format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We report on a recent investigation in which $`F(4)`$ supergravity , the gauge theory of the exceptional six-dimensional Anti-de Sitter superalgebra , is coupled to an arbitrary number of vector multiplets whose scalar components parametrize the quaternionic manifold $`SO(4,n)/SO(4)\times SO(n)`$. By gauging the compact subgroup $`SU(2)_d𝒢`$, where $`SU(2)_d`$ is the diagonal subgroup of $`SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ (the$`R`$-symmetry group of six-dimensional Poincaré supergravity) and $`𝒢`$ is a compact group such that $`dim𝒢=n`$, we obtain the scalar potential which, besides the gauge coupling constants, also depends in non trivial way on the parameter $`m`$ associated to a massive 2-form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ of the gravitational multiplet. The potential admits an $`AdS`$ background for $`g=3m`$, as the pure $`F(4)`$-supergravity. We compute the scalar squared masses (which are all negative)which are found to match the results dictated by $`AdS_6/CFT_5`$ correspondence from the conformal dimensions of boundary operators. The boundary $`F(4)`$ superconformal fields are realized in terms of a singleton superfield (hypermultiplet) in harmonic superspace with flag manifold $`SU(2)/U(1)=S^2`$. Finally we analyze the spectrum of short representations in terms of superconformal primaries and predict general features of the K-K spectrum of massive type IIA supergravity compactified on warped $`AdS_6S^4`$.

## 2 A geometrical setting

In this section we set up a suitable framework for the discussion of the matter coupled $`F(4)`$ supergravity theory and its gauging. This will allow us to set up the formalism for the matter coupling in the next section. Actually we will just give the essential definitions of the Bianchi identities approach in superspace , while all the relevant results, specifically the supersymmetry transformation laws of the fields, will be given in the ordinary space-time formalism.

First of all it is useful to discuss the main results of ref.  by a careful study in superspace of the Poincaré and AdS supersymmetric vacua. Let us recall the content of $`D=6`$, $`N=(1,1)`$ supergravity multiplet:

$$(V_\mu ^a,A_\mu ^\alpha ,B_{\mu \nu },\psi _\mu ^A,\psi _\mu ^{\dot{A}},\chi ^A,\chi ^{\dot{A}},e^\sigma )$$
(2.1)
where $`V_\mu ^a`$ is the six dimensional vielbein, $`\psi _\mu ^A,\psi _\mu ^{\dot{A}}`$ are left-handed and right-handed four- component gravitino fields respectively, $`A`$ and $`\dot{A}`$ transforming under the two factors of the $`R`$-symmetry group $`O(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is a 2-form, $`A_\mu ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$), are vector fields, $`\chi ^A,\chi ^{\dot{A}}`$ are left-handed and right-handed spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ four components dilatinos, and $`e^\sigma `$ denotes the dilaton.
Our notations are as follows: $`a,b,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,4,5`$ are Lorentz flat indices in $`D=6`$ $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,4,5`$ are the corresponding world indices, $`A,\dot{A}=1,2`$. Moreover our metric is $`(+,,,,,)`$.
We recall that the description of the spinors of the multiplet in terms of left-handed and right-handed projection holds only in a Poincaré background, while in an AdS background the chiral projection cannot be defined and we are bounded to use 8-dimensional pseudo-Majorana spinors. In this case the $`R`$-symmetry group reduces to the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, the $`R`$-symmetry group of the chiral spinors. For our purposes, it is convenient to use from the very beginning 8-dimensional pseudo-Majorana spinors even in a Poincaré framework, since we are going to discuss in a unique setting both Poincaré and $`AdS`$ vacua.
The pseudo-Majorana condition on the gravitino 1-forms is as follows:

$$(\psi _A)^{}\gamma ^0=\overline{(\psi _A)}=ϵ^{AB}\psi _B^t$$
(2.2)
where we have chosen the charge conjugation matrix in six dimensions as the identity matrix (an analogous definition six dimensions as the identity matrix (an analogous definition holds for the dilatino fields). We use eight dimensional antisymmetric gamma matrices, with $`\gamma ^7=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4\gamma ^5`$, which implies $`\gamma _7^T=\gamma _7`$ and $`(\gamma _7)^2=1`$. The indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}=1,2,`$ of the spinor fields $`\psi _A,\chi _A`$ transform in the fundamental of the diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)`$ of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$. For a generic $`SU(2)`$ tensor $`T`$, raising and lowering of indices are defined by

$`T^\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}=ϵ^{AB}T_B^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ (2.3)
$`T_\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}=T_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^Bϵ_{BA}`$ (2.4)
To study the supersymmetric vacua let us write down the Maurer-Cartan Equations (M.C.E.) dual to the $`F(4)`$ Superalgebra (anti)commutators:

$`𝒟V^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _a\psi ^A=0`$ (2.5)
$`^{ab}+4m^2V^aV^b+m\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _{ab}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.6)
$`dA^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B\sigma ^{rAB}=0`$ (2.7)
$`D\psi _Aim\gamma _a\psi _AV^a=0`$ (2.8)
Here $`V^a,\omega ^{ab},\psi _A,A^r,(r=1,2,3)`$, are superfield 1-forms dual to the $`F(4)`$ supergenerators which at $`\theta =0`$ have as $`dx^\mu `$ components

$$V_\mu ^a=\delta _\mu ^a,\psi _{A\mu }=A_\mu ^r=0,\omega _\mu ^{ab}=puregauge.$$
(2.9)
Furthermore $`^{ab}d\omega ^{ab}\omega ^{ac}\omega _c^b`$, $`𝒟`$ is the Lorentz covariant derivative, $`D`$ is the $`SO(1,5)SU(2)`$ covariant derivative, which on spinors acts as follows:

$$D\psi _Ad\psi _A\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{ab}\omega ^{ab}\psi _A\frac{i}{2}\sigma _{AB}^rA_r\psi ^B$$
(2.10)
Note that $`\sigma ^{rAB}=ϵ^{BC}\sigma _C^{rA}`$, where $`\sigma _B^{rA}`$ ($`r=1,2,3`$) denote the usual Pauli matrices, are symmetric in $`A,B`$.
Let us point out that the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra, despite the presence of two different physical parameters, the $`SU(2)`$ gauge coupling constant $`g`$ and the inverse $`AdS`$ radius $`m`$, really depends on just one parameter since the closure under $`d`$-differentiation of eq. (2.8) (equivalent to the implementation of Jacobi identities on the generators), implies $`g=3m`$; to recover this result one has to use the following Fierz identity involving 3-$`\psi _A`$’s 1-forms:

$$\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{ab}\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^{ab}\psi _Cϵ^{AC}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _a\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^a\psi _Cϵ^{AC}+3\psi _C\overline{\psi }_B\psi _Aϵ^{BC}=0$$
(2.11)
The $`F(4)`$ superalgebra described by equations (2.5) -(2.8) fails to describe the physical vacuum because of the absence of the superfields 2-form $`B`$ and 1-form $`A^0`$ whose space-time restriction coincides with the physical fields $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_\mu ^0`$ appearing in the supergravity multiplet. The recipe to have all the fields in a single algebra is well known and consists in considering the Free Differential Algebra (F.D.A.) obtained from the $`F(4)`$ M.C.E.’s by adding two more equations for the 2-form $`B`$ and for the 1-form $`A^0`$ (the 0-form fields $`\chi _A`$ and $`\sigma `$ do not appear in the algebra since they are set equal to zero in the vacuum). It turns out that to have a consistent F.D.A. involving $`B`$ and $`A^0`$ one has to add to the $`F(4)`$ M.C.E.’s two more equations involving $`dA^0`$ and $`dB`$; in this way one obtains an extension of the M.C.E’s to the following F.D.A:

$`𝒟V^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _a\psi ^A=0`$ (2.12)
$`^{ab}+4m^2V^aV^b+m\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _{ab}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.13)
$`dA^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B\sigma ^{rAB}=0`$ (2.14)
$`dA^0mBi\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\psi ^A=0`$ (2.15)
$`dB+2\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a=0`$ (2.16)
$`D\psi _Aim\gamma _a\psi _AV^a=0`$ (2.17)
Equations (2.15) and (2.16) were obtained by imposing that they satisfy the $`d`$-closure together with equations (2.12). Actually the closure of (2.16) relies on the 4-$`\psi _A`$’s Fierz identity

$$\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _a\psi _Bϵ^{AB}\overline{\psi }_C\gamma ^a\psi _Dϵ^{CD}=0$$
(2.18)
The interesting feature of the F.D.A (2.12)-(2.17) is the appearance of the combination $`dA^0mB`$ in (2.15). That means that the dynamical theory obtained by gauging the F.D.A. out of the vacuum will contain the fields $`A_\mu ^0`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ always in the single combination $`_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}^0mB_{\mu \nu }`$. At the dynamical level this implies, as noted by Romans , an Higgs phenomenon where the 2-form $`B`$ ”eats” the 1-form $`A^0`$ and acquires a non vanishing mass $`m`$ 222An analogous phenomenon takes place also in $`D=5`$; see..
In summary, we have shown that two of the main results of , namely the existence of an $`AdS`$ supersymmetric background only for $`g=3m`$ and the Higgs-type mechanism by which the field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes massive acquiring longitudinal degrees of freedom in terms of the the vector $`A_\mu ^0`$, are a simple consequence of the algebraic structure of the F.D.A. associated to the $`F(4)`$ supergroup written in terms of the vacuum-superfields.
It is interesting to see what happens if one or both the parameters $`g`$ and $`m`$ are zero. Setting $`m=g=0`$, one reduces the $`F(4)`$ Superalgebra to the $`D=6N=(1,1)`$ superalgebra existing only in a Super Poincaré background; in this case the four- vector $`A^\alpha (A^0,A^r)`$ transforms in the fundamental of the $`R`$-symmetry group $`SO(4)`$ while the pseudo-Majorana spinors $`\psi _A,\chi _A`$ can be decomposed in two chiral spinors in such a way that all the resulting F.D.A. is invariant under $`SO(4)`$.
Furthermore it is easy to see that no F.D.A exists if either $`m=0`$ , $`g0`$ or $`m0`$, $`g=0`$, since the corresponding equations in the F.D.A. do not close anymore under $`d`$\- differentiation. In other words the gauging of $`SU(2)`$, $`g0`$ must be necessarily accompanied by the presence of the parameter $`m`$ which, as we have seen, makes the closure of the supersymmetric algebra consistent for $`g=3m`$.

In $`D=6,N=4`$ Supergravity, the only kind of matter is given by vector multiplets, namely

$$(A_\mu ,\lambda _A,\varphi ^\alpha )^I$$
(2.19)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ and the index $`I`$ labels an arbitrary number $`n`$ of such multiplets. As it is well known the $`4n`$ scalars parametrize the coset manifold $`SO(4,n)/SO(4)\times SO(n)`$. Taking into account that the pure supergravity has a non compact duality group $`O(1,1)`$ parametrized by $`e^\sigma `$, the duality group of the matter coupled theory is

$$G/H=\frac{SO(4,n)}{SO(4)\times SO(n)}\times O(1,1)$$
(2.20)
To perform the matter coupling we follow the geometrical procedure of introducing the coset representative $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the matter coset manifold, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},3+n`$; decomposing the $`O(4,n)`$ indices with respect to $`H=SO(4)\times O(n)`$ we have:

$$L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda },L_I^\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(2.21)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$, $`I=4,\mathrm{},3+n`$. Furthermore, since we are going to gauge the $`SU(2)`$ diagonal subgroup of $`O(4)`$ as in pure Supergravity, we will also decompose $`L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(L_{0}^\mathrm{\Lambda },L_r^\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(2.22)
The $`4+n`$ gravitational and matter vectors will now transform in the fundamental of $`SO(4,n)`$ so that the superspace vector curvatures will be now labeled by the index $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$: $`F^\mathrm{\Lambda }(F^0,F^r,F^I)`$. Furthermore the covariant derivatives acting on the spinor fields will now contain also the composite connections of the $`SO(4,n)`$ duality group. Let us introduce the left-invariant 1-form of $`SO(4,n)`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(L_\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Lambda })^1dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(2.23)
satisfying the Maurer-Cartan equation

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Pi }=0$$
(2.24)
By appropriate decomposition of the indices, we find:

$`R_s^r=P_I^rP_s^I`$ (2.25)
$`R_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^r=P_I^rP_{0}^I`$ (2.26)
$`R_J^I=P_r^IP_J^rP_{0}^IP_J^0`$ (2.27)
$`P_r^I=0`$ (2.28)
$`P_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^I=0`$ (2.29)
where

$`R^{rs}d\mathrm{\Omega }_s^r+\mathrm{\Omega }_t^r\mathrm{\Omega }_s^t+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0}^r\mathrm{\Omega }_s^0`$ (2.30)
$`R^{r0}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{0}^r+\mathrm{\Omega }_t^r\mathrm{\Omega }_{0}^t`$ (2.31)
$`R^{IJ}d\mathrm{\Omega }_J^I+\mathrm{\Omega }_K^I\mathrm{\Omega }_J^K`$ (2.32)
and we have set

$$P_\alpha ^I=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^I\mathrm{\Omega }_{0}^I& \\ \hfill P_r^I\mathrm{\Omega }_r^I& \end{array}$$

Note that $`P_0^I`$, $`P_r^I`$ are the vielbeins of the coset, while $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{rs},\mathrm{\Omega }^{r0})`$, $`(R^{rs},R^{ro})`$ are respectively the connections and the curvatures of $`SO(4)`$ decomposed with respect to the diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)SO(4)`$.
In terms of the previous definitions, the ungauged superspace curvatures of the matter coupled theory, (with $`m=0`$) are now given by:

$`T^A`$ $`=𝒟V^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a=0`$ (2.33)
$`R^{ab}`$ $`=^{ab}`$ (2.34)
$`H`$ $`=dB+2e^{2\sigma }\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a`$ (2.35)
$`F^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=^\mathrm{\Lambda }ie^\sigma L_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{AB}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\psi _Bie^\sigma L_r^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^{rAB}\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B`$ (2.36)
$`\rho _A`$ $`=𝒟\psi _A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _{rAB}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{rst}\mathrm{\Omega }_{st}i\gamma _7\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0})\psi ^B`$ (2.37)
$`D\chi _A`$ $`=𝒟\chi _A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _{rAB}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{rst}\mathrm{\Omega }_{st}i\gamma _7\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0})\chi ^B`$ (2.38)
$`R(\sigma )`$ $`=d\sigma `$ (2.39)
$`\lambda _{IA}`$ $`=𝒟\lambda _{IA}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _{rAB}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{rst}\mathrm{\Omega }_{st}i\gamma _7\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0})\lambda _I^B`$ (2.40)
$`R_0^I(\varphi )`$ $`P_0^I`$ (2.41)
$`R_r^I(\varphi )`$ $`P_r^I`$ (2.42)
where the last two equations define the ”curvatures” of the matter scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$ as the vielbein of the coset:

$$P_0^IP_{0i}^Id\varphi ^iP_r^IP_{ri}^Id\varphi ^i$$
(2.43)
where $`i`$ runs over the $`4n`$ values of the coset vielbein world-components.

As in the pure supergravity case one can now write down the superspace Bianchi identities for the matter coupled curvatures. The computation is rather long but straightforward. We limit ourselves to give the new transformation laws of all the physical fields when matter is present, as derived from the solutions of the Bianchi identities.

$`\delta V_\mu ^a`$ $`=i\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^a\epsilon ^A`$ (2.44)
$`\delta B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=2e^{2\sigma }\overline{\chi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^A4e^{2\sigma }\overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}^A`$ (2.47)
$`\delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=2e^\sigma \overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _7\gamma _\mu \chi ^BL_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ_{AB}+2e^\sigma \overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _\mu \chi ^BL^{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}\sigma _{rAB}e^\sigma L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }I}\overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _\mu \lambda ^{IB}ϵ_{AB}+`$
$`+2ie^\sigma L_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma ^7\psi _Bϵ^{AB}+2ie^\sigma L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}\sigma _r^{AB}\overline{\epsilon }_A\psi _B`$
$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }`$ $`=𝒟_\mu \epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}e^\sigma [T_{[AB]\nu \lambda }\gamma _7T_{(AB)\nu \lambda }](\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda }6\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^\lambda )\epsilon ^B+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _7(\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda \rho }3\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^{\lambda \rho })\epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\psi _{C\mu }+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _7\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\psi _{C\mu }\gamma _\nu \epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^\nu \psi _{C\mu }+\gamma _7\gamma _\nu \epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\gamma ^\nu \psi _{C\mu }+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{\nu \lambda }\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^{\nu \lambda }\psi _{C\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _7\gamma _{\nu \lambda }\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\gamma ^{\nu \lambda }\psi _{C\mu }`$
$`\delta \chi _A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \sigma \epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^\sigma [T_{[AB]\mu \nu }\gamma _7+T_{(AB)\mu \nu }]\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\gamma _7\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\epsilon _A`$ (2.48)
$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=\overline{\chi }_A\epsilon ^A`$ (2.49)
$`\delta \lambda ^{IA}`$ $`=iP_{ri}^I\sigma ^{rAB}_\mu \varphi ^i\gamma ^\mu \epsilon _B+iP_{0i}^Iϵ^{AB}_\mu \varphi ^i\gamma ^7\gamma ^\mu \epsilon _B+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^\sigma T_{\mu \nu }^I\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^A`$ (2.50)
$`P_{0i}^I\delta \varphi ^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\gamma _7\epsilon ^A`$ (2.51)
$`P_{ri}^I\delta \varphi ^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\epsilon _B\sigma _r^{ab}`$ (2.52)
where we have introduced the ”dressed” vector field strengths

$`T_{[AB]\mu \nu }ϵ_{AB}L_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (2.53)
$`T_{(AB)\mu \nu }\sigma _{AB}^rL_{r\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (2.54)
$`T_{I\mu \nu }L_{I\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (2.55)
and we have omitted in the transformation laws of the fermions the three-fermions terms of the form $`(\chi \chi \epsilon )`$, $`(\lambda \lambda \epsilon )`$.

## 3 The gauging

The next problem we have to cope with is the gauging of the matter coupled theory and the determination of the scalar potential.
Let us first consider the ordinary gauging, with $`m=0`$, which, as usual, will imply the presence of new terms proportional to the coupling constants in the supersymmetry transformation laws of the fermion fields.
Our aim is to gauge a compact subgroup of $`O(4,n)`$. Since in any case we may gauge only the diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)O(4)H`$, the maximal gauging is given by $`SU(2)𝒢`$ where $`𝒢`$ is a $`n`$-dimensional subgroup of $`O(n)`$. According to a well known procedure, we modify the definition of the left invariant 1-form $`L^1dL`$ by replacing the ordinary differential with the $`SU(2)𝒢`$ covariant differential as follows:

$$L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }A^\mathrm{\Gamma }L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(3.1)
where $`f_{\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the structure constants of $`SU(2)_d𝒢`$. More explicitly, denoting with $`ϵ^{rst}`$ and $`𝒞^{IJK}`$ the structure constants of the two factors $`SU(2)`$ and $`𝒢`$, equation (3.1) splits as follows:

$`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^0=dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (3.2)
$`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^r=dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^rgϵ_{ts}^rA^tL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^s`$ (3.3)
$`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^I=dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^Ig^{}𝒞_{KJ}^IA^KL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^J`$ (3.4)
Setting $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=L^1L`$, one easily obtains the gauged Maurer-Cartan equations:

$$d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Pi }=(L^1L)_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(3.5)
where $`^\mathrm{\Lambda }T_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the generators of $`SU(2)𝒢`$.
After gauging, the same decomposition as in eqs. (2.25) -(2.29) now gives:

$`R_s^r=P_I^rP_s^I+(L^1L)_s^r`$ (3.6)
$`R_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^r=P_I^rP_{0}^I+(L^1L)_{0}^r`$ (3.7)
$`R_J^I=P_r^IP_J^rP_{0}^IP_J^0+(L^1L)_J^I`$ (3.8)
$`P_r^I=(L^1L)_r^I`$ (3.9)
$`P_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^I=(L^1L)_{0}^I`$ (3.10)
Because of the presence of the gauged terms in the coset curvatures, the new Bianchi Identities are not satisfied by the old superspace curvatures but we need extra terms in the fermion field strengths parametrizations, that is, in space-time language, extra terms in the transformation laws of the fermion fields of eqs. (2.47), (2.48), (2.50), named “fermionic shifts”.

$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }=\delta \psi _{A\mu }^{(old)}+S_{AB}(g,g^{})\gamma _\mu \epsilon ^B`$ (3.11)
$`\delta \chi _A=\delta \chi _A^{(old)}+N_{AB}(g,g^{})\epsilon ^B`$ (3.12)
$`\delta \lambda _A^I=\delta \lambda _A^{I(old)}+M_{AB}^I(g,g^{})\epsilon ^B`$ (3.13)
Again, working out the Bianchi identities, one fixes the explicit form of the fermionic shifts which turn out to be

$`S_{AB}^{(g,g^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}Ae^\sigma ϵ_{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}B_t\gamma ^7\sigma _{AB}^t`$ (3.14)
$`N_{AB}^{(g,g^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}Ae^\sigma ϵ_{AB}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}B_t\gamma ^7\sigma _{AB}^t`$ (3.15)
$`M_{AB}^{I(g,g^{})}=(C_t^I+2i\gamma ^7D_t^I)\sigma _{AB}^t`$ (3.16)
where

$`A=ϵ^{rst}K_{rst}`$ (3.17)
$`B^i=ϵ^{ijk}K_{jk0}`$ (3.18)
$`C_I^t=ϵ^{trs}K_{rIs}`$ (3.19)
$`D_{It}=K_{0It}`$ (3.20)
and the threefold completely antisymmetric tensors $`K^{}s`$ are the so called ”boosted structure constants” given explicitly by:

$`K_{rst}=gϵ_{lmn}L_r^l(L^1)_s^mL_t^n+g^{}𝒞_{IJK}L_r^I(L^1)_s^JL_t^K`$ (3.21)
$`K_{rs0}=gϵ_{lmn}L_r^l(L^1)_s^mL_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^n+g^{}𝒞_{IJK}L_r^I(L^1)_s^JL_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^K`$ (3.22)
$`K_{rIt}=gϵ_{lmn}L_r^l(L^1)_I^mL_t^n+g^{}𝒞_{LJK}L_r^L(L^1)_I^JL_t^K`$ (3.23)
$`K_{0It}=gϵ_{lmn}L_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^l(L^1)_I^mL_t^n+g^{}𝒞_{LJK}L_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^L(L^1)_I^JL_t^K`$ (3.24)
Actually one easily see that the fermionic shifts (3.14) (3.15) reduce to the pure supergravity $`g`$ dependent terms of equations (2.39) and (2.40) of reference . (Note that, since $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in absence of matter, the terms proportional to the Pauli $`\sigma `$ matrices are simply absent in such a limit.)
At this point one could compute the scalar potential of the matter coupled theory, in terms of the fermionic shifts just determined, using the well known Ward identity of the scalar potential which can be derived from the Lagrangian. Since we are going to perform this derivation once we will introduce also $`m`$ dependent terms in the fermionic shifts, we just quote, for the moment the expected result that the potential due only to $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ dependent shifts doesn’t admit a stable $`AdS`$ background configuration. We are thus, led as in the pure supergravity case, to determine suitable $`m`$ dependent terms that reduce to the $`m`$ terms of eqs. (2.56) and (2.57) of reference  in absence of matter multiplets (one can see that the simple-minded ansatz of keeping exactly the same form for the $`m`$ dependent terms as in the pure Supergravity case is not consistent with the gauged superspace Bianchi identities).
It turns out that a consistent solution for the relevant $`m`$ terms to be added to the fermionic shifts, implies the presence of the coset representatives; that is, the $`m`$-terms must also be ”dressed” with matter scalar fields as it happens for the $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ dependent terms. Explicitly, the Bianchi identities solution for the new fermionic shifts is:

$`S_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}[Ae^\sigma +6me^{3\sigma }(L^1)_{00})ϵ_{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}[B_te^\sigma 2me^{3\sigma }(L^1)_{i0}]\gamma ^7\sigma _{AB}^t`$ (3.25)
$`N_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}[Ae^\sigma 18me^{3\sigma }(L^1)_{00})]ϵ_{AB}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[B_te^\sigma +6me^{3\sigma }(L^1)_{i0}]\gamma ^7\sigma ^t_{AB}`$ (3.26)
$`M_{AB}^{I(g,g^{},m)}=(C_t^I+2i\gamma ^7D_t^I)e^\sigma \sigma _{AB}^t2me^{3\sigma }(L^1)_{0}^Iϵ_{AB}`$ (3.27)
## 4 The scalar potential

The simplest way to derive the scalar potential is to use the supersymmetry Ward identity which relates the scalar potential to the fermionic shifts in the transformation laws . In order to retrieve such identity it is necessary to have the relevant terms of the Lagrangian of the gauged theory. These terms are actually the kinetic ones and the ”mass” terms given in the following equation:

$`(detV)^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}e^{2\sigma }𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu \nu }+^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(P_\mu ^{I0}P_{I0}^\mu +P_\mu ^{Ir}P_{Ir}^\mu )+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }D_\nu \psi _\rho ^A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \lambda _I^A2i\overline{\chi }_A\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \chi ^A+2i\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\overline{S}_{AB}\psi _\nu ^B+`$
$`+4i\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^\mu \overline{N}_{AB}\chi ^B+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^\mu \overline{M}_{AB}^I\lambda _I^B+𝒲(\sigma \varphi ^i;g,g^{},m)+\mathrm{}`$ (4.1)
where

$$𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=L_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}L_{0\mathrm{\Sigma }}^1+L_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iL_{i\mathrm{\Sigma }}^1L_\mathrm{\Lambda }^IL_{I\mathrm{\Sigma }}^1$$
(4.2)
is the vector kinetic matrix, $`\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }m\delta _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`𝒲`$ is minus the scalar potential.
In equation (4) there appear “barred mass-matrices” $`\overline{S}_{AB},\overline{N}_{AB},\overline{M}_{AB}^I`$ which are slightly different from the fermionic shifts defined in eqs. (3.25), (3.26), (3.27). Actually they are defined by:

$$\overline{S}_{AB}=S_{BA},\overline{N}_{AB}=N_{BA},\overline{M}_{AB}^I=M_{BA}^I$$
(4.3)
Definitions (4.3) stem from the fact that the shifts defined in eqs. (3.25), (3.26), (3.27) are matrices in the eight-dimensional spinor space, since they contain the $`\gamma _7`$ matrix; as will be seen in a moment, such definition is actually necessary in order to satisfy the supersymmetry Ward identity.
Indeed, let us perform the supersymmetry variation of (4), keeping only the terms proportional to $`g`$, $`g^{}`$ or $`m`$, and to the current $`\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^\mu ϵ^A`$; we find the following Ward identity, :

$$\delta _A^C𝒲=20\overline{S}^{AB}S_{BC}+4\overline{N}^{AB}N_{BC}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{M}_I^{AB}M_{BC}^I$$
(4.4)
However we note that, performing the supersymmetry variation, the gauge terms also give rise to extra terms proportional to the current $`\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^7\gamma ^\mu ϵ^A`$, which have no counterpart in the term containing the potential $`𝒲`$. Because of the definition of the barred mass matrices in eq. (4.3) it is easily seen that such ”$`\gamma ^7`$-terms”, arising from $`\overline{S}^{AB}S_{BC}`$ and $`\overline{N}^{AB}N_{BC}`$ cancel against each other.
As far as the term $`\overline{M}_I^{AB}M_{BC}^I`$ is concerned, the same mechanism of cancellation again applies to the terms proportional to $`\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma _7\gamma ^\mu ϵ^A\sigma _C^{rA}`$; there is, however, a residual dangerous term of the form

$$\delta _C^A\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^7D_s^IC_I^sϵ^C$$
(4.5)
One can show that this term vanishes identically owing to the non trivial relation

$$D_t^IC_I^t=0$$
(4.6)
Equation (4.6) can be shown to hold using the pseudo-orthogonality relation $`L^T\eta L=\eta `$ among the coset representatives and the Jacobi identities $`C_{I[JK}C_{L]MN}=0`$, $`ϵ_{r[st}ϵ_{l]mn}=0`$. This is a non trivial check of our computation.
It now follows that the Ward identity eq. (4.4) is indeed satisfied since all the terms on the r.h.s., once the ”$`\gamma ^7`$-terms” have been cancelled, are proportional to $`\delta _A^C`$.
Using the expressions (3.25), (3.26), (3.27), (4.3) in equation (4.4), we obtain the explicit form of the scalar potential

$`𝒲(\varphi )=`$ $`5\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(Ae^\sigma +6me^{3\sigma }L_{00})]^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e^\sigma B_i2me^{3\sigma }L_{0i})]^2\}+`$ (4.7)
$`\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(Ae^\sigma 18me^{3\sigma }L_{00})]^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e^\sigma B_i+6me^{3\sigma }L_{0i})]^2\}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{C_t^IC_{It}+4D_t^ID_{It}\}e^{2\sigma }m^2e^{6\sigma }L_{0I}L^{0I}`$
Expanding the squares in equation (4.7)the potential $`𝒲`$can be alternatively written as follows:

$`𝒲=e^{2\sigma }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^iB_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_t^IC_{It}+4D_t^ID_{It})]m^2e^{6\sigma }𝒩_{00}+`$
$`+me^{2\sigma }[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}AL_{00}2B^iL_{0i}]`$ (4.8)
where $`𝒩_{00}`$ is the 00 component of the vector kinetic matrix defined in eq. (4.2).
We now show that, apart from other possible extrema not considered here, a stable supersymmetric extremum of the potential $`𝒲`$ is found to be the same as in the case of pure supergravity, that is we get an $`AdS`$ supersymmetric background only for $`g=3m`$. .
A further issue related to the scalar potential, which is an important check of all our calculation, is the possibility of computing the masses of the scalar fields by varying the linearized kinetic terms and the potential of (4), after power expansion of $`𝒲`$ up to the second order in the scalar fields $`q_\alpha ^I`$. We find:

$`({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒲}{\sigma ^2}})_{\sigma =q=0,g=3m}=48m^2`$ (4.9)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒲}{q^{I0}q^{J0}}})_{\sigma =q=0,g=3m}=8m^2\delta ^{IJ}`$ (4.10)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒲}{q^{Ir}q^{Js}}})_{\sigma =q=0,g=3m}=24m^2\delta ^{IJ}\delta ^{rs}`$ (4.11)
The linearized equations of motion become:

$`\mathrm{}\sigma 24m^2\sigma =0`$ (4.12)
$`\mathrm{}q^{I0}16m^2q^{I0}=0`$ (4.13)
$`\mathrm{}q^{Ir}24m^2q^{Ir}=0`$ (4.14)
If we use as mass unity the inverse $`AdS`$ radius, which in our conventions is $`R_{AdS}^2=4m^2`$ we get:

$`m_\sigma ^2=6`$
$`m_{q^{I0}}^2=4`$
$`m_{q^{Ir}}^2=6`$ (4.15)
These values should be compared with the results obtained in reference  where the supergravity and matter multiplets of the $`AdS_6F(4)`$ theory were constructed in terms of the singleton fields of the 5-dimensional conformal field theory, the singleton being given by hypermultiplets transforming in the fundamental of $`𝒢E_7`$. It is amusing to see that the values of the masses of the scalars computed in terms of the conformal dimensions are exactly the same as those given in equation (4.15).
This coincidence can be considered as a non trivial check of the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence in six versus five dimensions.
To make contact with what follows we observe that the scalar squares masses in $`AdS_{d+1}`$ are given by the $`SO(2,d)`$ quadratic Casimir

$$m^2=E_0(E_0d)$$
(4.16)
They are negative in the interval $`\frac{d2}{2}E_0<d`$ (the lower bound corresponding to the unitarity bound i.e. the singleton) and attain the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound  when $`E_0=dE_0`$ i.e. at $`E_0=\frac{d}{2}`$ for which $`m^2=\frac{d^2}{4}`$. Conformal propagation correspond to $`m^2=\frac{d^21}{4}`$ i.e. $`E_0=\frac{d\pm 1}{2}`$. This is the case of the dilaton and triplet matter scalars.

## 5 $`F(4)𝒢`$ Superconformal Field Theory

Here we describe the basics of the $`F(4)`$ highest weight unitary irreducible representations “UIR’s” and exhibit two towers of short representations which are relevant for a K-K analysis of type IIA theory on (warped) $`AdS_6S^4`$ ,.
We will not consider here the $`𝒢`$ representation properties but we will only concentrate on the supersymmetric structure.
Recalling that the even part of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra is $`SO(2,5)SU(2)`$, from a general result on Harish-Chandra modules ,, ,  of $`SO(2,2n+1)`$ we know that there are only a spin 0 and a spin 1/2 singleton unitary irreducible representations , which, therefore, merge into a unique supersingleton representation of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra: the hypermultiplet .
To describe shortening is useful to use a harmonic superfield language .
The harmonic space is in this case the 2-sphere333The sphere is the simplest example of “flag manifold” whose geometric structure underlies the construction of harmonic superspaces  $`SU(2)/U(1)`$, as in $`N=2,d=4`$ and $`N=1,d=6`$. A highest weight UIR of $`SO(2,5)`$ is determined by $`E_0`$ and a UIR of $`SO(5)Usp(4)`$, with Dynkin labels $`(a_1,a_2)`$ 444Note that the $`Usp(4)`$ Young labels $`h_1,h_2`$ are related to $`a_1,a_2`$ by $`a_1=2h_2;a_2=h_1h_2`$.. We will denote such representations by $`𝒟(E_0,a_1,a_2)`$. The two singletons correspond to $`E_0=3/2`$, $`a_1=a_2=0`$ and $`E_0=2`$, $`a_1=1`$, $`a_2=0`$.
In the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence $`(E_0,a_1,a_2)`$ become the conformal dimension and the Dynkin labels of $`SO(1,4)Usp(2,2)`$.
The highest weight UIR of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra will be denoted by $`𝒟(E_0,a_1,a_2;I)`$ where $`I`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ $`R`$-symmetry quantum number (integer or half integer).
We will show shortly that there are two (isolated) series of UIR’s which correspond respectively to $`1/2`$ BPS short multiplets (analytic superfields) and intermediate short superfields. The former have the property that they form a ring under multiplication, as the chiral fields in $`d=4`$ .
The first series is the massive tower of short vector multiplets whose lowest members is a massless vector multiplet in $`Adj𝒢`$ corresponding to the conserved currents of the $`𝒢`$ global symmetry of the five dimensional conformal field theory.
The other series is the tower of massive graviton multiplets, which exhibit ”intermediate shortening” and it is not of BPS type. Its lowest member is the supergravity multiplet which contains the $`SU(2)`$ $`R`$-symmetry current and the stress-tensor among the superfield components.

### 5.1 $`F(4)`$ superfields

The basic superfield is the supersingleton hypermultiplet $`W^A(x,\theta )`$, which satisfies the constraint

$$D_\alpha ^{(A}W^{B)}(x,\theta )=0$$
(5.1)
corresponding to the irrep. $`𝒟(E_0=\frac{3}{2},0,0;I=\frac{1}{2})`$ .
By using harmonic superspace, $`(x,\theta _I,u_i^I)`$, where $`\theta _I=\theta _iu_I^i`$, $`u_I^i`$ is the coset representative of $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ and $`I`$ is the charge $`U(1)`$-label, from the covariant derivative algebra

$$\{D_\alpha ^A,D_\beta ^{jB}\}=iϵ^{AB}_{\alpha \beta }$$
(5.2)
we have

$$\{D_\alpha ^I,D_\beta ^I\}=0D_\alpha ^I=D_\alpha ^iu_i^I$$
(5.3)
Therefore from eq. (5.1) it follows the $`G`$-analytic constraint:

$$D_\alpha ^1W^1=0$$
(5.4)
which implies

$$W^1(x,\theta )=\phi ^1+\theta _2^\alpha \zeta _\alpha +d.t.$$
(5.5)
(d.t. means “derivative terms”).
Note that $`W^1`$ also satisfies

$$D_\alpha ^2D^{2\alpha }W^1=0$$
(5.6)
because there is no such scalar component555This is rather similar to the treatment of the (1,0) hypermultiplet in $`D=6`$  in $`W^1`$.
$`W^1`$ is a Grassman analytic superfield, which is also harmonic (that is $`𝐃_2^1W^1=0`$ where, using notations of reference , $`𝐃_2^1`$ is the step-up operator of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra acting on harmonic superspace).
Since $`W^1`$ satifies $`D^1W^1=0`$, any $`p`$-order polynomial

$$I_p(W^1)=(W^1)^p$$
(5.7)
will also have the same property, so these operators form a ring under multiplication , they are the 1/2 BPS states of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra and represent massive vector multiplets $`(p>2)`$, and massless bulk gauge fields for $`p=2`$.
The above multiplets correspond to the $`D(E_0=3I,0,0;I=\frac{p}{2})`$ h.w. U.I.R.’s of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra.
Note also that if $`W^1`$ carries a pseudo-real representation of the flavor group $`𝒢`$ (e.g. 56 of $`𝒢=E_7`$) then $`W^1`$ satisfies a reality condition

$$(W^1)^{}=W^2$$
(5.8)
corresponding to the superfield constraint

$$(W^A)^\mathrm{\Lambda }=ϵ_{AB}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}W^{jB\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(5.9)
The $`SU(2)`$ quantum numbers of the $`W^{1p}`$ superfield components are:

$`(\theta )^0spin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}I={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}`$
$`(\theta )^1spin{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`(\theta )^2spin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}spin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 1}I={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}1`$
$`(\theta )^3spin{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$
$`(\theta )^4spin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}I={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}2`$
Note that the $`(\theta )^4`$ component is missing for $`p=2`$, $`p=3`$, while the $`(\theta )^3`$ component is missing for $`p=2`$. However the total number of states is $`8(p1)`$ both for boson and fermion fields ($`p2`$).
The AdS squared mass for scalars is

$$m_s^2=E_0(E_05)$$
(5.10)
so there are three families of scalar states with

$`m_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}p(3p10)p2`$
$`m_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3p+2)(3p8)p2`$
$`m_3^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3p+4)(3p6)p4`$
The only scalars states with $`m^2<0`$ are the scalar in the massless vector multiplet $`(p=2)`$ with $`m_1^2=6`$, $`m_2^2=4`$ (no states with $`m^2=0`$ exist) and in the $`p=3`$ multiplet with $`m^2=\frac{9}{4}`$.
We now consider the second ”short” tower containing the graviton supermultiplet and its recurrences.
The graviton multiplet is given by $`W^1\overline{W}^1`$. Note that such superfield is not $`G`$-analytic, but it satisfies

$$D_\alpha ^1D^{1\alpha }(W^1\overline{W}^1)=D_\alpha ^2D^{2\alpha }(W^1\overline{W}^1)=0$$
(5.11)
this multiplet is the $`F(4)`$ supergravity multiplet. Its lowest component, corresponding to the dilaton in $`AdS_6`$ supergravity multiplet, is a scalar with $`E_0=3`$ $`(m^2=6)`$ and $`I=0`$.
The tower is obtained as follows

$$G_{q+2}(W)=W^1\overline{W}^1(W^1)^q$$
(5.12)
where the massive graviton, described in eq.. (5.12) has $`E_0=5+\frac{3}{2}q`$ and $`I=\frac{q}{2}`$.
Note that the $`G_{q+2}`$ polynomial, although not $`G`$-analytic, satisfies the constraint

$$D_\alpha ^1D^{1\alpha }G_{q+2}(W)=0$$
(5.13)
so that it corresponds to a short representation with quantized dimensions and highest weight given by $`D(E_0=3+3I,0,0;I=\frac{q}{2})`$.
We call these multiplets, following , ”intermediate short” because, although they have some missing states, they are not BPS in the sense of supersymmetry. In fact they do not form a ring under multiplication.
It is worthwhile to mention that the towers given by (5.7), (5.12) correspond to the two isolated series of UIR’s of the $`F(4)`$ superalgebra argued to exist in .
There are also long spin 2 multiplets containing $`2^8`$ state where $`E_0`$ is not quantized and satisfies the bound $`E_06`$.
Finally let us make some comments on the role played by the flavour symmetry $`𝒢`$.
It is clear that, since the supersingleton $`W^1`$ is in a representation of $`𝒢`$ (other than the gauge group of the world-volume theory), the $`I_p`$ and $`G_{q+2}`$ polynomials will appear in the $`p`$-fold and $`(q+2)`$-fold tensor product representations of the $`𝒢`$ group. This representation is in general reducible, however the 1/2 BPS states must have a first component totally symmetric in the $`SU(2)`$ indices and, therefore, only certains $`𝒢`$ representations survive.
Moreover in the $`(W^1)^2`$ multiplet, corresponding to the massless $`𝒢`$\- gauge vector multiplets in $`AdS_6`$, we must pick up the adjoint representation $`Adj𝒢`$ and in $`W^1\overline{W}^1`$, corresponding to the graviton multiplet, we must pick up the $`𝒢`$ singlet representation.
However in principle there can be representations in the higher symmetric and antisymmetric products, and the conformal field theory should tell us which products remains, since the flavor symmetry depends on the specific dynamical model.

The states discussed in this paper are expected to appear ,  in the K-K analysis of IIA massive supergravity on warped $`AdS_6S^4`$. It is amusing that superconformal field theory largely predicts the spectrum just from symmetry cosiderations. What is new in the $`F(4)`$ theory is the fact that, since it is not a theory with maximal symmetry, it allows in principle some rich dynamics and more classes of short representations than the usual compactification on spheres.
The K-K reduction is related to the horizon geometry of the $`D4`$ branes in a $`D8`$ brane background in presence of $`D0`$ branes , .
Conformal theories at fixed points of $`5d`$ gauge theories exist  which exibit global symmetries $`E_{N_f+1}SO(2N_f)U(1)`$, where $`N_f1`$ is the number of flavors ($`N_f`$ $`D8`$ branes) and $`U(1)`$ is the “instantons charge” (dual to the $`D0`$ brane charge).
The $`E`$ exceptional series therefore unifies perturbative and non perturbative series of the gauge theory.
It is natural to conjecture that a conformal fixed point $`5d`$ theory can be described by a singleton supermultiplet in the fundamental rep. of $`E_{N_f+1}`$. For the exceptional groups $`N_f5`$ these are the 27 of $`E_6`$, the 56 of $`E_7`$ and the 248 of $`E_8`$ which are respectively complex, pseudo-real and real. The $`E_7`$ case was considered in ref. . States coming from wrapped $`D8`$ branes will carry a non trivial representation of $`SO(2N_f)`$, which, together with some other states, must complete representations of $`E_{N_f+1}`$. It is possible that from the knowledge of $`SO(2N_f)`$ quantum numbers of supergravity in $`D4D8`$ background one may infer the spectrum of $`E_{N_f+1}`$ representations and then to realize these states in terms of boundary composite conformal operators.We hope to return to the above issues in a future investigation.

+


text:
# Fun for two

## 1. Introduction

Binaries are characterized by “the union of two stars, that are formed together in one system, by the laws of attraction” (Herschel 1802). They from the basic building blocks of the Milky Way as galaxies are the building blocks of the Universe. In the absence of binaries many astrophysical phenomena would not exist and the Galaxy would look completely different over the entire spectral range. A considerable fraction of the astrophysical community would be unemployed, Doppler (1842) would not have written his famous paper, Herschel’s nearest neighbor distribution of field stars would look different. Even life as we know it would not have evolved in the Universe as Type Ia supernovae, which enrich the interstellar medium with elements required to enable life, would not occur.

## 2. The Galaxy with single stars

Let’s assume that the Galaxy contains only single stars and that the evolution of a single star passes through three stages; main-sequence (ms), giant (gs) and remnant, which again we subdivide into white dwarf (wd) and neutron star (ns), black holes are neglected here. Table 1 presents the distribution of stars over these subtypes at different times during the lifetime of the Galaxy if all stars were born at the same time (columns 2–5) and if the star formation was constant for the last 10 Gyr (column 6). We assumed that the initial mass function is given by the distribution proposed by Scalo (1986) between 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$and 100 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Calculations were performed with the $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖡𝖺}`$ population synthesis code (Portegies Zwart & Verbunt 1996, see the starlab software tool set http://www.sns.ias.edu/$``$starlab).

At all times the stellar population is dominated by main sequence stars (of which the majority lives longer than 10 Gyr), followed by white dwarfs and giants. The $`14`$% of the stars which evolve reduces the total mass with $`35`$%. The population of neutron stars builds up within a couple of 10 Myrs and remains constant at later times.

## 3. The Galaxy with binaries

If we fill the Galaxy with binaries things become more interesting and considerably more complicated (see Table 2).

Except for the initial mass function we now have to select the mass of the secondary star, the orbital period and the ellipticity of the binary system. In our numerical experiment these were all selected following model $`A`$ of Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996). The initial conditions are representative for the G-dwarfs in the solar neighborhood (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991), which are well established. The orbital elements and masses of the two stars for binaries with other spectral types are still ill known and recent work is painfully sparse.

Instead of evolving single stars we now have to evolve two stars synchronously. And at the same time account for the effects of their evolution on the orbital parameters of the binary system. Furthermore the evolution of each star may be affected by its companions’ evolution, i.e. through tidal effects and mass transfer.

Table 2 shows the distribution of binaries over the various subtypes at several moments in time (as in Table 1). The single stars originate from binaries which are broken up or have coalesced. We keep the same simple subtypes as before and write a binary as the two stars enclosed with parenthesis following the notation introduced by Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996). The number of possible outcomes is much larger than for the evolution of a population of single stars.

The total mass in binaries is slightly higher than 1.5 times the total mass in single stars (see Table 1), as one would expect from a flat mass ratio distribution. This is becasue we limit the masses of the primary and secondary stars to $`>0.1`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

As expected, main-sequence binaries are most common but at later age a considerable fraction of binaries contain at least one white dwarf. Note that the fraction of single stars produced from the evolution of binaries is small and the majority of these are white dwarfs. Most of the single white dwarfs are the result of a merger in the common envelope phase after the formation of the first white dwarf.

The simple representation used here is insufficient to describe the evolution of binary stars in detail. It neglects interesting information about the distributions of masses, mass ratios, orbital period and eccentricities and it lacks detailed information to, for example, distinguish blue stragglers from main sequence stars or identify low mass carbon-oxygen white dwarfs (see for example Nelemans et al. 2000). It however, shows that the possible outcomes of the evolution of a population of primordial binaries is vastly larger than for single stars.

## 4. Binary evolution

There are many binary population synthesis programs available which claim to be able to evolve any binary in time. This industry was started in the early eighties by Kornilov & Lipunov (1983), Iben & Tutukov (1984) followed by Dewey & Cordes (1987) and continues to the present time.

We will show an evolutionary sequence produced by three of these programs together with the fully conservative case which is easily computed by hand. We can not present the evolution of more scenarios or those produced by other models because most publications do not provide sufficient information to follow the complete evolution of a particular binary system. In Table 3 we show one evolutionary track of one of the rare comparisons which can be made.

Table 3 shows that various groups obtain quite different results from identical initial conditions (see also Verbunt 1996, who performed a similar comparison between two models). The conservative case is most radically different, indicating that all groups agree that the evolution of such a binary should proceed rather inconservative. The other extreme in this example is provided by the Scenario Machine of Lipunov et al. (1996) in which case the accreting star hardly gains any mass but most mass is ejected from the binary system (last three columns). The large period after mass transfer indicates that little angular momentum is carried with the lost material. (The change in orbital period can be reconstructed assuming that mass lost from the binary carries 0.71 times the specific angular momentum of the binary system, which is about the specific angular momentum of the accreting star at the onset of the mass transfer.) This model results in a single Thorne-$`\dot{\text{Z}}`$ytkow object (a giant with a neutron star core) after the second phase of mass transfer.

The two models in the middle of Table 3 (Tutukov & Yungelson and $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖡𝖺}`$) both lead to a neutron star binary. In these cases the intermediate stages of the binaries, however, are quite different; the binary in the TY93 model remains rather close, where $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖡𝖺}`$ results in a much wider intermediate state. So in the TY93 case, more mass is lost carrying, on average, more angular momentum. In $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖡𝖺}`$ mass leaves the binary system with 3 times the specific angular momentum of the binary; applying this prescription to the model of TY93 we find that $`5.3`$ times the angular momentum of the binary system is lost per unit mass. Note however, that TY93 use a completely different treatment of non-conservative mass transfer. The differences in the treatement of the common envelope in the second phase of mass transfer makes that the final binaries computed with the TY93 and $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖡𝖺}`$ models are very similar.

### 4.1. Why are the models so different

The differences between the calculations presented in Table 3 are rather big but can be brought back to a few assumptions about the mass transfer. These assumptions determine 1) the fraction of mass that is accreted by the companion star during mass transfer, 2) the amount of specific angular momentum which is carried away with the mass that leaves the binary system.

Even bigger differences are expected from introducing new physics in the models, which may lead to unexplored channels for the formation of various types of binaries or to completely new classes of objects. An example is the model in which a neutron star in a common envelope accretes a significant fraction of this envelope. This causes the neutron star to grow in mass until it exceeds the stability limit and collapses into a low-mass black hole (Chevalier & Kirsner 1979). Bethe & Brown (1998) used this new understanding to calculate the number of neutron star binaries in the Galaxy with an analytic model. The computer powered population calculations of Portegies Zwart & Yungelson (1998) gave identical numbers for the models with similar assumptions (see their model $`H`$). The agreement between the two completely different techniques indicates that the uncertainties in binary population synthesis are mainly caused by differences in the assumption about the underlying physics and in a lesser extent in the proper choice of various key parameters. By lack of a proper understanding of some of the background physics these parameters are, for now, to be adjusted such that the observed binaries can be explained.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01112.01-98A awarded (to SPZ) by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., by Spinoza Grant 08-0 to E.P.J. van den Heuvel and by RFBR grant 99-02-16037.

## References

Bethe H, Brown, G.E., 1998, ApJ 506, 780

Chevalier & Kirsner 1979, ApJ 253, 154

Doppler, C., 1842 in Concerning the coloured light of double stars

Dewey, R.J., Cordes, J.M., 1987, ApJ 321, 780

Duquennoy, A., Mayor, M., 1991, A&A 248, 485

Herschel, W., 1802 in On the Construction of the Universe

Iben, I., Jr., Tutukov, A.V, 1984, ApJS 54, 335

Kornilov, V.G., Lipunov, V.M., 1983, AZh 60, 574

Lipunov, V.M., Postnov, K.A., Prokhorov, M.E., 1997, MNRAS 288, 245

Nelemans, G., Verbunt, F., Yungelson, L., Portegies Zwart, S.F., A&A in press (astro-ph/0006216)

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Verbunt, F., 1996, A&A, 309, 179

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Yungelson, L.R., 1998, A&A 332, 173

Scalo, J. M., 1986, Fund. of Cosm. Phys., 11,

Tutukov, A.V., Yungelson, L.R., 1993, AZh 70, 812

Verbunt, F., 1996, in Evolutionary processes in binary stars, eds. R.A.M.J. Wijers and M.B. Davies and C.A. Tout, p. 201


text:
# A simple unbreakable code.

##

Cryptography, the art of secure communication has been developed since the dawn of human civilization, but it has been mathematically treated by Shannon . At present, we have different classical cryptosystems whose merits and demerits are discussed below.

Vernam cipher : It is proven secure  but it can not produce more absolutely secure bits than the shared secret bits. Due to this difficulty, it has not become popular, however it is still routinely used in diplomatic secure communication.

Data encryption standard  and public key distribution system : These are widely used cryptosystems because they can produce more computationally secure bits than the shared secret bits. The problem is that its computational security is not proved. The assumption of computational security has now become weak after the discovery of fast quantum algorithms (see ref. 16)

To solve the above problems of classical cryptosystem, quantum cryptography \[5-9\] has been developed over the last two decades. Conceptually quantum cryptography is elegant and many undiscovered possibilities might store in it. In the last few years work on its security has been remarkably progressed \[10-14\], however work is yet not finished.
Recently it is revealed  that all practical quantum cryptographic systems are insecure.

Regarding quantum cryptosystems, the popular conjectures are:
1. Completely quantum channel based cryptosystem is impossible  (existing quantum cryptosystem requires classical channel to operate). 2. Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible . 3. By classical means, it is impossible to create more absolutely secure bits than the shared secret bits.

Recently alternative quantum cryptosystem has been developed \[17-20\] by the present author; which can operate solely on quantum channel (both entangled and unentangled type) and can provide unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment . Here we shall see that third conjecture is also not true.

Operational procedure: For two party protocol, the problem of Vernam ciper (popularly called one time pad)  is that two users have to meet at regular interval to exchange the key material. We observe that key material can be simply transmitted without compromising security.

In the presented cipher system, always in the string of random bits, there are real and pseudo-bits (fake bits). Real bits contain key material and pseudo-bits are to mislead eavesdropper. Sender encodes the sequence of real bits on to the fixed real bit positions and encodes the sequence of pseudo-bits on to the fixed pseudo-bit positions. It thus forms the entire encoded sequence. which is transmitted. The fixed positions of real and pseudo-bits are initially secretly shared between sender and receiver. Therefore, receiver can decode the real bits (the first key) from real bit positions. Obviously he/she ignores the pseudo-bits.

For the second encoded sequence, sender uses new sequence of real and pseudo-bits but the position of real and pseudo-bits are same. So again receiver decodes the second key from the same real bit positions. In this way infinite number of keys can be coded and decoded. Notice that initially shared secret positions of real and pseudo-bits are repeatedly used. That’s why, in some sense, secrecy is being amplified. Let us illustrate the procedure.

###

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}P& R& R& R& P& R& P& R& P& P& P& R& P& R& R& P& \mathrm{}.\\ 0& b_1& b_1& b_1& 1& b_1& 1& b_1& 1& 0& 0& b_1& 0& b_1& b_1& 1& \mathrm{}.\\ 1& b_2& b_2& b_2& 0& b_2& 0& b_2& 0& 1& 1& b_2& 1& b_2& b_2& 0& \mathrm{}.\\ 1& b_3& b_3& b_3& 1& b_3& 1& b_3& 1& 0& 0& b_3& 0& b_3& b_3& 0& \mathrm{}.\\ 0& b_4& b_4& b_4& 1& b_4& 0& b_4& 1& 0& 1& b_4& 1& b_4& b_4& 0& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ 1& b_n& b_n& b_n& 1& b_n& 0& b_n& 0& 0& 1& b_n& 0& b_n& b_n& 1& \mathrm{}.\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}S_s\\ S_{e1}\\ S_{e2}\\ S_{e3}\\ S_{e4}\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ S_{en}\end{array}\right)`$ (19)
In the above block, the first row represents the sequence $`S_s`$, which is initially secretly shared. In that sequence, ”R” and ”P” denote the position of real and pseudo- bits respectively. The next rows represent the encoded sequences : $`S_{e1},S_{e2},S_{e3},S_{e4},\mathrm{}.,S_{en}`$. In these encoding, $`b_i`$ are the real bits for i-th real string of bits. Other bits are pseudo-bits. Obviously the sequences of real bits always form new real keys. Similarly sequences of pseudo-bits always form new pseudo-keys. But positions of real and pseudo-bits are unchanged. As receiver ignores pseudo-bits and pseudo-keys, so the decoded strings of real bits (keys) will look like:

###

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}R& R& R& R& R& R& R& R& \mathrm{}.\\ b_1& b_1& b_1& b_1& b_1& b_1& b_1& b_1& \mathrm{}.\\ b_2& b_2& b_2& b_2& b_2& b_2& b_2& b_2& \mathrm{}.\\ b_3& b_3& b_3& b_3& b_3& b_3& b_3& b_3& \mathrm{}.\\ b_4& b_4& b_4& b_4& b_4& b_4& b_4& b_4& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}.\\ b_n& b_n& b_n& b_n& b_n& b_n& b_n& b_n& \mathrm{}.\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}S_s\\ K_1\\ K_2\\ K_3\\ K_4\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ K_n\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
Here $`K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4\mathrm{}..,K_N`$ are independent keys.

Condition for absolute security: Shannon’s condition for absolute security  is that eavesdropper has to depend on guess for absolutely secure system. In our system, for a particular encoded sequence of events (bits), if the probability of real events ($`p_{realbits}`$) becomes equal to the probability of pseudo-events ($`p_{pseudobits}`$) then eavesdropper has to guess. Since all the encoded sequences are independent so eavesdropper has to guess all sequences. Therefore, condition for absolute security can be written as: 1.$`p_{pseudobits}p_{realbits}`$. 2. All encoded sequences should be statistically independent. That is, any encoded sequence should not have pseudo randomness.

Speed of communication: If we take $`p_{pseudobits}=p_{realbits}`$ and share 100 bits, then message can be communicated at 1/4 speed of digital communication (data rate will reduce a factor of 1/2 due to key production and another factor of 1/2 due to message encoding) as long as we wish. If the key ($`K_i`$) itself carries meaningful message, then speed of secure communication will be just half of the speed of digital communication. Perhaps no popular cryptosystems offer such speed.

The above art of key exchange is mainly based on the idea of pseudo-bits, which was first introduced in our noised based cryptosystem. But that system will be slow and complicated. In contrast, this system will be fast and simple. Note that, noise has never been a threat to the security of any classical cryptographic protocol ( rather it can be helpful  to achive security). This is the main advantage of classical cryptographic protocol over quantum key distribution protocols, where noise indeed a threat to the security. It should be mentioned that the classical cipher system can not achieve other quantum cryptographic tasks such as cheating free Bell’s inequality test  and quantum bit commitment encoding . Indeed classical cryptography can not be encroach entire area of quantum cryptography.


text:
# Some notes on string theory

## 1 Introduction

In \[Sch\] we suggested a quantum computational principle for string theory which was formulated as follows:

Principle:

1. All physical systems should be amenable to a real time simulation on a quantum computer and quantum computers should be described as physical systems by deformation quantization of classical Turing machines.
2. The observable quantities of the world should be those which can be determined by observation of quantum computers on quantum computers.

###### Remark 1

We should say more precisely at this point what we mean by the assumption that the quantum Turing machine should be describable by deformation quantization. For our purpose, here, it is sufficient to assume that the quantum Turing machine can be described by a quantum field theory, the arithmetic content of the Feynman diagrams of which is equivalent to the data of the weights appearing in deformation quantization. The work of Freedman et al. (see \[FLW\]) shows that, indeed, one can describe quantum computation in terms of low dimensional quantum field theory (this description being equivalent to the one in terms of spin systems plus an automatic inclusion of error correction). The quantum field theory used in \[FLW\] is determined by a quantum group and $`q`$-deformation is known to appear as a special case of deformation quantization (see \[MSSW\]).

It was discussed there that the first part of this principle leads to the algebra $`P_{,Tate}`$ as a fundamental object of the theory and therefore - under the assumption of the partly conjectural scenario of \[Kon 1999\] \- to the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $`GT`$ as a fundamental symmetry. The second part of the principle implies a ladder of quantization and, especially, a deformation quantization of $`GT`$ (or $`P_{,Tate}`$) to be relevant for the - yet to be discovered - full fledged quantized string theory. We will first discuss the semi-classical setting where the (undeformed) $`GT`$ is relevant and come to the question of a deformation quantization of the mathematical structures involved only later. In order for the above principle to make sense, it is decisive that the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group as a symmetry plus possibly some natural requirements should basically determine the structural elements and the dynamical principle of the theory. We will therefore investigate in this paper some general features a theory incorporating $`GT`$ as a symmetry should have.

Throughout this paper, we will assume the scenario of \[Kon 1999\] to be valid.

## 2 Dynamics

The algebra $`P_{,Tate}`$ is the algebra of periods of mixed Tate motives unramified over $``$. Let $``$ denote the moduli space of mixed Tate motives unramified over $``$. There is a quite concrete definition of motives as so called framed motives, the category of framed motives being equivalent to a more abstractly defined category of mixed motives (see \[Kon 1999\]). A framed motive of rank $`n`$ is a matrix

$$AGL(n,P)$$

(where $`P`$ is the algebra of periods) such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(A_{ij}\right)=\underset{k,l}{}A_{ik}A_{kl}^1A_{lj}$$

with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the triple coproduct induced from the torsor which corresponds to the isomorphism of Betti and de Rham cohomology. So, we can understand $``$ as the moduli space of framed motives with

$$A_{ij}P_{,Tate}$$

In \[Kon 1999\] the moduli space $`𝒟M`$ of deformation quantizations of a finite dimensional manifold $`M`$ is suggested to be a proalgebraic variety which is a principal homogenous space of $`GT`$. This space should have several structural features in common with $``$ (as a moduli space of motives, $``$ should also be a proalgebraic variety and there should also be a natural action of $`GT`$). Since $``$ is universal while $`𝒟M`$ depends on the given manifold $`M`$, one suspects each $`𝒟M`$ to be a kind of “representation” of $``$. We will make the assumption in the sequel that in this sense structural features (like e.g. a metric) on $``$ induce corresponding structures on the “representation” $`𝒟M`$. One would suspect that even beyond this there should be a natural duality between the class of all “representations” $`𝒟M`$ and $``$, as e.g. known from the Doplicher-Roberts theorem for the case of compact groups and from many other examples.

Conjecture:

There should be a natural duality between $``$ and some suitable notion of a moduli space of all deformation quantizations (a kind of union of the $`𝒟M`$).

We have not just taken the disjoint union of the $`𝒟M`$ because presumably compactification of the individual proalgebraic varieties $`𝒟M`$ plays a role, here. In an appendix we will give a slightly more involved argument in favour of the above conjecture.

The work of \[Kon 1997\] and \[CF\] shows that $`𝒟M`$ can always be understood as a moduli space of two dimensional conformal field theories. Since the Deligne conjecture (a proof of which is announced in \[Kon 1999\]) plays a decisive role in the construction of $`𝒟M`$, the fact that the tangential structure of the extended moduli space of string theory introduced by Witten is given by a total Hochschild complex (see \[Wit\], \[Kon 1994\]) suggests that, conversely, moduli spaces of two dimensional conformal field theories should be structurally similar to the spaces $`𝒟M`$. Also, the so called Cohomology Comparison Theorem (CCT) of \[GeSch\] leads to an argument to the effect that moduli spaces of two dimensional conformal field theories should be interpretable as moduli spaces of deformation quantizations. Together with the above conjecture, we take the view in this paper that $``$ should be naturally a dual description of the moduli space $`𝒮`$ of classical backgrounds of string theory. So, we suppose that one has the freedom to switch between the two descriptions, e.g. when considering a dynamical principle.

Accepting the suggested quantum computational principle, $``$ is the straightforward candidate for the state space of the theory. So, assuming the duality between $``$ and $`𝒮`$ to hold, the principle would at least imply the correct kinematical arena for the theory. It is then a decisive question if we get a natural suggestion for the dynamics.

###### Remark 2

The conformal field theories corresponding to deformation quantizations in \[CF\] are in no way restricted to the critical dimension of string theory. So, it seems that one needs some additional requirements, like critical dimension and the type of supersymmetry, in order to restrict $`𝒮`$ to really give superstring theory. This is what we meant above when we spoke of $`GT`$ symmetry “‘plus possibly some natural requirements”.

###### Remark 3

We will exclusively discuss dynamics in a Euclidean sense in this paper. We will not deal with the question of how to introduce a physically sensible time parameter, here.

As a first step, we will see that the $`GT`$ symmetry also fixes a Riemannian metric on $``$. Remember that $``$ is a projective limit of algebraic varieties of framed motives of fixed rank. Denote by $`_n`$ the moduli space of framed mixed Tate motives unramified over $``$ of rank $`n`$. $`_n`$ is, of course, a subvariety of $`\left(P_{,Tate}\right)^{n^2}`$. On $`\left(P_{,Tate}\right)^{n^2}`$ we can introduce the usual Euclidean distance. Let $`\gamma _n`$ be the induced Riemannian metric on $`_n`$(i.e. the metric defined as infimum of the length of curves in $`_n`$). The $`\gamma _n`$ induce a Riemannian metric $`\gamma `$ on $``$.

###### Lemma 1

The metric $`\gamma `$ is invariant under the action of $`GT`$ on $``$ and is up to a normalization factor uniquely determined by $`GT`$ invariance.

Proof. Considering the action of $`GT`$ on $``$ in terms of actions on the components $`_n`$, we get a representation in terms of tensors $`T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}`$ with $`n^4`$ coefficients in $`P_{,Tate}`$ acting on framed motives $`A_{ij}`$ of rank $`n`$ by

$$\left(TA\right)_{i_1j_1}=T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}A_{i_2j_2}$$

(here, and in the sequel, we apply the Einstein summation convention).

Since the image of an element of $`_n`$ under $`T`$ has to be an element of $`_n`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(TA\right)_{i_1j_1}=\left(TA\right)_{i_1k_1}\left(TA\right)_{k_1l_1}^1\left(TA\right)_{l_1j_1}$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an algebra morphism on $`P_{,Tate}`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(TA\right)_{i_1j_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}A_{i_2j_2}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(A_{i_2j_2}\right)`$
i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(TA\right)_{i_1j_1}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}\right)\left(A_{i_2k_2}A_{k_2l_2}^1A_{l_2j_2}\right)$$

On the other hand,

$`\left(TA\right)_{i_1k_1}\left(TA\right)_{k_1l_1}^1\left(TA\right)_{l_1j_1}`$
$`=`$ $`T_{i_1k_1i_2k_2}A_{i_2k_2}A_{k_2l_2}^1T_{k_2l_2k_1l_1}^1T_{l_1j_1l_2j_2}A_{l_2j_2}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(T_{i_1k_1i_2k_2}\left(T^1\right)_{k_1l_1k_2l_2}^TT_{l_1j_1l_2j_2}\right)\left(A_{i_2k_2}A_{k_2l_2}^1A_{l_2j_2}\right)`$
where T denotes the transposed matrix on interpreting $`T`$ as a matrix - with a first and a second double index - acting on $`\left(P_{,Tate}\right)^{n^2}`$. So,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}\right)=T_{i_1k_1i_2k_2}\left(T^1\right)_{k_1l_1k_2l_2}^TT_{l_1j_1l_2j_2}$$

holds on the span of the tangent spaces of $`_n`$.

Now, by the definition of the torsor underlying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and since $`GT`$ is a quotient of the motivic Galois group, $`T`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}A_{i_2j_2}\right)=\left(T_{i_1k_1i_2k_2}T_{k_1l_1k_2l_2}T_{l_1j_1l_2j_2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(A_{i_2j_2}\right)$$

and we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}\right)=T_{i_1k_1i_2k_2}T_{k_1l_1k_2l_2}T_{l_1j_1l_2j_2}$$

on the span of the tangent spaces of $`_n`$. But since in the orthogonal complement of the span of the tangent spaces of $`_n`$ we are free to make a choice for $`T`$ (under the restriction that

$$TGL(n^2,P_{,Tate})$$

holds), we can assume that both equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T_{i_1j_1i_2j_2}\right)`$ hold without restriction. But this means $`T`$ is an orthogonal $`n^2\times n^2`$ matrix. In consequence, the metric on $`_n`$ which is invariant under the transformations $`T`$ is up to a normalization factor uniquely determined and is given by $`\gamma _n`$.

Assuming the duality of $``$ and $`𝒮`$, there should be a unique $`GT`$ invariant Riemannian metric on $`𝒮`$, then. As is well known, there is a natural metric on the moduli space of two dimensional conformal field theories if one remembers that infinitesimal deformations of conformal field theories are parametrized by local operators. The metric is then simply defined by the two point function. So, in view of the above uniqueness result, it would suffice to show $`GT`$ invariance of the two point function metric $`d`$, in order to identify $`\gamma `$ and $`d`$ as dual to each other.

Remember that we assumed above that $`𝒮`$ carries a transitive action of $`GT`$, too. But, again, using the fact that infinitesimal deformations of conformal field theories are parametrized by local operators, we conclude that the Lie algebra of $`GT`$ (see \[Dri\]) should naturally act as a symmetry on two dimensional conformal field theories. But if this is true, i.e. if the action of $`GT`$ on $`𝒮`$ induces a universal symmetry property of two dimensional conformal field theories, the two point function metric - as based on observables - would have to be invariant.

There is a hint that the conclusion we have just drawn might indeed be correct. The structure of the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra of renormalization is in accordance with the arithmetic properties of deformation quantization and of the Drinfeld associator, i.e. with the data of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group (see \[CK\], \[Kon 1999\]). So, it seems that the symmetry properties behind the renormalization scheme might be intimately linked to $`GT`$ invariance of moduli space.

A given metric canonically determines a dynamical principle by geodesic motion. So, the suggested quantum computational principle has a natural dynamical law corresponding to it as geodesic motion with respect to $`\gamma `$ on $``$, respectively, $`d`$ on $`𝒮`$. For a quantum theory a Klein-Gordon type equation is the counterpart of geodesic motion, i.e. for quantized string theory one would anticipate a Klein-Gordon equation on $``$ (or $`𝒮`$). The reader acquainted with work in quantum gravity will notice that this is similar to the situation, there: The Wheeler-De Witt equation is also formally a Klein-Gordon equation. Indeed, this is not by accident, as we can see from the following lemma which shows that the dynamics suggested here by abstract arguments has the correct classical gravity limit.

###### Lemma 2

Geodesic motion with respect to the metric $`d`$ on $`𝒮`$ induces Einstein dynamics in the classical limit of string theory if one restricts to backgrounds which allow for a natural sclicing by a global time parameter.

Proof. In the classical limit, the two point function metric has to induce a metric $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ on the space of Riemannian ($`n1`$)-metrics (where $`n=10`$ for string theory) which are Ricci flat backgrounds with a slicing by a global time parameter. But by the properties of the two point function, $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ has to be a four index tensor field satisfying the locality requirement of \[DeW\]. But then there is a one parameter family of metrics satisfying these criteria, only, and there is a natural value for the parameter (see \[DeW\]). So, basically there is a unique candidate for the classical limit of the two point function metric, only. But the Klein-Gordon equation with respect to this metric $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ is just the Wheeler-De Witt equation of Einstein gravity.

In conclusion, there are indications that the suggested quantum computational principle does not only lead to a natural choice for the kinematical structure and for a dynamical principle for the theory but also that the resulting dynamical principle has the correct classical limit in the form of Einstein dynamics.

###### Remark 4

Though the above proof uses the fact that in the classical limit backgrounds given by two dimensional conformal field theories go to Ricci flat metrics, i.e. metrics satisfying the Einstein vacuum equations, the result is not just a reformulation of this fact. The Ricci flat limit of two dimensional conformal field theories refers to the consideration of single fixed backgrounds. Our result shows that there is a dynamics on moduli space (i.e. on the space of backgrounds) which is also compatible with Einstein dynamics. A dynamics on moduli space is what one ultimately expects for the yet to be discovered full formulation of string theory which gives the motivation for studying qualitative properties and possible choices for dynamical principles on moduli space. Especially, the above result shows that the quantization of the suggested dynamics on moduli space would have (in a formal sense) the Wheeler-De Witt equation as a special limit. While the Ricci flat limit of conformal field theories shows that string theory unifies Einstein gravity and quantum mechanics consistently on a perturbative level, we get an indication, here, that string theory might also have a limit in which it reproduces the nonperturbative approach to canonical quantum gravity (see e.g. \[AL 1994\], \[AL 1996\] and the literature cited therein). A further elaboration on the role the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group plays in the structure of string theory moduli space seems to be a promising candidate for the investigation of such a limit (we are planing to undertake further work in this direction).

## 3 The implications of the second part

So far, we have dealt only with the implications of the first part of the principle. As we mentioned already, the second part implies that actually a quantum deformation of $`GT`$ should be the relevant symmetry object. Conformal field theories play the role of classical backgrounds around which one can perturbatively expand in string theory (comparable to Ricci flat metrics in Einstein gravity). One can give arguments that the inclusion of non classical backgrounds (similar to general Riemannian 3-metrics for the classical gravity case) should lead to quantum deformations of the mathematical structures appearing (see \[GS\]). Especially, deformations of conformal field theories to models with noncommutative world sheets should appear, here, as is indirectly also suggested by the work of \[Gre\]. A detailed discussion of a deformation of quantum group symmetries (since these are linked to conformal field theories, i.e. to the undeformed case in the sense of our present discussion) has been given elsewhere (see\[GS 2000\]).

## 4 $`\zeta `$-functions

Consider the action functional $`S`$ generating the Klein-Gordon equation on $``$ as the equation of motion. For physical reasons, we should consider only action functionals which are at most second order in the fields and their derivatives and do not contain higher derivatives of the fields. But then the uniqueness result for the metric $`\gamma `$ implies that $`S`$ is - up to a normalization factor - the unique $`GT`$ invariant action satisfying these criteria (a term linear in the fields would destroy $`GT`$ invariance, i.e. both terms - the one in the fields and the one in their derivatives - have to be quadratic, similarly, there can be no mixed term in fields and their derivatives). It is one of the beliefs of experts in the theory of motives that $`\zeta `$-functions should be interpretable as a kind of regularized volumes on configuration spaces of quantum fields (see \[JKS\]). The partition function is, of course, a natural candidate, then (an additional argument in favour of an interpretation of $`\zeta `$-functions as partition functions of quantum systems is provided by the work of \[Con\]). Motivated by the uniqueness property of $`S`$, we suspect that the partition function defined from $`S`$ is interpretable as $`\zeta `$-function of the proalgebraic variety $``$.

###### Remark 5

We should say that all differential geometric notions used in this section are to be understood in a purely formal sense. To make the ideas sketched precise, one would presumably have to use an approach replacing these by techniques from algebraic geometry.

## 5 Conclusion

We have investigated the implications of a quantum computational principle for the kinematical and dynamical features of string theory. We have found, especially, that such a principle might be able to determine to a considerable extent the correct moduli space and is consistent with the requirement that Einstein dynamics should appear as a suitable classical limit.

## Appendix A The question of duality of $``$ and $`𝒮`$

Suppose the connection between $`GT`$ and the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra can be rigorously established. Then duality between $``$ and $`𝒮`$ would come down to the following: First, every two dimensional quantum field theory would have to be a representation of the renormalization scheme. This is certainly true. Second, in the other direction we would need a result showing that we can reconstruct the renormalization scheme from the knowledge of all two dimensional quantum field theories. The historical development gives a very strong argument in favour of such a reconstruction possibility. After all, the renormalization scheme was not derived from abstract logical arguments but was destilled from quantum field theories, i.e. the historical development is itself a “reconstruction” (one should better say “construction”) process. This reconstruction possibility should persist even if we restrict to two dimensional theories since one does not have the feeling that we have to be free to consider arbitrary dimensions in order to be able to discover the renormalization scheme. So, we suspect that any fixed dimension should do.

Though the above argument relies on strong historical evidence, it is not a proof, of course (historical evidence may deceive us in spite of being strong). Can we do better? Since we are interested in a low dimensional situation, only, we can try to use the framework of axiomatic quantum field theory. Based on some of the concepts of this framework, we will try to give a sketch for a more adequate mathematical argument, now. The framework of algebraic quantum field theory nowdays makes use of the algebraic language of categories. It is a well known experience in category theory that a category of objects of some type often has a similar algebraic structure than the objects themselves. It is precisely this feature of category theory which we will see at work, here.

Let $`𝒬`$ be the 2-category of $`C^{}`$-quantum categories as introduced in \[FK\] where a quantum category is an abelian, semisimple, finite, rigid, braided, monoidal category and a $`C^{}`$-quantum category is a quantum category with a compatible $``$ structure on it.

By the approach followed in \[Bae\], one can show that there is a tensor product on $`𝒬`$, turning it into a symmetric (weak) monoidal 2-category. In the same way, one proves the existence of a direct sum (note that the finiteness condition of \[FK\] implies what is called finite dimensionality in \[Bae\]). Also, by the results of \[Bae\] one gets a 2-categorical version of rigidity for $`𝒬`$.

The finiteness condition has some additional consequences since it implies that up to isomorphism the morphisms in a $`C^{}`$-quantum category can be seen as finite tuples of matrices. But as a consequence of this, the 1-morphism classes of $`𝒬`$ carry the structure of a $``$-linear category and this linear structure is compatible with composition of 1-morphisms. Hence, $`𝒬`$ carries the 2-categorical analog of the structure of a $``$-linear category. Besides this, by redoing the proof that the category of finite dimensional vector spaces is abelian in a categorified setting, one should find a 2-categorical counterpart of the notion of an abelian category and get the result that $`𝒬`$ has this property.

In conclusion, we should find that $`𝒬`$ is the 2-categorical version of a $``$-linear, abelian, rigid, symmetric monoidal category. In the same way, one expects to find the 2-categorical analog of a $``$-linear, exact, faithful, monoidal functor from $`𝒬`$ to the category of finite dimensional vector spaces. Now, assuming that there is a 2-categorical analog of the general reconstruction theorems for Hopf algebras (see e.g. \[CP\]), it would follow that there is a Hopf category $``$ (in the sense of \[CrFr\]) generating $`𝒬`$ as its category of either representations or corepresentations on finite dimensional 2-vector spaces. By the symmetry of the monoidal structure, $``$ would then have to be commutative or cocommutative. But this means - now using the usual reconstruction theorems - $``$ would basically be a category of representations of some Hopf algebra H. So, there should be a universal Hopf algebra $`H`$ having a representation on every quantum field theory. Physically, the symmetries behind the renormalization scheme are the only natural candidate for such a universal Hopf algebra. We summarize this in the following conjecture:

Conjecture:

The Hopf algebra $`H`$ defined by $`𝒬`$ should be equivalent to the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra.

We have followed a purely algebraic approach to the question of duality between the renormalization scheme and the general structure of quantum field theory, here. But it should be possible to derive from such an algebraic approach the more geometric duality between $``$ and $`𝒮`$, too. In addition, this approach relies on a connection between the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra and $`GT`$. But as we mentioned already, there is growing evidence for such a connection to exist (see \[CK\], \[Kon 1999\]).

###### Remark 6

The arguments given, here, are aiming at a direct proof of the assumed duality in the sense of an algebraic reconstruction procedure. Alternatively, one can from existing literature collect together a chain of arguments which might also develop into a proof for the duality of $``$ and $`𝒮`$. Concluding this appendix, we give a sketch of these arguments, now: Surely, $``$ and the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group, itself, are dual to each other. $``$ is defined by representations of $`GT`$ and, conversely, from $``$ we get the algebra $`P_{,Tate}`$ as the algebra of periods appearing in $``$, and $`P_{,Tate}`$ determines $`GT`$ (where, as remarked at the beginning, we assume the scenario of \[Kon 1999\] to be valid). Starting from the space $`𝒮`$, we remember that the fusion structure of two dimensional conformal field theories is determined by quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebras. So, $`𝒮`$ determines a certain moduli space of quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebras. But then we can use Drinfeld’s original approach (see \[Dri\]) to introduce $`GT`$ from the setting of quasi-Hopf algebras. For the converse direction, we point, again, to the increasing evidence for a deep relationship between $`GT`$ and the Connes-Kreimer algebra. But, obviously, two dimensional conformal field theories carry representations of the renormalization scheme as abstractly displayed by the Connes-Kreimer algebra. So, we might get back $`𝒮`$ as a class of representations.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank H. Grosse for numerous discussions and the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna, for hospitality.