A companion to "Knot invariants and M-theory I'' [arXiv:1608.05128]: proofs and derivations
PPrepared for submission to JHEP C OMPANION PAPER
A companion to “Knot invariants and M-theory I”:proofs and derivations
Ver´onica Errasti D´ıez
Ernest Rutherford Physics Department, McGill University,3600 rue University, Montr´eal, Qu´ebec, Canada H3A 2T8
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract:
We construct two distinct yet related M-theory models that provide suitableframeworks for the study of knot invariants. We then focus on the four-dimensional gaugetheory that follows from appropriately compactifying one of these M-theory models. Weshow that this theory has indeed all required properties to host knots. Our analysis providesa unifying picture of the various recent works that attempt an understanding of knotinvariants using techniques of four-dimensional physics.This is a companion paper to [1], covering all but section 3.3. It presents a detailedmathematical derivation of the main results there, as well as additional material. Amongthe new insights, those related to supersymmetry and the topological twist are highlighted.This paper offers an alternative, complementary formulation of the contents in [1], but isself-contained and can be read independently.
Keywords:
BHN equations, Chern-Simons, Hitchin equations, M2-branes, M-theory, su-pergravity, supersymmetry, Θ-term, topological twist. a r X i v : . [ h e p - t h ] F e b ontents I Two M-theory constructions to study knot invariants: (M, 1) and(M, 5) 4 N = 1 supersymmetry: torsion classes 333.2 Obtaining a type IIB configuration with RR and NS fluxes: a boost in M-theory 363.2.1 Exact results: a specific choice of the warp factors 413.2.2 Connection to the model in [9] 433.3 Non-commutative deformation and M-theory uplift 45 II Study of the four-dimensional gauge theory following from the con-figuration (M, 1) 51 SU ( N ) gauge theory 53 I (1 , : the contribution of gauge field strengths 584.1.2 Determining I (1 , : the contribution of three scalar fields 634.2 Mass term of the G-flux 724.3 Completing the four-dimensional vector multiplet: third term for the action 75 c = 0 in (4.146) 855.1.1 Minimization of the Hamiltonian 915.1.2 Consistency requirements and advantage of rewriting (5.7) as (5.31) 965.2 Generalization to the case where c (cid:54) = 0 in (4.146) 101– i – The boundary theory 106
Knot theory is the branch of topology that studies knots. In this context, a knot is anembedding of a circle in three-dimensional Euclidean space or its compact analogue: thethree-sphere. Two such knots are said to be equivalent iff there exists an ambient isotopytransforming one to the other. This formal definition of equivalent knots is, unfortunately,insufficient in practice. To such a great degree that one of the main unresolved problems inknot theory consists on distinguishing knots. That is, determining when two knots are (orare not) equivalent. This is known as the “classification problem of knots”. Very elaboratealgorithms exist to this end, yet the problem persists.Another approach to the knot differentiation puzzle involves knot invariants: numbers,polynomials or homologies defined for each knot which remain unchanged for equivalentknots. Interestingly, invariants such as Khovanov and Floer homologies are capable oftelling apart the unknot from any other non-equivalent knot. Although this is a phenomenalachievement, there is still much to be accomplished. So much so that, at present, it is notknown whether a knot invariant exists which is capable of distinguishing all inequivalentknots.There are various ways to compute knot invariants. Mathematicians use recursive re-lations, known as skein relations, to compute the Conway [2, 3], Alexander [4] and Jones [5]polynomials, among others. The first physics understanding of knot invariants appearedmuch later, in the groundbreaking work [6]. In it, knot polynomials are obtained as ex-pectation values of the holonomy of a Chern-Simons gauge field around a knot carryinga representation of the underlying (compact) gauge group. In particular, the Jones andHOMFLY-PT [3, 7] polynomials follow from considering the defining representations of SU (2) and SU ( N ), respectively.Starting roughly at the same time and up to now, there have been a number ofworks that address the study of knot invariants from the point of view of four-dimensionalphysics: [8–13], to mention a few. It is within this context that the present work attemptsto provide a unifying and neat scheme of the results obtained so far and contribute newinsights. Specifically, we will first establish a precise connection between the models in [11]and [9]. Then, we will reproduce the conclusions of [11] in the low energy supergravitydescription of a given M-theory model. As we shall see, our approach leads to a strikinglysimple analysis in the context of the usual classical Hamiltonian formalism.– 1 –his paper and [1] constitute the first step in the path of computing knot invariantsfrom M-theory, compactified down to four dimensions. We here lay the (fertile) ground forembedding knots in our setting. The simplest knot invariant, the so called linking number,is computed in [1]. We leave the realization of more challenging invariants to the sequel. The paper is arranged as follows. In part I, we construct two distinct M-theory configu-rations that have all necessary features to harbor knots. We refer to these as (M, 1) and(M, 5). Specifically, section 2 is devoted to the construction of (M, 1), starting from thewell-known D3-NS5 system in type IIB superstring theory considered in [11]. The verysame D3-NS5 system is also the basis for the construction of (M, 5), presented in section3. It is worth pointing out that (M, 5) is dual to the resolved conifold in the presence offluxes considered in [9].Part II focuses on the study of the four-dimensional gauge theory that follows fromappropriately compactifying model (M, 1). In particular, section 4 deals with the derivationof its action. The corresponding Hamiltonian is obtained in section 5, where we alsominimize its energy for static configurations of the fields. We thus find the BPS conditionsfor the gauge theory. After the energy minimization process, the Hamiltonian reduces to anaction in a three-dimensional subspace, as proved in section 6. Further, a careful analysisof the symmetries and physics of this three-dimensional space shows that knots can beconsistently embedded in its Euclidean version.Due to the considerable length of the computational details and arguments presented,we have included a graphical summary of the paper. It works in the following manner. Bylooking at the twelve figures (and their captions) here shown, the reader can quickly graspthe fundamental logic articulating each part and section. Additionally, most of the figuresrefer to equations in the text: these constitute our main results. Hence, the figures can beused to efficiently localize any particular information of interest within the text.
This is a companion paper to [1]. As such, it aims to clarify the main results statedthere, providing precise mathematical computations to endorse them. The complete list ofequations in [1] that are here proven is shown in table 1. Broadly speaking, the followingare the key points we address exhaustively:1. The details of the construction of the M-theory configurations (M, 1) and (M, 5).In [1], these are called
Model A and
Model B , respectively and are, to a large extent,simply stated rather than derived. Part I is devoted to rectifying this situation.Specifically, a special effort is made to quantify all the intermediate geometries andfluxes that one encounters in constructing (M, 1) and (M, 5) from the D3-NS5 systemof [11]. Additionally, we emphasize how all considered configurations are exactlyrelated to each other. It should be noted that the figures in part I are conceived tohelp in this respect. – 2 –resent work Equations in [1]Part I (3.4), (3.5), (3.19)-(3.25), (3.33)-(3.39),Section 2.1 (3.41)-(3.44), (3.46), (3.47), (3.49), (3.53)-(3.55)Section 2.1.1 (3.85), (3.86), (3.89), (3.90)Section 2 Section 2.2 (3.26), (3.29)-(3.32), (3.56)-(3.58)Section 3.1 (4.1), (4.20), (4.23)Section 3.2 (4.2), (4.3)(4.9), (4.10), (4.13), (4.16),Section 3.2.1 (4.17), (4.24)-(4.26), (4.30)Section 3.2.2 (4.8)Section 3 Section 3.3 (4.39), (4.40), (4.48), (4.51), (4.52)Part II Section 4 Section 4.1 (3.52), (3.91)-(3.98)Section 4.1.1 (3.76), (3.78)-(3.81)Section 4.1.2 (3.101), (3.102), (3.105)-(3.111),(3.114)-(3.119), (3.121), (3.124)-(3.128)Section 4.2 (3.63), (3.67), (3.68)Section 4.3 (3.136)-(3.139), (3.142)-(3.148), (3.153)Section 5 Section 5.1 (3.158), (3.160)Section 5.1.1 (3.161), (3.162), (3.167), (3.169),(3.171)-(3.173), (3.177)-(3.182)Section 5.1.2 (3.174), (3.207), (3.218), (3.220), (3.252)-(3.275)Section 5.2 (3.183), (3.187), (3.225)Section 6 Section 6.1 (3.233)Section 6.2 (3.155), (3.222), (3.223), (3.243), (3.251)Section 6.3 (3.156), (3.157), (3.184), (3.191),(3.224), (3.232), (3.236), (3.237),(3.240)-(3.242), (3.246), (3.346)-(3.350)Section 6.3.1 (3.282), (3.287)
Table 1 . List of equations in [1] for which a detailed derivation can be found in the present workand the section where this is done. The listed equations are the main results in [1] and they coverall but section 3.3 there.
2. A meticulous explanation (missing in [1]) on what is the four-dimensional gaugetheory action associated to (M, 1). Ultimately, the action is given by (4.146), or by(3.153) in the language of [1]. It depends on various coefficients, summarized in table2, that can be traced to the supergravity parameters in (M, 1). An important sideresult is the derivation of these coefficients, which were merely asserted in [1].3. The ins and outs involved in rewriting the action (4.146) as a Hamiltonian thatconsists on a sum of squared terms, plus contributions from a three-dimensionalboundary. The Hamiltonian in question is first obtained as (5.31), for a particularly– 3 –imple limiting case of the gauge theory. This corresponds to (3.158) in [1]. Rightafterwards, it is generalized to (5.88), a novel result from the perspective of [1].4. The present work includes a comprehensive study of the supersymmetry of the gaugetheory following from (M, 1). In particular, it obtains the boundary conditions thatthe fields must obey so that the theory is N = 2 supersymmetric. Such discussionand results are not part of [1].5. A basic review of the technique of topological twist and a careful investigation of itscompatibility with the desired amount of supersymmetry is another relevant adden-dum to [1] that we elaborate on. The main advantage of doing so results into furtherinsight into the origin and relevance of the all-important parameter ˆ t (or simply t in [1, 11]) defined in (6.32).In spite of its companion paper nature, the present work is self-contained and coherentby itself. Consequently, it may be read independently of [1]. Nonetheless, an attempt ismade to present all results in a different manner from [1], so that both works are mutuallyenriching. In this way, it should be fruitful to check [1] at times and so complement thepresent reading.It is worth mentioning that the mathematical notation, albeit mostly coincident withthe one used in [1], at times differs from it. The reason is simple: to avoid repetition ofcharacters and thus prevent possible confusions that may arise while reading through [1].Nevertheless, since a one to one mapping of equations is done, the reader should have nodifficulty in going from one work to the other.There is a part of [1] which is not touched upon: it is section 3.3. No complementarymaterial to section 3.3 applies: it is detailed enough in its own right. In it, knots areembedded in the aforementioned gauge theory. This is achieved by introducing M2-branesalong some particular directions in the M-theory configuration (M, 1). From the four-dimensional point of view, such M2-branes are surface operators, extensively studied co-dimension two objects (for example, see [14]). Further, the M2-brane surface operators areused to obtain the linking numbers of any arbitrary knot. The present paper is written soas to allow the interested reader to directly jump from the end of section 6 to section 3.3in [1] without any hurdle. Part I
Two M-theory constructions to studyknot invariants: (M, 1) and (M, 5)
As the title suggests, in this first part we will construct two different M-theory configura-tions that provide an appropriate framework for the study of knots and their invariants.We will refer to these configurations as (M, 1) and (M, 5). Both of them will be directlyobtained from the well-known type IIB system of a D3-brane ending on an NS5-brane– 4 –onsidered in [11]. Section 2 contains the construction of (M, 1) from the D3-NS5 system,while section 3 derives (M, 5). As will be argued towards the end of this first part, insection 3.2.2, (M, 5) is intimately related to the model in [9]. Consequently, this part laysthe ground for an explicit connection between the two seemingly different approaches tostudy knot invariants of [11] and [9].Before proceeding to the details, a word of warning: we will consider multiple typeIIA, IIB and M-theory configurations. Figure 1 provides a visual sketch of the overall logicin this part. Hence, the reader may find it clarifying to come back to this image whilereading through sections 2 and 3.
M-theory configuration(M, 5) M-theory configuration(M, 2) M-theory configuration(M, 1)
NS5 D3 Modificationsof figure 2Modificationsof figure 6 D5/D5Taub-NUTN>>1 D5's Resolved conifoldModificationsof figure 9 Modificationsof figure 5 Modificationsof figure 3
EquivalentNon-abelian enhanced(M, 1)
Modificationsof figure 7 Modificationsof figure 4
Dual fluxes Resolved conifold Modificationsof figure 8
Dual
Figure 1 . Graphical summary of part I. Starting from the type IIB D3-NS5 system of [11], weconstruct two different M-theory configurations where knots and their invariants can be studied.We refer to these as (M, 1) (and its non-abelian enhancement) and (M, 5). (The configuration (M,2) is equivalent to (M, 1) for the purposes of our work, yet computationally tougher to handle. Wewill thus focus our efforts in the study of (M, 1) only.) Note that (M, 1) is dual to [11]. Similarly,(M, 5) is dual to the resolved conifold in the presence of fluxes considered in [9]. The right-handside of the figure, colored green, schematizes the contents of section 2. The left-hand side, in blue,depicts the discussion in section 3. – 5 –
The D3-NS5 system modified
As we just mentioned, the starting point of our analysis is the well-known type IIB su-perstring theory configuration of a D3-brane ending on an NS5-brane. In more detail,we consider Minkowski spacetime R , , with mostly positive metric signature. We denotethe coordinates as ( t, x , x , x , θ , φ , ψ, r, x , x ). (The identifications ( x ≡ θ , x ≡ φ , x ≡ ψ, x ≡ r ) will shortly become sensible.) We take the D3-brane to stretch along( t, x , x , ψ ) and the NS5-brane along ( t, x , x , x , x , x ). The U (1) gauge theory onthe D3-brane has N = 4 supersymmetry and the intersecting NS5-brane provides a half-BPS boundary condition. The world-volume gauge theory thus has N = 2 supersymmetry.This is, essentially, the starting point of [11] as well. (The only difference is that, in [11],an axionic background C is switched on. We will elaborate on this point in section 2.2.)Next, we do three modifications to the above set up. These are depicted schematicallyin figure 2 and discussed in the following. • First, we introduce a second NS5-brane, parallel to the first one and which alsointersects the D3-brane. This means that the orthogonal direction to the NS5-branesof the D3-brane, namely ψ , is now a finite interval. The inclusion of the second NS5-brane halves the amount of supersymmetry of the gauge theory on the D3-brane.However, we consider the case when the ψ interval is very large (that is, the twoNS5-branes are far from each other). Then, near the original NS5-brane, effectivelyno supersymmetry is lost in this step. • Second, we do a T-duality to type IIA superstring theory along x . As a result, wenow have a D4-brane (instead of a D3-brane) between the same two NS5-branes ofbefore. • Third, we do a T-duality back to type IIB along ψ . The NS5-branes thus disappearand give rise to a warped Taub-NUT space in the ( θ , φ , ψ, r ) directions. (Thisjustifies the coordinate relabeling above.) As argued in [15], because ψ is a finiteinterval and because our construction leads to an N = 2 supersymmetric world-volume gauge theory, the D4-brane converts to a D5/D5 pair which wraps the ψ direction and stretches along r .The geometry corresponding to this last configuration is well-known (in fact, the threemodifications above were done only to be able to write the corresponding metric) and isgiven by (3.4) and (3.5) in [1]: ds B, = e − φ ( − dt + dx + dx + dx ) + e φ F ( dx + dx )+ e φ [ F dr + F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) + F ( dθ + sin θ dφ )] , (2.1)where e − φ is the usual type IIB dilaton. (Since we will consider many metrics in theongoing, we adopt the notation ds X,n ) . Here X = A, B, M stands for type IIA, typeIIB and M-theory, respectively and n ∈ N is an index to label the different metrics that– 6 – AD CB r (t, x , x , x ) (t, x , x ) (x , x , x )>>1>>1 (x , x , x ) (t, x , x ) (x , x )(t, x , x , x )D3 NS5NS5 NS5NS5D3 NS5 NS5D4D5/D5 Convert to a large but finite interval T-duality along x T-duality along Figure 2 . Caricature of the modifications to the D3-NS5 system described in section 2. Thischain of dualities is done so that the corresponding metric can be written: the geometry of D is well-known. A: The well-known type IIB D3-NS5 system. The corresponding world-volumegauge theory has N = 2 supersymmetry. The D3-brane spans the ( t, x , x , ψ ) directions andthe NS5-brane the ( t, x , x , x , x , x ) directions. The ( θ , φ , r ) directions are suppressed. B: Introducing a second NS5-brane, parallel to the first one, converts the ψ direction into an interval.We take this interval to be large (but finite) in order to effectively retain the same amount ofsupersymmetry. C: A T-duality along x does not affect the parallel NS5-branes, but converts theD3-brane into a D4-brane. D: A T-duality along ψ converts the parallel NS5-branes to a warpedTaub-NUT space along ( θ , φ , ψ, r ). The D4-brane converts to a D5/D5 pair that wraps the ψ direction and stretches along r . The ( θ , φ , x , x ) directions are suppressed. will occur.) We consider, for simplicity, the following dependence of the warp factors anddilaton : F i = F i ( r ) , F = F ( r, x , x ) , φ = φ ( θ , r, x , x ) , i = 1 , , . (2.2)The warped Taub-NUT space metric is, quite obviously, the second line in (2.1).Let us move the D5-brane far away along the ( x , x ) directions (the Coulomb branch)and consider only the D5-brane. This will simplify the flux discussion in the constructionof the M-theory configurations (M, 1) (and its non-abelian enhanced version) and (M, 2) As made more precise in section 3.1, a definite choice of the warp factors and dilaton will in general notpreserve the N = 2 supersymmetry of the world-volume gauge theory. Consequently, any concrete choiceone may wish to consider must be checked to indeed preserve the desired amount of supersymmetry. – 7 –hat concern us in the present section 2 (see figure 1). Nonetheless, in section 4.2, we will“move back” this D5-brane and appropriately account for its effects. We will then see thatthe D5-brane plays an important, non-trivial role in our investigations.It has been known for quite some time now that D-branes carry Ramond-Ramond(RR) charges [16]. In this case that concerns us, the D5-brane sources an RR three-formflux F ( B, that can be computed as F ( B, = e φ ∗ d J ( B, , (2.3)where J ( B, stands for the fundamental form of the metric e − φ ds B, along the directions( θ , φ , ψ, r, x , x ), which we call ds : ds ≡ F dr + F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) + F ( dθ + sin θ dφ ) + F ( dx + dx ) . (2.4)Let us calculate F ( B, in details next.We take the vielbeins of (2.4) to be E ( B, θ = √ F e ( B, θ = √ F dθ , E ( B, φ = √ F e ( B, φ = √ F sin θ dφ ,E ( B, ψ = √ F e ( B, ψ = √ F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) , E ( B, r = √ F e ( B, r = √ F dr,E ( B, = √ F e ( B, = √ F dx , E ( B, = √ F e ( B, = √ F dx . (2.5)These vielbeins can be used to compute the fundamental form J ( B, . The result is (3.19)in [1]: J ( B, = E ( B, θ ∧ E ( B, φ + E ( B, ψ ∧ E ( B, r + E ( B, ∧ E ( B, = F sin θ dθ ∧ dφ + (cid:112) F F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) ∧ dr + F dx ∧ dx . (2.6)The exterior derivative of J ( B, is given by d J ( B, = F ,r sin θ dr ∧ dθ ∧ dφ − (cid:112) F F sin θ dθ ∧ dφ ∧ dr + F ,r dr ∧ dx ∧ dx =( F ,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ dr ∧ dθ ∧ dφ + F ,r dr ∧ dx ∧ dx , (2.7)where ( F ,r , F ,r ) stand for the derivatives of ( F , F ) with respect to r . In order to takethe Hodge dual of d J ( B, , we start by showing a few intermediate steps. First, we writethe metric (2.4) in matrix form: M = F F cos θ + F sin θ F cos θ F cos θ F F F
00 0 0 0 0 F . (2.8)We denote as M the square root of the determinant of this matrix: M ≡ √ det M = (cid:112) F F F F sin θ . (2.9) For a review on how fluxes can be determined, see [17]. – 8 –he inverse of M is M − = F csc θ F − cot θ csc θ F − cot θ csc θ F F + cot θ F F F
00 0 0 0 0 F . (2.10)The above three equations allow us to compute the Hodge dual of the wedge products in(2.7). We obtain ∗ ( dr ∧ dθ ∧ dφ ) = M M − rr M − θ θ ( M − φ φ (cid:15) rθ φ ψx x dψ + M − φ ψ (cid:15) rθ ψφ x x dφ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx = − (cid:114) F F F F (csc θ dψ + cot θ dφ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx , (2.11) ∗ ( dr ∧ dx ∧ dx ) = M M − rr M − x x M − x x (cid:15) rx x ψθ φ dψ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ = (cid:114) F F F F sin θ dψ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ . (2.12)Consequently, the Hodge dual of d J ( B, is ∗ d J ( B, = e − φ [ k ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx + k sin θ dψ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ ] , (2.13)where we have defined, following (3.21) in [1], k ≡ e φ (cid:114) F F F F F ,r , k ≡ e φ (cid:114) F F F F ( (cid:112) F F − F ,r ) . (2.14)Further using the vielbeins (2.5), we obtain the desired result, the RR three-form flux F ( B, , which precisely matches (3.20) in [1]: F ( B, = e ( B, ψ ∧ (cid:16) k e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ + k e ( B, ∧ e ( B, (cid:17) . (2.15)It is important to note that this three-form is not closed: d F ( B, (cid:54) = 0. This reflects thepresence of the D5-brane in this configuration.Summing up, the type IIB configuration shown in figure 2 D can be obtained directlyfrom the well-known D3-NS5 system. It has the metric (2.1), dilaton e − φ and an RRthree-form flux (2.15).An essential ingredient that makes the study of knots using the D3-NS5 system possibleis the presence of a Θ-term in the D3-brane gauge theory. In the case of [11], this termis sourced by an axionic background C . In the following (section 2.1), we will present an alternative (and computationally simpler) way to source the required Θ-term: by furthermodifying the above set up switching on a non-commutative deformation. The fact thatwe do not need to (though, of course, we can) switch on C in order to have an M-theoryconstruction on which knot invariants can be studied will be the focus of section 2.2.– 9 – .1 Sourcing the Θ -term: a non-commutative deformation The starting point in this section is, of course, the just discussed type IIB geometry in(2.1). We will first T-dualize this to type IIA along ψ . (This means we will move from D to C in figure 2.) Here, we will do the non-commutative deformation, which will only affectthe ( x , ψ ) directions: ( x , ψ ) → (˜ x , ˜ ψ ). This will be followed by another T-duality along˜ ψ . At this point, we will have a type IIB configuration capable of sourcing the requiredΘ-term in the U (1) world-volume gauge theory. Then, we will T-dualize along φ to typeIIA. Finally, we will lift the resulting configuration to M-theory. Along the way, we willalso study the NS B-field, dilaton and fluxes associated to each geometry considered, whichwill in turn shed some light into the connection between the non-commutative deformationand the Θ-term. (The precise connection between these two will be shown early in section5.2, see (5.82).) Figure 3 summarizes this chain of modifications and points out what themost relevant equations in this section are.Let us go ahead and show in details the above outlined M-theory construction. Westart by rewriting the metric (2.1) in a more convenient way for our present purposes : ds B, = ds + e − φ dx + e φ F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) , (2.16)with ds defined as ds ≡ e − φ ( − dt + dx + dx ) + e φ [ F dr + F ( dθ + sin θ dφ ) + F ( dx + dx )] . (2.17)We recall that the dilaton here is e φ ( B, = e − φ (2.18)and the RR three-form flux was given in (2.15).T-dualizing along ψ , we get the metric ds A, = ds + e − φ dx + e − φ F dψ , (2.19)with associated NS B-field and dilaton B ( A, = cos θ dψ ∧ dφ , e φ ( A, = ( e φ F ) − / . (2.20)We take the relevant vielbeins associated to ds A, to be e ( A, θ = dθ , e ( A, φ = sin θ dφ , e ( A, ψ = dψ + cos θ dφ ,e ( A, r = dr, e ( A, = dx , e ( A, = dx . (2.21)As for the fluxes, the RR three-form flux in (2.15) now gives rise to the following RRtwo-form flux: F ( A, = k e ( A, θ ∧ e ( A, φ + k e ( A, ∧ e ( A, . (2.22) All through this paper, we will use the formulae in section 6.5 of [18] to perform T- and S-dualities andto go from (to) type IIA to (from) M-theory. Accordingly, we will always write the relevant metrics in theform that makes it straightforward to apply those formulae. – 10 –
Type IIB configuration (B,1)Type IIB configuration (B,2) Type IIA configuration (A,1)Type IIB configuration (B,2)Type IIA configuration (A,3) Type IIA configuration (A,1)Type IIA configuration (A,2)M-theory configuration (M,1)Type IIA configuration (A,3)
Metric: (2.1) Dilaton: (2.18) RR 3-form flux: (2.15) Metric: (2.19) Dilaton: (2.20) RR 2-form flux: (2.22) NS 3-form flux: (2.23) Metric: (2.29) Dilaton: (2.31) RR 3-form flux: (2.33) NS 3-form flux: (2.37) Metric: (2.25) Dilaton: (2.20) RR 2-form flux: (2.22) NS 3-form flux: (2.28) Metric: (2.41) Dilaton: (2.43) RR 2-form flux: (2.44) NS 3-form flux: (2.51) Metric: (2.56) G 4-form flux: (2.61)
T-dualityalong NC deformation(2.24)T-dualityalong UpliftT-dualityalong Figure 3 . Graphical summary of section 2.1. To the type IIB configuration of figure 2 D we do aseries of modifications in order to source a Θ-term in the U (1) world-volume gauge theory. This isachieved in going from the configuration (B,1) to (B,2). The presence of a Θ-term is essential to,later on, construct a three-dimensional space with the required features to allow for the realizationof knots. The (B,2) configuration is then lifted to M-theory. The configuration (M, 1) (and itsnon-abelian enhanced version, studied in section 2.1.1) is the first M-theory construction whereknots can be studied. Note that, for an arbitrary value of the warp factors and φ , the above flux is not closed: d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0. This is consistent with having a D4-brane as a source (see figure 2 C ). TheNS three-form flux is given by H ( A, = dB ( A, = − sin θ dθ ∧ dψ ∧ dφ . (2.23)We will now deform the above type IIA configuration. The non-commutative defor-– 11 –ation ( x , ψ ) → (˜ x , ˜ ψ ) that we will consider is ψ = cos θ nc ˜ ψ, x = sec θ nc ˜ x + sin θ nc ˜ ψ, (2.24)where θ nc ∈ [0 , π ) is the deformation parameter. Note that the ( x , ψ ) directions in ds A, form a square torus; that is, a geometry which is isometric to a square with opposite sidesidentified. Hence, the non-commutative deformation simply inclines the torus. This samedeformation was considered in [19], albeit in a different context. Under this deformation,the above type IIA metric changes to ds A, = ds + e − φ (sec θ nc d ˜ x + sin θ nc d ˜ ψ ) + e − φ F cos θ nc d ˜ ψ = ds + e − φ (cid:34) ˜ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x + cos θ nc ˜ F ( d ˜ ψ + ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc d ˜ x ) (cid:35) , (2.25)where we have defined ˜ F ≡ F F tan θ nc , (2.26)as in (3.35) in [1] and the last rewriting of ds A, was done in anticipation to the T-dualityalong ˜ ψ that will soon follow. The NS B-field is also affected by the deformation and nowtakes the form B ( A, = cos θ nc cos θ d ˜ ψ ∧ dφ . (2.27)On the other hand, due to our simplifying choices in (2.2), the dilaton remains unchanged: e φ ( A, = e φ ( A, . The RR two-form flux (2.22) is also not affected by this deformation, F ( A, = F ( A, , but the NS three-form flux in (2.23) changes to H ( A, = dB ( A, = − cos θ nc sin θ dθ ∧ d ˜ ψ ∧ dφ . (2.28)T-dualizing the metric (2.25) along ˜ ψ , one obtains the type IIB metric given in (3.22)in [1]: ds B, = ds + e − φ ˜ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x + e φ ˜ F ( d ˜ ψ cos θ nc + cos θ dφ ) . (2.29)The NS B-field associated to ds B, is B ( B, = ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) ∧ d ˜ x (2.30)and the dilaton is that suggested in (3.25) in [1]: e φ ( B, = (cid:115) ˜ F F sec θ nc e − φ . (2.31)– 12 –o the ds B, metric, we associate the following relevant vielbeins: e ( B, = d ˜ x , e ( B, θ = dθ , e ( B, φ = sin θ dφ ,e ( B, ψ = d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ , e ( B, = dx , e ( B, = dx . (2.32)In terms of these, it is not hard to see that the RR three-form flux F ( B, dual to F ( A, can be written as in (3.23) in [1]: F ( B, = e ( B, ψ ∧ (cid:16) k e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ + k e ( B, ∧ e ( B, (cid:17) . (2.33)Once again, it is important to note that the flux F ( B, is not closed: d F ( B, (cid:54) = 0. Thisimplies that indeed there is a D5-brane in this set up. For completeness, we give theexpression of d F ( B, . Rewriting (2.33) as F ( B, = k sin θ d ˜ ψ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ + k ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx , (2.34)it is easy to see that its exterior derivative is that in (3.38) in [1]: d F ( B, = k ,a sin θ da ∧ d ˜ ψ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ + k ,a da ∧ ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx − k cos θ nc sin θ dθ ∧ dφ ∧ dx ∧ dx , (2.35)where we have defined a ≡ ( θ , r, x , x ) since, due to our choices (2.2), ( k , k ) onlydepend on these coordinates (and on the deformation parameter θ nc ). Determining H ( B, is also not hard. Taking the exterior derivative of B ( B, , we obtain H ( B, = sec θ nc tan θ nc (cid:104) ˜ F ,r sec θ nc dr ∧ ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) − ˜ F sin θ dθ ∧ dφ (cid:105) ∧ d ˜ x , (2.36)which is a closed form by definition. From (2.26) it can be easily checked that ˜ F ,r =( ˜ F /F ) F ,r . Also using the vielbeins in (2.32), we can rewrite the NS flux as in (3.24)in [1]: H ( B, = ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc (cid:32) ˜ F F ,r F sec θ nc e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, ψ − e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ (cid:33) ∧ e ( B, . (2.37)So far, all we have done in this section boils down to introducing an NS B-field to thetype IIB configuration that was our starting point (described in section 2 and depicted infigure 2 D ). This NS B-field, in turn, sources the NS three-form flux we just determined. Insection 7, we will see how this NS flux sources the desired Θ-term in the U (1) world-volumegauge theory. For the time being, however, let us focus on the construction of the M-theoryconfiguration associated to this set up.The following step in the duality chain outlined at the beginning of this section isto take the T-dual along φ of (2.29). In order to make this step easy, we rewrite theaforementioned metric as ds B, = ds + e φ ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) (cid:32) dφ + ˜ F cos θ sec θ nc ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ d ˜ ψ (cid:33) , (2.38)– 13 –here we have defined ds ≡ e − φ ( − dt + dx + dx + ˜ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x ) + e φ ˜ F F sec θ nc sin θ ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ d ˜ ψ + e φ [ F dr + F dθ + F ( dx + dx )] . (2.39)Similarly, a rewriting of its associated NS B-field will make the next duality straightforward: B ( B, = ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc (cid:34) sec θ nc ( F sin θ + ˜ F cos θ )˜ F cos θ + F sin θ d ˜ ψ + cos θ dφ (cid:35) ∧ d ˜ x . (2.40)T-dualizing along φ , we obtain the type IIA geometry of (3.33) in [1]: ds A, = ds + e − φ ( dφ + ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc cos θ d ˜ x ) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ . (2.41)The NS B-field associated to the ds A, metric is that in (3.34) in [1]: B ( A, = ˜ F sec θ nc ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ( F sec θ nc tan θ nc sin θ d ˜ ψ ∧ d ˜ x + cos θ dφ ∧ d ˜ ψ ) . (2.42)The corresponding dilaton is (3.36) in [1]: e φ ( A, = (cid:115) ˜ F F sec θ nc (cid:112) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ e − φ/ . (2.43)Coming to the fluxes, the type IIA two-form flux F ( A, dual to F ( B, in (2.34) can beeasily seen to be F ( A, = k sin θ d ˜ ψ ∧ dθ + k cos θ nc cos θ dx ∧ dx . (2.44)It is again important to note that, of course, this two-form flux is not closed: d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0,which reflects the presence of a D6-brane (dual to the D5-brane in the previous type IIBconfiguration). Thus, if we denote as A the type IIA gauge field for this configuration,then it follows that F ( A, can be written as in (3.53) in [1]: F ( A, = d A + ∆ , d ∆ = sources . (2.45)The explicit expression of the d ∆ = d F ( A, sources is that in (3.39) in [1]: d F ( A, = k ,a sin θ da ∧ d ˜ ψ ∧ dθ + ( k ,a cos θ nc cos θ da − k cos θ nc sin θ dθ ) ∧ dx ∧ dx . (2.46)We define A as A ≡ A θ dθ + A dx + A dx , (2.47)– 14 –ith ( A θ , A , A ) depending only on the ( θ , x , x ) coordinates. We further define α ≡ ∂ A ∂x − ∂ A ∂x , α ≡ ∂ A θ ∂x − ∂ A ∂θ , α ≡ ∂ A θ ∂x − ∂ A ∂θ . (2.48)Using the above quantities, the exterior derivative of A is (3.42) in [1]: d A ≡ α dx ∧ dx + α dx ∧ dθ + α dx ∧ dθ . (2.49)Since d ( d A ) = 0, the α ’s just introduced are subject to the constraint ∂α ∂θ − ∂α ∂x + ∂α ∂x = 0 , (2.50)mentioned in (3.43) in [1]. The definition (2.47) will become sensible in the M-theory upliftthat follows. But first let us finish the flux discussion for this type IIA configuration. Wenote that the corresponding NS three-form flux is given by the exterior derivative of B ( A, .This is H ( A, = db ∧ (ˆ k ,b d ˜ ψ ∧ d ˜ x + ˆ k ,b dφ ∧ d ˜ ψ ) , (2.51)where we have definedˆ k ≡ ˜ F F sec θ nc tan θ nc sin θ ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ , ˆ k ≡ ˜ F F sec θ nc cos θ ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ (2.52)and b ≡ ( θ , r ) are the only coordinates on which the above two functions depend (recallour choices in (2.2)).Finally, we will uplift the above type IIA configuration to M-theory. To this aim,we rewrite the metric ds A, in (2.41) in a more convenient way. We first introduce thequantities of (3.41) in [1]: H ≡ ( H H ) − / , H ≡ (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) − ,H ≡ ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) − , H ≡ H ˜ F F sec θ nc sin θ ,f ≡ ˜ F sec θ nc tan θ nc cos θ . (2.53)In terms of these, the metric ds A, can be written as ds A, = e − φ H (cid:8) H [ − dt + dx + dx + H d ˜ x + H ( dφ + f d ˜ x ) ]+ e φ H [ F dr + F dθ + F ( dx + dx ) + H d ˜ ψ ] (cid:111) . (2.54)It is essential to note that the M-theory uplift will only be able to capture the dynamics ofthe type IIA theory in the strong coupling limit of the latter. For us, that means that wecan only rely on the M-theory description when e φ ( A, is of order one or bigger. However,we will be interested in having a finite radius for the eleventh direction after we uplift.Therefore, we will be careful to avoid the infinite coupling limit where e φ ( A, → ∞ . (2.55)– 15 –rom (2.43) it follows that the above is true when e − φ → ∞ , for an arbitrary choice of( F , F ). Additionally, the infinite coupling limit also applies at two isolated points ( p , p )given by p = ( θ = 0 , r = r ) and p = ( θ = π/ , r = r ) (for any value of the remainingcoordinates), where ( r , r ) are the values of the radial coordinate for which F ( r ) = 0and F ( r ) = 0, respectively. (These are the same two points in (3.37) in [1].)The M-theory metric corresponding to (2.54) is ds M, = H [ − dt + dx + dx + H d ˜ x + H ( dφ + f d ˜ x ) + e φ ( F dr + H d ˜ ψ )]+ e φ H [ F dθ + F ( dx + dx )] + e − φ H − ( dx + A ) , (2.56)where A is the type IIA gauge field defined in (2.47). We note that, due to (2.2) and(2.47), for a fixed value of the radial coordinate, r = r , the second line above describes awarped Taub-NUT space in the ( θ , x , x , x ) directions. (Indeed, this is what motivatedthe definition (2.47).) This is most easily seen by introducing the quantities in (3.45) in [1], G ≡ e φ H F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , G , G ≡ e φ H F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , G ≡ e − φ H − (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r (2.57)and writing the warped Taub-NUT metric as in (3.44) in [1]: ds T N = G dθ + G dx + G dx + G ( dx + A ) . (2.58)Note that, as we just explained, G i = G i ( θ , x , x ) , i = 1 , , , . (2.59)We take the vielbeins of (2.58) as e ( M, θ = (cid:112) G dθ , e ( M, = (cid:112) G dx , e ( M, = (cid:112) G dx , e ( M, = (cid:112) G ( dx + A ) . (2.60)To better understand this Taub-NUT space, recall that, before the M-theory uplift, wehad a D6-brane in our type IIA configuration. The M-theory uplift then converts thisD6-brane to geometry. In particular, we obtain the metric (2.56), where (2.58) is a single-centered (warped) Taub-NUT space. In other words, in (2.58), G − = 0 occurs once andthe coordinate singularity at this point is the location of the D6-brane in the dual type IIApicture. This is an important observation and essential to the G-flux computation thatfollows.As we just hinted, the remaining of this section will be devoted to the determination ofthe G-flux corresponding to this M-theory configuration. As it is well-known, there exists aunique, normalizable (anti-)self-dual harmonic two-form ω associated to a single-centered(warped) Taub-NUT space [20]. Using which, the G-flux for our M-theory configurationis given by (3.55) in [1]: G ( M, = (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) + F ∧ ω, (2.61) We remind the reader that the computation of fluxes is nicely summarized in [17]. – 16 –here (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) = H ( A, ∧ dx is the background G-flux ( H ( A, was determined in (2.51))and F = d A is the field strength of the U (1) world-volume gauge theory ( A is the corre-sponding gauge field). Thus, in order to obtain the explicit form of G ( M, , we have onetask left: ω must be computed. We do so in the following.We start by making the ansatz in (3.46) in [1] for ωω = dζ, ζ = g ( θ , x , x )( dx + A ) (2.62)and proceed to determine its precise value from the (anti-)self-duality requirement: ω = ± ∗ ω , where the Hodge dual is taken with respect to the metric (2.58). Let us see this indetails. Using (2.49) and (2.60), ω can be written as ω = 1 √ G (cid:18) √ G ∂g∂θ e ( M, θ + 1 √ G ∂g∂x e ( M, + 1 √ G ∂g∂x e ( M, (cid:19) ∧ e ( M, (2.63)+ g (cid:18) α √ G G e ( M, ∧ e ( M, + α √ G G e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ + α √ G G e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ (cid:19) . Quite obviously, ∗ ( e ( M, θ ∧ e ( M, ) = e ( M, ∧ e ( M, , ∗ ( e ( M, ∧ e ( M, ) = e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ , ∗ ( e ( M, ∧ e ( M, ) = e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ (2.64)and so, the Hodge dual of ω is ∗ ω = + g (cid:18) α √ G G e ( M, θ + α √ G G e ( M, − α √ G G e ( M, (cid:19) ∧ e ( M, (2.65)+ 1 √ G (cid:18) √ G ∂g∂θ e ( M, ∧ e ( M, + 1 √ G ∂g∂x e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ + 1 √ G ∂g∂x e ( M, ∧ e ( M, θ (cid:19) . Imposing (anti-)self-duality of ω leads to three partial differential equations (PDEs):1 g ∂g∂θ = ± α (cid:114) G G G G , g ∂g∂x = ± α (cid:114) G G G G , g ∂g∂x = ∓ α (cid:114) G G G G . (2.66)Using (2.53) and (2.57) in the above, we can rewrite these equations in terms of the warpfactors and φ , as in (3.47) in [1]:1 g ∂g∂θ = ± e − φ α F (cid:115) ˜ F F F sec θ nc ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) − / (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , (2.67)1 g ∂g∂x = ± e − φ α (cid:115) ˜ F F F sec θ nc ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) − / (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r = − α α g ∂g∂x . Solving the above set of PDEs generically is not easy. Consequently, we will do some moresimplifying assumptions. To begin with, let us take, as in (3.49) in [1], α = 0 , α = β ( x ) f ( θ , r, x , x ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , α = β ( x ) f ( θ , r, x , x ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , (2.68)– 17 –here we have defined f = f ( θ , r, x , x ) ≡ e φ (cid:113) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ . (2.69)If we now choose e φ as in (3.54) in [1], e φ = e φ Q ( r, x , x ) (cid:112) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ , (2.70)with φ some constant, then ( α , α ) become independent of θ (that is, functions of thecoordinates ( x , x ) only). Recall that the α ’s were subject to the constraint (2.50). Hence, Q = Q ( r, x , x ) above must satisfy Q (cid:18) dβ dx − dβ dx (cid:19) + β ∂Q∂x − β ∂Q∂x (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r = 0 . (2.71)Additionally, we define c ≡ (cid:115) ˜ F F F sec θ nc (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , (2.72)which is a constant that only depends on the deformation parameter θ nc . Inserting all ourchoices and definitions in (2.67), these PDEs reduce to1 g ∂g∂x = ± c β ( x ) , g ∂g∂x = ∓ c β ( x ) , (2.73)where g is now independent of θ and thus g = g ( x , x ). It is finally easy to use separa-tion of variables to solve the above. Assuming g = ˜ g ( x )˜ g ( x ), we obtain two ordinarydifferential equations, d ˜ g ˜ g = ± c β ( x ) dx , d ˜ g ˜ g = ∓ c β ( x ) dx , (2.74)which can readily be solved to yield g = g exp (cid:20) ± c (cid:18)(cid:90) x β ( x (cid:48) ) dx (cid:48) − (cid:90) x β ( x (cid:48) ) dx (cid:48) (cid:19)(cid:21) , (2.75)with g some integration constant. This completes the computation of ω in (2.62), whichin turn gives us the explicit form of the G-flux in (2.61). It is an intrinsically interesting question to ask whether our first M-theory constructionabove can be generalized to account for non-abelian world-volume gauge theories (and notjust the particularly simple U (1) case discussed so far). The answer is yes and the way todo so is discussed in [21]. Consequently, in this section we review and adapt the argumentsin [21] to our case. – 18 –ut before we jump into the details of non-abelian enhancement in M-theory, it is in-structive to recall the well-known equivalent discussion in type IIA superstring theory [22].Consider N parallel D6-branes ( N = 2 , , , . . . ). Consider there are open strings stretchedbetween these D6-branes. In this case, the symmetry group of the corresponding world-volume gauge theory is U (1) × U (1) × . . . × U (1) (cid:124) (cid:123)(cid:122) (cid:125) N times . (2.76)In the limit when the open strings become tensionless, the D6-branes come on top ofeach other (we thus have N coincident D6-branes). Then, the symmetry group of thecorresponding world-volume gauge theory becomes SU ( N ).If we lift the above type IIA configuration to M-theory, then the D6-branes convert togeometry and we obtain the metric (2.56) , with (2.58) a multi-centered (warped) Taub-NUT space. Indeed, G − = 0 now occurs N times in (2.58), the coordinate singularities atthese points denoting the location of the D6-branes in the dual type IIA picture. As for theopen strings, they convert to M2-branes wrapping the two-cycles in the Taub-NUT space(2.58). In the limit of tensionless M2-branes, the two-cycles vanish and the world-volumegauge theory symmetry group becomes SU ( N ).Let us see how the above discussion applies to our set up in details. The first step willbe to construct the independent two-cycles in the space (2.58). In order to do so, let usstart by rewriting the metric (2.58) in a more convenient way. Defining, as in (3.86) in [1], U ≡ e φ H (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , d(cid:126) x ≡ H − [ F dθ + F ( dx + dx )] (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , (2.77)we can rewrite (2.58) as in (3.85) in [1]: ds T N = U d(cid:126) x + U − ( dx + A ) . (2.78)Recall that now this warped Taub-NUT space is a multi-centered one. Using (2.53) and(2.70), U above can be written in terms of the warp factors and Q as U = e φ Q (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) / (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r . (2.79)For simplicity, we will do two assumptions next: we will take the deformation parameterto be sufficiently small (that is, θ nc <<
1) and we will consider F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r = F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r . (2.80)Then, expanding to first order around θ nc = 0 and using (2.80), U becomes independentof θ : ˜ U = ˜ U ( x , x ) ≡ lim θ nc → U = e φ Q ( r, x , x ) F / (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r . (2.81) Since we never determined our warp factors and Q function in (2.70), we can absorb the changes in thegeometry due to the inclusion of the D6-branes and open strings in these quantities. – 19 – U = 0 has N solutions, which we denote as (cid:126)l i = ( x i , x i ) ( i = 1 , , . . . , N ). Consider twosuch points (cid:126)l i and (cid:126)l j ( i (cid:54) = j ) and a geodesic C g in the ( x , x ) space joining them. Attachingto each point in C g a circle labeled by x , we obtain a minimal area two-cycle X ij . Wetake X k,k +1 ( k = 1 , , . . . , N −
1) as the (minimal area) independent two-cycles.It is well-known that to each such two-cycle X k,k +1 , with k fixed, we can associate aunique, normalizable, (anti-)self-dual two-form ω k . Obtaining the explicit form of ω k isstraightforward, in view of our earlier results. We only need to modify (2.62) to ω k = dζ k , ζ k = g k ( x , x )( dx + A ) (2.82)and restrict the integrals in (2.75) to the X k,k +1 two-cycle: g k = ˜ g exp (cid:34) ± c (cid:90) (cid:126)l k +1 (cid:126)l k ( β − β ) | d(cid:126)l C g | (cid:35) , (2.83)where ˜ g is some integration constant and d(cid:126)l C g denotes line element along the geodesic C g joining (cid:126)l k and (cid:126)l k +1 .Let us now compute the areas of the two-cycles X k,k +1 and derive their intersectionmatrix. It will soon be clear why we do so. As measured in the Taub-NUT metric, thearea of X k,k +1 is given by S k,k +1 = (cid:90) X k,k +1 ( ˜ U − / dx )( ˜ U / (cid:112) F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r | d(cid:126)l C g | ) = ˜ βR (cid:90) (cid:126)l k +1 (cid:126)l k (cid:112) F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r | d(cid:126)l C g | , (2.84)with ˜ β a constant that avoids possible conical singularities along C g and R the physicalradius of the x coordinate. It is easy to see that the self-intersection number for each S k,k +1 is two: the S k,k +1 ’s self-intersect at (cid:126)l k and (cid:126)l k +1 , with geodesics transversed in thesame direction. S k,k +1 intersects S k − ,k only at (cid:126)l k , their geodesics being transversed inopposite directions. No other two-cycles’ areas intersect. Thus, the ( N − × ( N − X k,k +1 is − . . . − − . . . − − . . . . . . −
10 0 0 0 . . . − . (2.85)Or, written more compactly, as in (3.89) in [1],[ S k,k +1 ] ◦ [ S l,l +1 ] = (cid:40) δ k,l − δ l,k − . (2.86)This is, of course, the Cartan matrix of the A N − algebra.Recall that there are M2-branes in this configuration. They wrap the X k,k +1 two-cyclesand thus their intersection matrix is (2.85). As previously explained, when the area of all– 20 – D6-branesOpen strings Limit of tensionless open strings AB Limit of tensionless M2-branesM2-branesTaub-NUT spaceX X l l l x (x , x ) R Figure 4 . Schematics of the non-abelian enhancement of the world-volume gauge symmetry from U (1) × U (1) × U (1) to SU (3) in type IIA (top) and in M-theory (bottom). A: Three paral-lel D6-branes in type IIA, with open strings stretching between them. The D6-branes span the( t, x , x , ˜ x , φ , ˜ ψ, r ) directions and the open strings are in the ( x , x ) plane. The θ directionis suppressed. When the open strings become tensionless, the D6-branes coincide. This producesthe non-abelian enhancement. B: Uplift to M-theory of the type IIA configurations in A . TheD6-branes convert to geometry, giving rise to a multi-centered warped Taub-NUT space along( θ , x , x , x ), for a fixed value of the radial coordinate: r = r . R is the physical radius ofthe coordinate x . The ( t, x , x , ˜ x , θ , φ , ˜ ψ, r ) directions are suppressed in the figure. Thesingularities in the Taub-NUT space lie at ( (cid:126)l , (cid:126)l , (cid:126)l ): the position of the D6-branes in the dualtype IIA configuration. The open strings become M2-branes wrapping the minimal area, indepen-dent two-cycles ( X , X ) between the singularities. In the limit of tensionless M2-branes, thesetwo-cycles vanish, leading to the non-abelian enhancement. these two-cycles tends to zero, the limit of tensionless M2-branes sets in. This correspondsto an A N − singularity, which in turn is responsible for enhancing the world-volume gaugesymmetry to SU ( N ), as shown in [23]. Figure 4 schematically depicts the above discussionfor N = 3, both in the type IIA and M-theory pictures.To finish this section, we use all the above results to write the G-flux of this non-abelianenhanced M-theory configuration as in (3.90) in [1]: G ( M, = (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) + N − (cid:88) k =1 F k ∧ ω k . (2.87)Here, F k ’s are the Cartan algebra values of the world-volume field strength F , the back-– 21 –round G-flux (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) is as earlier in (2.61) and the two-forms ω k were computed in(2.82). Suppose we follow the prescription of [11] to source the Θ-term in the world-volume gaugetheory. That is, suppose we consider the type IIB D3-NS5 system with an axionic back-ground C . How would that affect the results in the previous section (section 2.1), where C = 0?Long story made short, we need to follow C along the modifications of section 2,depicted in figure 2. We note that C would not be affected while going from A to B infigure 2. However, on going from B to C , C would dualize to a gauge field in the x direction. Finally, on going from C to D , the gauge field would lead to an RR B-field inthe ( x , ψ ) directions. Schematically, C ψ to a large −−−−−−−−−−−−→ but finite interval C −−−−−−→ along x C = ( C ) dx −−−−−−→ along ψ C = ( C ) ψ dx ∧ dψ. (2.88)Thus, in our construction, switching on an axionic background in the usual type IIB D3-NS5 system of [11], shown in figure 2 A , amounts to adding an RR B-field in the ( x , ψ )directions to the type IIB configuration shown in figure 2 D .In this section, however, we will see a different way in which we can obtain such anRR B-field in the type IIB configuration before we uplift to M-theory. This will involveanother, distinct (although similar) chain of dualities and modifications to the type IIBconfiguration of figure 2 D to that considered before, in section 2.1. In the following, wemake precise this idea.The starting point here is the starting point of section 2.1 as well: the last configurationof section 2, schematically depicted in figure 2 D . To this configuration we will associatean RR B-field. We will then do an S-duality. The next step will be a T-duality along ψ to type IIA, where we will do the same non-commutative deformation ( x , ψ ) → (˜ x , ˜ ψ )that was considered in section 2.1. Next, we will consider a T-duality along ˜ ψ back totype IIB, followed by an S-duality. At this point we will have a type IIB configurationwith an RR B-field along (˜ x , ˜ ψ ). Thus, effectively we will have accounted for the axionicbackground, as we wished to do. The last T-duality will be along φ to type IIA. Theresulting configuration will be then lifted to M-theory. As in section 2.1, the NS and RRB-fields, dilaton and fluxes of all the above geometries will be determined. Figure 5 servesas a summary of the chain of modifications just described and indicates the key equationsin this section.As just explained, we start by considering the type IIB geometry ds B, in (2.1), whichhas a dilaton e φ ( B, in (2.18) and an RR three-form flux F ( B, in (2.15). We will associatean RR B-field C ( B, to this set up as in (3.29) in [1]: F ( B, = d C ( B, + ˜∆ , d ˜∆ = sources . (2.89) Remember, however, that the warp factors and Q function introduced in (2.70) are different from thosein the abelian case, due to the inclusion of the D6-branes and open strings in the dual type IIA theory. – 22 – Type IIB configuration (B,1)+ RR B-field (2.90)Type IIA configuration (A,5)Type IIB configuration (B,4) Type IIB configuration (B,3)Type IIA configuration (A,4)Type IIB configuration (B,5)
Metric: (2.1) Dilaton: (2.18) RR 3-form flux: (2.15) Metric: (2.93) Dilaton: (2.93) NS 3-form flux: (2.94) Metric: (2.99) Dilaton: (2.97) NS 3-form flux: (2.102) Metric: (2.96) Dilaton: (2.97) NS 3-form flux: (2.98) Metric: (2.103) Dilaton: (2.104) NS 3-form flux: (2.106) Metric: (2.107) Dilaton: (2.110) RR 3-form flux: (2.112)+sources
T-dualityalong NCdeformation(2.24)S-dualityUpliftT-dualityalong M-theory configuration (M,2) Type IIA configuration (A,6)
Metric: (2.122) G 4-form flux: (2.125) Metric: (2.113) Dilaton: (2.114) RR 2-form flux: (2.117) NS 3-form flux: (2.116)
T-dualityalong S-duality
Figure 5 . Graphical summary of section 2.2. To the type IIB configuration of figure 2 D weassociate an RR B-field and then proceed to do a series of modifications in order to account forthe axionic background considered in [11]. This is achieved in going from the configuration (B,1),with the mentioned RR B-field added, to (B,5). The (B,5) configuration is then lifted to M-theory.However, as argued in the text, it will suffice to study the M-theory configuration (M,1) of figure 3. – 23 –ote that the sources above are required to keep consistent with the fact that F ( B, is notclosed. These sources, of course, refer to the D5-brane present in this configuration. Forconcreteness and as a particularly simple case, we will assume that C ( B, is of the form in(3.26) in [1]. That is, we consider C ( B, = b θ φ dθ ∧ dφ + b dx ∧ dx , (2.90)where ( b θ φ , b ) are functions of only ( θ , r, x , x ), in order to respect all isometries in(2.1). It follows then that its exterior derivative is d C ( B, = dθ ∧ dφ ∧ (cid:18) ∂b θ φ ∂r dr + ∂b θ φ ∂x dx + ∂b θ φ ∂x dx (cid:19) + (cid:18) ∂b ∂θ dθ + ∂b ∂r dr (cid:19) ∧ dx ∧ dx . (2.91)Using (2.5), (2.15) and the above, ˜∆ in (2.89) can be easily checked to be˜∆ = dθ ∧ dφ ∧ (cid:18) k sin θ dψ − ∂b θ φ ∂r dr − ∂b θ φ ∂x dx − ∂b θ φ ∂x dx (cid:19) + (cid:18) k dψ + k cos θ dφ − ∂b ∂θ dθ − ∂b ∂r dr (cid:19) ∧ dx ∧ dx . (2.92)S-dualizing the above, we obtain a type IIB configuration with metric, dipole and NSB-field given by ds B, = e φ ds B, , e φ ( B, = e − φ ( B, , B ( B, = C ( B, , (2.93)respectively. The corresponding NS three-form flux is the exterior derivative of B ( B, , plussources coming from the NS5-brane (dual to the D5-brane before). Consequently, this is H ( B, = d C ( B, + ˜∆ = F ( B, , (2.94)not closed: d H ( B, (cid:54) = 0. In other words, after the S-duality, the RR three-form fluxbecomes an NS one. This is of course very convenient (and the reason to take the S-dual tobegin with): NS B-fields and fluxes are easier to deal with than RR ones. In preparationto the T-duality along ψ that will follow, we rewrite this metric as ds B, = e φ ds + dx + e φ F ( dψ + cos θ dφ ) , (2.95)where ds was defined in (2.17).A T-duality along ψ leads to the type IIA geometry ds A, = e φ ds + dx + e − φ F dψ , (2.96)with associated dilaton and NS B-field e φ ( A, = ( F ) − / , B ( A, = C ( B, + cos θ dψ ∧ dφ . (2.97)– 24 –he NS three-form flux is then given by H ( A, = dB ( A, = d C ( B, − sin θ dθ ∧ dψ ∧ dφ . (2.98)Note that this NS three-form flux is closed: d H ( A, = 0. This is because, under the T-duality, the NS5-brane sources turn to geometry, as is well-known (see, for example, [24]).Under the non-commutative deformation in (2.24), the type IIA metric changes to ds A, = e φ ds + (sec θ nc d ˜ x + sin θ nc d ˜ ψ ) + e − φ F cos θ nc d ˜ ψ = e φ ds + ˆ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x + e − φ ˆ F cos θ nc (cid:16) d ˜ ψ + e φ ˆ F sec θ nc tan θ nc d ˜ x (cid:17) , (2.99)where we have defined ˆ F ≡ F e φ F tan θ nc (2.100)and the last rewriting of the metric was done in anticipation to the T-duality along ˜ ψ thatwe will soon perform. Note the resemblance between ˆ F and ˜ F , defined in (2.26). Dueto our choices in (2.2), the dilaton is not affected by the non-commutative deformation: e φ ( A, = e φ ( A, . Similarly, our choice in (2.90) ensures that C ( B, remains unchanged too.The NS B-field, however, does change to B ( A, = C ( B, + cos θ nc cos θ d ˜ ψ ∧ dφ , (2.101)which in turn induces the NS three-form flux to change accordingly: H ( A, = dB ( A, = d C ( B, − cos θ nc sin θ dθ ∧ d ˜ ψ ∧ dφ . (2.102)Needless to say, this flux remains closed: d H ( A, = 0.Upon a T-duality along ˜ ψ , we obtain the type IIB geometry ds B, = e φ ds + ˆ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x + e φ ˆ F sec θ nc ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) (2.103)with dilaton e φ ( B, = (cid:115) ˆ F F sec θ nc e φ . (2.104)The NS B-field B ( A, dualizes to B ( B, = C ( B, + e φ ˆ F sec θ nc tan θ nc ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) ∧ d ˜ x , (2.105)which contributes to the NS three-form flux H ( B, = tan θ nc cos θ nc (cid:34) k ,a da ∧ ( d ˜ ψ cos θ nc + cos θ dφ ) − k sin θ dθ ∧ dφ (cid:35) ∧ d ˜ x + sources , (2.106)– 25 –here we have defined k ≡ e φ ˆ F and we recall that a ≡ ( θ , r, x , x ). These are theonly coordinates on which k depends, as a consequence of our choices in (2.2). The aboveflux is not closed, owing to the sources which denote the presence of an NS5-brane. We donot determine the precise form of the sources here, for reasons that will soon become clear.Next, we do an S-duality. This changes the metric to that in (3.30) in [1]: ds B, = e − φ sec θ nc (cid:115) F ˆ F (cid:34) e φ ds + ˆ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x + k sec θ nc ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) (cid:35) . (2.107)In preparation to the T-duality along φ that will follow, we rewrite ds B, in a moreconvenient way: ds B, = ds + e φ (cid:115) F ˆ F cos θ nc ( F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ ) (cid:32) dφ + ˆ F sec θ nc cos θ F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ d ˜ ψ (cid:33) , (2.108)where we have defined ds ≡ e − φ (cid:115) F ˆ F cos θ nc (cid:40) − dt + dx + dx + ˆ F F sec θ nc d ˜ x (2.109)+ e φ (cid:34) F dr + F dθ + F ( dx + dx ) + ˆ F F sec θ nc sin θ F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ d ˜ ψ (cid:35)(cid:41) . The corresponding dilaton is that in (3.31) in [1], e φ ( B, = (cid:115) F ˆ F cos θ nc e − φ . (2.110)The NS B-field now dualizes to an RR two-form flux given by (3.32) in [1]: C ( B, = − B ( B, = −C ( B, + k sec θ nc tan θ nc d ˜ x ∧ ( d ˜ ψ + cos θ nc cos θ dφ ) . (2.111)The above contributes to an RR three-form flux as F ( B, = d C ( B, + sources, where d C = − d C ( B, + tan θ nc cos θ nc (cid:34) k cos θ dθ ∧ dφ − k ,a da ∧ ( d ˜ ψ cos θ nc + cos θ dφ ) (cid:35) ∧ d ˜ x (2.112)and the sources reflect the presence of a D5-brane (S-dual to the previous NS5-brane), thusleading to d F ( B, (cid:54) = 0.All the modifications considered so far in this section have at this stage satisfied thedesired goal: to source an RR 2-form flux along (˜ x , ˜ ψ ) in our type IIB configuration beforethe uplift to M-theory. As we explained in the beginning of the section, this is equivalentto switching on an axionic background C in the usual D3-NS5 system. Having noted this– 26 –mportant point, let us proceed with the remaining dualities to obtain the M-theory upliftof the above configuration.Upon a T-duality along φ , the type IIB configuration above leads to a type IIAgeometry given by ds A, = ds + (cid:115) ˆ F F e − φ sec θ nc F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ dφ . (2.113)The type IIA dilaton in this case is e φ ( A, = (cid:18) F ˆ F (cid:19) / (cid:18) e − φ sec θ nc F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ (cid:19) / . (2.114)There is an NS B-field associated to this metric, B ( A, = k dφ ∧ d ˜ ψ, k ≡ ˆ F sec θ nc cos θ F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ , (2.115)which gives rise to an NS three-form flux of the form H ( A, = dB ( A, = k ,a da ∧ dφ ∧ d ˜ ψ. (2.116)Note that, as a consequence of our choices in (2.2) and because ˆ F depends on φ (see(2.100)), k = k ( a ) with a ≡ ( θ , r, x , x ). The RR three-form flux F ( B, dualizes to anRR two-form flux. Using (2.91), this can be written as F ( A, = dθ ∧ (cid:18) ∂b θ φ ∂r dr + ∂b θ φ ∂x dx + ∂b θ φ ∂x dx (cid:19) + tan θ nc cos θ nc ( k ,a cos θ da − k sin θ dθ ) ∧ d ˜ x + sources (2.117)and, of course, is not closed: d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0, denoting a D6-brane source. This is dual tothe D5-brane sourcing F ( B, before. Denoting as ˜ A the type IIA gauge field for thisconfiguration, we can further rewrite the above as F ( A, = d ˜ A + ∆ (cid:48) , d ∆ (cid:48) = sources , (2.118)with ˜ A as in (3.58) in [1]: ˜ A = b θ φ dθ + k tan θ nc cos θ nc cos θ d ˜ x . (2.119)At last, we will uplift the above type IIA configuration to M-theory. For this purpose,we start by rewriting ds A, in a more convenient way. Defining˜ H ≡ ( F sin θ + ˆ F cos θ ) / ˜ H − / , ˜ H ≡ ˆ F F − sec θ nc , ˜ H ≡ ˜ H − , ˜ H ≡ F F sin θ ˜ H − , (2.120)– 27 –s in (3.57) in [1], we can rewrite (2.113) as ds A, = e − φ ˜ H (cid:112) ˜ H (cid:110) ˜ H (cid:16) − dt + dx + dx + ˜ H d ˜ x + ˜ H dφ (cid:17) + e φ ˜ H (cid:104) F dr + F dθ + F ( dx + dx ) + ˜ H d ˜ ψ (cid:105)(cid:111) . (2.121)Again it should be borne in mind that the following M-theory only captures the dynamicsof this type IIA theory in the strong coupling limit where e φ ( A, is, at least, of order one.Being once more interested in having a finite radius for the eleventh direction, we shall becareful to avoid the e φ ( A, → ∞ limit. This limit applies in the same cases as discussed in(2.55) before.The corresponding M-theory metric is that in (3.56) in [1]: ds M, = ˜ H (cid:104) − dt + dx + dx + ˜ H d ˜ x + ˜ H dφ + e φ ( F dr + ˜ H d ˜ ψ ) (cid:105) + e φ ˜ H [ F dθ + F ( dx + dx )] + e − φ ˜ H ˜ H ( dx + ˜ A ) . (2.122)In analogy to (2.57) earlier, fixing r = r and defining˜ G ≡ e φ ˜ H F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , ˜ G , ˜ G ≡ e φ ˜ H F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , ˜ G ≡ e − φ ˜ H − ˜ H − (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r , (2.123)the last line above can be easily seen to be a warped Taub-NUT space with metric ds T N = ˜ G dθ + ˜ G dx + ˜ G dx + ˜ G (cid:18) dx + ˜ A (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) r = r (cid:19) . (2.124)The G-flux corresponding to this second M-theory construction is very similar to that in(2.61): G ( M, = (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) + ˜ F ∧ ˜ ω, (2.125)where (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) = H ( A, ∧ dx is the background G-flux ( H ( A, is given by (2.116)) and˜ ω is the unique, normalizable (anti-)self-dual harmonic two-form associated to the single-centered (warped) Taub-NUT space in (2.124). Here, ˜ F stands for the field strength of the U (1) world-volume gauge theory.It would not be hard to adapt the computation of ω in section 2.1 to the presentcase and obtain the explicit form of ˜ ω . In fact, we could adapt the discussion of section2.1.1 to the present case and obtain a non-abelian enhancement of the world-volume gaugetheory in this setup too. However, before doing any more computations, let us comparethe two M-theory metrics: (2.56) and (2.122). They are very similar. In fact, they justdiffer in the warp factors. It is important to note that both of them break the Lorentzinvariance along the ( t, x , x ) and the ˜ x directions. Moreover, both M-theories capturethe dynamics of their dual type IIA configurations in the same limit, as we noted a bitearlier. Since the supergravity analysis that we will perform in part II will only dependon the metric deformations, the above noted similarities are enough to consider that, for– 28 –ur purposes, both M-theory configurations are equivalent. Nonetheless, it is clear fromour calculations so far that the first M-theory configuration is computationally simplerto handle. Indeed, as we already anticipated, the non-commutative deformation by itselfsources the required Θ-term in the world-volume theory and that is all we will reallyneed. The present section explicitly has shown that (2.56) captures all the informationneeded from the type IIB configuration in [11] to embed knots and study their invariants.Consequently, we will drop any further study of the M-theory configuration in (2.122) andinstead carry all our investigations in the configuration with metric (2.56). That is, thefirst M-theory construction to study knot invariants is (M, 1) in figure 3 and its non-abelianenhancement in section 2.1.1.It is important to bear in mind that the configuration (M, 1) has been obtained fromthe D3-NS5 system of [11] using the well-defined chain of dualities depicted in figures 2and 3 (along with figure 4, for the non-abelian enhanced case). Consequently, (M, 1) is dual to the model in [11], by construction.Part II will be devoted to the study of the physics following from (M, 1). A specialemphasize will be made on what and why this is a suitable framework for the realizationof knots. Before proceeding in this direction, however, we shall first construct yet anotherM-theory configuration, which we will refer to as (M, 5). The configuration (M, 5) alsofollows from [11], but is not dual to it, as we shall see. Instead, we will show that it is dual to the model in [9] and thus provides a second, independent natural framework forthe realization of knots and the computation of knot invariants. As was the case in section 2 and as schematically shown in figure 1, the starting point ofour analysis here too is the well-known type IIB superstring theory configuration of a D3-brane ending on an NS5-brane considered in [11]. For the time being, we will not consideran axionic background: C = 0. The notation and orientation of the branes are exactlyas before, but with the further identifications ( x ≡ θ , x ≡ φ ), which will soon becomesensible.Next, we do five modifications to the above set up. Figure 6 schematically depictsthem. The modifications aim to ultimately make a precise connection between [11] and [9].We will discuss such connection later on. For the time being, let us just discuss themodifications. • First, we introduce a second NS5-brane, oriented along ( t, x x , x , θ , φ ) andwhich intersects the D3-brane.In analogy to the first modification in section 2, this makes the direction orthogonalto both NS5-branes of the D3-brane, namely ψ , a finite interval. The ψ interval inthis case is taken to be not too large. Consequently, the U (1) gauge theory on theD3-brane has only N = 1 supersymmetry now.– 29 – A B (t, x , x ) (x , , ) (t, x , x )D3 NS5NS5 NS5NS5D3 Convert to an interval T-duality along x Add a large number of D4-branes (x , , )(x , , ) C (t, x , x , x )D4 NS5NS5NS5( , ) ( , ) D (t, x , x , x )N>>1 D4's NS5NS5NS5( , ) ( , ) T-duality along Blow up the two-cycle FE (t, x , x , x ) (t, x , x , x )r rN>>1 D5'sS ( S ( S ( S ( N>>1 D5's
Figure 6 . Caricature of the modifications to the D3-NS5 system described in section 3. Thereason to consider this chain of dualities is twofold: to be able to write the corresponding metric(the geometry of F is well-known) and to ultimately connect [11] and [9]. A: The well-knowntype IIB D3-NS5 system. The D3-brane spans the ( t, x , x , ψ ) directions and the NS5-branethe ( t, x , x , x , θ , φ ) directions. The ( θ , φ , r ) directions are suppressed. The gauge the-ory on the D3-brane has N = 2 supersymmetry. B: Introducing a second NS5-brane, orientedalong ( t, x , x , x , θ , φ ) converts the ψ direction into an interval. This reduces the amount ofsupersymmetry of the gauge theory on the D3-brane from N = 2 to N = 1. The r direction issuppressed. C: A T-duality along x does not affect the NS5-branes, but converts the D3-brane intoa D4-brane. D: We add a large amount of coincident D4-branes to the previous configuration. Theaim of this step is to later on establish a precise connection with the configuration studied in [9]. E: A T-duality along ψ converts the NS5-branes to a singular conifold along ( θ , φ , ψ, r, θ , φ ).The D4-branes convert to as many D5-branes that wrap the vanishing two-cycle of the conifold. F: The blowing up of the two-cycle of the singular conifold leads to a resolved conifold. The D5-branesare not affected. – 30 –
Second, we do a T-duality to type IIA superstring theory along x , which resultsin the D3-brane converting to a D4-brane. The NS5-branes are not affected by thisT-duality. This same duality was discussed at length in [25, 26]. • Third, we introduce a large number of coincident D4-branes, so that we have a stuckof N (where N ∈ N and N >>
1) D4-branes between the two NS5-branes. • Fourth, we do a T-duality back to type IIB along ψ . As a result, the NS5-branesdisappear and give rise to a singular conifold in the ( θ , φ , ψ, r, θ , φ ) directions,which explains the coordinate relabeling above. The N D4-branes convert to N D5-branes which wrap the vanishing two-cycle of the conifold. This T-duality has beencarefully discussed in [15, 27]. Note that, unlike in section 2 (see figure 2 D ), thereare no D5-branes here. This is because there is no Coulomb branch in this set up(the associated world-volume gauge theory is an N = 1 supersymmetric one). • Finally, we blow up the two-cycle of the singular conifold and thus obtain a resolvedconifold. The metric on the resolved conifold is a non-K¨ahler one, as succinctlypointed out in [27] and as discussed in details in [28].The geometry corresponding to this last configuration is known (which also explainswhy the above modifications were done) and is given by (4.1) in [1]: ds B, = e − ˜ φ ( − dt + dx + dx + dx ) (3.1)+ e ˜ φ (cid:34) F dr + F ( dψ + (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dφ i ) + (cid:88) i =1 F i ( dθ i + sin θ i dφ i ) (cid:35) . Here, e − ˜ φ is the usual type IIB dilaton: e ˜ φ ( B, = e − ˜ φ . (3.2)For simplicity, we assume that the warp factors and the dilaton only depend on the radialcoordinate r : F i = F i ( r ) , ˜ φ = ˜ φ ( r ) , i = 1 , , , . (3.3)Under such assumption and for a fixed value of the radial coordinate, r = r , the secondline in (3.1) is the resolved conifold metric. As was the case in section 2, the D5-branes inthis configuration source an RR three-form flux F ( B, which can be computed as F ( B, = e φ ∗ d J ( B, , (3.4)where J ( B, is the fundamental two-form of the warped internal six-dimensional manifold(note the dilaton is taken care of in (3.4) already) with metric ds ≡ F dr + F ( dψ + (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dφ i ) + (cid:88) i =1 F i ( dθ i + sin θ i dφ i ) . (3.5)– 31 –e determine F ( B, in the following. (Note the coming calculation is very similar to thatpresented earlier, between (2.5) and (2.15), so we will be succincter now.)We start by defining the vielbeins associated to ds as E ( B, θ i = (cid:112) F i e ( B, θ i = (cid:112) F i dθ i , E ( B, φ i = (cid:112) F i e ( B, φ i = (cid:112) F i sin θ i dφ i ,E ( B, ψ = √ F e ( B, ψ = √ F ( dψ + (cid:80) i =1 cos θ i dφ i ) , E ( B, r = √ F e ( B, r = √ F dr, (3.6)where i = 1 ,
2. Using these vielbeins, it is easy to write down the fundamental two-formof our interest: J ( B, = (cid:88) i =1 E ( B, θ i ∧ E ( B, φ i + E ( B, ψ ∧ E ( B, r = (cid:88) i =1 F i sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i + (cid:112) F F ( dψ + (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dφ i ) ∧ dr. (3.7)The exterior derivative of the above is d J ( B, = (cid:88) i =1 ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ i dr ∧ dθ i ∧ dφ i , (3.8)where, quite obviously, F i,r stands for the derivative with respect to r of F i ( i = 1 , M = F F cos θ + F sin θ F cos θ F cos θ cos θ F F cos θ F F cos θ F F cos θ cos θ F cos θ F cos θ + F sin θ . (3.9)The inverse of the above metric is˜ M − = F csc θ F − cot θ csc θ F F − cot θ csc θ F F + cot θ F + cot θ F − cot θ csc θ F F
00 0 0 − cot θ csc θ F csc θ F (3.10)and the square root of its determinant is˜ M ≡ (cid:112) det ˜ M = (cid:112) F F F F sin θ sin θ . (3.11)All this information can now be used to compute the Hodge dual of the wedge products in(3.8). For a fixed value of i ( i = 1 or i = 2),– 32 – ( dr ∧ dθ i ∧ dφ i ) = ˜ M ˜ M − rr ˜ M − θ i θ i ( ˜ M − φ i φ i (cid:15) rθ i φ i ψθ j φ j dψ + ˜ M − φ i ψ (cid:15) rθ i ψφ i θ j φ j dφ i ) ∧ dθ j ∧ dφ j = (cid:115) F F F j F i csc θ i sin θ j ( dψ + cos θ i dφ i ) ∧ dθ j ∧ dφ j , (3.12)with j fixed and not equal to i . That is, either ( i, j ) = (1 ,
2) or ( i, j ) = (2 , F ( B, = e φ (cid:115) F F (cid:88) i,j =1 i (cid:54) = j F j F i ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ j ( dψ + cos θ i dφ i ) ∧ dθ j ∧ dφ j . (3.13)Note that, in good agreement with the previously pointed out presence of D5-branes inthis configuration, the above flux is not closed: d F ( B, (cid:54) = 0.Later on, in section 3.2.1, we will be interested in making a fully precise choice ofthe warp factors and dilaton in (3.3). Accordingly, we note that not any such choice willeventually lead to a world-volume gauge theory with N = 1 supersymmetry. The story is infact a bit more involved: the warp factors and dilaton must satisfy a particular constraintequation so that we indeed have N = 1 supersymmetry. In the following section, we derivethis constraint equation. N = 1 supersymmetry: torsion classes The aforementioned constraint equation relating the warp factors and dilaton in (3.3) thatensures N = 1 supersymmetry in the associated world-volume gauge theory is most easilyderived using the technique of torsion classes. A detailed yet concise review of the techniqueand its applications to string theory can be found in [29]. A more mathematical approachto the same material is [30]. In this section, we review and adapt the results in thesereferences to the present case and thus obtain the desired constraint equation. (This is,essentially, the content of section 3.1 in [31] too.)We start by noting that the type IIB configuration determined in the previous sectionhas an internal six-dimensional manifold, whose (Riemannian) metric was given in (3.5).This manifold is equipped with a fundamental two-form, given in (3.7). In a more math-ematical language, we say that this is a six-dimensional manifold with a U (3) structure J . An SU (3) structure is then determined by a real three-form Ω + , which we will sooncompute. There is an intrinsic torsion associated to each of these structures. For ourpurposes, only the intrinsic torsion τ of the SU (3) structure will be relevant. τ belongsto a space which can be decomposed into five classes: τ ∈ W ⊕ W ⊕ W ⊕ W ⊕ W , (3.14)according to its decomposition into the irreps of SU (3)( + ) + ( + ) + ( + ¯6 ) + ( + ¯3 ) + ( ¯3 + ) . (3.15)– 33 –e denote the component of τ in W i as W i ( i = 1 , , , , (cid:121) , whichwill immediately become useful to us. Let ( e , e , . . . , e i ) be an orthonormal basis of thecotangent space T ∗ M of any i -dimensional manifold M . Given a j -form ω and a k -form ω in T ∗ M (with i ≥ j ≥ k ≥ ω ≡ ( ω ) ...j j (cid:89) l =1 e l , ω ≡ ( ω ) ...k k (cid:89) l =1 e l , (3.16)the contraction operator (cid:121) is a map from the pair ( ω , ω ) to a ( j − k )-form given by ω (cid:121) ω ≡ j ! (cid:32) jk (cid:33) ( ω ) ...j ( ω ) ...k j (cid:89) l = k +1 e l , (3.17)with the convention that e ∧ e (cid:121) e ∧ e ∧ e = e , etc. Having introduced the contractionoperator, we now have all the ingredients required to derive the desired constraint equation.The necessary and sufficient conditions to ensure N = 1 supersymmetry in the world-volume gauge theory corresponding to the geometry (3.1) have long been known [32] .These conditions were then reformulated in [29] in terms of the torsion classes we justintroduced in (3.14). For the present case, they amount to demanding that (4.23) in [1]should hold true: 2 W + W = 0 , (3.18)with ( W , W ) defined as W ≡ J (cid:121) dJ, W ≡
12 Ω + (cid:121) d Ω + . (3.19)The remaining of this section is devoted to the calculation of (3.18) in terms of the warpfactors and dilaton in (3.3).In order to match the conventions in [31], where the interested reader can find anelaboration of the present discussion, we take the complex vielbeins of the internal six-manifold of (3.1) as in there: E ( B, = e ˜ φ ( (cid:112) F e ( B, r + i (cid:112) F e ( B, ψ ) , E ( B, i = e ˜ φ + iψ/ (cid:112) F i ( e ( B, θ i + ie ( B, φ i ) , (3.20)where the vielbeins e ( B, where defined in (3.6) and i = 1 ,
2. In terms of these vielbeins,the U (3) structure J of the internal space is given by The conditions in [32] are actually a bit too stringent. Later on, examples of N = 1 supersymmetrictheories which did not satisfy all these conditions were found (see, for example [19]). For our case, however,the list in [32] will suffice. – 34 – = E ( B, ∧ E ( B, + (cid:88) i =1 E ( B, i ∧ E ( B, i =2 ie φ (cid:16)(cid:112) F F e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, ψ + (cid:88) i =1 F i e ( B, φ i ∧ e ( B, θ i (cid:17) , (3.21)where the bar denotes complex conjugation. We also define the three-form Ω asΩ ≡ E ∧ E ∧ E = e φ + iψ (cid:112) F F (cid:16)(cid:112) F e ( B, r + i (cid:112) F e ( B, ψ (cid:17) ∧ (cid:89) i =1 (cid:16) e ( B, θ i + ie ( B, φ i (cid:17) . (3.22)The SU (3) structure Ω + of the internal space is just the real part of the above three-form:Ω + ≡ Re(Ω). Using Euler’s formula, it is not hard to show thatΩ + = e φ (cid:112) F F (cid:104)(cid:16)(cid:112) F cos ψe ( B, r − (cid:112) F sin ψe ( B, ψ (cid:17) ∧ (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, θ − e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, φ (cid:17) − (cid:16)(cid:112) F sin ψe ( B, r + (cid:112) F cos ψe ( B, ψ (cid:17) ∧ (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ + e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, θ (cid:17)(cid:105) . (3.23)In order to obtain the exterior derivative of the two structures of our interest, ( J, Ω + ), itis necessary to use the explicit form of the vielbeins in (3.6). Rather tedious algebra yields dJ =2 ie φ (cid:88) i =1 (cid:16)(cid:112) F F − F i,r − φ r F i (cid:17) e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, θ i ∧ e ( B, φ i , (3.24) d Ω + = k (cid:48) e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ (cid:88) i =1 cot θ i e ( B, θ i + k (cid:48) dψ ∧ e ( B, r ∧ (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ + e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, θ (cid:17) + k (cid:48) e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ (cid:88) i =1 cot θ i e ( B, φ i + k (cid:48) dψ ∧ e ( B, r ∧ (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, θ − e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, φ (cid:17) , (3.25)where the subscript r , as before, denotes derivation with respect to the radial coordinateand we have defined k (cid:48) ≡ e φ (cid:112) F F F cos ψ (cid:32) φ r − (cid:115) F F + (cid:88) i =2 F i,r F i (cid:33) , k (cid:48) ≡ − tan ψk (cid:48) . (3.26)Using (3.17) and all the above in (3.19), it is a matter of care and patience to obtain therelevant components of the intrinsic torsion of Ω + as in (4.20) in [1]: W = (cid:32) ˜ φ r + (cid:88) i =3 F i,r − √ F F F i (cid:33) e ( B, r , W = 12 (cid:32) ˜ φ r − (cid:115) F F + (cid:88) i =2 F i,r F i (cid:33) e ( B, r . (3.27)– 35 –inally, inserting these values of ( W , W ) in (3.18), the desired constraint ensuring N = 1supersymmetry is30 ˜ φ r − (cid:115) F F + F ,r F + (cid:88) i =3 (cid:18) F i,r F i − √ F F F i (cid:19) = 0 . (3.28)At this point one may wonder if similar constraints should not have been worked outfor our configuration (M, 1) with metric (2.1) in section 2 as well. Surely if N = 1 super-symmetry constrains the choice of warp factors and dilaton in (3.3), N = 2 supersymmetrywill also constrain the choice in (2.2). The resolution to this issue is, unfortunately, be-yond the scope of this work, as the powerful technique of torsion classes has not yet beengeneralized to the case of N = 2 supersymmetry. Consequently, any specific choice for thewarp factors in (2.2) and Q in (2.70) that one may want to consider will require an explicitverification that it indeed preserves the desired amount of supersymmetry .To sum things up, so far we have obtained from the well-known D3-NS5 system (withno axion) of [11] the type IIB configuration with metric (3.1), dilaton e − ˜ φ and an RRthree-form flux (3.13). In order for this configuration to lead to a N = 1 supersymmetricworld-volume gauge theory, the constraint (3.28) should be satisfied. However, we wouldlike to consider a type IIB configuration which, besides having an RR three-form flux, alsohas an NS three-form flux. This is, in principle, not an easy task. However, the series ofdualities first presented in [27] and later on further studied in [28] and [31], when applied toour above configuration, precisely serves this purpose. In the following section, we explainthese dualities in details and obtain a type IIB configuration with both RR and NS fluxes.Such a generalization will then, in section 3.2.2, allow us to establish a direct connectionwith the model to study knots presented in [9]. We start this section considering the type IIB configuration described in section 3 anddepicted in figure 6 F . We will first perform three T-dualities, along ( x , x , x ), to type IIA.The resulting configuration will then be lifted to M-theory, where we will perform a boostalong the ( t, x ) directions: ( t, x ) → (˜ t, ˜ x ). This will be followed by a dimensionalreduction to type IIA. The last step will be to T-dualize along ( x , x , x ) back to typeIIB. Of course, we will work out the NS B-field, dilaton and RR and NS fluxes associatedto each geometry considered along this chain of modifications. As we already pointed out,starting from a type IIB configuration which only has RR fluxes, we will thus obtain atype IIB configuration with RR and NS fluxes. As already said and as we shall show, theadditional NS fluxes are required in order to precisely reproduce the model in [9]. Figure7 outlines the just described chain of modifications and serves as a summary of the keyresults in the present section.As just mentioned, to the type IIB configuration shown in figure 6 F we do threeT-dualities, along ( x , x , x ). It is rather straightforward to see that the metric then We will discuss how this is achieved in the gauge theory following from (M, 1) in section 6.2 later on. – 36 –
Type IIB configuration (B,7) Type IIA configuration (A,7)Type IIA configuration (A,8)
Metric: (3.1) Dilaton: (3.2) RR 3-form flux: (3.13) Metric: (3.38) G 4-form flux: (3.39) Metric: (3.40) Dilaton: (3.41) RR 2-form flux: (3.44) RR 4-form flux: (3.42) NS 3-form flux: (3.45)
Dimensional reduction Uplift ThreeT-dualitiesalong(x , x , x )Boost along x (3.35) ThreeT-dualitiesalong(x , x , x ) M-theory configuration (M,3)M-theory configuration (M,4) Metric: (3.34) G 4-form flux: (3.34)
Type IIB configuration (B,8)
Metric: (3.29) Dilaton: (3.30) RR 4-form flux: (3.33) Metric: (3.46) Dilaton: (3.2) RR 3-form flux: (3.50) RR 5-form flux: (3.51) NS 3-form flux: (3.49)
Figure 7 . Graphical summary of section 3.2. To the type IIB configuration of figure 6 F we do aseries of modifications. In this manner, we obtain a type IIB configuration that, besides RR fluxes,has NS fluxes as well. becomes ds A, = − e − ˜ φ dt + e ˜ φ ( dx + dx + dx + ds ) , (3.29)where ds was defined in (3.5). Coming to the dilaton, its changes can be summarized asfollows: e ˜ φ ( B, = e − ˜ φ T-duality −−−−−−→ along x e − ˜ φ/ −−−−−−→ along x T-duality −−−−−−→ along x e ˜ φ/ = e ˜ φ ( A, . (3.30)This can be used to rewrite our type IIA metric in a form that will soon make it straight-forward to uplift it to M-theory: ds A, = e ˜ φ/ (cid:104) − e − φ/ dt + e φ/ ( dx + dx + dx + ds ) (cid:105) . (3.31)– 37 –egarding the F ( B, flux, we note that each T-duality will add a leg to it along its corre-sponding Minkowskian direction ( x , x , x ). That is, F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x dx ∧ F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x dx ∧ dx ∧ F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ F ( B, = F ( A, . (3.32)We thus obtain an RR six-form flux. This flux is not closed ( d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0), which is to beexpected, since the three T-dualities convert the N coincident D5-branes of the previoustype IIB configuration to N coincident D2-branes that source F ( A, . The Hodge dual ofthis six-form flux then gives us the more convenient (for the coming uplift) RR four-formflux of this type IIA configuration: F ( A, = ∗ F ( A, = ∗F ( B, ∧ dt = d J ( B, ∧ dt = (cid:88) i =1 ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ i dr ∧ dθ i ∧ dφ i ∧ dt, (3.33)where the first Hodge dual is with respect to the full ten-dimensional metric (3.31), whereasthe second one is with respect to (3.5). The above result makes use of (3.4), (3.8) and (3.32).We wrote our type IIA configuration so that the uplift to M-theory would be effortless.We get the following metric and G-flux: ds M, = − e − φ/ dt + e φ/ ( dx + dx + dx + ds + dx ) , G ( M, = F ( A, . (3.34)Note that the D2-branes now convert to N coincident M2-branes.The key step in this chain of dualities comes next: we perform a boost in the eleventhdirection. Explicitly, x = cosh β ˜ x − sinh β ˜ t, t = − sinh β ˜ x + cosh β ˜ t, (3.35)with β the boost parameter. Following equation (4.3) in [1], we define the quantityΥ ≡ sinh β ( e φ/ − e − φ/ ) . (3.36)Using the above two equations in ds M, , it is a matter of simple algebra to check that theboosted M-theory metric is given by ds M, = e φ/ ( dx + dx + dx + ds ) + (Υ − e − φ/ ) d ˜ t + (Υ + e φ/ ) d ˜ x −
2Υ coth βd ˜ x d ˜ t. (3.37)Note that the boost has now generated a gauge field in the M-theory. This is most clearlyseen upon rewriting the above metric as – 38 – s M, = e φ/ ( dx + dx + dx + ds ) − e − φ/ Υ + e φ/ d ˜ t + (Υ + e φ/ )( d ˜ x − Υ coth β Υ + e φ/ d ˜ t ) . (3.38)This rewriting is convenient for the coming dimensional reduction too. Similarly, theboosted G-flux can be easily seen to be G ( M, = d J ( B, ∧ (cosh βd ˜ t − sinh βd ˜ x ) , (3.39)with d J ( B, as in (3.8).The next step in the chain of dualities outlined in the beginning of the section is todimensionally reduce the above to type IIA. The metric corresponding to this configurationis ds A, = − e − φ/ (cid:112) Υ + e φ/ d ˜ t + e φ/ (cid:113) Υ + e φ/ ( dx + dx + dx + ds ) (3.40)and the corresponding dilaton is e ˜ φ ( A, = (cid:16) Υ + e φ/ (cid:17) / . (3.41)Coming now to the fluxes, we note that the M2-branes of the previous M-theory setup nowconvert to D2-branes, which source an RR four-form flux given by F ( A, = cosh βd J ( B, ∧ d ˜ t. (3.42)The Hodge dual of the above will soon be useful. This is an RR six-form flux of the form F ( A, = ∗F ( A, = cosh βdx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ F ( B, , (3.43)which is clearly not closed, d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0, as expected. (Recall F ( B, was given in (3.13).)Additionally, the M-theory gauge field generated by the boost (3.35), effectively converts toa “D0-charge”. This D0-charge sources a closed RR two-form flux: the exterior derivativeof the just mentioned gauge field. Explicitly, F ( A, = − d (cid:18) Υ coth β Υ + e φ/ d ˜ t (cid:19) = coth β ddr (cid:18) ΥΥ + e φ/ (cid:19) d ˜ t ∧ dr, (3.44)where we have used the fact that, as a consequence of our choices in (3.3), the gauge fieldonly depends on the radial coordinate r (and the boost parameter β ). To finish this fluxdiscussion, we note that the boost generates a closed NS three-form flux, just as we wanted: H ( A, = − sinh βd J ( B, . (3.45)– 39 –o finish this section, the only remaining task is to perform three T-dualities, along( x , x , x ), back to type IIB. From (3.40), it follows that the geometry corresponding toour final configuration is ds B, = e − φ/ (cid:112) Υ + e φ/ ( − d ˜ t + dx + dx + dx ) + e φ/ (cid:113) Υ + e φ/ ds . (3.46)The changes in the dilaton can be summarized as follows: e ˜ φ ( A, T-duality −−−−−−→ along x e − ˜ φ/ (cid:16) Υ + e φ/ (cid:17) / −−−−−−→ along x e − φ/ (cid:16) Υ + e φ/ (cid:17) / −−−−−−→ along x e − ˜ φ . (3.47)Hence, the dilaton remains as in the beginning: e ˜ φ ( B, = e ˜ φ ( B, = e − ˜ φ . (3.48)It is rather obvious that, since the dualities are along diagonal directions of the metric, theNS three-form flux will not be affected in this case: H ( B, = H ( A, = − sinh βd J ( B, . (3.49)Regarding the F ( A, flux, we note that each T-duality will remove a leg to it along itscorresponding Minkowskian direction ( x , x , x ). That is, we have the reverse process tothat earlier in (3.32): F ( A, = cosh βdx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x cosh βdx ∧ dx ∧ F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x cosh βdx ∧ F ( B, −−−−−−→ along x cosh β F ( B, = F ( B, . (3.50)We thus obtain a non-closed RR three-form flux, an indication of the N coincident D5-branes present in this configuration. Finally, the D0-charge previously sourcing F ( A, now converts to a D3-charge. The D3-charge then sources an RR five-form flux which,in analogy to (3.32), is given by F ( A, ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx , plus its Hodge dual (since theD3-charge is self-dual, the corresponding RR flux must be self-dual too). We thus obtain F ( B, = coth β (1 + ∗ ) ddr (cid:18) ΥΥ + e φ/ (cid:19) d ˜ t ∧ dr ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx , (3.51)where the Hodge dual is, of course, with respect to the metric (3.46). The geometryand fluxes of this final type IIB configuration are precisely those in (4.2) in [1]. As aconsistency check, one may verify that setting β = 0 (no boost), we recover the initial typeIIB configuration with only dilaton and RR three-form flux:configuration ( B, −−→ β =0 configuration ( B, . (3.52)It is important to note that none of the modifications performed in this section affectsthe supersymmetry of the starting configuration (configuration (B, 7)). In other words, the– 40 –reviously derived constraint equation (3.28) is enough to ensure that the end configuration(configuration (B, 8)) is associated to an N = 1 supersymmetric world-volume gauge theorytoo. We refer the interested reader to section 3.2 in [31] for an enlightening discussion onthe difficulties to derive this constraint equation in the context of the configuration (B, 8),where the internal 6-dimensional manifold is not complex, unlike in the configuration (B,7). At this stage, we would like to make our discussion fully precise. Thus, following (4.9)in [1], we choose our warp factors as F = e − ˜ φ F , F = r e − ˜ φ F , F = r e − ˜ φ a , F = r e − ˜ φ , (3.53)where, in good agreement with our previous choices in (3.3), F = F ( r ) , a ≡ a + ˜ a ( r ) . (3.54)The constant a is to be interpreted as the resolution parameter of the blown up two-cyclein the resolved conifold. (This choice was already studied in [31] and [33].) In this section,we work out three constraint equations that ultimately allow us to compute ( F, e ˜ φ , a )above and thereby fully determine our type IIB configuration in this case. We will doso for a particularly simple case, as the most general scenario is computationally hard tohandle.The first constraint equation follows from demanding that the choice (3.53) leadsto a world-volume gauge theory with N = 1 supersymmetry. As we argued in section3.1, this amounts to requiring that (3.28) holds true. Using (3.53) in (3.28), it is quitestraightforward to show that the first constraint can be written as in (4.25) in [1]: (cid:32)
15 + 88 a e ˜ φ r (cid:33) ˜ φ r + 56 e ˜ φ ar a r + 2 r + (cid:18) r + 1 F F r − rF (cid:19) (cid:32) a e ˜ φ r (cid:33) = 0 , (3.55)where ( ˜ φ r , a r , F r ) stand for the derivatives with respect to the radial coordinate r of( ˜ φ, a, F ).For the second constraint equation, we will demand quantization of the magnetic chargeof the D5-branes in our configuration. Recall that, in spite of the duality chain of figure7, our D5-branes remain as in figure 6 F : oriented along ( t, x , x , x ) and wrapping thetwo-cycle parametrized by ( θ , φ ). As it is well-known , the D5-branes’ charge stems fromthe RR three-form flux F ( B, . Accordingly, let us begin by giving the explicit form of thisflux when the warp factors are chosen as just mentioned. This amounts to inserting (3.53)in (3.50) and further using (3.6) and (3.13). Rather easy and quick algebra then gives F ( B, = − e ˜ φ r F β (cid:16) ˜ k e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ + ˜ k e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ (cid:17) ∧ e ( B, ψ , (3.56) A succinct and clear review on charge quantization of D-branes can be found in [17]. – 41 –here we have defined˜ k ≡ ˜ φ r (cid:32) a e ˜ φ r (cid:33) , ˜ k ≡ r ˜ φ r − aa r e ˜ φ r + 4 a e ˜ φ . (3.57)This is (4.10) in [1]. Now, the magnetic charge of the D5-branes in our setup can becalculated as the integral of their RR three-form flux over the three cycle orthogonal tothem: q m = (cid:90) S F ( B, , (3.58)with S the three cycle labeled by ( θ , φ , ψ ) and depicted in figure 6 F . It is easy to seethat only the first term in (3.56) will contribute to the magnetic charge. Normalizing thethree cycle volume as V S ≡ (cid:90) S e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, ψ = 1 (3.59)and demanding q m ∈ Z , we obtain the second constraint equation:˜ c ≡ e ˜ φ r F k cosh β ∈ Z . (3.60)The third and last constraint follows from d F ( B, = 0. For simplicity, we will considerthe limit when ( a, a r ) are of the same order and sufficiently small, a ∼ a r <<
1. Underthis assumption, we can expand ˜ k around a = 0 and obtain˜ k = ˜ φ r (cid:32) − a e ˜ φ r (cid:33) − aa r e ˜ φ r + O ( a ) . (3.61)Further introducing the quantities in (4.13) and (4.17) in [1], η ≡ (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ − e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ (cid:17) ∧ e ( B, ψ , G ≡ e φ rF cosh β (cid:32) aa r − e − ˜ φ r ˜ φ r (cid:33) , (3.62)it is not hard to convince oneself that F ( B, can be written in the very suggestive way F ( B, = − ˜ c η + Ge ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, ψ , (3.63)where we have used our first constraint (3.60). Note that η is a closed form ( dη = 0).Consequently, the exterior derivative of the above comes solely from the second term.Denoting as G r the derivative of G with respect to r , we obtain d F ( B, as in (4.16) in [1]: d F ( B, = G r e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, ψ + Gd (cid:16) e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, ψ (cid:17) = G r e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, ψ ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ − Ge ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ , (3.64)– 42 –here in the last step we have made use of (3.6). Of course, the exterior derivative of theabove must vanish and this leads to our third constraint equation:0 = d F ( B, = − G r e ( B, r ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ ∧ e ( B, θ ∧ e ( B, φ = ⇒ G r = 0 . (3.65)Having derived the three constraints of our interest, (3.55), (3.60) and (3.65), we willnow solve them under the assumption a ∼ a r <<
1, keeping only terms up to order O ( a ).(Other solutions to these equations are of course possible, but we will not attempt themhere.) In this case, (3.55) reduces to (4.24) in [1], r ˜ φ r + r F F r − F + 25 + O ( a ) = 0 (3.66)and (3.60) becomes ˜ c = e ˜ φ r F φ r cosh β + O ( a ) , (3.67)which immediately ensures that (3.65) is satisfied in the limit here considered. Defining Z ≡ e ˜ φ and ˆ c ≡ ˜ c / cosh β , we can solve for F in the above F = 4ˆ c r Z r + O ( a ) . (3.68)Substitution in (3.66) then yields (4.26) in [1]: rZ rr − Z r + r (cid:18) r c − Z (cid:19) Z r + O ( a ) = 0 , (3.69)with Z rr ≡ d Z/dr . One may easily verify that a solution to (3.69) is given by Z =24ˆ c r − . It follows then that (4.30) in [1], e ˜ φ = 24ˆ c r + O ( a ) , F = −
112 + O ( a ) , (3.70)fully determines our choices in (3.53), up to order O ( a ). The explicit form of the type IIBconfiguration (B, 8) in figure 7 can then be obtained by simply using (3.53) and (3.70) in(3.46) and in (3.48)-(3.51). The present section is devoted to sketching how the configuration (B, 8) of figure 7 is relatedto the resolved conifold in the presence of fluxes considered by Ooguri and Vafa in [9]. Here,we will clearly point out the modifications needed to obtain the model in [9] from (B, 8).These are depicted in figure 8, which serves as a graphical summary of the present sectiontoo. Nonetheless, unlike in previous sections, we will not present a thorough derivationof the geometries and fluxes for each intermediate configuration considered in the process.Such exhaustive study is beyond the scope of this work and is deferred to the sequel. Inthe sequel, following [9], we also intend to explore knot invariants in the configuration (M,5), which follows from (B, 8) and which is constructed in details in section 3.3. For the– 43 –
Geometric transition + flopr S ( S ( N>>1 D5's Geometrictransition(t, x , x , x ) S S S S Deformed conifoldMirror + flop MirrorResolved conifoldDeformed conifold Resolved conifold S S N>>1 D6's fluxes fluxes S S x RS x R Figure 8 . Depiction of the discussions in section 3.2.2. To the configuration (B, 8) of figure 7 we dothe following modifications modifications: Euclideanize and compactify the (˜ t, x , x ) directions, goto the mirror picture, perform a flop operation and take the gravity dual. The resulting configurationis that of a resolved conifold in the presence of fluxes studied in [9]. Our configuration (B, 8) is thaton the top, left corner, whereas the most well-known realization of the model in [9] is drawn on thebottom, right corner. It should be noted that, as explained in the text, the mirror operations hereshown are only valid in a certain energy range. time being, we refer the interested reader to section 4.4 in [1] for a preliminary discussionof the physics stemming from (M, 5) and the realization of knots in this set up.As we just mentioned, our starting point in this section is the configuration (B, 8)summarized in figure 7. Essentially, this is the same configuration as that drawn in figure6 F , but in the presence of both RR and NS fluxes. In figure 8, this is shown in the top, leftcorner. As can be seen, (B, 8) consists on a large number N of D5-branes wrapping thetwo-cycle S of a non-K¨ahler resolved conifold. Let us start by making an observation thatwill soon be relevant to us. From the orientation of the D5-branes shown in figure 6 F itis clear that, upon a dimensional reduction, we expect to obtain an SU ( N ) world-volumegauge theory along (˜ t, x , x , x ). Loosely speaking, the physics following from (B, 8) areencoded in the directions (˜ t, x , x , x ).Next, recall that the metric corresponding to (B, 8) was given in (3.46). Note inparticular that the spacetime directions (˜ t, x , x ) in this geometry parametrize a three-dimensional Minkowski subspace. The first modification to (B, 8) that one needs to considerin order to obtain the model in [9] consists on Euclideanizing and compactifying these– 44 –irections, so that they parametrize a sphere: (˜ t, x , x ) → S E ) . Then, the correspondingphysical theory will lie in S E ) × R , where R stands for the line labeled by the coordinate x . Secondly, we must perform a series of T- and SYZ-dualities to the resulting configu-ration, which will take us to the so-called mirror picture. The required dualities are farfrom trivial, involving many subtleties. Nevertheless, the works [34–37] deal with all diffi-culties exhaustively and show that the mirror picture consists on N D6-branes wrappingthe three-cycle S of a non-K¨ahler deformed conifold. This is true only for energies higherthan the inverse size of the two-cycle S of the dual resolved conifold. As a consequence,we will restrict ourselves in the ongoing to this energy regime .In the described mirror picture of our interest, the N D6-branes are oriented alongthe seven-dimensional subspace S E ) × S × R . The third and last modification requiredto obtain the model in [9] is given by a flop operation, that exchanges S E ) and S asdescribed in (4.8) in [1]: S E ) ↔ S . Clearly, this does not affect the orientation of theD6-branes, yet it transfers the physics from S E ) × R to S × R , thus yielding the D6-branerealization of the model in [9] depicted on the bottom, left corner of figure 8.A more well-known realization of the set up in [9] is obtained by simply taking thelarge N dual (in other words, performing a geometric transition) of the above configuration.In this case, the deformed conifold becomes a resolved one. The D6-branes disappear inthe dual picture, giving rise to fluxes. This configuration is precisely that shown on thebottom, right corner of figure 8.Alternatively, one may take the large N dual of (B, 8) first and consider the mirrorpicture afterwards. The result is the same: we obtain the deformed conifold with fluxesof [9]. This equivalent procedure is depicted on the top, right corner of figure 8.At this stage, we have argued that our configuration (B, 8) is related to the modelin [9] by a simple chain of dualities. That is, (B, 8) is dual to [9]. In the next section, wewill build an M-theory configuration (M, 5) from (B, 8). As we shall see, (B, 8) is dual to(M, 5) and so this will allow us to conclude that (M, 5) is dual to [9] too. In this section we will obtain the second M-theory construction where knot invariants canbe studied: (M, 5). Clearly, the starting point will be the configuration (B, 8) in figure7. We will first do a T-duality along ψ to type IIA, where we will perform the same non-commutative deformation we considered in section 2.1: ( x , ψ ) → (˜ x , ˜ ψ ). As we arguedin both sections 2.1 and 2.2, this deformation sources the Θ-term in the associated world-volume gauge theory, which is crucial for allowing the embedding of knots in our model.Finally, we will uplift the resulting configuration to M-theory. As has been the case so far,the dilaton and fluxes for each geometry considered will be worked out here too. Figure 9provides a graphical summary of this chain of modifications and indicates what the mainresults in this section are. As argued around (2.5) in [1], for energies lower than the size of S , the mirror picture will lead toD4-branes instead of D6-branes. Although such scenario may be interesting as well, it does not relate tothe model in [9] and thus we are presently not concerned with it. – 45 – NC deformation(2.24)UpliftM-theory configuration (M,5) Type IIA configuration (A,10)
Metric: (3.89) G 4-form flux: (3.94)
T-dualityalong Type IIB configuration (B,8)
Metric: (3.46) Dilaton: (3.2) RR 3-form flux: (3.50) RR 5-form flux: (3.51) NS 3-form flux: (3.49)
Type IIA configuration (A,9)
Metric: (3.75) Dilaton: (3.77) RR 2-form flux: (3.79) RR 4-form flux: (3.83) NS 3-form flux: (3.78) Metric: (3.84) Dilaton: (3.77) RR 2-form flux: (3.79) RR 4-form flux: (3.86) NS 3-form flux: (3.86)
Figure 9 . Graphical summary of section 3.3. To the configuration (B, 8) of figure 7 we do a seriesof modifications, so as to source a Θ-term in the corresponding world-volume gauge theory. Theresulting configuration is then lifted to M-theory. The configuration (M, 5) is the second M-theoryconstruction where knots can be studied.
In order to obtain the T-dual of the (B, 8) configuration, we first rewrite its geometryin (3.46) in a convenient form for our present purposes: ds B, = 1 √ h (cid:0) ds t + dx (cid:1) + √ h F (cid:32) dψ + (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dφ i (cid:33) + ds , (3.71)where we have defined ds t ≡ − d ˜ t + dx + dx , ds ≡ F dr + (cid:88) i =1 F i (cid:0) dθ i + sin θ i dφ i (cid:1) (3.72)and, following (4.40) in [1], we have also introduced h ≡ e φ/ (cid:16) Υ + e φ/ (cid:17) . (3.73)(We remind the reader that Υ was defined in (3.36).) As can be easily inferred from (3.49),the above geometry is associated to an NS B-field B ( B, = sinh β (cid:88) i =1 (cid:16)(cid:112) F F cos θ i dr − F i sin θ i dθ i (cid:17) ∧ dφ i . (3.74)– 46 –t is now straightforward to T-dualize along ψ the metric (3.71). We thus obtain thetype IIA geometry in (4.39) in [1]: ds A, = 1 √ h (cid:18) ds t + dx + 1 F dψ (cid:19) + √ hds , (3.75)with associated NS B-field B ( A, = B ( B, + (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dψ ∧ dφ i . (3.76)The dilaton for this type IIA configuration is, quite obviously, that in (4.40) in [1]: e ˜ φ ( A, = h − / F − / e − ˜ φ . (3.77)The NS three-form flux can be easily derived to be H ( A, = dB ( A, = H ( B, + (cid:88) i =1 sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i ∧ dψ, (3.78)with H ( B, as in (3.8) and (3.49). Coming to the RR fluxes now, we note that the T-duality converts the D5-branes which wrap the two-cycle of the resolved conifold in theconfiguration (B, 8) to N coincident D6-branes that wrap the two-sphere parametrized by( θ , φ ) in the dual type IIA picture . Consequently, the RR three-form flux (3.50) (where F ( B, was given in (3.13)) that was sourced by the D5-branes now gives rise to the RRtwo-form flux F ( A, = e φ cosh β (cid:115) F F (cid:88) i,j =1 i (cid:54) = j F j F i ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ j dθ j ∧ dφ j , (3.79)as well as to the RR four-form flux F (1)4 = e φ cosh β (cid:115) F F (cid:88) i,j =1 i (cid:54) = j F j F i ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ j cos θ i dψ ∧ dφ i ∧ dθ j ∧ dφ j . (3.80)Both are sourced by the dual D6-branes (and hence, d F ( A, (cid:54) = 0 (cid:54) = d F (1)4 ). On the otherhand, the D3-charge that sourced the self-dual RR five-form flux in (3.51) converts to aD4-charge after the T-duality. They now source RR four- and six-form fluxes, which areHodge dual to each other (with respect to the metric (3.75)). Starting from (3.51) andusing (3.73), it is clear that the RR six-form flux is F ( A, = coth β ddr (cid:32) e φ h (cid:33) d ˜ t ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dψ ∧ dr. (3.81) Actually, this T-duality is more subtle and can also lead to D4-branes. We discuss this important pointin section 3.2.2. – 47 –owever, its Hodge-dual four-form will become more convenient once we perform the upliftto M-theory, with views to computing the G-flux there. Since the metric (3.75) is diagonal,it is not hard to show that the flux of our interest is given by F (2)4 = ∗F ( A, = − coth β ddr (cid:32) e φ h (cid:33) h (cid:115) F F (cid:89) i =1 F i sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i . (3.82)The total RR four-form flux for this configuration is thus F ( A, = F (1)4 + F (2)4 . (3.83)We will now apply the non-commutative deformation ( x , ψ ) → (˜ x , ˜ ψ ) in (2.24) tothe above type IIA configuration. The metric (3.75) then changes to ds A, = 1 √ h ds t + 1 √ h (sec θ nc d ˜ x + sin θ nc d ˜ ψ ) + cos θ nc √ h F d ˜ ψ + √ hds =( e ˜ φ ( A, ) / (cid:32) F e φ h (cid:33) / (cid:20) ds t + ( d ˜ x cos θ nc + sin θ nc d ˜ ψ ) + cos θ nc √ h F d ˜ ψ + hds (cid:21) , (3.84)where the last rewriting was done in preparation to the M-theory uplift that will follow. Thedilaton and RR two–form flux can be readily seen not to be affected by the deformation: e ˜ φ ( A, = e ˜ φ ( A, , F ( A, = F ( A, . (3.85)However, the RR four-form flux and the NS three-form flux do change to F ( A, = e φ cosh β cos θ nc (cid:115) F F d ˜ ψ ∧ (cid:16) ˆˆ k dφ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ + ˆˆ k dθ ∧ dφ ∧ dφ (cid:17) + F (2)4 , H ( A, = H ( B, + cos θ nc (cid:88) i =1 sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i ∧ d ˜ ψ, (3.86)where we have definedˆˆ k ≡ F F ( F ,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ cos θ , ˆˆ k ≡ F F ( F ,r − (cid:112) F F )sin θ cos θ . (3.87)Once more, the RR two-form flux not being closed, we can rewrite it in a similar fashionto what we did earlier in (2.45) and (2.118): F ( A, = d ˆ A + ˆ∆ , ˆ A ≡ cosh β (cid:88) i =1 cos θ i dφ i , d ˆ∆ = sources , (3.88)with ˆ A the type IIA gauge field for this configuration (A, 10). We will soon see that itis opportune to define ˆ A as we just did, which is (4.51) in [1]. Before we proceed, let usmake one last observation: the subsequent M-theory uplift will only capture the dynamicsof this type IIA theory when e ˜ φ ( A, is of order one, or bigger.– 48 –he M-theory metric corresponding to (3.84) is (4.48) in [1]: ds M, = ( e ˜ φ ( A, ) − / ds A, + ( h F e φ ) − / ( dx + ˆ A ) . (3.89)We note that, due to (3.3) and (3.88), for a fixed value of the φ coordinate, φ = φ ∗ , themetric along the directions ( r, θ , φ , x ) describes a warped Taub-NUT space. Introduc-ing the quantitiesˆ G ≡ F ( h F e φ ) / , ˆ G ≡ F F ˆ G , ˆ G ≡ sin θ ˆ G , ˆ G ≡ ( h F e φ ) − / , (3.90)which are only functions of the coordinates ( r, θ ) (and the boost parameter β ), we canwrite the metric for the Taub-NUT space as ds T N = ˆ G dr + ˆ G dθ + ˆ G dφ + ˆ G ( dx + ˆ A ∗ ) , (3.91)where we have defined ˆ A ∗ ≡ ˆ A (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) φ = φ ∗ = cosh β cos θ dφ . (3.92)To the metric (3.91), we associate the following vielbeins: e ( M, r = (cid:113) ˆ G dr, e ( M, θ = (cid:113) ˆ G dθ , e ( M, φ = (cid:113) ˆ G dφ , e ( M, = (cid:113) ˆ G ( dx + ˆ A ∗ ) . (3.93)As was the case in section 2.1.1, this is a multi-centered (warped) Taub-NUT space. Recallthat we had N D6-branes in the configuration (A, 10) prior to the uplift. Hence, ˆ G − = 0happens N times, leading to coordinate singularities that denote the location of the D6-branes in the dual type IIA picture. Further, the D6-branes in (A, 10) were coincidentand consequently we are, by construction, at the non-abelian enhanced scenario discussedin 2.1.1: the symmetry group of the associated world-volume gauge theory is SU ( N ). Itfollows then that the G-flux for this M-theory configuration is of the same form as that in(2.87): G ( M, = (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) + N − (cid:88) k =1 ˆ F k ∧ ˆ ω k , (3.94)where ˆ F k ’s are the Cartan algebra values of the world-volume field strength ˆ F , the ˆ ω k ’sare the unique, normalizable, (anti-)self-dual two-forms associated to the minimal areaindependent two-cycles in the space (3.91) and the background G-flux is given by (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) = F ( A, + H ( A, ∧ dx . (3.95)– 49 –riting it explicitly, we obtain (4.52) in [1] : (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) = e φ cosh β cos θ nc (cid:115) F F d ˜ ψ ∧ (cid:16) ˆˆ k dφ ∧ dθ ∧ dφ + ˆˆ k dθ ∧ dφ ∧ dφ (cid:17) − coth β ddr (cid:32) e φ h (cid:33) h (cid:115) F F (cid:89) i =1 F i sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i (3.96)+ (cid:88) i =1 sin θ i dθ i ∧ dφ i ∧ dx ∧ (cid:104) sinh β ( F i,r − (cid:112) F F ) dr − cos θ nc d ˜ ψ (cid:105) . It can be readily seen that the only quantities left to be computed are the ˆ ω k ’s. We do soin the following. The discussion is analogous to that in section 2.1.1, so we will be brief.We begin the computation of the ˆ ω k ’s by constructing the minimal area independenttwo-cycles of (3.91) to which they are associated. Note that ˆ G = ˆ G ( r ). Thus, we can callthe N solutions to ˆ G − = 0 as r ( i ) , where i = 1 , , . . . , N . Consider two such solutions, r ( i ) and r ( j ) (where i (cid:54) = j ) and the straight line in the r direction connecting them, C r .Attaching to each point in C r a circle labeled by x , we obtain the corresponding minimalarea two-cycle X ij . We take X k,k +1 (with k = 1 , , . . . , N −
1) as the independent minimalarea two-cycles where the ˆ ω k ’s are defined and consider the following ansatze for them:ˆ ω k = d ˆ ζ k , ˆ ζ k = ˆ g k ( dx + ˆ A ∗ ) . (3.97)Easy algebra then yieldsˆ ω k = ˆ g k,r (cid:112) ˆ G ˆ G e ( M, r ∧ e ( M, − ˆ g k (cid:112) ˆ G ˆ G cosh β sin θ e ( M, θ ∧ e ( M, φ , ∗ ˆ ω k = ˆ g k,r (cid:112) ˆ G ˆ G e ( M, θ ∧ e ( M, φ − ˆ g k (cid:112) ˆ G ˆ G cosh β sin θ e ( M, r ∧ e ( M, , (3.98)where, obviously, the Hodge dual is with respect to the metric (3.91) and ˆ g k,r stands forthe derivative of ˆ g k with respect to the radial coordinate r . Using (3.90) and demanding(anti-)self-duality of ˆ ω k we obtain the ordinary differential equation1ˆ g k d ˆ g k dr = ∓ cosh β e − ˜ φ F (cid:115) F h F , (3.99)which can be readily solved to giveˆ g k = ˆ g exp (cid:32) ∓ (cid:90) r ( k +1) r ( k ) e − ˜ φ F (cid:115) F h F dr (cid:33) , (3.100) Note that the contribution to the G-flux stemming from the RR five-form flux F ( B, (this is the secondline in (3.96)) is written in a different yet equivalent manner in [1]. In this reference, the relationship d F ( B, ∝ H ( B, ∧ F ( B, ∝ dθ ∧ dφ ∧ dψ ∧ dr ∧ dθ ∧ dφ is used. Then, F ( B, is expressed as a sumof two contributions, obtained by integration over θ and θ , respectively. In this language, our approachconsists of integrating over r instead. – 50 –ith ˆ g some integration constant where we have absorbed the contribution of cosh β . Theabove fully determines the G-flux in (3.94).We remind the reader that all the discussion in this section (so far) is subject to theconstraint (3.28) so as to ensure N = 1 supersymmetry in the corresponding world-volumegauge theory.The configuration (M, 5) is the second and last theory we construct for the studyof knots and their invariants. (The first one is (M, 1) and its non-abelian enhancement,discussed earlier in sections 2.1 and 2.1.1, respectively.) In the remaining of this work, wewill only study the configuration (M, 1). Indeed, in part II, we will understand in detailsthe four-dimensional gauge theory stemming from (M, 1). In doing so, we will argue howand why (M, 1) provides a natural framework to realize knots. All investigation of theembedding of knots in (M, 5) is deferred to the sequel.Before proceeding further, it is important to emphasize that, in constructing (M, 1)and (M, 5), we have already achieved a very major result in this work. Note that, asdepicted in figure 1, the configuration (M, 1) is dual to the D3-NS5 system of [11]. On theother hand, the configuration (M, 5) follows from the very same D3-NS5 system and is dualto the resolved conifold in the presence of fluxes considered in [9]. Hence, we have madeexplicit the modifications that directly connect the seemingly very distinct models in [11]and [9]. In plain English, we have provided a unifying picture between the two existingapproaches to computing knot invariants in string theory. Part II
Study of the four-dimensional gaugetheory following from the configuration(M, 1)
As hinted by the title itself, this second part focuses on the (non-abelian enhanced) M-theory configuration (M, 1) constructed in section 2. The fundamental purpose here willbe to show that indeed (M, 1) provides a suitable framework for the realization of knots.To this aim, we shall derive and investigate the four-dimensional, N = 2 supersymmetric, SU ( N ) gauge theory associated to (M, 1). Such study is presented in three main steps. Insection 4, we obtain the action of the aforementioned gauge theory. Section 5 is devotedto the associated Hamiltonian and the minimization of its energy, which yields the BPSconditions for the theory. This analysis naturally leads to a three-dimensional subspace,which we denote as X and which is the main object of interest in section 6. As we shallsee, the physics in X are governed by a Chern-Simons action. Consequently, X (or, moreprecisely, its Euclideanization) constitutes a suitable space where knots can be embedded.Figure 10 provides a visual sketch of the overall logic and key results in this part.Given the considerable length of the calculations involved, the reader may find it useful to– 51 –eep an eye in this image while reading through the following three sections. In this way,the underlying principal flow of ideas shall hopefully not be lost during the presentation ofthe corresponding computational details. Non-abelian enhancedM-theory configuration (M, 1)
Metric: (2.56) G-flux: (2.87)
Compactification
SU(N) gauge theory actionin 4d, with N =4 SUSY(4.146) Legendretransform
Hamiltonian (5.88)
EnergyminimizationRewritten as
Boundary action in 3d (6.11)
Topologicaltwist
Topological boundary action (6.64)
Requires of
Time-independent fieldsGauge (5.35)Constraints (5.40), (5.42), (5.92)BHN equations (5.91)Hamiltonian (5.93) Half-BPS boundary conditions(6.19)-(6.22)
Subject toTopologicaltwist Topologicaltwist
Constraints (6.76), (6.82)Hitchin equations (6.74)Half-BPS BCs (6.33)
Figure 10 . Graphical summary of part II. In orange, the starting point: the non-abelian enhancedM-theory configuration (M, 1) of section 2. In purple, the contents of section 4: the derivationof the four-dimensional gauge theory stemming from (M, 1). Colored green, the obtention andminimization of the corresponding Hamiltonian, presented in section 5. Blue is associated to section6, which focuses on the study of the three-dimensional subspace where knots can be embedded. – 52 –
Bosonic action for the four-dimensional SU ( N ) gauge theory Action S for the N=
2, d=4gauge theory along (t, x , x , ) S (1) in (4.2) sum of S (2) in (4.107) S (3) splits into three,as indicated in (4.11) rewritten as (4.14), (4.15) splits into two,as indicated in (4.56), (4.57) (4.22) (4.65) (4.76) (4.86 ) first termrewritten as each term given by S (1) in (4.100) putting everything together S (2) in (4.109) (4.117) (4.126) (4.143) each term given by (4.115) , (4.116) S in (4.146) S (3) in (4.145) putting everything togetherputting everything togetherrewritten assecond term splits into three, as indicated in Figure 11 . Graphical summary of section 4, where we obtain the bosonic action for the four-dimensional SU ( N ) gauge theory following from the non-abelian M-theory configuration (M, 1) ofpart I. This figure sketches the connection between the very many terms whose addition gives theaforementioned action. The colors correspond to the subsections where the mentioned equationscan be found: in blue results derived in section 4.1, in green those explained in section 4.2 and inyellow the terms worked out in section 4.3. In accordance to the plan above outlined, in this section we argue what the bosonicaction is for the SU ( N ) world-volume gauge theory along ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) that follows fromthe non-abelian enhanced M-theory configuration (M, 1). This gauge theory has N = 2supersymmetry by construction. (We will not be interested in doing so here, but super-– 53 –ymmetry could be used to obtain the fermionic sector of the theory.) In principle, onecould explicitly write the eleven-dimensional M-theory action and then work out the de-sired four-dimensional reduction . However, this is more easily said than done. We willthus follow a different approach here: we will obtain the total action as the sum of threedistinct contributions, providing ample motivation for each term.The first two of these three terms directly stem from our construction of (M, 1) insection 2 and are indeed initially written in terms of only quantities there defined. Writingthese terms as functions of the vector multiplet of the N = 4 supersymmetric (with half-BPS boundary conditions) SU ( N ) world-volume gauge theory is, however, far from trivial.In achieving this task, we further split the two terms in many parts.The third and last term is, unluckily, hard to present in such a manner. Consequently,we start by directly writing it in terms of the aforementioned vector multiplet. Nonetheless,the length and complexity of the term lead us to further divide it into smaller pieces too.To help the reader make sense of the very many terms that follow, we include figure 11.This figure provides a graphical summary of this section 4, pointing out all the differentcontributions to the total action and their origin.A last important remark before jumping into computation. To avoid as much aspossible dragging long prefactors, we set the Planck length to one right from the onset: l p ≡ The first contribution to the aforementioned bosonic action we will consider is the kineticterm of the G-flux (2.87). Our approach will be to work out in details this term for theabelian configuration (M, 1) of section 2.1 and then generalize the result to the non-abelianscenario of section 2.1.1. With this aim in mind, let us first recall the main features ofboth the abelian and non-abelian configurations (M, 1).The geometry of the configuration (M, 1) was given in (2.56), be it for the abelian ornon-abelian case. By simple inspection, it can be readily seen that the eleven-dimensionalmanifold X on which this metric is defined naturally decomposes into three subspaces: X = X ⊗ Σ ⊗ T N, X = X ⊗ R + . (4.1)Here, X is the four-dimensional subspace where we will define our gauge theory. This fur-ther decomposes into X (the Minkowski-type three-dimensional subspace along ( t, x , x ))and R + (the half real line labeled by ˜ ψ ). This second decomposition clearly denotesthat there is no Lorentz invariance along ˜ ψ . On the other hand, Σ is the three-cycleparametrized by (˜ x , φ , r ) and T N stands for the warped Taub NUT space spanning( θ , x , x , x ). For the abelian (M, 1), this is a single-centered Taub NUT, whereas forthe non-abelian (M, 1) it is an N -centered one.After the non-abelian enhancement, there are N coincident M2-branes oriented along( x , x , x ) in the configuration (M, 1), as depicted in figure 4 B . Following the notation Compactification is done via the G-flux (2.87) and metric (2.56) reduced over the normalizable internalharmonic forms. The Taub-NUT subspace has normalizable harmonic two-forms (2.82). For our case,compactification can thus be defined. – 54 –f section 2.1.1, we denote as (cid:126)l the location of these M2-branes in the ( x , x ) plane. Itis around this point (cid:126)l that we shall determine the action of the non-abelian world-volumegauge theory.Coming to the fluxes, the G-flux for the non-abelian enhanced (M, 1) was given in(2.87). This G-flux consists of two pieces: the delocalized background flux (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) and the localized contribution of N − (cid:80) k =1 F k ∧ ω k , sharply peaked around (cid:126)l . As it is common practicein the literature, we will assume the delocalized piece is such that its contribution around (cid:126)l is negligible.In the abelian case, the situation is essentially the same. The only difference beingthat the G-flux is now given by (2.61). The Taub-NUT space has a unique singularity,whose location we can denote as (cid:126)l as well. The G-flux again splits into delocalized andlocalized parts. We assume the delocalized part’s contribution is inconsequential around (cid:126)l . We will now use all the above remarks to obtain the first term for the U (1) world-volume gauge theory action: S (1) ≡ (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) G ( M, ∧ ∗G ( M, (cid:17) , (4.2)where the Hodge dual is with respect to the eleven-dimensional metric (2.56). Using (2.61)and because we are interested in the gauge theory around (cid:126)l , where (cid:104)G ( M, (cid:105) is negligible,the above reduces to S (1) = (cid:90) X Tr (
F ∧ ω ) ∧ ∗ ( F ∧ ω ) , (4.3)with F the seven-dimensional abelian field strength. By definition, ω is (anti-)self-dualand is restricted to the subspace T N . For concreteness, we take it to be self-dual in theongoing. On the other hand, F spans X ⊗ Σ . Then, we can rewrite S (1) as S (1) = (cid:90) T N ω ∧ ω (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ F ∧ ∗F , (4.4)where the Hodge duals are taken with respect to the subspaces of (2.56) indicated bythe corresponding integrals. This drastic simplification where the Taub-NUT completelydecouples is not as trivial as we just made it sound. Hence, before proceeding further, letus carefully show how this can be made to happen consistently.Naively, the decoupling happens if the following two conditions are satisfied: • The integral over
T N above only depends on the ( θ , x , x , x ) coordinates. • The integral over X ⊗ Σ is independent of ( θ , x , x , x ).The first condition can easily be seen to hold true. The two-form ω was defined in (2.62),with the gauge field A given by (2.47). It is clear from these expressions that the integrand ω ∧ ω only depends on the Taub-NUT coordinates, as desired. The metric for the space T N was given in (2.58) and, as pointed out there, only depends on ( θ , x , x , x ). This– 55 –mplies the measure for the integral over T N will have the same coordinate dependence.The second condition, however does not hold true. An inspection of the metric (2.56)along the directions of X and Σ leads us to conclude that the measure of the secondintegral in (4.4) will depend on ( θ , x , x ). (Recall our choices for the warp factors in(2.2) and for the dilaton in (2.70) to understand this last statement.) Nevertheless, thisdesired decoupling can be effectively made to happen. Let us see how.A careful inspection of (2.56) restricted to X ⊗ Σ shows that the dependence of thesecond integral in (4.4) on ( x , x ) comes solely from the dilaton (2.70). We can thereforeremove this ( x , x ) dependence by assuming that the dilaton is given, to leading order,by its constant piece: e φ ≈ e φ . (4.5)(Note that the above assumption is in excellent agreement to the strong coupling limitdiscussed around (2.55), required for our M-theory configuration to be valid, if we consider e φ to be of order one.) The θ dependence of the second integral in (4.4) is, however, not“removable”. Let us thus turn to the θ dependence of the first integral in (4.4).To match the notation in [1], we will call the first integral in (4.4) as c v ≡ (cid:90) T N ω ∧ ω. (4.6)Using (2.47), (2.60), the first equation in (2.68) and (2.75) in (2.63), it is a matter of easyalgebra to obtain the two-form ω as ω = (cid:88) i =8 ∂g∂x i dx i ∧ ( dx + A θ dθ ) + (cid:18) ∂g∂x A − ∂g∂x A (cid:19) dx ∧ dx + g ( α dx + α dx ) ∧ dθ . (4.7)Then, ( g, α , α ) being all functions of only ( x , x ), it follows that (4.6) is actually inde-pendent of θ : ω ∧ ω = 2 g (cid:18) α ∂g∂x − α ∂g∂x (cid:19) dθ ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx . (4.8)(The above is (3.52) in [1].) Consequently, choosing (4.5) and transferring the θ integralto the second integral in (4.4) as an average, we can consistently decouple the contributionto this term of the action of the Taub-NUT space: S (1) = c v (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ F ∧ ∗F , (4.9)where this prefactor should be understood, in this abelian case, as c v = (cid:90) R dx (cid:90) R dx (cid:90) R dx g (cid:18) α ∂g∂x − α ∂g∂x (cid:19) , (4.10)– 56 –ith R i denoting the radius of the x i direction (for i = 8 , , x , x ) arenon-compact directions, while x is compact.At this point, it is easy to infer what the generalization of (4.9) is to the non-abeliancase: S (1) = C V I (1) , I (1) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr(
F ∧ ∗F ) , (4.11)where F is now the non-abelian seven-dimensional field strength and the trace is taken inthe adjoint representation of SU ( N ). There are just two subtleties in going from (4.9) to(4.11) that we better discuss.The first one is regarding the prefactor ( C /V ). This prefactor is, of course, no longergiven by (4.10). Instead, it depends on the two-forms ω k in (2.82). Its explicit form israther tedious to work out and we will not attempt to compute it here. For our purposes,it suffices to note that, by construction (see the details in section 2.1.1), we are guaranteedits independence on the θ coordinate. So we can transfer the θ integral to the subspaceorthogonal to T N as an average and indeed obtain (4.11).The second subtlety is regarding the appearance of the trace. (Note that the non-abelian G-flux in (2.87) only involves the Cartan algebra values of F .) Let us try to shedsome light to this point by first recalling how the non-abelian enhancement was achievedin section 2.1.1 (perhaps it suffices to take a second look at figure 4 B ). There, we wrappedM2-branes around the (minimal area, independent) two-cycles of the N -centered Taub-NUT space (2.58). The two-cycles were then shrunk to zero size, making the M2-branestensionless. From this point of view, internal fluctuations of the Taub-NUT space aresupposed to provide the Cartan values of the field strength. Fluctuations of the M2-branesalong the Taub-NUT directions would then contribute the remaining roots and weights,thus leading to the full trace in (4.11). A more detailed version of this argument maybe found in [21–23] and references therein. However, no rigorous proof of this conjectureexists. The argument between (3.91) and (3.98) in [1] in terms of a sigma model may wellbe the most solid evidence for this claim.The fact that the trace should be in the adjoint representation has a simple enoughheuristic explanation. Additionally, this very argument settles what the bosonic mattercontent is in our non-abelian world-volume gauge theory. Recall figure 2 B . There, tothe usual type IIB D3-NS5 system we added a second, parallel NS5-brane. The distancebetween the two NS5-branes being large enough then allows for effectively retaining N = 2supersymmetry in the whole of the system. By the same logic, deep in the bulk of the D3-brane, far away from both the NS5-branes, we expect N = 4 supersymmetry effectively. Asis well-known, any N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory has a vector multiplet consistingon four gauge fields and six real scalars, all of them in the adjoint representation. Certainly,this is the matter content we expect in the bosonic sector for our D3-brane gauge theorytoo, far from the NS5-branes. On the other hand, the bosonic matter content of any N = 2supersymmetric gauge theory is arranged in a vector multiplet of four gauge fields and tworeal scalars in the adjoint representation and a chiral multiplet containing four real scalarsin any representation. Needless to say, this is the matter content we expect in the bosonic– 57 –ector of our gauge theory nearby the NS5-branes. It then stands to reason that, if we areto reconcile these two limits in our set up, we require the four scalars of the N = 2 chiralmultiplet to be in the adjoint representation. Therefore, the bosonic matter content of our SU ( N ) gauge theory is settled to that of the N = 4 vector multiplet: four gauge fields andsix real scalars, all of them in the adjoint representation.Subtleties aside, we take (4.11) as our starting point and devote the remaining ofthis section to writing I (1) in terms of the just discussed N = 4 vector multiplet, whichspans the directions ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ). To begin with, we assume that the seven-dimensionalnon-abelian field strength F only depends on these coordinates: F = F ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) . (4.12)Secondly, and owing to the decomposition (4.1), we make a distinction between the seven-dimensional field strengths along X and Σ : F = F ( X ) + F (Σ ) . (4.13)Using such distinction in (4.11), we naturally split the first contribution to the non-abelianaction into two pieces: S (1) = C V (cid:16) I (1 , + I (1 , (cid:17) , (4.14)with I (1 , ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr( F ( X ) ∧ ∗F ( X ) ) , I (1 , ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr( F (Σ ) ∧ ∗F (Σ ) ) . (4.15)Rather obviously, the Hodge dual in both I (1 , and I (1 , is (still) with respect to theseven-dimensional metric of X ⊗ Σ .Note that the crossed terms ( F ( X ) ∧ ∗F (Σ ) ) and ( F (Σ ) ∧ ∗F ( X ) ) are zero and thushave not been included in (4.14). The argument for the vanishing of the first such termis as follows. Each component of F (Σ ) spans two directions of Σ . Consequently, thecorresponding term of ∗F (Σ ) is oriented along all four directions of Σ and the remainingdirection of Σ . As the components of F ( X ) span two directions of Σ , the term ( F ( X ) ∧∗F (Σ ) ) necessarily contains the wedge product of two same X directions and thus yieldszero. The argument for the vanishing of the second crossed term is similar.At this stage, the only quantities left to be determined to explicitly write S (1) are I (1 , and I (1 , , defined in (4.15). Their computation is quite long and involved. Consequently,we will do so in separate sections. In the end, we will put together in (4.14) the I (1 , and I (1 , we shall obtain, thereby expressing the first term for the gauge theory action in termsof the N = 4 vector multiplet’s matter content. I (1 , : the contribution of gauge field strengths As the title suggests, this section is devoted to the computation of I (1 , in (4.15) in termsof the field strengths associated to the N = 4 vector multiplet’s gauge fields. But before– 58 –umping into the details of the calculation, let us introduce some quantities that will soonbe useful.We begin by taking a closer look at the seven-dimensional space X ⊗ Σ , where I (1 , is defined. Its metric can be directly read from (2.56) to be ds X ⊗ Σ = H [ − dt + dx + dx + H d ˜ x + H ( dφ + f d ˜ x ) + e φ ( F dr + H d ˜ ψ )] , (4.16)where we have made use of our assumption (4.5). Following the spirit of the languagein [1], we denote as g the determinant of the above metric: g ≡ det( ds X ⊗ Σ ) = e φ F H H H H = e φ F H H , (4.17)where in the last step we have used the fact that H H H = 1, which follows from (2.53).It will also come in handy to write the metric along the subspace X , albeit in matrix form: g ab = H diag( − , , , g ˜ ψ ˜ ψ = e φ H H . (4.18)Here, the subscripts ( a, b ) take values (0 , ,
2) and stand for the Lorentz-invariant direc-tions ( t, x , x ). Being diagonal, it is straightforward to see that the inverse of the X metric, in matrix form, is given by g ab = 1 H diag( − , , , g ˜ ψ ˜ ψ = e − φ H H . (4.19)Calling g the (absolute value of the) determinant of the X metric, this is g ≡ (cid:12)(cid:12) det( ds X ) (cid:12)(cid:12) = e φ H H . (4.20)Having introduced our notation, we may now proceed to the determination of I (1 , .First of all, we explicitly write the wedge product of its integrand as F ( X ) ∧ ∗F ( X ) = √ g (cid:88) a,b,c,d =0 g ab (cid:16) g cd F ac F bd + g ˜ ψ ˜ ψ F a ˜ ψ F b ˜ ψ (cid:17) = (cid:114) F H (cid:16) e φ H (cid:88) a,b =0 a
2( ˜ F − F )cos θ . (4.27)Using these, the first of these integrals can be readily performed to yield I (1) = − (cid:112) ˜ F − F ln | χ ( θ ) + ˜ χ ( θ ) | (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) θ = π/ θ =0 = J (cid:112) ˜ F − F , (4.28)where we have defined J ≡ ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:112) ˜ F + (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:112) ˜ F − (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) , (4.29)a quantity which will appear in the present analysis very often. It is clear that the abovewill be real if and only if we require that ˜ F ≥ F , for all values of ( r, θ nc ). Thus, we willdemand this holds true in the ongoing. Using the above in (4.25), we obtain c as in (3.76)in [1]: c = R e φ sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr J (cid:115) F ˜ F F ˜ F − F . (4.30)It is important to note that the above coefficient is just a number. The numerical valueof c depends only on the choice of warp factors one would like to consider in (2.2). Thischoice is subject to the constraint ˜ F ≥ F and should be checked to preserve the desired N = 4 supersymmetry in the world-volume (later on reduced to N = 2 supersymmetryvia half-BPS boundary conditions). – 60 –oming now to I (2) , we start by defining the soon to be useful three quantities in(3.79) in [1]: b ≡ (cid:115) F ˜ F − F , b ≡ (cid:115) F ( ˜ F − F )˜ F F , b ≡ b (cid:115) F + b ( ˜ F − F )˜ F − F , b ∈ ( R + − { } ) . (4.31)We can use b to rewrite the integral of our interest in the more convenient form I (2) = (cid:113) ˜ F − F (cid:90) π/ dθ (cid:115) b + cos θ − cos θ . (4.32)Under the change of variablescos θ = z, dθ = − dz √ − z , (4.33)the above can be further rewritten as I (2) = (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:90) − dz (cid:112) b + z b − z , (4.34)where b as defined in (4.31) is a regularization factor that we have introduced by handin order to avoid the singularities of I (2) at z = ±
1. In the same spirit of ( χ ( θ ) , ˜ χ ( θ ))before, let us introduce two more functions that will come in handy repeatedly: η ( z ) ≡ arctanh (cid:32) zb (cid:115) b + b b + z (cid:33) , ˜ η ( z ) ≡ ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z + (cid:113) b + z (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) . (4.35)Finally, all the above can be used to integrate over z in (4.34) and obtain2 I (2) (cid:112) ˜ F − F = (cid:112) b + b b η ( z ) − ˜ η ( z ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = b J + J − , (4.36)where we have defined the many times to occur quantity J as J ≡ arctanh b (cid:115) F + b ( ˜ F − F )˜ F . (4.37)Plugging our result in (4.23), the coefficient c may be expressed as in (3.78) in [1]: c = 2 R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr b (cid:0) b J + J − (cid:1) . (4.38)As was the case for c before, we want c to be a well defined number for all choices of warpfactors in (2.2) satisfying the constraint ˜ F ≥ F (and preserving N = 2 supersymmetry).It is not clear from our above result that this should be the case in the following two cases:– 61 – F →
0. This limit also includes the case ( ˜ F , F ) → F ≥ F , we must demand that F approaches zero faster than˜ F . Hence, the case ( ˜ F , F ) → F → F → • ˜ F → F (cid:57) c in (4.38) is indeed afinite number even then.To consider the first case, namely F →
0, we start by rewriting the argument of theinverse hyperbolic tangent in (4.37) as1 b (cid:115) F + b ( ˜ F − F )˜ F = (cid:115) (cid:18) − b b (cid:19) F ˜ F . (4.39)Next, we note that in the logarithmic term of (4.38), namely J in (4.29), only the nu-merator diverges as F →
0, while the denominator is well defined in this limit. Hence,retaining only the divergent terms in the integrand of (4.38) and using (4.39), we focus onthe study oflim F → c ∼ lim F → (cid:34) b b arctanh (cid:32)(cid:115) (cid:18) − b b (cid:19) F ˜ F (cid:33) + b ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:113) ˜ F − (cid:113) ˜ F − F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:35) . (4.40)From our definitions in (4.31) it follows thatlim F → b = lim F → (cid:114) F F = lim F → b b (4.41)which, used in (4.40), giveslim F → c ∼ lim F → (cid:114) F F (cid:34) arctanh (cid:32)(cid:115) (cid:18) − b b (cid:19) F ˜ F (cid:33) + ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:113) ˜ F − (cid:113) ˜ F − F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:35) . (4.42)Applying L’Hˆopital’s rule to the two terms above, it is easy to see thatlim F → (cid:114) F F arctanh (cid:32)(cid:115) (cid:18) − b b (cid:19) F ˜ F (cid:33) = − lim F → (cid:114) F F ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:113) ˜ F − (cid:113) ˜ F − F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) . (4.43)That is, the divergent contribution to (cid:0) lim F → c (cid:1) is zero, as pointed out in (3.80) in [1] too.This implies c takes some finite numerical value when F → F , F ) → F → F → ˜ F ,F → c ∼ lim ˜ F ,F → √ F ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:113) ˜ F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) = lim ˜ F ,F → − F / ˜ F = 0 . (4.44)– 62 –hus, c = 0 when ( ˜ F , F ) → F → F (cid:57)
0. From (4.31), it is not hard to work out thefollowing two limits: lim ˜ F → F b = 0 , lim ˜ F → F b b = 1 b (cid:114) F F . (4.45)Inserting the above in (4.38), we obtain (3.81) in [1]:lim ˜ F → F c = 2 R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr b (cid:114) F F arctanh (cid:18) b (cid:19) ∼ arctanh (cid:18) b (cid:19) , (4.46)which can be very large, yet is finite (as the regularization factor satisfies b (cid:54) = 1 by defini-tion). This proofs that c is just some number as ˜ F → F .Summing up, I (1 , is given by (4.22), with c given by (4.30) and c by (4.38). Bothof the coefficients are well defined numbers for any choice of the warp factors one may wantto consider, as long as the constraint ˜ F ≥ F is respected. I (1 , : the contribution of three scalar fields In this section we compute I (1 , in (4.15) in terms of the N = 4 vector multiplet’s mat-ter content. As in the previous section 4.1.1, it is convenient to first introduce certainquantities, which will be necessary in the subsequent calculation.Let us begin by looking at the three-cycle Σ , parametrized by (˜ x , φ , r ). Its metriccan be easily inferred from (4.16) to be ds = H H d ˜ x + H H ( dφ + f d ˜ x ) + e φ H F dr . (4.47)We take the vielbeins associated to the above metric as in (3.102) in [1]: e (Σ )˜3 = (cid:112) H H d ˜ x , e (Σ ) r = e φ (cid:112) H F dr, e (Σ ) φ = (cid:112) H H ( dφ + f dx ) . (4.48)It is not hard to see that these vielbeins satisfy ∗ e (Σ )˜3 = e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ , ∗ e (Σ ) r = e (Σ ) φ ∧ e (Σ )˜3 , ∗ e (Σ ) φ = e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r , (4.49)where the Hodge duals are with respect to the metric (4.47).Let us now focus on F (Σ ) in (4.15). This field strength is related to the correspondingthree-dimensional non-abelian gauge field A (Σ ) in the usual manner F (Σ ) = DA (Σ ) + A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) , (4.50)where the covariant derivative is given by (3.116) in [1]: D a ≡ ∂ a + i [ A a , ] , D ˜ ψ ≡ ∂ ˜ ψ + i [ A ˜ ψ , ] , (4.51)with a = (0 , ,
2) standing for the Lorentz-invariant directions ( t, x , x ) and ( A a , A ˜ ψ )the world-volume gauge fields associated to the field strengths in (4.22). Following (3.101)in [1], we define A (Σ ) as A (Σ ) ≡ A ˜3 d ˜ x + A φ dφ + A r dr = ˆ α e (Σ )˜3 + ˆ α e (Σ ) r + ˆ α e (Σ ) φ . (4.52)– 63 –n the last step above we have used (4.48) and the one-formsˆ α ≡ A ˜3 − f A φ √ H H , ˆ α ≡ e − φ A r √ H F , ˆ α ≡ A φ √ H H . (4.53)Because of (4.12), ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ) are functions of only ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ). (Note that this alsoexplains our definitions in (4.51).) On the other hand, from (2.2), (2.26) and (2.53), itis clear that the ˆ α i ’s (with i = 1 , ,
3) additionally depend on ( θ , r ). A vital remarkfollows: from the point of view of the four-dimensional gauge theory, ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ) shouldbe understood as three real scalar fields in the adjoint representation.Our above discussion settles the ground to determine I (1 , in (4.15) in terms of thereal scalar fields ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ). The integrand there is of the form F (Σ ) ∧ ∗F (Σ ) = DA (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) DA (Σ ) (cid:17) + A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17) + A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) DA (Σ ) (cid:17) + DA (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17) , (4.54)where all the Hodge duals are with respect to the seven-dimensional metric (4.16) and wehave made use of (4.50). Owing to the decomposition (4.1), it is easy to see that the lastline above vanishes. (The reason is analogous to that given around (4.15) for the vanishingof the there-called “crossed terms”.) Consider the first such term. The two-form DA (Σ ) spans one direction in X and another one in Σ . Consequently, its corresponding Hodgedual five-form is defined along the remaining three directions of X and two directions ofΣ . But, since A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) stretches along two directions of Σ , the wedge product ofthese two last forms will necessarily contain the wedge product of one of the directions ofΣ with itself. Anti-symmetry of the wedge product then implies zero value for this firstterm. A similar argument applies to the second term too. The decomposition (4.1) alsoallows for a drastic simplification of the two terms in the first line above. Indeed, we candecouple X and Σ completely and write F (Σ ) ∧ ∗F (Σ ) = √ g d x (cid:34) (cid:88) a =0 D a A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) D a A (Σ ) (cid:17) + D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) (cid:17) + A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17)(cid:105) , (4.55)where the Hodge dual on the left-hand side is with respect to the seven-dimensional metric(4.16), whereas the Hodge duals on the right-hand side are with respect to the three-dimensional metric (4.47). We remind the reader that g was defined in (4.20) and that( d x ≡ dt dx dx d ˜ ψ ), as in (4.22). Inserting the above in (4.15), we can split the compu-tation of I (1 , into three as I (1 , = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:16) I (1 , , + I (1 , , + I (1 , , (cid:17) , (4.56)where we have defined – 64 – (1 , , ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) Σ √ g A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17) ,I (1 , , ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) Σ √ g (cid:88) a =0 D a A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) D a A (Σ ) (cid:17) , (4.57) I (1 , , ≡ (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) Σ √ g D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) (cid:17) , Clearly, the Hodge duals here are with respect to (4.47). In the following, we determineall these three terms separately.
Computation of I (1 , , in (4.57) To begin with, we focus on I (1 , , in (4.57). Using (4.49) and (4.52), it is a matter or quickand easy algebra to obtain A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) =[ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r + [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) φ + [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ , ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17) =[ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ ) φ − [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ ) r + [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] e (Σ )˜3 . (4.58)The wedge product of the above two quantities is then A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) A (Σ ) ∧ A (Σ ) (cid:17) = (cid:0) [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] + [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] + [ ˆ α , ˆ α ] (cid:1) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ . (4.59)From the above, as well as our definitions in (4.20), (4.48) and (4.53), it follows (withoutmuch algebraic effort) that I (1 , , in (4.57) can be rewritten as in (3.105) in [1]: I (1 , , = a [ A r , A φ − a a A ˜3 ] + 4 a a − a a [ A ˜3 , A r ] + a [ A ˜3 , A φ ] , (4.60)where we have defined, using (4.24), a ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ (cid:114) H F (cid:18) H + f H (cid:19) , a ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ (cid:114) H F H ,a ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ (cid:114) H F f H , a ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ √ H F H H . (4.61)These coefficients can be easily written in terms of the warp factors using (2.53). Further,remember our warp factor choices in (2.2), the definition of ˜ F in (2.26) and our assumptionof constant dilaton in (4.5). Then, it is clear that the a i ’s (with i = 1 , , ,
4) only dependon the ( r, θ ) coordinates and so the (˜ x , φ ) integrals in (4.24) are trivial and can becarried out right away. Altogether, we have that– 65 – = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:115) ˜ F F F (cid:16) I (3) + ˜ F tan θ nc (1 + F tan θ nc ) I (4) (cid:17) ,a = 2 R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:115) ˜ F F F I (1) , a ∝ I (5) , (4.62) a = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:113) F ˜ F F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) I (3) , where I (1) was defined in (4.26) and where we have further defined I (3) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ sin θ (cid:113) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ , I (4) ≡ (cid:90) π sin θ cos θ dθ (cid:112) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ , I (5) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ sin θ cos θ (cid:112) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ . (4.63)It is most interesting to note that a vanishes, since I (5) ∝ − (cid:115) ˜ F + F + ( ˜ F − F )cos2 θ ˜ F + F (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) θ = πθ =0 = 0 , (4.64)as noted in (3.108) in [1] too. This greatly simplifies I (1 , , in (4.60). Specifically,(4.64) implies that there are no crossed terms for the interactions among the real scalars( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ): I (1 , , = a [ A r , A φ ] + a [ A ˜3 , A r ] + a [ A ˜3 , A φ ] , (4.65)in good agreement with (3.114) in [1]. In the ongoing, we shall focus in the determinationof the remaining coefficients in (4.62) and show that they are well defined numbers for anychoice of the warp factors one may wish to consider.With this aim in mind, we start by performing the integrals in (4.63). Using ourdefinitions in (4.27), we obtain for I (3) I (3) = − (cid:32) √ θ χ ( θ ) + 2 F (cid:112) ˜ F − F ln | χ ( θ ) + ˜ χ ( θ ) | (cid:33) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) θ = πθ =0 = (cid:113) ˜ F + F J (cid:112) ˜ F − F , (4.66)where J was defined in (4.29). Similarly, I (4) ≡ ( ˜ F − F ) I (4) gives˜ I (4) = 14 (cid:32) −√ θ χ ( θ ) + 2 F (cid:112) ˜ F − F ln | χ ( θ ) + ˜ χ ( θ ) | (cid:33) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) θ = πθ =0 = (cid:113) ˜ F − F J (cid:112) ˜ F − F . (4.67)We remind the reader that I (1) was determined in (4.28) already. Then, substitution ofthese results in (4.62) immediately gives us the coefficients ( a , a , a ) in the desired form:– 66 – = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:115) ˜ F F F (cid:32) ˜ a + (cid:113) ˜ F + ˜ a − F J (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:33) (4.68) a = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a J , a = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a (cid:32)(cid:113) ˜ F + F J (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:33) , which are (3.106), (3.109) and (3.110) in [1], respectively. Following (3.107) and (3.111)in [1], the (˜ a ± , ˜ a , ˜ a ) coefficients appearing above are defined as˜ a ± ≡ ± ( ˜ F tan θ nc ) ˜ F − F (1 + F tan θ nc ) , ˜ a ≡ (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) (cid:115) ˜ F F F ( ˜ F − F ) , (4.69)˜ a ≡ e φ (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) (cid:113) F ˜ F F . Upon a careful inspection of the coefficients in (4.68), it is not hard to convince oneself thatthese all are just numbers for any choice of the warp factors in (2.2). The only constraintis that ˜ F ≥ F should hold true, as was the case for the other coefficients as well.In short, I (1 , , is given by (4.65), with ( a , a , a ) in (4.68) well defined numbers forany choice of warp factors satisfying ˜ F ≥ F . Computation of I (1 , , in (4.57) We now turn our attention to I (1 , , in (4.57). From (4.52), it is easy to obtain D a A (Σ ) = ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ )˜3 + ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ ) r + ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ ) φ . (4.70)The Hodge dual of the above with respect to the metric (4.47) is straightforward, in viewof (4.49) and is given by ∗D a A (Σ ) = ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ − ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) φ + ( D a ˆ α ) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r . (4.71)The wedge product of the above two quantities is( D a A (Σ ) ) ∧ ∗ ( D a A (Σ ) ) = (cid:2) ( D a ˆ α ) + ( D a ˆ α ) + ( D a ˆ α ) (cid:3) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ . (4.72)Feeding the above to (4.57) and further using (4.20), (4.48) and (4.53), I (1 , , can bewritten as I (1 , , = (cid:88) a =0 (cid:20) c a ˜3 ( D a A ˜3 − µc a ˜3 D a A φ ) + c ar ( D a A r ) + c aφ ( D a A φ ) (cid:21) , (4.73)where, making use of (4.24), we have further defined the coefficients c a ˜3 ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ √ H F H , µ ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ (cid:112) H F f H ,c ar ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ (cid:114) H F , c aφ ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ √ H F H . (4.74)– 67 –hese coefficients can be written in terms of the warp factors using (2.53). Exactly as wasthe case before with the coefficients in (4.61), the (˜ x , φ ) integrals are trivial here too.Thus, we have that c a ˜3 = 2 R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a I (1) , µ ∝ I (5) ,c ar = 2 R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:115) ˜ F F F I (1) , c aφ = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:113) F ˜ F F I (3) , (4.75)where ( I (1) , I (3) , I (5) , ˜ a ) were defined in (4.26), (4.63) and (4.69), respectively.In a similar fashion to what happened in the determination of I (1 , , , the result in(4.64) makes µ vanish. This implies that there are no crossed terms for the kinetic termsof ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ) we presently study. In other words, (4.73) reduces to the second line of(3.115) in [1]: I (1 , , = (cid:88) a =0 (cid:2) c a ˜3 ( D a A ˜3 ) + c ar ( D a A r ) + ˜ c aφ ( D a A φ ) (cid:3) , (4.76)with ˜ c aφ defined as˜ c aφ ≡ c aφ + µ c a ˜3 , µ c a ˜3 = R sec θ nc tan θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a ˜ F I (4) . (4.77)In writing the second equality above, we have made use of all (2.53), (4.24), (4.63), (4.69)and (4.74). At this point, we are left with only the task of computing ( c a ˜3 , c ar , ˜ c aφ ) andshowing they are all some real number.The computation part is straightforward, in view of our earlier results in (4.28), (4.66)and (4.67). We thus obtain (3.117)-(3.119) in [1]: c a ˜3 = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a J (cid:112) ˜ F − F , c ar = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr J (cid:115) ˜ F F F ( ˜ F − F ) , ˜ c aφ = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:113) F ˜ F F (cid:32) ˜ a + (cid:113) ˜ F + ˜ a − F J (cid:112) ˜ F − F (cid:33) , (4.78)where ( J , ˜ a ± , ˜ a ) were defined in (4.29) and (4.69), respectively. On the other hand, theissue of proving that all three coefficients above are numbers is also simple enough. Onceagain, one must demand that ˜ F ≥ F to prevent the “blowing up” of these quantities.However, any value of the warp factors in (2.2) satisfying this constraint can be readilyseen to yield a finite, real result when used in (4.78).Consequently, we conclude that I (1 , , is given by (4.76), with ( c a ˜3 , c ar , ˜ c aφ ) thereappearing given by (4.78). These are well defined numbers as long as the warp factors arechosen such that ˜ F ≥ F . – 68 – omputation of I (1 , , in (4.57) At last, we consider I (1 , , in (4.57). Its computation is very similar to that of I (1 , , ,albeit algebraically more involved. In the following, we show all the relevant details. Withthe aid of (4.49) and (4.52), it is easy to see that D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) ∧ ∗ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A (Σ ) (cid:17) = (cid:20)(cid:16) D ˜ ψ ˆ α (cid:17) + (cid:16) D ˜ ψ ˆ α (cid:17) + (cid:16) D ˜ ψ ˆ α (cid:17) (cid:21) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ . (4.79)Using the above and the definitions in (4.20), (4.48) and (4.53) in (4.57), one can rewrite I (1 , , as I (1 , , = c ˜ ψ ˜3 (cid:32) D ˜ ψ A ˜3 − νc ˜ ψ ˜3 D ˜ ψ A φ (cid:33) + c ˜ ψr (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A r (cid:17) + c ˜ ψφ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A φ (cid:17) , (4.80)where, making use of (4.24), we have defined c ˜ ψ ˜3 ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζH (cid:114) F H , ν ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ f H (cid:114) F H ,c ˜ ψr ≡ e − φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ √ H F , c ˜ ψφ ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζH (cid:114) F H . (4.81)These coefficients can be expressed in terms of the warp factors in (2.2) by inserting (2.53)in the above. It is again the case that the (˜ x , φ ) integrals are trivial and so we obtain c ˜ ψ ˜3 = 2 R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ b I (2) (cid:112) ˜ F − F , ν ∝ I (6) ,c ˜ ψr = 4 e − φ R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr b I (2) F (cid:112) ˜ F − F , c ˜ ψφ = R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:115) F ˜ F F I (7) , (4.82)Here, we have defined ˜ b as a slight variant of b in (4.31):˜ b ≡ (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) (cid:115) F ( ˜ F − F )˜ F F , (4.83) I (2) is as in (4.26) and the remaining integrals there appearing are defined as I (6) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ cot θ ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) / , I (7) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ csc θ ( ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ ) / . (4.84)In view of our earlier results for ( a , µ ) in (4.62) and (4.75) respectively, it will comeas no surprise that ν above vanishes. To see this, we simply need to use b in (4.31) andthe change of variables in (4.33). Then, after regularization, I (6) vanishes by symmetry: I (6) ∝ (cid:90) − dz z ( b + z ) / b − z = 0 , b ∈ ( R + − { } ) . (4.85)– 69 –herefore, (4.80) simplifies considerably, leading to no crossed terms between the kineticterms of ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ) here considered: I (1 , , = c ˜ ψ ˜3 (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A ˜3 (cid:17) + c ˜ ψr (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A r (cid:17) + ˜ c ˜ ψφ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A φ (cid:17) . (4.86)This is the first line of (3.115) in [1], with ˜ c ˜ ψφ defined as˜ c ˜ ψφ ≡ c ˜ ψφ + ν c ˜ ψ ˜3 , ν c ˜ ψ = R sec θ nc tan θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ a (cid:113) ˜ F − F F ˜ F F I (8) . (4.87)In order to obtain the second equality above, the definitions in (2.53), (4.24), (4.69) and(4.81) have been used and we have further introduced I (8) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ cos θ sin θ (cid:113) ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ . (4.88)Hence, we are only left with the task of computing ( c ˜ ψ ˜3 , c ˜ ψr , ˜ c ˜ ψφ ).To do so, we first recall I (2) was already determined in (4.36) and so we still needto perform the integrals ( I (7) , I (8) ). For I (7) , it is convenient to do the same set oftransformations that we considered for I (2) between (4.32) and (4.36) earlier on. Namely, I (7) ( ˜ F − F ) / = (cid:90) − dz ( b + z ) / b − z = ( b + b ) / b η ( z ) − b + 2 b η ( z ) − z (cid:113) b + z (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = b b J − b + 2 b J − (cid:115) ˜ F ˜ F − F , (4.89)where b ∈ ( R + − { } ) is a regularization factor, ( η ( z ) , ˜ η ( z )) were defined in (4.35) and inthe last step we have used (4.29), (4.31) and (4.37). In fact, we can do essentially the samefor I (8) and obtain I (8) (cid:112) ˜ F − F = (cid:90) − dz z (cid:112) b + z b − z = b (cid:113) b + b η ( z ) − b + 2 b η ( z ) − z (cid:113) b + z (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = b b J − b + 2 b J − (cid:115) ˜ F ˜ F − F . (4.90)With all these results at hand, it is now a matter of substitution and easy algebra to obtainthe desired coefficients as in (3.121) and (3.124) in [1]: c ˜ ψ ˜3 = R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr ˜ b (cid:0) b J + J − (cid:1) , ˜ c ˜ ψφ = (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:0) a J + b J − − c (cid:1) ,c ˜ ψr = 2 e − φ R cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr b F (cid:0) b J + J − (cid:1) . (4.91)Recall that ( ˜ F , b , b , ˜ b ) were defined in (2.26), (4.31) and (4.83), respectively. Following(3.125)-(3.128) in [1], the other factors in ˜ c ˜ ψφ are defined as– 70 – ≡ R b b ( ˜ F − F ) cos θ nc b (cid:113) F ( ˜ F − F )4 ˜ F F + ˜ a tan θ nc cos θ nc F ˜ F F ,b ≡ R (cid:114) F F cos θ nc f (1) (cid:115) ˜ F − F ˜ F + ˜ a ˜ F f (2) tan θ nc cos θ nc (cid:114) F F , (4.92) c ≡ R ( ˜ F − F ) (cid:114) F F cos θ nc + ˜ a ˜ F tan θ nc cos θ nc (cid:115) F ( ˜ F − F )˜ F F , with ( f (1) , f (2) ) given by f (1) ≡ F + 2 b ( ˜ F − F ) , f (2) ≡ f (1) − F . (4.93)In exactly the same way shown in the end of section 4.1.1 for c , it follows that( c ˜ ψ ˜3 , c ˜ ψr ) are just numbers for any choice of the warp factors satisfying ˜ F ≥ F . Thescenario is more subtle in the case of ˜ c ˜ ψφ . It is not clear at all that this coefficient is finitewhen • F →
0. (As discussed after (4.38), this limit also includes the case ( ˜ F , F ) → • ˜ F → F (cid:57) F → ˜ c ˜ ψφ = 0 , (4.94)the mathematical details precisely as in between (4.40) and (4.44) for c before. Conse-quently, we will just show that ˜ c ˜ ψφ is well defined when ˜ F → F . To do this, we call (cid:15) ≡ ˜ F − F and take the (cid:15) → b , ˜ a ) in (4.31) and (4.69), we getlim (cid:15) → b ∼ lim (cid:15) → (cid:15) ∼ lim (cid:15) → ˜ a . (4.95)Then, feeding the above to (4.92), we obtainlim (cid:15) → a ∼ , lim (cid:15) → b ∼ lim (cid:15) → (cid:15) , lim (cid:15) → c = 0 . (4.96)We consider this very same limit for ( J , J ) in (4.29) and (4.37):lim (cid:15) → J = lim (cid:15) → ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:15) − (cid:15) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) , lim (cid:15) → J = arctanh 1 b , (4.97)which is finite, as b (cid:54) = 1 by definition. All the above can be used in ˜ c ˜ ψφ in (4.91). Retainingonly the divergent part, we have thatlim (cid:15) → ˜ c ˜ ψφ ∼ lim (cid:15) → (cid:15) ln (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:15) − (cid:15) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) = lim (cid:15) → (cid:18)
11 + (cid:15) + 11 − (cid:15) (cid:19) = 2 , (4.98)– 71 –here in the last step we have applied L’Hˆopital’s rule. In other words, the seeminglydivergent part of ˜ c ˜ ψφ is actually finite. Thus, ˜ c ˜ ψφ is a well defined number for any warpfactors one may wish to consider, as long as ˜ F ≥ F .Quickly summing up, I (1 , , si given by (4.86) and the coefficients ( c ˜ ψ ˜3 , c ˜ ψr , ˜ c ˜ ψφ )there appearing are all well defined numbers if ˜ F ≥ F . Their explicit form is that in(4.91).We can finally collect all our results so far into a quite simple form. First, we use(4.65), (4.76) and (4.86) in (4.56) and write I (1 , as I (1 , = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:40) a [ A r , A φ ] + a [ A ˜3 , A r ] + a [ A ˜3 , A φ ] + (cid:88) a =0 (cid:2) c a ˜3 ( D a A ˜3 ) + c ar ( D a A r ) + ˜ c aφ ( D a A φ ) (cid:3) (4.99)+ c ˜ ψ ˜3 (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A ˜3 (cid:17) + c ˜ ψr (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A r (cid:17) + ˜ c ˜ ψφ (cid:16) D ˜ ψ A φ (cid:17) (cid:41) . Now, inserting (4.22) and the above in (4.14), the first term of the bosonic action for the SU ( N ) world-volume gauge theory along ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) can be readily seen to be S (1) = C c V (cid:90) d x (cid:88) a,b =0 a
3) to stem from fluctuations of the eleven-dimensional supergravity Einsteinterm of (M, 1). In terms of our non-abelian scenario of figure 4 B , this means that the Taub-NUT space T N and the M2-branes wrapping its two-cycles fluctuate along X ⊗ Σ . Wewill right away simplify the scenario and assume the fluctuations are restricted to X only,so that ϕ k = ϕ k ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) ∀ k = 1 , , . (4.114)We will further suppose that, in fluctuating along orthogonal directions of X , T N itselfdoes not get back-reacted. Or, more accurately, that the back-reaction of
T N is negligiblecompared to the change that the metric of X ⊗ Σ experiences. This last key assumptionallows us to write S (3) as an integral over X ⊗ Σ only. In the same vein as for the previoustwo terms of the action, we will also average over the contribution of the θ coordinate.Having shed sufficient qualitative light into the nature and content of S (3) , we are nowready to make this term in the action fully precise. Naturally, S (3) must contain the kineticterms and the self-interaction terms of ( ϕ , ϕ , ϕ ), as well as their interaction terms with( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ): S (3) = S ( ϕ ) kin + S ( ϕϕ ) int + S ( A ϕ ) int . (4.115)This just mimics the well-known N = 4 vector multiplet’s action for the ϕ scalar fields. Inthe same spirit of (4.57), we can write the above as To the forgetful reader, the subspaces (
T N, X , Σ ) of the full eleven-dimensional manifold X wereintroduced and described around (4.1). – 76 – ( ϕ ) kin = (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:34) (cid:88) a =0 g aa ( D a ϕ k ) + g ˜ ψ ˜ ψ ( D ˜ ψ ϕ k ) (cid:35) ,S ( ϕϕ ) int = (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr (cid:88) k =1 [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] , (4.116) S ( A ϕ ) int = (cid:90) π dθ π (cid:90) X ⊗ Σ Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:16) [ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] ∧ ∗ [ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] (cid:17) , where ( g aa , g ˜ ψ ˜ ψ ) are given by (4.19), the covariant derivatives were defined in (4.51), A (Σ ) stands for (4.52) and the Hodge dual is with respect to the three-dimensional metric of Σ in (4.47). In the following, we work out these terms separately. Computation of S ( ϕ ) kin in (4.116) This kinetic piece is rather unchallenging to work out. Simply writing out explicitly theintegral over X ⊗ Σ there appearing and using (4.17), (4.19) and (4.24), S ( ϕ ) kin can bewritten as in (3.139) in [1]: S ( ϕ ) kin = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:34) (cid:88) a =0 b ak ( D a ϕ k ) + b ˜ ψk ( D ˜ ψ ϕ k ) (cid:35) (4.117)where, once more, d x ≡ dtdx dx d ˜ ψ and the coefficients ( b ak , b ˜ ψk ) are defined as b ak ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζH (cid:112) F H , b ˜ ψk ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζH (cid:114) F H . (4.118)Further introducing (2.53) in the above and noting that the integrands are independent of(˜ x , φ ), these coefficients considerably simplify: b ak = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / F / (cid:113) F ˜ F I (9) ,b ˜ ψk = R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / F / (cid:115) F ˜ F I (10) , (4.119)with the integrals there appearing defined as I (9) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ sin θ ˆ χ / , I (10) ≡ (cid:90) π dθ ˆ χ / sin θ , ˆ χ = ˆ χ ( θ ) ≡ F − F F cos θ . (4.120)These integrals are most easily performed after doing the by now familiar change of variablesin (4.33). For I (9) we obtain I (9) = (cid:90) − dz (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) − / = z F (cid:32) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F z (cid:33) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = 2Θ . (4.121)– 77 –imilarly, using (4.33), introducing the regularization factor b ∈ ( R + − { } ) in the sameway as in (4.34) previously and further changing variables as z = ˆ z, dz = d ˆ z √ ˆ z , (4.122)the integral I (10) yields I (10) =2 (cid:90) dzb − z (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) / = (cid:90) d ˆ z √ ˆ z b − ˆ z (cid:32) F − F F ˆ z (cid:33) / = 2 √ ˆ zb F (cid:32) , − , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F ˆ z ; ˆ zb (cid:33) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) ˆ z =1ˆ z =0 = 2 b Θ . (4.123)Following the notation in (3.136) and (3.138) in [1], (Θ , Θ ) above stand for the followinghypergeometric functions:Θ ≡ F (cid:32) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F (cid:33) , Θ ≡ F (cid:32) , − , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F ; 1 b (cid:33) . (4.124)Putting everything together, we obtain the coefficients ( b ak , b ˜ ψk ) exactly as in (3.135) and(3.137) in [1]: b ak = 2 e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / F / (cid:113) F ˜ F Θ ,b ˜ ψk = 2 R b cos θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / F / (cid:115) F ˜ F Θ . (4.125)Recalling the constraint ˜ F ≥ F of section 4.1, the reader will not have a hard time ofconvincing himself that the above two coefficients are well defined numbers for any choiceof warp factors in (2.2). Computation of S ( ϕϕ ) int in (4.116) The determination of this self-interaction term is a simplified version of the computationwe just presented for the kinetic term. As in there, all boils down to explicitly writing theintegral over X ⊗ Σ in (4.116) with the aid of (4.17) and (4.24): S ( ϕϕ ) int = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) k,l =1 d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] , d kl ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζH (cid:112) F H ∀ k, l = 1 , , , (4.126)with d x ≡ dtdx dx d ˜ ψ . For the determination of the d kl coefficients, the first step is touse (2.53) and carry out the trivial (˜ x , φ ) integrals. We thus find that d kl = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / (cid:113) F ˜ F F I (11) ∀ k, l = 1 , , , (4.127)– 78 –here we have defined, using ˆ χ in (4.120), I (11) ≡ F / (cid:90) π dθ sin θ ˆ χ / . (4.128)Given the similarity between the above and ( I (9) , I (10) ) before, the attentive reader willalready have guessed that the easiest way to perform the above integral is by doing thechange of variables in (4.33): F − / I (11) = (cid:90) − dz (cid:16) F − F F z (cid:17) / (4.129)= 3 z (cid:16) F − F F z (cid:17) / + z F (cid:0) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F z (cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = Θ F / , where Θ is as in (3.143) in [1]:Θ ≡ F / + F /
63 2 F (cid:32) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F (cid:33) . (4.130)As a result, we can write the d kl coefficients as suggested by (3.142) in [1]: d kl = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:113) F ˜ F F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / Θ ∀ k, l = 1 , , , (4.131)which are just some number whatever choice of warp factors one may wish to consider in(2.2). Computation of S ( A ϕ ) int in (4.116) The final term to be computed, namely the interaction term between the two sets of threereal scalars A (Σ ) and ϕ k ( k = 1 , , A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] =[ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ )˜3 + [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ ) r + [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ ) φ , (4.132) ∗ [ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] =[ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ ) r ∧ e (Σ ) φ − [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) φ + [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r , the Hodge dual having been taken with respect to (4.47). The wedge product between theabove two quantities is then[ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] ∧ ∗ [ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] = ([ ˆ α , ϕ k ] + [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] + [ ˆ α , ϕ k ] ) e (Σ )˜3 ∧ e (Σ ) r e (Σ ) φ . (4.133)Since H H H = 1, as a direct consequence of our definitions in (2.53), and reversing(4.48) and (4.52), the above can be rewritten in the more convenient form– 79 – A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] ∧ ∗ [ A (Σ ) , ϕ k ] = e φ √ F H (cid:40) e − φ F [ A r , ϕ k ] + 1 H [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ] + (cid:18) f H + 1 H (cid:19) [ A φ , ϕ k ] − f H [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ][ A φ , ϕ k ] (cid:41) d ˜ x ∧ dr ∧ dφ . (4.134)This is nothing but the integrand of S ( A ϕ ) int in (4.116). There, after expanding the integralover X ⊗ Σ and using (4.20) and (4.24), we get the interaction term as S ( A ϕ ) int = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:0) c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] + c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ] + c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] − c kk [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ][ A φ , ϕ k ] (cid:1) . (4.135)The four coefficients above (and these are the very last ones) are defined as c rk ≡ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ H (cid:114) H F , c ˜3 k ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ H H (cid:112) F H ,c φ k ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ H (cid:112) F H (cid:18) f H + 1 H (cid:19) , c kk ≡ e φ (cid:90) d ˜ ζ f H (cid:112) F H . (4.136)Introducing (2.53) and carrying out the trivial (˜ x , φ ) integrals, these coefficients simplifyto (3.144)-(3.146) in [1]: c rk =2 R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr F / (cid:115) ˜ F F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / Θ ,c ˜3 k =2 e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr F / (cid:113) F ˜ F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / Θ , (4.137) c φ k = e φ R sec θ nc (cid:90) ∞ dr (cid:113) F ˜ F F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) / Π and c kk ∝ I (5) , with I (5) defined in (4.63). Note that in the case of ( c rk , c ˜3 k ) we have alsointegrated over θ , using to this aim (4.120), (4.121) and (4.124). Also, we have definedΠ as in (3.147) in [1]:Π ≡ ˆΠ + 3 sec θ nc tan θ nc ˜ F (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc ) ˜Π , (4.138)with ( ˆΠ , ˜Π ) depending on the ˆ χ function in (4.120) asˆΠ ≡ F / (cid:90) π dθ sin θ ˆ χ / , ˜Π ≡ F / (cid:90) π dθ sin θ cos θ ˆ χ / . (4.139)Once more, these integrals are most easily carried out after doing the change of variablesin (4.33). For ˆΠ we get – 80 – − / ˆΠ = (cid:90) − dz (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) / = 3 z (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) / + 5 z F (cid:32) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F z (cid:33) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) z =1 z = − = 34 (cid:32) ˜ F F (cid:33) / + 54 Θ , (4.140)where in the last step we have made use of (4.124). Similarly, ˜Π gives F − / ˜Π = 13 F (cid:90) − dz z (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) − / = z
8( ˜ F − F ) (cid:32) F − F F z (cid:33) / − F (cid:32) , ,
32 ; F − ˜ F F z (cid:33)(cid:35) z =1 z = − = (cid:16) ˜ F /F (cid:17) / − Θ
4( ˜ F − F ) . (4.141)The above two results recover (3.148) in [1] and, used in (4.138), allow us to write Π asΠ = 34 ˜ F / + 54 F / Θ + 34 (cid:18) tan θ nc cos θ nc (cid:19) (cos θ nc + F sin θ nc )( ˜ F / − F / Θ ) ˜ F ˜ F − F . (4.142)As we saw in (4.64), I (5) = 0 and so the coefficient c kk vanishes. This reduces our interac-tion term in (4.135) to its final form: S ( A ϕ ) int = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:0) c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] + c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ] + c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] (cid:1) . (4.143)For the very last time, we observe that the coefficients appearing above are, as a simpleinspection of their form in (4.137) suggests, well defined numbers for any choice of the warpfactors one may wish to consider in (2.2). Just to make the entire analysis transparent, weshow that the only seemingly divergent term is actually finite. Defining (cid:15) ≡ ( ˜ F − F ), wehave that lim ˜ F → F ˜Π = lim (cid:15) → ( F + (cid:15) ) / − F / (cid:15) ≈ F / , (4.144)a finite result as predicted. (Recall that F → (3) = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) k =1 (cid:34) (cid:88) a =0 b ak ( D a ϕ k ) + b ˜ ψk ( D ˜ ψ ϕ k ) (cid:35) + (cid:88) k,l =1 d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) k =1 (cid:0) c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] + c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ] + c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] (cid:1)(cid:41) . (4.145)At last, adding all three contributions S (1) in (4.100), S (2) in (4.109) and S (3) right above,we obtain the total bosonic action for the four-dimensional gauge theory to be that in(3.153) in [1]: S = C c V (cid:90) d x (cid:88) a,b =0 a
Hamiltonian (5.31) Time independent fieldsGauge (5.35) rewritten as A Constraints (5.40), (5.42), (5.43)
Consistency eqs. (5.70), (5.72), (5.73)
BHN eqs. (5.75), (5.76) associated to
Action (4.146), with c =0 minimization of the energy requireschoose Hamiltonian (5.88) Time independent fieldsGauge (5.35) associated to B Constraints (5.40), (5.42)
Consistency eqs. (5.92)
BHN eqs. (5.91) along with
Approximation (5.77)
Figure 12 . Sketch of the main results in section 5, where we obtain the Hamiltonian followingfrom the gauge theory action (4.146) and minimize its energy. As a result, we obtain a set ofequations the gauge and scalar fields in the theory must obey. The so called BHN equations areparticularly important, as they are related to knot invariants. A: Since the computation is a bitinvolved, in section 5.1 this is done in a particularly simple limit: setting c = 0 in (4.146). B: Thegeneralization to the case of interest, c (cid:54) = 0 in (4.146), is done in section 5.2 and follows withoutmuch effort from the previous analysis. – 84 – .1 Analysis for the case c = 0 in (4.146) Obtaining the Hamiltonian associated to a given action is a well defined problem in classicalmechanics, which our readers surely know by heart. As such, after setting c = 0 in (4.146),one could go ahead with the standard procedure: infer the conjugate momenta and writethe Hamiltonian as the Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian. However, in view ofthe length and complexity of the action (4.146), this procedure would be quite a long andtiresome mathematical exercise for us. Therefore, we will use a different approach to obtainthe Hamiltonian: we will map our action to that in (2.1) in [40] and directly read off ourHamiltonian from (2.4) in the same reference.The Lagrangian density L of our theory can be directly inferred from the action (4.146),since S = (cid:90) d x L . (5.1)With c = 0, L in (4.146) is precisely of the form of the Lagrangian (2.1) in [40], up torelative factors, under the following identifications : x M → ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) , φ A → ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r , ϕ , ϕ , ϕ ) , φ → A ˜3 . (5.2)Note that our definitions for the covariant derivatives in (4.51) differ from the covariantderivatives in [40]. This mismatch is accounted for by replacing factors of ( i ) there by ( − i )in our case. Properly accounting for the additional prefactors in our theory as well, it israther simple to see that the different terms that compose the Hamiltonian (2.4) in [40]are, in the language of the present paper, given by (cid:88) a ( F a − D a φ ) → T , (cid:88) a ( D φ a + i [ φ , φ a ]) → T , ( D φ ) → T , (cid:88) a (cid:54) = b ( F ab − (cid:15) abcd D c φ d + i [ φ a , φ b ]) → T , (cid:16) (cid:88) a D a φ a (cid:17) → , (5.3)where we have defined ( T , T , T ) as T ≡ C V (cid:88) α =1 ( √ c F α − √ c α ˜3 D α A ˜3 ) + C V ( √ c F ˜ ψ − (cid:112) c ˜ ψ ˜3 D ˜ ψ A ˜3 ) , T ≡ C V ( √ c r D A r − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A r ]) + C V ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ D A φ − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A φ ]) + (cid:88) k =1 ( (cid:112) b k D ϕ k − i √ c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ]) , T ≡ C V c ( D A ˜3 ) (5.4)and where T naturally splits into two, T = T (1)4 + T (2)4 , due to the decomposition of thesubspace X explained in (4.1): T (1)4 = 12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C V τ (1) + τ (2) (cid:17) , T (2)4 = 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C V τ (3) + τ (2) (cid:17) , (5.5) In all the identifications of our present work to other references we will show the quantities of the citedsource (our theory) on the left-hand (right-hand) side. – 85 –ith ( τ (1) , τ (2) , τ (3) ) standing for τ (1) ≡√ c F αβ − (cid:112) c ˜ ψr (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r − (cid:113) ˜ c ˜ ψφ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ − (cid:114) V C (cid:88) k =1 (cid:113) b ˜ ψk (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψk D ˜ ψ ϕ k ,iτ (2) ≡ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] + (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:16) √ c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] + √ c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] + (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) , (5.6) τ (3) ≡√ c F αψ − √ c βr (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r − (cid:112) ˜ c βφ (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ − (cid:114) V C (cid:88) k =1 (cid:112) b βk (cid:15) α ˜ ψβk D β ϕ k . Putting everything together as in (2.4) in [40], we obtain the Hamiltonian associated tothe action (4.146) (with c = 0) to be given by H = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:40) (cid:88) i =1 T i + 12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C V τ (1) + τ (2) (cid:17) + 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C V τ (3) + τ (2) (cid:17) (cid:41) + Q EM , (5.7)where Q EM denotes the sum of electric and magnetic charges in the theory. As is well-known (see (2.5) in [40]), these charges are boundary terms. We will study these boundaryterms in exquisite detail in section 6.1 (for the case where c (cid:54) = 0 in (4.146) only). Hence,for the time being, we shall not make them precise and focus instead on the bulk terms.Also, this Hamiltonian incorporates the Gauss law in it, as explained in [40]. Consequently,there are no constraints on the gauge and scalar fields of our theory imposed by the Gausslaw .According to the plan of action described in the beginning of this section, havingobtained the Hamiltonian for our gauge theory, we should now proceed to minimize it. Itturns out, however, that the minimization process simplifies considerably if we first rewrite(5.7) in a certain manner. (Further, in section 5.1.2 we shall obtain important resultsfrom this rewriting!) Thus, we will now simply rewrite the Hamiltonian (5.7) in a moreconvenient form and postpone the minimization problem to section 5.1.1.The rewriting we will carry out consists on introducing new, arbitrary coefficients insome of the terms inside the sums of squares of (5.7) and, at the same time, summing newterms to the Hamiltonian so that there is no change in its quadratic components. We shallnot yet make precise the additional crossed terms produced in this manner. But the readershould not worry, the crossed terms will be determined meticulously in section 5.1.2 (Infact, their study leads to the important results we were anticipating a little before.) Perhapsa toy model will make the rewriting we intend to perform most transparent. Consider theHamiltonian H (1) = ( A + B ) + C . (5.8)Introducing the arbitrary parameters (ˆ x, ˆ y ), the above can be rewritten as H (1) = ( A + ˆ x B ) + ˆ y B + ˜ C , (5.9) The skeptical reader can alternatively be convinced of this last statement by the combination of (5.2)and our later choice (5.40). – 86 –s long as the constraints ˆ x + ˆ y = 1 , ˜ C = C + 2 AB (1 − ˆ x ) , (5.10)are enforced. Written in this language, our earlier statement of ignoring the “additionalcrossed terms” simply means that the second constraint above shall not be studied presently,but rather in section 5.1.2.Actually, we shall only rewrite the term T and leave ( T , T , T ) as they are. We doso piecewise and first focus on the first three terms of T (1)4 in (5.5):12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F αβ − (cid:115) C c ˜ ψr V (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r − (cid:115) C ˜ c ˜ ψφ V (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ + . . . (cid:17) . (5.11)In the above, we introduce arbitrary coefficients in the second and third terms, whichdepend on ( α, β ). Clearly, these must be anti-symmetric in the mentioned indices, so asnot to yield zero due to the present epsilon tensors. We absorb the minus signs in thecoefficients and also transfer the factor of (1 /
2) inside the square. All in all, we rewrite theabove as (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F αβ + (cid:115) C c ˜ ψr V s (1) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c ˜ ψφ V s (2) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ + . . . (cid:17) + C c ˜ ψr V s (1) ( D ˜ ψ A r ) + C ˜ c ˜ ψφ V s (2) ( D ˜ ψ A φ ) + χ s , (5.12)where χ s contains the additional crossed terms created by the inclusion of the ( s (1) αβ , s (2) αβ )coefficients and we demand the constraints2( s ( i )12 ) + s ( i ) = 1 , ∀ i = 1 , T (2)4 in (5.5), namely12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ − (cid:115) C c βr V (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r − (cid:115) C ˜ c βφ V (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ + . . . (cid:17) , (5.14)can be rewritten as (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ + (cid:115) C c βr V t (1) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c βφ V t (2) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ + . . . (cid:17) + C c βr V t (1) ( D β A r ) + C ˜ c βφ V t (2) ( D β A φ ) + χ t , (5.15)where χ t takes into account the additional crossed terms created by the inclusion of( t (1) α , t (2) α ) and we impose the constraints (cid:88) α =1 ( t ( i ) α ) + t ( i ) = 1 , ∀ i = 1 , , (5.16)– 87 –hich guarantee the squared terms are not affected in the rewriting.With the very same idea in mind, we look at the fifth terms in both T (1)4 and T (2)4 next:12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] + . . . (cid:17) + 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] + . . . (cid:17) . (5.17)We introduce antisymmetric (in their indices) coefficients in both the two terms, addsquared terms that make sure we do not alter that part and encompass the new crossedterms in χ , which we do not presently determine. We also pull in the factor of (1 / (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − ig (4) αβ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] + . . . (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − ih (4) α ˜ ψ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] + . . . (cid:17) + C a V q (4) [ A r , A φ ] + χ , (5.18)where we require that the following must be satisfied :2( g (4)12 ) + (cid:88) α =1 ( h (4) α ˜ ψ ) − q (4) = 1 . (5.19)Similarly, the last terms in T (1)4 and T (2)4 ,12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) , (5.20)are rewritten in the form (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + (cid:88) k,l =1 q (1) kl d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + χ , (5.21)with the constraint2( g (1)12 kl ) + (cid:88) α =1 ( h (1) α ˜ ψkl ) − q (1) kl = 1 , ∀ k, l = 1 , , , (5.22)where g (1) αβkl has been defined to be antisymmetric in ( α, β ) and in ( k, l ). Analogously, h (1) α ˜ ψkl is antisymmetric in ( α, ˜ ψ ) and in ( k, l ) by definition. We do an identical rewriting of Note that the relative difference in signs between (5.19) and the previous constraints (5.13) and (5.16)is a consequence of the overall factors of ( − i ) in the terms of the action being considered. – 88 –he sixth and seventh terms of T (1)4 and T (2)4 too. That is, we rewrite the mentioned terms(whose original form can be directly read from (5.5) and (5.6) or even simply inferred fromthe subsequent equation) in the more convenient form (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k =1 g (2) αβk √ c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] − i (cid:88) k =1 g (3) αβk √ c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] + . . . (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − i (cid:88) k =1 h (2) α ˜ ψk √ c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] − i (cid:88) k =1 h (3) α ˜ ψk √ c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] + . . . (cid:17) + (cid:88) k =1 q (2) k c rk [ A r , ϕ k ] + (cid:88) k =1 q (3) k c φ k [ A φ , ϕ k ] + χ + χ . (5.23)We also demand the following constraints2( g ( i )12 k ) + (cid:88) α =1 ( h ( i ) α ˜ ψk ) − q ( i ) k = 1 , ∀ i = 1 , , ∀ k = 1 , , . (5.24)Here, g ( i ) αβk has been defined to be antisymmetric in ( α, β ) and h ( i ) α ˜ ψk in ( α, ˜ ψ ), for both i = 2 , T (1)4 and T (2)4 in (5.5), will be rewritten in aslightly trickier way. Essentially, we will first “mix” them and then multiply those mixedterms with new coefficients. Again, we will make sure that the squared terms are notaffected in the rewriting by subjecting the coefficients introduced to constraint equations.For the time being, we will not determine the additional crossed terms thus produced.To make the idea more precise, let us first consider a toy model to illustrate how we willproceed. Consider the Hamiltonian H (2) = 12 ( ˆ A + ˆ B ) + 12 ( ˆ C + ˆ D ) = 12 ( ˆ A + ˆ B + ˆ C + ˆ D ) + crossed terms . (5.25)We will “mix” the terms (ˆ B , ˆ D ) in the above. To this aim, we define ˆ E ≡ ˆ B + ˆ D . Next, weinsert inside the squares the factors of (1 /
2) and introduce the arbitrary coefficients (ˆ u, ˆ v ).All these changes allow us to rewrite the toy Hamiltonian as H (2) = ( ˆ A √ u ˆ E ) + ( ˆ C √ v ˆ E ) = 12 ( ˆ A + ˆ C ) + (ˆ u + ˆ v )(ˆ B + ˆ D ) + crossed terms . (5.26)If we demand that the squared terms in (5.25) and (5.26) match, then it is clear that (ˆ u, ˆ v )must satisfy the following constraint: ˆ u + ˆ v = 12 . (5.27)Coming back to the fourth terms in T (1)4 and T (2)4 that motivated the just explainedtoy model, these are given by12 (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . − (cid:88) k =1 (cid:113) b ˜ ψk (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψk D ˜ ψ ϕ k + . . . (cid:17) + 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . − (cid:88) k =1 (cid:112) b βk (cid:15) α ˜ ψβk D β ϕ k + . . . (cid:17) . (5.28)– 89 –ollowing the logic above exposed, we introduce δ ≡ ( α, ˜ ψ ) and rewrite (5.28) as (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16) . . . + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k + . . . (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) . . . + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k + . . . (cid:17) , (5.29)plus some extra crossed terms which we shall refer to symbolically as χ m . The dot productsappearing above will be made precise soon enough, in section 5.1.1. The new coefficientsabove must satisfy (cid:88) i =1 ( m ( i ) δk ) = 12 , ∀ δ, k = 1 , , , (5.30)which makes sure the quadratic terms have not been changed during the rewriting. Notethat there is no antisymmetry relating the indices of these coefficients, unlike in previouscases.We are now ready to collect results and present the Hamiltonian following from theaction (4.146) (with c = 0) in the most convenient form for our subsequent investigations.Appropriately summing (5.12), (5.15), (5.18), (5.21), (5.23) and (5.29) we obtain the desiredrewriting of T in (5.5). Further adding ( T , T , T ) as given in (5.4), the Hamiltonian in(5.7) can be rewritten as in (3.158) in [1]: H = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:40) C V (cid:34) (cid:88) α =1 ( √ c F α − √ c α ˜3 D α A ˜3 ) + ( √ c F ˜ ψ − (cid:112) c ˜ ψ ˜3 D ˜ ψ A ˜3 ) +( √ c r D A r − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A r ]) + ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ D A φ − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A φ ]) + c ( D A ˜3 ) (cid:35) + (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:34) ( (cid:112) b k D ϕ k − i √ c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ]) + q (1) kl d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) γ =2 q ( γ ) k c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] (cid:35) + (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F αβ + (cid:115) C c ˜ ψr V s (1) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c ˜ ψφ V s (2) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ − ig (4) αβ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] − i (cid:88) k =1 3 (cid:88) γ =2 g ( γ ) αβk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ]+ (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ + (cid:115) C c βr V t (1) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c βφ V t (2) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ − ih (4) α ˜ ψ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] − i (cid:88) k =1 3 (cid:88) γ =2 h ( γ ) α ˜ ψk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + C V (cid:34) c ˜ ψr s (1) ( D ˜ ψ A r ) +˜ c ˜ ψφ s (2) ( D ˜ ψ A φ ) + c βr t (1) ( D β A r ) + ˜ c βφ t (2) ( D β A φ ) + a q (4) [ A r , A φ ] (cid:35) + χ T (cid:41) + Q EM , (5.31)– 90 –oefficient Given in s ( i ) αβ , s ( i ) (5.13) t ( i ) α , t ( i ) (5.16) with: α, β, i = 1 , k, l, δ = 1 , , s ( i ) αβ , g (4) αβ , g (1) αβkl , g ( i ) αβk ) antisymmetric in ( α, β ),( h (4) α ˜ ψ , h (1) α ˜ ψkl , h ( i ) α ˜ ψk ) antisymmetric in ( α, ˜ ψ ) and( g (1) αβkl , h (1) α ˜ ψkl , q (1) kl ) antisymmetric in ( k, l ). g (4) αβ , h (4) α ˜ ψ , q (4) (5.19) g (1) αβkl , h (1) α ˜ ψkl , q (1) kl (5.22) g ( i ) αβk , h ( i ) α ˜ ψk , q ( i ) k (5.24) m ( i ) δk (5.30) Table 3 . List of coefficients appearing in the Hamiltonian (5.31) that do not have a supergravityinterpretation, the equation numbers of their defining relations and their antisymmetry properties.Note that m ( i ) δk ’s are not constrained by antisymmetry. These coefficients are introduced whilerewriting the Hamiltonian (5.7) as (5.31). where we have defined ( y , y ) ≡ ( r, φ ) (as a short-hand notation) and χ T ≡ χ s + χ t + χ + χ + χ + χ + χ m . (5.32)That is, χ T accounts for all crossed terms produced when rewriting T as just explained. χ T will be the main object of study of section 5.1.2, but presently we shall not shed lightinto it.We remind the reader that most of the notation used above was introduced in section4. In particular, table 2 provides a quick guide to find the explicit form of the prefactorsthat have a supergravity interpretation in terms of the warp factors in (2.2) and (2.26), thedeformation parameter θ nc in (2.24) and the leading term of the dilaton in (4.5). For clarityand completeness, we include table 3, which summarizes the form and properties of the newcoefficients introduced in going form (4.146) to (5.31). Note that these coefficients do not have a supergravity interpretation. Instead, the constraint relations we demanded in thissection that they should satisfy should be regarded as their defining equations. These are(5.13), (5.16), (5.19), (5.22), (5.24) and (5.30), which put together recover (3.160) in [1]. Having written the Hamiltonian of our theory as (5.31), we now make the following crucialobservation: this is a sum of squared terms, plus boundary terms Q EM and “crossed terms” χ T . Ignoring momentarily ( Q EM , χ T ), it is clear that in order to minimize the energy ofthe system each such squared term must vanish separately. In this section we enforce thejust described minimization and thus obtain the (bulk) equations of motion for the SU ( N )gauge theory in the four-dimensional space X parametrized by ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ).Let us start by setting to zero the first six squared terms in (5.31). (These are theterms stemming from ( T , T , T ) in (5.4).) Since we wish our discussion to be as generalas possible, we assume that the coefficients C /V and c do not vanish. Then, we obtain– 91 –he following:( √ c F α − √ c α ˜3 D α A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c F ˜ ψ − (cid:112) c ˜ ψ ˜3 D ˜ ψ A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c r D A r − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A r ]) = 0 , ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ D A φ − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A φ ]) = 0 , ( (cid:112) b k D ϕ k − i √ c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ]) = 0 , D A ˜3 = 0 , (5.33)which should hold true ∀ α = 1 , ∀ k = 1 , ,
3. Recall now that both the gauge fields( A a , A ˜ ψ ) (with a = 0 , ,
2) and the real scalars ( A ˜3 , A φ , A r ) (in the adjoint representa-tion of SU ( N )) depend only on the coordinates ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ). As we pointed out in thebeginning of section 5, not only are we interested in obtaining the minimum energy config-uration for the aforementioned fields, but we also want them to satisfy the BPS conditions.Hence, we search for static solutions to (5.33). This implies we will consider in the ongoingthat the fields only depend on ( x , x , ˜ ψ ) and thus, using (4.51), the above reduces to( √ c D α A − √ c α ˜3 D α A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c D ˜ ψ A − (cid:112) c ˜ ψ ˜3 D ˜ ψ A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c r [ A , A r ] − √ a [ A ˜3 , A r ]) = 0 , ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ [ A , A φ ] − √ a [ A ˜3 , A φ ]) = 0 , ( (cid:112) b k [ A , ϕ k ] − √ c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ]) = 0 , [ A , A ˜3 ] = 0 , (5.34)valid again ∀ α = 1 , ∀ k = 1 , , A = A ˜3 . (5.35)This follows from our earlier identifications in (5.2), where the scalar field A ˜3 was singledout from the other two scalars ( A φ , A r ). One could certainly single out A φ or A r insteadand appropriately modify the above gauge choice. We will not entertain these options inthe present work, as they do not lead to further physical insight. However, the interestedreader can find enough detail on the A = A r gauge choice in (3.178)-(3.182) in [1]. Withthe choice (5.35), the set of equations in (5.34) reduces to (3.162) in [1]:( √ c − √ c α ˜3 ) ( D α A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c − (cid:112) c ˜ ψ ˜3 ) ( D ˜ ψ A ˜3 ) = 0 , ( √ c r − √ a ) [ A ˜3 , A r ] = 0 , ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ − √ a ) [ A ˜3 , A φ ] = 0 , ( (cid:112) b k − √ c ˜3 k ) [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ] = 0 , ∀ α = 1 , , ∀ k = 1 , , . (5.36)Note that the last equation in (5.34) does not appear above, since it is trivially satisfiedby our gauge choice.The above has the trivial solution A ˜3 = 0. Another possible solution would be tosimultaneously satisfy c = c α ˜3 , c = c ˜ ψ ˜3 , c r = a , ˜ c φ = a , b k = c ˜3 k , ∀ α = 1 , , ∀ k = 1 , , . (5.37)Let us explore this option by using the explicit form of the above coefficients, summarizedpreviously in table 2. From (4.30), (4.69) and (4.78), we immediately see that the firstequation will be satisfied if and only ifcos θ nc + F sin θ nc = 1 . (5.38)– 92 –imilarly, using (4.31), (4.38), (4.83) and (4.91) in the second equation, one can right awayconclude (5.38) is required so that c = c ˜ ψ ˜3 . The same deduction follows from introducing(4.68), (4.69) and (4.78) in c r = a . On the other hand, using these same results in˜ c φ = a , one finds that, besides (5.38), it is also necessary to impose( ˜ F tan θ nc ) ˜ F − F (1 + F tan θ nc ) = 0 . (5.39)Finally, from (4.125) and (4.91) it follows that b k = c ˜3 k iff we demand (5.38). Summingup, to ensure (5.37) we must enforce both (5.38) and (5.39). But in doing so, we do notwish to constraint our set up by choosing a particular form for the warp factors. (We wantto keep our M-theory configuration (M, 1) of part I as general as possible.) Hence, weconclude that the second possible solution to (5.36) is given by θ nc = 0.Between A ˜3 = 0 and θ nc = 0, there is a preferred solution to (5.36). Recall section 2.1: θ nc was introduced as an alternative and computationally simpler way to account for theaxionic background of [11], which was there shown to be an essential ingredient to studyknots using the D3-NS5 system. In our approach too (as we will show in section (6.3)), θ nc shall play a key role and allow us to construct a three-dimensional space capable ofsupporting knots. Accordingly, we set to zero the first six squared terms in the Hamiltonian(5.31) via A ˜3 = 0 , (5.40)along with the gauge choice in (5.35) . Also, bear in mind all fields are time-independentnow.Let us next turn our attention to the final five terms, as well as the last two terms inthe third line of the Hamiltonian (5.31). (These are the squared terms we introduced tomake sure that while rewriting the Hamiltonian (5.7) as (5.31) all quadratic terms remainunaffected.) Minimization of the energy requires them all to vanish which, for ( C /V ) (cid:54) = 0,means that s (1) ( D ˜ ψ A r ) = 0 , s (2) ( D ˜ ψ A φ ) = 0 , t (1) ( D β A r ) = 0 , t (2) ( D β A φ ) = 0 ,a q (4) [ A r , A φ ] = 0 , q (1) kl d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 0 , q ( γ ) k c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] = 0 , (5.41)for all β = 1 , k, l = 1 , , γ = 2 ,
3. If we consider that, generically, all the coef-ficients ( s (1) , s (2) , t (1) , t (2) , a , q (4) , q ( γ ) k , c y γ k ) are not zero, then satisfying (5.41) implies(3.167) and (3.169) in [1]: D η A r = D η A φ = [ A r , A φ ] = [ A r , ϕ k ] = [ A φ , ϕ k ] = 0 , ∀ η = 1 , , ˜ ψ, ∀ k = 1 , , . (5.42)On the other hand, if we do not wish to trivialize the system, we cannot conclude thatmost generically all q (1) kl ’s are non-zero. (Note that this would imply [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 0 for all This implies A = 0, known as the Weyl gauge or also as the axial gauge. – 93 – k, l ).) Hence, as the simplest non-trivial case, we will consider only one such (independent)coefficient vanishes. Following [1], we choose q (1)12 = 0. Then, to fulfill (5.41), we mustimpose (3.171) in [1] too:[ ϕ , ϕ ] (cid:54) = 0 , [ ϕ , ϕ ] = [ ϕ , ϕ ] = 0 . (5.43)In this manner, we have enforced (5.41).In our minimization of the Hamiltonian (5.31), we now focus on the squared termbetween the fourth and sixth lines and demand its vanishing: (cid:114) C V (cid:18)(cid:114) c F αβ + (cid:112) c ˜ ψr s (1) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r + (cid:113) ˜ c ˜ ψφ s (2) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ − ig (4) αβ √ a [ A r , A φ ] (cid:19) − i (cid:88) δ,k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) γ =2 g ( γ ) αβk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] + i (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , (5.44)which should be true for all α, β = 1 ,
2. Needless to say, minimization of the energyrequires all squared terms to vanish simultaneously. This implies the choices previouslymade to set to zero other squared terms must now be enforced as well. Thus, inserting(5.42) and (5.43) in the above, our equations reduce to (cid:114) C c V F αβ − ig (1) αβ (cid:112) d [ ϕ , ϕ ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , ∀ α, β = 1 , , (5.45)where we have used the fact that g (1) αβ = − g (1) αβ by definition and d = d , as can beseen from (4.131). Since (5.45) is antisymmetric in ( α, β ), we can focus on the case α = 1and β = 2. With the convention that (cid:15) = 1, noting that (4.125) tells us that b = b and choosing coefficients as in (3.173) in [1]; namely g (1)1212 = m (1)˜ ψ = m (1)12 = − m (1)21 = 1 √ , m (1)11 = m (1)22 = m (1)13 = m (1)23 = m (1)˜ ψ = m (1)˜ ψ = 0 , (5.46)it is a matter of minor algebra to obtain (3.172) in [1]: F + (cid:114) V C c (cid:104) − i (cid:112) d [ ϕ , ϕ ] + (cid:112) b ( D ϕ − D ϕ ) + (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:105) = 0 . (5.47)Note that the dot product in (5.45) has been interpreted as a usual scalar product in thiscase.This is the first non-trivial equation of motion following from the minimization of theenergy of the Hamiltonian (5.31). Further, since all fields appearing in it are static, theabove is a BPS condition. Notice now that, schematically, our BPS condition is of the form F + D ϕ + [ ϕ, ϕ ] = 0 . (5.48)– 94 –he well-versed reader will of course be familiar with the Bogomolny, Hitchin and Nahmequations, which we can sketch as follows:Bogomolny: F + D ϕ = 0 , Hitchin: F + [ ϕ, ϕ ] = 0 , Nahm: D ϕ + [ ϕ, ϕ ] = 0 . (5.49)Written in this manner, it is evident that our BPS condition is just a combination of allthese Bogomolny, Hitchin and Nahm equations. We will thus refer to (5.47) as the firstBHN equation.Before proceeding further, let us pause for a moment and study what are the conse-quences of the choices of coefficients made so far. These choices are q (1)12 = 0 and (5.46). Ascan be checked in table 3, these coefficients are required to satisfy the constraint equations(5.22) and (5.30). So, combining our choices and the constraints, we are led to concludethat2 (cid:16) g (1)12 kl (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16) h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:17) − q (1) kl = 1 ∀ k, l = 2 , , h (1) α ˜ ψ = − h (1) α ˜ ψ = 0 ∀ α = 1 , ,m (2) ψ = m (2)12 = m (2)21 = 0 , m (2)11 , m (2)22 , m (2)13 , m (2)23 , m (2)˜ ψ , m (2)˜ ψ = ± √ (cid:114) C V (cid:18)(cid:114) c F α ˜ ψ + √ c βr t (1) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r + (cid:112) ˜ c βφ t (2) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ − ih (4) α ˜ ψ √ a [ A r , A φ ] (cid:19) − i (cid:88) δ,k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) γ =2 h ( γ ) α ˜ ψk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] + i (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , (5.51)for all α, β = 1 ,
2. Using (5.42), (5.43) and (5.50) in the above, we have that (cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 ∀ α = 1 , . (5.52)Here, δ = 3 should be understood as making reference to the ˜ ψ direction. Without loss ofgenerality, we take the definition of the dot product above to be (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k ≡ − (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) [ α ˜ ψ m (2) δk ] D δ ϕ k + (cid:113) b ˜ ψα (cid:15) α ˜ ψ m (2)˜ ψα D ˜ ψ ϕ α , (5.53)with the indices of the first term on the right-hand side necessarily different from each other.This seemingly involved term is not so complicated and, upon using the antisymmetry of– 95 –he epsilon tensors, is explicitly given by − (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:104) (cid:15) α ˜ ψ ( m (2) δk − m (2) kδ ) + (cid:15) δ ˜ ψ ( m (2) αk − m (2) kα ) + (cid:15) δk ( m (2) α − m (2)˜ ψα )+ (cid:15) αk ( m (2) δ − m (2)˜ ψδ ) + (cid:15) αδ ( m (2) k − m (2)˜ ψk ) + (cid:15) k ˜ ψ ( m (2) αδ − m (2) δα ) (cid:105) D δ ϕ k . (5.54)In good agreement with (5.50), we now implement the second line there, choosing the plussign for all the m (2) coefficients in the last equality. In this manner, the above reducesconsiderably to − (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk [ (cid:15) δk m (2)˜ ψα + (cid:15) αk m (2)˜ ψδ + (cid:15) αδ m (2)˜ ψk ] D δ ϕ k . (5.55)As we said, the dot product is taken by definition such that all indices in this term shouldbe different from each other. In other words, δ = 1(2) if α = 2(1) and k = 3. This leadsto, for α, β = 1 , α (cid:54) = β , − (cid:112) b β [ (cid:15) β ˜ ψ m (2)˜ ψα + (cid:15) α ˜ ψ m (2)˜ ψβ + (cid:15) αβ m (2)˜ ψ ] D β ϕ = (cid:114) b D ϕ if α = 1 , β = 2 , (cid:114) b D ϕ if α = 2 , β = 1 , (5.56)where the normalization convention used is (cid:15) ψ = (cid:15) ψ = 1. Finally, using the above in(5.52) and with minor algebra, we obtain the remaining two BHN equations, as in (3.177)in [1]: F ψ + (cid:114) V C c ( (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ + (cid:112) b D ϕ ) = 0 , F ψ + (cid:114) V C c ( (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ + (cid:112) b D ϕ ) = 0 . (5.57)Collecting thoughts, in this section we have shown that the vanishing of the differentsquared terms in the Hamiltonian (5.31) for static configurations leads to the BHN equa-tions (5.47) and (5.57). The name BHN simply denotes that these are a combination of thewell-known Bogomolny, Hitchin and Nahm equations. In obtaining such BHN equations,we chose the gauge (5.35) and further found that the gauge and scalar fields in the bosonicsector of the theory should also satisfy (5.40), (5.42) and (5.43). Additionally, we madethe coefficient choices q (1)12 = 0, (5.46) and (5.50), with the plus sign in all cases of the lastequality there. One can easily check that all our choices respect the defining equationsof the coefficients, summarized previously in table 3. However, this analysis completelyignored the ( Q EM , χ T ) terms in (5.31). In the next section, we start to shed light in thisdirection by studying χ T . We already pointed out the crucial fact that the electric and magnetic charges Q EM inthe Hamiltonian (5.31) are (not yet specified) boundary terms. That is, the Hamiltonian– 96 –s a whole is defined in the X space (the bulk) but the terms Q EM are defined solely in X (the boundary). (We remind the reader that the spaces X and X were defined in(4.1).) The goal in this section is to ensure that χ T in (5.31) does not contribute to theboundary terms Q EM . Further, we want to ensure that χ T is in good agreement with thebulk energy minimization performed in the previous section. Anticipating events, we willsee that such consistency leads to new constraints on the scalar fields of our gauge theory.In this manner, we shall be able to focus on the study of the boundary theory only, sincethe bulk theory will by then be set to zero by requiring that the fields satisfy (5.40), (5.42)and (5.43), together with the BHN equations (5.47) and (5.57) and the new constraints weshall presently find.But let us take a step back first: what is χ T to begin with? In order to determine χ T precisely we will compare the Hamiltonians (5.7) and (5.31), i.e. the Hamiltonians beforeand after the inclusion of the coefficients in table 3. By definition, χ T is simply the collectionof all crossed terms produced during this rewriting. To make our task computationallyeasier, we will make use of all the equations above mentioned, which guarantee that thebulk theory is minimized.Explicitly, using (5.40), (5.42) and (5.43) in (5.7), the Hamiltonian before the rewritingis given by H = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:34) (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F αβ − (cid:88) k =1 (cid:113) b ˜ ψk (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψk D ˜ ψ ϕ k − i (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + 12 (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ − (cid:88) k =1 (cid:112) b βk (cid:15) α ˜ ψβk D β ϕ k − i (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + Q EM (cid:35) . (5.58)Let us for the time being ignore Q EM . We already said and it can be clearly seen from(4.131) too, that d = d . However, [ ϕ , ϕ ] = − [ ϕ , ϕ ]. Hence, when summing over k, l = 1 , ζ ≡ − (cid:114) C c V (cid:88) α,β =1 3 (cid:88) k =1 (cid:113) b ˜ ψk (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψk Tr {F αβ , D ˜ ψ ϕ k } ,ζ ≡ − (cid:114) C c V (cid:88) α =1 3 (cid:88) k =1 (cid:112) b βk (cid:15) α ˜ ψβk Tr {F α ˜ ψ , D β ϕ k } . (5.59)Simply carrying out the sums above and noting that (4.125) implies that b ˜ ψk and b ak arethe same for all values of a = 1 , k = 1 , , ζ = (cid:115) C c b ˜ ψ V Tr (cid:110) F , D ˜ ψ ( ϕ + ϕ + ϕ ) (cid:111) ,ζ = − (cid:114) C c b V Tr (cid:104)(cid:110) F ψ , D ( ϕ + ϕ + ϕ ) (cid:111) − (cid:110) F ψ , D ( ϕ + ϕ + ϕ ) (cid:111)(cid:105) , (5.60)– 97 –ith the normalization convention (cid:15) k ˜ ψ = 1 for all k = 1 , ,
3. On the other hand, using(5.40), (5.42), (5.43) and the choices q (1)12 , h (1) α ˜ ψ = 0 (for all α = 1 ,
2) in (5.31), we obtainthe Hamiltonian after the rewriting as H = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:34) (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F αβ + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) C c V F α ˜ ψ + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + χ T (cid:35) + Q EM . (5.61)We know that the squared terms of this and the previous Hamiltonian are the same (pro-vided the coefficients above satisfy the constraints in table 3, as already discussed in theprevious section). Hence, let us just focus on the crossed terms. There are four of them: ζ (cid:48) ≡ − i (cid:114) C c d V (cid:88) α,β =1 g (1) αβ Tr {F αβ , [ ϕ , ϕ ] } ,ζ (cid:48) ≡ (cid:114) C c V (cid:88) α,β =1 3 (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk Tr {F αβ , D δ ϕ k } ,ζ (cid:48) ≡ − i (cid:112) d
12 2 (cid:88) α,β =1 3 (cid:88) δ,m =1 g (1) αβ (cid:112) b δm (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δm Tr { [ ϕ , ϕ ] , D δ ϕ m } ,ζ (cid:48) ≡ (cid:114) C c V (cid:88) α =1 3 (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk Tr {F α ˜ ψ , D δ ϕ k } , (5.62)where we have used the (anti)symmetry properties d = d and g (1) αβ = − g (1) αβ to carryout the sums over k, l in the first and third terms. In this language, χ T is χ T = (cid:88) i =1 ζ i − (cid:88) i =1 ζ (cid:48) i . (5.63)In our way to determine χ T , let us first focus on ζ (cid:48) . Using the coefficient choices in(5.50) for the plus sign in all cases, the dot product definition in (5.53) and the result (5.56)and further summing over α , it is easy to see that ζ (cid:48) = 12 (cid:114) C c V Tr (cid:16) {F ψ , (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ + (cid:112) b D ϕ } + {F ψ , (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ + (cid:112) b D ϕ } (cid:17) , (5.64)where the normalization convention employed is once again (cid:15) = (cid:15) = 1. With the aid ofthe BHN equations in (5.57), ζ (cid:48) is seen to be a squared (and not a crossed) term: ζ (cid:48) = − C c V (cid:88) α =1 Tr( F α ˜ ψ ) . (5.65)The conclusion that ζ (cid:48) is not a crossed term of course implies that it does not contributeto Q EM , as we wished in the first place. Further, since ζ (cid:48) is a squared term, it can be– 98 –bsorbed by an appropriate relabeling of the coefficients in table 3, where the definingequations remain unaltered. Consequently, ζ (cid:48) does not contribute to χ T and we need notworry over it in the ongoing.We turn our attention to ζ (cid:48) , ζ (cid:48) and ζ (cid:48) next. As before, we interpret the dot productin ζ (cid:48) and ζ (cid:48) as a regular scalar product, we use our coefficient choices in (5.46) and sumover α, β in (5.62). In the process, one must not forget the antisymmetric properties ofthe coefficients summarized in table 3. The described computation is not hard and yields ζ (cid:48) = 2 i (cid:114) C c d V Tr (cid:110) F , [ ϕ , ϕ ] (cid:111) ,ζ (cid:48) = (cid:114) C c V Tr (cid:110) F , (cid:112) b ( D ϕ − D ϕ ) + (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:111) ,ζ (cid:48) = 2 i (cid:112) d Tr { [ ϕ , ϕ ] , (cid:112) b ( D ϕ − D ϕ ) + (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ } . (5.66)It can be easily checked that, further introducing the first BHN equation (5.47) in theabove, the following is true: ζ (cid:48) + ζ (cid:48) = − C c V Tr( F ) , ζ (cid:48) = 8 d Tr[ ϕ , ϕ ] − i (cid:114) C c d V Tr { [ ϕ , ϕ ] , F } . (5.67)The same observation we made for ζ (cid:48) should be invoked presently too: the squared termscan be absorbed by a relabeling of the coefficients in table 3. They do not contribute to Q EM and do not affect the bulk minimization of section 5.1.1. In other words, we canconsistently conclude that they do not contribute to χ T and simply ignore them in thefollowing. The only term which contributes to χ T from the above is ζ (cid:48) = − i (cid:114) C c d V Tr { [ ϕ , ϕ ] , F } . (5.68)Putting everything together, we say that χ T = ζ + ζ − ζ (cid:48) , (5.69)which must either be reduced to a sum of squared terms (that would then be accounted forby an inconsequential redefinition of the coefficients in table 3) or be set to zero. In thismanner, the Hamiltonian (5.31) will lead to a boundary theory determined by Q EM solely,while a consistent bulk energy minimization is ensured via BHN and other constrainingequations on the gauge and scalar fields. What is more, it is evident that ζ − ζ (cid:48) and ζ will have to satisfy this condition separately, as the BHN equations (5.47) and (5.57) donot mix F with ( F ψ , F ψ ). For this very same reason, we must demand right away D ˜ ψ ϕ = D ˜ ψ ϕ = D ϕ = D ϕ = 0 . (5.70)We will refer to these as the first set of consistency requirements we mentioned in the titleof the present section. Implementing the above and using (5.47), ζ in (5.60) and ζ (cid:48) in– 99 –5.68) combine to give ζ − ζ (cid:48) = − C c V Tr( F ) − (cid:114) C c b V Tr {F , D ϕ − D ϕ } . (5.71)It goes without saying that the first term on the right-hand side above is squared and thusdoes not contribute to χ T . That is not the case with the second term, though. To make itvanish, we will demand D ϕ − D ϕ = 0 , (5.72)another consistency requirement. The attentive reader won’t take long staring at ζ in(5.60) in combination with the two relevant BHN equations in (5.57) to realize that yetanother (and last) consistency requirement is that in (3.174) in [1]: D ϕ + D ϕ = 0 . (5.73)Then, ζ simplifies to ζ = 12 (cid:114) C c b V Tr (cid:104)(cid:110) F ψ , D ( ϕ + ϕ ) (cid:111) + (cid:110) F ψ , D ( ϕ − ϕ ) (cid:111)(cid:105) . (5.74)We cannot make squares of the above, so it better vanish. Indeed it is zero, as can be seenfrom combining the requirements (5.70) and the BHN equations (5.57), leading to F ψ = F ψ = 0 . (5.75)The other BHN equation, namely (5.47), also reduces in view of our consistency require-ments and is now given by F + (cid:114) V C c (cid:16) i (cid:112) d [ ϕ , ϕ ] + (cid:113) b ˜ ψ D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:17) = 0 . (5.76)Finally, we note that χ T has by now been converted to some sum of squared terms whichdoes not affect our analysis and definitely does not contribute to Q EM , as was our goal inthe beginning of this section.In conclusion, for the gauge choice (5.35), the energy of the Hamiltonian (5.31) isminimized when all (5.40), (5.42), (5.43), (5.70), (5.72) and (5.73) are satisfied, togetherwith the BHN equations (5.75) and (5.76). In this case, χ T is zero (or, more precisely,is absorbed by an immaterial redefinition of coefficients, as already explained) and we areonly left with the boundary terms Q EM to be considered.To finish this section, let us clarify what is the advantage of rewriting the Hamiltonian(5.7) as (5.31). The so called consistency requirements (5.70), (5.72) and (5.73) that weobtained in this section to ensure no crossed terms were produced in the aforementionedrewriting are actually vital results in our analysis. They simplify the BHN equations,which are conjectured to be directly related to knot invariants (for example, see section 3.2in [11]). But their simplifying power goes well beyond the BHN equations.– 100 –n [1], these consistency requirements are obtained in an altogether different manner:after generalizing to the c (cid:54) = 0 case and by comparing our gauge theory to the twistedgauge theory in [11] and [12]. More precisely, our consistency requirements in (5.70) areequal to (3.218) and (3.220) in [1], (5.72) is the same as (3.207) (albeit all three equationsare expressed in the twisted language there) and (5.73) is exactly (3.174). Among all thenecessary constraints in our set up, (5.72) is particularly useful. Unlike in the present workand in [1], in both [11] and [12] this constraint is not a consistency requirement of thetwisted gauge theory. This term simply does not vanish and hence is part of one of thetwisted BHN equations. However, this term greatly adds to the computational difficulties.Hence, to keep things as simple as possible, in [11] the prefactor for this term is made tovanish, via an S-duality. Then, the quite involved generalization to the case where theprefactor does not vanish is studied in [12]. The fact that (5.72) is true in our constructionthus avoids us the subtleties and struggles related to having to consider the S-dual picturefirst and mimic the extension in [12] afterwards!Although the S-dual picture is not required in our analysis, for completeness andto provide a transparent comparison to the well-known analysis in [11], this has beenfully worked out around (3.252)-(3.275) in [1]. We thus refer the reader seeking an M-theory realization of the S-dual picture, as well as quantitative details on its relation to theconfiguration (M, 1) in section 2, to the cited work. Here, we will take full advantage ofhaving (5.72) as part of our gauge theory and rid ourselves of further complications alongthis direction. Instead, we will now look at the generalization of all the results so far insection 5 to the case that really concerns us, where c (cid:54) = 0 in (4.146). This will in turndirectly lead us to the study of the corresponding boundary theory in section (6). c (cid:54) = 0 in (4.146) We have by now gained considerable insight into the bulk physics of the theory with action(4.146) but with no topological term (i.e. c = 0 there). The inclusion of this topologicalterm is, however, far from trivial, both conceptually and computationally. To relax a bit thecomputational difficulties, we will begin this section by doing the following approximation:we will in the ongoing consider that c = c (5.77)in (4.146). Looking at the definitions of these coefficients in (4.23), we see that thisamounts to requiring that e φ H = 1. Further using (2.53), our simplification reducesto a constraint equation on the so far completely arbitrary warp factors (2.2) and (2.26)and constant leading value of the dilaton in (4.5) : e φ ˜ F F sec θ nc sin θ ˜ F cos θ + F sin θ = 1 . (5.78) The reader should not worry at this time over terminology. We shall introduce the concept of topologicaltwist and twist our own theory in due time, in section 6.3. We remind the reader that any specific choice of these warp factors and dilaton should be checked topreserve N = 2 supersymmetry. This idea will be made precise in section 6.2. – 101 –learly, this is not too stringent a constraint, as there is ample freedom of choice to satisfyit. For a physical interpretation of our assumption, one should look at the metric of the M-theory configuration (M, 1) in (2.56). We then see that (5.77) implies that ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) arenow Lorentz invariant directions. In other words, our approximation leads to a restorationof the Lorentz symmetry along ˜ ψ in the subspace X that we defined in (4.1).Having made this simplification, we proceed to show an intermediate result, which willimmediately prove useful in deriving the Hamiltonian following from the action (4.146)with c (cid:54) = 0. This consists on working out a convenient component form of the integrandof this topological term in the action: F ( X ) ∧ F ( X ) ≡ (cid:88) µ<νρ<λ F µν F ρλ dx µ ∧ dx ν ∧ dx ρ ∧ dx λ = d x (cid:88) µ<ν F µν ∗ F µν , (5.79)where, as usual, the Hodge dual of the field strength is defined as ∗F µν ≡ (cid:88) ρ,λ (cid:15) µνρλ F ρλ , (5.80) d x is the volume element of the now Minkowskian spacetime X and x µ refers collectivelyto its coordinates ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ).Using the approximation (5.77), (5.79) and recalling (4.113), we are ready to writethe first line in the action (4.146) of our theory (which we denote as S L ) in the followingsuitable manner: S L = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:88) µ<ν (cid:18) C c V F µν F µν + C sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) F µν ∗ F µν (cid:19) . (5.81)The reader will of course right away notice that S L is precisely Maxwell’s action with aΘ-term (see, for example, in (2.1) in [41]). The correlation becomes fully apparent once weidentify our coefficients (which only depend on supergravity variables) with the Yang-Millscoupling and gauge theory Θ-parameter as C c V ≡ πg Y M , C sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) ≡ Θ2 π . (5.82)The above makes concrete the long standing promise of section 2.1. There, we claimed thatintroducing the non-commutative deformation labeled by the parameter θ nc would lead toa Θ-term in the four-dimensional gauge theory associated to the M-theory configuration(M, 1). From (5.82) it is clear that θ nc = 0 would lead to no Θ-term in the gauge theory, sothe deformation is indeed successful in replacing the axionic background of [11] to sourcethis topological term. (Later on, in section (6.3), we shall see that this topological term isa fundamental ingredient to convert the boundary X of X into a suitable space for theembedding of knots. This is because such term allows us to define a topological theory in X .) It is standard to combine the Yang-Mills coupling and the Θ-parameter into a single complex coupling constant τ as τ ≡ Θ2 π + i πg Y M = C (cid:18) sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) + i c V (cid:19) , (5.83)– 102 –here the last equality follows from our prior identification (5.82) and reproduces (3.183)in [1].The Hamiltonian associated to S L can be directly read from (2.2) in [41]. Notehowever that we must do an overall sign change (we work in the opposite Minkowskisignature convention) and account for the different overall normalization too. Explicitly,we obtain H L = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:18) iτ − ¯ τ Π i Π i + i τ + ¯ ττ − ¯ τ Π i B i + i τ ¯ ττ − ¯ τ B i B i (cid:19) = 2 iτ − ¯ τ (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:16) Π i + τ B i (cid:17) (cid:16) Π i + ¯ τ B i (cid:17) , (5.84)where i = ( x , x , ˜ ψ ) spans the spatial coordinates of X and the canonical momenta andmagnetic field in our case are given byΠ i = C c V F i , B i = 2 (cid:15) ijk F jk . (5.85)This is the same Hamiltonian that appears in (3.187) in [1] too: H L = 2 iτ − ¯ τ (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:18) C c V F i + τ (cid:15) ijk F jk (cid:19) (cid:18) C c V F i + ¯ τ (cid:15) ilm F lm (cid:19) , (5.86)where ¯ τ denotes the complex conjugate of τ . An uncomplicated yet very useful rewritingof this Hamiltonian in terms of only the complex coupling τ and the field strengths is thefollowing: H L = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:34) τ − ¯ τ i (cid:88) i =1 ( F i F i ) + 4 i | τ | τ − ¯ τ (cid:88) α,β =1 ( F αβ F αβ ) + 8 i | τ | τ − ¯ τ (cid:88) α =1 ( F α ˜ ψ F α ˜ ψ )+ ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:88) i,j,k =1 (cid:15) ijk ( F i F jk ) (cid:35) , (5.87)which the reader may verify quite effortlessly.At this point, we are ready to write the full Hamiltonian following from (4.146), topo-logical piece included. All that is left to do is couple the Hamiltonian (5.87) to the realscalar fields A r , A φ , A ˜3 and ϕ k ’s (with k = 1 , , c = 0 case makes this task almost trivial. Keeping the last term in (5.87) separate, wecan couple the scalar fields as in (5.31). The only difference is that, now, the prefactorsfor the terms involving field strengths will be different, matching the ones in (5.87). Ofcourse, the coefficients that do not have a supergravity interpretation remain constrainedas summarized in table 3. Explicitly, the full Hamiltonian is– 103 – = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:40) (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) τ − ¯ τ i F α − (cid:114) C c α ˜3 V D α A ˜3 (cid:17) + (cid:16)(cid:114) τ − ¯ τ i F ˜ ψ − (cid:115) C c ˜ ψ ˜3 V D ˜ ψ A ˜3 (cid:17) + C V (cid:104) ( √ c r D A r − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A r ]) + ( (cid:112) ˜ c φ D A φ − i √ a [ A ˜3 , A φ ]) + c ( D A ˜3 ) (cid:105) + (cid:88) k,l =1 (cid:104) ( (cid:112) b k D ϕ k − i √ c ˜3 k [ A ˜3 , ϕ k ]) + q (1) kl d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) γ =2 q ( γ ) k c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] (cid:105) + (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F αβ + (cid:115) C c ˜ ψr V s (1) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψr D ˜ ψ A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c ˜ ψφ V s (2) αβ (cid:15) αβ ˜ ψφ D ˜ ψ A φ − ig (4) αβ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] − i (cid:88) k =1 3 (cid:88) γ =2 g ( γ ) αβk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ]+ (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F α ˜ ψ + (cid:115) C c βr V t (1) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβr D β A r + (cid:115) C ˜ c βφ V t (2) α (cid:15) α ˜ ψβφ D β A φ − ih (4) α ˜ ψ (cid:114) C a V [ A r , A φ ] − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] − i (cid:88) k =1 3 (cid:88) γ =2 h ( γ ) α ˜ ψk √ c y γ k [ A y γ , ϕ k ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + C V (cid:104) c ˜ ψr s (1) ( D ˜ ψ A r ) +˜ c ˜ ψφ s (2) ( D ˜ ψ A φ ) + c βr t (1) ( D β A r ) + ˜ c βφ t (2) ( D β A φ ) + a q (4) [ A r , A φ ] (cid:105) + ˜ χ T +( τ − ¯ τ ) (cid:88) i,j,k =1 (cid:15) ijk F i F jk (cid:41) + ˜ Q EM . (5.88)Note that the terms ( ˜ χ T , ˜ Q EM ) are now written with a tilde to denote they are not thesame as those appearing in (5.31), although they still stand for the crossed terms related tothe coefficients of table 3 and the electric and magnetic charges in the theory, respectively.Note the close resemblance between the above and the Hamiltonian for the c = 0 casein (5.31). Essentially, they are the same up to prefactors in the terms containing fieldstrengths, but there is an all important additional term now (appearing in the last line in(5.88)).This similarity between the c = 0 Hamiltonian and the c (cid:54) = 0 one allows us to easilygeneralize the results in section 5.1 to the present and relevant case. In particular, it isremarkably simple to minimize the energy of (5.88) for static configurations. That is, tofind the BPS conditions for our gauge and scalar fields. Let us nevertheless show a fewsteps in the process in the following for clarity, since we will not minimize the energy inexactly the same way.As before, we choose to work in the gauge (5.35) and demand that (5.40) and (5.42)hold true. This time, instead of ensuring the vanishing of the seventh squared term via(5.43), we will choose q (1) kl = 0 , ∀ k, l = 1 , , . (5.89)– 104 –his choice leads to a more rich dynamics of the ϕ k scalar fields (than that we consideredin the c = 0 case), which, as we shall see, will play a role in the study of the boundarytheory in section (6.3) later on. For the time being, the mentioned choices reduce theHamiltonian to (3.225) in [1]: H = (cid:90) d x Tr (cid:40) (cid:88) α =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F α ˜ ψ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) + (cid:88) α,β =1 (cid:16)(cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F αβ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k (cid:17) +( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:88) i,j,k =1 (cid:15) ijk F i F jk + ˜ χ T (cid:41) + ˜ Q EM . (5.90)In section 5.1, we did many coefficient choices to simplify the computation as muchas possible. On this occasion, we wish to keep our coefficients arbitrary for as long aspossible (this freedom of choice will be beneficial once we look at the boundary theory).Consequently, we will take as our BHN equations the following: (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F α ˜ ψ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F αβ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] + (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , (5.91)for all α, β = 1 ,
2. In view of the detailed computation in section 5.1.2, it is not hard toinfer that on this occasion too we will be able to absorb ˜ X T through a meaningless renamingof coefficients by imposing certain consistency requirements to our scalar fields ϕ k ’s. Theconditions there derived, namely (5.70), (5.72) and (5.73), are completely independent ofthe prefactors in the various terms of the Hamiltonian. Hence, the only alteration neededin that calculation consists on accommodating the choice (5.89) instead of (5.43). Theattentive reader will surely be easily convinced that the consistency requirements generalizeto D ϕ − D ϕ = D ϕ − D ˜ ψ ϕ = D ϕ − D ˜ ψ ϕ = D ϕ + D ϕ + D ˜ ψ ϕ = 0 (5.92)in the present case. Once the energy has thus been minimized, the Hamiltonian reduces to H = ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) d x (cid:88) i,j,k =1 (cid:15) ijk Tr( F i F jk ) + ˜ Q EM . (5.93)In the following section, we will devote quite some effort to the study of the above Hamilto-nian. But before jumping into the pertinent details, let us briefly review the main contentsof the present section.We have shown that the action (4.146) is associated to the Hamiltonian (5.88). Bothof them are defined in the space X . A consistent minimization of the energy of (5.88) for– 105 –tatic configurations of the fields, working in the gauge (5.35), is obtained by imposing theconstraints (5.40), (5.42) and (5.92). We also require that the BHN equations in (5.91)be satisfied. In this energy minimization process, the coefficients of table 3 remain mostlyarbitrary. The only choice made is that in (5.89). The Hamiltonian then reduces to (5.93). As we just mentioned, the minimization of the energy of the Hamiltonian stemming fromthe M-theory configuration (M, 1) presented in section 5.2 leads to (5.93). In the presentsection, we will first show that (5.93) is defined only in X , the boundary of X .This realization then requires us to find suitable boundary conditions for all the fieldsin the gauge theory. Of course, we are referring to half-BPS boundary conditions: onesthat break the N = 4 supersymmetry of the theory to N = 2. Although so far we haveinsisted that by construction the configuration (M, 1) is N = 2 supersymmetric, it is onlyat this stage that we shall be able to make this claim fully precise. Indeed, as we shall see,this desired amount of supersymmetry requires of no constraint on the parameters thatcharacterize (M, 1) (those summarized in table 2) and is enforced by appropriate boundaryconditions only.Finally, we shall note that, if the configuration (M, 1) is to be useful for the studyof knots and their invariants, the theory in X better be topological. In this manner, itwill be possible to embed the knots (which are topological objects) in X consistently. Tothis aim, we will present the notion of topological twist and show that, upon twisting, ourgauge theory indeed becomes a suitable framework for the realization of knots.A graphical summary of the main results of section 6 is as shown in blue in figure10. From this schematic point of view, section 6.1 can be understood as the derivation of(6.11). Similarly, section 6.2 contains the details on (6.19)-(6.22) and sections 6.3 and 6.3.1deal with the technicalities involved in topological twisting all previously cited results. In this section, we have one very concrete goal: to rewrite the Hamiltonian of our gaugetheory after its energy has been minimized (this is given by (5.93)) as an integral over X instead of X . (Once more, we remind the reader that these spaces were defined anddescribed around (4.1).) In other words, we want to show that, for the gauge choice(5.35) and after imposing the BPS conditions (5.40), (5.42), (5.92) and (5.91), the totalHamiltonian (5.88) reduces to a boundary Hamiltonian. As a matter of a fact, this doesnot involve any conceptual hurdle, so let us jump into computation right away.After having left the electric and magnetic charges ˜ Q EM unspecified for the whole ofsection 5, we finally take it upon us to specify them. As we already hinted previously, wewill do so by comparing our Hamiltonian (5.88) to that in (2.4) in [40] and then inferring˜ Q EM from (2.5) in that same reference. Obviously, one could do the computation explicitly.However, this won’t give us any further insight into our theory and so we do not attemptsuch approach here. From our identifications in (5.2) and our choice (5.40), it is clear that– 106 –he electric charge vanishes in our case:˜ Q EM ≡ ˜ Q E + ˜ Q M , ˜ Q E = 0 . (6.1)It is also easy to see that the magnetic charge is of the form˜ Q M = (cid:90) d x ∂ ˜ ψ q M = (cid:90) d x q M , d x ≡ dtdx dx , (6.2)where we have ignored terms which are total derivatives along the unbounded directions( t, x , x ), since they do not affect the physics of our theory and where we have rewritten˜ Q M as a boundary term, defined in X instead of the whole X . Of course, this comes asno surprise: we have long been anticipating that the electric and magnetic charges wouldbe restricted to X only. Further using (5.2) and noting that (5.88) is exactly (2.4) in [40]up to prefactors, it is clear that q M is given by q M = (cid:88) k,l,m =1 Tr (cid:34) (cid:88) α,β =1 d (cid:15) kαβ ϕ k F αβ + (cid:15) klm (cid:16) id ϕ k [ ϕ l , ϕ m ] + d ϕ k D l ϕ m (cid:17)(cid:35) , (6.3)where ( d , d , d ) are coefficients that account for the difference of prefactors between ourHamiltonian and that in [40]. Their determination is not straightforward, so let us workthem out in details.Simply looking at our Hamiltonian (5.88), it is evident that the field strength F αβ picks up the additional prefactor (cid:112) i | τ | ( τ − ¯ τ ) − for all α, β = 1 ,
2, as compared to [40].Similarly, for fixed values of ( l, m ), it follows that to D l ϕ m we must associate the prefactor √ b lm m (1) lm . Actually, the only non-trivial prefactors are those that we should attach to ϕ k and [ ϕ l , ϕ m ]. To establish what they are, we first note that (cid:88) α,β =1 3 (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 4 (cid:112) d (cid:16) g (1)1212 [ ϕ , ϕ ] + g (1)1213 [ ϕ , ϕ ] + g (1)1223 [ ϕ , ϕ ] (cid:17) , (6.4)where we have used the fact that g (1) αβkl is antisymmetric in ( α, β ) and in ( k, l ) by definition(see table 3) and d kl is independent of ( k, l ) (see (4.131)). From the above it follows thatto the [ ϕ l , ϕ m ] term we must associate the factor 4 √ d lm g (1)12 lm . Let us denote as ( y , y , y )the prefactors that we need to associate to ( ϕ , ϕ , ϕ ), respectively. From (6.4), we alsohave that y y = 4 (cid:112) d g (1)1212 , y y = 4 (cid:112) d g (1)1213 , y y = 4 (cid:112) d g (1)1223 . (6.5)This can be easily solved to yield y = 2 d / (cid:118)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:116) g (1)1212 g (1)1213 g (1)1223 , y = 2 d / (cid:118)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:116) g (1)1223 g (1)1212 g (1)1213 , y = 2 d / (cid:118)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:116) g (1)1223 g (1)1213 g (1)1212 . (6.6) To fully understand this prefactor, the reader may find it useful to recall that the dot product appearingin the relevant term of the Hamiltonian was taken to be the usual scalar product around (5.47). – 107 –utting all our observations on the prefactors together, our discussion implies d = y k (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ , d = 4 y k (cid:112) d lm g (1)12 lm , d = y k (cid:112) b lm m (1) lm , (6.7)which fully specifies the magnetic charge in our theory. Note that the indices of thesecoefficients are to be contracted with the appropriate terms in (6.3). Note also that (6.7)agrees with (3.233) in [1], after appropriately summing over the free index k .Once we have the explicit form of ˜ Q EM in (5.93), we can focus on the only other termin this Hamiltonian, namely H top ≡ ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) d x (cid:88) i,j,k =1 (cid:15) ijk Tr( F i F jk ) . (6.8)Recall that ( i, j, k ) stand for the spatial directions of X : ( x , x , ˜ ψ ). Recall also that,after our simplifying assumption in (5.77), X is now a Lorentz-invariant space. A quickexercise of opening indices in both (5.79) and the above allows us to rewrite H top as H top = ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) F ( X ) ∧ F ( X ) (cid:17) . (6.9)It is well-known that the above can be rewritten as a Chern-Simons type of boundaryintegral, S top = ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) X Tr (cid:18) A ∧ d A + 2 i A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:19) , (6.10)which is gauge-invariant iff ( τ + ¯ τ ) is an integer multiple of 2 π . We will discuss this subtletyshortly, in section 6.3. For the time being, however, we will just collect our results so far.Using (6.2) and H top in (5.93), we can indeed write the Hamiltonian of our theory, afterits bulk energy has been minimized, as a boundary action, the way we wanted: S bnd ≡ ˜ Q M + S top = (cid:90) d x q M + ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) X Tr (cid:18) A ∧ d A + 2 i A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:19) , (6.11)with q M as in (6.3) and the gauge and scalar fields in the theory satisfying the constraintand BHN equations mentioned at the end of the previous section.At this stage, we have been able to minimize the energy of the four-dimensional gaugetheory defined in X that follows from the M-theory configuration (M, 1) of part I. Byconstruction, this bulk theory has N = 4 supersymmetry. After such minimization, wehave just found out that we are left with a theory whose action is given by (6.11). That is,we have a theory defined on the three-dimensional boundary X of X . All through parts Iand II, we have insisted that the presence of this boundary provides a half-BPS conditionto the full four-dimensional theory, thus reducing the amount of supersymmetry to N = 2.But, of course, this does not happen naturally: in general, arbitrary boundary conditions onthe fields break all supersymmetry. In the next section, we derive the constraints requiredto ensure the desired maximally supersymmetric boundary conditions. In this way, we will– 108 –nally make precise what we mean when we say that the warp factors in (2.2) and (2.26)and the dilaton in (4.5) should be chosen such that N = 2 supersymmetry is ensured . Whether boundary conditions that preserve some amount of supersymmetry are possible ina four-dimensional, N = 4 Yang-Mills theory coupled to matter and, if so, what these looklike are fundamental questions that were answered in [42]. In this section, we review therelevant results of this work and adapt them to our own theory. As we shall see, ensuringthat the boundary theory (6.11) previously derived has N = 2 supersymmetry is indeedpossible and only requires a mild constraint be satisfied by our supergravity parameters.As a first step towards obtaining the much desired N = 2 boundary conditions, we mustfirst understand the symmetries of our M-theory configuration (M, 1). As was explained insection 2 and as sketched in figure 1, (M, 1) is dual to the D3-NS5 system in type IIB. Thenon-abelian enhanced scenario amounts to considering N superposed D3-branes, as arguedin section 2.1.1. In the following, we will use this duality to our advantage and discussthe spacetime symmetries of (M, 1), in its non-abelian version, in the simpler scenario ofthe multiple D3’s ending on an NS5 system. We remind the reader that the underlyingmetric and orientations of both the multiple D3-branes and the single NS5-brane in thisset up were introduced right at the beginning of section 2 and are graphically summarizedin figure 2 A . It is also worth bearing in mind that, upon dimensional reduction, the four-dimensional gauge theory on the world-volume of the D3-branes has SU ( N ) as its gaugegroup and N = 4 supersymmetry. Having refreshed a bit our memory, it is easy enough toargue what symmetries are present in the D3-NS5 system.Consider the usual type IIB superstring theory. This is defined in R , . We willlabel the corresponding coordinates as x I , with I = 0 , , . . . ,
9. The associated metric issimply η IJ = diag( − , , . . . , SO (1 , SO (1 ,
9) is generated by Gamma matrices Γ I , which satisfy the usual Cliffordalgebra { Γ I , Γ J } = 2 η IJ , (6.12)and has as is its irrep. Here, we consider a ten-dimensional gauge field and Majorana-Weyl fermion, related to each other by their supersymmetry transformations. We denoteas ε the supersymmetry generator, a Majorana-Weyl spinor satisfying¯Γ ε = ε, ¯Γ ≡ Γ Γ . . . Γ . (6.13)and thus transforming in the of SO (1 , Γ . . . Γ stands for the antisym-metrized product of (Γ , Γ , . . . , Γ ).The inclusion of multiple, coincident D3-branes breaks SO (1 ,
9) to SO (1 , × SO (6),the SO (1 ,
3) oriented along the same directions as the D3’s. The NS5-brane further breaks We remind the reader that, presently, the choice is constrained by (5.78), owing to our simplifyingassumption in (5.77). – 109 –he symmetry group to (3.243) in [1]:
U ≡ SO (1 , × SO (3) × SO (3) . (6.14)This is most easily understood in two steps. First, the NS5-brane restricts one of the spatialcoordinates of the D3-branes to take only non-negative values. (In our notation, ψ ≥ A .) Demanding that Lorentz transformations leave the boundary( ψ = 0) invariant, SO (1 ,
3) breaks to SO (1 , SO (6) to SO (3) × SO (3). One of these SO (3)’s acts on the three-dimensionalsubspace spanned by the NS5-brane which is orthogonal to the directions shared with theD3’s. (In the language of figure 2 A , along ( x , x , x ).) The other SO (3) then acts onthe remaining spacetime directions. (These are ( θ , φ , r ), suppressed in figure 2 A .) Wedenote as V the irrep of U : the ( , , ) tensor product.Having established U in (6.14) as the symmetry group of the D3-NS5 system, it followsthat U is the symmetry of the configuration (M, 1) too. However, caution is needed: someof the dualities required to obtain (M, 1) from the D3-NS5 system are non-trivial (forexample, the T-duality in figure 2 C to 2 D ). Consequently, for our coming analysis to holdtrue, any specific choice of the warp factors (2.2) and (2.26) and dilaton (4.5), with theconstraint (5.78), that one may wish to consider in the metric of (M, 1) (2.56) should bechecked to be U -invariant.Focusing on the case where (M, 1) is indeed U -invariant, we can precisely reproducethe results in [11]. Let us see how. As we saw in section 4, the scalar fields associated to thedirections on which the SO (3)’s of U act are ( A ˜3 , ϕ , ϕ ) and ( ϕ , A φ , A r ), respectively.In the language of [11, 42], these are collectively referred to as (cid:126)X and (cid:126)Y . This identificationis the same as in (3.155) in [1]: (cid:126)X ≡ ( A ˜3 , ϕ , ϕ ) , (cid:126)Y ≡ ( ϕ , A φ , A r ) (6.15)and will soon prove useful to us.Let us make yet one more observation before we determine the desired half-BPS bound-ary conditions. We note that the of SO (1 ,
9) decomposes as = V ⊗ V , (6.16)where V is a 2-dimensional real vector space. The natural elements that act on V arethe even elements of the SO (1 ,
9) Clifford algebra that commute with U . It follows thenthat the supersymmetry generator ε can be decomposed as ε = ε ⊗ ε , ε ∈ V , ε ∈ V . (6.17)In order for ε to be U -invariant, ε must be a non-zero, fixed element of V ( ε is just somearbitrary element of V ). Again following [11, 42], we choose ε = (cid:32) − a (cid:33) , (6.18)– 110 –ith a a real parameter. The above is precisely the last ingredient we need to finally discusshalf-BPS boundary conditions in the four-dimensional gauge theory following from (M, 1).It is well established (for example, see [43]) that boundary conditions preserve some de-gree of supersymmetry iff they ensure that the normal (to the boundary) component of thecorresponding supercurrent vanishes. This in turn constrains the associated supersymme-try generator too. Thanks to the above discussion and, in particular, to our identifications(6.15), we can directly read off from [11, 42] the boundary conditions and constraint on ε thus obtained. We refer the interested reader to [42] for a detailed derivation of theresults we now quote. The boundary conditions on the fields are as follows. The scalarfields ( ϕ , A φ , A r ) must all vanish at ˜ ψ = 0: ϕ = A φ = A r = 0 . (6.19)The remaining scalar fields must satisfy D ˜ ψ A ˜3 − a a [ ϕ , ϕ ] = 0 , D ˜ ψ ϕ − a a [ ϕ , A ˜3 ] = 0 , D ˜ ψ ϕ − a a [ A ˜3 , ϕ ] = 0(6.20)at the boundary. Due to our choice (5.40), the above further simplifies to[ ϕ , ϕ ] = D ˜ ψ ϕ = D ˜ ψ ϕ = 0 , (6.21)for a general value of the parameter a . At ˜ ψ = 0, the gauge fields are required to obey F ˜ ψµ + a − a (cid:15) µνλ F νλ = 0 , ∀ µ, (6.22)where ( µ, ν, λ ) label the spacetime directions ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ). As for the constraint on thesupersymmetry generator, it relates the parameter a in (6.18) to the Yang-Mills couplingand gauge theory Θ-parameter as Θ / (2 π )4 π/g Y M = 2 a − a . (6.23)Owing to our prior identifications (5.82) of these two parameters to coefficients in ourfour-dimensional gauge theory, we can give a supergravity interpretation of a also: V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) c = 2 a − a → a = (cid:115) (cid:18) c V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) (cid:19) − c V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) . (6.24)This is exactly what is suggested in (3.222) and (3.223) in [1]. Yet another way to expressthe same relation follows from using (4.113) and (5.82) in (6.23), which reproduces (3.251)in [1]: c = 4 πg Y M a − a . (6.25)Now that our boundary theory in (6.11) is N = 2-supersymmetric, we need to stillovercome one more difficulty. If our M-theory configuration (M, 1) and the four-dimensional– 111 –auge theory stemming from it through dimensional reduction are to be of use in the studyof knots and their invariants: what is the three-dimensional space where knots shouldbe realized? Undoubtedly, X spanned by ( t, x , x ). Or more precisely, its Euclideanversion. Now, since knots are topological objects, it is clear that the theory in X oughtto be topological too. (At least, this should be the case for our construction to be anappropriate framework to support knots.) However, a quick look at our action (6.11)immediately tells us that this is not the case in our set up. The second, Chern-Simonsterm in the boundary action is indeed topological, but the presence of the magnetic chargeadds a non-topological contribution that naively seems undesirable from our point of view.The resolution to this puzzle was first worked out in the well-known work [44] and it consistson performing a so-called topological twist to our four-dimensional gauge theory. In thefollowing, we summarize the basics of this technique and apply it to our own theory. We begin this section by introducing the concept of topological twist. Following which, weshall show that topologically twisting our gauge theory, its corresponding boundary actionis Chern-Simons-like.If we momentarily ignore the fact that ˜ ψ ≥
0, then the symmetry of our M-theoryconfiguration (M, 1) is as in (6.14), but with SO (1 ,
2) replaced by SO (1 , SO (1 ,
3) acting along( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) to a new symmetry S (cid:48) . S (cid:48) rotates the ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ) subspace and, simulta-neously, the (˜ x , θ , x , x ) subspace too. It is not hard to see that this new symmetrynecessarily leads to the reinterpretation of the scalar fields ( A ˜3 , ϕ , ϕ , ϕ ) associated tothe new rotation directions as a one-form:Φ = (cid:88) µ Φ µ dx µ , (Φ , Φ , Φ , Φ ) = i ( ϕ , ϕ , ϕ , A ˜3 ) . (6.26)There should be no confusion regarding notation. As introduced in (5.79) and used throughall the previous section, x µ refers to the spacetime coordinates ( t, x , x , ˜ ψ ). The preciseidentification between the components of this one-form and our scalars suggested above issuch that we match the notation in [11]. It also matches (3.156) in [1]. However, otheridentifications could also be entertained. In fact, we will do so later on, in section 6.3.1.As a short aside, it will soon prove useful to introduce some notation. Followingboth [11] and (3.157) in [1], we combine the scalar fields ( A φ , A r ) associated to thedirections ( φ , r ) not affected by S (cid:48) into a complex scalar field: σ ≡ A r + i A φ , ¯ σ = A r − i A φ . (6.27)In the same spirit of using the same notation as in [11], we shall rescale our gauge fields asin (3.191) in [1]: A = (cid:88) µ A µ dx µ , A µ = i A µ , ∀ µ. (6.28)– 112 –he corresponding field strengths are then F = dA + A ∧ A = (cid:88) µ,ν F µν dx µ ∧ dx ν , F µν = ∂ µ A ν − ∂ ν A µ + [ A µ , A ν ] . (6.29)Clearly, this leads us to introduce new covariant derivatives, which match the ones used sofar (introduced earlier in (4.51)): D µ ≡ ∂ µ + [ A µ , ] = ∂ µ + i [ A µ , ] ≡ D µ , ∀ µ. (6.30)Of course, the above topological twist must be made compatible with the fact that˜ ψ ≥ N = 2 supersymmetric boundaryconditions on the fields. In other words, before proceeding further, all the results in section6.2 must be extended to the case where the gauge theory is twisted. Such generalizationwas first done in [11, 44], where the reader may find all the computational details. In thefollowing, we simply review the main pertinent results in these works, while adapting themto our present construction.We begin by making the supersymmetry generator ε in (6.13) compatible with the newsymmetry S (cid:48) . That is, we demand(Γ µν + Γ ˜ µ ˜ ν ) ε = 0 , ∀ µ, ν = t, x , x , ˜ ψ, ∀ ˜ µ, ˜ ν = ˜ x , θ , x , x , (6.31)so that ε is S (cid:48) -invariant. This condition has a two-dimensional space of solutions. If wedenote as ( ε l , ε r ) the basis of solutions, then the supersymmetry generator can be writtenas a linear combination of them both: ε = ε l + ˆ tε r , ˆ t ∈ C , (6.32)where the hat on ˆ t is meant to differentiate the above complex variable from the timecoordinate t . At this point, one repeats the same procedure as in the previous section: onerequires that the component of the supercurrent associated to ε above that is normal tothe ˜ ψ = 0 boundary vanishes. In this manner, we reproduce the same boundary conditionsas before (these are (6.19)-(6.22)), but in the twisted case: σ = ¯ σ = Φ = [Φ , Φ ] = D ˜ ψ Φ = D ˜ ψ Φ = F ˜ ψµ − i t + 1ˆ t − (cid:15) µνλ F νλ = 0 , ∀ µ. (6.33)Comparing the last boundary condition above with its untwisted counterpart in (6.22), itfollows that the parameters a and ˆ t are related to each other. Since a is additionally relatedto the gauge theory parameters ( g Y M , Θ), so must ˆ t be. These relationships also followfrom studying the constraint imposed on the supersymmetry generator by demanding thevanishing of the normal component of its supercurrent. In this latter approach, as shownin [11], the constraint that ε in (6.32) must satisfy turns out to be the exact same constraintthat ε in (6.18) has to satisfy in the untwisted case, which then led us to (6.23). Eitherof the two approaches yields (3.224) and (3.246) in [1]:ˆ t = − i ia − ia . (6.34)– 113 –he above can be rewritten in many interesting ways. For example, using (6.23), wecan write ˆ t as a function of the Yang-Mills coupling and Θ-parameter of our gauge theory:ˆ t = ˆ t ( g Y M , Θ). Further using (5.82), we can express ˆ t in terms of supergravity parametersof our M-theory configuration (M, 1): ˆ t = ˆ t ( c , V , θ nc ). A particularly neat result followsfrom considering (5.83) as well: ˆ t = ± | τ | τ , (6.35)which the reader can verify without excessive algebraic effort and which is (3.184) in [1].This is interesting because it is not obvious a priori that the two complex parameters ( τ, ˆ t )that characterize the twisted gauge theory should be related to one another. Additionally,it is surprising that they should have such a mathematically simple relation.Having introduced the topological twist and verified its consistency with all the (su-per)symmetries in our set up, we can proceed to twist the boundary action (6.11). Asanticipated, this will give rise to a topological theory in X . Let us see how exactly.Using (6.26)-(6.30) in (6.11), we see that the boundary theory after twisting becomes S ( t ) bnd = − (cid:90) d x q ( t ) M − ( τ + ¯ τ ) (cid:90) X Tr (cid:0) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:1) . (6.36)From (6.3), the twisted magnetic charge density q ( t ) M can easily be seen to be q ( t ) M = (cid:88) a,b,c =0 Tr (cid:104) (cid:88) α,β =1 d (cid:15) aαβ Φ a F αβ + (cid:15) abc (cid:16) d a [Φ b , Φ c ] + d Φ a D b Φ c (cid:17)(cid:105) , (6.37)with ( d , d , d ) as in (6.7), albeit the indices there need to be appropriately reinterpreted.As we will soon open up all indices and make explicit their meaning, the reader should notworry too much over notation at this stage. It is perhaps worth mentioning that, in thelast term, D ˜ ψ does not appear, unlike in the untwisted case (6.3). This is simply becausethe boundary conditions (6.33) guarantee no such contribution occurs. On the other hand,although (5.35) and (5.40) also force D Φ = 0, we shall carry these vanishing terms aroundbecause they will make the coming derivation of the topological boundary action moretransparent. It goes without saying that one can do the same calculation without themtoo. It turns out, however, that (6.36) is not quite the correct twisted boundary theory.One more term, proportional to the Chern-Simons term in (6.36), must be added to theabove: S ( t ) bnd,tot = S ( t ) bnd + b (cid:90) X Tr (cid:0) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:1) , b ∈ C . (6.38)This additional term is required to ensure that all observables and states on the twistedgauge theory are invariant under the supersymmetry generated by ε in (6.32). Uponincluding such term, one more striking observation can be made: not only are τ and– 114 – t related to each other, but also all physics of the twisted theory depends solely on aparticular combination of the two parameters:Ψ ≡ τ + ¯ τ τ − ¯ τ t − ˆ t − ˆ t + ˆ t − . (6.39)Ψ is usually referred to as “canonical parameter” and it appears in the correct boundarytheory as S ( t ) bnd,tot = − (cid:90) d x q ( t ) M + i Ψ (cid:90) X Tr (cid:0) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:1) . (6.40)Note that this allows us to determine the value of b , the coefficient of the required extrapiece in the boundary action, since − ( τ + ¯ τ ) + b = i Ψ = ⇒ b = τ + ¯ τ i ) + i τ − ¯ τ t − ˆ t − ˆ t + ˆ t − . (6.41)Of course, none of the statements in the above paragraph are obvious. Their proofswere worked out in exquisite detail in sections 3.4 and 3.5 in [44]. Unfortunately, a reviewof these derivations is beyond the scope of the present work. Nonetheless, the reader shouldfind no difficulty going through the cited reference, as we have carefully made our notationcoincident with the one there used.Having established (6.40) as the twisted boundary action, showing its topological na-ture amounts to appropriately rewriting it. We will do so in a few steps, the first consistingon expressing the twisted magnetic charge density q ( t ) M in differential geometry language.To this aim, let us first introduce the exterior covariant derivative of the twisted scalarfields (6.26): d A Φ ≡ d Φ + [ A, Φ] . (6.42)If we restrict d A Φ to X (where ˜ ψ = 0 and thus d ˜ ψ = 0 too) and since Φ = 0 due to (5.40)and (6.26), the above can be explicitly written as d A Φ = (cid:88) a,b =0 (cid:16) ∂ Φ b ∂x a dx a ∧ dx b + [ A a dx a , Φ b dx b ] (cid:17) (6.43)= ( D Φ − D Φ ) dt ∧ dx + ( D Φ − D Φ ) dt ∧ dx + ( D Φ − D Φ ) dx ∧ dx . Then, we can use (6.43) to introduce three more quantities, defined in X , that will soonbecome relevant to us:Φ ∧ F = (cid:16) (cid:88) a =0 Φ a dx a (cid:17) ∧ (cid:16) (cid:88) α,β =1 F αβ dx α ∧ dx β (cid:17) = 2Φ F d x, Φ ∧ Φ ∧ Φ = (Φ [Φ , Φ ] − Φ [Φ , Φ ] + Φ [Φ , Φ ]) d x, (6.44)Φ ∧ d A Φ = [Φ ( D Φ − D Φ ) − Φ ( D φ − D Φ ) + Φ ( D Φ − D Φ )] d x. – 115 –We remind the reader that d x = dt ∧ dx ∧ dx is the normalized volume element of X .) Note that, in the above, we did not take into account the whole twisted field strengthintroduced in (6.29). The reasons are similar to those which led us to (6.43). Specifically, F µ = 0 for all µ , due to the constraint (5.35) and our gauge choice (5.40). Also, ˜ ψ = 0 atthe three-dimensional boundary X of our spacetime X , implying d ˜ ψ = 0 there and thusno field strength stretching along this direction.To appreciate the benefit of having calculated (6.44), let us now carry out the sums in(6.37). In doing so, we shall use (6.7) and, through explicit computation, clear any doubtregarding index notation, as previously promised. The first sum can be easily seen to yield (cid:88) a,b,c =0 2 (cid:88) α,β =1 d (cid:15) aαβ Φ a F αβ = 2 y (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ Φ F , (6.45)with the normalization convention (cid:15) = 1 and y given by (6.6). The second sum gives (cid:88) a,b,c =0 d (cid:15) abc Φ a [Φ b , Φ c ] = 8 (cid:112) d y g (1)1212 (Φ [Φ , Φ ] − Φ [Φ , Φ ] + Φ [Φ , Φ ]) , (6.46)where we have used the fact that d kl is independent of ( k, l ) (see (4.131)) to take d ascommon factor and also the equalities y g (1)1232 = y g (1)1231 = y g (1)1212 , (6.47)which follow readily from (6.6). The third and last sum appearing in the twisted magneticcharge density is (cid:88) a,b,c =0 (cid:15) abc d Φ a D b Φ c = y Φ (cid:16)(cid:112) b m (1)12 D Φ − (cid:112) b m (1)21 D Φ (cid:17) − y Φ (cid:16)(cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ D Φ − (cid:112) b m (1)23 D Φ (cid:17) + y Φ (cid:16)(cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ D Φ − (cid:112) b m (1)13 D Φ (cid:17) . (6.48)Recall that, so far, we have only made the choice of coefficients in (5.89). We shall nowmake further choices. In particular, we want to impose y (cid:112) b m (1)12 = y (cid:112) b m (1)21 = y (cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ = y (cid:112) b m (1)23 = y (cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ = y (cid:112) b m (1)13 . (6.49)Since b = b = b and b ˜ ψ = b ˜ ψ from (4.125), the above (together with (6.6)) implieschoosing our coefficients ( m (1) , g (1) ) such that m (1)12 = ± m (1)21 , (cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ = (cid:112) b m (1)23 , (cid:113) b ˜ ψ m (1)˜ ψ = (cid:112) b m (1)13 , y m (1)12 = y m (1)23 = y m (1)13 . (6.50)– 116 – concrete such choice is to fix ( m (1)13 , m (1)21 , m (1)23 , m (1)˜ ψ , m (1)˜ ψ ) to g (1)1212 g (1)1213 m (1)13 = − m (1)21 = g (1)1212 g (1)1223 m (1)23 = − (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:115) b ˜ ψ b (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) g (1)1212 g (1)1213 m (1)˜ ψ = − (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:115) b ˜ ψ b (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) g (1)1212 g (1)1223 m (1)˜ ψ = m (1)12 , (6.51)with m (1)12 not yet fixed to any particular value. It is important to note that our choicesare in good agreement with the defining relation (5.30), since we have the full spectrum of m (2) ’s unfixed to satisfy those equalities. In this case, the sum in (6.48) gives y (cid:112) b m (1)12 [Φ ( D Φ − D Φ ) − Φ ( D Φ − D Φ ) + Φ ( D Φ − D Φ )] . (6.52)Now, comparing our prior auxiliary quantities in (6.44) with the sums (6.45), (6.46) and(6.52), it follows that q ( t ) M in (6.37) can be written in the very convenient form suggestedin (3.232) in [1]: (cid:90) d x q ( t ) M = − (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) D Φ ∧ F + 23 D Φ ∧ Φ ∧ Φ + D Φ ∧ d A Φ (cid:17) , (6.53)where we have defined the coefficients ( D , D , D ) as D ≡ − y (cid:115) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ ) , D ≡ − y (cid:112) d g (1)1212 , D ≡ − y (cid:112) b m (1)12 . (6.54)Using the above in our boundary action (6.40), we obtain (3.236) in [1]: S ( t ) bnd,tot = (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) D Φ ∧ F + 23 D Φ ∧ Φ ∧ Φ + D Φ ∧ d A Φ (cid:17) + i Ψ (cid:90) X Tr (cid:0) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A (cid:1) . (6.55)The second step required to rewrite (6.55) as a topological action consists on suitablyfixing ( D , D ). Specifically, we require that (3.237) in [1] holds true: D = D ( i Ψ) , D = D i Ψ . (6.56)From (6.6) and (6.54) it follows that, in terms of the coefficients of tables 2 and 3 (the firstones having a supergravity interpretation), the above constraints are given by1 = g (1)1213 g (1)1223 ( i Ψ) ( g (1)1212 ) (cid:18) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ ) (cid:19) / , − d / ( i Ψ) m (1)12 (cid:118)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:116) g (1)1213 g (1)1223 g (1)1212 (cid:18) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ ) (cid:19) . (6.57)These constraints can be easily satisfied: the coefficients appearing here must fulfill (5.22)and (5.30), where we have already chosen (5.89) and (5.46). Clearly, there is still ample– 117 –reedom of choice left for us. Hence, we choose to fix ( g (1)1213 , g (1)1223 ) such that the aboveholds true. Then, easy algebra yields S ( t ) bnd,tot = i Ψ (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A + 2 ˜Φ ∧ dA + 2 ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ A + 23 ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ d ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ [ A, ˜Φ] (cid:17) , (6.58)where we have used (6.29) and(6.42) and where ˜Φ is just the one-form Φ in (6.26) rescaledin the following manner: ˜Φ ≡ D i Ψ Φ . (6.59)A couple of trace identities allow us to further rewrite the boundary theory in what willsoon become a particularly enlightening form. The identities in question areTr( ˜Φ ∧ [ A, ˜Φ]) = 2Tr( ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ ˜Φ) , Tr( A ∧ d ˜Φ) = Tr( ˜Φ ∧ dA ) , (6.60)which the reader may easily verify through explicit computation with the aid of (5.35),(5.40), (6.26), (6.28) and (6.29). The second identity holds up to a total derivative only.However, since these terms are defined in X , the three-dimensional space labeled by theunbounded directions ( t, x , x ), the total derivative term does not affect the physics fol-lowing from S ( t ) bnd,tot and so we ignore it in the ongoing. Combining (6.58) and (6.60), weobtain S ( t ) bnd,tot = i Ψ (cid:90) X Tr (cid:16) A ∧ dA + 23 A ∧ A ∧ A + 2 A ∧ d ˜Φ + 2 ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ A + 23 ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ d ˜Φ + 2 ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ ˜Φ (cid:17) . (6.61)The third and last step on our way to a topological boundary theory consists on defininga modified gauge field, analogous to that in (3.240) in [1], which is a linear combination ofthe twisted gauge and scalar fields (6.26) and (6.28): A D ≡ A + ˜Φ . (6.62)It is a matter of simple algebra to check that A D ∧ dA D = A ∧ dA + ˜Φ ∧ dA + A ∧ d ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ d ˜Φ ,A D ∧ A D ∧ A D = A ∧ A ∧ A + A ∧ ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ A + ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ+ A ∧ A ∧ ˜Φ + A ∧ ˜Φ ∧ A + ˜Φ ∧ A ∧ ˜Φ + ˜Φ ∧ ˜Φ ∧ A. (6.63)Since the trace of a product is invariant under cyclic permutations of the terms in thatproduct and also due to (6.60), it is easy to see that, as promised, indeed (6.61) defines atopological field theory in X , albeit in terms of the just introduced modified gauge field A D : S ( t ) bnd,tot = i Ψ (cid:90) X Tr( A D ∧ dA D + 23 A D ∧ A D ∧ A D ) . (6.64)– 118 –he above Chern-Simons action is that in (3.241) in [1] as well. Needless to say, thissatisfies the goal stated at the beginning of the present section. Yet, before proceedingahead, there are a couple of issues worth mentioning.First, we note that in (6.64) there is still one free parameter: D . Recall that Ψ is givenby (6.39). Hence, it depends only on ( τ, ˆ t ). These two parameters have an interpretationin terms of our supergravity parameters (the warp factors and dilaton of the M-theoryconfiguration (M, 1)). As such, they are fixed when a specific model (M, 1) is considered.It turns out D can also be fixed. As argued in [11], supersymmetric Wilson loop operatorscan be associated to the boundary theory with action (6.64) iff the Chern-Simons gaugefield A D is invariant under the supersymmetry generated by ε in (6.32). Schematically, wecan express this as (3.242) in [1]: δA D = δ ( A + ˜Φ) = δ ( A + D i Ψ Φ) = 0 , (6.65)where we have made use of (6.59) and (6.62). As our notation is now such that it preciselymatches the one used in [11], the interested reader should have no difficulty in followingthe discussion in section 2.2.4 of that same reference. In it, the reader shall find the proofthat the above constraint sets the value of D to D = i Ψ t − t − i t − t − ) (cid:104) τ + ¯ τ + ( τ − ¯ τ ) ˆ t − ˆ t − ˆ t + ˆ t − (cid:105) , (6.66)where the second equality follows from (6.39). As we just said, ( τ, ˆ t ) are fixed for agiven model (M, 1). However, from (6.6) and (6.54), we see that D depends on variouscoefficients: ( d , b , m (1)12 , g (1)1212 , g (1)1213 , g (1)1223 ). As given by (4.125) and (4.131), ( d , b )are also fixed once a particular model (M, 1) is chosen via warp factors and constant dilaton.We remind the reader that ( g (1)1213 , g (1)1223 ) were already fixed in demanding that (6.57) besatisfied. Consequently, on this occasion we choose g (1)1212 such that the above holds trueand keep m (1)12 arbitrary. Of course, this new choice is still in good agreement with theconstraints summarized in table 3: the still unspecified coefficients ( m (2) , h (1) ) allow us toenforce all required equalities. Specifically, (5.22) may be satisfied by appropriately fixing h (1)1 ˜ ψkl for all ( k, l = 1 , , h (1)2 ˜ ψkl arbitrary. Similarly, enforcing (5.30)implies all ( m (2)13 , m (2)21 , m (2)23 , m (2)˜ ψ , m (2)˜ ψ ) are already determined.Second, we must refer to the point already mentioned in passing in section 6.1. Namely,the fact that the non-abelian Chern-Simons theory (6.64) is gauge-invariant iff ( i Ψ) is aninteger multiple of 2 π . In other words, a path integral formalism associated to the action(6.64) is only well defined for i Ψ2 π ∈ Z . (6.67) As the lucid work [45] shows, an appropriate analytical continuation of (6.64) would allow for a pathintegral formalism in case that such requirement is not met. This is hard to realize in our M-theoryconstruction of model (M, 1), since it would require a (to date) nonexistent formalism: topological M-theory . Needless to say, a careful study of such scenario is beyond the scope of the present work and weshall not proceed in this direction. The interested reader can gain more insight on this topic from thediscussion between (3.346) and (3.350) in [1]. – 119 –rom its very definition in (6.39), we see that Ψ does not necessarily satisfy such a property.Perhaps this observation is even more evident from (5.83) and (6.35), expressing Ψ only interms of coefficients with a supergravity interpretation, which depend only on the specificchoice of M-theory model (M, 1):Ψ = C sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) − C c V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) − ic V sin θ nc q ( θ nc ) + ic . (6.68)The conclusion from both perspectives is one and the same: we must impose some con-straints on the warp factors (2.2) and (2.26) dilaton in (4.5) if our topological boundaryis to have a path integral representation. (See table 2 for a guide to the equations linkingthe coefficients in (6.68) and the just mentioned warp factors and dilaton.) Given that inthe present work we wish not study a concrete model (M, 1), we will not elaborate on therequired constraints here. However, our analysis is only valid for the subset of M-theoryconfigurations (M, 1) that satisfy (6.67). Let us briefly refresh our memory. In part I, we constructed the M-theory model (M, 1).In this part II, we derived the Hamiltonian (5.88), defined in X (the bulk) and associatedto (M, 1). Then, a consistent minimization of its energy, for static configurations of thefields, led to the Hamiltonian (5.93). We further rewrote this as the action (6.11), whichis defined in X : the boundary of X . Upon topologically twisting (6.11), we obtained theChern-Simons action (6.64): a suitable framework for the realization of knots in our set up.Quite evidently, our analysis shall be consistent only when we also topologically twist thebulk energy minimization equations that allowed us to obtain (6.11) to begin with. Doingso is the aim of the present section.The set of energy minimization equations we must twist are, as already pointed outat the very end of section 5.2: (5.40), (5.42), (5.91) and (5.92). Before twisting, however,we make the following observation: the various coefficient choices made so far in order toobtain a topological boundary theory considerably simplify the BHN equations (5.91).To be precise, consider the third term in the second BHN equation for α = 1 and β = 2and interpret the dot product there appearing as a usual scalar product, in the same spiritas we did earlier in (5.45). Once more, we work with the normalization convention that (cid:15) = 1. Then, this term can be written as (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = (cid:112) b (cid:32) (cid:88) α =1 3 (cid:88) k =1 m (1) αk D α ϕ k (cid:33) + (cid:113) b ˜ ψ (cid:32) (cid:88) k =1 m (1)˜ ψk D ˜ ψ ϕ k (cid:33) , (6.69)where we have used the fact that b k = b k for all k = 1 , , b ˜ ψk ,as can be seen from (4.125). If we now insert in the above our coefficient choices in (6.51)and further set the till now arbitrary parameters ( m (1)11 , m (1)22 , m (1)˜ ψ ) to m (1)11 = m (1)22 = m (1)˜ ψ (cid:115) b ˜ ψ b = m (1)12 , (6.70)– 120 –hen we obtain (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = (cid:112) b m (1)12 (cid:34)(cid:16) D ϕ + D ϕ + D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:17) + (cid:16) D ϕ − D ϕ (cid:17) + g (1)1213 g (1)1212 (cid:16) D ϕ − D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:17) + g (1)1223 g (1)1212 (cid:16) D ϕ − D ˜ ψ ϕ (cid:17)(cid:35) . (6.71)Written in this manner, it is straightforward to see that the consistency requirements (5.92)set to zero each term between brackets on the right-hand side above. Further, since theBHN equation of which this term is part of is antisymmetric under the exchange of ( α, β ),the above holds true for all allowed values of these indices. That is, (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) αβ · m (1) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , ∀ α, β = 1 , . (6.72)In much the same way, one can show that the third term in the first BHN equation(5.91) also vanishes: (cid:88) δ,k =1 (cid:112) b δk (cid:15) α ˜ ψ · m (2) δk D δ ϕ k = 0 , ∀ α = 1 , . (6.73)If one interprets the dot product above as the usual scalar product, the proof is exactlyas before. In more details, one must obtain the values of the m (2) coefficients from (5.30),(6.51) and (6.70). Also, one must realize that b = b ˜ ψ owing to our approximation(5.77), which implies e φ H = 1 in (4.118). However, if one would like to consider themore general scenario where (5.77) is not imposed, (6.73) can still be enforced by simplyentertaining more elaborated interpretations of the dot product, in the vein of (5.53) earlieron. All in all, the conclusion is that our choices of the coefficients in table 3 reduce theBHN equations in (5.91) to (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F α ˜ ψ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 0 , (cid:114) i | τ | τ − ¯ τ F αβ − i (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl (cid:112) d kl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 0 , (6.74)for all α, β = 1 ,
2. As explained around (5.49), these are just Hitchin equations! Thisis a remarkable result: in our set up, the BHN equations naturally decouple to Hitchinequations and a set of constraint equations on the scalar fields there appearing. Suchresult becomes even more relevant in view that Hitchin equations are precisely the startingpoint in the study of knots and their invariants in [10]. The very same Hitchin equationsare also related to a number of other interesting topics, such as the Geometric LanglandsProgram [46].However exciting these directions may be, let us get back on track: currently, ouraim is to twist all energy minimization equations. To this aim and as already anticipated– 121 –n section 6.3, it is convenient to consider a different mapping between our scalar fieldsand their twisted one-form counterpart. In particular, instead of (6.26), we would like toconsider the identification in (3.282) in [1]:Λ = (cid:88) µ Λ µ dx µ , (Λ , Λ , Λ , Λ ˜ ψ ) = i ( A ˜3 , ϕ , ϕ , ϕ ) . (6.75)All other twisted fields remain as previously explained in (6.27)-(6.30). In this manner, thetwisted version of (5.40) and (5.42) isΛ = D η σ = D η ¯ σ = [ σ, ¯ σ ] = [ σ, Λ k ] = [¯ σ, Λ k ] = 0 , ∀ η = x , x , ˜ ψ, ∀ k = 1 , , . (6.76)Similarly, the twisted version of the Hitchin equations in (6.74) is given by F α ˜ ψ − ℵ√ (cid:88) k,l =1 h (1) α ˜ ψkl [Λ k , Λ l ] = 0 , F αβ − ℵ (cid:88) k,l =1 g (1) αβkl [ ϕ k , ϕ l ] = 0 , ∀ α, β = 1 , . (6.77)where we have defined ℵ as the following constant: ℵ ≡ (cid:115) d ( τ − ¯ τ )2 i | τ | . (6.78)The above definition uses the fact that, as can be seen from (4.131), all d kl coefficientshave the same value. Note that, from (5.83) and the equations mentioned in table 2, itfollows that ℵ depends entirely on supergravity parameters only. That is, parameters thatcharacterize the M-theory model (M, 1).At this stage, the only equations left to be twisted are those in (5.92). These become D Λ − D Λ = D Λ ˜ ψ − D ˜ ψ Λ = D Λ ˜ ψ − D ˜ ψ Λ = D Λ + D Λ + D ˜ ψ Λ ˜ ψ = 0 . (6.79)Our identifications (6.75) allow us to further rewrite the above in a very concise mannerin a differential geometry language. To do so, we first compute a few auxiliary quantities.We begin with the Hodge dual of Λ. Since (6.76) sets the time component of this one-formto zero, we can carry out this computation in the three-dimensional subspace spanned by( x , x , ˜ ψ ). As we already explained, the simplifying assumption (5.77) converts this to aEuclidean space. Consequently, the calculation is trivial and yields ∗ Λ = Λ dx ∧ d ˜ ψ − Λ dx ∧ d ˜ ψ + Λ ˜ ψ dx ∧ dx . (6.80)Making use of the exterior covariant derivative introduced in (6.42) and in much the sameway as earlier in (6.43), it is easy to see that d A Λ = ( D Λ − D Λ ) dx ∧ dx + (cid:88) α =1 ( D α Λ ˜ ψ − D ˜ ψ Λ α ) dx α ∧ d ˜ ψ,d A ∗ Λ = ( D Λ + D Λ + D ˜ ψ Λ ˜ ψ ) dx ∧ dx ∧ d ˜ ψ. (6.81)– 122 –pon comparing the above with (6.79), it is clear that this last set of constraint equationscan be written as in (3.287) in [1]: d A Λ = 0 = d A ∗ Λ , (6.82)which completes the twisting of all energy minimization equations in X .Hereupon, we have gathered a good amount of knowledge about the four-dimensionalgauge theory following from the M-theory configuration (M, 1), dual to the model in [11].In the following, we rephrase our findings in such a way that their merit is made mostvisible.Appropriately compactifying (M, 1), we have obtained its associated four-dimensionalaction (4.146), defined in the space X . Then, we have derived the corresponding Hamil-tonian and written it in the particularly convenient form (5.31). Clearly, the coefficientsappearing in the Hamiltonian are expressed only in terms of supergravity parameters of(M, 1), by construction. Minimization of the energy of this Hamiltonian for static configu-rations of the fields led to a series of constraint equations (BPS conditions) on these gaugeand scalar fields. For the gauge choice (5.35), they are given by (5.40), (5.42), (5.91) and(5.92). It turns out that all these are the same equations mentioned in [11] and derivedusing localization techniques for path integrals in [44]. Consequently, we have reproducedthe results of [11], but we have done so in the well-known, conceptually simple classicalHamiltonian formalism. In the process, we have established a precise mapping between theusual gauge theory parameters ( g Y M , Θ , τ ) and the parameters that characterize model(M, 1): (5.82) and (5.83). In other words, we have given a concrete, simple procedure toreproduce [11] and simultaneously provided a supergravity interpretation for it.After the minimization process above described, the non-vanishing part of the Hamil-tonian was rewritten as the action in (6.11). This is defined in the three-dimensional space X , the boundary of X . Of course, if our construction is to be a suitable framework forthe study of knot invariants, knots should be embedded in X . Hence, the boundary actionshould be topological for our goals. Upon a topological twist, this was proven to be indeedthe case: (6.11) converts to the Chern-Simons action (6.64). Note that the Chern-Simonsgauge field is a linear combination of the twisted gauge and scalar fields, as given by (6.62).Further, N = 2 supersymmetry was made compatible with this construction, requiring onlyappropriate boundary conditions for the twisted fields, stated in (6.33).The careful analysis of the theory in X showed that it indeed has all required featuresto host knots. What is more, additional support to this claim followed from this verysame analysis in the following manner. Overall coherence required us to twist the energyminimization conditions in the bulk if we were to focus on the twisted boundary theory.We then noted that, in obtaining (6.64), we were forced to make certain choices for thecoefficients summarized in table 3. Aptly translating such choices to our BPS conditionsrevealed that these were simplified to precisely the set of equations that are the startingpoint for the study of knots and their invariants in [10]! For completeness, we remind thereader that the twisted BPS equations are those in (6.76)-(6.79).– 123 – Summary, conclusions and outlook
In the first part of this work (sections 2 and 3), we have constructed two M-theory con-figurations: (M, 1) and (M, 5). They have both been obtained from the type IIB D3-NS5system of [11] by means of a well defined series of dualities and modifications. As depictedin figure 1, (M, 1) has been proven to be dual to the aforementioned model in [11], while(M, 5) has been argued to be dual to the resolved conifold with fluxes in [9]. An apparentindication of the seeming unrelatedness between (M, 1) and (M, 5) (and hence between themodels in [11] and [9]) is their supersymmetry: N = 2 and N = 1, respectively. However,we have been able to trace their dissimilarities to a difference in the orientation of branes ina dual type IIB picture: compare figures 2 B and 3 B . We have thus showed that, althoughdistinct, [11] and [9] are intimately related. So much so, that they constitute one and thesame physics approach to the study of knots, albeit in different frameworks, each suitableto address specific knots invariants.In the second part, we have derived and studied in depth the four-dimensional gaugetheory following from the configuration (M, 1). This gauge theory is defined in a spacethat we have named X . In sections 4 and 5, we have obtained its action and written theassociated Hamiltonian in a particularly enlightening form: a sum of squared terms, pluscontributions from the three-dimensional boundary X of X . Energy minimization thensets each such squared term to zero independently and, for static configurations of thefields, leads to various BPS conditions. These are precisely the “localization equations”of [11, 12, 44], obtained via elaborate techniques of localization of certain path integrals.This correspondence implies that our approach reproduces all the results in [11], but ina much simpler formalism. Further, due to our careful deduction of the Hamiltonian ofthe gauge theory directly from (M, 1), we have been able to map all parameters in [11]to variables of the M-theory model (M, 1). In this manner, we have been able to give aprecise supergravity interpretation to all the findings in [11].Finally, in section 6, we have focused on the boundary theory. We have shown that,upon a topological twist, a Chern-Simons action captures the physics in X . Remarkably,the Chern-Simons gauge field is a particular linear combination of the twisted gauge andscalar fields of the gauge theory in X , exactly as in [11]. Additionally, we have obtained theappropriate half-BPS boundary conditions for all the fields, which ensure that the theory in X is indeed N = 2 supersymmetric. It follows that the space X has all required featuresto host knots. In other words, after Euclideanization, knots can consistently be embeddedin X and studied in the framework of the previously described four-dimensional gaugetheory.The details regarding such embedding of knots, as well as the study of their linkingnumber, can be found in section 3.3 of [1]. In fact, this is a coherent and natural follow upto the present paper. Let us briefly summarize its contents. The key observation there is asfollows: the inclusion of certain M2-branes in the model (M, 1) can simultaneously accountfor the correct insertion of knots in X and source related changes in the BPS conditionsin X . Such M2-branes make it intuitive and natural to explain why four-dimensionaltechniques may be useful for the study of knots and their invariants. What is more, the– 124 –odifications thus sourced to the BPS conditions are accurately those identified as surfaceoperators in [10–12, 14, 47]. And so, [1] is able to give a supergravity interpretation tothese operators as M2-brane states. Finally, restriction to the abelian case, along with theimplementation of Heegard splitting, monodromy identification and the two strands braidgroup action in terms of 2 × Acknowledgments
I am specially indebted to Keshav Dasgupta, P. Ramadevi and Radu Tatar for many en-lightening discussions, pointing out useful references and their observations on preliminaryversions of the present paper. I am grateful to Maxim Emelin and Evan McDonough fortheir clarifying explanations of various subtleties in string theory. The figures in this workcould not have been possible without the help of Jatin Panwar.This work was supported in part by the National Science and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada, Grant No. 210381.
References [1] K. Dasgupta, V. Errasti Dez, P. Ramadevi and R. Tatar, “Knot invariants and M-theory:Hitchin equations, Chern-Simons actions, and surface operators,” Phys. Rev. D , no. 2,026010 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.026010 [arXiv:1608.05128 [hep-th]].[2] J. H. Conway, “An enumeration of knots and links and some of their algebraic properties;Computational problems in Abstract Algebra,” Pergamon Press, New York, 329 (1970).[3] J. H. Przytycki and K. P. Traczyk, “Invariants of links of Conway Type,” Kobe J. Math. ,115 (1987). – 125 –
4] J. W. Alexander, “Topological invariants of knots and links,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 275(1928) doi:10.2307/1989123.[5] V. F. R. Jones, “A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras,” Bull. Amer.Math. Soc. , 103 (1985).[6] E. Witten, “Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,” Commun. Math. Phys. ,351 (1989) doi:10.1007/BF01217730.[7] P. Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W. B. R. Lickorish, K. Millet and A. Ocneanu, “A newpolynomial invariant of knots and links,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 239 (1985).[8] R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory / geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor.Math. Phys. , 1415 (1999) [hep-th/9811131].[9] H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B , 419(2000) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00118-8 [hep-th/9912123].[10] S. Gukov, “Gauge theory and knot homologies,” Fortsch. Phys. , 473 (2007)doi:10.1002/prop.200610385 [arXiv:0706.2369 [hep-th]].[11] E. Witten, “Fivebranes and Knots,” arXiv:1101.3216 [hep-th].[12] D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Knot Invariants from Four-Dimensional Gauge Theory,” Adv.Theor. Math. Phys. , no. 3, 935 (2012) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2012.v16.n3.a5 [arXiv:1106.4789[hep-th]].[13] M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, “Large N Duality, Mirror Symmetry, and a Q-deformedA-polynomial for Knots,” arXiv:1204.4709 [hep-th].[14] S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Rigid Surface Operators,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , no. 1, 87(2010) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2010.v14.n1.a3 [arXiv:0804.1561 [hep-th]].[15] K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, “Brane constructions, fractional branes and Anti-de Sitterdomain walls,” JHEP , 008 (1999) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/07/008 [hep-th/9904131].[16] J. Polchinski, “Dirichlet Branes and Ramond-Ramond charges,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , 4724(1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4724 [hep-th/9510017].[17] R. Blumenhagen, D. L¨ust and S. Theisen, “Basic concepts of String Theory,” Series inTheoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin (2013).[18] http://people.brandeis.edu/ headrick/HeadrickCompendium.pdf.[19] S. Chakravarty, K. Dasgupta, O. J. Ganor and G. Rajesh, “Pinned branes and newnonLorentz invariant theories,” Nucl. Phys. B , 228 (2000)doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00354-0 [hep-th/0002175].[20] P. J. Ruback, “The Motion of Kaluza-Klein Monopoles,” Commun. Math. Phys. , 93(1986).[21] A. Sen, “A Note on enhanced gauge symmetries in M and string theory,” JHEP , 001(1997) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/09/001 [hep-th/9707123].[22] E. Witten, “Bound states of strings and p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B , 335 (1996)doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00610-9 [hep-th/9510135].[23] A. Sen, “Dynamics of multiple Kaluza-Klein monopoles in M and string theory,” Adv. Theor.Math. Phys. , 115 (1998) [hep-th/9707042]. – 126 –
24] D. Tong, “NS5-branes, T duality and world sheet instantons,” JHEP , 013 (2002)doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/013 [hep-th/0204186].[25] K. Dasgupta, K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Geometric transition, large N dualities and MQCDdynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B , 331 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00296-6[hep-th/0105066].[26] K. Dasgupta, K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Open / closed string dualities and Seiberg duality fromgeometric transitions in M theory,” JHEP , 026 (2002)doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/026 [hep-th/0106040].[27] J. Maldacena and D. Martelli, “The Unwarped, resolved, deformed conifold: Fivebranes andthe baryonic branch of the Klebanov-Strassler theory,” JHEP , 104 (2010)doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2010)104 [arXiv:0906.0591 [hep-th]].[28] F. Chen, K. Dasgupta, P. Franche, S. Katz and R. Tatar, “Supersymmetric Configurations,Geometric Transitions and New Non-Kahler Manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B , 553 (2011)doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.07.013 [arXiv:1007.5316 [hep-th]].[29] G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, D. Lust, P. Manousselis and G. Zoupanos,“NonKahler string backgrounds and their five torsion classes,” Nucl. Phys. B , 5 (2003)doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00049-X [hep-th/0211118].[30] S. Chiossi and S. Salamon, “The intrinsic torsion of SU (3) and G structures,”[arXiv:math/0202282 [math.DG]].[31] K. Dasgupta, M. Emelin and E. McDonough, “Non-Khler resolved conifold, localized fluxesin M-theory and supersymmetry,” JHEP , 179 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)179[arXiv:1412.3123 [hep-th]].[32] A. Strominger, “Superstrings with torsion,” Nucl. Phys. B , 253 (1986).[33] F. Chen, K. Dasgupta, J. M. Lapan, J. Seo and R. Tatar, “Gauge/Gravity Duality inHeterotic String Theory,” Phys. Rev. D , 066003 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.066003[arXiv:1303.4750 [hep-th]].[34] A. Strominger, S. T. Yau and E. Zaslow, “Mirror symmetry is T duality,” Nucl. Phys. B ,243 (1996) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00434-8 [hep-th/9606040].[35] M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, A. Knauf and R. Tatar, “Geometric transitions, flops andnonKahler manifolds. I.,” Nucl. Phys. B , 207 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.09.020[hep-th/0403288].[36] S. Alexander, K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, A. Knauf and R. Tatar, “In the realm ofthe geometric transitions,” Nucl. Phys. B , 231 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.10.036[hep-th/0408192].[37] M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, S. H. Katz, A. Knauf and R. Tatar, “Geometric transitions, flopsand non-Kahler manifolds. II.,” Nucl. Phys. B , 124 (2006)doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.12.023 [hep-th/0511099].[38] M. Grana, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A Comprehensive review,” Phys. Rept. , 91 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.008 [hep-th/0509003].[39] A. Sen, “Strong coupling dynamics of branes from M theory,” JHEP , 002 (1997)doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/10/002 [hep-th/9708002]. – 127 –
40] K. M. Lee and H. U. Yee, “BPS String Webs in the 6-dim (2,0) Theories,” JHEP , 057(2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/057 [hep-th/0606150].[41] C. R. Leao and V. O. Rivelles, “Off-shell duality in Born-Infeld theory,” Nucl. Phys. B ,514 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00105-5 [hep-th/0101031].[42] D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions in N=4 Super Yang-MillsTheory,” J. Statist. Phys. , 789 (2009) doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9687-3 [arXiv:0804.2902[hep-th]].[43] L. Brink, J. H. Schwarz and J. Scherk, “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B , 77 (1977).[44] A. Kapustin and E. Witten, “Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geometric LanglandsProgram,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. , 1 (2007) doi:10.4310/CNTP.2007.v1.n1.a1[hep-th/0604151].[45] E. Witten, “Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory,” AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. , 347 (2011) [arXiv:1001.2933 [hep-th]].[46] S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric LanglandsProgram,” hep-th/0612073.[47] S. Gukov, “Surface Operators,” doi:10.1007/978–3-319-18769-3 8 arXiv:1412.7127 [hep-th].[48] M. Khovanov, “A Categorification Of The Jones Polynomial,” Duke. Math. J. , 359(2000) [arXiv:math/9908171].[49] D. Bar-Natan, “On Khovanov’s Categorification Of The Jones Polynomial,” Alg. Geom.Topology , 337 (2002) [arXiv:math/0201043].[50] J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “Polynomial invariants for torus knots and topologicalstrings,” Commun. Math. Phys. , 423 (2001) doi:10.1007/s002200100374 [hep-th/0004196]., 423 (2001) doi:10.1007/s002200100374 [hep-th/0004196].