text:
# 5-Dimensional Covariance and Generation of Solutions of Einstein Equations

## 1 Introduction

Searches for exact solutions of the Einstein equations are stimulated by the internal logic of General Relativity (GR). A special role in this problem is played by the so-called generation methods which give new solutions without solving the Einstein equations. As a rule, they are based on some original solution and special kinds of transformations of the metric, dynamical Lagrangian variables and coordinates .

In the present paper a generation method based on the classical version of the Kaluza-Klein theory (KKT) is worked out. Theories of the Kaluza-Klein type have recently gained a new physical content. It concerns both mathematical and physical aspects of the theory, which were out of consideration earlier . The method to be proposed is related to the well-known property of the KKT, which takes place in any version of the theory due to its multidimensional covariance: the 4-dimensional interpretation of multidimensional geometrical objects depends on the choice of the multidimensional coordinate system . Thus by general coordinate transformations one can generate new properties of 4-dimensional space-times, though the multidimensional world remains the same. This fact has been used by a number of authors. For instance, in  the electromagnetic field generation procedure in 4-D vacuum by a special 5-D coordinate transformation has been proposed. In  a linear transformation in the $`(x^0x^5)`$-plane generating an exact solutions with electromagnetic and scalar fields from the Schwarzschild metric has been used. In  these transformations have been applied to Kramer’s metric. In  an explicit form of 5-D coordinate transformations which transform the flat 5-D metric into a cosmological metric of Friedmann type is given. The present approach includes the methods proposed in , and partially in , as special cases.

The idea of our method has a clear geometric meaning. We assume (which is usual in KKT) that the invisibility of the 5th dimension is due to an isometry of the 5-dimensional space-time. Then the set of integral curves of the Killing vector field can be associated with the coordinate lines of $`x^5`$. If 5-D space-time admits more than one Killing vector, the following uncertainty appears: which Killing vector should be connected with a 5-D coordinate system? If we first connect it with one Killing vector field, then, by a suitable coordinate transformation with another one we get a transition between different 4-D physical worlds.

Section 2 presents a sketch of the classical KKT.

In Section 3 the class of admissible 5-D coordinate transformations is generalized. In addition, we prove a number of propositions connecting the invariant properties of Killing vectors with the physical properties of the resulting 4-dimensional solutions.

In Section 4 the method is applied to a flat metric.

## 2 Kaluza-Klein theory and monad formalism

The Kaluza-Klein theory is a direct 5-dimensional generalization of GR. It was developed for geometrical unification of gravity and electromagnetism . A (1+4)-splitting procedure (monad formalism) worked out later gives an invariant description of the fifth dimension and allows one to interpret 5-dimensional objects in terms of 4-dimensional ones . A modern presentation of the classical 5-dimensional KKT together with the (1+4)-splitting formalism can be found in . Some necessary features of the theory are presented below.

The 5-dimensional metric $`G`$ defined on a Riemannian space $`V_5`$ is the basic geometric object in KKT. It can be taken in the form

$$G=\lambda \lambda +\stackrel{~}{g}$$
(1)
where $`\lambda =\lambda _Adx^A`$ is the 1-form determining a (1+4)-splitting of the 5-dimensional space $`(A=0,1,2,3,5)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the local metric of a 4-dimensional hypersurface orthogonal to $`\lambda `$. These objects satisfy the following conditions:

$$\lambda _A\lambda ^A=1;\lambda ^A\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}=0.$$

The tilde over $`g`$ distinguishes the geometric 4-dimensional metric and the physical (observable) one (see below).

To shorten the presentation, we make some assumptions which simplify the mathematical formulae and “tune” the KKT to the problem of finding exact 4-dimensional solutions111A general approach is developed in ..

1. The coordinate lines of $`x^5`$ can be associated with a vector field $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ which corresponds to its special gauge:

$$\lambda ^A=\frac{G_5^A}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}\lambda _A=\frac{G_{A5}}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}.$$
(2)
2. We accept the standard KKT argumentation: the unobservability of the 5th dimension can be explained by cylindricity of 5-dimensional world in the fifth coordinate222The compactification assumption can be accepted as well, but here it is not necessary.. In the formalism to be presented this means that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ is a Killing vector in $`V_5`$. In the gauge chosen the cylindricity condition takes the form

$$_5G_{AB}=0.$$
(3)
3. The class of admissible coordinate transformations which do not violate (3) includes purely 4-dimensional general coordinate transformations and gauge transformations:

$$x^{}_{}{}^{}5=x^5+f(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3).$$
4. Only the 4-dimensional space-time section tensors projected onto $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ or orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ have a physical meaning.
5. The fifth direction should be spacelike to get a correct sign of the geometrized energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field in the right-hand side of the projected 5-dimensional Einstein equations. The relation between the 4-vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and the 4-dimensional part of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ has the form

$$\lambda _\mu =(2\sqrt{k}/c^2)\phi A_\mu ,$$
(4)
where $`\phi =\sqrt{G_{55}}`$ is the geometrized scalar field, $`k`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`c`$ is the velocity of light and $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$.
6. The 5-dimensional Einstein equations are vacuum:

$${}_{}{}^{(5)}G_{AB}^{}=0,$$
(5)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}G_{AB}^{}`$ is the 5-dimensional Einstein tensor. This assumption makes the theory more economic and close to its modern versions .
7. The observable 4-dimensional metric is not the projector $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ but the conformally transformed tensor $`g`$, related to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ by the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{g}=\phi ^2g.$$
(6)

Taking into account all these items, the projected equations (5) take the form

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{\mu \nu }^{}=\ae T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}+3(\varphi _{;\mu ;\nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }g_{\mu \nu }(^2\varphi +(\varphi )^2));$$
(7)
$$F_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }3\varphi _{,\alpha }F^{\alpha \mu }=0;$$
(8)
$$^2\varphi +(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{6}{}_{}{}^{(4)}R\frac{3\ae }{8\pi }F^2=0.$$
(9)
Here: $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the 4-dimensional Einstein tensor built up from the observable metric $`g`$;

$`F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }A_{\mu ,\nu }`$ is the geometrized electromagnetic field tensor;

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}=(1/4\pi )(F_\mu ^\lambda F_{\nu \lambda }(1/4)g_{\mu \nu }F^2)$$

is the canonical energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field;

$`F^2=F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$;

$`\varphi =\mathrm{ln}\phi =\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{G_{55}}`$ is a new notation for the geometric scalar field;

$`^2=g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta `$;

$`_\alpha `$ is the covariant derivative corresponding to $`g`$.

The ten equations (7) are the $`(\mu \nu )`$-projection of (5), the four equations (8) are the $`(\mu 5)`$-projection of (5) and eq. (9) is the (55)-projection.

Thus in the present version of the KKT any vacuum solution of the 5-dimensional Einstein equations, which is cylindrical in the 5th coordinate, corresponds to the set (7)–(9) of the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar field equations in 4-dimensional GR.

## 3 5-dimensional transformations and generation theorems

Consider the general 5-dimensional coordinate transformations

$$x^A^{}=x^A^{}(x^A)$$
(10)
and choose from (10) those which preserve the cylindricity condition (3). This means that the transformed metric $`G_{A^{}B^{}}`$ satisfies the cylindricity condition in the new coordinates $`x^A^{}`$: $`_5^{}G_{A^{}B^{}}=0`$. To find out whether such transformations do exist, let us formulate a theorem. The following notations will be used:

$$\alpha _A^A^{}x^A^{}/x^A$$

— Jacobi matrix elements;

$$\alpha _A^{}^Ax^A/x^A^{}$$

— inverse Jacobi matrix elements;

$$(\alpha _A^A^{}\alpha _B^{}^A=\delta _B^{}^A^{});s^A\alpha _5^{}^A$$

— vector-column of the inverse Jacobi matrix. Hereafter it is assumed that a sufficiently smooth reversible coordinate transformation (10) is given.

Theorem 1 The cylindricity condition (3) is satisfied in the coordinate system $`x^A^{}`$ if and only if the vector-column $`s^A`$ is a Killing vector of the original metric.

Proof. Let the transformed metric satisfy the cylindricity condition $`G_{A^{}B^{},5^{}}=0`$. Then the following chain of equalities takes place:

$$G_{A^{}B^{},5^{}}=(G_{AB}\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _B^{}^B)_{,5^{}}=G_{AB,5^{}}\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _B^{}^B+G_{AB}\alpha _{A^{},5^{}}^A\alpha _B^{}^B+G_{AB}\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _{B^{},5^{}}^B$$

$$=G_{AB,C}s^C\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _B^{}^B+G_{AB}s_{,A^{}}^A\alpha _B^{}^B+G_{AB}\alpha _A^{}^As_{,B^{}}^B$$

$$=(G_{AB,C}s^C+s_{,A}^CG_{CB}+s_{,B}^CG_{AC})\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _B^{}^B=2s_{(A;B)}\alpha _A^{}^A\alpha _B^{}^B=0.$$

Here we have used the symmetry properties of the Jacoby matrix derivatives, the definition of $`s^A`$ and a substitution of variables. Due to the nondegeneracy of the transformation, the last equality gives the Killing equations for $`s^A`$. The necessity is proved. If the 5-dimensional metric admits a Killing vector, then, identifying its components with $`\alpha _5^{}^A`$ and repeating the above formulae backward, we get the cylindricity condition for the transformed metric. $``$

Hereafter we will call the Killing vector that has appeared in the theorem a generating Killing vector. A 5-dimensional space-time can admit several generating Killing vectors. Let us note that the conditions of the theorem do not include the cylindricity of the original metric.

Using Theorem 1, let us prove the following useful propositions:

1. In the new coordinate system the vector $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ has the components $`s^A^{}=\alpha _A^A^{}s^A=\alpha _A^A^{}\alpha _5^{}^A=\delta _5^A^{}`$. This circumstance makes clear the geometric meaning of the method discussed in the Introduction.
2. The generating Killing covector in the new coordinate system becomes proportional to the vector potential of a new geometrical electromagnetic field. This can be easily seen from the fact that $`s^A^{}=\delta _5^{}^A^{}`$. Lowering the index $`A^{}`$ using the new metric $`G_{A^{}B^{}}`$, we get $`s_\mu ^{}=G_{5^{}\mu ^{}}A_\mu ^{}`$ (see (4) and (2)). This fact leads us to the hypothesis that the proposed method is related to the Mitskievich-Horský generation procedure, which is purely 4-dimensional .
3. A general form of admissible transformations is given by the expressions

$$x^\mu ^{}=F^\mu ^{}(\phi ^\nu );x^5^{}=F^5^{}(\phi ^\nu ,\phi ^5)$$

where $`\{\phi ^A\}`$ is a set of independent functions defining the set of integral curves of a generating Killing vector, $`F^A^{}`$ is a set of arbitrary independent differentiable functions of its arguments. This proposition directly follows from the set of linear partial differential equations obtained from the equality:

$$s^A^{}=\alpha _A^A^{}s^A=\delta _5^{}^A^{}.$$
(11)
The functions $`\phi ^A`$ are independent integrals of the corresponding set of characteristics equations.
4. The linearity of the Killing equations leads to the fact that any linear superposition of Killing vectors with constant coefficients can be considered as a generating Killing vector.
5. The new scalar field $`\phi ^{}`$ is related to a generating Killing vector in the following way: $`G_{5^{}5^{}}=\phi ^{}_{}{}^{}2=\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}`$. In the new coordinate system $`\stackrel{}{s}^{}\stackrel{}{s}^{}=G_{A^{}B^{}}\delta _5^{}^A^{}\delta _5^{}^B^{}=G_{5^{}5^{}}`$. The proposition follows from the invariance of the norm.

This last proposition allows one to get rid of the scalar field in the transformed set of equations (7)-(9), which has been noted by Rosly. In  he has formulated and proved the following theorem:

Theorem 2 (Rosly) If a 5-dimensional metric admits a space-like Killing vector with a constant norm, then the admissible coordinate transformation generated by this vector gives a 4-dimensional vacuum solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. The electromagnetic field obtained in this way satisfies the condition $`F^2=0`$.

The theorem directly follows from proposition 5 and eqs. (7)–(9) with $`\varphi =\mathrm{const}`$.

## 4 Generation of exact solution with a scalar field

Let us demonstrate the present procedure taking the flat 5-dimensional metric

$$ds_{(5)}^2=dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2d\upsilon ^2.$$
(12)
as the original one. It has a complete 15-parameter isometry group.

Let us take a generating vector in the following form: $`\stackrel{}{s}=x_yy_x+\alpha ^0_t+\alpha ^3_z+\alpha ^5_\upsilon `$, which is a linear superposition of the rotation generator in the $`(xy)`$ plane and translations along the $`t,z,\upsilon `$ axes. Solution of eqs. (11) gives the following transformations (up to 4-dimensional and gauge transformations):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}t\hfill & =& \hfill t^{}+a\upsilon ^{};\\ x\hfill & =& \hfill x^{}\mathrm{sin}\upsilon ^{};\\ y\hfill & =& \hfill y^{}\mathrm{cos}\upsilon ^{};\\ z\hfill & =& \hfill z^{}+b\upsilon ^{};\\ \upsilon \hfill & =& \hfill y^{}.\end{array}$$

Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary constants. The metric (12) transformed according to (4) takes the form (we omit accents at the new coordinates):

$$ds_{(5)}^2=dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2(\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2)d\upsilon ^2+2d\upsilon (adtbdz)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=b^2a^2`$. The 1-forms $`\lambda `$ and $`A`$ from (2) and (4) have the form

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2}}(adtbdz(\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2)d\upsilon );A=\frac{1}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2)}(adtbdz).$$

The physical metric can be found from (1) by the conformal transformation (6). It has the form

$$ds_{(4)}^2=\frac{1}{X^2}[X_bdt^2X(dx^2+dy^2)X_adz^22abdtdz],$$

where $`X=\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2`$; $`X_a=x^2a^2`$; $`X_b=x^2+b^2`$. Taking an external differential of the 1-form $`A`$, we get the electromagnetic field 2-form $`F`$:

$$F=dA=\frac{x}{(\mathrm{\Delta }+x^2)^2}(adtdx+bdxdz).$$

The electric current density 4-vector (8) is

$$\stackrel{}{j}=\frac{3}{4\pi }\varphi _{,\alpha }F^{\alpha \mu }_\mu =\frac{3}{4\pi }(a_t+b_z).$$

Assuming that the electric charge is carried by the geometrized matter, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{j}=\sigma \stackrel{}{u}_c`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the electric charge density and $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ is the 4-velocity of charged matter, we get:

$$\stackrel{}{j}\stackrel{}{j}=\sigma ^2=\frac{9\mathrm{\Delta }}{16\pi ^2X^2};\sigma =\frac{3}{4\pi X}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }};\stackrel{}{u}_c=\stackrel{}{j}/\sigma =\frac{X}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(a_t+b_z).$$

From the expression for $`\sigma `$ one can get the following restriction on the parametres $`a`$ and $`b`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$, or $`|a|>|b|`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Models of conformal and superconformal quantum mechanics - are important basically due to their role as ‘conformal field theories’ in the AdS2/CFT1 version of the AdS/CFT correspondence , the fact that they describe the near-horizon dynamics of the black-hole solutions of supergravity, and their tight relation with integrable Calogero-Moser type systems.

The recent renewal of interest in (super)conformal mechanics models was mainly triggered by the observation  that the radial motion of a superparticle at zero angular momentum in the near-horizon region of the extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole is governed by a modified (‘new’ or ‘relativistic’) version of conformal mechanics. The corresponding background is AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$, with the radial coordinate of the superparticle parametrizing its AdS2 part. Since the full isometry of this background is the supergroup $`SU(1,1|2)`$, it was suggested in  that the full (radial and angular) dynamics of this superparticle is described by a ‘new’ variant of $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics 111 By $`N`$ we always count real $`d=1`$ Poincaré supercharges. This convention differs from the nomenclature due to ref.  in which $`N`$ denotes the number of complex $`d=1`$ Poincaré supercharges. containing three physical bosonic fields in its supermultiplet (the radial AdS2 coordinate and two angular coordinates parametrizing $`S^2`$). Yet, even the ‘old’ conformal mechanics  has not been extended in full generality to an $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics (with additional angular fields). The $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics constructed in  contains only one bosonic physical field in its off-shell supermultiplet (namely the dilaton associated with the generator of spontaneously broken dilatations). In this sense the model represents a minimal $`N=4`$ extension of the standard one-component conformal mechanics of ref.. An attempt to define the most general superconformal mechanics on $`SU(1,1|2)`$ using the nonlinear realization approach was undertaken in . However, neither an invariant action nor the solution of the irreducibility constraints on the Goldstone superfields were presented.

A Green-Schwarz-type action for the AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ superparticle was constructed in . After properly gauge-fixing kappa-symmetry and worldline diffeomorphisms the corresponding action can be treated as an $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics action extending that of the ‘new’ conformal mechanics. However, the $`N=4`$ superconformal symmetry in such an action is non-manifest and closes only on shell, which is typical for the gauge-fixed Green-Schwarz-type actions.

There are two basic ways of constructing superconformally invariant actions in one dimension. One of them proceeds from the most general $`N=1`$ supersymmetric sigma model on the $`d=1`$ worldline of the particle (in general supplemented by a coupling to an external electromagnetic potential). Then one looks for the restrictions the extra superconformal invariance imposes on the geometry of such a sigma model (see e.g. -). In this approach one as a rule deals with component fields (or at most $`N=1`$ superfields), and the extra Poincaré and conformal supersymmetries are not manifest. The other approach, pioneered in  and later employed in , starts from nonlinear realizations of appropriate superconformal symmetries in terms of a set of worldline Goldstone superfields. It is a natural generalization of the approach of ref.  where conformal mechanics  was shown to have a natural description in terms of a nonlinear realization of $`SO(1,2)`$, the conformal group in one dimension. In this way the aforementioned minimal $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics, associated with the supergroup $`SU(1,1|2)`$ and having only a dilaton field in the bosonic sector, was found and studied . Besides keeping manifest and off-shell the complete set of $`d=1`$ Poincaré supersymmetries, this second approach has the advantage that it automatically generates the correct irreducibility conditions for the basic Goldstone superfields and ensures a geometric interpretation for their components (the bosonic and fermionic $`d=1`$ Goldstone fields) as parameters of the relevant supercosets.

In the present paper, following the nonlinear realization approach of , we construct the most general $`N=4`$ superfield extension of the ‘old’ conformal mechanics with additional angular fields in the bosonic sector. We start with the exceptional supergroup $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$  as the most general $`N=4`$ superconformal group in one dimension. After the appropriate choice of the supercoset, the only Goldstone $`N=4`$ superfields surviving the inverse Higgs procedure  are the superdilaton and the two parameters of the coset $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ (a second $`SU(2)D(2,1;\alpha )`$ is placed into the stability subgroup and acts on the fermions only). For these three superfields there naturally appear simple irreducibility conditions. Surprisingly, the latter prove to be identical to those used in  for constructing the off-shell $`N=4`$ supersymmetric $`1d`$ sigma model action with a bosonic target manifold of dimension $`3k`$. It is easy to solve these constraints through an unconstrained prepotential and to construct two independent superfield invariants which in components give rise to the kinetic term and a scalar potential term. The latter is necessarily accompanied by a worldline WZW term on $`S^2`$ which is nothing but the coupling of the charged particle to a Dirac magnetic monopole (see e.g. ). Besides the $`N=4`$ superfield form of the invariant action we present its $`N=2`$ superfield form. As was recently shown , the ‘old’ and ‘new’ conformal mechanics models are actually related by a nonlinear transformation of the time variable and the coordinate fields (it is a particular case of the ‘holographic’ transformation introduced in ). We expect that this equivalence extends to the case we are dealing with. Namely, at least for the special case of $`D(2,1;\alpha =1)SU(1,1|2)\times SU(2)`$ we surmise the existence of a nonlinear transformation which maps the $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics we shall presently construct to the ‘new’ $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics of the AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ superparticle. On shell its action should coincide with the gauge-fixed action of ref. .222 At the on-shell Hamiltonian level, the issue of canonical equivalence between some versions of these two, at first sight different, N=4 superconformal mechanics systems is studied in .

## 2 D(2,1;$`\alpha `$) supergroup as N=4 superconformal group in d=1 and its nonlinear realization

We use the standard definition of the superalgebra $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$  with the notations of ref. . It contains the following generators.

Spinor generators:

$$Q^{Ai^{}i},\overline{\left(Q^{Ai^{}i}\right)}=ϵ_{ik}ϵ_{i^{}k^{}}Q^{Ak^{}k},(A,i,i^{}=1,2).$$
(2.1)
Bosonic generators:

$$T_2^{AB},T^{i^{}j^{}},T_1^{ij}.$$
(2.2)
The indices $`A,i`$ and $`i^{}`$ refer to fundamental representations of the mutually commuting $`sl(2,R)`$ and two $`su(2)`$ algebras which form the bosonic sector of $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$. The bosonic generators obey the following conjugation rules:

$$\left(T_2^{AB}\right)^{}=T_2^{AB},\left(T^{11}\right)^{}=T^{22},\left(T^{12}\right)^{}=T^{12},\left(T_1^{11}\right)^{}=T_1^{22},\left(T_1^{12}\right)^{}=T_1^{12},$$
(2.3)
and satisfy the commutation relations (common for all $`T`$):

$$[T^{ab},T^{cd}]=i\left(ϵ^{ac}T^{bd}+ϵ^{bd}T^{ac}\right),$$
(2.4)
where $`a,b`$ stand for any sort of doublet indices ($`A,i`$ or $`i^{}`$). The commutator of any generator $`T^a`$ with $`Q^b`$ (other indices of $`Q^{Aii^{}}`$ being suppressed) reads:

$$[T^{ab},Q^c]=\frac{i}{2}\left(ϵ^{ac}Q^b+ϵ^{bc}Q^a\right).$$
(2.5)
At last, the anticommutator of two fermionic generators is given by 333 We use the following convention for the skew-symmetric tensor $`ϵ`$: $`ϵ_{ij}ϵ^{jk}=\delta _i^k,ϵ_{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$.

$$\{Q^{Ai^{}i},Q^{Bk^{}k}\}=2\left(\alpha ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{i^{}k^{}}T_1^{ik}+ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{i^{}k^{}}T_2^{AB}(1+\alpha )ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{ik}T^{i^{}k^{}}\right).$$
(2.6)
Here, $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary real parameter. At $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ one of the $`su(2)`$ algebras decouples and we recover the superalgebra $`su(1,1|2)su(2)`$. The superalgebra $`D(2,1;1)`$ is isomorphic to $`osp(4^{}|2)`$. There are some different choices of the parameter $`\alpha `$ which lead to isomorphic algebras $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ .

For what follows it is convenient to pass to another notation,

$`PT_2^{22},KT_2^{11},DT_2^{12},`$
$`TT^{22},\overline{T}T^{11},T_3T^{12},VT_1^{22},\overline{V}T_1^{11},V_3T_1^{12},`$
$`Q^iQ^{21i},\overline{Q}^iQ^{22i},S^iQ^{11i},\overline{S}^iQ^{12i}.`$ (2.7)
One may check that $`P`$ and $`Q^i,\overline{Q}^i`$ constitute the $`N=4,d=1`$ Poincaré superalgabra. The generators $`D,K`$ and $`S^i,\overline{S}^i`$ stand for $`d=1`$ dilatations, special conformal transformations and conformal supersymmetry, respectively.

We shall construct a nonlinear realization of the superconformal group $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ on the coset superspace parametrized as

$$g=e^{itP}e^{\theta _iQ^i+\overline{\theta }^i\overline{Q}_i}e^{\psi _iS^i+\overline{\psi }^i\overline{S}_i}e^{izK}e^{iuD}e^{i\varphi V+i\overline{\varphi }\overline{V}}.$$
(2.8)
The coordinates $`t,\theta _i,\overline{\theta }^i`$ parametrize the $`N=4,d=1`$ superspace. All other supercoset parameters are Goldstone $`N=4`$ superfields. The stability subgroup contains a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the group $`SU(2)`$ realized on the doublet indices $`i`$, hence the Goldstone superfields $`\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }`$ parametrize the coset $`SU(2)/U(1)`$. Another $`SU(2)`$ is entirely placed in the stability subgroup and acts only on fermionic Goldstone superfields and $`\theta `$’s, mixing them with their conjugates. With our choice of the $`SU(2)`$ coset we are led to assume that $`\alpha 0`$. We could equivalently choose another $`SU(2)`$ to be nonlinearly realized and the first one to belong to the stability subgroup, then the restriction $`\alpha 1`$ would be imposed instead.

The left-covariant Cartan one-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with values in the superalgebra $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ is defined by the standard relation

$$g^1dg=\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(2.9)
In what follows we shall need to know the explicit structure of several important one-forms in the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over the generators (2.7),

$`\omega _P=ie^ud\stackrel{~}{t}e^u\left[dt+i\left(\theta _id\overline{\theta }^i+\overline{\theta }^id\theta _i\right)\right],`$
$`\omega _1^Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}}\left[\widehat{\omega }_1^Q+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\omega }_2^Q\right],\omega _2^Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}}\left[\widehat{\omega }_2^Q\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\omega }_1^Q\right],`$
$`\overline{\omega }_Q^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}}\left[\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_Q^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_Q^2\right],\overline{\omega }_Q^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}}\left[\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_Q^2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_Q^1\right],`$
$`\omega _D=idu2\left(\overline{\psi }^id\theta _i+\psi _id\overline{\theta }^i\right)2izd\stackrel{~}{t},`$
$`\omega _V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\left[id\mathrm{\Lambda }+\widehat{\omega }_V+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_V\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\omega }_{V_3}\right],\overline{\omega }_V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\left[id\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_V+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\widehat{\omega }_V+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\omega }_{V_3}\right],`$
$`\omega _{V_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\left[i\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }d\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\widehat{\omega }_{V_3}2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_V\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\omega }_V\right)\right].`$ (2.10)
Here

$`\widehat{\omega }_i^Q=e^{\frac{1}{2}u}\left(d\theta _i\psi _id\stackrel{~}{t}\right),\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_Q^i=e^{\frac{1}{2}u}\left(d\overline{\theta }^i\overline{\psi }^id\stackrel{~}{t}\right),`$
$`\widehat{\omega }_V=2\alpha \left[\psi _2d\overline{\theta }^1\overline{\psi }^1\left(d\theta _2\psi _2d\stackrel{~}{t}\right)\right],\widehat{\overline{\omega }}_V=2\alpha \left[\overline{\psi }^2d\theta _1\psi _1\left(d\overline{\theta }^2\overline{\psi }^2d\stackrel{~}{t}\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{\omega }_{V_3}=2\alpha \left[\psi _1d\overline{\theta }^1\overline{\psi }^1d\theta _1\psi _2d\overline{\theta }^2+\overline{\psi }^2d\theta _2+\left(\overline{\psi }^1\psi _1\overline{\psi }^2\psi _2\right)d\stackrel{~}{t}\right],`$ (2.11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\sqrt{\varphi \overline{\varphi }}}{\sqrt{\varphi \overline{\varphi }}}\varphi ,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\sqrt{\varphi \overline{\varphi }}}{\sqrt{\varphi \overline{\varphi }}}\overline{\varphi }.$$
(2.12)
The semi-covariant (fully covariant only under Poincaré supersymmetry) spinor derivatives are defined by

$$D^i=\frac{}{\theta _i}+i\overline{\theta }^i_t,\overline{D}_i=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^i}+i\theta _i_t,\{D^i,\overline{D}_j\}=2i\delta _j^i_t.$$
(2.13)
As the next step, we impose the inverse Higgs constraints

$$\omega _D=0,\omega _V|=\overline{\omega }_V|=0,$$
(2.14)
where $`|`$ means spinor projections. These constraints are manifestly covariant under the whole supergroup. They allow one to eliminate the Goldstone spinor superfields and the superfield $`z`$ as the spinor and $`t`$-derivatives, respectively, of the residual bosonic Goldstone superfields $`u,\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and simultaneously imply some irreducibility constraints for the latter:

$`iD^iu=2\overline{\psi }^i,i\overline{D}_iu=2\psi _i,\dot{u}=2z,`$
$`iD^1\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\overline{\psi }^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\psi }^2\right),iD^2\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\alpha \left(\overline{\psi }^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\psi }^2\right),`$
$`i\overline{D}_1\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\alpha \left(\psi _2\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _1\right),i\overline{D}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\psi _2\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _1\right).`$ (2.15)
To understand the meaning of these constraints, let us pass to the new variables

$$q=e^{\alpha u}\frac{1\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},\lambda =e^{\alpha u}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},\overline{\lambda }=e^{\alpha u}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(2.16)
In these variables the constraints are rewritten as

$`D^1\lambda =\overline{D}^1\lambda =0,D^2\overline{\lambda }=\overline{D}^2\overline{\lambda }=0,`$
$`D^1q=D^2\lambda ,D^2q=D^1\overline{\lambda },\overline{D}_1q=\overline{D}_2\overline{\lambda },\overline{D}_2q=\overline{D}_1\lambda .`$ (2.17)
After introducing a new $`N=4`$ vector superfield $`V^{ij}`$ subject to $`V^{ij}=V^{ji}`$ and $`\overline{V^{ik}}=ϵ_{ii^{}}ϵ_{kk^{}}V^{i^{}k^{}}`$ via

$`V^{11}=i\sqrt{2}\lambda ,V^{22}=i\sqrt{2}\overline{\lambda },V^{12}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}q,`$
$`V^2V^{ik}V_{ik}=q^2+4\lambda \overline{\lambda },`$ (2.18)
the constraints (2) can be brought in the manifestly $`SU(2)`$-symmetric suggestive form

$$D^{(i}V^{jk)}=0,\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{(i}V_{}^{jk)}=0.$$
(2.19)
The superfield $`V^{ik}`$ subject to (2.19) is recognized as the one employed in  for constructing a general off-shell $`N=4`$ supersymmetric $`1d`$ sigma model with bosonic target manifold of dimension $`3k`$.444The same off-shell $`N=4,d=1`$ supermultiplet was independently considered in  and later rediscovered in . The constraints (2.19) leave in $`V^{ik}`$ the following independent superfield projections:

$`V^{ik},D^iV^{kl}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(ϵ^{ik}\chi ^l+ϵ^{il}\chi ^k),\overline{D}^iV^{kl}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(ϵ^{ik}\overline{\chi }^l+ϵ^{il}\overline{\chi }^k),D^i\overline{D}^kV_{ik},`$ (2.20)
where

$$\chi ^kD^iV_i^k,\overline{\chi }_k=\overline{\chi ^k}=\overline{D}_iV_k^i.$$
(2.21)
Due to (2.19), all other superfield projections are vanishing or are expressed as time derivatives of (2.20), e.g. 555We use the notation: $`(D)^2=D^iD_i,(\overline{D})^2=\overline{D}_i\overline{D}^i,[D,\overline{D}]=[D^i,\overline{D}_i].`$

$$(D)^2V^{ik}=(\overline{D})^2V^{ik}=[D,\overline{D}]V^{ik}=0,D^{(i}\overline{\chi }^{k)}=\overline{D}^{(i}\chi ^{k)}=3i\dot{V}^{ik}.$$
(2.22)
The spinor superfields $`\chi ^i`$, $`\overline{\chi }^k`$ are related to the original Goldstone fermionic superfields $`\psi ^i,\overline{\psi }^k`$ by

$$\chi ^i=2i\alpha V^{ik}\overline{\psi }_k,\overline{\chi }^i=2i\alpha V^{ik}\psi _k.$$
(2.23)
Note that the treatment of $`V^{ik}`$ in the $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics context is somewhat different from the one adopted in . In our case the superfield $`V^{ik}`$ provides an example of the construction of a linear representation of $`SU(2)`$ symmetry in terms of its nonlinear realization. As is seen from the identification (2.16), (2), it is entirely of Goldstone nature: its angular part $`V^{ik}/|V|`$ is related by an equivalence transformation to the $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ Goldstone superfields $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ while the norm $`|V|=\sqrt{q^2+4\overline{\lambda }\lambda }=1+2\alpha u+\mathrm{}`$ is related to the dilaton $`u`$ and is non-vanishing for vanishing fields.

Important corollaries of eqs. (2.19) are the relations

$$(D)^2\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=(\overline{D}){}_{}{}^{2}\left(V^2\right)_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}=[D,\overline{D}]\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=0$$
(2.24)
and

$$D_i\frac{V^{ij}}{\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}=\overline{D}_i\frac{V^{ij}}{\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}=0.$$
(2.25)
The constraints (2.19) can be solved in terms of an unconstrained prepotential $`𝒲`$,

$$V^{ij}=D^{(i}\overline{D}^{j)}𝒲,\overline{𝒲}=𝒲,$$
(2.26)
which is defined up to a gauge freedom

$$𝒲^{}=𝒲+(D)^2\omega (\overline{D})^2\overline{\omega }+[D,\overline{D}]\sigma ,$$
(2.27)
where $`\omega `$, $`\overline{\omega }`$ and $`\sigma =\overline{\sigma }`$ are superfield gauge parameters.

Let us quote the transformation properties of the $`N=4`$ superspace coordinates and the basic Goldstone superfields under the transformations of conformal supersymmetry. They are generated by acting on the coset element (2.8) from the left by the element

$$g_0=e^{ϵ_iS^i+\overline{ϵ}^i\overline{S}_i}D(2,1;\alpha ).$$
(2.28)
Hereafter, when summing over doublet indices we assume them to stay in a natural position; the Grassmann coordinates and their conjugates carry lower case and upper case indices, respectively. We use as short-hand notation $`\overline{\psi }\xi =\overline{\psi }^i\xi _i=\xi \overline{\psi }`$. The contraction of spinors of equal kind is defined as $`ab=a^ib_i`$, $`\overline{a}\overline{b}=\overline{a}_i\overline{b}^i`$.

The sought transformations are

$`\delta t=it\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta \right)+(1+2\alpha )\theta \overline{\theta }\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }\overline{ϵ}\theta \right),`$
$`\delta \theta _i=ϵ_it2i\alpha \theta _i(\theta \overline{ϵ})+2i(1+\alpha )\theta _i(\overline{\theta }ϵ)i(1+2\alpha )ϵ_i(\theta \overline{\theta }),`$
$`\delta u=2i\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta \right),`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }=2i\alpha \left[\theta _2\overline{ϵ}^1\overline{\theta }^1ϵ_2+\left(\overline{\theta }^2ϵ_1\theta _1\overline{ϵ}^2\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\left(\overline{\theta }^1ϵ_1\theta _1\overline{ϵ}^1+\theta _2\overline{ϵ}^2\overline{\theta }^2ϵ_2\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].`$ (2.29)
Under these, the $`N=4`$ superspace integration measure $`dtd^4\theta `$ is transformed as

$$\delta dtd^4\theta =2i(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta )dtd^4\theta .$$
(2.30)
The transformations of $`V^{ij}`$ defined in (2) can be written in the following manifestly covariant fashion,

$$\delta V^{ij}=2i\alpha \left[(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta )V^{ij}+(ϵ^{(i}\overline{\theta }_k\overline{ϵ}_k\theta ^{(i})V^{j)k}+(ϵ_k\overline{\theta }^{(i}\overline{ϵ}^{(i}\theta _k)V^{j)k}\right].$$
(2.31)
As a consequence,

$$\delta V^2=4i\alpha (ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta )V^2.$$
(2.32)
The covariant derivatives $`D^i`$, $`\overline{D}_i`$ transform as

$`\delta D^i=i\left[(2+\alpha )(ϵ\overline{\theta })+\alpha (\theta \overline{ϵ})\right]D^i2i(1+\alpha )(\overline{ϵ}\overline{\theta })\overline{D}^i2i\alpha \left[ϵ^{(i}\overline{\theta }_{k)}+\theta ^{(i}\overline{ϵ}_{k)}\right]D^k,`$ (2.33)
$`\delta \overline{D}_i=i\left[(2+\alpha )(\overline{ϵ}\theta )+\alpha (\overline{\theta }ϵ)\right]\overline{D}_i2i(1+\alpha )(\theta ϵ)D_i2i\alpha \left[ϵ_{(i}\overline{\theta }_{k)}+\theta _{(i}\overline{ϵ}_{k)}\right]\overline{D}^k.`$ (2.34)
From these transformations it follows, in particular, that chiral $`N=4,d=1`$ superfields exist only at $`\alpha =1`$, i.e. in the case of the supergroup $`SU(1,1|2)`$.

The prepotential $`𝒲`$ can be shown to have the following simple transformation rule,

$$\delta 𝒲=2i(1+\alpha )(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta )𝒲.$$
(2.35)
It is straightforward to check that the transformation laws (2.33), (2.34) and (2.35) for any $`\alpha 0`$ imply for $`V^{ik}`$ in (2.26) precisely the transformation (2.31).

For completeness, we also give the variations of the $`N=4,d=1`$ superspace coordinates under the $`N=4,d=1`$ Poincaré supergroup,

$$\delta t=i\left(\theta \overline{\epsilon }\epsilon \overline{\theta }\right),\delta \theta _i=\epsilon _i,\delta \overline{\theta }^i=\overline{\epsilon }^i.$$
(2.36)
All our superfields are scalars under the latter transformations. Since all other $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ transformations appear in the anticommutator of the conformal and the Poincaré supersymmetry generators, it is sufficient to require invariance under these two supersymmetries, when constructing invariant actions for the considered system.

## 3 Invariant actions in N=4 and N=2 superspaces

We shall construct invariant actions for our variant of $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics both in $`N=4`$ and $`N=2`$ superspaces.

Due to the basic constraints (2), derivatives of each $`N=4`$ superfield with respect to, say, $`\theta _1\xi ,\overline{\theta }^1=\overline{\xi }`$ can be expressed as derivatives with respect to $`\theta _2\theta ,\overline{\theta }^2=\overline{\theta }`$ of other superfields. Therefore, only the $`\xi =\overline{\xi }=0`$ components of each $`N=4`$ superfield are independent $`N=2`$ superfields. Let us denote these independent superfields as

$$q|=v,\lambda |=\rho ,\overline{\lambda }|=\overline{\rho },𝒟\overline{\rho }=\overline{𝒟}\rho =0,$$
(3.1)
where $`|`$ means restriction to $`\xi =\overline{\xi }=0`$, and $`𝒟`$, $`\overline{𝒟}`$ are spinor derivatives with respect to $`\theta \theta _2`$ and $`\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }^2`$:

$$𝒟=\frac{}{\theta }+i\overline{\theta }_t,\overline{𝒟}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}+i\theta _t,\{𝒟,\overline{𝒟}\}=2i_t.$$
(3.2)
The transformations of the implicit $`N=2`$ Poincaré supersymmetry completing the explicit one to the full $`N=4`$ have the following form in terms of these $`N=2`$ superfields:

$$\delta v=\epsilon \overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }\overline{\epsilon }𝒟\rho ,\delta \rho =\epsilon \overline{𝒟}v,\delta \overline{\rho }=\overline{\epsilon }𝒟v.$$
(3.3)
The transformations of the two $`R`$-symmetry $`SU(2)`$ groups are realized as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{ }T,\overline{T}\text{ transformations}& & \text{ }V,\overline{V}\text{ transformations}\\ \{\begin{array}{c}\delta v=a\theta \overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }\overline{a}\overline{\theta }𝒟\rho ,\hfill \\ \delta \rho =a\theta \overline{𝒟}v,\hfill \\ \delta \overline{\rho }=\overline{a}\overline{\theta }𝒟v,\hfill \end{array}& & \{\begin{array}{c}\delta v=2(b\overline{\rho }+\overline{b}\rho )+b\overline{\theta }\overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }+\overline{b}\theta 𝒟\rho ,\hfill \\ \delta \rho =bvb\overline{\theta }\overline{𝒟}v,\hfill \\ \delta \overline{\rho }=\overline{b}v\overline{b}\theta 𝒟v,\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(3.4)
while the conformal supersymmetry $`S^2,\overline{S}_2`$ transformations act as

$`\delta v=2i\alpha \left(\theta \overline{ϵ}+\overline{\theta }ϵ\right)ϵ\left(t+i\theta \overline{\theta }\right)𝒟v\overline{ϵ}\left(ti\theta \overline{\theta }\right)\overline{𝒟}v+2it\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta \right)\dot{v},`$
$`\delta \rho =4i\alpha \theta \overline{ϵ}\rho ϵ\left(t+i\theta \overline{\theta }\right)𝒟\rho +2it\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta \right)\dot{\rho },`$
$`\delta \overline{\rho }=4i\alpha \overline{\theta }ϵ\overline{\rho }\overline{ϵ}\left(ti\theta \overline{\theta }\right)\overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }+2it\left(ϵ\overline{\theta }+\overline{ϵ}\theta \right)\dot{\overline{\rho }}.`$ (3.5)
The transformations (3.3), (3.4), (3) together with the manifest $`N=2`$ supersymmetry close on $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$. The $`S^1,\overline{S}_1`$ transformations can be restored by commuting (3) with (3.4).

Invariant superfield actions consist of a superfield kinetic term and a superpotential. The superfield kinetic term can be easily found to be

$$S_1=𝑑td^4\theta \left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}=\frac{1+\alpha }{\alpha ^2}𝑑td^2\theta \left(v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }\right)^{\frac{12\alpha }{2\alpha }}\left(𝒟v\overline{𝒟}v+𝒟\rho \overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }\right),$$
(3.6)
where the $`N=4`$ superspace integration measure is related to the $`N=2`$ superspace one by

$$d^4\theta =d^2\theta d^2\xi ,d^2\theta (\theta \overline{\theta })=1,d^2\xi (\xi \overline{\xi })=1.$$
(3.7)
The invariance of (3.6) immediately follows from the transformation properties of the integration measure and of $`V^2`$, eqs. (2.30), (2.32).

The action (3.6) vanishes for $`\alpha =1`$, i.e. for the $`SU(1,1|2)`$ case, as a consequence of (2.24). Hence, in this situation we consider instead

$$S_{\alpha =1}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑td^4\theta \left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}V^2=𝑑td^2\theta \left(v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(𝒟v\overline{𝒟}v+𝒟\rho \overline{𝒟}\overline{\rho }\right).$$
(3.8)
Under $`N=4`$ superconformal transformations the Lagrangian density in (3.8) changes by a total derivative, in contrast to (3.6) where the Lagrangian is a tensorial density. The invariance of (3.8) immediately follows from the results of  where a similar action was considered for the basic superfield having the same transformation properties as $`(V^2)^{1/2}`$ and being subject to constraints more general than (2.24). The field content of  was different however.

Let us note that $`\frac{1}{1+\alpha }S_1`$ is regular for any $`\alpha `$ and coincides with $`S_{\alpha =1}`$ for $`\alpha =1`$. In manifestly $`N=4`$ covariant notation the action (3.8) is recovered from (3.6) in the following way. The latter is invariant for any nonzero $`\alpha `$. Let us expand its Lagrangian density around $`\alpha =1`$:

$$\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}=\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha +1}{2}+O((\alpha +1)^2)}=\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\alpha +1}{2}\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}V^2+O\left((\alpha +1)^2\right).$$
(3.9)
The first term does not contribute to the action in virtue of (2.24), and so we have

$$\frac{1}{\alpha +1}\left[\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left(V^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}V^2+O(\alpha +1),$$
(3.10)
which yields just (3.8) in the limit $`\alpha =1`$.

The potential term is easier to present in the $`N=2`$ superfield formulation:

$$S_p=𝑑td^2\theta \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{v+\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}}{2}\right).$$
(3.11)
To construct this term, one starts from the obvious ansatz

$$S_p^{(0)}=\mathrm{ln}v=u+const$$
(3.12)
to which $`S_p`$ should simplify upon reduction to the $`N=2`$ superconformal mechanics based on the supergroup $`SU(1,1|1)`$ . The variation of (3.12) with respect to (3.3) reads

$$\delta S_p^{(0)}=\frac{\delta \left(\rho \overline{\rho }\right)}{v^2}.$$
(3.13)
Thus to have an $`N=4`$ supersymmetric potential term we have to add a term which compensates for (3.13), namely

$$S_p^{(1)}=\frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}.$$
(3.14)
Iterating this recursive procedure, we eventually uncover the final form (3.11) of the $`N=4`$ invariant potential term via

$`\mathrm{ln}v+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{35}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}}\right)^4+\mathrm{}`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}v+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)!}{(n+1)!(n+1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{v^2}}\right)^{n+1}=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v+\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}}{2}}\right).`$ (3.15)
One may check that this expression is invariant, up to a total derivative, with respect to both types of $`SU(2)`$ transformations (3.4) as well as with respect to the $`S^2,\overline{S}_2`$ transformations (3). Hence, it is $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ invariant.

It is interesting to rewrite the potential term in a manifestly $`N=4`$ supersymmetric form, i.e. in $`N=4`$ superspace in terms of the superfield $`V^{ik}`$. It turns out to be a superconformally invariant version of the standard Fayet-Iliopoulos term $`𝑑td^4\theta 𝒲`$:

$$S_p=i\sqrt{2}𝑑td^4\theta \left(_0^1𝑑y_y𝒲\frac{1}{\sqrt{V^2}}\right).$$
(3.16)
The scale invariance of $`S_p`$ is easily seen. Indeed, the integration measure has the dilatation weight $`(1)`$ (in units of length), while $`V^{ik}`$, $`V^2`$ and $`𝒲`$ have weights $`\alpha `$, $`2\alpha `$ and $`\alpha +1`$, respectively. Then, the weight of the Lagrangian density in (3.16) is just $`+1`$, and (3.16) is scale invariant. It is also easy to show its invariance under the whole $`N=4`$ superconformal symmetry. One should take into account the transformation law of the superspace integration measure (2.30) and the transformation laws (2.32) and (2.35). The invariance of $`S_p`$ under the gauge transformations (2.27) of the prepotential $`𝒲`$ immediately follows from the constraints (2.24). The extra parameter $`y`$ in (3.16) defines a deformation $`𝒲(y)`$ with $`𝒲(1)=𝒲`$ and $`𝒲(0)=const`$. Hence, the expression (3.16) is analogous to the standard representation of WZW terms on group manifolds via an integral over an extra parameter . In particular, we observe that in the variation $`\delta S_p`$ this integral can be taken off (one should use (2.25) while checking this):

$$\delta S_p=i\sqrt{2}𝑑td^4\theta \delta 𝒲\frac{1}{\sqrt{V^2}}.$$
(3.17)
Therefore, this term makes a tensor contribution $`1/\sqrt{V^2}`$ to the full $`N=4`$ superfield equations of motion as obtained by varying the total action with respect to the prepotential $`𝒲`$. This WZW structure is not accidental: in the bosonic sector the superpotential (3.16) contains the $`d=1`$ WZW term on the sphere $`S^2=SU(2)/U(1)`$.

Re-expressing the superpotential (3.16) in the $`N=2`$ superfield form (3) is rather involved though straightforward. One should make use of the relation

$$𝒲=\frac{1}{6}\theta _i\overline{\theta }_kV^{ik}+\frac{1}{12}D^i(\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^kV_{ik})\frac{1}{12}D^i(\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^kV_{ik}),$$
(3.18)
which is valid modulo gauge transformations from (2.27). Substituting this representation in (3.16) and integrating by parts, one brings (3.16) to the form

$$S_p=\frac{i\sqrt{2}}{24}𝑑td^4\theta \theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2_0^1𝑑y\left[3D_i\overline{D}_k\frac{_yV^{ik}}{\sqrt{V^2}}+\overline{D}^k\frac{D^i_yV_{ik}}{\sqrt{V^2}}D^k\frac{\overline{D}_i_yV^{ik}}{\sqrt{V^2}}\right].$$
(3.19)
After this one inserts the relation

$$\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2=4(\theta \overline{\theta })(\xi \overline{\xi }),$$

integrates in (3.19) with respect to $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$, expresses all $`D_\xi ,\overline{D}_\xi `$ derivatives through the $`N=2`$ ones $`𝒟,\overline{𝒟}`$ using the relations (2), and finally integrates by parts with respect to $`𝒟,\overline{𝒟}`$ in order to remove the delta function $`\theta \overline{\theta }`$. Important relations in the course of this calculation are

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}}(2\rho 𝒟vv𝒟\rho )=𝒟\left[\frac{2\rho }{\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}(v+\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }})}\right]$$
(3.20)
and its complex conjugate. The integral with respect to $`y`$ can be taken off at the end, finally confirming the relation

$$S_p=i\sqrt{2}𝑑td^4\theta \left(_0^1𝑑y_y𝒲\frac{1}{\sqrt{V^2}}\right)=𝑑td^2\theta \mathrm{ln}\left(v+\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}\right).$$
(3.21)
## 4 The bosonic sector

The bosonic worldline action, with all fermions discarded and the auxiliary field $`[𝒟,\overline{𝒟}]v|`$ eliminated by its equation of motion, has the following form,

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{1+\alpha }}\left(S_1\right)_B+\nu \left(S_p\right)_B`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[\mu ^1\alpha ^2e^u\dot{u}^2+4\mu ^1e^u\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2}\frac{1}{4}\mu \nu ^2e^u+i\nu \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right]},`$
where $`\mu `$ is a constant of dimension of mass and the parameter $`\nu `$ is dimensionless. It describes the dynamics of a particle with coordinates $`u(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t)`$ in a three-dimensional target space. In (4.1), the first term is the kinetic term of the dilaton $`u`$, the second one is the action of the $`SU(2)/U(1)S^2`$ nonlinear sigma model, the third one is the standard dilaton potential, and the fourth one is a WZW term on $`S^2`$. The dilaton potential arises after eliminating the auxiliary field from the sum of (3.6) and (3.21), while the WZW term comes solely from (3.21). The strict relation between the dilaton potential and WZW term is required by $`N=4`$ supersymmetry.

An equivalent form of the action is achieved by expressing it through standard spherical coordinates $`r`$, $`\vartheta `$, $`\phi `$ via

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}e^{i\phi },e^{u/2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mu r,`$ (4.2)
$`S_B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[4\alpha ^2\mu \dot{r}^2+\mu r^2\left(\dot{\vartheta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \dot{\phi }^2\right)\frac{\nu ^2}{\mu r^2}+2\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \dot{\phi }\right]}.`$ (4.3)
It is also instructive to rewrite (4.1) in such a way that the potential term has the form typical for $`3`$-dimensional conformal mechanics. One denotes $`𝐘`$ $`=(v,\rho ,\overline{\rho })`$ and defines the new Cartesian coordinates as $`X^i=\mu ^1Y^i|𝐘|^{\frac{12\alpha }{2\alpha }}`$. With this, (4.1) is rewritten as

$$S_B=𝑑t\left[\mu g_{ik}(X)\dot{X}^i\dot{X}^k\frac{1}{4\mu }\frac{\nu ^2}{|𝐗|^\mathrm{𝟐}}+2i\nu \frac{ϵ^{3ik}X^i\dot{X}^k}{(X^3+|𝐗|)|𝐗|}\right],$$
(4.4)
where

$$g_{ik}(X)=\delta _{ik}+(4\alpha ^21)\frac{X_iX_k}{|𝐗|^\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(4.5)
From this representation it is clearly seen that only at $`\alpha =\pm 1/2`$ the kinetic and potential terms of $`𝐗`$ coincide with those of the standard 3-dimensional conformal mechanics. At any other nonzero value of $`\alpha `$ one gets a conformally invariant nonlinear sigma model which is a particular case of the general $`1d`$ sigma model with $`3k`$-dimensional target space firstly considered in . The advantage of the form (4.4) is that $`SU(2)`$ is manifest in all terms except for the WZW one.

To see which kind of geometry the sigma model in (4.1), (4.4) reveals, let us look at the line element corresponding to (4.3) (with $`\mu =1`$ for simplicity),

$$ds^2=4\alpha ^2dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,r=\sqrt{2}e^{u/2}=|𝐗|,$$
(4.6)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2$$
(4.7)
is the invariant Killing form on the sphere $`S^2`$. This metric belongs to a 3-dimensional cone $`C(B)`$ over the base manifold $`B=S^2`$ of radius $`\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}`$ (see  for the relevant definitions). At $`\alpha =\pm 1/2`$ one recovers flat space $`^3`$ (a cone over $`S^2`$ of unit radius), while at any other $`\alpha `$ one ends up with a curved manifold. It is easy to evaluate the corresponding Ricci tensor and scalar curvature as

$$R_{\vartheta \vartheta }=\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}1\right),R_{\phi \phi }=\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}1\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ,R=\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}1\right)\frac{2}{r^2},$$
(4.8)
and all other components being zero. Thus for $`\alpha \pm 1/2`$ our manifold is neither Ricci-flat nor of constant scalar curvature. Note that such a conical geometry is typical for the bosonic sectors of superconformal theories in diverse dimensions . The metric in (4.6), in agreement with the general finding of , is conformally flat, which can be shown by changing the radial variable as $`r=\widehat{r}^{\frac{1}{2|\alpha |}}`$.

Finally, let us discuss some properties of the $`S^2`$ WZW term in (4.1). It is not manifestly $`SU(2)`$ invariant: under the $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ transformations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }=b+\overline{b}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\overline{b}+b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2,$$
(4.9)
it is shifted by a full time derivative

$$\delta \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=\overline{b}\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}b\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},$$
(4.10)
i.e. it is invariant up to an abelian gauge transformation as should be. As was observed for the first time in , the WZW term is conformally invariant on its own. Also typical for WZW terms , the constant $`\nu `$ needs to be quantized,

$$\nu \frac{1}{2}$$
(4.11)
(see  and refs. therein). Thus the coefficient in front of the superpotential in our $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics should be quantized for topological reasons. As a consequence, the dilaton mass (the coefficient of the dilaton potential in (4.3)) is proportional to the square of an integer.666Some other arguments why this parameter of the bosonic conformal mechanics should be quantized were adduced in . This should be contrasted with the $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics of ref.  where no WZW term is present in the bosonic sector and, therefore, no restriction on the strength of the potential term arises.

To further clarify the meaning of the WZW term, let us introduce a constant unit 3-vector $`C^i`$, $`|𝐂|`$ $`=1`$, and rewrite the WZW term in (4.4) (with the factor $`2i\nu `$ detached) as

$$L_{WZW}=\frac{ϵ^{ikl}C^kX^l}{\left[(𝐗𝐂)+|𝐗|\right]|𝐗|}\dot{X}^i𝐀\dot{𝐗}.$$
(4.12)
Choosing the frame $`C^3=1,C^1=C^2=0`$, one reproduces just the WZW term in (4.4). Now one observes that this term is nothing but the coupling of a non-relativistic particle $`X^i(t)`$ to the potential $`A^i`$ of a Dirac magnetic monopole, with the singular Dirac string oriented along $`𝐗=𝐂`$. It is easy to calculate the corresponding magnetic field strength

$$F^{kl}=^kA^l^lA^k=ϵ^{klp}\frac{X^p}{|𝐗|^3}$$
(4.13)
which is indeed independent of $`C^i`$. It is also easy to check that the dependence of the WZW term on the unit vector $`C^i`$ is reduced to a full time derivative (it is a worldline pull-back of a gauge transformation of $`A^i`$) and, hence, the action does not depend on this parameter up to topological effects. This follows from the relation

$$ϵ^{pij}C^i_C^j\left(L_{WZW}\right)=_t\left[\frac{X^p+C^p|𝐗|}{(𝐗𝐂)+|𝐗|}\right].$$
(4.14)
Thus eq. (4.11) is just the Dirac quantization condition.

## 5 Special bosonic dynamics

In this Section we put $`\mu =1`$ for simplicity. In standard spherical coordinates $`𝐫=(x^i)=(r,\vartheta ,\phi )`$ our bosonic Lagrangian

$`_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(4\alpha ^2\dot{r}^2+r^2\dot{\vartheta }^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \dot{\phi }^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2r^2}}+\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \dot{\varphi }`$ (5.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(4\alpha ^2\dot{r}^2+𝐋^2r^2\right)A_0(𝐫)+A_i(𝐫)\dot{x}^i`$
describes an electrically charged particle in a spherically symmetric external electromagnetic field given by

$$E_i=\nu ^2\frac{x_i}{r^4}\text{and}B_i=\nu \frac{x_i}{r^3}.$$
(5.2)
Note that $`A_0=\nu ^2/2r^2`$ is just a central scalar potential while $`(A_r=0,A_\vartheta =0,A_\phi =\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )`$ yields a Dirac monopole of magnetic charge $`g=\nu `$. The two potentials are related by $`N=4`$ supersymmetry; this will give rise to special dynamics.

Let us analyze the particle motion in more detail. The angular dynamics is independent of $`\alpha `$. Obviously conserved is the canonical momentum

$$p_\phi =r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \dot{\phi }+\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta =:j$$
(5.3)
because $`\phi `$ is a cyclic variable. The $`\vartheta `$ equation of motion

$$_t(r^2\dot{\vartheta })=\frac{(j\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )(j\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \nu )}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^3\vartheta }$$
(5.4)
still permits the solution $`\dot{\vartheta }=0`$ while $`\dot{\phi }0`$ provided that

$$j\mathrm{cos}\vartheta =\nu ,\text{i.e.}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta =\text{const},$$
(5.5)
which places the motion on a (two-dimensional) cone with opening angle $`\vartheta `$ around the 3-axis. This choice of coordinates simplifies

$$\dot{\phi }=\frac{j}{r^2}\text{and}l^2:=𝐋^2=j^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta =j^2\nu ^2=\text{const.}$$
(5.6)
The radial motion is governed by

$$4\alpha ^2\ddot{r}=\frac{j^2}{r^3}E:=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha ^2\dot{r}^2+\frac{j^2}{2r^2}=\text{const},$$
(5.7)
which is readily solved by

$$r(\phi )=\frac{r_0}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2\alpha }}$$
(5.8)
where $`r_0=j/\sqrt{2E}`$ is the minimal distance to the origin. The trajectories are unbounded; the polar scattering angle is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =2\alpha \pi `$. As usual, the motion is fixed by two data: $`l`$ (or $`j`$ or $`\vartheta `$) and $`E`$.

Without the central potential $`A_0(r)`$ the particles would follow geodesics on the 2D cone inside the 3D cone; the magnetic field merely exerts the constraining force. The repulsive force provided by $`A_0(r)`$, however, is of a special kind because it gives rise to an enhanced (‘dynamical’) symmetry, at least in the flat case $`\alpha ^2=1/4`$: Rotational invariance implies (à la Noether) the conservation of a canonical angular momentum vector $`𝐉`$ which, due to the magnetic potential, differs from the kinematical angular momentum $`𝐋=𝐫\times \dot{𝐫}`$ via

$$𝐉=𝐋+\nu \frac{𝐫}{r}𝐉^2=l^2+\nu ^2=j^2.$$
(5.9)
From $`\frac{𝐫}{r}𝐉=\nu `$ we infer again that the motion is constrained to a cone around $`𝐉`$, and $`𝐋`$ is precessing with angular velocity $`j/r^2`$. The equation of motion

$$\ddot{𝐫}=\nu ^2\frac{𝐫}{r^4}\nu \frac{\dot{𝐫}\times 𝐫}{r^3}=\nu \frac{𝐉}{r^3}$$
(5.10)
confirms, of course, that $`\dot{𝐉}=𝐫\times (\text{equation of motion})=0`$ irrespective of the central potential. For $`A_0=0`$ this system has been analyzed, e.g. in  where also hidden symmetries in the absence of an electric potential were discussed. The special form of $`A_0`$, however, keeps the acceleration $`\ddot{𝐫}`$ in a fixed direction ($`𝐉`$) which implies

$$\ddot{𝐫}\times 𝐉=0\dot{𝐫}\times 𝐉=:𝐈=\text{const.}\dot{𝐫}𝐈=0$$
(5.11)
meaning that the trajectory is planar ($`𝐈`$). This result was already apparent in (5.8) for $`2\alpha =1`$. Hence, the particle follows a special hyperbola. Yet another way to seeing this employs the effective potential

$$V_{\text{eff}}=\frac{l^2}{2r^2}+\frac{\nu ^2}{2r^2}=\frac{j^2}{2r^2}$$
(5.12)
which, together with $`r^2\dot{\phi }=j`$, shows that the projection onto the $`\vartheta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ plane ($`𝐉`$) gives just free motion, i.e. a straight line, with $`l`$ replaced by $`j`$.

To characterize the symmetry enhancement present for our particular central potential $`A_0`$ (in combination with the magnetic potential $`A_i`$), we compute the Poisson brackets of $`𝐉=(J_k)`$ and $`𝐈=(I_k)`$ in flat space (for $`\alpha ^2=1/4`$777 The magnetic field modifies the canonical brackets: $`\{p_k,p_l\}=ϵ_{klm}B_m`$ for the momenta $`p_k=\dot{x}_k`$. and find

$$\{J_k,J_l\}=ϵ_{klm}J_m,\{J_k,I_l\}=ϵ_{klm}I_m,\{I_k,I_l\}=2Hϵ_{klm}J_m$$
(5.13)
where $`H=\frac{1}{2}(𝐩^2+\frac{\nu ^2}{r^2})`$ denotes the Hamiltonian of our system. It is part of the symmetry algebra and conserved with value $`H=E`$. The relation $`𝐈^2=2H𝐋^2`$ may be exploited to directly find the trajectory via

$$\sqrt{2E}lr\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi =|𝐈|r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi =𝐫𝐈=𝐫(\dot{𝐫}\times 𝐉)=𝐋𝐉=𝐋^2=l^2$$
(5.14)
which yields $`r(\phi )=\frac{l/\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{\sqrt{2E}\mathrm{cos}\phi }`$ once more. The algebra (5.13) is very reminiscent of the one generated in the Kepler problem by the angular momentum and the Runge-Lenz vector, in the $`E>0`$ case of unbounded motion. Indeed, rescaling $`I_k`$ reveals an $`SO(3,1)`$ symmetry algebra, just like in the latter case.

## 6 Concluding remarks

In this paper we have presented a new variant of $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics based on a nonlinear realization of the most general $`d=1,N=4`$ superconformal symmetry associated with the supergroup $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$. In the bosonic sector our version contains on the worldline, besides the dilaton field, two fields parametrizing the two-sphere $`S^2SU(2)/U(1)`$. This field content suggests that the model can be mapped, by a generalization of the equivalence transformation of , onto $`N=4`$ AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ superconformal mechanics describing a charged AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ superparticle, and so may be a ‘disguised’ form of the latter (perhaps, for a special value of $`\alpha `$).

The nonlinear realization superfield techniques allowed us to construct the relevant action in a manifestly $`N=4`$ supersymmetric way in terms of off-shell $`N=4`$ superfields subject to the constraints proposed in . We also gave an $`N=2`$ superfield form of the action. There exist two separate invariants which, respectively, extend the kinetic term of the dilaton combined with an $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ nonlinear sigma model as well as the potential term of dilaton. For the latter case, $`N=4`$ supersymmetry requires the dilaton potential to be accompanied by a $`d=1`$ WZW term on $`S^2`$. The former may be viewed as the potential of a radial electric field, and the latter is interpreted as the coupling to a Dirac magnetic monopole. The coupling constant in front of the WZW term is topologically quantized. It simultaneously defines the dilaton mass, and so the latter is also quantized in the $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics under consideration. The target space of the full bosonic sigma model for arbitrary nonzero values of the parameter $`\alpha `$ turned out to be a cone over $`S^2`$. The relevance of such conical geometries to superconformal theories was pointed out in . Furthermore, we have studied the classical dynamics of the bosonic sector of the model. Its three worldline fields are the coordinates of a nonrelativistic massive charged particle moving in the conical $`3D`$ manifold equipped with a certain electromagnetic background. The particle motion is characterized by an interesting interplay between the electric and magnetic forces which restrict the trajectory to the intersection of a $`2D`$ cone and a plane. In fact, the special form of the potentials gives rise to a dynamical $`SO(3,1)`$ symmetry involving the Hamiltonian, just like for unbounded motion in the Kepler problem.

It is worth remarking on the relation to previous studies. In components and in $`N=1`$ superfields, the $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics associated with $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ was already discussed in  as a special class of $`1d`$ supersymmetric sigma models . However, no detailed form of $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ invariant actions was presented. The $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ superconformal mechanics models (actually, the $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ special cases) made their appearance also as tools for describing the near-horizon geometry of four-dimensional multi black holes in . Yet, no explicit examples of a superconformal $`N=4`$ superfield action and/or an $`N=4`$ superpotential were given there.

Besides the problems of establishing the explicit relationship with the AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ superparticle and of considering the quantization of the presented system (constructing the relevant Hamiltonian etc.), there are other directions in which the results of this paper could be extended. First of all, it is interesting to elaborate on alternative nonlinear realizations of $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ which could give rise to as yet unknown versions of $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics. For instance, we might place all the generators of one $`SU(2)`$ in the coset, leaving the second $`SU(2)`$ in the stability subgroup, or else break both $`SU(2)`$ groups by considering the coset $`SU(2)\times SU(2)/SU(2)_{diag}`$ or the coset $`SU(2)/U(1)SU(2)/U(1)S^2S^2`$. The corresponding versions of $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics, if existing, should contain three (in the first two cases) or four (in the third case) physical bosonic fields besides the dilaton in their bosonic sectors. It would be interesting to examine whether there exist suitably constrained $`N=4,d=1`$ superfields capable of accommodating these field contents. We expect that the precise form of the constraints is predicted by the nonlinear realization formalism, like in the case considered in this paper. In the four-field cases, $`d=1`$ versions of the hypermultiplet are likely to be recovered in this way.

Another intriguing problem is the construction of $`N=8`$ superconformal mechanics. It was recently noticed  (see also ) that one can realize off-shell $`N=8,d=1`$ Poincaré supersymmetry on a $`N=4`$ chiral superfield and the $`N=4`$ superfield $`V^{ik}`$ subject to the constraints (2.19). This representation is a $`d=1`$ reduction of the vector $`N=2,d=4`$ multiplet, just like the $`N=4`$ multiplet described by $`V^{ik}`$ is a reduction of the $`N=1,d=4`$ vector multiplet . The corresponding manifold of physical bosons is 5-dimensional. This matches nicely with the bosonic content of the hypothetical $`N=8`$ conformal mechanics based on a nonlinear realization of one of possible $`N=8,d=1`$ superconformal groups, viz. $`OSp(4^{}|4)`$ having $`SU(2)\times SO(5)`$ as $`R`$-symmetry  and containing the $`N=4,d=1`$ superconformal group $`SU(1,1|2)`$ as a supersubgroup . The relevant supercoset should include the dilaton and the four coordinates of the 4-sphere $`S^4SO(5)/SO(4)`$ as the basic Goldstone superfields.

## Acknowledgements

O.L. would like to thank N. Dragon for useful discussions on sect. 5. The work of E.I. and S.K. was supported in part by an INTAS grant, project No 00-00254, DFG grant, project No 436 RUS 113/669, RFBR-DFG grant, project No 02-02-04002, RFBR-CNRS grant, project No 01-02-22005, and a grant of the Heisenberg-Landau program. They are grateful to the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hannover for the warm hospitality extended to them during the course of this work.