arxiv:hep-th/ v1 15 Sep 2003

Transcription

1 NEIP hep th/ Supersymmetric quantum mechanics from wrapped branes Rafael Hernández 1 and Konstadinos Sfetsos 2 arxiv:hep-th/ v1 15 Sep Institut de Physique, Université de Neuchâtel Breguet 1, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland rafael.hernandez@unine.ch 2 Department of Engineering Sciences, University of Patras Patras, Greece sfetsos@des.upatras.gr Abstract We explicitly construct a solution of eight-dimensional gauged supergravity representing D6-branes wrapped on six-cycles inside Calabi Yau fourfolds. The solution preserves two supercharges and asymptotically is a cone with the coset space SU(2) 4 /U(1) 3 as its base. It is shown to correspond to an M-theory compactification on a Calabi Yau manifold with SU(5) holonomy and we discuss in detail its geometrical and topological features. We also construct a family of related higher dimensional metrics having SU(n+1) holonomy, which of course have no brane interpretation.

2 1 Introduction D6-branes have a purely geometrical origin in eleven dimensions as the Kaluza Klein monopole. When the amount of supersymmetry on their worldvolume is reduced by wrapping them on supersymmetric cycles they admit an eleven-dimensional description in terms of compactifications of M-theory on manifolds with reduced holonomy [1]. Keeping some unbroken supersymmetry as the brane wraps a cycle requires coupling the theory to an external R-current, which is then related to the spin connection on the cycle. The resulting theory is a topologically twisted field theory [2]. At a more technical level, gauged supergravities have provided the adequate arena to perform the twist relating the gauge and spin connections [3] (see for instance [4] for a review). In this way compactifications of M-theory on manifolds with reduced holonomy arise as the local eleven-dimensional version of backgrounds in eight-dimensional gauged supergravity describing D6-branes wrapped on diverse supersymmetric cycles. M-theory on Calabi Yau threefolds corresponds to D6-branes wrapped on supersymmetric two-cycles inside twofolds [5, 6], compactification on Calabi Yau fourfolds comes from D6-branes wrapped on four-cycles inside threefolds [7], compactification on manifolds with G 2 holonomy arises as the eleven-dimensional description of D6-branes wrapped on supersymmetric three-cycles inside Calabi Yau threefolds [5, 8, 9], and M-theory on eight-manifolds with Spin(7) holonomy corresponds to D6-branes wrapped on four-cycles inside manifolds with G 2 holonomy [10]. The deformation of this purely geometrical solutions by non-trivial background fluxes has also been extensively studied [11]-[15] (a more complete list of references on branes of different dimension wrapped on various supersymmetric cycles can be found in [16]). In this letter we will consider the case of D6-branes wrapped on six-cycles inside Calabi Yau fourfolds. The remaining theory on the worldvolume of the branes will be a supersymmetric quantum mechanics with two supercharges, and when lifted to eleven dimensions the solution will correspond to M-theory compactified on a Calabi Yau manifold of SU(5) holonomy. In section 2 we will briefly review the relevant sector of eight-dimensional gauged supergravity. In section 3 we will present the most general supersymmetry preserving solution and its deformation by a non-trivial background flux. In section 4 we generalize our results to provide a family of metrics having SU(n+1) holonomy and conclude with some remarks. 1

3 2 Eight-dimensional gauged supergravity Before constructing our solution we will review some relevant facts about gauged supergravity in eight dimensions which was originally constructed by Salam and Sezgin [17] through a Scherk Schwarz compactification of eleven-dimensional supergravity [18] on an SU(2) group manifold. The field content of the theory consists of the metric g µν, a dilaton Φ, five scalars given by a unimodular 3 3 matrix L i α in the coset SL(3, IR)/SO(3) and an SU(2) gauge potential A µ, all in the gravity sector, and three vector fields coming from reduction of the eleven-dimensional three-form. 1 In addition, on the fermion side we have the pseudo Majorana spinor ψ µ and the gaugino χ i. The Lagrangian density for the bosonic fields is given, in κ = 1 units, by L = 1 4 R 1 4 e2φ Fµν α F µν β g αβ 1 4 P µ ijp µ ij 1 2 ( µφ) 2 g2 16 e 2Φ (T ij T ij 1 2 T 2 ) 1 4 e 2Φ G µνi G µνi, (2.1) where F α µν is the Yang Mills field strength. Supersymmetry will be preserved by bosonic solutions to the equations of motion of eight-dimensional supergravity if the supersymmetry variations for the gaugino and the gravitino vanish. These are, respectively, δχ i = 1 2 (P µ ij δ ij µ Φ)ˆΓ j Γ µ ǫ 1 4 eφ F µν i Γ µν ǫ g 8 e Φ (T ij 1 2 δ ijt)ǫ jklˆγkl ǫ 1 24 e Φ ǫ kln G µνn (ˆΓ kli + 4ˆΓ k δ li )Γ µν ǫ = 0 (2.2) and δψ γ = D γ ǫ eφ F i µνˆγ i (Γ µν γ 10δ µ γ Γ ν )ǫ g 288 e Φ ǫ ijkˆγijk Γ γ Tǫ 1 48 e Φ ǫ ijk G µνkˆγij (Γ µν γ 10δ µ γ Γν )ǫ = 0, (2.3) where the covariant derivative is defined as D µ ǫ = µ ǫ ωab µ Γ abǫ Q µ ijˆγ ij ǫ (2.4) and the symmetric and antisymmetric quantities entering the Cartan decomposition of the SL(3, IR)/SO(3) coset, P µ ij and Q µ ij, respectively, are defined through P µ ij + Q µ ij L α i ( µ δ β α g ǫ αβγ A γ µ)l β j, (2.5) 1 Reduction of the eleven-dimensional three-form also produces a scalar, three two-forms and a threeform. However, we will set all these fields to zero. 2

4 and T ij is the T-tensor defining the potential energy associated to the scalar fields, T ij L i αl j β δαβ, (2.6) with T T ij δ ij, and L i α Lα j = δi j, Li α Lj β δ ij = g αβ, L i α Lj β gαβ = δ ij. (2.7) As usual, curved directions are labeled by greek indices, while flat ones are labeled by latin, and µ, a = 0, 1,..., 7 are space-time coordinates, while α, i = 8, 9, 10 are in the group manifold. Note also that upper indices in the gauge field, A α µ, are curved, and that the field strength in eight-dimensional curved space is defined as G µναβ = e 2Φ/3 e a µ eb ν Li α Lj β F abij = ǫ αβγ G µνγ. (2.8) It is generated by three vector fields B µα as G µνα = µ B να ν B µα. (2.9) We should point out that the above definition ignores the contribution to the SU(2) gauge field A α µ which is of the form ǫγ αβa β µ B νγ (µ ν). This will be justified by the form of our ansatz which will make this term to vanish identically. These vector fields generate also a contribution to the three three-form field strength G µνρα of the form ǫ αβγ Fµν β B ργ. Again the absence of these terms will be justified by the form of our ansatz. The gamma matrices in eleven dimensions can be represented as Γ a = γ a 1 2, ˆΓi = γ 9 τ i, (2.10) where the γ a s denote the gamma matrices in eight dimensions and as usual γ 9 = iγ 0 γ 1...γ 7, so that γ 2 9 = 1, while τi are Pauli matrices. It will prove useful to introduce Γ 9 iˆγ 1ˆΓ2ˆΓ3 = γ D6-branes wrapped on supersymmetric six-cycles Let us now introduce the system under study. We will consider a D2-D6 brane system, with the D6-branes wrapped on supesymmetric six-cycles inside Calabi Yau fourfolds, that is, divisors. As a starting point, we will take the six-cycle to be a direct product of three 3

5 two-spheres of different radii, S 2 S 2 S 2 (in an obvious notation). The deformation on the worldvolume of the D6-branes will then be described by a metric of the form ds 2 8 = e2f dt 2 + dρ 2 + α 2 1 dω2 2 + α2 2 d Ω α2 3 d Ω 2 2, (3.1) where the line elements for the two-spheres (each normalized having scalar curvature equal to 2) are dω 2 2 = dθ2 + sin 2 θdφ 2, d Ω 2 2 = d θ 2 + sin 2 θd φ2, d Ω 2 2 = d θ 2 + sin 2 θd φ2, (3.2) and f, α 1, α 2 and α 3 depend only on the radial variable ρ. The same dependence will also hold for all additional fields that we will turn on. It will be useful to introduce a triplet of Maurer Cartan 1-forms on S 2, σ 1 = sin θdφ, σ 2 = dθ, σ 3 = cosθdφ, (3.3) that obey the conditions dσ i = 1 2 ǫ ijkσ j σ j, so that they resemble the triplet of Maurer Cartan forms on S 3, although obviously only two of them are the independent ones. Similar triplets, σ i and σ i, can also be defined on the remaining two-spheres, S 2 and S 2. In the natural frame e 0 = dt, e 7 = dρ, e i = α 1 σ i, ē i = α 2 σ i, ẽ i = α 3 σ i, i = 1, 2, (3.4) the expressions for the spin connection for the metric (3.1) are ω 07 = df dρ ef dt, ω i7 = dα 1 dρ σ i, ω i7 = dα 2 dρ σ i, ω i7 = dα 1 dρ σ i, i = 1, 2, ω 12 = σ 3, ω 1 2 = σ 3, ω 1 2 = σ 3. (3.5) The split of the six-cycle into the product in (3.1) dictates the twist, and the only non-vanishing component of the gauge field is A 3 = 1 g (σ 3 + σ 3 + σ 3 ), (3.6) where for simplicity the overall constant has already been set to the value consistent with supersymmetry. The SU(2) R symmetry of the unwrapped branes is therefore broken to U(1) R. Geometrically, the breaking of the R-symmetry happens because there are two normal directions to the D6-branes that are inside the Calabi Yau fourfold; the R- symmetry is broken to the U(1) R on the 2-plane defined by them. The twist (3.6) amounts 4

6 to the identification of this U(1) R with a U(1) subgroup in one of the SU(2) factors in the SO(6) structure group of the six-cycle. The corresponding gauge field strength is F 3 = 1 g (σ 1 σ 2 + σ 1 σ 2 + σ 1 σ 2 ). (3.7) Among the three two-form field strengths G µνα we will choose as only non-vanishing the one corresponding to α = 3, thus complying with the requirements spelled out after (2.9). Then the field strength solving the equation of motion for the vector B µ3 is G x0 ρα = Q e2φ+f δ α1α 2 2α α3, (3.8) where in the above x 0 is a curved direction and Q is a dimensionfull constant. This ansatz points towards a particle associated with the one-form potential. However, this is only an artifact of the eight-dimensional description and in fact the flux (3.8) is due to D2-branes forming a bound state with the D6-branes. In addition only the scalar corresponding to the unbroken U(1) R R-symmetry will survive the twisting. We will therefore turn on one of the scalars in L i α, L i α = diag (e λ, e λ, e 2λ ), (3.9) so that the tensors in the Cartan decomposition of the coset are λ ga 3 0 P ij = 0 λ 0, Q ij = ga 0 0. (3.10) λ We will impose on the spinor the consistent projections Γ 7 ǫ = iγ 9 ǫ, Γ 1 Γ 2 ǫ = Γ 1 Γ2 ǫ = Γ 1 Γ2 ǫ = ˆΓ 1ˆΓ2 ǫ. (3.11) which leave in total two independent components for the spinor, so that at low energies we are left with a supersymmetric quantum mechanical model having two supercharges. The first projection effectively reduces the theory along the six-cycle and the other three project into singlet spinors of diagonal U(1) s. 2 2 A gravity dual for a quantum mechanics with two supercharges was also constructed in [19] using maximal gauged supergravity in seven dimensions to describe M-fivebranes wrapping a product of a three-cycle with a two-cycle. 5

7 With the above ansatz and projections on the spinor, the supersymmetry variations for the gravitino and gaugino lead to the following equations dφ = g dρ 8 e Φ (e 4λ + 2e 2λ ) 1 ( 1 2g eφ 2λ ) + Q α1 2 α2 2 α3 2 2 dλ dρ = g 6 e Φ (e 4λ e 2λ ) + 1 ( 1 3g eφ 2λ ) + Q α1 2 α2 2 α dα 1 = g α 1 dρ 24 e Φ (2e 2λ + e 4λ ) + 1 ( 5 6g eφ 2λ 1 1 ) Q α1 2 α2 2 α dα 2 = g α 2 dρ 24 e Φ (2e 2λ + e 4λ ) + 1 ( 5 6g eφ 2λ 1 1 ) Q α2 2 α3 2 α dα 3 = g α 3 dρ 24 e Φ (2e 2λ + e 4λ ) + 1 ( 5 6g eφ 2λ 1 1 ) Q α3 2 α1 2 α2 2 6 df dρ = 1 dφ 3 dρ + 2Q 3 e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3. e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3 e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3,, e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3 e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3 e Φ+2λ α1 2α2 2 α2 3,, (3.12) Furthermore, we also obtain from the gravitino variation along ρ a differential equation yielding the ρ-dependence of the Killing spinor as ǫ = e f/2 ǫ 0, (3.13) where ǫ 0 is a constant spinor subject to the projections (3.11). In fact, this functional form of the Killing spinor can be deduced just from the supersymmetry algebra. We also note that the system (3.12) also includes the case when the six-cycle is taken to be S 2 CP 2 ; this simply corresponds to setting equal radii for two of the spheres. We only have to adjust the overall scale in the metric for CP 2 to have scalar curvature equal to that of the metric for the undeformed S 2 S 2, which, in our normalization, is equal to four. In order to solve the system (3.12) it is useful to redefine variables through dr = e Φ/3 dρ, a 1 = α 1 e Φ/3, a 2 = α 2 e Φ/3, a 3 = α 3 e Φ/3, a 4 = e λ+2φ/3, a = e 2λ+2Φ/3, (3.14) A = f Φ 3. In these variables the metric, when lifted to eleven dimensions, takes the form (in what follows we have conveniently set g = 2; it can be reinstalled or taken to any value after 6,

8 appropriate rescalings) ds 2 11 = e 2A dt 2 +dr 2 +a 2 1dΩ 2 2 +a 2 2d Ω 2 2 +a 2 3d Ω 2 2 +a 2 4dˆΩ 2 2 +a 2 (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2, (3.15) where the ˆσ i s are left-invariant Maurer Cartan SU(2) one-forms satisfying as a triplet the conditions dˆσ i = 1 2 ǫ ijkˆσ j ˆσ k, with the explicit representation ˆσ 1 = cos ˆψ sin ˆθdˆφ sin ˆψdˆθ, ˆσ 2 = sin ˆψ sin ˆθdˆφ + cos ˆψdˆθ, (3.16) ˆσ 3 = d ˆψ + cos ˆθdˆφ. The Killing spinor can also be lifted from eight to eleven dimensions through ǫ 11 = e Φ/6 ǫ = e A/2 ǫ 0, while the eleven-dimensional four-form field strength corresponding to the uplift of (3.8) is given by F 07ˆ1ˆ2 = Q a 2 1 a2 2 a2 3 a F = Q a2 4 a 2 1 a2 2 a2 3 aea dx 0 dr ˆσ 1 ˆσ 2. (3.17) After the redefinitions (3.14), the system (3.12) becomes rather simple, a i da i dr da dr = a 2 m Q a 2 i i 3 a 2 1a 2 2a 2 3a, i = 1, 2, 3, 4, (m i) = (1, 1, 1, 2), ( = 1 a ) Q 1, (3.18) 2 a 2 1 a 2 2 a 2 3 a a 2 1a 2 2a 2 3 whose solution determines the conformal factor as da dr = 2Q 3 1 a 2 1a 2 2a 2 3a. (3.19) The solution dictated by the system (3.18) shares an Z 4 permutation invariance between all two-spheres only when there is no flux. The presence of the four-form (3.17) breaks this invariance to Z 3. We also note that having unequal radii for the spheres in the six-cycle provides the possibility to perform the limit where the radius of one of the two-spheres tends to infinity. This would amount to the growth of two flat coordinates; for instance for very large a 4 we effectively decompactify the worldvolume of the D2-brane. It is easily seen that then a 4 = e A and 2+1 Lorentz invariance is restored. Also the system (3.18) becomes than in [12]. In the absence of flux the metric (3.15) becomes ds 2 1,2 + ds 2 8, where ds 2 8 is the metric of a Calabi Yau fourfold, thus reducing from SU(5) to SU(4) holonomy. Similarly, one can go from SU(4) to SU(3) holonomy by blowing up one of the remaining two-spheres. 7

9 3.1 SU(5) holonomy Let us first discuss the case where the D2-branes are absent, with vanishing flux, Q = 0. Then the general solution to the system (3.18) is a 2 1 = R2 + l 2 1, a2 2 = R2 + l 2 2, a2 3 = R2 + l 2 3, a2 4 = R2, a 2 = R 2 U 2 (R), (3.20) where U 2 (R) = 12R6 + 15C 1 R C 2 R C C/R 4 30(R 2 + l 2 1 )(R2 + l 2 2 )(R2 + l 2 3 ), (3.21) with the constants C i, i = 1, 2, 3 expressed as symmetric homogeneous polynomials, up to cubic order, in the l 2 i s C 1 = l l l 2 3, C 2 = l 2 1l l 2 2l l 2 3l 2 1, C 3 = l 2 1l 2 2l 2 3. (3.22) The relation of the two variables r and R is via the differential dr = 2 dr. (3.23) U(R) Here we have denoted four of the constants of integration by l 1, l 2, l 3 and C, and we have absorbed the fifth one by an appropriate shift in the variable R. 3 We can also see that in this case e 2Φ = R 3 U(R), f = Φ/3 and A = 0. Hence the lifted eleven-dimensional solution in (3.15) factorizes into the time coordinate and a Calabi Yau fivefold with metric ds 2 10 = dr2 + a 2 1 dω2 2 + a2 2 d Ω a2 3 d Ω a2 4 dˆω a2 (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2. (3.24) The asymptotic behaviour for large values of R takes the universal form ds dR 2 + R 2 ds 2 9, as R (3.25) and it describes a cone whose base is given by the nine-dimensional metric ds 2 9 = dω2 2 + d Ω d Ω dˆω (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2. (3.26) This is an Einstein space obeying R ij = 4 5 g ij. In fact it is the symmetric coset space SU(2) SU(2) SU(2) SU(2) U(1) U(1) U(1), (3.27) 3 The symmetry between all two-spheres can be manifestly restored in the solution (3.20) if we make the variable shift R 2 R 2 + l 2 4 and simultaneously redefine l 2 i l2 i l2 4 for i = 1, 2, 3. 8

10 where the embedding of the U(1) s into the Cartan subalgebra in the numerator is diagonal. We have been unable to find a previous reference and a nomenclature for it in the literature, but this is simply a higher dimensional analog of the largest similar case appearing as a Freund Rubin compactification [20] of eleven-dimensional supergravity [18] in four dimensions, i.e. Q 1,1,1 [21]. Extending that nomenclature we will refer to this space as Π 1,1,1,1. In fact, (3.26) is an exact solution for all values of R as it can also be obtained by letting l 1 = l 2 = l 3 = C = 0 in the general solution. However, extending (3.26) to the interior is problematic because we reach a singularity at R = 0, where the fiber and the S 2 s collapse to a point. Resolving the singularity to avoid this collapse requires that we turn on some of the different moduli parameters which also determine the behavior of the solution in the interior. In the following we further analyze for two different cases the solution for generic ranges of the parameters and show that indeed the singularity can be resolved in a manner similar to that in [12]. l 1 = l 2 = l 3 = 0: In this case, when the constant C 0, the variable R 0 and then the manifold is singular at R = 0. If, however, C = ρ 10 0 < 0, where ρ 0 is a real positive constant, then the variable R ρ 0 and the metric takes the simple form ds 2 10 = 10dR 2 ( ) + 1 ρ 10 R2 dω d Ω d Ω dˆω /R R2 ( 1 ρ 10 0 /R10) (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ˆσ 3 ) 2. (3.28) Near R = ρ 0 we change to a new radial variable τ = 2 ρ 0 (R ρ 0 ) and find the behavior ds 2 10 a 2 (dω d Ω d Ω dˆω 2 2) + dτ 2 + τ 2 (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2, as τ 0. (3.29) Therefore, near τ = 0 (or equivalently R = ρ 0 ) and for constant θ and φ, as well as for the corresponding barred, tilded and hatted angles, the metric behaves as dt 2 + t 2 d ˆψ 2 which shows that t = 0 is a bolt singularity [22] which is removable provided that the periodicity of the angle ˆψ is restricted to 0 ˆψ < 2π. Then the space becomes topologically S 2 S 2 S 2 S 2 R 2 and the full solution interpolates between this space for R a and the ten-dimensional space (3.25) for R. However, the latter is now a cone with base Π 1,1,1,1 /Z 2 due to the above discrete identification. 9

11 l1 2 > 0, l2 2 > 2 and l3 2 > 0: In this case, when the constant C > 0, the variable R 0 and there is a singularity at R = 0. If, however, C = 0 then we have the behavior ds 2 10 l1dω l2d Ω l3d Ω dR 2 + R 2 dˆω R 2 (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2, as R 0. (3.30) Hence, for constant θ, φ, θ, φ and θ, φ the metric behaves as 4dR 2 +R 2 (ˆσ ˆσ2 2 + ˆσ2 3 ) which shows that we simply have a coordinate singularity in the polar coordinate system on an IR 4 centered at R = 0. This is the so called nut singularity [22], which is removable by adding the point R = 0 and changing to Cartesian coordinates. Therefore near R = 0 the manifold becomes topologically S 2 S 2 S 2 R 4. Then the full solution interpolates between this space for R 0 and the ten-dimensional flat space in (3.25) for R. If C < 0 then there is an R 0 such that U(R 0 ) 2 = 0 (we take the largest root of this sixth order, in R0 2, algebraic equation) and therefore we have that R R 0. Changing to a new radial variable τ = 2 R 0 (R R 0 ) we find the behavior ds 2 10 (R0 2 + l2 1 )dω2 2 + (R2 0 + l2 2 )d Ω (R2 0 + l2 3 )d Ω R2 0 dˆω dτ 2 + τ 2 (ˆσ 3 σ 3 σ 3 ) 2, as τ 0. (3.31) Hence the behavior is similar to that found before in (3.29), with a removable bolt singularity at τ = Non-vanishing flux In the presence of a non-vanishing flux our system (3.18) represents a bound state of D2-D6 branes. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that we have introduced D2-branes in the presence of D6-branes without further breaking of supersymmetry. At a more technical level the presence of D2-branes is clear by the following considerations. Let us consider the limit where the radii of the spheres S 2, S 2 and Ŝ2 and simultaneously the flux charge become very large in the following correlated manner, a 4 a 4 /ǫ, Q Q/ǫ 4, a 2 = a 3 a 2 /ǫ, ǫ 0. (3.32) In order to keep finite the line element for the metric, as well as the four-form, we also focus on the north pole of each sphere, i.e. ˆθ ǫˆρ etc., in such a way that a 2 2 d Ω a2 3 d Ω 2 2 a2 2 (dx2 3 + dx2 4 + dx2 5 + dx2 6 ), a2 4 dˆω 2 2 a2 4 (dx2 1 + dx2 2 ), 10

12 a 2 (d ˆψ + cos ˆθdˆφ cosθdφ cos θd φ cos θd φ) 2 a 2 σ 2 3, (3.33) where σ 3 is a full SU(2) Maurer Cartan form. Then it is consistent to set a 1 = a and we easily see that necessarily a 4 = e A. Then the system (3.18) and (3.19) simplifies to da dr = a 2 Q 1 3a 4 2 a, a a 2 2 dr = Q 3a a 3, da dr = 2Q 1 3a 4 2 a. (3.34) 3 From this we see that a 2 = e A/2. We further change the radial variable as dr = H 1/6 dρ, a = 1 2 H1/6 ρ, (3.35) where H = H(ρ) is to be determined. Then we have dr 2 + a 2 (dω σ2 3 ) = H1/3 ( dρ ρ2 (dω σ2 3 ) ) = H 1/3 (dρ 2 + ρ 2 dω 2 3 ). (3.36) The remaining equations for H and A read dh dρ = 16Q ρ 3, da dρ = 16Q 3 H 1/3 ρ 3 e 2A, (3.37) with solution H = 8Q ρ 2 + 1, ea = H 1/3. (3.38) Finally the metric (3.15) takes the form of the M2-brane metric ds 2 11 = H 2/3 ( dt 2 + dx dx2 2 ) + H1/3 (dx dx2 6 + dρ2 + ρ 2 dω 2 3 ), (3.39) with four transverse directions x 3,..., x 6, smeared out over the real line. In addition, the four-form field strength (3.17) becomes F = dt dx 1 dx 2 dh 1, (3.40) as it should be. Dimensionally reducing along any one of the smeared coordinates produces the desired D2-brane metric of type IIA supergravity, thus confirming our interpretation. We should point out that the D2-D6 brane system considered in [12] corresponded to flattening the worldvolume of the D2-brane by letting a 4 become very large which then consistently can be set equal to e A. Then the simplified system arising from (3.18) can be solved exactly, for Q 0, with no further truncation. In the present paper all spatial directions of the D2-D6 system are wrapped and, unlike the case in [12], we have not been able to provide an explicit solution of the system (3.18) for Q 0. It will be interesting to search for such a solution starting with the simpler case where a 1 = a 2 = a 3. 11

13 4 SU(n+1) holonomy The case of D6-branes wrapped on six-cycles with S 2 S 2 S 2 topology we have considered in this paper is a generalization of that of D6-branes wrapped on S 2 S 2 four-cycles, leading to SU(4) holonomy [7, 12], or S 2 two-cycles corresponding to the resolved [5] or deformed conifold [6]. These constructions can be extended to an arbitrary even number of dimensions 2n + 2 and SU(n+1) holonomy. Of course for n 5 we give up the brane description of the underlying geometry. Consider the metric ds 2 2n+2 = dr2 + n a 2 i dω2 2,i (dψ + a2 + i=1 n ) 2 σ 3,i, (4.1) containing a set of n spheres, with dω 2 2,i = σ2 1,i +σ2 2,i and where the relation dσ 3,i = σ 1,i σ 2,i defines the σ 3,i s. In the natural frame e 1 i = a iσ 1,i, e 2 i = a iσ 2,i, ( e 2n+1 = a dψ + the spin connection in a quite obvious notation reads ( ω(i) 12 = σ 3,i a2 dψ + 2a 2 i ω 12n+2 (i) ω 2n+11 (i) n ) σ 3,i i=1 i=1 n ) σ 3,i, e 2n+2 = dr, (4.2) i=1, ω 2n+12n+2 = da ( dψ + dr n ) σ 3,i, = da i dr σ 1,i, ω 22n+2 (i) = da i dr σ 2,i, (4.3) = a σ 2,i, ω 2n+12 (i) = a σ 1,i. 2a i 2a i In order to generalize our construction to arbitrary even dimensions we will first extend the projections on the spinor as Γ 1 (1) Γ2 (1) ǫ =... = Γ1 (n) Γ2 (n) ǫ = Γ2n+1 Γ 2n+2 ǫ, (4.4) representing, in total, 2 n independent conditions. The metric (4.1) will admit a covariantly constant spinor provided that the first order system of differential equations 4 i=1 a i da i dr da dr 4 This system was also studied in [23]. = a 2 = 1 a2 2, i = 1,...,n, n i=1 1 a 2 i, (4.5) 12

14 is obeyed. The form of the covariantly constant spinor turns out to be ǫ = e Γ12 (1) ψ/2 ǫ 0, where ǫ 0 is a constant spinor subject to the same projections as in (4.4). These projections leave two independent components for the spinor, so that we are left with an SU(n+1) holonomy metric. where The general solution to the system (4.5) is dr = 2 U(R) dr, a2 = R 2 U 2 (R), a 2 i = R 2 + l 2 i, with i = 1,..., n and l 2 n = 0, (4.6) U 2 (R) = 2 n 1 i=1 (R2 + li 2) [ C/R 4 n 1 n i=0 R 2i ] i + 2 S n i 1(l 2 ), (4.7) with C being a constant and S m (l 2 ) a symmetric homogeneous polynomial in the li 2 s, of degree m, with m = 0, 1,..., n 1, S m (l 2 ) = n 1 i 1 <...<i m=1 l 2 i 1 l 2 i 2...l 2 i m. (4.8) The asymptotic behaviour of (4.1) as R is that of a cone with metric and base the (2n + 1)-dimensional Einstein space ds 2 2n+2 = 2(n + 1) dr2 + R 2 ds 2 2n+1, (4.9) ds 2 2n+1 = n i=1 dω 2 2,i + 2 ( dψ + n + 1 n ) 2 σ 3,i, (4.10) i=1 with R ij = n n+1 g ij. This is the symmetric coset space n factors {}}{ SU(2) SU(2)... SU(2) U(1)... U(1) }{{} n 1 factors, (4.11) and we can denote it, by extending our previous notation corresponding to n = 4, as Π 1,1,...,1, with n indices. In the case where all l i = 0 and C = ρ 2n+2 0 < 0 we have U 2 (R) = 2 ) (1 ρ2n+2 0. (4.12) n + 1 R 2n+2 13

15 Therefore near R = ρ 0 we find a removable bolt singularity with S(1) 2 S2 (2)...S2 (n) R2 topology. When C = 0, and all li 2 > 0, a removable nut singularity arises near R = 0, with S(1) 2 S2 (2)...S2 (n 1) R4 topology. Obviously the cases with n 5 do not have an interpretation in terms of branes and therefore seem to be of no direct interest to string and M-theory. Nevertheless, we find it quite interesting that the general structure is extendable for any n and we believe that the explicit forms of the metrics we have presented will be useful in general. Acknowledgments R.H. acknowledges the financial support provided through the European Community s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT Quantum Structure of Space-time, the Swiss Office for Education and Science and the Swiss National Science Foundation. K.S. acknowledges the financial support provided through the European Community s Human Potential Programme under contracts HPRN-CT Quantum Structure of Space-time and HPRN-CT Superstring Theory, by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation under the contract IKYDA-2001/22 Quantum Fields and Strings, as well as NATO support by a Collaborative Linkage Grant under the contract PST.CLG Algebraic and Geometrical Aspects of Conformal Field Theories and Superstrings. He also acknowledges the hospitality and financial support of the TH- Division of CERN, where a substantial part of this work was done. References [1] J. Gomis, Nucl. Phys. B606 (2001) 3, hep-th/ [2] M. Bershadsky, C. Vafa and V. Sadov, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 420, hep-th/ [3] J. Maldacena and C. Núñez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16 (2001) 822, hep-th/ and Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 588, hep-th/ [4] J. P. Gauntlett, Branes, calibrations and supergravity, hep-th/ [5] J.D. Edelstein and C. Núñez, JHEP 0104 (2001) 028, hep-th/

16 [6] J. D. Edelstein, A. Paredes and A. V. Ramallo, Phys. Lett. B 554 (2003) 197, hep-th/ [7] J. Gomis and T. Mateos, Phys. Lett. B524 (2002) 170, hep-th/ [8] R. Hernández and K. Sfetsos, Phys. Lett. B536 (2002) 294, hep-th/ [9] J. D. Edelstein, A. Paredes and A. V. Ramallo, JHEP 0301 (2003) 011, hep-th/ [10] R. Hernández, Phys. Lett. B521 (2001) 371, hep-th/ [11] U. Gursoy, C. Núñez and M. Schvellinger, JHEP 0206 (2002) 015, hep-th/ [12] R. Hernández and K. Sfetsos, JHEP 0207 (2002) 045, hep-th/ [13] J. Brugués, J. Gomis, T. Mateos and T. Ramírez, JHEP 0210 (2002) 016, hep-th/ [14] J. D. Edelstein, A. Paredes and A. V. Ramallo, JHEP 0212 (2002) 075, hep-th/ [15] J. Brugués, J. Gomis, T. Mateos and T. Ramírez, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) S441, hep-th/ [16] R. Hernández and K. Sfetsos, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) S501, hep-th/ [17] A. Salam and E. Sezgin, Nucl. Phys. B258 (1985), 284. [18] E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409; E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979) 141. [19] J. P. Gauntlett and N. Kim, Phys. Rev. D (2002), hep-th/ [20] P.G. Freund and M.A. Rubin, Phys. Lett. B97 (1980) 233. [21] R. D Auria, P. Fre and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 347. [22] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 66 (1979) 291; T. Eguchi and A.J. Hanson, Annals Phys. 120 (1979) 82. [23] M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, Commun. Math. Phys. 232 (2003) 457, hep-th/