text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction and Results

The fact that D-branes couple to background fluxes can allow, under the appropriate circumstances, a collection of D-branes to expand into another brane of higher dimension. Also the inverse process is observed, where higher dimensional D-branes collapse into smaller dimensional ones or even into fundamental strings. Non-supersymmetric examples of such configurations are the expansion of Born-Infeld strings , the dielectric branes  and the matrix string theory calculations of . More recent supersymmetric cases have also been constructed, like the giant gravitons in AdS spaces . All these configurations share the handicap that the perturbative quantisation of string theory is still not possible due to the presence of Ramond-Ramond fluxes.

Supertubes  are very different from the former cases because they are expanded configurations that live in a completely flat space, with all other background fields turned off. They correspond to a bound state of D0-branes and fundamental strings that expand into a D2 with tubular shape due to the addition of angular momentum. Remarkably, they also preserve 1/4 of the 32 supersymmetries of the Minkowski vacuum, unlike some other similar (but non-supersymmetric) configurations that were constructed in . Furthermore, the simplicity of the background allowed for a perturbative string-theoretical study of the supertube, beyond the probe or the supergravity approximations .

The purpose of this paper is to show that it is possible to generalise the construction of the original supertube configurations to other purely geometrical backgrounds, while still preserving some supersymmetry. This generalisation consists on choosing a type IIA background of the form $`^{1,1}\times _8`$, with $`_8`$ a curved manifold. Since we do not turn on any other supergravity field, supersymmetry restricts $`_8`$ to be one of the usual manifolds with reduced holonomy :

| $`_8`$ | Fraction of the 32 supersymmetries preserved |
| --- | --- |
| $`^4\times CY_2`$ | 1/2 |
| $`CY_2\times CY_2`$ | 1/4 |
| $`^2\times CY_3`$ | 1/4 |
| $`CY_4`$ | 1/8 |
| $`\times G_2`$ | 1/8 |
| Spin(7) | 1/8 |
| Sp(2) | 3/8 |

We will show that it is possible to supersymmetrically embed the supertube in these backgrounds in such a way that its time and longitudinal directions fill the $`^{1,1}`$ factor, while its compact direction can describe an arbitrary curve $`𝒞`$ in $`_8`$.

The problem will be analysed in two different descriptions. In the first one, we will perform a worldvolume approach by considering a D2 probe in these backgrounds with the mentioned embedding and with an electromagnetic worldvolume gauge field corresponding to the threshold bound state of D0/F1. With the knowledge of some general properties of the Killing spinors of the $`_8`$ manifolds, it will be shown, using its $`\kappa `$-symmetry, that the probe bosonic effective action is supersymmetric. As in flat space supertubes, the only charges and projections involved correspond to the D0-branes and the fundamental strings, while the D2 ones do not appear anywhere. This is why, in all cases, the preserved amount of supersymmetry will be 1/4 of the fraction already preserved by the choice of background.

Note that, in particular, this allows for configurations preserving a single supercharge, as is shown in one of the examples of this work.111This is not in contradiction with the fact that the minimal spinors in 2+1 dimensions have 2 independent components since, because of the non-vanishing electromagnetic field, the theory on the worldvolume of the D2 is not Lorentz invariant. In the other example that we present, we exploit the fact that the curve $`𝒞`$ can now wind around the non-trivial cycles that the $`_8`$ manifolds have, and construct a supertube with cylindrical shape $`\times S^1`$, with the $`S^1`$ wrapping one of the non-trivial $`S^2`$ cycles of an ALE space. In the absence of D0 and F1 charges, $`q_0`$ and $`q_s`$ respectively, the $`S^1`$ is a collapsed point in one of the poles of the $`S^2`$. As $`|q_0q_s|`$ is increased, the $`S^1`$ slides down towards the equator. Unlike in flat space, here $`|q_0q_s|`$ is bounded from above and it acquires its maximum value precisely when the $`S^1`$ is a maximal circle inside the $`S^2`$.

The second approach will be a spacetime description, where the back-reaction of the system will be taken into account, and we will be able to describe the configuration by means of a supersymmetric solution of type IIA supergravity, the low-energy effective theory of the closed string sector. Such solutions can be obtained from the original ones, found in , by simply replacing the 8-dimensional Euclidean space that appears in the metric by $`_8`$. We will show that this change is consistent with the supergravity equations of motion as long as the various functions and one-forms that were harmonic in $`𝔼^8`$ are now harmonic in $`_8`$. It will also be shown that the supergravity solution preserves the same amount of supersymmetry that was found by the probe analysis.

Physically, the construction of these generalised supertubes is possible because the cancellation of the gravitational attraction by the angular momentum is a local phenomenon. By choosing the worldvolume electric field $`E`$ such that $`E^2=1`$, and an arbitrary non-zero magnetic field $`B`$, the Poynting vector automatically acquires the required value to prevent the collapse at every point of $`𝒞`$. This remains true even after the replacement of the space where $`𝒞`$ lives from $`𝔼^8`$ by a curved $`_8`$.

This paper is organised as follows: in section 2 we analyse the system where the D2-supertube probes the $`^{1,1}\times _8`$, and prove that the effective worldvolume action for the D2 is supersymmetric using the $`\kappa `$-symmetry. In section 3 we perform the Hamiltonian analysis of the system. We show that the supersymmetric embeddings minimise the energy for given D0 and F1 charges, showing that gravity is locally compensated by the Poynting vector. In section 4 we give to examples in order to clarify and illustrate these constructions. Section 5 is devoted to the supergravity analysis of the generalised supertubes. We prove there the supersymmetry from a spacetime point of view. Conclusions are given in section 6.

## 2 Probe worldvolume analysis

In this section we will prove that the curved direction of a supertube can live in any of the usual manifolds with reduced holonomy, while still preserving some amount of supersymmetry. The analysis will be based on the $`\kappa `$-symmetry properties of the bosonic worldvolume action, and its relation with the supersymmetry transformation of the background fields.

### 2.1 The setup

As announced, we consider a general IIA background of the form $`^{1,1}\times _8`$, with $`_8`$ a possibly curved manifold. In the absence of fluxes, the requirement that the background preserves some supersymmetry222In , a first attempt to construct supertubes in curved spaces was performed. Their configurations are not supersymmetric because the backgrounds already destroy all supersymmetries. implies that $`_8`$ must admit covariantly constant spinors and, therefore, a holonomy group smaller than $`SO(8)`$. The classification of such manifolds is well-known , and the only possible choices for $`_8`$ are shown in the table of the introduction.

Let us write the target space metric as

$$\mathrm{d}s_{IIA}^2=(\mathrm{d}x^0)^2+(\mathrm{d}x^1)^2+e^{\underset{¯}{i}}e^{\underset{¯}{j}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{ij}},e^{\underset{¯}{i}}=\mathrm{d}y^je_j{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{i}},i,j=2,3,\mathrm{},9,$$
(2.1)
where $`e^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ is the vielbein of a Ricci-flat metric on $`_8`$. Underlined indices refer to tangent space objects. We will embed the supertube in such a way that its time and longitudinal directions live in $`^{1,1}`$ while its curved direction describes an arbitrary curve $`𝒞`$ in $`_8`$. By naming the D2 worldvolume coordinates $`\{\sigma ^0,\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2\}`$, such an embedding is determined by

$$x^0=\sigma ^0,x^1=\sigma ^1,y^i=y^i(\sigma ^2),$$
(2.2)
where $`y^i`$ are arbitrary functions of $`\sigma ^2`$. The assignment of $`\sigma ^0`$ and $`\sigma ^1`$, i.e. the fact that $`y^i`$ is independent of $`\sigma ^0`$ and $`\sigma ^1`$, is a choice of parametrization.333In this sense, the apparently rotating supertubes considered in  are indeed equivalent, through a worldvolume reparametrisation, to the ordinary supertubes in flat space.

Let us remark that, in general, the curve $`𝒞`$ will be contractible in $`_8`$. As a consequence, due to gravitational self-attraction, the compact direction of the D2 will naturally tend to collapse to a point.

Following , we will stabilise the D2 by turning on an electromagnetic flux in its worldvolume

$$F_\mathit{2}=E\mathrm{d}\sigma ^0\mathrm{d}\sigma ^1+B\mathrm{d}\sigma ^1\mathrm{d}\sigma ^2,$$
(2.3)
which will provide the necessary centrifugal force to compensate the gravitational attraction. In this paper we will restrict to static configurations.

The effective action of the D2 is the DBI action (the Wess-Zumino term vanishes in our purely geometrical backgrounds),

$$S=_{^{1,1}\times C}d\sigma ^0d\sigma ^1d\sigma ^2_{DBI},_{DBI}=\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{det[g+F]},$$
(2.4)
where $`g`$ is the induced metric determined by the embedding $`x^M(\sigma ^\mu )`$, and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field strength. $`M`$ denotes the spacetime components $`0,1,\mathrm{},9`$, and $`\mu `$ labels the worldvolume coordinates $`\mu =0,1,2`$. The $`\kappa `$-symmetry imposes restrictions on the background supersymmetry transformation when only worldvolume bosonic configurations are considered. Basically we get $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa ϵ=ϵ`$ (see e.g. ), where $`ϵ`$ is the background Killing spinor and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ (see e.g. ) is a matrix that squares to 1:

$$\mathrm{d}^3\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left[\gamma _\mathit{3}+\gamma _\mathit{1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}F_\mathit{2}\right].$$
(2.5)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is the chirality matrix in ten dimensions (in our conventions it squares to one), and the other definitions are

$`\gamma _\mathit{3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\sigma ^0\mathrm{d}\sigma ^1\mathrm{d}\sigma ^2_0x^M_1x^N_2x^Pe_M{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}e_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{N}}e_{P}^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{P}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{MNP}}^{},`$
$`\gamma _\mathit{1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\sigma ^\mu _\mu x^Me_M{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{M}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{M}}^{}.`$ (2.6)
where $`e_M^{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ are the vielbeins of the target space and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ are the flat gamma matrices. We are using Greek letters for worldvolume indices and Latin characters for the target space.

We are now ready to see under which circumstances can the configuration (2.2), (2.3) be supersymmetric. This is determined by the condition for $`\kappa `$-symmetry, which becomes

$$[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}\underset{¯}{1}}\gamma _2+E\gamma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}+B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }]ϵ=0,$$
(2.7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=B^2+y^{\underset{¯}{i}}y^{\underset{¯}{i}}(1E^2),y^{\underset{¯}{i}}=y^ie_i{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{i}},\gamma _2=y^{\underset{¯}{i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{i}},y^i:=_2y^i.$$
(2.8)
The solutions of (2.7) for $`ϵ`$ are the Killing spinors of the background, determining the remaining supersymmetry.

### 2.2 Proof of worldvolume supersymmetry

In this section we shall prove that the previous configurations always preserve $`1/4`$ of the remaining background supersymmetries preserved by the choice of $`_8`$. We will show that the usual supertube projections are necessary and sufficient in all cases except when we do not require that the curve $`𝒞`$ is arbitrary and it lies completely within the flat directions that $`_8`$ may have. Therefore we first discuss the arbitrary case, and after that, we deal with the special situation.

Arbitrary Curve: If we demand that the configuration is supersymmetric for any arbitrary curve in $`_8`$, then all the terms in (2.7) that contain the derivatives $`y^i(\sigma ^2)`$ must vanish independently of those that do not contain them. The vanishing of the first ones (those containing $`\gamma _2`$) give

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}\underset{¯}{1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=EϵE^2=1,\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}\underset{¯}{1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=sign(E)ϵ,$$
(2.9)
which signals the presence of fundamental strings in the longitudinal direction of the tube. Now, when $`E^2=1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=|B|`$, and the vanishing of the terms independent of $`y^i(\sigma ^2)`$ in (2.7) give

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=sign(B)ϵ,$$
(2.10)
which signals the presence of D0 branes dissolved in the worldvolume of the supertube. Since both projections, (2.9) and (2.10), commute, the configuration will preserve $`1/4`$ of the background supersymmetries as long as they also commute with all the projections imposed by the background itself.

It is easy to prove that this will always be the case. Since the target space is of the form $`^{1,1}\times _8`$, the only nontrivial conditions that its Killing spinors have to fulfil are

$$_iϵ=\left(_i+\frac{1}{4}w_i{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{jk}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{jk}}^{}\right)ϵ=0,$$
(2.11)
with all indices only on $`_8`$ (which in our ordering, means $`2i9`$). If one prefers, the integrability condition can be written as

$$[_i,_j]ϵ=\frac{1}{4}R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{kl}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{kl}}^{}ϵ=0.$$
(2.12)
In either form, all the conditions on the background spinors involve only a sum of terms with two (or none) gamma matrices of $`_8`$. It is then clear that such projections will always commute with the F1 and the D0 ones, since they do not involve any gamma matrix of $`_8`$.

To complete the proof, one must take into account further possible problems that could be caused by the fact that the projections considered so far are applied to background spinors which are not necessarily constant. To see that this does not change the results, note that (2.11) implies that all the dependence of $`ϵ`$ on the $`_8`$ coordinates $`y^i`$ must be of the form

$$ϵ=M(y)ϵ_0,$$
(2.13)
with $`ϵ_0`$ a constant spinor, and $`M(y^i)`$ a matrix that involves only products of even number of gamma matrices on $`_8`$ (it may well happen that $`M(y)=\text{ }\text{}`$). Now, any projection on $`ϵ`$ can be translated to a projection on $`ϵ_0`$ since

$$Pϵ=ϵ,\text{with}P^2=\text{ }\text{},TrP=0,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{P}ϵ_0=ϵ_0,\text{with}\stackrel{~}{P}M^1(y)PM(y),\stackrel{~}{P}^2=\text{ }\text{},Tr\stackrel{~}{P}=0.$$
(2.14)
The only subtle point here is that, if some of the $`ϵ_0`$ have to survive, the product of $`M^1(y)PM(y)`$ must be a constant matrix444Note that it is not necessary that $`P`$ commutes with $`M(y)`$.. But this is always the case for all the projections related to the presence of $`_8`$, since we know that such spaces preserve some Killing spinors. Finally, it is also the case for the F1 and D0 projections, since they commute with any even number of gamma matrices on $`_8`$.

The conclusion is that, for an arbitrary curve in $`_8`$ to preserve supersymmetry, it is necessary and sufficient to impose the F1 and D0 projections. In all cases, it will preserve $`1/4`$ of the background supersymmetry. We will illustrate this with particular examples in section 4.

Non-Arbitrary Curve: If we now give up the restriction that the curve must be arbitrary, we can still show that the F1 and D0 projection are necessary and sufficient, except for those cases in which the curve lies entirely in the flat directions that $`_8`$ may have. Of course, the former discussion shows that such projections are always sufficient, so we will now study in which cases they are necessary as well.

In order to proceed, we need to prove an intermediate result.

Lemma: If the velocity of the curve does not point in a flat direction of $`_8`$, then the background spinor always satisfies at least one projection like

$$Pϵ=Qϵ,\text{such that}[P,\gamma _2]=0,\{Q,\gamma _2\}=0,$$
(2.15)
with $`P`$ and $`Q`$ a non-vanishing sum of terms involving only an even number of gamma matrices, and $`Q`$ invertible.

To prove this, we move to a point of the curve that lies in a curved direction of $`_8`$, i.e. a point where not all components of $`R_{ij}^{\underset{¯}{kl}}`$ are zero. We perform a rotation in the tangent space such that the velocity of the curve points only in one of the curved directions, e.g.

$$y^{\underset{¯}{9}}0,y^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0,a=2,\mathrm{},8,R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{a9}0,$$
(2.16)
at least one choice of $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`a`$, and where we use the definitions of (2.8). With this choice, $`\gamma _2`$ becomes simply $`\gamma _2=y^{\underset{¯}{9}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{9}}`$. Therefore, at least one of the equations in (2.12) can be split in

$$\left(R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ab}}^{}+R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a9}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a9}}^{}\right)ϵ=0,$$
(2.17)
with the definitions

$$P=R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ab}}^{},Q=R_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a9}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a9}}^{}.$$
(2.18)
The assumption (2.16) implies that $`Q`$ is nonzero and invertible, as the square of $`Q`$ is a negative definite multiple of the unit matrix. This implies that also $`P`$ is non-zero since, otherwise, $`ϵ`$ would have to be zero and this is against the fact that all the listed $`_8`$ manifolds admit covariantly constant spinors. It is now immediate to check that $`\gamma _2`$ commutes with $`P`$ while it anticommutes with $`Q`$, which completes the proof.

We can now apply this lemma and rewrite one of the conditions in (2.12) as an equation of the kind (2.15). We then multiply the $`\kappa `$-symmetry condition (2.7) by $`PQ`$. Clearly only the first two terms survive, and we can write

$$0=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01}}E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right](PQ)\gamma _2ϵ=2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01}}E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right]\gamma _2Qϵ=2\gamma _2Q\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01}}+E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right]ϵ.$$
(2.19)
Since $`(\gamma _2)^2=y_i^{}y^i`$ cannot be zero if the curve is not degenerate, we just have to multiply with $`Q^1\gamma _2`$ to find again (2.9). Plugging this back into (2.7) gives the remaining D0 condition (2.10).

Summarising, the usual supertube conditions are always necessary and sufficient except for those cases where the curve is not required to be arbitrary and lives entirely in flat space; then, they are just sufficient. For example, one could choose $`𝒞`$ to be a straight line in one of the $``$ factors that some of the $`_8`$ have, and take a constant $`B`$, which would correspond to a planar D2-brane preserving $`1/2`$ of the background supersymmetry.

## 3 Hamiltonian analysis

We showed that in order for the supertube configurations (2.2), (2.3) to be supersymmetric we needed $`E^2=1`$, but we found no restriction on the magnetic field $`B(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)`$. We shall now check that some conditions must hold in order to solve the equations of motion of the Maxwell fields. We will go through the Hamiltonian analysis which will enable us to show that these supertubes saturate a BPS bound which, in turn, implies the second-order Lagrange equations of the submanifold determined by the constraints. We will restrict to time-independent configurations, which we have checked to be compatible with the full equations of motion. The Lagrangian is then given by (2.4)

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{B^2+R^2(1E^2)},$$
(3.1)
where we have defined $`R^2=y^{\underset{¯}{i}}y_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{}`$, and $`R>0`$. To obtain the Hamiltonian we first need the displacement field,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{}{E}=\frac{ER^2}{\sqrt{B^2+(1E^2)R^2}},$$
(3.2)
which can be inverted to give

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{R}\sqrt{\frac{B^2+R^2}{R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2}},\mathrm{\Delta }=R\sqrt{\frac{B^2+R^2}{R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2}}.$$
(3.3)
The Lagrange equations for $`A_0`$ and $`A_2`$ give two constraints

$$_1\mathrm{\Pi }=0,_1\left(\frac{B}{R}\sqrt{\frac{R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{B^2+R^2}}\right)=0,$$
(3.4)
the first one being the usual Gauss law. Together, they imply that $`_1B=0`$, i.e., the magnetic field can only depend on $`\sigma ^2`$. Finally, the equations for $`A_1`$ and $`y^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ give, respectively,

$$_2\left(\frac{B}{R}\sqrt{\frac{R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{B^2+R^2}}\right)=0,_2\left[2y^{\underset{¯}{i}}\frac{R^4\mathrm{\Pi }^2B^2}{R^2\sqrt{(R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2)(R^2+B^2)}}\right]=0.$$
(3.5)
The Hamiltonian density is given by

$$=E\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{R}\sqrt{(R^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2)(B^2+R^2)}.$$
(3.6)
In order to obtain a BPS bound , we rewrite the square of the Hamiltonian density as

$$^2=\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\pm B\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }B}{R}R\right)^2,$$
(3.7)
from which we obtain the local inequality

$$|\mathrm{\Pi }\pm B|,$$
(3.8)
which can be saturated only if

$$R^2=y^{\underset{¯}{i}}y_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{}=\pm \mathrm{\Pi }BE^2=1.$$
(3.9)
It can be checked that the configurations saturating this bound satisfy the remaining equations of motion (3.5).

Note that the Poynting vector generated by the electromagnetic field is always tangent to the curve $`𝒞`$ and its modulus is precisely $`|\mathrm{\Pi }B|`$. We can then use exactly the same arguments as in . Equation (3.9) tells us that, once we set $`E^2=1`$, and regardless of the value of $`B(\sigma ^2)`$, the Poynting vector is automatically adjusted to provide the required centripetal force that compensates the gravitational attraction at every point of $`𝒞`$. The only difference with respect to the original supertubes in flat space is that the curvature of the background is taken into account in (3.9), through the explicit dependence of $`R^2`$ on the metric of $`_8`$.

Finally, the integrated version of the BPS bound (3.8) is

$$\tau |q_0\pm q_s|,\text{with}\tau _𝒞d\sigma ^2,q_0_𝒞d\sigma ^2B,q_s_𝒞d\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Pi }.$$
(3.10)
and the normalisation $`0\sigma ^2<1`$. Similarly, the integrated bound is saturated when

$$L(𝒞)=_𝒞d\sigma ^2\sqrt{g_{22}}=_𝒞d\sigma ^2\sqrt{y^{\underset{¯}{i}}y_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{}}=_𝒞d\sigma ^2\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Pi }B|}=\sqrt{|q_sq_0|},$$
(3.11)
where $`L(𝒞)`$ is precisely the proper length of the curve $`𝒞`$, and the last equality is only valid when both $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`B`$ are constant, as will be the case in our examples.

## 4 Examples

After having discussed the general construction of supertubes in reduced holonomy manifolds, we shall now present two examples in order to illustrate some of their physical features.

### 4.1 Supertubes in ALE spaces: 4 supercharges

Let us choose $`_8`$$`=^4\times CY_2`$, i.e. the full model being $`^{1,5}\times CY_2`$. We take the $`CY_2`$ to be an ALE space provided with a multi-Eguchi–Hanson metric

$`\mathrm{d}s_{(4)}^2=V^1(\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{y}\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{y}+V(\stackrel{}{y})\left(\mathrm{d}\psi +\stackrel{}{A}\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{y}\right)^2,`$
$`V^1(\stackrel{}{y})={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{|\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_r|}},\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{}V^1(\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (4.1)
with $`\stackrel{}{y}^3`$. These metrics describe a $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`^3`$, the circles being parametrized by $`\psi [0,1]`$. They present $`N`$ removable bolt singularities at the points $`\stackrel{}{y}_r`$, where the $`U(1)`$ fibres contract to a point. Therefore, a segment connecting any two such points, together with the fibre, form (topologically) an $`S^2`$. For simplicity, we will just consider the two-monopoles case which, without loss of generality, can be placed at $`\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}=(0,0,b)`$. Therefore, the complete IIA background is

$$\mathrm{d}s_{IIA}^2=(\mathrm{d}x^0)^2+(\mathrm{d}x^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(\mathrm{d}x^5)^2+\mathrm{d}s_{(4)}^2,$$
(4.2)
with

$$V^1(\stackrel{}{y})=\frac{Q}{|\stackrel{}{y}|}+\frac{Q}{|\stackrel{}{y}(0,0,b)|}.$$
(4.3)
Let us embed the D2 supertube in a way such that its longitudinal direction lies in $`^5`$ while its compact one wraps and $`S^1`$ inside the $`S^2`$ that connects the two monopoles. More explicitly,

$$X^0=\sigma ^0,X^1=\sigma _1,\psi =\sigma ^2,y^3=\text{const.},y^1=y^2=0.$$
(4.4)
Since any $`S^1`$ is contractible inside an $`S^2`$, the curved part would tend collapse to the nearest pole, located at $`y^3=0`$ or $`y^3=b`$. As in flat space, we therefore need to turn on a worldvolume flux as in (2.3), with $`E`$ and $`B`$ constant for the moment.

According to our general discussion, this configuration should preserve $`1/4`$ of the 16 background supercharges already preserved by the $`ALE`$ space. In this case, the $`\kappa `$-symmetry equation is simply

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{01\psi }}+E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{\psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}+B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)ϵ=0,$$
(4.5)
where $`ϵ`$ are the Killing spinors of the background (4.2). They can easily be computed and shown to be just constant spinors subject to the projection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{y^1y^2y^3\psi }}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(4.6)
Then, the $`\kappa `$-symmetry equation can be solved by requiring (2.9) and (2.10), which involve the usual D0/F1 projections of the supertube. Since they commute with (4.6), the configuration preserves a total of $`1/8`$ of the 32 supercharges.

It is interesting to see what are the consequences of having $`E^2=1`$ for this case. Note that, from our general Hamiltonian analysis, we saw that, for fixed D0 and F1 charges, the energy is minimised for $`E^2=1`$. When applied to the present configuration, (3.11) reads

$$V(y^3)=|q_0q_s|.$$
(4.7)
which determines $`y^3`$, and therefore selects the position of the $`S^1`$ inside the $`S^2`$ that is compatible with supersymmetry. Since $`V(y^3)`$ is invariant under $`y^3(by^3)`$, the solutions always come in mirror pairs with respect to the equator of the $`S^2`$. The explicit solutions are indeed

$$y_\pm ^3=\frac{b}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{4Q}{b}|q_0q_s|}\right).$$
(4.8)
Note that a solution exists as long as the product of the charges is bounded from above to

$$|q_0q_s|\frac{b}{4Q}.$$
(4.9)
The point is that this will always happen due to the fact that, contrary to the flat space case, the $`S^1`$ cannot grow arbitrarily within the $`S^2`$. As a consequence, the angular momentum acquires its maximum value when the $`S^1`$ is precisely in the equator. To see it more explicitly, setting $`E^2=1`$ and computing $`q_0`$ and $`q_s`$ for our configuration gives

$$|q_0q_s|=V(y^3)V(y^3\frac{b}{2})=\frac{b}{4Q},$$
(4.10)
which guarantees that (4.9) is always satisfied.

Finally, note that we could have perfectly chosen, for instance, a more sophisticated embedding in which $`y^3`$ was not constant. This would be the analogue of taking a non-constant radius in the original flat space supertube. Again, by the general analysis of the previous sections, this would require the Poynting vector to vary in order to locally compensate for the gravitational attraction everywhere, and no further supersymmetry would be broken.

### 4.2 Supertubes in $`CY_4`$ spaces: 1 supercharge

The purpose of the next example is to show how one can reach a configuration with one single surviving supercharge in a concrete example. One could take any of the $`1/8`$-preserving backgrounds of the $`_8`$ Table. Many metrics for these spaces have been recently found in the context of supergravity duals of non-maximally supersymmetric field theories. Let us take the $`CY_4`$ that was found in  since the Killing spinors have been already calculated explicitly . This space is a $`C^2`$ bundle over $`S^2\times S^2`$, and the metric is

$`\mathrm{d}s_{(CY_4)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`A(r)\left[\mathrm{d}\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{d}\varphi _1^2+\mathrm{d}\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2^2\right]+U^1\mathrm{d}r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}\left(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi ^2\right)+`$ (4.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Ur^2\left(\mathrm{d}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{d}\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2\right)^2,`$
where

$$A(r)=\frac{3}{2}(r^2+l^2),U(r)=\frac{3r^4+8l^2r^2+6l^4}{6(r^2+l^2)^2},C(r)=\frac{1}{4}Ur^2.$$
(4.12)
By writing the complete IIA background metric as

$$\mathrm{d}s_{IIA}^2=(\mathrm{d}x^0)^2+(\mathrm{d}x^1)^2+\mathrm{d}s_{(CY_4)}^2,$$
(4.13)
and using the obvious vielbeins, with the order

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 9\\ \theta _1& \theta _2& \varphi _2& \varphi _1& r& \theta & \varphi & \psi \end{array}$$
(4.14)
the corresponding Killing spinors are

$$ϵ=\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{78}}}ϵ_0,$$
(4.15)
with $`ϵ_0`$ a constant spinor subject to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{25}}ϵ_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{34}}ϵ_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{25}}ϵ_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{78}}ϵ_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{67}}ϵ_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{98}}ϵ_0.$$
(4.16)
To analyse $`\kappa `$-symmetry, let us take the compact part of the supertube to lie along, say, the $`\varphi _1`$ direction, while setting to constant the rest of the $`CY_4`$ coordinates. As in the previous example, this would have the interpretation of an $`S^1`$ embedding in one of the two $`S^2`$ in the base of the $`CY_4`$. Imposing $`\kappa `$-symmetry:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{015}}+E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{5}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}+B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)ϵ=0.$$
(4.17)
Now, the first projection of (4.16) happens to anticommute with the $`\gamma _2`$ defined in (2.8)

$$\gamma _2=y^ie_i{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{}=A^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{5}}.$$
(4.18)
In other words, this just illustrates a particular case of (2.15) for which the direction $`\underset{¯}{5}`$ plays the role of $`\underset{¯}{9}`$, and for which $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{34}}`$ and $`Q=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{25}}`$. We can now follow the steps in section 2.2 and multiply (4.17) by $`PQ`$. This yields again the usual supertube conditions (2.9) and (2.10).

Since all the gamma matrices appearing in (4.16), (2.9) and (2.10) commute, square to one and are traceless, the configuration preserves only one of the 32 supercharges of the theory. Of course, this is not in contradiction with the fact that the minimal spinors in 2+1 dimensions have 2 components, since the field theory on the worldvolume of the D2 is not Lorentz invariant because of the non-vanishing electromagnetic field.

## 5 Supergravity analysis

In this section we construct the supergravity family of solutions that correspond to all the configurations studied before. We start our work with a generalisation of the ansatz used in  to find the original solutions. Our analysis is performed in eleven dimensional supergravity, mainly because its field content is much simpler than in IIA supergravity. Once the eleven-dimensional solution is found, we reduce back to ten dimensions, obtaining our generalised supertube configurations.

The first step in finding the solutions is to look for supergravity configurations with the isometries and supersymmetries suggested by the worldvolume analysis of the previous sections. Then, we will turn to the supergravity field equations to find the constraints that the functions of our ansatz have to satisfy in order that our configurations correspond to minima of the eleventh dimensional action. Finally, we choose the correct behaviour for these functions so that they correctly describe the supertubes once the reduction to ten dimensions is carried on.

### 5.1 Supersymmetry analysis

Our starting point is the supertube ansatz of

$`\mathrm{d}s_{\mathit{10}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`U^1V^{1/2}(\mathrm{d}tA)^2+U^1V^{1/2}\mathrm{d}x^2+V^{1/2}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^j,`$
$`B_\mathit{2}`$ $`=`$ $`U^1(\mathrm{d}tA)\mathrm{d}x+\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}x,`$
$`C_\mathit{1}`$ $`=`$ $`V^1(\mathrm{d}tA)+\mathrm{d}t,`$
$`C_\mathit{3}`$ $`=`$ $`U^1\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}xA,`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`U^{1/2}V^{3/4},`$ (5.1)
where the Euclidean space ($`𝔼_8`$) coordinates are labelled by $`y^i`$, with $`i,j,\mathrm{}=(2,\mathrm{},9)`$, $`V=1+K`$, $`A=A_i\mathrm{d}y^i`$ and $`B_\mathit{2}`$ and $`C_p`$ are respectively, the Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond-Ramond potentials. $`V,U,A_i`$ depend only on the $`𝔼_8`$ coordinates.

To up-lift this ansatz, we use the normal Kaluza-Klein form of the eleven dimensional metric and three-form,

$`\mathrm{d}s_{\mathit{11}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi /3}\mathrm{d}s_{\mathit{10}}^2+e^{4\varphi /3}(\mathrm{d}z+C_\mathit{1})^2,`$
$`N_\mathit{3}`$ $`=`$ $`C_\mathit{3}+B_\mathit{2}\mathrm{d}z,`$ (5.2)
where $`N_\mathit{3}`$ is the eleventh dimensional three-form. The convention for curved indices is $`M=(\mu ;i)=(t,z,x;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},3,\mathrm{}9)`$ and for flat ones $`A=(\alpha ;a)=(\underset{¯}{t},\underset{¯}{z},\underset{¯}{x};\underset{¯}{2},\underset{¯}{3}\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{9})`$. The explicit form of the eleven-dimensional metric is given by,

$`\mathrm{d}s_{\mathit{11}}^2=U^{2/3}\left[\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}z^2+K(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z)^2+2(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z)A+\mathrm{d}x^2\right]+U^{1/3}\mathrm{d}s_\mathit{8}^2,`$
$`F_\mathit{4}=\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}(U^1)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}z(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}(U^1A),`$ (5.3)
where $`F_\mathit{4}=\mathrm{d}N_\mathit{3}`$. This background is a solution of the equations of motion in eleven dimensions derived from the action

$$S_{11d}=[R1\frac{1}{2}F_\mathit{4}F_\mathit{4}+\frac{1}{3}F_\mathit{4}F_\mathit{4}N_\mathit{3}],$$
(5.4)
when the two functions $`K`$ and $`U`$, as well as the one-form $`A_\mathit{1}`$, are harmonic in $`𝔼_8`$, i.e.,

$$(\mathrm{d}_8\mathrm{d})U=0,(\mathrm{d}_8\mathrm{d})K=0,(\mathrm{d}_8\mathrm{d})A_\mathit{1}=0,$$
(5.5)
where $`_8`$ is the Hodge dual with respect to the Euclidean flat metric on $`𝔼^8`$. It describes a background with an M2 brane along the directions $`\{t,z,x\}`$, together with a wave traveling along $`z`$, and angular momentum along $`𝔼^8`$ provided by $`A_\mathit{1}`$.

Next, we generalise the ansatz above by replacing $`𝔼^8`$ by one of the eight dimensional $`_8`$ manifolds of the table, and by allowing $`K`$, $`U`$ and $`A_\mathit{1}`$ to have an arbitrary dependence on the $`_8`$ coordinates $`y^i`$. We therefore replace the previously flat metric on $`𝔼^8`$ by a reduced holonomy metric on $`_8`$, with vielbeins $`\stackrel{~}{e}^a`$. Hence, in (5.3), we replace

$$U^{1/3}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^jU^{1/3}\delta _{ab}\stackrel{~}{e}^a\stackrel{~}{e}^b.$$
(5.6)
We use a null base of the cotangent space, defined by

$`e^+=U^{2/3}(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z),e^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}z){\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z)A,`$ (5.7)
$`e^x=U^{1/3}\mathrm{d}x,e^a=U^{1/6}\stackrel{~}{e}^a.`$
This brings the metric and $`F_\mathit{4}`$ into the form

$$\mathrm{d}s_{\mathit{11}}^2=2e^+e^{}+e^xe^x+\delta _{ab}e^ae^b,F_\mathit{4}=U^1\mathrm{d}Ue^xe^+e^{}\mathrm{d}Ae^xe^+.$$
(5.8)
As customary, the torsion-less condition can be used to determine the spin connection 1-form $`\omega _{AB}`$. In our null base, the only non-zero components are

$`\omega _+={\displaystyle \frac{U_a}{3U}}e^a,\omega _{+a}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{K}_ae^+{\displaystyle \frac{U_a}{3U}}e^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{ab}e^b,\omega _a={\displaystyle \frac{U_a}{3U}}e^+,`$
$`\omega _{xa}={\displaystyle \frac{U_a}{3U}}e^x,\omega _{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{U_b}{6U}}e^a{\displaystyle \frac{U^a}{6U}}e^b+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{ab}e^+,`$ (5.9)
were we have defined various tensor quantities through the relations

$$\mathrm{d}U=U_ae^a,\mathrm{d}K=\stackrel{~}{K}_a\stackrel{~}{e}^a,\mathrm{d}A=\frac{1}{2}a_{ab}e^ae^b,$$
(5.10)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{bc}`$ are the spin connection one-forms corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{e}^a`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{e}^a+\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{}^{b}=0`$.

We now want to see under which circumstances our backgrounds preserve some supersymmetry. Since we are in a bosonic background i.e. all the fermions are set to zero, we just need to ensure that the variation of the gravitino vanishes when evaluated on our configurations. In other words, supersymmetry is preserved if there exist nonzero background spinors $`ϵ`$ such that555For the components of $`p`$-forms we use the notations of .

$$\left(_A+\frac{1}{4}\omega _A{}_{}{}^{BC}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^{}\frac{1}{288}\mathrm{\Gamma }_A{}_{}{}^{BCDE}F_{BCDE}^{}+\frac{1}{36}F_{ABCD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{BCD}\right)ϵ=0.$$
(5.11)
We will try an ansatz such that the spinor depends only on the coordinates on $`_8`$. It is straightforward to write down the eleven equations (5.11) for each value of $`A=\{+,,x,a\}`$. The equation for $`A=x`$ is

$$\frac{U_a}{6U}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\right)ϵ\frac{a_{ab}}{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=0.$$
(5.12)
Assuming that $`a_{ab}`$ and $`\alpha _a`$ are arbitrary and independent we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=0,\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_xϵ=ϵ.$$
(5.13)
Using these projections, it is a straightforward algebraic work to see that the equation for $`A=+`$ and $`A=`$ are automatically satisfied. Finally, the equations for $`A=a`$ simplify to

$$_iϵ\left(_i+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i{}_{}{}^{bc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{}\right)ϵ=0.$$
(5.14)
By the same arguments as in the previous sections, the projections (5.13) preserve 1/4 of the 32 real supercharges. On the other hand, (5.14) is just the statement that $`_8`$ must admit covariantly constant spinors. Depending on the choice of $`_8`$, the whole 11d background will preserve the expected total number of supersymmetries that we indicated in the table written in the introduction.

To reduce back to IIA supergravity, we first go to another flat basis

$$e^+=U^{1/3}V^{1/2}\left(e^0+e^z\right),e^{}=\frac{1}{2}U^{1/3}V^{1/2}\left(e^0e^z\right),$$
(5.15)
which implies that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=U^{1/3}V^{1/2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_z\right).$$
(5.16)
We reduce along $`z`$, i.e. replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. The projections (5.13) become the usual D0/F1 projections, with the fundamental strings along the $`x`$-axis.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=ϵ,\text{and}ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }_xϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ.$$
(5.17)
### 5.2 Equations of motion

Now that we have proved that the correct supersymmetry is preserved (matching the worldvolume analysis), we proceed to determine the equations that $`U`$, $`K`$ and $`A_\mathit{1}`$ have to satisfy in order that our configurations solve the field equations of eleven-dimensional supergravity. Instead of checking each of the equations of motion, we use the analysis of  that is based on the integrability condition derived from the supersymmetry variation of the gravitino (5.11). The result of this analysis is that when at least one supersymmetry is preserved, and the Killing vector $`𝒦_\mu \overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ`$ is null, all of the second order equations of motion are automatically satisfied, except for

1. The equation of motion for $`F_\mathit{4}`$,
2. The Einstein equation $`E_{++}=T_{++}`$,

where $`E_{++}`$ and $`T_{++}`$ are the Einstein and stress-energy tensors along the components $`++`$ in a base where $`𝒦_\mu =\delta _\mu ^+𝒦_+`$. Let us explain why the above statement is correct. The integrability conditions give no information about the field equation for the matter content, therefore the equation of motion for $`F_\mathit{4}`$ has to be verified by hand. Also, in most cases all of the Einstein equations are automatically implied by the existence of a non-trivial solution of (5.11).

With (5.13) and in the base where the metric takes the form (5.8), and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=2`$, we have

$$𝒦_\mu =\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ=\frac{1}{2}\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+ϵ.$$
(5.18)
This vanishes for all $`\mu `$ except $`\mu =+`$, implying that our configuration falls into the classification of those backgrounds that admit a null Killing spinor and as a consequence the associated Einstein equations escape the analysis. We thus have to check the two items mentioned above.

Let us start with the equation for $`F_\mathit{4}`$, which is

$$\mathrm{d}F_\mathit{4}+F_\mathit{4}F_\mathit{4}=0.$$
(5.19)
Using the fact that the Hodge dual of a p-form with respect to $`e^a`$ is related to the one with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{e}^a`$ by

$$_8C_p=U^{(4p)/3}\stackrel{~}{}_8C_p,$$
(5.20)
where

$$C_p=\frac{1}{p!}C_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}\stackrel{~}{e}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{a_p}\stackrel{~}{}_8C_p=\frac{1}{p!(8p)!}C_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8}\stackrel{~}{e}^{a_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{a_8},$$
(5.21)
it is easy to see that (5.19) becomes

$$0=(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})U+(\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}z)(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})A.$$
(5.22)
This implies that $`U`$ and $`A_\mathit{1}`$ must be harmonic with respect to the metric of $`_8`$, i.e.,

$$(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})U=0,(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})A_\mathit{1}=0.$$
(5.23)
Finally, using (5.8) and (5.9), one can explicitly compute the $`\{++\}`$ components of the Einstein and stress-energy tensors, and obtain

$`E_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{++}=\frac{1}{2}U^{1/3}(\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})K+\frac{1}{2}_8(\mathrm{d}A_8\mathrm{d}A),`$
$`T_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{12}F_{+ABC}F_+{}_{}{}^{ABC}=\frac{1}{2}_8(\mathrm{d}A_8\mathrm{d}A),`$ (5.24)
Therefore, the last non-trivial equation of motion tells us that also $`K`$ must be harmonic on $`_8`$,

$$(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{}_8\mathrm{d})K=0.$$
(5.25)
### 5.3 Constructing the supertube

In order to construct the supergravity solutions that properly describe supertubes in reduced holonomy manifolds, we reduce our eleven-dimensional background to a ten-dimensional background of type IIA supergravity, using (5.2) again. We obtain (5.1) with the replacement (5.6), and the constraints (5.23) and (5.25). At this point we have to choose $`U`$, $`K`$ and $`A_\mathit{1}`$ so that they describe a D2-brane with worldvolume $`^{1,1}\times 𝒞`$, with $`𝒞`$ an arbitrary curve in $`_8`$. As it was done in , one should couple IIA supergravity to a source with support along $`^{1,1}\times 𝒞`$, and solve the $`_8`$ Laplace equations (5.23) and (5.25) with such a source term in the right hand sides. If this has to correspond to the picture of D0/F1 bound states expanded into a D2 by rotation, the boundary conditions of the Laplace equations must be such that the solution carries the right conserved charges. In the appropriate units,

$$q_0=__8\stackrel{~}{}_8dC_\mathit{1},q_s=__8\stackrel{~}{}_8dB_\mathit{2},A_\mathit{1}\stackrel{_8}{}L_{ij}y^j\mathrm{d}y^i.$$
(5.26)
Here, as in , $`L_{ij}`$ would have to match with the angular momentum carried by the electromagnetic field that we considered in the worldvolume approach.

The Laplace problem in a general manifold can be very complicated and, in most cases, it cannot be solved in terms of ordinary functions. We will not intend to do so, but rather we will just claim that, once $`U`$, $`K`$ and $`A_\mathit{1}`$ have been determined, they can be plugged back into (5.1), with (5.6), and the background will describe the configurations that we have been discussing in this paper. It will have the expected isometries, supersymmetries and conserved charges.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown that the expansion of the D0/F1 system into a D2 can happen supersymmetrically in all the backgrounds of the form $`^{1,1}\times _8`$, with $`_8`$ the manifolds of the table. We have shown this in the worldvolume as well as in the supergravity setting. By a Hamiltonian analysis, we connected the result to a BPS bound on charges that are also well defined in the curved background. We remark that our research is different from , where it was shown that the supertube itself, after some T-dualities, can be described by a special Lorentzian-holonomy manifold in eleven dimensions.

## Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to Roberto Emparán, David Mateos, Guillermo A. Silva, Joan Simón and Paul Townsend for useful discussions. Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime, in which P. Silva is associated with Torino Università. This work is also supported by MCYT FPA, 2001-3598 and CIRIT GC 2001SGR-00065. T. Mateos is supported by the grant FI from the Generalitat de Catalunya. The work of A.V.P. is supported in part by the Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs through the Inter-university Attraction Pole P5/27.


format: text

text:
# Observation of correlated-photon statistics using a single detector

## Abstract

We report experimental observations of correlated-photon statistics in the single-photon detection rate. The usual quantum interference in a two-photon polarization interferometer always accompanies a dip in the single detector counting rate, regardless of whether a dip or peak is seen in the coincidence rate. This effect is explained by taking into account all possible photon number states that reach the detector, rather than considering just the state post-selected by the coincidence measurement. We also report an interferometeric scheme in which the interference peak or dip in coincidence corresponds directly to a peak or dip in the single-photon detection rate.

In interference experiments involving two-photon fields of spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC), quantum interference effects are typically observed in the rate of coincidence counts between two detectors, while the single-detector count rate is expected to be featurelessly constant single . (A good example is the two-photon anti-correlation dip-peak experiment bell ; hom ; type2 ; ultrafast .) Indeed, this would be the case if the single-photon detectors available today were truly 100% efficient and were able to resolve multi-photon excitations. However, all commercially available solid-state single-photon detectors today rely on the avalanche proccess of Si or InGaAs/InP photodiodes. Therefore, even with 100% efficiency, these detectors cannot resolve photon number. This effect usually does not reveal any information about the incident state, as it simply reduces the overall detection efficiency.

In certain cases, however, the single-detector count rate does provide information about the incident state. This was first demonstrated in Ref. steinberg , where a quantum interference effect in a two-photon interferometer was employed to change the photon statistics at a single detector. It was found that the coincidence dip associated with the photon bunching effect at a beamsplitter was accompanied by a dip in the single detector counting rate, as well. At the center of the coincidence dip, the photons always leave the interferometer (or the beamsplitter) together. Thus, a detector monitoring one of the output ports of the interferometer “sees” either $`|0`$ or $`|2`$, but never $`|1`$. Compared to the photon statistics outside the coincidence dip, where the two photons are randomly distributed to the detectors, a single detector sees fewer photon events in the coincidence dip, even though the mean photon number does not change. Because the detector is unable to distinguish between $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, a single-detector dip is observed.

In this paper, we first confirm the dip effect in the single-detector count rate using a different experimental setup. We also measure the single-detector count rate with the interferometer designed for a coincidence peak, rather than a dip. Somewhat surprisingly, the coincidence peak is not reflected as a peak in the the single-detector count rate. Instead, the singles rate reveals a dip, just as if the interferometer were aligned for a coincidence dip. This result can be explained by taking into account all possible photon number states that reach the detector, rather than just the state post-selected by the coincidence measurement. Finally, we present an experiment in which the coincidence peak or dip directly corresonds to a dip or peak in the singles rate.

Consider the experimental setup shown in Fig. 1. SPDC photon pairs are generated in a 2 mm thick type-I BBO crystal pumped with a 351.1 nm argon ion laser. The FWHM of spectral filters F1 and F2 were 3 nm and the coincidence window for all measurements was about 3 nsec. The non-collinear 702.2 nm signal and idler photons are brought together on a beamsplitter and one arm of the interferometer can be adjusted by a computer-controlled DC motor. The non-collinear arrangement avoids the problematic second-order (of the field) interference effect reported in Ref. steinberg .

With HWP1, A1, and A2 removed from the apparatus, the usual coincidence dip is obtained by scanning the delay $`\tau `$ hom . The experimental data for this measurement is shown in Fig. 2(a). Note that both the coincidence rate and the single-detector rate show dips as the delay is scanned. Note, also, that the two dips have the same widths. The dip in the single-count rate can be understood more formally as follows. If $`\eta `$ is the single-photon detection efficiency, then the probability of a detection event in the presence of two photons is given by $`\eta +(1\eta )\eta =2\eta \eta ^2`$ steinberg . The overall single-detector counting rate can then be written as

$$RP_1\eta +P_2(2\eta \eta ^2),$$
(1)
where $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are the probabilities that one and two photons, respectively, are incident on the detector.

The photon statistics at the output ports of the beamsplitter are determined entirely by the delay $`\tau `$ in this case. If $`\tau >\tau _c`$, where $`\tau _c`$ is the coherence time of the single-photon wavepacket, incident photons simply scatter independently, resulting in four possible events at the output: (i) both photons reflected, (ii) both photons transmitted, (iii) both photons end up at $`D_a`$, and (iv) both photons end up at $`D_b`$. Since each of these events is equally likely, the probabilities that a particular output port, $`D_a`$ or $`D_b`$, contains zero, one, and two photons are $`P_{b0}=1/4`$, $`P_{b1}=1/2`$, and $`P_{b2}=1/4`$. If, on the other hand, $`\tau =0`$, quantum interference causes amplitudes for (i) and (ii) to sum to zero bell ; hom ; type2 ; ultrafast . In this case, $`P_{b0}=1/2`$, $`P_{b1}=0`$, and $`P_{b2}=1/2`$. With these probabilities, which are summarized in Table 1, Eq.(1) yields the single-detector counting rates

$$R(\tau >\tau _c)\eta \frac{1}{4}\eta ^2,R(\tau =0)\eta \frac{1}{2}\eta ^2.$$
(2)
The above result clearly shows that a dip in the singles rate is expected to accompany a dip in the coincidence rate between detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$.

The coincidence dip in this case can be regarded as the signature of the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$ exiting the beamsplitter. When $`\tau =0`$, each detector receives either zero photons or two photons, but never one photon. Consider, now, the case in which a peak is observed in the coincidence rate. This is accomplished in our setup by removing the flipper mirror, thus directing one output of the beamsplitter to detectors $`D_c`$ and $`D_d`$. The detectors are preceded by a halfwave plate and polarization beamspitter, which act together as a 50/50 beamsplitter. The FWHM of the spectral filter F3 was 20 nm. When $`\tau =0`$, the path exiting the beamsplitter BS contains either zero or two photons, since this delay corresponds to the center of the coincidence dip for detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$. With a higher probability of finding two photons in the exit path (1/2 for $`\tau =0`$ vs. 1/4 for $`\tau >\tau _c`$), a coincidence peak is observed between $`D_c`$ and $`D_d`$, as shown in Fig. 2(b) rarity .

It is tempting to regard such a peak as signalling the presence of the state $`|1,1`$. If this were true, then a peak in the single-detector counting rate would also be expected, since every photon pair emission would lead to exactly one photon at each detector. However, this is not the case. Instead of a peak in the single-photon counting rate, a dip is observed just as in the case of the coincidence dip between $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$. This rather unexpected result can be explained by considering conditional probabilities at the second beamsplitter. The probabilities that zero, one, and two photons are incident on, for example, detector $`D_c`$ are

$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`P_{b0}P_{00}+P_{b1}P_{10}+P_{b2}P_{20},`$
$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`P_{b0}P_{02}+P_{b1}P_{11}+P_{b2}P_{21}=P_{b1}P_{11}+P_{b2}P_{21},`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`P_{b0}P_{02}+P_{b1}P_{12}+P_{b2}P_{22}=P_{b2}P_{22},`$ (3)
where, as defined above, $`P_{b0}`$, $`P_{b1}`$, and $`P_{b2}`$ are the probabilities that zero, one, and two photons leave the first beamsplitter, respectively. The conditional probabilities $`P_{ij}`$ are defined as the probabilities that $`j`$ photons will exit port $`c`$ of the second beamsplitter, given $`i`$ incident photons. These conditional probablities are independent of the delay $`\tau `$ and are summarized in Table 1. With these quantities, Eq. (1) yields

$$R(\tau >\tau _c)\frac{1}{2}\eta \frac{1}{16}\eta ^2,R(\tau =0)\frac{1}{2}\eta \frac{1}{8}\eta ^2.$$
(4)
Here, we clearly see that a dip in the single-detector counting rate should occur even in this case. Thus, while a coincidence detection signals one photon in each output port of the second beamsplitter, it should not be assumed that the output state is $`|1,1`$. In this case, there are clearly instances in which the two photons exit the second beamsplitter (HWP2-PBS set) via the same port.

Let us now consider the case in which the coincidence peak-dip may be observed in a single apparatus: HWP1 rotates the photon polarization by $`90^{}`$ and polarizers are inserted in front of the detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$. \[This is a typical Bell-experiment setup.\] When $`\tau =0`$, polarizer settings of $`A1/A2=45^{}/45^{}`$ result in a null in the coincidence rate, while settings of $`A1/A2=45^{}/45^{}`$ result in a coincidence peak bell ; type2 ; ultrafast . The experimental data for these measurements are shown in Fig. 2(c). The coincidence measurements show the expected peak and dip, while the single-count measurements, once again, yield dips in both cases.

As before, these results can be understood by taking into account all possible photon number states at the detector, rather than just the states post-selected by the coincidence measurement. Since the two input photons are orthogonally polarized, they exit the beamsplitter BS independently, regardless of the delay $`\tau `$. Therefore, $`P_{b0}=1/4,P_{b1}=1/2`$, and $`P_{b2}=1/4`$ in both modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ before the polarizers. At the polarizer ($`\pm 45^{}`$ oriented), single photons are passed only half the time, regardless of the delay. When two photons are incident, however, the result depends on the delay $`\tau `$. The orthogonally polarized photons scatter randomly for $`\tau >\tau _c`$, while quantum interference occurs when $`\tau =0`$. In the latter case, the two photons are either both blocked or both passed at the polarizer. With these probabilities, which are summarized in Table I, Eqs.(1) and (3) yield the same overall single-detector counting rates as given in Eq. (4), which predict a dip in the single-detector rate, regardless of whether the coincidence shows a peak or a dip.

As in the previous case, the presence of a coincidence peak does not indicate the state $`|1,1`$ exiting the beamsplitter. Indeed, in the Bell-state generation scheme, the orthogonally polarized photons always exit the beamsplitter in random fashion. When the photons exit the beamsplitter via different ports and a coincidence is registered with orthogonally oriented polarizers (polarizer settings for a coincidence peak), it is certainly the case that one photon reached each detector. Because of the polarization entanglement between the two photons, the rate at which coincidences are registered is higher when $`\tau =0`$. It is not the case, however, that the photons always exit via different ports. These other cases, in which the photons exit the beamsplitter together, do not lead to coincidences, but they do contribute to the singles rates. Therefore, the complete description of the state reaching the detectors must include not only the $`|1,1`$ term, but also the terms which lead to photons at only one detector.

It should also be pointed out that, in contrast to the case in which the photons have the same polarizations when they reach the beamsplitter \[this setup leads to the experimental data shown in Fig. 2(a)\], the presence of a coincidence dip in a Bell-sate generation scheme does not indicate the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$. The state reaching the detectors must also include the terms $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$. These terms are present because the polarization entanglement ensures that, for the cases in which the photons exit the beamsplitter via different ports toward identically oriented polarizers (polarizer settings for a coincidence dip), only one of the two photons will reach the detectors.

It is also interesting to note that the dip in the singles rate is due to a quantum interference effect that differs from the effect leading to the interference features in the coincidence rate. In the latter case, coincidence detection collapses the two-photon state to a polarization-entangled state (the terms $`|2,0`$ and $`|0,2`$ do not lead to coincidences). The coincidence rate for this entangled state depends on the (relative) orientations of the two polarizers. The interference observed in the singles rate is different not only because only a single polarizer is required, but also because the terms discarded in coincidence detection become important. The singles rate is independent of $`\tau `$ when single photons reach the polarizer, but when two photons are present, photon bunching occurs when $`\tau =0`$, i.e., the photons are passed or blocked as a pair at the $`\pm 45^{}`$ polarizer.

An obvious drawback to the Bell-state generation scheme is that it is not possible to deterministically generate (or switch between) the states $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$ and $`|1,1`$. If it were possible to generate these states without relying on post-selective measurements, then photon pairs with well-known quantum states would be available for further processing or for use in other applications. Unlike the schemes discussed thus far, such a method would be characterized by single-detector counting rates that would differ for the coincidence peak and dip. That is, the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$, which would yield no coincidences, would lead to probablities $`P_0=1/2`$, $`P_1=0`$, and $`P_2=1/2`$ for a single detector. Meanwhile, the state $`|1,1`$ would yield only coincidences and would lead to single-detector probabilities of $`P_0=0`$, $`P_1=1`$, and $`P_2=0`$. According to Eq. (1), the single-detector counting rates would be

$$R_{peak}(\tau =0)\eta ,R_{dip}(\tau =0)\eta \frac{1}{2}\eta ^2,$$
(5)
for these two cases. Thus, the singles rate would mirror the coincidence rate, i.e., it would increase (decrease) in the presence of a coincidence peak (dip).

Fig. 3 shows the outline of the apparatus used to generate the above mentioned two-photon number states. A 3 mm thick type-II BBO crystal is pumped by an ultrafast pulse with central wavelength of 390 nm and pulse durations of approximately 120 fsec. Pairs of photons with center wavelengths of 780 nm emerge from the crystal into two separate cones, one belonging to the e-ray (V-polarized) and the other belonging to the o-ray (H-polarized) of the crystal. Here, we are interested in the photons emitted into the intersections of the two cones. These two spatial modes make up the two input ports of an ordinary beamsplitter. The FWHM of the spectral filters F1 and F2 was 20 nm. With the interferometer properly balanced, it is possible to switch between the two states $`|1,1`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$ simply by tilting the quartz plates QP2. Detailed discussions of the interferometer can be found elsewhere kimgrice ; mattle .

The experimental results are shown in Fig. 4. With QP2 normal to the beam path, a coincidence peak was observed, while an orientation of approximately $`23.5^{}`$ produced a coincidence dip. Unlike the experiments described earlier, the coincidence features in this experiment are reflected in the single-detector counting rates, shown in the lower portion of Fig. 4. This suggests that all the photons reaching the detectors are either in the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0+|0,2)`$ or in the state $`|1,1`$, depending on the phase setting of QP2.

In summary, we have reported the experimental observation of various photon statistics observed in single-photon detection rates in different quantum interferometric schemes. The observed dip in the single-detector counting rate is the combined result of quantum interference and the inability of the detectors to distinguish two-photon excitations from single-photon excitations. In addition, we showed that two-photon number states prepared in a typical two-photon interferometer are post-selective. As a result, a dip in the single detector counting rate was observed regardless of whether a dip or peak was seen in the coincidence rate in a typical two-photon interferometer. We concluded with an interference experiment in which two-photon number states can be prepared in a deterministic fashion. This was confirmed by observing a correspondence in the peak and dip in single-detector counting rates with the peak and dip in coincidence rates.

This research was supported in part by the U.S. DOE, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, the National Security Agency, and the LDRD Program of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed for the U.S. DOE by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725.


text:
# A nonlinear quantum model of the Friedmann universe

## 1 Introduction

An elegant way of formulating classical particle dynamics is via an action principle that is invariant under a general change of time parameterisation. Such a formulation is called a parameterised theory. In non-relativistic particle dynamics a parametric description is obtained by regarding Newtonian time of the particle as a dynamical variable depending on a newly introduced “parameter time” . As this choice is arbitrary the corresponding Lagrangian admits a symmetry under re-parameterisation of time, leading to a constraining relation called the Hamiltonian constraint. Consequently not all canonical variables (including the original Newtonian time and its conjugate momentum) can be given arbitrary initial data. Rather, the Hamiltonian constraint must be satisfied initially which will be preserved under the canonical equations of motion. This is to be expected since parameterising time cannot change physical kinematics, the apparent extra degree of freedom associated with time must be subject to a constraint.

In relativity the parameterised theory is ideally suited for formulating particle dynamics where time is treated on an equal footing with other coordinates. This is especially the case for a particle moving in a (pseudo) Riemannian geometry . The canonical description of a parameterised relativistic particle is similar in structure to that of a non-relativistic particle. However the constrained Hamiltonian is now quadratic in the canonical momenta of both position and time coordinates. This is due to the (general) covariance of relativistic kinematics and can be analysed within the established methodology in classical theory. However this appears to present a number of challenges for the quantisation of a relativistic particle compatible with standard interpretations. As is well-known, a straightforward application of canonical quantisation results in a Klein-Gordon equation. Unfortunately its solutions belong to a function space with an indefinite norm and cannot be interpreted as wavefunctions describing a probability amplitude in the usual manner. Although this difficulty can be circumvented upon “second quantisation” in the context of relativistic quantum field theory, theoretical interest remains in search for a satisfactory direct quantisation of a relativistic particle. One important reason for this is that a functional form of relativistic particle dynamics naturally arises from canonical general relativity . Furthermore systems with finite degrees of freedom subject to a constrained Hamiltonian formally resembling that of relativistic particle dynamics in curved spacetime often feature in various cosmological models with or without coupled matter fields. These models are normally constructed by imposing high symmetry on spacetime geometry and matter distribution in order to gain insight into aspects of an underlying full theory. Note that in these models the “metric” refers to the (reduced) “supermetric” (of spacetime metric) and the “relativistic particle” represents a collective gravitational and matter field point.

In  a “square-root Hamiltonian” method was investigated in an attempt to overcome the problems mentioned with the “Klein-Gordon approach”. Given a choice of time coordinate it is possible to construct a wave equation that is first order in time and possesses a “Schrödinger structure”. While in some cases this structure guarantees the existence of a Hilbert space with a Euclidean norm it may suffer from other drawbacks including the violation of Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian operator if the square-root of a negative eigenvalue must be taken through a spectral analysis .

Motivated by these circumstances an alternative canonical type of quantisation for a physical system with finite degrees of freedom subject to a Hamiltonian constraint is considered by treating time as a constrained classical variable interacting with an unconstrained quantum state. Following a brief review of the basic parameterised theory of a non-relativistic particle in curved space and its Dirac quantisation in section 2, a new “parametric quantisation” is introduced. For non-relativistic particle dynamics, this new scheme is shown to reproduce results based on Dirac quantisation. In section 3, parametric quantisation of a relativistic particle in curved spacetime is performed for a choice of time-slicing. In this case a “nonlinear Schrödinger equation” may be derived that is locally equivalent to the full set of evolution equations from parametric quantisation under certain conditions. In section 4 the theory is applied in the context of a simple Friedmann cosmological model with the resulting equations analysed numerically. Concluding remarks are made in section 5 where some prospects for future work are also discussed.

## 2 Classical and quantum dynamics of a non-relativistic particle

Consider the motion of a non-relativistic particle subject to a potential in a Riemannian $`n`$-space. Denote by $`\tau `$ the Newtonian time and introduce the coordinates $`(q^\alpha )`$ ($`0\alpha n`$ with $`q^0:=\tau `$). The time-dependent spatial metric components are denoted by $`\gamma _{ab}=\gamma _{ab}(q^\alpha )=\gamma _{ab}(q^c,\tau )`$. Here and throughout Greek letters such as $`\alpha ,\beta `$ denote spacetime indices with range $`0,1,\mathrm{}n`$, whereas Latin letters such as $`a,b`$ denote spatial indices with range $`1,2,\mathrm{}n`$. The particle motion is described by the trajectory $`(q^\alpha (t))=(q^a(t),\tau (t))`$ parameterised by a parameter time $`t`$. The choice of $`t`$ is related to a positive function $`N=N(t)`$ that sets the parameterisation gauge and enters into the generic form of the Hamiltonian

$$H(N,q^\alpha ,p_\alpha )=N(q^\alpha ,p_\alpha )$$
(1)
that generates the dynamics of the particle for some $``$. For a non-relativistic particle with canonical momenta $`\varpi :=p_0`$ and $`p_a`$ conjugate to $`\tau `$ and $`q^a`$ respectively, $``$ is linear in $`\varpi `$ and quadratic in $`p_a`$ as given by

$$=\varpi +\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}p_ap_b+V$$
(2)
where $`V(q^\alpha )=V(q^c,\tau )`$ is a time-varying potential and the particle’s mass has been normalised to unity. Based on an action principle using the Lagrangian

$$L=\dot{q}^\alpha p_\alpha H$$
(3)
where $`\dot{}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}`$, the equations of motion can be derived in the following canonical form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q^a}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_a}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p_a}{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^a}}`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varpi }},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varpi }{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}.`$ (5)
In addition the Hamiltonian constraint

$$=0$$
(6)
arises from variations with respect to $`N`$. Provided a set of initial conditions for the canonical variables $`q^\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ compatible with (6) is given, this constraint will be preserved by the evolution of the canonical variables satisfying (4) and (5) for a choice of (positive) $`N(t)`$. Clearly the particle trajectory is invariant under re-parameterisation: $`tt^{}`$, $`NN^{}:=\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}t^{}}N`$.

A quantum theory of this particles may be established by applying Dirac quantisation where, in the Schrödinger picture, classical constraints are “turned into” operators that annihilate wavefunctions describing physical states. Following this procedure, the operator

$$\widehat{}_D(q^a,\widehat{p}_a,\tau ,\widehat{\varpi }):=\widehat{\varpi }+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\frac{1}{4}}\widehat{p}_a\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{ab}\widehat{p}_b\gamma ^{\frac{1}{4}}+V$$
(7)
where $`\gamma :=det(\gamma _{ab})`$ is constructed by substituting $`p_\alpha \widehat{p}_\alpha :=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{q^\alpha }`$ in $``$ and factor ordering so that the resulting term quadratic in $`\widehat{p}^a`$ is proportional to the Laplacian operator on a wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,\tau )`$ of weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to the metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. Such a weighting choice is very useful in simplifying mathematical expressions when dealing with the wavefunction of a quantum particle moving in a time dependent spatial metric.

On Dirac quantisation the classical constraint (6) becomes the quantum constraint

$$\widehat{}_D\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(8)
on any physical state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Although (8) does not explicitly involve the parameter time $`t`$ it is natural to interpret $`\tau `$ as the evolution parameter for wavefunctions. To see this more clearly we may rewrite (8) in the form

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }=\widehat{𝓗}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(9)
where

$$\widehat{𝓗}:=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\frac{1}{4}}\widehat{p}_a\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{ab}\widehat{p}_b\gamma ^{\frac{1}{4}}+V$$
(10)
plays the role of the “true Hamiltonian” as in conventional Schrödinger equations.

By treating $`\tau `$ as the evolution parameter the positive-definite inner product of two wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ at equal time $`\tau `$ is naturally defined as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2:=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{d}^nq.$$
(11)
Using this definition the operator $`\widehat{𝓗}`$ is self-adjoint and the standard probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics applies. In particular if a wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is initially normalised according to $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$ this normalisation will be maintained under (8) and therefore the conservation of the total probability holds.

The derivation of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation (8) above is often regarded as support for Dirac quantisation. However it is worthy noting that this derivation crucially relies on the fact that $``$ is linear in the momentum $`\varpi `$ conjugate to the time variable $`\tau `$. For a relativistic particle, this is no longer the case, since the Hamiltonian will be quadratic in all momenta instead.

It is a purpose of this paper to point out the possibility of deriving (8) based on an alternative quantisation scheme in which the substitution $`\varpi \mathrm{i}\frac{}{\tau }`$ is not made and the explicit parameter time ($`t`$) dependence will be retained. The guiding principle is that one of the dynamical variables of a parameterised system should play the role of time. In the case of non-relativistic particle dynamics, $`\tau `$ has been chosen to be this variable. As a time variable it is of “classical nature” but need not be treated merely as a parameter. Indeed in classical parameterised theory such a time variable is treated as a dynamical variable whose conjugate momentum is subject to a Hamiltonian constraint without changing the underlying physical degrees of freedom. In view of this we seek to formulate an analogous quantisation procedure where the selected time variable is not quantised but treated as a constrained classical variable. The coupling of the classical time variable with other quantised unconstrained variables described by a wavefunction will be formulated subject to certain requirements to validate essential physical interpretations. These requirements include the existence of a positive-definite norm for the Hilbert space of the wavefunctions and the reduction to (4), (5) and (6) in the classical limit.

To achieve this consider the operator

$$\widehat{}(q^a,\widehat{p}_a,\tau ,\varpi ):=\varpi +\widehat{𝓗}$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{𝓗}`$ takes the form as given in (10). The operator $`\widehat{}`$ is constructed in the way similar to that of $`\widehat{}_D`$ with the substitution $`p_a\widehat{p}_a=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{q^a}`$ in $``$ but $`\tau ,\varpi `$ now remain as classical functions of $`t`$. In contrast to Dirac quantisation where $`\widehat{}_D`$ is used in constructing a quantum constraint equation (8), the operator $`\widehat{}`$ will be used to formulate a Schrödinger-type equation

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{t}\psi =N\widehat{}\psi $$
(13)
for a wavefunction $`\psi (q^a,t)`$ of weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to the metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. Nonetheless, like (11), the inner product of two wavefunctions $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ can be defined to be

$$\psi _1,\psi _2:=\psi _1^{}\psi _2\mathrm{d}^nq$$
(14)
under which the operator $`\widehat{}`$ is self-adjoint. It is readily seen that (13) maintains the normalisation of the wavefunction $`\psi ,\psi `$ for any $`\tau (t),\varpi (t)`$. This makes it possible to consistently impose the special normalisation $`\psi ,\psi =1`$ and then interpret $`\psi (q^a,t)`$ as the probability amplitude for measurements of the particle position $`(q^a)`$ on a spatial hypersurface at time $`\tau (t)`$. For general normalisation, the expectation value of an operator $`\widehat{O}=\widehat{O}(q^a,\widehat{p}_a,\tau ,\varpi )`$ may be defined as:

$$\widehat{O}:=\frac{\psi ,\widehat{O}\psi }{\psi ,\psi }$$
(15)
in a standard manner. Sometimes it is useful to denote this expectation value by $`\widehat{O}_\psi `$ to explicitly indicate that it is evaluated with respect to the wavefunction $`\psi `$. Using (13) and (15), the derivative of the expectation value $`\widehat{O}`$ with respect to the parameter time $`t`$ can be shown to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\widehat{O}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{O}}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{O}}{\varpi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varpi }{\mathrm{d}t}}\mathrm{i}N[\widehat{O},\widehat{}]`$ (16)
where $`[,]`$ denotes a commutator as usual. The succinctness of this expression benefits from the use of weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ wavefunctions and their operators. Formulae (15) and (16) will now be used to construct the governing equations for $`\tau (t)`$ and $`\varpi (t)`$. Guided by canonical equations (5) the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}}{\varpi }},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varpi }{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}}{\tau }}`$ (17)
are adopted in a “semi-classical” fashion to allow the coupling between variables $`\tau ,\varpi `$ and wavefunction $`\psi `$ such that the expected classical limit may be recovered. It can now be observed that, using (16), $`\widehat{}`$ is a constant of motion under (13) and (17). That is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (18)
Therefore the condition

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
may be consistently imposed and regarded as the quantum analogue of the classical Hamiltonian constraint (6). This condition may be considered as a restriction on the initial classical variables $`\tau `$ and $`\varpi `$ for any given arbitrary initial wavefunction $`\psi `$.

For a non-relativistic particle the quantum description using (13), (17) and (19) is in fact equivalent to the single Schrödinger-type equation (9). To see this first note that in this case $`\dot{\tau }=N`$ by using (12) and (17). Adopt the gauge $`N=1`$ so that we may set $`\tau =t`$. With this choice it is clear at once that $`\psi (q^a,\tau )`$ is unitarily related to $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,\tau )`$ satisfying (9) via

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}^\tau \varpi (\tau ^{})d\tau ^{}\right)\psi (q^a,\tau ).$$
(20)
Given a generic classical parameterised theory, the procedure leading to equations (13), (17) and (19) will be referred to as “parametric quantisation”. Although both Dirac quantisation and parametric quantisation give rise to equivalent results for non-relativistic particle dynamics, these two schemes are in general inequivalent, as will be demonstrated in the next section.

## 3 Parametric quantisation of a relativistic particle

Let us now consider the motion of a particle in an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold $``$  with coordinates $`(q^\alpha )`$, $`(0\alpha n)`$, in which the metric has components $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(q^\mu )`$ with signature $`(,+,+,\mathrm{})`$. The classical Hamiltonian for this particle $`H(N,q^\alpha ,p_\alpha )=N`$ with trajectory coordinates $`q^\alpha (t)`$ and canonical momenta $`p_\alpha (t)`$ parameterised by $`t`$ associated with a positive gauge function $`N(t)`$ subject to a potential $`V(q^\mu )`$ is specified by

$$(q^\alpha ,p_\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta +V.$$
(21)
In order to follow closely the methods in the preceding section, the manifold $``$ is assumed to admit a global time foliation so that $`(q^\alpha )`$ forms a single Gaussian coordinate chart  in which

$$\gamma _{00}=1,\gamma _{0a}=0.$$
(22)
With such a time-slicing we denote by $`\tau (t):=q^0(t)`$ and $`\gamma :=det(\gamma _{ab})`$ where $`1a,bn`$ as in the non-relativistic particle case. Thus (21) becomes

$$=\frac{1}{2}\varpi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}p_ap_b+V$$
(23)
which generates canonical equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q^a}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_a}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p_a}{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^a}}`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varpi }},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varpi }{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}`$ (25)
subject to the Hamiltonian constraint

$$=0.$$
(26)
Since $``$ in (23) resembles (2) we now introduce the operator

$$\widehat{}:=\frac{1}{2}\varpi ^2+\widehat{𝓗}$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{𝓗}`$ takes the form of (10) and is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product

$$\psi _1,\psi _2:=\psi _1^{}\psi _2\mathrm{d}^nq$$
(28)
of any two wavefunctions $`\psi _k=\psi _k(q^a,t)`$ (of weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$) with respect to the spatial metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. As in the preceding section, parametric quantisation now yields the evolution equations for the wavefunction $`\psi (q^a,t)`$ and constrained classical variables $`\tau (t),\varpi (t)`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{t}\psi =N\widehat{}\psi $$
(29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}}{\varpi }},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varpi }{\mathrm{d}t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}}{\tau }}`$ (30)
$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (31)
where the definition of expectation values follows from (15). As in the non-relativistic case, the normalisation $`\psi ,\psi =1`$ can be consistently imposed and the interpretation of $`\psi (q^a,t)`$ as the probability amplitude for measurements of the particle position $`(q^a)`$ on a spatial hypersurface at time $`\tau (t)`$ can be made.

It is also possible (at least locally) to reduce (29), (30) and (31) for the relativistic case to a single wave equation. From (23), (30) and (31) it follows that $`\dot{\tau }=N\varpi `$ where

$$\varpi =\pm \sqrt{2\widehat{𝓗}}.$$
(32)
Hence in regions where $`\widehat{𝓗}>0`$ and $`\varpi <0`$ one can explicitly eliminate $`\varpi `$ and set $`t=\tau `$ by choosing the gauge

$$N=\frac{1}{\varpi }$$
(33)
and introducing

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,\tau ):=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}^\tau \varpi (\tau ^{})d\tau ^{}\right)\psi (q^a,\tau )$$
(34)
where $`\psi (q^a,\tau )`$ satisfies (29) with (33). Since $`\widehat{𝓗}_\psi =\widehat{𝓗}_\mathrm{\Psi }`$, (29) becomes

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\widehat{𝓗}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{2\widehat{𝓗}_\mathrm{\Psi }}}.$$
(35)
We are therefore led to a nonlinear integro-partial differential equation describing the quantum evolution of a relativistic particle under a chosen time-slicing. Although nonlinear in time, (35) does not present difficulties in the probabilistic interpretation of its solutions. It follows from the scaling invariance of (35), i.e. if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a solution to (35) so is $`C\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for any complex constant $`C`$ and hence both $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`C\mathrm{\Psi }`$ represent the same physical state .

## 4 Friedmann universe with a massive scalar field

It is not hard to see that the Gaussian coordinate condition $`\{\gamma _{00}=1,\gamma _{0a}=0\}`$ used in the parametric quantisation of a relativistic particle can be extended to the condition $`\{\gamma _{00}=\gamma _{00}(\tau ),\gamma _{0a}=0\}`$ by changing the coordinate time $`\tau ^\tau \sqrt{\gamma _{00}(\tau ^{})}d\tau ^{}`$ for some negative $`\gamma _{00}(\tau )`$. With this coordinate condition one can repeat the derivations of (29), (30) and (31) using the operator

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{00}\varpi ^2+\widehat{𝓗}$$
(36)
with the same forms of $`\widehat{𝓗}`$ and inner product $`,`$ as defined in (10) and (28) respectively.

This slightly generalised coordinate condition makes it easier for the application of the parametric quantisation to a simple cosmological model for $`n=1`$, where a Friedmann universe filled with a massive scalar field is analysed.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Units of $`c=\mathrm{}=16\pi G=1`$ are adopted. In terms of the lapse function $`N(t)`$ and scale factor $`R(t)`$ as functions of the time coordinate $`t`$, the Robertson-Walker metric reads

$$g=N^2\mathrm{d}t^2+R^2\sigma $$
(37)
where $`\sigma `$ is the standard metric on the homogeneous and isotropic 3-space of constant curvature $`K`$, with $`K=1,0,1`$ corresponding to the closed, flat and open cases respectively. The dynamics of this geometry coupled to a uniformly distributed but time-dependent scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ of mass $`m`$ is described by the Lagrangian :

$$L=\frac{6R}{N}\dot{R}^2+\frac{R^3}{2N}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{Nm^2}{2}R^3\varphi ^2+6NKR$$
(38)
where $`\dot{}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}`$. The corresponding action $`Ldt`$ is manifestly invariant under time re-parameterisation: $`tt^{}`$, $`NN^{}:=\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}t^{}}N`$. The scale factor $`R`$ will now be chosen as the (intrinsic) time variable. Accordingly we denote by $`q^0=R,q^1=\varphi `$ with the corresponding conjugate momenta given by

$`p_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{R}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12R}{N}}\dot{R}=:\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (39)
$`p_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{\varphi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{N}}\dot{\varphi }=:p`$ (40)
where symbols $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`p`$ have been introduced for conciseness in the subsequent discussions. It follows that the Hamiltonian $`H=\dot{q}^\alpha p_\alpha L=N`$ where $`\alpha =0,1`$ with $``$ having the form of (21) in terms of the nonzero metric components and potential as follows:

$`\gamma _{00}`$ $`=12R,\gamma _{11}=R^3`$ (41)
$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}R^3\varphi ^26KR.`$ (42)
By substituting $`p\widehat{p}:=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\varphi }`$ into $``$ we obtain the operator

$$\widehat{}_F:=\frac{1}{2R^3}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}+\frac{m^2}{2}R^3\varphi ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}6KR$$
(43)
which is to be applied to a wavefunction $`\psi (\varphi ,t)`$ (of weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to the 1-dimensional metric $`\gamma _{11}=R^3`$) whose norm at any time $`t`$ is given by

$$\psi ,\psi =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left|\psi (\varphi ,t)\right|^2d\varphi .$$
(44)
For simplicity the normalisation condition

$$\psi ,\psi =1$$
(45)
will be imposed on the wavefunction $`\psi `$. On parametric quantisation the evolution equations for the wavefunction $`\psi `$ and constrained classical variables $`R(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ are then formulated in accordance with (29), (30) and (31) as follows:

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{t}\psi =N\widehat{}_F\psi $$
(46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}_F}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{12R}}`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Pi }}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{}_F}{R}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2R^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3m^2}{2}}R^2\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R^2}}+6K`$ (48)
$$\widehat{}_F=0.$$
(49)
To proceed a (time-dependent) functional basis for $`\psi `$ will be chosen in order to reduce the above integro-partial differential equations into a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations of infinite dimensions. This system may be truncated to facilitate numerical simulation. To this end consider

$$\psi _k(\varphi ,R):=(mR^3)^{1/4}\xi _k(\sqrt{mR^3}\varphi )$$
(50)
for integers $`k0`$ where

$$\xi _k(x):=2^{k/2}\pi ^{1/4}(k!)^{1/2}e^{x^2/2}H_k(x)$$
(51)
in terms of the Hermite polynomials $`H_k(x)`$. The functions $`\psi _k`$ satisfy the eigen equations

$$\left(\frac{1}{2R^3}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}+\frac{m^2}{2}R^3\varphi ^2\right)\psi _k=m\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\psi _k$$
(52)
and orthonormality

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi _j(\varphi ,R)\psi _k(\varphi ,R)d\varphi =\delta _{jk}$$
(53)
for any positive $`R`$. They are used to expand the normalised wavefunction:

$$\psi (\varphi ,t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_k(t)\psi _k(\varphi ,R(t))$$
(54)
with complex coefficients $`c_k(t)`$ satisfying $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left|c_k\right|^2=1`$. The time-dependence of these coefficients is to be determined by dynamics. Using the expansion (54) it follows that

$`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}`$ $`=\left[\mathrm{i}\dot{c}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}N\mathrm{\Pi }}{16R^2}}\left(\sqrt{k(k1)}c_{k2}\sqrt{(k+2)(k+1)}c_{k+2}\right)\right]\psi _k`$ (55)
and

$$\widehat{}_F\psi =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[m\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}6KR\right]c_k\psi _k.$$
(56)
With the aide of (52), (53), (55) and (56), we obtain the following coupled differential equations for $`c_k(t)(k0)`$, $`R(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ by substituting (54) into (46)–(49):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{c}_k}{N}}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}}+6KR\left(k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)m\right]c_k+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{16R^2}}\left[\sqrt{(k+2)(k+1)}c_{k+2}\sqrt{k(k1)}c_{k2}\right]`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{N}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{12R}}`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{N}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3m}{R}}\sqrt{(k+1)(k+2)}\mathrm{}(c_k^{}c_{k+2}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R^2}}+6K`$ (59)
together with the constraint

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left|c_k\right|^2\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}6KR=0$$
(60)
derived from (49), and the normalisation condition

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|c_k\right|^2=1.$$
(61)
Based on these equations numerical simulations are performed for different choices of the curvature parameter $`K`$ to explore the dynamical behaviour of the model. With the mass of the scalar $`m=10`$ and gauge $`N=1`$ the initial scale factor $`R(t)`$ at $`t=0`$ is set to $`0.5`$. The initial wave profile $`\psi (\varphi ,0)`$ is chosen to be gaussian by setting $`c_0(0)=1`$ with $`c_k(0)=0`$ for $`k1`$, corresponding to an initially “ground state”-like wavefunction compatible with the normalisation condition (61). The initial value for the momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$ is then determined by solving the constraint (49) at $`t=0`$ with $`c_k(0),R(0)`$ substituted with their initial values above. This yields two signs for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$ equivalent to integrations forward or backward in time $`t`$ (with a negative or positive $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$ respectively). With these initial data and parameters, a truncated $`k`$ index range $`0k60`$ is found to produce numerical results with satisfactory accuracy.

For an open Friedmann universe with $`K=1`$ the simulated $`R(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ and $`\left|\psi (\varphi ,t)\right|^2`$ are displayed in figures 13 for $`0.15t3.0`$. The wavefunction $`\psi `$ is evaluated using the expression (50) in terms of the numerical solutions for $`c_k(t)`$. Figure 1 clearly exhibits an expanding universe with the scale factor $`R`$ growing in $`t`$ and approaching a singularity ($`R0`$) with decreasing $`t`$. Since $`\dot{R}`$ does not change the sign of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ remains negative as show in figure 2. Figure 3 shows that the probability density $`\left|\psi \right|^2`$ with respect to the measure $`\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ takes the shape of a single packet. As the universe evolves this packet becomes narrower and its height seems to reduce to zero as $`t`$ decreases to where $`R0`$. Despite this, the alternative probability density $`\left|R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi \right|^2`$ (corresponding to the use of the weight 0 wavefunction $`R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi `$ with respect to the measure $`R^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{d}\varphi `$) exhibits a more steady behaviour in its evolution. As shown in figure 4 the profile of $`\left|R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi \right|^2`$ as a function of $`R^{\frac{3}{2}}\varphi `$ remains the shape of a single packet whose width simply oscillates by either increasing $`t`$ or decreasing $`t`$ even to where $`R0`$. The regular behaviour of $`R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi `$ suggests that the limiting value of this function may serve to define the initial quantum state of the Friedmann universe as $`R0`$.

Similar behaviours for $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\psi `$ can be observed from simulation results for a flat Friedmann universe with $`K=0`$. The numerical solutions for $`R(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ and $`\left|\psi (\varphi ,t)\right|^2`$ for a closed Friedmann universe with $`K=1`$ are displayed in figures 57 for $`0.23t2.27`$. Singularities are encountered as $`R0`$ at both bounds of the numerical integration as shown in figure 5. Notably in figure 2, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ changes sign when the local maximum of $`R`$ takes place. Nevertheless this does not cause any problem for the evolution of the system. As in the $`K=1`$ case the probability density $`\left|\psi \right|^2`$ with respect to the measure $`\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ has the shape of a single packet. As $`t`$ approaches the bounds of integration where $`R0`$ the height of this packet also tends to zero (figure 7) whereas $`\left|R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi \right|^2`$ as a function of $`R^{\frac{3}{2}}\varphi `$ remains the shape of a single packet with a steadily oscillating width throughout the integration domain as shown in figure 8. This provides further support for the use the limiting value of $`R^{\frac{3}{4}}\psi `$ as a function of $`R^{\frac{3}{2}}\varphi `$ to identify the initial (or final) quantum state of the Friedmann universe as $`R0`$.

## 5 Concluding remarks

A quantisation scheme for a physical system subject to a Hamiltonian constraint is presented based on canonical quantisation, nonlinear quantum mechanics, couplings between classical and quantum variables and analysis of the true degrees of freedom in geometrodynamics . Motivated by the need for a clarified role played by “time” in the ongoing efforts to ultimately quantise gravity, the idea of treating time as a constrained classical variable is put forward in this paper. Instead of regarding time as an evolution parameter, the proposed idea treats it as a dynamical variable while maintaining its classical nature. It does not follow that the physical degrees of freedom will increase by giving time a dynamical status since the time variable and its canonical momentum are subject to the (quantised) Hamiltonian constraint. This does imply that if the Hamiltonian constraint only restricts the choice of classical time and its canonical momentum, then the quantum degrees of freedom can be regarded as unconstrained, thereby enabling much of the standard quantisation technique to continue to apply. Of course the issue of the preferred choice of time remains just as in the square-root Hamiltonian approach. However it is worth emphasising that the proposed parametric quantisation method is free from problems associated with taking square roots of negative eigenvalues arising from a spectral analysis. Therefore the choice of a time coordinate is less restrictive for parametric quantisation. Whether there exists a naturally preferred time variable given a classical parameterised theory or possibility of establishing equivalence for different choices of time within the framework of parametric quantisation stays unaddressed in this paper and will be considered in a later publication. Finally in extending the present work to the quantisation of gravity it is conceivable that one of the traditional functional degrees of freedom in geometrodynamics should be treated as a constrained classical variable within the framework set up by this paper. York’s “extrinsic time”  is amongst potential candidates for such a treatment. In this respect it is of interest to compare with the approach by . The progress of these further researches will be reported elsewhere.

## 6 Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Professor Robin W Tucker for stimulating discussions on this work and is grateful to Professors Chris Isham and Malcolm MacCallum for helpful comments on the final draft of this paper. The research is supported in part by EPSRC and BAE Systems.