r
X
i
v
:
1
2
0
3
.
1
5
6
7
v
1
[
h
e
p

t
h
]
7
M
a
r
2
0
1
2
Quaternionic and HyperKahler Metrics
from Generalized Sigma Models
V.I. Afonso
1
, D. Bazeia
1,2
, D.J. CiriloLombardo
3
1
Unidade Academica de Fsica, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, PB, Brasil
2
Departamento de Fsica, Universidade Federal da Paraba, PB, Brasil and
3
International Institute of Physics, Natal, RN, Brasil
The problem of nding new metrics of interest, in the context of SUGRA, is reduced to two
stages: rst, solving a generalized BPS sigma model with full quaternionic structure proposed by
the authors and, second, constructing the hyperKahler metric, or suitable deformations of this
condition, taking advantage of the correspondence between the quaternionic leftregular potential
and the hyperKahler metric of the target space. As illustration, new solutions are obtained using
generalized Qsigma model for WessZumino type superpotentials. Explicit solutions analog to
the Bergers sphere and AbrahamTownsend type are given and generalizations of 4dimensional
quaternionic metrics, product of complex ones, are shown and discussed.
PACS numbers: 11.27.+d, 11.25.w
I. INTRODUCTION
Several attempts have been proposed in order to nd
new metric structures for the target space in supersym
metric models, in particular the N = (4, 0) and the
N = (4, 4) cases. Since each supersymmetry, beyond
the rst, requires the existence of complex or quater
nionic structure, these attempts are expected to lead to
interesting new hypercomplex geometries in the context
of SUGRA and, consequently, in type IIA and type IIB
superstring theories. Considerable eorts and beautiful
methods and prescriptions have been developed in that
direction: from the bosonic approach, monopole solu
tions in S
3
sub manifolds [1, 2] and the method of the
calibrations [3] (and refs. therein); from the supersym
metric side, the harmonic superspace method [4, 5]. How
ever, tentatives to connect the truly BPS solutions of
the nonlinear sigma model under consideration, with the
corresponding geometries (metrics) showing the expected
hyperKahler and quaternionic properties, remain lack
ing.
In this work, our main goal is to attack this prob
lem by reducing it to two independent stages consisting
in: (i) solving a generalized BPS Sigma model with full
quaternionic structure and (ii), with this information,
constructing the hyperKahler metric using the corre
spondence between the quaternionic leftregular poten
tial and the hyperKahler metric in the target space.
This correspondence, valid for hyperKahler manifolds
and quaternionic ones with compact substructure (also
smooth departures of the hyperKahler condition are al
lowed), is based on the existence of certain geometrical
mappings that, at the classical level, allow to establish
the equivalence between a model with a potential in at
spacetime and a free model with a suitable metric in the
target space.
The rst step of our strategy consists in nding BPS
solutions for a Generalized Quaternionic Lagrangian
(GQL), as introduced in ref. [6], which presents the
important property that both the base and the target
spaces live in H (see subsection below). As we will
show in the following, the proposed GQL has a standard
form with a potential depending on scalar (quaternionic)
elds. Then, with solutions for this model at hand, we
will be able to establish a correspondence with the even
sector (B
0
) of a supergravity theory. The link is real
ized by a direct mapping between the action of the free
sigma model with metric g
(q)
2
. (1)
The CauchyFueter operator is dened by
i
0
i
1
i
2
i
3
3
, (2)
where
i
0
= I and
i
i
(i = 1, 2, 3) obey the standard quater
nionic algebra, and
0
/x
0
and
i
/x
i
.
2
Throughout this work we shall adopt Einsteins con
vention of indices summation, with the Latin indices i
and j running from 1 to 3, unless otherwise stated. As
usual, Sc and V ec will denote the scalar and vector parts
of the corresponding quaternionic expression. In partic
ular, whenever convenient, we will use the notation
0
Sc and V ec . We also dene q
2
i
q
2
1
+q
2
2
+q
2
3
, and
W
q0
q0
W(q) and W
qi
q
W(q), where the Cauchy
Fueter operator acting on the target space is given by
q
i
0
q0
i
1
q1
i
2
q2
i
3
q3
. (3)
Note that these equations for W present both the scalar
and vector parts.
A. WessZumino model
Following the lines of the complex eld case treated
in ref. [7], in the present work we will specialize our
Generalized Qsigma Model to the case of a WessZumino
(WZ) type superpotential [8] of the form
W
(q) = n q
N
= n (q
0
+
i
i
q
i
)
N
, (4)
where N Z, n C, and the prime indicates derivative
with respect to the argument of the considered function.
This standard choice is simply motivated by the fact that
the WZ superpotential is the basic prototype for any
analysis involving hypercomplex quaternionic structures
in several areas of the modern theoretical physics.
Thus, the rst order equation q = W
i
i
q
i
)
N
(5)
This expression, with x identied below, arises from the
relation between the left regular superpotential W(q) and
the BPS conditions as quaternionic congurations with
left regular superpotentials minimize the energy of the
system to the BPS bound. (see Appendix VII).
The corresponding vacuum (minima) manifold is de
scribed by the set of the Nroots of the unity in the eld
of the quaternions, i.e. S
2
spheres,
v
k
N
= e
a
k
N
= exp
_
a2
k 1
N
_
k = 1, . . . , N, (6)
being a a pure quaternion of unitary norm.
In the following we will present some solutions (orbits)
for the WZ model above, in the simplest cases of N = 1
and N = 2. As a rst approach to the problem, we
will consider an ordinary (commutative) base space as
spacetime equivalent. Then, we will focus on the case of a
quaternionic (noncommutative) base space as spacetime
equivalent.
B. Commutative spacetime equivalent solutions
The realization of the commutative base space as
spacetime equivalent is achieved by making the identi
cation
x
i
0
X
0
(i.e. x R). (7)
1. Case N = 1 (commutative)
For N = 1, equation (5) reads
dq
dx
= n q = n q
0
+
i
1
q
1
+
i
2
q
2
+
i
3
q
3
. (8)
Splitting up this equation into its Sc and V ec parts, we
have
dq
0
dx
= n q
0
(9)
dq
i
dx
= q
i
(10)
This system admits the direct solution
q(x) = n C
0
e
x
+
i
i
C
i
e
x
, (11)
where C
0
and C
i
(i = 1, 2, 3) are integration constants.
2. Case N = 2 (commutative)
For N = 2, the rst order equation takes the form
dq
dx
= n (q
2
0
q
2
i
2
i
i
q
i
q
0
), n Z. (12)
Given the condition on the quaternionic phase and the
V ec(q), this case presents two minima in the eld space,
located at Sc(q) = 1 (analogously to the complex eld
case of [7]).
Breaking equation (12) into its Sc and V ec parts, we
obtain the system of equations
dq
0
dx
= n q
2
0
+q
2
i
(13)
dq
i
dx
= 2q
i
q
0
. (14)
Let us now propose a generic equation for the curves
connecting the two minima of the potential (trial orbit
method [9]),
Aq
2
0
+B
i
q
2
i
= C q
2
0
+
i
q
2
i
= 1 (15)
where the reduction from ve (A, B
i
, C) to three (
i
)
parameters is due the N = 2 condition. Dierentiating
the orbit equation with respect to x, and using the rst
order derivatives of the system above we obtain
q
2
0
+
i
q
2
i
= n,
i
= (1 + 2
i
) i, (16)
3
from which it is easily seen by simple comparison that
acceptable hypercurves must fulll the ellipticity condi
tions
i
1/2 (
i
0) and n = 1. Thus, equation
(16) reduces to
q
2
0
+
i
q
2
i
= 1,
i
0 i. (17)
Imposing the orbit condition on the rst order equations
leads to,
dq
0
dx
= q
2
i
+
i
q
2
i
(18)
dq
i
dx
= 2q
i
_
1
i
q
2
i
(19)
Leaving aside the trivial case
i
= 0 i(which leads to
q
0
= 1, q
i
= 0 i), a solution to the system above
presents components of the form
q
0
(x) = tanh(2x+c), q
i
(x) =
1
3
i
sech(2x+c), (20)
where a
i
, and c are integration constants. Requiring
consistency with the orbit under consideration results in
the restriction 1/
1
+ 1/
2
+ 1/
3
= 3, which implies
that
3
=
1
2
(3
1
2
1
2
)
1
, for arbitrary val
ues of
1
and
2
. (In particular, we can take simply
1
=
2
=
3
= 1).
Collecting the results we have that our commutative
N = 2 case solution reads
q(x) = tanh(2x +c) +
i
i
1
3
i
sech(2x +c) (21)
As expected, in the present case the structure of the
solutions is much richer than in the complex case, as we
have here the parameters
i
to play with. Applying the
usual parameterization (x) =tanh(2x +c), the solution
takes the form
q(x) = (x) +
i
i
1
3
i
_
1 (x)
2
, (22)
which looks more suitable for a geometrical analysis.
C. Quaternionic spacetime equivalent solutions
Let us now evaluate a quaternionic base manifold (non
commutative spacetime equivalent). This can be done
by identifying the spacetime spatial coordinate x with
one of the complex directions of a quaternionic manifold,
namely
x
i
1
X
1
(i.e. x SU(2)). (23)
Therefore, we shall consider scalar elds of the target
space depending on this coordinate, and we must also
specialize the operator to the X
1
coordinate, that is
i
0
i
1
i
2
i
3
3
=
i
1
1
(24)
As a consequence of this choice, the spacetime assumes
the structure RO(3) RSU(2), perfectly described
by an element X of H, in the representation that we have
adopted in this work.
Now, in the present case, due to the non trivial topol
ogy of the base manifold (spacetime equivalent), we solve
the rst order equations directly (no trial orbit method).
Then, the two cases analyzed before (N = 1 and N = 2),
take the completely dierent form described below.
1. Case N = 1 (noncommutative)
Taking x
i
1
X
1
in the case N = 1 leaves the rst
order equation (5) with the form
q = W
(q) = n q (25)
i
1
1
_
q
0
+
i
1
q
1
+
i
2
q
2
+
i
3
q
3
_
= n q
0
+
i
1
q
1
+
i
2
q
2
+
i
3
q
3
,
which can be put in the form
dq
0
dX
1
= q
1
(26)
dq
1
dX
1
= n q
0
(27)
dq
2
dX
1
= q
3
(28)
dq
3
dX
1
= q
2
. (29)
As the equations are not all coupled but in pairs, the
resolution of the system is quite direct, and we obtain
the solution
q
0
(X
1
) = n e
C+C
cosh(X
1
+C
+
+C
) (30)
q
1
(X
1
) = e
C+C
sinh(X
1
+C
+
+C
) (31)
q
2
(X
1
) = C cos(X
1
+) (32)
q
3
(X
1
) = C sin(X
1
+) (33)
where C, C
+
, and C
),
B
= tan(X
1
+ ), the quater
nion solution assumes a much more appropriate form for
a geometrical analysis
q = n
e
C+C
_
1
2
A
(1 +
i
1
A
) +
C
_
1 +
2
B
_
i
2
+
i
3
B
_
(34)
4
2. Case N = 2 (noncommutative)
In this case the rst order equation q = W
(q) can
be split up into its Sc and Vec parts to give the system
dq
0
dX
1
= 2q
1
q
0
(35)
dq
1
dX
1
= n q
2
0
+q
2
1
+q
2
2
+q
2
3
(36)
dq
2
dX
1
= 2q
3
q
0
(37)
dq
3
dX
1
= +2q
2
q
0
(38)
The explicit symmetry of this system suggests that the
simplest nontrivial solution is q
1
= constant. With that
choice we have
n = q
2
0
(q
2
1
+ q
2
2
+q
2
3
) (39)
q
0
(X
1
) = C
0
e
2X1q1
(40)
q
2
(X
1
) = C
1
sin
_
C
0
q
1
1
e
2X1q1
+
_
(41)
q
3
(X
1
) = C
1
cos
_
C
0
q
1
1
e
2X1q1
+
_
(42)
where the integration constants C
0
and C
1
must fulll
the constraint equation
n
2
=
_
C
0
e
2X1q1
_
2
(q
2
1
+C
2
1
) (43)
In particular, we can make the convenient choice
C
0
=
_
n
2
+ 2q
2
1
and C
1
= q
1
, (44)
which simplies the solution to the expression
q(X
1
) = q
0
(X
1
) +q
1
(
i
1
+
i
2
sin(q
0
q
1
1
+)
+
i
3
cos(q
0
q
1
1
+)) (45)
where
q
0
(X
1
) =
_
n
2
+ 2q
2
1
e
2X1q1
. (46)
This expression can be rewritten in an algebraic form
using the parameterization = tan
_
q
0
q
1
1
+
_
. We
obtain
q(X
1
) = q
0
(X
1
) +q
1
_
i
1
+
1
1 +
2
_
i
2
+
i
3
_
_
(47)
Another simple solution is obtained by putting q
0
0,
which results in
dq1
dX1
= n +q
2
1
+q
2
2
+q
2
3
q
2
= C
2
q
3
= C
3
.
(48)
Thus,
q
1
(X
1
) =
_
n +C
2
2
+C
3
2
tan(X
1
+C
1
) (49)
The compactness of the solution is quite evident, even
more putting = tan(X
1
+C
1
), which gives
q (X
1
) =
i
1
_
n +C
2
2
+C
2
3
+
i
2
C
2
+
i
3
C
3
. (50)
III. GQA AND HYPERK
AHLER
QSTRUCTURES
In this paper the case with torsion will not be consid
ered. Nevertheless, it is worth noting the particular cases
of interest:
i) N = (2, 0), D = 4 (or N = (4, 4), D = 2): the tor
sion vanishes, complex structures are annihilated
by covariant derivatives and form the quaternionic
algebra (hyperKahler geometry). In both cases,
prepotentials are known in the seminal references
[10, 11].
ii) N = (4, 0), D = 2: the torsion is a closed 3
form; complex structures are annihilated by covari
ant derivatives and form the quaternionic algebra
(hyperKahler with torsion).
Then, in the following we will be dealing with the rst
case, just to show the consistency of the procedure of
nding BPS solutions in the context of SUGRA.
A. The new metrics: Quink, a QKink analogue?
The general form of the metrics we are interested in,
admitting a quaternionic structure, hyperKahler or not,
is
ds
2
new
= Udq dq +U
1
(dq
0
+ dq)
2
(51)
where the function must fulll the Killings equation
L
X
E
0
= 0 (52)
where X is a Killing vector eld, and E
0
= U
1
(dq
0
+
dq) is the tetrad oneform associated to the scalar com
ponent of the line element of the metric (51).
As our case does not include torsion (hyperKahler and
Conformal hyperKahler target spaces) clearly the rela
tion between U and is
Ud
_
U
1
_
= d
_
1
_
(53)
As we will show in detail in [6] see also [12, 13] the
connexion between the potential in our GQL and the free
sigma model can be explicitly established.
1. Metric for the N = 1 case (commutative)
Let us consider rst the N = 1 case. The potential is
related to the U factor by
V =
1
2
(n q)(n q) =
m
2
4
U
1
. (54)
Then we can write
U = det (g
) =
m
2
/2
n
2
q
2
. (55)
5
Now, the line element corresponding to the quaternionic
solution (11) reads
ds
2
= U
1
C
2
0
e
2x
d
2
x +UC
2
i
e
2x
i
, (56)
2. Metric for the N = 2 case (commutative)
Let us now consider N = 2 case. For the potential we
can write
V =
1
2
(n q
2
)(n q
2
) =
m
2
4
U
1
. (57)
Therefore, we have the relation
U = det (g
) =
m
2
/2
n
2
q
4
, (58)
Similarly to the N = 1 case, we can write the line el
ement corresponding to the quaternionic solution (21)
calculated above,
ds
2
= 4 sech
4
(2x+c)
_
U
1
dx
2
+U
i
i
3
i
sinh
2
(2x +c)
_
(59)
The analysis of this expression is extremely simplied
introducing the relation tanh(2x + c) as in (22).
Such denition transforms the hyperbolic/trigonometric
expressions in algebraic ones leading to the line element
ds
2
= 4
_
1
2
_
2
_
U
1
dx
2
+U
i
i
3
i
2
(1
2
)
_
(60)
B. Generalization of the Bergers sphere and
comparison with other solutions
Let us now analyze the 3dimensional (compact) part
of the metrics obtained above, ds
2
3
= Udq dq. In or
der to make explicit the S
1
S
2
structure, we introduce
the usual left anglevariables representative forms of the
compact submanifold, and some constant coecients
q
i
.
Two main consequences immediately arise:
i) If
q
1
=
q
2
=
q
3
, that is, if the compact part of the
metric takes the form
ds
2
3(N=1)
= UC
2
i
e
2x
q
1
2 _
d
2
+ sin
2
d
2
(61)
+(d + cos d)
2
ds
2
3(N=2)
= 4U(1
2
)
2
q
1
2 _
d
2
+ sin
2
d
2
(62)
+(d + cos d)
2
1
qq
0

+
1
q+q
0

U =
m
2
/2
(n
2
q
2
)
U =
m
2
/2
(n
2
q
4
)
q0(x) = const.,
(angular character: compact)
q0(x) = n C0 e
x
q0(x) = tanh
m
8
(2x +c)
qi(x) = tanh
m
8
(x x0)
,
= const.
qi(x) = Ci e
x
qi(x) =
q
i
sech
m
8
(2x +c)
q
i
= 1/
3i (i 0 i)
and 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 = 3
TABLE I: Comparison with solutions from AbrahamTownsend (AT) model.
A. Case N = 1 (noncommutative)
For this case we have obtained a metric solution of the
form
ds
2
=
e
2(C+C)
1
2
A
_
U
1
2
A
dx
2
1
+U
1
1
_
+
C
2
1
1 +
2
B
U
_
2
B
2
+
3
3
_
. (65)
This metric product is the result of the geometrical
structure of the quaternion solution (30). Precisely, if
we make the choice n = 0 , C
+
= C
and i2C
+
= , the
quaternion solution (34) can be written as the result of
a product of the form C C H, as follows
q =
_
I
2
+f
2
z , (66)
where the complex number z C H is dened as
z cosh(x
1
+C
+
+C
) + sinh (x
1
+C
+
+C
)
1
,
(67)
and the mapping f over the C eld is given by
f : C(x
1
+ C
+
+C
) C(i (x
1
+C
+
+C
)) . (68)
This is the reason why in this case the metric can be
interpreted as product of two complex Kahler metrics
with the structure C C H
B. Case N = 2 (noncommutative)
For this case we have obtained a metric solution of the
form
ds
2
= 4q
2
0
q
2
1
_
U
1
dx
2
1
+
U
q
2
0
1
_
(69)
+
U
1 +
2
_
2
+
2
3
_
.
This metric product is the result of the geometrical
structure of the quaternionic solution (47). Notice that
now, in a sharp contrast with the previous case, the solu
tion cannot be written directly as the result of a product
of the form CC H, or as the action of an ideal over
a complex eld H.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In the present letter we have proposed a new method
for nding BPS solutions in the context of SUGRA. This
method, in sharp contrast with the methods of the cali
brations [1], or the monopole method introduced in [2, 3],
allows to nd suitable Quaternionic and hyperKahler ge
ometries with the required properties appearing in the
bosonic sector of supergravity theories based in the susy
extensions of the nonlinear sigma models. The solutions
found have the particularity of being BPS and are not
just generalizations of the well known solutions, but new
distinct ones.
While the focus of the present work was to present the
method, that is, the geometrical link between genuine
BPS quaternionic solutions of the GQL and the target
space metric of the bosonic sector of the SUGRA the
ory, it is important to note the clear existence of a rela
tion between our solutions and the Bianchi IX general
izations of hyperKahler metrics with TaubNUT struc
tures, and also the possible close connexion of our method
with the (unconstrained) Harmonic Superspace Formal
ism [17]. The proper analisys of these points requires the
evaluation of the full version of the supergravity theory
(bosonic and fermionic sectors), and will be addressed in
future work.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank CAPES and CNPq for nancial
support.
VII. APPENDIX. ENERGY, LEFT REGULAR
W(q) AND BPS CONDITIONS
Similarly to the complex case of Ref. [7], we can rewrite
the energy in a convenient fashion, in order to make ex
plicit the relation between the BPS conditions and the
corresponding gradient and potential terms of the Hamil
7
tonian. Namely, we have
E =
1
2
_
dx
__
dq
0
dx
+W
qi
__
dq
0
dx
+W
qi
_
+
_
dq
i
dx
+W
q0
__
dq
i
dx
+W
q0
__
_
dx Sc
_
dq
0
dx
W
qi
+
dq
i
dx
W
q0
_
(70)
Here, consistently with the 1dimensional spatial coor
dinate, we retain the scalar (commuting) part of the
operator and of the quaternionic position X introducing
the usual (commutative) x coordinate:
0
d
dx
, X
0
x.
For quaternionic eld solutions obeying
dq
0
dx
= W
qi
, (71)
dq
i
dx
= W
q0
, (72)
expression (70) is minimized to the Bogomolnyi bound,
and the energy is given by the superpotential
E
BPS
=
_
dX
_
W
qi

2
+W
q0

2
_
(73)
Analogously to the complex case, where Cauchy
Riemann conditions arise, the above equations solve the
quaternionic equation of motion if we impose the Fueter
harmonic condition on W(q
0
, q
i
), that is
0 = W (q
0
, q
i
) =
2
q0
W +
2
q1
W +
2
q2
W +
2
q3
W
= W (q
0
, q
i
) 2
q
[Sc (W (q
0
, q
i
))] . (74)
That is, the Fueterharmonic condition implies the (left)
holomorphy of W
0 =
q
W (q
0
, q
i
) (75)
=
q
W (q
0
, q
i
) 2
q
[Sc (W (q
0
, q
i
))] .
Therefore, we can generalize previous results concern
ing the complex elds [7], to a quaternionic function
W =
W
q0
= W
qi
,
W
qi
= W
q0
(76)
It is worth mentioning here that all the above expres
sions involving analytical properties of the functions in
the quaternionic eld, reduce to their corresponding anal
ogous expressions in the complex eld case, when we re
tain only two of the quaternionic variables, namely
W (q
0
, q
i
) W (q
0
, q
1
) = W
0
+iW
1
(77)
In this case, equation (75) reduces to the Cauchy
Riemmann conditions
(
q0
+i
q1
) (W
0
+iW
1
) 2i
q1
W
0
= 0
(
q0
W
0
q1
W
1
) +i (
q0
W
1
q1
W
0
) = 0 (78)
Taking into account the above statements, the energy
can be put in a more general fashion
E =
1
2
_
dX
_
_
W
q0
+W
qi
__
W
q0
+W
qi
_
+
_
W
qi
+W
q0
__
W
qi
+W
q0
_
_
(79)
_
dX Sc
_
W
q0
W
qi
+
W
qi
W
q0
_
,
generalizing equation (70).
[1] G. Papadopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 356, 249 (1995).
[2] T. Chave, G. Valent and K. P. Tod, Phys. Lett. B 383,
262 (1996).
[3] J. Gutowski, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend,
Phys. Rev. D 60, 106006 (1999).
[4] E. Ivanov and G. Valent, Phys. Lett. B 445, 60 (1998)].
[5] F. Delduc and E. Ivanov,Geometry and Harmonic Su
perspace: some recent progress, talk at the Interna
tional Workshop SQS2011 (Dubna, July 1823, 2011),
[arXiv:1201.3794].
[6] V.I. Afonso, D. Bazeia, and D.J. CiriloLombardo, work
in progress.
[7] D. Bazeia, J. Menezes, and M.M. Santos, Phys. Lett. B
521, 418 (2001); Nucl. Phys. B 636, 132 (2002).
[8] J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 70, 39 (1974).
[9] R. Rajaraman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 200 (1979); D.
Bazeia, W. Freire, L. Losano, and R.F. Ribeiro, Mod.
Phys. Lett. A 17, 1945 (2002).
[10] A. Galperin, E. Ivanov, S. Kalitsyn, V. Ogievetsky and
E. Sokatchev, Class. Quant. Grav. 1, 469 (1984).
[11] S. N. Kalitsyn and E. Sokatchev, Class. Quant. Grav. 4,
L173 (1987).
[12] R. Percacci and E. Sezgin, Contributed to Conference:
C980405, p.255278, SISSA11398EP, CTPTAMU
3398 [arXiv:hepth/9810183]; E. Bergshoe, S. Cecotti,
H. Samtleben and E. Sezgin,Nucl. Phys. B 838, 266
(2010).
[13] G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B
444, 245 (1995).
[14] E. R. C. Abraham and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B
8
291, 85 (1992); Phys. Lett. B 295, 225 (1992).
[15] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 78,
430 (1978).
[16] Z. Perjes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 1668 (1971); W. Israel
and G.A. Wilson, J. Math. Phys. 13 (1972) 865.
[17] E. Ivanov and G. Valent, Phys. Lett. B 445, 60 (1998).
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.