text:
# Untitled Document

MIFP-03-06 USC-03/01 hep-th/0304132

A Dielectric Flow Solution with Maximal Supersymmetry

C.N. Pope and N.P. Warner

George P. & Cynthia W. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics

Physics Department, Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-4242, USA

Department of Physics and Astronomy

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484, USA

Abstract

We obtain a solution to eleven-dimensional supergravity that consists of $`M2`$-branes embedded in a dielectric distribution of $`M5`$-branes. Contrary to normal expectations, this solution has maximal supersymmetry for a brane solution (i.e. sixteen supercharges). While the solution is constructed using gauged supergravity in four dimensions, the complete eleven-dimensional solution is given. In particular, we obtain the Killing spinors explicitly, and we find that they are characterised by a duality rotation of the standard Dirichlet projection matrix for $`M2`$-branes.

March, 2003

1. Introduction

The classification of supersymmetric backgrounds with tensor gauge field fluxes remains a poorly understood subject, which we believe will ultimately yield some beautiful and rich structures. These sorts of backgrounds are essential to the study of holographic RG flows, and yet we still do not know enough about them to construct some of the most basic of holographic flows. There are many examples, and some simple, unifying ideas, like the “harmonic rule,” and more recently, the application of $`G`$-structures, but the former has rather limited application, and although the latter idea has led to some very interesting insights, it is still under development (see, for example, \[1,,2,,3\]).

There are some surprising gaps in our knowledge. For example, there is the construction of the most general $`𝒩=2^{}`$ holographic flow from the $`𝒩=4`$ fixed point theory. The Wilsonian effective action of the field theory is known , but the corresponding holographic flow is only known for one point on the (infinite dimensional) Coulomb branch . There have been some recent examples that go beyond the usual harmonic rule, and go against the conventional wisdom in that they are combinations of branes and anti-branes, and yet preserve some supersymmety (see, for example, \[6,,7\]). There have also been some recent conjectures about continuous duality symmetries that trade pure metric deformations for $`RR`$-fluxes, while preserving supersymmetry .

Our purpose here is to provide, and study in detail, an example that touches upon all the foregoing issues. Our example is unusual in that it is a flow solution that has sixteen supersymmetries, and is not merely some set of parallel “harmonic” branes. Indeed, it looks more like $`M2`$-branes embedded in a dielectric distribution $`M5`$-branes. Unlike previous examples, the solution presented here preserves half the supersymmetries, and indeed it has the maximal supersymmetry possible for a brane solution. Thus our solution provides an interesting extension of the conventional wisdom, and this will need to be properly incorporated into any classification. Indeed, since we will exhibit all the supersymmetries explicitly in eleven dimensions, it would be interesting to see if the ideas of $`G`$-structures could be used to understand this example more deeply, and perhaps to generalise it.

Our solution is a little reminiscent of the solutions of , in which supersymmetric combinations of $`D2`$ branes and anti-$`D2`$ branes are generated by introducing electric and magnetic fields on the world volume. The result is a form of “dielectric effect” in which $`D0`$ branes and fundamental strings are dissolved into the $`D2`$-brane, making a composite $`1/4`$ supersymmetric system. Here we present a continuous family of solutions that starts with the standard, near-brane, large $`N`$ limit of $`M2`$-branes, and then turns on a $`3`$-form potential that appears to be sourced by a dielectric family of $`M5`$-branes that contain the original $`M2`$-branes. Turning on the additional $`3`$-form potential preserves the amount of supersymmmetry, but the actual supersymmetry parameters rotate as the parameter is changed.

Another motivation in studying this solution was a conjecture arising out of the holographic description of flows from $`𝒩=2`$ quiver gauge theories. In  it was argued that a particular subsector of such gauge theories was holographically dual to a particular family of gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity theories in five dimensions. One consequence of this work was the prediction of a global $`SU(p+1,1)`$ symmetry that acts on the large $`N`$, $`A_p`$ quiver gauge theories. In particular, the $`SU(p)`$ subgroup of this symmetry acts on the non-trivial $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal fixed points, making them into a $`CP^p`$ fixed surface. From the field theory point of view such a symmetry is plausible (at large $`N`$), and from the five-dimensional supergravity perspective, this symmetry is obvious . On the other hand, from the perspective of the underlying, ten-dimensional IIB theory, such a symmetry involves trading Kähler moduli of blown-up $`P^1`$’s for topologically trivial fluxes, while preserving supersymmetry. Unfortunately, the ten-dimensional solution seems to be too complicated for explicit construction. On the other hand, the general issue of “rotating metric deformations into fluxes” is important, and we would like to understand it more deeply; hence this example.

As with a number of interesting, and non-trivial examples, the origin of this one is gauged supergravity. In section 2 we use gauged supergravity in four dimensions to obtain a one-parameter family of flows that preserve sixteen supersymmetries. These flows preserve an $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry, and involve a four-dimensional scalar and pseudo-scalar. The parameter, $`\zeta `$, remains fixed along the flow, and changing $`\zeta `$ rotates the scalar into the pseudo-scalar. From the eleven-dimensional perspective of $`M`$-theory, a four-dimensional scalar comes from the internal metric, while the pseudo-scalar comes from the internal $`3`$-form potential, $`A_{mnp}^{(3)}`$. Thus a “trivial” rotation of the four-dimensional configuration has a highly non-trivial effect in eleven dimensions.

Fortunately, the uplift formulae are known \[9,,10,,11\], and they have a particularly simple form  for the fields we consider here.1 Strictly speaking, the uplift formulae for $`𝒩=8`$ gauged supergravity obtained in \[9,,10\] were not explicit in the $`4`$-form sector, while the uplift formulae for $`𝒩=4`$ gauged supergravity obtained in  were complete and explicit in the entire bosonic sector, but did not include the fermions. Thus our present work provides a non-trivial check on the uplift formulae, since we explicitly verify that the flow solution in the four-dimensional gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity does indeed exhibit the expected supersymmetry after uplifting to eleven dimensions. In section 3, we use these results to obtain the corresponding eleven-dimensional backgrounds. In section 4 we compute explicitly the sixteen supersymmetries in eleven dimensions. In section 5 we show how the $`\zeta =0`$ flow has a standard “harmonic” form, and represents a distribution of $`M2`$-branes that have been spread out, with constant density, in a $`4`$-ball in the $`R^4R^8`$ transverse to the branes. The $`\zeta =\pi `$ flow is similarly simple: The branes a spread uniformly in a $`4`$-ball in the orthogonal $`R^4R^8`$. In the latter part of section 5, we examine the solution for the intermediate values of $`\zeta `$. The internal gauge fields are reminiscent of the harmonic rule for $`M5`$-branes, and they spread into $`R^4\times R^4R^8`$, with one distribution of $`M5`$-branes in the first $`R^4`$ factor, and another distribution of $`M5`$-branes in the second $`R^4`$. We also show how changing $`\zeta `$ rotates the supersymmetry parameters.

2. The flow solutions in four-dimensional supergravity

Following \[12,,13\], we define the action of the $`E_{7(7)}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta z_{IJ}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJKL}z^{KL}& \\ \hfill \delta z^{IJ}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{IJKL}z_{KL},& \end{array}$$

where indices are raised and lowered by complex conjugation, and where one has

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJKL}=\overline{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{IJKL})}=\frac{1}{24}\epsilon _{IJKLPQRS}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PQRS}.$$

In this formulation, we are going to consider a very simple $`SL(2,R)E_{7(7)}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJKL}=24\left(z_0\delta _{[IJKL]}^{1234}+\overline{z}_0\delta _{[IJKL]}^{5678}\right),$$

where $`z_0`$ is a complex parameter corresponding to the non-compact generators of the $`SL(2,R)`$.

This subset of the scalars has a manifest $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ invariance acting on the indices $`1,\mathrm{},4`$ and $`5,\mathrm{},8`$ separately. This invariance is a subgroup of the full $`SO(8)`$ gauge symmetry, and so it will be an invariance of the solutions that we obtain here.

It is important to note that the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SL(2,R)`$ is not a subgroup of the $`SO(8)`$ gauge symmetry: This $`U(1)`$ rotates scalars into pseudo-scalars in the four-dimensional theory, and it is the $`U(1)`$ in the $`SU(8)E_{7(7)}`$ defined by

$$U=\mathrm{diag}(+i\zeta ,+i\zeta ,+i\zeta ,+i\zeta ,i\zeta ,i\zeta ,i\zeta ,i\zeta ).$$

This $`U(1)`$ is thus not an a priori symmetry of the solution. However, it is a duality symmetry of a truncated form of the $`𝒩=8`$ theory.

To be more explicit, if we truncate the entire $`𝒩=8`$ theory to the singlets of the second of the $`SO(4)`$ factors in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry, then this will truncate the $`𝒩=8`$ supergravity down to $`𝒩=4`$ gauged $`SO(4)`$ supergravity (in which the gauged $`SO(4)`$ is the first of the $`SO(4)`$ factors). In this truncated theory, the $`U(1)`$ acts as an “electric-magnetic” duality symmetry on the gauge fields of the supergravity, and is thus a symmetry of the equations of motion.

One can use this $`U(1)`$ action to parametrise $`z_0`$:

$$z_0=\frac{1}{2}\alpha e^{i\zeta }.$$

and then the scalar kinetic term takes the form

$$(_\mu \alpha )^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sinh}^22\alpha (_\mu \zeta )^2.$$

On this sector the scalar potential is extremely simple, namely

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{L^2}(2+\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha ),$$

where we have replaced the usual supergravity gauge coupling, $`g`$, according to

$$g=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}L}.$$

To find the supersymmetries one computes the $`SU(8)`$ tensor, $`A_1^{ij}`$, that appears in the gravitino transformation rule. One finds that it is real and proportional to the identity matrix:

$$A_1^{ij}=\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \delta ^{ij}.$$

This means that if we have any supersymmetry then we have maximal supersymmetry. It also implies that there is a superpotential,

$$𝒲=\mathrm{cosh}\alpha ,$$

and indeed one has

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{L^2}\left|\frac{𝒲}{\alpha }\right|^2\frac{3}{L^2}|𝒲|^2.$$

The consequence of all this is that if we use the usual flow metric,

$$ds_{1,3}^2=e^{2A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,$$

where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the flat, Poincaré invariant metric of the $`M2`$-brane, then the following equations of motion yield a maximally supersymmetric flow:

$$\frac{d\alpha }{dr}=\frac{1}{L}\frac{𝒲}{\alpha },\frac{d\zeta }{dr}=0,\frac{dA}{dr}=\frac{1}{L}𝒲.$$

These have the solution

$$e^\alpha =\mathrm{coth}\frac{r}{2L},e^A=\mathrm{sinh}\frac{r}{L}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\alpha },\zeta =\mathrm{const}.$$

The remarkable fact is that the potential, the superpotential and the flows are all independent of the choice of $`\zeta `$, and in particular the flow is maximally supersymmetric for all choices of $`\zeta `$. The $`U(1)`$ rotation by $`\zeta `$ is only a duality symmetry of $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity, and thus might, a priori, be expected to preserve the four supersymmetries of that theory. However, we have shown a stronger result: This duality symmetry preserves all the supersymmetries of the $`𝒩=8`$ theory. Again, we stress that rotations in $`\zeta `$ are generically not symmetries of the gauged supergravity in four dimensions: This rotation takes scalars into pseudo-scalars. In the linearised eleven-dimensional theory, such a rotation takes metric modes into tensor gauge field modes. This symmetry is thus rather unexpected, and must have interesting geometric consequences.

3. Consistent Truncations/ $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity

Since our flow lies entirely within the $`𝒩=4`$, $`SO(4)`$ gauged supergravity theory, we can use the remarkably simple “uplift” formulae of  to find the corresponding solution in eleven dimensions. We therefore review the results for this particular Kaluza-Klein reduction Ansatz for obtaining $`𝒩=4`$ $`SO(4)`$ gauged supergravity in four dimensions from an $`S^7`$ reduction of eleven-dimensional supergravity. For our present purposes we can set the Yang-Mills fields to zero, since these do not participate in the four-dimensional supergravity solution that we are considering here. After doing this, the results for the consistent embedding obtained in  are as follows. The reduction Ansatz for the eleven-dimensional metric is given by

$$d\widehat{s}_{11}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds_4^2+2g^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\theta ^2+\frac{1}{2}g^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[\frac{c^2}{Y}\underset{i}{}(\sigma ^i)^2+\frac{s^2}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\underset{i}{}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i)^2\right],$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{X}& X^1q,q^21+\chi ^2X^4,c\mathrm{cos}\theta ,s\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }& \left[Y\stackrel{~}{Y}\right]^{\frac{1}{6}},Y(c^2X^2+s^2),\stackrel{~}{Y}(s^2\stackrel{~}{X}^2+c^2).\hfill \end{array}$$

The constant $`g`$ is the supergravity gauge coupling constant. The three quantities $`\sigma _i`$ are left-invariant 1-forms on $`S^3=SU(2)`$, and the three $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$ are left-invariant 1-forms on a second $`S^3`$. They satisfy2 Note that we have changed orientation conventions relative to those used in .

$$d\sigma _i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _j\sigma _k,d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k.$$

Explicitly, in terms of Euler angles, $`\phi _i`$, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma _1& \mathrm{cos}\phi _3d\phi _1+\mathrm{sin}\phi _3\mathrm{sin}\phi _1d\phi _2,\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma _2& \mathrm{sin}\phi _3d\phi _1\mathrm{cos}\phi _3\mathrm{sin}\phi _1d\phi _2,\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma _3& \mathrm{cos}\phi _1d\phi _2+d\phi _3,\hfill \end{array}$$

with a similar expression for the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$ in terms of a second set of Euler angles, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j`$.

The remaining bosonic fields of the $`𝒩=4`$ supermultiplet are the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the axion $`\chi `$. The dilaton parameterises the quantity $`X`$ appearing in (3.1) and (3.1), being related to it by

$$X=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }.$$

With the Yang-Mills fields set to zero, the reduction Ansatz for $`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}=g\sqrt{2}Uϵ_{\left(4\right)}\frac{4sc}{g\sqrt{2}}X^1dXd\theta +\frac{\sqrt{2}sc}{g}\chi X^4d\chi d\theta +\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}^{},$$

where

$$U=1+Y+\stackrel{~}{Y}=X^2c^2+\stackrel{~}{X}^2s^2+2,$$

and $`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}^{}=d\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}^{}`$, with

$$\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}^{}=fϵ_{\left(3\right)}+\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_3.$$

Here $`ϵ_{\left(3\right)}=\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _i\sigma _j\sigma _k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\left(3\right)}=\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k`$. The functions $`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f=& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}g^3c^4\chi X^2(c^2X^2+s^2)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{f}=& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}g^3s^4\chi X^2(s^2\stackrel{~}{X}^2+c^2)^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The field strength contribution $`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}^{}`$ is therefore given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}^{}=& \frac{f}{\chi }d\chi ϵ_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{f}{X}dXϵ_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{f}{\theta }d\theta ϵ_{\left(3\right)}\hfill \\ \hfill +& \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\chi }d\chi \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{X}dX\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\theta }d\theta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\left(3\right)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

To make contact with gauged supergravity we need to reparametrise the $`SL(2,R)/U(1)`$ coset space in terms of its Lie algebra generators. The group manifold of $`SL(2,R)`$ can be thought of as the hyperboloid

$$X_0^2+X_1^2X_2^2=1$$

in $`R^3`$. In the reduction Ansatz above, we have used horospherical coordinates in which one has

$$X_0+X_1=e^\varphi ,X_0X_1=e^\varphi +e^\varphi \chi ^2,X_2=e^\varphi \chi .$$

If one goes to a complex ($`SU(1,1)`$) basis, and writes the non-compact Lie-algebra generator of $`SL(2,R)`$ as in (2.1), then one has $`X_0=\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha ,X_1=\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta `$ and $`X_2=\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\zeta `$, from which one obtains

$$e^\varphi =\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha +\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta ,\chi =\frac{\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\zeta }{\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha +\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta }.$$

With these changes of variable, and using (2.1), the metric may be written in terms of the frames

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^1=& \mathrm{\Omega }e^Adt,e^2=\mathrm{\Omega }e^Adx,e^3=\mathrm{\Omega }e^Ady,\hfill \\ \hfill e^4=& \mathrm{\Omega }dr,e^5=2L\mathrm{\Omega }d\theta ,\hfill \\ \hfill e^{j+5}=& L\mathrm{\Omega }Y^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _j,e^{j+8}=L\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j,j=1,2,3,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the functions $`Y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Y=& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}2\alpha ),\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{Y}=& \mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}2\alpha ).\hfill \end{array}$$

The metric defined by (3.1) has a manifest symmetry of $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$, and there is also an interchange symmetry

$$\theta \frac{\pi }{2}\theta ,\alpha \alpha .$$

The $`3`$-form potential is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A^{(3)}=& \frac{k^3Z}{\mathrm{sinh}^3\alpha }dtdxdy\hfill \\ & +L^3\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}^4\theta }{Y}\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the function $`Z`$ is defined by

$$Z=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\alpha }(Y+\stackrel{~}{Y})=\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\theta .$$

This configuration satisfies equations of motion

$$R_{MN}+Rg_{MN}=\frac{1}{12}F_{MPQR}^{(4)}F_N^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{PQR},dF^{(4)}=\frac{1}{2}F^{(4)}F^{(4)},$$

where $``$ is defined using $`ϵ^{1\mathrm{}11}=1`$.

4. Supersymmetry

The gravitino variation is

$$\delta \psi _\mu =_\mu \epsilon +\frac{1}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \lambda \sigma }8\delta _\mu ^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \lambda \sigma }\right)F_{\nu \rho \lambda \sigma }\epsilon .$$

and we will take the gamma-matrices to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_1=i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\gamma _9,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\gamma _9,\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\gamma _9,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{j+3}=_{2\times 2}\gamma _j,j=1,\mathrm{},8,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ are the Pauli spin matrices, $`\text{1}\mathrm{l}`$ is the Identity matrix, and the $`\gamma _j`$ are real, symmetric $`SO(8)`$ gamma matrices. As a result, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ are all real, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ skew-symmetric and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ symmetric for $`j>2`$. One also has:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}11}=\text{1}\mathrm{l},$$

where $`\text{1}\mathrm{l}`$ will henceforth denote the $`32\times 32`$ identity matrix.

Poincaré invariance parallel to the brane means that we can choose a frame in which the Killing spinors are independent of $`(t,x,y)`$. It is instructive to start with the supersymmetry variations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\delta \psi _1=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\delta \psi _2=\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\delta \psi _3=0`$. These equations are identical, and reduce to a single condition of the form

$$\left(x_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^4+y_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^5y_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1234}+x_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1235}+x_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4678}+y_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{5678}+x_4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{49\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}+y_4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{59\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right)\epsilon =0.$$

One can easily check that there are 16 solutions, if and only if

$$\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}=0,$$

and otherwise there are no solutions. It is amusing to note that (4.1) defines the conifold. Remarkably, it turns out that the solutions to (4.1) all yield solutions to the complete set of Killing-spinor conditions. The matrix in (4.1) thus determines the entire family of solutions.

In practice, it is considerably simpler, and indeed more enlightening, to reduce the problem further by first defining

$$_\mu \epsilon =\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\delta \psi _\mu _\mu \epsilon ),\mathrm{𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑}\mathrm{𝚗𝚘}\mathrm{𝚜𝚞𝚖}\mathrm{𝚘𝚗}\mu ,$$

and then observing that the projection matrices

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_1^\pm =& \frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{12}\right),\mathrm{\Pi }_2^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{679\hspace{0.17em}10}}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_3^\pm =& \frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{689\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right),\mathrm{\Pi }_4^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{78\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

all commute with the explicit forms of the operators $`_\mu `$. The projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_4`$ is redundant given $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$, and the effect of these projectors is to reduce each of the gravitino variations to a set of eight $`4\times 4`$ matrices. The Killing spinors then form two-dimensional eigenspaces of each of these eight matrices.

The solutions are most easily characterised in the following manner. Introduce the following functions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_0& \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\alpha }\left(\sqrt{\frac{Y}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}}+\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{Y}}{Y}}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill h_1& \mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}\alpha \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{Y}},h_2\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}\alpha \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{Y}}},\hfill \end{array}$$

and define the matrix

$$𝒫\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}+h_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45}\left(h_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{678}+h_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right)\right).$$

The functions, $`h_j`$, satisfy the identity

$$h_0^2+h_1^2+h_2^2=1,$$

and hence $`𝒫`$ is a projection matrix, satisfying $`𝒫^2=𝒫`$. The solutions to $`\delta \psi _\mu =0`$ for $`\mu =1,2,3`$ are then given by the solutions to

$$𝒫\epsilon _0=0.$$

The gravitino variations parallel to the sphere are largely controlled by the symmetries. The only subtle issue is the $`SU(2)`$ helicity projectors, and for this it is useful to recall that the situation for constant spinors on $`R^4`$, but written in terms of polar coordinates. That is, consider the covariantly constant spinors

$$_\mu \epsilon =0,$$

for the metric

$$ds^2=dr^2+\frac{1}{4}r^2\left(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2+\sigma _3^2\right),$$

One finds that (4.1) may be written

$$dx^\mu _\mu \epsilon =d\epsilon \frac{1}{8}\sigma _k\eta _{ab}^k\gamma ^{ab}\epsilon =0,$$

where the $`\eta _{ab}^k`$ are the self-dual ’t Hooft matrices. The connection term in (4.1) thus acts on only one spinor helicity. Thus the solution to (4.1) are spinors that are of one helicity and are independent of the coordinates of $`S^3`$, and spinors of the other helicity that are the non-trivial solutions of (4.1), but whose dependence on angle can be obtained by using Lie transport of the spinor.

For the more complicated problem at hand we need to identify the correct helicity projector, and the rest is straightforward. To this end, define matrices $``$ and $`\widehat{}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & (h_1^2+h_2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^22\theta +\mathrm{cos}^22\theta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill \\ & \left(h_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{678}+h_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right)\left(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^4+\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^5\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{Y}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{5678}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{59\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{sinh}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{Y\stackrel{~}{Y}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^5.\hfill \end{array}$$

These matrices satisfy

$$^2=\widehat{}^2=\text{1}\mathrm{l},[,𝒫]=0,[\widehat{},𝒫]=0,\epsilon _0=\widehat{}\epsilon _0,$$

where $`\epsilon _0`$ is a solution to (4.1). That is, both square to the identity, commute with the projector, $`𝒫`$ of (4.1), and they have equivalent actions of spinors that satisfy (4.1). We will only need one of the matrices, but we include the equivalent forms for completeness.

Introduce the helicity projectors, and helicity components of a spinor

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0^\pm \frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}\pm \right),\epsilon ^\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_0^\pm \epsilon $$

One can then check that the gravitino variations parallel to the spheres reduce to the condition

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}((\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{78}& \sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{68}+\sigma _3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67})\hfill \\ \hfill +(& \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}11}}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10}}))\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{}\epsilon =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In arriving that this equation we have also made use of (4.1): We assume, henceforth that all our spinors indeed satisfy (4.1).

Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{}\epsilon ^+=0`$, it follows that such spinors solve the variation equations parallel to the spheres if and only if

$$_\mu \epsilon ^+=0,\mu =6,\mathrm{},11.$$

That is, the $`\epsilon ^+`$ must be independent of the coordinates on the spheres.

The spinors, $`\epsilon ^{}`$, of the opposite helicity also provide simple solutions. Define

$$_{AB}(\phi )=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}\phi )\text{1}\mathrm{l}_{AB}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\phi )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB},$$

and let

$$g_{67}(\phi _3)_{68}(\phi _1)_{67}(\phi _2)_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10}}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_3)_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}11}}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1)_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10}}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2).$$

By construction one has

$$dgg^1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{78}\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{68}+\sigma _3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67}\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}11}}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10}}\right)\right),$$

and therefore the solution to the gravitino variation parallel to the spheres is generated by

$$\epsilon ^{}=g\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{}\epsilon _0,$$

for some spinor, $`\epsilon _0`$ that satisfies (4.1), and depends only upon $`r`$ and $`\theta `$.

The last step is to determine the $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ dependence, and solve the corresponding gravitino variation equations. This turns out to be elementary: It is a theorem that if the $`\epsilon _k`$ are solutions to $`\delta \psi _\mu =0`$ for $`\delta \psi _\mu `$ given by (4.1), then the bilinears

$$K_{ij}^\mu \overline{\epsilon }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \epsilon _j,$$

must be Killing vectors. This completely fixes the $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ dependence of the spinors defined above. Indeed, it suffices to check that the first three components, $`K_{ij}^\mu `$, $`\mu =1,2,3`$ are all constants (translations parallel to the brane). Having thus normalised $`\epsilon ^\pm `$, one can then check that indeed all the gravitino variations vanish for the sixteen spinors given by solving (4.1), and using (4.1), (4.1) and (4.1).

It is, perhaps, useful to include one or two more explicit details. Recall that one can reduce the problem to $`4\times 4`$ blocks using the projectors, (4.1). In a suitably chosen basis, these $`4\times 4`$ blocks each yields two orthonormal solutions of the form (4.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon _1=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(h_0+1)}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_0+1,& 0,& h_1,& h_2\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _2=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(h_0+1)}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0,& h_0+1,& h_2,& h_1\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

They are orthonormal in that $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2\epsilon _2=1`$, and $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2=0`$. (One uses (4.1) to verify this.) One also has $`\epsilon _2=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45}\epsilon _1`$ for this pair of spinors.

One can then apply $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^\pm `$ to these, and this generates $`\epsilon ^\pm `$ as independent linear combinations of $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$. One must once again normalise these projected spinors. The result is algebraically messy, but it yields the Killing spinors. One can then get the other fourteen supersymmetries either by doing this in each of the $`4\times 4`$ blocks, or simply by acting with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{78}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{68}`$ on the $`\epsilon ^\pm `$ obtained in the first $`4\times 4`$ block.

There is also a rather simple way to obtain the matrix $``$: There is a linear combination of gravitino variations from which the tensor gauge field, $`F`$, cancels completely, leaving only connection terms. Specifically, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _1+_6+_9=\frac{1}{4L}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\right(& h_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{678}+h_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}})\hfill \\ & +(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^4+\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^5))\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}$$

for the matrices defined in (4.1). This must vanish for the spinors that are independent of the coordinates on the spheres, and indeed the left-hand side of (4.1) is a multiple of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{}\frac{1}{2}(\text{1}\mathrm{l})`$. From this one can obtain $``$.

5. Dielectric Rotations of the Coulomb Branch Flow

5.1. The Coulomb branch

For $`\zeta =0`$, the flow defined in the previous sections lies in the purely scalar sector of supergravity, and must reduce to a standard “Coulomb branch flow,” for which everything can be expressed in terms of a single harmonic function.

Setting $`\zeta =0`$ simplifies things significantly: The transverse components of $`A_{mnp}^{(3)}`$ vanish, and one has $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ = $`e^{2\alpha }Y`$. The pre-factor in front of the $`M2`$-brane section of the metric reduces to $`H^{2/3}`$, where

$$H\frac{e^\alpha \mathrm{sinh}^3\alpha }{Y|_{\zeta =0}}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^3\alpha }{(e^\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +e^\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta )}.$$

This is the harmonic function, but the metric is in some peculiar coodinates adapted to gauged supergravity.

We therefore introduce new variables, according to

$$x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(e^{2\alpha }1)}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,y=\frac{e^\alpha }{\sqrt{(e^{2\alpha }1)}}\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$

In terms of these, the metric becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_{11}^2=H^{2/3}k^2(dx_0^2+& dx_1^2+dx_2^2)\hfill \\ \hfill +& 8H^{1/3}L^2\left(dx^2+dy^2+\frac{1}{4}x^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _j^2+\frac{1}{4}y^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

This is, of course, the requisite “harmonic” form, with flat metrics inside the parentheses.

In the new variables, the harmonic function takes the rather unedifying form

$$H=\frac{1}{16x^2y^2(x^2+y^2)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left((x^2+y^2)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left((x^2+y^2)^2+(x^2y^2)\right)\right).$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x^2+(y1)^2)(x^2+(y1)^2).$$

However, by looking at the asymptotics of this for small $`x`$, one finds that

$$H\frac{1}{4x^2},\mathrm{for}y^2<1.$$

This means that the $`M2`$-branes are spread out into a solid $`4`$-ball, defined by $`y^2<1`$, with a constant density of branes throughout the ball. In particular, the function, $`H(x,y)`$ is given by

$$H(x,y)=\mathrm{const}._{z^2<1}\frac{d^4z}{(x^2+(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{z})^2)^3},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{z}`$ are vectors in $`R^4`$.

The Killing spinor analysis simplifies in that one now has

$$𝒫\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right).$$

If one writes $`x=u\mathrm{cos}\psi `$, $`y=u\mathrm{sin}\psi `$, then the matrix $`\widehat{}`$ becomes, in these new coordinates,

$$\widehat{}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{5678}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{59\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}.$$

It is not completely trivial because the flat metric on $`R^8`$ metric has been written in terms of angular coordinates. The earlier comments about normalising the Killing spinors amount to putting the proper power of the harmonic function into the spinor.

5.2. Dielectric rotations

The general solution presented in sections 2 and 3 has a very non-trivial form, and yet it is related via a simple $`U(1)SU(8)`$ duality rotation, (2.1), to the much simpler, and well-understood “harmonic” M2-brane distribution described above. Thus, in terms of the eleven-dimensional background, the $`SU(8)`$ duality rotation, (2.1), has a highly non-trivial effect that we will now attempt to characterise.

Under the $`U(1)`$ rotation, the harmonic function (5.1) appears to split into two components, which we will denote by $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, with $`H_jY_j^1`$. These component functions do not seem to be harmonic within any obvious flat metric, and so we have not defined them precisely, but one would like to choose them so that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\alpha )}=(H_1H_2)^{1/3}.$$

Note that the left-hand side of (5.1) is the coefficient of the $`M2`$-brane sections of the metric defined by (3.1). Also note that this is consistent with (5.1) for $`\zeta =0`$. These “pseudo-harmonic” functions also appear in the internal parts of the metric parallel to the spheres. Indeed, the eleven-metric has the schematic form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_{11}^2& (H_1H_2)^{1/3}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+h(r,\theta )(dr^2+4L^2d\theta ^2)\hfill \\ & +H_1^{2/3}H_2^{1/3}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _j^2\right)+H_1^{1/3}H_2^{2/3}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The way that the pseudo-harmonic functions appear is suggestive of $`M5`$-branes wrapping the $`3`$-spheres, and intersecting over what was the original $`M2`$-brane. This suggestion is strongly supported by the form of $`A_{mnp}^{(3)}`$: There is still an “electric” $`M2`$-brane component parallel in the $`123`$ directions, while the components parallel to the $`678`$ and $`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}`$ directions are consistent with $`M5`$-branes in the $`\mathrm{1239\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}`$ and $`123678`$ directions respectively. Note also that the pseudo-harmonic functions, and not their inverses, appear as the components of $`A_{mnp}^{(3)}`$ parallel to the spheres. We thus have a distribution of $`M5`$-branes wrapping the spheres in the $`679`$ and $`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}`$ directions. The relative sign for the corresponding components of $`A_{mnp}^{(3)}`$ in (3.1) make it tempting to think of these branes as being $`M5`$-branes and anti-$`M5`$-branes, but such a distinction is largely a matter of orientation.

This picture is particularly evident in the form of the Killing spinors. The crucial step in finding the Killing spinors was to identify the projection matrix, $`𝒫`$, that defines the relevant sixteen-dimensional subspace in which they live. It turns out that the general projection, $`𝒫`$, can be obtained via an $`SU(8)`$ rotation of the simple projector, (5.1), for the “harmonic” solution.

Define

$$=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(h_0+1)}}\left((h_0+1)\text{1}\mathrm{l}h_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{678}+h_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}10\hspace{0.17em}11}}\right).$$

One can then check that the projection matrix, $`𝒫`$, of (4.1) is related to the projection, $`\frac{1}{2}(\text{1}\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})`$, of (5.1) via

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{1}\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right)^1.$$

The matrix, $``$, is a real rotation matrix in $`SO(32)`$. Indeed, since it only acts on the eight-dimensional “internal space,” we may think of it as an $`SO(16)`$ matrix acting on the $`8_s`$ and $`8_c`$ spinors of the internal space. Since $``$ involves the triple products of gamma matrices, and these flip $`SO(8)`$ helicity, $``$ actually lives within the $`SU(8)`$ subgroup of $`SO(16)`$. Since $``$ is an $`SU(8)`$ matrix that preserves $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry, and rotates the Killing spinor projector from the harmonic flow to the general flow, it is natural to think of $``$ as the eleven-dimensional analogue of the $`SU(8)`$ rotation (2.1). This is precisely the local $`SU(8)`$ action that plays a crucial role in the consistent truncation proof of .

The other non-trivial matrix needed to obtain the Killing spinors is the helicity projector, $``$. The Killing spinors lie in either singlets or doublets of the $`(SU(2))^4`$ symmetry of the solution, and the role of $``$ is to sort the solutions to (4.1) into linear combinations that are either singlets or doublets of the $`SU(2)`$’s. As remarked earlier, the form of $``$ can be found by taking the linear combination of gravitino variations from which the tensor gauge field cancels. However, it is also highly constrained, but not quite uniquely determined by the fact that it must commute with the rotation, $``$, and with the projector, $`𝒫`$. It may also be shifted by multiples of $`𝒫`$.

In terms of brane distributions, the effect of $``$ is quite dramatic. The unrotated projector, (5.1), is the standard Dirichlet projector imposed by the presence of the branes. Additional branes usually reduce supersymmetry by imposing more projection conditions, however the dielectric distribution discovered here simply deforms the standard projector in the directions of the fluxes generated by the dielectric $`M5`$-branes.

6. Final Comments

While there are many solutions that can be generated using gauged supergravity theories, we find the solution presented here especially interesting. It has the maximal amount of supersymmetry possible for a brane solution, and yet consists of a complicated combination of $`M2`$-branes and $`M5`$-branes. As was also seen in , the solution presented here shows how a relatively simple duality symmetry of gauged supergravity can translate into a very non-trivial symmetry of the complete eleven-dimensional theory, while preserving all the supersymmetries. More generally, it is still an open problem to classify supersymmetric compactifications in the presence of fluxes, and from this paper it is evident that even maximally supersymmetric flows have a rather richer structure than one might have otherwise expected.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge, UK for its support during the early stages of this work. NW would also like to thank the George P. & Cynthia W. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics for hospitality while this work was completed. This work was supported in part by funds provided by the DOE under grant numbers DE-FG03-95ER-40917 and DE-FG03-84ER-40168.

References

relax J. P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli, S. Pakis and D. Waldram,“G-structures and wrapped NS5-branes,” hep-th/0205050. relax J. P. Gauntlett, J. B. Gutowski, C. M. Hull, S. Pakis and H. S. Reall, “All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in five dimensions,” hep-th/0209114. relax J. P. Gauntlett and S. Pakis, “The geometry of D = 11 Killing spinors,” hep-th/0212008. relax R. Donagi and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460, 299 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9510101\]. relax K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “N = 2 supersymmetric RG flows and the IIB dilaton,” Nucl. Phys. B 594, 209 (2001), hep-th/0004063. relax D. Mateos and P. K. Townsend, “Supertubes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 011602 (2001), hep-th/0103030. relax D. s. Bak and A. Karch, “Supersymmetric brane-antibrane configurations,”Nucl. Phys. B 626, 165 (2002), hep-th/0110039.0. relax R. Corrado, M. Gunaydin, N. P. Warner and M. Zagermann, “Orbifolds and flows from gauged supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 125024 (2002), hep-th/0203057. relax B. de Wit, H. Nicolai and N. P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 255, 29 (1985). relax B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 211 (1987). relax M. Cvetic, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, “Four-dimensional N = 4, SO(4) gauged supergravity from D = 11,” Nucl. Phys. B 574, 761 (2000), hep-th/9910252. relax E. Cremmer and B. Julia, “The SO(8) Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 159, 141 (1979). relax B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, “N=8 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 208, 323 (1982).


format: text

text:
# Clifford Algebras and the Duflo Isomorphism

## 1. Introduction

The universal enveloping algebra $`U(𝔤)`$ of a Lie algebra $`(𝔤,[,]_𝔤)`$ is the quotient of the tensor algebra $`T(𝔤)`$ by the relations, $`\xi \xi ^{}\xi ^{}\xi =[\xi ,\xi ^{}]_𝔤`$. The inclusion of the symmetric algebra $`S(𝔤)`$ into $`T(𝔤)`$ as totally symmetric tensors, followed by the quotient map, gives an isomorphism of $`𝔤`$-modules

$$\mathrm{sym}:S(𝔤)U(𝔤)$$
(1.1)
called the symmetrization map. The restriction of $`\mathrm{sym}`$ to $`𝔤`$-invariants is a vector space isomorphism, but not an algebra isomorphism, from invariant polynomials to the center of the enveloping algebra. Let $`JC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$ be the function

$$J(\xi )=det(j(\mathrm{ad}_\xi )),j(z)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(z/2)}{z/2},$$

and $`J^{1/2}`$ its square root (defined in a neighborhood of $`\xi =0`$). Denote by $`\widehat{J^{1/2}}`$ the infinite order differential operator on $`S𝔤C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$, obtained by replacing the variable $`\xi 𝔤`$ with a directional derivative $`\frac{}{\mu }`$, where $`\mu `$ is the dual variable on $`𝔤^{}`$. Duflo’s celebrated theorem says that the composition

$$\mathrm{sym}\widehat{J^{1/2}}:S𝔤U(𝔤)$$

restricts to an algebra isomorphism, $`(S𝔤)^𝔤\mathrm{Cent}(U(𝔤))`$. In more geometric language, Duflo’s theorem gives an isomorphism between the algebra of invariant constant coefficient differential operators on $`𝔤`$ and bi-invariant differential operators on the corresponding Lie group $`G`$.

The purpose of this note is to give a quick overview of joint work with A. Alekseev , in which we obtained a new proof and a generalization of Duflo’s theorem for the special case of a quadratic Lie algebra. That is, we assume that $`𝔤`$ comes equipped with an invariant, non-degenerate, symmetric bilinear form $`B`$. Examples of quadratic Lie algebras include semi-simple Lie algebras, or the semi-direct product $`𝔤=𝔰𝔰^{}`$ of a Lie algebra $`𝔰`$ with its dual. Using $`B`$ we can define the Clifford algebra $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$. Duflo’s factor $`J^{1/2}(\xi )`$ arises as the Berezin integral of $`\mathrm{exp}(q(\lambda (\xi )))\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$, where $`q:(𝔤)\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$ is the quantization map, and $`\lambda :𝔤^2𝔤`$ is the map dual to the Lie bracket.

## 2. Clifford algebras

Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional real vector space, equipped with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $`B`$. Fix a basis $`e_aV`$ and let $`e^aV`$ be the dual basis. We denote by $`𝔬(V)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ the space of endomorphisms $`A`$ of $`V`$ that are skew-symmetric with respect to $`B`$. For any $`A𝔬(V)`$ we denote its components by $`A_{ab}=B(e_a,Ae_b)`$. Consider the function $`𝒮:𝔬(V)(V)`$ given by

$$𝒮(A)=\stackrel{1/2}{det}\left(j(A)\right)\mathrm{exp}_{(V)}\left(\frac{1}{2}f(A)_{ab}e^ae^b\right)$$

(using summation convention), where

$$f(z)=(\mathrm{ln}j)^{}(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{z}{2})\frac{1}{z}.$$
(2.1)
In turns out that, despite the singularities of the exponential, $`𝒮`$ is a global analytic function on all of $`𝔬(V)`$. It has the following nice property. Let $`\mathrm{Cl}(V)`$ denote the Clifford algebra of $`V`$, defined as a quotient of the tensor algebra $`T(V)`$ by the relations $`vv^{}+v^{}v=B(v,v^{})`$. The inclusion of $`(V)`$ into $`T(V)`$ as totally anti-symmetric tensors, followed by the quotient map to $`\mathrm{Cl}(V)`$, gives a vector space isomorphism

$$q:(V)\mathrm{Cl}(V)$$

known as the quantization map. Then $`𝒮(A)`$ relates the exponentials of quadratic elements $`1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b`$ in the exterior algebra with the exponentials of the corresponding elements $`1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b`$ in the Clifford algebra:

$$\mathrm{exp}_{\mathrm{Cl}(V)}(1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b)=q\left(\iota (𝒮(A))\mathrm{exp}_{(V)}(1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b)\right).$$
(2.2)
Here $`\iota :(V)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is the contraction operator. In fact, one may add linear terms to the exponent: Let $`E`$ be some vector space of “parameters”, and $`\varphi ^aE`$. Then the following identity holds in the $`_2`$-graded tensor product $`\mathrm{Cl}(V)(E)`$:

$$\mathrm{exp}(1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b+e_a\varphi ^a)=q\left(\iota (𝒮(A))\mathrm{exp}(1/2A_{ab}e^ae^b+e_a\varphi ^a)\right).$$

## 3. Quadratic Lie algebras

Let us now consider the case $`V=𝔤`$ of a quadratic Lie algebra. Invariance of the bilinear form $`B`$ means that the the adjoint representation $`\mathrm{ad}:𝔤\mathrm{End}(𝔤)`$ takes values in $`𝔬(𝔤)`$, or equivalently that the structure constants $`f_{abc}=B(e_a,[e_b,e_c])`$ are invariant under cyclic permutations of the indices $`a,b,c`$. We specialize (2.2) to $`A=\mathrm{ad}_\xi `$ for $`\xi 𝔤`$, so that $`\lambda ^𝔤:𝔤^2𝔤`$,

$$\lambda ^𝔤(\xi )=1/2(\mathrm{ad}_\xi )_{ab}e^ae^b$$

is the map dual to the Lie bracket. Also, take $`E=T_\xi ^{}𝔤`$ and $`\varphi ^a=d\xi ^a`$, where $`\xi ^a=B(\xi ,e^a)`$ are the coordinate functions. Then our formula become the following identity in $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔤)`$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(q(\lambda ^𝔤)e_ad\xi ^a\right)=q\left(\iota (𝒮^𝔤)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^𝔤e_ad\xi ^a)\right),$$
(3.1)
where $`𝒮^𝔤=𝒮\mathrm{ad}:𝔤𝔤`$. Consider now the following cubic element in the Clifford algebra,

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{6}f_{abc}e^ae^be^c\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤).$$

A beautiful observation of Kostant-Sternberg  says that $`𝒞`$ squares to a constant:

$$𝒞^2=\frac{1}{48}f_{abc}f^{abc}.$$

It follows that the graded commutator $`\mathrm{d}^{\mathrm{Cl}𝔤}:=[𝒞,]`$ defines a differential on $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$. This Clifford differential is compatible with the filtration of $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$, and the induced differential $`\mathrm{d}^𝔤`$ on the associated graded algebra $`\mathrm{gr}(\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤))=𝔤`$ is nothing but the Lie algebra differential. Let $`\mathrm{d}^{\mathrm{Rh}}`$ denote the exterior differential on the deRham complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔤)`$.

It is easily verified that $`\lambda ^𝔤e_ad\xi ^a𝔤\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔤)`$ is closed for the differential $`\mathrm{d}^𝔤+\mathrm{d}^{\mathrm{Rh}}`$, while $`q(\lambda ^𝔤)e_ad\xi ^a\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔤)`$ is closed under $`\mathrm{d}^{\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)}+\mathrm{d}^{\mathrm{Rh}}`$. Together with (3.1), this leads to a number of consistency conditions for the function $`𝒮^𝔤`$. One of these conditions gives a solution of the classical dynamical Yang-Baxter equation (CDYBE): Let $`𝔯:𝔤𝔬(𝔤)`$ be the meromorphic function $`𝔯^𝔤(\xi )=f(\mathrm{ad}_\xi )`$ appearing in the exponential factor of $`𝒮^𝔤`$. Then

$$\mathrm{cycl}_{abc}\left(\frac{𝔯_{ab}}{\xi ^c}𝔯_{ak}f_b^{kl}𝔯_{lc}\right)=\frac{1}{4}f_{abc}$$
(3.2)
where $`\mathrm{cycl}_{abc}`$ denotes the sum over cyclic permutations of $`a,b,c`$. This solution of the CDYBE was obtained by Etingof-Varchenko  and in  by different methods. In Etingof-Schiffmann , it is shown that $`𝔯_{ab}`$ is in fact the unique solution of this particular CDYBE, up to gauge transformation. More general CDYBE’s are associated to a pair $`𝔥𝔤`$ of Lie algebras, here $`𝔥=𝔤`$. The proof sketched above can be modified to produce some of these more general solutions.

## 4. The non-commutative Weil algebra

Using $`B`$ to identify the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with its dual $`𝔤^{}`$, the Weil algebra of $`𝔤`$ is the $``$-graded $`𝔤`$-module given as a tensor product

$$W𝔤=S𝔤𝔤,$$

where generators of $`S𝔤`$ are assigned degree $`2`$. Let $`L_\xi ^W`$ for $`\xi 𝔤`$ denote the generators for the $`𝔤`$-action on $`W𝔤`$, and $`\iota _\xi ^W=1\iota _\xi `$ the contraction operators. The Weil differential $`\mathrm{d}^W`$ is a derivation of degree 1, uniquely characterized by its properties $`\mathrm{d}^W\mathrm{d}^W=0`$ and $`\mathrm{d}^W(1\xi )=\xi 1`$ for $`\xi 𝔤`$. The Weil algebra $`W𝔤`$ with these three types of derivations is an example of a $`𝔤`$-differential algebra: That is, $`L_\xi ^W,\iota _\xi ^W,\mathrm{d}^W`$ satisfy relations similar to contraction operators, Lie derivatives, and de Rham differential for a manifold with group action.

In , we introduced the following non-commutative version of the Weil algebra,

$$𝒲𝔤=U𝔤\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤).$$

It carries a $``$-filtration, where generators of $`U(𝔤)`$ are assigned filtration degree 2, with associated graded algebra $`\mathrm{gr}(𝒲𝔤)=W𝔤`$. Moreover, it carries a $`_2`$-grading, compatible with the $``$-filtration in the sense of . Define contraction operators as $`_2`$-graded commutators $`\iota _\xi ^𝒲=[1\xi ,]`$, let $`L_\xi ^𝒲`$ be the generators for the natural $`𝔤`$-module structure, and set $`\mathrm{d}^𝒲=[𝒟,]`$ where

$$𝒟=e_ae^a1𝒞𝒲𝔤$$

is the cubic Dirac operator . Its square

$$𝒟^2=\frac{1}{2}e_ae^a1\frac{1}{48}f_{abc}f^{abc}$$

is in the center of $`𝒲𝔤`$, hence $`\mathrm{d}^𝒲`$ is a differential. As it turns out, $`𝒲𝔤`$ is again a $`𝔤`$-differential algebra. The derivations $`\mathrm{d}^𝒲,\iota _\xi ^𝒲,L_\xi ^𝒲`$ respect the $``$-filtration, and the induced derivations on the associated graded algebra are just the standard derivations for the Weil algebra $`W𝔤`$.

The vector space isomorphism $`\mathrm{sym}q:W𝔤𝒲𝔤`$ intertwines the contraction operators and Lie derivatives, but not the differentials. There does exist, however, a better “quantization map” $`𝒬:W𝔤𝒲𝔤`$ that is also a chain map. Using our function $`𝒮^𝔤C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)𝔤`$, let $`\iota (\widehat{𝒮^𝔤})`$ denote the operator on $`W𝔤`$, where the $`𝔤`$-factor acts by contraction on $`𝔤`$ and the $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$-factor as an infinite order differential operator.

Theorem.  The quantization map

$$𝒬:=(\mathrm{sym}q)\iota (\widehat{𝒮^𝔤}):W𝔤𝒲𝔤$$

intertwines the contraction operators, Lie derivatives, and differentials on $`W𝔤`$ and on $`𝒲𝔤`$.

The fact that $`𝒬`$ intertwines the two differentials $`\mathrm{d}^W,\mathrm{d}^𝒲`$ relies on a number of special properties of the function $`𝒮^𝔤`$, including the CDYBE.

Put differently, the quantization map $`𝒬`$ defines a new, graded non-commutative ring structure on the Weil algebra $`W𝔤`$, in such a way that the derivations $`\iota _\xi ^W,L_\xi ^W,\mathrm{d}^W`$ are still derivations for the new ring structure, and in fact become inner derivations. Notice that $`𝒬`$ restricts to the quantization map for Clifford algebras $`q:𝔤\mathrm{Cl}(𝔤)`$ on the second factor and to the Duflo map on the first factor, but is not just the product of these two maps.

## 5. Equivariant cohomology

H. Cartan in  introduced the Weil algebra $`W𝔤`$ as an algebraic model for the algebra of differential forms on the classifying bundle $`EG`$, at least in the case $`G`$ compact.

In particular, it can be used to compute the equivariant cohomology $`H_G(M)`$ (with real coefficients) for any $`G`$-manifold $`M`$. Let $`\iota _\xi ^{Rh},L_\xi ^{Rh},\mathrm{d}^{Rh}`$ denote the contraction operators, Lie derivatives, and differential on the de Rham complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ of differential forms. Let

$$H_𝔤(M)=H((W𝔤\mathrm{\Omega }(M))_{\mathrm{basic}},\mathrm{d}^W+\mathrm{d}^{Rh})$$

where $`(W𝔤\mathrm{\Omega }(M))_{\mathrm{basic}}`$ is the subspace annihilated by all Lie derivatives $`L_\xi ^W+L_\xi ^{Rh}`$ and all contraction operators $`\iota _\xi ^W+\iota _\xi ^{Rh}`$. Cartan’s result says that $`H_𝔤(M)=H_G(M,)`$ provided $`G`$ is compact.

More generally, we can define $`H_𝔤(𝒜)`$ for any $`𝔤`$-differential algebra $`𝒜`$. Let $`_𝔤(𝒜)`$ be defined by replacing $`W𝔤`$ with $`𝒲𝔤`$. The quantization map $`𝒬:W𝔤𝒲𝔤`$ induces a map $`𝒬:H_𝔤(𝒜)_𝔤(𝒜)`$.

Theorem.  For any $`𝔤`$-differential algebra $`𝒜`$, the vector space isomorphism $`𝒬:H_𝔤(𝒜)_𝔤(𝒜)`$ is in fact an algebra isomorphism.

Our proof is by construction of an explicit chain homotopy between the two maps $`W𝔤W𝔤𝒲𝔤`$ given by “quantization followed by multiplication” and “multiplication followed by quantization”, respectively. Taking $`𝒜`$ to be the trivial $`𝔤`$-differential algebra (i.e. $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{point})`$), the statement specializes to Duflo’s theorem for quadratic $`𝔤`$.


text:
# CHIRAL PERTURBATION THEORY AT TWO LOOPS AND THE MEASUREMENT OF 𝑉_{𝑢𝑠}aafootnote aTalk given at 38th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High-Energy Hadronic Interactions, Les Arcs, Savoie, France, 22-29 Mar 2003.

## 1 Introduction

The precise determination of the elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix (CKM) is an important part of the study of the flavour sector of the standard model. A recent overview can be found in the proceedings of the CERN CKM workshop. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ In this talk I will concentrate on the theory behind the measurement of $`V_{us}`$ from $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ ($`K\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$) decays and in particular on the recent work of P. Talavera and myself on the two-loop calculation and the determination of the relevant low-energy constants. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

I first give a short overview of Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) and the relevant two-loop calculations which have been performed to date. Then I discuss $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ and the present situation for the theory. I also include a short discussion of the validity of the linear approximation of the form factors normally used in the data analysis. I then proceed to the results from ChPT $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which can be summarized as follows. The curvatures are important in the analysis but can be predicted using ChPT from the pion electromagnetic form-factor. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ All parameters needed to determine $`V_{us}`$ can be determined from the scalar form factor in $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the curvature can be predicted as well from knowledge about scalar form factors of the pion.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 2 Chiral Perturbation Theory

Chiral Perturbation Theory is an effective low energy field theory which is an approximation to Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). It was introduced in its modern form by Weinberg, Gasser and Leutwyler. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ QCD in the limit of massless quarks has a global $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry. This symmetry is spontaneously broken down to the vector subgroup $`SU(3)_V`$ by the quark condensate being different from zero.

$$\overline{q}q=\overline{q}_Lq_R+\overline{q}_Rq_L0.$$
(1)
The eight broken generators lead to eight Goldstone bosons. These are massless and their interactions vanish at zero momentum. This allows to build up a well defined perturbative expansion in terms of momenta, generically referred to as an expansion in $`p^2`$. Quark masses can be counted as order $`p^2`$ since $`p_\pi ^2=m_\pi ^2m_q\overline{q}q`$. Insertions of external photons and $`W^\pm `$-bosons are counted as order $`p`$ since these are incorporated via covariant derivatives. Recent lectures, providing many more details than given here are available. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ One of the underlying problems is that ChPT is an effective field theory. As such the number of parameters increases order by order. In ChPT in the purely mesonic strong and semi-leptonic sector there are two parameters at lowest order ($`p^2`$), ten at NLO ($`p^4`$), $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and 90 at NNLO ($`p^6`$). $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The renormalization procedure and the divergences are known in general to NNLO $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and provide a strong check on all calculations. One problem in comparing different calculations is the use of different renormalization schemes. The calculations that were used to determine all the needed parameters are those of the masses and decay constants, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`K_\mathrm{}4`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the electromagnetic form factors. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 3 $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ decays: definitions, $`V_{us}`$ and linearity of the form factors

There are two $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ decays:

$`K_\mathrm{}3^+:K^+(p)`$ $``$ $`\pi ^0(p^{})\mathrm{}^+(p_{\mathrm{}})\nu _{\mathrm{}}(p_\nu )`$
$`K_\mathrm{}3^0:K^0(p)`$ $``$ $`\pi ^{}(p^{})\mathrm{}^+(p_{\mathrm{}})\nu _{\mathrm{}}(p_\nu ).`$ (2)
The amplitudes for $`K_\mathrm{}3^{+,0}`$ can be written as

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{us}^{}\mathrm{}^\mu F_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{+,0}(p^{},p),F_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(p^{},p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[(p^{}+p)_\mu f_+^{K^+\pi ^0}(t)+(pp^{})_\mu f_{}^{K^+\pi ^0}(t)]`$
$`\mathrm{}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_\nu )\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)v(p_{\mathrm{}}),F_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}(p^{},p)=(p^{}+p)_\mu f_+^{K^0\pi ^{}}(t)+(pp^{})_\mu f_{}^{K^0\pi ^{}}(t).`$ (3)
Isospin leads to the relations

$$f_+^{K^0\pi ^{}}(t)=f_+^{K^+\pi ^0}(t)=f_+(t)\text{and}f_{}^{K^0\pi ^{}}(t)=f_{}^{K^+\pi ^0}(t)=f_{}(t),$$
(4)
We also define the scalar form factor and the usual linear parametrizations

$$f_0(t)=f_+(t)+\frac{t}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}f_{}(t)f_{+,0}(t)=f_+(0)\left(1+\lambda _{+,0}\frac{t}{m_\pi ^2}\right).$$
(5)
In order to determine $`|V_{us}|`$ we need to know theoretically and experimentally $`f_+(0)`$. On the theory side there are three main effects. There is a well-known short-distance correction from $`G_\mu `$ to $`G_F`$ calculated by Marciano and Sirlin. The corrections of order $`(m_s\widehat{m})^2`$ allowed by the Ademollo-Gatto theorem are estimated in the present work at $`p^6`$. The sizable isospin breaking discussed by Leutwyler and Roos $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is in the process of being evaluated at order $`p^6`$ too. On the experimental side, the old radiative correction calculations used in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have been updated in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ where a clean procedure with generalized form-factors has been proposed. The experimental data have so far been analyzed using a linear form factor $`f_+(t)`$. The recent precise CPLEAR data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are presented in a form allowing to test this definition. Using a quadratic fit to their data and neglecting systematic errors we get a normalized $`f_+(0)=1`$ and $`\lambda _+=0.0245\pm 0.0006`$. Allowing for curvature we obtain a sizable curvature and $`f_+(0)=1.008\pm 0.009`$ and $`\lambda _+=0.0181\pm 0.0068`$. The fitted curvature is compatible with zero at the one sigma level and the central value is exactly at the ChPT prediction given below. In order to obtain $`|V_{us}|`$ with an error of 1% it is therefore important to include the effect of curvature in the analysis. Note that the central value of $`\lambda _+`$ is outside the errors quoted for the linear fit. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 4 $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$: theory

The ChPT calculation for $`f_+(t)`$ is rather long and cumbersome. I will use here our work, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ but an independent calculation exists $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and agrees reasonably well.bbbThe numerical disagreement with some of the results mentioned there is under investigation. We can write the amplitude as

$`f_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1+f_+^{(4)}(t)+f_+^{(6)}(t)\text{with}f_+^{(4)}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{t}{2F_\pi ^2}}L_9^r+\text{loops},`$
$`f_+^{(6)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{F_\pi ^4}}\left(C_{12}^r+C_{34}^r\right)\left(m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{F_\pi ^4}}R_{+1}^{K\pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{F_\pi ^4}}(4C_{88}^r+4C_{90}^r)+\text{loops}(L_i^r).`$ (6)
From the data on the pion electromagnetic form factor we $`^\mathrm{?}`$ obtain

$$L_9^r=0.00593\pm 0.00043\text{and}4C_{88}^r+4C_{90}^r=0.00022\pm 0.00002.$$
(7)
Using these as input we can now fit the CPLEAR data and obtain

$$R_{+1}^{K\pi }=(4.7\pm 0.5)10^5\text{GeV}^2\text{and}\lambda _+=0.0170\pm 0.0015.$$
(8)
The first can be compared to the VMD estimate $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`R_{+1}^{K\pi }|_{VMD}410^5\text{GeV}^2`$. The latter comes from ChPT as

$$\lambda _+=0.0283(p^4)+0.0011(\text{loops }p^6)0.0124(C_i^r).$$
(9)
## 5 $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$: theory

The $`p^6`$ result for $`f_0(t)`$ can be rewritten as

$`f_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{F_\pi ^4}}\left(C_{12}^r+C_{34}^r\right)\left(m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)^2+8{\displaystyle \frac{t}{F_\pi ^4}}\left(2C_{12}^r+C_{34}^r\right)\left(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2\right)`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}}\left(F_K/F_\pi 1\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{F_\pi ^4}}t^2C_{12}^r+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }(0).`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ contain NO $`C_i^r`$ and only depend on the $`L_i^r`$ at order $`p^6`$ thus ALL needed parameters can be determined experimentally.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=0.0080\pm 0.0057[\text{loops}]\pm 0.0028[L_i^r].$$
(11)
is known and an expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ can be found in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The errors are an estimate of higher orders and using fits of the $`L_i^r`$ using different assumptions.

## 6 Conclusions

I have discussed the calculation of the $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ form factors in ChPT at order $`p^6`$. The main conclusions are that the curvatures for $`f_+(t)`$ and $`f_0(t)`$ can be predicted from ChPT and the data on pion electromagnetic $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and scalar $`^\mathrm{?}`$ form-factors, the curvature in $`f_+(t)`$ and $`f_0(t)`$ should be taken into account in new precision experiments but from the slope and the curvature we can determine experimentally the needed parameters to calculate $`f_+(0)`$. A precision of better than one percent seems feasible for $`|V_{us}|`$.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been funded in part by the Swedish Research Council and the European Union RTN network, Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE)

## References