format: text

text:
# 1 splitting interaction

It has been conjectured that non-perturbative definitions of superstring theories are given by supersymmetric matrix models. The proposal is strongly supported by the fact that the IIB matrix model almost recovers the IIB light-cone string field theory at the scaling limit. Although the light-cone setting is preferable to prove the equivalence, we hope to take the continuum limit of IIB matrix model preserving the manifest Lorentz invariance for studying its dynamical behaviour such as the spontaneous break down of the Lorentz invariance in the context of the superstring field theory. One way to keep the manifest Lorentz invariance is to apply stochastic quantization method (SQM) to IIB matrix model. In this note, we consider only the bosonic part of IIB matrix model, which was once discussed to map the large N gauge theories to a string , to derive a hamiltonian which describes the time development of Wilson loops and to clarify how to take the continuum limit of it. The dynamical aspects of bosonic IIB matirx model have been studied especially in relation to the $`U(1)^d`$ symmetry in the Eguchi-Kawai model. It is pointed out that the bosonic IIB matrix model describes the weak coupling region in the original Eguchi-Kawai model where the $`U(1)^d`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken, however, the eigenvalue distribution does not collapse to a point but has a finite extent at the t’Hooft limit . As a naive zero volume limit of SU(N) Yang-Mills theory, the partition function of the bosonic IIB matrix model is finite and the model appears to be well-defined in a mathematical sense . Our strategy in constructing the string field theory is similar to that applied to the minimal matter matrix models. We mainly use SQM to construct a collective field theory of a gauge invariant observable, Wilson loops, in bosonic IIB matrix model so that we do not need any gauge fixing procedures. The Fokker-Planck hamiltonian defines a string field theoretical description of Wilson loops at the scaling limit.

We begin with the action of the bosonic part of IIB matrix model,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_0^2N}}\mathrm{Tr}\left([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]^2\right),`$ (1)
where $`A_\mu `$’s are hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices. We define the time evolution of the fundamental matrix variables, $`A_\mu (\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )A_\mu (\tau )+\mathrm{\Delta }A_\mu (\tau )`$, in terms of Ito’s calculus with respect to the discretized stochastic time $`\tau `$. The time evolution, which recovers the probability distribution $`\mathrm{e}^S`$ with $`S`$ in the equation (1) at the infinite stochastic time limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, is given by the following basic Langevin equation,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }A_\mu (\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_0^2N}}[A_\nu ,[A_\mu ,A^\nu ]](\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\mu (\tau ).`$ (2)
Here the white noises, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\mu `$’s, are also hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices. Their correlations are defined by

$`<\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\mu (\tau )_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\nu (\tau )_{kl}>_\xi =2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}.`$ (3)
The Wilson loop is a gauge invariant observable which is calculable in SQM without gauge fixing procedure,

$`W_M(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}U_n,`$ (4)
where $`U_n=\mathrm{exp}(iϵk_n^\mu A_\mu /\sqrt{N}).`$ It satisfies an equation,

$`\widehat{k}_n^\mu _\mu ^nW_M+O(ϵ^2)=0,`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{k}_n^\mu =\frac{1}{2}(k_n^\mu +k_{n+1}^\mu ),`$ and $`_\mu ^n=/(iϵk_n^\mu )/(iϵk_{n+1}^\mu ).`$ As $`ϵ0,`$ we will consider the continuum limit such as $`(k_1^\mu ,k_2^\mu ,\mathrm{},k_M^\mu )k^\mu (\sigma ),`$ and

$`X_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{(iϵk_n^\mu )}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta k^\mu (\sigma )}},`$
$`_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`X_{n+1}^\mu X_n^\mu ϵX_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\sigma ),`$ (6)
by introducing the world sheet coodinate $`\sigma `$, $`\pi \alpha \sigma \pi \alpha ,`$ with the “length ”parameter of the Wilson loop, $`\alpha Mϵ/2\pi .`$ Then the equation (5) corresponds to, $`k^\mu (\sigma )X_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\sigma )W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]=0,`$ which ensures the reparametrization invariance of the Wilson loop with respect to the world sheet coordinate $`\sigma `$.

The generalized Langevin equation for the Wilson loop is derived from the variation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_m\mathrm{}U_M)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{1m<nM}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_m\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_n\mathrm{}U_M)+O(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{3/2}).`$
From the basic Langevin equation (2) and the noise correlation (3), we have,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }U_n`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sU_n(s)\mathrm{\Delta }Y_nU_n(1s)`$ (8)
$``$ $`2ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(k_n^\mu )^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑tU_n(1t)\mathrm{Tr}U_n(t)+O(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{3/2}),`$
where $`U_n(s)=\mathrm{exp}(isY_n),`$ and $`Y_nϵk_n^\mu A_\mu /\sqrt{N}.`$ The first term in r.h.s. of (7) is equivalent to the insertion of the equations of motion and the noise variables which can be evaluated by the similar procedure in Ref.. Then we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_n\mathrm{}U_M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}U_n\{iϵk_n^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\mu /\sqrt{N}`$ (9)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2g_0^2N}}(_n^\mu )^2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ϵ^2(k_n^\mu )^2I_n\}U_{n+1}\mathrm{}U_M),`$
where $`I_n=\frac{2}{N}_0^1𝑑s_0^s𝑑tU_n(1t)\mathrm{Tr}U_n(t).`$ The second term in r.h.s. of (7) will give a splitting interaction of the Wilson loop. It reads,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{1m<nM}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_m\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_n\mathrm{}U_M)+O(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{3/2})`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ϵ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1m<nM}{}}\widehat{k}_m\widehat{k}_n\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}U_mU_{n+1}\mathrm{}U_M)\mathrm{Tr}(U_{m+1}\mathrm{}U_n).`$
We here notice that the splitting interaction terms make effects to renormalize the matrices, $`(I_n)_{ij}`$’s, in equation (9) at the continuum limit. A possible contribution may come from, $`_{1nM}\mathrm{Tr}(U_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }U_n\mathrm{\Delta }U_{n+1}\mathrm{}U_M),`$ and yields terms which renormalize the kinetic term $`k_\mu (\sigma )^2`$ at the continuum limit without changing the sign of it. In the following, we assume that $`(I_n)_{ij}=I\delta _{ij}`$ and the factor $`I`$ includes these contributions.

Now we take the continuum limit. We introduce the renormalized (continuum) stochastic time, $`d\tau ϵ^D\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ,`$ and the renormalized Wilson loop

$`W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]ϵ^\delta W_M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Nϵ^\delta }}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}U_n.`$ (11)
To take the well-defined continuum limit $`ϵ0`$ in the generalized Langevin equation for Wilson loops, we require that the free part except the noise term in equation (9) is identified to the constraint of the reparametrization invariance with respect to the time coordinate $`\tau `$ ; $`\left(k^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}X^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2.`$ We also require for the splitting interaction part, equation (10), to be finite at the continuum limit.

From these requirements, we assume

$`g_0^2ϵ^{D1}=\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},Iϵ^{1D}=1,\delta =1+D,`$ (12)
up to some numerical constants. Then we have,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\xi W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$ (13)
$``$ $`d\tau {\displaystyle _{\pi \alpha }^{\pi \alpha }}𝑑\sigma \left\{\left(k^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}X^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2\right\}W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$
$``$ $`2d\tau {\displaystyle _0^\alpha }𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _2}}𝑑\beta _3{\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}\delta (1,2,3_{\beta _3})W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]`$
where $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$. The overlap condition for the splitting interaction is the following,

| $`k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\theta _1k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)\theta _2k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)=0`$ |  | $`\theta _1=\theta (\pi \alpha _1|\sigma |)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`\theta _2=\theta (|\sigma |\pi \alpha _1)`$ |
|  |  | $`\theta _3=\theta _1+\theta _2=1`$ |

| $`\sigma _1=\sigma `$ |  | $`\pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi \alpha _1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\sigma _2=\{\begin{array}{c}\sigma \pi \alpha _1\hfill \\ \sigma +\pi \alpha _1\hfill \end{array}`$ |  | $`\begin{array}{c}\pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\hfill \\ \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi \alpha _1\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\sigma _3=\sigma +\pi \beta _3`$ |  | $`\pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ |

$$\alpha _2\beta _3\alpha _2$$
(14)
The parameter $`\beta _3`$ is introduced to represent the splitting point which is specified by $`\sigma _3=\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3`$ on the Wilson loop. We denote the overlap condition as $`\delta (1,2,3_{\beta _3})`$. The derivative coupling at the splitting interaction point is defined by $`\widehat{k}_\mu ^{(3)}(\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{k_\mu ^{(3)}(\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3+ϵ)+k_\mu ^{(3)}(\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3ϵ)\right\}.`$ Since this quantity diverges as $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ at the interaction point, the factor $`ϵ^{+1/2}`$ is necessary in the equation (13) for the well-defined continuum limit.

The noise variable is also defined by,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\xi W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Nϵ^\delta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_1\mathrm{}U_n\left\{iϵ\widehat{k}_n^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\xi _\mu /\sqrt{N}\right\}U_{n+1}\mathrm{}U_M\right)`$ (15)
We obtain the following correlation of them at the continuum limit.

$`<\mathrm{\Delta }_\xi W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]\mathrm{\Delta }_\xi W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]>`$
$`=2d\tau G_{\mathrm{st}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _1}}\pi 𝑑\beta _1{\displaystyle _{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _2}}\pi 𝑑\beta _2{\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)}`$
$`\times \{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(1)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _1)\}\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(2)}(\pi \beta _2)\}\delta (1_{\beta _1},2_{\beta _2},3)W_{\alpha _3}[k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)]`$ (16)
where $`\alpha _3=\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$. Here we have identified

$`N^2ϵ^{2+2D}=1/G_{st}.`$ (17)
We notice that, for the merging interaction, the overlap condition is slightly different from that of splitting interaction.

$$k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\theta _1k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)\theta _2k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)=0$$

| $`\sigma _1=\sigma +\pi \beta _1`$ |  | $`\pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi \alpha _1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\sigma _2=\{\begin{array}{c}\sigma +\pi \beta _2\pi \alpha _1\hfill \\ \sigma +\pi \beta _2+\pi \alpha _1\hfill \end{array}`$ |  | $`\begin{array}{c}\pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\hfill \\ \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi \alpha _1\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\sigma _3=\sigma `$ |  | $`\pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ |

$$\alpha _1\beta _1\alpha _1,\alpha _2\beta _2\alpha _2$$
(18)
The overlap $`\delta `$-function is now denoted by $`\delta (1_{\beta _1},2_{\beta _2},3),`$ The merging interaction point is specified by $`\sigma _1=\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _1`$ and $`\sigma _2=\pi \beta _2.`$ The derivative coupling at the merging interaction point is also different from that at the splitting interaction point. They are given by

$`\widehat{k}^{(1)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1ϵ)+\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+ϵ)),`$
$`\widehat{k}^{(2)}(\pi \beta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+ϵ)+\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1ϵ)).`$ (19)
Before deriving the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian, we add some remarks on the scaling limit which is defined by equations (12) and (17). Since we fix the string tension $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the string coupling constant $`G_{st}`$ to be finite at the large N limit, the equations (12) and (17) reads,

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`N^{1/(1+D)},`$
$`g_0^2`$ $``$ $`N^{(1D)/(1+D)}.`$ (20)
A well-defined continuum limit requires $`ϵ0`$ at $`N\mathrm{}`$ which ensures the scaling dimension of the stochastic time $`\tau `$ to satisfy $`1+D>0.`$ We here require a stronger condition $`D>0`$ to obtain the smooth continuum limit for the time development of the stochastic process. By redefining the fundamental matrix variable $`A_\mu `$ to $`A_\mu \sqrt{N}`$ both in the action (1) and the definition of the Wilson loop (4), the coupling $`g_0^2`$ in (1) is replaced by $`g_0^2/N`$ which is equivalent to the original coupling constant of IIB matrix model $`g^2`$. According to the correspondence $`g_0^2=g^2N`$, the space-time extent is expected to be characterized by the quantity $`R\sqrt{g}N^{1/4}=\sqrt{g_0}`$ . It seems that, if a continuum limit may exist, there are three possible cases, $`0<D<1`$, $`D=1`$ and $`D>1`$, which distinguish the extent of eigen value distribution, i.e., the space-time extent. For $`0<D<1`$, since $`R0`$ at $`N\mathrm{},`$ the target space-time is collapsed. The case $`D=1`$ in (12) realizes the t’Hooft limit and it deduces $`Nϵ^2=1/G_{st}`$. The condition was discussed in the light-cone setting. In this case, the space-time may have a finite extent even at the large N limit. Then we may consider a dual picture to interpret the momentum $`k^\mu (\sigma )`$ for the closed string by assuming the boundary condition for the target space time coordinte , $`n^\mu R=x^\mu (2\pi )x^\mu (0),`$ with $`n^\mu `$, the winding number in the $`\mu `$ direction. The last possibility is to consider the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ which means $`D>1`$. In any cases, a remarkable fact is that since $`Nϵ^\delta =1/\sqrt{G_{st}}`$ is fixed, the intrinsic Wilson loop, $`\mathrm{Tr}_{n=1}^MU_n,`$ is not scaled at the scaling limit. Our analysis is restricted to the bosonic part of IIB matirx model, however, the scaling relations, (12) and (17), hold even for full IIB matirx model. The dynamical behaviour of the bosonic IIB matrix model is expected to be quite different from that of full IIB matrix model and it should be determined from the large N behaviour of the numerical factor $`Iϵ^{D1}`$. If we assume that the factor $`I`$ is a function of $`ϵ,g_0^2,N`$; $`I=I(ϵ,g_0^2,N)`$, then the condition to determine the index $`D`$ is given by $`g_0^2I(N^{1/(1+D)},g_0^2,N)O(1).`$ Further investigation of the dynamical behaviour of this numerical factor, however, is beyond the scope of this note.

In our approach, the stochastic process of the Wilson loop, which is described by the generalized Langevin equation, is interpreted as the time evolution in a string field theory. The corresponding Fokker-Planck hamiltonian defines a bosonic closed string field theory. In terms of the expectation value of an observable $`O(W_\alpha )`$, a function of $`W_\alpha `$’s, the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian operator $`\widehat{H}_{FP}`$ is given by

$$<\overline{W}_\alpha (0)|\mathrm{e}^{\tau \widehat{H}_{FP}}O(\widehat{W}_\alpha )|0><O(W_\alpha (\tau )_\xi )>_\xi .$$
(21)
In r.h.s., $`W_\alpha (\tau )_\xi `$ denotes the solutions of the Langevin equation with the appropriate initial configuration $`\overline{W}_\alpha (0)`$. In l.h.s., $`\widehat{H}_{FP}`$ is given by the differential operator in the well-known Fokker-Planck equation for the expectation value of the observable $`O(W_\alpha )`$ by replacing the closed string variable $`W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$ to the creation operator $`\widehat{W}_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$ and the differential $`\delta /\delta W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$ to the annihilation operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\alpha [k(\sigma )]`$. The commutation relations are

$`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\alpha [k(\sigma )],\widehat{W}_\alpha ^{}[k^{}(\sigma ^{})]]=\delta (\alpha \alpha ^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\pi \alpha \sigma \pi \alpha }{}}\delta (k(\sigma )k^{}(\sigma )).`$ (22)
At the scaling limit, we obtain the continuum Fokker-Planck hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_{FP}`$,

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle 𝒟k(\sigma )_{\pi \alpha }^{\pi \alpha }𝑑\sigma \left\{\left(k^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}X^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2\right\}W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha [k(\sigma )]}`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^\alpha }𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _2}}𝑑\beta _3{\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)𝒟k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}\delta (1,2,3_{\beta _3})W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _3}[k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)]`$
$`+`$ $`G_{\mathrm{st}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _2{\displaystyle _{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _1}}𝑑\beta _1{\displaystyle _{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _2}}𝑑\beta _2{\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)𝒟k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(1)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _1)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(2)}(\pi \beta _2)\}\delta (1_{\beta _1},2_{\beta _2},3)W_{\alpha _3}[k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]`$
By redefining the momentum integration variable, $`\stackrel{~}{k}^{(3)}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3)k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)=k^{(3)}(\sigma +\pi \beta _3)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\sigma ,(\pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)),`$ we can eliminate the $`\beta _3`$ dependence in the splitting overlap, $`\delta (1,2,3_{\beta _3}),`$ and in the derivative coupling, $`\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pm \pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)`$ . We can also eliminate the $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ dependence in the merging interaction. After the integration with respect to the angle variables $`\beta _i,(i=1,2,3)`$, the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian finally takes the form,

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle 𝒟k(\sigma )_{\pi \alpha }^{\pi \alpha }𝑑\sigma \left\{\left(k^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}X^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2\right\}W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha [k(\sigma )]}`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^\alpha }𝑑\alpha _1(2\pi \alpha _2){\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)𝒟k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1)\}\delta (1,2,3)W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _3}[k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)]`$
$`+`$ $`G_{\mathrm{st}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _2(4\pi ^2\alpha _1\alpha _2){\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)𝒟k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(1)}(\pi \alpha _1)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(2)}(0)\}\delta (1,2,3)W_{\alpha _3}[k^{(3)}(\sigma _3)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]`$
where the overlap $`\delta `$-function $`\delta (1,2,3)`$ is given by the equation (14) with $`\beta _3=0`$. Remarkably, the hamltonian consists of the splitting and the merging interaction terms where only three strings interact. At the weak string coupling limit $`G_{st}0`$, which is equivalent to the large N limit with finite $`ϵ`$, the merging interaction vanishes.

In the definition of the string field theory interpretation (21), the initial state is defined by $`<\overline{W}_\alpha (0)|=<0|\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha 𝒟k(\sigma )\overline{W}_\alpha [k(\sigma )]\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\alpha [k(\sigma )]\right\},`$ where the initial configuration must be the solution of the large N factorized Schwinger-Dyson equation ( or the loop equation ). The S-D equation is given by the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }W_\alpha 0`$ in the generalized Langevin equation (13),

$`{\displaystyle _{\pi \alpha }^{\pi \alpha }}𝑑\sigma \left\{\left(k^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}X^\mu (\sigma )\right)^2\right\}<W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]>`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^\alpha }𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _2}}𝑑\beta _3{\displaystyle 𝒟k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)𝒟k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}}`$
$`\{ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{k}^{(3)}(\pi \alpha _1+\pi \beta _3)\}\delta (1,2,3_{\beta _3})<W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma _1)]W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma _2)]>=0.`$
It is clear from the correlation in (S0.Ex9) that the leading finite N effect on the correlation functions is given by the order of $`1/N^2`$ and the S-D equation is factorizable at large N.

In conclusion, we have derived the continuum Fokker-Planck hamiltonian from the stochastic process defined by the bosonic part of IIB matrix model. The structure of the splitting and the merging interactions we have derived are covariantized versions of those in the bosonic part of the type IIB Green-Schwarz superstring field theory in the light-cone gauge. The Fokker-Planck hamiltonian may be regarded as a closed string field theory hamiltonian which describes the time development of Wilson loops. We have constructed the field theory hamiltonian such that it does not have a free theory and the splitting interaction remains in the weak string coupling limit $`G_{st}0.`$ The situation is analogous to the string field theories constructed from the old-fashioned matrix models.

Now we comment on some issues which remains to be studied. If we assume that the bosonic IIB matrix model describes the weak coupling region where $`U(1)^d`$ symmetry is broken spontaneously, the Schwinger-Dyson equations in this model do not recover the planar perturbation theory defined by the continuum Yang-Mills theory. We also do not have evidence that implies the equivalence of the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian to collective field theories of Wilson loops in the canonical formalism of standard lattice gauge theories or to the bosonic closed string field theory. In a formal sense, the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian is a manifestly Lorentz invariant hamiltonian constraint for observables such as correlation functions of Wilson loops at the infinite stochastic time $`\tau \mathrm{}`$.

$$<H_{FP}\{W_{\alpha _1}[k^{(1)}(\sigma )],W_{\alpha _2}[k^{(2)}(\sigma )],\mathrm{},W_{\alpha _n}[k^{(n)}(\sigma )])\}>=0.$$
(26)
Thus, in light-cone variables, the constraint may be reduced to a light-cone hamiltonian as expected from the fact that the IIB matrix model almost recovers the light-cone IIB superstring field theory. Another possibility is, by reversing the operator ordering of the Fokker-Planck hamiltonian, we obtain the Lorentz invariant Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution functional of the Wilson loop $`P(W_\alpha [k(\sigma )])`$.

$$\frac{}{\tau }P(W_\alpha [k(\sigma )])=\stackrel{~}{H}_{FP}(W_\alpha [k(\sigma )],\frac{\delta }{\delta W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]})P(W_\alpha [k(\sigma )]).$$
(27)
The solution of this constraint, i.e., the Boltzmann weight of the path-integral representation defined at the infinite stochastic time, may specify a classical action of interacting Wilson loops.

The question whether the present continuum limit is realized dynamically or not is yet to be studied, the behavior of the bosonic IIB matirx model may be clarified by evaluating the small string contribution to the kinetic term $`(k_\mu (\sigma ))^2`$. For IIB matrix model, we expect the situation will be changed because of the existence of the stable perturbative vacuum and the weak string coupling limit of it may remain a free theory. We hope to report on the analysis of full IIB matrix model in future publication.

Acknowledgements

The work (N.N.) is supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No.13135216. N.N. would like to thank Y. Kitazawa and S. Iso for discussions and comments, and all members in theory group at KEK for their hospitality.


text:
# Untitled Document

A POLYNOMIAL WEYL INVARIANT SPINNING MEMBRANE ACTION

Carlos Castro

Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA. 30314

November 2002

Abstract

A review of the construction of a Weyl-invariant spinning-membrane action that is $`polynomial`$ in the fields, without a cosmological constant term, comprised of quadratic and quartic-derivative terms, and where supersymmetry is linearly realized, is presented. The action is invariant under a $`modified`$ supersymmetry transformation law which is derived from a new $`Q+K+S`$ sum-rule based on the $`3D`$-superconformal algebra .

A satisfactory spinning membrane Lagrangian has not been constructed yet, as far as we know. Satisfactory in the sense that a suitable action must be one which is $`polynomial`$ in the fields, without (curvature) $`R`$ terms which interfere with the algebraic elimination of the three-metric, and also where supersymmetry is linearly realized in the space of physical fields.

Lindstrom and Rocek  were the first ones to construct a Weyl invariant spinning membrane action. However, such action was highly $`nonpolynomial`$ complicating the quantization process . The suitable action to supersymmetrize is the one of Dolan and Tchrakian (DT)  without a cosmological constant and with quadratic and quartic-derivative terms. Such membrane action is basically a Skyrmion like action.

We shall write down the supersymmetrization of the polynomial $`DT`$ action that is devoid of $`R`$ and kinetic gravitino terms; where supersymmetry is linearly realized and the gauge algebra closes . The crux of the work  reviewed here lies in the necessity to Weyl-covariantize the Dolan–Tchrakian action through the introduction of extra fields. These are the gauge field of dilations , $`b_\mu `$, and the scalar coupling , $`A_0`$ of dimension $`(length)^3`$, that must appear in front of the quartic derivative terms of the DT action.

Our coventions are: Greek indices stand for three-dimensional ones; Latin indices for spacetime ones : $`i,j=0,1,2\mathrm{}.D`$. The signature of the $`3D`$ volume is $`(,+,+)`$. The Dolan–Tchrakian Action for the bosonic $`p`$-brane ( extendon) with vanishing cosmological constant in the case that $`p=odd;p+1=2n`$ is :

$$L_{2n}=\sqrt{g}g^{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}.g^{\mu _n\nu _n}_{[\mu _1}X^{i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n]}X^{i_n}_{[\nu _1}X^{j_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\nu _n]}X^{j_n}\eta _{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}.\eta _{i_nj_n}..$$
$`(1)`$
$`\eta _{ij}`$ is the spacetime metric and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the world volume metric of the $`2n`$ hypersurface spanned by the motion of the $`pbrane`$. Antisymmetrization of indices is also required. Upon the algebraic elimination of the world volume metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ from the action and after pulgging its value back into the action one recovers the Dirac–Nambu–Goto action :

$$L_{2n}=\sqrt{det(_\mu X^i(\sigma )_\nu X^j(\sigma )\eta _{ij})}.$$
$`(2)`$
When $`p=even`$ , $`p+1`$ odd, a Lagrangian with zero cosmological constant can also be constructed, however, conformal invariance is $`lost`$. In the membrane’s case one has : $`L=L_4+aL_2.`$; where $`a`$ is a constant and $`L_2`$ is the standard Howe-Polyakov-Tucker quadratic actions $`(_\mu X^i(\sigma ))^2`$ and the quartic derivative terms are the Skyrmion-like terms :

$$L_4=\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \tau }_{[\mu }X^i(\sigma )_{\rho ]}X^k(\sigma )_{[\nu }X^j(\sigma )_{\tau ]}X^l(\sigma )\eta _{ij}\eta _{kl}.$$
$`(3)`$
The Supersymmetrization of the Kinetic Terms is similar to the construction of actions for the $`3D`$ Kinetic matter superconformal multiplet where supersymmetry is linearly realized and without $`R`$ terms. In particular, we will show why the action is invariant under a $`modified`$ $`𝒬`$-transformation , $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q=\delta _Q+\delta ^{}`$, which includes a compensating $`S`$ and $`K`$-transformation which cancel the anomalous/spurious contributions to the ordinary $`Q`$ transformations , due to the explicit breakdown of $`S`$ and $`K`$-invariance of the action, which in turn, induce a breakdown of the ordinary $`Q`$ supersymmetry as well.

The final action is invariant under $`P,D,M^{ab}`$ transformations : translations, dilations, Lorentz. But is $`not`$ invariant under conformal boost $`K`$ and $`S`$-supersymmetry. The gauge algebra closes and the action of the modified supercovariant derivative operator $`𝒟_\mu ^c`$ can be read from the commutator of two modified supersymmetry transformations :

$$[\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q,\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q](.)=\overline{ϵ}^2\gamma ^\mu ϵ^1𝒟_\mu ^c(.).$$
$`(4)`$
the modified $`𝒟_\mu ^c`$ supercovariant derivative operator is obtained after a compensating transformation $`\delta ^{}`$ is added to the standard $`Q`$-transformation to cancel the anomalous $`S`$ and $`K`$-transformations of the supermultiplets used to construct the action.

The scalar and kinetic multiplet of simple conformal SG in $`3D`$ are respectively  :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=(A,\chi ,F).T_c(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c)=(F,\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c\chi ,\mathrm{}A).$$
$`(5)`$
For a supermultiplet of Weyl weight $`\omega (A)`$, the supercovariant derivatives and the D’Alambertian are respectively :

$$D_\mu ^cA=_\mu A\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \chi \omega (A)b_\mu A.$$
$`(6)`$
$$D_\mu ^c\chi =(D_\mu (\omega (A)+\frac{1}{2})b_\mu )\chi \frac{1}{2}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^cA\psi _\mu \frac{1}{2}F\psi _\mu \omega (A)A\varphi _\mu .$$
$`(7)`$
$$\mathrm{}A=D_a^cD^{ca}A=e^1_\nu (eg^{\mu \nu }D_\mu ^cA)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\varphi }_\mu \gamma ^\mu \chi [\omega (A)1]b^\mu D_\mu ^cA+$$

$$2\omega (A)Af_\mu ^ae_a^\mu \frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu ^c\chi \frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }^\mu \gamma ^\nu \psi _\nu D_\mu ^cA.$$
$`(8)`$
The generalized spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^{mn}(e_\mu ^m,b_\mu ,\psi _\mu )`$ is :

$$\omega _\mu ^{mn}=\omega _\mu ^{mn}(e)\kappa _\mu ^{mn}(\psi )+e_\mu ^nb^me_\mu ^mb^n.$$
$`(9)`$
$$\kappa _\mu ^{mn}=\frac{1}{4}(\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^m\psi ^n\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^n\psi ^m+\overline{\psi }^m\gamma _\mu \psi ^n).$$
$`(10)`$
The gravitino field strength is :

$$\varphi _\mu =\frac{1}{4}\sigma ^{\lambda \sigma }\gamma _\mu S_{\sigma \lambda }.$$
$`(11)`$
$$S_{\mu \nu }=(D_\nu +\frac{1}{2}b_\nu )\psi _\mu \mu \nu .$$
$`(12)`$
$$e^{a\mu }f_{a\mu }=\frac{1}{8}R(e,\omega )\frac{1}{4}\overline{\psi }_\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu .$$
$`(13)`$
the variations of the gauge and matter fields under $`D`$ ( dilatations ) , and $`Q,K,S,`$ transfomations is :

$$\delta _De_\mu ^m=\lambda e_\mu ^m.\delta _DA=\frac{1}{2}\lambda A.\delta _DF=\frac{3}{2}\lambda F.$$
$`(14)`$
In general, a Weyl supermultiplet of weight $`\omega `$ transforms under Weyl scalings as :

$$\delta _DA=\omega \lambda A.\delta _D\chi =(\omega +\frac{1}{2})\lambda \chi .\delta _DF=(\omega +1)\lambda F.$$
$`(15)`$
where $`\lambda `$ is the Weyl scaling’s infinitesimal parameter. Under $`Q`$-supersymmetry :

$$\delta _QA=\overline{ϵ}\chi .\delta _Q\chi =Fϵ+\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^cAϵ.\delta _QF=\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c\chi .$$
$`(16)`$
$$\delta _Qe_\mu ^m=\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^m\psi _\mu .\delta _Q\psi _\mu =2(D_\mu +\frac{1}{2}b_\mu )ϵ.\delta _Qb_\mu =\varphi _\mu .$$
$`(17)`$
Under $`S`$-supersymmetry :

$$\delta _Se_\mu ^m=0.\delta _S\psi _\mu =\gamma _\mu ϵ_s.\delta _Sb_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\psi _\mu ϵ_s.$$
$`(18)`$
$$\delta _S\omega _\mu ^{mn}=\overline{ϵ}_s\psi _\mu .\delta _SA=0.\delta _S\chi =\omega (A)Aϵ_s.\delta _SF=(1\frac{1}{2}\omega (A))\overline{\chi }ϵ_s.$$
$`(19)`$
The canonical scalar supermultiplet is $`inert`$ under conformal boosts $`K`$ and so are the $`e_\mu ^m,\psi _\mu `$. The $`b_\mu `$ is $`not`$ inert :

$$\delta _Kb_\mu =2\xi _K^me_{m\mu }.\delta _K\omega _\mu ^{mn}=2(\xi _K^me_\mu ^n\xi _K^ne_\mu ^m).$$
$`(20)`$
A superconformally invariant action for the kinetic terms in $`D=3`$ requires to include $`only`$ the following kinetic multiplet that is fully superconformaly invariant : $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_CT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C)`$. The superconformal invariant action was given in .

However, in this work we shall use the different combination of supermultiplets

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^iT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j)+T_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^jT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^i\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j).$$
$`(21)`$
combination which happens to be the correct one to dispense of the $`R`$ and kinetic gravitino terms. However this combination $`breaks`$ explicitly the $`S`$ and conformal boosts. In doing so, it also will break the $`Q`$-invariance of any action constructed based on such “ anomalous “ kinetic multiplet \[ 3 \].

The explicit components of the suitable combination of multiplets which removes the $`R`$ and gravitino kinetic terms and breaks $`K`$-symmetry and $`S`$-supersymmetry ,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^iT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j)+T_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^jT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^i\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j).$$
$`(22)`$
are :

$$A_{ij}=\overline{\chi _i}\chi _j.\chi _{ij}=F_i\chi _j+F_j\chi _i+A_i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =\frac{1}{2})\chi _j+A_j\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =\frac{1}{2})\chi _i$$

$$\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =1)[A_i\chi _j+A_j\chi _i].$$

$$F_{ij}=A_i\mathrm{}(\omega =\frac{1}{2})A_j+A_j\mathrm{}(\omega =\frac{1}{2})A_i+2F_iF_j\overline{\chi }_i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =\frac{1}{2})\chi _j$$

$$\overline{\chi }_j\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =\frac{1}{2})\chi _i\mathrm{}(\omega =1)[A_iA_j].$$
$`(23)`$
The explicit expression for the multiplet components was given in . We can explicitly verify  that there is no gravitino kinetic term and no curvature scalar terms, as expected. There is an explicit presence of the $`b_\mu `$ terms, which signals an explicit breaking of conformal boosts. Therefore, eliminating the $`R`$ and gravitino kinetic terms is $`not`$ compatible with $`S`$-supersymmetry nor $`K`$-symmetry.

Because the component $`T_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C\mathrm{\Sigma }_C)`$ does not have the correct $`S;K`$ transformations laws, the components of the latter supermultiplet $`(A_{ij};\chi _{ij};F_{ij})`$ $`donot`$ longer transform properly under ( ordinary ) $`Q`$ transformations because the supercovariant derivatives acting on the $`A_{ij},\chi _{ij}`$ acquire anomalous/spurious terms due to the explicit $`S`$ and $`K`$-breaking pieces . To correct this problem one needs to modify the $`Q`$ supersymmetry by adding compensating $`S,K`$ transformations as shown below.

The supersymmetric quadratic derivative terms ( kinetic action ) of the action are obtained by plugging in directly the components $`A_{ij},\chi _{ij},F_{ij}`$ into the following expression while contracting the spacetime indices with $`\eta _{ij}`$ :

$$_2=e\eta ^{ij}[F_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^\mu \chi _{ij}+\frac{1}{2}A_{ij}\overline{\psi }_\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ].$$
$`(24)`$
After using a modified $`𝒬`$-variation of the action the spurious variations of the action, resulting from the $`S`$ and $`K`$-symmetry breaking pieces in the definitions of supercovariant derivatives, will $`cancel`$ and the action is invariant , up to total derivatives. . Using the modified derivatives, resulting from the cancellation of the anomalos $`S,K`$ variations of the the supermultiplet, the action obtained from eq-( 24 ) will be invariant under the following $`modified`$ $`𝒬`$-transformations :

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q^c(A_{ij})=\delta _Q^c(A_{ij})=\overline{ϵ}\chi _{ij}.\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q^c(\chi _{ij})=F_{ij}ϵ+\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu ^c(A_{ij})ϵ.$$
$`(25)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q^cF_{ij}=\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu ^c(\chi _{ij}).$$
$`(26)`$
where now is essential to use the modified supercovariant derivatives $`𝒟_\mu ^c`$ associated with the modified $`𝒬`$-transformations laws in order to cancel the anomalous contributions stemming from the $`S`$ and $`K`$-breaking pieces, since the latter anomalous contributions to the $`Q`$-variations are contained in the $`ordinary`$ derivatives $`D_\mu ^c(A_{ij});D_\mu ^c(\chi _{ij})`$ .

Under ordinary $`Q`$-variations the Lagrangian density will acquire spurious pieces  : $`(\mathrm{\Delta }L)|_{spurious}=\delta _Q[eL]|_{spurious}`$. What the modified $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q𝒮=[\delta _Q+\delta ^{}]𝒮`$ achieves is to have $`\delta ^{}𝒮=\mathrm{\Delta }|_{spurious}`$ so that the net $`sum`$ of the anomalous $`Q,K,S`$ contributions cancels out giving zero at the end ; i.e one has the correct $`Q+K+S`$ sum rule.

The modified covariant derivatives, appearing in the modified $`𝒬`$ transformation laws of the supermultiplet of Weyl weight $`\omega =2`$, used to construct the action , have now the appropriate form to ensure invariance of the actions under the modified $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ transformations :

$$𝒟_\mu ^c(A_{ij})=_\mu A_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \chi _{ij}2b_\mu A_{ij}.$$
$`(27)`$
$$𝒟_\mu ^c\chi _{ij}=(D_\mu (2+\frac{1}{2})b_\mu )\chi _{ij}\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^\nu 𝒟_\nu ^c(A_{ij})\psi _\mu \frac{1}{2}F_{ij}\psi _\mu 2A_{ij}\varphi _\mu .$$
$`(28)`$
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q𝒮=0`$ , one has found the correct $`Q+K+S`$ sum rule for the modified $`𝒬`$ transformation. Finally, we don’t have $`R`$ terms, nor the kinetic terms for the gravitino ; i.e there is no $`f_\mu ^m`$ term. $`𝒬`$-supersymmetry is linearly realized after the elimination of $`F^i`$. No constraints arise after eliminating the auxilary fileds $`F^i`$ .

The Supersymmetrization of the Quartic Derivative Terms proceeds in analogous fashion . Let us introduce the coupling-function supermultiplet, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=(A_0;\chi _0;F_0)`$ whose Weyl weight is equal to $`3`$ so that the tensor product of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ with the following multiplet, to be defined below, has a conformal weight , $`\omega =2`$ as it is required in order to have Weyl invariant actions. The following multiplet is the adequate one to build the required supersymmetrization of the quartic derivative terms :

$$K_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }^{ijkl}=K(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^i;\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^j)T[K(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho ^k;\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^l)]+(ijkl)and(\mu \nu \rho \tau ).$$
$`(29)`$
$$T[K(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^i;\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^j)K(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho ^k;\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^l)].$$
$`(30)`$
$$K(\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^iT_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j)+T_C(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^j(A_{ij}^K;\chi _{ij}^K;F_{ij}^K).$$
$`(31)`$
This combination of these supermultiplets is the adequate one to retrieve the DT action at the bosonic level and also ensures that the $`R`$ terms do cancel from the final answer. This is a similar case like the construction of the quadratic terms which was devoid of $`R`$ and kinetic gravitino terms. A similar calculation yields the components of the supersymmetric-quartic-derivative terms:

$$A_{ijkl}=\overline{\chi }_{ij}^K\chi _{kl}^K.\chi _{ijkl}=F_{ij}^K\chi _{kl}^K+F_{kl}^K\chi _{ij}^K+$$

$$A_{ij}^K\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =2)\chi _{kl}^K+A_{kl}^K\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =2)\chi _{ij}^K$$

$$\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =4)[A_{ij}^K\chi _{kl}^K+A_{kl}^K\chi _{ij}^K].$$
$`(32)`$
$$F_{ijkl}=A_{ij}^K\mathrm{}(\omega =2)A_{kl}^K+A_{kl}^K\mathrm{}(\omega =2)A_{ij}^K+2F_{ij}^KF_{kl}^K$$

$$\overline{\chi }_{ij}^K\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =2)\chi _{kl}^K\overline{\chi }_{kl}^K\gamma ^\mu D_\mu ^c(\omega =2)\chi _{ij}^K\mathrm{}(\omega =4)[A_{ij}^KA_{kl}^K].$$
$`(33)`$
where we have used the abreviations $`A_{ij}^K,\chi _{ij}^K`$ and $`F_{ij}^K`$ given by the well behaved kinetic multiplet.

Despite the fact that the defining quartic multiplet is devoid of curvature terms we are once again faced with the anomalous $`Q`$ transformations of the action due to the spurious $`S,K`$-variations. To cure these anomalous variations of the action we proceed exactly as before by using a modified $`𝒬`$ transformations that will cancel the spurious variations.

The complete $`𝒬`$ supersymmetric extension of $`L_4`$ requires adding terms which result as permutations of $`ijklilkjkjilklij`$ keeping $`\eta _{ij}\eta _{kl}`$ fixed. The action corresponding to the quartic derivative terms is :

$$_4=e\eta _{ij}\eta _{kl}[A_0F^{ijkl}+F_0A^{ijkl}\overline{\chi }_0\chi ^{ijkl}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^\mu (A_0\chi ^{ijkl}+\chi _0A^{ijkl})+$$

$$\frac{1}{2}A_0A^{ijkl}\overline{\psi }_\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ].$$
$`(34)`$
The composite fields $`A_{ijkl},\chi _{ijkl}`$ and $`F_{ijkl}`$ are given in terms of the $`A_{ij}^K,\chi _{ij}^K,F_{ij}`$. The action will be invariant under the $`modified`$ $`𝒬`$-supersymmetry transformations laws, which have the same structure as the variations of the quadratic derivatives multiplet :

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q𝒜_{ijkl}=\overline{ϵ}\chi _{ijkl}.\stackrel{~}{\delta }_Q\chi _{ijkl}=F_{ijkl}ϵ+\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu ^c𝒜_{ijkl}ϵ.\stackrel{~}{\delta }_QF_{ijkl}=\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu ^c\chi _{ijkl}.$$
$`(35)`$
where

$$𝒟_\mu ^c(A_{ijkl})=_\mu A_{ijkl}\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \chi _{ijkl}2b_\mu A_{ijkl}.$$
$`(36)`$
and similarly for :

$$𝒟_\mu ^c\chi _{ijkl}=(D_\mu (2+\frac{1}{2})b_\mu )\chi _{ijkl}\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^\nu D_\nu ^c(A_{ijkl})\psi _\mu \frac{1}{2}F_{ijkl}\psi _\mu 2A_{ijkl}\varphi _\mu .$$
$`(36)`$
.

Concluding, we have presented all the steps necessary to construct a satisfactory Weyl invariant spinning membrane action that is : ( i ) Polynomial in the fields ( ii ) devoid of curvature terms ( iii ) where supersymmetry is linearly realized . ( iv ) Upon setting the fermions to zero, and eliminating the auxiliary fields, it yields the Weyl-covariant extension of the Dolan-Tchrakian action for the membrane.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Bowers and J. Mahecha for their assistance.

References

 U.Lindstrom, M. Rocek, Phys. Letters B 218 (1988) 207;

 B.P.Dolan, D.H.Tchrakian, Physics Letters B 198 (1987) 447;

 C. Castro, “ Remarks on the existence of Spinning Membrane Actions “ hep-th/0007031;

 T.Uematsu, Z.Physics C 29 (1985) 143-146 and C32 (1986) 33-42;

. M. Duff, S. Deser, C. Isham , Nuc. Phys. B 114 (1976) 29;

 . E. Guendelman : “ Superextendons with a modified Measure “ hep-th/0006079.


text:
# Transport anomaly in the low energy regime of spin chains

## I INTRODUCTION

Recent experiments on transport phenomena in low dimensional spin systems have attracted much interest . There the behavior of conductivity is sensitively affected by the magnetic phases. Therefore the thermal conductivity can be a strong experimental instrument to investigate the magnetic properties in materials. In experiments, magnetic energy transport is much larger than the phononic transport at most temperatures. This fact is considered to be attributed to large exchange coupling constants and nondiffusive behavior of transport. Sr2CuO3 described by the isotropic Heisenberg chain has large exchange coupling constant $`J2000K`$ and the magnon can transmit energy even at the order of $`100`$K. The mean free path is experimentally estimated in the similar way as the Peierls-Boltzmann approach for phononic transport , and nondiffusive behavior is found. In another isotropic Heisenberg chain CuGeO3, where the mean free path is calculated as $`500`$ times lattice size. It is noteworthy that even when the alternation between bonds occurs, the magnetic transport may be still dominant and nontrivial enhancement of conductivity is observed . Spin-ladder system (Sr, La, Ca)14Cu24O41 and La5Ca9Cu24O41 also show extremely large mean free path .

As studied in classical systems, an integrable system shows ballistic energy transport . Even if the energy current is not conserved, the low-dimensional systems with conserved quantities tend to show the divergence of conductivity . These tendencies are also valid in quantum systems . The isotropic Heisenberg chain is the integrable system and exactly shows the diverging conductivity as proved by Zotos et al.. This divergence is a direct result of conserved energy current. However in most materials in experiments, the perturbations like a bond-alternation and a next nearest neighbor interaction exist, so that the energy current is no more conserved. Nevertheless the experiments indicate divergent conductivities. Motivated by these experimental facts, Alvarez and Gros investigated whether the experimentally indicated divergent conductivity really occurs or not. They numerically found nonvanishing Drude weight at finite low temperatures for the alternate spin chain with frustration and the ladder system , although it may vanish at very high temperatures in the thermodynamic limit. Numerical finding of finite Drude weight indicates the existence of divergent conductivity at low temperaure regime. Stimulated by these numerical studies, in this paper we study the possible mechanism to explain nondiffusive behavior in the presence of perturbations to the Heisenberg chain. We focus on the low energy regime  by employing the effective dynamics as adopted for the Heisenberg chain by Meisner et al. . As a result, we find the effective energy current becomes conserved in spite of the existence of so-called Umklapp terms so that the conductivity diverges. This ballistic nature is a common characteristic for most realistic perturbations as far as the low energy regime is considered. This is a remarkable aspect in the sense that the perturbations is irrelevant to decrease the mean free path although they can be relevant to cause various magnetic phases in the equilibrium state. This is very important to explain the anomalous large conductivities of one-dimensional magnetic systems. We further calculated the quantitative value of the Drude weight of conductivity using the path integral approach, and found it to be finite.

## II EFFECTIVE ENERGY CURRENT IN LOW TEMPERATURE REGIME

We first consider an alternate spin chain whose Hamiltonian is

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+_1,`$ (1)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}+1},_1=J\delta {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}𝐒_{\mathrm{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}+1}.`$ (2)
The total Hamiltonian is divided into the isotropic part $`_0`$ and the dimerized part $`_1`$. Thermal conductivity $`\kappa (T)`$ at a temperature $`T(=1/\beta )`$ is calculated by the Green-Kubo formula which reads as ,

$`\kappa (T)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\kappa (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2L}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau j(ti\tau )j,`$ (3)
where $`j(\mathrm{})`$ is the total current operator in the Heisenberg picture. From the continuity equation of energy, the total current operator $`j`$ is written as $`j=i_{\mathrm{}}[h_{\mathrm{}},h_{\mathrm{}+1}]`$ with the local Hamiltonian $`h_{\mathrm{}}:=J(1+(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}\delta )𝐒_{\mathrm{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ . In the absence of the alternation, $`j`$ is the conserved quantity , whereas the existence of alternation does not allow the conservation, i.e.,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[j_{(\delta =0)},_0]=0,& \mathrm{but}& [j,]0.\end{array}`$ (5)
At low energy regime, the Hamiltonian can be effectively represented by the boson field ;

$`_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\pi vp^2+\frac{v}{4\pi }(_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x))^2B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)\right]},`$ (6)
where $`v=\frac{J\pi }{2}`$ and $`B=J\delta `$. The Boson field is defined using the fermion field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ and satisfies the commutation relation as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm }{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`:\mathrm{\Psi }_R^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_R(x):\pm :\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_L(x):,`$ (7)
$`p(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}_x\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(x),`$ (8)
$`[\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x),\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(x^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\mathrm{sgn}(xx^{}).`$ (9)
We define the local Hamiltonian density at $`x`$ as, $`h(x)=\pi vp^2+\frac{v}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_+}{x}\right)^2B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)`$. Using the relations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi vp,{\displaystyle \frac{p}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{v}{2\pi }}_{x^2}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)+B\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_+,`$ (10)
we find the Heisenberg equation of motion given by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}_x\left(p_x\mathrm{\Theta }_++\left(_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+\right)p\right).`$ (11)
This leads the effective total energy current written as,

$`j_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`v^2{\displaystyle 𝑑xp(x)_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)}.`$ (12)
Interestingly, this effective current operator $`j_\mathrm{B}`$ does not include the perturbation term (Umklapp term) $`B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)`$. Furthermore we find that even if the energy current is not rigorously conserved (5), it behaves as the conserved quantity in the low temperature regime, i.e.,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\left[j\right]0,& \mathrm{but}& [j_\mathrm{B},_\mathrm{B}]=0.\end{array}`$ (14)
The perturbation term $`B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)`$ causes the Umklapp process in the scattering between fermions . Nevertheless at the level of the energy transport, this process is irrelevant to decrease the mean free path at finite low temperatures.

This situation is also the case in the other realistic perturbations. We consider the two following examples ,

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`J\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}}𝐒_{\mathrm{}+2},_3=J\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{}}S_{\mathrm{}}^z,`$ (15)
The perturbation $`_2`$ causes the frustration and the nontrivial phases appears as a function of $`\alpha `$ . Recent numerical studies treat this perturbation and the effect of frustration is investigated . $`_3`$ is the term of staggered magnetic field. The effective expressions at the low energy regime for the perturbations (15) are written as,

$`_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xc_2\left(_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+\right)^2}+c_2^{}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{\Theta }_+\right),`$ (16)
$`_3`$ $``$ $`c_3{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{\Theta }_+\right)},`$ (17)
with constants, $`c_2`$, $`c_2^{}`$ and $`c_3`$. These cases have the same form as the Hamiltonian $`(\text{6})`$, and the effective total current is easily proved to be conserved. This feature is generally common for the Hamiltonian with the form,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[ap^2+b(_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x))^2+\underset{\mathrm{}}{}c_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(d_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x)+\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\right)\right]}.`$ (18)
Here $`a,b,c_{\mathrm{}},d_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ are constants. Thus we conclude that the effective energy current is conserved in most realistic spin chains at least as far as we consider in the low temperature regime.

## III DRUDE WEIGHT

Now let us calculate the prefactor of thermal conductivity, i.e., the Drude weight $`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ in the low energy regime and confirm that finite value of $`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ really exists. Since the energy current does not depend on a time, we write the Green-Kubo formula as,

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`D_{\mathrm{th}}\delta (\omega )`$ (19)
$`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \pi /L{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x^{}j_\mathrm{B}(x,\tau )j_\mathrm{B}(x^{},0),`$ (20)
where $`j(x,\tau )`$ is the local energy current at $`x`$ and the imaginary time $`\tau `$ in the Heisenberg picture. The current is expressed as $`j(x,\tau )=\frac{iv}{2\pi }_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x,\tau )_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }_+(x,\tau )`$. We confine ourselves in the alternate spin chain effectively described by Hamiltonian (6). At very low temperatures, the Hamiltonian (6) is approximated by the mean field theory ;

$`\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_+\right)e^{\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2}{2}}\right).`$ (21)
The Hamiltonian is reduced to,

$`_\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{v}{4\pi }}(_x\mathrm{\Theta }_+(x))^2+C\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2+\pi vp^2+\mathrm{const}.],`$ (22)
where $`C=Be^{\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+^2`$ is the average value at the ground state which is self-consistently determined. This approximation yields the accurate ground state energy within $`10`$ percent error in comparison with the exact numerical data . Thus we expect that this approximation well describes properties in very low temperatures. Using the Hamiltonian (22), we calculate the Drude weight $`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ using the path integral (e.g.,). The Drude weight is given by explicit calculation of

$`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4\pi \beta L^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑x𝑑x^{}_{x_1}_{x_3}_{\tau _2}_{\tau _4}\underset{n_1,..,n_4}{}\underset{k_1,..,k_4}{}}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`e^{i(k_1x_1+k_2x_2+k_3x_3++k_4x_4)}e^{i(\omega _{n_1}\tau _1+\omega _{n_2}\tau _2+\omega _{n_3}\tau _3++\omega _{n_4}\tau _4)}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_1,n_1)\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_2,n_2)\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_3,n_3)\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_4,n_4),`$ (25)
where we take $`x_1=x_2=x,x_3=x_4=x^{},\tau _1=\tau _2=\tau `$, and$`\tau _3=\tau _4=0`$. $`k_m`$ and $`\omega _n`$ are the wave number and the Matsubara frequency defined as $`k_m=\frac{2\pi m}{L}`$ and $`\omega _n=\frac{2\pi n}{\beta }`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_m,n)`$ is the Fourier transformation at the mode $`k_m`$ and $`\omega _n`$. The four point correlation is calculated by the Wick’s theorem using the two point correlation $`|\mathrm{\Theta }_+(k_m,n)|^2=\frac{2\pi v}{\omega _n^2+v^2k_m^2+4\pi vC}`$. We next carry out the exact summation over $`n_p(p=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ using technique of the complex integral. We finally obtain the simple expression of the Drude weight with $`a=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }\sqrt{v^2k^2+4\pi vC}`$,

$`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^4\beta ^2}{8}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2\pi a}1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2\pi a}1}})^2`$ (27)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2\pi a}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2\pi a}1}})^2]`$
$`=`$ $`2vT{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\sqrt{x^2+\pi \beta ^2vC}}}.`$ (28)
In the case of isotropic Heisenberg chain $`C=0`$, $`D_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{v\pi ^2T}{3}`$ because of $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2x}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}`$, which completely agrees with the asymptotic behavior of exact calculation by the Bethe ansatz . This result is also given by the conformal transformation . In the presence of finite alternation $`\delta `$, however, the Hamiltonian does not have conformal symmetry.

Eq. (28) shows that the Drude weight is non-vanishing for finite alternation $`\delta `$. This is quite crucial because the existence of $`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ assures the anomalous energy transport. The energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is roughly estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E2\sqrt{\pi vC}`$. Thus for very low temperature regime $`T\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, eq.(28) shows exponential decrease with power law prefactor due to the finite gap

$`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v\beta ^2}{32}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2e^{\beta \left(\mathrm{\Delta }E+\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}\right)}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{32}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }E^3}{T}}}e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E}T\mathrm{\Delta }E.`$ (30)
Exponential decrease is simply due to exponential decrease of thermal excitation. The power law prefactor $`T^{1/2}`$ is also seen in the electric and spin conductivity in one-dimensional gapped systems . This temperature dependence will be the characteristic in transport phenomena in the low-dimensional gapped systems.

## IV SUMMARY

We find the possible mechanism of anomalous transport in low energy region of realistic spin chains. In the isotropic Heisenberg chain, the energy current is exactly conserved so that the Green-Kubo formula trivially diverges. On the other hand, the presence of perturbations, the Umklapp terms appear. However this term is irrelevant to the energy current of long wave length at low temperatures. We considered the quantitative estimation of the Drude weight for the alternate chain, and find exponential decrease of Drude weight at low temperature. This aspect is consistent with the numerical studies .

Here we should make clear the difference between classical nonintegrable Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) chains  where the mechanism of anomalous transport is still argued. In this classical system, anomalous heat transport is attributed to a slow relaxation due to the total momentum conservation, whereas the the auto-correlation function of energy current vanishes in the long time limit, i.e., the mixing property is satisfied. However, in perturbed quantum Heisenberg spin chains we discuss here, Numerical evidence of the finite Drude weight  means the violation of the mixing property. Thus the mechanism in quantum spin chains is different from the one in classical FPU system.

The alternate spin chain directly related to the spin-Peierls system. In the realistic mechanism, the alternation is formed by the fluctuation of the phonon. In this sense, in more realistic treatment, $`\delta `$ must be exchanged by the time-dependent bond length between atoms. In the case where the bond fluctuation is not negligible, how the magnetic energy transport is affected is also interesting.
note added– After submitting this paper, we find the preprint  where the Drude weight in the dimerized xy spin chain and two-leg ladder system are extensively studied. The paper includes the similar formula as (28) in these systems.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank S. Miyashita and X. Zotos for useful comments. He also expresses thanks the referees for suggestions to interpret the formula (28). The present work is supported by Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.


text:
# Neutrino mixing in a left-right model

## I Introduction

The increasing experimental evidence on neutrino oscillations and non zero masses 1  brings new light in some deep physical questions. The present value for the neutrino masses is consistent with a see-saw mass generation description involving a large mass scale. This suggests that grand unified theories have an important role in the neutrino mass spectrum. If this is the case, we still have many other points to clarify since the standard model has a relatively large number of input parameters and properties. In a recent work 2 ; 3 , an extended model was proposed in other to clarify two of these points; the origin of parity breaking and the small value of the charged lepton mass spectrum relative to GUTs scales.

One possible way to understand the left-right asymmetry in weak interactions is to enlarge the standard model into a left-right symmetric structure and then, by some spontaneously broken mechanism, to recover the low energy asymmetric world. Many models were developed, based on grand unified groups 4 , superstring inspired models 5 , a connection between parity and the strong CP problem 6 , left-right extended standard models 7 . All these approaches imply the existence of some new intermediate physical mass scale, well bellow the unification or the Planck mass scale. Left-right models starting from the gauge group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{BL}`$ were developed by many authors 8  and are well known to be consistent with the standard $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$. However, for the fermion mass spectrum there is no unique choice of the Higgs sector that can reproduce the observed values for both charged and neutral fermions, neither the fundamental fermionic representation is uniquely defined.

In ref.2, a left-right model with mirror fermions and a particular choice for the Higgs sector was proposed, leading to a new see-saw mass relation for both neutral and charged leptons. In the present paper we extend the model to three families and study the consequences for neutrino masses and oscillations. In section II we briefly review the model for completeness. In sections III and IV we present the charged and neutral lepton mass spectrum respectively, obtained from possible candidates for the Yukawa coupling matrices. In section V we discuss, from the neutrino mixing matrix, the consequences for neutrino oscillations; in section VI we present the main phenomenological consequences and, finally, our conclusions are given in the last section.

## II The model

In this section we will briefly revise the most important features of the model. Details can be found on ref.2 and 3.

We will analyze the neutral fermion masses within the framework of a theory based on the gauge structure $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_Y`$ with coupling constants $`g_L`$,$`g_R`$ and $`g`$.

An explicit realization of the model is provided by specifying its Higgs particle and fermion content. The first family assignment of standard and exotic fermions to the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_Y`$ representations is as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}l_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ e\end{array}\right)_L& (1/2,0,1),& L_R=\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ E\end{array}\right)_R& (0,1/2,1),\\ \nu _R& (0,0,0),& N_L& (0,0,0),\\ e_R& (0,0,2),& E_L& (0,0,2).\end{array}`$ (8)
The electric charge operator is defined in terms of the generators $`T_L`$, $`T_R`$ and Y of $`SU(2)_L`$, $`SU(2)_R`$ and $`U(1)`$ respectively.

$$Q=(T_{3L}+T_{3R}+Y)$$
(9)
A general choice of the Higgs sector includes a Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the mixed representation $`(1/2,1/2,0)`$ and two Higgs doublets

$$\chi _L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _L^+\\ \chi _L^0\end{array}\right),\chi _R=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _R^+\\ \chi _R^0\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
with transformation properties

$$(1/2,0,1)_{\chi _L},(0,1/2,1)_{\chi _R}.$$
(11)
The breakdown of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_Y`$ down to $`U_{em}(1)`$ is realized through a non trivial pattern of vacuum expectations values for the Higgs fields, namely,

$$<\chi _L>=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_L\end{array}\right),<\chi _R>=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_R\end{array}\right),<\mathrm{\Phi }>=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k& 0\\ 0& k^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
Higgs doublets are responsible for the gauge boson and fermion masses. To the Higgs sector we add two new Higgs singlets, one coupled to Dirac mass terms -$`S_D`$\- and the other coupled to Majorana mass terms - $`S_M`$.

At present there are several indications in favor of nonzero neutrino mass and mixing between families coming from solar and atmospheric neutrino data Fornengo . Neutrinos are predicted to be Majorana particles in many extensions of the standard model containing neutrinos with nonzero masses. Here we will do so and allow Majorana mass terms within the Yukawa sector of the lagrangian. For the first family we have

$`_M`$ $`=`$ $`f\left[\overline{l}_L\chi _Le_R+\overline{L}_R\chi _RE_L+\overline{l}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_L\nu _R+\overline{L}_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_RN_L\right]+`$
$`+`$ $`f^{}\left[\overline{l}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_LN_L^c+\overline{L}_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_R\nu _R^c\right]+f^{\prime \prime }\left[\overline{l}_L\varphi L_R\right]+`$
$`+`$ $`gS_M\left[\overline{N^c}_LN_L+\overline{\nu ^c}_R\nu _R\right]+g^{}S_D\overline{\nu }_RN_L+g^{\prime \prime }S_D\overline{e}_RE_L.`$
The generalization to three families is straightforward. Notice that the inclusion of Majorana terms spoils the invariance with respect to any global gauge transformation so that there is no conserved leptonic charge (see for example Ref. Bilenky ).

Fermions masses arise after spontaneous symmetry breaking of the gauge structure $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_Y`$ down to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$. For the charged and neutral sectors the mass lagrangians are, respectively

$`_{M,c}=f\left[v_L\overline{e}_Le_R+v_R\overline{E}_RE_L\right]+g^{\prime \prime }s_D\overline{e}_RE_L+f^{\prime \prime }k^{}\overline{e}_LE_R+H.C.,`$ (14)
and,

$`_{M,n}`$ $`=`$ $`f\left[v_L\overline{\nu }_L\nu _R+v_R\overline{N}_RN_L\right]+f^{}\left[v_R\overline{N}_R\nu _R^c+v_L\overline{\nu }_LN_L^c\right]+f^{\prime \prime }k\overline{\nu }_LN_R`$
$`+`$ $`gs_M\left[\overline{N^c}_LN_L+\overline{\nu ^c}_R\nu _R\right]+g^{}s_D\overline{\nu }_RN_L+H.C..`$
One of the main points of the mirror left-right model is the presence of the term $`g^{\prime \prime }s_D\overline{e}_RE_L`$ in the charged lepton mass matrix. This term will imply a see-saw mass relation for the charged sector. We have then a natural mechanism to explain small charged lepton masses in a large unified mass scale.

In this model where CP violation is not taking into consideration and therefore the couplings $`f`$, $`f^{}`$, $`g`$, $`g^{}`$, $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`h^{}`$ are $`3\times 3`$ real matrices.

In matrix form, taking $`k=k^{}=0`$, the charged sector reads

$`_{M,c}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }M_c\psi ,`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`(\overline{f}_L,\overline{F}_R,\overline{F}_L,\overline{f}_R)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& fv_L\\ 0& 0& fv_R& 0\\ 0& fv_R& 0& g^{\prime \prime }s_D\\ fv_L& 0& g^{\prime \prime }s_D& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_L\\ F_R\\ F_L\\ f_R\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
On the other hand, for the neutral sector it is convienient to introduce the self-conjugated fields defined, for each family, as

$`\chi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\nu _L+\nu _L^c`$ (26)
$`w_N`$ $`=`$ $`N_R+N_R^c`$
$`\chi _N`$ $`=`$ $`N_L+N_L^c`$
$`w_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\nu _R+\nu _R^c`$
In terms of the new fields, equations (II) may be rewritten as

$`_{M,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\xi }M_n\xi `$ (27)
$`=`$ $`(\overline{\chi }_\nu ,\overline{w}_N,\overline{\chi }_N,\overline{w}_\nu )\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& f^{}v_L& fv_L/2\\ 0& 0& fv_R/2& f^{}v_R\\ f^{}v_L& fv_R/2& gs_M& g^{}s_D/2\\ fv_L/2& f^{}v_R& g^{}s_D/2& g^{\prime \prime }s_M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _\nu \\ w_N\\ \chi _N\\ w_\nu \end{array}\right).`$ (36)
The mass matrices show the following block structure with different mass scales

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_{LR}\\ M_{LR}^t& M_S\end{array}\right)$$
(37)
where $`M_{LR}`$ and $`M_S`$ are $`n\times n`$ matrices verifying $`det(M_{LR})det(M_S)`$.

In view of the see saw structure ($`det(M_{LR})det(M_S)`$), mass matrices can be driven to a block diagonal form by expanding in power series of $`M_{LR}M_S^1`$ Valle . This results in a $`2n\times 2n`$ light fermion mass matrix and $`2n\times 2n`$ heavy one given by

$$M^{(light)}M_{LR}^tM_S^1M_{LR},M^{(heavy)}=M_S$$
(38)
respectively.

## III Charged fermion masses

In order to obtain the fermion masses we need explicit textures for the coupling matrices in Eqs. (16) and (27). Mixing between families in the charged sector is phenomenologically disfavored and thus the coupling matrices $`f`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ can be chosen diagonal. Taking $`f=diag(1,1,1)`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }=diag(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ we obtain for each family a light charged fermion, with mass eigenvalue $`m_i=v_Lv_R/\lambda _is_D`$, and a heavy one with eigenvalue $`M_i=\lambda _is_D`$.

Flavor left handed and right handed fields $`\psi `$ are connected to the physical fields $`\eta `$ by means of an orthogonal transformation, that is

$$\psi _j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{4n}{}}V_{jk}\eta _k$$
(39)
where $`\eta `$ is the column matrix formed by the mass fields and $`n`$ the number of families into consideration.

Explicitly, the mixing matrix $`V`$ in the one family case is

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)$$
(40)
From this matrix we can recover the Dirac structure of charged leptons by suitable rotations. The generalization to the three family case is easily done.

The three parameters $`\lambda _i`$ in $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ allow us to recover the standard charged fermion spectrum in a simple way.

For the light fermions we have

$$m_i=\frac{v_Lv_R}{\lambda _is_D}$$
(41)
Fixing the vacuum parameter $`v_L`$ equal to the Fermi scale $`v_{Fermi}`$, we obtain the following constraints

$$v_R/\lambda _1s_D10^6,v_R/\lambda _2s_D10^3,v_R/\lambda _3s_D10^2.$$
(42)
Consequently, for $`v_R10^310^4GeV`$ we have the following spectrum for the heavy sector

$$M_1=\lambda _1s_D=10^910^{10}GeV,M_2=\lambda _2s_D=10^610^7GeV,M_3=\lambda _3s_D=10^510^6GeV.$$
(43)
Taking the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs scalar $`s_D`$ at the mass scale $`10^{10}`$ GeV, then the coupling parameters $`\lambda _i`$ are fixed to

$$\lambda _1=1,\lambda _2=10^3,\lambda _3=10^4.$$
(44)
## IV Neutral fermion masses

The mass lagrangian corresponding to the neutral sector contains Dirac and Majorana mass terms built up from the inclusion of right handed neutrino fields and their mirror partners. In this framework, the description on the phenomenological neutrino mass matrix will differ from the most familiar schemes on three neutrino mixing found in the literature Barger . In equation (27), the Dirac mass terms arise from the off-diagonal submatrices of the blocks $`M_{LR}`$ and $`M_S`$, while the Majorana terms arise from the diagonal ones. As we mention before, the difference between $`M_{LR}`$ and $`M_S`$ mass scales ensures the see-saw mechanism for the neutral sector. We still have to choose suitable candidates for the textures of the coupling matrices. There are many possibilities that can be compatible with the present experimental status on neutrino masses and oscillations.

For the Dirac mass terms we chose diagonal couplings. The simplest choice is to take $`f`$ and $`g^{}`$ equal to the unity.

An important point in the left-right symmetric model comes from the Majorana mass terms. Since Majorana fields are completely neutral and therefore, are all physically equivalent, it is a natural requirement that all Yukawa couplings are to be taken equal. This corresponds to taking democratic textures for the couplings $`f^{}`$, $`g^{}`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }`$, that is

$$f^{}=g^{}=g^{\prime \prime }=\rho \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
where $`\rho `$ may be set equal to $`1`$ for simplicity. The analytic expression for $`M^{(light)}`$ is now

$$M^{(light)}=\frac{v_R^2}{s_M}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{4}+3w^2& 2w^2& 3w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2\\ 3w^2& \frac{1}{4}+3w^2& 3w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2\\ 3w^2& 3w^2& \frac{1}{4}+3w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& 3+\frac{1}{4}w^2& 3& 3\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& 3& 3+\frac{1}{4}w^2& 3\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2& 3& 3& 3+\frac{1}{4}w^2\end{array}\right)$$
(46)
where $`w`$ is defined as $`wv_L/v_R`$.

The interaction fields $`\xi (\chi _\nu ,w_N)^t`$ are related to the physical ones $`\eta (\nu ,N)^t`$ by means of the orthogonal transformation $`\xi =U\eta `$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _{\nu i}\\ w_{Ni}\end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _i\\ N_i\end{array}\right)i=1,2,3$$
(47)
The $`2n\times 2n`$ orthogonal matrix $`U`$ is determined by requiring

$$U^tM^{(light)}U=diag(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_6)$$
(48)
where $`m_k`$ are the eigenvalues of $`M^{(light)}`$ and correspond to the spectrum of the light sector. Explicitly, we found

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+O(w^2)& 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\\ \sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+O(w^2)& 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+O(w^2)& 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0& \sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+O(w^2)& 0& 0\\ \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+O(w^2)& 0& 0\\ \sqrt{\frac{1}{111}}+O(w^2)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \sqrt{\frac{12}{37}}+0(w^2)& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(49)
The neutrino fields are labeled $`\nu `$ or $`N`$ according to their characteristic mass scales $`v_L^2/s_M`$ or $`v_R^2/s_M`$, respectively. The spectrum of light Majorana neutrino masses is

$`m_{\nu _1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_L^2}{s_M}},m_{\nu _2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_L^2}{s_M}},m_{\nu _3}{\displaystyle \frac{1225}{148}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_L^2}{s_M}}`$ (50)
$`m_{N_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{s_M}},m_{N_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{s_M}},m_{N_3}{\displaystyle \frac{37}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{s_M}}.`$
It is interesting to notice that the model leads naturally to a hierarchical mass spectrum, with different square mass scales. As we will see in the next section, this feature is essential if the model is to account for the mass pattern coming from neutrino oscillation data.

From Eq. 50 we can also redefine the six Majorana fields in terms of two Dirac and two Majorana neutrino fields

The main theoretical constraints on neutrino masses come from cosmological considerations related to typical bounds on the universe mass density and its lifetime. Specifically, the cosmological bound follows from avoiding the overabundance of relic neutrinos. For neutrinos below $`1MeV`$ the limit on masses for Majorana type neutrinos is Turner

$$\underset{\nu }{}m_\nu 100\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2eV30eV$$
(51)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ is the neutrino contribution to the cosmological density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, defined as the ratio of the total matter density to the critical energy density of the universe and the factor $`h^2`$ measures the uncertainty in the determination of the present value Hubble parameter $`h`$. The factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$ is known to be smaller than 1.

In Eq.(51) the matter component represented by the factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ was chosen smaller than $`0.3`$, according to reference Olive  , in order to obtain an age of the Universe $`t12`$ Gyears.

From (50), the sum of neutrino masses satisfy

$$\underset{i}{\overset{6}{}}m_i10\frac{v_R^2}{s_M},$$
(52)
so that the cosmological criterium (51) is verified if

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{s_M}}10\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2eV.`$ (53)
This constrains the breaking scale $`s_M`$ to be $`s_M10^{15}GeV`$ when $`v_R`$ is fixed at $`v_R10^3GeV`$.

## V Oscillations of neutrinos

The oscillations in neutrino beams are one of the most fundamental consequences of neutrino mixing. Experimental results concerning a two-generation transition are quoted in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$, and the mixing angle. We will see in this section that the model presented previously yields satisfactory results for the democratic texture of the Majorana terms coupling matrices when we fix $`v_R^2/s_M10^2eV`$.

Taking into account the orthogonality of the mixing matrix, the probability of transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta `$ between two generations $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=|\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\underset{i}{\overset{2n}{}}U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2L/2E1)|^2$$
(54)
where $`Lt`$ is the distance between neutrino source and neutrino detector and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy.

Notice that as a general feature of the transition probability, neutrino oscillations can be observed whenever the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}L/E1`$ is satisfied.

Specifically, considering the model in question supplemented by the democratic texture input, we obtain for the transition $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e4}U_{\mu 4}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^21)+U_{e5}U_{\mu 5}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^21)|^2,`$ (55)
where the explicit values of the matrix elements $`U_{ei}`$ are given in Eq. (49).

In first approximation we neglect $`|U_{e4}U_{\mu 4}|=1/111`$ in front of $`|U_{e5}U_{\mu 5}|=1/3`$, yielding to the simpler expression

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e5}U_{\mu 5}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^21)|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4|U_{e5}|^2|U_{\mu 5}|^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2E}}\right)`$
and therefore the amplitude of the probability mixing and the relevant scale of mass are

$$4|U_{e5}|^2|U_{\mu 5}|^2=\frac{4}{9},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^2\frac{1}{16}\frac{v_R^4}{s_M^2}.$$
(57)
Recent solar neutrino oscillations results (SNO) strongly favor the large mixing angle Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) solar solution at the scale

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^210^5eV^2$$
(58)
Replacing this value in Eq.(57) and choosing $`v_R10^3GeV`$, we found that in the left-mirror model the singlet breaking scale should be fixed $`s_M10^{17}GeV`$ in order to recover the solar neutrino experimental results.

We now turn our attention to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transition. In this case, Eq.(54) leads to the following result

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4|U_{\mu 5}|^2|U_{\tau 5}|^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2E}}\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4|U_{\mu 6}|^2|U_{\tau 6}|^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{61}^2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2E}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4U_{\mu 5}U_{\tau 5}U_{\mu 6}U_{\tau 6}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{51}^2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2E}}\right)`$
Now the oscillations are also characterized by a new scale of masses, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{16}^2`$ that didn’t appear in the transitions $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. As a rough approximation we consider just the dominant term ($`U_{\mu 6}U_{\tau 6}`$) which implies large mixing at the scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{16}^2`$, that is

$$4|U_{\mu 6}U_{\tau 6}|^2=1,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{16}^2\left(\frac{37}{4}\right)^2\frac{v_R^2}{s_M}$$
(60)
Using the estimate value for $`s_M`$, we found

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{16}^210^3eV^2.$$
(61)
The recent data on atmospheric neutrino by Super-Kamiokande show that the origin of the zenith angle dependence of the neutrino flux is due to oscillations between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. The data is consistent with maximal $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ mixing at a square mass difference scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^210^3eV^2`$. Indeed, the preferable values of mass and mixing parameters are

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1.0,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=3.5\times 10^3eV^2.$$
(62)
## VI Phenomenology

In order to analyze some phenomenological consequences of the model we’ll work out the interaction Lagrangian. We will see that the standard model results are safely recovered at the Fermi scale and that the connection between the left and right sectors appears at the breaking scale of the new gauge group $`SU(2)_R`$ where non negligible effects, involving a new neutral current, are predicted.

As done elsewhere Ceron , grouping all fermions of a given electric charge and a given helicity $`(h=L,R)`$ in a vector column $`\psi _h=(\psi _O,\psi _E)_h^t`$ of $`n`$ ordinary $`(O)`$ and $`m`$ exotic $`(E)`$ gauge eingenstates, the interaction Lagrangian for the neutral current is simply written as

$$^{nc}=\underset{h}{}\overline{\psi }_h\gamma ^\mu (g_LT_L^3,g_RT_R^3,g\frac{Y}{2})\psi _h\left(\begin{array}{c}W_L^3\\ W_R^3\\ B\end{array}\right),$$
(63)
or, in terms of the physical neutral vector bosons $`(Z,Z^{},A)`$

$$^{nc}=\underset{h}{}\overline{\psi }_h\gamma ^\mu R^t(g_LT_L^3,g_RT_R^3,g\frac{Y}{2})\psi _hR\left(\begin{array}{c}Z\\ Z^{}\\ A\end{array}\right).$$
(64)
$`R`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix representation of the orthogonal transformation which connects the weak ($`W_{L\mu }^3`$, $`W_{R\mu }^3,B_\mu `$) and mass eigenstates basis ($`Z_\mu ,Z_\mu ^{},A_\mu `$). In its standard form,

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{\theta _w}c_\alpha & c_{\theta _w}s_\alpha & s_{\theta _W}\\ s_\alpha c_\beta c_\alpha s_{\theta _W}s_\beta & c_\beta c_\alpha s_\alpha s_{\theta _W}s_\beta & s_\beta c_{\theta _W}\\ s_\alpha s_\beta c_\alpha s_{\theta _W}c_\beta & s_\beta c_\alpha s_\alpha s_{\theta _W}c_\beta & c_\beta c_{\theta _W}\end{array}\right)$$
(65)
where $`\theta _W`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the mixing angles between the $`ZA`$, $`ZZ^{}`$ and $`Z^{}A`$ bosons.

By direct calculation from the neutral bosons mass matrix one can obtain an analytic expression for $`R`$ in powers of $`w=v_L/v_R`$

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{g_L(g_R^2+g^2)^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}+O(w^4)& \frac{g_Lg^2}{(g_R^2+g^2)^{3/2}}w^2& \frac{g_Rg}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}\\ \frac{g^2g_R}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g_R^2+g^2)^{1/2}}\frac{g_Rg^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}{(g^2+g_R^2)^{5/2}}w^2& \frac{g_R}{(g_R^2+g^2)^2}\frac{g_Rg^4}{(g_R^2+g^2)^{5/2}}w^2& \frac{g_Lg}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}\\ \frac{g^2g_R}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g_R^2+g^2)^{1/2}}+\frac{g^3\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}{(g^2+g_R^2)^{5/2}}w^2& \frac{g}{(g_R^2+g^2)^2}\frac{g_R^2g^3}{(g_R^2+g^2)^{5/2}}w^2& \frac{g_Rg_L}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(66)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=g_L^2g_R^2+g_L^2g^2+g_R^2g^2`$.

In the limit $`w=0`$, which corresponds to no mixing between $`ZZ^{}`$ (or $`\alpha =0`$), one recovers the standard model case.

The following identities arise by comparying Eqs.(65) and (66),

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=\frac{g_R^2g^2}{g_R^2g_L^2+g_R^2g^2+g_L^2g^2},\mathrm{sin}^2\beta =\frac{g^2}{g_R^2+g^2}.$$
(67)
Expressed in terms of the rotation angles, the neutral currents in (63) coupled to the massive vector bosons $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are respectively,

$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu [(1w^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )T_{3L}w^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta T_{3R}`$
$``$ $`Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(1w^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})]`$
$`J_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta [(1+w^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})T_{3L}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{3R}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}`$
$``$ $`Q(1+w^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta )].`$
The corrections to the standard model neutrino NC coming from the extended group symmetry are

$`^{\nu ,𝒩}`$ $`=`$ $`J_\mu ^{\nu ,N}Z^\mu J_\mu ^{\nu ,N}Z^\mu `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left[(1w^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )\overline{\nu }_L\gamma ^\mu \nu _Lw^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \overline{N}_R\gamma ^\mu N_R\right]Z_\mu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta \left[\left(1+w^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right)\overline{\nu }_L\gamma ^\mu \nu _L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}\overline{N}_R\gamma ^\mu N_R\right]Z_\mu ^{},`$
or, in terms of the Majorana fields defined in (26),

$`^{\nu ,𝒩}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}[(1w^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{\chi _{\nu i}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}}\chi _{\nu i}+`$
$``$ $`w^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{w_{Ni}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma _5)}{2}}w_{Ni}]Z^\mu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta [(1+w^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{\chi _{\nu i}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}}\chi _{\nu i}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{w_{Ni}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma _5)}{2}}w_{Ni}]Z^\mu `$
In order to express the neutral currents in terms of mass eigenstates one has to use the transformation relation (47) into the interaction lagrangian (VI). This yields

$``$ $`=`$ $`J_\mu ^{\nu ,N}Z^\mu J_\mu ^{\nu ,N}Z^\mu `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}[(1w^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k+`$
$``$ $`w^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k]Z^\mu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta [(1+w^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k]Z^\mu `$
As a consequence of the neutral gauge bosons mixing in (65), mirror neutrinos couple to the $`Z`$ boson and may contribute to $`Z`$ decay $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$. Correspondence with the experimental results may be achieved by constraining the angle $`\alpha `$, or equivalently, the factor $`w^2`$, which parametrize the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. This is indeed the case for $`v_R>30v_L`$ 2 . It should be noticed that the non standard $`E_LZ`$ coupling contain a term that is not suppressed by a $`w^2`$ factor, namely,

$`_Z^{}^{E_L}`$ $`=`$ $`g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta \overline{E_L}\gamma _\mu E_L.`$ (74)
However, this contribution is excluded at energies lying in the electroweak scale due to the large charged fermion masses in the heavy sector (see Sec.3). Therefore, the standard model results are recovered in the limit $`w^2<<1`$.

The neutral current coupled to the massive vector boson $`Z^{}`$ contains non suppressed couplings which involves either standard or exotic neutrinos and are important to test the model at the $`SU(2)_R`$ breaking scale.

These contributions are

$`_𝒵^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta [{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{\overset{2n}{}}}(U_{ij}U_{ik})\overline{\eta }_j\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma _5)}{2}}\eta _k]Z^\mu `$
The new $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson can be produced at the Large Hadron Collider with masses in the 1-4 TeV region 2 . The implications of a new $`Z^{}`$ to the high precision electroweak data was studied by Erler and Langacker erler .

## VII Conclusion

The recent experimental reports on neutrino oscillations, suggesting non zero masses for neutrinos, are certainly the strongest indication for physics beyond the standard model. Enlarging the fermion spectrum by introducing mirror matter is a simple way to implement non zero neutrino masses in extended theories. In the present paper we saw that a consistent spectrum of neutrino masses and oscillation pattern can arise in a such a scenario, which is motivated by an underlying left-right symmetric structure in the gauge group. We show that the well known $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_Y`$ theory, spontaneously broken into the standard $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$ at the mass scale $`v_R10^3GeV`$, and supplemented by two Higgs singlets with vacuum parameters at the scales $`s_D10^{10}GeV`$ and $`s_M10^{17}GeV`$ reproduce the observed charged and neutral fermion masses.

The new physics predicted by the model is consistent with the theoretical arguments and experimental results available on neutrino physics. The connection between the known leptons and their mirror states can be experimentally tested by a new neutral gauge boson present at the $`TeV`$ mass scale. New Majorana neutrinos, such as those considered here, may be experimentaly tested at the large hadron collider at CERN Almeida .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Centro Latino Americano de F sica ( CLAF) and the following Brazilian agencies: CNPq, FUJB, FAPERJ and FINEP.