1: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

2: \documentclass[12pt,dvips]{article}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: %\usepackage{epsfig}

5: %\headheight 0.0 in

6: % \headsep 0in

7: %\textwidth 6.25 in

8: %\textheight 9 in

9: %\oddsidemargin 0.125 in

10: %\evensidemargin 0.125 in

11: %\pagestyle{plain}

12: \pagenumbering{arabic}

13: \usepackage{amsmath}

14: \usepackage[psamsfonts]{amssymb}

15: \usepackage{amsthm}

16: \usepackage{euscript}

17: 

18: \usepackage{latexsym}

19: %\pagestyle{headings}

20: %\setlength{\parindent}{0em}

21: 

22: \setlength{\topmargin}{0in}

23: \setlength{\headheight}{0in}

24: \setlength{\headsep}{0in}

25: \setlength{\topskip}{.6in}

26: \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}

27: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}

28: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}

29: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}

30: %\setlength{\mathindent}{.3in}

31: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

32: \renewcommand{\(}{\begin{equation}}

33: \renewcommand{\)}{end{equation} \vspace{-.05in}\linebreak}

34: \newcommand{\numeq}{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}}

35: \newcommand{\nonumeq}{\renewcommand{\theequation}{}}

36: \newcounter{saveeqn}

37: \newcounter{savealpheqn}

38: \newcounter{savesection}

39: \newcommand{\alpheqn}{\setcounter{saveeqn}{\value{equation}}%

40:  \stepcounter{saveeqn}\setcounter{equation}{0}%

41:  \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}

42:  \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}}

43: \def\part#1{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}%

44: \def\group#1{\refstepcounter{equation}\setcounter{saveeqn}{\value{equation}}%

45:  \label{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}%

46:  %\lineskip -2.4in%

47: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}

48:  \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}}

49: \newcommand{\reseteqn}{\setcounter{equation}{\value{saveeqn}}%

50:  %\baselineskip 1.5pt%

51:  \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}%

52:  \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}}

53: \newcounter{alphcount}

54: %\def\getletter#1{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\alph{equation}}%

55: %                 \setcounter{alphcount}{\value{equation}}

56: %                 \refstepcounter{equation}%

57: %                 %\begin{eqnarray}%

58: %                 \label{#1}%

59: %                 \setcounter{equation}{\value{alphcount}}%

60: %                 %\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\vspace{-.666in}%

61: %                 \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}}

62: %%\newcommand{\writeletters}{}

63: %\def\writeletter#1{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\alph{#1}}%

64: %                 \begin{eqnarray}%

65: %                 \label{#1}%

66: %                 \nonumber\end{eqnarray}\vspace{-.666in}}

67: %\def\getlette2r#1{\newcounter{#1}%

68: %                 \setcounter{#1}{\value{equation}}%

69: %                 \providecommand{\writeletters}{\writeletters\writeletter{#1}}}

70: %\def\agetletter#1{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\alph{equation}}%

71: %                 \begin{eqnarray}%

72: %                 \label{#1}%

73: %                 \nonumber\end{eqnarray}\vspace{-.666in}%

74: %                 \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\Alph{subsection}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}}

75: \newcommand{\aalpheqn}{\setcounter{saveeqn}{\value{equation}}%

76:  \stepcounter{saveeqn}\setcounter{equation}{0}%

77:  \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\Alph{subsection}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}

78:   \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}}

79: \newcommand{\areseteqn}{\setcounter{equation}{\value{saveeqn}}%

80:  \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{subsection}.\arabic{equation}}%

81:  \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}}

82: \newcommand{\unalph}{\setcounter{savealpheqn}{\value{equation}}%

83:  \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{saveeqn}}}}

84: \newcommand{\realph}{\setcounter{equation}{\value{savealpheqn}}}

85: \renewcommand{\=}{\hspace{-.03in}=\hspace{-.02in}}

86: %\newcommand{\+}{\hspace{-.03in}+\hspace{-.02in}}

87: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

88: \renewcommand{\(}{\begin{equation}}

89: \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}

90: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

91: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

92: \renewcommand{\l}{\lambda}

93: \renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}

94: \renewcommand{\b}{\beta}

95: \renewcommand{\r}{\rho}

96: \newcommand{\bp}{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

97:   $\hfil\displaystyle{}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern-13pt\nointerlineskip}

98:   \BIG{(}\hskip0pt\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}}

99: \newcommand{\cbp}{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

100:   $\hfil\displaystyle{}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern-13pt\nointerlineskip}

101:   \BIG{)}\hskip0pt\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}}

102: \newcommand{\pa}{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

103:   $\hfil\displaystyle{\oplus}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern+1pt\nointerlineskip}

104:   \hspace{.08in}$^{\alpha=0}$\hskip6pt\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}}

105: \renewcommand{\sp}{,\hspace{.3in}}

106: %\newcommand{\newsection}{\setcounter{equation}{0}\section}

107: \newcommand{\p}{^\prime}

108: \newcommand{\pp}{^{\prime\prime}}

109: \newcommand{\w}{\omega}

110: %\newcommand{\mod}{{\textup{\scriptsize{ mod }}}}

111: \newcommand{\rank}{{\textup{\scriptsize{rank}}}}

112: \newcommand{\rrank}{{\textup{rank}}}

113: \newcommand{\rmod}{{\textup{ mod }}}

114: \newcommand{\appendixa}

115:  {\renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{subsection}.\arabic{equation}}%

116:   \renewcommand{\thesubsection}%

117:                {Appendix \Alph{subsection}.\setcounter{equation}{0}}%

118:   \renewcommand{\alpheqn}{\aalpheqn}%

119:   \renewcommand{\reseteqn}{\areseteqn}

120:   \newcounter{savesec}}

121: \newcommand{\appendices}{\appendix\appendixa}

122: \newcommand{\R}{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}

123: \newcommand{\Rn}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb R}^n}}

124: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}

125: \newcommand{\Cn}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb C}^n}}

126: \newcommand{\PR}{\ensuremath{\mathbb P}}

127: \newcommand{\PRn}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}^n}}

128: \newcommand{\Zn}{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}^n}

129: \newcommand{\Q}{\ensuremath{\mathbb Q}}

130: \newcommand{\T}{\ensuremath{\mathbb T}}

131: \newcommand{\Tn}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb T}^n}}

132: \newcommand{\Z}{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}

133: \newcommand{\ci}{\ensuremath{{C^\infty}}}

134: \def\H{\ensuremath{\ES{H}}}

135: \def\i{\ensuremath{\dot\imath}}

136: \def\S{\ensuremath{\ES{S}}}

137: \def\L{\ensuremath{{\cal L}}}

138: \def\D{\ensuremath{{\cal D}}}

139: \def\O{\ensuremath{{\cal O}}}

140: \newcommand{\del}{\ensuremath{\partial}}

141: \newcommand{\Del}{\ensuremath{\nabla}}

142: \newcommand{\eps}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}

143: \newcommand{\half}{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}

144: \newcommand{\quart}{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{4}}}

145: \newcommand{\N}{\ensuremath{\mathcal N}}

146: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

147: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

148: \newcommand{\sub}{\subset}

149: \newcommand{\osub}{\overset{\circ}{\subset}}

150: \newcommand{\tensor}{\otimes}

151: \newcommand{\xtensor}{\boxtimes}

152: \newcommand{\contract}{\lrcorner}

153: \newcommand{\iso}{\cong}

154: \newcommand{\heq}{\simeq}

155: \newcommand{\oo}{\ensuremath{\infty}}

156: \newcommand{\iseq}{_{i=1}^{\infty}}

157: \newcommand{\onto}{\twoheadrightarrow}

158: \newcommand{\monoto}{\rightarrowtail}

159: \newcommand{\into}{\hookrightarrow}

160: 

161: \newcommand{\pderiv}[1]{\ensuremath{\frac{\del}{\del #1}}}

162: \newcommand{\pder}[2]{\ensuremath{\frac{\del #1}{\del #2}}}

163: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\ensuremath{\lvert#1\rvert}}

164: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\ensuremath{\lVert#1\rVert}}

165: \newcommand{\ip}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1\rangle}}

166: \newcommand{\op}[1]{\ensuremath{\operatorname{#1}}}

167: \newcommand{\limop}[1]{\operatornamewithlimits{#1}}

168: \newcommand{\bb}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathbb{#1}}}

169: \newcommand{\ES}[1]{\ensuremath{\EuScript{#1}}}

170: \newcommand{\EF}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{#1}}}

171: \newcommand{\expi}[1]{e^{-2\pi\i #1}}

172: 

173: %Specific newcommands

174: \newcommand{\cliff}{\ensuremath{\op{Cliff}(V)}}

175: \newcommand{\cliffc}{\ensuremath{\op{Cliff}_{\C}(V)}}

176: \newcommand{\End}{\ensuremath{\op{End}}}

177: 

178: %\theoremstyle{plain} \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}

179: %\theoremstyle{plain} \newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}

180: %\newtheorem{corollary}[thm]{Corollary}

181: %\newtheorem{proposition}[thm]{Proposition}

182: %\newtheorem{defn}[thm]{Definition}

183: 

184: \newcommand{\remark}{\noindent {\bf Remark.\ }}

185: \newcommand{\convention}{\noindent {\bf Convention.\ }}

186: \newcommand{\theproof}{\noindent {\bf Proof.\ }}

187: \newcommand{\sketchproof}{\noindent {\bf Sketch of Proof.\ }}

188: \newcommand{\done}{$\hfill \hfill \blacksquare$ \bigskip}

189: 

190: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

191: %\numberwithin{thm}{section}

192: 

193: %\def\app#1#2{\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\Alph{subsection}}%

194: %        \refstepcounter{subsection}%

195: %        \setcounter{subsection}{\value{savesec}}%

196: %        \stepcounter{savesec}\label{#1}%

197: %        \renewcommand{\thesubsection}%

198: %               {Appendix \Alph{subsection}.\setcounter{equation}{0}}%

199: %        \subsection{#2}}

200: %\def\big#1{\mbox{\Large $#1$}}

201: %\def\BIG#1{\mbox{\Huge $#1$}}

202: %\def\gb            {\mbox{$\mathfrak g$}}

203: %\def\hb            {\mbox{$\mathfrak h$}}

204: %\def\ssz           {\mbox{\tiny $\mathbb  Z$}}

205: %\def\sz            {\mbox{\scriptsize $\mathbb  Z$}}

206: %\def\R             {\textup{R}\hsp{-.104}\textup{I}\hsp{.03}}

207: %\def\H             {\textup{H}\hsp{-.104}\textup{I}\hsp{.03}}

208: %\def\zl            {\mbox{$\mathbb  Z_\l$}}

209: %\def\subsecz       {\mbox{\large $\mathbb  Z$}}

210: %\def\mz            {\mbox{\Large $\mathbb  Z$}}

211: %\def\mzl           {\mbox{\Large $\mathbb  Z_\l$}}

212: %\def\omzl          {\mbox{\Large /$\mathbb  Z_\l$}}

213: %\def\lz            {\mbox{\Huge $\mathbb  Z$}}

214: %\def\d             {\mbox{$\mathbb D$}}

215: %\def\dl            {\mbox{$\mathbb D_\l$}}

216: %\def\subsecd       {\mbox{\large $\mathbb  D$}}

217: %\def\md            {\mbox{\Large $\mathbb  D$}}

218: 

219: 

220: \def\journal{\topmargin .5in    \oddsidemargin .5in

221:         \headheight 0pt \headsep 0pt

222:         \textwidth 5.625in % 1.2 preprint size  %6.5in

223:         \textheight 8.25in % 1.2 preprint size 9in

224:         \marginparwidth 1.5in

225:         \parindent 2em

226:         \parskip .5ex plus .1ex         \jot = 1.5ex}

227: %

228: %       The default is set to be journal!

229: %\journal

230: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}

231: %\mathchardef\endbar="375

232: %\font\fivesans=cmss10 at 4.61pt

233: %\font\sevensans=cmss10 at 6.81pt

234: %\font\tensans=cmss10 at 12pt %added ``at 12pt''

235: %\newfam\sansfam

236: %\textfont\sansfam=\tensans\scriptfont\sansfam=\sevensans\scriptscriptfont

237: %\sansfam=\fivesans

238: %\def\sans{\fam\sansfam\tensans}

239: %\def\Z{{\mathchoice

240: %{\hbox{$\sans\textstyle Z\kern-0.455em Z$}} %was .4

241: %{\hbox{$\sans\textstyle Z\kern-0.455em Z$}} %was .4

242: %{\hbox{$\sans\scriptstyle Z\kern-0.355em Z$}} %was .3

243: %{\hbox{$\sans\scriptscriptstyle Z\kern-0.255em Z$}}}} %was .2

244: 

245: 

246: %\font\tensans=cmss10 at 14pt 

247: %\newfam\sansfamb

248: %\textfont\sansfamb=\tensans\scriptfont\sansfamb=\sevensans\scriptscriptfont

249: %\sansfamb=\fivesans

250: %\def\sansb{\fam\sansfamb\tensans}

251: %\font\tensans=cmss10 at 17pt

252: %\newfam\sansfamc

253: %\textfont\sansfamc=\tensans\scriptfont\sansfamc=\sevensans\scriptscriptfont

254: %\sansfamc=\fivesans

255: %\def\sansc{\fam\sansfamc\tensans}

256: %\def\contr#1#2{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

257: %  $\hfil\displaystyle{#2}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt\nointerlineskip}

258: %  \hspace{.09in}\rule[0in]{.01in}{.1in}\rule[0in]{#1in}{.01in}\rule[0in]{.01in}{.1in}\hskip6pt\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}}

259: %\def\contrb#1#2#3{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

260: %  $\hfil\displaystyle{#3}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt\nointerlineskip}

261: %  \hspace{#1in}\rule[0in]{.01in}{.1in}\rule[0in]{#2in}{.01in}\rule[0in]{.01in}{.1in}\hskip6pt\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}}

262: %\def\namegroup#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\vspace{-.5in}}

263: \def\hsp#1{\hspace{#1in}}

264: \def\rf#1{\ref{ref#1}}

265: \def\comment#1{\hsp{.3}\textup{#1}}

266: 

267: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq\langle}}

268: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq\rangle}}

269: \catcode`\@=11

270: \def\vereq#1#2{\lower3pt\vbox{\baselineskip1.5pt \lineskip1.5pt

271: \ialign{$\m@th#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

272: \catcode`\@=12

273: 

274: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.15}

275: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.85}

276: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.65}

277: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.60}

278: \makeatletter

279: \newcommand\figcaption{\def\@captype{figure}\caption}

280: \newcommand\tabcaption{\def\@captype{table}\caption}

281: \makeatother

282: \renewcommand{\(}{\begin{equation}}

283: \renewcommand{\)}{\end{equation}}

284: 

285: \begin{document}

286: \begin{titlepage}

287: \begin{flushright}

288: UCB-PTH-01/44 \\

289: hep-th/0112084

290: \end{flushright}

291: 

292: \vspace{2em}

293: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

294: 

295: \begin{center}

296: {\Large K-Theory and S-Duality: Starting Over from Square 3}

297: \end{center}

298: \vspace{1em}

299: 

300: \begin{center}

301: Jarah Evslin\footnote{E-Mail: jarah@uclink4.berkeley.edu} and Uday Varadarajan\footnote{E-Mail: udayv@socrates.berkeley.edu} 

302: \end{center}

303: 

304: \begin{center}

305: \vspace{1em}

306: {\em Department of Mathematics,

307:      University of California\\

308:      Berkeley, California 94720}\\

309: {\hsp{.3}}\\

310: {\em Department of Physics,

311:      University of California\\

312:      Berkeley, California 94720}\\

313: \hsp{.3}\\

314: {\em Theoretical Physics Group\\

315:      Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\

316:      1 Cyclotron Rd,

317:      Berkeley, California 94720}

318: 

319: \end{center}

320: 

321: \vspace{3em}

322: \begin{abstract}

323: \noindent

324: Recently Maldacena, Moore, and Seiberg (MMS) have proposed a physical

325: interpretation of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence, which

326: roughly computes the K-homology groups that classify D-branes. We note

327: that in IIB string theory, this approach can be generalized to

328: include NS charged objects and conjecture an S-duality covariant,

329: nonlinear extension of the spectral sequence.  We then compute the

330: contribution of the MMS double-instanton configuration to the

331: derivation $d_5$.  We conclude with an M-theoretic generalization

332: reminiscent of 11-dimensional $E_8$ gauge theory.

333: 

334: \end{abstract}

335: 

336: \vfill

337: December 11, 2001

338: 

339: \end{titlepage}

340: \setcounter{footnote}{0} 

341: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

342: 

343: 

344: \pagebreak

345: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}

346: %\tableofcontents

347: \pagebreak 

348: 

349: \section{Introduction}

350: \group{dummy}\reseteqn

351: Various manifestations of K-theory appear to classify D-brane

352: configurations at large distances and weak coupling \cite{MM,WittenK}.

353: This is a consequence of the proposal \cite{Sen} that each

354: configuration is related, by the dynamical process of tachyon

355: condensation, to a universe filled with non-BPS D9-branes

356: \cite{HoravaIIA} or D9-$\overline{\textup{D}9}$ pairs whose tachyon

357: fields are sections of bundles over the 10-dimensional spacetime.  One

358: can then define the configurations before and after tachyon

359: condensation to be equivalent.  Tachyon configurations are classified

360: by K-theory \cite{WittenK} and so we learn that K-theory classifies

361: D-brane configurations as well.

362: 

363: In IIB string theory, S-duality would suggest a similar classification

364: of NS and RR charged objects. However, tachyon configurations on space

365: filling branes do not obviously yield NS5-branes or fundamental

366: strings\footnote{For an exception, see \cite{HarveyMoore}.}. Of

367: course, one could simply impose S-duality and then arrive at a

368: ``K-theory'' classification that includes NS charged objects, but some

369: authors \cite{AspinwallPlesser} have suggested that perhaps S-duality

370: itself fails when discrete torsions are involved.

371: 

372: While the tachyon condensation approach to D-brane classification is

373: difficult to generalize to other branes, the approach recently

374: proposed by Maldacena, Moore, and Seiberg \cite{MMS} generalizes

375: beautifully.  Consider all of the consistent time independent states

376: and identify the ones related by physical processes, which are

377: manifested in examples as ``instantonic'' branes.  In the case of

378: D-branes in an H-field, this prescription may be used to construct an

379: Atiyah-Hirzebruch \cite{AH} spectral sequence which computes the

380: K-group of a space (modulo an extension problem related to the

381: dimension of torsional brane charges \cite{Gimon}). We introduce an

382: extension of this procedure which includes fundamental strings,

383: NS5-branes and branes in M-theory.

384: 

385: We will require three tools.  The non-torsion part of the problem will

386: be understood using the classical equations of motion and Bianchi

387: identities from IIB and 11-dimensional supergravity. In particular,

388: the nonlinearities in supergravity translate into corresponding

389: nonlinearities in the ``differentials'' of the sequence. Incorporating

390: torsion corrections in IIB will require a variation of the

391: Freed-Witten anomaly, which restricts NS5-branes to wrap spin$^c$

392: submanifolds of spacetime to avoid D-string worldsheet anomalies.  The

393: nontorsion classification in M-theory will be understood via an

394: interpretation of M5-branes as defects in an $E_8$ bundle over the

395: 11-dimensional spacetime, the restriction to 11 dimensions of a

396: 12-dimensional construction that appeared in

397: Refs.~\cite{Stong,FluxQuant,DMW}.

398: 

399: In section \ref{gensec}, after briefly reviewing the Atiyah-Hirzebruch

400: spectral sequence, we present our conjecture for an S-duality

401: covariant extension of the sequence.  Then in Sec.~\ref{sugsec} we

402: review the facts that we will need from classical IIB supergravity and

403: review branes ending on branes that wrap a cycle supporting flux.  In

404: the following section we present the MMS interpretation of the

405: spectral sequence and generalize it to include NS5-branes and strings

406: in the supergravity limit, where torsion is neglected.  In the next

407: section the Freed-Witten anomaly is reviewed and generalized, which

408: allows torsion to be incorporated in the new sequence.  In section

409: \ref{susec} examples are given and in particular we consider the SU(3)

410: WZW model in some detail.  The double-instanton found in

411: Ref.~\cite{MMS} is generalized and its contribution to the

412: differential $d_5$ is computed.  This analysis is extended to include

413: NS5-branes and strings in the SU(3) case.  In the last section the

414: techniques of this paper are applied to M theory.

415: 

416: \section{The Conjecture}\label{gensec}

417: \subsection{The AHSS} \label{origsec}

418: The Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence \cite{AH} is an algorithm which

419: relates cohomology and the K-groups $K^*(M)$. First introduce a filtration

420: on $K(M)$ by defining

421: \begin{equation}

422: K_p = \textup{Ker\ }K(M) \rightarrow K(M^p)

423: \end{equation}

424: where $M_p$ is the p-skeleton of M.  The spectral sequence then

425: computes, for example, the associated graded algebra of $K^1(M)$

426: \begin{equation}

427: \textup{Gr}K^1=\oplus_q K_{q+1}^1/K_{q}^1.

428: \end{equation}

429: 

430: This process procedes through a series of approximations $K^1\sim

431: E_n$ which terminate after a

432: finite number of iterations. The first approximation is integer-valued cohomology

433: \begin{equation}

434: E_1=\bigoplus_{j\textup{\ odd}}E_1^{j}=\bigoplus_{j\textup{\

435:     odd}}H^{j}(M,\Z). \label{e1}

436: \end{equation}

437: Successive approximations result from taking the cohomology of

438: (\ref{e1}) with respect to a sequence of differentials

439: \begin{equation}

440: d_{p+2}:E_{p}^q\rightarrow E_{p}^{q+p+2}

441: \end{equation}

442: where $p$ is odd.  That is,

443: \begin{equation}

444: E_{p+2}=\textup{ker}(d_{p+2})/\textup{Im}(d_{p+2})

445: \end{equation}

446: giving $E_{p+2}$ as an equivalence class of subsets of $E_{p}$.  For

447: sufficiently high $p$,

448: \begin{equation}

449: \textup{Gr}K^1=E_{p+2}

450: \end{equation}

451: and then $K^1$ can be computed by the solution of an extension problem.

452: 

453: In IIA string theory only $d_3$ is needed, that is, the associated

454: graded algebra is simply $E_3$.  In IIB this is also true with the

455: exception of $d_5$ acting on the 3 form fieldstrengths of 5-branes in

456: the presence of a nontrivial H flux, which is sometimes nontrivial

457: \cite{MMS}. As we will review later,

458: \begin{equation}

459: d_3=Sq^3+H

460: \end{equation}

461: and so

462: \begin{equation}

463: \textup{Gr}K^1=\textup{Ker}(Sq^3+H)/\textup{Im}(Sq^3+H) \label{oldk}

464: \end{equation}

465: up to $d_5$ corrections.  Thus (\ref{oldk}) classifies which integral

466: cohomology classes may be realized as RR fluxes in string theory.  Our

467: goal is to extend this formula to include NS fluxes in IIB.

468: 

469: \subsection{S-Duality Covariant AHSS}

470: We propose the following modified Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence

471: as a starting point for an S-duality covariant classification for

472: fluxes in IIB string theory. Instead of beginning with the complex of

473: odd dimensional cohomology classes (\ref{e1}), one begins with

474: \begin{equation}

475: E_1=H^1\bigoplus H^3\bigoplus H^3\bigoplus H^5\bigoplus H^7\bigoplus H^7. 

476: \end{equation}

477: 

478: As we will explain below, the MMS interpretation of the differentials

479: combined with a generalization of the Freed-Witten anomaly argument

480: suggest

481: \group{main}

482: \begin{equation}

483: d_3^1(G_1)=(Sq^3+H\cup)G_1

484: \end{equation}

485: \begin{equation}

486: d_3^3(G_3,H)=Sq^3(G_3+H)+G_3\cup H \label{conjb}

487: \end{equation}

488: \begin{equation}

489: d_3^{5a}(G_5)=(Sq^3+H\cup) G_5\sp

490: d_3^{5b}(G_5)=(Sq^3+G_3\cup) G_5

491: \end{equation}

492: \begin{equation}

493: d_3^7(*G_3,*H)=Sq^3(*G_3+*H)+H\cup *G_3.

494: \end{equation}

495: \reseteqn 

496: Notice that the $Sq^3$ terms are trivial in all but (\ref{conjb}).

497: We claim that flux configurations which are not annihilated by the

498: above differentials are anomalous.  In particular, in the supergravity

499: limit where one ignores the torsion terms, this condition is

500: equivalent to the enforcement of supergravity equations of motion, to

501: be reviewed in Subsec.~\ref{sugrasec}.  In addition we claim that flux

502: configurations that are exact under either of these differential

503: operators are unstable, and decay via dynamical processes to be

504: described below.

505: 

506: Notice that the action of $d_3$ in Eq.~(\ref{conjb}) is not always

507: linear! This nonlinearity can be traced to the nonlinearity of the

508: corresponding supergravity equations of motion. Notice that in the

509: absence of the $H$-field and NS5 branes, the supergravity equations of

510: motion, and hence the differential, becomes linear. So what do we mean by

511: taking the cohomology with respect to $d_3$?  As we will see when we

512: review interpretation of this sequence due to Maldacena, Moore, and

513: Seiberg (MMS), we mean simply that physical flux configurations are

514: those annihilated by $d_3$.  In the linear case we quotient by the

515: image of $d_3$ because the corresponding states may decay via physical

516: process.  In fact there are many interesting examples where $d_3$ is

517: linear, such as all of the examples studied by MMS.  A weak form of

518: this conjecture may be stated which only includes this subset of

519: configurations.  In the present paper we consider a stronger form of

520: this conjecture, in which we claim that all states which are related

521: by the addition of any element in the image of $d_3$ are related by a

522: physical process and thus equivalent in the sense of MMS.  The fact

523: that this is possible is supported by the fact that in known examples

524: the image of $d_3$ is still a linear space.  It would be interesting

525: to find and study a counterexample of this.  Of course when $d_3$ is

526: nonlinear it is an abuse of language to continue to use to the phrases

527: ``differential operator'' and ``spectral sequence''.

528: 

529: We know that this is not a complete list of differential operators.

530: In particular there are examples \cite{MMS} that illustrate that anomaly

531: cancellation can require the operator $d_5$, and new instantons can

532: allow states to decay which are exact under $d_5$ but not under $d_3$.

533: We consider some such configurations in detail in Section

534: \ref{susec}. We leave the completion of this list and its interpretation to a

535: sequel.

536: 

537: %Notice that all of the $Sq^3$s are trivial except for the one in

538: %$d_3^3$ 

539: 

540: \section{Review of Branes in IIB Supergravity} \label{sugsec}

541: \subsection{Classical Equations of Motion} \label{sugrasec}

542: The low energy effective theory of IIB string theory is 10-dimensional

543: IIB supergravity, which has the following action (here the

544: self-duality constraint for $G_5$ is imposed by hand):

545: 

546: \group{s}

547: \begin{equation}

548: S=-\frac{1}{4\kappa_{10}^2}\int d^{10}x(-g)^{1/2}[\mathcal{L}_{NS}+\mathcal{L}_R+\mathcal{L}_{CS}]

549: \end{equation}

550: \vspace{-.3in}

551: \begin{equation}

552: \mathcal{L}_{NS}=e^{-2\Phi}(-2R-8\partial_\mu\Phi\partial^\mu\Phi+|H|^2)

553: \end{equation}

554: \vspace{-.3in}

555: \begin{equation}

556: \mathcal{L}_{R}=|G_1|^2+|G_3|^2+\frac{1}{2}|G_5|^2

557: \end{equation}

558: \vspace{-.3in}

559: \begin{equation}

560: \mathcal{L}_{CS}=H\wedge C_4\wedge dC_2

561: \end{equation}

562: \reseteqn 

563: where we have defined the gauge invariant fieldstrengths

564: 

565: \begin{equation}

566: G_3=dC_2+H\wedge C_0\sp

567: G_5=dC_4+\frac{1}{2}H\wedge C_2-\frac{1}{2}B\wedge dC_2. \label{strength}

568: \end{equation}

569: In terms of these fieldstrengths the Bianchi identities can be rewritten

570:  

571: \begin{equation}

572: ddB=dH=0\sp

573: ddC_{p-1}=d(G_p-H\wedge C_{p-3})=dG_p-H\wedge G_{p-2}=0. \label{bianchi}

574: \end{equation}

575: The equations of motion are

576: 

577: \begin{equation}

578: d*H\sim G_3\wedge G_5\sp

579: d*dC_{p-1}=d*G_p-H\wedge *G_{p+2}=0. \label{h}

580: \end{equation}

581: 

582: We will be interested in D$p$-branes, fundamental strings, NS5-branes,

583: M2-branes and M5-branes, which couple to the connections $C_{p+1}$,

584: $B$, $B^{dual}$, $C_3$ and $C^{dual}$ respectively.  The corresponding

585: fieldstrengths are \group{strengths}

586: \begin{equation}

587: G_{p+2}=dC_{p+1}-H\wedge C_{p-1}\sp

588: H=dB\sp *H=d{B^{dual}}

589: \end{equation}

590: \vspace{-.3in}

591: \begin{equation}

592: G_4=dC_3 \sp *G_4=d(C^{dual})

593: \end{equation}

594: \reseteqn 

595: 

596: \subsection{Branes Ending on Branes} \label{bendonb}

597: Imagine that a D$p$-brane wraps a 3-cycle that supports $k$ units of

598: $H$-flux. As a D$p$-brane gives rise to a transverse $G_{8-p}$-flux,

599: $G_{8-p}\wedge H \neq 0$ and the supergravity equation of motion from

600: Subsec. \ref{sugrasec}

601: \begin{equation}

602: H\wedge G_{8-p}=dG_{10-p} \label{sug2}

603: \end{equation}

604: implies the existence of nonzero D$(p-2)$-brane current $G_{10-p}$

605: emanating from the D$p$-brane, transverse to both the 3-cycle

606: supporting the $H$-flux and any $S^{8-p}$ linking the

607: D$p$-brane. Integrating both sides oen finds that the current can be

608: associated with the presence of $k$ units of D($p-2$)-brane charge.

609: Thus, $k$ D($p-2$)-branes must end on any D$p$-brane wrapping a

610: 3-cycle with $k$ units of flux.

611: 

612: The above arguments can be used to demonstrate that a D$p$-brane

613: wrapped on a $p$-cycle with $k$ units of $G_p$-flux must be the

614: endpoint of $k$ fundamental strings.  For the case $p=3$ this is the

615: S-dual of $k$ D-strings ending on a D3-brane wrapping a three-cycle

616: with $k$ units of $H$-flux.  For the case $p$=5 it is the S-dual of

617: D-strings ending on an NS5-brane, a configuration to which we will now

618: turn our attention.

619: 

620: \begin{figure}[ht]

621:   \centering \includegraphics[width=4in]{mms.eps}

622: \caption{A D$p$-brane wraps a 3-sphere that supports 4 units of $H$

623: flux.  Anomaly cancellation requires that 4 D$(p-2)$-branes end on

624: this D$p$-brane.  Thus the lone D$p$-brane is not allowed.  Also the

625: number of D$(p-2)$-branes is only defined modulo 4 because a dynamical

626: process involving similarly wrapped D$p$-brane instantons can create

627: or destroy 4 of them at a time.}  \label{mms}

628: \end{figure}

629: 

630: Consider an NS5-brane that wraps a $p$-cycle $Z$ supporting $k$ units of

631: $G_{p}$-flux.  Employing the S-dual of the above argument, the NS5

632: brane is linked by a 3-sphere such that

633: \begin{equation}

634: \int_{S^3}H=1.

635: \end{equation}

636: Now we may integrate the supergravity equation of motion

637: \begin{equation}

638: H\wedge G_p=dG_{p+2}

639: \end{equation}

640: over $S^3 \times Z$ to see that there are $k$ D3-branes intersecting

641: every 3-sphere linking the NS5-brane and so $k$ D3-branes must be

642: threaded down the NS5-brane's throat.

643: 

644: \section{Maldacena-Moore-Seiberg Construction of the AHSS}

645: \subsection{Lifting Cohomology to K-Theory}

646: The K-theory classification of D-branes in IIB string theory

647: represents all configurations of D-branes as defects in the tachyon

648: field on the worldvolume theory of a collection of unstable

649: D9-$\overline{\textup{D}9}$ pairs.  In particular the D$p$-branes are

650: Poincare dual to $c_{(9-p)/2}$ of an associated vector bundle.  Thus

651: all D-brane configurations yield a cohomology class, however not every

652: cohomology class is a Chern class of a vector bundle.

653: 

654: For example, consider a D5-brane which is Poincare dual to some 4-form

655: $\omega$.  As $\omega$ has no higher form components, the D5-brane

656: carries no lower brane charges.  Such a D5-brane is allowed if

657: $\omega$ is $c_2$ of some vector bundle.  In the absence of D7-branes,

658: this bundle must have

659: \begin{equation}

660: c_1=0\sp

661: c_2=\omega.

662: \end{equation}

663: However for any vector bundle

664: \begin{equation}

665: c_3=c_1\wedge c_2+Sq^2 c_2\ \textup{mod\ } 2

666: \end{equation}

667: where ``mod 2'' means that these two-forms agree as elements of the

668: $\Z_2$ valued cohomology of spacetime.  $c_1$ vanishes and so $c_3$

669: must be equal to $Sq^2 c_2$ mod 2.  However a Chern class is an

670: element of integral cohomology, and so $c_3$ must be the lift of $Sq^2

671: c_2$ to integral cohomology.  A differential form has such a lift

672: precisely when it is annihilated by $Sq^1$ and so the existence of the

673: desired bundle requires

674: \begin{equation}

675: 0=Sq^1 Sq^2 \omega=Sq^3 \omega

676: \end{equation}

677: where the last equality came from an Adem relation.  

678: 

679: Thus we find that a D5-brane configuration corresponds to a section of

680: some bundle on D9-$\overline{\textup{D}9}$ pairs exactly if its

681: Poincare dual is annihilated by $Sq^3$.  Thus $Sq^3$ is an obstruction

682: to lifting an element of $H^4$ to K-theory.

683: 

684: In the presence of an $H$-field we are not interested in K-theory, but

685: rather in twisted K-theory \cite{WittenK} or perhaps the algebraic

686: K-theory of sections of a $PU(\infty)$ bundle \cite{BM} or

687: ${\hat{E}}_8$\ bundle. In this case the above obstruction is actually

688: \begin{equation}

689: d_3=Sq^3+H.

690: \end{equation}  

691: This is one of many obstructions, but remarkably only a finite number

692: of obstructions exist for a given differential form and these are all

693: contained in the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS) reviewed

694: in Subsec.~\ref{origsec}.  Physically

695: the failure of this sequence of differentials to annihilate the

696: Poincare dual of the submanifold wrapped by a D-brane indicates the

697: presence of an anomaly which in the case $p=3$ is the Freed-Witten

698: anomaly \cite{FreedWitten}.

699: 

700: Not only do some elements of cohomology fail to lift to K-theory, but

701: others are equivalent in K-theory.  More precisely, two differential

702: forms are equivalent as K-theory elements if they differ by a form

703: which is in the image of any of the above differentials $d_p$.  The

704: physical interpretation is that equivalent brane configurations are

705: related by dynamical processes.  In IIA only $p=3$ is nontrivial.  In

706: IIB $p=3$ is nontrivial and also, when $H\neq 0$, $p=5$ gives a

707: restriction on allowed D5-brane wrappings and identifies states with

708: different numbers of D1-branes.

709: 

710: \subsection{The MMS Construction}

711: Maldacena, Moore, and Seiberg \cite{MMS} propose the following

712: classification scheme for physical states.  Start with all states

713: which are consistent time independent backgrounds, in this case that

714: means all D-branes wrap submanifolds dual to elements of the kernels

715: of all of the above differential operators.  Then identify states that

716: are related by physical processes, that is, identify D-branes wrapping

717: submanifolds whose duals differ by an element of the image of some

718: differential.  The final result of this classification scheme is

719: therefore the cohomology with respect to all of the above differential

720: operators, which in IIB is the associated graded algebra of $K_0$.  If

721: instead of branes we considere fluxes then we are instead interested

722: in $K^1$.  After solving an extension problem, one arrives at the

723: desired K-group.

724: 

725: This prescription has a simple realization in terms of branes ending

726: on instantonic branes.  Here ``instantonic'' refers either to

727: solutions of the Euclidean equation of motion giving rise to tunneling

728: between charge states or solutions of the Lorentzian equations of motion

729: corresponding to allowed transitions between them.  The idea is that

730: an instantonic D$p$-brane can wrap a nontrivial 3-cycle which supports

731: $k$ units of $H$-flux.  Assume that the image of the D$p$-brane is

732: spin$^c$ or equivalently that its dual is annihilated by $Sq^3$.  As we

733: saw above, the classical equations of motion require that $k$ D$(p-2)$

734: branes end on this D$p$-brane.  We will see that this is also required

735: for anomaly cancellation on the worldsheet theory of fundamental

736: strings that end on the D$p$-brane.  The result is that the lone D$p$

737: brane configuration is forbidden and a state consisting of $k$

738: D$(p-2)$-branes is trivial, as it decays to the vacuum via a process

739: with an instantonic D$p$-brane.

740: 

741: In the language of the AHSS, the Poincare dual (in the 9-dimensional sense)

742: $\omega$ of the submanifold wrapped by the D$p$-brane is not

743: annihilated by the differential $d_3=Sq^3+H$, instead

744: \begin{equation}

745: d_3 \omega=\eta

746: \end{equation}

747: where $\eta$ is dual (in the 10-dimensional sense) to the submanifold

748: inhabited by the D$(p-2)$-branes.  Thus the D$p$-brane corresponds to

749: a form that is not $d_3$-closed and so is forbidden, while the $k$

750: D$(p-2)$-branes correspond to a form which is $d_3$-exact and so their

751: configuration is trivial.  In particular they can decay into the

752: vacuum.

753: 

754: K-theory not only classifies charges, but also classifies fluxes

755: \cite{MW}.  Technically it is K-cohomology rather than K-homology

756: \cite{Periwal,HarveyMoore} that classifies fluxes, but this is a

757: subtlety that we ignore throughout this paper as our goal is simply to

758: generalize the spectral sequence, and not to learn what generalization

759: of K-theory our result describes.  The allowed RR fluxes are those

760: which satisfy

761: \begin{equation}

762: d_3 G_p=Sq^3G_p+H\wedge G_p=0. \label{rrcond}

763: \end{equation}

764: This is simply the Bianchi identity (\ref{bianchi}) and classical

765: equation of motion (\ref{h}) in the absence of D-brane sources and with a torsion correction.

766: Equation (\ref{rrcond}) is precisely the flux version of the statement

767: discussed above for charges.

768: 

769: \subsection{Generalization}

770: As suggested in Ref.~\cite{MMS2}, this result can be generalized to

771: include NS5-branes and fundamental strings.  In particular, an NS5

772: brane can only wrap a 3-cycle with $k$ units of $G_3$-flux if it is

773: the endpoint of $k$ D3-branes.  This is the S-dual of the $p=5$ case

774: of the previous section.  Thus some lone NS5-brane wrappings are not

775: allowed, while some D3-brane configurations that were nontrivial using

776: only the considerations of the previous section are actually trivial

777: because of the dynamical process in which an instantonic NS5-brane

778: appears from the vaccuum, absorbs the D3-branes and then vanishes

779: again.

780: 

781: Including the processes of this section and the last, the total number

782: of D3-branes is conserved only modulo the greatest common divisor of

783: the $G_3$ and $H$-flux supported on any 3-cycle due to the effects of

784: instantonic NS5-and D5-branes respectively.  More generally the D3

785: branes themselves may have nontrivial wrappings, in which case the

786: relation is more complicated.  These effects may be built into a

787: generalization of the AHSS in which one begins with both NS and RR

788: fields and defines $d_1$ to be the exterior derivative in both cases.

789: Again $d_3$ is defined on RR fluxes by

790: \begin{equation}

791: d_3 G_p=(Sq^3+H)G_p. \label{rr1}

792: \end{equation}

793: D3-branes ending on instantonic NS5-branes can be incorporated if one defines the action of $d_3$ on $H$ as follows:

794: \begin{equation}

795: d_3 H= G_3\wedge H

796: \end{equation}

797: where torsion terms will be incorporated in Sec.~\ref{torsec}.

798: 

799: \begin{figure}[ht]

800:   \centering \includegraphics[width=4in]{d3.eps}

801: \caption{A D5-brane and $\overline{\textup{NS5}}$ wrap a three sphere

802:   that supports 4 units of $H$-flux and 6 of $G_3$-flux.  Anomaly

803:   cancellation requires that 4 D3-branes end on the D5-brane and 6 begin on

804:   the $\overline{\textup{NS5}}$.  Therefore one allowed process begins

805:   with 5 D3-branes, 4 of which decay via the instantonic D5-brane

806:   leaving just 1.  Later the instantonic $\overline{\textup{NS5}}$

807:   appears and disappears, leaving 6 more D3-branes for a total of 7.

808:   Thus we see that the number of D3-branes is only conserved modulo 2,

809:   where 2 is the greatest common divisor of 4 and 6.}

810:   \label{d3}

811: \end{figure}

812: 

813: There is another relevant process.  Recall that a D$p$-brane can wrap

814: a $p$-cycle which supports $k$ units of $G_p$-flux, in which

815: case it needs to be the endpoint of $k$ fundamental strings.  Thus

816: some D$p$-brane wrappings which seemed consistent according to

817: (\ref{rr1}) actually prove to be inconsistent.  To account for this, one

818: would like to create the differential $D$ such that

819: \begin{equation}

820: DG_p\supset G_{8-p}\wedge G_p \label{gend}

821: \end{equation}

822: however in this paper we will restrict our attention to the

823: generalizations of $d_3$ and $d_5$, which increase the degree of a

824: form by 3 and 5 respectively.

825: 

826: The degree 3 case of (\ref{gend}) occurs only for the case $p=5$,

827: corresponding to D3-branes wrapping 3-cycles that support $k$ units of

828: $G_3$-flux.  These branes must be the endpoints of $k$ fundamental

829: strings, which is the S-dual of the statement from the previous

830: section with $p=3$.  Thus the embedding of a D3-brane has two

831: consistency conditions, one coming from the $H$-flux of a 3-cycle that

832: it wraps and one from the $G_3$-flux.  $q$ units of $H$-flux and $p$

833: of $G_3$-flux require that a $(p,q)$ string end on the D3-brane.  This

834: is summarized by requiring the vanishing of a new differential

835: $d^\prime_3$ on the $G_5$-flux surrounding a D3-brane:

836: \begin{equation}

837: d^\prime_3 G_5=G_3\wedge G_5

838: \end{equation}

839: where again torsion will be incorporated in Sec.~\ref{torsec}.

840: 

841: \section{Torsion} \label{torsec}

842: \subsection{The Freed-Witten Anomaly}

843: Consider a gauge theory on a manifold $M$ with gauge group $G$.  A fermion that transforms

844: in the fundamental representation of the gauge group is a section of

845: the bundle

846: \begin{equation}

847: S(M)\otimes G \label{bund}

848: \end{equation}

849: where $S(M)$ is a spin ``bundle'' and $G$ is the associated vector ``bundle'' on

850: which some gauge field $A$ is a connection.  The word ``bundle''

851: appears in quotes because charged fermions may exist even in the

852: absence of a spin bundle, that is on a manifold that is not spin.

853: More precisely, the ``bundle''s in (\ref{bund}) may have transition

854: functions whose triple products are not the identity, so long as the

855: triple products in $S(M)$ and $G$ cancel so that the tensor product

856: (\ref{bund}) is an actual bundle.  Such a bundle defines a spin$^c$

857: structure on $M$, and so we see that $M$ must be spin$^c$ if the gauge

858: theory contains charged fermions.

859: 

860: The gauge theory on the worldvolume of a D-brane does contain charged

861: fermions, arising from the endpoints of fundamental strings.

862: Therefore D-branes are restricted to wrap spin$^c$ submanifolds of

863: spacetime which are submanifolds $N\subset M$ whose third

864: Stieffel-Whitney class vanishes,

865: \begin{equation}

866: W_3(N)=0.  \label{w3}

867: \end{equation} 

868: The Steenrod square $Sq^3$ is a map from $p$-forms $\omega$ to

869: $(p+3)$-forms $\eta$ that takes the Poincare dual of $N$ to itself

870: wedged with $W_3$ of the normal bundle of $N$ pushed forward onto $M$.  This

871: map is not necessarily an injection and so

872: \begin{equation}

873: i_*(W_3(N))\equiv Sq^3(PD(N))=0 \label{sq3}

874: \end{equation}

875: is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the satisfaction of

876: Eq.~(\ref{w3}).  We will see in an example below that combining

877: (\ref{sq3}) with a degree five differential operator better

878: approximates the condition (\ref{w3}).

879: 

880: We have just seen that the differential forms Poincare dual to a

881: configuration of D-branes must be annihilated by $Sq^3$.  Similarly

882: \cite{MW} the corresponding fieldstrengths must be annihilated by

883: $Sq^3$.

884: 

885: \subsection{Freed-Witten with $H$-flux}

886: In the presence of a nontrivial $H$-field the situation becomes

887: slightly more complicated.  Although the answer appeared in

888: \cite{WittenK}, the answer was later justified in \cite{FreedWitten}

889: by an analysis of a global anomaly in the worldsheet path integral of

890: an open string ending on a D-brane.

891: 

892: In the absence of a $B$-field the path integral measure for a string

893: with worldsheet $\Sigma$ contains the terms

894: \begin{equation}

895: \textup{pfaff}(D)exp(i\oint_{\partial\Sigma}A) \label{nob}

896: \end{equation}

897: where $D$ is the worldsheet Dirac operator and $A$ is the gauge

898: potential of the worldvolume $U(1)$ gauge theory on the D-brane.  The

899: authors showed that it suffices to consider the case in which the same

900: spin structure is used for left movers and right movers.  In this case

901: the Dirac operator is real and so pfaff($D$) must be real.

902: 

903: The pfaffian is real, but there is no natural way to determine its

904: sign.  Instead one may try to choose a sign, but there may be no

905: consistent sign choice.  That is, it may be that whatever sign one

906: chooses, if the worldsheet slides along a particular circle and

907: returns to its original position the sign may flip.  In fact the

908: authors proved that the sign flips

909: \begin{equation}

910: \alpha=\int_{S}w_2(N)

911: \end{equation}

912: times, where $S$ is the surface traced out by $\partial\Sigma$ and

913: $w_2(N)$ is the second Stieffel-Whitney class of the submanifold into

914: which the brane is embedded.

915: 

916: Thus the path integral measure is only well defined if the holonomy

917: $exp(i\oint A)$ changes signs $\alpha$ times as well.  In this case

918: $A$ could not actually be the connection on a bundle, as this would

919: imply that $\alpha=0$, but rather $A$ is the connection on a

920: ``bundle''.  The fact that both terms in (\ref{nob}) yield cancelling

921: contributions implies that the tensor product of the spin ``bundle''

922: and the ``bundle'' on which $A$ is a connection gives an actual

923: bundle.  Just as in the last subsection, this bundle provides a

924: spin$^c$ structure.  The worldvolume and worldsheet approaches in

925: these two subsections had to agree, as charged fermions on the D-brane

926: worldvolume are the result of such worldsheets.  In particular, such

927: an $A$ exists precisely when $N$ is spin$^c$ or equivalently

928: $W_3(N)=0$.

929: 

930: In the presence of a B-field (\ref{nob}) becomes

931: \begin{equation}

932: \textup{pfaff}(D)exp(i\oint_{\Sigma}B)exp(i\oint_{\partial\Sigma}A) .

933: \end{equation}

934: Now anomaly cancellation requires that $A$ be chosen so that the

935: change in holonomy $exp(i\oint A)$ precisely cancels the change in the

936: product of the first two terms.  The obstruction to the existence of

937: such an $A$ is no longer simply $W_3(N)$, but there is a new

938: correction arising from $H=dB$.  The holonomy now needs to change

939: signs $\int(w_2+B)$ times and so for a general $H$ the condition for

940: the existence of $A$ is now

941: \begin{equation}

942: \beta(w_2+B)=W_3+H=0. \label{splush}

943: \end{equation}

944: Thus a D-brane wraps a spin$^c$ submanifold $N$ if and only if $N$

945: carries trivial $H$, however a D-brane can instead wrap a submanifold

946: $N$ which is not spin$^c$ in the presence of a nonvanishing $H$ which

947: is precisely equal to $W_3(N)$.  In particular $2H=0$ on any wrapped submanifold.

948: 

949: \subsection{Strings and NS5-Branes}

950: We have seen that D-branes can only wrap submanifolds that are

951: spin$^c$, or more generally, that satisfy (\ref{splush}).  This

952: analysis is readily extended to fundamental strings and NS5-branes.

953: First, the restriction is trivial in the case of fundamental strings

954: as they sweep out two dimensional surfaces, which are automatically spin$^c$.

955: There is no analog of the $H$ term because there are no objects that

956: end on fundamental strings in the weak coupling limit of type II.

957: 

958: While we do not know how to extend this argument to the NS5-branes of

959: IIA, in IIB NS5-branes host worldvolume 5+1 dimensional $U(1)$ gauge

960: theories.  These theories have charged fermions arising from the ends

961: of D-strings.  Thus we expect NS5-branes to wrap spin$^c$

962: submanifolds.  This was seen in an example in Ref.~\cite{WittenB} and in more generality in Ref.~\cite{WittenD}.  However the worldvolume of the D-strings couples to the

963: 2-form $C_2$ and so if this $C_2$ is nontrivial then one may expect

964: that worldsheet anomaly cancellation on the D-string provides a

965: correction to $(\ref{nob})$.  In particular if one trusts the S-dual

966: of the argument above one may suspect that

967: \begin{equation}

968: W_3+G_3=0 

969: \end{equation} 

970: on the worldvolume of the NS5-brane.

971: 

972: Applying this relation to the $H$-flux whose source\footnote{The

973:   arguments of Ref.~\cite{MW} suggest that such relations on sources

974:   also apply to the fields that they create.} was the NS5-brane, one

975: would find

976: \begin{equation}

977: (Sq^3+G_3)H=0.  \label{splusg}

978: \end{equation}

979: As evidence for (\ref{splusg}) notice that in the supergravity

980: approximation it reduces to $G_3\wedge H=0$, which at the level of cohomology is a supergravity equation of motion (\ref{bianchi}).

981: Eq.~(\ref{splusg}) will serve only as a motivation for our conjecture.

982: 

983: \subsection{Condition on $G_3$ and $H$}

984: To motivate the condition Eq.~(\ref{conjb}) on the pair $G_3$ and $H$,

985: let us review the relevant pieces of our argument.  First we know that

986: in the supergravity limit torsion corrections can be neglected and so

987: the supergravity equation of motion

988: \begin{equation}

989: G_3\wedge H=0\textup{\ \ when\ $G\wedge G=H\wedge H=0$}

990: \end{equation}

991: holds at the level of rational cohomology.  Also we use the fact that there are

992: fermions charged in a $U(1)$ gauge theory on the worldvolume a single

993: D5 or NS5-brane with no background fluxes to arrive at

994: \begin{equation}

995: W_3=0\textup{\ \ when\ $H=0$}

996: \end{equation}

997: on a D5-brane worldvolume (the Freed-Witten anomaly) and

998: \begin{equation}

999: W_3=0\textup{\ \ when\ $G=0$}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: on an NS5-brane worldvolume.  These imply that $Sq^3$ annihilates the

1002: Poincare duals of the worldvolumes.  Following the reasoning of \cite{MW}

1003: this translates into restrictions of the corresponding fieldstrengths:

1004: \begin{equation}

1005: Sq^3(G_3)=0\textup{\ \ when\ $H=0$}\sp

1006: Sq^3(H)=0\textup{\ \ when\ $G_3=0$}\sp

1007: \end{equation}

1008: respectively.

1009: 

1010: Furthermore we know \cite{FreedWitten} that a D5-brane can be wrapped on a

1011: manifold with $W_3\neq 0$ when there is a background $H$ that

1012: precisely cancels this $W_3$.  This suggests that the generalization

1013: of the above formulas involves mod 2 additions of Steenrod squares and

1014: fluxes so that they may cancel each other.  There is not enough

1015: information to specify the generalization completely, thus the final

1016: form will be a conjecture.  Neglecting $G_3$ and $H$ independent

1017: terms\footnote{We have no reason to disallow such terms, except that

1018:   they have not been seen in examples.}, there are two natural guesses

1019: for the desired condition.

1020: 

1021: \noindent

1022: Condition $A$:

1023: \begin{equation}

1024: (Sq^3+H)G_3=(Sq^3+G_3)H=0 \label{conda}

1025: \end{equation}

1026: 

1027: \noindent

1028: Condition $B$:

1029: \begin{equation}

1030: G\wedge H_3+Sq^3(G_3+H)=0. \label{condb}

1031: \end{equation}

1032: 

1033: Notice that only condition $B$-is S-duality invariant.  Condition $B$

1034: has also appeared in \cite{DMW} as a possible generalization.  In fact, the

1035: authors verified it via the M-theory partition function in the case of

1036: IIB configuarations that can be obtained via the compactification of

1037: M-theory on a torus.  Below we will provide an example which appears

1038: to exclude\footnote{More precisely it excludes a worldvolume version

1039:   of $A$ in terms of $W_3$'s.} condition $A$ but is consistent with

1040: $B$.

1041: 

1042: \section{Evidence and SU(3)} \label{susec}

1043: Notice that among all of the restrictions in our conjecture, only

1044: (\ref{conjb}) has a nonvanishing torsion term.  The rest are simply

1045: implications of the supergravity equations of motion.  Thus

1046: Eq.~(\ref{conjb}) deserves the most scrutiny.

1047: 

1048: Of course there is more to the conjecture than simply the

1049: restrictions, there is also the assertion that physical states which

1050: are $d_3$ exact can dynamically decay to the vacuum via instantonic

1051: branes as a result of the MMS construction.

1052: 

1053: \subsection{NS5-Brane Backreaction}

1054: String perturbation theory breaks down in the near-horizon region of

1055: an NS5-brane when $g_s$ is small at infinity.  This means that one

1056: requires extra care when formulating arguments concerning the physics

1057: of this region.  Here we present three reasons to trust the arguments presented above.

1058: 

1059: First, as already noted, in every case but one the restriction

1060: is simply a well-known supergravity equation of motion.  Our only

1061: contribution is to interpret these equations in the MMS framework so

1062: as to show the compatibility of the K-theory framework with S-duality

1063: at the level of $d_3$.

1064: 

1065: Second, the supergravity arguments are formulated on a sphere

1066: consisting of points at any fixed distance from the NS5-brane, in

1067: particular a distance can be chosen to be large enough so that string perturbation theory

1068: is valid.  The fact that the signed intersection number of D3-branes

1069: with this tube is equal to the $G_3$-flux on a 3-cycle wrapped by the

1070: NS5-brane indicates that the 3-branes must thread down the

1071: throat of the NS5-brane as desired.

1072: 

1073: Finally, the torsion arguments are the result of the anomaly structure

1074: of the NS5-brane worldvolume theory.  In particular, U(1) charged

1075: fermions require a spin$^c$ structure, or equivalently the Pfaffian of

1076: the Dirac operator must be well defined.  Such arguments tend to be

1077: stable under deformations of the theory.  In particular, one could

1078: increase $g_s$ thereby smoothing the geometry around the NS5-brane and

1079: then make the same arguments, which one expects to still hold when the

1080: asymptotic string coupling is turned back down.  One may still be

1081: concerned that strong coupling effects near the NS5-brane lead to

1082: additional terms in the D-string worldvolume that may cancel this

1083: anomaly, such as the $G_3$ term which can cancel the anomaly in the

1084: case of an NS5-brane in a RR background.  If such terms do exist

1085: then perhaps one may learn about them by understanding when this

1086: anomaly argument fails.

1087: 

1088: In addition to the near-horizon geometry of NS5-branes, there is also

1089: reason to be concerned about the validity of S-duality, particularly

1090: in cases with less than 16 supercharges and torsion cohomology classes

1091: \cite{AspinwallPlesser}.  For this reason we do not invoke S-duality

1092: in such cases.  Yet our conjecture does turn out to be consistent with

1093: S-duality.

1094: 

1095: \subsection{(1,1) 5-branes on Non-Spin$^c$ Manifolds}

1096: 

1097: Consider a $(1,1)$ 5-brane wrapped around a submanifold $N\subset M$

1098: with no background fluxes that restrict nontrivially to the

1099: submanifold.  The

1100: brane will create fluxes $G_3=H$ and so in particular the conditions

1101: on the fluxes (\ref{conda}) and (\ref{condb}) can be reexpressed\\

1102: 

1103: \noindent

1104: Condition $A$:

1105: \group{condaa}

1106: \begin{equation}

1107: 0=Sq^3 G_3+H\wedge G_3=G_3\wedge G_3+G_3\wedge G_3=2 G_3\wedge G_3

1108: \end{equation}

1109: \vspace{-.3in}

1110: \begin{equation}

1111: 0=Sq^3 H+H\wedge G_3=H\wedge H+H\wedge H=2 H\wedge H

1112: \end{equation}

1113: \reseteqn

1114: 

1115: \noindent

1116: Condition $B$:

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: 0=Sq^3 (G_3+H)+H\wedge G_3=G_3\wedge G_3+H\wedge H+G_3\wedge H=3G_3\wedge G_3=Sq^3(G_3).

1119: \end{equation}

1120: In particular condition $A$ is always satisfied.  Condition $B$ is not

1121: satisfied precisely when $Sq^3 G_3\neq 0$.  In particular if condition

1122: $B$ is not satisfied then $N$ is not spin$^c$, because $Sq^3 G_3$ is a

1123: pushforward of $W_3(N)$.

1124: 

1125: However a (1,1) 5-brane carries a U(1) gauge field and has charged

1126: fermions corresponding to (1,1) strings that end on it.  Thus the

1127: worldvolume must have a spin$^c$ structure so that the Dirac operator

1128: for these fermions can be constructed.  This means that in fact there

1129: is an anomaly if a (1,1) 5-brane wraps a non-spin$^c$ submanifold.

1130: And so we learn that whenever $W_3(N)$ is not in the kernel of the

1131: pushforward $i_*$ of the inclusion $i:M\hookrightarrow N$, the anomaly

1132: is predicted by condition $B$ but not predicted by condition $A$,

1133: which is always satisfied for a (1,1) 5-brane with no background

1134: fluxes.  This is yet another piece of evidence in favor of condition

1135: B, which is the condition chosen in our conjecture.

1136: 

1137: While unfortunately $i_*$ does kill $W_3(N)$ for all submanifolds $N$

1138: that we know how to wrap branes around\footnote{An exception may be

1139: the $\R$P$^5$ in Ref.~\cite{WittenB}, but in our paper, which is about

1140: IIB, we do not consider configurations with orientifolds.}, we will

1141: now illustrate an example of this (1,1) 5-brane anomaly in a case

1142: where $W_3(N)\neq 0$ but $Sq^3=0$.

1143: 

1144: \subsection{The Topology of SU(3)}

1145: 

1146: We will consider type II string theory on SU(3)$\times\R^{1,1}$.  We

1147: will begin with type IIA, reviewing the results of \cite{MMS} and

1148: then will employ T-duality to understand the scenario of interest.

1149: First we will describe the relevant features of the topology of the

1150: SU(3) group manifold.

1151: 

1152: The nonvanishing integral homology classes of SU(3) are

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: H_0(SU(3),\Z)=\Z, ~~ H_3(SU(3),\Z)=\Z, ~~

1155: H_5(SU(3),\Z)=\Z, ~~ H_8(SU(3),\Z)=\Z,

1156: \end{equation}

1157: which are represented by the submanifolds $p$, $S^3$, $M_5$, and

1158: $SU(3)$ respectively, where  $p$ is a point, $S^3$ is an embedded $SU(2)$

1159: and $M_5$ is the group manifold SU(3)/SO(3).  Similarly the integral

1160: cohomology ring is trivial except for $H^0$, $H^3$, $H^5$, and $H^8$

1161: which are isomorphic to $\Z$ and generated by $1,\ x_3,\ x_5$, and

1162: $x_8$ which are Poincare dual to SU(3), $M_5$, $S^3$, and $p$

1163: respectively.  The $\Z_2$ homology and cohomology classes are the same

1164: with $\Z$ replaced by $\Z_2$.

1165: 

1166: The submanifold $M_5$ is more interesting.  This has nonvanishing

1167: integral homology classes

1168: \begin{equation}

1169: H_0(M_5,\Z)=\Z\sp H_2(M_5,\Z)=\Z_2\sp H_5(M_5,\Z)=\Z

1170: \end{equation}

1171: with generators $q$, $M_2$ and $M_5$ respectively where $M_2 \sub M_5$ is a

1172: 2-sphere.  By the universal coefficient theorem the $\Z_2$ homology

1173: is similar

1174: \begin{equation}

1175: H_0(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H_2(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H_3(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H_5(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2

1176: \end{equation}

1177: where $H_3(M_5,\Z_2)$ is generated by an $M_3 \sub M_5$ whose boundary wraps the

1178: 2-sphere $M_2$ twice.  The integral cohomology classes are

1179: \begin{equation}

1180: H^0(M_5,\Z)=\Z\sp H^3(M_5,\Z)=\Z_2\sp H^5(M_5,\Z)=\Z

1181: \end{equation}

1182: where the generator of $H^3(M_5,\Z)$ is $W_3(M_5)\neq 0$, the third

1183: Stieffel-Whitney class of $M_5$.  In particular $M_5$ is not spin$^c$.

1184: The $\Z_2$ cohomology is

1185: \begin{equation}

1186: H^0(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H^2(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H^3(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2\sp H^5(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2

1187: \end{equation}

1188: where $H^2(M_5,\Z_2)$ is generated by $W_2(M_5)$, the second

1189: Stieffel-Whitney class.

1190: 

1191: The authors consider a background $H$-field of $H=k x_3$.  They then

1192: show that this $H$-field restricts nontrivially to $M_5$:

1193: \begin{equation}

1194: x_3|_{M_5}=W_3(M_5).

1195: \end{equation}

1196: They conclude that if a D6-brane wraps $M_5$ precisely once, the

1197: condition for worldvolume anomaly cancellation is the constraint

1198: \begin{equation}

1199: 0=W_3(M_5)+H|_{M_5}=(1+k)W_3(M_5)

1200: \end{equation}

1201: which is satisfied precisely when $k$ is odd.

1202: %We are not sure how to

1203: %interpret this situation, as the D6-brane flux appears to have nowhere

1204: %to go.  We also do not know how to interpret the decay of $k$ of these

1205: %D6-branes via a D8-brane instanton.  While the D6-branes do decay,

1206: %they do not decay to the IIA vacuum, but rather decay to the vacuum of

1207: %a massive IIA supergravity, as D8-brane instantons change the

1208: %cosmological constant.  Thus we do not know how one should classify

1209: %the vacua in IIA.  However we will be interested in the T-dual

1210: %scenario where such issues do not arise.

1211: 

1212: \subsection{A (1,1) 5-brane on $M_5$}

1213: Compactify the noncompact spatial direction on a circle, T-dualize

1214: with respect to it and then take the radius back to infinity.  This

1215: gives the same configuration as above but in IIB.  Now one can wrap a

1216: (1,1) 5-brane around $M_5$.  Notice that (1,1) strings may end on the

1217: 5-brane and they will yield fermions charged under the $U(1)$

1218: worldvolume gauge group.  In the absence of any external fluxes that

1219: might affect the path integral of the (1,1) string, anomaly

1220: cancellation requires that the submanifold wrapped by the 5-brane be

1221: spin$^c$.  However $M_5$ is not spin$^c$ and so this configuration is

1222: anomalous.

1223: 

1224: So we see that $W_3\neq 0$ and there is an example of the kind of

1225: anomaly employed throughout this paper.  Unfortunately $W_3$ is

1226: annihilated by $i_*$ and so $Sq^3=0$, thus the anomalous configuration

1227: is not excluded by $d_3$.  However, as seen in the T-dual situation in

1228: Ref.~\cite{MMS}, the anomaly is detected by $d_5$.

1229: 

1230: \subsection{The MMS Instanton and $d_5$}

1231: Consider IIB on SU(3)$\times\R^{1,1}$ with a background flux $H=kx_3$.

1232: Following Ref.~\cite{MMS}, anomaly cancelation on the worldvolume of an

1233: instantonic D7-brane wrapped around the SU(3) implies that such

1234: instantons are the endpoint of $k$ D5-branes which each wrap $M_5$.

1235: Thus a state consisting of a multiple of $k$ such D5-branes can

1236: dynamically decay to the vacuum.  Similarly one can wrap an

1237: instantonic D3-brane around $M_3\times\R$ and anomaly cancellation

1238: requires $k$ D1-branes extended along $\R$ to end on it.  Thus D1-brane

1239: number is also, at most, conserved modulo $k$.

1240: 

1241: To summarize, after taking the cohomology with respect to

1242: $d_3=Sq^3+H$, we find that D5-branes wrapped on $M_5$ are classified

1243: by $\Z_k$ and D1-branes wrapped on $\R$ are also classified by $\Z_k$.

1244: However $M_5$ is not spin$^c$, therefore if a D5-brane wraps $M_5$ $r$

1245: times, the anomaly cancellation condition on the brane worldvolume is

1246: \begin{equation}

1247: 0=r(W_3+H)=r(1+k).

1248: \end{equation}

1249: When $r$ is even this is always satisfied and so an even number of

1250: wrappings is always permitted.  However an odd number of wrappings is

1251: anomalous whenever $k$ is even.  Thus these D5-branes are actually

1252: only classified by elements of $2\Z_k=\Z_{k/2}$, in disagreement with

1253: the above calculation obtained using only $d_3$.  Notice that when $H$

1254: and so $k$ vanishes, the D5-branes continue to be classified by $\Z$,

1255: although half of the wrappings that one would expect become anomalous.

1256: Thus one would like to find that $d_5$ is nontrivial precisely when

1257: $k$ is even and $k>0$.

1258: 

1259: As a hint, we examine instantonic D5-branes wrapped on $M_5\times\R$.

1260: The anomaly cancellation condition is

1261: \begin{equation}

1262: 0=W_3(M_5)+H|_{M_5}=(1+k)x_3

1263: \end{equation}

1264: where $x_3$ is the generator of $H^3(M_5,\Z_2)=\Z_2$.  This is

1265: satisfied when $k$ is odd.  When $k$ is even, anomaly cancellation

1266: requires an instantonic D3-brane whose boundary is $M_2\times\R\subset

1267: M_5\times\R$.  Recall that $M_2$ is the generator of

1268: $H_2(M_5,\Z)=\Z_2$ and so it is not a boundary in $M_5$.  However

1269: $H_2(SU(3))=0$ and so $M_2$ must bound a 3-manifold $X$ in SU(3).  The

1270: instantonic D3-brane wraps some $X\times\R$.  We have seen that the

1271: boundary of $M_3$ is two copies of $M_2$ and in fact two copies of $X$

1272: can be deformed to $M_3$.  Moreover the $H$-flux restricted to $X$ is

1273: precisely half of the total $k$ units of $H$-flux.  As $X$ is a 3

1274: manifold, it is trivially spin$^c$ and so anomaly cancellation only

1275: demands that $k/2$ D1-branes extended along $\R$ must end on the

1276: D3-brane.  Therefore this double-instanton violates D1 charge by $k/2$

1277: units, meaning that like D5-branes wrapped on $M_5$, D1-branes are

1278: classified by $\Z_{k/2}$.  Again this disagrees with the result

1279: obtained by simply taking the cohomology with respect to $d_3$.  As

1280: recognized in Ref.~\cite{MMS}, the reason for this discrepency is that

1281: $d_5$ acts via

1282: \begin{equation}

1283: d_5(x_3)=\frac{k}{2}x_5\cup x_3=\frac{k}{2}x_8

1284: \end{equation}

1285: but it would be desirable to have a formula in terms of a

1286: cohomological operation, so that it may generalize to other examples.

1287: 

1288: \begin{figure}[ht]

1289:   \centering \includegraphics[width=6in]{double.eps}

1290: \caption{The double-instanton of Maldacena, Moore, and Seiberg for

1291:   $k=10$.  The primary instanton is an instantonic D5-brane which

1292:   wraps $M_5\times\R$ while a secondary instantonic D3-brane wraps

1293:   $\R$ crossed with a 3-cycle in SU(3).  This 3-cycle is bounded by

1294:   $M_2$, the Poincare dual of $W_3(M_5) + H$ in $M_5$.  Anomaly

1295:   cancellation on the secondary instanton implies that it must devour

1296:   $k/2=5$ D-strings extended along $\R$.}

1297:   \label{double}

1298: \end{figure}

1299: 

1300: The crucial observation is that this contribution to $d_5$ is the

1301: result of an instanton with a secondary instantonic brane that is

1302: bounded by $M_2$ which is Poincare dual in $M_5$ to $W_3(M_5)+H$.  The

1303: fact that the boundary is PD to $W_3+H$ is independent of the example,

1304: it was the condition for anomaly cancellation on the primary

1305: instantonic brane.  The secondary instanton wraps ``half of $M_3$'',

1306: which is PD in $M_5$ to $w_2+B$.  Again this fact is example

1307: independent as a result of the following argument.  The primary

1308: instanton's anomaly required that $H^3(M_5,\Z)$ contain a $\Z_2$ class

1309: $W_3+H$.  The fact that this is a $\Z_2$ class implies that there is

1310: some 2-cochain $b$ whose coboundary is precisely twice the 3-cochain

1311: $c$ corresponding to $W_3+H$.  Now consider the dual chain complex and

1312: let $\beta$ be the dual 2-chain to $b$ and $\gamma$ the dual 3-chain

1313: to $c$.  Then $\partial(c)=2b$.  The boundary of the secondary

1314: instanton wraps $b$ and so the rest of the instanton must wrap $c/2$,

1315: an expression which only makes sense when interpreted in terms of the

1316: total spacetime which, being spin$^c$ itself, may be required to have

1317: such a cycle.  If the total spacetime does not have such a cycle, then

1318: this double-instanton cannot exist and thus the contribution to $d_5$

1319: is zero.

1320: 

1321: To review, the double-instanton consists of a primary instanton which

1322: wraps a submanifold $N$ and a secondary instanton whose boundary wraps

1323: a submanifold of $N$ PD to $W_3(N)+H$.  The worldvolume of the

1324: secondary instanton is $c/2$ where $c$ is the homology class PD to

1325: $w_2(N)+B$ and $c/2$ is interpreted as a chain in the total space.

1326: The secondary instanton itself is subject to anomaly cancellation.

1327: That is

1328: \begin{equation}

1329: W_3(c/2)+H|_{c/2}=0.

1330: \end{equation}

1331: In our example and the T-dual example of Ref.~\cite{MMS}, the dimension of

1332: the secondary instanton is small enough that the $W_3$ term can be

1333: ignored and we will ignore it for now.  It seems quite possible that

1334: this happens in general.  This leaves

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: 0=H|_{c/2}=\frac{1}{2}H|_c=\frac{1}{2}(H\cup (w_2(N)+B))|_N. \label{d5world}

1337: \end{equation}

1338: We would like a cohomological formula in terms of the PD of $N$ in the

1339: total space, or in terms of the dual fieldstrength of a D-brane

1340: wrapped on $N$.  To obtain this, we simply pushforward

1341: Eq.~(\ref{d5world}) onto the total space $i:N\hookrightarrow M$.  This

1342: yields the condition

1343: \begin{equation}

1344: \frac{1}{2}i_*(H\cup (w_2(N)+B))=0.

1345: \end{equation}

1346: Thus the contribution of the double-instanton to $d_5$ appears to be

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: d_5(\omega)=\frac{1}{2}i_*(H\cup(w_2(\textup{PD}(\omega))+B)). \label{d5}

1349: \end{equation}

1350: If division by two is not possible, this double-instanton must create

1351: a state with half a unit of D-string charge.  An example of such a

1352: state will be described below.

1353: 

1354: Notice that in the SU(3)$\times\R^{1,1}$\ case

1355: \begin{equation}

1356: d_5=\frac{1}{2}H\cup Sq^2.

1357: \end{equation}

1358: Like (\ref{d5}), this formula is difficult to decipher.  Applying

1359: $d_5$ to $x_3$ we find the cup product of $H$ with $Sq^2(x_3)$.  This

1360: cup product is well defined in $\Z_2$ cohomology, but we do not want

1361: to restrict $H$ to $\Z_2$ cohomology because we need $k/2$.  Instead we interpret this expression as follows.  Include

1362: $\Z_2=H^5(SU(3),\Z_2)\into H^5(SU(3),\Z)=\Z$ such that the inclusion

1363: is the identity modulo 2.  This is not a homomorphism and it is not

1364: canonical.  Different choices of inclusion will yield different

1365: expressions for $d_5$, but these expressions will differ by $H$ cupped

1366: with a 2-cocycle.  However recall that we have quotiented by $d_3=H$

1367: and so in this quotient ring the different possible expressions for

1368: $d_5$ are all equal and so $d_5$ is well defined, although it is not

1369: well defined on $H^*(SU(3))$.

1370: 

1371: We do not claim that this is a complete expression for $d_5$, merely

1372: that it is the contribution to $d_5$ from the double-instanton of

1373: Ref.~\cite{MMS}.  In particular, $d_5$ can also contain mod 3 cohomology

1374: operations like $\beta P^2$, which may be calculable from $\Z_3$

1375: phases in M-theory such as those in Ref.~\cite{FluxQuant}.

1376: 

1377: \subsection{$d_5$ with S-duality and an Example}

1378: 

1379: We expect that the reinclusion of NS5-branes and background RR flux

1380: will allow an S-duality invariant generalization of the above formula

1381: for $d_5$.  In particular there should be two conditions in such a

1382: generalization, reflecting the requirements that both the number of

1383: fundamental strings and the number of D-strings ending on the double

1384: instanton vanish.  Rather than presenting a general formula, we will

1385: simply investigate the example of IIB string theory on

1386: SU(3)$\times\R^{1,1}$.  Again we will include a background $H$-flux

1387: $H=kx_3$ but now we will also include a background $G$-flux $G=lx_3$.

1388: Let both $k$ and $l$ be nonzero.

1389: 

1390: As in Ref.~\cite{MMS}, $Sq^3$ acts trivially on the cohomology ring of

1391: SU(3) and so $d_3$ acts simply by multiplication by $G$ or $H$.  This

1392: means that any brane which wraps the $S^3$ in SU(3) is anomalous.  In

1393: particular, an instantonic D3-brane wrapping this $S^3\times\R$ will

1394: be the endpoint of $k$ D-strings and $l$ F-strings.  Thus, neglecting

1395: the effects of $d_5$, D-strings are classified by $\Z_{k}$ and

1396: F-strings by $\Z_{l}$.

1397: 

1398: A similar classification for 5-branes is more difficult because of our

1399: ignorance about the nature of D7-branes.  Fortunately, such a

1400: classification will not be necessary for the rest of the example.  An

1401: instantonic D7-brane that wraps SU(3) will be the endpoint of $k$ D5

1402: branes and so D5-branes are classified, at the level of $d_3$, by

1403: $\Z_k$.  If one trusts S-duality in such a setting then there will be

1404: a similar instanton involving a 7-brane and $l$ NS5-branes, and so

1405: NS5-branes will be classified by $\Z_l$, ignoring again the fact that

1406: some of these configurations may not turn out to be $d_5$ closed.

1407: 

1408: Thus far we have obtained an approximate classification using only the

1409: differential $d_3$.  A more thorough classification is obtained by

1410: including the double-instanton.  For concreteness, we will restrict

1411: our attention to $(1,0)$, $(1,1)$, and $(0,1)$ 5-branes. Notice that a

1412: $(1,1)$ 5-brane is only relevant if it gives rise to a single

1413: instantonic D3-brane, but in this case an instantonic D5 and an

1414: instantonic NS5 would have yielded the same D3-brane.  Thus the

1415: $(1,1)$ 5-brane does not need to be considered separately to classify

1416: $(p,q)$ strings in this example.  This leaves us with only two

1417: double-instantons to consider, which have primary instantons that are

1418: a single D5-brane and a single NS5-brane respectively.

1419: 

1420: Imagine that $k$ and $l$ are both odd.  In this case the induced $H$

1421: and $G$-flux on $H^3(M_5,\Z)=\Z_2$ are each equal to $W_3(M_5)$.  In

1422: particular this means that $W_3+H=W_3+G=0$ on $M_5$ and so a single

1423: D5-brane or NS5-brane instanton is not anomalous and there is no

1424: double instanton.  Thus the 5-branes and strings continue to each by

1425: classified by $\Z_k\times\Z_l$.

1426: 

1427: Next try $k$ even and $l$ odd.  Thus $W_3+G=0$ on the worldvolume of

1428: an NS5-brane and so if one trusts S-duality\footnote{Our goal in this

1429: subsection is not to test S-duality, but rather to learn what it can

1430: tell us about $d_5$.} then again there is no double-instanton with an

1431: NS5-brane.  Of coures, since $W_3+H \neq 0$ odd numbers of D5-branes are

1432: forbidden, leaving D5-branes to be classified by $\Z_{k/2}$. In

1433: addition, one seems to get a double-instanton consisting of a D5 and a

1434: D3-brane.  Anomaly cancellation on this D3-brane would appear to

1435: require $k/2$ D-strings and $l/2$ F-strings.  However $l/2$ is not an

1436: integer and so this double instanton must be absent. Thus,

1437: unlike the case of $l$ even, D-strings are classified by

1438: $\Z_k$ rather than $\Z_{k/2}$. 

1439: 

1440: However, this is not the end of the story. Consider a D5-brane

1441: instanton wrapped on $M_5 \times \R$. Cancel the anomaly by adding a

1442: physical D3-brane which extends along $\R$ and is bounded by the PD of

1443: $W_3 + H$ in $M_5$. This D3-brane is wrapped on $X = M_2 \times

1444: \R^{1,1}$, where we recall that this $M_2$ is the $S^2$ which

1445: generates $H_2(M_5,\Z)$ and is also the equator of the $SU(2)$ in

1446: $SU(3)$.  Since $H|_{X} = 0$, anomaly cancellation proceeds with no

1447: strings attached. Instead of an anomaly, the interior of $X$ contains

1448: $k/2$ units of $H$-flux and $l/2$ units of $G_3$-flux. Such branes

1449: could absorb or emit single D-strings and F-strings by expanding or

1450: contracting around one more unit of $G_3$ or $H$-flux, and so the two

1451: quantum numbers of $(p,q)$ strings could be embedded in the two

1452: quantum numbers of these 3-branes supported by flux. One possible

1453: interpretation is that these flux-supported D3-branes carry

1454: half-integral string charge, and require us to augment our initial

1455: chain complex. This is suggestive of a manifestation of

1456: the Myers dielectric effect in our formalism. Further investigation of

1457: this phenomenon might shed light on the analogue of the extension

1458: problem for the extended spectral sequence. On the other hand, notice

1459: that $l/2$ is not an integer, and so we do not know if this

1460: configuration is consistent. If $k$ is odd and $l$ is even the story

1461: is the S-dual of the above case.

1462: 

1463: The last possibility is that $k$ and $l$ are both even.  Now there are

1464: double-instantons consisting of both an NS5-D3 pair and a D5-D3 pair.

1465: Both instantons violate $(p,q)$ string charge by $(l/2,k/2)$.  Thus $(p,q)$

1466: strings are classified by $(\Z_{k}\times\Z_{l})/\Z_2$.  Notice that

1467: the $(1,1)$ fivebrane yields the same double-instanton.  This is a

1468: manifestation of the nonlinearity of the anomaly cancellation

1469: condition.  In general this perspective does not tell us which $(p,q)$

1470: five branes are anomalous and so does not allow us to classify $(p,q)$

1471: 5-branes.

1472: 

1473: The above results are summarized on the following table:

1474: 

1475: \vspace{.3in}

1476: \hspace{-.3in}

1477: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}

1478: k&l&D5-Instanton&NS5 Instanton&$(p,q)$ strings\\ \hline

1479: Odd&Odd&No&No&$\Z_{k}\times\Z_l$\\

1480: Odd&Even&No&Single&$\Z_{k}\times\Z_l$\\

1481: Even&Odd&Single&No&$\Z_{k}\times\Z_l$\\

1482: Even&Even&Double&Double&$(\Z_{k}\times\Z_l)/\Z_2$\\

1483: \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\

1484: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Table 1: Possible Instantons and String Classification} 

1485: \end{tabular}

1486: 

1487: \vspace{.3in} Here we have omitted D3-branes wrapping trivial cycles

1488: supported by potentially half-integral fluxes and carrying

1489: $(p,q)$-string charge.

1490: \section{M Theory}

1491: 

1492: A systematic analysis of the above example may lead to an S-duality

1493: covariant extension of $d_5$, but what variant of K-theory does this

1494: describe?  Perhaps the best source of clues as to the nature of any

1495: such mysterious variant of K-theory is M-theory.  The separation of

1496: fields into NS and RR is a result of the way in which M-theory is

1497: compactified and so an understanding of the classification of these

1498: fields is likely to be a by-product of a classification of fields in

1499: M-theory combined with the action of Kaluza-Klein reduction on this

1500: classification.

1501: 

1502: In M-theory there is no sense in which we can work at weak coupling.

1503: Nonetheless we will use the MMS prescription to classify M2 and

1504: M5-brane configurations.  In the absence of any understanding of the

1505: quantum theory on these branes we will refrain from discussing the

1506: torsion part of this problem, and instead concern ourselves with the

1507: supergravity approximation.  Distances considered will be much larger

1508: than the 11-dimensional Planck scale.

1509: 

1510: The 11-dimensional supergravity action contains the terms

1511: \begin{equation}

1512: S\supset \int G_4\wedge\star G_4+C_3\wedge G_4\wedge G_4\sp

1513: G_4=dC_3.

1514: \end{equation}

1515: This leads to the equation of motion

1516: \begin{equation}

1517: d*G_4=G_4\wedge G_4

1518: \end{equation}

1519: which, similarly to the D-brane case, implies that an M5-brane wrapped

1520: around a 4-cycle that supports k units of $G_4$-flux is the endpoint

1521: of $k$ M2-branes.

1522: 

1523: This suggests that a spectral sequence begins with 

1524: \begin{equation}

1525: E_1=E_1^5\oplus E_1^8=H^5(M,\Z)\oplus H^8(M,\Z) \label{m1}

1526: \end{equation}

1527: and has a single differential

1528: \begin{equation}

1529: d_4=G_4 \label{m2}

1530: \end{equation}

1531: which is clearly trivial on $H^8$ but need not be trivial on $H^5$.

1532: 

1533: What is this a spectral sequence for?  Following

1534: \cite{FluxQuant,DMW} one can interpret $G_4$ as $p_1$ of an

1535: $E_8$ bundle over $M$.  The above authors considered a bundle not on

1536: the 11-dimensional manifold, but on a 12-dimensional auxillary

1537: manifold that the 11-dimensional manifold bounds.  However the bundle

1538: can be restricted to the 11-dimensional manifold and in fact the

1539: authors proved that the choice of 12 manifold is irrelevant.

1540: 

1541: $\pi_3(E_8)=\Z$ and all other $\pi_{n<15}(E_8)=0$.  Thus $E_8$ bundles

1542: on manifolds with dimensions of less than 16 are classified by their

1543: first Pontrjagin class $p_1$, reflecting the nontrivial $E_8$ bundles

1544: over $S^4$'s in the 4-skeleton of $M$ where the transition function on

1545: the $S^3$ equator is an element of $\pi_3(E_8)$.  This $p_1$ can be

1546: identified with $G_4$ resulting in the following interpretation of M5

1547: branes\footnote{Recall that $G_4$ is itself equal to $w_4$ of

1548:   the tangent bundle modulo 2.  Thus there is a mod 2 relation between

1549:   the Pontrjagin classes of the 11-dimensional $E_8$ gauge bundle and

1550:   the tangent bundle of the 11-dimensional space, remenicent of the 10

1551:   dimensional condition in heterotic M-theory \cite{HoravaWitten1,

1552:     HoravaWitten2}.  If one interprets the gauge bundle over the end

1553:   of the world as a restriction of the $E_8$ gauge bundle on the 11

1554:   dimensional space to its boundary boundary, then it is possible that

1555:   the 11-dimensional condition, which arises from membrane worldvolume

1556:   anomaly cancellation, restricts to the 10-dimensional condition,

1557:   which arises from a 10-dimensional gravitational anomaly.  Does this

1558:   interpretation have a greater significance?}.

1559: 

1560: M5-branes are the defects in the $E_8$ bundle such that the restriction

1561: of the bundle to an $S^4$ linking an M5-brane once is the elementary

1562: $E_8$ bundle described in the previous paragraph.  As the other

1563: homotopy classes of E$_8$ vanish, M5-branes will be the only such topological

1564: defects.  M2-branes arise as the electromagnetic dual of the M5-branes.

1565: In particular the existence of M2-branes is necessitated by the above

1566: anomaly for M5-branes wrapped around cycles of nonvanishing $G_4$

1567: flux.  The existence of M2-branes is also required by the

1568: Hanany-Witten transition, which requires an M2-brane to be created

1569: when two M5-branes cross, as follows from the above supergravity

1570: equation of motion.

1571: 

1572: Alternately the supergravity equation of motion

1573: \begin{equation}

1574: d*G=G\wedge G

1575: \end{equation}

1576: indicates that M2-branes are dual to $p_2$ of the gauge bundle, although for an $E_8$ bundle the relation

1577: \begin{equation}

1578: p_2=p_1\wedge p_1

1579: \end{equation}

1580: reveals that there is no new topology in this characteristic class.

1581: 

1582: Therefore M2 and M5-branes can be classified by $E_8$ bundles, and

1583: somehow Eqs.~(\ref{m1}) and (\ref{m2}) are the beginning of an analog

1584: of a spectral sequence for a classification of such bundles.  However

1585: we do not know if one should look at a classification of a single $E_8$

1586: bundle, or a construction more like K-theory where one looks at

1587: equivalence classes of pairs of $E_8$ bundles, reflecting annhilation of

1588: pairs of M10 branes.  M10 branes were conjectured to exist in \cite{Lozano}

1589: and as evidenced in \cite{HoravaIIA} they may carry 11-dimensional vector

1590: multiplets and become the unstable D9 sphalerons of IIA after

1591: compactification on a circle.  The above classification scheme may

1592: suggest that each M10 brane must carry 248 vectormultiplets.

1593: 

1594: \section{Conclusion}

1595: We have constructed rules that allow us to calculate $E_3$ for a given

1596: manifold and even $E_N$ if one can find the higher differentials by

1597: analyzing dynamical processes.  This new sequence appears to classify

1598: RR and NS charged states, modulo higher differentials.  However we

1599: have no geometric interpretation for what this sequence computes.  In

1600: particular, we do not know if this sequence gives the associated

1601: graded algebra of some variant of K-theory and thus, after solving

1602: some extension problem, provides us with a classification of all

1603: states in IIB string theory in terms of a mysterious collection of

1604: bundles.

1605: 

1606: Notice that we included the D7-brane but not any possible S-duals of

1607: this brane.  This is because we do not know if or how S-duality should

1608: act on a system with 7-branes.  This may be a deficiency in our

1609: proposal.  However, in spaces with ``no compact directions'' 7

1610: brane excitations have an infinite energy backreaction on distant

1611: geometry.  As a result, it is possible that instantonic 7-brane

1612: processes will be infinitely suppressed and therefore in such a limit

1613: we may be able to ignore them.

1614: 

1615: The MMS interpretation of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence has

1616: allowed us to blindly calculate equivalence classes of stable

1617: configurations modulo dynamical processes.  In particular we can

1618: calculate which fundamental string and D3-brane states are unstable

1619: due to dynamical processes in IIB.  We were also able, with the help

1620: of a generalized Freed-Witten anomaly, to learn which NS5-brane

1621: configurations are unstable.  In M-theory we did the same for M2 and

1622: M5-branes.

1623: 

1624: However we are unable to provide more than reckless

1625: speculations as to what these equivalence classes may mean.  Although

1626: we are able to generalize the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence, we

1627: do not know what mathematical object the new sequence approximates.

1628: Perhaps the most promising hint lies in the mysterious $E_8$ gauge bundle

1629: formalism for M-theory, as all of the fields of IIB are those of

1630: M-theory compactified on a torus and so the answers in IIB are likely

1631: to be those in M-theory with the extra complications arising from this

1632: compactification.

1633: 

1634: 

1635: \noindent 

1636: {\bf Acknowledgements}

1637: 

1638: \noindent

1639: We would like to express our eternal gratitude to A. Adams,

1640: P. Bouwknegt, D. Freed, S. Ganguli, P. Ho$\check{\textup{r}}$ava,

1641: J. Maldacena, H. Murayama, N. Seiberg, S. Shenker, O. de Wolfe and

1642: Y. Zunger for enlightening comments.  The work of UV was supported in

1643: part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and

1644: Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S.

1645: Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by

1646: the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-95-14797.  JE lives in

1647: a soundboard box.

1648: \noindent

1649: 

1650: \bibliographystyle{ieeetr} 

1651: \bibliography{k}

1652: \end{document}

1653: 

1654: 

1655: 

1656: 

1657: 

1658: 

1659: 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: 

1663: 

1664: 

1665: Note also [Witten bound state paper, 1995] that the mass of a 5-brane in such an equivalence class is well defined up to terms which are independent of $g_s$, in particular there is not a mismatch of $O(1/g_s)$ as one might expect for an indeterminant number of D-branes.

1666: 

1667: As a result of this equivalence, when $q=0$ there are only D5-branes, and the number that end on a D7-brane is just the number $k$ of units of $H$-flux on a cycle that it wraps.  If $q>0$ then one can choose $0\leq p<q$ and the same argument still implies that $k$ D5 must end on the D7-brane.  This means that a $(p,q)$ 5-brane goes in and a $(p,q-k)$ 5-brane comes out.  More generally the D7-brane can be wrapped around a cycle with $j$ units of $G_3$-flux and $k$ units of $H$-flux.  With the fieldstrength convention of (\ref{strength}) one gets $dH=0$ and so no NS5-branes can end on this, meaning that a $(p,q)$ brane goes into the D7-brane and a $(p,q-k)$ brane comes out.  However if an observer circles the D7 once this process looks like a $(p,p+q)$ brane going into a D7-brane in a background with $k$ units of $G_3$-flux and $j+k$ units of $H$-flux.  The observer therefore expects to see a $(p,p+q-j)$ brane coming out and in fact he does, as a $(p,p+q-k)$ brane is the image of a $(p,q-k)$ brane under $T$.  Notice that the same number of NS5-branes enter and exit the D7-brane as seen by any observer, and so in a sense there is nothing new in this case beyond what is already known for D-branes ending on other D-branes that wrap cycles supporting fluxes.  This is drawn in Fig.~\ref{d7}.

1668: 

1669: \begin{figure}[ht]

1670:   \centering \includegraphics[width=6in]{d7.eps}

1671: \caption{$(p,q)$ 5-branes ending on a D7-brane as seen by an observer before and after travelling around the D7-brane}

1672:   \label{d7}

1673: \end{figure}

1674: 

1675: The situation seems identical for $(p,q)$ strings ending on a D7.  Again only equivalence classes are relevant.

1676: 

1677: \subsection{Speculations About NS5-Branes with Boundary}

1678: While it is straightforward to determine what can end on an NS5-brane, NS5-branes which themselves have boundaries are harder to understand.  If we restrict our attention to BPS configurations then D9 branes and $\overline{\textup{D}9}$ branes cannot simultaneously exist, yet by anomaly cancellation one cannot have one without the other in type II.  If an NS5-brane ends on a D5, because we are considering weak coupling, the NS5-brane has so much more tension than the D5-brane that it contracts itself into nothingness.  If this takes an infinite amount of time, then there is no stationary solution.

1679: 

1680: The only remaining possibility is an NS5-brane ending on a D7-brane.  The nature of the D7-brane seems to vary from paper to paper.  Vafa [Evidence for F Theory] speaks of $(p,q)$ 7-branes which transform in the 2 of SL($2,\Z$) end and are the endpoints of $(p,q)$ strings.   This is consistent with the fact that there are two one-dimensional candidates for fdual ield strengths, $G_1$ and $de^{-\phi}$.  More recent papers claim that 7-branes transform in the triplet of SL($2,\Z$) [EL9908094,Szabo0108043].  Yet others [???] claim that the presence of 7-branes breaks the SL($2,\Z$) symmetry.  The common and most explicit thread is that everyone agrees on what some D7-brane looks like in supergravity.  The important point for our purposes, is that a codimension 2 object exists that, when circled, yields a monodromy which is a $T$ transformation is SL(2,$\Z$)

1681: \begin{equation}

1682: T:\tau=C_0+ie^{-\Phi}\mapsto\tau +1.

1683: \end{equation}

1684: By superimposing $N\in\Z$ such coincident objects, one gets a codimension 2 submanifold with monodromy $C_0\mapsto C_0+N$, in particular these objects perserve our assumption of weak coupling (well, at least weak coupling far away from NS5-branes).  

1685: 

1686: In particular, if D7-branes transform in the 2 of $SL(2,\Z)$, then the S-dual of the D7-brane appears to be a source of nontrivial monodromy for the dilaton.  This means that the existence of such an object is incompatible with our weak coupling assumption and so it unfortunately cannot be included in our classification of objects at large distances and small couplings.  Thus we will consider only the D7-brane in this doublet.

1687: 

1688: The Bianchi identity $dH=0$ seems to indicate that an NS5-brane cannot end.  However by choosing to define the fieldstrengths $H$ and $G_3$ by (\ref{strength}) we broke the original SL(2,$\R$) invariance of the supergravity action.  This invariance allows us to redefine the field strengths such that our Bianchi identities are the S-dual of (\ref{bianchi}).  That is, we may subtract the gauge invariant correction term from $H$ instead of $G_3$.  In this case the arguments above tell us that a D7-brane wrapped on a cycle with $k$ units of $G_3$-flux must bound $k$ NS5-branes. 

1689: 

1690: How can such an arbitrary choice of field strengths change an observable quantity, like whether NS5-branes can have boundary?  The key is that in the presence of a D7-brane there is no invariant notion of a $(p,q)$ fivebrane, because $p$ and $q$ are transformed by

1691: \begin{equation}

1692: T:(p,q)\mapsto (p+q,p)

1693: \end{equation}

1694: every time an observer circles the D7-brane.  The physical configurations are equivalence classes of $(p,q)$ 5-branes related by transformations in $SL(2,\Z)$.  

1695: 

1696: This can be further understood by investigating dynamical processes in which D5 and NS5-branes end on instantonic D7-branes wrapped around an $S^3$.  First, notice that D5 and NS5-branes that do not wrap the $S^3$ are domain walls in the remaining $6+1$ dimensions, separating regions of different integral over $S^3$ of the $G_3$ and $H$-fields respectively.  

1697: 

1698: In particular, a collection of $k$ D5-branes may separate two regions $A$ and $B$ such that

1699: \begin{equation}

1700: \int_{S^3}G_3=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}

1701: 0& \textrm{\ in\ region\ A}\\

1702: k & \textrm{\ in\ region\ B}.\\

1703: \end{array}\right.

1704: \end{equation}

1705: Now consider the following process.  First an instantonic $\overline{\textup{D7}}$ brane appears in region B wrapping the $S^3$.  The supergravity equations of motion, worldsheet action and anomaly cancellation each imply that the instantonic brane emits $k$ NS5-branes.  This configuration is not BPS, in fact the NS5-branes are attracted to the D5-branes and so they eventually form a bound state $(k,k)$ 5-brane.  So we see that a $(k,0)$ 5-brane can turn into a $(k,k)$ 5-brane via a dynamical process.  However this process violates energy conservation by $O(1/g_s^2)$ and so the new NS5-branes must be far off shell and decay very quickly, via an instantonic D7-brane for example.

1706: 

1707: The S-dual of this process takes a $(0,k)$ 5-brane to a $(k,k)$ 5-brane.  This process does not require NS5-branes to end on D7-branes and it violated energy conservation by at most $O(1)$.  Itrepresents $T$, the generator of $SL(2,\Z)$ that is compatible with the weak coupling limit.  By a repeated application of both of these processes we see that dynamical processes interchange $(p,q)$ 5-branes which are related by $SL(2,\Z)$ transformations (at least those of the form $T^n$) and so perhaps $(p,q)$ 5-brane states should only be classified by equivalence classes in the presence of a nonvanishing 3-cycle.  In particular, the 5+1 dimensional worldvolume theory has a gauge symmetry which is $U(r)$ [Witten9710065] where $r$ is the greatest common divisor of $p$ and $q$ and so is well defined on each equivalence class.  The same argument appears to apply to $(p,q)$ strings.

1708: 

1709: $D7$ branes are quite heavy, in fact they require infinite energy to create in noncompact spacetimes.  And so perhaps the $D7$ brane instanton effects are suppressed by an infinite factor in noncompact spacetimes.  Thus in many spacetimes it may be possible to ignore the above phenomenon.

1710: 

1711: 

1712: 

1713: 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: Note also [Witten bound state paper, 1995] that the mass of a 5-brane in such an equivalence class is well defined up to terms which are independent of $g_s$, in particular there is not a mismatch of $O(1/g_s)$ as one might expect for an indeterminant number of D-branes.

1717: 

1718: As a result of this equivalence, when $q=0$ there are only D5-branes, and the number that end on a D7-brane is just the number $k$ of units of $H$-flux on a cycle that it wraps.  If $q>0$ then one can choose $0\leq p<q$ and the same argument still implies that $k$ D5 must end on the D7-brane.  This means that a $(p,q)$ 5-brane goes in and a $(p,q-k)$ 5-brane comes out.  More generally the D7-brane can be wrapped around a cycle with $j$ units of $G_3$-flux and $k$ units of $H$-flux.  With the fieldstrength convention of (\ref{strength}) one gets $dH=0$ and so no NS5-branes can end on this, meaning that a $(p,q)$ brane goes into the D7-brane and a $(p,q-k)$ brane comes out.  However if an observer circles the D7 once this process looks like a $(p,p+q)$ brane going into a D7-brane in a background with $k$ units of $G_3$-flux and $j+k$ units of $H$-flux.  The observer therefore expects to see a $(p,p+q-j)$ brane coming out and in fact he does, as a $(p,p+q-k)$ brane is the image of a $(p,q-k)$ brane under $T$.  Notice that the same number of NS5-branes enter and exit the D7-brane as seen by any observer, and so in a sense there is nothing new in this case beyond what is already known for D-branes ending on other D-branes that wrap cycles supporting fluxes.  This is drawn in Fig.~\ref{d7}.

1719: 

1720: \begin{figure}[ht]

1721:   \centering \includegraphics[width=6in]{d7.eps}

1722: \caption{$(p,q)$ 5-branes ending on a D7-brane as seen by an observer before and after travelling around the D7-brane}

1723:   \label{d7}

1724: \end{figure}

1725: 

1726: The situation seems identical for $(p,q)$ strings ending on a D7.  Again only equivalence classes are relevant.

1727: 

1728: \subsection{Speculations About NS5-Branes with Boundary}

1729: While it is straightforward to determine what can end on an NS5-brane, NS5-branes which themselves have boundaries are harder to understand.  If we restrict our attention to BPS configurations then D9 branes and $\overline{\textup{D}9}$ branes cannot simultaneously exist, yet by anomaly cancellation one cannot have one without the other in type II.  If an NS5-brane ends on a D5, because we are considering weak coupling, the NS5-brane has so much more tension than the D5-brane that it contracts itself into nothingness.  If this takes an infinite amount of time, then there is no stationary solution.

1730: 

1731: The only remaining possibility is an NS5-brane ending on a D7-brane.  The nature of the D7-brane seems to vary from paper to paper.  Vafa [Evidence for F Theory] speaks of $(p,q)$ 7-branes which transform in the 2 of SL($2,\Z$) end and are the endpoints of $(p,q)$ strings.   This is consistent with the fact that there are two one-dimensional candidates for fdual ield strengths, $G_1$ and $de^{-\phi}$.  More recent papers claim that 7-branes transform in the triplet of SL($2,\Z$) [EL9908094,Szabo0108043].  Yet others [???] claim that the presence of 7-branes breaks the SL($2,\Z$) symmetry.  The common and most explicit thread is that everyone agrees on what some D7-brane looks like in supergravity.  The important point for our purposes, is that a codimension 2 object exists that, when circled, yields a monodromy which is a $T$ transformation is SL(2,$\Z$)

1732: \begin{equation}

1733: T:\tau=C_0+ie^{-\Phi}\mapsto\tau +1.

1734: \end{equation}

1735: By superimposing $N\in\Z$ such coincident objects, one gets a codimension 2 submanifold with monodromy $C_0\mapsto C_0+N$, in particular these objects perserve our assumption of weak coupling (well, at least weak coupling far away from NS5-branes).  

1736: 

1737: In particular, if D7-branes transform in the 2 of $SL(2,\Z)$, then the S-dual of the D7-brane appears to be a source of nontrivial monodromy for the dilaton.  This means that the existence of such an object is incompatible with our weak coupling assumption and so it unfortunately cannot be included in our classification of objects at large distances and small couplings.  Thus we will consider only the D7-brane in this doublet.

1738: 

1739: The Bianchi identity $dH=0$ seems to indicate that an NS5-brane cannot end.  However by choosing to define the fieldstrengths $H$ and $G_3$ by (\ref{strength}) we broke the original SL(2,$\R$) invariance of the supergravity action.  This invariance allows us to redefine the field strengths such that our Bianchi identities are the S-dual of (\ref{bianchi}).  That is, we may subtract the gauge invariant correction term from $H$ instead of $G_3$.  In this case the arguments above tell us that a D7-brane wrapped on a cycle with $k$ units of $G_3$-flux must bound $k$ NS5-branes. 

1740: 

1741: How can such an arbitrary choice of field strengths change an observable quantity, like whether NS5-branes can have boundary?  The key is that in the presence of a D7-brane there is no invariant notion of a $(p,q)$ fivebrane, because $p$ and $q$ are transformed by

1742: \begin{equation}

1743: T:(p,q)\mapsto (p+q,p)

1744: \end{equation}

1745: every time an observer circles the D7-brane.  The physical configurations are equivalence classes of $(p,q)$ 5-branes related by transformations in $SL(2,\Z)$.  

1746: 

1747: This can be further understood by investigating dynamical processes in which D5 and NS5-branes end on instantonic D7-branes wrapped around an $S^3$.  First, notice that D5 and NS5-branes that do not wrap the $S^3$ are domain walls in the remaining $6+1$ dimensions, separating regions of different integral over $S^3$ of the $G_3$ and $H$-fields respectively.  

1748: 

1749: In particular, a collection of $k$ D5-branes may separate two regions $A$ and $B$ such that

1750: \begin{equation}

1751: \int_{S^3}G_3=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}

1752: 0& \textrm{\ in\ region\ A}\\

1753: k & \textrm{\ in\ region\ B}.\\

1754: \end{array}\right.

1755: \end{equation}

1756: Now consider the following process.  First an instantonic $\overline{\textup{D7}}$ brane appears in region B wrapping the $S^3$.  The supergravity equations of motion, worldsheet action and anomaly cancellation each imply that the instantonic brane emits $k$ NS5-branes.  This configuration is not BPS, in fact the NS5-branes are attracted to the D5-branes and so they eventually form a bound state $(k,k)$ 5-brane.  So we see that a $(k,0)$ 5-brane can turn into a $(k,k)$ 5-brane via a dynamical process.  However this process violates energy conservation by $O(1/g_s^2)$ and so the new NS5-branes must be far off shell and decay very quickly, via an instantonic D7-brane for example.

1757: 

1758: The S-dual of this process takes a $(0,k)$ 5-brane to a $(k,k)$ 5-brane.  This process does not require NS5-branes to end on D7-branes and it violated energy conservation by at most $O(1)$.  Itrepresents $T$, the generator of $SL(2,\Z)$ that is compatible with the weak coupling limit.  By a repeated application of both of these processes we see that dynamical processes interchange $(p,q)$ 5-branes which are related by $SL(2,\Z)$ transformations (at least those of the form $T^n$) and so perhaps $(p,q)$ 5-brane states should only be classified by equivalence classes in the presence of a nonvanishing 3-cycle.  In particular, the 5+1 dimensional worldvolume theory has a gauge symmetry which is $U(r)$ [Witten9710065] where $r$ is the greatest common divisor of $p$ and $q$ and so is well defined on each equivalence class.  The same argument appears to apply to $(p,q)$ strings.

1759: 

1760: $D7$ branes are quite heavy, in fact they require infinite energy to create in noncompact spacetimes.  And so perhaps the $D7$ brane instanton effects are suppressed by an infinite factor in noncompact spacetimes.  Thus in many spacetimes it may be possible to ignore the above phenomenon.

1761: 

1762: 

1763: %%% Local Variables: 

1764: %%% mode: latex

1765: %%% TeX-master: t

1766: %%% End: 

1767: