text:
# Scattering of color dipoles: from low to high energies

## I Introduction

It is well known that the effective degrees of freedom at high energies are so-called Wilson lines - infinite gauge factors ordered along the velocities of the colliding particles (for a review, see Ref. mobzor, ). Let us consider the classical example of the scattering of virtual photons in QCD. The photons decompose into quark-antiquark pairs which interact by exchanging gluons. At high energies, quarks move very fast so that their propagation in the background fields of the exchange gluons is reduced to the gauge factor of $`U^n(x_{})`$ nacht

$$U^n(x_{})=Pe^{ig_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑un_\mu A^\mu (un+x_{})}$$
(1)
ordered along the classical trajectory of the particle, i.e. a straight line collinear to the velocity $`n`$. Here $`x_{}`$ is the transverse position (an impact parameter) of the fast quark, which does not change in the collision. The propagation of a quark-antiquark pair is described by the color dipole kop  formed from the two Wilson lines

$$W^n(x_{},y_{})=\mathrm{Tr}\{U^n(x_{})U^n(y_{})\}$$
(2)
where $`x_{}`$ and $`y_{}`$ are the transverse positions (impact parameters) of quark and antiquark. The high-energy $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ scattering reduces then to the dipole-dipole amplitude integrated over dipoles’ sizes and separations (see Fig. 1):

$$A(s)=\frac{s}{2}d^2a_{}d^2b_{}I^A(a_{})I^B(b_{})T(a_{},b_{};s)$$
(3)
where $`I^A(a_{})`$ is the so-called “impact factor” (see Appendix A) and $`T(a_{},b_{};s)`$ is the dipole-dipole scattering amplitude:

$`T(a_{},b_{};s)=`$ (4)
$`i{\displaystyle d^2z_{}W^n(a_{}+z_{},z_{})W^e(b_{},0_{})}.`$
Here $`e`$ is the unit vector in the direction of the motion of the second virtual photon. The collision energy is related to the relative rapidity $`\eta `$ ($``$ angle between the dipoles)

$$\frac{p_Ap_B}{\sqrt{p_A^2p_B^2}}=ne=\mathrm{cosh}\eta .$$
(5)
The energy dependence of the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ amplitude is governed by the evolution of the dipoles with respect to the slope of Wilson lines determined by $`\eta `$ npb96 ; prdpl .

We see that the dipole-dipole amplitude is an “elementary” high-energy scattering process. Moreover, in theories without asymptotic particle states (like N=4 SYM) the dipole-dipole scattering is the only way to access the high-energy behavior of amplitudes. Also, there have been many attempts to estimate the high-energy behavior of hadron-hadron amplitudes using non-perturbative models for the dipole-dipole scattering (see Ref. dosch,  for a review). For hadrons, the impact factors cannot be calculated in pQCD; however, they can be related to the hadron wave functions.

The usual phenomenological approach to dipole-dipole scattering in pQCD is to take the light-like dipoles. However, matrix elements of the light-like Wilson operators contain longitudinal divergencies. In the LLA we cut these divergencies “by hand”mu94 ; nn . This prescription - take the light-like

dipoles and cut the divergencies by hand - seems to avoid ambiguities in the next-to-leading order, toobalbel . However, to go beyond perturbation theory one has to consider the scattering of the off-light-cone dipoles. The dipole-dipole amplitude is then a function of the dipole separations and the angle $`\theta `$ ($``$ relative rapidity $`\eta `$) between the dipoles. If this amplitude is an analytic function of $`\theta `$, one can calculate the dipole-dipole scattering (a correlation function of two infinite rectangular Wilson loops) in the Euclidean region and continue to the Minkowski space. In the recent series of papers zahed ; pesch  the dipole-dipole scattering was calculated in the Euclidean space using the AdS-CFT correspondence and continued analytically as a function of the angle $`\theta `$ to the Minkowski space, where $`\theta i\eta `$. Another example of such analytic continuation is the calculation of the instanton-induced dipole-dipole ampltitude dodik .

To be able to obtain the high-energy behavior from the Euclidean amplitudes it is crucial to verify that the dipole-dipole amplitude is an analytic function of $`\theta `$. In Ref. meggio,  this statement was proved for the correlation function of two Wilson rectangles with a finite longitudinal length $`𝒯`$ (see also Ref. pirner, ). At finite$`𝒯`$, the amplitude is an analytic function of the angle $`\theta `$ between the rectangles. In the limit $`𝒯\mathrm{}`$, one recovers the dipole-dipole scattering amplitude. However, whether the $`𝒯\mathrm{}`$ limit commutes with the analytic continutation from the Euclidean to Minkowski space is an open question. We demonstrate with an explicit calculation in the first two orders of perturbation theory that the dipole-dipole amplitude is, indeed an analytic function of the angle between the dipoles (as well as of the dipoles’ sizes). This is the first important result of our paper. We see that the analyticity survives the $`𝒯\mathrm{}`$ limit in the first two orders of perturbation theory, and presumably it happens in all higher orders as well so that the dipole-dipole amplitude appears to be an analytic function of $`\theta `$.

The second result of our paper concerns the rate at which the dipole-dipole amplitude approaches the BFKL asymptotics. At sufficiently high energies, the cross section for the “unpolarized” dipole-dipole scattering is given by the BFKL formula

$`\sigma (a,b;\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{ab}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{2i\nu }\eta ^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }N_c\chi (\nu )}}`$ (6)
where $`\chi (\nu )=\mathrm{}\psi (1/2+i\nu )C`$ is the position of the “hard pomeron”bfkl  (for a review, see Ref. lobzor, ). The asymptotics of the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ scattering is then given by Eq. (3). The formula (6) is obtained in the so-called leading log approximation (LLA), when $`\alpha _s1,\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}s\alpha _s\eta 1`$. The main problem with the LLA result (6) is that its power behavior $`s^{4\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }N_c\mathrm{ln}2}`$ violates the Froissart bound $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ at asymptotically large $`s`$. Thus, the BFKL pomeron gives only the pre-asymptotic behavior at “moderately high” energies. It is a common belief that the true asymptotics at $`s\mathrm{}`$ (where $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}s1`$) comes from the unitarization of the BFKL pomeron. Despite numerous efforts, the high-energy asymptotics satisfying the Froissart bound is still an unsolved problem in QCD (for a recent discussion see Refs. mcler02, ; wkov02, ; kozlevin, ). In this paper, we address a different problem (important for mid-energy accelerators) - when does the LLA asymptotics start making sense - at 1, 10 , or 100 GeV? To get a complete answer to this question one should calculate the amplitude exactly and compare it to the BFKL asymptotics (6). Since it seems to be an impossible task at present, we calculate the dipole-dipole scattering in the first two orders of perturbation theory exactly and compare it to the asymptotic form. Our main result is that the asymptotics starts rather late, at $`\eta 5`$, which translates into $`\sqrt{s}`$=10 GeV for the scattering of dipoles with the $`\rho `$-meson size $`a0.3fm`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we calculate the dipole-dipole amplitude and the cross section in the leading order of perturbation theory. In the second order, we have calculated independently both the dipole-dipole amplitude and its imaginary part proportional to the cross section. Since the structure of the diagrams and the result is much more transparent for the cross section, in Sect. 3 we present only the results for the amplitude in the second order and leave the details until Sect. 5, where we give the detailed calculation of the dipole-dipole cross section. We discuss the effects due to the running coupling constant in Sect 4. Sect 6 contains the numerical estimates of the dipole-dipole cross section and Sect. 7 is devoted to the discussion of our results and an outlook. The explicit form of the second-order amplitudes is given in the Appendix.

## II  Dipole-dipole scattering in the Born approximation

We consider the dipole-dipole scattering amplitude defined as follows

$`T(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )`$ (7)
$`=iW^n(x_1,x_2)W^e(x_3,_4).`$
Strictly speaking, the Wilson lines forming the dipole are connected with gauge links at infinity, so

$`T(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )`$
$`=i\underset{𝒯\mathrm{}}{lim}W_𝒯^n(x_1,x_2)W_𝒯^e(x_3,x_4)`$ (8)
where $`W_𝒯^n`$ is a rectangular Wilson loop of longitudinal length $`𝒯`$

$`W_𝒯^n(x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{Tr}\{U_𝒯^n(x_1)[x_1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n,x_2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n]`$
$`\times U_𝒯^n(x_2)[x_1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n,x_2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n]\}`$ (9)
and $`U_𝒯^n(x_1)[\frac{𝒯}{2}n+x_1,\frac{𝒯}{2}n+x_1]`$ etc. Hereafter, we use the notation

$$[x,y]Pe^{ig_0^1𝑑u(xy)^\mu A_\mu (ux+(1u)y)}sec:$$
(10)
for the straight-line ordered gauge link suspended between the points $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Since the gluons reduce to the pure gauge fields at infinity, the precise form of a contour connecting the points $`x_1\pm \frac{𝒯}{2}n`$ and $`x_2\pm \frac{𝒯}{2}n`$ does not matter. Moreover, we use Feynman gauge for the gluon propagator, and in this gauge the links at infinity do not contribute to the amplitude. Thus, we omit them in what follows to simplify the notations.

### II.1 Cross section of the dipole-dipole scattering and optical theorem for dipoles

The total cross section of the scattering of the dipole of size $`a`$ on the dipole of size $`b`$ may be defined as

$$\sigma (a_{},b_{};\eta )=𝑑z_{}\varsigma (a_{}+z_{};z_{},b_{};\eta )$$
(11)
where

$`\varsigma (x_i,\eta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X0}{}}0|W_{ij}^n(x_1,x_2)W_{kl}^e(x_3,x_4)|X`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`X|W_{ji}^n(x_1,x_2)W_{lk}^e(x_3,x_4)|0`$
is the total amplitude of the dipole-dipole transition into hadrons. Here the summation goes over all the intermediate states except for the vacuum and

$`W_{ij}^n(x_1,x_2)`$ (13)
$`=\underset{𝒯\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(U_𝒯^n(x_1)[x_1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n,x_2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{2}}n]U_𝒯^n(x_2)\right)_{ij}.`$
If we include the intermediate vacuum state in the r.h.s. of Eq. (12), we get $`N_c^2`$ due to the completeness relation. Separating the non-interacting contribution in a usual way

$$0|W^n(x_1,x_2)W^e(x_3,x_4)|0=N_c^2+iT(x_i,\eta )$$
(14)
we get the “optical theorem” for the dipole-dipole scattering:

$$\mathrm{}T(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )=\frac{1}{2}\varsigma (x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta ).$$
(15)
It is worth noting that the high-energy $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ cross section reduces to the dipole cross section (12) integrated with impact factors, similar to the Eq. (3) for the amplitude:

$$A(s)=\frac{1}{4}d^2a_{}d^2b_{}I^A(a_{})I^B(b_{})\sigma (a_{},b_{};\eta )$$
(16)
We will calculate the dipole-dipole cross section in two ways: directly as the r.h.s. of Eq. (12) or via the optical theorem as the imaginary part of eq. (7).

### II.2 Lowest order dipole-dipole amplitude

In the leading order of perturbation theory, the correlation function of two Wilson-line operators is proportional to the (massless) two-dimensional propagator:

$`U^n(x_{})U^e(y_{})=U^n(x_{})U^e(y_{})`$
$`=ig^2\mathrm{coth}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}}{k_{}^2}e^{i(k,xy)_{}}}`$ (17)
where $`(a,b)_{}`$ denotes the (positive) scalar product of two-dimensional vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$. (For brevity, we use the $`\mathrm{}`$-inspired notations $`d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}k\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}`$ and $`\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}(k)(2\pi )^n\delta ^{(n)}(k)`$).

The relevant Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. 2.

The contribution of these diargams has the form:

$`T(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )`$ (18)
$`=ig^4\mathrm{coth}^2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1d^2k_2}{16\pi ^4k_1^2k_2^2}}`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_2)_{}})(e^{i(k_1,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_4)_{}})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_2)_{}})(e^{i(k_2,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_4)_{}})`$
The integral over the transverse momenta can be performed explicitly, resulting in

$`T(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{8}}\alpha _s^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{13}^2x_{24}^2}{x_{23}^2x_{14}^2}}\right)^2\mathrm{coth}^2\eta `$ (19)
where $`x_{12}x_1x_2`$ etc. (cf. Ref. kozlevin, )

### II.3 Dipole-dipole cross section in the Born approximation

As we mentioned above, the dipole-dipole cross section can be obtained in two ways: via the optical theorem as the imaginary part of Eq. (19) or, directly, as the r.h.s. of Eq. (14). Since the amplitude in the lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$ is purely imaginary, the “unintegrated cross section” (12) is

$`\varsigma (x_i;\eta )=g^4{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{4}}\mathrm{coth}^2\eta \left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{13}^2x_{24}^2}{x_{23}^2x_{14}^2}}\right)^2.`$ (20)
For future use, it is instructive to calculate $`\varsigma (x_i,\eta )`$ directly as the r.h.s. of Eq. (12). In this case, Feynman rules for the calculation of the cross sections can be reproduced by a functional integral over the double set of fields (see e.g. keld ): (+) to the right of the cut and (-) to the left with the propagators

$`A_\pm ^{a\mu }(x)A_\pm ^{b\nu }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{16\pi ^4}e^{ik(xy)}\frac{ig^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}}{k^2iϵ}}`$ (21)
$`A_{}^{a\mu }(x)A_+^{b\nu }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{16\pi ^4}e^{ik(xy)}g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}2\pi \delta (k^2)\theta (k_0)}`$
These correspond to the Cutkovsky rules for the cross sections.

In these notations, the dipole-dipole cross section reads (cf. difope )

$`\varsigma (x_i;\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{W_{()}^n(x_1,x_2)W_{(+)}^n(x_1,x_2)\}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{W_{()}^e(x_3,x_4)W_{(+)}^e(x_3,x_4)\}`$
The relevant diagram is shown in Fig. (3).

To emphasize that here we have only the gauge links at $`𝒯=\mathrm{}`$ we draw them explicitly.

The leading-order correlation function of Wilson lines in $`(+)`$ sector is given by Eq. (17) and in $`()`$ sector by Eq. (17) with a different sign

$`U_{(+)}^n(x_{})U_{(+)}^e(y_{})=U_{(+)}^n(x_{})U_{(+)}^e(y_{})`$
$`=U_{()}^n(x_{})U_{()}^e(y_{})=U_{()}^n(x_{})U_{()}^e(y_{})`$
$`=ig^2\mathrm{coth}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{4\pi ^2k_{}^2}e^{i(k,xy)_{}}}`$ (23)
Using Eq. (23) it is easy to see that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N_c^21}}\varsigma (x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )`$
$`=g^4\mathrm{coth}^2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1d^2k_2}{16\pi ^4k_1^2k_2^2}(e^{i(k_1,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_2)_{}})}`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_4)_{}})(e^{i(k_2,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_2)_{}})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_4)_{}})`$ (24)
where the $`2^4=16`$ terms correspond to 16 diagrams in Fig. 3). Integrating over $`k_{}`$, we reproduce the optical-theorem result (20).

## III Second-order amplitude

In the next order of perturbation theory there are too many diagrams to present them all - rougly speaking, we must take the diagrams in Fig. 2 and add an extra gluon line in all possible ways. Let us consider the diagram in Fig. 2a. If we insert the gluon line in all possible ways to connect the left and the right parts of the diagram in Fig. 2a, we get the diagrams shown in Fig. 4.

Also, we can insert a gluon line in the left or right part only and get the “disconnected” diagrams shown in Fig. 5.

Not all the diagrams for the correlator of two Wilson loops (7) contribute to the dipole-dipole scattering amplitude. There are two exceptional classes of diagrams proportional to the total time of the evolution $`𝒯`$. First, there are those shown in Fig. 5 q-t, which describe “mass renormalization” of Wilson lines. Their contribution has the usual form of $`\delta mL`$, where $`\delta m`$ is the self-energy correction and $`L2𝒯`$ is the perimeter of the Wilson loop corresponding to the dipole. Similarly, the diagrams in Fig. 4 m-p contribute to the “binding energy” $`ϵ`$ of the dipole and lead to $`ϵ𝒯`$ terms. These two contributions exponentiate so that one obtains:

$`i\mathrm{Tr}\{U_𝒯^n(x_1)U_𝒯^n(x_2)\}\mathrm{Tr}\{U_𝒯^n(x_3)U_𝒯^n(x_4)\}`$ (25)
$`=e^{4i\delta m𝒯i(ϵ_{12}+ϵ_{34})𝒯}T(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,\eta ;𝒯)`$
where $`T(x_i,\eta ;𝒯)`$ describes the dipole-dipole scattering at the time $`𝒯`$. The resulting amplitude

$`T(x_i,\eta )=\underset{𝒯\mathrm{}}{lim}T(x_i,\eta ;𝒯)`$ (26)
$`=\underset{𝒯\mathrm{}}{lim}i\mathrm{Tr}\{U_𝒯^n(x_1)U_𝒯^n(x_2)\}\mathrm{Tr}\{U_𝒯^n(x_3)U_𝒯^n(x_4)\}`$
$`\times e^{4i\delta m𝒯+i(ϵ_{12}+ϵ_{34})𝒯}`$
is finite as $`𝒯\mathrm{}`$. In the second order of perturbation theory, the multiplication in r.h.s. of eq. (26) reduces to the subtraction of the corresponding terms ($`4\delta m𝒯`$ and $`2ϵ𝒯`$). The result is that the diagrams in Fig. 4 m-p and Fig. 5 q-t are left out and in the diagrams in Fig. 4 i-l and Fig. 5 m-p the color factor $`\frac{1}{2N_c}`$ is replaced by $`\frac{1}{2N_c}c_F=\frac{N_c}{2}`$.

Thus, we are left with the diagrams shown in Fig. 4a-j and 5a-r. Also, there are $`20`$ times more diagrams which are obtained from the addition of an extra gluon to the graphs in Fig. 2b,c,…s. The calculation of these diagrams is standard but lengthy. In Sect. V we will present some details of the (independent) calculation of the imaginary part of this amplitude where the structure of diagrams is much more transparent. Here we will only give the final result for the amplitude and discuss which classes of diagrams contribute to it.

We have performed calculation of the dipole-dipole amplitude in both the Euclidean and Minkowski spaces. In the Euclidean space, this amplitude is a correlation function of two Wilson rectangles at angle $`\theta `$ such as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =ne`$. In both cases, the $`g^6`$ amplitude has the form (in Euclidean space $`\eta =i\theta `$):

$`T(x_i,\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{ig^6}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c^21)}{8}}\mathrm{coth}^2\eta `$ (27)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}(e^{i(k_1,x_1)}e^{i(k_1,x_2)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1^{},x_3)}e^{i(k_1^{},x_4)})(e^{i(k_2,x_1)}e^{i(k_2,x_2)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2^{},x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2^{},x_4)_{}})\{\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{}k_2k_2^{})`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{A(k_i;\eta )}{(k_1+k_1^{})^6}}+i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^24)\mathrm{coth}\eta }{N_c^2(k_1+k_1^{})_{}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1^2k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2^2k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}}}\right)\right]`$
$`+\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{})\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_2+k_2^{})[(\eta {\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^24}{N_c^2}})`$
$`\times \mathrm{coth}\eta {\displaystyle d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p\left\{\frac{k_1^2}{p^2(k_1p)^2}+\frac{k_2^2}{p^2(k_2p)^2}\right\}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{|k_1||k_2|}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{2N_c}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2|x_{12}||x_{34}|]\}.`$
Here $`\mu `$ is the normalization point of the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme. The explicit form of the function $`A(k_1,k_1^{},k_2,k_2^{};\eta )`$ is given in the Appendix B. Note that they are analytical functions of $`\eta `$ and $`k_i^2`$ with singularities at $`\eta 0`$ corresponding to the bound state of two parallel dipoles.

The r.h.s. of Eq. (27) consists of two terms. The first term comes from the diagrams of the type shown in Fig. 4. (The $`N_c^24`$ term is the odderon contribution coming from the structure $`d^{abc}d^{abc}`$). The first expression of the second term comes from the “gluon reggeization” diagrams in Fig. 5 a-d, while the second one ($`\frac{5}{3}\frac{2n_f}{3N_c}`$) comes from the gluon and quark self-energy shown in Fig. 5 e-h. The diagrams in Fig.5 i-l vanish (cf. Ref. hquarks, ), while the terms coming from Fig.5 m-p are the pure divergency $`\frac{d^2k_{}}{k_{}^2}`$ which also vanishes in the framework of dimensional regularization(see the discussion in next Section). It is easy to see that the apparent divergency at $`k+k^{}0`$ in the gluon reggeizatoon terms cancels with the corresponding contribution to $`A(k_i;\eta )`$ (see Eq. 54).

The main conclusion from the Eq. (27) is that the dipole-dipole amplitude is an analytic function of the angle $`\eta `$. It is easy to check that the functions $`A`$ become real as $`\eta i\theta `$ (see the Appendix B) and so does the amplitude $`iT(x_i,i\theta )`$.

It is worth noting that in the LLA (as $`\eta \mathrm{}`$) we reproduce the first iteration of the BFKL kernel

$`T(x_i,\eta )\stackrel{\eta \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{ig^6\eta }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c^21)}{4}}`$ (28)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}(e^{i(k_1,x_1)}e^{i(k_1,x_2)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1^{},x_3)}e^{i(k_1^{},x_4)})(e^{i(k_2,x_1)}e^{i(k_2,x_2)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2^{},x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2^{},x_4)_{}})\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{}k_2k_2^{})`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)^2}{k_1^2k_2^2k_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+k_2^2k_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{})^2}}`$
$`\delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{}){\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{p^2(k_1p)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2}{p^2(k_2p)^2}}\}].`$
## IV Running coupling constant

As we shall see below, the diagrams contributing to the renormalization of coupling constant are somewhat unusual: as in the case of a heavy-quark potential $`\frac{\alpha _s(r)}{r}`$, the coefficient $`\frac{11}{3}N_c\frac{2n_f}{3}`$ in front of $`\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ comes from both the UV- and the IR-divergent diagrams (cf. hquarks ).To see how it happens, it is instructive to start with the scattering of the light-like dipoles where the diagrams for the renormalization of coupling constant are the usual UV-divergent vertices and self-energies shown in Fig. 6.

As we mentioned above, the scattering amplitude for the light-like dipoles is not a well-defined quantity because of the longitudinal divergencies corresponding to $`\eta =\mathrm{}`$ coming from the diagrams in Fig. 4 a-h and Fig. 5 a-d. If we cut this divergency “by hand”, we get the asymptotical contribution, i.e. Eq. (28). Apart from this contribution, the only non-zero diagrams are those shown in Fig. 5 e-h. They lead to the renormalization of coupling constant in Eq. (19).

Standard computation of these diagrams yields

$$\left[\left(\frac{5}{3}N_c\frac{2n_f}{3}\right)+2N_c\right]\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{k_1^2}$$
(29)
where $`\left(\frac{5}{3}N_c\frac{2n_f}{3}\right)`$ comes from the diagram in Fig. 6a and the similar diagram with the quark loop (see Fig. 5o), while $`2N_c`$ comes from the diagram in Fig. 6b. It turns out that the diagram in Fig. 6c vanishes, while the diagram in Fig. 6d is irrelevant since it contributes only to the “mass renormalization” $`\delta m`$ of the Wilson line (see Eq. (25)).

Surprisingly, the structure of the diagrams contributing to the running coupling constant is quite different for even slightly off-the-light-cone dipoles. In this case the diagram in Fig. 6a is the same as for the light-like dipoles, the diagram in Fig. 6b vanishes, and the diagram in Fig. 6c is a pure divergency of the type $`\frac{dp_{}}{p_{}^2}`$, which must be set to zero in the dimensional regularization approach. Following Ref. hquarks  it is convenient to write down this term as

$$\frac{g^2N_c}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2}{4d}\frac{2}{d4}\right)$$
(30)
The UV pole $`\frac{2}{4d}`$ together with the pole coming from the diagram in Fig. 6a forms $`\frac{2}{4d}\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{11}{3}N_c\frac{2}{3}n_f\right)`$, while the IR pole $`\frac{2}{d4}`$ cancels with similar poles in the diagrams in Fig. 7.

Due to “cancellation” between the UV and IR contributions to Fig. 6c, in order to reproduce the running-coupling coefficient $`\left(\frac{11}{3}N_c\frac{2}{3}n_f\right)`$ in front of $`\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2`$ in the dimensional regularization, one should take into account not only the “usual” UV divergent diagrams in Fig. 6 but also the IR-divergent diagrams in Fig. 7 (cf. diplom ). As a result the coefficient $`\left(\frac{5}{3}N_c\frac{2n_f}{3}\right)`$ in front of $`\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2`$ comes from the diagram in Fig. 6a, while $`\frac{g^2N_c}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2`$ comes from the diagrams in Fig. 7 (and all other diagrams in Fig. 6 vanish).

This mixture of the IR and UV divergencies could have been a source of a potential problem. The cornerstone of the BFKL approach is the assumption that all the $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ come from the longitudinal integrations, while the integrations over the transverse momenta are convergent at $`k_{}^2m^2`$, where $`m`$ is of order of masses (or virtualities) of the colliding particles. (After the summation of the BFKL ladder we have “diffusion” in the transverse momenta leading to $`\mathrm{ln}k_{}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{m^2}}`$, but such terms do not spoil the “power counting” in $`(\mathrm{ln}s)^n`$). This assumption is not true for the diagrams leading to the renormalization of the coupling constant since they are UV divergent. However, the structure of these diagrams is very simple - they are 1-loop vertex and self-energy corrections, and after the subtraction of the $`\frac{1}{4d}`$ poles the integrals over $`k_{}^2`$ are bound with $`\mu ^2`$. In our case, the structure of the integrals over the transverse momenta is more complicated due to the mixture of the IR and UV divergencies. There are individual diagrams where the upper cutoff in the integrals over the $`k_{}`$ is the energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ rather than $`\frac{1}{a}`$ or the normalization scale $`\mu `$. Such contributions would give the additional non-BFKL $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ terms coming from the logarithmical integrals over the transverse momenta $`\frac{dk_{}}{k_{}^2}`$. Fortunately, we will see below that such terms cancel in the sum of all diagrams and the remaining transverse integrals are cut by the dipoles’ sizes (or by the normalization point $`\mu `$).

## V  Cross section

### V.1 Calculation of Feynman diagrams

In the case of the cross section (12), the structure of the diagrams is more transparent and we will present some details of this calculation. In this order, there are two types of Feynman diagrams: one with gluon emission and one without. Typical diagrams of the first type are shown in Fig. 8.

The sum of these diagrams is proportional to the square of the finite-energy Lipatov vertex $`L^\mu (k_1,k_1^{})L_\mu (k_2,k_2^{})`$. The Lipatov vertex

$`L(k_1,k_1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(k_1k_1^{})(ne)+\left[2(k_1^{}n)+{\displaystyle \frac{(ne)}{(k_1e)}}k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}\right]e`$ (31)
$``$ $`\left[2(k_1e)+{\displaystyle \frac{(ne)}{(k_1^{}n)}}k_1^2\right]n`$
is a sum of the emissions of the real gluon with momentum $`(k_1+k_1^{})`$ from the left part of the diagrams in Fig. 7 in all possible ways. This vertex is gauge-invariant:

$$(k_1+k_1^{})^\mu L(k_1,k_1^{})=0$$
(32)
At infinite energies $`(ne)\mathrm{}`$ the expression (31) reduces to the usual asymptotic form of Lipatov vertex (see e.g. lobzor ).

The sum of the diagrams in Fig. 8 has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N_c^21}}\varsigma (x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )_{\mathrm{Fig}.\text{8}}`$ (33)
$`=g^6N_c{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_1^{}d^4k_2d^4k_2^{}}{128\pi ^7k_1^2k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}k_2^2k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}}\delta ^{(4)}(k_1+k_1^{}k_2k_2^{})}`$
$`\times \delta (k_1+k_1^{})^2\theta (k_1+k_1^{})_0\delta (k_1n)\delta (k_2n)`$
$`\times \delta (k_1^{}e)\delta (k_2^{}e)(e^{i(k_1,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_2)_{}})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_4)_{}})(e^{i(k_2,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_2)_{}})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_4)_{}})\left[L(k_1,k_1^{})L(k_2,k_2^{})\right].`$
The explicit form of the product of two Lipatov vertices is

$`L(k_1,k_1^{})L(k_2,k_2^{})`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(ne)^3}{k_{1e}k_{1n}^{}}}(k_1^2k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}+k_2^2k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2})+2(k_1k_2)^2(ne)^2`$
$`4(k_{}^{}{}_{1n}{}^{2}+k_{1e}^2)2(ne)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1n}^{}}{k_{1e}}}(k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}+k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1e}}{k_{1n}^{}}}(k_1^2+k_2^2)\right]`$
$`(ne)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}}{k_{1e}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2k_2^2}{k_{}^{}{}_{1n}{}^{2}}}\right]`$
where $`k_{1e}(k_1e)`$ and $`k_{1n}^{}(k_1^{}n)`$. Apart from the diagrams with the emission of a real photon, there are diagrams with an extra virtual photon. If, for example, we take the diagram in Fig. 3h and insert an extra gluon line in the left $`()`$ sector in all possible ways, we get the diagrams shown in Fig. 9. We do not display the diagrams corresponding to $`\delta m`$ or $`\delta ϵ`$, see the discussion in Sect. II. The contribution of these diagrams vanishes here anyway since the phase factors $`e^{i(2m+ϵ)𝒯}`$ and $`e^{i(2m+ϵ)𝒯}`$ coming from the left and from the right of the cut cancel out in the cross section. Again, this leads to the replacement of the color factors $`\frac{1}{2N_c}`$ by $`\frac{1}{2N_c}c_F=\frac{N_c}{2}`$ in the diagrams of the Fig.8m and Fig.9f-i type.

The calculation yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N_c^21}}\varsigma (x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4;\eta )_{\mathrm{Fig}.\text{9}}`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g^4N_c\mathrm{coth}^2\eta }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1d^2k_2}{16\pi ^4k_1^2k_2^2}}`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_2)_{}})(e^{i(k_1,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_1,x_4)_{}})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_1)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_2)_{}})(e^{i(k_2,x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2,x_4)_{}})`$
$`\times [\eta \mathrm{coth}\eta {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{4\pi ^2p_{}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{(k_1p)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{(k_1p)^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k_1^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k_2^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n_f}{3N_c}})]`$
where the first “gluon reggeization” term comes from the diagrams in Fig. 9 a,b and the second from Fig. 9 n,o. As in the case of the amplitude, the diagrams in Fig. 9 j-m vanish and the diagrams in Fig. 9 h,i give rise to a pure divergency $`\frac{dk_{}}{k_{}^2}`$ that does not contribute in the framework of the dimensional regularization. (Instead, it leads to the “mixing” of the IR and UV singularities, see the discussion in Sect. IV). Finally, the diagrams in Fig. 9c-e cancel with the corresponding diagrams with an extra gluon to the right of the cut.

It is worth noting that the diagrams in Fig. 9 f,g should be regularized by finite $`𝒯`$ before calculation. After summation of all the relevant diagrams (e.g. Fig. 9 f,h and Fig. 8 g,m,n), the limit $`𝒯\mathrm{}`$ becomes regular.

Performing the remaining integrations over longitudinal momenta in Eq. 33 and the integration over $`p`$ in Eq. 35, one obtains

$`\varsigma (x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4,\eta )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g^6N_c(N_c^21)}{16\pi \mathrm{tanh}^2\eta }}{\displaystyle d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}}`$ (36)
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_1)}e^{i(k_1,x_2)})(e^{i(k_1^{},x_3)}e^{i(k_1^{},x_4)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_1)}e^{i(k_2,x_2)})(e^{i(k_2^{},x_3)_{}}e^{i(k_2^{},x_4)_{}})`$
$`\times \delta {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_1+k_1^{}k_2k_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{a(k_i;\eta )}{(k_1+k_1^{})^6}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c(N_c^21)}{16\pi \mathrm{tanh}^3\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{1}^{}d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{2}^{}}{k_1^2k_2^2}}`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_1,x_1)}e^{i(k_1,x_2)})(e^{i(k_1,x_3)}e^{i(k_1,x_4)})`$
$`\times (e^{i(k_2,x_1)}e^{i(k_2,x_2)})(e^{i(k_2,x_3)}e^{i(k_2,x_4)})`$
$`\times [\eta {\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{p^2(k_1p)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2}{p^2(k_2p)^2}}\}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{|k_1||k_2|}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{2N_c}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2|x_{12}||x_{34}|].`$
Here

$$a(k_i;\eta )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}a_j(k_i;\eta )$$
(37)
where $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$, $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$ correspond to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth terms in Eq. (34), respectively. It should be mentioned that the fifth term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (34) is IR divergent. After regularization, in addition to $`a_5(k_i;\eta )`$ it produces the $`\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2x_{12}x_{34}`$ term which forms $`\frac{11}{3}N_c\frac{2}{3}n_f`$ together with the contribution from the self-energy diagrams in Fig. 9 n,o.

The explicit form of the functions involved is:

$$a_i(k_1,k_2,k_1^{},k_2^{};\eta )=\mathrm{}A_i(k_1,k_2,k_1^{},k_2^{};\eta ),$$
(38)
where $`A_i`$ can be found in the Appendix B. We see that the “unintegrated cross section” (36) is given by the imaginary part of the amplitude (27) (see the optical theorem for dipoles (15)).

The cross section of dipole-dipole scattering is given by the integral (11)

$$\sigma (\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\eta )=d^2z\varsigma (\stackrel{}{a}+\stackrel{}{z},\stackrel{}{z},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{0};\eta )$$
(39)
### V.2 Asymptotics of the cross section

As $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, the cross section (39) reduces to

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{asy}}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};s)=`$ (40)
$`=g^4(N_c^21){\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^2}\frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}4\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(k,a)}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(k^{},b)}{2}}`$
$`\times [(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{2\pi }}\{\eta {\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p^2(kp)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n_f}{3N_c}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2ab\}\delta ^{}(k+k^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{2\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{(k+k^{})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(k+k^{})^2/k^2}{(k+k^{})^2k^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(k+k^{})^2/k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(k+k^{})^2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k^2}}1)2{\displaystyle \frac{k^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k^2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\}]+O(e^\eta )`$
It is easy to see that the integrals over the transverse momenta converge at $`k_{}^2a^2`$. In the individual diagrams, the integrals over $`k_{}^2`$ diverge (which means that they would be cut by $`s`$ in the corresponding exact expressions (39) and (36)), but in the sum of all diagrams such terms cancel (see the discussion in Sect. IV). The structure of the asymptotic result Eq. (40) is $`\eta \sigma (a,b)`$+$`\sigma ^{}(a,b)`$. The term $`\eta `$ is the first iteration of the BFKL kernel. After integration over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$, it gives the first term in the expansion of $`\eta ^{\alpha _s\chi (\nu )}`$ in powers of $`\alpha _s`$. The second term may be called the “dipole impact factor”. Indeed, the standard representation of the BFKL asymptotics of the cross section has the form

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{asy}}=\frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^2}\frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}I(a,k_{})\eta ^{K_{\mathrm{BFKL}}}I(b,k_{}^{})$$
(41)
where $`K_{\mathrm{BFKL}}`$ is the BFKL kernel (the LLA kernel + NLO BFKL kernel $`+\mathrm{}`$). The kernel terms come from the central region of the rapidity, while the impact factors come from the fringes of the longitudinal integral where the momentum of emitted gluon is almost collinear to $`n`$ or $`e`$. In this paper, we do not access the NLO BFKL terms nlobfkl  (those would correspond to contributions to the amplitude $`\alpha _s^4\mathrm{ln}s`$) so that all the non-LLA terms in Eq. (40) should be included in “impact factors” of the dipoles, namely,

$`I(b,k_{})=\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(k,b)}{2}}+2\alpha _sk^2`$ (42)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(k+k^{})^2/k^2}{(k+k^{})^2k^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}]\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(k^{},b)}{2}}`$
and similarly for $`I(a,k_{}^{})`$. The impact factor(42) comes from the region of the longitudinal momenta in the emitted gluon close to $`n`$. Note that the integral in the r.h.s of Eq. (42) is convergent and behaves like $`\mathrm{ln}k^2b^2`$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$. Numerically, the $`\alpha _s`$ correction to the impact factor (42) is quite significant - it is responsible for the difference between the dotted and dash-dot lines in Fig. 10 below. (The NLO corrections to the virtual photon impact factor calculated recently also appear to be big, see Refs. bartelsimp, ; fadinimp, ).

### V.3 Unpolarized dipole-dipole scattering

The “unpolarized” dipole-dipole scattering corresponds to the cross section (39) averaged over the orientation of the dipoles :

$$\sigma (a,b;s)=\frac{d\theta _a}{2\pi }\frac{d\theta _b}{2\pi }\sigma (\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};s)$$
(43)
Note that in unpolarized $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ scattering the impact factor (52) depends only on $`|\stackrel{}{a}|`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{b}|`$ so the cross section of the unpolarized $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ scattering (3) is given by the “unpolarized” dipole-dipole cross section in Eq. (43) integrated over the dipole sizes with weights being impact factors

$`\sigma (a,b;\eta )=g^4(N_c^21)\mathrm{coth}^2\eta `$ (44)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}kd{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}[1J_0(ka)][1J_0(k^{}b)]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{a_f(k,k^{};\eta )}{(k+k^{})^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^4}[1J_0(ka)][1J_0(kb)]}`$
$`\times (1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{2\pi }}[\eta \mathrm{coth}\eta {\displaystyle }d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p^2(kp)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n_f}{3N_c}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2ab])\}.`$
The explicit form of the function $`a_f(k,k^{};\eta )`$ is presented in the Appendix B.

## VI Numerical estimates of the dipole-dipole cross section

For numerical estimates, let us consider the unpolarized scattering of equal-size dipoles. In this case we have only one-scale problem, so it is natural to take $`\mu =a^1`$ where $`a`$ is the dipole size. The amplitude (44) reduces to

$$\sigma (a,a;\eta )=16\pi a^2\alpha _s^2(a)\mathrm{coth}^2\eta \left[1+6\alpha _s(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )\right]$$
(45)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )`$ (46)
$`=8\pi {\displaystyle d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}kd{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}[1J_0(k)][1J_0(k^{})]\frac{a_f(k,k^{};\eta )}{(k+k^{})^6}}`$
$`8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^2}[1J_0(k)]^2\left[\eta \mathrm{coth}\eta \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p}{p^2(kp)^2}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{2\pi k^2}\right]}`$
where we have rescaled $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ by $`a`$ and took $`n_f=N_c=3`$. This expression should be compared to the asymptotical form (40) which gives

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{asy}}(a,a;\eta )=16\pi \alpha _s^2(a)a^2\left[1+6\alpha _s(a)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}+\mathrm{IF}}(\eta )\right]$$
(47)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}+\mathrm{IF}}=8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^2}\frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}[1J_0(k)]}`$ (48)
$`\times [1J_0(k^{})]\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{(k+k^{})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(k+k^{})^2/k^2}{(k+k^{})^2k^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(k+k^{})^2/k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(k+k^{})^2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k^2}}1)2{\displaystyle \frac{k^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k^2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\}`$
$`8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k}{k^4}[1J_0(k)]^2\left\{\eta d{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p\frac{k^2}{p^2(kp)^2}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{2\pi }\right\}}`$
is a sum of the LLA term $`\eta `$ and the impact factor term $``$const. Numerically, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}+\mathrm{IF}}(\eta )1.65(\eta 3.25)`$ so

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{asy}}(a,a;\eta )=16\pi a^2\alpha _s^2(a)\left[1+9.88\alpha _s(a)(\eta 3.25)\right]$$
(49)
where $`\eta `$ corresponds to the LLA approximation and -3.251 comes from the “dipole impact factor” (42). We have not calculated the next $`\frac{1}{s}`$ term in the asymptotic expansion (49) but the fit to the Figure 10 suggests the coefficient of order of 100 in front of it.

On Figure 10, we have depicted the comparison between the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )`$ describing the exact second-order cross section, its asymptotics $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}+\mathrm{IF}}(\eta )`$ Eq. (48) and the “pure” BFKL asymptotics $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}}(\eta )=1.64\eta `$.

We have used the VEGAS algorithm of the Monte-Carlo technique with 10% accuracy to calculate the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )`$.

We see that the BFKL asymptotics starts rather late, at $`\eta 5`$, which translates into $`\sqrt{s}10`$ GeV for the scattering of dipoles with the $`\rho `$-meson size $`a0.25fm`$. This is perhaps not surprising since even within the (collinearly improved cia ) NLO BFKL approximation itself the asymptotics starts relatively late, at $`\eta 6÷8`$ for the realistic dipoles trian . It should be emphasized, however, that these are two different theoretical questions relevant to the BFKL description of experimental cross sections: (i) how good is the BFKL approximation to the true high-energy asymptotics and (ii) when this true asymptotics starts making sense. For the second-order dipole-dipole scattering the first question is when the impact factor correction $`const`$ can be neglected (in comparison to the LLA $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ term) whereas the second question is when the $`\frac{1}{s}`$ corrections disappear. In this paper, we mainly address the second question and our conclusion is that the true asymptotics (represented by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{LLA}+\mathrm{IF}}`$ in this order) starts rather late.

## VII Conclusions and outlook

Our main result is that the scattering of dipoles is as suitable process to study the energy behavior of QCD amplitudes as, for instance, the scattering of virtual photons or oniums. As we discussed above, the reason why this conclusion could have been different is the infinite length of Wilson lines forming the dipoles that leads to the mixture of the IR and UV divergencies. There are individual diagrams where the upper cutoff in the integrals over the transverse momenta is $`s`$ rather than $`\frac{1}{a}`$ or the normalization scale $`\mu `$. Such contributions would lead to the additional non-BFKL $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ terms coming from the integrals over the transverse momenta. Fortunately in the sum of all diagrams, such terms cancel so that the transverse integrals are cut with the dipoles sizes or normalization point $`\mu `$. The resulting dipole-dipole amplitude is an analytic function of the angle between the dipoles so that in principle, one can get the BFKL kernel from the Euclidean calculation.

The second conclusion is that for the dipole-dipole scattering the high-energy asymptotics starts rather late, at $`\eta 5`$. Of course, it would be of more interest to check this statement for the scattering of virtual photons rather than dipoles, but the corresponding diagram for the photon-photon scattering contains 4 loops so one should not expect this calculation to be performed in the nearest future.

Our statement about the lateness of asymptotical behavior refers to the scattering of equal-size dipoles. In many cases such as the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) one of the dipoles is small. The conventional assumption is that the propagation amplitude for the small-size dipole through a hadron is proportional to the “area of the dipole” $`a^2`$ multiplied by gluon parton density normalized at $`\mu ^2=1/a^2`$. This formula is valid for the asymptotically small dipoles, but it is unknown for how small dipoles and at what energies it starts making sense. This is an important question since in the analysis of the DIS from a nucleus based on the non-linear equation for the dipole evolution npb96 ; yura ; mabraun  we assume that at the energy of a few GeV and size of order of saturation scale GLR ; muchu ; lrmodel ; mu99  (2$`÷`$3 GeV for LHC) the dipole matrix element between the nucleon states satisfies this approximate formula $`a^2G(a^2)`$. Since we cannot perform model-independent calculations of the dipole-hadron amplitudes at present, we can consider the “target” being the second dipole of a size of a typical hadron. The amplitude then is the $`ab`$ limit of Eqn. (44). For this DIS from a color dipole we can answer the question of at what size of the spectator dipole the $`a^2G`$ approximation start making sense. The study is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to Yu.V. Kovchegov and L. McLerran for discussions. This work was supported by contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and DOE grant DE-FG02-97ER41028.

## Appendix A Virtual photon impact factor

In the momentum representation, the $`\gamma ^{}`$ impact factor for the transverse photons with the initial polarization $`e_A`$ and final $`e_A^{}`$ is given by

$`I^A(k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta \frac{1}{k_{}^2\overline{\alpha }\alpha p_A^2\overline{\beta }\beta }}`$
$`\times \{(12\overline{\alpha }\alpha )(12\overline{\beta }\beta )(e_A,e_A^{})k_{}^2`$
$`+4\overline{\alpha }\alpha \overline{\beta }\beta [2(e_A,k)(e_A^{},k)(e_A,e_A^{})k_{}^2]\}`$
where $`\overline{x}1x`$. If we average over the transverse polarizations, the last term drops so that

$$I^A(k_{})=𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta \frac{(12\overline{\alpha }\alpha )(12\overline{\beta }\beta )k_{}^2}{2(k_{}^2\overline{\alpha }\alpha p_A^2\overline{\beta }\beta )}$$
(51)
In the coordinate representation, the impact factor (51) takes the form

$`I^A(x_{}){\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{4\pi ^2}e^{i(k,x)_{}}I^A(k_{})}`$
$`I^A(x_{})={\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta \frac{(12\overline{\alpha }\alpha )(12\overline{\beta }\beta )}{4\pi \overline{\alpha }\alpha }\sqrt{p_A^2x_{}^2\frac{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }{\overline{\beta }\beta }}}`$
$`\times [2K_1\left(\sqrt{p_A^2x_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }{\overline{\beta }\beta }}}\right)+\sqrt{p_A^2x_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }{\overline{\beta }\beta }}}`$
$`\times K_2\left(\sqrt{p_A^2x_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }{\overline{\beta }\beta }}}\right)]`$ (52)
where $`K`$ is the McDonald function. Note that the spin-averaged impact factor (52) depends only on $`x_{}^2`$.

## Appendix B Explicit form of the second-order amplitudes

As we mentioned above, the amplitude is a sum of five functions coming from the five terms in the product of two Lipatov vertices

$$A(k_i;\eta )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}A(k_i;\eta )$$
(53)
The explicit form of the first function is

$`A_1(k_i)=𝒜_1(r_1,r_2^{}))+𝒜_1(r_1^{},r_2)),`$ (54)
$`𝒜_1(r_i,r_j))={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta \mathrm{coth}\eta }{r_ir_j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta }{4r_ir_j\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta (1r_ir_j)^2}}`$
$`\times [(l_i{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta \mathrm{tanh}\eta }{r_i}}){\displaystyle \frac{4r_i\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta +3+r_ir_j}{(1r_i)\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}`$
$`+\left(l_j{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta \mathrm{tanh}\eta }{r_j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4r_j\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta +3+r_jr_i}{(1r_j)\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\eta (1+r_i+r_j)}{r_ir_j\mathrm{sinh}2\eta }}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi \mathrm{coth}\eta }{r_ir_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_ir_j}{(1r_i)(1r_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1/2}{\sqrt{r_ir_j^{}}1+r_i+r_j}}\right]`$
where $`r_i\frac{k_i^2}{(k_1+k_1^{})_{}^2}`$ and

$$l_i=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[12\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta \left(r_i+\sqrt{r_i^2+\frac{r_i}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }+iϵ}\right)\right]}{\sqrt{r_i^2+\frac{r_i}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }+iϵ}}.$$
(55)
The second function is

$`A_2`$ (56)
$`=2r_t{\displaystyle \frac{M(r_1,r_1^{})M(r_2,r_1^{})M(r_1,r_2^{})+M(r_2,r_2^{})}{(r_1r_2)(r_1^{}r_2^{})}}`$
where

$`M(r_i,r_j)`$ (57)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta r_ir_j(1r_ir_j)^2}}[(2r_i\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta `$
$`+1r_ir_j)l_i+(2r_j\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta +1r_ir_j)l_i`$
$`2\eta \mathrm{sinh}2\eta +i\pi (2\mathrm{cosh}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1r_ir_j}{\sqrt{r_ir_j}}})\mathrm{sinh}\eta ]`$
and $`r_t\frac{t}{(k_1+k_1^{})_{}^2}=\frac{(k_1k_2)_{}^2}{(k_1+k_1^{})_{}^2}`$. Note that it does not contribute to the forward scattering and therefore to the total cross section.

The third and the fourth functions are given by

$`A_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{tanh}^2\eta }{(r_1r_2)(r_1^{}r_2^{})}}`$
$`\times [(r_1+r_1^{})M(r_1,r_1^{})(r_1+r_2^{})M(r_1,r_2^{})`$
$`(r_2+r_1^{})M(r_2,r_1^{})(r_2+r_2^{})M(r_2,r_2^{})]`$
and

$`A_4`$ (59)
$`=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{tanh}\eta }{r_1r_2}}[N(r_1^{},r_1)+N(r_2^{},r_1)(r_1r_2)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{tanh}\eta }{r_1^{}r_2^{}}}[N(r_1,r_1^{})+N(r_2,r_1^{})(r_1^{}r_2^{})]`$
where

$`N(r_i,r_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_ir_j\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta (1r_ir_j)^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{4r_i\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta r_j}{r_i1}}(r_i\mathrm{coth}\eta 2\eta +i\pi )`$
$`+`$ $`2\eta i\pi +(1+r_ir_j)l_j\mathrm{coth}\eta `$
$`+`$ $`3i\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_i\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta }{r_i\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta +1}}}2i\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{r_j}}}\mathrm{cosh}\eta ].`$
Finally,

$`A_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1r_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_2^{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1^{}r_2^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{l_1r_2l_2r_1}{r_1r_2(r_1r_2)\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_1^{}r_2^{}l_2^{}r_1^{}}{r_1^{}r_2^{}(r_1^{}r_2^{})\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}.`$ (61)
All the functions $`A_i`$ are analytical functions of the energy ($`\eta `$). In the Euclidean region $`\eta `$ should be replaced with $`i\theta `$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the dipoles ($``$ Wilson rectangles). It is easy to see that the functions $`A_i`$ become real after such a replacement.

In the case of dipole-dipole cross section we need the real parts of the functions (54) - (61) at $`k_1^2=k_2^2`$ and $`k_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}=k_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}`$. After some algebra we get

$`a_f(r,r^{};\eta )`$ (62)
$`=f_1(r,r^{};\eta )+f_3(r,r^{};\eta )+f_4(r,r^{};\eta )+f_5(r,r^{};\eta )`$
Here $`f_1(r,r^{};\eta )=\mathrm{}𝒜(r,r^{};\eta )`$ and

$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{tanh}^2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{rr^{}}}(r+r^{})m(r,r^{};\eta )`$ (63)
$`f_4`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{tanh}\eta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}n(r^{},r;\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{}{r^{}}}n(r,r^{};\eta )\right]`$
$`f_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{lrl/r}{2r^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{lr^{}l^{}/r^{}}{2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{r+r^{}}{r^2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$
where $`m(r,r^{};\eta )\mathrm{}M(r,r^{};\eta )`$ and $`n(r,r^{};\eta )\mathrm{}N(r,r^{};\eta )`$.

## References


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

KCL-MTH-02-31

hep-th//0212291

Very Extended $`E_8`$ and $`A_8`$ at low levels, Gravity and Supergravity

Peter West

Department of Mathematics

King’s College, London, UK

Abstract

We define a level for a large class of Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebras. Using this we find the representation content of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ and $`E_8`$ (i.e. $`E_{11}`$) at low levels in terms of $`A_{D1}`$ and $`A_{10}`$ representations respectively. The results are consistent with the conjectured very extended $`A_8`$ and $`E_{11}`$ symmetries of gravity and maximal supergravity theories given respectively in hep-th/0104081 and hep-th/0107209. We explain how these results provided further evidence for these conjectures.

email: pwest@mth.kcl.ac.uk

1. Introduction  One of the most surprising discoveries in supergravity theories was the realisation that the maximal supergravity theory in four dimensions possessed a hidden $`E_7`$ symmetry . Hidden symmetries were found in the other maximal supergravity theories, and the lower the dimension of the maximal supergravity theory the higher the rank of the hidden symmetry and the more interesting it was. An account of these, with their original references, can be found in . Over the years there have also been some other realisations of possible symmetry algebras in supergravity and string theories. It has been shown  that eleven dimensional supergravity does possess an SO(1,2)$`\times `$SO(16) symmetry, although the SO(1,10) tangent space symmetry is no longer apparent in this formulation. It has also been noticed that some of the objects associated with the exceptional groups that appear in the reductions appear naturally in the unreduced theory . In string theory it was found that the closed bosonic string reduced on the torus associated with the unique self-dual twenty six dimensional Lorentzian lattice is invariant under the fake monster algebra . It has also been suggested  that there is some evidence of Kac-Moody structures in threshold correction of the heterotic string reduced on a six dimensional torus. Finally, it has been found that the maximal supergravity theory in eleven dimensions, in a special limit, possess one dimensional solutions which correspond to a particle mechanics in which the motion is restricted to the Weyl chambers of $`E_{10}`$ .

Despite these observations it has been widely thought that the exceptional groups found in the dimensional reductions of the maximal supergravity theories can not be symmetries of eleven dimensional supergravity and must arise as a consequence of the dimensional reduction procedure. This is perhaps understandable given that the hidden symmetries were associated with scalar fields and there are no scalar fields in eleven dimensional supergravity. However, it has been conjectured  that the eleven dimensional supergravity theory possess a hidden $`E_{11}`$ symmetry. It had previously been found  that the whole of the bosonic sector of eleven dimensional supergravity including its gravitational sector was a non-linear realisation. This placed the fields of the theory on a equal footing and naturally incorporated symmetries even though there were no scalars. This construction contained substantial fragments of larger symmetries and suggested that these should be incorporated into a Kac-Moody, or more general symmetry group. Even though it was not shown that such a symmetry was realised one could determine that this symmetry should contain very extended $`E_8`$, i.e. $`E_{11}`$ . It was also shown that this construction could be generalised to the ten dimensional IIA  and IIB  supergravity theories and the corresponding Kac-Moody algebra was also $`E_{11}`$ in each case. It was also proposed that gravity in D dimensions should also have a hidden Kac-Moody symmetry which was very extended $`A_{D3}`$ .

These ideas were taken up by authors of reference  who considered eleven dimensional supergravity as a non-linear realisation of the $`E_{10}`$ subalgebra of $`E_{11}`$, but in the small tension limit which played a crucial role in the work of reference . These authors also introduced a new concept of level in the context of $`E_{10}`$ which allowed them to deduce the representation content of $`E_{10}`$ in terms of representations of $`A_9`$ at low levels. They showed that the eleven dimensional supergravity equations was $`E_{10}`$ invariant, up to level three, in the small tension limit and provided one adopted a particular map relating the fields at a given spatial point to quantities dependent only on time. In this limit the spatial dependence of the fields was very restricted.

In this paper we generalise the notion of level given in reference  for a large class of Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebras. In section three we calculate the representation content of $`E_{11}`$ and very extended $`A_{D3}`$ at low levels in terms of $`A_{10}`$ and $`A_{D1}`$ representations respectively. We then apply these results in sections four and five to the conjectures that gravity in D dimensions in invariant under very extended $`A_{D3}`$ and eleven dimensional supergravity is invariant under $`E_{11}`$ respectively. 2. Levels in Lorentzian Kac-Moody Algebras We consider the particular class of Kac-Moody algebras discussed in section three of reference , namely an algebra whose Dynkin diagram $`C`$ possess at least one node such that deleting it leads to a finite dimensional semi-simple Lie algebra. We denote the Dynkin diagram of this remaining Lie algebra by $`C_R`$. For simplicity, we will consider the case when this remaining algebra is irreducible, but the generalisation is obvious. Adopting the notation of reference ; we denote the preferred simple root by $`\alpha _c`$ and the simple roots of $`C_R`$ by $`\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$. these may be written as

$$\alpha _c=\nu +x$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`\nu =_iA_{ci}\lambda _i`$, $`x`$ is a vector in a space orthogonal to the roots of $`C_R`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ are the fundamental weight vectors of $`C_R`$. We will assume that the simple roots have length squared two and then $`2\nu ^2=x^2`$.

A positive root $`\alpha `$ of the Kac-Moody algebra $`C`$ can be written as

$$\alpha =l\alpha _c+\underset{i}{}m_i\alpha _i=lx+l\underset{i}{}A_{ci}\lambda _i+\underset{jk}{}A_{jk}^f\lambda _k$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`A_{jk}^f`$ is the Cartan matrix of $`C_R`$. We define the level, denoted $`l`$, of the roots of $`C`$ to be the number of times the root $`\alpha _c`$ occurs. This agrees with the notion of level introduced in reference  for the case of $`E_{10}`$. For a fixed $`l`$, the root space of $`C`$ can be described by its representation content with respect to $`C_R`$. We now discuss restrictions that one can place on the possible representations that can occur at a given level generalising the considerations of reference  for $`E_{10}`$. Given an irreducible representation with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it is completely specified by its Dynkin indices which are defined by $`p_j=(\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _j)0`$. It follows from equation (2.2) that a representation of $`C_R`$, with Dynkin indices $`p_j`$, is contained in $`C`$ at level $`l`$ if there exist positive integers $`m_k`$ such that

$$p_j=lA_{cj}+\underset{k}{}m_kA_{kj}^f$$
$`(2.3)`$
Any Kac-Moody algebra with symmetric Cartan matrix has its roots bounded by $`\alpha ^22,1,0\mathrm{}`$ . Assuming we are dealing with such a Kac-Moody algebra, using equations (2.1) and (2.2), and the observation that $`(2\nu ^2)detA_{C_R}=A_C`$ we find that

$$\alpha ^2=l^2\frac{detA_C}{detA_{C_R}}+\underset{ij}{}p_i(A_{ij}^f)^1p_j2,1,0,1,\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.4)`$
Since the first term is fixed for a given $`l`$ and the second term is positive definite this places constraints on the possible values of $`p_i`$.

Acting with the raising or lowering operators of $`C_R`$ on the adjoint representation of $`C`$ takes one from one root of $`C`$ to a new root of $`C`$. The original and the new roots of $`C`$ are of the form of equation (2.2) with $`l`$ and $`m`$ positive or negative integers depending if the root is in the positive of negative root space, However, under the action of such operators the first term of this equation, i.e. $`lx`$, is unchanged, and so the level of the new root is the same. As the positive or negative roots have all their coefficients of a given sign we find that the action of these raising or lowering operators does not take one out of the positive or negative root space of $`C`$. As a result, we may conclude that if a given representation of $`C_R`$ occurs in $`C`$ then it must be contained entirely in the positive roots with a copy in the negative root space of $`C`$. By considering a negative root, which has the form of equation (2.2), but with a negative sign on all terms on the right hand-side, we conclude that $`C`$ may contain the representation of $`C_R`$ with Dynkin indices $`p_j`$ if

$$\underset{j}{}(A_{kj}^f)^1p_j=l\underset{j}{}A_{cj}(A_{jk}^f)^1m_k$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`m_k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Since the left-hand side and the first term on the right-hand side are both positive, one finds, for fixed $`l`$, constraints on the allowed representations of $`C_R`$ that can occur.

A solution to the constraints of equations (2.4) and (2.5) implies that the corresponding representation of $`C_R`$ can occur in the root space of $`C`$, but it does not imply that it actually does occur. The above the constraints find the vectors in the lattice spanned by the positive or negative roots of $`C`$ that have length squared $`2,1,0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and contain highest weight vectors of representations of the reduced subalgebra $`C_R`$. This is not the same as starting from the simple roots, taking their multiple commutators and imposing the Serre relations. By definition the latter calculation leads to all the roots of the Kac-Moody algebra and no more . However, given the list of possible representation that satisfy the constraints of equations (2.4) and (2.5) we can consider the set of associated generators and construct the Kac-Moody algebra $`C`$ up to the level investigated by insisting that it satisfies all the consequences of the Serre relations. One simple requirement is that they satisfy the Jacobi identities. In some of the examples considered below one finds that this step implies that some of the potential representations of the reduced algebra do not actually belonging to the Kac-Moody algebra. In particular, we will see that some vectors contained in the root lattice which do satisfy the constraints are actually highest weight vectors of the Kac-Moody algebra $`C`$ and do not actually belong to the Kac-Moody algebra. Indeed, the criterion given above does not distinguish between the Kac-Moody algebra $`C`$ and the algebra derived from the physical state vertex operators associated with the roots lattice. As the latter contains many more states than the Kac-Moody algebra one expects to find these additional states by using the criterion above.

Finding the root multiplicities of Kac-Moody algebras is an unsolved problem except for a few exceptional cases. One may hope that the concept of level given above may provide a new avenue of attack on this problem. 3. Representations of very extended $`E_8`$ and $`A_{D3}`$ at low levels In this section we find the representation content of very extended $`E_8`$ and $`A_{D3}`$ at low levels in terms of representations of $`A_{10}`$ and $`A_{D1}`$ respectively. Let us begin with very extended $`E_8`$, i.e. $`E_{11}`$. The Dynkin diagram for this algebra is found by connecting ten dots in a horizontal line by a single line and then placing another dot above the third node from the right and connecting it with a single line to that node. The preferred node, c is the node above the horizontal line and deleting it gives $`A_{10}`$. Clearly, at level zero we have the adjoint representation of $`A_{10}`$. The inverse Cartan matrix of $`A_{D1}`$ is given by

$$(A_{jk}^f)^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{j(Dk)}{11},jk\hfill & \\ \frac{k(Dj)}{D},jk\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(3.1)`$
Using this fact for $`D=11`$, the constraint of equation (2.5) becomes

$$\underset{jk}{}j(11k)p_j+\underset{j>k}{}k(11j)p_j=11n_k+l\{\begin{array}{cc}3(11k),k3\hfill & \\ 8k,k=1,2\hfill & \end{array},$$
$`(3.2)`$
where $`n_k=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$. Analysing this equation and equation (2.4) using the relations $`detA_{E_n}=9n`$ and $`detA_{A_n}=n+1`$, it is straightforward, if tedious, to verify that they allow the following representations of $`A_{10}`$

$$l=1,p_3=1;l=2,p_6=1;l=3,p_1=1,p_8=1\mathrm{and}p_9=1;$$

$$l=4,p_{10}=1,p_1=2\mathrm{and}p_{10}=1,p_2=1\mathrm{and}p_9=1,p_3=1\mathrm{and}p_1=1$$
$`(3.3)`$
All other $`p_j`$’s being zero .

The corresponding generators are given by

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{a_1a_2a_3},R^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_6},R^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_8,b}\mathrm{and}R^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_9},$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`R^{[a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_8,b]}=0`$, at levels zero, one, two and three repectively. These generators are precisely those introduced in the non-linear realisation of eleven dimensional supergravity based on $`E_{11}`$  with the exception of the last generator, the $`p_9=1`$ representation at level three, which is absent from the $`E_{11}`$ algebra as a result of the Jacobi identities. They obey the commutation relations

$$[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},K^c{}_{d}{}^{}]=\delta _b^cK^a{}_{d}{}^{}\delta _d^aK^c{}_{b}{}^{},$$
$`(3.5)`$
$$[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_6}]=\delta _b^{c_1}R^{ac_2\mathrm{}c_6}+\mathrm{},[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_3}]=\delta _b^{c_1}R^{ac_2c_3}+\mathrm{},$$
$`(3.6)`$
$$[R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_3},R^{c_4\mathrm{}c_6}]=2R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_6},[R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_6},R^{b_1\mathrm{}b_3}]=3R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_6[b_1b_2,b_3]},$$
$`(3.7)`$
$$[R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b},R^{b_1\mathrm{}b_3}]=0,[R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b},R^{b_1\mathrm{}b_6}]=0,[R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,d}]=0$$
$`(3.8)`$
$$[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,d}]=(\delta _b^{c_1}R^{ac_2\mathrm{}c_8,d}+\mathrm{})+\delta _b^dR^{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,a}.$$
$`(3.9)`$
The full $`E_{11}`$ algebra up to level three is then given by these relations plus those involving the negative roots

$$R_{a_1a_2a_3},R_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_6},R_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_8,b}$$
$`(3.10)`$
The existence of the generators up to level three can also be inferred by the considerations of U-duality groups in the toroidal reduction of eleven dimensional supergravity .

As explained in the previous section, it can happen that there exist vectors in the root lattice that are solutions of the constraints, but are actually highest weight vectors of the Kac-Moody algebra. The fundamental weights of the Kac-Moody algebra are given by

$$l_i=\lambda _i+\nu .\lambda _i\frac{x}{x^2},l_c=\frac{x}{x^2}$$
$`(3.11)`$
The $`p_9=1`$ representation at level three of $`E_{11}`$ corresponds to the vector $`3x+\lambda _9`$. Using equation (3.11) we recognise this vector as just the fundamental weight $`l_9=3x+\lambda _9`$ of $`E_{11}`$. Constructing the root string of $`l_9`$ we find that it contains the vector

$$l_9\alpha _9\mathrm{}\alpha _3\alpha _c=4x+\lambda _2+\lambda _{10},$$
$`(3.12)`$
where in the last equation we have re-expressed the vector in the root string in terms of $`x`$ and fundamental weights of $`A_{10}`$. Clearly, the highest weight representation of $`E_{11}`$ contains at level four the $`p_2=1,p_{10}=1`$, all other $`p_j`$’s zero, representation of $`A_{10}`$. Examining the solutions of the constraints at level four of equation (3.3) we recognise that this is one of the representations that occurs and so it must also be eliminated from the $`E_{11}`$ algebra.

We now consider very extended $`A_8`$. Its Dynkin diagram is given by drawing 10 dots on a horizontal line and joining them together by a single line, we then draw a node above the horizontal line and join it with a single line to the node on the far right and the third node from the left. The preferred node, labeled as $`c`$, is the one above the horizontal. Deleting this node leaves the nodes in the horizontal line which correspond to the algebra $`A_{10}`$. At level zero one has the adjoint representation of $`A_{10}`$. For this case equation (2.5) becomes

$$\underset{jk}{}j(11k)p_j+\underset{j>k}{}k(11j)p_j=11m_k+l\{\begin{array}{cc}(11+2k),k8\hfill & \\ 9(11k),k=9,10\hfill & \end{array},$$
$`(3.13)`$
where $`m_k=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$. Analysing this equation and equation (2.4) implies that at the first two levels one has the potential representations

$$l=1,p_1=1,p_8=1\mathrm{and}p_9=1;$$

$$l=2,p_1=1,p_6=1,\mathrm{and}p_2=1,p_5=1\mathrm{and}p_8=1,p_{10}=1,\mathrm{and}p_1=1,p_7=1,p_{10}=1$$
$`(3.14)`$
all other $`p_j`$’s zero. Hence we have the generators

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b}$$
$`(3.15)`$
where $`R^{[a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b]}=0`$, at levels zero and one. We have not included a generator $`R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_9}`$ since we will explain below that this is not actually in the very extended $`A_8`$ algebra.

In fact, very extended $`A_8`$ is a subalgebra of $`E_{11}`$ since $`A_8`$ is a subgroup of $`E_8`$. As a result, all the $`A_{10}`$ representations that occur as representations of very extended $`A_8`$ must also be representations of $`E_{11}`$. A detailed examination of the constraints of equations (2.4) applied to $`A_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ reveals that a $`A_{10}`$ representation of very extended $`A_8`$ at level $`l`$ will be a representation of $`E_{11}`$ at level $`3l`$. Furthermore, equation (2.5) becomes equations (3.2) and (3.13) for the cases of $`E_{11}`$ and $`A_{10}`$ respectively and we find that if we take the level in the former equation to be $`3l`$ where $`l`$ is the level of very extended $`A_8`$ then equation (3.13) becomes equation (3.2) provided we identify

$$n_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_k+l(2k1),k=1,2\hfill & \\ m_k+l(8k),k=3,\mathrm{},8\hfill & \\ m_k,k=9,10\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(3.16)`$
Since if $`m_k`$ is a positive integer so is $`n_k`$, we find that solutions to equation (3.13) at level $`l`$ are solutions of equation (3.2) at level $`3l`$ as required. Indeed, one sees that the representations of equation (3.14) at level one occur in equation (3.3) at level three and one can explicitly check that the representations at level two of very extended $`A_8`$ occur as solutions of the $`E_{11}`$ equations at level six.

Finally, we consider the case of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ which generalises the previous case to arbitrary rank. Its Dynkin diagram is given by drawing $`D1`$ dots on a horizontal line and joining them together by a single line, we then draw a node above the horizontal line and join it with a single line to the node on the far right and the third node from the left. The preferred node, labeled as $`c`$, is the one above the horizontal. Deleting this node leaves the nodes in the horizontal line which correspond to the algebra $`A_{D1}`$. At level zero one has the adjoint representation of $`A_{D1}`$ with generators $`K^a_b`$. Analysing equations (2.4) and equation (2.5) implies that at level one has the potential representations

$$l=1,p_1=1,p_{D3}=1\mathrm{and}p_{D2}=1,$$
$`(3.17)`$
all other $`p_j`$’s zero. Hence, we have the generators

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}$$
$`(3.18)`$
where $`R^{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$, at levels zero and one. We have not included a generator $`R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2}}`$ since, as we will explain below, this is not actually in the very extended $`A_{D_3}`$ algebra. To derive this result we first realise that equation (2.5) implies results for $`k=1`$ and $`k=D1`$ which, when added together, imply that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{D1}{}}p_j=2l,2l1,\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.19)`$
Hence, at level one one finds that at most two $`p_j`$’s can be non-zero. Equation (2.5) for $`k=D1`$ implies that at level one $`p_{D1}=0`$ and the $`k=1`$ constraint implies that if $`p_1=1`$ then the only solution has $`p_{D3}=1`$ at level one. To look for the other possible solutions we may take $`p_1=p_{D1}=0`$, then adding the $`k=2`$ constraint to the $`k=D2`$ constraint, one finds that

$$2\underset{j=2}{\overset{D2}{}}p_j=3l,3l1,\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3.20)`$
Hence, at level one at most one of the remaining $`p_j`$’s can be non-zero. Examining the remaining constraints one finds that the only remaining solution is that listed in equation (3.17). One can show that equations similar to (3.19) and (3.20) can also be derived for the case of $`E_{11}`$

Just like the case of $`E_{11}`$, the solution $`p_{D2}=1`$ of equation (3.17) is in fact not a representation that occurs in the very extended $`A_{D3}`$ Kac-Moody algebra. The corresponding vector in the root lattice is $`x+\lambda _{D2}`$ and, following the same arguments as above, we find that this vector is just the highest weight vector of the representation of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ with fundamental highest weight $`l_{D2}=x+\lambda _{D2}`$. One finds that at level two this representation contains the vector $`2x+\lambda _{D4}+\lambda _1+\lambda _{D1}`$ which is the $`p_{D4}=1,p_{D1}=1,p_1=1`$ representation. One can verify that at level two this is a possible solution and so this solution must also be excluded from the very extended $`A_{D3}`$ algebra.

The generators of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ given in equation (3.18) obey the commutation relations

$$[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},K^c{}_{d}{}^{}]=\delta _b^cK^a{}_{d}{}^{}\delta _d^aK^c{}_{b}{}^{},$$
$`(3.21)`$
$$[K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_{D3},d}]=(\delta _b^{c_1}R^{ac_2\mathrm{}c_{D3},d}+\mathrm{})+\delta _b^dR^{c_1\mathrm{}c_{D3},a}.$$
$`(3.22)`$
The complete very extended $`A_{D3}`$ algebra up to level one is then given by the above relations plus those involving the negative root generators

$$R_{c_1\mathrm{}c_{D3},b}.$$
$`(3.23)`$
4. Dual Gravity and Very extended $`A_{D3}`$ The bosonic sector of eleven dimensional supergravity, including its gravitational sector, was shown  to be a non-linear realisation. It was subsequently, realised that this formulation possessed the Borel subgroup of $`E_7`$ as a symmetry and it was conjectured that this theory could be formulated in such a way that it was invariant under $`E_{11}`$ . Demanding that the $`E_8`$ borel subgroup and the $`A_{10}`$ subgroup be symmetries implied that one must reformulate the theory so that gravity was described by a dual formulation involving the fields $`h_a^b`$ and $`h_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$ . An action for a dual theory of gravity in $`D`$ dimensions was given  which was equivalent to Einstein’s theory, it contained the vierbein $`e_\mu ^a=(e^h)_\mu ^a`$ and a field $`Y_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2},b}`$. The corresponding equations of motion were given by

$$(1)^{D2}\frac{1}{(D3)!}ϵ^{\mu \nu \tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}}Y_{\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},}{}_{d}{}^{}=2e(\omega _d,{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+e_d{}_{}{}^{\nu }\omega _{c}^{},{}_{}{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{\mu }e_d{}_{}{}^{\mu }\omega _{c}^{},{}_{}{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{\nu })$$
$`(4.1)`$
where $`e=dete^\mu ^a`$, $`\omega _\rho ,{}_{c}{}^{}^d`$ is the usual expression for the spin connection in terms of the vierbein, and

$$ϵ^{\mu \tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D1}}_{\tau _1}Y_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D1},}{}_{d}{}^{}=\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{bilinear}\mathrm{in}Y$$
$`(4.2)`$
The field $`Y_{\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},}_d`$ has been scaled by a numerical factor compared to that of reference .

At the linearised level, equation (4.2) implies that $`Y_{\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},}_d`$ can be solved in terms of $`h_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}},b`$. Substituting this into equation (4.1) and writing $`\omega _{\mu ,cd}`$ in terms of its standard linearised expression in terms of $`e_\mu ^b`$ one finds the equation

$$(1)^{D2}\frac{(D2)}{(D3)!}ϵ^{\mu \nu \tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}}_{[\tau _1}h_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}],d}=_\mu (e_{d\nu }+e_{\nu d})+_d(e_{\mu \nu }+e_{\nu \mu })+_\nu (e_{d\mu }+e_{\mu d})$$

$$+2\eta _{\nu d}(_\mu e_c{}_{}{}^{c}_ce_\mu {}_{}{}^{c})2\eta _{\mu d}(_\nu e_c{}_{}{}^{c}_ce_\nu {}_{}{}^{c})$$
$`(4.3)`$
. Taking $`_\mu `$ implies the linearised Einstein equation. Carrying out a local Lorentz transformation $`\delta e_{\mu \nu }=\lambda _{\mu \nu }`$ one finds it is a symmetry provided $`\delta h_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},d}=ϵ_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}dm\rho \kappa }\lambda ^{\rho \kappa }`$.

Based on these, and other considerations, it was proposed  that even pure gravity in D dimensions could be described as a non-linear realisation based on very extended $`A_{D3}`$. The results of section three provide encouraging signs for this conjecture. Since eleven dimensional supergravity contains gravity, any conjecture for the Kac-Moody symmetries of gravity and eleven dimensional supergravity theories would have to be consistent. As explained in section three, this is the case since $`E_{11}`$ contains very extended $`A_8`$ as a sub-algebra. Furthermore, the very extended $`A_{D3}`$ given in equation (3.17) contains the generators $`K^a_b`$ and $`R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$ at levels zero and these imply that the non-linear realisation is built from the fields $`h_a{}_{}{}^{b},\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$ plus fields which appear at higher levels. The level zero and one fields are almost exactly those used in the above dual formulation of gravity. The difference is that the very extended $`A_8`$ algebra requires that $`R^{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$ with a corresponding contraint for the field $`\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$

It is instructive to derive Einstein’s equation from the field equations rather than the action, as was the case in reference . Since some of the manipulations are best carried out in form language and some in components we given both versions. We first consider the tensor

$$Y_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},}{}_{a}{}^{}=ϵ_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_{D1}}e_{[\rho _1}{}_{}{}^{b_1}\mathrm{}e_{\rho _{D3}}{}_{}{}^{b_{D3}}\omega _{\rho _{D2}]}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_{D2}b_{D1}},$$
$`(4.4)`$
whose corresponding vector valued $`D2`$ form is given by

$$Y_a=ϵ_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_{D1}}e^{b_1}\mathrm{}e^{b_{D3}}w^{b_{D2}b_{D3}}$$
$`(4.5)`$
where $`e^a=dx^\mu e_\mu ^a`$ and $`w^{bc}=dx^\mu w_\mu ^{bc}`$. The equation of motion is given by

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}(_\nu Y_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},}{}_{a}{}^{}M_{\nu \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},a})=0,\mathrm{or}dY_a=M_a.$$
$`(4.6)`$
where the vector valued $`D1`$ form is defined by

$$M_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D1},a}=ϵ_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_{D1}}\{(D3)w_{[\rho _1}{}_{}{}^{b_1}{}_{f}{}^{}e_{\rho _2}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}e_{\rho _2}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_2}\mathrm{}e_{\rho _{D2}}{}_{}{}^{b_{D3}}w_{\rho _{D1}]}^{}^{b_{D2}b_{D1}}$$

$$+(1)^{(D3)}e_{[\rho _1}{}_{}{}^{b_1}\mathrm{}e_{\rho _{D3}}{}_{}{}^{b_{D3}}w_{\rho _{D2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_{D2}f}w_{\rho _{D1}]f}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_{D1}}\}$$
$`(4.7)`$
or

$$M_a=ϵ_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_{D1}}\{(D3)w^{b_1}{}_{f}{}^{}e^fe^{b_2}\mathrm{}e^{b_{D3}}w^{b_{D2}b_{D1}}$$

$$+(1)^{(D3)}e^{b_1}\mathrm{}e^{b_{D3}}w^{b_{D2}f}w_f{}_{}{}^{b_{D1}}\}$$
$`(4.8)`$
Evaluating equation (4.6) we find that it becomes

$$ϵ_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_{D1}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}\{\frac{(D3)}{2}T_{\nu \rho _1}{}_{}{}^{b_1}e_{\rho _2}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_2}\mathrm{}e_{\rho _{D3}}{}_{}{}^{b_{D3}}w_{\rho _{D2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_{D2}b_{D1}}\}$$

$$2dete(D3)!(1)^{D2}(R_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\frac{1}{2}e_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }R)=0$$
$`(4.9)`$
In these equations the torsion and Riemann tensors are given by

$$T^a=T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}dx^\mu dx^\nu =2(de^a+w^a{}_{b}{}^{}e^b),$$

$$R^a{}_{b}{}^{}=R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu =2(dw^a{}_{b}{}^{}+w^a{}_{c}{}^{}w^c{}_{b}{}^{}),R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{b}{}^{}=R_\nu _b$$
$`(4.10)`$
The first term in equation (4.9) vanishes as the spin connection has the usual expression in terms of the vierbein and so the torsion tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^a`$ vanishes. Hence, we are left with the familiar equation for general relativity without matter. The above formulation of general relativity agrees with that given in reference  for four dimensional space-time where a connection with twistor theory was made that may prove useful in future.

The equation of motion of equation (4.6) is second order in space-time derivatives, but the above equations are written in a such way that they allows us to express them as a system of equations that is first order in space-time derivatives by introducing the fields

$$e_\mu ^a=(e^h)_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},h_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}\mathrm{and}k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2},b}$$
$`(4.11)`$
The equations of motion are now given by

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}(Y_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}{}_{a}{}^{}k_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},a})=ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}\widehat{D}_\lambda h_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D3},a}$$

or

$$Y_ak_a=dh_a+\mathrm{\Omega }_a{}_{}{}^{b}h_b$$
$`(4.12)`$
and

$$ϵ^{\tau \lambda \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}\{\widehat{D}_\lambda k_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},a}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda a}{}_{}{}^{c}Y_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},c}^{}M_{\lambda \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},a}\}=0,$$

$$\mathrm{or}dk_a+\mathrm{\Omega }_a{}_{}{}^{b}k_{b}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_a{}_{}{}^{b}Y_{b}^{}M_a=0$$
$`(4.13)`$
where

$$\widehat{D}_\lambda h_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D3},a}=_\lambda h_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D3},a}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda a}{}_{}{}^{b}h_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D3},b}^{},$$
$`(4.14)`$
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda a}{}_{}{}^{b}=(e^1_\lambda e)_a{}_{}{}^{b},h_a=h_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D3},a}dx^{\rho _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\rho _{D3}},\mathrm{and}k_a=k_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2},a}dx^{\rho _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\rho _{D2}}.$$
$`(4.15)`$
Differentiating equation (4.12) with respect to $`_\nu `$ and using equation (4.13) we find the usual equations of motion of gravity. The calculation is most easily carried out using the forms and the relation

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_a{}_{}{}^{b}+\mathrm{\Omega }_a{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_c{}_{}{}^{b}=0$$
$`(4.16)`$
Hence, equations (4.12) and (4.13) imply Einstein’s equations of general relativity and constitute an interacting dual theory of gravity in terms of equations which are first order in time derivatives. In fact, one can also use equations (4.12) and (4.13) with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a^b`$ terms set to zero and find the same result.

Let us now consider a non-linear realisation of very extended $`A_{D3}`$, but including only fields of level zero and one. We therefore have the generators

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b},$$
$`(4.17)`$
We will take the local subgroup to be the Chevalley invariant subgroup and so the group element takes the form

$$g=e^{x^\mu P_\mu }e^{h_a{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}_b}e^{\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}}$$
$`(4.18)`$
where $`\widehat{h}_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$. The Cartan forms are given by

$$𝒱=g^1dg\omega =dx^\mu (e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu {}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b})\omega $$
$`(4.19)`$
where $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}dx^\mu \omega _\mu {}_{bc}{}^{}J_{}^{bc}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}=_\mu \widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu {}_{a_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\widehat{h}_{c\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}^{}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu {}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},c}^{}$$
$`(4.20)`$
We treat the Lorentz part of the subgroup in a preferred manner by including in $`g`$ all of $`K^a_b`$ and as a result introducing the above spin connection. As discussed in reference , one can solve for the spin connection in terms of the Cartan form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu {}_{a}{}^{}^b`$ which a way that is uniquely determined by conformal invariance.

Examining equations (4.12) and (4.13) when written in terms of tangent indices we find that they are indeed formulated in terms of the above Cartan forms, namely $`e_\mu ^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c{}_{a}{}^{}^b`$, or $`\omega _c{}_{a}{}^{}^b`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{a_1}\widehat{h}_{a_2\mathrm{}a_{D2},b}=e_{a_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}e_{a_{D2}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _{D2}}(_{\mu _1}\widehat{h}_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{D2},b}+\mathrm{\Omega }_b{}_{}{}^{c}\widehat{h}_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{D2},b}^{}),$$

plus the fields $`k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2},b}`$ and $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}`$. Clearly, describing gravity by a non-linear realisation based on the group very extended $`A_{D3}`$ with its subgroup taken to be the Cartan involution invariant subgroup implies, modulo a miracle involving the inverse Higgs mechanism, that one would have an infinite number of fields or Goldstone bosons. Since we do not possess such a system at present we can at best hope to find a system that has the fields of levels zero and one and is invariant under the action of the generators of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ up to level one. In the above, we have found a system of equations that is equivalent to Einstein’s general relativity, involves the required fields and is invariant under the Borel subgroup of very extended $`A_{D3}`$ up to level one. It is clearly invariant under the Lorentz group, but it remains to show that it is invariant under the remaining generator at level one. The fields $`k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2},b}`$ and $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}`$ play the role of the infinite number of fields occurring at levels two and above that we must add in order to have the full non-linear realisation.

Of course, given the Cartan forms of equation (4.19) one would not immediately conclude that the required equations of motion were those of equations (4.12) and (4.13). However, as explained in reference  one must demand simultaneous invariance under the conformal group. Carrying out this requirement should result in equations (4.12) and (4.13) being the unique equations invariant under both algebras up to the level being considered. This, and its extension to the next level of very extended $`A_8`$, would make the calculation given in this section more compelling.

We close this section by generalising the above formulation of gravity to include matter and in particular consider a rank $`p`$ gauge field $`A_{(p)}=A_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _p}`$ with field strength $`F_{(p+1)}=(p+1)dA_{(p)}`$. The dual field strength being given by $`G_{(Dp1)}=F_{(p+1)}`$. To incorporate matter we define

$$\widehat{M}_a=M_a+\frac{1}{(Dp1)}G_{(Dp1)}F_{(p)a}(1)^p\frac{1}{(p+1)}G_{(Dp2)a}F_{(p+1)})$$
$`(4.21)`$
where $`F_{(p)a}=F_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _pa}dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _p}`$ and similarly for $`G_{(Dp2)a}`$. If we replace $`M_a`$ by $`\widehat{M}_a`$ in equation (4.6) or equation (4.13) we find that

$$R_\mu {}_{}{}^{d}\frac{1}{2}e_\mu {}_{}{}^{d}R=c\{F_{\mu \lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _p}F^{d\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _p}\frac{1}{2(p+1)}e_\mu {}_{}{}^{d}F_{\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _{p+1}}^{}F^{\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _{p+1}}\}$$
$`(4.22)`$
where $`c`$ is a constant which can be adjusted by rescaling $`A_{(p)}`$. We recognise the right hand side as the required contribution to the energy-momentum tensor. As must be the case for consistency of the equations of motion, and as is required by the conservation of energy and momentum, one can verify that $`d\widehat{M}_a=0`$.

We observed that the above formulation of gravity involves the field $`h_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$ which is not subject to a constraint $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$. If we suppose that the equation to describe the dual formulation of gravity must be first order in space-time derivatives; then, at the linearised level, it must be of the form

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2}}_{\tau _1}h_{\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},}{}_{}{}^{d}+\mathrm{}=f^\mu h^\nu {}_{}{}^{d}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(4.23)`$
where $`f`$ is a constant and $`+\mathrm{}`$ stands for all possible terms linear in the space-time derivatives and in the same field, but with different index structure. Furthermore, one must be able to apply a derivative to the left hand-side of the above equation and be able to eliminate the field $`h_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$ and obtain an equation in terms of $`h_a^b`$ alone which is the linearised Einstein equation. Writing down the most general terms and imposing the constraint $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$ we find constraints on the coefficients that are not compatible with deriving the linearised Einstein equation from equation (4.3). However, equations (4.1) and (4.2), at the linearised level, do provide a system of equations which lead to the linearised Einstein equation, but they involve the unconstrained field $`h_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}`$.

It is instructive to discuss the dual formulation of gravity given above with those given in references \[15-17\]. In these references a dual formulation of gravity is given at the linearised level by an equation which is second order in space-time derivatives of the form

$$R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}=ϵ_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}}(_a_{[\rho _1}l_{\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _{D2}],b}(ab)),$$
$`(4.24)`$
where $`l_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}=0`$. Using equation (4.1) one can calculate $`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ in terms of $`Y_{\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _{D2},}_d`$ and, after a field redefinition, it can be brought to the form of equation (4.24). This can be seen to be a consequence of the fact that an additional space-time derivative allows an additional gauge symmetry which can be used to algebraically gauge it away, or equivalently, eliminate its appearance in the appropriate variables. This gauge symmetry is related to the ”local Lorentz” transformation discussed below equation (4.3). Hence, from this view point the field $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}`$ is not really present. However, to place gravity on the same footing as the gauge fields we would like to have a dual formulation of gravity that is expressed by equations that are first order in space-time derivatives. The gauge field $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_3}`$ requires only one additional field $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}`$ to rewrite its equations in terms of equations involving only one space-time derivative. However, the gravitational equations are essentially non-linear equations and this might be viewed as the source of the infinite number of fields required by the conjectured very extended $`A_8`$ symmetry. It would be interesting to see how the fields at the next level of very extended $`A_8`$ symmetry replace $`h_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b]}`$ and the other additional field $`k_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{D2},b]}`$ even at the linearised level. 5 Eleven Dimensional Supergravity and $`E_{11}`$ In this section we sketch how, starting from $`E_{11}`$, we can find eleven dimensional supergravity as a non-linear realisation. This contrasts with reference  where we started with the non-linear realisation of reference , identified $`E_{11}`$, and then found substantial fragments of an $`E_{11}`$ symmetry. Most of the equations given below can be found in reference , but it is encouraging to see them emerge starting from $`E_{11}`$. In section three we found that the first three levels of $`E_{11}`$ contain the generators in equations (3.5-3.9) plus the generators associated with negative roots given in equation (3.10). In a non-linear realisation all generators in the symmetry algebra not in the local subgroup must correspond to fields in the theory. The only exception to this is when one can use the so called inverse Higgs effect, but this mechanism will not concern us here. As explained in references , the level one and two generators $`R^{a_1a_2a_3}`$ and $`R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}`$ correspond to the gauge fields $`A_{a_1a_2a_3}`$ and its dual $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}`$ respectively. Gravity can be described by the the group $`GL(11)`$ and so corresponds to the level zero generators $`K^a_b`$ associated with the fields $`h^a_b`$. However, as realised in reference , demanding that $`E_8`$ and $`A_{10}`$ be symmetry groups implies that we should use a dual formulation of gravity which involves the field $`\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b}`$ corresponding to the generator $`R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8,b}`$. Thus, there is a very close correspondence between the fields introduced to describe eleven dimensional supergravity as a non-linear realisation and the fields content up to level three required by demanding $`E_{11}`$ as a symmetry group. This can be taken as yet another encouraging sign that the maximal supergravity theories really are invariant under $`E_{11}`$.

Taking the Cartan involution invariant subgroup as the local subgroup, up to level three, the non-linear realisation is constructed from the group element

$$g=e^{h_a{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}_b}e^{\frac{1}{3!}A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_3}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_3}}e^{\frac{1}{6!}A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}}e^{\widehat{h}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{D3},b}}$$
$`(5.1)`$
The equations of motion should be constructed from the Cartan forms $`𝒱=g^1dgw`$ and they are given by

$$𝒱=dx^\mu (e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu a}{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3!}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_3}R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_3}+\frac{1}{6!}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_6}R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_6}+\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \widehat{h}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b}R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b})\omega $$
$`(5.2)`$
where

$$e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}(e^h)_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_3}_\mu A_{c_1c_2c_3}+((e^1_\mu e)_{c_1}{}_{}{}^{b}A_{bc_2c_3}^{}+\mathrm{}),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_6}_\mu A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_6}+((e^1_\mu e)_{c_1}{}_{}{}^{b}A_{bc_2\mathrm{}c_6}^{}+\mathrm{})20(A_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_3}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_4\mathrm{}c_6]})$$

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \widehat{h}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b}=_\mu \widehat{h}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b}+((e^1_\mu e)_{c_1}{}_{}{}^{d}\widehat{h}_{dc_2\mathrm{}c_8,b}^{}+\mathrm{})$$

$$\frac{1}{(3!)^3}A_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_3}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_4c_5c_6}A_{c_7c_8]b}\frac{1}{(3!)(6!)}A_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_6}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{c_7c_8]b}tr$$
$`(5.3)`$
where $`+\mathrm{}`$ denotes the action of $`(e^1_\mu e)`$ on the other indices and $`tr`$ means that one should subtract a term in order to ensure that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu h_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b]}=0`$.

As explained in references  we require invariance not only under $`E_{11}`$ but also under the conformal group. This implies that we should use only those combinations of $`E_{11}`$ Cartan forms which are covariant under the latter group. The result of this procedure for the rank three and six forms is that one should only use the simultaneously covariant forms

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_4}4(e_{[c_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu }_{\mu }^{}A_{c_2\mathrm{}c_4]}+e_{[c_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(e^1_\mu e)_{c_2}^{}^bA_{bc_3c_4]}+\mathrm{})$$
$`(5.4)`$
and

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_7}7(e_{[c_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(_\mu A_{c_2\mathrm{}c_7]})+e_{[c_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(e^1_\mu e)_{c_2}^{}^bA_{bc_3\mathrm{}c_7]}+\mathrm{}+5\stackrel{~}{F}_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_4}\stackrel{~}{F}_{c_5\mathrm{}c_7]})$$
$`(5.5)`$
The invariant equation of motion is then given by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{c_1\mathrm{}c_4}=\frac{1}{7!}ϵ_{c_1\mathrm{}c_{11}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{c_5\mathrm{}c_{11}}$$
$`(5.6)`$
There only remains the equation for gravity. This equation should be given by equation (4.12) but with $`\widehat{D}_\mu h_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b}`$ of equation (4.14) replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \widehat{h}_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b}`$ of equation (5.3) and the addition of the field $`h_{[c_1\mathrm{}c_8,b]}`$. Taking $`d`$ of this equation one does indeed find terms similar to those on the right-hand side of equation (4.21) which are those required to find the energy momentum tensor of the four form field strength on the right-hand side of the Einstein equation. However, one also finds expressions which are not written in terms of the four form field strength or its dual and these should be canceled by terms added to the definitions of $`Y_a`$ and $`M_a`$. We hope to return to this calculation in the future.

The level in $`E_{11}`$ is measured by the generator $`\frac{1}{3}D=\frac{1}{3}_aK^a_a`$ where $`K^a_b`$ are the generators of GL(11). Clearly, $`D`$ commutes with the Cartan subalgebra generators and simple roots of SL(11), but with the simple root generator $`E_c=R^{91011}`$ one has the commutator $`[D,E_c]=E_c`$ as required. However, the generator $`D`$ corresponds to a symmetry of eleven dimensional supergravity acting with $`e^{rD}`$ on the group element of equation (5.1) one finds that $`x^\mu `$ scales and $`h_a{}_{}{}^{b}h_a{}_{}{}^{b}+rh_a^b`$ with the other fields being inert. It is then easy to see that the Cartan forms referred to the tangent space, such as in equation (5.4) and (5.5), are inert under $`D`$ transformations. As such, the $`D`$ symmetry is automatically preserved by the equations of motion constructed from the Cartan forms. In fact, in a Lorentz covariant formulation the level of the fields does not appear to provided a very useful means ordering the calculation. This is apparent from equation (2.14) which relates fields of different levels, proceeding level by level implies that at the first level the right-hand side of equation (5.7) vanishes. Acknowledgment The author wishes to thank David Olive, Marc Henneaux, Lionel Mason, Boris Pioline and Igor Schnakenburg for discussions. References

 E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. 76B (1978) 409.

 P. West, $`E_{11}`$ and M Theory, Class. Quant. Grav. 18 (2001) 4443 , hep-th/0104081.

 B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B274 (1986) 363; H. Nicolai Phys. Lett. 155B (1985) 47;

 H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. 187B (1987) 316

 S. Melosch and H. Nicolai, “New Canonical Variables for $`D=11`$ Supergravity”, hep-th/9709227; K. Koespell, H. Nicolai and H. Samtleben, “An Exceptional Geometry for $`d=11`$ Supergravity”, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 (2000) 3689.

 G. Moore, “ Finite in all directions”, hep-th/9305139; P. West, “Physical States and String Symmetries”, hep-th/9411029, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A10 (1995) 761. hep-th/9411029.

 J. Harvey and G. Moore, On the Algebra of BPS States, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 315, hep-th/9510182, Exact Gravitational Threshold Corrections in the FHSV model, hep-th/9611176.

 T. Damour, M. Henneaux, “E(10), BE(10) and arithmetical chaos in superstring cosmology ”, Phys. Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 4749, hep-th/0012172; T. Damour, M. Henneaux, B. Julia and H. Nicolai, Hyperbolic Kac-Moody Algebras and Chaos in Kaluza-Klein Models, hep-th/0103094.

 P. C. West, “Hidden superconformal symmetry in M theory ”, JHEP 08 (2000) 007, hep-th/0005270

 I. Schnakenburg and P. West, “Kac-Moody Symmetries of IIB Supergravity,”, Phys. Lett. B517 (2001) 421, hep-th/0107181

 N.Lambert and P. West, “Coset symmetries in dimensionally reduced bosonic string theory”, Nucl.Phys. B615 117, hep-th/0107209

 T. Damour, M. Henneaux and H. Nicolai, $`E_{10}`$ and a small tension expansion of M theory, hep-th?0207267.

 D. Olive, M. Gaberdiel and P. West, A Class of Lorentzian Kac-Moody Algebras hep-th/0205068, Nucl.Phys. to be published

 V. Kac, “Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras”, chapter 5, Birkhauser, 1983.

 T. Curtright, Generalised Gauge Fields, Phys. Lett. B165 (1985) 304; C. Aulakh, I. Koh and S. Ouvry, Phys. Lett. B173 (1986) 284.

 C. Hull, Duality in Gravity and Higher Spin Gauge fields, JHEP09 (2001) 027, hep-th/0107149.

 X. Bekaert and N. Boulanger, Tensor gauge Fields in Arbitrary Representations of GL(D, R): duality and Poincare Lemma, hep-th/0208058; X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger and M. Henneaux,Consisitent Deformations of Dual Formulations of Linearised Gravity: a no go theorem hep-th/0210278.

 G. Sparling, Twistor, Spinors and the Einstein Vacuum Equations, Advances in Twistor Theory, Vol III, Curved Twistor Spaces, p 179-186, ed. L. J. Mason, L. P. Hughston, P. Z. Kobak, K. Pulverer, Research notes in Mathematics 424, (2001), Chapman and Hall/CRC, originally appeared in a Twistor News Letter in (1982).

 I thank Boris Pioline for explaining to me how to do this using the paper, N. Obers and B. Pioline, U-duality and M theory, an algebraic approach, hep-th/9812139.

 I wish to thank Hermann Nicolai for pointing out that the original version of this paper omitted the $`p_1=1`$ case from equation (3.3).