text:
# Quantum spectrum for a Kerr-Newman black hole

## I Introduction

There has been significant interest, over the last decade, in the subject known as black hole spectroscopy. (For an overview, see .) The general concept is that a black hole observable, in particular the surface area of the horizon, should be quantized in terms of a discretely changing quantum number (or numbers). That this should be the case was first advocated by Bekenstein , not long after the realization of black holes as thermodynamic systems . The main point of Bekenstein’s argument is that, for a slowly evolving black hole, the horizon area ($`A`$) behaves as an adiabatic invariant . The significance of this property follows from Ehrenfest’s principle, which indicates that a classical adiabatic invariant corresponds to a quantum observable with a discrete spectrum.

Bekenstein went on to suggest that the quantum area spectrum should be evenly spaced with increments of size $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$ , where $`ϵ`$ is a numerical factor of the order unity and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant. (Here and throughout, we restrict the discussion to a four-dimensional spacetime and set all other fundamental constants to unity.) This discreteness can be viewed as a consequence of the uncertainty principle, which tells us that a quantum point particle can, at best, only be localized to a single Compton length.

Much of the subsequent interest in black hole spectroscopy has centered around the idea that such heuristic arguments can somehow be substantiated by more rigorous means. There has, indeed, been significant progress in studies along this line (see  for references); for instance, the algebraic approach to black hole quantization, as developed by Bekenstein and one of the current authors . In this approach, starting with very elementary assumptions and then exploiting symmetries, one can obtain the algebra of the relevant operators of the black hole. Bekenstein has used this methodology to provide a more rigorous proof  for the equally spaced area spectrum. In the subsequent analysis , the neutral, non-rotating black hole observables have been constructed by subjecting a pair of creation operators, or “building blocks”, to a simple algebra. This construction reproduces the evenly spaced area spectrum, provides a rigorous proof that the $`n`$-th area eigenvalue is exponentially degenerate and predicts that a logarithmic correction term, $`3/2\mathrm{log}A`$, should be added to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy .

Another such program, which is particularly relevant to the current paper, was initiated by Barvinsky and Kunstatter . To summarize, these authors expressed the black hole dynamics in terms of a reduced phase space (the reduction comes by way of a minisuperspace type of approximation), which they were then able to quantize. For a static and uncharged black hole (which was the focus of this seminal paper), the reduced phase space consists of only the black hole mass observable and its canonical conjugate .***Although the simplicity of this picture may appear counter-intuitive, it actually follows quite naturally from either Birkhoff’s theorem  or the “no-hair” principles of black holes . With one justifiable assumption - namely, the conjugate to the mass is identified with a periodicity which coincides with that of Euclidean time  \- the authors reproduced a uniformly spaced area spectrum such that $`ϵ=8\pi `$ . (They also found a zero-point contribution of $`4\pi \mathrm{}`$, which in no way undermines the original Bekenstein proposal.)

The methodology of  was later extended for the highly non-trivial inclusions of non-vanishing charge (by Barvinsky, Das and Kunstatter ) and spin (by the current authors ). In the former, charged case, the reduced phase space consists of the two relevant observables (the mass, $`M`$, and the charge, $`Q`$) and their respective conjugates . Imposing the same periodicity condition as discussed above, Barvinsky et al found an area spectrum of the following form :

$$AA_{ext}(Q)=8\pi \mathrm{}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`A_{ext}=A_{ext}(Q)`$ is the extremal value of the horizon area.A charged and/or rotating black hole typically has a pair of distinct horizons, with the point of coincidence defining the extremal horizon. Note that, in this paper, an unqualified $`A`$ will always signify the area of the outermost horizon. (It should be kept in mind that $`A_{ext}`$ represents a lower bound on the horizon area of a classical black hole. Note, however, that the zero-point term in Eq.(1) prohibits the quantum black hole from actually approaching this extremal value.) After quantizing the charge sector of the theory, Barvinsky et al finally obtained

$$A=8\pi \mathrm{}\left(n+\frac{p}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right),n,p=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`p`$ is related to the black hole charge via $`Q^2=\mathrm{}p`$.

The latter, rotating case was complicated by the lack of a concrete example for the reduced phase of a spinning black hole. Nevertheless, we argued for the existence of such a reduced space by appealing to the “no-hair” principles of black holes . With this assumption and the usual periodicity constraint, we were able to deduce an area spectrum of the following form :

$$AA_{ext}(J_{cl})=8\pi \mathrm{}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where $`J_{cl}`$ is a rotation operator that is related to but distinct from the angular momentum of the black hole.To emphasize this distinction, we always use, in both the prior  and current paper, the subscript $`cl`$ for classical. This is, however, somewhat misleading, as $`J_{cl}`$ is ultimately elevated to the status of a quantum operator at some point in the analysis. After quantizing the spin sector, we found that the spectrum (3) could be re-expressed as follows :

$$A=8\pi \mathrm{}\left(n+m+\frac{1}{2}\right),n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(4)
with the rotation operator having been quantized according to $`J_{cl}=\mathrm{}m`$. It should be noted that, in the limit of very large spin or $`m>>1`$, $`mj`$ where $`j`$ is the angular-momentum eigenvalue of the black hole.

In our prior paper, we purposefully neglected any consideration of charge so as to stress the technical issues that are indigenous to the case of a rotating black hole. In the current paper, we rectify this omission and extend the methodology to a black hole with both charge or spin; that is, we determine the area spectrum of a fully general Kerr-Newman black hole. Note that, to avoid superfluous repetition, we will go over some steps rather quickly. For a better understanding of the subtleties of this procedure, the reader is referred to the earlier paper . Also, let us take this moment to emphasize that only two (well-motivated) assumptions go into our quantization procedure: a rotating black hole can be described, in analogy to studies on static black holes , by a relatively simple form of reduced phase space and the conjugate to the mass is periodic in accordance with Euclidean considerations .

It should be noted that, in a recent study of interest, Makela et al have similarly considered the area spectrum of the Kerr-Newman black hole . The approach of these authors (also see ) is based on formulating a Schrodinger-like equation for the black hole observables and quantizing this equation by way of WKB techniques. Their form of the area spectrum differs somewhat with what we eventually derive here; however, a direct comparison is highly non-trivial due to a fundamental distinction in what quantity is precisely being quantized. More specifically, Makela et al quantized $`A+A_{}`$ (where $`A_{}`$ is the area of the inner black hole horizon) as opposed to $`AA_{ext}`$ (cf, Eqs.(1,3)).

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we consider a Kerr-Newman black hole at the classical level, with particular emphasis on the (conjectured) reduced phase space. The quantization of this phase space, as detailed in Section 3, leads to an area spectrum that is formally analogous to Eqs.(1,3). In Section 4, we focus on the charge and spin sector, and develop a means by which this can be suitably quantized. After implementing certain selection rules, we are able to show that the area spectrum is, indeed, uniformly spaced, even for a fully general Kerr-Newman solution. The final section contains a brief summary and some further discussion on the selection rules.

## II Classical Analysis

We begin by considering the Kerr-Newman black hole, which may be regarded as the most general solution of the vacuum Einstein equations. Because of the “no-hair” principles , it is expected that an external observer can describe this system in terms of a few macroscopic parameters: the black hole mass, $`M`$, charge, $`Q`$, and an angular momentum, $`\stackrel{}{J}_{cl}`$. Furthermore, the first law of black hole mechanics  allows us to relate these quantities in the following manner:

$$dM=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }dA+\mathrm{\Phi }dQ+\mathrm{\Omega }dJ_{cl}.$$
(5)
Here, $`A`$ is the (outermost) horizon area, $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity at this horizon, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the electrostatic potential, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity, and $`J_{cl}=|\stackrel{}{J}_{cl}|`$ is the magnitude of the angular-momentum vector.

The thermodynamic properties of a Kerr-Newman black hole are explicitly known  and expressible as follows:

$$A=8\pi M\left[M\frac{Q^2}{2M}+\sqrt{M^2Q^2\frac{J_{cl}^2}{M^2}}\right]$$
(6)
or equivalently

$$M^2=\frac{A}{16\pi }+4\pi \frac{J_{cl}^2}{A}+\frac{Q^2}{2}+\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{Q^4}{A},$$
(7)
and

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{4M}16\pi ^2\frac{J_{cl}^2}{MA^2}4\frac{Q^4}{MA^2},$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{Q}{2M}\left[1+\frac{4Q^2}{\pi A}\right],$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi \frac{J_{cl}}{MA}.$$
(10)
Generalizing the philosophy of , we will assume that the Kerr-Newman black hole can be dynamically expressed, at the classical level, in terms of a reduced phase space consisting of the physical observables and their canonical conjugates. (For further justification, also see .) More specifically, we propose that the phase space can be described by the following set of observables:

$$A,Q,J_\alpha ,J_\beta ,J_\gamma ,$$
(11)
along with their respective conjugates

$$P_A,P_Q,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma .$$
(12)
In this formulation, $`J_\alpha `$, $`J_\beta `$, and $`J_\gamma `$ represent the Euler components of the angular momentum  and their conjugates, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, are the corresponding Euler angles. For future reference, note that

$$J_x=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta J_\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha J_\beta +\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta }J_\gamma ,$$
(13)
$$J_y=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta J_\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\alpha J_\beta +\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta }J_\gamma ,$$
(14)
$$J_z=J_\gamma ,$$
(15)
where $`J_x`$, etc. are the Cartesian components of the angular momentum.

Intuitive considerations suggest that the horizon area is invariant under rotations of its spin and under gauge transformations. It is thus follows that Eqs.(11,12) form a set of generalized commuting coordinates and their conjugates. (In the algebraic approach , one similarly starts with the area, charge and angular momentum as the initial commuting observables.) On the other hand, we ultimately want to work with the mass, $`M`$, rather than the area, $`A`$ (this allows us to exploit the periodicity of the mass conjugate, as noted in Section 1), and it can be shown that

$$\{M,J_\beta \}0.$$
(16)
(Here, $`\{,\}`$ denotes a commutator or Poisson bracket in the Dirac sense .) We can, however, circumvent this awkward situation by replacing $`J_\beta `$ with $`J_{cl}`$.

One can see the relevance of the proposed “switch” by inspecting the explicit form of $`J_{cl}`$:

$`J_{cl}^2`$ $`=`$ $`J_x^2+J_y^2+J_z^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}\left[J_\alpha ^2+J_\gamma ^22\mathrm{cos}\beta J_\alpha J_\beta \right]+J_\beta ^2,`$ (18)
where we have applied Eqs.(13-15) and treated $`J_\alpha `$, $`J_\beta `$, $`J_\gamma `$ as classical or non-operating quantities. It is, in fact, the presence of $`\beta `$ (but neither $`\alpha `$ nor $`\gamma `$) in the above expression that makes $`J_\beta `$ a rather poor choice in constructing the phase space.

With prompting from the above discussion, we now consider a new set of observables:

$$M=M(A,Q,J_{cl}),Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma $$
(19)
and denote their respective conjugates as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_M,\mathrm{\Pi }_Q,\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl},\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma .$$
(20)
The transformation from Eqs.(11,12) into Eqs.(19,20) is canonical if

$$\{M,\mathrm{\Pi }_M\}=\{Q,\mathrm{\Pi }_Q\}=\{J_{cl},\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}\}=\{J_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \}=\{J_\gamma ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma \}=1,$$
(21)
$$\{allothercombinations\}=0,$$
(22)
where the derivatives are taken with respect to the original set of generalized coordinates (11,12).

Applying some straightforward but lengthy calculations, one can readily verify that the proposed transformation is canonical provided that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_M=\frac{8\pi }{\kappa }P_A,$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_Q=P_Q\frac{8\pi }{\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }P_A,$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}=P_{cl}\frac{8\pi }{\kappa }\mathrm{\Omega }P_A,$$
(25)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha =P_\alpha ,$$
(26)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma =P_\gamma .$$
(27)
Note that $`P_{cl}`$ is defined by first making a canonical transformation from Eq.(11,12) to the same set but with $`J_{cl}`$ ($`P_{cl}`$) replacing $`J_\beta `$ ($`\beta `$).

## III Quantum Analysis

To proceed with a suitable process of quantization, in the manner originally advocated by Barvinsky and Kunstatter , the following condition of periodicity is required:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_M\mathrm{\Pi }_M+\frac{2\pi }{\kappa }.$$
(28)
Although technically an assumption, this condition has a well-justified pedigree that follows from the known periodicity of Euclidean time  and the identification of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$ with a measure of Schwarzschild-like time . (Consult  for further discussion.)

Following the prescribed program, we now proceed by introducing a pair of variables that directly incorporate the periodic nature of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$:

$$X=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}B(M,Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma )}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}(\kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M),$$
(29)
$$𝒫_X=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}B(M,Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma )}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(\kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M).$$
(30)
The yet-to-be-specified function $`B`$ will be partially fixed via the constraint that Eqs.(19,20) transform canonically into the set of observables

$$X,Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma $$
(31)
and respective conjugates

$$𝒫_X,𝒫_Q,𝒫_{cl},𝒫_\alpha ,𝒫_\gamma .$$
(32)
Let us therefore consider the following necessary and sufficient condition for a canonical transformation:

$`𝒫_X\delta X+𝒫_Q\delta Q+𝒫_{cl}\delta J_{cl}+𝒫_\alpha \delta J_\alpha +𝒫_\gamma \delta J_\gamma =`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_M\delta M+\mathrm{\Pi }_Q\delta Q+\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}\delta J_{cl}+\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \delta J_\alpha +\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma \delta J_\gamma .`$ (34)
Up to a total variation, one finds that

$$𝒫_X\delta X=\frac{\mathrm{}\kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M}{2\pi }\left[\frac{B}{M}\delta M+\frac{B}{Q}\delta Q+\frac{B}{J_{cl}}\delta J_{cl}+\frac{B}{J_\alpha }\delta J_\alpha +\frac{B}{J_\gamma }\delta J_\gamma \right].$$
(35)
Substituting Eq.(35) into Eq.(34), we promptly obtain the following pivotal result:

$$\frac{B}{M}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}\kappa }.$$
(36)
For future reference, we also have

$$\frac{B}{Q}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}\kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_Q𝒫_Q\right),$$
(37)
$$\frac{B}{J_{cl}}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}\kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}𝒫_{cl}\right)$$
(38)
and analogous expressions involving $`𝒫_\alpha `$ and $`𝒫_\gamma `$.

It is instructive to compare Eq.(36) with the first law, Eq.(5), indicating that $`A/M=4\mathrm{}B/M`$. This suggestive result directly implies the following:

$$B(M,Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma )=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}}A(M,Q,J_{cl})+F(Q,J_{cl},J_\alpha ,J_\gamma ),$$
(39)
where $`F`$ is an essentially arbitrary function of the charge and angular momentum. That is to say, for any well-behaved choice of $`F`$, one will always be able to find expressions for $`𝒫_Q`$, $`𝒫_{cl}`$, $`𝒫_\alpha `$ and $`𝒫_\gamma `$ that maintain a canonical transformation.

In spite of this apparent freedom in $`F`$, we are able to fix this function by way of the following argument. Let us first point out that the (outer) horizon area of a Kerr-Newman black hole is bounded from below \- at least classically - by its extremal value ; that is:§§§This extremal area can be obtained by constraining the mass observable so that the square-root argument in Eq.(6) is exactly vanishing.

$$AA_{ext}=4\pi \sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}.$$
(40)
As elaborated on in the related works , it is most convenient if $`F`$ is chosen so that Eq.(40) translates into the bound $`B0`$. On this basis, we can unambiguously set $`F=A_{ext}/4\mathrm{}`$ and obtain

$$B=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}}\left[A(M,Q,J_{cl})4\pi \sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}\right].$$
(41)
Let us now reconsider Eqs.(29,30), which can be squared and summed to yield $`\mathrm{}B=\pi (X^2+𝒫_X^2)`$. Incorporating this finding into Eq.(41), we have

$$X^2+𝒫_X^2=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[A(M,Q,J_{cl})4\pi \sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}\right]0.$$
(42)
It is especially relevant that the mass and its conjugate, $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$, have been mapped into a complete two-dimensional plane, $`X`$ and $`𝒫_X`$. Any other choice of $`F`$ would have left a “hole” in this plane and unnecessarily complicated the impending process of quantization.

Next, let us elevate the classically defined quantities to quantum operators (denoted by “hats”). Eq.(42) then takes the following form:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }\widehat{B}\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[\widehat{A}4\pi \sqrt{\widehat{Q}^4+4\widehat{J}_{cl}^2}\right]=\frac{\widehat{X}^2}{2}+\frac{\widehat{𝒫}_X^2}{2}.$$
(43)
Given that the domain of $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒫}_X`$ is a complete two-dimensional plane, the spectrum of these operators is trivially that of a harmonic oscillator. Hence, we can write

$$B_n=2\pi \left[n+\frac{1}{2}\right],n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(44)
where $`B_n`$ are the eigenstates of the operator $`\widehat{B}`$. Keep in mind that $`B_n`$ is essentially a measure of the deviation of the horizon area from extremality.

It is interesting to note that, by virtue of the zero-point term in Eq.(44), quantum fluctuations will inhibit the black hole from ever reaching a precise state of extremality. A similar observation has been made for both charged (but non-rotating)  and rotating (but uncharged)  black holes.

## IV Charge and Spin Sector

Our task is not yet complete, as we still require that the spectra for $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{ext}=4\pi \sqrt{\widehat{Q}^4+\widehat{J}_{cl}^2}`$ be explicitly separated. (Note that, for this purpose, a complete separation of the spectra for $`\widehat{J}_{cl}`$ and $`\widehat{Q}`$ is not necessarily required.) It turns out that this objective can readily be accomplished by way of some straightforward arguments.

At a first glance, the quantization of $`\widehat{A}_{ext}`$ appears to be a trivial process; inasmuch as $`\widehat{Q}`$ is the generator of $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations, its spectrum of eigenvalues ($`Q`$) must certainly be of the form

$$Q=em_1,m_1=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},$$
(45)
where $`e`$ is the fundamental unit of electrostatic charge. Furthermore, the quantum limit of the angular-momentum operator (cf, Eq.(18)),

$$\widehat{J}_{cl}^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }\left[\widehat{J}_\alpha ^2+\widehat{J}_\gamma ^22\mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{J}_\alpha \widehat{J}_\beta \right]+\widehat{J}_\beta ^2,$$
(46)
has been shown  to have the following discrete set of eigenvalues ($`J_{cl}`$):

$$J_{cl}=\mathrm{}m_2,m_2=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(47)
Therefore, by substituting Eqs.(45,47) (and also Eq.(44)) into Eq.(43), we find that the area spectrum can be expressed as follows:

$$A_{n,m_1,m_2}=8\pi \mathrm{}\left[n+\frac{1}{2}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{e^4m_1^4+4\mathrm{}^2m_2^2}.$$
(48)
Given this form of the spectrum, it is not at all obvious that the levels could, in general, be evenly spaced. Nonetheless, by utilizing the periodicity of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$ to impose selection rules on $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, we will demonstrate below that a uniformly spaced spectrum is, indeed, consistently realized.

With the above in mind, let us first consider the quasi-charge sector.We use this “quasi” terminology because the charge and spin sectors do not, in general, separate completely. It is useful to recall Eq.(37):

$$𝒫_Q=\mathrm{\Pi }_Q+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Pi }_M+\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_M\frac{A_{ext}}{Q},$$
(49)
where the first law of black hole mechanics (5) and the precise forms of $`B`$ (39) and $`F=A_{ext}/4\mathrm{}`$ have also been applied. For sake of clarity, let us further re-express this relation as follows:

$$𝒫_Q=\chi _1+\frac{\theta }{8\pi }\frac{A_{ext}}{Q},$$
(50)
where $`\chi _1\mathrm{\Pi }_Q+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$ and $`\theta \kappa \mathrm{\Pi }_M`$. It should be kept in mind that $`\theta `$ is an angle (i.e., has a periodicity of exactly $`2\pi `$); cf, Eq.(28). Note that, for a non-rotating black hole, it has been shown  that the variable $`\chi _1`$ is, up to a dimensional factor, also an angular quantity. However, this need not be the case when the spin is “turned on”, and so we will not apply (nor require) this result.

Now consider that, in the coordinate representation with $`\widehat{Q}=i\mathrm{}/𝒫_Q`$, the wavefunctions for the charge eigenstates take the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(P_Q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iQ𝒫_Q}{\mathrm{}}\right]$$
(51)
and we can, therefore, make the following identification:

$$\frac{Q𝒫_Q}{\mathrm{}}\frac{Q𝒫_Q}{\mathrm{}}+2\pi n_1,$$
(52)
where $`n_1`$ is an arbitrary integer.

Let us next consider the implication of Eqs.(50) and (52) when taken together. Holding $`\chi _1`$ constant,Here, we are treating $`\chi _1`$ and $`\theta `$ as independent variables. One might be concerned that both depend on the conjugate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$; however, $`\chi _1`$ also depends on a variable, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_Q`$, that is clearly independent of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$. Hence, we argue that $`\chi _1`$ can be held constant without loss of generality. we are able to deduce that

$$\theta \frac{Q}{8\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{A_{ext}}{Q}\theta \frac{Q}{8\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{A_{ext}}{Q}+2\pi n_2,$$
(53)
where $`n_2`$ is another arbitrary integer. That is, the quantity on the left-hand side must necessarily be an angle. However, $`\theta `$ is, by hypothesis, itself an angle, and so we can write

$$\frac{Q}{8\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{A_{ext}}{Q}=p_1,$$
(54)
where $`p_1`$ is yet another integer (which is manifestly non-negative, as can be seen by inspecting the left-hand side).

We can make the above expression more explicit by utilizing Eq.(40) to obtain

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{Q^4}{\sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}}=p_1,p_1=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(55)
This quantization condition will be referred to as selection rule $`no.1`$.

Let us next examine the quasi-spin sector, beginning with the appropriately revised form of Eq.(38):

$$𝒫_{cl}=\chi _2+\frac{\theta }{8\pi }\frac{A_{ext}}{J_{cl}},$$
(56)
where $`\chi _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$. Because of the obvious symmetry between this relation and its quasi-charge sector analogue (50), it is clear that the current quantization procedure will closely follow the prior analysis. Repeating the steps, as outlined above, for the current case, we find that

$$\frac{J_{cl}}{8\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{A_{ext}}{J_{cl}}=p_2,$$
(57)
where $`p_2`$ is strictly a non-negative integer.

Substituting Eq.(40) into the above relation, we obtain selection rule $`no.2`$:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{2J_{cl}^2}{\sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}}=p_2,p_2=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(58)
Next, we consider an appropriate linear combination of the two selection rules (55,58). Multiplying $`no.2`$ by two and adding this to $`no.1`$, we have (after some trivial manipulations)

$$\sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}=\mathrm{}\left[p_1+2p_2\right],p_1,p_2=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(59)
Let us now recall and appropriately rearrange Eq.(41):

$$A=4\mathrm{}B+4\pi \sqrt{Q^4+4J_{cl}^2}.$$
(60)
Quantizing this relation and then incorporating Eqs.(59,44), we can now write the area spectrum in the following elegant form:

$$A_{n,p_1,p_2}=8\pi \mathrm{}\left[n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{p_1}{2}+p_2\right]n,p_1,p_2=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(61)
Hence, we have realized an evenly spaced spectrum for the area of a fully general Kerr-Newman black hole.

It should be kept in mind that, strictly speaking, the quantum numbers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are not independent parameters. Rather, these integers are related by way of the selection rules; so that, once $`p_1`$ has been fixed, $`p_2`$ will be restricted to a limited set of allowable values and vice versa. We will elaborate on this point in the section to follow.

## V Concluding Discussion: Selection Rules

In summary, we have considered the quantum area spectrum of a Kerr-Newman (rotating and charged) black hole. Extending the methodology of Barvinsky et al for a static system , as well as a recent treatment on Kerr black holes , we have obtained an explicit form for the area spectrum in terms of three integer-valued quantum numbers. Moreover, the spectrum was shown to be uniformly spaced, in direct compliance with the heuristic arguments of Bekenstein  and the algebraic approach .

Let us re-emphasize that some conjectural, although well-motivated inputs were used in attaining this result. First of all, it was assumed that a reduced phase space description exists for a fully general Kerr-Newman black hole. Secondly, we utilized a periodicity condition on the conjugate to the mass that was first proposed by Barvinsky and Kunstatter . Nonetheless, we feel that the elegance of the resulting spectrum only strengthens our convictions with regard to the use of such inputs. We expect, however, to more rigorously address these issues at a future time.

Finally, let us more closely examine the implications of the selection rules on the charge and spin spectra. For illustrative purposes, we will first focus on the case of vanishing spin. Then Eqs.(45,55) require

$$\eta \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{p_1}{m_1^2};$$
(62)
that is, this ratio of fundamental constants, $`\eta `$, is constrained to be a rational, constant number. It follows that $`\eta `$ can always be expressed in the following manner:

$$\eta =\frac{a}{b},$$
(63)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are mutually prime (i.e., non-divisible) integers. Therefore, Eq. (62) rules out many eigenvalues of $`\widehat{Q}`$ and only the following are allowed:

$$Q=em_1,\mathrm{where}m_1^2\mathrm{mod}b=0.$$
(64)
That is to say, $`m_1^2`$ must be divisible by $`b`$.

For the case of vanishing charge but non-vanishing spin, the results are substantially different, as Eqs.(47,58) do not provide any new information. Rather, we only have the trivial outcome of $`m_2=p_2`$ for a neutral black hole.

Next, moving on to the fully general case, we find (after some manipulations) that the selection rules (55,58) now imply a pair of constraints:

$$\eta ^2m_1^4=p_1(p_1+2p_2)\mathrm{and}2m_2^2=p_2(p_1+2p_2).$$
(65)
Since $`\eta `$ is the same rational number given by Eq.(63), the charge sector is still quantized according to Eq. (64). Furthermore, Eq. (65) shows that, for any definite value of $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ can only take on a limited set of allowable values and vice versa. To put it another way: as a consequence of the selection rules, the charge and angular-momentum spectra are not completely independent.

It has been suggested by Barvinsky et al  that the above type of analysis can also be used to fix the fundamental constants of nature, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$, by a Coleman-like “big-fix” mechanism . Certainly, the ratio $`e^2/\mathrm{}`$ must necessarily be a rational number (cf, Eq.(62)) independently of any other considerations. However, it remains unclear if this outcome is an artifact of an intrinsically semi-classical framework or a manifestation of some deep, fundamental principle of quantum gravity. We can only hope that future investigations can shed some light on this intriguing question.

## VI Acknowledgments

The authors graciously thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations and J.D. Bekenstein and G. Kunstatter for enlightening correspondences. GG is also grateful for the Killam Trust for its financial support.


format: text

text:
# The Light–Cone Effective Potential

## I Introduction

There has been a recent debate concerning the evaluation of certain $`S`$–matrix elements using light–cone quantum field theory where canonical commutators are postulated on null–planes tangent to the light–cone. Taniguchi et al. taniguchi:01  have considered a one–loop scattering amplitude within $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in two dimensions, given by the finite integral,

$$M(p^2)i\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}\frac{1}{(k+p)^2m^2}.$$
(1)
Here, the external momentum $`p`$ denotes the momentum flowing through the diagram. The authors of taniguchi:01  were particularly interested in the case where the longitudinal momentum component, $`p^+p^0+p^3`$, vanishes, entailing that $`p^2=p^+p^{}=0`$. The main claim of taniguchi:01  was that the associated scattering amplitude vanishes, $`M(0)=0`$, if the techniques of discretized light–cone quantization (DLCQ) maskawa:76 ; pauli:85a  are used. Its application in taniguchi:01  amounts to cutting off $`|k^+|`$ for small values, $`|k^+|>\delta `$. So the finding of taniguchi:01  actually was that $`M_\delta (0)=0`$, with $`M_\delta `$ denoting the integral (1) with small–$`k^+`$ cutoff.

On the other hand, standard covariant perturbation theory yields (e.g. via Wick rotation),

$$M(0)=i\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2+i\epsilon )^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi m^2}.$$
(2)
Thus, there seems to be a paradox.

The conclusions of taniguchi:01  were questioned shortly afterwards by the authors of harindranath:02 . They studied the behavior of $`M(p^+p^{})`$ for $`p^+>0`$, calculated the integral in noncovariant (Hamiltonian) light–cone perturbation theory and performed the limit $`p^+0`$ at the end. Their result was that the scattering amplitude $`M(p^2)`$ does approach the correct limit (2).

If covariant and light–cone perturbation theory are equivalent, then it should be possible to reproduce (2) by evaluating the integral in LC coordinates. In this case, (2) becomes

$$M_{\mathrm{LC}}i\frac{dk^+dk^{}}{8\pi ^2}\frac{1}{(k^+k^{}m^2+i\epsilon )^2}.$$
(3)
The crux is the $`k^{}`$-integration which is somewhat tricky. Fortunately, this issue has been analysed long ago by Yan in yan:73b  who noted the following. Obviously, one wants to use contour methods to perform the $`k^{}`$–integration. Apparently, one can always choose the contour such that the double pole, $`k^{}=m^2/k^+`$, can be avoided. While this is true for $`k^+0`$, the argument breaks down for $`k^+=0`$. This suggests that the whole contribution to the integral comes from the ‘zero mode’, $`k^+=0`$, the integrand thus being proportional to $`\delta (k^+)`$. This is indeed what Yan has found,

$$𝑑k^{}(k^+k^{}m^2+i\epsilon )^2=\frac{2\pi i}{m^2}\delta (k^+),$$
(4)
which is most easily shown using Schwinger’s parametrization to exponentiate denominators. Plugging (4) into (3) correctly yields (2).

At this point it becomes completely obvious what is going on in DLCQ. By cutting off the small–$`k^+`$ region one is removing the support of the delta function in (4) so $`M_\delta (0)=0`$ for all $`\delta >0`$. In other words, the limit $`\delta 0`$ is nonuniform. In any case, the correct way to proceed is to either keep the external momentum $`p^+`$ finite as in harindranath:02  or to use Yan’s formula (4).

The discussion above might seem somewhat academic. However, light–cone zero modes are of relevance in a broad range of physical problems. For instance, they have been discussed in the matrix formulation resulting from DLCQ of M–theory (see banks:99  and references therein). Within phenomenological applications, zero modes show up as end–point singularities of Feynman graphs melikhov:02  which may lead to a breakdown of collinear factorization braun:02 . Amplitudes with vanishing external momenta arise in particular, whenever vacuum properties are of concern, for example in the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The elusive character of vacuum diagrams in light–cone quantum field theory (encoded in the phrase ”the light–cone vacuum is trivial”), has never been quite resolved. To understand spontaneous symmetry breaking in this particular framework thus still remains a theoretical challenge (see burkardt:97d ; brodsky:97 ; yamawaki:98 ; heinzl:00  for reviews and sugihara:98 ; rozowsky:00 ; sugihara:01  for recent discussions).

It turns out that a slight generalization of Yan’s formula (4) can be used to calculate a particularly relevant tool for studying spontaneous symmetry breaking, namely the effective potential.

## II The effective potential: ordinary coordinates

The effective potential $`V[\varphi _c]`$ is the leading term of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi _c]`$ in a derivative expansion. In other words, it is the effective action evaluated for constant classical field $`\varphi _c`$, divided by the volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of space–time. As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, on the other hand, is the generating functional of one–particle irreducible (1PI) diagrams (proper vertices), the effective potential can be expanded in terms of 1PI diagrams with vanishing external momenta,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }V[\varphi _c]=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(p_1=0,\mathrm{},p_n=0)\varphi _c^n.$$
(5)
It is this vanishing of external momenta which makes the considerations of the introduction apply. To make this letter self–contained we recall some basic results concerning the effective potential. For $`\varphi ^4`$–theory in $`d`$ dimensions, (5) becomes, in one–loop approximation,

$$V[\varphi _c]=U+i\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\underset{n1}{}\frac{1}{2n}\left(\frac{V_0^{\prime \prime }}{k^2m^2+iϵ}\right)^n,$$
(6)
where $`U`$ denotes the classical potential,

$$U[\varphi _c]\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _c^2+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi _c^4\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _c^2+V_0,$$
(7)
and the prime(s) differentiation with respect to $`\varphi _c`$. Usually, one evaluates (6) by first summing and then integrating. The summation yields a divergent integral,

$$V[\varphi _c]=U\frac{i}{2}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{log}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }k^2iϵ}{m^2k^2iϵ},$$
(8)
which can be evaluated most elegantly in dimensional regularisation (see e.g. the text peskin:95 ).

In principle, for noninteger dimension $`d`$, all individual integrals in the sum (6) are regulated as well. Using Schwinger’s parametrization they can be calculated straightforwardly,

$`I_{n,d}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2+iϵ)^n}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(nd/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m^2)^{nd/2}}}.`$
From the Gamma functions one reads off that $`I_{n,d}`$ is finite for integers $`n>d/2`$. In particular, for even dimension $`d`$, there are $`ld/2`$ divergent integrals. Plugging (9) into (6) yields the one–loop effective potential according to

$$V[\varphi _c]=U+\frac{i}{2}\underset{n1}{}\frac{(V_0^{\prime \prime })^n}{n}I_{n,d}.$$
(10)
Instead of evaluating this sum in full generality, we will content ourselves with the discussion of the effective potential in $`d=4`$ which is the most interesting case.

The integrals in the series (6) are evaluated as follows. There are two divergent ones,

$`I_{1,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right),`$ (11)
$`I_{2,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}},`$ (12)
where, as usual, we have neglected terms that are small compared to the covariant cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The finite integrals are given by the $`I_{n,4}`$ from (9) with $`n3`$. Using the summation formula

$$\underset{n3}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}x^n=\frac{1}{2}\left[(1x)^2\mathrm{log}(1x)+x\frac{3}{4}x^2\right],$$
(13)
the sum of the integrals (11), (12) and the $`I_{n,4}`$, $`n3`$, yields the regularized one–loop effective potential

$$V[\varphi _c]=U+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{U^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{log}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(14)
Exactly the same result is obtained by directly evaluating (8) with a covariant cutoff.

To renormalize the potential, two counterterms are required corresponding to mass and coupling constant renormalization, respectively,

$$V_RV+\frac{A}{2}\varphi _c^2+\frac{B}{4!}\varphi _c^4.$$
(15)
The counterterms are fixed by the renormalization conditions

$`V_R^{\prime \prime }|_{\varphi _c=0}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2,`$ (16)
$`V_R^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }|_{\varphi _c=0}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ,`$ (17)
which finally lead to the renormalized effective potential

$$V_R[\varphi _c]=U+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(2\frac{m^2}{U^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{log}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{m^2}\frac{3}{2}\right).$$
(18)
In what follows we will try to reproduce (14) and hence (18) using light–cone methods.

## III The effective potential: LC coordinates

Within the LC formalism, the calculation of the effective potential is a tricky business. Some early attempts benesh:91 ; harindranath:88c ; heinzl:92c ; pinsky:94  did not reproduce the canonical effective potential (18). In xu:95 , an approach based on a bona fide path integral has been adopted, which, however, did not properly include the LC constraints into the measure. In addition, the intricacies of regulating LC diagrams have not been addressed. The paper that comes closests to ours in spirit is convery:95 . These authors were discussing the integrals $`I_{n,4}`$ and realized that the finite ones are entirely dominated by the zero mode. Being not aware of Yan’s formula they suggested to define LC vacuum diagrams by letting some small amount $`p`$ of external momentum flow through the diagrams and take the limit $`p0`$ after integration (cf. the discussion in the introduction).

In order to calculate the effective potential using the LC approach, two basic difficulties have to be overcome. First, one has to find a way to calculate the finite diagrams given by the integrals $`I_n`$, $`n>d/2=l`$, and second, one needs a reasonable regularization for the divergent integrals. The first problem is solved in two steps. We specialize to even dimensions, $`d=2l`$, and calculate the integral over transverse momenta,

$`J_{n,2l}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d2}k_{}}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\frac{1}{(k^+k^{}k_{}^2m^2+iϵ)^n}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\right)^{l1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(nl+1)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{(k^+k^{}m^2+iϵ)^{nl+1}}}.`$
This formula is only relevant in more than two dimensions ($`l>1`$) and yields a finite answer for integers $`n>l1`$. The integrals defining the one–loop effective potential are then

$$I_{n,2l}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}𝑑k^+𝑑k^{}J_{n,2l}.$$
(20)
The $`k^{}`$–integration is done using a slight generalization of Yan’s formula (4),

$$𝑑k^{}(k^+k^{}m^2+iϵ)^p=2\pi i\delta (k^+)\frac{(1)^p}{p1}\frac{1}{(m^2)^{p1}},$$
(21)
which holds for $`p>1`$ and can be proved by differentiating (4) $`p2`$ times with respect to $`m^2`$. The remaining $`k^+`$–integration in (20) immediately leads to (9). All finite integrals are reproduced in this way. Thus, all that remains to be discussed are the divergent integrals which, in $`d=4`$, are $`I_{1,4}`$ and $`I_{2,4}`$. The latter is simpler, as (19) applies ($`l=n=2`$) and results in

$$I_{2,4}=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2+iϵ)^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi }I_{1,2}.$$
(22)
The integral $`I_{1,2}`$ is the light–cone tadpole in $`d=2`$,

$$I_{1,2}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}𝑑k^+𝑑k^{}\frac{1}{k^+k^{}m^2+iϵ},$$
(23)
where by $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ we have indicated a regularization prescription (cutting off small and large values of $`k^+`$) which will be specified in a moment. In any case, with $`|k^+|>\delta `$, the $`k^{}`$–integration can be done by closing the contour, so that (23) becomes

$$I_{1,2}=\frac{i}{4\pi }_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}𝑑k^+\frac{\theta (k^+)}{k^+}.$$
(24)
It has been repeatedly noted by many people harindranath:88c ; dietmaier:89 ; griffin:92c ; itakura:99  that the cutoffs for small and large $`k^+`$ have to be related via parity,

$$\delta \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}k^+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(25)
leading to

$$I_{1,2}=\frac{i}{4\pi }\underset{m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\frac{dk^+}{k^+}=\frac{i}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2},$$
(26)
which reproduces the standard result. Note that zero modes have been excluded and that the entire mass dependence of the integral comes from the cutoff. Plugging (26) into (22) finally yields

$$I_{2,4}=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2},$$
(27)
which is (12). The $`d=4`$ tadpole $`I_{1,4}`$ is slightly more complicated as the $`k_{}`$–integration also diverges so that (19) cannot be used. The problem has been solved some time ago in dietmaier:89 . The crucial point is to employ the transverse–momentum cutoff,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2x(1x)+m^2,\text{where}xk^+/\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(28)
By means of (28) and the standard $`k^+`$–cutoff (25), the tadpole becomes

$$I_{1,4}=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}m^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}\right).$$
(29)
Rescaling $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and omitting subleading terms this coincides with (11). Again, zero modes have not been invoked. The regularized and renormalized effective potentials, (14) and (18), respectively, follow.

We can ask ourselves what would happen if (in the spirit of taniguchi:01 ) the zero mode contributions were strictly cut off in all integrals be they finite or infinite. In this case, all finite integrals $`I_n`$ are zero, as the support of Yan’s delta function in (21) is located outside the integration region. The regularized effective potential in $`d=4`$ becomes

$$V_{\mathrm{nZM}}=U+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{U^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{log}\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),$$
(30)
where ‘nZM’ stands for ’no zero modes’. Note that there is no $`\varphi _c`$–dependence in the log as this resummation effect must be absent. Accordingly, the result (30) is polynomial in $`\varphi _c`$. This has peculiar consequences. Imposing the renormalization conditions (16) and (17) we find that the renormalized effective potential coincides with the tree level expression, $`V_{\mathrm{nZM},\mathrm{R}}=U`$. In other words, the (renormalized) one–loop contributions vanish, a result that is clearly false. In some sense, this can be viewed as an unwanted consequence of assuming (or rather enforcing) a trivial light–cone vacuum.

There is, however, a way around this obstacle. Note that the mass dependence appearing in the log of (30) is entirely due to the cutoff. If we change this cutoff in an ad–hoc manner by replacing

$$m^2U^{\prime \prime }=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\varphi _c^2=m^2+V_0^{\prime \prime },$$
(31)
we obtain instead of (30) the regularized potential

$$V=U+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{U^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{U^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{log}\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+\mathrm{log}\frac{V_0^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),$$
(32)
which coincides with (14) up to a finite renormalization. The first two terms in brackets are just the contribution (30) where the zero modes had been discarded. The latter exclusively constitute the last log term. We thus can state a peculiar finding: the resummation of the zero mode contributions results in a modification of the cutoff given by the replacement (31). This replacement seems to be very much ad hoc. Its justification will be explained in what follows.

It would have been desireable to directly calculate the resummed expression (8) for the effective potential using LC coordinates. This is not straightforward. Being the log–determinant of the fluctuation operator $`\mathrm{}+U^{\prime \prime }`$, (8) diverges and has to be regulated. We know how to do so for tadpole type Feynman diagrams, but not for the log–determinant.

However, there is a simple trick to relate the latter to a tadpole. Taking the derivative with respect to $`\varphi _c`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _c}}V`$ $`=`$ $`U^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}U^{\prime \prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{k^2U^{\prime \prime }+iϵ}}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`U^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}U^{\prime \prime \prime }I_{1,d}(U^{\prime \prime }),`$
precisely yields a tadpole with the mass $`m^2`$ replaced by $`U^{\prime \prime }`$! For $`d=4`$, the relevant integral has been calculated in (29). All that is left is to plug this into (33) and undo the differentiation by integrating. This precisely reproduces (14).

We have seen that the effective potential can be calculated both with and without the inclusion of light–cone zero modes. Omitting the latter, however, requires a sophisticated modification of the regularization prescription which need not work for arbitrary vacuum graphs (see also burkardt:93b  and wilson:94  for a similar philosophy). In order to correctly reproduce finite vacuum amplitudes, the inclusion of zero modes seems indispensable. It would be of interest to extend the techniques presented to the light–cone Hamiltonian formulation. Work in this direction is under way.

I am grateful to C. Ford and T. Mohaupt for illuminating discussions. I thank S. Mukhanov for the hospitality extended to me and A. Wipf for continuous support. This work was funded in part by DFG under contract Wi 777/5–1.


text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

In this work we extend the results of  and present a classification of the non-associative realizations of the $`1`$-dimensional extended supersymmetries which are based on the division algebra of the octonions.

In  it was proven that the linear multiplets of representations of $`1D`$-Extended Supersymmetry (i.e. the basic ingredients in Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics) fall into classes of equivalence each one characterized by a given “short multiplet”, denoted as $`\{n,n\}`$, such that all the $`n`$ bosonic (and all the $`n`$ fermionic) states are grouped together with the same spin, the spin of the fermions differing by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ w.r.t. the spin of the bosons. This first result of  was obtained by noticing that the supersymmetry transformations of the higher-spin (let’s say at the level $`s`$) components in a given multiplet (these transformations in any $`D`$ dimension are total derivatives) in $`D=1`$ coincide with time derivatives. In its turn this implies that the original supersymmetry multiplet can be algebraically replaced by a shorter one, with the original higher spin states now accommodated together with the $`s1`$ spin states in this level. The iteration of such a procedure produces at the end a short multiplet as defined above.

The second part of the  classification consisted in proving that all short multiplets are in one-to-one correspondence with a special class (which can be named either of “Weyl type” or “of supersymmetric type”) of irreducible representations of Clifford algebras. These are the Clifford algebra representations, splitted into $`2\times 2`$ block matrices, which are non-vanishing only in the antidiagonal blocks. The restriction to this class of Clifford algebras can be intuitively understood when thinking to them as the Clifford algebras which can be “promoted” to be fermionic matrices (as it would be expected for supersymmetry), realizing a superalgebra.

The one-to-one correspondence between Weyl-type Clifford algebras on one side and short multiplets of $`1D`$ extended supersymmetries on the other side implies the following identifications

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`N`$ (1)
and

$`d`$ $`=`$ $`n`$ (2)
where on the l.h.s. $`D`$ denotes the spacetime dimensionality (here, for simplicity, assumed Euclidean) of the given Clifford algebra and $`2d`$ the matrix size of the representation. For what concerns the r.h.s. $`N`$ denotes the number of extended supersymmetries, while $`n`$ is the number of bosonic (or fermionic) states in the given short multiplet.

On the other hand, not all extended supersymmetries admit a matrix representation. There are several examples, some of them discussed in the following, of dynamical systems admitting a non-associative realization of the extended supersymmetries. Of course the non-associativity prevents representing the supersymmetry transformations through standard supermatrices and therefore these supersymmetric systems are outside the  classification. It is worth mentioning that in all the known examples the non-associativity enters through the octonionic structure constants.

In this paper, mimicking the approach of , we extend its results relying this time upon the classification of the octonionic realizations for Clifford algebras. We are able to classify the octonionic-valued extended supersymmetries carried by octonionic-valued short multiplets.

The first non-trivial example of a non-associative realization of supersymmetry involves the octonionic realization of the $`N=8`$ supersymmetry. A dynamical system admitting invariance under a global octonionic $`N=8`$ is e.g. given by the $`N=8`$ super-KdV , whose Poisson brackets coincide with the Non-associative $`N=8`$ Superconformal Algebra introduced in . The superKdVs are non-linear non-relativistic systems in $`(1+1)`$-dimensions. However, since the supersymmetry transformations depend on the space coordinate alone, they are classified in agreement with the results for the $`1D`$ Extended Supersymmetries.

Other dynamical systems admitting invariance under non-associative realizations of the Extended Supersymmetries involve the octonionic spinning particles, as later discussed.

The scheme of this paper is as follows. In the next section we present the classification of the octonionic realizations of the Clifford algebras. This is the necessary ingredient for introducing in section $`3`$ the classification of the octonionic realizations of the Extended Supersymmetries. In section $`4`$ some examples of dynamical systems admitting octonionic realizations of the extended supersymmetries are discussed in some detail. Finally, in the Conclusions, we make further comments on our results, mentioning, among other, the possible relevance of the classification of the one-dimensional octonionic supersymmetries in the dimensional reduction from octonionic string and M-theory.

## 2 The octonionic Clifford algebras.

The classification of the $`1D`$ Extended Supersymmetries is based, as recalled in the Introduction, on the classification of Clifford algebras . We summarize here the main results which will be used in following concerning real and octonionic-valued Clifford algebras. A very convenient presentation for them is in terms of the following algorithm, which allows individuating a single representative for each irreducible class of representations of Clifford’s Gamma matrices.

Let us prove at first that a recursive construction of $`D+2`$ spacetime dimensional Clifford algebras is available, when assumed known a $`D`$ dimensional representation. Indeed, it is a simple exercise to verify that if $`\gamma _i`$’s denotes the $`d`$-dimensional Gamma matrices of a $`D=p+q`$ spacetime with $`(p,q)`$ signature (namely, providing a representation for the $`C(p,q)`$ Clifford algebra) then $`2d`$-dimensional $`D+2`$ Gamma matrices (denoted as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$) of a $`D+2`$ spacetime are produced according to either

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _i\\ \gamma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
$`(p,q)`$ $``$ $`(p+1,q+1).`$ (10)
or

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _i\\ \gamma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`(p,q)`$ $``$ $`(q+2,p).`$ (18)
As an example, the two-dimensional real-valued Pauli matrices $`\tau _A`$, $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ which realize the Clifford algebra $`C(2,1)`$ are obtained by applying either (10) or (18) to the number $`1`$, i.e. the one-dimensional realization of $`C(1,0)`$. We have indeed

$`\tau _A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
All Clifford algebras are obtained by recursively applying the algorithms (10) and (18) to the Clifford algebra $`C(1,0)`$ ($`1`$) and the Clifford algebras of the series $`C(0,3+4m)`$ ($`m`$ non-negative integer), which must be previously known. This is in accordance with the scheme illustrated in the table below.

Table with the maximal Clifford algebras (up to $`d=256`$).

(61)
Concerning the previous table, some remarks are in order. The columns are labeled by the matrix size $`d`$ of the maximal Clifford algebras. Their signature is denoted by the $`(p,q)`$ pairs. Furthermore, the underlined Clifford algebras in the table are called the “primitive maximal Clifford algebras”. The remaining maximal Clifford algebras, known as the “maximal descendant Clifford algebras”, are obtained from the primitive maximal Clifford algebras by iteratively applying the two recursive algorithms (10) and (18). Any Clifford algebra is said “non-maximal” if obtained by a maximal one by deleting a certain number of Gamma matrices. It should be noticed that Clifford algebras in even-dimensional spacetimes are always non-maximal.

For what concerns the construction of the primitive maximal Clifford algebras of the series $`C(0,3+8n)`$ (also known as quaternionic series, due to its connection with this division algebra, as we will explain later), as well as the octonionic series $`C(0,7+8n)`$, the answer can be provided with the help of the three Pauli matrices (25). We construct at first the $`4\times 4`$ matrices realizing the Clifford algebra $`C(0,3)`$ and the $`8\times 8`$ matrices realizing the Clifford algebra $`C(0,7)`$. They are given, respectively, by

$`C(0,3)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{c}\tau _A\tau _1,\\ \tau _A\tau _2,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A.\end{array}`$ (66)
and

$`C(0,7)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{c}\tau _A\tau _1\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\\ \tau _A\tau _2\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A\tau _1,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A\tau _2,\\ \tau _1\mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A,\\ \tau _2\mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A,\\ \tau _A\tau _A\tau _A.\end{array}`$ (74)
The three matrices of $`C(0,3)`$ will be denoted as $`\overline{\tau }_i`$, $`=1,2,3`$. The seven matrices of $`C(0,7)`$ will be denoted as $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},7`$.

In order to construct the remaining Clifford algebras of the series we need at first to apply the (10) algorithm to $`C(0,7)`$ and construct the $`16\times 16`$ matrices realizing $`C(1,8)`$ (the matrix with positive signature is denoted as $`\gamma _9`$, $`\gamma _{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, while the eight matrices with negative signatures are denoted as $`\gamma _j`$, $`j=1,2\mathrm{},8`$, with $`\gamma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$). We are now in the position to explicitly construct the whole series of primitive maximal Clifford algebras $`C(0,3+8n)`$, $`C(0,7+8n)`$ through the formulas

$`C(0,3+8n)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\tau }_i\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\gamma _9,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \gamma _9\gamma _j,\end{array}`$ (81)
and similarly

$`C(0,7+8n)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\gamma _9,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \gamma _9\gamma _j,\end{array}`$ (88)
Please notice that the tensor product of the $`16`$-dimensional representation is taken $`n`$ times. The total size of the (81) matrix representations is then $`4\times 16^n`$, while the total size of (88) is $`8\times 16^n`$.

The formulas given above provide quite a practical and efficient tool to operatively construct the irreducible Clifford algebras.

An important subclass of Clifford Gamma matrices is obtained by the matrices which are decomposable in $`2\times 2`$ blocks and are non-vanishing only in the anti-diagonal blocks. Such matrices can be named as (generalized) Weyl-type matrices (they can also be regarded of “supersymmetric type” since they can be promoted to be fermionic matrices associated with the representations of the extended supersymmetries, see ). An inspection of the previous tables shows that sets of (generalized) Weyl matrices are found in special signatures only. All primitive Clifford algebras are not of (generalized) Weyl type. However, all the derived Clifford algebras, through the two lifting algorithms, are of Weyl-type, once deleted the $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ matrix to produce a non-maximal Clifford algebra.

So far we have shown how to construct the irreducible representations of Clifford algebras, and not yet elucidated their relations with division algebras. Such a relation can be expressed as follows. The three matrices appearing in $`C(0,3)`$ can also be expressed in terms of the imaginary quaternions $`\tau _i`$ satisfying $`\tau _i\tau _j=\delta _{ij}+ϵ_{ijk}\tau _k`$. As a consequence, the whole set of maximal primitive Clifford algebras $`C(0,3+8n)`$, as well as their maximal descendants, can be represented as quaternionic-valued matrices, acting on spinors, which have to be interpreted now as quaternionic-valued column vectors.

Similarly, there exists an alternative realization for the Clifford algebra $`C(0,7)`$, obtained by identifying the seven generators with the seven imaginary octonions satisfying the algebraic relation

$`\tau _i\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+C_{ijk}\tau _k,`$ (89)
for $`i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`C_{ijk}`$ the totally antisymmetric octonionic structure constants given by

$`C_{123}=C_{147}=C_{165}=C_{246}=C_{257}=C_{354}=C_{367}=1`$ (90)
and vanishing otherwise. This octonionic realization of the seven-dimensional Euclidean Clifford algebra will be denoted as $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$. Due to the non-associative character of the (89) octonionic product (the weaker condition of alternativity is satisfied, see ), the octonionic realization cannot be represented as an ordinary matrix product and is therefore a distinct and inequivalent realization of this Euclidean Clifford algebra with respect to the one previously considered (74). Please notice that, by iteratively applying the two lifting algorithms to $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$, we obtain matrix realizations with octonionic-valued entries for the maximal Clifford algebras of the series $`C(m,7+m)`$ and $`C(8+m,m1)`$, for positive integral values of $`m`$ ($`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$). These realizations are denoted $`C_𝐎(m,7+m)`$ and $`C_𝐎(8+m,m1)`$, respectively. The dimensionality of the corresponding octonionic-valued matrices is $`2^m\times 2^m`$.

We should point out that the construction (88) leading to the primitive maximal Clifford algebras $`C(0,7+8n)`$, can be carried on with the help of the octonionic-valued realization $`C_𝐎(1,8)`$ for the $`\gamma _i`$’s and $`\gamma _9`$ matrices. As a consequence, octonionic realizations of $`C(0,7+8n)`$ and their descendants can be produced acting on column spinors, whose entries are tensor products of octonions. If in the r.h.s. of (88) $`k`$ octonionic and $`nk`$ real realizations are chosen, the maximal Clifford algebras $`C(m,7+m+8n)`$ and $`C(9+8n+m,m)`$, for $`n0`$ and $`m0`$, are realized by matrices with $`k+1`$-tensorial octonionic entries (the extra $`1`$ being associated to $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$) and respective size of $`2^{4n3k+m}`$ and $`2^{4n3k+m+1}`$.

## 3 The octonionic extended supersymmetries.

We furnish here the classification of the $`1D`$ octonionic extended supersymmetries. More precisely, we give the list of the octonionic maximal supersymmetries supported by short multiplets of $`n`$ bosonic and $`n`$ fermionic fields. This is based both on  and the previous section results. The octonionic extensions can be recovered from a suitable restriction of the  classification formulas of the real representations of the $`1D`$ extended supersymmetries. Indeed, the octonionic realizations of the maximal Clifford algebras are obtained by lifting the $`C_𝐎(0,7+8n)`$ series. No octonionic counterpart exists for the $`C(1,0)`$ and the $`C(0,3+8n)`$ series.

The one-to-one correspondence of $`1D`$ extended supersymmetries and Weyl type real-valued Clifford algebras  is obtained by expressing the supersymmetry generators $`Q_i`$ satisfying the supersymmetry algebra

$`\{Q_i,Q_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{ij}H,`$ (91)
for the generalized pseudo-Euclidean metric $`\eta _{ij}`$111the Euclidean case was considered earlier in . Pseudo-Euclidean supersymmetries naturally appear as dynamical invariances for systems like the spinning particles moving in generic space-time target manifolds. of $`(p,q)`$ signature, through

$`Q_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_iH& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (94)
where $`H`$ is the hamiltonian and one can set

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (97)
satisfying

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j+\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _{ij}.`$ (98)
The octonionic realizations are recovered by setting $`\sigma _i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$ as matrices with octonionic-valued entries, instead of being real matrices. From the previous section we know that Weyl type (97) octonionic-valued matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ satisfying (98) are recovered from the maximal Clifford algebras derived from the $`C_𝐎(0,7+8n)`$ series, after deleting the diagonal $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)`$ matrix. This leaves us the two series of octonionic maximally extended supersymmetries of $`(p,q)`$ signature, namely

$`(m,8+8n+m)`$ (99)
and

$`(8+8n+m,m),`$ (100)
for integral values $`n,m0`$.

In both cases the number of octonionic bosonic, as well as fermionic, components is given by $`2^{n+m}`$. Please notice the equivalence of (99) and (100) under the sign flipping $`pq`$.

This result can be summarized as follows. The inequivalent classes of octonionic irreducible realizations of the maximally extended supersymmetries acting on octonionic multiplets of $`d=2^k`$ bosons and equal number of fermions is given by

$`(x+8\epsilon (k+1x),x+8(1\epsilon )(k+1x)),`$ (101)
for integral values $`0xk`$ and $`\epsilon =0,1`$.

At the lowest order of $`d`$, the following table can be produced

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & (p,q)\\ & \\ d=1& (8,0),(0,8)\\ & \\ d=2& (16,0),(9,1),(1,9),(0,16)\\ & \\ d=4& (24,0),(17,1),(10,2),(2,10),(1,17),(0,24)\\ & \\ d=8& (40,0),(33,1),(26,2),(19,3),(12,4),(4,12),(3,19),(2,26),(1,33),(0,40)\end{array}`$ (107)
Of course, irreducible realizations of non-maximal octonionic extended supersymmetries are recovered from the previous table for the values $`(p^{},q^{})`$, with $`p^{}p`$ and $`q^{}q`$, provided that $`p^{}`$, $`q^{}`$ are not too small. For instance, the irreducible $`2+2`$ realization of the octonionic $`(8,1)(9,1)`$ is encountered, while the irreducible $`(8,0)`$ is directly present in the table and found at $`d=1`$.

## 4 Dynamical systems with octonionic supersymmetry.

In this section we present some examples of dynamical systems admitting invariance under $`1D`$ octonionic extended supersymmetries.

The first example of a non-associative, octonionic realization of a $`1D`$ supersymmetry is given by the octonionic $`N=8`$. It is associated, according to the previous section results, to $`C_𝐎(8,0)`$ and is expressed in terms of $`2\times 2`$ octonionic-valued matrices. Explicitly, the eight supersymmetry generators $`Q_0`$, $`Q_i`$, for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},7`$, are given by

$`Q_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ H& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`Q_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& t_i\\ t_iH& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (112)
where $`t_i`$ denote the imaginary octonions and $`H`$ is the hamiltonian.

The above supersymmetry can also be expressed in an octonionic language. It corresponds to the simplest (for $`D=1`$) case of a class of higher-dimensional generalized octonionic supersymmetries, investigated in the light of superstring theories, M-theory, etc., see . We can indeed introduce the octonionic supercharge $`𝒬`$ and its octonionic conjugate $`𝒬^{}`$ (under octonionic principal conjugation), through

$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\mathrm{}7}{}}Qt_i,`$
$`𝒬^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\mathrm{}7}{}}Qt_i,`$ (113)
with

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ H& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (116)
As a consequence, the octonionic $`N=8`$ can be rewritten as

$`\{𝒬,𝒬\}=\{𝒬^{},𝒬^{}\}=2H,`$
$`\{𝒬,𝒬^{}\}=0.`$ (117)
We already pointed out that the octonionic $`N=8`$ is an inequivalent realization of the $`1D`$ $`N=8`$ supersymmetry with respect to standard $`N=8`$, obtained by replacing the seven imaginary octonions $`t_i`$ in (112) with the seven (associative) $`8\times 8`$ matrices given in (74)222In the $`Q_0`$, $`Q_i`$ entries $`1`$ is also replaced by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_8`$..

Perhaps the most convenient way of getting ourselves convinced of the inequivalence of the associative-versus-nonassociative realizations of $`N=8`$, consists in presenting a dynamical system which only admits invariance under the octonionic $`N=8`$. No counterpart is found with invariance under the associative $`N=8`$. A nice example of that is given by the $`N=8`$ KdV. Due to the absence of central extension for $`N`$-extended superconformal algebras with $`N>4`$ , superKdV equations only exist for $`N4`$. Indeed, the Virasoro central extension is necessary to produce the three-derivative term entering the KdV equation. On the other hand, the mathematical no-go theorem preventing the construction of superKdV equations for $`N>4`$ can be overcome by noticing that non-Jacobian superconformal algebras like the Non-associative $`N=8`$ SCA introduced in , can present central extension and be regarded as generalized Poisson brackets for a non-associative supersymmetric extension of KdV. In  we proved that there exists only one such extension, the $`N=8`$ KdV, invariant under the global octonionic $`N=8`$. From the considerations above, it is clear that no $`N=8`$ superKdV based on the associative $`N=8`$ can exist, since this is prevented by the no-go theorem.

The $`N=8`$ superKdV equations are explicitly given by

$`\dot{T}`$ $`=`$ $`T^{\prime \prime \prime }12T^{}T6Q_a^{\prime \prime }Q_a+4J_i^{\prime \prime }J_i,`$
$`\dot{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{\prime \prime \prime }6T^{}Q6TQ^{}4Q_i^{\prime \prime }J_i+2Q_iJ_i^{\prime \prime }2Q_i^{}J_i^{},`$
$`\dot{Q}_i`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime \prime }2QJ_i^{\prime \prime }6TQ_i^{}6T^{}Q_i+2Q^{}J_i^{}+4Q^{\prime \prime }J_i`$
$`2C_{ijk}(Q_jJ_k^{\prime \prime }Q_j^{}J_k^{}2Q_j^{\prime \prime }J_k),`$
$`\dot{J}_i`$ $`=`$ $`J_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime \prime }4T^{}J_i4TJ_i^{}+2QQ_i^{}+2Q^{}Q_iC_{ijk}(4J_jJ_k^{\prime \prime }+2Q_jQ_k^{}).`$ (118)
(the dot and the prime denote, as usual, the time and respectively the space derivative). They involve the eight bosonic fields $`T`$, $`J_i`$ and the eight fermionic fields $`Q_0Q`$, $`Q_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$, while $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},7`$). One should notice the presence of the octonionic structure constants $`C_{ijk}`$. The $`N=8`$ global supersymmetry transformations leaving the (118) system invariant are generated by $`𝑑xQ_a(x)`$, for $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},7`$, under the Non-associative $`N=8`$ SCA Poisson brackets, see  for details. They coincide with the (112) transformations once setting the hamiltonian $`H=i\frac{}{x}`$. Please notice that, despite the fact that the fields entering the $`N=8`$ superKdV are dependent on both the space and time coordinates, the $`N=8`$ supersymmetry transformations only depend on the space coordinate $`x`$. The time dependence being “frozen”, one can directly read these transformations from the $`1D`$ octonionic $`N=8`$ supersymmetry generators given above.

We have clarified the role of the octonionic supersymmetry transformations and presented a first example of a non-trivial system invariant under non-associative supersymmetries. Another example of a class of dynamical systems invariant under octonionic supersymmetry involves the octonionic spinning particles, whose simplest example is again found for $`N=8`$. The octonionic generalization of the free real-valued spinning particles is described by the octonionic-valued bosonic and fermionic fields, $`x=x_0+_ix_i\tau _i`$ and $`\psi =\psi _0+\psi _i\tau _i`$ respectively. The imaginary octonionic super-coordinates $`x_i`$, $`\psi _i`$ can be regarded as super-coordinates associated with the seven sphere $`S^7`$  since the latter can be described by unitary octonions. The free kinetic action is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ttr\{(x^{},\psi ^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{d}{dt}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ \psi \end{array}\right)\}},`$ (123)
where $`tr`$ denotes both the matrix trace $`Tr`$ and the projection over the octonionic identity , while “$``$” denotes the octonionic principal conjugation (see also formula (113)).

The above free action is invariant under the octonionic $`N=8`$ supersymmetry, whose suitably normalized explicitly transformations acting on the component fields are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}\delta _0x_0=\psi _0,\hfill & \delta _0x_i=\psi _i,\hfill \\ \delta _0\psi _0=\dot{x}_0,\hfill & \delta _0\psi _i=\dot{x}_i\hfill \end{array}`$ (126)
and

$`\begin{array}{cc}\delta _ix_0=\psi _i,\hfill & \delta _ix_j=\delta _{ij}\psi _0C_{ijk}\psi _k,\hfill \\ \delta _i\psi _0=\dot{x}_i,\hfill & \delta _i\psi _j=\delta _{ij}\dot{x}_0+C_{ijk}\dot{x}_k,\hfill \end{array}`$ (129)
with $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$.

The classification of the octonionic spinning particles, invariant under generalized $`(p,q)`$ supersymmetries, is an immediate consequence of the classification formulas for the octonionic supersymmetries presented in the previous section. The construction of the octonionic spinning particles straightforwardly follows the one here presented for the $`N=8`$, i.e. the ($`p=8,q=0`$), octonionic supersymmetry.

## 5 Conclusions.

In this work we furnished the classification of the octonionic $`1D`$ extended supersymmetries acting on small multiplets of $`n`$ bosonic and $`n`$ fermionic fields. The key observation allowing us to classify the octonionic supersymmetries consists in noticing that they are in one-to-one correspondence with the class of Weyl type realizations of Clifford algebras, expressed through matrices with octonionic-valued entries. “Weyl type” simply means here the subclass of matrices in a Clifford algebra which can be “promoted” to be fermionic (i.e. odd-graded) elements in a superalgebra.

The classification of the octonionic supersymmetries can therefore be extracted from the classification of the octonionic Clifford algebras. Explicit tables, expressing the number of generalized $`(p,q)`$ supersymmetries (for $`p`$ positive and $`q`$ negative eigenvalues) supported by the $`n+n`$ field multiplets, are given.

We further mentioned that the octonionic realizations can be put in correspondence with a subclass of the associative representations of the $`1D`$ extended supersymmetries. Basically, this can be done by replacing the seven imaginary octonions with the seven antisymmetric matrices producing the Euclidean Clifford algebra $`C(0,7)`$. Nonassociative and associative realizations of supersymmetry remain, nevertheless, inequivalent. This point is better understood by noticing that $`N=8`$-octonionic invariant systems, such as the $`N=8`$ KdV, indeed exist, while on the other hand is known (due to a mathematical no-go theorem discussed in the previous section) that no $`N=8`$ extension of KdV based on the associative $`N=8`$ supersymmetry can be constructed.

We further explicitly discussed another example of a class of dynamical systems invariant under the octonionic supersymmetry, i.e. the one provided by the octonionic spinning particles.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the possible relevance in physical applications of the supersymmetric systems investigated in this paper. While it is well known since the work of  that division algebras are associated with extended supersymmetries, quite understandably due to the complications arising from the non-associativity, octonionic realizations received less attention than the associative division algebras. Nevertheless, octonions continued being investigated as, e.g., in  in the context of superstring theory. More recently, in , the existence of an octonionic version of the M-theory with surprising features, among the others the equivalence of the $`M5`$ five-brane sectors with the $`M1`$ and $`M2`$ sectors, was pointed out. In general higher-dimensional octonionic theories have peculiar features, for instance they are no longer invariant under the full Lorentz group, but under its $`G_2`$ coset, since this is the group of the octonionic automorphisms.

For what concerns the specialization to $`D=1`$, i.e. the case treated in this paper, we should mention that in the Jordan framework and at least for the restricted class of Jordan algebras, see , a consistent octonionic quantum mechanics is available. On the other hand it is clear that higher-dimensional octonionic supersymmetric theories, like the superstring or the $`M`$-theory mentioned above, can be dimensionally reduced to $`1D`$. In this passage we obtain octonionic quantum mechanical systems admitting, as in the standard associative case , extended number of supersymmetries. Such systems must be constructed in terms of the octonionic multiplets here classified, leaving room for promising applications of the results and the techniques presented in this paper.


text:
# Interference of Conversion and Bremsstrahlung Amplitudes in the Decay 𝐾_𝐿→𝜇⁺𝜇⁻𝛾

## Abstract

In the region of large $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ invariant mass, the decay spectrum of $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ deviates from the Dalitz pair spectrum, as a result of interference between conversion ($`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$) and bremsstrahlung amplitudes. The latter is proportional to the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ matrix element, whose $`2\gamma `$-absorptive part appears to dominate the observed $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay rate. We examine the extent to which a scrutiny of the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ spectrum in the end-point region could provide evidence on the real part of the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ amplitude. As a by-product, we obtain the absorptive part of the $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ form factor, using data on the $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ spectrum.

It is customary to interpret the decays $`K_Le^+e^{}\gamma `$ and $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ in terms of a Dalitz pair process $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma l^+l^{}\gamma `$. The branching ratio and the lepton mass spectrum are fitted to an $`s`$-dependent $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ vertex $`f_{K\gamma \gamma }(s)=f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)f(s)`$, where $`f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)`$ is a dimensionless parameter related to the decay width of $`K_L\gamma \gamma `$ by

$$\left|f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)\right|^2=\frac{64\pi }{m_K}\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\gamma \gamma )$$
(1)
and $`f(s)`$ is a form factor. The spectrum in the invariant mass of the lepton pair ($`s=(p_++p_{})^2`$) is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_Ll^+l^{}\gamma )/ds}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\gamma \gamma )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{3\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_K^2}}\right)^3\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_l^2}{s}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_l^2}{s}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (2)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\left|f(s)\right|^2`$
A popular choice of the form factor $`f(s)`$ is the BMS parametrization

$$f_{BMS}(s)=\frac{1}{1\frac{s}{m_\rho ^2}}+\frac{2.3\alpha _K^{}}{1\frac{s}{m_K^{}^2}}\left[\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{1\frac{s}{m_\rho ^2}}\frac{1}{9}\frac{1}{1\frac{s}{m_\omega ^2}}\frac{2}{9}\frac{1}{1\frac{s}{m_\varphi ^2}}\right]$$
(3)
where the first term is the $`\rho `$-dominance approximation, and the remainder is a correction term depending on an unknown parameter $`\alpha _K^{}`$. Measurements on the decays $`K_Le^+e^{}\gamma `$  and $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$  can be understood in a fairly consistent way with a value $`\alpha _K^{}0.19`$. Other one-parameter forms for $`f(s)`$ have also been discussed in the literature .

In the end-point region $`sm_K^2`$, one expects the decay $`K_Ll^+l^{}\gamma `$ to show a deviation from the Dalitz pair spectrum Eq. (2), due to internal bremsstrahlung from the underlying transition $`K_Ll^+l^{}`$. Because of the chiral suppression of the latter, the bremsstrahlung effect is of relevance mainly for the channel $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$. Considering that the branching ratio $`Br(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ is $`7\times 10^9`$, one expects the bremsstrahlung contribution to $`Br(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma )`$ to be of order $`10^{11}`$, and confined to photons of very low energy. There is, however, the possibility of an interference effect between the bremsstrahlung and Dalitz pair amplitudes that could conceivably probe the real part of the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ amplitude. It is this possibility that we wish to explore in this paper.

It may be recalled that if the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ amplitude is parametrized as $`f_{Kll}\overline{u}\gamma _5v`$, the decay rate is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_Ll^+l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left|f_{kll}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_Kv_0}{8\pi }},`$
$`v_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_l^2}{m_K^2}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (4)
The imaginary part of the $`K_Ll^+l^{}`$ amplitude can be reliably calculated in terms of $`K_L2\gamma `$, by considering the absorptive contribution of the two-photon intermediate state ($`K_L\gamma \gamma l^+l^{}`$), with the result

$$\left|\mathrm{Im}f_{Kll}\right|=\frac{\alpha }{4v_0}\frac{m_l}{m_K}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+v_0}{1v_0}\right)\left|f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)\right|$$
(5)
The measured branching ratio of $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is almost saturated by the two-photon absorptive part, the real part being limited by

$$|\mathrm{Re}f_{Kll}/\mathrm{Im}f_{Kll}|0.23(90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(6)
In considering the possible interference of bremsstrahlung and conversion amplitudes, it is necessary to take account of a possible imaginary part in the $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ form factor $`f(s)`$. Such an imaginary part is expected, quite generally, in the region $`s>4m_\pi ^2`$, and is not included in the BMS parametrization Eq. (3). As a simple model for $`\mathrm{Im}f(s)`$, we consider a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ intermediate state in the virtual photon channel. One can then use unitarity to obtain $`\mathrm{Im}f(s)`$ in terms of the form factor characterising the $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ vertex, and the electromagnetic form factor of the pion (Fig. 1). We define the invariant amplitude for the direct emission ($`M1`$) transition $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ in the conventional way

$$\left(K_L\pi ^+(p_+)\pi ^{}(p_{})\gamma (ϵ,k)\right)=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^\mu k^\nu p_+^\rho p_{}^\sigma Cg_{M1}(s)$$
(7)
where $`s=(p_++p_{})^2`$ and $`C`$ is a normalization factor given by

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{|f_S|}{m_K^4}}`$
$`|f_S|`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi m_K}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})\right]^{1/2}`$ (8)
$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2}}\right)^{1/2}`$
Experiments have determined the form factor $`g_{M1}(s)`$ to be

$$g_{M1}(s)=\frac{a_1}{m_\rho ^2s}+a_2$$
(9)
with $`a_2=1.35`$ and $`\frac{a_1}{a_2}=0.737GeV^2`$. The pion charge form factor is adequately represented by

$$f_\pi ^{em}(s)=\frac{1}{1\frac{s}{m_\rho ^2}}$$
(10)
In terms of $`g_{M1}(s)`$ and $`f_\pi ^{em}(s)`$, we have calculated the imaginary part of the $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ form factor to be

$$\mathrm{Im}f(s)=\left[\frac{\alpha }{6}\frac{|f_S|}{m_K}\frac{s}{m_K^2}\frac{1}{f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)}\right]f_\pi ^{em}(s)g_{M1}(s)v^3\mathrm{\Theta }(s4m_\pi ^2)$$
(11)
with $`v=\sqrt{1\frac{s}{m_K^2}}`$, $`s`$ being the mass of the virtual photon. This is plotted in Fig. 2, where we also show the real part of $`f(s)`$, taken to be the BMS form factor. For comparison, we also indicate in Fig. 2 the result for $`\mathrm{Im}f(s)`$ that one would obtain from postulating a complex $`\rho `$-pole with a momentum-dependent decay width, $`f(s)\left(1\frac{s}{m_\rho ^2}i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{m_\rho }v^3\right)^1`$.

We are now in a position to calculate the decay spectrum of $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$, taking into account the interference of conversion and bremsstrahlung. Defining $`x_\gamma =\frac{2E_\gamma }{m_K}=(1\frac{s}{m_K^2})`$ as the scaled photon energy ($`0<x_\gamma <14r`$, $`r=\frac{m_l^2}{m_K^2}`$), the distribution in $`x_\gamma `$ is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma )}{dx_\gamma }=\left(\frac{1}{12}\frac{\alpha \pi }{(2\pi )^3}m_K^3\right)\left[Dal+Int+Brem\right]$$
(12)
where the three terms, denoting Dalitz, interference and bremsstrahlung contributions, are given by

$`Dal`$ $`=`$ $`|f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)|^2|f(s)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{s^2}}x_\gamma ^2v(1x_\gamma +2r)`$
$`Int`$ $`=`$ $`f_{K\gamma \gamma }(0)\mathrm{Re}\left(f_{Kll}^{}f(s)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_K}}x_\gamma ^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}`$
$`Brem`$ $`=`$ $`|f_{Kll}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_K^2}}\left[2v{\displaystyle \frac{1x_\gamma }{x_\gamma }}+\left(2+4{\displaystyle \frac{r}{x_\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x_\gamma }}x_\gamma \right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}\right]`$ (13)
The different contributions to the decay rate $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma )}{dx}`$ ($`x1x_\gamma =\frac{s}{m_K^2}`$) are plotted in Fig. 3. The Dalitz pair spectrum shown in fig. 3a dominates up to $`x0.95`$, and essentially accounts for the measured branching ratio $`Br(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma )3.7\times 10^7`$. The interference terms proportional to $`\mathrm{Re}f_{Kll}\mathrm{Re}f(s)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}f_{Kll}\mathrm{Im}f(s)`$ are shown separately in Fig. 3b and 3c, where we have chosen $`|\mathrm{Re}f_{Kll}|`$ equal to the maximum value allowed by the experimental rate of $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ (Eq. (6)). The interference terms are competitive with the Dalitz pair spectrum only in the region $`x0.97`$, where the branching ratio is of order $`10^{11}`$ per unit of $`x`$. In the same region the pure bremsstrahlung contribution shown in Fig. 3d begins to dominate the spectrum.

The principal conclusion of this paper is embodied in Fig. 4, which shows the full spectrum $`\frac{dBr(K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma )}{dx}`$ in the interesting end-point interval $`0.92<x<1.0`$. In this region, the spectrum deviates in a systematic way from the monotonically decreasing Dalitz pair spectrum, going through a minimum around $`x0.97`$, and then rising sharply as $`x`$ approaches unity, in the manner characteristic of bremsstrahlung. The interference terms affect the detailed shape of the spectrum in the neighbourhood of the minimum, but only at a level $`10^{11}`$ in the differential branching ratio. In particular, the difference between choosing $`\mathrm{Re}f_{Kll}/\mathrm{Im}f_{Kll}`$ to be $`+0.23`$ or $`0.23`$ is almost unobservable with the resolution chosen in Fig. 3.

We conclude that while the spectrum of the decay $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ should show an interesting departure from the Dalitz pair spectrum for large invariant masses, there is little realistic prospect of being able to extract the real part of the $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ amplitude from such a measurement. As a by-product of our analysis, we have determined the imaginary part of the $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ form factor, relying entirely on an empirical measurement of the spectrum of $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. This imaginary part provides a well-defined correction to existing models of this form factor.

Acknowledgement: One of us (P.P.) wishes to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the award of a post-doctoral fellowship, and the Institute of Theoretical Physics E, RWTH Aachen, for their hospitality.