arxiv:hep-th/ v1 25 May 2004

Transcription

1 S 3 Dimensional Reduction of Einstein Gravity arxiv:hep-th/ v1 25 May 2004 Román Linares Romero Departamento de Física, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, A. Postal , México D.F., c.p , México. lirr@xanum.uam.mx Abstract We exhibit a new consistent dimensional reduction of pure Einstein gravity when the compactification manifold is S 3. The novel feature in the reduction is to consider the two three-dimensional groups of motions that S 3 admits. One of the groups is introduced into the dimensional reduction in the standard way, i.e. through the Maurer-Cartan 1-forms associated to the symmetry of the general coordinate transformations. The another group is dictated by the symmetry of the internal tangent space and it is introduced into the dimensional reduction through the linear adjoint group. The gauge group of the obtained theory in the lower-dimension is SU(2) AdSU(2). We show that this theory admits a self-dual (in both curvature and spin connection) domain wall solution which upon uplifting to the higher-dimension results to be the Kaluza-Klein monopole. This discussion may be relevant in the dimensional reduction of M-theory, string theory and also in the Bianchi cosmologies in four dimensions.

2 1 Introduction Since Kaluza s pioneering paper [1], dimensional reductions of theories such as gravity, supergravities and extended objects, have been subject to great research activity (see e.g., [2 9] and references therein). In the dimensional reduction one starts with the curvature scalar (and other possible fields) as the Lagrangian in (D + d)-dimensions. Next one assumes general covariance and supposes that because of some dynamical mechanism, the background manifold M D+d is the direct product of two manifolds: the d-dimensional compactification manifold M d and the background manifold M D of the resulting D-dimensional theory, i.e. M D+d = M D M d. In the decomposition it is assumed that the internal manifold M d owns some symmetry which is characterized by the r-dimensional isometry Lie group G r generated by r infinitesimal transformations. For a d-dimensional manifold, the dimension r of the Lie group satisfies r d(d + 1)/2. Once that G r is chosen, an appropriate parametrization of the group-invariant higher-dimensional fields in terms of the lower-dimensional ones is induced. The current status of the dimensional reductions has recently been discussed in [9, 10] and there it has been pointed out that the known dimensional reductions can be divided into two types. The first type of reductions are based on the assumption that the parametrization for the metric and other higher-dimensional fields is invariant under a d-dimensional simply transitive acting group of isometries in the internal space. These reductions include both the original Kaluza reduction on S 1 in which the group of isometries is U(1), and the group-manifold reductions where the group of isometries is the left action (G d ) L of the group manifold G d. Actually, the metric on the orbit space of the group G d is biinvariant, i.e. it has (G d ) L (G d ) R as its isometry group, but as DeWitt indicated [3], a fully consistent reduction involves a metric which is merely left-invariant. In the literature, the group-manifold reductions are sometimes called DeWitt reductions [3] and sometimes Scherk-Schwarz reductions [5]. All these reductions are consistent because the group invariance of the parametrization ensures that every solution of the lower-dimensional equations of motion corresponds to a solution of the higher-dimensional equations of motion. An example of a group-manifold reduction that we want to stress is the S 3 = SU(2) reduction of pure Einstein gravity [9]. In this case, the gauge group of the lower-dimensional theory is the left action of the three-dimensional isometry group (G 3 ) L = SU(2). The second type of reductions consider a quotient space G/H as the internal manifold and are called coset reductions or Pauli reductions [11]. In these kind of reductions the transitively acting group of isometries is given by the left action of G on the coset, but there are not isometries corresponding to its right action. In a small-fluctuation analysis always exist Yang-Mills fields whose gauge group is the isometry of the coset space and generally G R is taken as this group. In general Pauli reductions are inconsistent because the ansätze that retains the Yang-Mills gauge fields cannot be invariant under any transitively acting group of isometries and therefore, there is not straightforward group-theoretic reason why such a reduction should be consistent [10]. Nevertheless, there do exist exceptional cases where Pauli reductions can be consistent. In all these cases the compactification manifold is an n-sphere S n and the starting theory includes besides gravity either a p-form 2

3 field strength [12 19] or a p-form field strength and an extra scalar field [8]. A complete argument to understand why there are so few consistent Pauli reductions can be found for example in [8]. Here, we only want to stress two general statements about these reductions. The first one reads that it is not possible to perform a consistent S n = SO(n + 1)/SO(n) reduction of a pure gravity theory, in which the Yang-Mills fields of SO(n+ 1) are retained. This happens because if a general theory of gravity is reduced on the n-torus T n, it gives rise to a lower-dimensional theory with a GL(n, R) global symmetry for which the maximal compact subgroup is SO(n) and this group is insufficient for allowing an SO(n+1) gauging. The second one establish that in the process of going from T n to S n (which is the same as going from the ungauged to the gauged theory), a subgroup SO(n + 1) of the global symmetry G must become local, and this subgroup must be contained within H [8]. Finally we want to remark that a consistent Pauli reduction on S 3 exists and it requires a starting Lagrangian including gravity plus a three-form and a dilaton field. The resulting lowerdimensional theory has a gauge group SO(4) SU(2) L SU(2) R. It is possible to truncate the SO(4) Yang-Mills fields that arise from the S 3 Pauli reduction, to a set of SU(2) gauge fields corresponding either to the left-action or to the right-action of SU(2) on the S 3 groupmanifold, i.e. the truncation turns the Pauli reduction into a group-manifold reduction [8]. In this paper we exhibit a new consistent way to perform the dimensional reduction. We shall show how this reduction works when the compactification manifold is S 3. The basic idea is the following. Dimensional reduction of pure Einstein gravity on T 3 gives origin to a lower-dimensional theory with a GL(3, R)/SO(3) five-dimensional scalar coset where GL(3, R) is a global symmetry and SO(3) a local one. Using the fact that there is a homomorphism that maps SU(2) into the maximal compact subgroup of GL(3, R), i.e. into SO(3), we can consider that the scalar coset is given by SU(2)/SO(3). On the other side, S 3 = SO(4)/SO(3) (SU(2) R SU(2) L )/SO(3). Hence the idea is to perform the reduction explicitly on the quotient SU(2)/SO(3) where the SU(2) global symmetry is identified with the SU(2) L of SO(4). As we shall show this reduction is consistent and the gauge group of the lower-dimensional theory results to be SU(2) AdSU(2). The SU(2) gauge group comes as usual from the numerator of the scalar coset which is introduced into the dimensional reduction through the Maurer-Cartan 1-forms associated to the symmetry of the general coordinate transformations (this is the only group involved in the S 3 = SU(2) group-manifold reduction). The AdSU(2) gauging comes from the denominator of the scalar coset which describes the symmetry of the internal tangent space and it is introduced into the dimensional reduction through the linear adjoint group [20, 21]. The role this latter group plays in the spatial topology of the internal manifold has been discussed in [22 24]. We claim the reduction is on S 3 because we are considering two three-dimensional groups of isometries which putted together form the six-dimensional group of isometries that S 3 admits [20]. Throughout this paper we shall call this reduction S 3 dimensional reduction to distinguish it from the two previous reductions we have mentioned (group-manifold reductions and Pauli-reductions). The S 3 dimensional reduction is much in the spirit expressed in [6]. There it was pointed out that an important ingredient in a coset reduction is the embedding of the stability group, H, in the tangent space group, i.e. in order to give a G invariant meaning to the ground state 3

4 of some d-dimensional homogeneous space, G/H, on which G can act, it is necessary to associate the motions of G/H with frame rotations. This requires that the stability group, H, be embedded in the tangent space group SO(d). Our main motivation for the introduction of this new dimensional reduction is to get a better understanding of recent results concerning domain wall solutions to eight dimensional gauged supergravities [25 27] and the relation of these solutions to the classification of three-dimensional compactification manifolds, both, locally (Bianchi classification [28]) and globally (Thurston classification [29]). The different eight-dimensional gauge supergravities [26,30] arise from group-manifold reductions of the eleven-dimensional supergravity [31] over different three-dimensional compactification manifolds. In the d = 3 case we have the extra bonus that we are free to use many of the results available in the vast literature concerning Bianchi cosmologies, which can be considered as manifold-reductions of four-dimensional pure Einstein gravity to one space-time dimension [32]. In this paper we shall exhibit the similarities and differences obtained from the dimensional reduction of the Einstein-Hilbert action in (D + 3)-dimensions over the two topologically inequivalent three-dimensional Bianchi IX compactification manifolds M 3 [33]. We shall argue there is a relation among the type of dimensional reduction and the compactification manifold under consideration. M 3 = RP 3 is related to the group-manifold reduction and M 3 = S 3 to the new dimensional reduction. Furthermore, we shall discuss the domain-wall type solutions of the reduced theories in D-dimensions and their uplifting to (D + 3)-dimensions. From the (D + 3)-dimensional point of view these solutions are of the form R D 2,1 M 4. It is a well known fact that by performing a group-manifold reduction, the system of equations obtained by require self-dual spin connection in M 4 results to be the Belinsky-Gibbons-Page-Pope first order system [34]. As a result we show that by performing the new dimensional reduction the self-duality spin connection condition leads to the Atiyah-Hitchin first order system [35]. As a consequence the D-dimensional theory admits a self-dual (in the spin connection) domain wall solution which upon uplifting to (D + 3)-dimensions leads to the Kaluza-Klein monopole. The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we perform the S 3 dimensional reduction of the (D + 3)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action. We start in 2.1 summarizing the discussion about dimensional reduction of the general coordinate transformations given in [5]. In 2.2, we introduce the new parametrization of the vielbein and we compare it with the parametrization made in the group manifold reduction. We perform the dimensional reduction of the spin connection and the action in 2.3. In section 3 we obtain the domain wall solutions of the reduced action. We start analyzing the solutions to the second order differential equations of motion in 3.1 and in 3.2 we discuss the domain wall solutions from the point of view of the self-dual spin connection condition. We conclude the section in 3.3 writing down the first-order Bogomol nyi equations associated to the lower-dimensional action. Our conclusions and a brief discussion are given in section 4. In appendix A we give explicitly the different quantities involved in the reduction. 4

5 2 S 3 dimensional reduction In this section we exhibit the S 3 dimensional reduction of the (D+3)-dimensional Einstein- Hilbert action by consider explicitly that S 3 is invariant under two three-dimensional simply transitive groups of motions which commute and are reciprocal to each other, so generating its full group of isometries [20]. In contrast, the S 3 = SU(2) group-manifold reduction considers that the compactification manifold is invariant only under a three-dimensional isometry group G 3 [3,5]. In the following discussion we assume a (D+3) split of the (D+3) space-time coordinates xˆµ = (x µ, z α ) where µ = {0, 1,..., D 4} are the indices of the D-dimensional space-time and α = {1, 2, 3} are the indices of the internal coordinates. The corresponding flat indices of the tangent space are denoted by â = (a, m). The group indices are also denoted with the letters m, n,...,. We work in the conventions of [26]. 2.1 General coordinate transformations In the vielbein formalism, the (D + 3)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action S = d D+3ˆx ê ˆR(ˆω), (2.1) is invariant under the general coordinate transformations δ ˆKꈵâ = L ˆKꈵâ = ˆKˆν ˆν ꈵâ + ˆµ ˆKˆν êˆνâ. (2.2) As usual, ê is the determinant of the vielbein, ˆR the Ricci scalar, ˆω the spin connection and L ˆK denotes the Lie derivative along the infinitesimal vector field parameters ˆK. As it has been pointed out in [5], the group-manifold reduction is uniquely specified by choosing the internal coordinate dependence of the parameters ˆK ˆµ (x, z). If they are taken as ˆK µ (x, z) = K µ (x), ˆKα (x, z) = K m (x)(u 1 (z)) α m, (2.3) where U α m (z) are either GL(3, R) matrices or a SU(2) matrix which can be interpreted as the components of the left invariant Maurer-Cartan 1-forms σ m dz α U α m (z), an arbitrary three-dimensional Lie algebra can be extracted out of the group of general coordinate transformations in (D + 3)-dimensions. The algebra of general coordinate transformations ˆµ [δ ˆK1, δ ˆK2 ] = δ ˆK3 where ˆK 3 (x, z) = 2 ˆKˆν [2 (x, z) ˆν ˆK ˆµ 1] (x, z), (2.4) gives origin to three different possibilities in D-dimensions. First, the algebra of two space-time transformations with parameters K µ 1 (x) and Kµ 2 (x) gives a new space-time transformation with parameter K µ 3 (x) = 2K[2 ν (x) νk µ 1] (x) indicating that the theory has general coordinate transformations in the D-dimensional space-time. Second, the commutator of a space-time transformation with parameter K µ 1 (x) and an internal transformation with parameter K2 m (x) gives a new internal transformation with parameter 5

6 K3 m (x) = K µ 1 (x) µ K2 m (x) which means that the parameters of an internal transformation are space-time scalars. Finally, the commutator of two internal transformations with parameters K1 m (x) and K2 m (x) produces a new internal transformation with parameter K3(x) p = f p mn K1 m(x)kn 2 (x) where f mn p = 2(U 1 (z)) m α (U 1 (z)) n β [α U β] p (z), (2.5) are the structure constants of the three-dimensional Lie group G 3, whose Lie algebra g 3 is given by [K m,k n ] = f mn p K p, (2.6) and the f mn p s satisfy the Jacobi identity f [mn q f p]q r = 0. After apply the group-manifold reduction [3,5] the simply transitive three-dimensional Lie algebra (2.6) becomes the algebra of the gauged group in the lower-dimensional theory. It turns out that in three dimensions there exists eleven different ways to choose the structures constants [28,36]. In some cases the relation between the algebra (2.6) and the internal manifold is one-to-one. For example, there is only one three-dimensional manifold whose Lie algebra structure constants vanish f mn p = 0. This manifold is the three-torus T 3 and the gauge group is U(1) 3. However there are cases in which the relation is not one-toone. An example of this are the two topologically inequivalent Bianchi IX manifolds RP 3 and S 3 which have the same Lie algebra (2.6) with f 12 3 = f 23 1 = f 31 2 = 1. Topologically RP 3 is S 3 with antipodal points identified and the corresponding G 3 group is SO(3) (the maximal compact subgroup of SL(3, R)). In the case of S 3 the corresponding G 3 Lie group is SU(2). Explicitly the killing vectors K m are given by K 1 cos z3 = cos z sin z 3 2 cosz3 sin z 2 cosz 2 3, K 2 sin z3 = cos z cos z sin z3 sin z 2 cos z 2 3, (2.7) K 3 = 3. with 0 z 1 2π, π 2 z2 π 2, and 0 z 3 2π, if G 3 is SO(3), (2.8) 0 z 3 4π, if G 3 is SU(2). (2.9) At this point, apart of the different values that the internal coordinates can take, the G 3 group-manifold reduction can not distinguish among the manifolds RP 3 and S 3 because they have the same Lie algebra (2.6). However if the compactification manifold is S 3, the full local group of motions is six-dimensional and not merely three-dimensional. Therefore, if we want to consider S 3 as the internal manifold, the dimensional reduction must know about the extra three-dimensional group of motions. We indicate in the next section how this goal is achieved. 6

7 2.2 Parametrization of the vielbein The next step in the dimensional reduction procedure is to make a suitable parametrization of the group-invariant vielbein in terms of lower-dimensional fields. The parametrization includes internal coordinate dependence dictated by the symmetries of the theory. When the group manifold owns only a G 3 group of motions, the general coordinates transformation is the only symmetry that can be used in the parametrization. If the group of motions is G 6, exists an additional symmetry given by SO(3) rotations in the local tangent space. The parametrization for the second possibility is e c1ϕ(x) e a µ (x) e c2ϕ(x) A α µ (x, z) L p α (x, z) ꈵâ(x, z) =, (2.10) 0 e c2ϕ(x) L p α (x, z) where c 1 and c 2 are constants whose values are c 1 = 3 2(D+1)(D 2) and c 2 = c 1(D 2) 3 1. The A µ s are gauge fields and L α p (x, z) is a 3 3 matrix whose internal coordinate dependence is given by A µ α (x, z) = A µ m (x) (U 1 (z)) m α, (2.11) L α p (x, z) = U α m (z) L m n (x) Λ n p (z). (2.12) The novel ingredient in the parametrization (2.12) is the introduction of the orthogonal matrix Λ(z) which is taken in the adjoint representation of the three-dimensional Lie algebra g 3 of the previous section [20,21]. The property of orthogonality indicates that Λ(z) is indeed a rotation in the internal tangent space. The matrix Λ satisfies the equation (R m ) n p = (U 1 (z)) m α (Λ 1 (z)) n q α Λ q p (z), (2.13) where the matrices R m are the generators of gl(3, R) and are given by the adjoint representation of the parameters of the internal transformations, R m = f mn p e p n = ad K (K m ) [21]. They satisfy the SO(3) Lie algebra [R m, R n ] = f mn p R p. (2.14) The vielbein parametrization of the group-manifold reductions differs from (2.12) in the matrix Λ(z), i.e. whereas the S 3 dimensional reduction takes into account the quotient SU(2)/SO(3), the group-manifold reduction only considers the group SU(2) [3, 5]. The parametrization of the vielbein can be rewritten in the shorter form ê a (x, z) = e c 1ϕ(x) e a (x), (2.15) ê m (x, z) = e c 2ϕ(x) (A n (x) + σ n (z))l n p (x)λ p m (z) e p (x, z)λ p m (z). (2.16) 1 The values of c 1 and c 2 ensure that the reduction of the Einstein-Hilbert action yields a pure Einstein- Hilbert term in D-dimensions, with no pre-factor involving the scalar ϕ, and that ϕ has a canonically normalized kinetic term in D-dimensions. 7

8 The equation (2.13) in the S 3 dimensional reduction plays an analogous role to the one played by equation (2.5) in both kind of reductions (group-manifold and S 3 dimensional reduction), i.e. they allow to factorize out the internal dependence in the transformation laws. This means for instance that upon reduction δl α p (x, z) = U α m (z) δl m n (x)λ n p (z). From the D-dimensional point of view, under a K µ (x) transformation ϕ(x) and L m n (x) transform as scalars whereas e µ a (x) and A µ m (x) transform as vectors and under an internal transformation K m (x) the fields e µ a (x) and ϕ(x) do not transform whereas the fields A µ m (x) and L m n (x) transform in the following way δa µ m (x) = ( µ K m A µ n f np m K p ), (2.17) δl m n (x) = (f mp q L q n + L m q (R p ) q n )K p. (2.18) The conclusion from the first equation is that the A µ m s are gauge potentials for the corresponding gauge group G 3 whose Lie algebra is (2.6). In (2.18) we have the first consequence due to the introduction of Λ(z) in the parametrization of the vielbein. Additional to the usual term f mp q L q n originated by the equation (2.5) and related to the gauging of the SU(2) Lie algebra (2.6), we have the new term L m q (R p ) q n originated by the equation (2.13) and related to the gauging of the SO(3) =AdSU(2) Lie algebra (2.14). These two terms shall be part of the covariant derivative of the scalar fields L m n. Using the vielbein parametrization (2.10)-(2.12) we can rewrite the eleven dimensional interval in the way where ds 2 = e 2c 1ϕ g µν dx µ dx ν e 2c 2ϕ M mn (dx µ A µ m + σ m )(dx ν A ν n + σ n ), (2.19) M mn (x, z) L m r (x, z)l n s (x, z) η rs. (2.20) Geometrically L n m (x, z) describes the five-dimensional SU(2) scalar coset of the internal SO(3) space and can be interpreted as the internal triad. It transforms under a global SU(2) acting from the left and a local SO(3) symmetry acting from the right. In contrast M mn (x, z) = L p m (x)l q n (x) η pq = M mn (x) is the SO(3) invariant metric of the internal manifold and it is parameterized by the same scalars. At this point it is clear that if always are considered quantities that only depend of the internal metric M mn, it is not possible to use explicitly the SO(3) internal tangent space symmetry. Examples of such quantities are the action and second-order equations of motion. For the GL(3, R) groupmanifold reduction such a symmetry does not exists. However for the S 3 dimensional reduction such a symmetry exists and we must consider it, in order to ensure that we are performing the reduction over the correct manifold. The additional symmetry shall be reflected in geometrical quantities whose definition is given in terms of L n m, such as the spin connection. The main result of this paper is to realize that it is possible to consider the matrix Λ(z) in a consistent dimensional reduction scheme. A related indication of the importance of consider the internal tangent space symmetry is the role that Λ(z) plays in the complex structure of the internal space. When D = 1 and the metric has Euclidean signature was shown in the context of left invariant models [37], 8

9 that the difference in the transformation rules of the complex structure for the SO(3) invariant Eguchi-Hanson metric [38] and the SU(2) invariant Taub-NUT metric [39] is described precisely by Λ(z). It is clear that work in the vielbein formalism not only has the advantage of simplify the calculations, but also, it involves the natural parametrization of the scalars fields L α m (x, z) when the S 3 dimensional reduction is considered. Upon reduction the independence of the internal coordinates z α is guaranteed because it is factored out in any quantity. Explicitly, if ˆT(x, z) is a (D + 3)-dimensional field, upon reduction for each index α or m that it contains, the internal dependence appears in one of the following ways ˆT α (x, z) = t m (x)(u 1 (z)) m α, ˆTα (x, z) = U α m (z)t m (x), (2.21) ˆT m (x, z) = t n (x)λ n m (z), ˆTm (x, z) = ((Λ 1 (z)) m n t n (x). (2.22) In these expressions t(x) are the corresponding expressions of ˆT in the D-dimensional space-time. Since in the action all the indices are contracted, the internal dependence vanish. 2.3 The D-dimensional action Once discussed the general characteristics of the vielbein parametrization, we proceed to dimensional reduce the (D + 3)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action. As we have argued, it is important to perform the dimensional reduction in the vielbein formalism. The important quantities in this case are the components of the spin connection ˆωâˆb. By using the parametrization (2.10)-(2.12), the (D + 3)-dimensional spin connection is upon S 3 dimensional reduction ˆω ab = ω ab 2c 1 e c 1ϕê [a b] ϕ 1 2 e(c 2 2c 1 )ϕ F m ab L mn e n, (2.23) [ ˆω am = (Λ 1 n ) m e c1ϕ e ( ] ) p c 2 a ϕη pn + (L 1 ) q 1 (p D a L q n) + 2 e(c 2 2c 1 )ϕ F p ab L pn ê b, [ = (Λ 1 ) p m (Λ 1 q ) n ê a e c1ϕ (L 1 ) r [p D a L r q] + e r e c 2ϕ (F r[pq] 12 )] F pqr + (R r ) pq. ˆω mn In these expressions F m = 2 A m f np m A n A p is the gauge vector field strength, the scalar functions F and R are defined as F mnp (L 1 ) m q (L 1 ) n r L sp f qr s, (R p ) mn (L 1 ) p r (R r ) mn, whereas the covariant derivative of the SU(2)/SO(3) scalar coset is given by D µ L m n = µ L m n A µ p L q n f mp q + A µ p L m q f qp n. (2.24) Notice that as anticipated, the covariant derivative of the scalar coset reflects the gauging of the two Lie algebras under consideration. The second term corresponds to the SU(2) gauging of the internal coordinate symmetry whereas the third one corresponds to the SO(3) gauging of the internal tangent space symmetry. 9

10 Using the reduced spin connection it turns out that the reduction of the (D + 3)- dimensional action is S = C d D x g [ R+ 1Tr( DMM 1) ( ϕ)2 1 1 (D+1)ϕ 4 e 2c 3 F m M mn F n V ], (2.25) where V is the scalar potential V = 1 4 e2c 1 3 (D+1)ϕ [2M mn f mp q f nq p + M mn M pq M rs f mp r f nq s ], (2.26) and C the group volume defined by C(SU(2)) = d 3 z det (U α m ) = 16π 2. In this expression of C we have used the property that det Λ = 1. From the covariant derivative of the scalar coset (2.24), it is direct to compute the covariant derivative of the internal metric M DM mn = M mn + 2f q(m p A q M n)p, (2.27) which reflects its SO(3) invariant character. In conclusion, the two differences produced by apply the S 3 dimensional reduction with respect to the group-manifold reduction (apart of the different values that the internal coordinates can take) are reflected in the term (R p ) mn of the spin connection ω mn and in the extra SO(3) gauging of the covariant derivative of the scalar coset (2.24). As we have argued these differences are not manifest in the reduced action and therefore in the equations of motion neither. The reduced Lagrangian has the same functional form independently of the dimensional reduction used (group-manifold or S 3 ). The result is quite logic because the symmetry of the general coordinate transformation is of the same type for both reductions. 3 Bianchi IX domain-wall solutions In this section we briefly discuss the domain wall solutions to the D-dimensional action (2.25). The solutions were given originally for the case D = 1 and Euclidean signature in [33]. We shall keep in the following discussion the generic dimension D. 3.1 The action and the equations of motion After dimensional reduction the D-dimensional field content is {e a µ, L n m, ϕ, A m }. The five dimensional scalar coset L n m contains two dilatons and three axions. An explicit representation of L n m in terms of the five scalars can be found in [25,26]. In order to simplify the discussion is convenient to consider the following consistent truncated parametrization of the scalar coset L n m (x) = diag(e σ 3, e φ 2 + σ 2 φ 3, e 2 + σ 2 3 ), (3.1) where we have set the axions to zero. In terms of the dilaton fields, the action can be rewritten in the following way S = C d D x g [ R ( φ) ( σ) ( ϕ)2 1 1 (D+1)ϕ 4 e 2c 3 F m M mn F n V ], (3.2) 10

11 where V = 1 4 e2c 1 3 (D+1)ϕ ] [e 2σ φ 3 + e σ φ 3 + e σ 3 e 4σ 2φ+ 3 e 2σ 2φ+ 3 e 2σ 3. (3.3) We are interested in solutions of cohomogeneity one also known as domain wall solutions. These are solutions of the theory in the truncation A µ = 0 that only depend on one spatial coordinate orthogonal to the compactification manifold, hence we take the following ansatz ds 2 D = f 2 (y)dx 2 (D 1) g 2 (y)dy 2, (3.4) ϕ = ϕ(y), L m n = L m n (y). In the beginning because the ansatz, we have D + 3 non-trivial second order equations of motion for the fields, D of them corresponding to the diagonal components of the metric tensor g µν and three corresponding to the scalar fields ϕ, φ and σ. However it turns out that only two of the equations of motion for the metric tensor are independent, the ones for g yy and the one for g 00 (the other (D 2) for g ii are the same as the equation of motion for g 00 ). It is direct to show that by take f(y) = e c 1ϕ the equation of motion for g 00 becomes the same as the equation of motion for the scalar field ϕ reducing the system to four independent equations of motion. By the additional choice g(y) = e (3c 2 c 1 )ϕ we can simplify the equations to the simpler form e 2(3c 2 c 1 )ϕ V = 2 yϕ, e 2(3c 2 c 1 )ϕ δv δφ = 2 yφ, e 2(3c 2 c 1 )ϕ δv δσ = 2 yσ, e 2(3c 2 c 1 )ϕ V = 10 6 ( yϕ) ( yσ) ( yφ) 2. (3.5) This system of equations was studied long time ago [33] and its solutions are well known. In order to make contact with the original literature we introduce a change of variables in the following way a(y) e c 2ϕ σ 3, b(y) e c 2 ϕ+ σ 2 3 φ 2, c(y) e c 2ϕ+ σ φ 2. (3.6) Notice that a, b, and c are positive variables. In terms of them the action reads [ ( y a y b S = C dy 2 a b + yb y c b c + ) yc y a 1 ] c a 2 (a4 + b 4 + c 4 2a 2 b 2 2b 2 c 2 2c 2 a 2 ). (3.7) The four equations of motion are 2 2 y (ln a) = a4 (b 2 c 2 ) 2, (3.8) plus the two equations obtained by cyclic permutation of (a, b, c) and ( y a y b 4 a b + yb y c b c + ) yc y a = 2a 2 b 2 + 2b 2 c 2 + 2c 2 a 2 a 4 b 4 c 4. (3.9) c a 11

12 In these variables the eight dimensional interval (3.4) can be rewritten as ds 2 D = (abc) 2c 1/3c 2 dx 2 (D 1) (abc) (6c 2 2c 1 ) dy 2, (3.10) and upon uplifting, the (D+3)-dimensional space-time is of the form R D 2,1 M 4, explicitly ds 2 D+3 = dx2 D 1 ((abc)2 dy 2 + a 2 σ1 2 + b2 σ2 2 + c2 σ3 2 ). (3.11) The D-dimensional domain-wall solution and the manifolds M 4 are completely given by the three positive functions a(y), b(y) and c(y) satisfying the equations (3.8) and (3.9). The solutions describe cohomogeneity one self-dual solutions to the four dimensional Euclidean Einstein gravity in empty space. We are not going to discuss the whole list of manifold solutions M 4. To our purpose it is enough to mention that some interesting solutions are the BGPP metrics [34], the self-dual Taub-NUT metrics [33,39] and the Eguchi-Hanson metrics [38,40]. 3.2 The self-dual spin connection As we have mentioned the manifolds M 4 are cohomogeneity one self-dual solutions to the four dimensional Euclidean Einstein gravity. The self-dual character means that for these manifolds the four dimensional curvature is self-dual ( R IJ = R IJ ). It was recognized that a set of first integrals of the second-order equations of motion could be obtained directly without integration by demanding that the connection 1-forms of the metric in the basis (abcdy, aσ 1, bσ 2, cσ 3 ) be self-dual ( ω IJ = ω IJ ) [38]. This set of three equations is known as the BGPP system [34] 2 ya a = a2 + b 2 + c 2, and cyclic. (3.12) When the three invariant directions are different, i.e. a b c the equations (3.12) admit the BGPP metrics as solutions [34] whilst when two of them are equal i.e. (a = b c) admit the Eguchi-Hanson metrics as solutions [38, 40]. It happens that if we apply the group-manifold reduction, the spin connection is such that by require self-duality we get the equations (3.12). As discussed in [40], for the four dimensional Euclidean gravity, self-duality in the spin connection is both a sufficient condition for the self-duality of R IJ and hence for solving the Einstein equations, and necessary in the sense that if R IJ = R IJ is satisfied, one can always transform ω IJ by an O(4) gauge transformation into the form ω IJ = ω IJ. The advantage to do this is that we deal with first order instead of second order differential equations. We define the dual of the spin connection as ˆω IJ = 1 2 ε IJ KLˆω KL, (3.13) 12

13 where I, J = {y, 1, 2, 3} and ε y123 = 1. Upon S 3 dimensional reduction we have six independent non-vanishing components of the spin connection (ˆω ym, ˆω mn ). By require selfduality in these components of the spin connection (2.23) we get three independent first order differential equations c 2 y ϕ (L 1 ) (1 p y L p 1) = 1 2 e(c 1 c 2 )ϕ ( F F 231 F 312 2(R 1 ) 23 ), c 2 y ϕ (L 1 ) (2 p y L p 2) = 1 2 e(c 1 c 2 )ϕ ( F 123 F F 312 2(R 2 ) 31 ), (3.14) c 2 y ϕ (L 1 ) (3 p y L p 3) = 1 2 e(c 1 c 2 )ϕ (+F 123 F 231 F 312 2(R 3 ) 12 ). Or in terms of the variables a, b and c we have 2 ya a = a2 + b 2 + c 2 2bc, and cyclic. (3.15) It is important to stress that the contribution due to the term (R m ) np in the above equations are the terms like 2bc. The system of equations (3.15) is known as the Atiyah-Hitchin first order system [35] and can also be obtained as a set of first integrals to the self-dual curvature condition. When two of the tree invariant directions are equal i.e. (a = b c) this system admits the Taub-NUT family of metrics as solutions [33]. This result should not be surprising, as fact in [41] was shown that if the four dimensional metric is related to the general class of multi-instantons obtained in [42], the self-duality condition in the spin connection implies that the metric is self-dual Ricci flat. Depending of the election of a constant parameter, the multi-instantons become either the multi Taub-Nut metrics or the multi Eguchi-Hanson metrics. The same result was obtained in the context of three-dimensional Toda equations [43]. Now we have a clear picture of the relation between the two different Bianchi IX dimensional reductions and the domain wall type solutions of the reduced theory. Because the equations of motion are the same in both cases, the domain wall solutions coincide as well. However from the first order differential equations point of view, the solutions are divided into two disjoint sets. One of these sets is given by the metrics that solve the BGPP system (3.12) and the another one by the metrics that solve the Atiyah-Hitchin system (3.15). If we reduce applying the group-manifold reduction the domain walls that solve the BGPP system are self-dual in both the curvature and the spin connection whereas that the metrics in the another set of solutions are self-dual only in the curvature. If instead we reduce applying the S 3 dimensional reduction the conclusion is the opposite. The possibility of relate the different first-order systems with the inclusion (or not) of the matrix Λ was already suggested in [37]. It is well known that in the case that a, b and c are positive variables, one of the Eguchi- Hanson metrics and one of the Taub-NUT metrics are the only complete non-singular SO(3) hyper-kähler metrics in four dimensions [33,44], both of them are obtained in the case in which two of the invariant directions are equal. From the (D + 3)-dimensional point of view these two solutions correspond to R D 2,1 M 4 with either M 4 the Eguchi-Hanson 13

14 metric [38] whose generic orbits are RP 3 [34] or the self-dual Taub-NUT solution whose generic orbits are S 3 [39]. In the latter case, the complete (D + 3)-metric is known as the Kaluza-Klein monopole [45,46]. We summarize these conclusions in table 1. Consistent Gauged Group (D + 3)-dimensional metric dimensional reduction group manifold R D 2,1 M 4 Group-manifold reduction SO(3) RP 3 M 4 = Eguchi-Hanson S 3 reduction SU(2) AdSU(2) S 3 M 4 = Taub-NUT Table 1: Relation between the consistent Bianchi IX dimensional reductions and the uplifted domain wall solution that the reduced theory allows. The non-singular M 4 metric is selfdual in both the curvature and the spin connection. 3.3 First order equations and the superpotential As established in [41], the Lagrangian of the action (3.7) can be written as L = T V = 1 ( ) ( ) 2 g αm αn mn + 1 ( ) ( ) W W y y 2 gmn, (3.16) α m α n where α m (ln a, ln b, ln c) and W is a superpotential given by W = a 2 + b 2 + c 2 2λ 1 bc 2λ 2 ca 2λ 3 ab. (3.17) The case λ 1 = λ 2 = λ 3 = 0 is related to the group-manifold reduction whereas the case λ 1 = λ 2 = λ 3 = 1 is related to the S 3 reduction. In the literature concerning domain wall solutions is usual to write down the superpotential in terms of the original variables, i.e. in terms of the dilatons. The inverse variable transformation of (3.6) is ϕ = ln(abc) 1/3c 2, ( ) 1/ 3 bc ϕ = ln, φ = c a 2 b. (3.18) It is straightforward to show that in terms of the dilatons, the potential satisfies the property ( ( W V = 1 ) 2 ( ) 2 ( ) 2 ( ) ) W W D W 2. (3.19) 2 ϕ φ σ D + 1 It is also possible to write down the BGPP first order system (3.12) and the Atiyah-Hitchin first order system (3.15) in terms of the dilatons and the superpotential. The equations in this case become ϕ y = 1 6c 2 W, φ y = W φ, 14 σ y = W σ, (3.20)

15 which are related with first-order Bogomol nyi equations (see for example [47 50] and references therein). 4 Discussion and Conclusions In this paper we have introduced a consistent dimensional reduction of Einstein pure gravity on S 3 and we have clarified the relation between the different Bianchi IX dimensional reductions and the properties of the domain wall solutions that the reduced theory allows. This relation can be relevant if we are working with a formulation of gravity in which the fundamental field is the vielbein instead of the metric, for instance, in supergravity. As an example we mention that the SO(3) eight-dimensional supergravity obtained by apply the group-manifold reduction to the eleven-dimensional supergravity has a domain wall solution whose properties are to be both self-dual in the spin connection and 1/2 BPS [25, 26]. This happens because the equations that are obtained by require self-dual spin connection (3.12) are exactly the same that the ones obtained by require a 1/2 BPS solution to the fermionic transformation rules. The uplifted solution is 1/2 BPS except for an especial case which uplift to eleven-dimensional flat space and hence becomes fully supersymmetric (it corresponds to have equal invariant directions a = b = c). A disturbing fact is that the Kaluza-Klein monopole is also 1/2 BPS in eleven dimensions, however by reduce it applying the group-manifold reduction with SU(2) isometry group, the supersymmetry in eight dimensions becomes fully broken. This happens because in the frame of the group-manifold reduction this solution does not have self-dual spin connection in eight-dimensions. Due to the results of this paper we believe it is posible to construct an eight-dimensional SU(2) AdSU(2) gauged supergravity if we apply the S 3 dimensional reduction to the eleven-dimensional supergravity. We expect that this gauged supergravity owns a 1/2 BPS domain-wall solution which upon uplifting should becomes the elevendimensional Kaluza-Klein monopole. The new gauged supergravity should has the same eight-dimensional action and therefore the same second order differential equations as the one obtained by apply the group-manifold reduction, but it should has different supersymmetric transformation rules for the dilatinos. We expect this due to two reasons, the first one is because the supersymmetric transformation rules for the dilatinos are the ones that upon reduction of the original eleven-dimensional transformation rules involve the internal components of the spin connection and second because these equations are precisely the ones that give origin to the same set of equations that the condition of self-dual spin connection. Both reasons can be putted together in the property that the reduced action admits a superpotential formulation. Apart of these differences we also expect to have a different structure for the fermionic parameter if we want it be a solution of the new susy rules, this happens because only the BGPP metrics allows a covariantly constant spinor that is independent of the SO(3) isometry directions [51]. We should consider an internal coordinate dependent fermionic parameter as a combination of the killing spinors of the internal manifold using the tools developed in [52] 2. These issues are currently under 2 We thank to Tomás Ortín for point out to us this possibility 15

16 research and will be discussed in a forthcoming paper. The tools used in this paper are not exclusive to three-dimensional compactification manifolds and it would be interesting to see whether the generalization to other dimensions is possible [21]. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Eric Bergshoeff, Ulf Gran, Mikkel Nielsen, Tomás Ortín, Diederik Roest and Hugo Morales for interesting and useful discussions at different stages of this work. In particular we should like to thank Mikkel Nielsen, Tomás Ortín and Diederik Roest for a critic reading to different versions of the draft. Special thanks to Emily and Pepe for encourage me to work in this project each time it had gone. We also would like to thank the Centre for Theoretical Physics at University of Groningen and the Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México for hospitality and financial support at different stages of this work. A Bianchi IX Lie groups In the next discussion we give explicit expressions for the relevant quantities used in the S 3 dimensional reduction, we follow the conventions of [21]. The starting point is to assume a three-dimensional vector fields basis K m that satisfies the Lie algebra g 3 [K m,k n ] = f mn p K p. (A.1) In the Bianchi IX case the expression for the structure constants can be diagonalized and taken as f mn p = ǫ mnq Q qp, Q mn = diag(1, 1, 1). (A.2) Choosing the matrices {e m n } as the basis of sl(3, R) where e m n is the matrix whose only nonvanishing component is a one in the m th row and n th column, the canonical basis {R m } of the canonical adjoint group Ad K (G) is defined as the adjoint representation of the generators K in this basis, (R m ) = f mn p e p n, explicitly (R 1 ) n m = and satisfy the algebra, (R 2 ) n m = , (R 3 ) n m = , (A.3) [R m, R n ] = f mn p R p. (A.4) Exponentiating the generators of the Lie algebra g 3 in the adjoint representation, we get the adjoint representation Λ(z) of the group G 3 16

17 Λ n m (z) = e z1 R 1 e z2 R 2 e z3 R 3 = c 2 c 3 c 2 s 3 s 2 c 1 s 3 + c 3 s 1 s 2 c 3 c 1 s 1 s 2 s 3 s 1 c 2 s 1 s 3 c 3 c 1 s 2 c 3 s 1 + c 1 s 2 s 3 c 1 c 2 where we have used the following abbreviations (a = 1, 2, 3), (A.5) c a cosz a, s a sin z a. (A.6) It can be checked directly that det Λ = 1 and also that the matrix is orthogonal Λ m p (z)λ n q (z) η pq = η mn. The next step is to compute the left invariant 1-forms using the equation Λ 1 dλ = σ m R m. Its dual base {K m } can also be obtained by require σ m K n = δ m n. σ 1 = cosz 2 cosz 3 dz 1 + sin z 3 dz 2, K 1 = cosz3 cosz sin z 3 2 cosz3 sin z 2 cosz 2 3, σ 2 = cos z 2 sin z 3 dz 1 + cosz 3 dz 2 sin z3, K 2 = cosz cosz sin z3 sin z 2 cosz 2 3, σ 3 = sin z 2 dz 1 + dz 3, K 3 = 3. (A.7) From these expressions we have that the matrix U m α (z) is given by cos z 2 cos z 3 cosz 2 sin z 3 sin z 2 U m α (z) = sin z 3 cosz 3 0. (A.8) The relation between the left and right invariant Lie algebras, and the relation between the left and right invariant 1-forms is Using them we get K m = Λ m n K n, σ m = σ n (Λ 1 ) n m. (A.9) σ 1 = sin z 2 dz 3 + dz 1, K 1 = 1, (A.10) σ 2 = cos z 2 sin z 1 dz 3 + cosz 1 dz 2 sin z1, K 2 = cosz cosz sin z1 sin z 2 cosz 2 1, σ 3 = cosz 2 cosz 1 dz 3 + sin z 1 dz 2, K 3 = cosz1 cosz sin z 1 2 cosz1 sin z 2 cosz 2 1. All these quantities satisfy the Lie algebra g ( g) [K m,k n ] = f mn p K p, [ K m, K n ] = f mn p Kp, [K m, K n ] = 0. (A.11) and the Maurer-Cartan equations dσ m = 1 2 f np m σ n σ p, d σ m = 1 2 f np m σ n σ p. (A.12) 17

18 References [1] T. Kaluza, On the problem of unity in physics, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) K1 (1921) 966. [2] O. Klein, Quantum theory and five-dimensional theory of relativity, Z. Phys. 37 (1926) 895. [3] B. S. DeWitt, Dynamical theory of groups and fields, in Relativity, groups and topology, Les Houches 1963 (Gordon and Breach, 1964) 585. [4] Y. M. Cho and P. G. O. Freund, Non-Abelian gauge fields in Nambu-Goldstone fields, Phys. Rev. D12 (1975) [5] J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, How to get masses from extra dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 61. [6] A. Salam and J. Strathdee, On Kaluza-Klein theory, Annals Phys. 141 (1982) 316. [7] M. J. Duff, B. E. W. Nilsson and C. N. Pope, Kaluza-Klein supergravity, Phys. Rept. 130 (1986) 1. [8] M. Cvetic, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, Consistent Kaluza-Klein sphere reductions, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) , hep-th/ [9] M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, Consistent group and coset reductions of the bosonic string, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 5161, hep-th/ [10] G. W. Gibbons and C. N. Pope, Consistent S 2 Pauli reduction of six-dimensional chiral gauged Einstein-Maxwell supergravity, hep-th/ [11] N. Straumann, On Pauli s invention of non-abelian Kaluza-Klein theory in 1953, gr-qc/ [12] M. J. Duff and C. N. Pope, Kaluza-Klein supergravity and the seven sphere, Lectures given at September School on Supergravity and Supersymmetry, Trieste, Italy, Sep 6-18, [13] B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, The consistency of the S 7 truncation in d = 11 supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B281 (1987) 211. [14] K. Pilch, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and P. K. Townsend, Compactification of d = 11 supergravity on S(4) (or 11 = 7 + 4, too), Nucl. Phys. B242 (1984) 377. [15] H. Nastase, D. Vaman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Consistent nonlinear K K reduction of 11d supergravity on AdS(7) S(4) and self-duality in odd dimensions, Phys. Lett. B469 (1999) 96, hep-th/

19 [16] H. Nastase, D. Vaman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Consistency of the AdS(7) S(4) reduction and the origin of self-duality in odd dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B581 (2000) 179, hep-th/ [17] M. Gunaydin and N. Marcus, The spectrum of the S 5 compactification of the chiral N = 2, D = 10 supergravity and the unitary supermultiplets of U(2, 2/4), Class. Quant. Grav. 2 (1985) L11. [18] H. J. Kim, L. J. Romans and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, The mass spectrum of chiral N = 2 d = 10 supergravity on S 5, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 389. [19] M. Cvetic, H. Lu, C. N. Pope, A. Sadrzadeh and T. A. Tran, Consistent SO(6) reduction of type IIB supergravity on S(5), Nucl. Phys. B586 (2000) 275, hep-th/ [20] G. F. R. Ellis and M. A. H. MacCallum, A class of homogeneous cosmological models, Commun. Math. Phys. 12 (1969) 108. [21] R. T. Jantzen, The dynamical degrees of freedom in spatially homogeneous cosmology, Commun. Math. Phys. 64 (1979) 211. [22] J. F. Luciani, Space-time geometry and symmetry breaking, Nucl. Phys. B135 (1978) 111. [23] A. Asthekar and J. Samuel, Bianchi Cosmologies: The role of spatial topology, Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991) [24] T. Koike, M. Tanimoto and A. Hosoya, Compact homogeneous universes, J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994) 4855, gr-qc/ [25] N. Alonso-Alberca, E. Bergshoeff, U. Gran, R. Linares, T. Ortín and D. Roest, Domain walls of D = 8 gauged supergravities and their D = 11 origin, JHEP 06 (2003) 038, hep-th/ [26] E. Bergshoeff, U. Gran, R. Linares, M. Nielsen, T. Ortín and D. Roest, The Bianchi classification of maximal D = 8 gauged supergravities, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 3997, hep-th/ [27] E. Bergshoeff, U. Gran, R. Linares, M. Nielsen, T. Ortín and D. Roest, Gauged supergravities from Bianchi s group manifolds, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) S1501. [28] L. Bianchi, Sugli spazi a tre dimensioni che ammettono un gruppo continuo di movimenti, Tomo XI (1898) 267, For an English translation see: On the three-dimensional spaces which admit a continuous group of motions, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 33 (2001),

20 [29] W. P. Thurston, Three-dimensional geometry and topology, Princeton University Press (1997). [30] A. Salam and E. Sezgin, D = 8 supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B258 (1985) 284. [31] E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Supergravity theory in 11 dimensions, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409. [32] A. H. Taub, Empty space-times admitting a three parameter group of motions, Annals Math. 53 (1951) 472. [33] G. Gibbons and C. Pope, The positive action conjecture and asymptotically Euclidean metrics in quantum gravity, Commun. Math. Phys. 66 (1979) 267. [34] V. Belinskii, G. Gibbons, D. Page and C. Pope, Asymptotically euclidean Bianchi IX metrics in quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 433. [35] M. F. Atiyah and N. J. Hitchin, Low-energy scattering of nonabelian monopoles, Phys. Lett. A107 (1985) 21. [36] F. B. Estabrook, H. D. Wahlquist and C. G. Behr, Dyadic analysis of spatial homogeneous world models, J. Math. Phys. 9 (1968) 497. [37] K. Sfetsos, Non-Abelian duality, parafermions and supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 1682, hep-th/ [38] T. Eguchi and A. Hansson, Asymptotically flat self-dual solutions to euclidean gravity, Phys. Lett. B74 (1978) 249. [39] S. W. Hawking, Gravitational instantons, Phys. Lett. A60 (1977) 81. [40] T. Eguchi and A. Hansson, Selfdual solutions to Euclidean gravity, Annals Phys. 120 (1979) 249. [41] G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, Supersymmetric domain walls from metrics of special holonomy, Nucl. Phys. B623 (2002) 3, hep-th/ [42] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Gravitational multi-instantons, Phys. Lett. B78 (1978) 430. [43] R. Hernández and K. Sfetsos Unpublished work. [44] I. Bakas and K. Sfetsos, Toda fields of SO(3) hyper-kahler metrics and free field realization, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 2585, hep-th/ [45] R. Sorkin, Kaluza-Klein monopole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 87. [46] D. J. Gross and M. J. Perry, Magnetic monopoles in Kaluza-Klein theories, Nucl. Phys. B226 (1983)