text:
# IMSC/2000/02/07hep-th/0008005 Loop Variables and Gauge Invariant Interactions - II This is a detailed description of an approach, outlined in a talk at the Puri Workshop in 1996, to use loop variables to describe string interactions.

## 1 Introduction

In an earlier paper  (hereafter ‘I’) we had described a method of writing down gauge invariant interacting equations of motion for the modes of the bosonic string using the loop variable approach . As in the free case the equations were written down in one higher dimension where all the modes are massless. Interactions were introduced by the simple prescription of thickening the string to a “band”.

In the free case the dimensional reduction can easily be done, leading to equations for massive modes . The masses are essentially put in by assigning some fixed value to the momentum “$`p_5`$” in the internal direction and choosing $`(p_5)^2=m^2`$ where $`m`$ is the rquired mass. While the procedure is adhoc and does not admit any simple geometric interpretation, it neverthelss has the advantage that it provides a simple method of writing down gauge invariant equations for the massive modes of the string.

When we consider interactions, this dimensional reduction is not so straightforward and it remained to be demonstrated that some generalization of this method would work. This is done in this paper. We describe a dimensional reduction procedure that gives the same free spectrum and also show that the scattering amplitudes that can be deduced from the nonlinear terms in the equations of motion are consistent with the scattering amplitudes of string theory for on-shell physical states. The dimensional reduction procedure is also consistent with gauge invariance. Furthermore, as in the higher dimensional situation, gauge invariance does not require that the fields be on-shell. The gauge transformations and gauge invariance are easy to describe when the Koba-Nielsen integrals have not been performed, and there is a regulator on the world sheet. We thus have a gauge invariant set of equations that are valid off the (free) mass shell, i.e where the fields are not forced to satisfy $`p^2=m^2`$. This is essentially what string field theory gives . We should hasten to add that unlike string field theory we do not have an action that gives the equation of motion. It remains an open problem to find such an action. After the Koba-Nielsen integrals are done and the continuum limit on the world sheet taken, we get a “low energy” effective equation of motion. The issue of gauge invariance of these equations is subtle. A preliminary calculation was done in I, but we do not pursue this in this paper. This issue is analogous to the question in string field theory where the higher order non-linearity of the both the equations and gauge transformations can emerge only after integrating out degrees of freedom.

Apart from the fact that it is always a good idea to have different ways of solving a given problem, we believe that a utility of the present approach is that the gauge transformations have a simple form when expressed in terms of loop variables. In fact, gauge invariance is manifest in these variables and the problem is to show that a consistent set of gauge transformations can be defined for the space time fields.

The gauge transformations in the free case look like local (along the string) scale transformations . This continues to be so even in the interacting case and also after dimensional reduction. However this is not at all manifest when we work with space time fields. It suggests that working directly with loop variables rather than with space time fields might provide some understanding of the underlying principles of string theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec 2 we describe the dimensional reduction procedure. We also show that it does not affect arguments for gauge invariance given in I. In Sec 3 we give an explicit calculation of some three and four point functions in the case of the tachyon and massless vector.

In Sec 4 we conclude with a summary and future directions.

## 2 Dimensional Reduction

### 2.1 Reproducing String Amplitudes

Let us first state our requirements as a motivation for the dimensional reduction prescription given below. We emphasize that our attitude here is that ultimately what we want are space - time gauge invariant (or coordinate invariant \- for closed strings) equations for the modes of the string with the caveat that the on shell S-matrix elements implied by these equations should be the same as that given by conventional string theory. Any set of rules that achieves this is alright as long as they are self consistent. In particular we do not worry about world sheet reparametrizations or BRST invariance or any such elegant geometrical property. If they exist that would be a bonus, but we do not demand any such interpretation at this stage.

Thus, the dimensional reduction procedure thus should not violate the gauge invariance that is built into the loop variable approach. At the free level we simply required that $`(p_5)^2=m^2`$ where $`p_5`$ is the momentum in the internal direction and $`m`$ is the mass of the field, which is also related to the naive dimension ‘P’ (more precisely, $`m^2=\frac{P1}{\alpha ^{}}`$) of the vertex operator. We rewrite this as $`(p_5)^2g^{55}=m^2`$ to emphasize that there is a metric that could play a role. When interactions are taken into account one expects that $`p_5`$ of the different interacting fields will add up as required by momentum conservation. It would seem that all values of $`p_5`$ have to be allowed. But we do not want this. Because only the string oscillators in the higher dimension, and not the zero mode, are expected to contribute space-time degrees of freedom in the usual covariant string field constructions . In order to retain this feature we will set $`p_5=1`$ for all fields. We will further require that when there are interactions

$$g^{55}=\frac{P1}{N^2}$$
(2.1.1)
where $`N`$ is the number of fields at the interaction. Thus $`N=1`$ for the free case and $`N=2`$ for the quadratic term in the equation of motion, etc. The net effect of this is that $`(p_5+q_5+k_5\mathrm{})^2g^{55}=P1`$ is true for every term in the equation of motion. This is a very peculiar looking ansatz without any obvious geometrical interpretation. 111 There are other ways of achieving these ends, that might make it look a little more geometrical - for instance one can modify the range of the $`\sigma `$ integration in $`𝑑\sigma p_5X^5(\sigma )`$ relative to the $`\sigma `$ integration for the other directions. For all directions (other than 5) we let the range of $`\sigma `$ integration be $`0`$ to $`N`$. For the $`5`$ direction we assume it is $`0`$ to $`1`$ always. This brings in a relative factor of $`N^2`$ that we need. Nevertheless it serves the purpose of providing us the massive equation starting from the massless equation in one higher dimension.

As will be seen below, this is crucial in deriving the equation of motion. We will also set $`X^5=0`$ at the end in order that there be no momentum conservation in the internal direction.

In the correlation functions we have terms of the type $`\mathrm{}(zw)^{p.q}\mathrm{}`$. On expanding the dot product we get $`p^\mu q_\mu +p^5q_5`$. Again we do not want the $`p^5q_5`$ terms if we want to recover the Veneziano amplitudes. One way to achieve this is to set, in the definition of the space time fields,

$$<k_n(\sigma _i)k_m(\sigma _j)\mathrm{}.>=\mathrm{}S_nS_m(z_iz_j)^{p_i^5p_{j5}}\mathrm{}.$$
(2.1.2)
This will ensure that all unwanted factors of $`(zw)^{p^5q_5}`$ are canceled. We will come back to this later.

These set of rules will be applied below in deriving the equations of motion.

Let us see why these rules reproduce the Veneziano amplitudes. The argument is very similar to that made in . For an N-point amplitude there are N-3 Koba-Nielsen variables that need to be integrated. Three of them can be fixed. In our case the N-point amplitude gives rise to a term in the equation of motion with N-1 fields and therefore N-1 Koba Nielsen variables. One of these is trivial because of translational invariance. Thus we have N-2 integrations. The last (i.e. (N-2)th)integration will actually just produce (when the particles are on-shell) a term of the form $`\frac{1}{(p_1+p_2+p_3+\mathrm{}p_{N1})^2m^2}`$. (We have used $`(p_{1,5}+p_{2,5}+\mathrm{}p_{N1,5})^2g^{55}=P1=m^2`$.) This is just the propagator for the external Nth field, whose equation of motion we are writing down, and whose mass is $`m^2`$. When we vary w.r.t the Liouville mode we bring down a factor of $`(p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}p_{N1})^2m^2`$ which precisely cancels this propagator. The remaining N-3 integrals then produce the Veneziano amplitude. As explained in  if we regularize the integral we end up subtracting the intermediate poles in the amplitude. This is also exactly what needs to be done when constructing an effective action.

Note that varying the Liouville mode in terms involving its derivative, also contributes terms to the equation of motion, but these are essentially gauge covariantizations of the previous term. These terms are not there for on shell physical states. Thus from this we conclude that for the on-shell physical states this calculation give you the correct result. The rest of the terms are fixed by gauge invariance.

Note that P was set equal to the naive dimension of the vertex operator. We have been using $`k_nY_n`$ 222See Appendix A for the basic definitions as our vertex operator. But $`Y_n`$ does not have a well defined dimension. It contains all $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$ in it. Furthermore, even $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ doesn’t have an unambiguous dimension because of the $`z`$ dependence. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(w)+(zw)(n)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{n+1}+\mathrm{}`$. Both these ambiguities have to be removed. The first will be removed by using $`K_m`$ defined in I by

$$\underset{n}{}k_nY_n=\underset{m}{}K_m\stackrel{~}{Y}_m$$
(2.1.3)
This gives: ($`\alpha _0=1`$)

$$K_n=k_n+\alpha _1k_{n1}+\alpha _2k_{n2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _nk_0$$
(2.1.4)
They have the same gauge transformation law as $`k_n`$.

The second ambiguity will be removed by translating all vertex operators to a canonical location on the world sheet that we call $`z`$. Thus

$$\underset{n}{}K_n\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(w)=\underset{m}{}K_m(zw)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)$$
(2.1.5)
which gives:

$$K_q(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n=q}{}}K_n(0)D_n^q(1)^{qn}z^{qn}$$
(2.1.6)
where

$`D_n^q`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{q1}C_{n1}^{},n,q1`$ (2.1.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}},n=0`$
$`=`$ $`1,n=q=0`$
Now $`P\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)=n\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)`$ is an unambiguous equation.

The gauge transformation law for $`K_n(0)`$ is the same as for $`k_n`$:

$$K_nK_n+\lambda _pK_{np}=K_n+\lambda _p\frac{d}{dx_p}K_n$$
(2.1.8)
Of course the second form of the gauge transformation rule cannot be written for $`k_n`$ because they are not functions of $`\alpha _n`$. The gauge transformation of $`K_n(z)`$ however, can only be written in this form:

$$K_n(z)K_n(z)+\lambda _p\frac{d}{dx_p}K_n(z)$$
(2.1.9)
In view of the above it is worth examining afresh the proof of gauge invariance given in I.

Our starting point was the loop variable $`e^A`$ given by:

$$:e^{i\{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma k_0(\sigma )Y(\sigma )}+i_{n>0}k_n(\sigma )\frac{Y(\sigma )}{x_n(\sigma )}\}}:$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }{\scriptscriptstyle }d\sigma _1d\sigma _2\{k_0(\sigma _1)k_0(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+(_{n>0}k_n(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_n(\sigma _1)}+\sigma _1\sigma _2)\}}$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2}\{_{n,m>0}k_n(\sigma _1).k_m(\sigma _2)\frac{^2[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_1(\sigma _1)x_1(\sigma _2)}\}}$$
(2.1.10)
The only change we make is that $`e^Be^{i_nk_nY_n}`$ is rewritten as $`e^Be^{i_nK_n(zw)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)}`$. The change in B is $`\lambda _p\frac{d}{dx_p}B`$ by eqn (2.1.9), which is just what it was earlier. Also the operator $`\frac{P1}{N^2}`$ commutes with $`\frac{d}{dx_n}`$, because P acts only on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$ which has no $`x_n`$ dependence.

Thus the crucial point in the proof, which was that

$$\delta A=𝑑\sigma \lambda _1(\sigma )[\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _1)}+\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _2)}]A$$
(2.1.11)
is not affected.

It was also shown in I, that while gauge invariance at the level of loop variables is almost manifest, what is non-trivial is that one can consistently define gauge transformation rules for space-time fields , i.e., the consistency of the map from loop variables and their transformations to fields and their transformation is a non-trivial issue. In I we mapped each loop variable expression of the form $`k_n(\sigma _1)k_m(\sigma _2)\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\mathrm{}.`$ to a space time field or fields $`S_nS_m\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+S_{n,m}\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)\mathrm{}`$ 333 We also kept the cutoff dependent second term which would normally be discarded during the normal ordering process. This whole procedure has to be reexamined for the following reason: When we substitute $`g^{55}=\frac{P1}{N^2}`$, the numerical value depends on which equation we are considering. Thus the same term, say, $`S_{55}g^{55}`$ occurring in an equation for the tachyon will have a value of $`\frac{1}{N^2}`$ whereas in an equation for a massive particle could be $`\frac{1}{N^2}`$. The question is are we going to get mutually inconsistent transformation rules for the field $`S_{55}`$? We describe below a way out of these problems.

### 2.2 Consistent Definition of Gauge Transformation

#### 2.2.1 Before Dimensional Reduction

Let us begin with a general discussion of the consistency issue. Let us consider a generic term

$$k_n(\sigma _i)Y_n(z_i)k_m(\sigma _j)Y_m(z_j)\mathrm{}.$$
(2.2.12)
We have suppressed the Lorentz indices. Under a gauge transformation it transforms to

$$d\sigma \lambda _p(\sigma )[k_{np}(\sigma _i)Y_n(\sigma _i,z_i)k_m(\sigma _j)Y_m(\sigma _j,z_j)+\mathrm{}.]$$
(2.2.13)
The reason for retaining the $`Y_n`$ in the above is that when one maps the above gauge transformation to space time fields one has to be careful about factors of the form $`\stackrel{~}{G}(z_iz_j)`$ that arise out of the contraction of the $`Y_n^{}s`$. The resulting $`z_iz_j`$ dependence will, after doing the Koba Nielsen integrals (over $`z_i,z_j`$) introduce some non trivial momentum dependence in the gauge transformation laws. These are the factors $`F(p,q)`$ in eqn.(6.0.9) and (6.0.14) of I.

We will first go over to the $`K_n`$ variables of (2.1.4). One can then transfer the $`z_i`$ dependence into the $`K_n`$ and use $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(z)`$ with some canonical $`z`$ as in (2.1.6). The point $`z`$ is arbitrary. We will remove this arbitrariness by defining it to be the location of $`\lambda (\sigma )`$ , i.e. $`z(\sigma )=z`$

Thus we replace the above with:

$$K_n(\sigma _i,z_iz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)K_m(\sigma _j,z_jz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)K_n(\sigma _i,z_iz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)K_m(\sigma _j,z_jz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)$$

$$+𝑑\sigma \lambda _p(\sigma )\frac{d}{dx_p}(K_n(\sigma _i,z_iz)K_m(\sigma _j,z_jz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z))$$
(2.2.14)
When we contract the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$’s we will have to do some regularization. We also have to introduce vertex operators $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}`$ for the momentum dependence. We will worry about each of these issues in turn. But first let us see how gauge transformation laws for space time fields can be consistently defined from the above. The first step is to substitute (2.1.4) and (2.1.6) in the above as the space time fields are defined in terms of $`k_n`$ and not $`K_n`$.

The leading term in (powers of $`\alpha _n`$ and $`z_iz`$) is $`k_n(\sigma _i)k_m(\sigma _j)`$ which leads to $`S_{n,m}`$ (and $`S_nS_m`$). All other space time fields have smaller quantum numbers $`n,m`$. We get something that looks like

$$\delta S_{n,m}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_pS_{np,m}+\alpha _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_pS_{np1,m}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.15)
where we have ignored the powers of $`z_iz_j`$. Thus if we assume that we have already defined a gauge transformation for all the lower quantum number space-time fields, then (2.2.14) defines uniquely a gauge transformation law for $`S_{n,m}`$. Of course the powers of Koba-Nielsen variables $`z_iz`$ will translate to appropriate dependences on momenta when the integrals are done. For the moment let us leave the dependences on $`z_i`$ as they are. Let us turn to the issue of contractions. We can contract the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$’s after point splitting or some other regularization. A simple regularization is to use $`ln((wz)^2+ϵ^2)`$ as the Green function. Thus in (2.2.14) we will replace $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z^{})`$ where $`z^{}=z+ϵ`$ or use the regularized Green function. In either case contraction will produce $`ϵ^{nm}`$. We will get an equation for the traces, $`S_{n,m\mu }^\mu `$, $`S_{n\mu }S_m^\mu `$, etc., which will have an overall power of $`(ϵ)^{nm}`$ multiplying the whole equation, (instead of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_m^\nu `$).

Suppose we had gone back one step and kept the $`z_i`$ dependence in the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$’s. Then, instead of (2.2.14) we would have:

$$K_n(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z_i)K_m(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z_j)K_n(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z_i)K_m(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z_j)+$$

$$+\lambda _p\frac{d}{dx_p}(K_n(0)K_m(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z_i)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z_j))$$
(2.2.16)
Contracting the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$’s now give derivatives of $`G(z_iz_j)`$. If we now expand $`G(z_iz_j)`$ in powers of $`zz_i`$ and $`zz_j`$( where we have regularized as before) and keep track of powers of $`ϵ`$ we will recover the contracted version of (2.2.14). We are guaranteed this because of the following simple fact:

$$G(z_iz_j)=<\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z_i)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z_j)>=<\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z+z_iz)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z+z_jz)>$$

$$=<\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)>+(z_iz)<n\stackrel{~}{Y}_{n+1}(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(z)>+\mathrm{}.$$

This is exactly the equation that fixes the $`z`$ dependence of $`K_n`$ and gives

$$G(z_iz_j)\frac{(n+m1)!}{(n1)!(m1)!}(ϵ)^{nm}+(z_iz)n\frac{(n+m)!}{n!(m1)!}(ϵ)^{nm1}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.17)
More generally we can define $`ϵ_{n,m}=<\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(0)>`$ and write the Taylor expansion in terms of them. For the regularized Green function introduced above , viz $`ln((zw)^2+ϵ^2)`$ we can see that $`ϵ_{n,m}=ϵ_{m,n}`$. If we insert this in (2.2.16) we reproduce the contracted version of (2.2.14).

Two comments are in order before we proceed. As stated in I, the fields $`S_{n,m}`$ must have an $`x_n`$-dependence because the RHS of the gauge transformation (2.2.15) has $`x_n`$ dependence. This can be done as in I by making the string field, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`x_n`$\- dependent. Second, the grouping of terms used in defining gauge transformation for space time fields is different from that used in I. The one used here is manifestly consistent so we will use this from now on. The method used in I is only correct to lowest order as it compares terms involving $`V(z_i)V^{}(z_j)`$ with $`V(z_i)V^{}(z_i)`$ (for some vertex operators $`V,V^{}`$), which can only be true to lowest order. There is also one very important point: Here we are dealing with (regularized) operator products. But in an actual equation of motion the locations of the operators have to be integrated over. Furthermore we may also be interested in taking $`ϵ0`$. Verifying the gauge invariance of the final equation starting from the gauge transformations defined here may be quite a complicated process. In this paper we will not attempt this.

Now we turn to the second issue of introducing the vertex operators $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}`$. This is very important when we discuss gauge transformations because when the $`\sigma `$ in $`\lambda _p(\sigma )`$ is not equal to any of the $`\sigma ^{}`$ in $`k_n(\sigma ^{})`$ then we have an extra vertex operator $`e^{ik_0(\sigma )X(z(\sigma ))}`$ associated with $`\lambda (\sigma )`$. (In the contracted version this introduces extra factors of $`(z(\sigma )z(\sigma ^{}))^{k_0(\sigma ).k_0(\sigma ^{})}`$.) Also when we Taylor expand $`e^{ik_0(\sigma )X(z(\sigma ))}`$ we introduce an infinite number of new vertex operators. This latter fact in particular implies that we cannot define the gauge transformation of an object such as (2.2.12) We need to include all the vertex operators on both sides i.e. in (2.2.12) and in (2.2.13) for consistency. Thus we have to define gauge transformation for the entire interacting loop variable $`e^{i_{n0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma k_n(\sigma )Y_n(\sigma )}}`$. Thus we define

$$\delta [e^{i_{n0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma ^{}K_n(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(\sigma ^{})}}]=𝑑\sigma 𝑑\sigma _1\lambda _p(\sigma )K_{np}(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(\sigma _1)e^{i_{n0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma ^{}K_n(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(\sigma ^{})}}$$
(2.2.18)
If we allow contractions we just have to keep track of $`ϵ_{n,m}`$ on both sides. This does not produce anything different. We will use the uncontracted version to define gauge transformations for simplicity.

We will assume that $`z(\sigma )=z=0`$ for convenience. We also have the following relations:

$$\underset{q}{}K_q(w)\stackrel{~}{Y}_q(0)=\underset{n}{}K_n(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(w)$$

which defines $`K_q(w)`$ to be given by

$$K_q(w)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{q}{}}K_n(0)D_n^q(w)^{qn}$$
(2.2.19)
where the $`D_n^q`$ have been defined earlier. Thus, for instance

$$K_1(w)=K_1+k_0w$$

$$K_2(w)=K_2+K_1w+K_0\frac{w^2}{2}$$

$$K_3(w)=K_3+2K_2w+K_1w^2+K_0\frac{w^3}{3}$$

Thus in (2.2.18) we can specify more clearly the dependence on $`z(\sigma _i)`$ by writing it as

$$\delta [e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _nK_n(\sigma ,z(\sigma ))\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(0)}}]$$

$$=𝑑\sigma _1\underset{n}{}𝑑\sigma \lambda _p(\sigma )\frac{d}{dx_p}[K_n(\sigma _1,z(\sigma _1))\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma ^{}_mK_m(\sigma ^{},z(\sigma ^{}))\stackrel{~}{Y}_m(0)}}$$
(2.2.20)
Vector -$`𝐀_1^\mu `$

For the vector we compare coefficients of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)`$ on both sides. This gives

$$\delta [𝑑\sigma _1K_1(\sigma _1,z(\sigma _1))\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

$$=𝑑\sigma \lambda _1(\sigma )𝑑\sigma _1k_0(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}$$

Thus

$$\delta [𝑑\sigma _1k_1(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

$$=𝑑\sigma \lambda _1(\sigma )𝑑\sigma _1k_0(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}$$

Taking the expectation value on both sides gives

$$\delta [A_1^\mu (p)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)p^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}$$
(2.2.21)
$`𝐒_2^\mu `$

$$\delta [𝑑\sigma _1K_2(\sigma _1,z(\sigma _1))\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

$$=\delta [𝑑\sigma _1(K_2(\sigma _1)+K_1(\sigma _1)z(\sigma _1)+k_0(\sigma _1)\frac{z(\sigma _1)^2}{2})\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

$$=𝑑\sigma \lambda _1(\sigma )𝑑\sigma _1[K_1(\sigma _1)+z(\sigma _1)k_0(\sigma _1)]\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}$$

In terms of fields

$$\delta [S_2^\mu (p)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)+𝑑\sigma _1A_1^\mu (p)z(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}]$$

$$=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu (p)\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)A_1^\mu (q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}+$$

$$𝑑\sigma p^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)z(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}$$
(2.2.22)
The last term in the RHS of (2.2.22) is clearly the variation of the second term in the LHS. Thus we are left with

$$\delta S_2^\mu (k)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu (k)\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)A_1^\mu (q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)e^{i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}$$

with the understanding that $`p+q=k`$.

Note that there is no $`z`$-dependence in the transformation law. It is the same as the naive transformation law introduced in .

$`𝐒_{1,1}`$

Let us compare the coefficients of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)`$.

$$\delta [\frac{1}{2!}𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2K_1^\mu (\sigma _1,z(\sigma _1))K_1^\nu (\sigma _2,z(\sigma _2))\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\nu (0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

$$=\frac{1}{2!}d\sigma _1d\sigma _2d\sigma \lambda _1(\sigma )[k_0^\mu (\sigma _1)(K_1^\nu (\sigma _2)+k_0^\nu (\sigma _2)z(\sigma _2))+$$

$$k_0^\nu (\sigma _2)(K_1^\mu (\sigma _1)+k_0^\mu (\sigma _1)z(\sigma _1))]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}}]$$

On taking expectation values to bring in space-time fields, the LHS gives

$$\delta \frac{1}{2!}d\sigma _1d\sigma _2[S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }\frac{D(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{a}e^{ik_0(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}+A_1^\mu (p)A_1^\nu (q)e^{i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}$$

$$+A_1^\mu (p)\frac{D(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{a}p^\nu z(\sigma _2)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}(0)}+A_1^\nu (p)\frac{D(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{a}p^\mu z(\sigma _2)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}(0)}]$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\delta [S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{Y}}+A_1^\mu (p)A_1^\nu (q)e^{i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{Y}}+𝑑\sigma _1z(\sigma _1)p^{(\nu }A_1^{\mu )}(p)e^{ip\stackrel{~}{Y}}]$$

RHS

$$\frac{1}{2}d\sigma _1d\sigma _2d\sigma [\frac{D(\sigma \sigma _2)}{a}\frac{D(\sigma \sigma _1)}{a}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\nu (p)p^\mu +$$

$$\frac{D(\sigma \sigma _2)}{a}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)p^\mu A_1^\nu (q)+\frac{D(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{a}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)q^\mu A_1^\nu (q)]+$$

$$2𝑑\sigma _2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)p^\mu p^\nu z(\sigma _2)$$

Notice that the $`z`$-dependent terms are the same on the LHS and RHS we get

$$\delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^{(\mu }p^{\nu )}+\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)q^{(\mu }A_1^{\nu )}(q)s$$
(2.2.23)
Once again there are no $`z`$-dependent terms in the transformation law - it is the same as the one defined in .

$`𝐒_{2,1}^{\mu \nu }`$

One can go through the same analysis for $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_2(0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(0)`$. One finds terms that are $`z`$-independent, linearly dependent and quadratically dependent on $`z`$. Using (2.2.22),(2.2.23) we find that the $`z`$-dependent terms cancel and the net result is,

$$\delta S_{2,1}^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1,1}^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu A_1^\nu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_1S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,1}^\mu (p)p^\nu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)S_2^\mu (q)q^\nu $$
(2.2.24)
It is very interesting that the z-dependence cancels out in each case. This is in contrast to the gauge transformation defined in I. The point being that the vertex operators being compared there were different. Thus for instance $`Y_2(z)=Y_2(0)+azY_3(0)+bz^2Y_4(0)+\mathrm{}`$ (for some $`a,b..`$). This implies that when we write down equations of motion in one basis, it is a $`z`$-dependent linear combination of the equations in the other basis.

In the basis used in this paper the $`z`$-dependence cancels out of the gauge transformation laws. They are the naive gauge transformation laws first introduced in . To see the invariance of the equations of I, one would have to combine all the equations for the vertex operators $`Y_1(z)`$,$`Y_2(z)`$… and extract from them the coefficients of, say, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)`$. One should also keep track of factors of $`ϵ_{n,m}`$ \- thus we might consider the coefficient of say, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)ϵ_{p,q}`$ This has to be invariant under the gauge transformations defined in this paper. It is actually quite easy to see why this must be true. We know that the full equation defined by $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma }e^{i_{n0}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma ^{}K_n(\sigma ^{})\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(\sigma ^{})}}=0`$ is invariant. Thus if we split up this equation into various pieces labelled by $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)ϵ_{p,q}..`$ they must individually vanish. However as mentioned earlier the situation after the Koba-Nielsen variables are integrated is more subtle and needs further study. As mentioned in the introduction, this is analogous to the situation in string field theory, where gauge invariance of the string field cannot be directly used to describe gauge invariance of the “low energy” equations of motion. One has to solve for all the fields that have been integrated out.

We show next that the dimensional reduction procedure given before is consistent with this definition.

#### 2.2.2 After Dimensional Reduction

The prescription for dimensional reduction is to set $`g^{55}=\frac{P1}{N^2}`$, and also to set internal momenta $`k_{05}`$ for all fields to 1. One can also introduce a “vielbein” $`e^{5V}=\sqrt{\frac{P1}{N^2}}`$ so that $`e^{5V}e_V^5=g^{55}`$. This will prove necessary in what follows.

We can separate (2.2.14) into different sets of equations, depending on the number of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^5`$’s. By Lorentz covariance these equations are independently satisfied. In equations with more than one $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^5`$ one can contract them to get a factor of $`g^{55}`$ for each pair of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^5`$. Clearly these are overall multiplicative factors in any equation. Actually $`P1`$ is an overall multiplicative factor and will not affect the gauge transformation law. However $`N`$ can depend on the particular term being considered. Thus for instance in the ‘55’ equation if the LHS has $`S_{55}`$ then $`N=1`$ and if the RHS has $`S_5S_5`$ then $`N=2`$. Thus the ‘55’ eqn is not obtainable from the ‘$`\mu \nu `$’ equation by Lorentz covariance. This by itself is not a problem of course, since we don’t expect Lorentz invariance in the $`5\mu `$ directions. However when we consider the vertex operator $`e^{ik_{05}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^5}`$ and consider contractions involving $`X^5`$ we encounter a problem. Consider an equation that has the following form

$$\delta [k_{n\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{m5}(\sigma _2)]\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_m^5e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0\stackrel{~}{Y}_0}}=\lambda _p(\sigma )k_{np\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{m5}(\sigma _2)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_m^5e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0\stackrel{~}{Y}_0}}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.25)
Note that there is no momentum conservation in the ‘5’ direction. Also from now on to be consistent we use upper Lorentz indices on the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$ and lower indices on $`k_n`$. The three dots refer to various terms involving higher powers of $`z_iz_j`$ and also other terms. If we now contract $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^5`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^5`$ using $`<\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^5\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^5>g^{55}ϵ^m`$ we get the following:

$$\delta [k_{n\mu }k_{m5}k_{05}g^{55}]\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu e^{ik_{05}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^5}ϵ^m=\lambda _pk_{np\mu }k_{m5}k_0^5\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu ϵ^m+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.26)
We have suppressed the $`\sigma `$ arguments and written $`k_{05}g^{55}=k_0^5`$ on the RHS. If we use the naive extension of

$$<k_{n\mu }>=S_{n\mu }<k_{n\mu }k_{m\nu }>=S_{nm\mu \nu }$$
(2.2.27)
to $`\mu =5`$ we

$$<k_{n\mu }k_{m5}>=S_{n,m\mu 5}$$
(2.2.28)
etc and also $`k_{05}=1`$.

This gives

$$\delta S_{n,m\mu 5}\underset{P1}{\underset{}{g^{55}}}\underset{1}{\underset{}{k_{05}}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p+m}(p)S_{np\mu }(q)\underset{\frac{P1}{4}}{\underset{}{g^{55}}}\underset{2}{\underset{}{(p_{05}+q_{05})}}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.29)
We have used on the LHS $`k_{05}g^{55}=P1`$ and on the RHS $`(p_0+q_0)_5g^{55}=\frac{P1}{2}`$ (because $`g^{55}=\frac{P1}{N^2}`$) .

Whereas earlier without any contractions,

$$\delta [k_{n\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{m5}(\sigma _2)]=\lambda _p(\sigma )k_{np\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{m5}(\sigma _2)+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.30)
gave

$$\delta S_{nm\mu 5}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+pV}S_{np\mu }+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.31)
which is not consistent with (2.2.29).

Thus we have a contradiction between the two equations. The source of the contradiction is the factor of $`N`$ in the definition of $`g^{55}`$. While we are free at the level of loop variables to multiply by $`g^{55}`$ when we convert to space time fields we cannot expect meaningful results if we use the naive expression to define space time fields when $`\mu =5`$. In other words $`g^{55}`$ is not just a number since it keeps track of how many different fields there are.

A resolution of this problem is obtained by using the vielbein to convert everything to a flat ‘V’ index. This means a different definition of space- time fields that have an index in the 5-direction. Define

$$<k_{m5}e^{5V}>=<k_m^V>=S_m^V$$

$$<k_n^\mu k_{m5}e^{5V}>=<k_n^\mu k_m^V>=S_{n,m}^{\mu V}$$
(2.2.32)
Write (2.2.25)

$$\delta [k_{n\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{mV}(\sigma _2)]\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_m^Ve^{ik_{0V}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V}=\lambda _p(\sigma )k_{np\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{mV}(\sigma _2)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_m^Ve^{i(p_{0V}+q_{0V})\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.33)
On contraction of the $`Y`$’s gives:

$$\delta [k_{n\mu }k_{mV}]\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu k_0^Vϵ^m=\lambda _pk_{np\mu }k_{mV}(p_0^V+q_0^V)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^\mu ϵ^m+\mathrm{},$$
(2.2.34)
where $`k_0^V=k_{05}e^{5V}`$. Converting to space time fields

$$\delta S_{nm\mu V}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+pV}S_{np\mu }+\mathrm{}$$
(2.2.35)
On the LHS $`k_0^V`$ has the value of $`\sqrt{P1}`$. On the RHS $`e_V^5=\frac{\sqrt{P1}}{2}`$, so $`p_0^V+q_0^V=\sqrt{P1}`$. Thus there is no contradiction.

In equations involving two or more $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^5`$ we do the same thing, namely go to flat indices. So the equations take the form

$$\delta S_{nmVV}\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^V\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^V=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+pV}S_{mpV}\stackrel{~}{Y}_n^V\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^V$$
(2.2.36)
Contraction of the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^V`$’s does not introduce any factors of $`g^{55}`$ and thus there is no problem. The upshot of this discussion is that by going to flat coordinates the ‘N’ dependence is completely absent and there is thus no source of inconsistency from such contractions.

We have to now turn to the extra requirement (2.1.2). This requirement is effectively saying that we should include the factor $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma k_{0,V}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V(z(\sigma ))}}`$ in the definition of say $`S_{11}`$ as:

$$<k_{1\mu }(\sigma _1)k_{1\nu }(\sigma _2)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma k_{0,V}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V(z(\sigma ))}}>\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\nu (0)$$

$$=[S_{11\mu \nu }\frac{D(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{a}+S_{1\mu }S_{1\nu }]\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\nu (0)$$
(2.2.37)
Note that the location of the exponential factor (which is not normal ordered) is at $`z(\sigma )`$ rather than $`0`$. One can immediately see that when $`\mu `$ is replaced by $`V`$ the resulting contractions will induce inconsistencies of the type mentioned above, to avoid which we went to great lengths. Thus the only solution is to have no possibility of contraction between $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V`$’s. Thus we set

$$<\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V(z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0^V(w)>G^{VV}(z,w)=0$$
(2.2.38)
Since gauge transformations do not mix Lorentz indices, we are perfectly free to choose this. Thus our dimensionally reduced loop variable will take the form:

$$exp\{d\sigma _1d\sigma _2\underset{n,m0}{}(k_n(\sigma _1).k_m(\sigma _2)\frac{^2[\stackrel{~}{G}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}](\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_n(\sigma _1)x_m(\sigma _2)}+$$

$$k_{n,V}(\sigma _1)k_{m,V}(\sigma _2)\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_n(\sigma _1)x_m(\sigma _2)})\}:exp\{id\sigma \underset{n0}{}k_nY_n(z(\sigma )\}:.$$
(2.2.39)
In this case we do not need to modify our definition of space-time fields as in (2.2.37), nor do we need (2.1.2). We will use (2.2.39) as our loop variable.

We thus conclude that the dimensional reduction procedure does not introduce any inconsistency in the definition of gauge transformation of space-time fields. Thus there is a consistent map from loop variables to space time fields. Since the equations were manifestly gauge invariant in terms of loop variables, we conclude that they are gauge invariant even when written in terms of space-time fields.

## 3 Examples

### 3.1 Tachyon

We begin with a discussion of the tachyon in order to illustrate the dimensional reduction procedure.

#### 3.1.1 Preliminaries

Let us fix some conventions first:

$$<X^\mu (z_1)X^\nu (z_2)>=2g^{\mu \nu }ln(z_1z_2)$$
(3.1.40)
with $`g_{00}=1;g_{ii}=+1`$444The regularized propagator is $`g^{\mu \nu }ln((z_1z_2)^2+ϵ^2)`$.. The mass shell condition in this convention is $`p^2=m^2`$ and the tachyon has $`m^2>0`$. Using these conventions

$$<e^{ik.X(z_1)}e^{ik.X(z_2)}>=(z_1z_2)^{2k^2}$$

From this it is clear that $`e^{ik.X}`$ has mass dimension $`k^2`$, and furthermore that $`𝑑ze^{ik.X(z)}`$ is a marginal operator when $`k^2=1`$. This fixes $`m^2=1`$ for the (open bosonic string) tachyon.

Another way to see this is to note that

$$e^{ik.X(z)}=e^{\frac{1}{2}k^\mu k^\nu <X^\mu (z)X^\nu (z)>}:e^{ik.X(z)}:=ϵ^{k^2}:e^{ik.X(z)}:$$
(3.1.41)
where we have normal ordered the vertex operator and introduced a lattice spacing $`ϵ`$ as the ultraviolet cutoff. Scaling $`ϵ\lambda ϵ`$ scales the ultraviolet momentum cutoff by $`\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ or equivalently in units of the cutoff increases the momentum of the operator by $`\lambda `$. This shows that the mass dimension is $`k^2`$.

Let us set $`ϵ=e^{2\sigma }`$. If we change $`k^2`$ to $`k^2+k_5^2`$, then (3.1.41) becomes

$$e^{ik.X(z)}=e^{(k^2+k_5^2)\sigma }:e^{ik.X(z)}:$$
(3.1.42)
Imposing $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma }e^{ik.X(z)}=0`$ gives the equation

$$k^2+k_5^2=0$$

Thus we let $`k_5^2=1`$ we get the tachyon mass shell condition. In the general case we need $`k_5^2=(P1)`$ where $`P`$ is the engineering dimension of the vertex operator.

#### 3.1.2 Loop Variables

Let us work out the tachyon equation using the loop variable approach. We start with

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1_0^1𝑑\sigma _2k_0(\sigma _1)}.k_0(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]}$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1_0^1𝑑\sigma _2k_{0V}(\sigma _1)k_{0V}(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{VV}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]}}:e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma k_0(\sigma )Y(\sigma )}+I(\sigma )}:$$
(3.1.43)
As explained in  the tachyon vertex operator can be represented by $`I(\sigma )`$.

Free Equation

For the free equation we have $`0<\sigma _1<1`$ and $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2`$. and we bring down only one power of $`I`$. Thus we can set $`k_0(\sigma _1)=k_0(\sigma _2)=k_0`$. Using $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)ϵ`$ , we get

$$\frac{dz}{ϵ}I(\sigma )e^{(k_0.k_0+k_Vk^V)\mathrm{\Sigma }}ϵ^{k_0.k_0}e^{ik_0.\stackrel{~}{Y}_0}$$
(3.1.44)
where we have set all the $`x_n`$ to zero. Using $`<I(\sigma )>=\mathrm{\Phi }(k_0)`$ we get on applying $`\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ the equation

$$dzϵ^{k_0.k_01}(k_0.k_0+k_Vk^V)\mathrm{\Phi }(k_0)=0$$
(3.1.45)
Further since $`k_{0V}k_0^V=k_{05}k_{05}g^{55}=P1=1`$ we finally get

$$(k_0^21)\mathrm{\Phi }(k_0)=0$$
(3.1.46)
Cubic Interaction

We let

$$0<\sigma _1<1:k_0(\sigma _1)=p:z(\sigma _1)=z$$

$$1<\sigma _1<2:k_0(\sigma _1)=q:z(\sigma _1)=w$$

$`_0^2𝑑\sigma _1_0^2𝑑\sigma _2k_0(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]`$ becomes

$$\{p.p[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)]+p_Vp_V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)+q.q[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)]+q_Vq_V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)+$$

$$2p.q[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]+2p_Vq_V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\}$$

(3.1.43) becomes

$$\frac{I(\sigma _1)I(\sigma _2)}{2!}e^{\{p.p[G(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)]+p_Vp_V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _1)+q.q[G(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)]\}+q_Vq_V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _2,\sigma _2)}$$

$$e^{[(2p.q+2p_Vq^V)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]}(zw)^{2p.q}e^{i(p\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(\sigma _1)+q\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(\sigma _2))}$$
(3.1.47)
We have set $`x_n=0`$ and hence written $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. $`G(z,z)=lnϵ`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ has to be Taylor expanded, but for the present we can just use the lowest order approximation and replace them all by $`\sigma (z)`$. $`<I(\sigma _1)I(\sigma _2)>=\mathrm{\Phi }(p)\mathrm{\Phi }(q)`$. Also $`g_{55}=\frac{1}{4}`$. Using all this we get to lowest order,

$$e^{[(p^21/4)+(q^21/4)+(2p.q2/4)]\sigma }\frac{dz}{ϵ}\frac{dw}{ϵ}(\frac{zw}{ϵ})^{2p.q}e^{i(p+q)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0}\mathrm{\Phi }(p)\mathrm{\Phi }(q)ϵ^{(p+q)^21}$$
(3.1.48)
The integral over $`w`$ is from $`z+ϵ`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. At infinity we assume the contribution is zero. 555Actually one should put an infrared cutoff. In the proper time formalism  this is automatic. Here it has to be done by hand. If we are going off shell this is important. In this paper we will ignore this issue by assuming that we are always close to being on shell. The integral gives, at the lower end $`\frac{1}{2p.q+1}`$. When $`p^2=q^2=1`$, we can replace this by $`\frac{1}{(p+q)^21}`$. Applying $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma }`$ to (3.1.48) gives $`(p+q)^21`$ which exactly cancels this. So we get

$$𝑑p𝑑q\frac{[(p+q)^21]}{2p.q+1}\mathrm{\Phi }(p)\mathrm{\Phi }(q)e^{i(p+q)X}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(X)$$
(3.1.49)
The conclusion is that we get for the cubic interaction between three on shell tachyons a momentum independent constant as expected from bosonic string theory.

Quartic Interaction

Analogous to the previous calculation we introduce

$$0<\sigma <1:k_0(\sigma )=p:z(\sigma )=z_1$$

$$1<\sigma <2:k_0(\sigma )=q:z(\sigma )=z_2$$

$$2<\sigma <3:k_0(\sigma )=k:z(\sigma )=z_3$$

Furthermore we have,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(p)\mathrm{\Phi }(q)\mathrm{\Phi }(k)$$

Also as before $`G(\sigma ,\sigma )ϵ`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sigma `$. $`g_{55}=\frac{1}{9}`$. This gives

$$e^{(p^21/9)+(q^21/9)+(k^21/9)+(2p.q2/9)+(2p.k2/9)+(2k.q2/9)]\sigma }$$

$$\frac{dz_1}{ϵ}\frac{dz_2}{ϵ}\frac{dz_3}{ϵ}(\frac{z_1z_2}{ϵ})^{2p.q}(\frac{z_2z_3}{ϵ})^{2q.k}(\frac{z_3z_1}{ϵ})^{2p.k}$$

$$ϵ^{(p+q+k)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }(p)\mathrm{\Phi }(q)\mathrm{\Phi }(k)e^{i(p+q+k)X}$$
(3.1.50)
The integrals can be evaluated in the usual way. First we use translation invariance to set $`z_3=0`$. Then define $`z_2^{}=\frac{z_2}{z_1}`$ to get

$$\frac{dz_1}{ϵ}(\frac{z_1}{ϵ})^{2p.k+2q.k+2p.q+1}𝑑z_2^{}(1z_2^{})^{2p.q}(z_2^{})^{2q.k}$$
(3.1.51)
The integral over $`z_1`$ gives $`\frac{1}{2p.q+2q.k+2k.p+2}`$. The action of $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma }`$ gives $`(p+q+k)^21`$. These two factors cancel on shell. The resultant integral over $`z_2^{}`$ is nothing but the usual Veneziano amplitude. As shown in  regularizing the integrals by point splitting subtracts the poles corresponding to on shell intermediate states. This gives the effective action.

### 3.2 Vector

For the massless vector $`g^{55}=0`$ and so it is fairly obvious that the pole structure comes out right given the arguments given in the first section. The only point of the calculation below is to illustrate the use of the $`K_n\stackrel{~}{Y}_n`$ variables as compared to $`k_nY_n`$ used in I.

We start with the loop variable

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2k_0(\sigma _1)}.k_0(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]}$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }d\sigma _1{\scriptscriptstyle }d\sigma _2\{k_1(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _1)}[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]+\sigma _1\sigma _2\}}$$

$$:e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma [k_0(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(z)+K_1(\sigma ,zz(\sigma ))\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(z)]}}:.$$
(3.2.52)
where $`K_1(\sigma ,zz(\sigma ))=k_1(\sigma )+k_0(\sigma )\alpha _1+k_0(\sigma )(zz(\sigma ))`$.

#### 3.2.1 Free Theory

For the free theory there is only one point.

$$0<\sigma <1:k_0(\sigma )=k_0,k_1(\sigma )=k_1;z(\sigma )=z.$$

$`G(\sigma ,\sigma )lnϵ`$. In evaluating the derivative of the Green function one has to be more careful. Thus before we set $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2=\sigma `$ we must either do point splitting or use the regularized Green function $`ln((zw)^2+ϵ^2)`$.

Thus let $`\sigma _A`$ and $`\sigma _B`$ be the split points with $`z(\sigma _{A,B})=z_{A,B}`$. Of course $`k_0(\sigma _A)=k_0(\sigma _B)=k_0`$ and the same for $`k_1`$.

Then we have two possibilities

$$\sigma _1=\sigma _A,and\sigma _2=\sigma _B$$

or

$$\sigma _1=\sigma _B,and\sigma _2=\sigma _A$$

We refer to $`x_n(\sigma _1)`$ by $`x_n`$ and $`x_n(\sigma _2)`$ as $`y_n`$.

Thus we have

$$k_1(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{d}{dx_1}G(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,x,y)=k_1(\sigma _A).k_0(\sigma _B)\frac{d}{dx_1}G(\sigma _A,\sigma _B,x,y)=k_1.k_0\frac{1}{z_Az_B}$$

When we consider the second possibility we get

$$k_1(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{d}{dx_1}G(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,x,y)=k_1(\sigma _B).k_0(\sigma _A)\frac{d}{dx_1}G(\sigma _B,\sigma _A,x,y)=k_1.k_0\frac{1}{z_Bz_A}$$

Adding the two gives zero. This is because of the antisymmetric property of the derivative of the Green function.

If we use $`ln((zw)^2+ϵ^2)`$ it is easy to see that the derivative vanishes when $`zw`$. Thus using either method we get the same result.

The derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ does not have any subtlety and we simply get

$$k_1.k_0\frac{}{x_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\sigma ,\sigma ,x,y)=k_1.k_0\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{x_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\sigma ,\sigma ,x,x).$$

We have used the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is symmetric in its arguments. Thus to lowest order in $`x_n`$ we simply get

$$k_1.k_0\frac{}{x_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

Thus (3.2.52) becomes for the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1`$ (For this term $`g_{55}=0`$),

$$ϵ^{k_0^2}e^{k_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }}k_1.k_0\frac{}{x_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }e^{i(k_0\stackrel{~}{Y}_0+K_1\stackrel{~}{Y}_1)}+$$

$$ϵ^{k_0^2}e^{k_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }}iK_1\stackrel{~}{Y}_1e^{i(k_0\stackrel{~}{Y}_0)}$$
(3.2.53)
When we vary w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we get (using $`\frac{}{x_1}K_1=k_0`$)

$$[ik_0(k_1.k_0)+k_0^2iK_1]\stackrel{~}{Y}_1e^{ik_0.\stackrel{~}{Y}_0}=0$$
(3.2.54)
Using $`k_{05}k_{05}g^{55}=0`$ and $`<k_1^\mu >=A^\mu `$, and setting $`x_n=0`$, we recover Maxwell’s equation

$$_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0$$

#### 3.2.2 Cubic term

The first correction comes in at cubic order. The calculation is done in the Appendix as an illustration. The terms that have a tachyon pole is specific to the bosonic string. The other terms correspond to superstrings (and also to Yang-Mills). One can compare these terms with known results as given for instance in  and see that they agree.

Thus we see in these examples that on shell S-matrix elements are correctly reproduced by this theory. General arguments were given in an earlier section. While this does not constitute a proof, hopefully that can also be done with some more work.

In this paper, we have not attempted to calculate higher order terms using the Taylor expansion of I. These higher order contributions (coming from derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) to the equations of motion are additions that are dictated by gauge invariance. The point that needs to be stressed is that any term that comes from derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are “longitudinal” or “ gauge” pieces that can be set to zero if we are only interested in S-matrix elements of physical degrees of freedom. Thus they do not affect the arguments presented in this section, which were to show that the S-matrix elements are reproduced correctly. Nevertheless these terms are necessary when one wants manifest gauge invariance.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discussed how one can use loop variables to derive gauge invariant equations of motion for all the modes of the bosonic string. The first step was taken in I. There the theory was written in one higher dimension where the modes are all massless. In this paper we have extended the results of I by explaining how, by a particular type of dimensional reduction of the massless theory, we get the right spectrum and on shell scattering amplitudes of bosonic string theory. The theory is gauge invariant even off shell. Thus in principle we have an off shell gauge invariant formulation. We have not attempted a proof of this result to all orders and for all modes. However we have given some explicit examples and also arguments on why the method should work in general.

What the Koba-Nielsen integration does to gauge transformation and equation, in the continuum limit has not been discussed in this paper. This is an important question that deserves further study. Another issue that needs further work is the evaluation of higher order corrections arising from the Taylor expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. We also need to work out the dimensionally reduced versions of the equations of motion for massive particles (“$`S_2`$” and “$`S_{11}`$” of I) where one has to worry about the degrees of freedom corresponding to $`k_n^5`$, (they were called $`q_n`$ in ). It would also be interesting to get some geometrical interpretation for (2.1.1) and (2.2.38).

We would like to recollect some of the intriguing features that have emerged from this study. First, the theory is written more elegantly as a massless theory in one higher dimension. Second, the interactions are obtained simply by extending the string to a band. Written in terms of bands it appears just like a free theory. Both the above features are reminiscent of M-theory . The third and probably most intriguing feature is the form of the gauge transformation. It looks like a local rescaling of the generalized momenta. This is a space-time scale transformation. The global version of this is of course just the usual renormalization group (in space-time). The local (i.e. local along the string) version of this seems to be a (part of the) gauge group for the string. This was of course one of the original motivations for this approach .

## Appendix A Appendix: Basic Definitions

The basic loop variable is

$$e^{i_c\alpha (t)k(t)_zX(z+t)dt+ik_0X}=e^{i_nk_nY_n}$$

where $`\alpha (t)`$ is an einbein and $`k(t)`$ is a distributed momentum. They have mode expansions:

$$\alpha (t)=\underset{n0}{}\alpha _nt^n$$

$$k(t)=\underset{n0}{}k_nt^n$$

$`Y_n`$ is defined by

$$Y_n=\frac{Y}{x_n}.$$

where

$$Y=\underset{n}{}\alpha _n\frac{^nX}{(n1)!}\underset{n}{}\alpha _n\stackrel{~}{Y}_n.$$

and $`x_n`$ are defined by

$$\underset{n0}{}\alpha _nt^n=e^{_{n0}x_nt^n}.$$

The $`\alpha _n`$ satisfy

$$\frac{\alpha _n}{x_m}=\alpha _{nm}.$$

Using the above definitions one can easily show that

$$\frac{^2}{x_nx_m}Y=\frac{}{x_{n+m}}Y.$$

The definitions of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are as follows. Define, (using the notation $`z_i=z(\sigma _i)`$)

$$D_{z_1}=D_{z(\sigma _1)}1+\alpha _1(\sigma _1)\frac{}{z(\sigma _1)}+\alpha _2\frac{^2}{z^2(\sigma _1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(A.1)
so that

$$Y(z(\sigma ))=D_{z(\sigma )}X(z(\sigma ))$$
(A.2)
then,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1,z_2)=D_{z_1}D_{z_2}G(z_1,z_2)$$
(A.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=D_{z_1}D_{z_2}\rho (\sigma _1,\sigma _2)$$
(A.4)
where

$$\rho (\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=\frac{\mu (z(\sigma _1))\mu (z(\sigma _2))}{z(\sigma _1)z(\sigma _2)}$$
(A.5)
is the generalization of the usual Liouville mode $`\rho (\sigma )`$ which is equal to $`\frac{d\mu }{dz}`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ dependence in the loop variable is obtained by the following step:

$$e^{:\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑u\mu (u)[_zX(z+u)]^2}:}e^{ik_n\frac{}{x_n}D_{z_1}X}e^{ip_m\frac{}{x_m}D_{z_2}X}$$
(A.6)
defines the action of the Virasoro generators on the two sets of vertex operators.

$$=e^{ik_n.p_m_{x_n}_{y_m}D_{z_1}D_{z_2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑u{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mu (u)}{z_1z_2}}[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{z_1u}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{z_2u}}]}}$$
(A.7)
$$=e^{ik_n.p_m_{x_n}_{y_m}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}$$
(A.8)
This expression is only valid to lowest order in $`\mu `$ which is all we need here.666The exact expression is given in

## Appendix B Appendix: Cubic Term in Vector Particle Equation

We start with loop variable (3.2.52),

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2k_0(\sigma _1)}.k_0(\sigma _2)[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]}$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }d\sigma _1{\scriptscriptstyle }d\sigma _2\{k_1(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _1)}[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]+\sigma _1\sigma _2\}}$$

$$e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma [k_0(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(z)+K_1(\sigma ,zz(\sigma ))\stackrel{~}{Y}_1(z)]}}$$
(B.1)
and keep terms involving three $`k_1`$’s. This will produce terms of the form $`A.pA.qA`$. We can compare these with standard results from say . If they match, then by gauge invariance, other terms are bound to agree as well.

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2k_0(\sigma _5)}.k_0(\sigma _6)[\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _5,\sigma _6)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _5,\sigma _6)]}$$

$$\frac{1}{2!}d\sigma _1d\sigma _2\{[k_1(\sigma _1).k_0(\sigma _2)\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _1)}\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)]+\sigma _1\sigma _2\}$$

$$d\sigma _3d\sigma _4\{[k_1(\sigma _3).k_0(\sigma _4)\frac{}{x_1(\sigma _3)}\stackrel{~}{G}(\sigma _3,\sigma _4)]+\sigma _1\sigma _2\}$$

$$iK_1(\sigma ,z)^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)e^{ik_0\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}$$
(B.2)
Let us call the three distinct locations $`\sigma _I,\sigma _{II},\sigma _{III}`$.

Let

$$k_0(\sigma _I)=p;z(\sigma _I)=z_1$$

$$k_0(\sigma _{II})=q;z(\sigma _{II})=z_2$$

$$k_0(\sigma _{III}=k;z(\sigma _{III})=z_3$$

The following is one possible assignment:

$$\sigma _1=\sigma _I;\sigma _2=\sigma _{II}or\sigma _{III}$$

$$\sigma _3=\sigma _{II};\sigma _4=\sigma _Ior\sigma _{III}$$

$$\sigma =\sigma _{III}$$

$`\sigma _5`$ and $`\sigma _6`$ can equal any of them.

When $`\sigma _5=\sigma _6`$ we need to point split. This gives us

$$(ϵ)^{p^2+q^2+k^2}(z_1z_2)^{2p.q}(z_2z_3)^{2q.k}(z_3z_1)^{2k.p}$$

$$\frac{1}{2!}\{[\frac{p_1.q}{z_1z_2}+\frac{p_1.k}{z_1z_3}][\frac{q_1.p}{z_2z_1}+\frac{q_1.k}{z_2z_3}]K_1^\mu \stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (0)e^{i(p+q+k)\stackrel{~}{Y}_0(0)}\}$$

The other assignments of $`\sigma `$’s give similar terms which include all premutations of $`p,q,k`$.

We are left with integrals over $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. (we set $`z_3=0`$). After changing variables to $`z_2^{}=\frac{z_2}{z_1}`$ and integrating over $`z_2^{}`$, we get the following terms (and permutations to symmetrize in $`p,q,k`$):

$$i)dz_2^{}(1z_2^{})^{2p.q2}(z_2^{})^{2q.k}p_1.qq_1.p=B(2p.q1,2q.k+1)p_1.qq_1.p$$
(B.3)
$$ii)dz_2^{}(1z_2^{})^{2p.q1}(z_2^{})^{2q.k1}p_1.qq_1.k=B(2p.q,2q.k)p_1.qq_1.k$$
(B.4)
$$iii)dz_2^{}(1z_2^{})^{2p.q1}(z_2^{})^{2q.k}p_1.kq_1.p=B(2p.q,2q.k+1)p_1.kq_1.p$$
(B.5)
$$iv)dz_2^{}(1z_2^{})^{2p.q}(z_2^{})^{2q.k1}p_1.kq_1.k=B(2p.q+1,2q.k)p_1.kq_1.k$$
(B.6)
Using the expansion

$$B(x,z)=(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{z})(1\zeta (2)xz)+\mathrm{}$$

$$=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{z}\zeta (2)(z+x)+\mathrm{}$$

we see that i) corresponds to a tachyon pole. So we will not compare it with the results of . The remaining three and their permutations can be compared. We also use the on-shellness conditions $`p^2=q^2=k^2=0`$ as well as transversality, $`p_1.p=q_1.q=k_1.k=0`$. One can explicitly check that the leading pole terms corresponding to vector exchange as well as the contact terms (proportional to $`\zeta (2)`$ in the above equations) agree with the corresponding expressions in .


format: text

text:
# SIMULATION OF AN INTRA-PULSE INTERACTION POINT FEEDBACK FOR FUTURE LINEAR COLLIDERS

## 1 Introduction

A vertical position displacement between the beam centres at the interaction point (IP) will cause luminosity reduction. Two main sources of beam jitter at the interaction point IP are expected. Firstly, the beam entering the final focus system may jitter in angle and position. At the IP, the resulting vertical position error, normalised to the beam size, and the resulting angle error, normalised to the beam divergence, are expected to have the same size. Secondly, transverse jitters of the final focus magnets, especially of the final doublet, will mainly change the position of the beams at the IP, not so much the angle. The jitter at the IP can thus be described by

$$\left(\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }y)^2}{\sigma _y^2}\right)=\left(\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }y^{})^2}{\sigma _y^{}^2}\right)+\left(\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ffs}y)^2}{\sigma _y^2}\right).$$

Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y^{}`$ are the offset and angle error of the beam at the IP, $`\sigma _y`$ and $`\sigma _y^{}`$ are beam size and divergence, also at the IP. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ffs}y`$ is the contribution to the position error due to the final focus system. If it is large, the effect of the angle at the IP can be neglected.

## 2 Beam-Beam Interaction

When the beams collide with a vertical offset, they will receive a strong kick from the beam-beam interaction. The angle of the outgoing beam can therefore be used to measure the relative positions of the beams. The dependence of kick angle and luminosity on the position and initial angle have been simulated with the program Guinea-Pig , varying both parameters.

The luminosity $`L`$ as a fraction of the nominal $`L_0`$, is shown in Fig. 1, as a function on the relative beam position error and beam angle error. The kick angle is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the offset. If the beams collide without an offset but with an angle, their initial angle is roughly preserved in the beam-beam interaction. For comparison: the beam divergence is $`\sigma _y^{}26\mu \mathrm{radian}`$ for NLC and $`\sigma _y^{}11.7\mu \mathrm{radian}`$ for CLIC.

## 3 Position Feedback Model

In order to have a fast correction, corrector and beam-position monitor (BPM) need to be located close together. Here, they are located on the same side of the IP at a distance of $`1.5\mathrm{m}`$, see Fig. 3. Thus the correction is not applied to the measured beam but to the other one. This significantly reduces the time necessary to transport the signal from the BPM to the kicker. The feedback response time $`\tau _d`$ is given by

$$\tau _d=\tau _p+\tau _k+\tau _{pf}+\tau _{kf}+\tau _s$$
(1)
Here, $`\tau _p`$ is the time the BPM electronics needs to measure the beam offsets and to process the data, $`\tau _k`$ is the response time of the kicker and $`\tau _s`$ is the transport time of the signal from BPM to kicker. $`\tau _{pf}`$ and $`\tau _{kf}`$ are the times of flight from the IP to the BPM and from the kicker to the IP, respectively. In the following, a total of $`\tau _d=20\mathrm{ns}`$ is assumed, half of which is due to $`\tau _{pf}+\tau _{kf}`$. The pulse lengths are $`100\mathrm{ns}`$ in CLIC and $`266\mathrm{ns}`$ in NLC.

The hardware for this feedback has not yet been designed. With a solid state amplifier it should be possible to correct an offset of $`2\sigma _y`$ , with an additional stage of tube amplification this may even be extended to $`20\sigma _y`$ .

It is assumed that the feedback changes the beam position by $`\delta y`$ after each measured bunch according to

$$\delta y=g\frac{\theta }{\sigma _y^{}}\sigma _y$$

for a measured angle $`\theta `$. The gain factor $`g`$ is chosen to give optimal performance. The additional crossing angle, that results from the correction is orders of magnitude smaller than the beam divergence and can be neglected.

## 4 Results of Position Feedback

Here, only position errors are considered. First NLC is discussed. In Fig. 4, the luminosity loss with a beam offset $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=2\sigma _y`$ is shown as a function of the gain $`g`$. As can be seen, $`g=0.06`$ seems a good choice. Very small gains lead to a slow correction, very large ones to an over-correction. Both result in a larger luminosity loss. With $`g=0.06`$, the luminosity loss is reduced by a factor 6, compared to the case without feedback. For a smaller offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=1/8\sigma _y`$ about the same factor is found.

Two main sources of noise can lead to an increased luminosity loss with feedback: a bunch-to-bunch position jitter of the incoming beam, and the position resolution of the BPM. For the chosen gain $`g=0.06`$, the additional loss induced by the feedback is very small, compared to the case without feedback. To estimate the required BPM resolution, simulations are performed with perfect beams and a position error of the BPM of $`\sigma _{BPM}=15\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for a single bunch. The luminosity loss, averaged over 100 cases, is only $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/L=0.7\times 10^3`$. The limit on the BPM resolution seems therefore not to be very stringent compared to the resolutions that must be achieved in other parts of the machine.

For a very large offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=12\sigma _y`$, the luminosity without feedback, is only $`3.5\%`$ of the nominal value. If the feedback has the required correction range, it can recover $`73\%`$ of the full luminosity. For the experiment, this can make the difference between a complete failure and still acceptable running conditions.

For CLIC, the machine with a centre-of-mass energy of $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ is simulated. At higher energies, $`E_{cm}=3\mathrm{TeV}`$ or $`E_{cm}=5\mathrm{TeV}`$, a large number of electrons and positrons will be produced during the collision of the two beams, in a process called coherent pair creation ; already at $`E_{cm}=3\mathrm{TeV}`$, the number of these particles is about $`20\%`$ of the number of beam particles. They induce a strong signal in the BPM, and due to their large angle could even hit it. Their properties need to be studied in detail before one can suggest a feedback for the high energy machines.

In CLIC at $`E_{cm}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, the feedback response time is assumed to be the same as in NLC. With the optimum gain $`g=0.005`$, the luminosity loss is reduced by a factor 3. This is not as good as in NLC, since the bunch trains are shorter in CLIC. A BPM resolution of $`\sigma _{BPM}=15\mu \mathrm{m}`$ leads to a luminosity loss of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/L=1.2\times 10^4`$. This is better than in NLC because of the lower gain and the slightly larger kick angle for an offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=\sigma _y`$.

## 5 Influence of Angles

If the beams at the IP have angle jitters, this reduces the luminosity. In addition, the BPM measures the additional angle and the feedback tries to correct a non-existing offset. The latter problem can be solved by measuring the incoming beam angle error and subtracting it from the value measured by the feedback. Two options are discussed in reference , one suggested by M. Breidenbach. Both have some difficulties and neither correct the angle error, but only its effect on the position feedback. As shown below, this is not sufficient, because the luminosity loss will stay large. If the angle jitter is significant, an additional angle feedback is needed for each beam, as described below.

## 6 Angle Feedback Model

Each angle feedback consists of a BPM and a strip-line kicker which are placed in the beam delivery section before the detector, see Fig. 5. This assumes that the angle jitter is created before this system, as is to be expected. The BPM has to be at a phase advance of $`(n+k+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$ from the IP, where an angle error at the IP can be measured as a position error. The kicker has to be closer to the IP, at $`n\pi `$, to be able to transport the signal in the same direction as the beam. Here, the angle at the IP can be corrected by applying a kick. One needs large beta-functions, at the BPM to have a good signal, and at the kicker to have a smaller divergence and thus correction angle. Possible positions exist in the beam delivery system . The kick angles have to be significantly larger than for the offset feedback , and it may be difficult to achieve this.

This feedback is relatively simple, and uses a constant gain for each bunch. The response time $`\tau _d`$ is given by equation (1). In the present case $`\tau _{pf}`$ is negative, since the beam reaches the BPM before the IP. With signal transmission at the speed of light, one would obtain $`\tau _s+\tau _{pf}+\tau _{kf}=0`$ and consequently $`\tau _d=\tau _p+\tau _k`$. In the following, $`\tau _d=15\mathrm{ns}`$ is assumed.

## 7 Results of Angle Feedback

The angle feedback is simulated for NLC. The optimum gain is determined in the same way as for the position feedback. If only angle errors were present, the luminosity loss would be reduced by a factor 6, as for the position feedback.

The required resolution for the BPM depends on the vertical beta-function at its position. It must correspond to a resolution of the beam angle in the IP of $`0.2\sigma _y^{}`$, to achieve a luminosity loss of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }L/L=10^3`$ for perfect beams.

Finally, the combination of angle and position error is considered. Figure 6 shows the fractional luminosity loss for a constant beam position error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=2\sigma _y`$ as a function of the angle error. If no feedback is used, the luminosity loss is high. An additional angle error can increase it even more. If only a position feedback is used, which does not correct the angle error of the incoming beam, the luminosity loss is small as long as the angle errors are small. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }y^{}/\sigma _y^{}`$ becomes comparable to $`\mathrm{\Delta }y/\sigma _y`$, the loss is almost the same as without feedback. If one measures the incoming angle, and subtracts it from the measured value, the situation does not improve very much. If finally, a position feedback at the IP and an angle feedback for each beam are used, the luminosity loss is significantly reduced, independent of the initial angle error.

## 8 Conclusion

If the appropriate hardware can be built, the intra-pulse feedback at the interaction point offers a reduction of the luminosity loss due to pulse-to-pulse jitter by a factor of about 6 in NLC and 3 in CLIC. Even in case of a very large offset of 12 times the beam size, more than $`70\%`$ of the luminosity is recovered in NLC. Without feedback the luminosity would be almost zero.

If the angle jitter is significant, it is not sufficient to correct the measured kick angle accordingly. To reduce the luminosity loss due to the angle errors, the described angle feedback is necessary. Whether it is feasible needs to be studied.

## 9 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank T. Raubenheimer for inviting me to SLAC, where I did most of the work presented. I am grateful to M. Breidenbach, P. Emma, J. Frisch, G. Haller, T. Raubenheimer and P. Tennenbaum for very helpful discussions.


text:
# Fermionic Heisenberg Model for Spin Glasses with BCS Pairing Interaction

## I Introduction

The interplay between a magnetic order and superconductivity is a current issue. Particularly, spin glass ordering has been reported in many physical systems that includes high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, heavy fermions and conventional superconductors doped with magnetic impurities like $`Gd_xTh_{1x}RU_2`$. These conventional superconductors can be modeled by a s-d exchange interaction between the localized magnetic impurities and the conducting fermions which have conventional BCS interaction (Nass et al.). The main interest of Nass et al. was to find the density of states in the presence of magnetic impurities. However, relatively little consideration has been given to the phase transition problem between spin glass and a superconductive order.

Nevertheless, from a wider perspective the role of quantum fluctuations in disordered strongly interacting systems still needs to be fully understood. Theoretical studies in recent years have shown plenty of interesting results. For instance, the presence of a non-Fermi liquid behavior near $`T=0`$ transition between a metallic paramagnetic and a metallic spin glass in a model introduced to study the competition between Kondo effect and RKKY interaction. In addition, the random quantum Heisenberg with generalized SU(M) spins produces a spin liquid ground state in the large M limit with a local dynamic susceptibility that is identical to a marginal Fermi Liquid.

Recently, a model has been introduced to study the phase transition between the spin glass ordering and the BCS pairing among fermions of opposite spins. This model has been obtained from the model of Nass et al. by tracing out the conducting fermionic degrees of freedom by perturbation expansion. The remaining effective problem could be solved in its infinite ranged Ising version. A rich phase diagram has been found in the $`T`$$`g`$ plane ($`g`$ is the strength of the pairing interaction) for fixed $`J`$ (variance of the spin random coupling $`J_{ij}`$) with a normal paramagnetic phase (NP), a spin glass phase (SG) and a pairing phase (PAIR) where there is formation of pairs in the sites. The first two phases (NP and SG) are separated by a second order line at the spin glass transition temperature $`T_f`$. However, the line $`g=g_c(T)`$ between the NP and PAIR phases is more complex. It is a second order line which ends at a tricritical point ($`T_{tc},g_{tc}`$), where a first order line starts. Below the spin glass transition temperature $`T_f`$, the last two phases (SG and PAIR) are separated by the same first order line transition.

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the infinite ranged Heisenberg version of the model given by Ref.  in presence of a magnetic field for the half filling case. This many fermion problem is formulated by defining the SU(2) spin variables as a bilinear combination of Grassmann fields and computing the partition function through the path integral formalism. The disorder in the coupling $`J_{ij}`$ is treated by standard replica formalism. For this representation of the spin variable, the Fock space ($`s=1/2`$) has four quantum states per site but only two of them are magnetic. As a consequence, the sensitivity of the site to magnetic coupling is dependent on the occupation number which is controlled by quantum statistics. When the strength of the BCS coupling is increased, forcing the double occupation, the number of sites non-sensitive to the magnetic coupling increases. Therefore, this mechanism could suppress magnetic ordering such as the spin glass phase. Actually, that is what happens in the Ising model even at the half filling situation.

In the replica formalism for the quantum spin glass, the replica diagonal order parameter has to be solved coupled with the non-diagonal one (the spin glass order parameter) and the remaining order parameters of the problem. In consequence, the diagonal component is no longer constrained to unity and has an important role in the problem. In fact, the location of $`T_f`$ can be obtained through this component. This is the essential point: the location of other transitions of the problem are also dependent of this diagonal component even when the non-diagonal component is zero.

Another important aspect of these problems is that the order parameter (the spin-spin correlation function) are time dependent. Bray and More, in their pioneering work, investigated the role of the quantum fluctuations in the Heisenberg spin glass model by using the static approximation. They formulated the problem in the Feynman’s path integral formalism where the spins variables have a dependence on fictitious time $`\tau `$. The static approximation neglects the time dependence giving an upper bound for the thermodynamic potential and the location of the transition points. For temperatures above the $`T_f`$, this approximation is expected to be exact together with the replica symmetric solution. This same problem has been studied with a formalism where the spin variables were represented by bilinear combinations of Grassmann fields. The static approximation was used for the spin glass order parameter, while for the susceptibility (associated to the replica diagonal order parameter) was applied an instantaneous approximation. This approach has found a non-zero spin glass transition temperature for $`s=1/2`$. Goldschmidt and Pik-Yin Lai used the same treatment as Bray and More to obtain a phase diagram for the infinite ranged quantum Heinsenberg and XY spin glass in an external magnetic field. Due to the magnetic field, the order parameters were separated in two groups: transversal to the field and parallel to it. This approach allowed to locate the spin glass transition transversal to the field and investigate the role of the tunneling in the transition. For instance, the results showed that the spin glass ($`s=1/2`$) transition temperature $`T_f`$ is depressed for the Heisenberg model as the field strength is increased. Nevertheless, the tunneling was not strong enough to produce a transition at $`T=0`$.

In the present fermionic formulation, we have combined the methods of Refs.  and  by applying a field over the fermionic spin variables, taking the transversal spin glass order parameter as null and using the static approximation for the remaining order parameters. In these circumstances, the magnetic field also has depressed the transversal spin glass transition temperature. This approach has allowed us to study the transition line between NP phase and the PAIR phase (we use here the same terminology of Ref. ) even in lower temperature. This transition line ends at the transversal spin glass transition temperature which moves down as the field strength enhances.

This paper is organized as follows. In section II, we present our model and develop it to obtain the Gran Canonical Potential and the saddle point equations for the order parameters in the half filling case. In section III, we analyse the transition line between the NP and PAIR phases for several values of the magnetic field. The results show that as the magnetic field increases, larger values of the pairing interaction strength are necessary to produce a transition. We also locate the transition line between the normal paramagnetic phase and the spin glass phase. Discussions and concluding remarks are presented in the last section.

## II General Formulation

We consider the following Hamiltonian in the presence of a magnetic field $`H_z`$:

$`\overline{H}=H\mu N={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}J_{ij}\left[\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^+\right)\right]\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=,}{}}c_{is}^{}c_{is}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}c_i^{}c_i^{}c_jc_jH_z{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i^z`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _i^\pm =\sigma _i^x\pm \sigma _i^y`$, the chemical potential is given by $`\mu `$ and $`c_{is}^{}`$ ($`c_{is}`$) are fermions creation (destruction) operators ($`s=`$ or $``$ means the spin projection). The spin operators are represented as bilinear combination of fermionic operators:

$`\sigma _i^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[c_i^{}c_ic_i^{}c_i]`$ (2)
$`\sigma _i^+`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{}c_i.`$ (3)
The random coupling $`J_{ij}`$ in Eq. (1) are infinite ranged with a Gaussian distribution with mean and variance given by:

$`J_{ij}_{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
$`J_{ij}^2_{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`4J^2/N`$ (5)
where $`N`$ is the number of sites.

The third term in Eq. (1) represents a BCS pairing interaction in real space. This pairing mechanism in fermionic problems already has been purposed, although, in different context. The remaining terms describe a fermionic Heisenberg spin glass in the presence of a field. Our interest in this fermionic problem is to analyse the phase transitions at mean field level as firstly introduced by Sherrington and Kirkpatrick for classical spin glass, reducing the initial many site problem to a one site problem. In order to obtain that, the partition function is expressed in terms of functional integrals using the anti-commuting Grassmann variables $`\varphi _{is}^{}(\tau )`$ and $`\varphi _{is}(\tau )`$ ($`\tau `$ is a complex time):

$$Z=D(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}[A_0+A_{pair}+A_{SG}+A_{field}]$$
(6)
where the action $`A_0`$ in Eq. (6) is the free part of the total action, $`A_{pair}`$ is the pairing part and $`A_{SG}`$ is the spin part.

Using time Fourier transformed quantities, the free part is given by

$$A_0=\underset{i}{}\underset{\omega }{}\left(i\omega +\beta \mu \right)\left[\varphi _i^{}(\omega )\varphi _i(\omega )+\varphi _i^{}(\omega )\varphi _i(\omega )\right]$$
(7)
and the $`A_{field}`$ is

$$A_{field}=\frac{\beta H_z}{2}\underset{i}{}\underset{\omega }{}\left[\varphi _i^{}(\omega )\varphi _i(\omega )\varphi _i^{}(\omega )\varphi _i(\omega )\right]$$
(8)
while the pairing part of the action in the static approximation becomes

$$A_{pair}A_{pair}^{st}=\frac{\beta g}{N}\underset{ij}{}\rho _i^{}(0)\rho _j(0)$$
(9)
where $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}`$, $`T`$ is the temperature and

$$\rho _i(0)=\underset{\omega }{}\varphi _i(\omega )\varphi _i(\omega )$$
(10)
with Matsubara’s frequencies $`\omega =(2m+1)\pi `$, $`m=0`$, $`\pm 1`$, …

Indeed, functional integral techniques within the static approximation have succeeded in studying phase transitions in conventional BCS superconductivity and in the presence of metal transition impurities. It has been possible to build a mean field theory in momentum space by using a particle-hole transformation. Thus, the problem became exactly resolved.

The spin part of the action is written as

$$A_H=\underset{ij\nu }{}\frac{\beta J_{ij}}{2}\left\{S_i^z(\nu )S_j^z(\nu )+\frac{1}{2}\left[S_i^+(\nu )S_j^{}(\nu )+S_i^{}(\nu )S_j^+(\nu )\right]\right\}$$
(11)
where the spins variables are expressed in terms of Grassmann fields:

$`S_i^z(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\left[\varphi _i^{}(\omega +\nu )\varphi _i(\omega )\varphi _i^{}(\omega +\nu )\varphi _i(\omega )\right]`$ (12)
$`S_i^+(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\varphi _i^{}(\omega +\nu )\varphi _i(\omega )`$ (13)
$`S_i^{}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\varphi _i^{}(\omega +\nu )\varphi _i(\omega )`$ (14)
where $`\nu =2\pi m`$ in Eq. (14).

The Grand Canonical Potential can be obtained through the replica method by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Z^n_{ca}1}{n}}.`$ (15)
The problem can be linearized and reduced to one site problem with the introduction of the auxiliary complex fields for the pairing part $`\eta _\alpha (0)`$, $`\eta _\alpha ^{}(0)`$ ($`\eta _\alpha (0)=\eta _{R\alpha }(0)+i\eta _{I\alpha }(0)`$) and for the spin part $`R_{\alpha \alpha }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})=[R_{\alpha \alpha }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})]^{}`$ and $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt^{}}(\nu ,\nu ^{})=[Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt^{}}(\nu ,\nu ^{})]^{}`$ where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are replica index and $`t=x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$. Thus the configurational averaged replicated partition function is

$`Z^n_{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^n}}{\displaystyle }D(\eta ^{}\eta ){\displaystyle }D(Q^{}Q){\displaystyle }D(R^{}R)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{N}{8\beta ^2J^2}}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}R_{\alpha \alpha }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})^2+`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t<t^{}}{}}Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt^{}}(\nu ,\nu ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha <\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N\beta g}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\eta _\alpha (0)^2+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda })]\}`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N\beta ^2J^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N\beta g}}\right)`$.

The function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Eq. (17) is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }D(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\{A_o+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}[\eta _\alpha (0)\rho ^{}(0)+\eta _\alpha ^{}(0)\rho (0)]+\beta H_z{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha }{}}S_{i\alpha }^z(0)`$ (18)
$`+[{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}R_{\alpha \alpha }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})S_{i\alpha }^t(\nu )S_{i\alpha }^t(\nu )+{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t<t^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt^{}}(\nu ,\nu ^{})S_{i\alpha }^t(\nu )S_{i\alpha }^t^{}(\nu )`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha <\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt}(\nu ,\nu ^{})S_{i\alpha }^t(\nu )S_{i\beta }^t(\nu )]\}.`$ (20)
Within the static approximation, together with the replica symmetric ansatz, the auxiliary fields of the spin glass part are giving by the following relations:

$`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt^{}}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0tt^{}`$ (21)
$`R_{\alpha \alpha }^{zz}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta ^2J^2R_z\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu ,0}`$ (22)
$`R_{\alpha \alpha }^{xx}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \alpha }^{yy}(\nu ,\nu ^{})=4\beta ^2J^2R\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu ,0}`$ (23)
$`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{xx}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{yy}(\nu ,\nu ^{})=4\beta ^2J^2Q\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu ,0}`$ (24)
$`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{zz}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta ^2J^2Q_z\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu ,0}`$ (25)
where $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$ are now real parameters.

We also take the spin glass order parameter transversal to the field $`Q=0`$ to work in a temperature region where both static approximation and replica symmetric ansatz are reliable. The sum over the replica index gives again quadratic forms which are also linearized by new auxiliary fields. Thus, the one site $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ function becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dw\left\{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Du_x_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Du_y_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}DvD(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}[A_0+A_{pair}+\beta \stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{S}]\right\}^n$$
(26)
where $`Dv={\displaystyle \frac{e^{v^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}dv`$ and

$`\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`h_zS_z+{\displaystyle \frac{h_+S_{}+h_{}S_+}{2}}`$ (27)
$`h_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`h_x\pm ih_y.`$ (28)
The field $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ in the equation above is defined as:

$`h_z`$ $`=`$ $`J\left[v\sqrt{2(R_zQ_z)}+w\sqrt{2Q_z}+{\displaystyle \frac{H_z}{2J}}\right]`$ (29)
$`h_+`$ $`=`$ $`J\sqrt{2R}u_+`$ (30)
$`h_{}`$ $`=`$ $`J\sqrt{2R}u_{}.`$ (31)
The resulting problem obtained in Eq. (26) is equivalent to fermions in the presence of internal fields $`g\eta /2`$, $`g\eta ^{}/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}`$. The two first ones are the pairing fields related to the long range order where there is pairing formation in the sites. The later is a random gaussian field related to the replica the components of the spin part of the auxiliary fields introduced in Eq. (17), namely, the non-diagonal $`Q_z`$ and diagonal $`R_z`$ which are parallel to $`H_z`$, and diagonal $`R`$ which is transversal to $`H_z`$.

In order to construct a mean field theory which can be solved, we introduce the following matrices:

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\omega )=\left[\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{}(\omega )\\ \varphi _{}(\omega )\\ \varphi _{}^{}(\omega )\\ \varphi _{}^{}(\omega )\end{array}\right]`$ (36)
$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(\omega )=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _{}^{}(\omega )& \varphi _{}^{}(\omega )& \varphi _{}(\omega )& \varphi _{}(\omega )\end{array}\right]`$ (38)
and

$`\underset{¯}{G}^1(\omega )=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}G_{}^^1(\omega )& \beta h_{}& \mathrm{\Delta }& 0\\ \beta h_+& G_{}^^1(\omega )& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& 0& G_{}^^1(\omega )& \beta h_{}\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& \beta h_+& G_{}^^1(\omega )\end{array}\right].`$ (43)
In the equation above $`G_{ss}^1(\omega )=_{s=\pm }(i\omega +\beta \mu +s\beta h_z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{\beta g}{2}}\eta `$. Hence, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ function in Eq. (26) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw\left\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Du_x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Du_y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dv[I(w,u_x,u_y,v)]\right\}^n`$ (44)
where

$$I(w,u_x,u_y,v)=D(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{\omega }{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(\omega )\underset{¯}{G}^1(\omega )\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\omega )\right].$$
(45)
The functional integral in Eq. (45) can now be performed. The sum over Matsubara’s frequencies in the resulting expression should be done as in Ref. . The matrix formalism introduced in Eqs. (36), (38) and (43) produces a particle-hole transformation in the fermions of spin down. Therefore, the Grand Canonical Potential can be found from Eqs. (11) and (44) as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=4\beta J^2R^2+2\beta J^2R_z2\beta J^2Q_z+\frac{g}{4}|\eta |^2\frac{1}{\beta }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dw\mathrm{ln}(I_\beta )$$
(46)
where

$$I_\beta =_0^+\mathrm{}uDu_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dv\left[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \mu ^{})+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|)\right]$$
(47)
and

$$\beta \mu ^{}=\sqrt{\beta \mu ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(48)
with $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ already defined in Eq. (29).

For $`S_\beta =\mathrm{sinh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|)/(2\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|)`$ and $`\theta =h_z/J`$, the functions $`R`$, $`Q_z`$, $`R_z`$ and $`|\eta |`$ (from now on we write $`\eta `$ instead of $`|\eta |`$) can be determined from the saddle point equations that follow from Eq. (46):

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw{\displaystyle \frac{_0^+\mathrm{}u^3Du_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}DvS_\beta }{I_\beta }}`$ (49)
$`R_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{(R_zQ_z)}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw{\displaystyle \frac{_0^+\mathrm{}uDu_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}vDvS_\beta \theta }{I_\beta }}`$ (50)
$`Q_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2J^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_0^+\mathrm{}uDu_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}DvS_\beta \theta }{I_\beta }}\right]^2`$ (51)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mu ^{})}{I_\beta }}.`$ (52)
We have solved numerically the set of Eqs. (49), (50), (51) and (52) for the situation where there is one fermion per site (in average) which corresponds to $`\mu =0`$ due to the particle-hole transformation.

The validity range in temperature for this theory is the region where $`T>T_f`$ implying that it is necessary to locate the $`T_f`$ in this problem. This can be done by expanding the Grand Canonical Potential given in Eq. (17) in powers of $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^{tt}`$ up to second order. The four spin correlation function that appears in the coefficient of the quadratic term can be related to the parameter $`R`$ in the static approximation, where the averages are computed with an action where the auxiliary fields are given by Eq. (25) and $`Q=0`$. Thus the temperature $`T_f`$ can be obtained from the condition that the coefficient of the quadratic term vanishes, so we get

$$1=4\beta _fJR$$
(53)
along the set of Eqs. (49)–(52).

## III Phase Diagram and Tricritical Point

The numerical solution of the equations (49)–(52) has allowed us to locate the transition temperature between the NP phase ($`\eta =0`$) and the PAIR phase ($`\eta 0`$) as a function of the pairing interaction strength $`g`$ and the magnetic field $`H_z`$ (see Fig. (1)). The nature of the transition line has a complex dependence on both quantities.

For instance, if $`H_z`$=0, for high $`T`$ and small $`g`$ there is no long range order $`\eta =0`$ ($`Q`$ is always zero) that corresponds to the NP phase. On the other hand, for high $`T`$ and high $`g`$ the parameter $`\eta `$ is nonzero. In this situation there is pair formation on the sites which corresponds to the PAIR phase. The transition between NP and PAIR phases is a second order type, which means that the order parameter $`\eta `$ goes continuously to zero as $`g`$ decreases. That is shown in Fig. (2). However, if $`g`$ is decreased bellow a particular value $`g=g_{tc}`$ (which corresponds to the temperature $`T=T_{tc}`$), the order parameter starts to display a discontinuous behavior indicating that the nature of the transition line has changed to a first order one. In the absence of the magnetic field the behavior of the other parameters are $`R`$=$`R_z`$ and $`Q_z=0`$.

If the magnetic field is turned on, the transition NP-PAIR only exists for larger values of the pairing strength $`g`$ and the field tends to destroy the PAIR phase (Fig. (1)). The tricritical point ($`g_{tc}`$, $`T_{tc}`$) is moved up and, as a consequence, the first order transition line exists over a larger interval of the pairing strength $`g`$.

The ($`g_{tc}`$, $`T_{tc}`$) point has been confirmed as a tricritical point by the expansion of the Gran Canonical Potential in powers of the order parameter $`\eta `$ which defines the symmetry of the pairing phase:

$$\beta \mathrm{\Omega }=\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_0+A_1\eta ^2+A_2\eta ^4$$
(54)
where

$$A_1=\frac{\beta ^2g^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dw\frac{1}{_0^+\mathrm{}ue^{\frac{u^2}{2}}du_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dv[1+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|]}1$$
(55)
$$A_2=\frac{\beta ^4g^4}{64}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dw\frac{1\frac{1}{3}_0^+\mathrm{}ue^{\frac{u^2}{2}}du_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dv[1+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|]}{\{_0^+\mathrm{}ue^{\frac{u^2}{2}}du_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}Dv[1+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|]\}^2}.$$
(56)
The condition $`A_1=0=A_2`$ (together with the equations for $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$) gives the precise location of the tricritical point according to the known criteria. This location is shown in Fig. (1). Tricritical points have been already found in fermionic spin glasses for an Ising model with a pairing interaction in the half filling situation as well for an Ising model with charge fluctuation.

The behavior of the parameters $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$ also changes in the presence of the magnetic field. Fig. (2) shows the results for $`H_z=0.00`$ where $`Q_z=0`$ and $`R=R_z`$. Figs. (3), (4) and (5) show the results, respectively, for $`H_z/J/(8)^{1/2}`$ = 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 where one can see that the parameter $`Q_z`$ is no longer null while $`RR_z`$.

## IV Conclusions

In this work we have investigated how the mechanism responsible for the BCS pairing formation in real space (PAIR phase) can be affected for a spin glass diagonal replica symmetric order parameter through a long ranged Heinsenberg model with a pairing interaction in presence of magnetic field in $`z`$ direction. This model could be treated at mean field level within the static approximation and the replica symmetry ansatz, always with no transversal (to the field) spin glass ordering in order to remain in a region where the static approximation and replica symmetry are reliable. So, the initial problem has been reduced to one site problem with two different effective fields applied on, which are $`\eta `$ ($`\eta ^{}`$) and $`\stackrel{}{h}`$. The former is a long range internal field related to a symmetry breaking which produces a pairing long range order and appears in the problem combined with the chemical potential to give an effective chemical potential. For the half filling case, just the pairing field survives. The later is a random gaussian field related to $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$ as defined in Sec. II. As we can see in Eqs. (49)–(52), the effective fields have to be solved coupled. That would be the mechanism through which the magnetic part of the problem always affects the PAIR phase, even above of the spin glass transition.

By solving numerically the Eqs. (49)–(52), it has been possible to construct the phase diagram for several values of $`H_z`$ (Fig. (1)). For high temperatures, it has been found a crossover from a continuous pair breaking symmetry to a sharp one where the PAIR order parameter $`\eta `$ displays a discontinuous behavior as shown in Figs. (25). The presence of the field $`H_z`$ creates an anisotropy which can be seen clearly in the behavior of the $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$, shown in Figs. (3)–(5). Therefore, the region in the phase diagram where there is a first order transition becomes larger. This behavior could be verified by positioning the tricritical point using the Eqs. (55) and (56).

We remark that the our fermionic spin representation constitutes an important difference from Ref. . The consequences of different representations for the spins are clear if one compares our equations for the order parameters with those obtained in Ref. . We also point out that the transition line between SG–PAIR is not attainable from the theory used in this work.

Lastly, we have worked within the scope of the static approximation. The dynamic is absent in this formulation and certainly it is responsible for important effects at very low temperatures. Nevertheless, the static approximation is an upper bound of the theory from where the dynamic should be properly included. That would be subject for future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Prof. Alba Theumann for relevant comments. The numerical calculations were partially performed at LANA, Departamento de Matemática, CCNE, UFSM. This work was partially supported by FAPERGS (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul).