1: \section{Adding boundary momentum to the PT ansatz}
2: \label{sugratrunc}
3: The Papadopoulos-Tseytlin (PT) ansatz for type IIB supergravity
4: solutions with fluxes \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj} reduces the problem
5: of finding
6: these particular
7: flux solutions to solving the equations of motion deriving
8: from an effective one-dimensional action subject to a zero-energy
9: constraint. This suggests that it should be possible to generalize the
10: PT ansatz in such a way that the scalars that parametrize the
11: 10-dimensional solution depend not only on a ``radial'' variable, but
12: on all five ``external'' variables.
13: This corresponds to allowing for non-zero momentum in the boundary
14: theory, as required for computing correlators as functions of
15: momentum. Such a generalization is indeed possible, and we shall
16: present the result in this section, with the technical details given
17: in appendix~\ref{construnc}.
18: In order not to
19: unnecessarily overload the notation, we deviate slightly from the
20: convention used in the appendix by dropping tildes from the 5-dimensional
21: objects. In the main text, the meaning of the symbols
22: should be clear from the context, whereas a clearer distinction is
23: needed for the detailed calculations in the appendices.
24: The resulting five-dimensional action is of the form
25: \eqref{action5d}. It will be important for us that in many cases of
26: interest, including the KS and MN systems, a superpotential $W$
27: generating the potential $V$ via \eqref{Vdef} is known \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj}.
28:
29: The equations of motion of type IIB supergravity in the Einstein frame
30: are
31: %
32: \begin{align}
33: \label{einsteintend}
34: R_{MN} &= \frac12 \partial_M \Phi \partial_N \Phi + \frac12 \e{2\Phi}
35: \partial_M C \partial_N C + \frac{1}{96} g_s^2 \tF_{MPQRS}
36: \tF_N^{PQRS} \\
37: \notag
38: &\quad +\frac{g_s}{4} (\e{-\Phi} H_{MPQ} H_N^{PQ}
39: + \e{\Phi} \tF_{MPQ} \tF_N^{PQ}) \\
40: \notag
41: &\quad - \frac{g_s}{48} g_{MN} (\e{-\Phi} H_{PQR} H^{PQR}
42: + \e{\Phi} \tF_{PQR} \tF^{PQR})~, \\
43: \label{dilatoneomtend}
44: \rmd \star \rmd\Phi &= \e{2 \Phi} \rmd C \wedge \star \rmd C
45: - \frac{g_s}{2} \e{-\Phi} H_3 \wedge \star H_3
46: + \frac{g_s}{2} \e{\Phi} \tF_3 \wedge \star \tF_3~,\\
47: \label{ceomtend}
48: \rmd(\e{2 \Phi} \star \rmd C) &= -g_s \e\Phi H_3 \wedge \star
49: \tF_3~,\\
50: \label{f3eomtend}
51: \rmd(\e{\Phi} \star \tF_3) &= g_s F_5 \wedge H_3~,\\
52: \label{h3eomtend}
53: \rmd \star (\e{-\Phi} H_3 - C \e{\Phi} \tF_3) &= -g_s F_5 \wedge F_3~,\\
54: \label{selfdual}
55: \star \tF_5 &= \tF_5~,
56: \end{align}
57: %
58: where we have used the notation
59: %
60: \begin{equation}
61: \notag
62: F_3 = \rmd C_2~, \quad H_3 = \rmd B_2~, \quad F_5 = \rmd C_4~,
63: \quad \tF_3 = F_3 - C H_3~, \quad \tF_5 = F_5 + B_2 \wedge F_3~.
64: \end{equation}
65: %
66: From the last definition follows the Bianchi identity
67: %
68: \begin{equation}
69: \label{bif5}
70: \rmd\tF_5 = H_3 \wedge F_3~.
71: \end{equation}
72: %
73: In the following we set $g_s=1$ and $\alpha'=1$.
74:
75: Our ansatz for a consistent truncation follows PT closely, but allows the
76: scalar fields to depend on all five external coordinates. Thus, we
77: take
78: %
79: \begin{align}
80: \notag
81: \rmd s^2_{10} & = \e{2p-x} \rmd s_5^2
82: + (\e{x+g}+a^2 \e{x-g}) (e_1^2+ e_2^2)
83: + \e{x-g} [e_3^2+e_4^2-2a(e_1 e_3 + e_2 e_4)] +
84: \e{-6p-x}e_5^2~,\\
85: \notag
86: \rmd s^2_5 & = g_{\mu\nu}\rmd y^\mu \rmd y^\nu~,\\
87: \notag
88: H_3 & = h_2\, e_5 \wedge (e_4 \wedge e_2 + e_3 \wedge e_1)
89: +\rmd y^\mu \wedge \left[\partial_\mu h_1 (e_4\wedge e_3 + e_2\wedge
90: e_1)+\right. \\
91: \notag &\quad \left.
92: + \partial_\mu h_2 (e_4 \wedge e_1 -e_3 \wedge e_2)
93: + \partial_\mu \chi (-e_4 \wedge e_3 + e_2 \wedge e_1)
94: \right]~,\\
95: \notag
96: F_3 & = P \left\{ e_5 \wedge [e_4 \wedge e_3 + e_2 \wedge e_1 - b
97: (e_4 \wedge e_1 - e_3 \wedge e_2)] + \rmd y^\mu \wedge
98: [\partial_\mu b (e_4 \wedge e_2 + e_3 \wedge e_1)] \right\}~,\\
99: \notag
100: \Phi & = \Phi(y)~, \quad C=0~,\\
101: \label{PTansatz}
102: \quad \tF_5 &= \mathcal{F}_5 + \star \mathcal{F}_5~,\quad
103: \mathcal{F}_5 = K\, e_1 \wedge e_2 \wedge e_3 \wedge e_4 \wedge e_5~,
104: \end{align}
105: %
106: where $p,x,g,a,b,h_1,h_2,K$ and $\chi$ are functions of the external
107: coordinates $y^\mu$, and $P$ is a constant measuring the units of
108: 3-form flux across the 3-cycle of $T^{1,1}$
109: in the UV. For readers familiar
110: with the KS background, it may be useful to note that
111: $\Phi=\chi=0$ in KS, and the other fields have backgrounds as given
112: later in section~\ref{KSbackground}.
113:
114: We are using the KS convention for the
115: forms,\footnote{The relation to the PT and MN conventions can be found
116: in footnote 7 of \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj}.}
117: \ie
118: %
119: \begin{equation}
120: \label{es}
121: \begin{aligned}
122: e_1 &= -\sin \theta_1\, \rmd \phi_1~, \quad
123: e_2 = \rmd \theta_1~, &
124: e_3 &= \cos \psi \sin \theta_2 \, \rmd \phi_2 - \sin \psi \, \rmd
125: \theta_2~,\\
126: e_4 &= \sin \psi \sin \theta_2 \, \rmd \phi_2 + \cos \psi \, \rmd \theta_2~,
127: &
128: e_5 &= \rmd \psi + \cos \theta_1 \, \rmd \phi_1 + \cos \theta_2 \, \rmd
129: \phi_2~.
130: \end{aligned}
131: \end{equation}
132: %
133: We note that the first term in the ansatz for $F_3$ is essentially
134: $\omega_3 = g^5 \wedge \omega_2$
135: in KS notation, and as it will turn out that $b\rightarrow 0$ in the UV,
136: we see that the ansatz for $F_3$ indeed describes a flux piercing the 3-cycle
137: of $T^{1,1}$ in the UV.
138: Thus, we have parametrized the 10-d fields of type IIB
139: supergravity by a 5-d metric, $g_{\mu\nu}$, and a set
140: of ten scalars, $\Phi,p,x,g,a,b,h_1,h_2,K$ and $\chi$. As in
141: \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj}, one finds
142: (again, details are relegated to appendix \ref{construnc})
143: that some of the equations of
144: motion \eqref{einsteintend}--\eqref{bif5} impose constraints on this
145: system of fields, namely
146: %
147: \begin{equation}
148: \label{kconstraint}
149: K = Q + 2 P (h_1 + b h_2)~,
150: \end{equation}
151: %
152: for a constant $Q$
153: that sets the AdS scale when $P=0$, and
154: %
155: \begin{equation}
156: \label{partialchi}
157: \partial_\mu \chi = \frac{(\e{2g} + 2 a^2 + \e{-2g}a^4 - \e{-2g})
158: \partial_\mu h_1 + 2 a (1 - \e{-2g}+ a^2 \e{-2g})
159: \partial_\mu h_2 }{\e{2g}+(1-a^2)^2 \e{-2g}+2a^2}~.
160: \end{equation}
161: %
162: Although this latter constraint is a 5-d generalization of the
163: analogous constraint found by PT,
164: unlike in their case
165: it does not only eliminate $\chi$
166: from the action, but also imposes restrictions on the
167: possible sets of
168: independent fields. These restrictions arise from the demand of
169: integrability ($\partial_\nu \partial_\mu \chi = \partial_\mu \partial_\nu
170: \chi$) of the five
171: first-order partial differential
172: equations \eqref{partialchi}. Considering the four special cases given in
173: \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj}, one finds that \eqref{partialchi} is
174: satisfied for the singular conifold
175: (the KT solution, a special case of the KS system), the deformed conifold (KS), and
176: the wrapped D5-brane (MN), but not in general for fluctuations about the resolved conifold
177: \cite{PandoZayas:2000sq}.
178: Further comments on this appear below.
179: Thus, we
180: shall, in the following, consider only the KS and MN systems.
181: %It would be interesting to investigate whether a %suitable
182: %generalization of the ansatz \eqref{PTansatz} can %provide a remedy to
183: %this problem, but we leave this for the future.
184:
185: Imposing the constraints \eqref{kconstraint} and \eqref{partialchi},
186: the remaining equations of motion can be derived from the 5-dimensional action
187: %
188: \begin{equation}
189: \label{5dact}
190: S_5 = \int \rmd^5 y \sqrt{g} \left[ -\frac14 R
191: + \frac12 G_{ab}(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi^a \partial^\mu \phi^b
192: + V(\phi) \right]~,
193: \end{equation}
194: %
195: with sigma model metric
196: %
197: \begin{multline}
198: \label{actionPT}
199: G_{ab}(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi^a \partial^\mu \phi^b =
200: \partial_\mu x \partial^\mu x + \frac12 \partial_\mu g \partial^\mu g
201: + 6 \partial_\mu p \partial^\mu p
202: + \frac12 \e{-2g} \partial_\mu a \partial^\mu a
203: + \frac14 \partial_\mu \Phi \partial^\mu \Phi + \\
204: + \frac12 P^2 \e{\Phi-2x} \partial_\mu b \partial^\mu b
205: + \frac{\e{-\Phi -2x}}{\e{2g} + 2a^2+\e{-2g}(1-a^2)^2} \left\{
206: (1+2 \e{-2g} a^2) \partial_\mu h_1 \partial^\mu h_1
207: +\phantom{\frac12}\right. \\
208: \left.
209: + \frac12 [\e{2g} +2a^2+\e{-2g}(1+a^2)^2]
210: \partial_\mu h_2 \partial^\mu h_2 + 2 a [\e{-2g}(a^2+1)+1]
211: \partial_\mu h_1 \partial^\mu h_2 \right\}~,
212: \end{multline}
213: %
214: and potential
215: %
216: \begin{equation}
217: \label{VPT}
218: \begin{split}
219: V(\phi) &= -\frac12 \e{2p-2x} [\e{g}+(1+a^2)\e{-g}]
220: + \frac18 \e{-4p-4x}[\e{2g}+(a^2-1)^2\e{-2g}+2a^2] +\\
221: &\quad
222: + \frac14 a^2 \e{-2g+8p} + \frac18 P^2 \e{\Phi-2x+8p}[\e{2g} +
223: \e{-2g} (a^2 - 2ab +1)^2 + 2 (a-b)^2] +\\
224: &\quad
225: + \frac14 \e{-\Phi-2x+8p}h_2^2 +\frac18 \e{8p-4x} [Q+2P(h_1 + b
226: h_2)]^2~.
227: \end{split}
228: \end{equation}
229: %
230: As emphasized above, we must remember that integrability of \eqref{partialchi}
231: effectively restricts us to the KS and MN systems. With this restriction,
232: the system \eqref{5dact} with kinetic terms \eqref{actionPT} and
233: potential \eqref{VPT} represents a consistent truncation of type IIB
234: supergravity. Moreover, the superpotential exists and is known in both
235: cases. We show the consistency of the truncation in appendix~\ref{construnc}.
236:
237: It is an interesting and (as far as we know) open question how
238: the truncation of (\ref{actionPT}) and (\ref{VPT}) to the KS system can be made manifestly
239: supersymmetric. As explained in \cite{Papadopoulos:2000gj} (and as we review in section
240: \ref{KSbackground}), this truncation introduces one more constraint on the
241: system of ten scalars, cf.\ \eqref{KS:agrel}. Together with \eqref{kconstraint} and \eqref{partialchi} this leaves seven independent scalars. To write down a manifestly supersymmetric effective action for them
242: might require a generalization of the ansatz \eqref {PTansatz}.
243: To some readers
244: it may seem discouraging that the number of real
245: scalars in the KS system is odd, as
246: four-dimensional intuition would indicate
247: that the superpotential in a supersymmetric theory
248: ought to be a holomorphic function in complex field variables. However, this intuition does not apply in
249: odd dimensions. In ${\cal N} = 2$ theories in five
250: dimensions, the vector multiplet only contains a real scalar, so it is conceivable that a potential of the form \eqref{Vdef} could
251: be appropriate for a supersymmetric theory, even if the derivatives
252: are with respect to real scalars. A similar situation arises in
253: ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric theories in three dimensions (for example, those obtained from Calabi-Yau fourfold compactifications of M-theory).
254: There, the potential is given by an expression similar to
255: \eqref{Vdef} but involving two functions, one depending on the real
256: scalars of the vector multiplets and the other being a holomorphic
257: function depending on the remaining scalars
258: \cite{Haack:2001jz,Berg:2002es,deWit:2003ja,Hohm:2004rc}.
259:
260: It is also interesting to ask whether it is possible (at least in certain cases)
261: to rewrite the general form of the potential
262: in a five-dimensional gauged ${\cal N}=2$ supergravity,
263: given in \cite{Gunaydin:1984ak,Gunaydin:1999zx,Ceresole:2000jd,Bergshoeff:2004kh},
264: in a form that resembles \eqref{Vdef}. This question (and its generalization to
265: ${\cal N}=4$) was investigated in \cite{Celi:2004st,Zagermann:2004ac}.
266:
267: We would also like to connect the discussion above to the work on the
268: Klebanov-Strassler Goldstone mode found in
269: \cite{Gubser:2004qj,Gubser:2004tf}
270: (this mode was predicted already in
271: \cite{Aharony:2000pp}).\footnote{See also \cite{Butti:2004pk}.}
272: Since we argued that the analysis of
273: fluctuations about the resolved conifold does
274: not extend from the one-dimensional to the five-dimensional
275: truncation in any obvious way, one needs to generalize the ansatz to satisfy the
276: integrability constraint if one wants to study the dynamics of the
277: Goldstone mode multiplet. We have no reason to doubt that this is possible, but
278: we will not pursue it further here.
279: