathrm{}}|`$ it can be seen that both types of solutions are approximately equal if we are sufficiently near the origin and if the following relation,

$$C^{6p}=\frac{R^{7p}}{(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}p)|z_{\mathrm{}}|},$$
(3.6.13)
is satisfied.

For $`0<\nu <1`$ the solution reaches the origin $`r=0`$ by means of a tube, which is an upper or lower tube depending on the sign of $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see figure 3.6). For $`|z_{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{}`$ we will verify that this tubes can be regarded as bundles of fundamental strings, exactly in the same way as in the near-horizon case.

The behaviour of the $`\nu =0`$ solution is different from that we have just described for $`0<\nu <1`$<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5The solution for $`\nu =1`$ can be reduced to that for $`\nu =0`$ (see eq. (A.1)).. When $`z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$, the D(8-p)-brane is nearly flat. As we increase $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$, an upper tube develops and for $`z_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}`$ a bundle of $`N`$ fundamental strings, connecting the Dp and D(8-p) branes, is created. As pointed out in ref. , this solution provides a concrete realization of the so-called Hanany-Witten effect .

Let us now study the energy of our solutions. It is clear from the plots of figure 3.6 that $`r`$ is not a single-valued function of $`\theta `$. It is thus more convenient to use the $`(z,\rho )`$ coordinates in order to have a global description of the energy functional. From eq. (3.2.16) it is straightforward to obtain the expression of $`U`$ as an integral over $`\rho `$. The result can be put in the form

$$U=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\rho \sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_pD_p\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right)^2+\left(D_p+\mathrm{\Delta }_p\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right)^2}.$$
(3.6.14)
In eq. (3.6.14) $`D_p`$ depends on $`\rho `$ and $`z(\rho )`$ as in eq. (3.6.2) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ is the function defined in eq. (3.3.2). It is important to stress that eq. (3.6.14) gives the energy for any embedding $`z(\rho )`$. Notice that on the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.14) we have the sum of two squares. The second of these two terms vanishes when the BPS condition $`dz/d\rho =D_p/\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ (see eq. (3.6.2)) holds. It is clear from these considerations that, if we define

$$X\mathrm{\Delta }_pD_p\frac{dz}{d\rho },$$
(3.6.15)
we obtain the following lower bound for the energy of any embedding:

$$UT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\rho \left|X\right|.$$
(3.6.16)
The bound (3.6.16) is saturated precisely when the embedding satisfies the first-order BPS equation (3.6.2). A remarkable aspect of the function $`X`$ appearing in the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.16) is that it can be put as a total derivative. Indeed, one can verify that

$$X=\frac{d}{d\rho }\left[zD_p+\left(\frac{1}{8p}+\frac{R^{7p}}{(\rho ^2+z^2)^{\frac{7p}{2}}}\right)\rho ^{8p}\right].$$
(3.6.17)
Eq. (3.6.17) is the analog in these coordinates of eq. (3.3.11). As it happened with eq. (3.3.11), in order to prove eq. (3.6.17) one only has to use eq. (3.2.12) and, therefore, (3.6.17) is valid for any function $`z(\rho )`$. An important consequence of eq. (3.6.17) is that the bound (3.6.16) only depends on the boundary conditions of the embedding at infinity. Thus, one can say that the BPS embeddings are those that minimize the energy for a given value of $`z(\rho )`$ at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. From eq. (3.6.14) it is very easy to obtain the energy $`U_{BPS}`$ of one of such BPS solutions. The result one arrives at is

$$U_{BPS}=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}𝑑\rho \left[\frac{dz}{d\rho }+\left(\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right)^1\right]D_p.$$
(3.6.18)
Apart from being simple, eq. (3.6.18) is specially suited for our purposes. Notice, first of all, that the integrand on the right-hand side of (3.6.18) is always non-negative due to eq. (3.6.2). Secondly, we can use (3.6.18) to evaluate the energy of a tubular portion of the brane. Indeed, for large $`|z_{\mathrm{}}|`$, $`\left|\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right|`$ is large in one of these tubes and the argument of $`D_p`$ is almost constant and equal to $`\pi `$ (0) for an upper (lower) tube. Neglecting the term containing $`\left(\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right)^1`$ on the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.18), and defining the length of the tube as

$$L_{tube}=_{tube}d\rho \left|\frac{dz}{d\rho }\right|,$$
(3.6.19)
we get the following values for the energy of the tubes

$$U_{tube}=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}D_p(\pi )L_{tube},\hfill & \text{ (upper tube)\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \\ & \\ T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}D_p(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})L_{tube},\hfill & \text{ (lower tube)\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.6.20)
Taking into account eqs. (3.2.21) and (3.2.23), and using eq. (3.2.22), one can easily show from the result in eq. (3.6.20) that $`U_{tube}`$ coincides with $`|Z_s|`$, where the values of $`Z_s`$ are given in eq. (3.4.30). This confirms our interpretation of the tubes as bundles of $`(1\nu )N`$ and $`\nu N`$ fundamental strings.

It is not difficult to calculate the energy of the whole brane. Actually, by means of eq. (3.6.17) we can perform the integral appearing in the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.18). As we are calculating the energy of an infinite brane, this integral is divergent. In order to regulate this divergence, let us introduce a cutoff $`\rho _c`$, in such a way that the integral in eq. (3.6.18) is performed between $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =\rho _c`$. It is not difficult to check from the properties of our solutions that the contribution of the lower limit $`\rho =0`$ is zero and, thus, only the value at the cutoff contributes. After this process, $`U_{BPS}`$ can be put as

$$U_{BPS}=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}\left[zD_p\left(\frac{1}{8p}+\frac{R^{7p}}{(\rho ^2+z^2)^{\frac{7p}{2}}}\right)\rho ^{8p}\right]_{\rho =\rho _c}.$$
(3.6.21)
We have now to take $`\rho _c\mathrm{}`$ and, therefore, $`z(\rho _c)z_{\mathrm{}}`$. Notice that, in this limit, the argument of the function $`D_p`$ is $`\pi /2`$. Using eq. (3.6.4), $`U_{BPS}`$ can be put as a sum of two terms, namely,

$$U_{BPS}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \right)NT_fz_{\mathrm{}}+T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}\left[\frac{\rho _c^{8p}}{8p}+R^{7p}\rho _c\right].$$
(3.6.22)
Notice that the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.22) is finite and depends linearly on $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$, while the second term diverges when $`\rho _c\mathrm{}`$ and is independent of $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$. According to ref. , one can give the following interpretation to this divergence. Let us consider a D(8-p)-brane embedded in the metric (3.2.1) along the plane $`z=0`$ or, equivalently, such that its worldvolume is determined by the equation $`\theta =\pi /2`$. Notice that in this configuration the brane is not bent at all and, for this reason, it will be referred to as the “ground state” of the brane. Let $`g_{gs}`$ be the induced metric on the worldvolume of the D(8-p)-brane for this ground state configuration. Putting the worldvolume gauge fields to zero and substituting $`g`$ by $`g_{gs}`$ in eq. (3.2.4), we get the action of the ground state

$$S_{gs}=T_{8p}d^{9p}\xi e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{gs})}.$$
(3.6.23)
The energy $`E_{gs}`$ of the ground state is obtained from $`S_{gs}`$ as

$$E_{gs}=\frac{S_{gs}}{T},$$
(3.6.24)
where $`T=𝑑t`$. Using the metric given in eq. (3.2.1) and the value of the dilaton field displayed in eq. (3.2.3), the calculation of $`E_{gs}`$ is a simple exercise. By comparing the result of this computation with the right-hand side of eq. (3.6.22), one discovers that $`E_{gs}`$ is equal to the divergent contribution to $`U_{BPS}`$. Therefore, one can subtract $`E_{gs}`$ from $`U_{BPS}`$ and define a renormalized energy $`U_{ren}`$ as

$$U_{ren}U_{BPS}E_{gs}.$$
(3.6.25)
It follows from eq. (3.6.22) that $`U_{ren}`$ is given by

$$U_{ren}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \right)NT_fz_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.6.26)
By derivating $`U_{ren}`$ with respect to $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$, we learn that there is a net constant force acting on the D(8-p)-brane, which is equal to $`(\frac{1}{2}\nu )NT_f`$, i.e. equivalent to the tension of $`(\frac{1}{2}\nu )N`$ fundamental strings. In ref.  this force was interpreted as a consequence of the fact that, due to the $`p+2`$-form flux captured by the D(8-p)-brane, the latter is endowed with an effective charge equal to $`(\frac{1}{2}\nu )N`$ units.

Let us now integrate the BPS differential equation for $`p=6`$. Using the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\theta )`$ in eq. (3.6.8), we get (for $`a=1`$)

$$r\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=R\left[r+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\right],(p=6).$$
(3.6.27)
This equation can be recast in the form

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=R\frac{d}{d\theta }\left[\mathrm{log}\left[\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2\nu 1}\right]\right],(p=6),$$
(3.6.28)
and, therefore, its integration is immediate. It is more interesting to write the result in cylindrical coordinates. After a short calculation one gets

$$\left(z+\sqrt{\rho ^2+z^2}\right)\rho ^{2(\nu 1)}=e^{\frac{kz}{R}},(p=6),$$
(3.6.29)
where $`k`$ is a constant of integration. It is easy to check that the function $`z(\rho )`$ parametrized by eq. (3.6.29) has the asymptotic behaviour displayed in eq. (3.6.6). It follows that, as expected, $`z(\rho )`$ does not reach a constant value for $`p=6`$ and $`\nu 1/2`$. The profiles of the $`\nu 1/2`$ curves are similar to the near-horizon ones, plotted in figure 3. The only difference is that, instead of the behaviour written in eq. (3.5.9), $`|z(\rho )|`$ grows logarithmically as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. Moreover, similarly to what happens to the $`p5`$ solution, eq. (3.6.29) is invariant under the transformation

$$\rho \rho ,zz,kk,\nu 1\nu .$$
(3.6.30)
It is also easy to check that the function $`z(\rho )`$ defined by eq. (3.6.29) coincides, in the near-horizon region, with the one written down in eq. (3.5.8) if the constants $`A`$ and $`k`$ are identified as follows:

$$A^{2\nu 1}=e^{\frac{k}{R}},(\nu \frac{1}{2}).$$
(3.6.31)
For $`\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2`$ the behaviour of the solution changes drastically. Indeed, in this case, one can solve eq. (3.6.29) for $`\rho `$ and get $`\rho =\rho (z)`$. The result is

$$\rho =\frac{z}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{kz}{R}},(\nu =\frac{1}{2},p=6).$$
(3.6.32)
The function (3.6.32) has been represented graphically in figure 3.7. From this plot one notices that $`lim_\rho \mathrm{}z(\rho )=k`$. Actually, one can prove using eq. (3.6.32) that for $`k0`$ ($`k0`$) the variable $`z`$ takes values in the range $`0zk`$ ($`kz0`$). Thus, in this ($`p=6`$, $`\nu =1/2`$) case, the constant $`k`$ plays the same role as $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ did for $`p5`$. In particular, for $`k=0`$ the solution (3.6.32) is equivalent to the equation $`z=0`$, which is precisely the same solution we found for $`p5`$, $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, i.e. one obtains the “ground state” solution in both cases.

Let us finally point out that, by linearizing eq. (3.6.32) in $`\rho `$ and $`z`$, one gets the equation of a cone passing through the origin and with half-angle equal to

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{k}{R}\right)}.$$
(3.6.33)
Therefore, with the identification (3.6.33), we get a perfect agreement with the near-horizon solutions (3.5.14) with $`C=0`$.

### 3.7 Supersymmetry

In this section we will see that the configurations satisfying the BPS bound (3.3.1) preserve 1/4 of the target space supersymmetry. The number of supersymmetries preserved by the probe is the number of independent solutions of the equation (2.1.52)

$$(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )ϵ=0,$$
(3.7.1)
where $`ϵ`$ are the Killing spinors of the background. The equation above is a projection condition, as we have seen in the derivation of kappa-symmetric D-brane actions in the previous chapter. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ depends on the geometry of the background and on the worldvolume fields. Then (3.7.1) is a local projection condition giving different projectors for different points on the brane worldvolume. We have been considering configurations in which the transverse scalar and the gauge field depend only on the polar coordinate $`(r(\theta ),A_0(\theta ))`$ so that the projector in (3.7.1) will be a function of $`\theta `$. As we will see the Killing spinor will also depend on $`\theta `$. Thus, if we want some supresymmetries to be preserved globally we must achieve some configuration of the worldvolume fields such that eq. (3.7.1) is reduced to a $`\theta `$-independent projection condition on a constant spinor.

Our BI field-strength has only the $`F_{0\theta }`$ component non-vanishing and the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ given in (2.1.42) terminates at linear order:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{1}{\sqrt{det(g+)}}\left[J_{(8p)}^{(0)}+\gamma ^{0\theta }_{0\theta }J_{(8p)}^{(1)}\right],$$
(3.7.2)
where the matrices $`J_{(p)}^{(n)}`$ were defined in (2.1.43) and the induced gamma matrices are

$$\gamma _\mu =_\mu X^mE_m{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{m}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{}.$$
(3.7.3)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{m}}`$ the ten-dimensional constant Dirac matrices and $`E_m^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$ the ten-dimensional vielbeins. The index $`0`$ denotes the component along the time direction. For the geometry (3.2.1) and in the static gauge (3.2.6) we get

$`\gamma _0=f_p^{1/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}},`$
$`\gamma _{\theta ^i}=f_p^{1/4}r\mathrm{sin}\theta e_{\theta ^i}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\theta }^i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}^{},`$
$`\gamma _\theta =f_p^{1/4}(r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta }}+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}),`$ (3.7.4)
where $`e_{\theta ^i}^{\underset{¯}{\theta }^i}`$ are the vielbeins of the unit $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. Let us consider first the odd $`p`$ case (type IIB case). In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{\sigma _3^{\frac{5p}{2}}}{\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{0\theta }^2}}\left[r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0\theta }}\sigma _3+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3+F_{0\theta }\sigma _3\right](1)^{(7p)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(i\sigma _2),$$
(3.7.5)
where we have used the definition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{7p}}}`$.

The Killing spinors of Dp-brane backgrounds have been given in (1.4.47):

$$ϵ=g(r)e^{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{7p}{}}e^{\frac{\theta _i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^i\theta ^{i+1}}}}ϵ_0,$$
(3.7.6)
with $`ϵ_0`$ a constant spinor. Both $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ satisfy the following projection condition:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01\mathrm{}p}}(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}}ϵ=ϵ,$$
(3.7.7)
where the indices $`1,\mathrm{},p`$ are used to denote the components along directions $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^p`$ respectively. This projection is the 1/2 supersymmetry breaking condition corresponding to extremal (BPS) D-brane backgrounds. It corresponds to a D1 or a D3 for $`p=1`$ or $`p=3`$ and an anti-D5 for $`p=5`$ ($`\overline{D5}`$). This choice is made so that the supersymmetry preserved by the probe is the same for the three cases. In fact, as we will see, this is the supersymmetry preserving condition imposed by fundamental strings lying along the radial direction. The spinors (3.7.6) can be reexpressed in the form

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(3.7.8)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is the $`\theta `$-independent part of $`ϵ`$ ($`\widehat{ϵ}=g(r)_{i=1}^{7p}e^{\frac{\theta _i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^i\theta ^{i+1}}}}ϵ_0`$). Eq. (3.7.8) can be interpreted as a rotation in the $`(r,\theta )`$ plane with angle $`\theta `$ of the Killing spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ at the pole ($`\theta =0`$). In the type IIB case the Killing spinor has possitive chirality:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ=ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{01\mathrm{}pr\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{7p}\theta }}.$$
(3.7.9)
One can combine the chirality condition and the background projection condition (3.7.7) to obtain the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=(1)^{(7p)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}}ϵ.$$
(3.7.10)
This can be substituted in (3.7.5) and the $`\kappa `$-symmetry projection can be rewritten as

$$\left[r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0\theta }}\sigma _3+F_{0\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}\right]ϵ=\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{0\theta }^2}ϵ$$
(3.7.11)
We have seen in eq. (3.3.10) that the BPS condition can be recast in the form

$$F_{0\theta }=\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(3.7.12)
Substituting this value of $`F_{0\theta }`$ in eq. (3.7.11) and using the form of the Killing spinor given in (3.7.8) we get

$$\left[re^{\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3+r^{}e^{\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0\theta }}\sigma _3+(r^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}\right]\widehat{ϵ}=(r\mathrm{cos}\theta +r^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta )\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(3.7.13)
If we consider eq. (3.7.13) for the particular case $`\theta =0`$ we get the condition

$$\left[r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0\theta }}\sigma _3+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r\theta }\right]\widehat{ϵ}=r\widehat{ϵ},$$
(3.7.14)
which is equivalent to impose the following condition on the spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}`$:

$$(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3)\widehat{ϵ}=0,$$
(3.7.15)
showing the supersymmetry breaking condition of the brane probe at the pole. One can see that this condition implies (3.7.13) also for $`\theta 0`$. We then conclude that the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ is equivalent to eq. (3.7.15) for the BPS configuration (3.7.12). Since the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}`$ commutes with the pairs of matrices appearing in the definition of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ the condition (3.7.15) is equivalent to

$$(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\sigma _3)ϵ_0=0.$$
(3.7.16)
This is a coordinate independent condition over the constant spinor $`ϵ_0`$, which shows that the brane probe breaks 1/2 of the supersymmetries preserved by the background (3.7.7). Eq. (3.7.16) is precisely the projection condition for a fundamental string stretching along the radial direction, as expected from the interpretation of the energy in (3.3.11) as the one corresponding to a bundle of fundamental strings.

For the type IIA case the Killing spinor has the same form as in (3.7.6) but the background projection is now given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01\mathrm{}p}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^{\frac{p2}{2}}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(3.7.17)
The condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ takes the form

$$\left[r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}+r^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0\theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}F_{0\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\theta }}\right]ϵ=\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{0\theta }^2}ϵ,$$
(3.7.18)
and is the same as (3.7.11) except or the sign in the $`F_{0\theta }`$ term. However, in this case, the BPS condition is $`F_{0\theta }=\frac{d}{d\theta }(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and then we arrive at (3.7.13) again, but with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ instead of $`\sigma _3`$. The resulting condition is the supersymmetry of a string in the radial direction in type IIA theory:

$$(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})ϵ_0=0.$$
(3.7.19)
Of course, all the reasoning above could be inverted. That is, in (3.7.11), with $`F_{0\theta }`$ unknown, we could have imposed eq. (3.7.16), which means that we require the solution to have an spike which can be interpreted as a bundle of fundamental strings in the radial direction. This would fix the value of $`F_{0\theta }`$ to the one given in (3.7.12).

### 3.8 Discussion

In this chapter we have studied the embedding of a D(8-p)-brane in the background geometry of a stack of coincident Dp-branes. This embedding is governed by the worldvolume action of the D(8-p)-brane (eq. (3.2.1)), which determines the equation of motion (3.3.1). By using a BPS argument we have found a bound for the energy of the system such that those embeddings which saturate it are also a solution of the equation of motion. This equation of motion (eq. (3.3.7)) is a first-order differential equation which, amazingly, can be solved analytically both in the near-horizon and asymptotically flat geometries.

The solutions of the BPS equations give the deformation of the D(8-p)-brane under the influence of the gravitational and RR fields created by the background branes. Generically, these solutions contain tubes connecting the D(8-p)-brane to the background branes which, after analyzing its energy, can be interpreted as bundles of fundamental strings. From the point of view of the gauge theory defined on the worldvolume of the background branes, these tubes represent baryonic multiquark states. The relation between the BPS condition and supersymmetry was also discussed. It was shown that the BPS differential equation is precisely the requirement one must impose to the brane embedding in order to preserve one half of the supersymmetry of the background.

The baryonic configurations discussed in this chapter can be generalized to M-theory. In  there were found configurations of a baryonic M5-brane probe in the background of a stack of N M5-branes. These configurations saturate the BPS bound and are $`1/4`$ supersymmetric. In the near-horizon limit the geometry becomes $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ and the brane construction provides a worldvolume realization of the baryon string vertex of the $`(2,0)`$-supersymmetric six-dimensional conformal field theory on coincident M5-branes . For the full M5-background, these configurations are a realization of the Hanany-Witten effect in M-theory.

### 3.9 Appendix 3A

In this appendix we are going to carry out an study of the solution found in section 3.6 of the BPS differential equation for the asymptotically flat metric for $`p5`$ (eqs. (3.6.11) and (3.6.12)).

The first thing we want to point out in this respect is that, due to the property of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ displayed in eq. (3.4.19), our solution (3.6.12) is invariant under the transformation

$$\rho \rho ,zz,z_{\mathrm{}}z_{\mathrm{}},\nu 1\nu .$$
(A.1)
Due to this invariance we can restrict ourselves to the case $`0\nu 1/2`$. The solutions outside this range of $`\nu `$ can be obtained by performing a reflection with respect to the $`z=0`$ axis. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, we will assume in what follows that $`\nu 1/2`$. Moreover, it is more convenient for our purposes to rewrite eq. (3.6.12) in the equivalent form

$$(z_{\mathrm{}}z)\rho ^{6p}=\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{arctan}(\rho /z)).$$
(A.2)
We will start our analysis of the solution by studying its cut with the $`\rho =0`$ axis. By looking at eq. (A.2) it follows immediately that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ must vanish for $`\rho =0`$. Thus, the angle $`\theta `$ at which the solution reaches the $`\rho =0`$ axis must be $`\theta =\theta _0`$, $`\theta _0`$ being the same angle appearing in the near-horizon solution (see eq. (3.4.8)). Following eq. (3.5.6), $`\rho =r(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and, therefore, if $`\rho =0`$ for $`\theta =\theta _0`$ one must have $`r(\theta _0)\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. There are two possibilities to fulfill this equation. If, first of all, $`\nu 0`$, the angle $`\theta _0`$ is non-vanishing, which means that, necessarily, $`r(\theta _0)=0`$, i.e. the solution reaches the origin $`r=0`$ at an angle $`\theta _0`$. Notice that, as it should occur near $`r=0`$, this is precisely what happens in the near-horizon solution. The second possibility is $`\nu =0`$. In this case $`\theta _0=0`$ and the vanishing of $`\rho `$ does not require $`r=0`$. Again, this is in agreement with the near-horizon solution. Actually, the distance $`r(0)`$ at which the $`\nu =0`$ solution cuts the $`\rho =0`$ axis can be determined, as in section 3.4, by expanding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ around $`\theta _0=0`$. Using eq. (3.4.15) one gets that $`r(0)`$ must satisfy

$$\left[r(0)\right]^{6p}\left[r(0)+z_{\mathrm{}}\right]=\frac{R^{7p}}{6p},(\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).$$
(A.3)
As the right-hand side of this equation is positive, it follows that $`r(0)>z_{\mathrm{}}`$. When this condition is satisfied, the left-hand side of eq. (A.3) is a monotonically increasing function of $`r(0)`$ and, therefore, there exists a unique solution for $`r(0)`$.

Let us now consider the cut with the $`z=0`$ axis. We shall denote the corresponding value of the $`\rho `$ coordinate by $`\rho _0`$, i.e. $`\rho _0=\rho (z=0)`$. If $`\rho _00`$, the value of the angle $`\theta `$ for $`z=0`$ is $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and, after evaluating the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ for this value of $`\theta `$, eq. (A.2) gives

$$\rho _0^{6p}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}(\frac{1}{2}\nu )\frac{R^{7p}}{z_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(A.4)
Notice that for $`\nu 1/2`$ the right-hand side of eq. (A.4) only makes sense for $`z_{\mathrm{}}>0`$. Therefore, only for $`z_{\mathrm{}}>0`$ the solution for $`\nu 1/2`$ cuts the $`z=0`$ axis at a finite non-vanishing value of the coordinate $`\rho `$. For $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{}}0`$ eq. (A.4) has no solution for $`\rho _00`$. All these features appear in the plots of figure 3.6.

From eq. (A.2) one can extract the range of allowed values of the coordinate $`z`$. Indeed, it follows from eq. (A.2) that the signs of $`z_{\mathrm{}}z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ are the same. On the other hand, we know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ is positive for $`\theta >\theta _0`$ and negative for $`\theta <\theta _0`$. Thus, when $`\theta >\theta _0`$ ($`\theta <\theta _0`$) one must have $`z<z_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`z>z_{\mathrm{}}`$), while for $`\theta =\theta _0`$ either $`\rho =0`$ or else $`z=z_{\mathrm{}}`$. As $`\theta _0\pi /2`$ for $`\nu 1/2`$, one can easily see that these results imply that $`z0`$ for $`z_{\mathrm{}}0`$, whereas $`z`$ can be positive or negative if $`z_{\mathrm{}}>0`$.

It is easy to prove that $`z`$, as a function of $`\rho `$, must have a unique extremum. For $`\nu <1/2`$ this extremum is actually a minimum, as we are going to verify soon. From eq. (3.6.2) it is clear that $`dz/d\rho `$ vanishes if and only if $`D_p`$ is zero. Recall that the Gauss’ law (eq. (3.2.12)) implies that $`D_p`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\theta `$ (see figure 3.2). Moreover, it follows from eqs. (3.2.21) and (3.2.23) that $`D_p(0)0`$ and $`D_p(\pi )0`$. Thus, it must necessarily exist a unique value $`\theta _m`$ of $`\theta `$ such that

$$D_p(\theta _m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(A.5)
Clearly, at the point of the curve $`z(\rho )`$ at which $`\theta =\theta _m`$ the derivative $`dz/d\rho `$ is zero. It is interesting to compare $`\theta _m`$ with the angle $`\theta _0`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ is zero. By substituting $`\theta =\theta _0`$ in the equation which relates $`D_p(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta )`$ (eq. (3.4.1)), one gets

$$D_p(\theta _0)=R^{7p}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _0)^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\theta _0.$$
(A.6)
For $`\nu 1/2`$ one has $`\theta _0\pi /2`$ and, thus, eq. (A.6) gives $`D_p(\theta _0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. The monotonic character of $`D_p(\theta )`$ implies that $`0\theta _0\theta _m\pi /2`$. Notice that $`\theta _0=\theta _m`$ if $`\nu =0`$ ($`\theta _0=\theta _m=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$) or $`\nu =1/2`$ ($`\theta _0=\theta _m=\pi /2`$). The coordinate $`z`$ of the extremum is $`z_m=r(\theta _m)\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$. As $`\theta _m\pi /2`$, one must have $`z_m0`$. Moreover, since $`\theta _m\theta _0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta _m)0`$ and eq. (A.2) gives $`z_mz_{\mathrm{}}`$. By using the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ at $`\theta =\theta _m`$, which is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\theta _m)=(\mathrm{sin}\theta _m)^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\theta _m,$$
(A.7)
(see eq. (3.4.1)) one can obtain an expression which determines $`z_m`$, namely,

$$|z_m|^{6p}(z_{\mathrm{}}z_m)=\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _m)^{7p}.$$
(A.8)
It is not difficult to verify now that, when $`\nu <1/2`$, the extremum at $`\theta =\theta _m`$ is a minimum. In order to prove it, one must evaluate $`d^2z/d\rho ^2`$. This can be done by derivating eq. (3.6.2). After putting $`\rho =\rho _m=r(\theta _m)\mathrm{sin}\theta _m`$, and using the fact that $`dz/d\rho `$ vanishes for $`\rho =\rho _m`$, one arrives at

$$\frac{d^2z}{d\rho ^2}|_{\rho =\rho _m}=\frac{(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}p)R^{7p}}{(\rho _m^2+z_m^2)[R^{7p}+(\rho _m^2+z_m^2)^{\frac{7p}{2}}]}z_m.$$
(A.9)
When $`\nu <1/2`$, one has $`z_m<0`$ and, as a consequence, the right-hand side of eq. (A.9) is strictly positive. Therefore $`z(\rho )`$ has a minimum for $`\rho =\rho _m`$ as claimed. Notice that, when $`\nu =1/2`$, i.e. $`\theta _m=\pi /2`$, the right-hand side of eq. (A.8) vanishes and, thus, $`z_m=0`$ (the value $`z=z_{\mathrm{}}`$ is reached asymptotically).

Eq. (A.8) can be solved immediately if $`z_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. Indeed, in this case, one has

$$|z_m|^{7p}=\frac{R^{7p}}{6p}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _m)^{7p},(z_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).$$
(A.10)
For general values of $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ we cannot give the general solution of eq. (A.8). However, one can extract valuable information from this equation. An important point concerning eq. (A.8) is the fact that its right-hand side does not depend on $`z_{\mathrm{}}`$ (it only depends on $`p`$ and $`\nu `$) and, therefore, it remains constant when we change the asymptotic value of the $`z`$ coordinate. This allows us to study the behaviour of the minimum in different limiting situations. Let us suppose, first of all, that $`z_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}`$ for $`\nu <1/2`$. As $`z_m<0`$, the difference $`z_{\mathrm{}}z_m+\mathrm{}`$. In order to keep the right-hand side of eq. (A.8) finite, one must have $`z_m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}`$. Actually $`z_m`$ should behave as

$$z_m\frac{1}{(z_{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{1}{6p}}},(z_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{},\nu <\frac{1}{2}).$$
(A.11)
On the other hand if $`z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$, again for $`\nu <1/2`$, the only possibility to maintain $`|z_m|^{6p}(z_{\mathrm{}}z_m)`$ constant is that $`z_{\mathrm{}}z_m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^+`$ (recall that $`z_mz_{\mathrm{}}`$ and, thus, $`z_m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is impossible if $`z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$). The actual behaviour of $`z_{\mathrm{}}z_m`$ in this limit is

$$z_{\mathrm{}}z_m\frac{1}{(z_{\mathrm{}})^{6p}},(z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{},\nu <\frac{1}{2}).$$
(A.12)
The $`\nu =0`$ embedding presents some characteristics which make it different from the $`\nu 0`$ ones. We have already shown that the $`\nu =0`$ solution cuts the $`\rho =0`$ axis at a coordinate $`z=r(0)`$, with $`r(0)`$ determined by eq. (A.3). Moreover, for $`\nu =0`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ on the right-hand side of eq. (A.2) is non-negative for all $`\rho 0`$, which implies that $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ for these solutions. Recall that, in this case, $`z(\rho )`$ has a minimum at $`\rho =0`$. For $`z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$, due to eq. (A.12), $`z(\rho )`$ is approximately a constant function, i.e. $`z(\rho )z_{\mathrm{}}`$. If, on the contrary, $`z_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}`$, an “upper tube” connecting the point $`z=r(0)0`$ (see eq. (A.11)) and the asymptotic region is developed (see figure 3.6).

$`\nu =1/2`$ is also a special case. Indeed, for $`\nu =1/2`$ the angle $`\theta _0`$ is equal to $`\pi /2`$ and, therefore, the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ in eq. (A.2) takes positive (negative) values for $`z>0`$ ($`z<0`$). By studying the signs of both sides of eq. (A.2) one easily concludes that for $`z_{\mathrm{}}>0`$ one must have $`0z<z_{\mathrm{}}`$, whereas for $`z_{\mathrm{}}<0`$ the coordinate $`z`$ takes values on the range $`z_{\mathrm{}}<z0`$ (see figure 3.6). When $`z_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, the analysis of eq. (A.2) leads to the conclusion that the solution is the hyperplane $`z=0`$.

It is also possible to determine the range of possible values that the coordinate $`\theta `$ can take. Actually $`\theta `$ has generically an extremal value, which we shall denote by $`\theta _{}`$. The existence of $`\theta _{}`$ can be proved by computing the derivative $`d\theta /dr`$ for our solution. A short calculation proves that this derivative vanishes if the coordinate $`z`$ takes the value

$$z_{}=\frac{6p}{7p}z_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(A.13)
Alternatively, one could determine $`z_{}`$ as the point at which the denominator of the BPS condition (3.3.7) vanishes. By computing the second derivative $`d^2\theta /dr^2`$ at $`\theta =\theta _{}`$, one can check that $`\theta _{}`$ is a minimum (maximum) if $`z_{\mathrm{}}<0`$ ($`z_{\mathrm{}}>0`$)<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6For $`\nu =0`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{}}<0`$, the value (A.13) is not reached (recall that $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ when $`\nu =0`$). In this case the coordinate $`\theta `$ varies monotonically along the embedding. . It is also interesting to point out that for $`z=z_{}`$ the function $`𝒵`$ of eq. (3.4.21) changes its sign. This is consistent with the extremal nature of $`\theta _{}`$.

## Chapter 4 Flux Stabilization

In a recent paper , Bachas, Douglas and Schweigert have shown how D-branes on a group manifold are stabilized against shrinking (see also ref. ). The concrete model studied in ref.  was the motion of a D2-brane in the geometry of the $`SU(2)`$ group manifold. Topologically, $`SU(2)`$ is equivalent to a three-sphere $`S^3`$ and the D2-brane is embedded in this $`S^3`$ along a two-sphere $`S^2`$ which, in a system of spherical coordinates, is placed at constant latitude angle $`\theta `$. The D2-brane dynamics is determined by the Dirac-Born-Infeld action, in which a worldvolume gauge field is switched on. An essential ingredient in this analysis is the quantization condition of the worldvolume flux.

By using the quantization condition one can easily find the form of the worldvolume gauge field strength in terms of a quantization integer, and the corresponding value of the energy of the D2-brane. The minimum of this energy determines the embedding of the brane in the group manifold, which occurs at a finite set of latitude angles $`\theta `$. It turns out that the static configurations found by this method are stable under small perturbations and exactly match those obtained by considering open strings on group manifolds .

This chapter is organized as follows. In section 4.1 we review shortly the dynamics of branes in group manifolds. In section 4.2 we discuss the flux stabilization in a NS5-brane background, which was studied in . Section 4.3 is devoted to the analysis of flux stabilization of branes wrapped on spheres in the geometry of RR backgrounds and a quantization condition for the electric components of the worldvolume gauge field is proposed. This section is based on . In sections 4.4 and 4.5 the analysis is extended to backgrounds created by bound states of branes. Both sections are based on . The generalization to M-theory of the quantization condition given in  is proposed in section 4.6.1 and it is used to describe the stabilization of an M5-brane in the background created by an stack of M5-branes. In appendix 4.A we collect the functions which determine the location of the wrapped brane configurations in the transverse sphere. In appendix 4.B it is shown how to obtain wrapped D3-branes in terms of D-strings polarized á la Myers. Finally, in section 4.7, we comment about the results.

### 4.1 Strings in group manifolds and D-branes

Strings moving on a group manifold are described by the WZW model, which is a solvable theory . The action is given by

$$S=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2zL^{sm}+_BL_{WZ},$$
(4.1.1)
where $`L^{sm}=Tr(g^1gg^1\overline{}g)`$ is the sigma model part of the action and $`L_{WZ}=\omega ^{(3)}`$ is the Wess-Zumino term. Here, the field $`g(z,\overline{z})`$ is a map from a closed orientable Riemann surface to the group $`𝐆`$, $`k\mathrm{ZZ}_+`$ is the level of the current algebra, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the worldsheet manifold, $`B`$ is a three-dimensional manifold whose boundary is the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\omega ^{(3)}=\frac{1}{3}Tr\left((g^1dg)^3\right)`$.

We denote by $`𝐠`$ to the Lie algebra corresponding to $`𝐆`$, and we choose a basis of generators $`\{T_a\}`$ for $`𝐠`$. The invariant metric on $`𝐠`$ has components $`G_{ab}T_a,T_b`$. The exact conformal invariance of this model is based, as is well known, on its infinite-dimensional symmetry group $`𝐆_L(z)\times 𝐆_R(\overline{z})`$. The symmetry acts on a group element $`g(z.\overline{z})`$ as:

$$gh_L(z)gh_R(\overline{z}).$$
(4.1.2)
If the worldsheet has a boundary, there is a relation between the left-moving and right-moving modes, and the $`𝐆_L\times 𝐆_R`$ symmetry is broken. However, one can still preserve the diagonal symmetry $`G`$, say the symmetry

$$ghgh^1,$$
(4.1.3)
corresponding to $`h_L=h_R^1=h`$ in (4.1.2). The presence of this symmetry constrains the boundary conditions that can be placed on $`g`$. Allowing $`g`$(boundary)$`=f`$ for some $`f𝐆`$ we must allow also $`g`$(boundary)$`=hfh^1`$ for every $`h𝐆`$. This means that $`g`$ on the boundary takes values in the conjugacy class containing $`f`$. Then, each possible boundary condition corresponds to a D-brane wrapped on a (twisted) conjugacy class of the group .

When the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has boundaries, it cannot be the boundary of a three-dimensional manifold, since the boundary of a boundary is the empty set. To define the WZ term in (4.1.1) for this case, one should fill the holes in the worldsheet by adding discs, and extend the mapping from the worldsheet into the group manifold to these discs. One further demands that the whole disc $`D`$ is mapped into a region (which will be also referred to as $`D`$) inside the conjugacy class in which the corresponding boundary lies. Then we take $`B`$ to be a three-manifold bounded by the union $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$, which now has no boundaries.

The resulting action should preserve the symmetry (4.1.2) in the bulk of the worldsheet which becomes (4.1.3) on the boundary. If we take $`C(f)`$ to be the conjugacy class containing $`D`$ and the group element $`f𝐆`$

$$C(f)\{hfh^1|h𝐆\},$$
(4.1.4)
then, to keep the symmetry (4.1.3) one has to modify the action by adding to it an integral over the disc $`D`$ of some two form $`\omega ^{(2)}`$, defined on $`C(f)`$ and the proper action is now of the form

$$S=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2zL^{sm}+_BL_{WZ}_D\omega ^{(2)},$$
(4.1.5)
where $`d\omega ^{(2)}=\omega ^{(3)}`$ on the conjugacy class $`C(f)`$.

The modified action (4.1.5) is invariant, by construction, under continuous deformations of $`D`$ inside $`C(f)`$. However, if one compares the value of the action for $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$, two different choices of embedding the disc in $`C(f)`$ with the same boundary, $`D^{}`$ may not be a continuos deformation of $`D`$ in $`C(f)`$. In that case the two ways to evaluate the action (4.1.5) do not agree. There is no natural choice between the two embeddings and if one chooses $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ such that their union covers the whole $`C(f)`$ the difference between the action $`S_D`$ (the value of (4.1.5) with embedding $`D`$) and $`S_D^{}`$ with embedding $`D^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=_{\widehat{B}}\omega ^{(3)}_{C(f)}\omega ^{(2)},$$
(4.1.6)
where $`\widehat{B}`$ is a manifold whose boundary is $`C(f)`$. Nevertheless, the quantum theory is still well defined if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=2\pi n,n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.1.7)
The affine symmetry $`𝐆(z)\times 𝐆(\overline{z})`$ guarantees the exact conformal invariance of the model and is characterised by the conserved currents

$$J(z)=gg^1,\overline{J}(\overline{z})=g^1\overline{}g,$$
(4.1.8)
which are the natural dynamical variables. If we introduce the mode expansions for the two currents

$$J_a(z)=\underset{n\mathrm{ZZ}}{}J_{an}z^{n1},\overline{J}_a(\overline{z})=\underset{n\mathrm{ZZ}}{}\overline{J}_{an}\overline{z}^{n1},$$
(4.1.9)
we can write down the affine Lie algebra that they satisfy

$`[J_{an},J_{bm}]`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}J_{cn+m}+nk\delta _{n+m,0}G_{ab},`$
$`[\overline{J}_{an},\overline{J}_{bm}]`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\overline{J}_{cn+m}+nk\delta _{n+m,0}G_{ab},`$
$`[J_{an},\overline{J}_{bm}]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.1.10)
The relative sign in the definition (4.1.8) of the two chiral currents ensures that the two currents satisfy the same chiral algebra.

D-branes can be defined in two ways: they can be described either in terms of boundary conditions of open strings or as boundary states in the closed string sector. Boundary conditions were initially derived from the vanishing of the boundary term in the action of the free string (or, more generally, in the case of a flat background). A Neumann boundary condition imposed in a certain direction ensures that there is no flow of momentum through the boundary of the string worldsheet, i.e.,

$$_nX^{||}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(4.1.11)
Here, the subscript $`n`$ indicates the direction normal to the boundary of the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, whereas the superscript $`||`$ denotes the direction parallel to the D-brane worldvolume. On the contrary, a Dirichlet boundary condition in a given direction constrains the boundary of the string worldsheet to lie within the hyperplane normal to that direction. This implies the following condition

$$_tX^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,$$
(4.1.12)
where the subscript $`t`$ refers to the direction tangent to the boundary of the string worldsheet and $``$ denotes the component of the background field normal to the worldvolume of the D-brane.

Let us first consider the case of strings in a flat string background, as a previous step to study strings propagating in group manifolds. The bosonic fields $`X^\mu `$ decompose into a left and a right-moving part

$$X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=X_L^\mu (\sigma _+)+X_R^\mu (\sigma _{}),$$
(4.1.13)
where $`\sigma _+=\tau +\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{}=\tau \sigma `$. The mode expansion is

$$_+X_L^\mu =\underset{n\mathrm{ZZ}}{}\alpha _n^\mu e^{in\sigma _+},_{}X_R^\mu =\underset{n\mathrm{ZZ}}{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu e^{in\sigma _{}},$$
(4.1.14)
with the standard notation $`_\pm =_\tau \pm _\sigma `$. The canonical commutation relations for the modes read

$`[\alpha _n^\mu ,\alpha _m^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`n\delta _{m+n,0}\eta ^{\mu \nu },`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`n\delta _{m+n,0}\eta ^{\mu \nu },`$
$`[\alpha _n^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.1.15)
In the closed string picture the boundary of the worldsheet is taken to be at $`\tau =0`$. A Neumann boundary condition in a given direction say, $`X^\mu `$, is therefore given by the condition

$$_\tau X^\mu |_{\tau =0}=0.$$
(4.1.16)
On the contrary, a Dirichlet boundary condition in the same direction reads

$$_\sigma X^\mu |_{\tau =0}=0.$$
(4.1.17)
One can easily work out these conditions in terms of the modes and obtain

$`\alpha _n^\mu +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,(\mathrm{N})`$
$`\alpha _n^\mu \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,(\mathrm{D}).`$ (4.1.18)
The above conditions on the modes are not to be taken as operatorial relations on the quantum fields since they do not yield automorphisms of the oscillator algebra. Rather, they are only satisfied on certain boundary states $`|B`$, which are characterised by the property that they satisfy a certain boundary condition, namely,

$`(\alpha _n^\mu +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu )|B`$ $`=`$ $`0,(\mathrm{N})`$
$`(\alpha _n^\mu \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu )|B`$ $`=`$ $`0,(\mathrm{D})`$ (4.1.19)
in a given direction $`X^\mu `$. A boundary state $`|B`$ is specified by a complete set of boundary conditions, for all the directions of the target manifold. The conditions above can be recast in the form

$`\left(X^\mu dz\overline{}X^\mu d\overline{z}\right)|B=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(\mathrm{N}),`$
$`\left(X^\mu dz+\overline{}X^\mu d\overline{z}\right)|B=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(\mathrm{D}).`$ (4.1.20)
The most important requirement that a boundary state must satisfy is conformal invariance. In the case of a bosonic theory this means that the holomorphic and antiholomorphic sectors satisfy the following condition at the boundary

$$\left(T(z)\overline{T}(\overline{z})\right)|B=0,$$
(4.1.21)
where, in this case, $`T=XX`$ and $`T=\overline{}X\overline{}X`$. Any boundary state characterised by an arbitrary combination of Neumann and Dirichlet conditions satisfies the above condition and therefore preserves conformal invariance.

In a group manifold the currents $`J_a(z)`$ and $`\overline{J}_a(\overline{z})`$ are the nonabelian analogues of the currents $`X(z)`$ and $`\overline{}X(\overline{z})`$ in flat space and one can immediately generalise the Neumann and Dirichlet conditions for free fields to the following gluing conditions :

$`(J_a(z)dz+\overline{J}_a(\overline{z})d\overline{z})|B`$ $`=0,(\mathrm{N}),`$
$`(J_a(z)dz\overline{J}_a(\overline{z})d\overline{z})|B`$ $`=0,(\mathrm{D}).`$ (4.1.22)
In terms of the modes of the currents we get:

$`(J_{an}\overline{J}_{an})|B`$ $`=0,(\mathrm{N}),`$
$`(J_{an}+\overline{J}_{an})|B`$ $`=0,(\mathrm{D}).`$ (4.1.23)
Since left multiplication is generated by the currents $`J^a`$ while right multiplication is generated by $`\overline{J}^a`$, the invariance of the boundary condition $`gC(f)`$ under $`ghgh^1`$ implies that the currents satisfy

$$J_a=\overline{J}_a,$$
(4.1.24)
which confirms their interpretation as Dirichlet boundary conditions.

##### The SU(2) group

The group $`SU(2)`$ has the topology of a sphere $`S^3`$. A general group element $`U`$ can be parameterized in the form $`U=e^{(i\stackrel{}{\psi }\stackrel{}{\sigma })}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\psi }(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3)`$ forms a vector of length $`\theta `$ pointing in the direction $`(\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices, which realize the algebra of $`su(2)`$ (see ). The sigma model metric and the Wess-Zumino three-form $`\omega ^{(3)}`$ are given by:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}\left[d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\left((d\theta ^1)^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta ^1)^2(d\theta ^2)^2\right)\right],`$
$`\omega ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\pi }}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^1d\theta d\theta ^1d\theta ^2,`$ (4.1.25)
where $`k`$ is the level. The line element is proportional to the line element of the unit sphere $`S^3`$ parametrized by the angles $`\theta ,\theta ^1,\theta ^2`$ and $`ϵ_{(3)}`$ is its volume element.

In the case of $`𝐆=SU(2)`$, conjugacy classes are parameterized by a single angle $`\theta `$, $`0\theta \pi `$, corresponding to the choice $`f=e^{i\theta \sigma _3}`$. The conjugacy classes are thus $`S^2`$ spheres at constant angle $`\theta `$, parametrized by the angles $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$. Therefore, a boundary condition which preserves (4.1.3) is

$$g(boundary)C_\theta .$$
(4.1.26)
The form taken by $`\omega ^{(2)}`$ on the conjugacy class $`C_\theta `$ is

$$\omega ^{(2)}=\frac{k}{4\pi }\mathrm{sin}2\theta ϵ_{(2)},$$
(4.1.27)
where $`ϵ_{(2)}`$ is the volume element of the unit $`S^2`$. This gives for the change in the action for two topologically different embeddings in (4.1.6)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k\theta ,$$
(4.1.28)
and the quantum theory is well defined if the conjugacy classes on which a boundary state can live are quantized, and thus, the corresponding $`\theta `$ must satisfy

$$\theta =\pi \frac{n}{k},$$
(4.1.29)
where $`n`$ in an integer satisfying $`0nk`$. The conjugacy classes parametrized by $`\theta `$ correspond to D2-branes wrapped on $`S^2`$ spheres at constant polar angle. There are two point-like conjugacy classes $`e`$ and $`e`$ corresponding to $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ which correspond to D-particles. Thus, there are $`k+1`$ different boundary conditions preserving the symmetry $`gghg^1`$ which one can impose to the WZW sigma model on the $`SU(2)`$ group manifold at level $`k`$.

### 4.2 Flux stabilization in a NS5-brane background

Let us consider a D2-brane in the background created by a stack of N parallel NS5-branes. In the near-horizon region the metric and dilaton are given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+dx_{||}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}}dr^2+N\alpha ^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{N\alpha ^{}}}}.`$ (4.2.1)
The solution is charged under the NSNS 3-form $`H`$, given by:

$$HdB=2N\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^1d\theta d\theta ^1d\theta ^2.$$
(4.2.2)
The $`S^3`$ sphere transverse to the NS5 gives the SU(2) manifold if we identify the number of branes $`N`$ with the level $`k`$ of the associated current algebra. We have seen that D-branes stay on integer conjugacy classes, which correspond to $`S^2`$ spheres at constant polar angle $`\theta `$. Therefore we will search for brane configurations in which the D2-brane is embedded in the $`S^3`$ of the background at constant angle $`\theta `$, which corresponds to the D2 wrapped in the $`S^2`$ sphere spanned by $`(\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$. We can choose a gauge in which the NS 2-form B is proportional to the volume form of the 2-sphere,

$$B=N\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )ϵ_{(2)},$$
(4.2.3)
where the function $`C_5(\theta )`$ is defined as $`C_5(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \theta `$ and its derivative is given by

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }C_5(\theta )=2(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2$$
(4.2.4)
The action for the D2 is the DBI action but there is no coupling to RR fields, and we are left with the Born-Infled part of the action

$$_{BI}=T_2d^3\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)},$$
(4.2.5)
where $`T_2`$ is the tension of the brane and $``$ is the modified field strength $`=FB`$.

In order to find stable $`S^2`$-wrapped configurations of the D2-brane probe, we need to switch on a non-vanishing worldvolume field which could prevent the collapse to one of the poles of the $`S^2`$. The value of this worldvolume field is determined by some quantization condition which can be obtained by coupling the D2-brane to a F1-string.

Let us consider an open F1-string with worldvolume given by a two-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on the worldvolume of an D2-brane. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also the boundary of some disk $`D`$ on the worldvolume of the D2-brane. Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ be a three-manifold whose boundaries are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`D`$, i.e. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }+D`$. The coupling of the F1 to the supergravity background and to the D2-brane is described by an action of the form

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=T_f\left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }B+_DA\right],$$
(4.2.6)
where $`T_f`$ is the tension of the fundamental string, given by:

$$T_f=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}.$$
(4.2.7)
In a topologically trivial situation, if we represent $`H`$ as $`dB`$ and $`F=dA`$, the above action is equivalent to

$$S_{int}=T_f\left[_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}H+_D\right],$$
(4.2.8)
where we have used that

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }B=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}B_DB=_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}H_DB.$$
(4.2.9)
We shall regard eq. (4.2.8) as the definition of the interaction term of the F1-string. Notice that, in general, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`D`$ are not uniquely defined. To illustrate this point let us consider the case in which we attach the F1-string to a D2-brane worldvolume which has some submanifold with the topology of $`S^2`$. This is precisely the situation in which we are interested in. As illustrated in figure 4.1, we have two possible choices for the disk in eq. (4.2.6) namely, we can choose the “internal” disk $`D`$ or the “external” disk $`D^{}`$. Changing $`DD^{}`$, the manifold $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ changes to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }+D^{}`$ and, in general, $`S_{int}`$ also changes. However, in the quantum-mechanical theory, the action appears in a complex exponential of the form $`\mathrm{exp}[iS_{int}]`$. Thus, we should require that

$$e^{iS_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]}=e^{iS_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{},D^{}]}.$$
(4.2.10)
The condition (4.2.10) is clearly equivalent to

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{},D^{}]S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi n,$$
(4.2.11)
with $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$. The left-hand side of eq. (4.2.11) can be straightforwardly computed from eq. (4.2.6). Actually, if $`\widehat{}`$ is the 3-ball bounded by $`D^{}(D)=S^2`$, then $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\widehat{}`$ and one has

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{},D^{}]S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=T_f\left[_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}H+_{D^{}D}\right]=T_f\left[_\widehat{}H+_\widehat{}\right].$$
(4.2.12)
Using this result in eq. (4.2.11), we get the condition

$$_\widehat{}H+_\widehat{}=\frac{2\pi n}{T_f},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.2.13)
If $`H`$ can be represented as $`dB`$ on $`\widehat{}`$, the first integral on the left-hand side of eq. (4.2.13) can be written as an integral of $`B`$ over $`\widehat{}=S^2`$. Our parametrization of $`B`$ (eq. (4.2.3)) is certainly non-singular if we are outside of the poles of the $`S^2`$. If this is the case, we get the quantization condition

$$_{S^2}F=\frac{2\pi n}{T_f},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.2.14)
One can find a solution of the quantization condition (4.2.14) if one takes $`F`$ as

$$F=\frac{1}{2T_f}nϵ_{(2)}=\pi \alpha ^{}nϵ_{(2)},$$
(4.2.15)
where $`ϵ_{(2)}`$ is the volume form of the $`S^2`$ sphere, $`ϵ_{(2)}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ^1)^2d\theta ^1d\theta ^2`$, and then

$$_{S^2}ϵ^{(2)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi .$$
(4.2.16)
This gives the following expression for $``$:

$$_{12}=N\alpha ^{}\left[\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \theta +\frac{\pi n}{N}\right](\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2=N\alpha ^{}𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2,$$
(4.2.17)
with the function $`𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )`$ defined by

$$𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \theta +\frac{\pi n}{N}.$$
(4.2.18)
With the value of $`_{12}`$ given in (4.2.15) one gets the action

$$S=T_2N\alpha ^{}𝑑t𝑑\theta ^1𝑑\theta ^2e^\varphi (\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\sqrt{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^4+(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta ))^2}.$$
(4.2.19)
The Hamiltonian is obtained by performing a Legendre transformation, and if we integrate over the angles $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ the result is

$$H=T_2N\alpha ^{}e^\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \sqrt{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^4+(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta ))^2}$$
(4.2.20)
The energy has a unique minimum for the angle $`\overline{\theta }`$ which solves the equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\overline{\theta })=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.2.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )`$ is the function defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta 𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )=\theta \frac{\pi n}{N}.$$
(4.2.22)
The equation (4.2.21) is solved for the angle

$$\overline{\theta }=\frac{\pi n}{N}.$$
(4.2.23)
These are the same angles as the ones given in in (4.1.29) if we identify the number of branes in the stack, $`N`$, with the level of the algebra, $`k`$. The limiting values $`n=0`$ and $`n=N`$ correspond to the D2-brane collapsed at the poles of the $`S^2`$. The corresponding value of the energy is given by

$$E_n(\theta )=T_2N\alpha ^{}e^\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi n}{N}).$$
(4.2.24)
This result agrees with the one obtained by the CFT approach. We have seen that the underlying CFT imposes quantization conditions on the allowed conjugacy classes of the group manifold, which can be interpreted geometrically in terms of the embedding of the D-brane worldvolume in the group manifold. To each conjugacy class one associates a Cardy boundary state  of the WZW model. The mass of the D-brane configuration can be obtained, in this approach, by computing à la Polchinski  the matrix element between Cardy states of the string theory cylinder diagram and the result can be compared with the one obtained in a gravitational field theory. Apart from a finite shift in the level of the current algebra, the mass obtained in this way is exactly the same as the one given in (4.2.24), computed with the Born-Infeld action and the quantization condition (4.2.14). For other aspects of the open string approach and of the flux quantization condition (4.2.14) see ref. .

The agreement between the Born-Infeld and CFT approaches for the system of ref.  is quite remarkable. For this reason the generalization of this result to other backgrounds and brane probes is very interesting. The natural generalization to consider is a Ramond-Ramond (RR) background. This case was studied in ref. , where it was shown that the brane probe must be partially wrapped on some angular directions and extended along the radial coordinate.

### 4.3 Wrapped branes in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds

Following the analysis of ref. , in this section we shall study the motion of a D(8-p)-brane in the background of a stack of parallel Dp-branes. The external region of the Dp-brane metric has $`SO(9p)`$ rotational symmetry, which is manifest when a system of spherical coordinates is chosen. In this system of coordinates a transverse $`S^{8p}`$ sphere is naturally defined and the constant latitude condition on the $`S^{8p}`$ determines a $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. We shall embed the D(8-p)-brane in this background in such a way that it is wrapped on this $`S^{7p}S^{8p}`$ constant latitude sphere and extended along the radial direction. Therefore, as in section 4.2, the brane configuration is characterized by an angle $`\theta `$, which parametrizes the latitude of the $`S^{7p}`$.

In order to analyze this Dp-D(8-p) system by means of the Born-Infeld action, we shall establish first some quantization condition which, contrary to (4.2.14), will now involve the electric components of the worldvolume gauge field. By using this quantization rule we shall find a finite set of stable brane configurations characterized by some angles $`\theta `$ which generalize the ones found in section 4.2. The energy of these configurations will be also computed and, from this result, we shall conclude that semiclassically our D(8-p)-brane configurations can be regarded as a bound state of fundamental strings. On the other hand, we will find a first order BPS differential equation whose fulfillment implies the saturation of an energy bound and whose constant $`\theta `$ solutions are precisely our wrapped configurations. This BPS equation is the one  satisfied by the baryon vertex , which will allow us to interpret our configurations as a kind of short distance limit (in the radial direction) of the baryonic branes .

The ten-dimensional metric corresponding to a stack of $`N`$ coincident extremal Dp-branes was given in section 1.4 and in the near-horizon region is

$$ds^2=\left[\frac{r}{R}\right]^{\frac{7p}{2}}(dt^2+dx_{}^2)+\left[\frac{R}{r}\right]^{\frac{7p}{2}}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2),$$
(4.3.1)
where $`x_{}`$ represent $`p`$ cartesian coordinates along the branes, $`r`$ is a radial coordinate parametrizing the distance to the branes and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ is the line element of an unit $`8p`$ sphere. We have written the metric in the string frame. The radius $`R`$ is given in eq. (1.4.44) and the values of the dilaton field $`\varphi (r)`$ and of the Ramond-Ramond (RR) (8-p)-form field strength $`F^{(8p)}`$ are given in (1.4.26) and respectively (1.4.37).

Let $`\theta ^1`$, $`\theta ^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta ^{8p}`$ be coordinates which parametrize the $`S^{8p}`$ transverse sphere. We shall assume that the $`\theta `$’s are spherical angles on $`S^{8p}`$ and that $`\theta \theta ^{8p}`$ is the polar angle ($`0\theta \pi `$). Therefore, the $`S^{8p}`$ line element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ can be decomposed as:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2=d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}^2.$$
(4.3.2)
In these coordinates it is not difficult to find a potential for the RR gauge field. Indeed, let us define the function $`C_p(\theta )`$ as the solution of the differential equation

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }C_p(\theta )=(7p)(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p},$$
(4.3.3)
with the initial condition

$$C_p(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(4.3.4)
It is clear that one can find by elementary integration a unique solution to the problem of eqs. (4.3.3) and (4.3.4). Thus $`C_p(\theta )`$ can be considered as a known function of the polar angle $`\theta `$. In terms of $`C_p(\theta )`$, the RR potential $`C^{(7p)}`$ can be represented as

$$C^{(7p)}=R^{(7p)}C_p(\theta )ϵ_{(7p)}.$$
(4.3.5)
By using eq. (4.3.3) it can be easily verified that <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1For simplicity, we choose the orientation of the transverse $`S^{8p}`$ sphere such that $`ϵ_{(8p)}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}d\theta ϵ_{(7p)}`$.

$$F^{(8p)}=dC^{(7p)}.$$
(4.3.6)
Let us now consider a D(8-p)-brane embedded along the transverse directions of the stack of Dp-branes. The action of such a brane probe is the sum of a Dirac-Born-Infeld and a Wess-Zumino term

$$S=T_{8p}d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}p}\sigma e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+F)}+T_{8p}FC^{(7p)},$$
(4.3.7)
where $`g`$ is the induced metric on the worldvolume of the D(8-p)-brane and $`F`$ is a worldvolume abelian gauge field strength. The coefficient $`T_{8p}`$ in eq. (4.3.7) is the tension of the D(8-p)-brane, given by

$$T_{8p}=(2\pi )^{p8}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{p9}{2}}(g_s)^1.$$
(4.3.8)
The worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}p)`$ will be taken as

$$\sigma ^\alpha =(t,r,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}).$$
(4.3.9)
With this choice the embedding of the brane probe is described by a function $`\theta =\theta (\sigma ^\alpha )`$. Notice that the hypersurface $`\theta =\mathrm{constant}`$ defines a $`S^{7p}`$ sphere on the transverse $`S^{8p}`$ (see figure 4.2). These configurations with constant polar angle represent a D(8-p)-brane wrapped on a $`S^{7p}`$ sphere and extended along the radial direction. These are the kind of configurations we want to study in this paper. Actually, we will consider first a more general situation in which the polar angle depends only on the radial coordinate, i.e. when $`\theta =\theta (r)`$. It is a rather simple exercise to compute the induced metric $`g`$ in this case. Moreover, by inspecting the form of the RR potential $`C^{(7p)}`$ in eq. (4.3.5) and the Wess-Zumino term in the action, one easily concludes that this term acts as a source for the worldvolume electric field $`F_{0,r}`$ and, thus, it is natural to assume that $`F_{0,r}`$ is different from zero. If we take this component of $`F`$ as the only non-vanishing one, the action can be written as

$$S=_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta 𝑑r𝑑t(\theta ,F),$$
(4.3.10)
where the lagrangian density $`(\theta ,F)`$ is given by

$$(\theta ,F)=T_{8p}R^{7p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}F_{0,r}^2}+F_{0,r}C_p(\theta )\right].$$
(4.3.11)
In eq. (4.3.11) $`\widehat{g}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the $`S^{7p}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ denotes $`d\theta /dr`$.

#### 4.3.1 Quantization condition

The equation of motion of the gauge field, derived from the lagrangian density of eq. (4.3.11), implies that

$$\frac{}{F_{0,r}}=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(4.3.12)
In order to determine the value of the constant on the right-hand side of eq. (4.3.12) let us follow the procedure of ref.  and couple the D-brane to a Neveu-Schwarz (NS) Kalb-Ramond field $`B`$. As is well-known, this coupling can be performed by substituting $`F`$ by $`FB`$ in $``$, i.e. by doing $`(\theta ,F)(\theta ,FB)`$ in eq. (4.3.11). At first order in $`B`$, this substitution generates a coupling of the D-brane to the NS field $`B`$ of the form

$$_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta 𝑑r𝑑t\frac{}{F_{0,r}}B_{0,r},$$
(4.3.13)
where we have assumed that only the $`B_{0,r}`$ component of the $`B`$ field is turned on.

We shall regard eq. (4.3.13) as the interaction energy of a fundamental string source in the presence of the D-brane. This source is extended along the radial direction and, thus, it is quite natural to require that the coefficient of the $`B`$ field, integrated over $`S^{7p}`$, be an integer multiple of the fundamental string tension, namely,

$$_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \frac{}{F_{0,r}}=nT_f,$$
(4.3.14)
with $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$. Eq. (4.3.14) is the quantization condition we were looking for in these RR backgrounds and will play in our analysis a role similar to the one played in section 4.2 by the flux quantization condition (eq. (4.2.14)). Notice that eq. (4.3.14) constraints the electric components of $`F`$, whereas eq. (4.2.14) involves the magnetic worldvolume field<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2It is interesting to point out that the left-hand side of eq. (4.3.14) can be written in terms of the integral over the $`S^{7p}`$ sphere of the worldvolume Hodge dual of $`/F_{\alpha ,\beta }`$.. Thus, our quantization rule is a kind of electric-magnetic dual of the one used in section 4.2. This has a nice interpretation in the case in which $`p`$ is odd, which corresponds to the type IIB theory. Indeed, it is known in this case that the electric-magnetic worldvolume duality corresponds to the S-duality of the background . In particular, when $`p=5`$, the D5 background can be converted, by means of an S-duality transformation, into a NS5 one, which is precisely the type of geometry considered in section 4.2.

By using the explicit form of the lagrangian density (eq. (1.4.44)), the left-hand side of our quantization condition can be easily calculated:

$$_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \frac{}{F_{0,r}}=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}\left[\frac{F_{0,r}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}}{\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}F_{0,r}^2}}C_p(\theta )\right],$$
(4.3.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}`$ is the volume of the unit $`(7p)`$-sphere, given by:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{8p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}.$$
(4.3.16)
By using eqs. (4.3.15) and (4.3.14) one can obtain $`F_{0,r}`$ as a function of $`\theta (r)`$ and the integer $`n`$. Let us show how this can be done. First of all, by using eqs. (4.3.8), (4.3.16) and (1.4.44) it is straightforward to compute the global coefficient appearing on the right-hand side of eq. (4.3.15), namely,

$$T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}=\frac{NT_f}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}.$$
(4.3.17)
Secondly, let us define the function $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$ as:

$$𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )=C_p(\theta )+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}\frac{n}{N}.$$
(4.3.18)
Notice that $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$ satisfies the same differential equation as $`C_p(\theta )`$ (eq. (4.3.3)) with different initial condition. Moreover, by inspecting eqs. (4.3.14), (4.3.15) and (4.3.17), one easily concludes that $`F_{0,r}`$ can be put in terms of $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$. The corresponding expression is

$$F_{0,r}=\sqrt{\frac{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}}}𝒞_{p,n}(\theta ).$$
(4.3.19)
Let us now evaluate the energy of the system. By performing a Legendre transformation, we can represent the hamiltonian $`H`$ of the D(8-p)-brane as

$$H=_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta 𝑑r\left[F_{0,r}\frac{}{F_{0,r}}\right].$$
(4.3.20)
By using (4.3.19) one can eliminate $`F_{0,r}`$ from the expression of $`H`$. One gets

$$H=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}𝑑r\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\sqrt{𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}}.$$
(4.3.21)
It is now simple to find the constant $`\theta `$ configurations which minimize the energy. Indeed, we only have to require the vanishing of $`H/\theta `$ for $`\theta ^{^{}}=0`$. Taking into account that $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$ satisfies eq. (4.3.3), we arrive at

$$\frac{H}{\theta }|_{\theta ^{^{}}=0}=(7p)T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}\frac{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )]}{\sqrt{𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}}}.$$
(4.3.22)
Moreover, if we define the functions<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3The functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ for different values of $`p`$ have been listed in appendix A. These functions are the same as the ones defined in (3.4.1) for the near-horizon analisys of the baryon vertex if one identifies $`\nu =n/N`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝒞_{p,n}(\theta ),$$
(4.3.23)
it is clear by looking at the right-hand side of eq. (4.3.22) that the energy is minimized either when $`\theta =0,\pi `$ (i.e. when $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0`$) or when $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$, where $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ is determined by the condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\overline{\theta }_{p,n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(4.3.24)
The solutions $`\theta =0,\pi `$ correspond to singular configurations in which the D(8-p)-brane collapses at the poles of the $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. For this reason we shall concentrate on the analysis of the $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ configurations.

It was shown in eq. (3.4.3) that when $`p<6`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ is a monotonically increasing function in the interval $`0<\theta <\pi `$. In what follows we shall restrict ourselves to the case $`p5`$, and therefore the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ vanishes for $`0<\theta <\pi `$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(0)<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\pi )>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (see figure 3.2). These values are given in eq. (3.4.7) we conclude that the first condition occurs when $`n>0`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\pi )>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ if $`n<N`$. It follows that there exists only one solution $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}(0,\pi )`$ of eq. (4.3.24) for each $`n`$ in the interval $`0<n<N`$. Then, we have found exactly $`N1`$ angles which correspond to nonsingular wrappings of the D(8-p)-brane on a $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. Notice that for $`n=0`$ ($`n=N`$) the solution of eq. (4.3.24) is $`\overline{\theta }_{p,0}=0`$ ($`\overline{\theta }_{p,N}=\pi `$) (see eq. (3.4.7)). Therefore, we can identify these $`n=0,N`$ cases with the singular configurations previously found. In general, when $`n`$ is varied from $`n=0`$ to $`n=N`$ the angle $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ increases from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ (i.e. from one of the poles of the $`S^{8p}`$ sphere to the other).

It is not difficult to find the energy of these wrapped configurations. Actually we only need to substitute $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ in eq. (4.3.21). Taking into account (see eqs. (4.3.23) and (4.3.24)) that

$$𝒞_{p,n}(\overline{\theta }_{p,n})=(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{p,n})^{6p}\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{p,n},$$
(4.3.25)
one easily finds that the energy of these solutions can be written as

$$H_{p,n}=𝑑r_{p,n},$$
(4.3.26)
where the constant energy density $`_{p,n}`$ is given by

$$_{p,n}=\frac{NT_f}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{p,n})^{6p}.$$
(4.3.27)
Similarly, by substituting eq. (4.3.25) in eq. (4.3.19), we can get the worldvolume electric field for our configurations, namely,

$$\overline{F}_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}.$$
(4.3.28)
Let us now analyze some particular cases of our equations. First of all, we shall consider the $`p=5`$ case, i.e. a D3-brane wrapped on a two-sphere under the action of a D5-brane background. The function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )`$ is (see eq. (3.4.9))

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )=\theta \frac{n}{N}\pi ,$$
(4.3.29)
and the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )=0`$ is trivially solved by the angles

$$\overline{\theta }_{5,n}=\frac{n}{N}\pi .$$
(4.3.30)
Notice that the set of angles in eq. (4.3.30) is the same as that of section 4.2. Using this result in eq. (4.3.27) we get the following energy density:

$$_{5,n}=\frac{NT_f}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{n}{N}\pi \right],$$
(4.3.31)
which is very similar to the result found in section 4.2. Next, let us take $`p=4`$, which corresponds to a D4-brane wrapped on a three-sphere in the background of a stack of D4-branes. The corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ function is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4,n}(\theta )=2\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{n}{N}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right],$$
(4.3.32)
and the solutions of eq. (4.3.24) in this case are easily found, namely,

$$\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{4,n}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{n}{N}.$$
(4.3.33)
The corresponding energy density takes the form

$$_{4,n}=\frac{n(Nn)}{N}T_f.$$
(4.3.34)
Notice that, in this D4-D4 case, the energy density of eq. (4.3.34) is a rational fraction of the fundamental string tension.

For general $`p`$ the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is much difficult to solve analytically. In order to illustrate this point let us write down the equation to solve in the physically interesting case $`p=3`$:

$$\overline{\theta }_{3,n}\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{3,n}\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{3,n}=\frac{n}{N}\pi .$$
(4.3.35)
Despite of the fact that we are not able to find the analytical solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for $`p3`$, we can get some insight on the nature of our solutions from some general considerations. First of all, it is interesting to point out the following property of the functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ (see eq. (3.4.19)):

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,Nn}(\pi \theta ).$$
(4.3.36)
Eq. (4.3.36) can be proved either from the definition of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$’s or from their expressions listed in appendix A. It follows from this equation that our set of angles $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ satisfy

$$\overline{\theta }_{p,Nn}=\pi \overline{\theta }_{p,n}.$$
(4.3.37)
By using (4.3.37) in the expression of the energy density $`_{p,n}`$ (eq. (4.3.27)), one immediately gets the following periodicity relation

$$_{p,Nn}=_{p,n}.$$
(4.3.38)
Another interesting piece of information can be obtained by considering the semiclassical $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}`$ depends on $`n`$ and $`N`$ through their ratio $`n/N`$ (see eqs. (4.3.23)) and (4.3.18)). Then, taking $`N\mathrm{}`$ with fixed $`n`$ is equivalent to make $`n0`$ for finite $`N`$. We have already argued that if $`n0(\nu 0)`$ the angle $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}0`$. In order to solve the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for small $`\theta `$, let us expand $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ in Taylor series around $`\theta =0`$. It turns out (see eq. (3.4.13)) that the first non-vanishing derivative of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =0`$ is the $`(6p)^{th}`$ one and near $`\theta =0`$ we can write

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(0)+\theta ^{6p}+\mathrm{}.$$
(4.3.39)
It follows immediately that for $`N\mathrm{}`$ the value of $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ is given by

$$\left(\overline{\theta }_{p,n}\right)^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(0).$$
(4.3.40)
Taking into account eq. (3.4.7) and the general expression of the energy density (eq. (4.3.27)), we can easily verify that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}_{p,n}=nT_f,$$
(4.3.41)
a fact which can be verified directly for $`p=4,5`$ from our analytical expressions of the energy density (eqs. (4.3.31) and (4.3.34)). It is now clear from eq. (4.3.41) that our configurations can be interpreted as bound states of $`n`$ fundamental strings. Actually, one can prove quite generally that the following inequality holds

$$_{p,n}nT_f,$$
(4.3.42)
which shows that the formation of our bound states is energetically favored. This is an indication of their stability, which we will verify directly in section 4.3.3.

In order to prove (4.3.42), it is very useful again to consider the dependence of the energy on $`1/N`$. Notice that for $`1/N0`$ both sides of eq. (4.3.42) are equal (see eq. (4.3.41)). The energy $`_{p,n}`$ depends on $`1/N`$ both explicitly and implicitly (through $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$). If we consider $`1/N`$ as a continuous variable, then one has

$$\frac{d}{d\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}=\frac{nNT_f}{(6p)_{p,n}}\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}.$$
(4.3.43)
Eq. (4.3.43) is obtained by differentiating eq. (4.3.24) and using eqs. (3.4.3) and (3.4.7) (the latter determines the explicit dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}`$ on $`1/N`$). We are now ready to demonstrate (4.3.42). For this purpose let us consider the quantity $`(_{p,n}nT_f)/N`$, which we will regard as a function of $`1/N`$. We must prove that this quantity is always less or equal than zero. Clearly, eq. (4.3.41) implies that $`(_{p,n}nT_f)/N0`$ for $`1/N0`$. Moreover, by using (4.3.43) it is straightforward to compute the derivative

$$\frac{d}{d\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)}\left[\frac{_{p,n}nT_f}{N}\right]=nT_f(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}),$$
(4.3.44)
which vanishes for $`N\mathrm{}`$ and is always negative for finite $`N`$ and $`0<n<N`$. Thus, it follows that $`(_{p,n}nT_f)/N`$ is negative for finite $`N`$ and, necessarily, eq. (4.3.42) holds.

As a further check of (4.3.42) one can compute the first correction to $`_{p,n}nT_f`$ for finite $`N`$. By Taylor expanding $`_{p,n}`$ in powers of $`1/N`$, and using eq. (4.3.43), one can prove that

$$_{p,n}nT_f\frac{6p}{2(8p)}nT_f\left(𝒞_{p,n}(0)\right)^{\frac{2}{6p}}+\mathrm{},$$
(4.3.45)
where $`𝒞_{p,n}(0)`$, which is of order $`1/N`$, has been given in eq. (3.4.7).

In order to confirm the interpretation of our results given above, let us study the supersymmetry preserved by our brane probe configurations. In general, the number of supersymmetries preserved by a D-brane is the number of independent solutions of the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a Killing spinor of the background and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ is the $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix. The Killing spinors $`ϵ`$ associated to a D-brane background satisfy the projection condition

$$(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^p}}ϵ=ϵ,$$
(4.3.46)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^{\mu _1}x^{\mu _2}}\mathrm{}}`$ are antisymmetrized products of ten-dimensional constant gamma matrices. The $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix of the D(8-p)-brane probe is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{i\sigma _2\sigma _3^{\frac{p3}{2}}}{\sqrt{1F_{0,r}^2}}\left[F_{0,r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},$$
(4.3.47)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{7p}}}`$. The condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ is:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta r}}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(4.3.48)
Notice that, in order to derive (4.3.48) we have used that $`F_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in eq. (4.3.47). Moreover, introducing the $`\theta `$-dependence of the spinors, i.e. $`ϵ=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta r}}]\widehat{ϵ}`$, with $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ independent of $`\theta `$, we get the following condition on $`\widehat{ϵ}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ},$$
(4.3.49)
which can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}}=ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}},$$
(4.3.50)
which certainly corresponds to a system of fundamental strings in the radial direction. Notice that the point $`\theta =0`$ can be regarded as the “center of mass” of the expanded fundamental strings.

#### 4.3.2 BPS configurations and the baryon vertex

In this section we shall show that the wrapped configurations found above solve a BPS differential equation. With this purpose in mind, let us now come back to the more general situation in which the angle $`\theta `$ depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$. The hamiltonian for a general function $`\theta (r)`$ was given in eq. (4.3.21). By means of a simple calculation it can be verified that this hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}𝑑r\sqrt{𝒵^2+𝒴^2},$$
(4.3.51)
where, for any function $`\theta (r)`$, $`𝒵`$ is a total derivative:

$$𝒵=\frac{d}{dr}\left[r\left((\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\right],$$
(4.3.52)
and $`𝒴`$ is given by

$$𝒴=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )r\theta ^{}\left[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta \right].$$
(4.3.53)
It follows from eq. (4.3.51) that $`H`$ is bounded as

$$HT_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}𝑑r\left|𝒵\right|.$$
(4.3.54)
Since $`𝒵`$ is a total derivative, the bound on the right-hand side of eq. (4.3.54) only depends on the boundary values of $`\theta (r)`$. This implies that any $`\theta (r)`$ saturating the bound is also a solution of the equations of motion. This saturation of the bound clearly occurs when $`𝒴=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ or, taking into account eq. (4.3.53), when $`\theta (r)`$ satisfies the following first-order differential equation:

$$\theta ^{}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )}{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{6p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(4.3.55)
It is straightforward to verify directly that any solution $`\theta (r)`$ of eq. (4.3.55) also solves the second-order differential equations of motion derived from the hamiltonian of eq. (4.3.21). Moreover, by using eq. (4.3.55) to evaluate the right-hand side of eq. (4.3.19), one can demonstrate that the BPS differential equation is equivalent to the following relation between the electric field $`F_{0,r}`$ and $`\theta (r)`$:

$$F_{0,r}=_r(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta r\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(4.3.56)
Notice now that eq. (4.3.55) admits solutions with $`\theta =\mathrm{constant}`$ if and only if $`\theta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\pi `$ or when $`\theta `$ is a zero of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$. Thus our wrapped configurations are certainly solutions of the BPS differential equation. As a confirmation of this fact, let us point out that, for constant $`\theta `$, the electric field of eq. (4.3.56) reduces to the value displayed in eq. (4.3.28).

Eq. (4.3.55) was first proposed (for $`p=3`$) in section 3.4 to describe the baryon vertex (see also refs. ) <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4In these studies of the baryon vertex a different choice of worldvolume coordinates is performed. Instead of taking these coordinates as in eq. (4.3.9), one takes $`\sigma ^\alpha =(t,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p},\theta )`$ and the embedding of the D(8-p)-brane is described by a function $`r=r(\sigma ^\alpha )`$.. In section 3.7 it was verified, by looking at the $`\kappa `$-symmetry of the brane probe, that the condition (4.3.56) is enough to preserve $`1/4`$ of the bulk supersymmetry. Actually, in section 3.4 it was obtained the general solution of the BPS differential equation (4.3.55). In implicit form this solution, given in eq. (3.4.5), is

$$\frac{[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )]^{\frac{1}{6p}}}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }=Cr,$$
(4.3.57)
where $`C`$ is a constant. Our constant angle solutions $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ can be obtained from eq. (4.3.57) by taking $`C=0`$, whereas the baryon vertex solutions correspond to $`C0`$. A glance at eq. (4.3.57) reveals that, by consistency, $`\theta `$ must be restricted to take values in an interval such that the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ has a fixed sign. If, for example, $`\theta (0,\overline{\theta }_{p,n})`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )<0`$ and, by redefining the phase of $`C`$, we get a consistent solution in which $`r`$ is a non-negative real number. Similarly, we could have $`\theta (\overline{\theta }_{p,n},\pi )`$ since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )>0`$ for these values. In both cases $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ is a limiting angle. Actually, for $`0<n<N`$ one immediately infers from eq. (4.3.57) that $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ is the angle reached when $`r0`$. The baryon vertex solutions behave  as a bundle of fundamental strings in the asymptotic region $`r\mathrm{}`$ (see figure 4.3). The number of fundamental strings is precisely $`n`$ for the solution with $`\theta (0,\overline{\theta }_{p,n})`$ (and $`Nn`$ when $`\theta (\overline{\theta }_{p,n},\pi )`$). Notice that $`r\mathrm{}`$ when $`\theta =0`$ ($`\theta =\pi `$) for the solution with $`n`$ ($`Nn`$) fundamental strings, whereas in the opposite limit $`r0`$ the solution displayed in eq. (4.3.57) is equivalent to our $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ wrapped configuration. This is quite suggestive and implies that one can regard our constant angle configurations as a short distance limit (in the radial direction) of the baryon vertex solutions.

#### 4.3.3 Fluctuations and stability

We are now going to study fluctuations around the static configurations found above. Let us parametrize these fluctuations as follows:

$$\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}+\xi ,F_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}+f,$$
(4.3.58)
where $`\xi `$ and $`f`$ are small quantities which depend on the worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$. We are going to prove in this section that the $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ solution is stable under the perturbation of eq. (4.3.58). In order to achieve this goal we must go back to the action written in eq. (4.4.2). We shall evaluate this action for an angle $`\theta `$ and an electric field as in eq. (4.3.58). Let us represent the perturbation $`f`$ by means of a potential as $`f=_0a_r_ra_0`$. We shall choose a gauge in which the components $`a_{\widehat{i}}`$ of the potential along the sphere $`S^{7p}`$ vanish. Then we see that, for consistency, we must include in our perturbation the components of the gauge field strength of the type $`F_{\widehat{i},r}=_{\widehat{i}}a_r`$ and $`F_{0,\widehat{i}}=_{\widehat{i}}a_0`$. Under these circumstances it is not difficult to compute the lagrangian density for the action (4.4.2) up to second order in $`\xi `$, $`f`$, $`F_{\widehat{i},r}`$ and $`F_{0,\widehat{i}}`$. After some calculation one gets

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}R^{7p}T_{8p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(0)f+\sqrt{\widehat{g}}R^{7p}T_{8p}(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^{6p}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{R^{7p}r^{p5}(_0\xi )^2r^2(_r\xi )^2(_{\widehat{i}}\xi )^2+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^{p7}r^{5p}}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}}\right)^{7p}F_{0,\widehat{i}}^2F_{\widehat{i},r}^2]+(7p)\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(7p){\displaystyle \frac{f\xi }{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\},`$
where, to simplify the notation, we have written $`\overline{\theta }`$ instead of $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$, $`\widehat{g}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ represents the metric of the $`S^{7p}`$ sphere and we have denoted

$$(_{\widehat{i}}\xi )^2=\widehat{g}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}_{\widehat{i}}\xi _{\widehat{j}}\xi ,F_{\widehat{i},r}^2=\widehat{g}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}F_{\widehat{i},r}F_{\widehat{j},r},F_{0,\widehat{i}}^2=\widehat{g}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}F_{0,\widehat{i}}F_{0,\widehat{j}}.$$
(4.3.60)
In eq. (LABEL:fl1cicinco) we have dropped the zero-order term. Moreover, the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (LABEL:fl1cicinco) is a first-order term which, however, does not contribute to the equations of motion. In fact, by computing the variation of the action with respect to $`a_0`$, $`a_r`$ and $`\xi `$ we get the following set of equations:

$`_r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}+(7p)\xi \right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}_{\widehat{i}}\left[\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{0,\widehat{j}}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
$`r^{p5}R^{7p}_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}+(7p)\xi \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}_{\widehat{i}}\left[\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\widehat{j},r}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
$`R^{7p}r^{p5}_0^2\xi _r(r^2_r\xi )_{S^{(7p)}}^2\xi +(p7)\left[\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$
(4.3.61)
The first equation in (4.3.61) is nothing but the Gauss law. Moreover, if we further fix the gauge to $`a_0=0`$ (i.e. $`f=_0a_r`$, $`F_{\widehat{i},r}=_{\widehat{i}}a_r`$ and $`F_{0,\widehat{i}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$), the second equation in (4.3.61) can be written as

$$r^{p5}R^{7p}\left[\frac{_0^2a_r}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}+(7p)_0\xi \right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}_{S^{(7p)}}^2a_r=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.3.62)
where $`_{S^{(7p)}}^2`$ is the laplacian operator on the $`S^{(7p)}`$ sphere. In order to continue with our analysis, let us now expand $`a_r`$ and $`\xi `$ in spherical harmonics of $`S^{(7p)}`$

$`a_r(t,r,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})={\displaystyle \underset{l0,m}{}}Y_{l,m}(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})\alpha _{l,m}(t,r),`$
$`\xi (t,r,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})={\displaystyle \underset{l0,m}{}}Y_{l,m}(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})\zeta _{l,m}(t,r).`$
(4.3.63)
The spherical harmonics $`Y_{l,m}`$ are well-defined functions on $`S^{(7p)}`$ which are eigenfunctions of the laplacian on the sphere, namely,

$$_{S^{(7p)}}^2Y_{l,m}=l(l+6p)Y_{l,m}.$$
(4.3.64)
By plugging the mode expansion (4.3.63) into the equations of motion (4.3.61) and (4.3.62), and using eq. (4.3.64), we can obtain some equations for $`\alpha _{l,m}(t,r)`$ and $`\zeta _{l,m}(t,r)`$. Actually, if we define

$$\eta _{l,m}\frac{_0\alpha _{l,m}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}+(7p)\zeta _{l,m},$$
(4.3.65)
then, the Gauss law in this $`a_0=a_{\widehat{i}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ gauge can be simply written as

$$_r\eta _{l,m}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.3.66)
whereas the other two equations of motion give rise to

$`R^{7p}r^{p5}_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_0\alpha _{l,m}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}+(7p)\zeta _{l,m}\right]+l(l+6p){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{l,m}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
$`R^{7p}r^{p5}_0^2\zeta _{l,m}_r(r^2_r\zeta _{l,m})+l(l+6p)\zeta _{l,m}+`$
$`+(p7)\left[\zeta _{l,m}+{\displaystyle \frac{_0\alpha _{l,m}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$
(4.3.67)
Let us analyze first eqs. (4.3.66) and (4.3.67) for $`l=0`$. From the first equation in (4.3.67) it follows that

$$_0\eta _{0,m}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(4.3.68)
Thus, as $`_r\eta _{0,m}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (see eq. (4.3.66)), one concludes that

$$\eta _{0,m}=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(4.3.69)
By using this result and the definition of $`\eta _{l,m}`$ given in eq. (4.3.65), we can express $`_0\alpha _{0,m}`$ in terms of $`\zeta _{0,m}`$ and the additive constant appearing in eq. (4.3.69). By substituting this relation in the second equation in (4.3.67), we get

$$R^{7p}r^{p5}_0^2\zeta _{0,m}_r(r^2_r\zeta _{0,m})+(6p)(7p)\zeta _{0,m}=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(4.3.70)
It is interesting to rewrite eq. (4.3.70) in the following form. First of all, we define the wave operator $`𝒪_p`$ that acts on any function $`\psi `$ as

$$𝒪_p\psi R^{7p}r^{p5}_0^2\psi _r(r^2_r\psi ).$$
(4.3.71)
Then, if $`m_0^2`$ is given by

$$m_0^2=(6p)(7p),$$
(4.3.72)
eq. (4.3.70) can be written as

$$\left(𝒪_p+m_0^2\right)\zeta _{0,m}=\mathrm{constant},$$
(4.3.73)
which means that $`\zeta _{0,m}`$ is a massive mode with mass $`m_0`$. Notice that, as $`p<6`$, $`m_0^2`$ is strictly positive.

For a general value of $`l>0`$ the equations of motion can be conveniently expressed in terms of the variables $`\eta _{l,m}`$ and $`\zeta _{l,m}`$. Indeed, by differentiating with respect to the time the first equation (4.3.67), and using the definition (4.3.65), we can put them in terms of $`\eta _{l,m}`$ and $`\zeta _{l,m}`$. Actually, if we define the mass matrix $`_p`$ as

$$_p=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l(l+6p)+(7p)(6p)& & p7\\ \\ (p7)l(l+6p)& & l(l+6p)\end{array}\right),$$
(4.3.74)
the equations of motion can be written as

$$\left(𝒪_p+_p\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _{l,m}\\ \eta _{l,m}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.3.75)
where $`𝒪_p`$ is the wave operator defined in eq. (4.3.71). In order to check that our wrapped configurations are stable, we must verify that the eigenvalues of the matrix $`_p`$ are non-negative. After a simple calculation one can show that these eigenvalues are

$$m_l^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}(l+6p)(l+7p)\hfill & \text{for }l=0,1,\mathrm{},\hfill \\ & \\ l(l1)\hfill & \text{for }l=1,2,\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3.76)
where we have already included the $`l=0`$ case. Eq. (4.3.76) proves that there are not negative mass modes in the spectrum of small oscillations for $`p<6`$, which demonstrates that, as claimed, our static solutions are stable.

### 4.4 Flux quantization in the (D(p-2), Dp) background

The string frame metric $`ds^2`$ and the dilaton $`\varphi `$ generated by a stack of (D(p-2), Dp) bound states $`(p2)`$ are given in section 1.4.1 (see eqs. (1.4.73)-(1.4.76)). The Dp-brane of the background extends along the directions $`x^0\mathrm{}x^p`$, whereas the D(p-2)-brane component lies along $`x^0\mathrm{}x^{p2}`$ and $`N`$ denotes the number of branes of the stack. The components of the Hodge dual fields $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ along the directions transverse to the bound state are given in eq. (1.4.77) and they can be represented by means of two RR potentials $`C^{(9p)}`$ and $`C^{(7p)}`$ which are, respectively, a $`(9p)`$-form and a $`(7p)`$-form. In order to write the relevant components of these potentials, let us parametrize the $`S^{8p}`$ transverse sphere by means of the spherical angles $`\theta ^1`$, $`\theta ^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta ^{8p}`$ and let $`\theta \theta ^{8p}`$ be the polar angle measured from one of the poles of the sphere ($`0\theta \pi `$). Then, the $`S^{8p}`$ line element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2`$ can be decomposed as: $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2=d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}^2`$, where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}^2`$ is the metric of the constant latitude $`(7p)`$-sphere. In terms of the functions $`C_p(\theta )`$ defined in (4.3.3) and (4.3.4) the components of the RR potentials in which we are interested in are

$`C_{\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(7p)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}C_p(\theta )\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(7p)}},`$
$`C_{x^{p1},x^p,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(9p)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi R^{7p}h_pf_p^1C_p(\theta )\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(7p)}}.`$ (4.4.1)
In eq. (4.4.1) $`\widehat{g}^{(7p)}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the unit $`S^{7p}`$ sphere.

Let us now place a D(10-p)-brane probe in the (D(p-2), Dp) geometry. The action of such a brane probe is the sum of a Dirac-Born-Infeld and a Wess-Zumino term, namely,

$`S=T_{10p}{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}p}\xi e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+)}}+T_{10p}{\displaystyle \left[C^{(9p)}+\frac{1}{2}C^{(7p)}\right]},`$
(4.4.2)
where $`g`$ is the induced metric on the worldvolume of the brane probe, $`T_{10p}`$ is the tension of the D(10-p)-brane and $`=FB`$, with $`F`$ being a $`U(1)`$ worldvolume gauge field and $`B`$ the NSNS gauge potential (actually its pullback to the probe worldvolume). We want to find stable configurations in which the probe is partially wrapped on the $`S^{7p}`$ constant latitude sphere. From the analysis performed in section 4.3 for RR backgrounds, it follows that we must extend the probe along the radial coordinate and switch on an electric worldvolume field along this direction. Moreover, our background has a $`B`$ field with non-zero components along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane. Then, in order to capture the flux of the $`B`$ field, we must also extend our D(10-p)-brane probe along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions. Therefore, the natural set of worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},10p`$) is $`\sigma ^\alpha =(t,x^{p1},x^p,r,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})`$, where $`tx^0`$. Moreover, we will adopt the following ansatz for the field $``$:

$$=F_{0,r}dtdr+_{p1,p}dx^{p1}dx^p.$$
(4.4.3)
Notice that $`_{p1,p}`$ gets a contribution from the pullback of $`B`$, namely,

$$_{p1,p}=F_{p1,p}h_pf_p^1\mathrm{tan}\phi .$$
(4.4.4)
It is interesting to point out that the components of $``$ in eq. (4.4.3) are precisely those which couple to the RR potentials (4.4.1) in the Wess-Zumino term of the action. With the choice of worldvolume coordinates we have made above, the embedding of the brane probe in the transverse space is encoded in the dependence of the polar angle $`\theta `$ on the $`\sigma ^\alpha `$’s. Although we are interested in configurations in which $`\theta `$ is constant, we will consider first the more general situation in which $`\theta =\theta (r)`$. It is easy to compute the lagrangian in this case. One gets

$$L=𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}𝑑r𝑑t(\theta ,F),$$
(4.4.5)
where $`\widehat{g}\widehat{g}^{(7p)}`$ and the lagrangian density $`(\theta ,F)`$ is

$`(\theta ,F)=T_{10p}R^{7p}`$ $`[(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}\sqrt{h_pf_p^1+h_p^1_{p1,p}^2}\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^2F_{0,r}^2}+`$ (4.4.6)
$`+\mathrm{cos}\phi F_{p1,p}F_{0,r}C_p(\theta )].`$
We want to find solutions of the equations of motion derived from $`(\theta ,F)`$ in which both the angle $`\theta `$ and the worldvolume gauge field are constant. The equation of motion for $`\theta `$ with $`\theta =\overline{\theta }=\mathrm{constant}`$ reduces to

$$\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }\sqrt{1F_{0,r}^2}\sqrt{h_pf_p^1+h_p^1_{p1,p}^2}\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\phi F_{0,r}F_{p1,p}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(4.4.7)
If $`F_{0,r}`$ and $`F_{p1,p}`$ are constant, eq. (4.4.7) is only consistent when its left-hand side is independent of $`r`$. However, the square root involving $`_{p1,p}`$ does depend on $`r`$ in general. Actually, after a simple calculation one can verify that

$$h_pf_p^1+h_p^1_{p1,p}^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\phi F_{p1,p}^2+f_p^1\left(F_{p1,p}\mathrm{sin}\phi \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\phi }\right)^2.$$
(4.4.8)
By inspecting the right-hand side of eq. (4.4.8) one immediately concludes that it is only independent of $`r`$ when $`F_{p1,p}`$ takes the value

$$F_{p1,p}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{csc}(2\phi ).$$
(4.4.9)
Plugging back this value of $`F_{p1,p}`$ into eq. (4.4.7), one gets that $`F_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }`$. In order to determine the allowed values of $`\overline{\theta }`$, and therefore of $`F_{0,r}`$, we need to impose a quantization condition. Let us consider again a configuration in which $`\theta =\theta (r)`$ and assume that $`F_{p1,p}`$ is given by eq. (4.4.9). Moreover, let us introduce a quantization volume $`𝒱`$ in the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane which corresponds to one unit of flux, namely,

$$_𝒱𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^pF_{p1,p}=\frac{2\pi }{T_f},$$
(4.4.10)
where $`T_f=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^1`$. By using the constant value of $`F_{p1,p}`$ written in eq. (4.4.9), one gets that $`𝒱`$ is given by

$$𝒱=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\phi ).$$
(4.4.11)
We now determine $`F_{0,r}`$ by imposing the quantization condition of (4.3.14) on the volume $`𝒱`$, i.e.,

$$_𝒱𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}\frac{}{F_{0,r}}=nT_f,$$
(4.4.12)
with $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$. By using the explicit form of $``$ and $`F_{p1,p}`$, one can easily compute the left-hand side of the quantization condition (4.4.12):

$`{\displaystyle _𝒱}𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p{\displaystyle _{S^{7p}}}d^{7p}\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{F_{0,r}}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{10p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}𝒱}{\mathrm{sin}\phi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_{0,r}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{7p}}{\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}F_{0,r}^2}}}C_p(\theta )\right],`$
(4.4.13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}`$ is the volume of the unit $`(7p)`$-sphere and we have assumed that $`F_{0,r}`$ does not depend on $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{}\theta ^{7p}`$. It is not difficult now to find $`F_{0,r}`$ as a function of $`\theta (r)`$ and the quantization integer $`n`$. Let us notice that the global coefficient of the right-hand side of (4.4.13) is

$$\frac{T_{10p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}𝒱}{\mathrm{sin}\phi }=\frac{NT_f}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}.$$
(4.4.14)
In terms of the functions $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$ defined in (4.3.18) the electric field is given by

$$F_{0,r}=\sqrt{\frac{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}}}𝒞_{p,n}(\theta ).$$
(4.4.15)
Once $`F_{0,r}`$ is known, we can obtain the hamiltonian $`H`$ by means of a Legendre transformation:

$$H=𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}𝑑r\left[F_{0,r}\frac{}{F_{0,r}}\right].$$
(4.4.16)
By using eqs. (4.4.6) and (4.4.15), one easily obtains the following expression of $`H`$:

$$H=\frac{T_{10p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{7p}R^{7p}}{\mathrm{sin}\phi }𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p𝑑r\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\sqrt{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2(7p)}+\left(𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )\right)^2}.$$
(4.4.17)
The constant $`\theta `$ solutions of the equation of motion are those which minimize $`H`$ for $`\theta ^{}=0`$. The vanishing of $`H/\theta `$ for $`\theta ^{}=0`$ occurs when $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$, where $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ is determined by the condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\overline{\theta }_{p,n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.4.18)
where the functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ are the ones defined in (4.3.23). In section 4.3 it was proved that there exists a unique solution $`\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ in the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ for $`p5`$ and $`0nN`$ and for all values of $`p5`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{p,0}=0`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_{p,N}=\pi `$, which correspond to singular configurations in which the brane probe collapses at one of the poles of the $`S^{7p}`$ sphere. Excluding these points, there are exactly $`N1`$ angles which minimize the energy. The corresponding electric field is $`F_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }_{p,n}`$ and if we integrate $`x^{p1}`$ and $`x^p`$ in eq. (4.4.17) over the quantization volume $`𝒱`$, we obtain the energy $`H_{p,n}`$ of these solutions on the volume $`𝒱`$, which can be written as

$$H_{p,n}=𝑑r_{p,n},$$
(4.4.19)
where the constant energy density $`_{p,n}`$ is given by

$$_{p,n}=\frac{NT_f}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8p}{2}\right)}(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{p,n})^{6p}.$$
(4.4.20)
The expression of $`_{p,n}`$ in (4.4.20) is the same as that found in (4.3.27) for a Dp-brane background. It was argued in section 4.3 that $`_{p,n}`$ can be interpreted as the energy density of a bound state of $`n`$ fundamental strings since $`_{p,n}nT_f`$ and $`_{p,n}nT_f`$ in the semiclassical limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thus, we are led to propose that the states we have found are, in fact, a bound state of polarized fundamental strings stretched along the radial direction and distributed over the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane in such a way that there are $`n`$ fundamental strings in the volume $`𝒱`$. Notice that $`𝒱0`$ when $`\phi 0`$ and, thus, the bound state becomes point-like in the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions as $`\phi 0`$. This fact is in agreement with the results of section 4.3, since, in this limit, the (D(p-2), Dp) background becomes the Dp-brane geometry.

Let us study the supersymmetry preserved by our brane probe configurations. For simplicity, we shall restrict ourselves to the analysis of the $`p=3`$ case, i.e. for the (D1, D3) background. The Killing spinors in this case have the form

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}\stackrel{~}{ϵ},$$
(4.4.21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is a spinor which satisfies $`(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\alpha `$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha =h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(4.4.22)
The $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix of the D7-brane probe can be put as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{i\sigma _2}{\sqrt{1F_{0,r}^2}}\left[F_{0,r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3\right]e^{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},$$
(4.4.23)
where now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^4}}`$ and $`\eta `$ is

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta =\frac{f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{h_3f_3^1+h_3^1_{2,3}^2}},\mathrm{cos}\eta =\frac{_{2,3}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{h_3f_3^1+h_3^1_{2,3}^2}}.$$
(4.4.24)
For our configurations, in which $`F_{2,3}`$ is given by eq. (4.4.9), the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ of eqs. (4.4.22) and (4.4.24) are equal, and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ condition becomes

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta r}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ},$$
(4.4.25)
where we have used that $`F_{0,r}=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. The $`\theta `$-dependence of the spinors, is $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta r}}]\widehat{ϵ}`$, with $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ independent of $`\theta `$, we get the same condition on $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ as in eq. (4.3.49). The supersymmetry preserved by the brane probe

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}}=ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}},$$
(4.4.26)
corresponds again to a system of fundamental strings in the radial direction with the point $`\theta =0`$ being the “center of mass” of the expanded fundamental strings.

### 4.5 Flux quantization in the (NS5, Dp) background

Let us now consider the background given in section 1.4.1 (eqs. (1.4.81)-(1.4.86)) generated by a stack of $`N`$ bound states of NS5-branes and Dp-branes for $`1p5`$. The NS5-branes of this background extend along the $`tx^1\mathrm{}x^5`$ coordinates, whereas the Dp-branes lie along $`tx^1\mathrm{}x^p`$ and are smeared in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ coordinates. The integers $`l`$ and $`m`$ represent, respectively, the number of NS5-branes in the bound state and the number of Dp-branes in a $`(5p)`$-dimensional volume $`𝒱_p=(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^{5p}`$ in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ directions (see section 1.4.1). The near-horizon harmonic function $`H_{(l,m)}(r)`$ is defined as

$$H_{(l,m)}(r)=\frac{R_{(l,m)}^2}{r^2},$$
(4.5.1)
with $`R_{(l,m)}^2=N\left[\mu _{(l,m)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\mu _{(l,m)}=l^2+m^2g_s^2`$.

We shall choose spherical coordinates, and we will represent the $`S^3`$ line element as $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=d\theta ^2+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$. The NSNS potential $`B`$ is given by

$$B=lN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )ϵ_{(2)},$$
(4.5.2)
and the relevant components of the two RR potentials $`C^{(7p)}`$ and $`C^{(5p)}`$ are

$`C_{x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5,\theta ^1,\theta ^2}^{(7p)}=mN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}},`$
$`C_{x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5}^{(5p)}={\displaystyle \frac{lm}{\mu _{(l,m)}}}\left(\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)h_{(l,m)}(r).`$ (4.5.3)
In eqs. (4.5.2) and (4.5.3) $`C_5(\theta )`$ is the function defined in eq. (4.3.3) for $`p=5`$, namely $`C_5(\theta )=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \theta `$, $`ϵ_{(2)}`$ is the volume element of the constant latitude sphere $`S^2`$ and $`\widehat{g}^{(2)}`$ the determinant of its metric. Moreover, to simplify the equations that follow we shall take from now on $`g_s=1`$ (the dependence on $`g_s`$ can be easily restored).

By inspecting the form of the NSNS and RR potentials is eqs. (4.5.2) and (4.5.3) one easily realizes that, in order to get flux-stabilized configurations, one must consider a D(8-p)-brane probe wrapping the $`S^2`$ and extended along $`r,x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5`$. The action of such a probe is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}p}\sigma e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+)}}+`$ (4.5.4)
$`+T_{8p}{\displaystyle \left[C^{(7p)}+\frac{1}{2}C^{(5p)}\right]}.`$
We shall take in (4.5.4) the following set of worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha =(t,x^{p+1},\mathrm{},x^5,r,\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$ and we will consider configurations of the brane probe in which $`\theta `$ is a function of $`r`$.

##### Quantization conditions

To determine the worldvolume gauge field $`F`$, we first impose the flux quantization condition

$$_{S^2}F=\frac{2\pi n_1}{T_f},n_1\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.5.5)
Eq. (4.5.5) can be easily solved, and its solution fixes the magnetic components of $`F`$. Actually, if we assume that the electric worldvolume field has only components along the radial direction, one can write the solution of (4.5.5) as $`F=\pi n_1\alpha ^{}ϵ_{(2)}+F_{0,r}dtdr`$, which is equivalent to the following expression of $``$

$$=f_{12}(\theta )ϵ_{(2)}+F_{0,r}dtdr,$$
(4.5.6)
with $`f_{12}(\theta )`$ being

$$f_{12}(\theta )lN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )+\pi n_1\alpha ^{}.$$
(4.5.7)
Using eq. (4.5.6) in (4.5.4) one finds that the lagrangian of the system is

$$L=𝑑x^{p+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x^5_{S^2}d^2\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}𝑑r𝑑t(\theta ,F),$$
(4.5.8)
where $`\widehat{g}\widehat{g}^{(2)}`$ and the lagrangian density is given by

$`(\theta ,F)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}[\sqrt{r^4\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^4+h_{(l,m)}(r)f_{12}(\theta )^2}\times `$ (4.5.9)
$`\times \sqrt{\left[H_{(l,m)}(r)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+r^2\theta ^2)h_{(l,m)}(r)F_{0,r}^2}+`$
$`+(mN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )C^{(5p)}f_{12}(\theta ))F_{0,r}].`$
In eq. (4.5.9) we have suppressed the indices of the RR potential $`C^{(5p)}`$. We now impose the following quantization condition (see eq. (4.4.12))

$$_{𝒱_p}𝑑x^{p+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x^5_{S^2}d^2\theta \sqrt{\widehat{g}}\frac{}{F_{0,r}}=n_2T_f,$$
(4.5.10)
where $`n_2\mathrm{ZZ}`$ and $`𝒱_p`$ is the quantization volume defined before eq. (4.5.1) (i.e. $`𝒱_p=(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^{5p}`$). Eq. (4.5.10) allows to obtain $`F_{0,r}`$ as a function of $`\theta (r)`$ and of the quantization integers $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. By means of a Legendre transformation one can get the form of the hamiltonian of the system. After some calculation one arrives at

$`H=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_2{\displaystyle }dx^{p+1}\mathrm{}dx^5{\displaystyle }dr\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^2}\times `$ (4.5.11)
$`\times \sqrt{R_{(l,m)}^4(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^4+[\mu _{(l,m)}]^1\left[\left(lf_{12}(\theta )+m\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )\right)^2+H_{(l,m)}(r)\left(mf_{12}(\theta )l\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )\right)^2\right]},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )`$ is the function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )mN\alpha ^{}C_5(\theta )+\pi n_2\alpha ^{}.$$
(4.5.12)
By inspecting the right-hand side of eq. (4.5.11) one immediately reaches the conclusion that there exist configurations with constant $`\theta `$ which minimize the energy only when $`mf_{12}(\theta )=l\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )`$. By looking at eqs. (4.5.7) and (4.5.12) it is immediate to verify that this condition is equivalent to $`mn_1=ln_2`$. Since $`l`$ and $`m`$ are coprime, one must have $`n_1=ln`$, $`n_2=mn`$ with $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$. Then, our two quantization integers $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are not independent and $`f_{12}(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )`$ are given in terms of $`n`$ by

$$f_{12}(\theta )=lN\alpha ^{}𝒞_{5,n}(\theta ),\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta )=mN\alpha ^{}𝒞_{5,n}(\theta ),$$
(4.5.13)
where $`𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )`$ is the function defined in eq. (4.3.18) for $`p=5`$. By using eq. (4.5.13) in eq. (4.5.11), one gets the following expression of $`H`$:

$`H=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_2R_{(l,m)}^2{\displaystyle }dx^{p+1}\mathrm{}dx^5{\displaystyle }dr\times `$
$`\times \sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^2}\sqrt{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^4+\left(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\right)^2}.`$ (4.5.14)
By comparing the right-hand side of eq. (4.5.14) with that of eq. (4.4.17) one immediately realizes that the constant angles which minimize the energy are the solutions of eq. (4.4.18) (or (4.3.24)) for $`p=5`$, i.e. $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{5,n}=\frac{n}{N}\pi `$ with $`0nN`$. The electric field $`F_{0,r}`$ which we must have in the worldvolume in order to wrap the D(8-p)-brane at $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{5,n}`$ is easily obtained from eq. (4.5.10). After a short calculation one gets that, for a general value of $`g_s`$, $`F_{0,r}`$ is given by

$$\overline{F}_{0,r}=\frac{mg_s}{\sqrt{l^2+m^2g_s^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{n}{N}\pi \right].$$
(4.5.15)
Let $`H_n^{(l,m)}`$ be the energy of our configurations and $`_n^{(l,m)}`$ the corresponding energy density, whose integral over $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5r`$ gives $`H_n^{(l,m)}`$. After a short calculation one easily proves that

$$_n^{(l,m)}=\frac{NT_{6p}(m,l)}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{n}{N}\pi \right],$$
(4.5.16)
where, for an arbitrary value of $`g_s`$, $`T_{6p}(m,l)`$ is given by:

$$T_{6p}(m,l)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{6p}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{7p}{2}}g_s}\sqrt{l^2+m^2g_s^2}.$$
(4.5.17)
$`T_{6p}(m,l)`$ is the tension of a bound state of fundamental strings and D(6-p)-branes . In such a (F, D(6-p))-brane state, $`l`$ is the number of D(6-p)-branes, whereas $`m`$ parametrizes the number of fundamental strings. Indeed, one can check that $`T_{6p}(0,l)=lT_{6p}`$ and, on the other hand, $`T_{6p}(m,0)𝒱_p=mT_f`$, which means that there are $`m`$ fundamental strings in the $`(5p)`$-dimensional volume $`𝒱_p`$. These strings are stretched in the radial direction and smeared in the $`x^{p+1}\mathrm{}x^5`$ coordinates. This interpretation of $`T_{6p}(m,l)`$ suggests that our configurations with $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{5,n}`$ are bound states of (F, D(6-p))-branes. Indeed, since $`_n^{(l,m)}nT_{6p}(m,l)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, the number of (F, D(6-p))-branes which form our bound state is precisely the quantization integer $`n`$. Moreover, we can determine the supersymmetry preserved by our configuration. This analysis is similar to the one carried out at the end of section 4.4. Let us present the result of this study for the (NS5, D3) background, which corresponds to taking $`p=3`$ in our general expressions. If $`ϵ`$ denotes a Killing spinor of the background, only those $`ϵ`$ which satisfy

$$\left[\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}\sigma _3+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0x^4x^5r}}(i\sigma _2)\right]ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}}=ϵ_{|_{\theta =0}},$$
(4.5.18)
generate a supersymmetry transformation which leaves our configuration invariant. In eq. (4.5.18) $`\alpha `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\frac{l}{[\mu _{(l,m)}]^{1/2}}H_{(l,m)}^{1/4}h_{(l,m)}^{1/2},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\frac{mg_s}{[\mu _{(l,m)}]^{1/2}}H_{(l,m)}^{1/4}h_{(l,m)}^{1/2}.$$
(4.5.19)
The supersymmetry projection (4.5.18) certainly corresponds to that of a (F, D3) bound state of the type described above, with $`\alpha `$ being the mixing angle.

#### 4.5.1 Stability

The static configurations of the D(8-p)-branes studied above are stable under small perturbations, as one can check following the same steps as in section 4.3.3. We shall consider for simplicity the case of $`p=5`$. First of all, we parametrize the angle fluctuations as

$$\theta =\overline{\theta }_{5,n}+\xi ,$$
(4.5.20)
whereas the gauge field fluctuates as:

$$=\left[f_{12}(\theta )+g\right]ϵ_{(2)}+\left[\overline{F}_{0,r}+f\right]dtdr.$$
(4.5.21)
The angle fluctuation $`\xi `$ and the electric (magnetic) field fluctuation $`f`$ ($`g`$) are supposed to be small and only terms up to second order are retained in the lagrangian. The corresponding equations of motion involve now the wave operator $`𝒪_5^{(l,m)}`$, which acts on any function $`\psi `$ as

$$𝒪_5^{(l,m)}\psi R_{(p,q)}^2_0^2\psi _r(r^2_r\psi ).$$
(4.5.22)
Notice that $`𝒪_5^{(l,m)}`$ is obtained from $`𝒪_5`$ in eq. (4.3.71) by means of the substitution $`RR_{(p,q)}`$. Let us combine $`\xi `$, $`f`$ and $`g`$ into the field $`\eta `$, defined as

$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2H_{(l,m)}(r)+m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\theta }_{5,n}}}\times `$ (4.5.23)
$`\times \left[[\mu _{(l,m)}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(m\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{5,n}f+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{r^2}}g\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\theta }_{5,n}\xi \right],`$
and let us expand $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ is spherical harmonics of $`S^2`$. If $`\zeta _{j,n}`$ and $`\eta _{j,n}`$ denote their modes respectively, one can prove after some calculation that the equations of motion for $`\zeta _{j,k}`$ and $`\eta _{j,k}`$ can be written as

$$\left(𝒪_5^{(l,m)}+_5\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _{j,k}\\ \eta _{j,k}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(4.5.24)
In eq. (4.5.24) $`_5`$ is the matrix defined in eq. (4.3.74), whose eigenvalues, as proved in section 2.3, are always non-negative. There is also a decoupled mode $`\sigma `$, whose expression in terms of $`\xi `$, $`f`$ and $`g`$ is

$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{5,n}}{r[l^2H_{(l,m)}(r)+m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\theta }_{5,n}]}}\times `$ (4.5.25)
$`\times \left[[\mu _{(l,m)}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(m\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{5,n}glR_{(l,m)}^2f\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}lmR_{(l,m)}^2\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }_{5,n}\xi \right].`$
The equation of motion of $`\sigma `$ can be written as

$$\left(𝒪_5^{(l,m)}+j(j+1)\right)\sigma _{j,k}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.5.26)
where $`\sigma _{l,m}`$ are the modes of the expansion of $`\sigma `$ in $`S^2`$-spherical harmonics. It is evident from eq. (4.5.26) that the mass eigenvalues of $`\sigma _{l,m}`$ are non-negative, which confirms that the configurations around which we are expanding are stable.

### 4.6 Flux stabilization of M5-branes

Our purpose in this section is to study the mechanism of flux stabilization in M-theory. We shall consider, in particular, a M5-brane probe in a M5-brane background. By using the Pasti-Sorokin-Tonin (PST) action for the M5-brane probe, discussed in section 2.3, we shall look for static configurations in which the probe is wrapped on a three-sphere. After establishing a flux quantization condition similar to (4.2.14), we shall find these configurations and we will show that they closely resemble those found for the D4-D4 system. Actually, our states can be interpreted semiclassically as BPS bound states of M2-branes and they are related to the short distance limit of the baryonic vertex of M-theory .

We shall consider the solution of the equations of motion of eleven dimensional supergravity associated to a stack of $`N`$ parallel M5-branes, given in section 1.4.1. If we decompose the $`S^4`$ line element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ as in eq. (4.3.2) and use the same orientation conventions as in the preceding sections, one can readily check that $`C^{(3)}`$ can be taken as

$$C^{(3)}=R^3C_4(\theta )ϵ_{(3)},$$
(4.6.1)
where $`C_4(\theta )`$ is the function defined in eqs. (4.3.3) and (4.3.4), namely, $`C_4(\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$.

We will put in this background a probe M5-brane, whose action will be given by the PST formalism (2.3.1). The fields of this formalism include a three-form field strength $`F`$, whose potential is a two-form field $`A`$ (i.e. $`F=dA`$) and a scalar field $`a`$ (the PST scalar). In the PST action the field strength $`F`$ is be combined with (the pullback of) the background potential $`C^{(3)}`$ to form the field $`H=FC^{(3)}`$.

We will extend our M5-brane probe along the directions transverse to the M5-branes of the background and along one of the directions parallel to them. Without loss of generality we will take the latter to be the $`x^5`$ direction. Accordingly, our worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ will be taken to be

$$\sigma ^\alpha =(t,r,x^5,\theta ^1,\theta ^2,\theta ^3),$$
(4.6.2)
and the embedding of the M5-brane probe is determined by a function $`\theta =\theta (\sigma ^\alpha )`$. As in the case of the RR background, we shall mainly look for solutions with $`\theta =\mathrm{constant}`$, which represent a M5-brane wrapped on a three-sphere and extended along the $`r`$ and $`x^5`$ directions.

As discussed in section 2.3, the scalar $`a`$ is an auxiliary field which can be eliminated from the action by fixing its gauge symmetry. The price one must pay for this gauge fixing is the loss of manifest covariance. A particularly convenient choice for $`a`$ is

$$a=x^5.$$
(4.6.3)
In this gauge the components of the worldvolume potential $`A`$ with $`x^5`$ as one of its indices can be gauge fixed to zero. Moreover, if we consider configurations of $`A`$ and of the embedding angle $`\theta `$ which are independent of $`x^5`$, one readily realizes that the components of the three-forms $`F`$ and $`H`$ along $`x^5`$ also vanish and, as a consequence, only the square root term of the PST action (2.3.1) is non-vanishing. As we will verify soon this constitutes a great simplification.

#### 4.6.1 Quantization condition and M5-brane configurations

In order to find stable $`S^3`$-wrapped configurations of the M5-brane probe, we need to switch on a non-vanishing worldvolume field which prevents the collapse to one of the poles of the $`S^3`$. As in section 4.2 (and ref. ) the value of this worldvolume field is determined by some quantization condition. This condition follows from an analysis similar to the one in section 4.2 by coupling an M5-brane to an open M2-brane.

The worldvolume of an open M2-brane is given by a three-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on the worldvolume of an M5-brane. For simplicity we shall consider the case in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has only one component and we get the representation given by figure 4.1, with the $`S^2`$ changed by an $`S^3`$. Again, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also the boundary of some disk $`D`$ on the worldvolume of the M5-brane and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is a four-manifold with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }+D`$. The coupling of the brane to the supergravity background and to the M5-brane is described by an action of the form

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=T_{M2}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}F^{(4)}+T_{M2}_DH,$$
(4.6.4)
where $`T_{M2}`$ is the tension of the M2-brane, given by

$$T_{M2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}_p^3}.$$
(4.6.5)
In a topologically trivial situation, if we represent $`F^{(4)}`$ as $`dC^{(3)}`$ and $`F=dA`$, the above action reduces to the more familiar expression

$$S_{int}=T_{M2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }C^{(3)}+T_{M2}_DA.$$
(4.6.6)
Let us consider the case in which we attach the M2-brane to a M5-brane worldvolume which has some submanifold with the topology of $`S^3`$. The two possible choices for the disk in eq. (4.6.4), the internal disk $`D`$ or the external disk $`D^{}`$, change $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }+D^{}`$. We require that

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{},D^{}]S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi n,$$
(4.6.7)
with $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$. The left-hand side of eq. (4.6.7) is:

$$S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{},D^{}]S_{int}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},D]=T_{M2}_\widehat{}F^{(4)}+T_{M2}_\widehat{}H.$$
(4.6.8)
where $`\widehat{}`$ is the 4-ball bounded by $`D^{}(D)=S^3`$, and we get the condition

$$_\widehat{}F^{(4)}+_\widehat{}H=\frac{2\pi n}{T_{M2}},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.6.9)
If $`F^{(4)}`$ can be represented as $`dC^{(3)}`$ on $`\widehat{}`$, the first integral on the left-hand side of eq. (4.6.9) can be written as an integral of $`C^{(3)}`$ over $`\widehat{}=S^3`$. Our parametrization of $`C^{(3)}`$ (eq. (4.6.1)) is certainly non-singular if we are outside of the poles of the $`S^4`$. If this is the case we get the quantization condition

$$_{S^3}F=\frac{2\pi n}{T_{M2}},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(4.6.10)
Eq. (4.6.10), which is the M-theory analogue of eq. (4.2.14), is the quantization condition we were looking for. It is very simple to obtain a solution of this equation. Let us take $`F`$ proportional to the volume element $`ϵ_{(3)}`$ of the $`S^3`$. Taking into account that the volume of the unit three-sphere is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ^2`$ (see eq. (4.3.16)), we can write down immediately the following solution of eq. (4.6.10):

$$F=\frac{n}{\pi T_{M2}}ϵ_{(3)}.$$
(4.6.11)
We can put this solution in a more convenient form if we use the following relation between the M2-brane tension and the radius $`R`$

$$T_{M2}=\frac{N}{4\pi R^3},$$
(4.6.12)
which follows from eqs. (1.4.66) and (4.6.5). By using eq. (4.6.12), one can rewrite eq. (4.6.11) as

$$F=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}R^3\frac{n}{N}ϵ_{(3)}.$$
(4.6.13)
We can use the ansatz (4.6.13) and the potential $`C^{(3)}`$ of eq. (4.6.1) to compute the three-form field $`H`$ of eq. (2.3.2). It turns out that the result for $`H`$ can be written in terms of the function $`𝒞_{4,n}(\theta )`$ defined in eq. (4.3.18). One gets

$$H=R^3𝒞_{4,n}(\theta )ϵ_{(3)}.$$
(4.6.14)
Let us now assume that the angle $`\theta `$ characterizing the M5-brane embedding only depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$ and, as before, let us denote by $`\theta ^{}`$ to the derivative $`d\theta /dr`$. As was mentioned above, in the $`a=x^5`$ gauge and for this kind of embedding, only the first term of the PST action (2.3.1) is non vanishing and, as a consequence, all the dependence on $`H`$ of this action comes through the field $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ defined in eq. (2.3.3). Actually, the only non-vanishing component of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{0r}=\frac{i}{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^3}\sqrt{\frac{R}{r}}\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^2}𝒞_{4,n}(\theta ).$$
(4.6.15)
After a simple calculation one can obtain the induced metric $`g`$ and, using eq. (4.6.15), the lagrangian density of the M5-brane. The result is

$$=T_{M5}R^3\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\sqrt{1+r^2\theta ^2}\sqrt{(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^6+(𝒞_{4,n}(\theta ))^2},$$
(4.6.16)
where $`\widehat{g}`$ is the determinant of the metric of a unit 3-sphere. Notice the close similarity of this result and the hamiltonian density of eq. (4.3.21) for $`p=4`$, i.e. for the D4-D4 system. Indeed, it is immediate to check that the solutions with constant $`\theta `$ are the same in both systems, i.e. $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{4,n}`$ with $`0<n<N`$, where $`\overline{\theta }_{4,n}`$ is given in eq. (4.3.33) (for $`n=0,N`$ we have the singular solutions with $`\theta =0,\pi `$). This result is quite natural since the D4-D4 system can be obtained from the M5-M5 one by means of a double dimensional reduction along the $`x^5`$ direction. The energy density for these solutions can be easily obtained from the lagrangian (4.6.16). One gets

$$_n^{M5}=\frac{n(Nn)}{N}T_{M2},$$
(4.6.17)
which, again, closely resembles the D4-D4 energy of eq. (4.3.34). In particular $`_n^{M5}nT_{M2}`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, which implies that, semiclassically, our configurations can be regarded as bound states of M2-branes. Moreover, one can check that eq. (4.3.55) with $`p=4`$ is a BPS condition for the M5-brane system. The integration of this equation can be read from eq. (4.3.57) and represents a baryonic vertex in M-theory , $`n`$ being the number of M2-branes which form the baryon at $`r\mathrm{}`$. The $`\theta =\overline{\theta }_{4,n}`$ solution can be obtained as the $`r0`$ limit of the M-theory baryon, in complete analogy with the analysis at the end of section 2.2.

#### 4.6.2 Fluctuations and stability

We will now perturb our static solution in order to check its stability. We must allow the angle $`\theta `$ to deviate from $`\overline{\theta }_{4,n}`$ and the worldvolume field strength $`F`$ to vary from the value displayed in eq. (4.6.13). The best way to find out which components of $`F`$ must be included in the perturbation is to choose a gauge. As $`F`$ in eq. (4.6.13) has only components along the sphere $`S^3`$, one can represent it by means of a potential $`\overline{A}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ which also has component only on $`S^3`$ (in what follows indices along $`S^3`$ will be denoted with a hat). Accordingly, the perturbation of $`F`$ will be parametrized as a fluctuation of the $`S^3`$-components of the potential $`A`$. Thus, we put

$$\theta =\overline{\theta }_{4,n}+\xi ,A_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=\overline{A}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}+\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}},$$
(4.6.18)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ are small. For simplicity we shall assume that $`\xi `$ and the $`\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$’s do not depend on $`x^5`$. Using the parametrization of $`A`$ in eq. (4.6.18), it is clear that the $`S^3`$-components of the three-form field $`H`$ can be written as

$$H_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}=R^3[𝒞_{4,n}(\theta )+f]\frac{ϵ_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}},$$
(4.6.19)
where $`f`$ can be put in terms of derivatives of the type $`_{\widehat{i}}\alpha _{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}`$. In eq. (4.6.19) $`\widehat{g}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the $`S^3`$ and we are using the convention $`ϵ^{\widehat{1}\widehat{2}\widehat{3}}=ϵ_{\widehat{1}\widehat{2}\widehat{3}}/\widehat{g}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. As $`\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ in (4.6.18) depends on $`t`$ and $`r`$, it follows that we have now non-zero components $`H_{0\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=_0\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ and $`H_{r\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=_r\alpha _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$. Thus, in the gauge (4.6.3), the non-vanishing components of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ are $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{0r}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{0\widehat{i}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{r\widehat{i}}`$. To the relevant order, these components take the values

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{0r}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}}}\mathrm{cot}\overline{\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right)3i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^3}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi ^2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}R^2\mathrm{cot}\overline{\theta }\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{r^3}}}(_t\xi )^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{R^3}}}(_r\xi )^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^3}}(_{\widehat{i}}\xi )^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{0\widehat{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2R\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{R^3}}}\widehat{g}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\widehat{j}\widehat{l}\widehat{m}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}H_{r\widehat{l}\widehat{m}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{r\widehat{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2R\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{r^3}}}\widehat{g}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\widehat{j}\widehat{l}\widehat{m}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}H_{0\widehat{l}\widehat{m}},`$ (4.6.20)
with $`\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }_{4,n}`$. Using these results we can compute the lagrangian for the fluctuations. After some calculation one arrives at

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}R^3T_{M5}\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }f+\sqrt{\widehat{g}}R^3T_{M5}\left(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }\right)^2\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[R^3r^1(_t\xi )^2r^2(_r\xi )^2(_{\widehat{i}}\xi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^3r(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}(H_{0\widehat{j}\widehat{k}})^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2R^6(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}(H_{r\widehat{j}\widehat{k}})^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{(\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta })^2}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}{\displaystyle \frac{f\xi }{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}}],`$
where $`(H_{0\widehat{j}\widehat{k}})^2`$ and $`(H_{r\widehat{j}\widehat{k}})^2`$ are contractions with the metric of the $`S^3`$. In eq. (LABEL:fl1ctuno) we have kept terms up to second order and we have dropped the zero-order term.

The analysis of the equations of motion derived from eq. (LABEL:fl1ctuno) is similar to the one performed in section 2.3. For this reason we will skip the details and will give directly the final result. Let us expand $`f`$ and $`\xi `$ is spherical harmonics of $`S^3`$ as in eq. (4.3.63) and let $`f_{l,m}(t,r)`$ and $`\zeta _{l,m}(t,r)`$ denote their modes respectively. The equations of motion of these modes can be written as

$$\left(R^3r^1_0^2_rr^2_r+_4\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _{l,m}\\ \\ \frac{f_{l,m}}{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\theta }}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(4.6.22)
where the mass matrix $`_4`$ is the same as that corresponding the D4-D4 system (i.e. the one of eq. (4.3.74) for $`p=4`$). Notice that the wave operator on the left-hand side of eq. (4.6.22) is formally the same as $`𝒪_4`$ in eq. (4.3.71) (although the radius $`R`$ is not the same quantity in both cases). Thus, the eigenvalues of the mass matrix are non-negative and, actually, the same as in the D4-D4 system. Therefore our static M-theory configurations are indeed stable.

### 4.7 Discussion

In this chapter we studied certain configurations of branes which are partially wrapped on spheres and also extended, in the case of non-threshold bound state backgrounds, in some directions parallel to the bound state. These spheres are placed on the transverse region of the supergravity background, and their positions, characterized by a polar angle which measures their latitude in a system of spherical coordinates, are quantized and given by a very specific set of values. It was checked that our configurations are stable by analyzing their behaviour under small fluctuations and, by studying their energy, it was concluded that they can be regarded as a bound state of strings or, in the cases of the M5-M5 system, M2-branes, and of the (NS5,Dp) bound states, (F,D(6-p))-branes. We have verified this fact explicitly in appendix 4B for the case of a wrapped D3-brane in the background of a NS5-brane. Indeed, we have proved that, by embedding a D1-brane in a fuzzy two-sphere in the NS5-brane background, one obtains exactly the same energies and allowed polar angles as for a wrapped D3-brane in the same geometry. Clearly, a similar description of all the cases studied here would be desirable and would help to understand more precisely the rôle of noncommutative geometry in the formation of these bound states. In this sense it is interesting to point out that the polarization of multiple fundamental strings in a RR background was studied in ref.

Contrary to ref. , the problems treated here do not have a CFT description to compare with. Thus, we do not know to what extent we can trust our Born-Infeld results. However, one could argue that it was followed the same methodology as in ref.  and, actually, the configurations obtained can be connected to the ones in  by string dualities. Moreover, the BPS nature of these configurations makes one reasonably confident of the correctness of the conclusions.

The presence of a non-trivial supergravity background is of crucial importance in the analysis. Indeed, these backgrounds induce worldvolume gauge fields on the brane probes, which prevent their collapse. The stabilization mechanisms found here are a generalization of the one described in refs. , and are based on a series of quantization rules which determine the values of the worldvolume gauge fields.

It seems that the general rule to find flux-stabilized configurations in a non-threshold bound state background is to consider probes which are also extended in the directions parallel to the bound state in such a way that the probe could capture the flux of the background gauge fields. However, nothing guarantees that the corresponding configurations are free of pathologies. To illustrate this fact, let us consider the case of the background generated by a (F,Dp) bound state. The string frame metric and dilaton for this bound state are (1.4.89)

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{1/2}h_p^{1/2}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+h_p\left((dx^2)^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^p)^2\right)\right]+`$
$`+f_p^{1/2}h_p^{1/2}\left[dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2\right],`$
$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`f_p^{\frac{3p}{4}}h_p^{\frac{p5}{4}},`$ (4.7.1)
while the $`B`$ field is $`B=\mathrm{sin}\phi f_p^1dx^0dx^1`$ and the RR potentials are

$`C_{\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(7p)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}C_p(\theta )\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(7p)}},`$
$`C_{x^0,x^1,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p}}^{(9p)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}f_p^1C_p(\theta )\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(7p)}}.`$ (4.7.2)
According to our rule we should place a D(10-p)-brane probe extended along $`(t,x^1,x^2,r,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{7p})`$. Moreover, we will adopt the ansatz $`=_{0,1}dtdx^1+F_{2,r}dx^2dx^r`$ for the gauge field, with $`_{0,1}=F_{0,1}f_p^1\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ with constant values of $`F_{0,1}`$ and $`F_{2,r}`$. Following the same steps as in our previous examples, we obtain that there exist constant $`\theta `$ configurations if $`F_{0,1}=\mathrm{cos}^2\phi /\mathrm{sin}\phi `$. This is an overcritical field which makes negative the argument of the square root of the Born-Infeld term of the action and, as a consequence, the corresponding value of $`F_{2,r}`$ is imaginary, namely $`F_{2,r}=i\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. These configurations are clearly unacceptable.

### 4.8 Appendix 4A

In this appendix we collect the expressions of the functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$ for $`0p5`$. They are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\mathrm{sin}^3\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\pi \theta \right)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\pi \theta \right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5,n}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\pi .`$ (A.1)
The functions $`𝒞_{p,n}(\theta )`$ and $`C_p(\theta )`$ can be easily obtained from (A.1) by using their relation with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\theta )`$’s (see eqs. (4.3.23) and (4.3.18)).

### 4.9 Appendix 4B

In this appendix we will show how one can represent the wrapped branes studied in the main text as a bound state of strings. We will make use of the Myers polarization mechanism , in which the strings are embedded in a noncommutative space. Actually, it will only be considered a particular case of those analyzed in sects. 4.2-4.6, namely the one of section 4.5 with $`l=1`$, $`m=0`$, i.e. the D3-brane in the background of the NS5-brane. For convenience we will choose a new set of coordinates to parametrize the space transverse to the NS5. Instead of using the radial coordinate $`r`$ and the three angles $`\theta ^1`$, $`\theta ^2`$ and $`\theta `$ (see eq. (4.3.2)), we will work with four cartesian coordinates $`z,x^1,x^2,x^3`$, which, in terms of the spherical coordinates, are given by

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (B.1)
$`x^1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^2,`$ (B.2)
$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ^1,`$ (B.3)
$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^1.`$ (B.4)
Conversely, $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ can be put in terms of the new coordinates as follows:

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(z)^2+(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2},`$ (B.5)
$`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2}}{z}}.`$ (B.8)
In what follows some of our expressions will contain $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. It should be understood that they are given by the functions of $`(z,x^i)`$ written in eq. (B.8). The near-horizon metric and the dilaton for a stack of N NS5-branes are (see eq. (4.2.1) or (1.4.82) with $`l=1,m=0`$)

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+dx_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}}\left((dz)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2\right),`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{N\alpha ^{}}}}.`$ (B.9)
Moreover, the non-vanishing components of the $`B`$ field in the new coordinates can be obtained from eq. (4.2.3). They are

$$B_{x^ix^j}=N\alpha ^{}\frac{C_5(\theta )}{r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }ϵ_{ijk}x^k.$$
(B.10)
According to our analysis of section 4.5, the wrapped D3-brane in this background can be described as a bound state of D1-branes. Thus it is clear that we must consider a system of $`n`$ D1-branes, moving in the space transverse to the stack of $`N`$ Neveu-Schwarz fivebranes. We will employ a static gauge where the two worldsheet coordinates will be identified with $`t`$ and $`z`$. The Myers proposal for the action of this system was given in eq. (2.2.3). The worldsheet gauge field strength $`F_{ab}`$ is zero in our case since there is no source term for it. The indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ correspond to directions parallel to the worldsheet (i.e. to $`t`$ and $`z`$), whereas $`i,j\mathrm{}`$ refer to directions transverse to the D1-brane probe.

Let us now make the standard identification between the transverse coordinates $`x^i`$ and the scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$, namely,

$$x^i=\lambda \varphi ^i,$$
(B.11)
where $`\lambda =2\pi \alpha ^{}`$. Notice that, after the identification (B.11), the $`x^i`$’s become noncommutative coordinates represented by matrices, since the transverse scalars $`\varphi ^i`$ are matrices taking values in the adjoint representation of U(n). Actually, as in ref. , we will make the following ansatz for the scalar fields:

$$\varphi ^i=\frac{f}{2}\alpha ^i,$$
(B.12)
where $`f`$ is a c-number to be determined and the $`\alpha ^i`$’s are $`n\times n`$ matrices corresponding to the $`n`$-dimensional irreducible representation of $`su(2)`$:

$$[\alpha ^i,\alpha ^j]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}iϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^k.$$
(B.13)
As the quadratic Casimir of the $`n`$-dimensional irreducible representation of $`su(2)`$ is $`n^21`$, we can write

$$(\alpha ^1)^2+(\alpha ^2)^2+(\alpha ^3)^2=(n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})I_n,$$
(B.14)
where $`I_n`$ is the $`n\times n`$ unit matrix. By using eqs. (B.11) and (B.12) in (B.14), we get

$$(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2=\frac{\lambda ^2f^2}{4}(n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})I_n,$$
(B.15)
which shows that, with our ansatz, the $`x^i`$’s are coordinates of a fuzzy two-sphere of radius $`\lambda f\sqrt{n^21}/2`$. On the other hand, if we treat the $`x^i`$’s as commutative coordinates, it is easy to conclude from eqs. (B.4) and (B.8) that the left-hand side of (B.15) is just $`(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2`$. In view of this, when the $`x^i`$’s are non-commutative we should identify the expression written in eq. (B.15) with $`(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2I_n`$. Thus, we put

$$\frac{f}{2}=\frac{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\lambda \sqrt{n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}.$$
(B.16)
Notice that, as can be immediately inferred from eq. (B.8), $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ depend on the $`x^i`$’s through the sum $`_i(x^i)^2`$, which is proportional to the $`su(2)`$ quadratic Casimir. Then, as matrices, $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are multiple of the unit matrix and, thus, we can consider them as commutative coordinates. This, in particular, means that the elements of the metric tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are also commutative, whereas, on the contrary, the components of the $`B`$ field have a non-trivial matrix structure. By substituting our ansatz in eqs. (B.9) and (B.10), we get for the transverse components of the $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ tensor, defined in (2.2.1), the following expression:

$$E_{ij}=\frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}\left[\delta _j^i+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}\frac{C_5(\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^k\right].$$
(B.17)
The quantities $`Q_j^i`$, defined in eq. (2.2.2), can be readily obtained from eq. (B.17), namely,

$$Q_j^i=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{N}{\pi }\frac{C_5(\theta )}{\sqrt{n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}\right)\delta _j^i\frac{N}{\pi }\frac{C_5(\theta )}{(n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})^{3/2}}\alpha ^j\alpha ^i\frac{N}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{n^21}ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^k.$$
(B.18)
In order to compute the pullback appearing in the first determinant of the right-hand side of eq. (2.2.3), we need to characterize the precise embedding of the D1-brane in the transverse non-commutative space. Actually, it is straightforward to write our ansatz for the $`x^i`$’s as

$$x^i=z\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta }{\sqrt{n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}\alpha ^i.$$
(B.19)
Moreover, the kind of configurations we are looking for have constant $`\theta `$ angle. Thus, eq. (B.19) shows that, in this case, the $`x^i`$’s are linear functions of the worldsheet coordinate $`z`$. By using this result it is immediate to find the expression of the first determinant in (2.2.3). One gets

$$\mathrm{det}\left(P\left[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}\right]\right)=\frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}+\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }{n^21}\alpha ^i\left[Q^1\right]_{ij}\alpha ^j,$$
(B.20)
where $`Q^1`$ satisfies $`Q^{ij}\left[Q^1\right]_{jk}=\delta _k^i`$ with $`Q^{ij}`$ being:

$$Q^{ij}=E^{ij}+i\lambda [\varphi ^i,\varphi ^j].$$
(B.21)
As expected on general grounds, a system of D-strings can model a D3-brane only when the number $`n`$ of D-strings is very large. Thus, if we want to make contact with our results of section 4, we should consider the limit in which $`n\mathrm{}`$ and keep only the leading terms in the $`1/n`$ expansion. Therefore, it this clear that, in this limit, we can replace $`n^21`$ by $`n^2`$ in all our previous expressions. Moreover, as argued in ref. , the leading term in a symmetrized trace of $`\alpha `$’s of the form $`\mathrm{STr}\left((\alpha ^i\alpha ^i)^m\right)`$ is $`n(n^2)^m`$. Then, at leading order in $`1/n`$, one can make the following replacement inside a symmetrized trace:

$$\alpha ^i\alpha ^in^2I_n.$$
(B.22)
With this substitution the calculation of the action (2.2.3) drastically simplifies. So, for example, by using (B.18), one can check that, in the second term under the square root of (2.2.3), we should make the substitution

$$\mathrm{det}\left(Q_j^i\right)\left(\frac{N}{\pi n}\right)^2\left[\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^4+\left(C_5(\theta )+\frac{\pi n}{N}\right)^2\right]I_n.$$
(B.23)
Moreover, as $`𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )=C_5(\theta )+\frac{\pi n}{N}`$, eq. (B.23) is equivalent to:

$$\mathrm{det}\left(Q_j^i\right)\left(\frac{N}{\pi n}\right)^2\left[\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^4+\left(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\right)^2\right]I_n.$$
(B.24)
We must now perform the substitution (B.22) on the right-hand side of eq. (B.20). First of all, we must invert the matrix of eq. (B.21). Actually, it is not difficult to obtain the expression of $`E^{ij}`$. After some calculation one gets

$$E^{ij}=\frac{r^2}{N\alpha ^{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +(C_5(\theta ))^2}\left[\delta _j^i+\frac{(C_5(\theta ))^2}{n^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }\alpha ^i\alpha ^j\frac{C_5(\theta )}{n\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^k\right].$$
(B.25)
Plugging this result on the right-hand side of eq. (B.21), and adding the commutator of the scalar fields, one immediately obtains $`Q^{ij}`$. By inverting this last matrix one arrives at the following expression of $`[Q^1]_{ij}`$:

$$[Q^1]_{ij}=\frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +(C_5(\theta ))^2}{(1+a^2)\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }\left[\delta _j^i+\frac{a^2b}{n^2(1+b)}\alpha ^i\alpha ^j+\frac{a}{n}ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^k\right],$$
(B.26)
where, at leading order, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by

$$a=\frac{N}{\pi n\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\left[\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +C_5(\theta )𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\right],b=\frac{(C_5(\theta ))^2}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }.$$
(B.27)
By contracting $`[Q^1]_{ij}`$ with $`\alpha ^i\alpha ^j`$ and applying the substitution (B.22), one gets a remarkably simple result:

$$\alpha ^i\left[Q^1\right]_{ij}\alpha ^jn^2\frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2}I_n.$$
(B.28)
By using eq. (B.28), one immediately concludes that we should make the following substitution:

$$\mathrm{det}\left(P\left[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}\right]\right)\frac{N\alpha ^{}}{r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }I_n.$$
(B.29)
It is now straightforward to find the action of the D1-branes in the large $`n`$ limit. Indeed, by using eqs. (B.24) and (B.29), one gets

$$S_{D1}=T_1𝑑t𝑑z\frac{N}{\pi \mathrm{cos}\theta }\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^4+\left(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\right)^2}.$$
(B.30)
From eq. (B.30) one can immediately obtain the hamiltonian of the D-strings. In order to compare this result with the one corresponding to the wrapped D3-brane, let us change the worldsheet coordinate from $`z`$ to $`r=z/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Recalling that $`\theta `$ is constant for the configurations under study and using that $`T_1/\pi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \alpha ^{}T_3=T_3\mathrm{\Omega }_2\alpha ^{}`$, we get the following hamiltonian:

$$H=T_3\mathrm{\Omega }_2N\alpha ^{}𝑑r\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^4+\left(𝒞_{5,n}(\theta )\right)^2},$$
(B.31)
which, indeed, is the same as in the one in eq. (4.5.14) for $`l=1,m=0`$. Notice that $`n`$, which in our present approach is the number of D-strings, corresponds to the quantization integer of the D3-brane worldvolume gauge field. It follows that the minimal energy configurations occur for $`\theta =\pi n/N`$ and its energy density is the one written in eq. (4.5.16). This agreement shows that our ansatz represents D-strings growing up into a D3-brane configuration of the type studied in the main text.

Let us finally point out that the same ansatz of eqs. (B.12) and (B.16) can be used to describe the configurations in which D0-branes expand into a D2-brane in the NS5 background of eqs. (B.9) and (B.10). In this case, which corresponds to the situation analyzed in section 4.2, the D2-branes are located at fixed $`r`$ and one only has to compute the determinant of the matrix (B.18) in the D0-brane action. By using eq. (B.24) one easily finds the same hamiltonian and minimal energy configurations as those of section 4.2.

## Chapter 5 Giant Gravitons

One of the most interesting things we have recently learnt from string theory is the fact that a system can increase its size with increasing momentum. There are several manifestations of this phenomenon, which is opposite to the standard field theory intuition, in several contexts related to string theory such as the infrared ultraviolet connection  or the noncommutative geometry .

In ref.  McGreevy, Susskind and Toumbas found another example of the growth in size with energy. These authors considered a massless particle moving in a spacetime of the form $`AdS_m\times S^{p+2}`$ and discovered that there exists a configuration in which an expanded brane (the giant graviton) has exactly the same quantum numbers as the point-like particle. This expanded brane wraps the spherical part of the spacetime and is stabilized against shrinking by the flux of the Ramond-Ramond (RR) gauge field. The size of the giant graviton increases with its angular momentum and, as the radius of the brane cannot be greater than the radius of the spacetime, one gets that there exists an upper bound for the momentum of the brane. This fact is a realization of the so-called stringy exclusion principle. Moreover, in refs.  was proved that the giant gravitons of ref.  are BPS configurations which preserve the same supersymmetry as the point-like graviton. It was also shown in  that there also exist gravitons expanded into the $`AdS`$ part of the spacetime which, however, do not have an upper bound on their angular momentum due to the non-compact nature of the $`AdS`$ spacetime.

The overall physical picture one gets from these results is that for high momenta the linearized approximation to supergravity breaks down and one is forced to introduce interactions in order to describe the dynamics of the massless modes of the theory. An effective procedure to represent these interactions is to assume that the massless particles polarize and become a brane. The mechanism responsible of this polarization is the Myers dielectric brane effect discussed in section 2.2.

The blowing up of gravitons into branes can take place in backgrounds different from $`AdS_m\times S^{p+2}`$. Indeed, in ref.  it was found that there are giant graviton configurations of D(6-p)-branes moving in the near-horizon geometry of a dilatonic background created by a stack of Dp-branes. For other aspects of the expanded graviton solutions see refs. -.

In this chapter we will find giant graviton solutions for probes which move in the geometry created by a stack of non-threshold bound states of the type (D(p-2), Dp) for $`2p6`$, (which was given in section 1.4.1), and we will extend this analysis to M-theory backgrounds generated by a stack of non-threshold bound states of the type (M2,M5), given in section 1.4.1. As we have seen, these backgrounds are both $`1/2`$ supersymmetric. The (D(p-2), Dp) solutions are characterized by the presence of a non-zero Kalb-Ramond field $`B`$, directed along the Dp-brane, from the Neveu-Schwarz sector of the superstring, together with the corresponding RR fields. We will place in this background a brane probe in such a way that it can capture both the RR flux (as in the Dp backgrounds) and the flux of the $`B`$ field. This last requirement implies that we must extend our probe along two directions parallel to the background and, actually, our probe will be a D(8-p)-brane wrapped on an $`S^{6p}`$ sphere transverse to the background and extended along a (noncommutative) plane parallel to it. In the M-theory case the background is characterized by a self-dual three-form $`C`$ and the brane probe is an M5 wrapped on a $`S^2`$ sphere and extended along a plane parallel to the background such that the flux of the $`C`$-field is captured. We will verify that, by switching on a particular worldvolume gauge field, one can find configurations of the D(8-p) or M5-brane which behave as a massless particle. We will check that the energy of these giant graviton configurations is exactly the same as that of a massless particle moving in the metric of the background. Generically, the brane falls into the center of the gravitational potential along a trajectory which will be determined. We will also study the supersymmetry projection introduced by the brane and we will show that it breaks completely the supersymmetry of the background, exactly in the same way as a wave which propagates with the velocity of the center of mass of the brane. Thus, also from the point of view of supersymmetry, the expanded brane mimics the massless particle.

The chapter is organized as follows. In section 5.1 we will review the theory of electric dipoles moving in a magnetic field as an example of system for which physics of increasing momentum is governed by increasingly large distances. When the theory is defined on a 2-sphere there is a bound on the angular momentum when the ends of the dipole separate to the antipodes of the sphere. In section 5.2 we will analyse the gravitons found by McGreevy, Susskind and Toumbas  and we will show that they are BPS states preserving the same supersymmetries as the point-like graviton. In section 5.3 we find giant graviton configurations in the background of a stack of non-threshold bound states of $`Dp`$ and $`D(p2)`$ branes. Finally, in 5.4, we extend these results to $`M`$-theory backgrounds with a self-dual three-form potential field.

### 5.1 Dipoles in Magnetic Fields

As we mentioned in the introduction physics in non-commutative spaces is an example of system whose size grows with increasing momentum. In this section we briefly review the dipole analogy for NC-field theory  . We begin with a pair of unit charges of opposite sign moving on a plane with a constant magnetic field $`B`$. The Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{m}{2}\left(\dot{x}_1^2+\dot{x}_2^2\right)+\frac{B}{2}ϵ_{ij}\left(\dot{x}_1^ix_1^j\dot{x}_2^ix_2^j\right)\frac{K}{2}(x_1x_2)^2.$$
(5.1.1)
Let us suppose that the mass is so small so that the first term in Eq.(5.1.1) can be ignored. Let us also introduce center of mass and relative coordinates

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1+x_2)/2`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1x_2)/2.`$ (5.1.2)
The Lagrangian becomes

$$=Bϵ_{ij}\dot{X}^i\mathrm{\Delta }^j2K\mathrm{\Delta }^2.$$
(5.1.3)
From Eq.(5.1.3) we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ plays the role of canonical momentum conjugate to $`X`$

$$P_i=Bϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }^j.$$
(5.1.4)
Thus when the dipole is moving with momentum $`P`$ in some direction it is stretched to a size

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=|P|/B.$$
(5.1.5)
in the perpendicular direction.

Now suppose the dipole is moving on the surface of a sphere of radius $`R`$. Assume also that the sphere has a magnetic flux $`N`$. Then

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}F=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}BR^2\sqrt{g^{(2)}}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi =\frac{1}{2\pi }BR^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2=N.$$
(5.1.6)
where $`\theta ,\varphi `$ are the angles parametrizing the sphere and $`F=B\sqrt{g^{(2)}}d\theta d\varphi `$. Then

$$2\pi N=\mathrm{\Omega }_2BR^2.$$
(5.1.7)
We can get a rough idea of what happens by just saying that when the momentum of the dipole $`P`$ is about $`2BR`$ the dipole will be as big as the sphere as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R`$ (that is, the ends of the dipole are at the poles of the sphere). At this point the angular momentum is the maximum value

$$L=PRBR^2,$$
(5.1.8)
and this is of order the total magnetic flux $`N`$.

We will now do a more precise analysis and see that the maximum angular momentum is exactly $`N`$. Parameterize the sphere by two angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$. The angle $`\varphi `$ measures angular distance from the equator. It is $`\pm \pi /2`$ at the poles. The azimuthal angle $`\theta `$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. We work in a gauge in which the $`\theta `$ component of the vector potential is non-zero. It is given by

$$A_\theta =N\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2R\mathrm{cos}\varphi }$$
(5.1.9)
For a unit charged point particle moving on the sphere the term coupling the velocity to the vector potential is

$$_A=A_\theta v_\theta =A_\theta R\mathrm{cos}\varphi \dot{\theta }=NR\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2R}\dot{\theta }.$$
(5.1.10)
Now consider a dipole with its center of mass moving on the equator. The positive charge is at position $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and the negative charge is at $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$. For the motion we consider $`\varphi `$ is time independent. Eq.(5.1.10) becomes

$$_A=N(\frac{1\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2})\dot{\theta }N(\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2})\dot{\theta }$$
(5.1.11)
or

$$_A=N\mathrm{sin}\varphi \dot{\theta }.$$
(5.1.12)
Again we want to consider a slow-moving dipole whose mass is so small that its kinetic term may be ignored compared to the coupling to the magnetic field, i.e. $`mR<<N`$.

The total Lagrangian is

$$=N\mathrm{sin}\varphi \dot{\theta }$$
(5.1.13)
and the angular momentum is

$$L=N\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(5.1.14)
The angular momentum will reach its maximum when $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ at which point

$$|L_{max}|=N.$$
(5.1.15)
The fact that the angular momentum of a single field quantum in non-commutative field theory is bounded by $`N`$ is well known in the context of non-commutative field theory on a sphere . Here we see that it is a large distance effect.

### 5.2 Giant Gravitons in $`AdS\times S`$ spaces

In this section we generalize the results of the previous paragraph and consider the cases of (test) brane configurations in background spacetimes of the form $`AdS_m\times S^n`$. There are three different backgrounds of this type, the $`M2`$ and $`M5`$ branes of $`D=11`$ supergravity and the $`D3`$ branes in the type $`IIB`$ supergravity. We will find giant graviton configurations for the three cases simultaneously. This three cases correspond to $`(m,n)=(4,7),(7,4)`$ and $`(5,5)`$ respectively. The full line element for the metric on $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ takes the form $`ds^2=ds_{AdS}^2+ds_{sph}^2`$. If we use global coordinates on $`AdS_m`$, the metric is given by

$$ds_{\mathrm{AdS}}^2=\left(1+\frac{u^2}{L^2}\right)dt^2+\frac{du^2}{1+\frac{u^2}{L^2}}+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{m2}^2,$$
(5.2.1)
with $`L=\frac{2}{n3}R`$, where $`L`$ is the radius of AdS and $`R`$ is the radius of the sphere. The metric for the $`S^n`$ is

$$ds_{sph}^2=R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(5.2.2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ is the line element of the unit $`n`$-sphere

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2=(d\chi ^1)^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi ^1\left((d\chi ^2)^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi ^2\left(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _{n1}(d\chi ^n)^2\right)\right).$$
(5.2.3)
Let us parametrize $`S^n`$ using cartesian coordinates $`X^1,\mathrm{}..,X^{n+1}`$ so that

$`X^1`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{cos}\chi ^1`$ (5.2.4)
$`X^2`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{cos}\chi ^2`$ (5.2.5)
$`X^3`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{sin}\chi ^2\mathrm{cos}\chi ^3`$ (5.2.6)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (5.2.7)
$`X^n`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{sin}\chi ^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\chi ^{n1}\mathrm{cos}\chi ^n`$ (5.2.8)
$`X^{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{sin}\chi ^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\chi ^{n1}\mathrm{sin}\chi ^n,`$ (5.2.9)
where $`0\chi ^1,\chi ^2,\mathrm{},\chi ^{n1}\pi `$ and $`\chi ^n`$ is the azimuthal angle ($`0\chi ^n2\pi `$). Then

$$(X^1)^2+(X^2)^2+(X^3)^2+(X^4)^2+\mathrm{}+(X^{n+1})^2=R^2.$$
(5.2.10)
We will embed the brane probe on the $`S^{n2}`$ surface parametrized by the angles $`\chi ^3,\chi ^4,\mathrm{},\chi ^n`$, such that the brane is allowed to move in the $`X^1,X^2`$ plane and its size depends on its location in this plane according to

$$r=R\mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{sin}\chi ^2=R\rho ,$$
(5.2.11)
where we have defined

$$\rho \mathrm{sin}\chi ^1\mathrm{sin}\chi ^2.$$
(5.2.12)
We see that the size is at its maximum value, $`r=R`$, when $`\mathrm{cos}\chi ^1=\mathrm{cos}\chi ^2=0`$, or equivalently, when the brane is at the origin ($`X^1=X^2=0`$). From eq.(5.2.9) we see that

$$(X^1)^2+(X^2)^2=R^2r^2=R^2(1\rho ^2),$$
(5.2.13)
and then, the membrane can move around a circle of constant size in the $`(X_1,X_2)`$ plane. We can change to polar coordinates. Let us set

$`X^1`$ $`=`$ $`R\sqrt{1\rho ^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (5.2.14)
$`X^2`$ $`=`$ $`R\sqrt{1\rho ^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (5.2.15)
where $`\rho `$ was defined in eq. (5.2.12).

In terms of the coordinates $`\rho ,\varphi ,\chi ^3\mathrm{}\chi ^n`$, the metric on the n-sphere becomes

$$ds_{sph}^2=R^2\left(\frac{1}{(1\rho ^2)}d\rho ^2+(1\rho ^2)d\varphi ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}^2\right),$$
(5.2.16)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}^2`$ is the metric of a unit $`(n2)`$–sphere. If we rename as $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{n2}`$ the angles $`\chi ^3,\mathrm{},\chi ^n`$ parametrizing the $`(n2)`$-sphere and with the coordinates chosen above, we explicitly write the components of the $`RR`$ $`(n1)`$-form potential on the $`S^n`$ as

$$C_{\varphi \theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{n2}}^{(n1)}=\beta _nR^{n1}\rho ^{n1}\mathrm{sin}^{n3}\theta _1\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{n3}\beta _nR^{n1}\rho ^{n1}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(n2)}},$$
(5.2.17)
where $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(n2)}}`$ is the volume element of the unit $`(n2)`$-sphere. The constant $`\beta _n`$ is a sign ($`\beta _4=+1=\beta _5`$, while $`\beta _7=1`$) so that the four-form field strength appears with a positive coefficient in both of the M-theory backgrounds. This means that we are considering a background of branes (with positive charge) and not of anti-branes.

Now we put an $`(n2)`$-brane probe in this background wrapped on the $`S^{n2}`$. The action for the $`(n2)`$-brane is

$$S_{n2}=T_{n2}d^{n1}\xi \sqrt{g}+T_{n2}P[C^{(n1)}]$$
(5.2.18)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the pull-back of the spacetime metric to the world-volume, i.e.,

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha X^M_\beta X^NG_{MN},$$
(5.2.19)
and $`P[C^{(n1)}]`$ denotes the pull-back of the ($`n1`$)-form potential. Aditional bosonic world-volume fields as the self-dual three form on the $`M5`$ and the $`U(1)`$ gauge field on the $`D3`$-brane are consistently set to zero in the equations of motion, as there is no source term for these fields in the action.

As in refs.  we look for stable solutions where the $`(n2)`$-brane has expanded on the $`S^n`$ to a sphere of fixed size $`\rho `$. We choose the static gauge, i.e., world-volume coordinates $`\xi ^\alpha `$ will be taken as

$$\xi ^\alpha =(t,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{n2}).$$
(5.2.20)
Let us consider a trial solution of the form

$$\rho =\rho (t),\varphi =\varphi (t),u=0,$$
(5.2.21)
which corresponds to a spherical $`(n2)`$-brane of radius $`R\rho `$ moving in the $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$ plane inside the $`S^n`$. For this embedding the pull-back of the metric is

$$g_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2& 0\\ 0& R^2\rho ^2\widehat{g}_{ij}^{(n2)}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`(\widehat{g}^{(n2)})_{ij}`$ denotes the metric on the unit $`(n2)`$-sphere. Substituting the trial solution (5.2.21) into the world-volume action (5.2.18) and integrating over the angular coordinates, yields the following Lagrangian

$`L_{n2}=T_{n2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}R^{n2}\left[\rho ^{n2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}R^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{(1\rho ^2)}}R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}+R\rho ^{n1}\dot{\varphi }\right].`$
(5.2.22)
As indicated in ref.  note that with the sign of the $`RR`$\- potential, discussed after eq. (5.2.17), the second term in eq. (5.2.22) would be negative for $`n=7`$. Nevertheless we choose it to be positive, which corresponds to the brane probe having the opposite charge, that is, we are considering an anti-M5-brane brane expanding into $`S^7`$. We would obtain the same Lagrangian if we considered an $`M5`$ in the background of an anti-M5. It is also worth mention that this sign can be absorved by a redefinition of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ which corresponds to the brane turning in the inverse direction.

The quantization of the $`RR`$ $`n`$-form flux on the $`S^n`$ implies that

$$T_{n2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}R^{n1}=N.$$
(5.2.23)
If we use this equation in (5.2.22) we get the Lagrangian

$$L_{n2}=\frac{N}{R}\left[\rho ^{n2}\sqrt{1R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2R^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}}+R\rho ^{n1}\dot{\varphi }\right].$$
(5.2.24)
Let us study the dynamics of the system. The momentum conjugate to $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ are

$`P_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{n2}}{\dot{\rho }}}T_{n2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}R^{n1}\pi _\rho =N\pi _\rho ,`$
$`P_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{n2}}{\dot{\varphi }}}T_{n2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}R^{n1}\pi _\varphi =N\pi _\varphi ,`$ (5.2.25)
with the reduced momenta $`\pi _\rho `$ and $`\pi _\varphi `$ given by

$`\pi _\rho `$ $`=`$ $`R{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{n2}}{1\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }}{\sqrt{1R^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}},`$
$`\pi _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`R(1\rho ^2)\rho ^{n2}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\sqrt{1R^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}}+\rho ^{n1}.`$
The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\dot{\rho }P_\rho +\dot{\varphi }P_\varphi L_{n2}T_{n2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n2}R^{n1}h=Nh,$$
(5.2.27)
in terms of the reduced Hamiltonian $`h`$. From (5.2.24) we get

$$h=\frac{1}{R}\left[\rho ^{2(n2)}+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho ^{n1}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.2.28)
The first and last terms within the square brackets can be combined to a sum of squares, and the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as

$$h=\frac{1}{R}\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{n2}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.2.29)
The eq. (5.2.23) is crucial in achieving this result and to the existence of giant graviton configurations.

Now we try to obtain solutions with fixed size, that is, with $`\rho `$ constant. From eq. (LABEL:ads17) we see that

$$\pi _\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.2.30)
Then, from the hamiltonian equation of motion $`\dot{\pi }_\rho =h/\rho =0`$ implies that we have constant $`\rho `$ configurations at the extrema of h as a function on $`\rho `$ ($`h`$ can be regarded as the potential that determines the equilibrium radius). The equation for the extrema is

$$\frac{h}{\rho }(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{n2})\left((n3)\rho ^{n1}(n2)\rho ^{n3}+\pi _\varphi \right)=0.$$
(5.2.31)
and is solved either when $`(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{n2})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ or $`\left((n3)\rho ^{n1}(n2)\rho ^{n3}+\pi _\varphi \right)=0`$. In Figure 5.1, we represent the behaviour of $`H`$ versus $`\rho `$ for $`\pi _\varphi 1`$ and $`n`$ even, and we see that there are two degenerate minima at

$$\rho =0,$$
(5.2.32)
and

$$\pi _\varphi =\rho ^{n3}.$$
(5.2.33)
which are the two possible solutions of $`(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{n2})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for the three cases of interest ($`n`$ equal to 7, 5 or 4), and one intermediate maximum which solves $`\left((n3)\rho ^{n1}(n2)\rho ^{n3}+\pi _\varphi \right)=0`$. Both minima describe stable configurations with constant $`\rho `$.

The Hamiltonian (5.2.29) is independent of $`\varphi `$ and then the momentum $`\pi _\varphi `$ is a constant of motion, thus the eq. (5.2.33) only makes sense for $`\rho =`$constant. At either of the minima, the energy evaluates to

$$H=\frac{P_\varphi }{R}=N\frac{\pi _\varphi }{R}$$
(5.2.34)
The minimum at $`\rho =\pi _\varphi ^{1/n3}`$ cannot exist at $`\pi _\varphi >1`$ as $`\rho 1`$ (see the definition of $`\rho `$ in eq. (5.2.12)). In Figure 5.1 we also see that as $`\pi _\varphi `$ grows beyond $`\pi _\varphi =1`$ the minimum at $`\rho >0`$ first lifts above the one at $`\rho =0`$ before disappearing for

$$\pi _\varphi >2\left(\frac{n2}{n1}\right)^{\frac{n1}{2}}.$$
(5.2.35)
Results are similar for the case of odd n.

Otherwise, if we invert the relation (LABEL:ads17) between $`\pi _\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ we find

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{1}{R}\frac{\pi _\varphi \rho ^{n1}}{1\rho ^2}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}R^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{n2}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(5.2.36)
If we substitute in this equation $`\dot{\rho }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and one of the conditions (5.2.32) or (5.2.33) one gets $`\dot{\varphi }=\frac{1}{R}`$, i.e., the velocity of the center of mass of the brane, $`\dot{\varphi }R`$, equals the speed of light. Also, the fact that the brane can increase in size up to $`\rho =1`$ implies that the angular momentum, $`P_\varphi `$, has a maximum value

$$P_\varphi ^{max}=N$$
(5.2.37)
when the brane has its maximal size.

The movement of the center of mass of the brane probe in the full ($`m`$+$`n`$)-dimensional background is along a null trajectory, since

$$ds^2=(G_{tt}+G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2)dt^2=\left(1+R^2(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2\right)dt^2=0$$
(5.2.38)
when evaluated for $`\rho =0`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }=1/R`$. This is the expected result for a massless ‘point-like’ graviton. However, note that in the expanded configurations, the motion of each element of the sphere is along a timelike trajectory, with $`ds^2=\rho ^2dt^2`$.

It was found that the quantum numbers of a $`(n2)`$-brane moving on the $`n`$-sphere of a $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ space-time are exactly the same as those of a massless particle moving along the same trajectory as the center of mass of the brane. In the next section we will show that all of these configurations are supersymmetric. In principle, one could expect this since, from the point of view of $`m`$-dimensional supergravity in the AdS space, the stable brane configurations correspond to massive states with $`M=P_\varphi /R`$. The motion on the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^n`$ means that these states are also charged under a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SO(n+1)`$ gauge symmetry in the reduced supergravity theory. With the appropriate normalizations, the charge is $`Q=P_\varphi /R`$, and hence one finds that these configurations satisfy the appropriate BPS bound ($`Q=M`$).

It is important to specify that we have chosen global coordinates in AdS (see eq. (5.2.1)) and we have put the brane probe at the center of AdS ($`u=0`$). Then, the brane probe does not move in the radial direction and the energy in global coordinates is equal (in units of the radius) to the angular momentum, as we have seen in the last paragraph. We could instead, have used Poincaré coordinates and, in this case, there would be an r-dependent $`\sqrt{g_{tt}}`$ factor in eq. (5.2.29), where r is the radial direction. Due to it, the massless particle, or equivalently the expanded brane, initially at rest in the radial direction will fall to $`r=0`$.

##### Supersymmetry for Gravitons

In this section we will show that the configurations studied in the previous paragraph are in fact BPS states preserving the same supersymmetries as the point-like graviton. We will do this for the case of D3-branes propagating in a 10-dimensional type IIB background compactified on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. The other two cases follow in the same line. Ten-dimensional, Type IIB supergravity is described by the vielbein, a complex Weyl gravitino, a real four-form $`C_{MNPQ}^{(4)}`$ with self-dual field strength $`F_{MNPQR}^{(5)}`$, a complex two-form $`C_{MN}^{(2)}`$, a complex spinor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a complex scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ background, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }=C_{MN}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Psi }_M=0`$. The five-form field strength is $`F=\frac{4}{R}[\epsilon (\mathrm{AdS}_5)+\epsilon (S^5)]`$. Given that the scalar and two-form vanish in this background, the supersymmetry variation of the complex spinor automatically vanishes, $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Hence to examine the background supersymmetries, the only nontrivial variation which needs to be considered is that of the gravitino. For the given background, the variation of the gravitino takes the form

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_M=D_Mϵ\frac{i}{1920}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{PQRST}F_{PQRST}ϵ,$$
(5.2.39)
in terms of ten-dimensional gamma matrices. Demanding $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_M=0`$ leads to the Killing spinor equations

$$D_Mϵ\frac{i}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tr\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3})\mathrm{\Gamma }_Mϵ=0.$$
(5.2.40)
We recall that here $`ϵ`$ is a complex Weyl spinor satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ=ϵ`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tr\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3\rho \varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}`$. The Killing spinor condition can be rewritten then as

$`D_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2R}}\gamma _{AdS}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ=0,\gamma _{AdS}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tr\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3}\gamma ,`$
$`D_mϵ{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2R}}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_mϵ=0,\gamma __5=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3},`$ (5.2.41)
on AdS<sub>5</sub> and $`S^5`$, respectively. The Killing spinor solutions are now

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\beta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\varphi \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi ^1\rho }}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi ^2\chi ^1}}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi ^3\chi ^2}}}\times `$ (5.2.42)
$`\times e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{r}}\gamma }e^{i\frac{t}{2L}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t}}\gamma }e^{\frac{\alpha ^1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^1r}}}e^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^2\alpha ^1}}}e^{\frac{\alpha ^3}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^3\alpha ^2}}}ϵ_0,`$
where $`\beta =`$arcsin$`\rho ,\mathrm{sinh}\alpha =r/R`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ is an arbitrary constant spinor. Hence we have a maximally supersymmetric solution of the type IIB supergravity equations with 32 residual supersymmetries.

For our D3-brane configurations, residual supersymmetries are determined by imposing the kappa-symmetry constraint $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=\pm ϵ`$ on the background Killing spinors. In our $`D3`$-brane configurations the world-volume gauge fields vanish and the matrix of $`\kappa `$\- symmetry (2.1.42) is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{1}{4!\sqrt{|g|}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}(i\sigma _2)=\frac{i}{4!}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_4}_{i_1}X^{M_1}\mathrm{}_{i_4}X^{M_4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_4}.$$
(5.2.43)
For the giant gravitons on $`S^5`$, we consider the embedding of a D3-brane as in eqs. (5.2.20) and (5.2.21). With this configuration, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\frac{i}{\rho }(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}}\sqrt{1\rho ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}}),$$
(5.2.44)
where we have substituted $`\dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/R`$. The condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ becomes

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}}\sqrt{1\rho ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}}+\rho \right]ϵ=0,$$
(5.2.45)
or equivalently, after pulling out a factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\varphi \chi ^1\chi ^2\chi ^3}}`$,

$$(e^{i\theta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }})ϵ=0.$$
(5.2.46)
Substituting the Killing spinors of eq. (5.2.42) we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}`$ moves through the factor $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}e^{\frac{i}{2}\beta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\beta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}.$$
(5.2.47)
and then, we can write eq. (5.2.46) as

$`(e^{i\beta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }})ϵ=e^{\frac{i}{2}\beta \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\rho }}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }})e^{\frac{i}{2}\varphi \gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi ^1\rho }}}\times `$
$`\times e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi ^2\chi ^1}}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi _3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\chi _3\chi ^2}}}e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{r}}\gamma _5}e^{i\frac{t}{2L}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\gamma }}}e^{\frac{\alpha ^1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^1r}}}e^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^2\alpha ^1}}}e^{\frac{\alpha ^3}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{\alpha ^3\alpha ^2}}}ϵ_0.`$
The remaining exponentials commute with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}`$ except the one with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{r}}\gamma _5`$. However, the test brane configurations are at $`u=R`$sinh$`\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and this factor reduces to the identity when evaluated on the test brane world-volume. Thus, eq. (LABEL:adss16) is equivalent to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}ϵ_0=ϵ_0.$$
(5.2.49)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }}`$ is a projector since $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }})^2=1`$ and $`tr(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{t\varphi }})=0`$, and then the $`D3`$-brane preserves half of the supersymmetries of type $`IIB`$ ten- dimensional supergravity and the giant gravitons in $`AdS\times S`$ are BPS states. Furthermore eq. (5.2.49) is exactly the supersymmetry preserved by a point-like particle moving along the $`\varphi `$ direction in the ten-dimensional spacetime.

### 5.3 Giant gravitons in (D(p-2),Dp) backgrounds

In these section giant graviton configurations in more general backgrounds than $`AdS\times S`$ spaces will be obtained. These backgrounds include $`Dp`$-brane backgrounds as a limiting case. As we will see, the main difference among these configurations and the ones in $`AdS\times S`$ spaces is that they are no longer BPS states, as the supersymmetries preserved by the probe are different than the ones preserved by the background. Nevertheless, the way supersymmetry is broken is the same for this configurations and for a point-like graviton with the same quantum numbers. The supergravity background that will considered is the one generated by a stack of $`N`$ non-threshold bound states of Dp and D(p-2) branes for $`2p6`$ given is section 1.4.1.

As before we will use the particular coordinate system of eq. (5.2.15) for the unit $`8p`$ sphere $`S^{8p}`$. In terms of $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$, the metric of $`S^{8p}`$ takes the form:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2=\frac{1}{1\rho ^2}d\rho ^2+(1\rho ^2)d\varphi ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}^2,$$
(5.3.1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}^2`$ is the metric of a unit $`6p`$ sphere.

The Hodge duals of the RR field strengths (1.4.76) can be easily computed from eqs. (1.4.76) and (1.4.73). The $`(10p)`$-form $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ and the $`(8p)`$-form $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ is a $`(8p)`$-form have the following components in the coordinate system of (5.2.15):

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{x^{p1},x^p,\rho ,\varphi ,\theta ^1\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}}^{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}(7p)\mathrm{sin}\phi R^{7p}\rho ^{6p}h_pf_p^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(6p)}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{\rho ,\varphi ,\theta ^1\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}}^{(p+2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}(7p)\mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}\rho ^{6p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(6p)}},`$ (5.3.2)
where $`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}`$ are coordinates of the unit $`6p`$ sphere and $`\widehat{g}^{(6p)}`$ is the determinant of the $`S^{6p}`$ metric. These forms satisfy the equations:

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}=H{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)},d{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.3.3)
Then, one can represent $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ in terms of three potentials as follows:

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC^{(9p)}HC^{(7p)},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC^{(7p)}HC^{(5p)},`$ (5.3.4)
where $`H=dB`$. In eq. (5.3.4) $`C^{(r)}`$ is an $`r`$-form. Actually only for $`p=3`$ the term $`HC^{(5p)}`$ in the second of these equations gives a non-vanishing contribution. By a direct calculation one can check that the other two potentials $`C^{(7p)}`$ and $`C^{(9p)}`$ have the components:

$`C_{\varphi ,\theta ^1\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}}^{(7p)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}\mathrm{cos}\phi R^{7p}\rho ^{7p}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(6p)}},`$
$`C_{x^{p1},x^p,\varphi ,\theta ^1\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}}^{(9p)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}\mathrm{sin}\phi R^{7p}\rho ^{7p}h_pf_p^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(6p)}}.`$ (5.3.5)
Apart from the ones displayed in eqs. (1.4.76) and (5.3.2), the RR field strengths and their duals have another components. Actually, due to the identification of $`F^{(p)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(10p)}`$, the forms appearing in these equations are not all different. Using this fact it is not difficult to obtain all the components of the RR gauge forms. From this result one can check that eq. (5.3.3) is satisfied and, thus, the representation of $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(p+2)}`$ in terms of the different potentials appearing on the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.4) holds (although these potentials have another components in addition to the ones written in eq. (5.3.5)). Let us specify this for $`p=3`$. In this case one can easily check that $`F^{(3)}`$ and $`F^{(5)}`$ are given by:

$`F^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _rf_3^1dx^0dx^1dr,`$
$`F^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi \left[h_3_rf_3^1dx^0\mathrm{}dx^3dr+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}R^4\rho ^3d\rho d\varphi ϵ_{(3)}\right].`$ (5.3.6)
Moreover, $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(3)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(5)}=F^{(5)}`$ can be represented in terms of three RR potentials $`C^{(6)}`$, $`C^{(4)}`$ and $`C^{(2)}`$ as in eq. (5.3.4) with:

$`C^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi R^4\rho ^4h_3f_3^1dx^2dx^3d\varphi ϵ_{(3)},`$
$`C^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi \left[h_3f_3^1dx^0\mathrm{}dx^3+R^4\rho ^4d\varphi ϵ_{(3)}\right],`$
$`C^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi f_3^1dx^0dx^1,`$ (5.3.7)
where $`ϵ_{(3)}`$ is the volume form of the unit $`S^3`$ (with this choice of $`C^{(2)}`$ one has $`F^{(3)}=dC^{(2)}`$). One can treat similarly the other cases.

##### The brane probe

Let us now embed a D(8-p)-brane in the near-horizon region of the (D(p-2), Dp) geometry. In this region $`r`$ is small and one can approximate the harmonic function $`f_p`$ appearing in the supergravity solution as:

$$f_p\frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}.$$
(5.3.8)
The D(8-p)-brane probe we will be dealing with wraps the (6-p) transverse sphere and extends along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions. The response of the probe to the background is determined by its action $`S`$, which was written in eq. (2.0.14). For an D(8-p)-brane the Dirac-Born-Infeld term $`S_{DBI}`$ is:

$$S_{DBI}=T_{8p}d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}p}\sigma e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_D}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+)},$$
(5.3.9)
where $`g`$ is the induced worldvolume metric, $`T_{8p}`$ is the tension of the D(8-p)-brane:

$$T_{8p}=(2\pi )^{p8}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{p9}{2}}(g_s)^1,$$
(5.3.10)
and, if $`P[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes the pull-back to the worldvolume of a bulk field, $``$ is given by:

$$=FP[B]=dAP[B],$$
(5.3.11)
with $`F`$ being the $`U(1)`$ worldvolume gauge field strength and $`A`$ its potential. The Wess-Zumino term of the action $`S_{WZ}`$ couples the probe to the RR potentials of the background. For the brane probe configuration we are considering and the (D(p-2), Dp) background, $`S_{WZ}`$ is given by:

$$S_{WZ}=T_{8p}\left[P[C^{(9p)}]+P[C^{(7p)}]\right].$$
(5.3.12)
The worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},8p`$) will be taken as:

$$\sigma ^\alpha =(t,x^{p1},x^p,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{6p}).$$
(5.3.13)
As we will confirm soon, the set of coordinates (5.3.13) is quite convenient to study the kind of configurations we are interested in. These configurations are embeddings of the D(8-p)-brane which, in our system of coordinates, are described by functions of the type:

$$r=r(t),\rho =\rho (t),\varphi =\varphi (t).$$
(5.3.14)
Let us now evaluate the action for the ansatz (5.3.14). We shall begin by studying the Wess-Zumino term. In this term only the components of $`C^{(7p)}`$ and $`C^{(9p)}`$ written in eq. (5.3.5) contribute. Actually, it is easy to see that the pull-back of the RR potential $`C^{(7p)}`$ is coupled to the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ component of $``$. Assuming that $`_{x^{p1},x^p}`$ is independent of the angles $`\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^{6p}`$, one gets that $`S_{WZ}`$ can be written as:

$$S_{WZ}=T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\mathrm{cos}\phi 𝑑t𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p\rho ^{7p}(1)^{p+1}\dot{\varphi }\left[_{x^{p1},x^p}+h_pf_p^1\mathrm{tan}\phi \right],$$
(5.3.15)
where $`\dot{\varphi }=d\varphi /dt`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}`$ is the volume of the $`S^{6p}`$ sphere, given by:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{7p}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)}.$$
(5.3.16)
Notice that for the ansatz (5.3.14) the scalars $`r`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ do not depend on the coordinates $`x^{p1}`$ and $`x^p`$ and, therefore, $`P[B]`$ has only non-zero components along the directions $`x^{p1}x^p`$. By using the actual value of the $`B`$ field for the (D(p-2), Dp) background in the definition of $``$ (eq. (5.3.11)), one immediately gets that the term inside the square brackets on the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.15) is:

$$_{x^{p1},x^p}+h_pf_p^1\mathrm{tan}\phi =F_{x^{p1},x^p}.$$
(5.3.17)
In what follows we will assume that the only non-zero component of the worldvolume gauge field is $`F_{x^{p1},x^p}`$ and we will denote from now on $`_{x^{p1},x^p}`$ and $`F_{x^{p1},x^p}`$ simply by $``$ and $`F`$ respectively. Then, the total action can be written as:

$$S=𝑑t𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p,$$
(5.3.18)
where the lagrangian density $``$ is given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\times `$
$`\times \left[\rho ^{6p}\lambda _1\sqrt{r^2f_p^1r^2\dot{r}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}+\lambda _2(1)^{p+1}\rho ^{7p}\dot{\varphi }\right].`$
In eq. (LABEL:ncvsiete) we have introduced the functions $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, which are defined as:

$$\lambda _1=\sqrt{h_pf_p^1+^2h_p^1},\lambda _2=F\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(5.3.20)
Before starting the analysis of the lagrangian density (LABEL:ncvsiete), let us discuss how the brane probe is extended along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions. The main motivation to extend the probe along these directions is to allow the worldvolume of the brane to capture the flux of the $`B`$ field of the background. It is thus natural to characterize the spreading of the D(8-p)-brane in the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane by means of the flux of the $`F`$ field. Accordingly we will extend our brane along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ directions in such a way that there are $`N^{}`$ units of worldvolume flux. i.e.:

$$𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^pF=\frac{2\pi }{T_f}N^{},$$
(5.3.21)
with $`T_f=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^1`$ being the fundamental string tension. Clearly, given $`F`$ (which will be determined below), eq. (5.3.21) gives the volume occupied by the brane probe in the noncommutative plane in terms of the flux number $`N^{}`$.

Let us now resume our study of the dynamics of the system by performing a canonical hamiltonian analysis of the lagrangian density (LABEL:ncvsiete). First of all, for simplicity, let us absorb the sign $`(1)^{p+1}`$ sign of the Wess-Zumino term of $``$ by redefining $`\dot{\varphi }`$ if necessary. The density of momenta associated to $``$ are:

$`𝒫_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{r}}}T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\lambda _1\pi _r,`$
$`𝒫_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\rho }}}T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\lambda _1\pi _\rho ,`$
$`𝒫_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}}T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\lambda _1\pi _\varphi ,`$ (5.3.22)
where we have defined the reduced momenta $`\pi _r`$, $`\pi _\rho `$ and $`\pi _\varphi `$. By using the explicit value of of $``$, given in eq. (LABEL:ncvsiete), we get:

$`\pi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{6p}}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{r}}{\sqrt{r^2f_p^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}},`$
$`\pi _\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{6p}}{1\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }}{\sqrt{r^2f_p^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}},`$
$`\pi _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(1\rho ^2)\rho ^{6p}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\sqrt{r^2f_p^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{7p},`$
where, in the third of these expressions we have introduced the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}.$$
(5.3.24)
The hamiltonian density of the system can be obtained in the standard way, namely:

$$=\dot{r}𝒫_r+\dot{\rho }𝒫_\rho +\dot{\varphi }𝒫_\varphi T_{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}R^{7p}\lambda _1h,$$
(5.3.25)
where, in analogy with what we have done for the momenta, we have defined the reduced quantity $`h`$. From eqs. (LABEL:ncvsiete) and (LABEL:nctuno), one gets after a simple calculation that $`h`$ is given by:

$$h=r^1f_p^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[r^2\pi _r^2+\rho ^{2(6p)}+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{7p}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.3.26)
##### Fixed size configurations

We would like to obtain solutions of the equations of motion derived from the hamiltonian (5.3.26) which correspond to a brane of fixed size. It follows from eq. (5.3.1) that the coordinate $`\rho `$ plays the role of the size of the system on the $`S^{6p}`$ sphere. For this reason it is interesting to look at solutions of the equations of motion for which $`\rho `$ is constant. This same problem was analyzed in ref.  for the case of brane probes moving in the near-horizon Dp-brane background (see also refs. ). In ref.  it was found that the $`\rho `$-dependent terms in the hamiltonian can be arranged to produce a sum of squares from which the $`\rho =\mathrm{constant}`$ solutions can be found by inspection. By comparing the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.26) with the corresponding expression in ref. , one immediately realizes that the same kind of arrangement can be done in our case if the condition:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(5.3.27)
is satisfied. Indeed, if eq. (5.3.27) holds, one can rewrite $`h`$ as:

$$h=r^1f_p^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+r^2\pi _r^2+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{6p}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.3.28)
The analysis of the hamiltonian (5.3.28) can be performed along the same lines as in ref.  (see below). Before carrying out this study, let us explore the content of the condition (5.3.27). By recalling the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (eq. (5.3.24)), we realize that eq. (5.3.27) is equivalent to require that $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$. Moreover, by using eq. (5.3.17) in the definition of $`\lambda _1`$ (eq. (5.3.20)), one obtains:

$$\lambda _1^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\phi F^2+f_p^1\left(F\mathrm{sin}\phi \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\phi }\right)^2.$$
(5.3.29)
By comparing the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.29) with the definition of $`\lambda _2`$ (eq. (5.3.20)), one concludes immediately that the condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ is equivalent to have the following constant value of the worldvolume gauge field $`F`$:

$$F=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{csc}(2\phi ).$$
(5.3.30)
By substituting this value of $`F`$ on the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.29) one gets that $`\lambda _1`$ is also constant and given by:

$$\lambda _1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi }.$$
(5.3.31)
In the next section we will show that for the value of $`F`$ displayed in eq. (5.3.30) the brane probe breaks the supersymmetry of the background exactly in the same way as a massless particle. In this section this value of the worldvolume gauge field should be considered as an ansatz which allows us to find a class of fixed size solutions of the equations of motion of the brane which are particularly interesting. In the remaining of this section we will assume that $`F`$ is given by (5.3.30).

It is now straightforward to find the configurations of the system with constant $`\rho `$. From the second expression in eq. (LABEL:nctuno) one concludes that one must have:

$$\pi _\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.3.32)
Then, the hamiltonian equation of motion for $`\pi _\rho `$, i.e. $`\dot{\pi }_\rho =h/\rho `$, implies that the last term on the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.28) must vanish. For $`p<6`$ this happens either for:

$$\rho =0,$$
(5.3.33)
or else when $`\pi _\varphi `$ is given by:

$$\pi _\varphi =\rho ^{5p}.$$
(5.3.34)
(when $`p=6`$ only eq. (5.3.34) gives rise to a constant $`\rho `$ configuration). Notice that, as $`h`$ does not depend on $`\varphi `$, the momentum $`\pi _\varphi `$ is a constant of motion and, thus, for $`p5`$, eq. (5.3.34) only makes sense when $`\rho `$ is constant. Moreover, when $`p5`$, eq. (5.3.34) determines $`\rho `$ in terms of $`\pi _\varphi `$. On the contrary, when $`p=5`$ eq. (5.3.34) fixes $`\pi _\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, independently of the value of $`\rho `$.

It is not difficult to translate the constant $`\rho `$ condition into a relation involving the time derivatives of $`\varphi `$ and $`r`$. Let us, first of all, invert the relation (LABEL:nctuno) between $`\pi _\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$. By taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ as in eq. (5.3.27) one easily finds after a simple calculation that:

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\pi _\varphi \rho ^{7p}}{1\rho ^2}\frac{\left[r^2\left(f_p^1\dot{r}^2\right)\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^{6p}\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(5.3.35)
By taking $`\dot{\rho }=0`$ on eq. (5.3.35), and imposing one of the two conditions (5.3.33) or (5.3.34), one gets that in both cases $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and $`\dot{r}`$ satisfy the following relation:

$$f_p[r^2\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{r}^2]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(5.3.36)
For the configurations we are considering the last two terms of the reduced hamiltonian $`h`$ of eq. (5.3.28) vanish and, then, our configurations certainly minimize the energy. These configurations are characterized by eq. (5.3.30), which fixes the value of the worldvolume gauge field, and (5.3.36), which is a consequence of the vanishing of the last two terms of the hamiltonian. Remarkably, eq. (5.3.36) is the condition satisfied by a particle moving in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane at $`\rho =0`$ along a null trajectory, i.e. with $`ds^2=0`$, in the metric (1.4.73). Thus, our brane probe configurations have the characteristics of a massless particle : the so-called giant graviton. Notice that the point $`\rho =0`$ can be considered as the “center of mass” of the expanded brane. In order to confirm this picture let us introduce the two-component vector $`𝐯`$, defined as:

$$𝐯=(v^{\underset{¯}{r}},v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }})f_p^{\frac{1}{2}}(\dot{r},r\dot{\varphi }),$$
(5.3.37)
which is nothing but the velocity of the particle in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane. From eq. (5.3.36) one clearly has:

$$(v^{\underset{¯}{r}})^2+(v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }})^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(5.3.38)
which simply states that the center of mass of the giant graviton moves at the speed of light. The corresponding value of the momentum density $`𝒫_\varphi `$ can be straightforwardly obtained from eqs. (5.3.34) and (5.3.22). Indeed, by using eqs. (5.3.10), (5.3.16), (1.4.79) and (5.3.31), one gets:

$$𝒫_\varphi =\frac{T_f}{2\pi }FN\rho ^{5p},$$
(5.3.39)
where $`F`$ is given in eq. (5.3.30). The momenta $`p_\varphi `$ and $`p_r`$ can be obtained from the densities $`𝒫_\varphi `$ and $`𝒫_r`$ by integrating them in the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane:

$$p_\varphi =𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p𝒫_\varphi ,p_r=𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p𝒫_r.$$
(5.3.40)
By using the value of the momentum density $`𝒫_\varphi `$ given in eq. (5.3.39) and the flux condition (5.3.21), one gets the following value of $`p_\varphi `$ for a giant graviton:

$$p_\varphi =NN^{}\rho ^{5p}.$$
(5.3.41)
It follows from eq. (5.3.41) that, when $`p<5`$, the size $`\rho `$ of the wrapped brane increases with the momentum $`p_\varphi `$. Moreover, it is interesting to point out that, as $`0\rho 1`$, when $`p<5`$ the momentum $`p_\varphi `$ has a maximum value $`p_\varphi ^{max}`$ given by:

$$p_\varphi ^{max}=NN^{},$$
(5.3.42)
which is reached when $`\rho =1`$. The existence of such a maximum for $`p_\varphi `$ is a manifestation of the so-called stringy exclusion principle. Notice that when $`p=5`$ the momentum $`p_\varphi `$ is independent of $`\rho `$, whereas for $`p=6`$ the value of $`p_\varphi `$ written in eq. (5.3.42) is in fact a minimum.

Let us now study the energy of the giant graviton solution. First of all, we define the metric elements $`𝒢_{MN}`$ as:

$$𝒢_{MN}=G_{MN}^{}{}_{|_{\rho =0}}{}^{},$$
(5.3.43)
where the $`G_{MN}`$’s correspond to the metric displayed in eqs. (1.4.73) and (5.3.1). The hamiltonian for the giant graviton configurations, which we will denote by $`H_{GG}`$, can be easily obtained from eq. (5.3.28). In terms of the $`\rho =0`$ metric it can be written as:

$$H_{GG}=\sqrt{𝒢_{tt}}\left[\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{𝒢_{\varphi \varphi }}+\frac{p_r^2}{𝒢_{rr}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5.3.44)
which, according to our expectations, is exactly the hamiltonian of a massless particle which moves in the metric $`𝒢_{MN}`$ along a trajectory contained in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane. Interestingly, one can use the hamiltonian (5.3.44) to find and solve the equations of motion for the giant graviton. Let us, first of all, rewrite $`H_{GG}`$ as:

$$H_{GG}=R^{\frac{p7}{2}}\left[r^{7p}p_r^2+r^{5p}p_\varphi ^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.3.45)
We will study the equations of motion of this system by using the conservation of energy. In this method we first put $`H_{GG}=E`$, for constant $`E`$, and then we use the relation between $`p_r`$ and $`\dot{r}`$, namely:

$$p_r=\frac{R^{7p}}{r^{7p}}E\dot{r}.$$
(5.3.46)
By substituting (5.3.46) in the condition $`H_{GG}=E`$, we get:

$$\dot{r}^2+\frac{r^{7p}}{R^{7p}}\left[\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{E^2R^{7p}}r^{5p}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.3.47)
Eq. (5.3.47) determines the range of values that $`r`$ can take. Indeed, by consistency of eq. (5.3.47), the second term in this equation must be negative or null. The points for which this term vanishes are the turning points of the system. For $`p<5`$ these points are $`r=0`$ and $`r_{}`$, with $`r_{}`$ being:

$$(r_{})^{5p}=\frac{E^2}{p_\varphi ^2}R^{7p}.$$
(5.3.48)
In this $`p<5`$ case, $`r`$ can take values in the range $`0rr_{}`$. If $`p=5`$ only the $`r=0`$ turning point exists and $`r`$ is unrestricted, i.e. $`r`$ can take any non-negative value. Finally if $`p=6`$ the $`r=0`$ turning point is missing and $`rr_{}`$, where $`r_{}`$ is the value given in eq. (5.3.48) for $`p=6`$.

It is not difficult to find the explicit dependence of $`r`$ on $`t`$. Let us consider first the $`p5`$ case. From eq. (5.3.47) it follows that $`t`$ as a function of $`r`$ is given by the following indefinite integral:

$$tt_{}=R^{\frac{7p}{2}}\frac{dr}{r^{\frac{7p}{2}}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{r}{r_{}}\right)^{5p}}},(p5),$$
(5.3.49)
where $`t_{}`$ is a constant of integration. The integral (5.3.49) can be easily performed by means of the following trigonometric change of variables:

$$\left(\frac{r}{r_{}}\right)^{5p}=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,(p5).$$
(5.3.50)
The result of the integration is:

$$\left(\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{5p}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+(5p)^2(r_{})^{5p}R^{p7}\left(\frac{tt_{}}{2}\right)^2,(p5).$$
(5.3.51)
It follows from eq. (5.3.51) that $`t_{}`$ is precisely the value of $`t`$ at which $`r=r_{}`$. Moreover if $`p<5`$ the coordinate $`r0`$ as $`tt_{}\pm \mathrm{}`$, i.e. the giant graviton always falls asymptotically into the black hole. On the contrary, for $`p=6`$ the coordinate $`r`$ diverges asymptotically and, thus, in this case the particle always escapes away from the $`r=0`$ point.

The $`p=5`$ case needs a special treatment since, in this case, eq. (5.3.49) is not valid any more. One can, however, easily integrate eq. (5.3.47) with the result:

$$r=r_0e^{\pm \frac{t}{R}\sqrt{1\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{E^2R^2}}},(p=5).$$
(5.3.52)
It follows from (5.3.52) that, in this case, the solution connects asymptotically the points $`r=0`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$.

In order to complete the integration of the equations of motion one has to determine $`\varphi `$ as a function of $`t`$. This can be easily achieved by substituting $`r(t)`$ from eq. (5.3.51) or (5.3.52) into the condition (5.3.36) to get $`\dot{\varphi }`$, followed by an integration over $`t`$. The result for $`p5`$ is:

$$\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{5p}{2}(\varphi \varphi _{})\right]=\frac{5p}{2}\left(\frac{r_{}}{R}\right)^{\frac{5p}{2}}\frac{tt_{}}{R},(p5),$$
(5.3.53)
whereas for $`p=5`$ one gets:

$$\varphi =\varphi _0+\frac{p_\varphi }{ER^2}t,(p=5).$$
(5.3.54)
It is also interesting to find the value of the velocity $`𝐯`$ along the trajectory. Actually, a simple calculation shows that, for $`p5`$, it depends on the coordinate $`r`$ as:

$$v^{\underset{¯}{r}}=\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\left(\frac{r}{r_{}}\right)^{5p}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}=\left(\frac{r}{r_{}}\right)^{\frac{5p}{2}},(p5),$$
(5.3.55)
where, on the right-hand side, it should be understood that $`r`$ is the function of $`t`$ given in eq. (5.3.51) for $`tt_{}`$. Curiously, when $`p=5`$ the vector $`𝐯`$ is constant and has the following components:

$$v^{\underset{¯}{r}}=\pm \left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{E^2R^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}=\frac{p_\varphi }{ER},(p=5).$$
(5.3.56)
To finish this section, let us now discuss the extensivity of the brane probe on the noncommutative plane $`x^{p1}x^p`$. As argued above, for fixed worldvolume flux $`N^{}`$, this extensivity depends on the value of the gauge field $`F`$. Actually, by using in eq. (5.3.21) the value of $`F`$ given in eq. (5.3.30), one gets that the volume occupied by the brane probe along the $`x^{p1}x^p`$ plane is:

$$𝑑x^{p1}𝑑x^p=\frac{\pi N^{}}{T_f}\mathrm{sin}(2\phi ).$$
(5.3.57)
This volume clearly goes to zero as $`\phi 0`$ for fixed $`N^{}`$. This means that if we switch off the $`B`$ field in the background, the D(8-p)-brane probe is effectively converted into a D(6-p)-brane, in agreement with the results of refs. -. Actually, one can check that in this limit our results agree with those corresponding to the Dp-brane background if we replace everywhere $`N`$ by $`NN^{}`$.

##### Supersymmetry

The objective of this section is to analyze the supersymmetry behaviour of the brane configurations studied in the previous section. Actually, we will verify that these configurations break the supersymmetry of the background just as a massless particle which moves precisely along the trajectories we have found for the probe.

The number of supersymmetries preserved by a Dp-brane is the number of independent solutions of the constraint equation imposed by kappa-symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ,$$
(5.3.58)
on the Killing spinors of the background $`ϵ`$. For a Dp-brane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ was given in eq. (2.1.42). Actually, for the sake of simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the analysis of the $`(D1,D3)`$ background, although one can find similar results for the general case by making the appropriate modifications in our equations.

In order to solve eq. (5.3.58) it is clear that we must first determine the Killing spinors of the background, which is equivalent to characterize the supersymmetry preserved by our supergravity solution. We are considering bosonic backgrounds, which are supersymmetric iff the supersymmetry variation of the fermionic supergravity fields vanishes. Actually, this only occurs for some class of transformation parameters, which are precisely the Killing spinors we are interested in.

The analysis of the supersymmetry preserved by the (D1,D3) background by using the transformation rules of the type IIB supergravity is performed in the appendix A. Here we will characterize the Killing spinors of this background by means of an alternative and more simplified method , which makes use of the $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix (2.1.42). Let us place a test D3-brane parallel to the background and choose its worldvolume coordinates as $`(\xi ^0,\xi ^i)=(t,x^i)`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. The equations which determine the embedding of the parallel D3-brane are :

$$X^0=t=\xi ^0,X^i=x^i=\xi ^i,(i=1,2,3),$$
(5.3.59)
with the other spacetime coordinates being independent of the $`(\xi ^0,\xi ^i)`$. We will study the supersymmetry preserved by this test brane when the worldvolume gauge field $`F`$ is zero, i.e. when $`=P[B]`$. This means that the only non-zero component of $``$ is:

$$_{x^2x^3}=\mathrm{tan}\phi f_3^1h_3.$$
(5.3.60)
The test brane configuration we are considering is the same as the one that creates the background. Therefore, it is natural to expect that such a parallel test brane preserves the same supersymmetries as the supergravity background. Then, let us consider the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_kϵ=ϵ`$ for this case. The induced gamma matrices for the embedding (5.3.59) are:

$`\gamma _{x^\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}^\alpha },(\alpha =0,1),`$
$`\gamma _{x^i}`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}^i},(i=2,3).`$ (5.3.61)
By using eq. (5.3.61) in the expression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ for $`p=3`$ (eqs. (2.1.42)-(2.1.44)), one gets that the $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix for this case is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\phi (i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi \sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0x^1}}\right].$$
(5.3.62)
In eq. (5.3.62), and in what follows, we have suppressed the tensor product symbol. It is now straightforward to check that the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_kϵ=ϵ`$ can be written as:

$$(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}ϵ=e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}ϵ,$$
(5.3.63)
where $`\alpha `$ is the function of $`r`$ given by:

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha =h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(5.3.64)
In the appendix A we will verify that the supersymmetry invariance of the dilatino of type IIB supergravity in the $`(D1,D3)`$ background requires that the supersymmetry parameter $`ϵ`$ satisfies eq. (5.3.63) with $`\alpha `$ given by eq. (5.3.64), which is is a confirmation of the correctness of our $`\kappa `$-symmetry argument. Moreover, in view of eq. (5.3.63), the Killing spinor $`ϵ`$ can be written as:

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}\stackrel{~}{ϵ},$$
(5.3.65)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is a spinor which satisfies:

$$(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}.$$
(5.3.66)
In our study of the supersymmetry preserved by the giant graviton solution we will need to know the dependence of $`ϵ`$ on the coordinate $`\rho `$. Again, this dependence can be extracted by solving the corresponding supergravity equations. Here, however, we will present a simpler argument which, as we will check in appendix A, gives the right answer. The starting point of our argument is to consider the supergravity solution in the asymptotic region $`r\mathrm{}`$ without making the near-horizon approximation (5.3.8). In this case the harmonic function $`f_p`$ is given by eq. (1.4.74) and, when $`r\mathrm{}`$, the metric is flat and the different forms vanish. The supersymmetry preserved in this region is just the one corresponding to covariantly constant spinors, i.e. spinors which satisfy $`D_Mϵ=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ in the flat asymptotic metric. Taking $`M=\rho `$, we get that:

$$_\rho ϵ=\frac{1}{4}\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{MN}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{MN}}ϵ,$$
(5.3.67)
where $`\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{MN}}`$ are the components of the spin connection. As the only non-zero component of the form $`\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{MN}}`$ of the spin connection in our coordinates (1.4.73) and (5.3.1) for the the asymptotic metric is:

$$\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\rho ^2}},$$
(5.3.68)
we obtain from eq. (5.3.67) that the $`\rho `$ dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ can be parametrized as:

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.3.69)
with $`\beta `$ being the following function of $`\rho `$:

$$\mathrm{sin}\beta =\rho ,\mathrm{cos}\beta =\sqrt{1\rho ^2},$$
(5.3.70)
and $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ satisfying the same equation as $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$, namely:

$$(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.3.71)
The supergravity analysis of the $`(D1,D3)`$ background provides the explicit dependence of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ on the other coordinates (see eq. (A.8)). However, in our analysis of the $`\kappa `$-symmetry preserved by the giant graviton solution we will only need to know that $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ satisfies eq. (5.3.71). Actually, we will rewrite this equation in a form more convenient for our purposes. Let us, first of all, recall that all spinors (and in particular $`\widehat{ϵ}`$) have fixed chirality and thus $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ satisfies:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.3.72)
where we have denoted:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^3}}.$$
(5.3.73)
Taking eq. (5.3.72) into account, eq. (5.3.71) can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}\widehat{ϵ}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.3.74)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is the following matrix:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}.$$
(5.3.75)
Using eq. (5.3.74) in eq. (5.3.69), we can reexpress $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ as:

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.3.76)
which is the parametrization of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ which we will use in our analysis of the $`\kappa `$-symmetry for the giant graviton.

We are now ready to determine the supersymmetry preserved by the giant graviton in the $`(D1,D3)`$ background<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Similar methods have been applied in refs.  to study the supersymmetry of the baryon vertex.. According to the formalism developed in the preceding section, we have to consider a D5-brane probe extended along the directions $`(x^2,x^3,\theta ^1,\theta ^2,\theta ^3)`$. The $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ for such a probe can be obtained from eq. (2.1.42) by taking $`p=5`$. For a D5-brane embedding of the type (5.3.14) with $`\dot{\rho }=0`$ the induced Dirac matrices are:

$`\gamma _{x^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}},`$
$`\gamma _{x^2x^3}`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}},`$
$`\gamma _{\theta ^i}`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}r\rho e_i^{\underset{¯}{i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^i}},`$ (5.3.77)
where $`e_j^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ denotes the $`S^3`$ vielbein. We will assume, as in section 2, that the brane probe has a worldvolume gauge field whose only non-vanishing component is $`_{x^2x^3}`$, which we simply will denote by $``$. By substituting the values given in eq. (5.3.77) in eq. (2.1.42) one readily verifies that the contribution of the gauge field $``$ exponentiates and, as a consequence, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _2}{\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}}}\times `$ (5.3.78)
$`\times \left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}e^{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}.`$
In eq. (5.3.78) $`G_{MN}`$ denotes the elements of the metric (1.4.73) for $`p=3`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is the same as in eq. (5.3.73) and $`\eta `$ is defined as:

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta =\frac{f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda _1},\mathrm{cos}\eta =\frac{h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda _1},$$
(5.3.79)
where $`\lambda _1`$ has been defined in eq. (5.3.20).

Let us now compute the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ on spinor $`ϵ`$, which we will parametrize as the Killing spinors of the $`(D1,D3)`$ background, namely (see eqs. (5.3.65) and (5.3.76)):

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.3.80)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given in eqs. (5.3.64) and (5.3.70), $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is the matrix written in (5.3.75) and $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is independent of $`\rho `$. By using this representation, one immediately gets:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(\eta \frac{\alpha }{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _2}{\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}}}\times `$ (5.3.81)
$`\times \left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}.`$
Then, making use again of eq. (5.3.80), one concludes that the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ is equivalent to the following condition for $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _2}{\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}}}\left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{(\alpha \eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}.`$
(5.3.82)
Notice that in eq. (5.3.82) the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}`$ only appears on the right-hand side. Actually, if $`\alpha =\eta `$ this dependence on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}`$ disappears. Moreover, by comparing the definitions of $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ (eqs. (5.3.64) and (5.3.79), respectively) one immediately realizes that $`\alpha =\eta `$ if and only if $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\mathrm{sin}\phi `$. On the other hand, eq. (5.3.29) tells us that this only happens when $`F=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{csc}(2\phi )`$, i.e. precisely when the worldvolume gauge field strength takes the same value as the one we have found in our hamiltonian analysis (see eq. (5.3.30)). Let us assume that this is the case and let us try to find out what are the consequences of this fact. Actually, we will also assume that our second condition (5.3.36) holds. It is a simple exercise to verify that, when (5.3.36) is satisfied, the denominator of the left-hand side of eq. (5.3.82) takes the value:

$$\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}=\rho rf_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\dot{\varphi }.$$
(5.3.83)
Then, for a configuration satisfying eq. (5.3.30) and (5.3.36), the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ becomes:

$$\left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}\right]\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\rho rf_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ},$$
(5.3.84)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ has been defined in eq. (5.3.75). Let us now rewrite eq. (5.3.84) in terms of the $`\rho =0`$ spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}`$. By substituting eq. (5.3.76) on both sides of eq. (5.3.84), and using the fact that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}`$, one gets:

$$\left[f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}\dot{\varphi }rf_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{1\rho ^2}+\dot{r}f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}\right]\widehat{ϵ}=\rho rf_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.3.85)
Let us consider now eq. (5.3.85) for the particular case $`\rho =0`$. When $`\rho =0`$ the right-hand side of eq. (5.3.85) vanishes and, as $`\beta =0`$ is also zero in this case (see eq. (5.3.70)), one has:

$$\left[f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}\dot{\varphi }rf_3^{\frac{1}{4}}+\dot{r}f_3^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}\right]\widehat{ϵ}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.3.86)
For a general value of $`\rho `$ the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition can be obtained by substituting in (5.3.85) $`e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$ by:

$$e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}=\sqrt{1\rho ^2}+\rho \mathrm{{\rm Y}}.$$
(5.3.87)
By so doing one obtains two types of terms, with and without $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, which, amazingly, satisfy the equation independently for all $`\rho `$ as a consequence of the $`\rho =0`$ condition (5.3.86). Thus, eq. (5.3.86) is equivalent to the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ and is the constraint we have to impose to the Killing spinors of the background in order to define a supersymmetry transformation preserved by our brane probe configurations. In order to obtain a neat interpretation of (5.3.86), let us define the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_vv^{\underset{¯}{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}+v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }},$$
(5.3.88)
where $`v^{\underset{¯}{r}}`$ and $`v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}`$ are the components of the velocity vector $`𝐯`$ defined in eq. (5.3.37). By using eq. (5.3.38), which is a consequence of (5.3.36), one readily proves that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ satisfies:

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_v)^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(5.3.89)
Moreover, from the explicit expression of the components of $`𝐯`$ (see eq. (5.3.37)) it is straightforward to demonstrate that the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition (5.3.86) can be written as:

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_v\right]\widehat{ϵ}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.3.90)
Taking into account eq. (5.3.89), one can rewrite eq. (5.3.90) in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.3.91)
Moreover, recalling the relation (5.3.80) between $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ and $`ϵ`$, and taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}`$, eq. (5.3.91) is equivalent to:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_vϵ_{|_{\rho =0}}=ϵ_{|_{\rho =0}}.$$
(5.3.92)
Eq. (5.3.92) is the condition satisfied by the parameter of the supersymmetry preserved by a massless particle which moves in the direction of the vector $`𝐯`$ at $`\rho =0`$, i.e. by a gravitational wave which propagates precisely along the trajectories found above. However, the background projector $`(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}`$ and the one of the probe, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ do not commute (actually, they anticommute). This means that the conditions (5.3.71) and (5.3.91) cannot be imposed at the same time and, therefore, the probe breaks completely the supersymmetry of the background. The most relevant aspect of this result is that the supersymmetry breaking produced by the probe is just identical to the one corresponding to a massless particle which moves in the direction of $`𝐯`$. This fact is a confirmation of our interpretation of the giant graviton configurations as blown up gravitons.

Notice that we have found the supersymmetry projection for the giant graviton configurations from the conditions (5.3.30) and (5.3.36). Clearly, we could have done our reasoning in reverse order and, instead, we could have imposed first that our brane probe breaks supersymmetry as a massless particle at $`\rho =0`$. In this case we would arrive at the same conditions as those obtained by studying the hamiltonian and, actually, this would be an alternative way to derive them.

### 5.4 M-Theory Giant Gravitons with C field

In this section we extend the analysis of previous section to M-theory backgrounds generated by a stack of non-threshold bound states of the type (M2,M5), which was given in section 1.4.1. The probe we will consider is, as mentioned in the introduction, an M5-brane wrapped on an $`S^2`$ transverse sphere and extended along three directions parallel to the background. It will be shown that, after switching on a particular value of the worldvolume gauge field, one can find giant graviton solutions of the corresponding worldvolume equations of motion. It will also be analyzed the supersymmetry of the problem, and it will be shown that our M5-brane configurations break supersymmetry exactly in the same way as a wave which propagates with the velocity of the center of mass of the M5-brane probe.

The metric in the one given in (1.4.92) and the four-form field strength $`F^{(4)}=dC^{(3)}`$ was given in (1.4.96). In order to obtain the explicit form of $`C^{(3)}`$, let us introduce again the particular set of coordinates for the transverse $`S^4`$ given by (5.2.15). Then, the line element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ can be written as:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2=\frac{1}{1\rho ^2}d\rho ^2+(1\rho ^2)d\varphi ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(5.4.1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric of a unit $`S^2`$ (which we will parametrize by means of two angles $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$) and $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ take values in the range $`0\rho 1`$ and $`0\varphi 2\pi `$ respectively. In these coordinates one can take $`C^{(3)}`$ as:

$`C^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi f^1dx^0dx^1dx^2R^3\mathrm{cos}\phi \rho ^3d\varphi ϵ_{(2)}+`$ (5.4.4)
$`+\mathrm{tan}\phi hf^1dx^3dx^4dx^5,`$
where $`ϵ_{(2)}`$ is the volume form of the $`S^2`$. It is not difficult to verify from eq. (1.4.96) that $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}`$ satisfies:

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}=\frac{1}{2}F^{(4)}F^{(4)},$$
(5.4.5)
where the seven-form $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}`$ is the Hodge dual of $`F^{(4)}`$ with respect to the metric (1.4.92). Eq. (5.4.5) implies that $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}`$ can be represented in terms of a six-form potential $`C^{(6)}`$ as follows:

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{(4)}=dC^{(6)}\frac{1}{2}C^{(3)}dC^{(3)}.$$
(5.4.6)
By taking the exterior derivative of both sides of (5.4.6), one immediately verifies eq. (5.4.5). Moreover, it is not difficult to find the potential $`C^{(6)}`$ in our coordinate system. Actually, one can easily check that one can take $`C^{(6)}`$ as:

$`C^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi f^1R^3\rho ^3dx^0dx^1dx^2d\varphi ϵ_{(2)}`$ (5.4.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+h\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{\mathrm{cos}\phi }}f^1dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi R^3\rho ^3hf^1dx^3dx^4dx^5d\varphi ϵ_{(2)}.`$
##### The M5-brane probe

We shall now consider the near-horizon region of the $`(M2,M5)`$ geometry. In this region the radial coordinate $`r`$ is small and one can approximate the function $`f`$ appearing in the supergravity solution as $`fR^3/r^3`$. Following the analysis of the preceding section, we place an M5-brane probe in this geometry in such a way that it shares three directions $`(x^3,x^4,x^5)`$ with the branes of the background and wraps the $`S^2`$ transverse sphere parametrized by the angles $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$. The dynamics of the M5-brane probe is determined by its worldvolume action, i.e. by the PST action, given in (2.3.1).

The worldvolume coordinates $`\sigma ^i`$ ($`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$) will be taken as $`\sigma ^i=(x^0,x^3,x^4,x^5,\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$. In this system of coordinates the configurations we are interested in are described by functions of the type $`r=r(t)`$, $`\rho =\rho (t)`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi (t)`$, where $`tx^0`$. Moreover, we will assume that the only non-vanishing components of the field $`H`$, defined in (2.3.2), are those of $`P[C^{(3)}]`$, i.e. $`H_{x^3x^4x^5}H_{345}`$ and $`H_{x^0\theta ^1\theta ^2}H_0`$. As discussed in section 2.3, the scalar field $`a`$ is an auxiliary field which, by fixing its gauge symmetry, can be eliminated from the action at the expense of loosing manifest covariance. In this paper we will work in the gauge $`a=x^0`$. In this gauge the only non-zero component of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\theta ^1\theta ^2}=f^{7/6}h^{4/3}r^2\rho ^2\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}H_{345},$$
(5.4.8)
where $`\widehat{g}^{(2)}`$ is the determinant of the metric of the two-sphere. By using (5.4.8) one can easily obtain $`_{DBI}`$ for our configurations. Indeed, after a short calculation one gets:

$$_{DBI}=R^3\rho ^2\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}\lambda _1\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2},$$
(5.4.9)
where the dot denotes time derivative and $`\lambda _1`$ is defined as:

$$\lambda _1\sqrt{hf^1+\left(H_{345}\right)^2h^1}.$$
(5.4.10)
It is also very easy to prove that the remaining terms of the action are:

$`_{H\stackrel{~}{H}}+_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{345}F_0F_{345}P[C^{(3)}]_0+`$ (5.4.11)
$`+P[C^{(6)}]_{0345}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P[C^{(3)}]_{345}P[C^{(3)}]_0,`$
with $`F_0F_{x^0\theta ^1\theta ^2}`$ and similarly for the pull-backs of $`C^{(6)}`$ and $`C^{(3)}`$. From eqs. (5.4.4) and (5.4.7) it follows that:

$`P[C^{(6)}]_{0345}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^3\rho ^3\mathrm{sin}\phi hf^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}\dot{\varphi },`$
$`P[C^{(3)}]_{345}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\phi hf^1,`$
$`P[C^{(3)}]_0`$ $`=`$ $`R^3\rho ^3\mathrm{cos}\phi \sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}\dot{\varphi }.`$ (5.4.12)
By using eq. (5.4.12) it is straightforward to demonstrate that the sum of the last two terms in $`_{H\stackrel{~}{H}}+_{WZ}`$ vanishes and, thus, we can write:

$$_{H\stackrel{~}{H}}+_{WZ}=R^3\rho ^3F_{345}\mathrm{cos}\phi \sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}\dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}F_{345}F_0.$$
(5.4.13)
Let us assume that $`F_0=\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(2)}}f_0`$ with $`f_0`$ independent of the angles of the $`S^2`$. With this ansatz for the electric component of $`F`$, the action can be written as:

$$S=𝑑t𝑑x^3𝑑x^4𝑑x^5,$$
(5.4.14)
with the lagrangian density $``$ given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`4\pi R^3T_{M5}[\rho ^2\lambda _1\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}+`$ (5.4.15)
$`+\lambda _2\rho ^3\dot{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^3}}F_{345}f_0].`$
In eq. (5.4.15) we have defined $`\lambda _2`$ as:

$$\lambda _2F_{345}\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(5.4.16)
It is interesting to characterize the spreading of the M5-brane in the $`x^3x^4x^5`$ directions by means of the flux of the worldvolume gauge field $`F`$. We shall parametrize this flux as follows:

$$𝑑x^3𝑑x^4𝑑x^5F=\frac{2\pi }{T_{M2}}N^{},$$
(5.4.17)
where $`T_{M2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/(2\pi )^2l_p^3`$ in the tension of the M2-brane. Notice that, when the coordinates $`x^3x^4x^5`$ are compact, the condition (5.4.17) is just the M-theory flux quantization condition found in section 4.6.1, with the flux number $`N^{}`$ being an integer for topological reasons.

In order to perform a canonical hamiltonian analysis of this system, let us introduce the density of momenta:

$`𝒫_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{r}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R^3T_{M5}\lambda _1\pi _r,`$
$`𝒫_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\rho }}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R^3T_{M5}\lambda _1\pi _\rho ,`$
$`𝒫_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R^3T_{M5}\lambda _1\pi _\varphi ,`$ (5.4.18)
where we have defined the reduced momenta $`\pi _r`$, $`\pi _\rho `$ and $`\pi _\varphi `$. From the explicit value of $``$ (eq. (5.4.15)), we get:

$`\pi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{r}}{\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}},`$
$`\pi _\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{1\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }}{\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}},`$
$`\pi _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(1\rho ^2)\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^3,`$ (5.4.19)
where we have introduced the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$. The hamiltonian density of the system is:

$$=\dot{r}𝒫_r+\dot{\rho }𝒫_\rho +\dot{\varphi }𝒫_\varphi +F_0\frac{}{F_0}.$$
(5.4.20)
After a short calculation one can prove that $``$ is given by:

$$=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R^3T_{M5}\lambda _1r^1f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[r^2\pi _r^2+\rho ^4+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^3\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.4.21)
##### Giant graviton configurations

We are interested in finding configurations of fixed size, i.e. those solutions of the equations of motion with constant $`\rho `$. By comparing the hamiltonian density written in (5.4.21) with the one studied in ref. 5.3, it is not difficult to realize that these fixed size solutions exist if the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ takes the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Indeed, if this condition holds, the hamiltonian density $``$ can be put as:

$$=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R^3T_{M5}\lambda _1r^1f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+r^2\pi _r^2+(1\rho ^2)\pi _\rho ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^2\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5.4.22)
and, as we will verify soon, one can easily find constant $`\rho `$ solutions of the equations of motion for the hamiltonian (5.4.22). Moreover, by using the value of $`P[C^{(3)}]_{345}`$ given in eq. (5.4.12), one can write $`\lambda _1`$ as:

$$\lambda _1^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\phi F_{345}^2+f^1\left(F_{345}\mathrm{sin}\phi \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\phi }\right)^2.$$
(5.4.23)
Taking into account the definition of $`\lambda _2`$ (eq. (5.4.16)), it follows that the condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ (or $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$) is equivalent to have the following constant value of the worldvolume gauge field:

$$F_{345}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{csc}(2\phi ).$$
(5.4.24)
It follows from eq. (5.4.19) that for a configuration with $`\dot{\rho }=0`$ the momentum $`\pi _\rho `$ necessarily vanishes and, in particular, one must require that $`\dot{\pi }_\rho =0`$. Then, the hamiltonian equations of motion imply that $`/\rho `$ must be zero, which happens if the last term inside the square root of the right-hand side of eq. (5.4.22) vanishes, i.e. when $`\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^2=0`$. This occurs either when $`\rho =0`$ or else when the angular momentum $`\pi _\varphi `$ is:

$$\pi _\varphi =\rho .$$
(5.4.25)
In order to clarify the nature of these solutions, let us invert the relation between $`\pi _\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ (eq. (5.4.19)). After a simple calculation one gets:

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\pi _\varphi \rho ^3}{1\rho ^2}\frac{\left[r^2\left(f^1\dot{r}^2\right)\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\left[\pi _\varphi ^2+\frac{\left(\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^2\right)^2}{1\rho ^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(5.4.26)
By taking $`\dot{\rho }=\pi _\varphi \rho \rho ^2=0`$ on the right-hand side of eq. (5.4.26), one finds the following relation between $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and $`\dot{r}`$:

$$f[r^2\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{r}^2]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(5.4.27)
Remarkably, eq. (5.4.27) is the condition satisfied by a particle which moves in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane at $`\rho =0`$ along a null trajectory (i.e. with $`ds^2=0`$) in the metric (1.4.92). Therefore, our brane probe configurations behave as a massless particle: the so-called giant graviton. The point $`\rho =0`$ can be interpreted as the “center of mass” of the expanded brane. Actually, if one defines the velocity vector $`𝐯`$ as $`𝐯=(v^{\underset{¯}{r}},v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }})f^{\frac{1}{2}}(\dot{r},r\dot{\varphi })`$, eq. (5.4.27) is equivalent to the condition $`(v^{\underset{¯}{r}})^2+(v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }})^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and, thus, the center of mass of the giant graviton moves at the speed of light. On the other hand, the angular momentum density $`𝒫_\varphi `$ for the $`\pi _\varphi =\rho `$ solution can be obtained from eq. (5.4.18), namely:

$$𝒫_\varphi =\frac{T_{M2}}{2\pi }F_{345}N\rho .$$
(5.4.28)
Moreover, by integrating the densities $`𝒫_\varphi `$ and $`𝒫_r`$ along the $`x^3x^4x^5`$ directions, one gets the values of the momenta $`p_\varphi `$ and $`p_r`$:

$$p_\varphi =𝑑x^3𝑑x^4𝑑x^5𝒫_\varphi ,p_r=𝑑x^3𝑑x^4𝑑x^5𝒫_r.$$
(5.4.29)
By using the value of the momentum density $`𝒫_\varphi `$ displayed in eq. (5.4.28), together with the flux quantization condition (5.4.17), one gets the following value of $`p_\varphi `$:

$$p_\varphi =NN^{}\rho ,$$
(5.4.30)
which implies that the size $`\rho `$ of the wrapped brane increases with its angular momentum $`p_\varphi `$. As $`0\rho 1`$, the momentum $`p_\varphi `$ has a maximum given by $`p_\varphi ^{max}=NN^{}`$. This maximum is reached when $`\rho =1`$ and its existence is a manifestation of the stringy exclusion principle.

In order to analyze the energy of the giant graviton solution, let $`𝒢_{MN}`$ be the metric elements of eqs. (1.4.92) and (5.4.1) at the point $`\rho =0`$. Then, it is straightforward to verify that the hamiltonian $`H_{GG}`$ of the giant graviton configurations is:

$$H_{GG}=\sqrt{𝒢_{tt}}\left[\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{𝒢_{\varphi \varphi }}+\frac{p_r^2}{𝒢_{rr}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5.4.31)
which is exactly the one corresponding to a massless particle which moves in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane under the action of the metric $`𝒢_{MN}`$. By substituting in eq. (5.4.31) the explicit values of the $`𝒢_{MN}`$’s, one can write $`H_{GG}`$ as:

$$H_{GG}=R^{\frac{3}{2}}\left[r^3p_r^2+rp_\varphi ^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.4.32)
By using the conservation of energy, one can integrate the equations of motion and get the functions $`r(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$. It turns out that the corresponding equations coincide with one of the cases studied in section 5.3. Therefore, we simply write the results of this integration and refer to section 5.3 for the details of the calculation. One gets:

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{1+\frac{r_{}}{4R^3}(tt_{})^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \varphi _{}}{2}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{R}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(tt_{}),`$ (5.4.33)
where $`r_{}`$, $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`t_{}`$ are constants. Notice that $`rr_{}`$ and that $`r0`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, which means that the giant graviton always falls asymptotically to the center of the potential.

It is also interesting to study the volume occupied by the M5-brane probe along the $`x^3x^4x^5`$ directions. By plugging the value (5.4.24) of the worldvolume gauge field into the flux quantization condition (5.4.17), one gets that this volume is:

$$𝑑x^3𝑑x^4𝑑x^5=\frac{\pi N^{}}{T_{M2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\phi ).$$
(5.4.34)
When $`\phi 0`$, the M2-brane component of the background bound state disappears and we are left with a M5-brane background. For fixed $`N^{}`$, it follows from eq. (5.4.34) that the three directions of the M5-brane probe which are parallel to the background collapse and, therefore, the M5-brane probe is effectively converted into a M2-brane, in agreement with the results of section 5.2.

The gauge field $`F`$ of the PST action satisfies a generalized self-duality condition which relates its electric and magnetic components. In order to get this self-duality constraint one must use both the equations of motion and the symmetries of the PST action. In our case, this condition reduces to:

$$\frac{}{F_{345}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.4.35)
Indeed, after using the explicit expression of $``$ (eq. (5.4.15)), and solving eq. (5.4.35) for $`f_0`$, one gets:

$$f_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R^3\left[\rho ^2\frac{H_{345}}{\lambda _1h}\sqrt{r^2f^1r^2\dot{r}^2\frac{\dot{\rho }^2}{1\rho ^2}(1\rho ^2)\dot{\varphi }^2}\mathrm{cos}\phi \rho ^3\dot{\varphi }\right].$$
(5.4.36)
By substituting on the right-hand side of eq. (5.4.36) the values corresponding to our giant graviton configurations, one gets a vanishing result, i.e.:

$$f_{0}^{}{}_{|GG}{}^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.4.37)
Thus, our expanded graviton solutions have zero electric field on the M5-brane worldvolume.

##### Supersymmetry

Let us now examine the supersymmetry of our configurations. First of all, we consider the supersymmetry preserved by the background. As the solution of D=11 supergravity we are dealing with is purely bosonic, it is only invariant under those supersymmetry transformations which do no change the gravitino field $`\psi _M`$. This calculation is detailed in appendix B. Actually, if we define the matrix $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta ^1\theta ^2}}`$, they can be parametrized as follows:

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(5.4.38)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are:

$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}h^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha =h^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\rho ,\mathrm{cos}\beta =\sqrt{1\rho ^2},`$ (5.4.39)
and $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is independent of $`\rho `$ and satisfies:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.4.40)
By working out the condition $`\delta \psi _M=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ one can determine $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ completely. We will do this calculation in appendix B. Nevertheless representation (5.4.38) is enough for our purposes. Let us however mention that that it follows from this analysis that the (M2,M5) background is $`1/2`$ supersymmetric.

The number of supersymmetries preserved by the M5-brane probe is the number independent solutions of the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is one of the Killing spinors (5.4.38) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ is the $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix of the PST formalism (2.3.9). In our case the vector $`t^m`$ defined in (2.3.10) is zero and the only non-zero component of $`\nu _m`$ is: $`\nu _0=\sqrt{G_{tt}}`$. Using these facts, after some calculation, one can represent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}}{\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}}}\times `$ (5.4.41)
$`\times \left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}e^{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}},`$
with $`\eta `$ given by:

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta =\frac{f^{\frac{1}{2}}h^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda _1},\mathrm{cos}\eta =\frac{H_{345}h^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda _1}.$$
(5.4.42)
By using eqs. (5.4.41) and (5.4.38), the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ takes the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{G_{tt}G_{\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2G_{rr}\dot{r}^2}}}`$ $`\left[\sqrt{G_{tt}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}+\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{G_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}+\dot{r}\sqrt{G_{rr}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{ϵ}=`$ (5.4.43)
$`=e^{(\alpha \eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{ϵ}.`$
Let us now evaluate eq. (5.4.43) for our solution. First of all, one can verify that, when the worldvolume gauge field $`F_{345}`$ takes the value (5.4.24), the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ are equal and, thus, the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}`$ of the right-hand side of (5.4.43) disappears. Moreover, using the condition (5.4.27), and performing some simple manipulations, one can convert eq. (5.4.43) into:

$$\left[f^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}\dot{\varphi }rf^{\frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{1\rho ^2}+\dot{r}f^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}\right]\widehat{ϵ}=\rho rf^{\frac{1}{4}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.4.44)
If, in particular, we take $`\rho =0`$ in eq. (5.4.44), one arrives at:

$$\left[f^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\varphi }}\dot{\varphi }rf^{\frac{1}{4}}+\dot{r}f^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r\varphi }}\right]\widehat{ϵ}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(5.4.45)
Remarkably, if eq. (5.4.45) holds, then eq. (5.4.44) is satisfied for an arbitrary value of $`\rho `$. Thus, eq. (5.4.45) is equivalent to the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$. In order to interpret (5.4.45), let us define the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_vv^{\underset{¯}{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}+v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}`$, where $`v^{\underset{¯}{r}}`$ and $`v^{\underset{¯}{\varphi }}`$ are the components of the center of mass velocity vector $`𝐯`$ defined above. This matrix is such that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_v)^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, and one can prove that eq. (5.4.45) can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(5.4.46)
Taking into account the relation (5.4.38) between $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ and $`ϵ`$, and using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}`$, one can recast eq. (5.4.46) as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_vϵ_{|_{\rho =0}}=ϵ_{|_{\rho =0}},$$
(5.4.47)
which is the supersymmetry projection induced by a massless particle moving in the direction of $`𝐯`$ at $`\rho =0`$. Notice that, however, the background projector $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}`$ does not commute with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ and, therefore, eq. (5.4.40) and (5.4.46) cannot be imposed at the same time. Thus, the M5-brane probe breaks completely the supersymmetry of the background. The interesting point in this result is that this supersymmetry breaking is just identical to the one corresponding to a massless particle, which constitutes a confirmation of our interpretation of the giant graviton configurations.

### 5.5 Discussion

In this chapter we have found configurations of a brane probe on the backgrounds of (D(p-2), Dp) and (M2,M5) bound states which behave as massless particles. We have checked this fact by studying the motion of the probe and the way in which breaks supersymmetry. These giant graviton configurations admit the interpretation of a set of massless quanta polarized by the gauge fields of the background. Actually, by recalling the arguments of refs. -, one can argue that there are two possible descriptions of this system, as a point-like particle or as an expanded brane, which are valid for different ranges of momenta and cannot be simultaneously valid.

In the cases studied in refs. - the blow up of the gravitons takes place on a (fuzzy) sphere. In our case the brane probe shares some dimensions with the branes of the background and, thus, our gravitons are also expanded along them. We have parametrized the volume occupied by the probe in the common directions by means of the flux of the worldvolume gauge field or the self-dual field strength, respectively. If this flux is fixed and finite, the angular momentum of the brane is bounded for $`p<5`$ and one realizes the stringy exclusion principle.

### 5.6 Appendix 5A. Supergravity analysis of (D1,D3)

In this appendix we shall study the supersymmetry preserved by the $`(D1,D3)`$ solution of the type IIB supergravity equations. In order to perform this analysis it is more convenient to work in the Einstein frame, in which the metric $`ds_E^2=e^{\varphi _D/2}ds^2`$ takes the form:

$`ds_E^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{1/2}h_3^{1/4}\left[(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+h_3\left((dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2\right)\right]+`$
$`+f_3^{1/2}h_3^{1/4}dr^2+f_3^{1/2}h_3^{1/4}r^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\rho ^2}}d\rho ^2+(1\rho ^2)d\varphi ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right],`$
where $`f_3`$ and $`h_3`$ are given in eq. (1.4.74) and, for simplicity, we have taken the string coupling constant $`g_s`$ equal to one.

Using complex spinors and with our notations for the gauge forms, the supersymmetry transformations of the dilatino $`\lambda `$ and gravitino $`\psi `$ in type IIB supergravity are the ones given in (1.4.13). The solutions of the supergravity equations we are dealing with are purely bosonic and, thus, they are only invariant under those supersymmetry transformations which do not change the fermionic fields $`\lambda `$ and $`\psi `$. Let us consider first the variation of the dilatino $`\lambda `$ for the (D1,D3) background. From eqs. (1.4.73), (1.4.75) and (5.3.6) it follows that the non-vanishing components of the complex three-form $`F`$ are:

$`F_{01r}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sin}\phi h_3^{\frac{1}{4}}_rf_3^1,`$
$`F_{23r}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi h_3^{\frac{7}{4}}_rf_3^1.`$ (A.2)
By using eq. (A.2), and by computing $`P_M`$ from eq. (1.4.14), one easily finds from the first equation in (1.4.13) that the supersymmetry variation of $`\lambda `$ is:

$$\delta \lambda =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi }{4}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{5}{8}}_rf_3^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{r}}\left[i\mathrm{sin}\phi h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0x^1}}ϵ+i\mathrm{cos}\phi h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}ϵ\right].$$
(A.3)
Clearly $`\delta \lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ if and only if the term inside the brackets on the right-hand side of eq. (A.3) vanishes. It is an easy exercise to verify, by using the correspondence (1.4.12), that the condition so obtained coincides with the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition (5.3.63). Thus, we can represent the spinor $`ϵ`$ as in eq. (5.3.65) with $`\alpha `$ given in eq. (5.3.64) and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ satisfying (5.3.66).

More information about the spinors which leave invariant the (D1,D3) solution can be gathered by looking at the gravitino transformation rule (1.4.13). Let us consider first the components of $`\psi `$ along the directions $`x^\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$) parallel to the D3-brane. Due to the presence of a covariant derivative on the expression of $`\delta \psi _M`$, in order to obtain the variation of the gravitino, we need to know the value of the spin connection. It is straightforward to check that the only non-vanishing components of the latter of the type $`\omega _{x^\mu }^{\underset{¯}{mn}}`$ are:

$`\omega _{x^0}^{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{x^1}^{\underset{¯}{x^1r}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf_3^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi h_3f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf_3^1,`$
$`\omega _{x^2}^{\underset{¯}{x^2r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{x^3}^{\underset{¯}{x^3r}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf_3^1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi h_3^{\frac{3}{2}}f_3^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf_3^1.`$ (A.4)
By using eq. (A.4), the values of the forms given in eqs. (5.3.6) and (A.2) and the constraint imposed on $`ϵ`$ by the invariance of the dilatino (eq. (5.3.63)), one concludes after some calculation that the gravitino components $`\psi _{x^\mu }`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$) are invariant under supersymmetry if and only if the Killing spinor is independent of the $`x^\mu `$’s, namely:

$$_{x^\mu }ϵ=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(\mu =0,1,2,3).$$
(A.5)
The condition $`\delta \psi _\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ determines the dependence of $`ϵ`$ on $`\rho `$. The relevant component of the spin connection needed in the calculation of $`\delta \psi _\rho `$ is:

$$\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\rho ^2}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{4}rf_3_rf_3^1+\frac{1}{8}r\mathrm{sin}^2\phi h_3_rf_3^1\right].$$
(A.6)
(Notice that when $`r\mathrm{}`$ we recover eq. (5.3.68)). Using again the condition imposed by the dilatino invariance, one can easily prove that the dependence on $`\rho `$ of $`ϵ`$ is the same as in eq. (5.3.69). Thus, we have verified the representation of $`ϵ`$ in terms of the spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ written in eq. (5.3.65) and (5.3.69). An explicit representation of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ can be obtained by looking at the transformation of the other components of the gravitino. For instance, one can consider the equation for the radial component of $`\psi `$. Using the fact that $`\omega _r^{\underset{¯}{mn}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, one gets that the dependence of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ on $`r`$ is determined by the equation:

$$_r\widehat{ϵ}=\frac{1}{8}_r\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(f_3h_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]\widehat{ϵ},$$
(A.7)
which can be immediately integrated. One can proceed similarly with the remaining components of $`\psi `$. The final result of this analysis is the complete determination of the form of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ and, therefore, of the complete Killing spinor $`ϵ`$. One gets:

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`\left[f_3h_3^{1/2}\right]^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^2x^3}}\sigma _3}e^{\frac{1}{2}\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi r}}}\times `$ (A.8)
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta _1\rho }}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta _2\theta _1}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta _3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta _3\theta _2}}}ϵ_0,`$
where $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant spinor satisfying the condition

$$(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^3}}ϵ_0=ϵ_0.$$
(A.9)
It follows from eqs. (A.8) and (A.9) that the (D1,D3) background is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ supersymmetric.

### 5.7 Appendix 5B. Supergravity analysis of (M2,M5)

In this appendix we shall study the supersymmetry preserved by the $`(M2,M5)`$ solution of the eleven dimensional supergravity equations. The metric was given in (1.4.92). As the solution of D=11 supergravity we are dealing with is purely bosonic, it is only invariant under those supersymmetry transformations which do no change the gravitino field $`\psi _M`$. The transformation of this field was given in (1.4.15).

The form $`F^{(4)}`$ is the four-form given by eq. (1.4.96). Let us consider first the components of $`\psi `$ along the directions $`x^\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},5`$) parallel to the M5-brane. The only non-vanishing components of the spin connection of the type $`\omega _{x^\mu }^{\underset{¯}{mn}}`$ are:

$`\omega _{x^0}^{\underset{¯}{x^0r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{x^1}^{\underset{¯}{x^1r}}=\omega _{x^2}^{\underset{¯}{x^2r}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi hf^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf^1,`$
$`\omega _{x^3}^{\underset{¯}{x^3r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{x^4}^{\underset{¯}{x^4r}}=\omega _{x^5}^{\underset{¯}{x^5r}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f^{\frac{1}{2}}h^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi h^{\frac{3}{2}}f^{\frac{1}{2}}_rf^1.`$ (B.1)
By using eq. (B.1), the value of the 4-form given in eq. (1.4.96) and the fact that the eleven dimensional gamma matrices satisfy that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5r\rho \varphi \theta ^1\theta ^2}}=1`$ we see that the gravitino components $`\psi _{x^\mu }`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2`$) are invariant under supersymmetry if and only if the Killing spinor is independent of the $`x^\mu `$’s, namely:

$$_{x^\mu }ϵ=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},(\mu =0,1,2),$$
(B.2)
but for $`\delta \psi _{x^\mu }`$ ($`\mu =3,4,5`$) to vanish we get the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}ϵ=e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}}ϵ,$$
(B.3)
where $`\alpha `$ is a function of $`r`$ given by:

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =f^{\frac{1}{2}}h^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha =h^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(B.4)
We see that eq. (B.3) is solved by a spinor of the form

$$ϵ=e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ},$$
(B.5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is a spinor which satisfies:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}.$$
(B.6)
For the condition $`\delta \psi _\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ the relevant component of the spin connection needed is

$$\omega _\rho ^{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\rho ^2}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{3}rf_rf^1+\frac{1}{6}r\mathrm{sin}^2\phi h_rf_3^1\right],$$
(B.7)
and using again that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5r\rho \varphi \theta ^1\theta ^2}}=1`$ we arrive at

$$\delta \psi _\rho =_\rho ϵ+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\rho ^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}ϵ.$$
(B.8)
Using the form (B.5) of the spinor we find a solution of (B.8) by taking

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}}\widehat{ϵ},$$
(B.9)
where now $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is a spinor independent of $`\rho `$ and satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}\widehat{ϵ}=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(B.10)
For completeness we can obtain explicit form of $`\widehat{ϵ}`$. The condition $`\delta \psi _r=0`$ is equivalent to

$$_r\widehat{ϵ}=_r\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(fh\right)^{\frac{1}{12}}\right]\widehat{ϵ},$$
(B.11)
and doing the same for the two angular components of $`\psi `$ we find the complete Killing spinor which is:

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`\left[fh\right]^{\frac{1}{12}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^3x^4x^5}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\rho r}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\varphi r}}}\times `$ (B.12)
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta _1\rho }}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\theta _2\theta _1}}}ϵ_0,`$
where $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant spinor satisfying the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x^0\mathrm{}x^5}}ϵ_0=ϵ_0,$$
(B.13)
and the (M2,M5) background is $`1/2`$ supersymmetric.

## Chapter 6 Resume

A teoría de cordas é unha candidata para seres unha teoría fundamental que unifique todas as forzas presentes na Natureza. Tres delas, as interaccións electromagnética, feble e forte están ben descritas por unha teoría cuántica consistente, o Modelo Standard, que describe axeitadamente os resultados experimentais. Nembargantes, a cuarta interacción, a gravidade, non está incluida no Modelo Standard. A gravidade é descrita pola teoría da Relatividade Xeral, que é unha teoría clásica, como a dinámica do espacio-tempo. Esta interacción pode ser despreciada á escala de enerxías das interaccións do Modelo Standard pero a enerxías mais altas tanto os efectos cuánticos como os gravitacionais son relevantes, facendo necesaria unha teoría cuántica da gravidade. A enerxía na que os efectos cuánticos non son despreciábeis na descripción do espacio-tempo define a escala de Planck, que é do orden de $`10^{19}GeV`$. Nembargantes, cando un tenta cuantizar a gravidade atópase cunha teoría de campos non-renormalizable, polo que é de agardar que unha nova física xurda a esta escala de enerxías.

Na teoría de cordas as partículas aparecen como modos de vibración da corda, e entre estes modos hai un non masivo con spin 2 que pode ser identificado co gravitón. As cordas propáganse no espacio-tempo describindo superficies, chamadas follas de universo, que xeralizan a liña de universo que describen as partículas puntuais. Nesta teoría a corda é cuantizada perturbativamente pero non existe unha segunda cuantización de cordas.

A formulación dunha teoría cuántica de cordas relativistas xeraliza tamén a das partículas puntuáis. A acción que describe a propagación dunha corda no espacio-tempo ten como campos dinámicos un conxunto de funcións reais que desciben o embebemento (“embedding”) da corda no espacio-tempo. Esta teoría ten que ter as mesmas simetrías que a Relatividade Xeral e o Modelo Standard, i.e., invariancia baixo difeomorfismos e simetría gauge. Non obstante, aparecen mais simetrías nesta formulación como a simetría conforme e a supersimetría, esta última introducida para incluir fermions na folla de universo. A teoría de supercordas e só consistente nun espacio-tempo de dez dimensións e un atópase con cinco teorías de supercordas, todas diferentes no nivel perturbativo. Inda máis, para obter unha física efectiva en catro dimensións tense que compactificar as outras seis dimensións, o que pode ser levado a cabo de moitos xeitos non equivalentes sen que haxa un preferido. Polo tanto, todo isto semella estar en contra de considerar a teoría de cordas como unha teoría fundamental da Natureza.

O problema do número de teorías de cordas é resolto pola dualidade. As dualidades en teorías de cordas relacionan diferentes teorías e amosan que estas poden unificarse nunha única teoría. As dualidades tamén dan información sobre os réximes de acoplamento forte das diferentes teorías, xa que algunhas destas dualidades aplican o réxime de acoplamento feble dunha teoría de supercordas ó réxime de acoplamento forte doutra. Isto leva a conxeturar que as diferentes teorías de cordas son diferentes límites dunha única teoría fundamental chamada teoría M.

Un pode acadar as accións efectivas que describen a dinámica dos modos da corda. Se se calcula a acción efectiva para os modos non masivos para enerxías pequenas comparadas coa tensión da corda obtén as diferentes supergravidades en dez dimensións. Estas accións teñen solucións clásicas que poden ser identificadas como solitóns da teoría de cordas completa. Algúns destes solitóns de cordas poden ser interpretados como obxetos extendidos p-dimensionais que son chamados p-branas. Estes obxetos son non perturbativos xa que a súa masa vai como o inverso da constante de acoplamento das cordas. De feito as p-branas son útiles porque son obxetos supersimétricos e algunhas das súas propiedades non varían cando cambia a constante de acoplamento. Un caso particular de p-branas son as Dp-branas, que son obxetos extendidos cargados baixo os campos de Ramond-Ramond das accións de supergravidade.

Por outra banda, as Dp-branas poden ser definidas como hiperplanos sobre os que as cordas abertas con certas condicións de contorno poden rematar. De feito, cando se calcula as masas e cargas destes obxetos coinciden cos das solucións solitónicas correspondentes. As Dp-branas son polo tanto obxetos dinámicos e as súas fluctuacións están determinadas pola dinámica das cordas que rematan na brana. Un pode usar isto para calcular unha acción que describa a fluctuacións das branas. Nesta Tese empréganse as accións efectivas para as branas de teoría M e da teoría de cordas co propósito de estudiar algunhas configuracións de branas de proba en diferentes fondos, e tamén serán discutidos algúns aspectos da dinámica de branas.

Esta Tese está baseada nos artigos  e . Está estructurada como segue. No capítulo 1 dase unha breve introducción á teoría de cordas, discutindo brevemente as dualidades entre as distintas teorías e ó xurdemento da teoría M. Son presentadas as accións efectivas de baixa enerxía para as dúas teorías posibles de cordas pechadas e a acción efectiva de baixa enerxía da teoría M, listándose algunhas das súas solucións solitónicas. O maior interese está nas solución extremáis correspondentes a un conxunto de branas coincidentes e algúns estados ligados de branas ’non-threshold’, xa que estas solucións serán empregadas como fondos de supergravidade nos que se van propagar as branas de proba. Para rematar o capítulo discútense algúns aspectos relacionados coas D-branas e tamén se presenta a conxetura de Maldacena.

No capítulo 2 constrúese a acción efectiva supersimétrica para Dp-branas bosónicas. Esta acción posúe unha simetría local fermiónica, chamada simetría kappa que garante que o número de grados de liberdade bosónicos e fermiónicos coinciden. Tamén se presenta unha proposta de xeralización non-abeliana da devandita acción que describe a dinámica de múltiples branas coincidentes. A dinámica que resulta desta acción implica que as Dp-branas poden ser polarizadas por campos externos. Este é o chamado efecto de polarización de Myers. Para rematar o capítulo dase unha acción no volúmen de universo para a M5-brana bosónica da teoría M que é de tipo Born-Infled e posúe invariancia baixo simetría kappa.

No capítulo 3, estúdiase o embedding de D(8-p)-branas na xeometría de fondo creada por Dp-branas paralelas con $`p6`$. Os embeddings que se obteñen representan branas conectadas por tubos. Analizando a enerxía destes tubos conclúese que poden ser considerados como feixes de cordas fundamentais. A solución tamén da unha realización do efecto de Hanany-Witten.

No capítulo 4, estúdianse algunhas configuracións de branas arrolladas na xeometría préto do horizonte creada por un conxunto de branas coincidentes. A característica común de todos os casos analizados é a regra de cuantización e o xurdemento dun número finito de configuracións nas que as branas están parcialmente arrolladas en esferas. A enerxía destas configuracións pode ser dada de forma pechada e a análise das pequenas oscilacións amosa que son estables. As configuracións de branas atopadas admiten unha interpretación como estados ligados de cordas (ou M2-branas na teoría M) que se extenden ó longo de direccións non arrolladas. Isto compróbase directamente nun caso particular enpregando o mecanismo de polarización de Myers.

No capítulo 5, estúdianse configuracións de branas de proba correspondentes a gravitóns xigantes na xeometría de fondo creada por un conxunto de estados ligados non-threshold. Amósase que para un valor particular do campo gauge do volume de universo existen configuracións da brana de proba que se comportan como partículas non masivas e que poden ser interpretadas como gravitóns inflados en esferas difusas e extendidos sobre un plano non conmutativo. Compróbase este comportamento estudiando o movemento e enerxía da brana de proba e determinando o xeito no que se rompe supersimetría cando a proba se move na xeometría de fondo.

### 6.1 Teoría de cordas e teoría M

Un obxeto unidimensional varre unha superficie bidimensional ó moverse, a chamada folla ou superficie de universo, que pode ser descrita en termos de dous parámetros $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$. A acción mais simple que un pode construir que é invariante baixo repamarametrizacións, a acción de Nambu-Goto, é proporcional á area da superficie de universo,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{det(h_{ab})},$$
(6.1.1)
onde $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denota a superficie de universo e $`h_{ab}=_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }`$ é a métrica inducida en $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A tensión da corda é $`T_f=1/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$. A acción de Nambu-Goto pode simplificarse introducindo unha métrica independente $`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\sigma )`$ na superficie de universo. De feito, a acción

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(6.1.2)
é equivalente a (6.1.2) cando se sustitúe a ecuación de movemento de $`\gamma _{ab}`$ en (6.1.2). A acción (6.1.2) é a acción de Polyakov. Aparte da invariancia baixo reparametrizacións, esta acción ten invariancia de Poincaré D-dimensional e invariancia Weyl en dúas dimensions

$`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\tau ,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),`$
$`\gamma _{ab}^{}(\tau ^{},\sigma ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\omega (\tau ,\sigma )}\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (6.1.3)
para $`\omega (\tau ,\sigma )`$ arbitraria. A invariancia Weyl non ten análogo en (6.1.1) e temos que métricas equivalentes Weyl corresponden ó mesmo embedding no espacio-tempo. Pódense usar dúas reparametrizacións e un rescalamento de Weyl para fixar os tres parámetros independentes de $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ de tal xeito que $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, onde $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ é a métrica de Minkowski en dúas dimensións. A acción (1.1.2) convírtese en:

$$S=\frac{T_f}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \eta ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(6.1.4)
Variando $`X^\mu `$ en (6.1.4) obtense

$$\delta S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma (\gamma )^{1/2}\delta X_\mu \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }X^\mu \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau (\gamma )^{1/2}\delta X^\mu _\sigma X_\mu |_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =\pi },$$
(6.1.5)
onde tomamos a rexión de coordenadas pertencente á superficie de universo como $`\mathrm{}\tau \mathrm{},0\sigma \pi `$. O termo de volume da a ecuación de movemento

$$\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }X^\mu =0.$$
(6.1.6)
O segundo termo é un termo de fronteira. Anúlase automáticamente para unha corda pechada, xa que en este caso os campos son periódicos:

$`X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`X^\mu (\tau ,0)`$
$`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,0)`$
$`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{ab}(\tau ,0)`$ (6.1.7)
Deste xeito os extremos están unidos formando unha curva pechada e non hai fronteira. Para a corda aberta un pode ter dúas posibles condicións de fronteira:

$`_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,0)=_\sigma X^\mu (\tau ,\pi )=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Neumann},`$
$`\delta X^\mu (\sigma =0)=\delta X^\mu (\sigma =\pi )=0,`$ $`\mathrm{Dirichlet}.`$
Teres condicións de fronteira tipo Neumann para unha corda aberta significa que non hai transmisión de momento nos extremos da corda. As condicións de fronteira tipo Dirichlet rompen a invariancia Poincaré e requiren que os extremos da corda estean fixos nun hiperplano.

Diferentes condicións de fronteira corresponden a diferentes espectros. O espectro non masivo da corda pechada contén unha partícula de spin 2, que pode ser identificada co gravitón, un campo escalar $`\varphi `$ (o dilatón) e unha 2-forma antisimétrica $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, a 2-forma NSNS. O espectro da corda aberta movéndose nun espacio-tempo plano con condicións de fronteira tipo Neumann en todalas direccións contén un campo vectorial $`A_\mu `$. Unha teoría de cordas abertas contén necesariamente cordas pechadas xa que os dous extremos da corda aberta pódense unir para formar unha corda pechada.

Pódense incluir fermións na folla de universo facendo a acción supersimétrica. Os espinores da folla de universo $`\psi ^\mu =\psi ^\mu (\sigma )`$ levan un índice vectorial do grupo de Lorentz espacio-temporal SO(1,9). En dúas dimensións o espinor $`\psi `$ pode ser Majorana-Weyl e entón descomponse en dúas compoñentes quiráis, $`\psi =\psi _L+\psi _R`$ ou, en notación matricial

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R\\ \psi _L\end{array}\right).$$
(6.1.9)
O termo fermiónico da acción de cordas podese poñer como

$$\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left\{\psi _R^\mu _+\psi _R^\nu +\psi _L^\mu _{}\psi _L^\nu \right\}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(6.1.10)
en termos das coordenadas do cono de luz $`\sigma ^\pm =\tau \pm \sigma `$. As ecuacións de movemento $`_+\psi _R^\mu =0,_{}\psi _L^\mu =0`$ implican que os fermións con quiralidades positiva ou negativa móvense respectivamente á dereita ou á esquerda. A condición de fronteira para a supercorda aberta é

$$0=(\psi _L^\mu \delta \psi _{L}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\psi _R^\mu \delta \psi _{R}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{})|_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =\pi }.$$
(6.1.11)
Pódense impoñer dous tipos de condicións de fronteira para os campos fermiónicos: $`\psi _R=\pm \psi _L`$. Si nos dous extremos da corda temos a condición co mesmo signo os campos fermiónicos $`\psi ^\mu `$ terán modos enteiros. Este é o chamado sector de Ramond (R). Si, polo contrario, teñen signo oposto, os $`\psi ^\mu `$ terán modos semienteiros. Este sector é o chamado sector de Neveu-Schwarz (NS).

Para unha corda pechada hai dúas posibles eleccións das condicións de periodicidade para os fermións: $`\psi _R^\mu (\sigma =2\pi )=\pm \psi _R^\mu (\sigma =0)`$, e similarmente para $`\psi _L^\mu `$. Os signos $`+`$ e $``$ corresponden respectivamente ós sectores R o NS respectivamente. Nembargantes, agora temos dúas posibilidades independentes para elixir. Haberá polo tanto catro sectores diferentes, NS-NS, R-R, R-NS e NS-R.

No sector R da corda aberta o estado fundamental ten que ser unha representación da álxebra de modos cero dos campos fermiónicos $`\psi _0^\mu `$, que é a álxebra de Clifford para o grupo de Lorentz $`SO(1,9)`$. Se clasificamos os estados en representacións do grupo pequeno $`SO(8)`$, vemos que o estado fundamental do sector R pode escollerse que estea na representación $`\mathrm{𝟖}_+`$ ou ben na $`\mathrm{𝟖}_{}`$ (que difiren na súa quiralidade). Por outra parte, o estado fundamental do sector NS ten unha enerxía do vacío de $`\frac{1}{2}`$, e é un singlete de $`SO(8)`$. Este estado é polo tanto un taquión. Cando se actúa sobre el cun modo $`\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}`$, crease un estado non masivo cos índices na representación vectorial $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v`$ de $`SO(8)`$.

A supersimetría no espacio-tempo require que haxa o mesmo número de grados de liberdade bosónicos e fermiónicos na capa de masas en cada nivel de masa. Esto se acada coa proxección GSO, que corresponde básicamente a poñer a cero todolos estados no sector NS que son creados por un número par de operadores de creación fermiónicos no vacío , e fixa a quiralidade do estado fundamental do sector R. O taquión é eliminado do espectro. O sector non masivo da supercorda aberta consiste nos estados $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v+\mathrm{𝟖}_+`$ e realiza a simetría quiral $`𝒩=1`$ $`D=10`$. Corresponden a un bosón vectorial non-masivo e o seu superasociado fermiónico. O superasociado fermiónico do bosón gauge é un espinor en dez dimensións con 16 compoñentes independentes que se reducen a 8 cando se usan as ecuacións de movemento, coincidindo coas 8 componentes físicas do campo gauge.

Nas teorías de supercordas pechadas os sectores de movemento á dereita e á esquerda desacóplanse, e cada un deles é cuantizado exactamente no mesmo xeito que para as cordas abertas. O sector non masivo dunha teoría de cordas pechadas é polo tanto o producto tensorial do sector non masivo da supercorda aberta. Nembargantes, temos dous productos tensoriais diferentes que se poden facer, dependendo de si un toma estados fundamentais de Ramond de quiralidade oposta nos dous lados ou da mesma quiralidade. Xa que a teoría efectiva da supercorda aberta ten supersimetría $`𝒩=1`$ no espacio-tempo, teremos unha teoría con supersimetría $`𝒩=2`$. Para a corda pechada teremos 32 componentes espinoriais independentes. A proxección GSO actúa independentemente en cada sector das dúas copias da supercorda aberta, e polo tanto un pode elixir os sectores R nos campos que se moven á dereita e á esquerda de tal xeito que teñan a misma quiralidade ou oposta.

A teoría tipo IIA corresponde a escoller os estados R con quiralidade oposta e polo tanto a teoría no espacio-tempo non é quiral. As partículas bosónicas do sector NSNS son respectivamente un campo escalar relacionado co dilatón $`\varphi `$, un campo tensorial antisimétrico de rango 2, $`B_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$, e un campo tensorial simétrico e sen traza relacionado co graviton. No sector de RR atopamos un vector e un tensor antisimétrico de tres índices, que corresponden ós campos $`C_\mu ^{(1)}`$ e $`C_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{(3)}`$. Os fermións están nos sectores RNS e NSR, e son dous gravitinos. Polo tanto a teoría ten supersimetría $`𝒩=2`$ no nivel non masivo. Inda máis, como os dous gravitinos teñen distinta quiralidade a teoría non é quiral. A acción para unha teoría non quiral en dez dimensións con $`𝒩=2`$ e con gravidade está completamente fixada e chámase teoría IIA. Esta acción reproduce as interaccións entre os campos non masivos calculadas a partires de amplitudes de teorías de cordas. Esta acción tamén pode ser obtida da acción de cordas en fondos curvos requerindo que a invariancia conforme non estea rota cuánticamente,i.e., a función $`\beta `$ ten que se anular. A acción para o sector bosónico ven dada en (1.1.16).

Na teoría IIB os sectores dereita e esquerda teñen a mesma quiralidade. As partículas non masivas clasifícanse en representacións de $`SO(8)`$. O sector NSNS é exactamente o mesmo que o da supercorda IIA. O sector RR é diferente. Contén un potencial escalar (ou 0-forma) $`\chi `$, unha potencial 2-forma $`C_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}`$ e un potencial 4-forma $`C_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}^{(4)}`$. A intensidade de campo do potencial 4-forma ten que ser autodual para que $`C^{(4)}`$ encaixe na representación $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_+`$. Os fermións dos sectores NS-R and R-NS son dous gravitinos, agora da mesma quiralidade. Temos polo tanto unha teoría dez dimensional quiral $`𝒩=2`$ con gravidade. Esta é a supergravidade IIB dada en (1.1.19). Nembargantes a condición de autodualidade ten que ser imposta a man.

A teoría tipo I é unha teoría de cordas abertas e pechadas non orientadas. O espectro non masivo da teoría tipo I contén o espectro de cordas abertas non orientadas e máis o de cordas pechadas non orientadas. As cordas pechadas tipo II non se poden acoplar consistentemente a cordas abertas, xa que teñen supersimetría $`𝒩=2`$, namentras que os modos non masivos da supercorda aberta realizan supersimetría $`𝒩=1`$. Cómpre polo tanto dividir por dous a supersimetría das cordas pechadas. Isto pode facerse se as cordas pechadas son non orientadas. A teoría contén un gravitón, un escalar e un tensor antisimétrico no sector bosónico e un gravitino Majorana-Weyl con un fermión Majorana-Weyl que completan o multiplete quiral $`𝒩=1`$ de supergravidade en dez dimensións. Un ten que engadir cordas abertas para acadar consistencia a nivel cuántico. Isto orixina un sector gauge na teoría xa que as cordas abertas poden estar cargadas nos seus extremos de xeito consistente coa invariancia de Poincaré e a invariancia conforme na folla de universo. Isto se acada engadindo $`n`$ grados de liberdade non dinámicos nos extremos da corda etiquetados cun índice $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$. Estes son os factores de Chan-Paton. Pode definirse unha acción cunha simetría $`U(n)`$ nestes factores. Si estes factores están na representación fundamental do grupo $`U(n)`$, un estado de corda aberta convértese nunha matriz $`n\times n`$ que se transforma baixo $`U(n)`$ na representación adxunta. O vector non masivo do espectro convértese nun campo de Yang-Mills $`U(n)`$ na acción de baixa enerxía. Se a corda non é orientada o grupo pode ser $`SO(n)`$ ou $`Sp(n)`$ pero a única ceive de anomalias é a $`SO(32)`$. A acción de baixa enerxía das teorías de supercordas tipo I é supergravidade $`𝒩=1`$ en dez dimensións acoplada a unha teoría de super Yang-Mills  con grupo gauge $`SO(32)`$.

As cordas heteróticas son teorías de cordas pechadas orientadas. A corda heterótica é un híbrido de corda bosónica nun sector e de supercorda no outro. Para que a cuantización sexa consistente hai que engadir 32 fermións quiráis no sector a esquerdas que estean na representación escalar de $`SO(8)`$. Neste novo sector fermiónico un pode impoñer condicións de contorno periódicas ou antiperiódicas. Se escollemos as mesmas para todos os fermións o sistema é invariante baixo rotacións $`SO(32)`$. Esta é a corda heterótica $`SO(32)`$. Se impuxéramos condicións de contorno periódicas na metade dos fermións e antiperiódicas na outra teríamos a corda heterótica $`E_8\times E_8`$. A teoría contén o multiplete de supergravidade $`𝒩=1`$ máis o multiplete vector $`𝒩=1`$ dunha teoría gauge $`SO(32)`$ ou $`E_8\times E_8`$. O contido en campos non masivos é o mesmo que o da teoría tipo I. A acción efectiva é polo tanto supergravidade $`𝒩=1`$ acoplada a super Yang-Mills cos campos de Yang-Mills na representación adxunta. Unha diferencia importante coas outras teorías de cordas é que non hai campos RR.

Isto foi unha curta presentación das cinco teorías de cordas consistentes, que semellan non ter relación nengunha. Nembargantes, a análise anterior redúcese ó réxime perturbativo e non temos unha descrición a acoplamento forte. Asemade as teorías de cordas están relacionadas entre elas por dualidades. Dúas teorías están relacionadas por unha dualidade se hai unha correspondencia un a un entre os seus espectros físicos e se a súa dinámica é equivalente. As diferentes dualidades son presentadas brevemente na sección 1.2. Algunhas destas dualidades relacionan a descrición perturbativa dunha teoría co réxime non perturbativo doutra, dando información deste réxime sen unha formulación explícita. Os réximes de acoplamento forte de calqueira das teorías de cordas poden ser aplicados por dualidade U co límite de acoplamento feble doutra teoría de cordas. De feito, a dualidade S mapea os réximes de acoplamento forte e feble das teoría I e heterótica $`SO(32)`$ e a autodualidade S da teoría IIB aplica cada un destes dous réximes da mesma teoría co outro. Nembargantes, o acoplamento forte das teorías IIA e $`E_8\times E_8`$ é descrito por unha teoría en once dimensións que ten como acción de baixa enerxía a supergravidade en once dimensions, dada na ecuación (1.3.1). Esta teoría once dimensional é a chamada teoría M. A imaxe deixada polas dualidades entre as distintas teorías de cordas leva á conxetura de que as cinco teorías poden ser interpretadas como diferentes límites dunha teoría fundamental, que é a teoría M.

A sección 1.4 amosa solución clásicas solitónicas das supergravidades IIA, IIB e once dimensional, que poden ser interpretadas como obxetos extendidos. Estas solucións teñen carga eléctrica ou magnética respecto dos campos tensoriáis que aparecen nas accións de baixa enerxía e son obxetos supersimétricos (estados BPS), que preservan unha certa fracción das supersimetrías. Estas propiedades supersimétricas das p-branas son cruciáis para relacionar estas solución cásicas con obxetos cuánticos. Isto é, as branas BPS son solitóns da teoría de cordas completa. Os estados BPS (Bogomoln’yi \- Prasad-Sommerfeld) satisfacen unha cota nas súas masas (a cota BPS), o que implica que a súa masa está relacionada coa súa carga, de tal xeito que estes estados están caracterizados por un só parámetro. As branas BPS son obxetos fundamentáis, xa que poden ser aplicados á corda fundamental por dualidade U. Tamén hai solucións cargadas baixo varios campos de RR. Estas solucións representan p-branas elementales que intersectan con certas regras. As interseccións poden ser ortogonáis, no senso de que cada brana se extende ó longo dunha dirección determinada, pero tamén poden formar un estado ligado cando as distintas branas non están ben separadas. Algúns destes estados ligados son configuracións de branas que sinten unha forza atractiva entre elas, e polo tanto teñen unha enerxía de ligadura non nula. Estes son os estados ligados non-marxinales e algúns deles son listados en 1.4.1. Estes estados ligados empréganse na tese como fondos de supergravidade nos que estudiar configuracións de branas de proba.

##### D-branas

As D-branas defínense como os hiperplanos nos que rematan as cordas abertas con condicións de contorno de Dirichlet (ver figura 6.1) e xurden de xeito natural cando a dualidade T actúa sobre as cordas abertas. Por outro lado, unha teoría de cordas abertas ten que conter tamén cordas pechadas, ás que deberían acoplarse as D-branas. De feito, as D-branas levan carga de RR e son BPS. No artigo  amósase como dúas D-branas paralelas trocan bosóns de RR o que cancela o troco de partículas NSNS causando que a forza entre as dúas branas estáticas sexa nula.

As D-branas son obxetos dinámicos e a súa dinámica ven determinada pola dinámica das cordas abertas que rematan nelas. A acción efectiva de baixa enerxía dunha Dp-brana é unha teoría supersimétrica en $`(p+1)`$ dimensións onde as fluctuacións da brana están descritas por campos escalares $`X^\mu `$ transversos ás direccións do volume de universo da brana. Esta acción pode ser calculada se se require que o modelo sigma non-lineal que describe a propagación dunha corda aberta con condicións de contorno de Dirichlet nun fondo de supergravidade xeral sexa invariante conforme. Isto da un conxunto de ligaduras nos campos que son iguáis ás ecuacións de movemento que seguen da seguinte acción efectiva:

$$S_{Dp}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)},$$
(6.1.12)
onde $`g`$ é a métrica inducida no volume de universo e $`=dAB`$, sendo $`B`$ o pull-back da dúas-forma de NSNS e $`A`$ o campo gauge $`U(1)`$. Esta é a acción de Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) que aparte de conter os modos non masivos da corda aberta tamén contén o acoplo ós modos non masivos da corda pechada. A acción DBI é unha teoría gauge $`U(1)`$ que se reduce, a primeira orde en $`\alpha ^{}`$, a super Yang-Mills en $`p+1`$ dimensións con $`9p`$ campos escalares, cando o espacio-tempo é plano. Se se inclúen fermións, entón a acción efectiva de baixa enerxía para as D-branas convértese en Yang-Mills supersimétrica $`𝒩=1`$ en $`p+1`$ simensións. A acción DBI para unha Dp-brana xeral pode seres obtida por reducción dimensional a $`p+1`$ dimensións da teoría $`U(1)`$ SYM en dez dimensións. Neste procedemento as compoñentes do potencial gauge $`A_\mu `$ nas direccións nas que se reduce vólvense escalares. Unha xeralización de todo isto é considerar un conxunto de N D-branas do mesmo tipo. Isto introduce un novo número cuántico que distingue as distintas branas nas que poden rematar as cordas abertas. Estes números son os factores de Chan-Paton. Si as $`N`$ D-branas son coincidentes, a acción efectiva vólvese SYM $`U(N)`$ en $`p+1`$ dimensións.

As Dp-branas están cargadas baixo os potenciais de RR e a súa acción debería conter un termo que acople a brana a estes campos. Nembargantes, os campos de RR están suxeitos a transformacións gauge e o acoplamento debería ser invariante gauge. Se requerimos invariancia gauge respecto ós campos do espacio de fondo e que as D-branas posúan carga eléctrica determínase un acoplamento do tipo

$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}Ce^{},$$
(6.1.13)
onde $`C`$ denota o pull-back no volume de universo dos correspondentes potenciais do fondo. Este é un termo topolóxico de tipo Wess-Zumino que imos denotar por $`S_{WZ}`$. Finalmente acadamos a seguinte acción para unha brana BPS

$$S=T_p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}d^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g+)}\pm T_p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p+1}}Ce^{},$$
(6.1.14)
onde o signo $`+`$ é para branas e o signo $``$ para anti-branas.

Para facer a extensión supersimétrica da acción (6.1.14) un pode adoptar dous tipos de mecanismos: a formulación de Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond, con supersimetría manifesta no volume de universo ou a formulación de Green-Schwarz (GS) con supersimetría manifesta no espacio de fondo. Ámbalas dúas levan á mesma teoría pero a ventaxa da segunda é que fai manifesta a supersimetría do fondo. O ingrediente crucial na formulación GS é unha simetría fermiónica local chamada “simetría kappa”. O papel desenvolvido pola simetría $`\kappa `$ é eliminar os grados de liberdade fermiónicos que sobran para completar supermultipletes. Esta simetría reflexa o feito de que a presencia da brana rompe a metade da supersimetría en $`D`$ dimensións, xa que fixando o gauge da simetría $`\kappa `$ redúcense á metade os grados de liberdade fermiónicos que son físicos. No capítulo 2 amósase que a acción (6.1.14) é invariante $`\kappa `$ nun superespacio plano primeiro e logo nun superespacio curvado xeral. Para configuracións bosónicas os grados de liberdade bosónicos sobrantes son eliminados escollendo o “gauge estático”, que emprega a invariancia baixo difeomorfismos en $`(p+1)`$ dimensións da teoría no volume de universo para identificar $`p+1`$ das coordenadas do espacio-tempo coas coordenadas do volume de universo. Neste gauge as coordenadas espaciais restantes son $`9p`$ campos escalares que representan as excitacións transversas da brana. A condición que fixa o gauge de simetría $`\kappa `$ é a seguinte:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ,$$
(6.1.15)
onde a matriz $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ (a matriz de simetría kappa) dada en (2.1.42) satisface que $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )^2=1`$, de tal xeito que (6.1.15) é unha condición de proxección sobre o parámetro de supersimetría $`ϵ`$.

A ecuación (6.1.15) determina a fracción de supersimetrías preservada por configuracións de branas bosónicas. Para configuracións de supergravidade con branas como fontes temos a acción da D-brana acoplada á supergravidade e a condición que fixa o gauge ten que ser complementada coas ecuacións dos espinores de Killing da supergravidade correspondente.

##### A conxetura de Maldacena

As D-branas son obxetos masivos e polo tanto crean unha xeometría curvada. A dinámica dos campos neste fondo é descrita polas ecuacións de movemento clásicas de supergravidade. Por outra banda, a dinámica de baixa enerxía das D-branas ben descrita pola acción DBI, que se reduce a $`SYM`$ cando a constante da corda $`\alpha ^{}`$ se vai a cero. A conxetura de Maldacena identifica ámbalas dúas descricións tendo en conta a súa validez no espacio de parámetros da teoría de cordas. O exemplo máis simple é a teoría IIB compactificada en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Isto corresponde á xeometría préto do horizonte dun conxunto de D3-branas paralelas e coincidentes. A fronteira de $`AdS_5`$ é o espacio-tempo de Minkowski en catro dimensións. Entón, a dinámica de baixa enerxía dos modos non masivos da corda pechada é descrita pola supergravidade dez-dimensional en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ e a dos modos da corda aberta pola acción de SYM $`𝒩=4`$. Os modos da corda pechada propáganse no fondo mentras que os modos da corda aberta están confinados no volume de universo catro dimensional das D3-branas. A interacción entre os modos da brana e do fondo obtense a partires da dependencia explícita da acción de DBI no gravitón a través do pull-back da métrica do fondo. Esta vólvese a métrica plana de Minkowski na fronteira mais fluctuacións asociadas ó gravitón. Isto é, $`G=\eta +\kappa _{10}h`$, onde $`h`$ é o gravitón.

Pódese ver que no límite $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}_s^20`$, cos parámetros $`g_s`$ e $`N`$ fixos, ambas teorías desacóplanse. Isto é porque neste límite $`\kappa _{10}\alpha ^{}0`$. O límite $`\alpha ^{}0`$ corresponde, pola parte de supergravidade, a pequeno radio de curvatura medido en unidades da lonxitude da corda $`\mathrm{}_s`$. O radio para a xeometría de D3-branas ven dado por $`R=4\pi g_sN\mathrm{}_s^4`$. Pola parte da teoría gauge a acción de DBI redúcese a $`𝒩=4`$ U(N) SYM xa que todas as correccións con derivadas de orde superior teñen potencias positivas de $`\alpha ^{}`$. Polo tanto, ficamos con dúas teorías desacopladas, supergravidade en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ e SYM $`𝒩=4`$ na fronteira de $`AdS`$. No límite $`\alpha ^{}0`$ estamos a ampliar un pequeno anaco do espacio-tempo moi préto das branas qué é expandido, xa que a métrica ten que ser reescalada para obter un resultado finito.

A teoría de cordas tipo IIB en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ é unha teoría cuántica cun grupo de isometrías $`SO(2,4)\times SO(6)`$. Por outra banda, $`𝒩=4`$ SYM en 3+1 dimensións é unha teoría de campos conformes con grupo conforme $`SO(2,4)`$. O $`SO(6)`$ da esfera pode identificarse co grupo de simetría R da teoría gauge. Polo tanto, ambalas dúas teorías teñen as mesmas supersimetrías espacio-temporais. A conxetura de Maldacena afirma que a teoría de supercordas tipo IIB en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ e $`𝒩=4`$ U(N) super Yang-Mills (definida na fronteira de $`AdS`$) son equivalentes matemáticamente. Nembargantes as dúas descricións son válidas en diferentes réximes do espacio de parámetros ou espacio de módulos (moduli space). En termos da constante de acoplamento de ’t Hooft $`\lambda g_{YM}^2N`$, que é o parámetro relevante da teoría de Yang-Mills con $`N`$ grande, o radio $`R`$ de $`AdS`$ e da esfera ven dado por

$$R^44\pi g_sN\mathrm{}_s^4g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}_s^4=\mathrm{}_s^4\lambda .$$
(6.1.16)
No límite $`N\mathrm{}`$ con $`\lambda `$ fixo, e entón $`g_sg_{YM}^20`$, un pode calcular en teoría de cordas perturbativa. Obteríase a descrición cuántica non-perturbativa de $`𝒩=4`$ SYM en termos do límite clásico de teoría de cordas. Se, asemade, consideramos o límite de acoplamento forte de SYM ($`\lambda 1`$) con $`R`$ fixo, entón

$$\frac{R^4}{\mathrm{}_s^4}g_sNg_{YM}^2N=\lambda 1,$$
(6.1.17)
e estamos a tratar entón co límite $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}_s^20`$ de teoría de cordas, e neste límite, a teoría clásica de cordas é a supergravidade clásica.

### 6.2 Barións a partires das accións de branas

Como comentamos na sección anterior a relación entre as teorías gauge e a supergravidade está na base da conxetura de Maldacena. Maldacena argumentou que existe unha dualidade extre supergravidade clásica na rexión préto do horizonte e o límite de ’t Hooft de gran $`N`$ da teoría de Yang-Mills $`SU(N)`$. En particular, temos a chamada correspondencia $`AdS/CFT`$ entre supercordas tipo IIB en $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ e SYM non abeliana $`𝒩=4`$ en catro dimensións . Neste contexto un pode calcular valores agardados de bucles de Wilson considerando unha corda aberta fundamental colocada no interior do espacio $`AdS_5`$ tendo os seus remates na fronteira. Este formalismo foi empregado para obter potenciáis de quarks tanto na teoría supersimétrica como na non supersimétrica. Inda máis, Witten  propuxo un xeito de incorporares barións considerando unha D5-brana arrollada nunha $`S^5`$ da que xurden as cordas fundamentais que rematan na D3-brana . Este é o correspondente en teoría de cordas ó vértice bariónico da teoría gauge SU(N), que representa un estado ligados de N quarks externos.

O vértice bariónico pode ser descrito dende un punto de vista do volume de universo, que permite unha descrición unificada das D5-branas e das cordas. Na referencia , foi considerado o problema da D5-brana movéndose baixo a influencia dun fondo de D3-branas. As ecuacións de movemento da D5-brana estática resólvense se un asume que os campos satisfacen unha certa ecuación diferencial BPS de primeira orde que foi obtida previamente por Imamura . Esta condición BPS pode seres integrada exactamente na rexión préto do horizonte da xeometría do fondo de D3-branas e as solucións son picos do volume de universo da D5-brana que poden ser interpretados coma feixes de cordas fundamentáis que rematan nas D3-branas. De feito, esta clase de picos son unha característica xeral da teoría gauge non linear de Dirac-Born-Infeld e poden ser empregadas para describires cordas unidas a branas .

A condición BPS para a métrica asintóticamente plana completa das D3-branas foi analizada numéricamente na referencia . Coma resultado deste estudio obtense unha descrición precisa do proceso de creación das cordas que ten lugar cando dúas branas se cruzan entre elas, i.e., do chamado efecto de Hanany-Witten . Estes resultados foron xeralizados en  para o caso de barións en teorías gauge confinantes. Asemade, na referencia  a ecuación diferencial BPS foi obtida coma unha condición que ten que ser satisfeita co elo de saturar unha cota inferior na enerxía. O capítulo 3 está baseado no artigo . Nel estúdiase a dinámica do volume de universo dunha D(8-p)-brana movéndose baixo a acción dos campos gravitacionáis e de Ramond-Ramond dun conxunto de Dp-branas de fondo con $`p6`$. A D(8-p)-brana exténdese ó longo das direccións ortogonáis ó volume de universo das Dp-branas do fondo. Para $`p=3`$ o sistema é o analizado en . Usando o método de , atopamos unha ecuación diferencial BPS de primeira orde tal que as súas solucións tamén satisfacen as ecuacións de movemento. Esta ecuación BPS foi integrada analíticamente tanto na métrica préto do horizonte coma na asintóticamente plana. Para $`p5`$ as solucións que se atopan son similares ás descritas en , i.e., o volume de universo das D(8-p)-branas ten picos que poden ser interpretados coma tubos de fluxo feitos de cordas fundamentáis. A solución analítica permite dar unha descrición da forma destes tubos, da súa enerxía e do proceso de creación de cordas a partires de volumes de universo de D-branas (ver figura 6.2).

Estas configuracións saturan unha cota BPS e son $`1/4`$ supersimétricas. Na sección 3.7 amósase que a ecuación diferencial BPS é precisamente o requerimento que un ten que impoñer ó embebemento da brana no fondo de tal xeito que se preserve $`1/4`$ da supersimetría do espacio-tempo.

### 6.3 Estabilización por fluxo

Nun artigo recente , Bachas, Douglas e Schweigert amosaron como as D-branas en variedades de grupo son estabilizadas de tal xeito que non colapsan (ver tamén ref. ). O modelo concreto estudiado en  foi o movemento dunha D2-brana na xeometría da variedade do grupo $`SU(2)`$. Topolóxicamente, $`SU(2)`$ é equivalente a unha tres-esfera $`S^3`$ e a D2-brana está embebida nesta $`S^3`$ ó longo dunha dúas-esfera $`S^2`$ que, nun sistema de coordanadas esféricas, está a ángulo de latitude $`\theta `$ constante. A dinámica da D2-brana está determinada pola acción de Dirac-Born-Infeld, na que un campo gauge está activado no volume de universo. Un ingrediente esencial nesta análise é a condición de cuantización do fluxo no volume de universo. A condición de cuantización pódese acadar acoplando a D2-brana a unha corda F1. Para o caso dunha D2-brana a condición de cuantización ven dada por

$$_{S^2}F=\frac{2\pi n}{T_f},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(6.3.1)
Empregando a condición de cuantización un pode atopar de xeito sinxelo a forma da intensidade de campo gauge no volume de universo en termos dun enteiro de cuantización, e tamén a enerxía da D2-brana. O mínimo desta enerxía determina o embebemento da brana na variedade de grupo, e isto sucede para un conxunto finito de ángulos $`\theta `$. Resulta que as configuracións estáticas atopadas por este método son estables baixo pequenas perturbacións e coinciden exactamente coas que se acadan considerando a CFT (teoría de campos conforme) correspondente a cordas abertas en variedades de grupo .

Seguindo a análise de , no capítulo 4 estúdiase o movemento dunha D(8-p)-brana no fondo dun conxunto de Dp-branas paralelas. A rexión externa da métrica das Dp-branas ten simetría rotacional $`SO(9p)`$, que é manifesta cando se escolle un sistema de coordenadas esféricas. Neste sistema de coordenadas defínese naturalmente unha esfera $`S^{8p}`$ e a condición de latitude constante na $`S^{8p}`$ determina unha $`S^{7p}`$. Se unha D(8-p)-brana se embebe neste fondo de tal xeito que estea arrollada nesta esfera a latitude constante $`S^{7p}S^{8p}`$ e extendida na dirección radial atópanse configuracións con ángulo $`\theta `$ constante (ver figura 6.3), onde o ángulo polar $`\theta `$ só pode tomar un conxunto discreto de valores que ven dado polas solucións da ecuación

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p,n}(\overline{\theta }_{p,n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},nN.$$
(6.3.2)
A condición de cuantización (6.3.1) involucra un campo magnético no volume de universo. Neste caso o campo gauge no volume de universo é eléctrico e a condición de cuantización empregada foi

$$_{S^{7p}}d^{7p}\theta \frac{}{F_{0,r}}=nT_f,$$
(6.3.3)
con $`n\mathrm{ZZ}`$.

A análise para fondos de Dp-branas foi extendido a fondos de estados ligados non-threshold, empregándose as condicións de cuantización correspondentes a campos eléctrico e magnético no volume de universo de xeito combinado e como resultado acadouse de novo un conxunto discreto de ángulos nos que a D-brana de proba correspondente era estabilizada. Estes ángulos son de novo as solucións da ecuación (6.3.2), no caso do estado ligado (NS5,Dp) con $`p=5`$. O mecanismo de estabilización por fluxo na teoría M foi estudiado na sección 4.6, onde se propuxo unha xeralización da cuantización dos campos gauge no volume de universo:

$$_{S^3}F=\frac{2\pi n}{T_{M2}},n\mathrm{ZZ}.$$
(6.3.4)
### 6.4 Gravitóns xigantes

Unha das cousas máis interesantes que xurdiron recentemente na teoría de cordas é o feito de que un sistema pode incrementar o seu tamaño cando o momento aumenta. Existen varias manifestacións deste fenómeno, que é oposto á intuición de teoría de campos estándar, en varios contextos relacionados coa teoría de cordas, como a conexión infravermella ultravioleta  ou a xeometría non conmutativa .

Na referencia  McGreevy, Susskind e Toumbas atoparon outro exemplo de crecemento en tamaño co incremento de enerxía. Estes autores consideraron unha partícula non masiva movéndose no espacio-tempo do tipo $`AdS_m\times S^{p+2}`$ e atoparon que existe unha configuración na que unha brana expandida (o gravitón xigante) ten exactamente os mesmos números cuánticos que a partícula puntual. Esta brana expandida está arrollada na parte esférica do espacio-tempo sendo estabilizada contra o seu colapso polo fluxo do campo gauge de Ramond-Ramond. O tamaño do gravitón xigante medra co momento angular e como o radio da brana non pode ser maior que o radio do espacio-tempo un atópase con que existe unha cota superior para o momento da brana. Isto é unha realización do chamado principio de exclusión da teoría de cordas. Asemade, nas referencias  foi probado que os gravitóns xigantes de  son configuracións BPS que preservan a mesma supersimetría que o gravitón puntual. Tamén foi amosado en  que existen gravitóns expandidos na parte de $`AdS`$ do espacio-tempo que, nembargantes, non teñen unha cota superior no seu momento angular debido á natureza non compacta da variedade $`AdS`$.

A imaxe física xeral que un ten a partires destes resultados é que para momentos altos a aproximación linearizada de supergravidade non é válida e un está forzado a introducires interaccións para describir a dinámica dos modos non masivos da teoría. Un procedemento efectivo para representar estas interaccións é supoñer que as partículas non masivas polarízanse e convírtense nunha brana. O mecansimo responsable desta polarización é o efecto dieléctrico de Myers .

O inflamento dos gravitóns en branas pode acontecer en fondos distintos de $`AdS_m\times S^{p+2}`$. De feito en  foron atopadas configuracións de gravitóns xigantes de D(6-p)-branas movéndose na xeometría préto do horizonte dun fondo dilatónico creado por un conxunto de Dp-branas. No capítulo 5 atópanse configuracións de gravitóns xigantes para branas de proba que se moven na xeometría creada por un conxunto de estados ligados non-threshold do tipo (D(p-2), Dp) para $`2p6`$, e exténdese esta análise para fondos de teoría M xerados por un conxunto de estados ligados non-threshold do tipo (M2,M5). Ámbolos dous fondos son $`1/2`$ supersimétricos. As solucións (D(p-2), Dp) están caracterizadas por un campo $`B`$ de Kalb-Ramond distinto de cero dirixido ó longo da Dp-brana, do sector de Neveu-Schwarz da supercorda, xunto cos correspondentes campos de RR. Neste fondo colocamos unha brana de proba de tal xeito que capture tanto o fluxo de RR como o fluxo de campo $`B`$. Este derradeiro requerimento implica que temos que extender a proba ó longo de dúas direccións paralelas ás branas de fondo, e polo tanto a proba será unha D(8-p)-brana arrollada nunha esfera $`S^{6p}`$ transversa ó fondo e extendida ó longo do plano non conmutativo paralelo ó fondo. No caso da teoría M o fondo está caracterizado por unha tres-forma autodual $`C`$ e a brana de proba é unha M5 arrollada nunha esfera $`S^2`$ e extendida ó longo dun hiperplano paralelo ó fondo de tal xeito que o fluxo do campo $`C`$ é capturado. Verifícase que con certos valores do campo gauge no volume de universo pódense atopar configuracións da D(8-p) ou da M5-brana que se comportan como unha partícula non masiva. A enerxía destes gravitóns xigantes é exactamente a mesma que a de partículas non masivas movéndose na métrica do fondo. Xenéricamente, a brana cae no centro do potencial gravitatorio ó longo dunha traxectoria que é calculada explícitamente. A proxección de supersimetría introducida pola brana rompe completamente a supersimetría do fondo do mesmo xeito que unha onda que se propaga coa velocidade do centro de masas da brana. Polo tanto, tamén dende o punto de vista de supersimetría, a brana expandida mimetiza á partícula non masiva.