1: \documentclass[12pt]{article} 

2: \usepackage[xdvi]{graphicx} 

3:  

4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.25in} % 1.25in left margin

5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.25in} % 1.25in left margin (even pages)

6: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.0in} % 1in top margin

7: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.0in} % 6.0in text - 1.25in rt margin

8: \setlength{\textheight}{9in} % Body ht for 1in margins

9: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-\headheight} % No header, so compensate

10: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-\headsep} % for header height and separation

11: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.75in}

12: 

13: \begin{document}   

14: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\em \small {#1}}\marginpar{$\Longleftarrow$}}

15: \newcommand{\labell}[1]{\label{#1}\qquad_{#1}} 

16: \def\half{\mbox{\scriptsize{${{1}\over{2}}$}}}

17: \def\halff{\mbox{\scriptsize{${{5}\over{2}}$}}}

18: \def\quarter{\mbox{\scriptsize{${{1}\over{4}}$}}}

19: \def\eighth{\mbox{\scriptsize{${{1}\over{8}}$}}}

20: \def\bs{\vspace{5pt}}

21: \def\be{\begin{eqnarray}}

22: \def\ee{\end{eqnarray}}

23: \def\ba{\begin{array}}

24: \def\ea{\end{array}}

25: \def\bc{\begin{center}}

26: \def\ec{\end{center}}

27: 

28: \rightline{hep-th/0311271}   

29: \rightline{DCPT-03/57} 

30: 

31: \vskip 2cm 

32: 

33: \begin{center} 

34: {\Large \bf Enhan\c con Solutions: Pushing Supergravity to its Limits}

35: \end{center} 

36: 

37: \vskip 2cm   

38:   

39: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} \centerline{\bf

40: Apostolos~Dimitriadis${}^{a}$\footnote{Apostolos.Dimitriadis@durham.ac.uk},

41: Amanda~W.~Peet${}^{b}$\footnote{peet@physics.utoronto.ca},

42: Geoff~Potvin${}^{b}$\footnote{gpotvin@physics.utoronto.ca} and

43: Simon~F.~Ross${}^{a}$\footnote{S.F.Ross@durham.ac.uk}}

44: \vskip .5cm   

45: \centerline{ ${}^a$\it Centre for Particle Theory, Department of  

46: Mathematical Sciences}   

47: \centerline{\it University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.}   

48: \centerline{ ${}^b$ \it Department of Physics, University of Toronto,}   

49: \centerline{\it Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada}   

50:    

51: \setcounter{footnote}{0}   

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

53: 

54: \vskip 2cm 

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}   

57: We extend the investigation of nonextremal enhan\c cons, finding the

58: most general solutions with the correct symmetry and charges. There

59: are two families of solutions. One of these contains a solution with a

60: regular horizon found previously; this previous example is shown to be

61: the unique solution with a regular horizon. The other family

62: generalises a previous nonextreme extension of the enhan\c con,

63: producing solutions with shells which satisfy the weak energy

64: condition. We argue that identifying a unique solution with a shell

65: requires input beyond supergravity.

66: \end{abstract}    

67: 

68: \vskip 2cm

69: 

70: November, 2003.

71: 

72: \newpage  

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}     

75: 

76: The enhan\c con mechanism~\cite{JPP:enh} provides a very interesting

77: novel example of singularity-resolution in string

78: theory. Understanding the resolution of the singularity in the

79: original supersymmetric solution of~\cite{Behrndt:enh,Kallosh:enh}

80: offers us an important insight into how string theory extends the

81: notion of spacetime, and has been applied to obtain interesting

82: physical results~\cite{JM,Constable,JJ:enh1}. However, there are many

83: questions concerning the nature of singularities in string theory

84: which cannot be addressed in a supersymmetric context, so it is very

85: important to try to extend any singularity resolution mechanism to

86: address nonextremal, finite temperature

87: geometries. 

88: 

89: In~\cite{JPP:enh,JMPR:enh}, it was found that there are nonextremal

90: versions of the enhan\c con geometry, and it was noted that there are

91: two different branches of solutions: the horizon branch, which always

92: has a regular event horizon, and the shell branch, which always has an

93: enhan\c con shell outside of the horizon (if any). The horizon branch

94: approaches an uncharged black hole at large masses, so it is clearly

95: physically relevant in this regime, but no solution on this branch

96: exists for a finite range of masses above the BPS

97: solution. Furthermore, the horizon branch solution does not exhibit

98: the same physics as the extreme case, as it does not necessarily

99: involve an enhan\c con shell. The shell branch, on the other hand,

100: approaches the BPS solution as a parameter goes to zero, and always

101: involves an enhan\c con shell. It thus represents a nonextremal

102: generalisation of the singularity resolution in the BPS

103: metric. 

104: 

105: However, as shown in~\cite{dr}, this geometry is unphysical, as it

106: violates the weak energy condition (WEC). Thus, to find a nonextremal

107: generalisation of the enhan\c con, we must look for more general

108: solutions. A further motivation for looking for more general solutions

109: is the confusing two-branch structure in the existing solutions: near

110: extremality, the only solution is the shell branch, which smoothly

111: approaches the BPS solution of~\cite{JPP:enh}. However, far from

112: extremality, we would expect the horizon branch, which approaches an

113: uncharged black hole solution for large masses, to be the correct

114: solution. The transition between these two branches is an important

115: unresolved problem (see~\cite{es1,dr} for investigations of this

116: issue).

117: 

118: In this paper, we will extend the investigation of nonextremal

119: solutions in~\cite{JPP:enh,JMPR:enh}, by finding the most general

120: solution of the supergravity equations of motion with the correct

121: symmetry and charges to correspond to a nonextremal enhan\c con

122: solution. We will show that there are two families of asymptotically

123: flat solutions, corresponding to extensions of the horizon branch and

124: shell branch found previously. We demonstrate that the only solution

125: with a regular event horizon is the horizon branch solution

126: of~\cite{JMPR:enh}. Considering the shell branch, we show that the

127: general family of solutions we have constructed satisfies the WEC for

128: certain ranges of parameters. We then discuss the additional input

129: that would be required to fix these parameters to obtain a physical

130: solution describing a real nonextreme generalisation of the enhan\c

131: con.

132: 

133: The general solution of the supergravity equations of motion is

134: described in section~\ref{sec:eqs}. The physics of these solutions is

135: then discussed in section~\ref{sec:new}. We conclude and discuss open

136: issues in section~\ref{sec:concl}.

137: 

138: \section{Supergravity equations}

139: \label{sec:eqs}

140: 

141: Our aim is to extend previous studies of the extreme and nonextreme

142: enhan\c con solutions, by finding the most general solutions of the

143: supergravity equations consistent with the appropriate symmetries. In

144: this section, we will write the metric in a convenient way, and reduce

145: the supergravity equations of motion to a simple system of equations

146: for the free functions in the metric.

147: 

148: We want to describe a system built up from excited D-branes wrapped on

149: K3. As usual, we will focus mainly on the case of D6-branes, to

150: simplify formulae. We describe the results of the analysis for wrapped

151: D4- and D5-branes at the end of this section. For D6-branes, we should

152: consider ten-dimensional metrics which are static and have two flat

153: non-compact directions and a compact K3 factor along the branes. We

154: assume that the metric is independent of the non-compact longitudinal

155: directions, and that only the overall volume of the K3 varies over the

156: transverse space. It is then natural to proceed by Kaluza-Klein

157: reducing from ten to four dimensions.

158: 

159: In ten dimensions, we have the Type IIA 10D supergravity action (in

160: string frame)

161: %

162: \begin{equation}

163: \mathcal{S}_{10} = \frac{1}{2 \kappa_{10}^2}\int d^{10} x

164: \sqrt{-G_{10}} \left( e^{-2\Phi_{10}} \left[ R_{10} + 4 (\partial

165: \Phi_{10})^2 \right] - \half |F_{(2)}|^2 - \half |F_{(6)}|^2 \right)

166: \,.

167: \end{equation}

168: %

169: In Kaluza-Klein reducing, we write the ten-dimensional metric in an

170: ansatz

171: %

172: \begin{equation}

173: dS_{10}^2 = dS_4^2 + e^{B} dx_{\|}^2 + e^{D/\sqrt{2}} ds_{K3}^2,

174: \end{equation}

175: % 

176: where $dx_{\|}^2 = dx_1^2 + dx_2^2$ is a flat metric on the

177: non-compact longitudinal directions, we assume that $F_{(6)} = f_2

178: \wedge \epsilon_{K3}$, where $\epsilon_{K3}$ is the volume form

179: determined by the unit K3 metric $ds_{K3}^2$, and we assume that $f_2$

180: and $F_{(2)}$ are non-zero only in the four dimensions contained in

181: $dS_4^2$.  Then, following the classic technique of Maharana \&

182: Schwarz \cite{MS}, we can obtain an action for the four-dimensional

183: fields,

184: %

185: \begin{eqnarray}

186: \mathcal{S}_{4} &=& \frac{1}{2\kappa_4^2}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-G_4} (

187: e^{-2\phi_4} \left[ R_{4} +4 (\partial \phi_4)^2 -{1 \over 2}

188: (\partial B)^2 - {1 \over 2} (\partial D)^2 \right] ) \\ && -\half

189: e^{B + \sqrt{2} D}|F_2|^2 - \half e^{B - \sqrt{2} D} |f_2|^2 ) ,

190: \end{eqnarray}

191: %

192: where the four-dimensional dilaton $\phi_4 = \Phi_{10} - B/2 -

193: D/\sqrt{2}$. We can convert this 4D action to Einstein frame by

194: writing

195: %

196: \begin{equation}

197: g_{\mu\nu} = e^{-2\phi_4} G_{\mu\nu} \,. 

198: \end{equation}

199: %

200: The result is

201: %

202: %

203: \begin{eqnarray}

204: \mathcal{S}_{4E} &=& \frac{1}{2\kappa_4^2} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_4}

205: (R_{4E} - {1 \over 2} (\partial \Phi_4)^2 -{1 \over 2} (\partial B)^2

206: - {1 \over 2} (\partial D)^2 \\ && - \half e^{B + \sqrt{2} D} |F_2|^2

207: -\half e^{B - \sqrt{2} D} |f_2|^2 ),

208: \end{eqnarray}

209: %

210: where we have defined $\Phi_4 = 2 \phi_4$ to obtain canonically

211: normalised kinetic terms. Henceforth, we will work in Einstein frame

212: for the 4D metric. 

213: 

214: This process of Kaluza-Klein reduction has already led to one striking

215: simplification: the dilaton is completely decoupled,

216: %

217: \begin{equation} \nabla^2 \Phi_4 = 0 \,. \end{equation}

218: % 

219: The other two scalars have slightly more complicated behaviour:

220: %

221: \begin{equation}

222: \nabla^2 B = \half e^B [ |F_2|^2 e^{\sqrt{2}D} + |f_2|^2

223: e^{-\sqrt{2}D} ],

224: \end{equation}

225: %

226: %

227: \begin{equation}

228: \nabla^2 D = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} e^B [ |F_2|^2 e^{\sqrt{2}D} - |f_2|^2

229: e^{-\sqrt{2}D} ] \,.

230: \end{equation}

231: %

232: The equations of motion for the gauge fields take the usual form,

233: %

234: \begin{equation} \label{geqs}

235: \nabla_\mu (e^{B+\sqrt{2} D} F^{\mu\nu}) = 0, \quad \nabla_\mu

236: (e^{B-\sqrt{2} D} f^{\mu\nu}) = 0. 

237: \end{equation}

238: % 

239: We now wish to specify our ansatz for the four-dimensional metric. We

240: assume that the metric is spherically symmetric in the

241: three-dimensional space transverse to the branes, so the metric and

242: scalar fields will only depend on the radial coordinate $r$ in the

243: transverse space. Thus, we take the metric ansatz

244: %

245: \begin{equation}

246: ds^2_{4E} = -e^{2A(r)} dt^2 + e^{2C(r)} (dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2),

247: \end{equation}

248: %

249: choosing an isotropic gauge for the radial coordinate. Since we wish

250: to consider a system of D6-branes, which are magnetically charged

251: under $F_{(2)}$, and carry an induced D2-brane charge, which is a

252: magnetic charge under $F_{(6)}$, we take the ansatze for the field

253: strengths to be

254: %

255: \begin{equation}

256: F_2 = Q_2 \epsilon_{S^2}, \quad f_2 = q_2 \epsilon_{S^2},

257: \end{equation}

258: %

259: where $\epsilon_{S^2}$ is the volume form corresponding to the unit

260: sphere metric $d\Omega_2^2$. As the D2-brane charge arises from a

261: curvature coupling of the D6-branes wrapped on K3, it is related to

262: the D6-brane charge through $|q_2| = (V_*/V)|Q_2|$~\cite{JPP:enh}. 

263: These ansatze satisfy the gauge field equations

264: of motion (\ref{geqs}).

265: 

266: With this ansatz, the Einstein equations for the four-dimensional

267: metric reduce to (where $'$ denotes $\partial_r$)

268: %

269: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq1}

270: 2C'' + (C')^2 + {4 \over r} C' &=& -{1 \over 4} ((\Phi_4')^2 + (B')^2

271: + (D')^2) \\ && - {1 \over 4} {e^{B-2C} \over r^4} ( e^{\sqrt{2} D}

272: Q_2^2 + e^{-\sqrt{2} D} q_2^2), \nonumber

273: \end{eqnarray}

274: %

275: %

276: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq2}

277: (C')^2 + {2 \over r} (C'+A')+2A'C' &=& {1 \over 4} ((\Phi_4')^2 +

278: (B')^2 + (D')^2) \\ && - {1 \over 4} {e^{B-2C} \over r^4} (

279: e^{\sqrt{2} D} Q_2^2 + e^{-\sqrt{2} D} q_2^2), \nonumber

280: \end{eqnarray}

281: %

282: %

283: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq3}

284: A''+C'' + (A')^2 + {1 \over r} (A'+C') &=& -{1 \over 4} ((\Phi_4')^2 +

285: (B')^2 + (D')^2) \\ && + {1 \over 4} {e^{B-2C} \over r^4} (

286: e^{\sqrt{2} D} Q_2^2 + e^{-\sqrt{2} D} q_2^2), \nonumber

287: \end{eqnarray}

288: %

289: and the scalar equations become

290: %

291: \begin{equation} \label{eq4}

292: \Phi_4'' + \Phi_4' ({2 \over r} + A' + C') = 0,

293: \end{equation}

294: %

295: %

296: \begin{equation} \label{eq5}

297: B'' + B' ({2 \over r} + A' + C') = {1 \over 2} {e^{B-2C} \over r^4} (

298: e^{\sqrt{2} D} Q_2^2 + e^{-\sqrt{2} D} q_2^2),

299: \end{equation}

300: %

301: and

302: %

303: \begin{equation} \label{eq6}

304: D'' + D' ({2 \over r} + A' + C') = {1 \over \sqrt{2}} {e^{B-2C} \over

305: r^4} ( e^{\sqrt{2} D} Q_2^2 - e^{-\sqrt{2} D} q_2^2).

306: \end{equation}

307: %

308: 

309: We have reduced the problem of finding the general solution subject to

310: the assumed symmetries to solving this system of equations for the

311: five unknown functions $A,B,C,D,\Phi_4$. This seems like a complicated

312: coupled system of equations, but in fact it conceals some remarkable

313: simplifications. If we introduce new functions $a(r) = A+C$, $c(r) =

314: C+B/2$, (\ref{eq2}) + (\ref{eq3}) gives

315: %

316: \begin{equation} \label{apceq}

317: a'' + (a')^2 + {3 \over r} a' = 0,

318: \end{equation}

319: %

320: a completely decoupled equation for $a$. Similarly,

321: (\ref{eq1})+(\ref{eq2})+(\ref{eq5}) gives

322: %

323: \begin{equation} 

324: c'' + c' \left[{2 \over r} + a' \right] + {1 \over r}

325: a' =0,

326: \end{equation}

327: %

328: which can be rearranged to write 

329: %

330: \begin{equation} \label{cpbeq}

331: [ c' r^2 e^a ]' = -  r e^a a' .

332: \end{equation}

333: %

334: Similarly, (\ref{eq4}) can be rewritten as

335: %

336: \begin{equation} \label{phieq}

337: [ \Phi_4' r^2 e^a]' =0.

338: \end{equation}

339: %

340: These equations are solvable once we know $a$. Furthermore, if we

341: define $x_6 = -B - D/ \sqrt{2}$  and $x_2 = -B +

342: D/\sqrt{2} $, then $-2$(\ref{eq5}) $-\sqrt{2}$(\ref{eq6}) becomes

343: %

344: \begin{equation}

345: [ x_6' r^2 e^a]' = -{  e^{a-2c} \over r^2} Q_2^2

346: e^{-2x_6}.

347: \end{equation}

348: %

349: We choose to rewrite this as 

350: %

351: \begin{equation} \label{xeq}

352: r^2 e^a [ x_6' r^2 e^a]' = -  e^{2(a-c)} Q_2^2 e^{-2x_6}.

353: \end{equation}

354: %

355: Similarly, $-2$(\ref{eq5}) $+\sqrt{2}$(\ref{eq6}) can be rewritten as

356: %

357: \begin{equation}

358: r^2 e^a [ x_2' r^2 e^a]' = - e^{2(a-c)} q_2^2

359: e^{-2x_2}.

360: \end{equation}

361: %

362: 

363: We now have a much simplified system of equations in terms of the

364: functions $a,c,x_2,x_6,\Phi_4$. Before proceeding to solve these

365: equations, let us express our ansatz for the ten-dimensional fields in

366: terms of these variables for future reference:

367: %

368: \begin{eqnarray} \label{10dmet}

369: dS^2_{10} &=& - e^{\Phi_4 + 2(a-c)} e^{-{x_6 \over 2} - {x_2 \over 2}}

370:   dt^2 + e^{-{x_6 \over 2} - {x_2 \over 2}} dx_{\|}^2 + e^{\Phi_4 +

371:   2c} e^{{x_6 \over 2} + {x_2 \over 2}} (dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2) \\

372:   &&+ e^{{x_2 \over 2}- {x_6 \over 2}} ds^2_{K3}, \nonumber

373: \end{eqnarray}

374: %

375: with ten-dimensional dilaton

376: %

377: \begin{equation}

378: \Phi_{10} = {\Phi_4 \over 2} + {x_2 \over 4} - {3 x_6 \over 4}

379: \end{equation}

380: %

381: and gauge fields 

382: %

383: \begin{equation}

384: F_{(2)} = Q_2 \epsilon_{S^2}, \quad F_{(6)} = q_2 \epsilon_{S^2}

385: \wedge \epsilon_{K3}.

386: \end{equation}

387: %

388: Note the familiar way in which the functions $x_2, x_6$ appear in the

389: metric and dilaton.

390: 

391: \subsection{General solutions of the field equations}

392: \label{sec:solns}

393: 

394: We now proceed to solve the equations. The solution of (\ref{apceq})

395: is

396: %

397: \begin{equation} \label{apc}

398: a = \ln \left( 1 - {r_h^2 \over r^2} \right) + C_1.

399: \end{equation}

400: %

401: Then $r^2 e^a = (r^2 - r_h^2) e^{C_1}$, and we can easily see that

402: the solution of (\ref{phieq}) is

403: %

404: \begin{equation} \label{phi}

405: \Phi_4 = A_1 \ln \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h} \right) + C_2,

406: \end{equation}

407: %

408: and (\ref{cpbeq}) is solved by

409: %

410: \begin{equation} \label{cpb}

411: c = 2 \ln \left( 1 + {r_h \over r} \right) + A_2 \ln \left( {r+r_h

412: \over r-r_h} \right) + C_3.

413: \end{equation}

414: %

415: Then

416: %

417: \begin{equation}

418: e^{2 (a-c)} = {r^4 \over (r+r_h)^4} \left( {r-r_h \over r+r_h}

419: \right)^{2 A_2} e^{-2C_3} \left( {r^2 - r_h^2 \over r^2} \right)^2

420: e^{2C_1} = \left( {r-r_h \over r+r_h} \right)^{2(A_2+1)} e^{2 (C_1

421: -C_3)}.

422: \end{equation}

423: %

424: 

425: Plugging this into (\ref{xeq}) gives 

426: %

427: \begin{equation} \label{x6eq}

428: (r^2 - r_h^2) \partial_r( (r^2 - r_h^2) \partial_r x_6) e^{2x_6} =

429: -Q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \left( {r-r_h \over r+r_h} \right)^{2(A_2+1)},

430: \end{equation}  

431: %

432: and similarly 

433: %

434: \begin{equation}\label{x2eq}

435: (r^2 - r_h^2) \partial_r( (r^2 - r_h^2) \partial_r x_2) e^{2 x_2} =

436: -q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \left( {r-r_h \over r+r_h} \right)^{2(A_2+1)}.

437: \end{equation}

438: %

439: These are non-linear equations, but nonetheless they have a

440: closed-form solution. To solve them, it is convenient to introduce a

441: new independent variable, 

442: %

443: \begin{equation} \label{z}

444: z =  \ln \left( {r - r_h \over r + r_h} \right), 

445: \end{equation}

446: %

447: so that these equations become 

448: %

449: \begin{equation} \label{x6eqz}

450: \partial_z^2 x_6 e^{2 x_6} = -{Q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \over 4 r_h^2}

451: e^{2(A_2+1)z},

452: \end{equation}  

453: %

454: \begin{equation} \label{x2eqz}

455: \partial_z^2 x_2 e^{2 x_2} = -{q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \over 4 r_h^2}

456: e^{2(A_2+1)z}.

457: \end{equation}

458: %

459: The general solutions of these equations is 

460: %

461: \begin{equation} \label{x6soln}

462: x_6 =  \ln \left( \alpha - {Q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \over 16 r_h^2

463: (A_2+\gamma+1)^2 \alpha} e^{2(A_2+\gamma+1) z}\right) - \gamma z,

464: \end{equation}

465: %

466: \begin{equation} \label{x2soln}

467: x_2 = \ln \left( \beta - {q_2^2 e^{-2C_3} \over 16 r_h^2 (A_2+

468: \kappa+1)^2 \beta} e^{2(A_2+\kappa+ 1) z} \right) - \kappa z.

469: \end{equation}

470: %

471: 

472: \subsection{Other cases}

473: 

474: We can carry out a similar analysis for the cases of D4-branes wrapped

475: on K3 in IIA and D5-branes wrapped on K3 in IIB. We will just briefly

476: state the results, pointing out a few minor differences relative to

477: the D6-brane case discussed in detail above. 

478: 

479: For the D4-branes, we write the ten-dimensional string frame metric

480: in the form

481: %

482: \begin{eqnarray} 

483: dS^2_{10} &=& - e^{2a-6c} e^{-{x_4 \over 2} - {x_0 \over 2}} dt^2 +

484:   e^{2c} e^{{x_4 \over 2} + {x_0 \over 2}} (dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_4^2) \\

485:   &&+ e^{{x_0 \over 2}- {x_4 \over 2}} ds^2_{K3}, \nonumber

486: \end{eqnarray}

487: %

488: and write the ten-dimensional dilaton as

489: %

490: \begin{equation}

491: \Phi_{10} = - {x_4 \over 4} +  {3 x_0 \over 4}

492: \end{equation}

493: %

494: and gauge fields as 

495: %

496: \begin{equation}

497: F_{(4)} = Q_4 \epsilon_{S^4}, \quad F_{(8)} = q_4 \epsilon_{S^4}

498: \wedge \epsilon_{K3}.

499: \end{equation}

500: %

501: We then obtain simple equations for the functions $a,c,x_4,x_0$, as in

502: the previous case. Note that the absence of any unwrapped directions

503: along the brane implies that there is one less scalar field in the

504: dimensional reduction here; it is the decoupled scalar that we lose. 

505: 

506: The general solution is 

507: %

508: \begin{eqnarray}

509: a(r) &=& \ln \left( 1-\frac{r_h^6}{r^6} \right) + C_1\,, \\ c(r) &=&

510: \frac{1}{3} \left[ 2 \ln \left( 1 + {r_h^3 \over r^3} \right) + A_1

511: \ln \left(\frac{r^3+r_h^3}{r^3-r_h^3}\right) + C_2 \right] \,, \\

512: x_4(r) &=& \ln \left(\alpha - \frac{Q_4^2 e^{-2C_2}}{144 r_h^6

513: (A_1+\gamma+1)^2 \alpha} e^{2(A_1+\gamma+1)z} \right) - \gamma z \,,

514: \\ x_0(r) &=& \ln \left(\beta - \frac{q_4^2 e^{-2C_2}}{144 r_h^6

515: (A_1+\kappa +1)^2\beta } e^{2(A_1+\kappa+1)z} \right) - \kappa z,

516: \end{eqnarray}

517: %

518: where

519: %

520: \begin{equation}

521: z = \ln \left(\frac{r^3-r_h^3}{r^3+r_h^3} \right) \,.

522: \end{equation}

523: %

524: 

525: For the case of D5-branes in type IIB, we write the ten-dimensional

526: string frame metric in the form

527: %

528: \begin{eqnarray} 

529: dS^2_{10} &=& - e^{2\varphi+2a-4c} e^{-{x_5 \over 2} - {x_1 \over 2}}

530:   dt^2 + e^{-{x_5 \over 2} - {x_1 \over 2}} dx^2+ e^{2\varphi+2c}

531:   e^{{x_5 \over 2} + {x_1 \over 2}} (dr^2 + r^2 

532:   d\Omega_3^2) \\ &&+ e^{{x_1 \over 2}- {x_5 \over 2}} ds^2_{K3},  

533: \nonumber

534: \end{eqnarray}

535: %

536: where $x$ is the single unwrapped brane direction, and write the

537: ten-dimensional dilaton as

538: %

539: \begin{equation}

540: \Phi_{10} = {3 \over 2} \varphi - {x_5 \over 2} +  { x_1 \over 2}

541: \end{equation}

542: %

543: and gauge fields as 

544: %

545: \begin{equation}

546: F_{(3)} = Q_3 \epsilon_{S^3}, \quad F_{(7)} = q_3 \epsilon_{S^3}

547: \wedge \epsilon_{K3}.

548: \end{equation}

549: %

550: We then obtain simple equations for the functions

551: $a,c,\varphi,x_5,x_1$. In this case, the combination $\varphi$

552: which decouples is not the same as the five-dimensional dilaton. 

553: 

554: The general solution is 

555: %

556: \begin{eqnarray}

557: a(r) &=& \ln \left(1-\frac{r_h^4}{r^4} \right)+C_1 \,,  \\ 

558: \varphi(r) &=& A_1 \ln \left(\frac{r^2+r_h^2}{r^2-r_h^2} \right)+C_2 \\ 

559: c(r) &=& {1 \over 2} \left[  

560: 2 \ln \left(1+\frac{r_h^2}{r^2} \right) + A_2 \ln

561: \left(\frac{r^2+r_h^2}{r_2-r_h^2} \right) +C_3 \right] \,,\\ 

562: x_5(z) &=& \ln \left(\alpha - 

563: \frac{Q_3^2 e^{-2C_3-C_2}}{64 r_h^4 (A_2 + \half A_1 +\gamma+1)^2 

564: \alpha}

565: e^{2( A_2+ \half A_1+\gamma+1)z} \right) - \gamma z \,, \\ 

566: x_1(z) &=& \ln

567: \left( \beta - \frac{q_3^2 e^{-2C_3-C_2}}{64 r_h^4 (A_2 + \half A_1

568: +\kappa +1)^2\beta }

569: e^{2(A_2 + \half A_1+\kappa+1)z} \right) - \kappa z \,,

570: \end{eqnarray}

571: %

572: where 

573: %

574: \begin{equation}

575: z = \ln \left(\frac{r^2-r_h^2}{r^2+r_h^2} \right)\,.

576: \end{equation}

577: %

578: We see that the solutions obtained in both these cases are very

579: similar in form to the case of D6-branes. 

580: 

581: 

582: \section{New enhan\c cons?}

583: \label{sec:new}

584: 

585: In the last section, we found the general solution of the supergravity

586: equations of motion subject to the symmetries associated with an

587: enhan\c con-like solution. The solution has a simple closed form. It

588: generalises the known solutions, introducing a number of constants of

589: integration. We would now like to see if this leads to any new

590: physical enhan\c con solutions.\footnote{Note that we have not

591:   introduced any enhan\c con shells, so at this stage we are really

592:   looking for more general analogues of the repulson solution---that

593:   is, what we are discussing is the

594:   solution exterior to any enhan\c con shell.} We will just discuss

595: the D6-brane case; the other cases will clearly be very similar.  

596: 

597: We first need to impose the condition of asymptotic flatness, which

598: will fix some of the constants. To impose asymptotic flatness, we

599: require that all the functions fall off as $1/r$ at large $r$. In the

600: case of $\Phi_4$, this corresponds to a choice of gauge, defining the

601: ten-dimensional dilaton so that $\Phi_{10}(\infty) = 0$. Examining

602: (\ref{apc},\ref{phi},\ref{cpb}), we see that this fixes $C_1 = C_2 =

603: C_3 = 0$. From (\ref{x6soln},\ref{x2soln}), we obtain non-trivial

604: equations for $\alpha$ and $\beta$,

605: %

606: \begin{equation}

607: \alpha - {Q_2^2 \over 16 r_h^2 (A_2+\gamma+1)^2 \alpha} = 1, 

608: \end{equation}

609: %

610: %

611: \begin{equation}

612: \beta - {q_2^2 \over 16 r_h^2 (A_2 + \kappa +1)^2 \beta} = 1, 

613: \end{equation}

614: %

615: with solutions 

616: %

617: \begin{equation} \label{albe}

618: \alpha = {1 \over 2} (1 \pm \sqrt{ 1 + {Q_2^2 \over 4

619:     r_h^2(A_2+\gamma+1)^2}}), \quad 

620: \beta = {1 \over 2} (1 \pm \sqrt{ 1 + {q_2^2 \over 4 r_h^2(A_2 +

621:     \kappa +1)^2}}).  

622: \end{equation}

623: %

624: It turns out to be convenient to rewrite these as 

625: %

626: \begin{equation} \label{alpha}

627: \alpha = {1 \over 4 r_h (A_2 + \gamma +1)} \left( 2 r_h (A_2 +

628:   \gamma +1) \pm \sqrt{ Q_2^2 + 4 r_h^2 (A_2 + \gamma +1)^2} \right), 

629: \end{equation}

630: %

631: %

632: \begin{equation} \label{beta}

633: \beta = {1 \over 4 r_h (A_2 + \kappa +1)} \left( 2 r_h (A_2 +

634:   \kappa +1)  \pm \sqrt{ q_2^2 + 4 r_h^2 (A_2 + \kappa +1)^2} \right). 

635: \end{equation}

636: %

637: 

638: Thus, the most general asymptotically flat solution is 

639: %

640: \begin{equation} \label{apcAF}

641: a = \ln \left( 1 - {r_h^2 \over r^2} \right),

642: \end{equation}

643: %

644: %

645: \begin{equation} \label{phiAF}

646: \Phi_4 = A_1 \ln \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h} \right),

647: \end{equation}

648: %

649: %

650: \begin{equation} \label{cpbAF}

651: c = 2 \ln \left( 1 + {r_h \over r} \right) + A_2 \ln \left( {r+r_h

652: \over r-r_h} \right),

653: \end{equation}

654: %

655: %

656: \begin{equation} \label{x6solnAF}

657: x_6 =  \ln \left( \alpha - (\alpha-1) \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h}

658: \right)^{-2(A_2+\gamma+1)}\right) + 

659: \gamma \ln \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h} \right),

660: \end{equation}

661: %

662: \begin{equation} \label{x2solnAF}

663: x_2 = \ln \left( \beta - (\beta-1) \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h}

664: \right)^{-2(A_2+\kappa + 1)} \right) + \kappa \ln \left( {r+r_h \over

665: r-r_h} \right),

666: \end{equation}

667: %

668: with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ given by (\ref{alpha},\ref{beta}). 

669: 

670: To begin to analyse the physics of these solutions, we note that there

671: are two kinds of potential singularities in the solution

672: (\ref{apcAF}-\ref{x2solnAF}). There is a singularity at $r=r_h$, where

673: $a \to -\infty$, and other functions may diverge. Since $a \to

674: -\infty$ gives $g_{00} \to 0$ in (\ref{10dmet}), this singularity

675: could correspond to an event horizon, if we choose other constants of

676: integration appropriately. However, there is another possible

677: singularity; if we choose the lower sign in either (\ref{alpha}) or

678: (\ref{beta}), there will be a singularity in (\ref{x6solnAF}) or

679: (\ref{x2solnAF}) respectively at some $r>r_h$. This type of

680: singularity is the analogue of the repulson singularity in the

681: original enhan\c con story~\cite{JPP:enh}. We see that, as in the

682: discussion of nonextreme enhan\c cons in~\cite{JMPR:enh}, it arises

683: from a discrete choice: there are different branches of

684: solutions. Henceforth, we will assume that we take the positive sign

685: in (\ref{alpha}), and we will refer to the solution where we take the

686: positive sign in (\ref{beta}) as the horizon branch, and to the

687: solution where we take the negative sign in (\ref{beta}) as the shell

688: branch. The shell branch solutions will only be valid outside of an

689: enhan\c con shell.\footnote{Solutions on the horizon branch do not

690: have a repulson singularity, but they may nonetheless have a

691: non-trivial enhan\c con shell appearing in them, if the $K3$ volume in

692: (\ref{10dmet}) reaches string-scale outside the horizon

693: (see~\cite{JMPR:enh} for details). We will ignore this issue in what

694: follows; similar general remarks to those we make for the nonextremal

695: solutions on the shell branch will apply in this case.}

696: 

697: \subsection{Uniqueness of the horizon branch}

698: \label{sec:hor}

699: 

700: Addressing first the horizon branch, we will see that the only

701: solution where the coordinate singularity at $r=r_h$ is a regular

702: event horizon is the horizon branch solution found previously

703: in~\cite{JMPR:enh}. For $r=r_h$ to be a regular horizon, we clearly

704: need the ten-dimensional dilaton $\Phi_{10}$ to remain finite at

705: $r=r_h$. We should also require that the volume of the two-sphere and

706: K3 components of the metric remain finite there, to avoid any

707: diverging curvature invariants. Furthermore, we must require that the

708: factor in front of the $dx_{\|}^2$ directions remain finite: as argued

709: in~\cite{naked}, a divergence of such a component may not lead to

710: diverging curvature invariants, but it does cause a divergence in

711: components of the curvature in a suitable orthonormal frame. Taken

712: together, these conditions require that $c,\Phi_4,x_2$ and $x_6$ are

713: finite at $r=r_h$. That is, they impose $A_1 = A_2 = \gamma = \kappa

714: =0$.

715: 

716: Thus, we have a unique solution with a regular horizon. It has 

717: %

718: \begin{equation}

719: a = \ln \left( 1 - {r_h^2 \over r^2} \right), \Phi_4 = 0, c = 2 \ln

720: \left( 1 + {r_h \over r} \right),

721: \end{equation}

722: % 

723: %

724: \begin{equation}

725: x_6 = \ln \left( \alpha - (\alpha-1) \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h}

726: \right)^{-2}\right) = \ln \left( {r^2 + (Q_2^2+4 r_h^2)^{1/2} r +

727: r_h^2 \over (r+r_h)^2} \right),

728: \end{equation}

729: %

730: %

731: \begin{equation}

732: x_2 = \ln \left( \beta - (\beta-1) \left( {r+r_h \over r-r_h}

733: \right)^{-2}\right) = \ln \left( {r^2 + (q_2^2+4 r_h^2)^{1/2} r +

734: r_h^2 \over (r+r_h)^2} \right), 

735: \end{equation}

736: %

737: where in the above we have used the values of $\alpha,\beta$ from

738: (\ref{alpha},\ref{beta}), taking the positive sign in both

739: equations. Using (\ref{10dmet}), this can be easily shown to be

740: identical to the horizon branch solution in~\cite{JMPR:enh} written in

741: isotropic coordinates. 

742: 

743: Thus, we find that the unique solution consistent with the symmetries

744: we expect the enhan\c con to have possessing a regular event horizon

745: is the horizon-branch solution found before. This is perhaps not a

746: surprising result, but it is quite satisfying to be able to extend the

747: analysis of a particular ansatz undertaken in~\cite{JMPR:enh} to a

748: consideration of the most general form of nonextreme enhan\c con

749: metric.

750: 

751: \subsection{Shell branch: Extremal solutions}

752: \label{sec:ext}

753: 

754: We turn now to a discussion of the shell branch. As usual in

755: discussions of the enhan\c con mechanism, it is useful to first

756: consider the extreme case, and then extend this to nonextreme

757: solutions. Let us therefore consider what happens to the general

758: solution (\ref{apcAF}-\ref{x2solnAF}) if we take $r_h=0$.

759: 

760: This will depend on how we take the limit. If we take $r_h \to 0$ with

761: $A_1, A_2, \kappa, \gamma$ held fixed, then we recover the usual

762: extremal solution. We will get $a = \Phi_4 = c =0$,

763: %

764: \begin{equation}

765: \alpha \approx {|Q_2| \over 4 r_h (A_2 + \gamma +1)}, \quad \beta 

766: 	\approx {-|q_2| \over 4 r_h (A_2 + \kappa +1)}  

767: \end{equation}

768: %

769: (recalling that we are considering the shell branch, so we take the

770: negative sign in (\ref{beta})), which gives 

771: %

772: \begin{equation}

773: x_6 \approx \ln \left (1 +\alpha {4 (A_2 + \gamma +1) r_h \over r}

774: \right) \approx \ln \left( 1 + {|Q_2| \over r} \right), 

775: \end{equation}

776: %

777: %

778: \begin{equation}

779: x_2 \approx \ln \left (1 +\beta {4 (A_2 + \kappa +1) r_h \over r}

780: \right) \approx \ln \left( 1 - {|q_2| \over r} \right), 

781: \end{equation}

782: %

783: which gives us the exterior metric of the BPS enhan\c con solution

784: of~\cite{JPP:enh}. 

785: 

786: On the other hand, we could take the limit $r_h \to 0$ with

787: $\tilde{A}_1 = A_1 r_h$ etc held fixed, which will give a more general

788: extremal solution. This still has $a=0$, but now

789: %

790: \begin{equation} 

791: c = {2\tilde{A}_2 \over r},

792: \end{equation}

793: %

794: %

795: \begin{equation}

796: \Phi_4 = {2 \tilde{A}_1 \over r},

797: \end{equation}

798: %

799: and

800: %

801: \begin{equation}

802: x_6 =  \ln \left( \alpha - (\alpha-1) e^{-4(\tilde{A}_2+\tilde\gamma)

803: \over r}\right) +2 { \tilde\gamma \over r}

804: \end{equation}

805: %

806: \begin{equation} 

807: x_2 = \ln \left( \beta - (\beta-1) e^{-4(\tilde{A}_2+\tilde\kappa)

808: \over r} \right) + 2 {\tilde \kappa \over r}.

809: \end{equation}

810: %

811: In this limit, (\ref{alpha},\ref{beta}) become

812: %

813: \begin{equation} 

814: \alpha = {1 \over 4 (\tilde A_2 + \tilde \gamma)} \left( 2 (\tilde A_2

815:   + \tilde \gamma) + \sqrt{ Q_2^2 + 4 (\tilde A_2 + \tilde

816:   \gamma)^2} \right),

817: \end{equation}

818: %

819: %

820: \begin{equation} 

821: \beta = {1 \over 4 (\tilde A_2 + \tilde \kappa)} \left( 2 (\tilde A_2

822:   + \tilde \kappa) - \sqrt{ q_2^2 + 4 (\tilde A_2 + \tilde

823:   \kappa)^2} \right).

824: \end{equation}

825: %

826: 

827: These additional solutions look similar to the exterior solution in

828: the familiar BPS enhan\c con to some extent; they have a singularity

829: at some $r>0$, where $x_2 \to -\infty$, implying that the volume of

830: the K3 goes to zero. We wish to ask if we can build a physical

831: solution where this singularity is resolved. To resolve the

832: singularity, we need to be able to consistently excise the region

833: inside the radius where the K3 volume reaches the self-dual point with

834: flat space by introducing a shell of branes at this radius.

835: 

836: If we consider the junction between this solution and flat space, we

837: can define the shell stress tensor in terms of the discontinuity in the

838: extrinsic curvature~\cite{israel,JMPR:enh}, 

839: %

840: \begin{equation}

841: S_{AB} \equiv \frac{1}{\kappa^2} (\gamma_{AB} - G_{AB}

842: \gamma^C_C)

843: \end{equation}

844: %

845: where $\gamma_{AB} \equiv K^+_{AB} + K^-_{AB}$ is the jump in the

846: extrinsic curvature

847: %

848: %

849: \begin{equation}

850: \mathcal{K}_{AB}^{\pm} = \mp {1 \over 2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{G_{rr}}}

851: \frac{\partial}{\partial r } (G_{AB}) \,.

852: \end{equation}

853: %

854: Assuming the interior metric is flat, $K_{AB}^- = 0$, so $\gamma_{AB}

855: = K^+_{AB}$. The components of the stress tensor for a general metric

856: of the form (\ref{10dmet}) are then 

857: %

858: \begin{equation} \label{stt}

859: S_{tt} = {1 \over \kappa^2 \sqrt{G_{rr}}} (4c' + x_2' + x_6') G_{tt},

860: \end{equation}

861: %

862: %

863: \begin{equation}

864: S_{\mu\nu} = {1 \over \kappa^2 \sqrt{G_{rr}}} (2a' + 2c' + \Phi_4' +

865:               x_2' + x_6') G_{\mu\nu},

866: \end{equation}

867: %

868: %

869: \begin{equation}

870: S_{ij} = {1 \over \kappa^2 \sqrt{G_{rr}}} 2a' G_{ij},

871: \end{equation}

872: %

873: %

874: \begin{equation}

875: S_{ab} = {1 \over \kappa^2 \sqrt{G_{rr}}} (2a' + 2c' + \Phi_4' + x_6')

876:          G_{ab},

877: \end{equation}

878: %

879: where indices $\mu,\nu$ run over the non-compact longitudinal

880: directions, $i,j$ run over the $S^2$ directions, and $a,b$ run over

881: the K3 directions. We thus see that $S_{ij} = 0$ for any solution with

882: $r_h = 0$, as we would expect for an extremal solution. 

883: 

884: Since the stress tensor in the sphere directions vanishes, it is

885: natural to see what happens if we try to model the source for this

886: shell by a collection of fundamental branes, generalising the BPS

887: enhan\c con solution. The DBI action for wrapped D6-branes is

888: %

889: \begin{equation}

890: S = - \int_{{\cal M}_2}d^3\xi\, e^{-\Phi_{10}} (\mu_6 V(r) - \mu_2)

891: (-\det{G_{\mu\nu}})^{1/2}  

892: \label{probeaction}

893: \end{equation}

894: %

895: where ${\cal M}_2$ is the unwrapped part of the worldvolume, which

896: lies in six non--compact dimensions, $V(r)$ is the running volume of

897: the K3, and $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the induced (string frame)

898: metric. Plugging in the metric~(\ref{10dmet}), we obtain

899: %

900: \begin{equation}

901: S = -\int d^3 \xi e^{a-c} (\mu_6 e^{-x_6} - \mu_2 e^{-x_2}).

902: \end{equation}

903: %

904: 

905: Since the action does not couple to the 4d dilaton $\Phi_4$, it cannot

906: source a discontinuity in this field; thus, we must set $\tilde

907: A_1=0$. The action has a Lorentz symmetry relating the time direction

908: and the non-compact spatial directions; we can therefore only use it

909: as the source if the shell stress tensor also respects this symmetry,

910: which forces us to set $\tilde A_2 = 0$. We are then just left with

911: the terms coming from $x_2'$ and $x_6'$ in the stress-energy. If these

912: are to be sourced by the brane action, these functions need to satisfy

913: $x_2' e^{x_2} = $ constant, $x_6' e^{x_6} = $ constant. These

914: constraints force us to set $\tilde \gamma = \tilde \kappa =0$. This

915: gives us back the usual BPS enhan\c con solution.

916: 

917: Thus, while we have found additional solutions with $r_h = 0$, these

918: are not physical extreme enhan\c con solutions, in the sense that they

919: do not correspond to the geometry sourced by a collection of BPS

920: branes. Requiring that the shell stress tensor have the appropriate

921: form to correspond to the brane sources completely fixes the constants

922: of integration in the solution. That is, in the extreme case at least,

923: our usual no-hair intuition continues to hold. The additional

924: parameters do not actually correspond to a family of generalised

925: physical solutions; the only truly physical solution is the usual one.

926: 

927: In passing, it is interesting to note the effect of the deformations

928: in the more general solution on the asymptotics of the solution---in

929: particular, on the ADM mass. If we just consider turning the $\tilde

930: \kappa$ parameter on slightly, modifying the behaviour of $x_2$, its

931: asymptotics will be

932: %

933: \begin{equation}

934: e^{x_2} \approx \left( 1 + {4 (\beta-1) \tilde \kappa \over r} \right)

935: \left( 1 + {2 \tilde \kappa \over r} \right).   

936: \end{equation}

937: %

938: Assuming $\tilde \kappa \ll q_2^2$, 

939: %

940: \begin{equation}

941: \beta \approx {-|q_2| \over 4\kappa} \left( 1 - 2 {\tilde \kappa \over

942:   |q_2|}  \right),

943: \end{equation}

944: %

945: so 

946: %

947: \begin{equation}

948: e^{x_2} \approx 1 - {|q_2| \over r} + {4 \tilde \kappa \over r}.

949: \end{equation}

950: %

951: The effect of this will be that positive values of $\tilde \kappa$

952: increase the ADM mass. This teaches us two things: first, the

953: solutions with $\tilde \kappa \neq 0$ are clearly not supersymmetric,

954: since they do not saturate the BPS bound. Second, this suggests a

955: potentially useful way to correct the problem with the WEC in the

956: nonextreme case.

957: 

958: \subsection{Shell branch: Nonextremal solutions}

959: \label{sec:shell} 

960: 

961: Let us now consider the nonextreme shell branch, where we take $r_h

962: \neq 0$. We have the freedom to consider any solution in the general

963: family (\ref{apcAF}-\ref{x2solnAF}). However, in this section, we will

964: focus just on the effects of turning on the parameter $\kappa$ which

965: modifies the behaviour of $x_2$. The philosophy underlying this

966: approach is that we need to focus on a subset of the possible

967: deformations to keep the formulae arising in the discussion of

968: manageable complexity, and this seems to be the most natural

969: deformation to consider, since it is $x_2$ which already has `unusual'

970: behaviour in any shell branch solution. We will show that turning on

971: this deformation is sufficient to produce solutions which do not

972: violate the WEC.

973: 

974: Let us first review the argument that the WEC condition is violated in

975: the usual nonextremal shell branch solution~\cite{dr}. The nonextremal

976: solution of~\cite{JMPR:enh} is the special case of our general

977: asymptotically flat solution (\ref{apcAF}-\ref{x2solnAF}) where $A_1 =

978: A_2 = \gamma = \kappa =0$, and we take the negative sign in

979: (\ref{beta}). This metric then has a repulson singularity at some

980: $r=r_{\rm r}$, where $x_2 \to - \infty$. As in the extremal case, the

981: shell branch solution can apply only outside of some enhan\c con

982: shell, located at the radius where the volume of the K3 reaches the

983: self-dual point, $V = V_* = (2\pi \sqrt{\alpha'})^4$. From the metric

984: (\ref{10dmet}) we see that the enhan\c con radius is given by

985: %

986: \begin{equation} \label{enhrad}

987: e^{x_2 - x_6} = {V_* \over V}.

988: \end{equation}

989: %

990: For the nonextreme shell branch solution of~\cite{JMPR:enh} in our

991: coordinates, this becomes 

992: %

993: \begin{equation} \label{enhrad2}

994: {\left( \beta - (\beta-1) e^{2 z} \right) \over \left( \alpha

995: - (\alpha-1) e^{2z} \right)} = {V_* \over V}.

996: \end{equation}

997: % 

998: 

999: We assume that we excise the portion of the solution inside this

1000: radius and replace it with either flat space or a horizon branch

1001: solution. There is then a discontinuity at this radius, corresponding

1002: to a shell whose stress tensor is calculated as in the extremal case

1003: in the previous subsection. Assuming the interior solution is still

1004: flat (which maximises the shell's contribution to the overall ADM

1005: mass), we see from (\ref{stt}) that the shell energy density is

1006: %

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: \rho \propto - x_2' - x_6' -4c'.

1009: \end{equation}

1010: %

1011: The $x_6'$ and $c'$ terms make positive contributions to the energy

1012: density. However, the choice of the negative sign in (\ref{beta})

1013: implies that $\beta<0$, and as a consequence the first term is

1014: negative;

1015: %

1016: \begin{equation}

1017: - x_2' = -{ 2 (1-\beta) e^{2z} \over (\beta - (\beta-1)

1018:   e^{-2z})} \partial_r z <0.

1019: \end{equation}

1020: %

1021: To see that this negative term dominates, we first write the first two

1022: terms together, using (\ref{enhrad2}),

1023: %

1024: \begin{equation}

1025: -x_2' -x_6' = -{ 2 (1-\beta) e^{2z_{\rm e}} \over (\beta - (\beta-1)

1026:   e^{2z_{\rm e}})} \left( 1 - {(\alpha-1) \over (1 - \beta)} {V_*

1027:   \over V} \right) \partial_r z.

1028: \end{equation}

1029: %

1030: This expression is valid only at the enhan\c con radius $z = z_{\rm

1031:   e}$, where (\ref{enhrad2}) is satisfied. Now

1032: %

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: {(\alpha -1) \over  (1-\beta)} = { \sqrt{ Q_2^2 + 4r_h^2}

1035: - 2 r_h  \over \sqrt{q_2^2 + 4 r_h^2} + 2 r_h} <

1036: {V \over V_*},

1037: \end{equation}

1038: % 

1039: since $|Q_2|/|q_2| = V/V_*$. Thus, the first two terms together give a

1040: negative answer. Furthermore, for this supergravity analysis to be

1041: relevant, we need to assume that $V_* \gg V$, so that higher-order

1042: corrections involving the K3 curvature are suppressed. This implies by

1043: (\ref{enhrad2}) that $(\beta - (\beta-1) e^{2z_{\rm e}}) \ll 1$, so

1044: these terms will dominate over the remaining positive term, $-4c' = {8

1045:   r_h \over r_{\rm e}(r_{\rm e}+r_h)}$. Thus, $\rho <0$, and the shell

1046:   violates the WEC. The usual nonextreme enhan\c con solution thus

1047:   cannot correspond to the geometry sourced by a physical collection

1048:   of branes. 

1049: 

1050: A primary motivation for looking for more general solutions was to see

1051: how general this problem is. We will now show that we can produce

1052: solutions where the shell satisfies the WEC by generalising to

1053: non-zero values of $\kappa$. First, we

1054: note that changing $\kappa$ will change the enhan\c con radius;

1055: (\ref{enhrad}) now implies 

1056: %

1057: \begin{equation} \label{enhr}

1058: {\left( \beta - (\beta-1) e^{2(\kappa+1) z} \right) \over \left( \alpha

1059: - (\alpha-1) e^{2z} \right)} e^{-\kappa z} = {V_* \over V}.

1060: \end{equation}

1061: % 

1062: The first two terms in the energy density are then 

1063: %

1064: \begin{equation} \label{x2x6}

1065: -x_2' - x_6' = \left[ { 2(\kappa+1) (\beta-1) e^{2(\kappa+1)z}

1066: \over (\beta - (\beta-1) e^{2(\kappa+1)z})} + \kappa  + {

1067: 2(\alpha-1) e^{2z} \over  \left( \alpha

1068: - (\alpha-1) e^{2z} \right)} \right] \partial_r z.

1069: \end{equation}

1070: %

1071: Using (\ref{enhr}), we can rewrite this as

1072: %

1073: \begin{eqnarray}

1074: -x_2' - x_6' = { -2(\kappa+1) (1-\beta) e^{2(\kappa+1)z} \over (\beta -

1075: (\beta-1) e^{2(\kappa+1)z})} \left[ 1 - {(\alpha-1) \over

1076: (\kappa+1)(1-\beta)} {V_* \over V} e^{-\kappa z} \right] \partial_r z

1077: + \kappa \partial_r z.

1078: \end{eqnarray}

1079: %

1080: In this generalisation, it is still true that

1081: %

1082: \begin{equation}

1083: {(\alpha -1) \over (\kappa+1) (1-\beta)} = { \sqrt{ Q_2^2 + 4r_h^2}

1084: - 2 r_h  \over \sqrt{q_2^2 + 4(\kappa+1)^2 r_h^2} + 2(\kappa+1) r_h} <

1085: {V \over V_*}. 

1086: \end{equation}

1087: % 

1088: However, this does not imply that the factor in square brackets in

1089: (\ref{x2x6}) is positive. For positive $\kappa$, the factor of

1090: $e^{-\kappa z} >1$, and it can easily be made sufficiently large to

1091: make this factor negative, at least for small values of $r_h$.  Note

1092: also that the additional $\kappa \partial_r z$ term is also acting in

1093: the same direction for positive $\kappa$. Thus, the contribution of

1094: the $x_6'$ term can dominate over that of the $x_2'$ term for suitable

1095: values of $\kappa$, leading to a shell stress energy which satisfies

1096: the WEC.\footnote{This seems a natural way to modify the solution to

1097:   satisfy the WEC; however, other possibilities certainly exist. For

1098:   example, turning on a positive $\gamma$ will modify the

1099:   stress-energy in a very similar way, and can also lead to solutions

1100:   which satisfy the WEC.} 

1101: 

1102: However, we still have the problem that the solution depends on

1103: constants of integration, which seem to represent an unphysical

1104: freedom to modify the geometry. Simply imposing the WEC cannot

1105: completely fix the constants of integration in the solution. These

1106: parameters are best thought of as parameterising the shell stress

1107: tensor, and are not wholly fixed at the supergravity level, because

1108: supergravity on its own cannot completely determine the shell stress

1109: tensor. At the fundamental level, there should be a definite form for

1110: this stress tensor, which will fix these parameters (possibly up to

1111: some discrete choices). However, this will require some input from

1112: physics beyond supergravity, which provides a real microphysical model

1113: for the shell stress tensor, as the DBI action did in the BPS case.

1114: 

1115: Thus, we have a complete description of the solutions at the

1116: supergravity level which satisfy the appropriate symmetry assumptions,

1117: and we can see that some of them will satisfy the WEC, which is our

1118: primary physics constraint on them at this level. However, since we do

1119: not have a microphysical model for the shells in the nonextremal

1120: cases, we cannot determine which (if any) of this family of solutions

1121: actually correspond to physical nonextreme generalisations of the

1122: enhan\c con mechanism.

1123: 

1124: \section{Conclusions}

1125: \label{sec:concl}

1126: 

1127: We have been studying the extension of the enhan\c con

1128: mechanism~\cite{JPP:enh} to nonextremal, finite temperature

1129: geometries. In~\cite{JPP:enh,JMPR:enh}, it was found that there are

1130: nonextremal versions of the enhan\c con geometry, and it was noted

1131: that there are two different branches of solutions: the horizon

1132: branch, which always has a regular event horizon, and the shell

1133: branch, which always has an enhan\c con shell outside of the horizon

1134: (if any).

1135: 

1136: In this paper, we have extended the work of~\cite{JMPR:enh} by finding

1137: the most general solution consistent with the symmetries and charges

1138: associated with the enhan\c con. These solutions represent

1139: generalisations of the exterior geometry in the enhan\c con

1140: solution. One of the constants of integration, $r_h$, can be

1141: interpreted as a nonextremality parameter, so these are generally

1142: nonextremal solutions. We find that the branch structure noted

1143: in~\cite{JMPR:enh} arises when we impose asymptotic flatness: this

1144: results in a quadratic equation for one of the constants of

1145: integration, with the two roots corresponding to the horizon branch

1146: and the shell branch.

1147: 

1148: Considering the horizon branch, and assuming that there is no shell

1149: outside of the horizon, we showed that imposing regularity of the

1150: solution at the event horizon fixes the remaining free parameters,

1151: showing that the unique solution with a regular horizon is, as

1152: expected, the horizon branch solution of~\cite{JMPR:enh}. This

1153: solution reduces to an uncharged black hole at large mass. 

1154: 

1155: Considering the shell branch, we saw that we had a family of solutions

1156: at $r_h=0$. On the shell branch, we are considering singular

1157: supergravity metrics (there is a delta-function singularity at the

1158: location of the shell), so we can no longer fix these constants of

1159: integration by imposing regularity of the solution. However, the only

1160: solution in this family for which the stress tensor of the shell

1161: inferred from the supergravity solution is of the form predicted for

1162: a collection of wrapped branes by the DBI action was the familiar BPS

1163: solution of~\cite{JPP:enh}. Thus, we find that if we specify a

1164: particular form for the shell stress tensor, then as expected, there

1165: was no remaining freedom in the form of the solution; the solution is

1166: completely described by giving its conserved charges and ADM mass.

1167: 

1168: In the nonextreme case, the shell branch solution obtained

1169: in~\cite{JMPR:enh} is unphysical, as it violates the weak energy

1170: condition~\cite{dr}. We have shown that this problem can be

1171: circumvented by considering more general solutions. This provides us

1172: with a multiparameter family of solutions which satisfy all the

1173: constraints on physical solutions at the supergravity level.  This

1174: freedom to add `hair' to the exterior solution arises because the form

1175: of the shell stress tensor is not completely fixed. Indeed, the four

1176: free parameters in the exterior solution correspond precisely to the

1177: freedom to specify three components of the shell stress tensor and the

1178: discontinuity in the dilaton, although the translation between the

1179: parameters and the stress tensor is quite non-trivial. (The freedom to

1180: specify the shell stress in the sphere directions, which is not

1181: affected by these parameters, corresponds to the further ambiguity

1182: previously noted in~\cite{JMPR:enh}, in the division of the energy

1183: above extremality between the shell itself and a black hole inside the

1184: shell.) Thus, if we had a microphysical model of the shell, we would

1185: expect to be able to fix all of this freedom. However, this requires

1186: further input from physics beyond supergravity, which we do not have

1187: available for the nonextreme cases. The appearance of these parameters

1188: thus exposes the limits of the supergravity approach to enhan\c con

1189: physics. 

1190: 

1191: Let us reiterate the essential difference between the two branches: on

1192: the horizon branch, we seek a smooth supergravity solution. We can

1193: then determine the solution uniquely without requiring additional

1194: input, as it does not involve explicit sources. On the shell branch,

1195: the singularity can never be clothed by a horizon; we want to describe

1196: its resolution by the expansion of the branes sourcing the

1197: geometry. We cannot determine the appropriate geometry uniquely, as it

1198: involves explicit sources, and we do not have a fundamental

1199: description of those sources for the nonextremal case.\footnote{This

1200: suggests that the most interesting case in which to investigate the

1201: extension of singularity resolutions to near-extreme solutions will be

1202: the mechanism of~\cite{kleb:sr}, where the singular geometry is

1203: replaced by a smooth supergravity solution with no explicit

1204: sources. Some investigations of this system appear

1205: in~\cite{buchel:bh1,buchel:bh2,gubser:bh1}. It is likely that attempts

1206: to extend other singularity resolutions that involve explicit branes,

1207: such as~\cite{pol:sr,buchel:enh,evans:enh}, to nonextreme cases will

1208: suffer from the difficulty we have encountered.}

1209: 

1210: In fact, our lack of understanding of the nonextremal physics goes

1211: deeper: we cannot exclude the possibility that none of these solutions

1212: provide an appropriate physical description of a nonextremal enhan\c

1213: con. It is possible that the shell thickens once we add some energy to

1214: it, invalidating the thin-shell approximation used here~\cite{dr};

1215: alternatively, the non-abelian gauge fields which become light near

1216: the shell may become important (this may even lead to violations of

1217: spherical symmetry)~\cite{wijnholt}.

1218: 

1219: It is also worth noting that our study of more general solutions has

1220: not resolved the issue of the branch structure and phase

1221: transitions. Assuming the near-extremal behaviour is described by some

1222: shell branch solution, while the behaviour at large masses should be

1223: described by the horizon branch, one expects that there will be some

1224: phase transition between the two branches as a function of

1225: mass. Unfortunately, since we are unable to identify the correct shell

1226: branch solution on the basis of supergravity information alone, we

1227: cannot even set up the problem of studying this phase transition. 

1228: 

1229: \medskip

1230: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}

1231: \medskip    

1232:     

1233: AD is supported in part by EPSRC studentship 00800708 and by a

1234: studentship from the University of Durham, and thanks Georgios

1235: Tzamtzis for useful discussions. AWP is supported by NSERC of Canada,

1236: the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and an Alfred P. Sloan

1237: Foundation Research Fellowship.  GP is supported by an NSERC

1238: Post-Graduate Scholarship and an E.C. Stevens Fellowship.  SFR is

1239: supported by an EPSRC Advanced Fellowship.  AWP and GP would also like

1240: to thank the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study for hospitality

1241: during the early stages of this work.

1242: 

1243: %

1244: \newpage

1245: %

1246: \bibliographystyle{/home/aplm/dma0sfr/tex_stuff/bibs/utphys}  

1247:  

1248: \bibliography{apostolos}   

1249:     

1250: \end{document}   

1251:               

1252: 

1253: 

1254: 

1255: 

1256: 

1257: 

1258: 

1259: