text:
# Enhanced Minijet Production in 𝐴-𝐴 Collisions from Gluons with Large Transverse Momenta

## I Introduction

With the operation of RHIC, heavy ion collisions have entered a new era, where semihard collisions become more important compared to soft collisions . Therefore a detailed knowledge of intrinsic parton distributions is important for a quantitative understanding of heavy quark production and/or cross sections at large transverse momenta. Due to the increase of the gluon distribution at small $`x`$, a sizeable cross section at mid rapidity comes from the region where the transverse momenta of partons become comparable to their longitudinal momenta. Therefore a $`k_t`$ factorization scheme is preferred, where the intrinsic transverse momenta of partons are included in the calculation of the minijet cross sections. Especially in nuclei, intrinsic transverse momenta of gluons can become quite large, since at small $`x`$ the gluon clouds of the individual nucleons overlap and interact accumulating large transverse momenta. A careful inversion of the color dipole nuclear cross section allows to assess this effect.

We differentiate between the gluon saturation scale $`Q_s`$ due to the interaction of gluons with one another inside the same nucleus *before* the collision and the saturation scale $`p_s`$ of produced gluons *after* the first collision between the nuclei. Both scales arise due to different mechanisms, but sometimes appear to be of the same magnitude.

Inside the nucleus supersaturation occurs due to the color neutrality of the nucleons. One cannot have gluons at small x and small $`k_t`$, because the nucleons from which they originate are color neutral. This finding is derived from a careful inversion of the multiple scattering of a test color dipole on the nucleus. It is confirmed by the evaluation of the BFKL equation in the nucleus. We will give our derivation of the unintegrated gluon distribution in nuclei in section II.

In section III we will use this distribution to calculate the mini jet cross section $`g+gg+g`$. Due to the intrinsic transverse momenta of the gluons the LO QCD cross section is enhanced at a given cut off scale. Since the intrinsic transverse momenta depend on the number of gluon clouds overlapping, we find that for more central collisions the enhancement is larger.

Section IV is devoted to the analysis of the gluon system which is produced after the first collision. These now on shell gluons are numerous at small nuclear impact parameters and crowd the impact parameter dependent area $`F(b)`$ of intersection between the two nuclei. Concentrating on gluons in the central rapidity region one sees that their number $`\frac{dN}{dy}`$ times their individual size $`\pi /p_s^2`$ cannot exceed the area $`F(b)`$. This equation comes from an estimate of the number of merging gluons $`21`$ of produced gluons compared to the number of splitting gluons $`12`$ . Since the number of gluons decreases severely as $`1/p_s^2`$ and the saturation criterion $`F(b)\times p_s^2`$ increases with $`p_s^2`$ one obtains a self consistent determination of the saturation scale of produced partons $`p_s`$. Intrinsic transverse momentum will increase the number of produced gluons at the same cut off. As a final result, these effects lead to a higher saturation scale $`p_s1.5`$GeV than the scale found without intrinsic $`k_t`$. In the framework of local parton hadron duality the so derived gluon distribution can be directly applied to estimate the number of produced charged hadrons. From $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions  the conversion factor is known and of order unity. In this section, we will also present the prediction on charged particle multiplicity based on our saturation criterion. As first pointed in , the centrality dependence of charged particle multiplicity can be used to test different saturation models. And very recently, there have been several studies on this quantity by using different saturation approaches. We will find the saturation criterion we used in the following gives reasonable description on centrality dependence of charged particle reported by PHENIX collaboration.

In section V we give a summary of our results and discuss the possibility to determine the intrinsic saturation scale $`Q_s`$ by measuring “monojets”.

## II Unintegrated gluon distributions in cold nuclei

We know that the dipole-proton cross section depends on the unintegrated gluon distribution function $`f_g(x,k_t^2)`$. Assuming a perturbative $`2`$ gluon exchange picture one has the following equation for a color neutral dipole with transverse size $`r`$, virtuality $`Q^2`$ and energy $`s=(Q^2+m_\rho ^2)/x`$. We assume $`\alpha _s`$ fixed,

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(s,r)=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{d^2k_t}{k_t^2}[1e^{i\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{k_t}}]\alpha _sf_g(x,k_t^2).$$
(1)
Here $`f_g(x,k_t^2)`$ is the unintegrated gluon distribution of the proton, which is related to the normal integrated gluon density as

$$xG(x,Q^2)=^{Q^2}𝑑k_t^2f_g(x,k_t^2).$$
(2)
The unintegrated gluon distribution function can be obtained from the color dipole-proton cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}`$ in Eq. (1) by inversion. Since the cross section contains the color dipole factor $`[1e^{i\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{k_t}}]`$, the inversion is more complicated than a Fourier Bessel transform. The energy of the dipole cross section under the integrand depends on the virtuality $`k_t^2`$ as $`s=(k_t^2+m_\rho ^2)/x`$.

$`\alpha _sf_g(x,k_t^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^3}}k_t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk_t}}k_t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{r^2}J_0(k_tr)\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(x,r)}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{r^2}[k_trJ_1(k_tr)\frac{k_t^2r^2}{2}(J_0(k_tr)J_2(k_tr))]\times \widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(s,r)},`$ (4)
where $`J_0`$, $`J_1`$, and $`J_2`$ are Bessel functions.

We can derive the unintegrated gluon distribution function in nuclei by using the same method. The cross section of a test color dipole on the nucleus $`A`$ depends on the nuclear thickness function $`T(b)`$. For a hard sphere nucleus we would have $`T(b)=2\rho _0\sqrt{R_A^2b^2}`$ with $`\rho _0=0.16fm^3`$. For the following calculations, however, we always use realistic thickness functions obtained from a nuclear density distribution with finite thickness. This is important for peripheral collisions. According to Glauber theory the total nuclear cross section has the following form:

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{dA}(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2b\widehat{\sigma }_{dA}(b,x,r)},`$ (5)
$`\widehat{\sigma }_{dA}(b,x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`2(1e^{\frac{1}{2}T(b)\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(s,r)}).`$ (6)
The differential cross section $`\sigma _{dA}(b,x,r)`$ with respect to the nuclear impact parameter $`b`$ is related to the unintegrated gluon distribution $`f_{g/A}(x,k_t,b)`$ in the nucleus at impact parameter $`b`$.

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{dA}(b,x,r)=\frac{4\pi }{3}d^2b\frac{d^2k_t}{k_t^2}[1e^{i\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{k_t}}]\alpha _sf_{g/A}(x,k_t,b),$$
(7)
which yields the normal gluon distribution in the nucleus after integration.

$$xG_A(x,Q^2)=^{Q^2}𝑑k_t^2d^2bf_{g/A}(x,k_t,b).$$
(8)
From Eqs. (5) and (7), we can derive the unintegrated gluon density of nucleus A as,

$`\alpha _sf_{g/A}(x,k_t,b)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{r^2}[k_trJ_1(k_tr)\frac{k_t^2r^2}{2}(J_0(k_tr)J_2(k_tr))]\times 2(1e^{\frac{1}{2}T(b)\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(s,r)})}.`$ (9)
One sees that in the limit of small density the integrated density in the nucleus would be $`A`$ times as big as in the proton (shadowing effects will give some modifications). To obtain the unintegrated gluon density of nuclei from the above equations, we must know the parameterization of the dipole cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(r)`$. Up to now, there are various parameterizations for this function. As a rough estimate, we use the following simple parameterization,

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{dp}(r)=C(0,s)r^2.$$
(10)
We take the energy dependent coefficient $`C(0,s)`$ from the parameterization of Ref.,

$$C(0,s)=\sigma _0(s)/R_0^2(s),$$
(11)
where the parameterizations for $`\sigma _0(s)`$ and $`R_0(s)`$ can be found in . To compensate other effects (e.g. shadowing), we normalize our unintegrated gluon density to the integrated gluon density according to Eq. (8) for $`Q^2Q_s^2`$. Finally, we get the following results for the double differential gluon distribution, (cf. Fig. 1)

$$f_{g/A}(x,k_t,b)=T(b)\times xG_A(x)\frac{k_t^2}{(Q_s^2)^2}e^{\frac{k_t^2}{Q_s^2}},$$
(12)
where

$$Q_s^2=2T(b)\times C(0,s),$$
(13)
Note that the intrinsic momentum distribution depends on the closeness to the center of the nucleus. The smaller $`b`$ the more gluon clouds in the nucleus overlap producing a larger gluon transverse momentum. At central $`b=0`$ the mean transverse momentum in the gluons increases with nuclear number $`A`$ as $`k_t^2=2Q_s^2A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$GeV 2. The transverse momentum distribution peaks at $`k_t^2=Q_s^2`$ and then decreases towards small $`k_t`$, vanishing at zero transverse momentum. We call this dynamical phenomena “supersaturation”. A similar behavior for the unintegrated gluon distribution function of nucleus was also derived by the evaluation of the BFKL equation in the nucleus . Supersaturation is quite different from saturation where growth of the gluon density slows down at small transverse momenta cf. . The dynamical origin of supersaturation at small $`k_t`$ is the dipole-nucleus cross section for large dipoles, which is reduced due to multiple scattering.

## III Produced gluons after one collision in hot interaction area

Having the unintegrated gluon density of the nuclei, we calculate the production of gluons and quarks after one collision. To include the intrinsic $`k_t`$ effects, we adopt the phenomenological $`k_t`$-kick model used in previous calculations of hard photon and hadron production. Following Ref. , we write the cross section for hard collision as

$$\frac{d\sigma (b,p_T)}{dp_T}=d^2k_TS(b;k_T)\frac{d\sigma (p_T^{})}{dp_T^{}},$$
(14)
where $`b`$ is the impact parameter of the nucleus-nucleus collision. The differential cross section $`\frac{d\sigma (p_T^{})}{dp_T^{}}`$ is identified as the standard LO QCD predictions for the $`22`$ processes without intrinsic $`k_t`$ effects, where the final produced parton would have the transverse momentum $`p_T^{}`$. Due to the kick $`k_t`$ from the sum of the transverse momenta for the two incident partons, the real final transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_T=\stackrel{}{p}_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\stackrel{}{k}_T`$. The averaging function $`S(b;k_T)`$ reflects the intrinsic $`k_t`$ effects from the incident partons, which depend on the impact parameter $`b`$ of the two nuclei, and can be obtained from the unintegrated gluon distribution functions calculated in the previous section. Since the intrinsic gluon distribution functions of the two nuclei depend separately on the locations $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ of the event relative to each nuclear center, we first derive the differential averaging function depending on $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, from Eq. (12),

$`S(b_1,b_2;k_T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_{1T}}{\pi }\frac{d^2q_{2T}}{\pi }\frac{q_{1T}^2}{(Q_{s1}^2)^2}e^{\frac{q_{1T}^2}{Q_{s1}^2}}\frac{q_{2T}^2}{(Q_{s2}^2)^2}e^{\frac{q_{2T}^2}{Q_{s2}^2}}\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{q}_{1T}+\stackrel{}{q}_{2T}\stackrel{}{k}_T)},`$ (15)
where $`b_1,b_2`$, and $`b`$ satisfy the relation $`\stackrel{}{b}_1\stackrel{}{b}_2=\stackrel{}{b}`$, and $`Q_{s1}^2,Q_{s2}^2`$ have the following forms,

$`Q_{s1}^2=2T_A(b_1)\times C(0,s),Q_{s2}^2=2T_B(b_2)\times C(0,s).`$ (16)
Since the rest of the integrand the differential mini jet cross section $`\frac{d\sigma (p_T^{})}{dp_T^{}}`$ does not depend on $`b_1,b_2`$, we can integrate Eq. (15) over $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, and obtain a normalized averaging function only depending on $`b`$,

$$S(b;k_T)=\frac{d^2b_1d^2b_2T_A(b_1)T_B(b_2)S(b_1,b_2;k_T)\delta ^{(2)}(b_1b_2b)}{d^2b_1d^2b_2T_A(b_1)T_B(b_2)\delta ^{(2)}(b_1b_2b)}.$$
(17)
The above averaging function $`S(b;k_T)`$ is normalized to unity after integration over $`k_t`$. In Fig. 2, we plot this quantity as a function of $`k_t`$ for different impact parameters $`b`$. This figure shows that for more central collisions (smaller $`b`$), there is a stronger effect from intrinsic gluon transverse momenta $`k_t`$ .

From the above formulas, we derive the number of gluons produced in the first collision of nuclei $`A+B`$ at impact parameter $`b`$, applying an infrared cut off $`p_0`$ on the produced gluons.

$$N_{AB}(b)=T_{AB}(b)\sigma _{hard}(b,p_0),$$
(18)
where

$`T_{AB}(\stackrel{}{b})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2b_1T_A(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{b}_1)T_B(\stackrel{}{b}_1)},`$ (19)
$`\sigma _{hard}(b,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{p_Tp_0}}𝑑p_Td^2k_TS(b;k_T){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (p_T^{})}{dp_T^{}}}.`$ (20)
We find that if we neglect the intrinsic $`k_t`$ effects (setting $`S=\delta ^{(2)}(k_T)`$ in the above equation), we return back to the results in QCD-improved parton model based on the collinear factorization approach. However, for high energy nuclear collisions, we can not neglect these intrinsic $`k_t`$ effects, which enhance the cross section significantly at a given infrared cut off $`p_0`$.

## IV Saturation of produced gluons and inclusive cross section

For central collision ($`b=0`$) of identical nuclei A$`+`$A with radius $`R_A`$, the interaction area of the two nuclei is identical to their transverse size $`\pi R_A^2`$. Assuming the radius of each produced gluon with transverse momentum $`p_0`$ to be $`1/p_0`$, we have saturation for an infrared cut off $`p_0=p_s`$ when the produced quanta fill the transverse interaction area $`\pi R_A^2`$. All gluons with momenta smaller than the saturation momenta fuse into gluons with a total momentum larger than the saturation momentum. They are not realistic endproducts for the application of local parton hadron duality to the minijet cross section. So, for central collision, we have the following saturation condition,

$$N_{AA}(p_0=p_s,b=0)\frac{\pi }{p_s^2}=T_{AA}(0)\sigma _{hard}(p_s)\frac{\pi }{p_s^2}=\frac{\pi R_A^2}{\beta }.$$
(21)
The parameter $`\beta `$ takes care of some modification of this simple geometrical picture which can be estimated from the evolution equation including gluon gluon fusion  or from  and is expected to be around $`23`$. More realistic may be a simulation of classical Yang-Mills theory which gives $`\beta =1.42.0`$ .

We extend the above saturation equation to any arbitrary impact parameter $`b`$ of the two nuclei,

$$N_{AA}(p_0=p_s,b)\frac{\pi }{p_s^2}=T_{AA}(b)\sigma _{hard}(p_s(b);b)\frac{\pi }{p_s(b)^2}=\frac{F(b)}{\beta },$$
(22)
where $`F(b)`$ is the interaction area for $`b>0`$. From the geometry of the collision at arbitrary impact parameter $`b`$ and taking into account the realistic nuclear density profiles of two nuclei, we have the following form for the function $`F(b)`$:

$$F(b)=d^2b_1d^2b_2(1e^{T_A(b_1)\sigma _{in}})(1e^{T_A(b_1)\sigma _{in}})\delta ^{(2)}(b_1b_2b),$$
(23)
where $`\sigma _{in}`$ is the inelastic cross section for proton-proton scattering. In our calculations, we use $`\sigma _{in}=35,39,45`$mb for $`\sqrt{s}=56,130,200GeV`$, respectively. In the limit of sharp-edged nuclear density, this area function will lead to the normal area function of two incident nuclei at impact parameter $`b`$

$$F(b)2\left[R_A^2arccos(\frac{b}{2R_A})\frac{b}{2}\sqrt{R_A^2b^2/4}\right].$$

Naturally, the saturation momentum becomes a function of the impact parameter $`p_s=p_s(b)`$. Having determined the saturation scale $`p_s(b)`$ from Eq. (22), we plot in Fig. 3 the numerical results for $`p_s`$ as a function of $`b`$ for three typical energies at BNL RHIC, $`\sqrt{s}=56`$, $`130`$, and $`200GeV`$, where we set $`\beta =1.8`$. From this figure, we can see that the saturation scale $`p_s`$ increases with collision energy. For central collision ($`b=0`$), $`p_s=1.2GeV`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=56GeV`$, increases to $`p_s=1.3GeV`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=130GeV`$, and to $`p_s=1.35GeV`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=200GeV`$.

It is important to differentiate between the saturation scales $`Q_s(b_1),Q_s(b_2)`$ of intrinsic virtual gluons and the saturation scale $`p_s(b)`$ of produced gluons. The intrinsic saturation scale is a property of each individual cold nucleus and is defined at the local impact parameter in each nucleus. It parameterizes the intrinsic gluon distribution functions in both nuclei from which the averaging function $`S(b,k_T)`$ is derived. The saturation scale for the produced gluons $`p_s`$ is a property of the interacting system of the two nuclei and depends on the nucleus nucleus impact parameter $`b`$.

Our results show only a weak dependence of $`p_s`$ on $`b`$ which is not so dramatic as found in ref. . Furthermore, the saturation scale $`p_s`$ in our model is larger than $`1GeV`$ for a wide range of $`b`$. We note that the intrinsic saturation scale $`Q_s`$ for the gluon distribution in each individual nucleus (16), however, is sensitive to the cylindrical distance $`b^{}`$ of the center of the nucleus. In Fig. 3 we show both saturation scales for comparison.

With the saturation scale $`p_s(b)`$ determined from Eq. (22) we can calculate the number of partons produced after the first collision of $`A+B`$, from which we can further estimate the charged particle multiplicity . In Fig. 4 we plot the quantity $`\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }/(0.5N_{part.})`$ as a function of $`N_{part.}`$. The number of participants $`N_{part.}(b)`$ in an A$`+`$A collision can be calculated using

$$N_{part.}=2d^2b_1T_A(b_1)(1e^{T_A(b_2)\sigma _{in}}).$$
(24)
The charged particle multiplicity $`\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }`$ is related to the parton number produced by the first collision $`\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }=\frac{2}{3}\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$. To take into account the difference of rapidity and the pseudo-rapidity, we include another factor $`0.9`$ for $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }=0.9\frac{dN}{dy}`$, which can be calculated from above formulas. From Fig. 4, we see that our predictions on centrality dependence of charged particle multiplicity agree well with the PHENIX data as well as the PHOBOS data except few data points associated with very peripheral collisions, for which the saturation mechanism may not be valid any more.

As a final remark, we note that in , quite different from our global saturation approach discussed above, a local saturation condition was introduced for every $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ in each nucleus. If the so determined local $`p_s(b_1,b_2)`$ is getting too small, an additional cut off is implemented in ref.  such that $`p_s(b_1,b_2)0.5`$ GeV. This local saturation approach leads to a stronger discrepancy for peripheral collisions than our model cf. Fig 4 and Fig. 4 of Ref.. However, to finally settle this issue, we need more experimental observables and data as suggested in.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have calculated the minijet production in $`AA`$ collisions at RHIC, including the enhancement from intrinsic transverse momenta of the incident gluons. We derived the unintegrated gluon distributions of cold nuclei and found “super saturation”; the number density of gluons vanishes at zero transverse momentum and has a maximum at the intrinsic saturation scale $`Q_s`$. We differentiate between this gluon saturation scale $`Q_s`$ inside both nuclei *before* the collision and the saturation scale $`p_s`$ of produced gluons *after* the first collision between the nuclei. To obtain the saturation scale $`p_s`$, we apply the saturation criterion in the central rapidity region, where the produced parton number $`\frac{dN}{dy}`$ times their individual size $`\pi /p_s^2`$ must not exceed the area $`F(b)`$ of the two interacting nucleus. Intrinsic transverse momentum of the incident partons increases the number of produced gluons (i.e., the production cross section) at the same cut off, and then leads to a higher saturation scale $`p_s1.5`$GeV than the scale found without intrinsic $`k_t`$. Finally, we find that our numerical results on the centrality dependence of the charged particle multiplicity agree well with the experimental PHENIX and PHOBOS data, which support the saturation scheme we used in this paper.

We note as a final remark, that it is also very important to directly determine the intrinsic transverse momentum scale $`Q_s`$ for large nuclei. For this purpose we propose to measure “monojet” production at RHIC , in which the final state only contains one large $`p_T`$ jet without any other large $`p_T`$ balancing jets. By triggering on produced particles in the projectile and target fragmentation regions with a summed high transverse momentum in one azimuthal hemisphere, one may select minijets with transverse momentum in the opposite azimuthal hemisphere which come from $`21`$ processes in the central region. In principle one can thereby test the intrinsic saturation scale $`Q_s`$ which is characteristic for isolated nuclei and also accessible in electron nucleus scattering. The same configuration of monojet production was also suggested in to search the jet quenching effects in high energy parton production. The difference between these two approaches and the experimental accessible will be discussed in the future studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful for the correspondence with A. Accardi, M. Braun, D. Kharzeev and X.N. Wang. We thank J. Hüfner, B. Kopeliovich, C. Ewerz, and A. Shoshi for discussions.
Figure Captions

FIG.1. The double differential gluon distribution $`f_{g/A}(x,k_t,b)`$ for Au$`(A=197,R_A=6.37fm)`$ at $`x=10^2`$ as a function of $`k_t[`$GeV$`]`$ at different cylindrical distances ($`b=0,1/2R_A,3/4R_A,R_A`$) from the central axis of the nucleus. The maxima of these distributions are at $`k_t=Q_s0.96GeV,0.90GeV,0.76GeV,0.46GeV`$ for these four cases respectively.

FIG. 2. The averaging function $`S(b;k_T)`$ vs $`k_T`$ for different nucleus-nucleus impact parameters $`b`$ shows that intrinsic transverse momentum kicks $`k_t`$ with larger $`k_T`$ are more numerous for central collisions at $`b=0`$ than for peripheral collisions with large $`b`$.

FIG. 3. The saturation scale $`p_s`$ in $`GeV`$ is shown as a function of $`b`$ for three different energies $`\sqrt{s}=56GeV,130GeV,200GeV`$. We also plot the intrinsic saturation scale $`Q_s`$ ($`x=0.01`$) as a function of $`b^{}`$ for the individual nuclei before collision, where $`b^{}`$ is the cylindrical distance from the central axis of the nucleus. In contrast to $`p_s`$, $`Q_s`$ is a more strongly varying function of $`b^{}`$.

FIG. 4. The theoretical normalized charged particle multiplicity $`[dN_{ch}/d\eta ]/(0.5N_{part.})`$ as a function of the number of participants $`N_{part.}`$ is shown for the theory with intrinsic gluon transverse momentum $`k_t`$ (full line) and without $`k_t`$ averaging effects (dashed line). The crosses mark the experimental PHENIX ($`+`$) and PHOBOS ($`\times `$) data.


format: text

text:
# Superconformal Mechanics and the Super Virasoro Algebra

## 1 Introduction

There is an ongoing interest in conformal mechanics, since the early work of , and in the supersymmetric generalization . These one dimensional conformal field theories admit exact solutions to problems that can be accessed only perturbatively in higher dimensions, due to the existence of the powerful conformal symmetry that constrains the dynamics. Although these $`d=1`$ conformal mechanics are relatively simple they are still not trivial. A geometrical picture that relates the one dimensional field equations to geodesics in the group space of $`SO(1,2)`$ and $`SU(1,1|1)/U(1)`$ was constructed in .

Recently, the $`AdS_{p+2}/CFT_{p+1}`$ conjecture, see e.g , has raised a new interest in conformal mechanics, i.e the case of $`p=0`$. This conjecture proposes that in an appropriate limit certain conformal field theories in $`p+1`$ dimensions are dual to superstring theory on an $`AdS`$ space in $`p+2`$ dimensions times some compact manifold. The case of conformal quantum mechanics and the corresponding $`AdS_2`$  may offer more insights to this conjecture due to the simplification of an analysis in so few dimensions, though there are also new features since the boundary of the $`AdS_2`$ is not connected.

Although the basis to this paper is mainly algebraic, it is instructive to bear in mind concrete realizations of physical systems which are governed by (super) conformal mechanics. An illustrative example is that of the physics of a test particle in the near horizon region of a $`d=4`$ $`𝒩=2`$ extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole . This particle is described by conformal mechanics where the canonical coordinates are the radial coordinate and radial momentum in $`d=4`$. The main interest in such systems is due to the fact that black holes provide the arena where gravity and quantum mechanics match . Understanding these systems shed light on the intriguing problems of quantum gravity. Another example is that of a non-relativistic spinning particle coupled to a magnetic field and a scalar potential  111For this system to be (super) conformal invariant one need to make diffeomorphisms transformations on the background to compensate on the conformal transformations..

In this paper we follow the analysis in  on conformal symmetry and the Virasoro algebra and extend it to the case of $`𝒩=1,2`$ super conformal symmetry. In section 2 we identify the superconformal algebra as the subalgebra of the super Virasoro algebra. In section 3 we obtain classical recursion equations for the generators and find a representation of the full algebra for a free particle and an interacting one. At the level of Poisson brackets this algebra close to $`𝒩=1,2`$ Neveu-Schwarz super Virasoro algebra, with a $`U(1)`$ Kac-Moody algebra  for the latter case. In section 4 we describe the quantization of the generators and give a general construction of $`𝒩=1`$ super Virasoro generators out of the superconformal ones.

## 2 Generators of Superconformal Quantum Mechanics

The generators of $`0+1`$ dimensional superconformal quantum mechanics obey the super algebra of $`osp(2|2)su(1,1|1)`$ . Their non-trivial commutation and anti-commutation relations can be written in the following way 222We rescaled the fermionic charges by a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ relative to .

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[H,D]_{}=iH,\hfill & [K,D]_{}=iK,\hfill & [H,K]_{}=2iD,\hfill \\ [Q_i,Q_j]_+=2\delta _{ij}H,\hfill & [S_i,S_j]_+=2\delta _{ij}K,\hfill & [Q_i,S_j]_+=2\delta _{ij}D+ϵ_{ij}B,\hfill \\ [D,Q_i]_{}=\frac{i}{2}Q_i,\hfill & [D,S_i]_{}=\frac{i}{2}S_i,\hfill & \\ [K,Q_i]_{}=iS_i,\hfill & [H,S_i]_{}=iQ_i,\hfill & \\ [B,Q_i]_{}=iϵ_{ij}Q_j,\hfill & [B,S_i]_{}=iϵ_{ij}S_j,\hfill & i,j=1,2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`[,]_\pm `$ stands for commutators and anticommutators. The following identification of the generators

$`\begin{array}{ccc}L_1=H,\hfill & L_0=D,\hfill & L_1=K,\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{1/2}^i=Q_i,\hfill & G_{1/2}^i=S_i,\hfill & B_0=B\hfill \end{array}`$
can be used to recast the algebra (1) as a subalgebra of the super Virasoro algebra with a $`U(1)`$ charge

$`[L_m,L_n]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`i(mn)L_{m+n}`$
$`[L_m,G_r^i]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r}^i`$
$`[G_r^i,G_s^j]_+`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{ij}L_{r+s}+ϵ_{ij}(rs)B_{r+s}`$ (4)
$`[B_k,L_m]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`ikB_{k+m}`$
$`[B_k,G_r^i]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{ij}G_{k+r}^j`$
for $`m,n=1,0,1`$, $`r,s=\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`k=0`$. A realization of this algebra is given for the theory of a free particle by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}K=\frac{1}{2}x^2,\hfill & D=\frac{1}{4}(xp+px),\hfill & H=\frac{1}{2}p^2\hfill \\ Q^i=\psi ^ip,\hfill & S^i=\psi ^ix,\hfill & B=\frac{i}{2}[\psi ^1,\psi ^2]_{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
where $`\psi ^i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are Grassmann coordinates $`[\psi ^i,\psi ^j]_+=\delta ^{ij}`$.

For completion we give an explicit form of the conserved charges associated with this algebra written in a way that is compatible with the whole super Virasoro algebra. Time translation is generated by $`H=L_1`$ so for any quantum generators $`𝒢`$ the Heisenberg representation gives

$`𝒢(t)=e^{iL_1t}𝒢e^{iL_1t}={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(it)^l}{l!}}[[𝒢,L_1],L_1],\mathrm{},L_1],`$ (8)
where the first term corresponding to $`l=0`$ is $`𝒢`$. The nested commutators are easily calculated for any super Virasoro generator

$`G_r^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\begin{array}{c}r+1/2\\ l\end{array})G_{rl}^it^l`$ (11)
$`L_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ l\end{array})L_{nl}t^l`$ (14)
$`B_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array})B_{kl}t^l,`$ (17)
which are finite sums for $`r1/2`$, $`n1`$ and $`k0`$. If, for example, $`k=m<0`$ we may use analytic continuation

$`l!(\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array})\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1+ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ml+1+ϵ)}}=(1)^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)}}.`$ (20)
The generators in (11) are conserved by construction

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒢}{dt}}=i[𝒢,L_1]+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢}{t}}=0.`$ (21)
## 3 Classical algebra

In order to find the complete super Virasoro algebra we use the classical algebra

$`\{L_m,L_n\}`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)L_{m+n}`$
$`\{L_m,G_r^i\}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r}^i`$
$`\{G_r^i,G_s^j\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{ij}L_{r+s}+ϵ_{ij}(rs)B_{r+s}`$ (22)
$`\{B_k,L_m\}`$ $`=`$ $`kB_{k+m}`$
$`\{B_k,G_r^i\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}G_{k+r}^j`$
$`\{B_k,B_m\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
where $`\{,\}`$ denote the even Poisson Brackets

$`\{G,K\}={\displaystyle \frac{G}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(1)^{p(G)}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{\theta ^l}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\theta ^l}},`$ (23)
with $`p(Q)=1`$ for an odd generator and zero otherwise. This definition gives for even coordinates $`xppx=0`$

$`\{x,p\}=1`$ (24)
and for odd coordinates $`\theta ^i\theta ^j+\theta ^j\theta ^i=0`$

$`\{\theta ^i,\theta ^j\}=\delta ^{ij}.`$ (25)
In what will follow we use the explicit representation of the global generators, e.g the generators that are given in equation (7), and the classical algebra to obtain a set of solvable differential equations. This is done by calculating the Poisson Brackets of a general generator of the algebra with one of the global generators and demanding that it will be equal to the r.h.s of the algebra (3), as was done in  for the $`L_n`$ generators.

### 3.1 Free Particle

We begin with the super conformal generators of the free particle that are given in equation (7). The Poisson Brackets of the $`G_r^i`$ generators with the Hamiltonian and the special conformal generator gives

$`p{\displaystyle \frac{G_r^i}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{H,G_r^i\}=\{L_1,G_r^i\}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r)G_{r1}^i`$
$`x{\displaystyle \frac{G_r^i}{p}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{K,G_r^i\}=\{L_1,G_r^i\}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r)G_{r+1}^i.`$
The integrability condition $`\frac{^2G_r^i}{px}=\frac{^2G_r^i}{xp}`$ gives the recursion formula for $`G_r^i`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}(r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})G_{r+1}^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})G_{r1}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{xp}}G_r^i.`$ (27)
Similar equations for $`L_n`$ and $`B_k`$ exist and are easily solved. The classical Virasoro generators are then given by

$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^ix^{\frac{1}{2}+r}p^{\frac{1}{2}r}`$
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^{1+n}p^{1n}`$ (28)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`Bx^kp^k`$
for $`n,kZ`$ and $`rZ+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`B=\frac{1}{2}[\theta ^1,\theta ^2]`$. For $`n1`$, $`r1/2`$ and $`k0`$ we can recast these generators as

$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`L_1(L_0L_1^1)^{n+1}`$
$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`G_{1/2}^i(L_0L_1^1)^{r+1/2}`$ (29)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(L_0L_1^1)^k.`$
This is an extension to . The representation, however, is not “unitary” $`L_n^{}L_n`$. To get a unitary representation we consider the linear combination of DFF

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(aH{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a}}2iD)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z^2`$
$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(aH+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}zz^{}`$ (30)
$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(aH{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a}}+2iD)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
where we define

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{a}pi\frac{x}{\sqrt{a}}}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`z^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{a}p+i\frac{x}{\sqrt{a}}}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (31)
To obtain the entire algebra we can solve the differential equations again or observe that the new generators have the same form as in equation (3.1) with $`xz`$ and $`pz^{}`$. Therefore the solution

$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z^{1+n}z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1n}`$
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`Bz^kz_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$ (32)
$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^iz^{1/2+r}z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2r}`$
obey the algebra up to new factors of $`i`$ due to the fact that the coordinate transformation (31) is canonical up to a scale, i.e $`\{z,z^{}\}=i`$. Another difference between the two representations, besides unitarity, is that for the generators in (3.1) time translation is generated by $`L_0`$ and not by $`L_1`$.

### 3.2 An Interacting Particle

To obtain the generators of an interacting particle we note that the classical Virasoro algebra is invariant under $`L_nf^nL_n`$ , $`G_r^if^rG_r^i`$ and $`B_kf^kB_k`$ where $`f=f(L_0)`$. Since for (3.1) $`L_0=2xp`$ we get

$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^ix^{\frac{1}{2}+r}p^{\frac{1}{2}r}f^r`$
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^{1+n}p^{1n}f^n`$ (33)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`Bx^kp^kf^k.`$
The Hamiltonian of a particle in a conformal potential is obtained for $`f^1=1+\frac{g}{x^2p^2}`$

$`L_1=H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{x^2}}).`$ (34)
For a superconformal potential we first recall the general method  for supersymmetrizing a classical and quantum mechanical Hamiltonian. Given a Hamiltonian $`H=\frac{1}{2}p^2+V`$ we can define the odd generators

$`Q^i=(p\mathrm{𝟏}+W_{,x}\epsilon )^{ij}\psi ^j,`$ (35)
where $`W_{,x}=\frac{dW}{dx}`$, which obey the following relation

$`\{Q^i,Q^j\}=\delta ^{ij}\left(p^2+W_{,x}^22BW_{,xx}\right).`$ (36)
By solving $`\sqrt{2V}=W_{,x}`$ we get

$`\{Q^i,Q^j\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{ij}H_{susy}`$ (37)
$`H_{susy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(p^2+W_{,x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2BW_{,xx}\right).`$ (38)
The potential for conformal mechanics is $`V=\frac{g^2}{2x^2}`$, which is solved for $`W=\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{log}x^2`$. These expressions for the Hamiltonian and the supersymmetric generators motivate the following ansatz

$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`x^{\frac{1}{2}+r}p^{\frac{1}{2}r}f^r(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{u^2}})^{r1/2}(\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{u}}\epsilon )^{ij}\psi ^j`$
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^{1+n}p^{1n}f^n(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2+2gB}{u^2}})^n`$ (39)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`x^kp^kf^k(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{u^2}})^kB,`$
which obey (3) and can be recast in the form of (3.1).

One can use the classical analog of (8) to obtain an explicit representation of the conserved charges associated with the classical generators, e.g the use of the generators in equation (3.2) will give

$`G_r^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^ip/\sqrt{f}(x/pf+t)^{r+1/2}`$
$`L_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f}}p^2(x/pf+t)^{n+1}`$ (40)
$`B_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`B(x/pf+t)^k,`$
which is the subalgebra of $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ obtained in .

## 4 Quantization of the generators

For the quantization of the generators we first rescale the algebra and absorb all factors of $`i`$. For clearness we give the $`𝒩=0,1,2`$ algebras:

$`𝒩=0:`$ $`[L_m,L_n]_{}=(mn)L_{m+n}`$ (41)
$`𝒩=1:`$ $`[L_m,L_n]_{}=(mn)L_{m+n}`$
$`[L_m,G_r]_{}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r}`$
$`[G_r,G_s]_+=2L_{r+s}`$
$`𝒩=2:`$ $`[L_m,L_n]_{}=(mn)L_{m+n}`$
$`[L_m,G_r^i]_{}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r}^i`$
$`[G_r^i,G_s^j]_+=2\delta ^{ij}L_{r+s}+(rs)ϵ^{ij}B_{r+s}`$
$`[B_k,B_n]_{}=0`$
$`[B_k,L_n]_{}=kB_{k+n}`$
$`[B_k,G_r^i]_{}=ϵ^{ij}G_{k+r}^j`$
and also the Casimir operator of each of the (super) $`sl(2,)`$ subalgebras:

$`𝒩=0:`$ $`L^2`$ $`=L_0^2+L_0L_1L_1`$
$`𝒩=1:`$ $`{}_{1}{}^{}C_{}^{2}`$ $`=L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{1/2}G_{1/2}`$ (44)
$`𝒩=2:`$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}C_{}^{2}`$ $`=L^2L_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{1/2}^iG_{1/2}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^2`$
In  the quantization of the bosonic classical generators was obtained by a canonical coordinate transformation:

$`q={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2x}}`$ $`y=x^2,`$ (45)
and setting $`f(u)=xp`$. The same procedure applied to the $`𝒩=2`$ generators (3.2) gives

$`G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^iy^{\frac{1}{2}+r}q^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`y^{1+n}q`$ (46)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`y^kB.`$
There are two problems we have to address before quantization. The first is how to quantize $`\sqrt{q}`$ and the second is how to order the operators. For the square root of the momentum we define the covariant derivative $`𝒟^i=\frac{}{\theta ^i}+\theta ^iq`$ which obey $`\{D^i,D^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}q`$ and since the generators are linear in momentum, ordering $`y^{n+1}q`$ might add a term proportional to $`y^n`$. This motivate the following quantum ansatz

$`\sqrt{i}G_r^i`$ $`=`$ $`y^{r+\frac{1}{2}}𝒟^ii(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})y^{r\frac{1}{2}}\theta ^iT`$
$`iL_n`$ $`=`$ $`y^{1+n}qi{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)}{2}}y^nT`$ (47)
$`iB_k`$ $`=`$ $`y^kB,`$
which satisfied the $`𝒩=2`$ super Virasoro algebra for any $`n,kZ`$ and $`rZ+1/2`$ provided

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^i}}`$ (48)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^1_2\theta ^2_1`$ (49)
and which can be truncated to the $`𝒩=1`$ algebra generators:

$`\sqrt{i}G_r`$ $`=`$ $`y^{r+\frac{1}{2}}𝒟`$
$`iL_n`$ $`=`$ $`y^{1+n}qi{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)}{2}}y^nT,`$ (50)
where $`T=\theta \frac{}{\theta }`$ and $`𝒟=\frac{}{\theta }+\theta q`$.

In  a general construction of two half-Virasoro algebras was given provided $`L_1`$ and $`L_1`$ are invertible. The conditions for combining them into a single Virasoro algebra were

$`L_1=L_0L_1^1L_0`$ $`L_1=L_0L_1^1L_0.`$ (51)
These conditions are equivalent, when $`L_{\pm 1}`$ are invertible, to the vanishing of the quadratic Casimir of the $`sl(2,)`$ algebra

$`L^2=L_0^2+L_0L_1L_1=0.`$ (52)
Moreover if we consider the whole tower of $`sl(2,)`$ subalgebras contained in the Virasoro algebra, i.e $`\{\frac{1}{n}L_n,\frac{1}{n}L_0,\frac{1}{n}L_n\}`$ for $`n>0`$ with the solution found in

$`L_n=(L_0L_1^1)^nL_0`$ (53)
$`L_n=(L_0L_1^1)^nL_0`$ (54)
we can easily verify that all the quadratic Casimir vanish

$`L^2(n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}L_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}L_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}L_nL_n=0`$ (55)
We would like to find a similar construction for a representation of the super Virasoro generators which is independent of the specific super conformal system for the $`𝒩=1`$ case (4). For this we first note that the quadratic Casimir can be written as

$`{}_{1}{}^{}C_{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`L_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L_0L_1L_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{1/2}G_{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left[G_{1/2}G_{1/2}(L_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}`$
and that the realization of the generators in (4) can be thought of as a change of variables which we can invert to obtain

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`iL_1`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`2(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_0)`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_1^1`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{i}G_{1/2}`$ (57)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{i}}}(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_0)G_{1/2}^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{i}G_{1/2}(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_0),`$
with $`{}_{1}{}^{}C_{}^{2}=0\theta ^2=0`$. This inversion allows us to rewrite the generators of half the $`𝒩=1`$ Virasoro algebra as functions of only the (super) $`sl(2,)`$ subalgebra generators:

$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_1^1\right)^{n+1}L_1(n+1)\left(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_1^1\right)^n(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_0)`$
$`G_r`$ $`=`$ $`\left(G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_1^1\right)^{r+1/2}G_{1/2}`$ (58)
where $`n1`$. If $`L_1`$ is also invertible then this solution is valid for $`n<1`$ and obeys the full algebra. The solution reduces to (53) for $`G_{1/2}G_{1/2}L_0`$. In a similar way to the $`𝒩=0`$ case, we can compute the quadratic Casimir for all the (super) $`sl(2,)`$ subalgebras generators

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k+1}}L_{2k+1},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k+1}}L_0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k+1}}L_{2k1}`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k+1}}}G_{k+1/2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k+1}}}G_{k1/2}`$
The quadratic Casimir of the subalgebras are fix, i.e $`L^2(k)=L^2`$ and $`{}_{1}{}^{}C_{2}^{}(k)=_1C_2=0`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We construct the $`𝒩=1,2`$ super Virasoro algebra out of the superconformal generators at the classical level of Poisson brackets. The generators are ordered and quantized. These quantum generators define new coordinates that are inverted and used to construct half of the super $`𝒩=1`$ Virasoro algebra provided that the quadratic Casimir vanish, and the Hamiltonian $`H=L_1`$ is invertible. This condition amounts to the requirement that $`H`$ has no ground state at $`E=0`$ as is the case in . Equivalently, one can demand that supersymmetry is broken and there are no states which are annihilated by the supersymmetric generators. The full super Virasoro algebra is obtained when the special conformal generator $`K=L_1`$ is also invertible.

It would be interesting to find out what are the restrictions that higher supersymmetry  put on such constructions and if there are modifications that will account for central charges, since in the $`𝒩=1`$ case the representation is not restricted only to quantum mechanics in which one would expect these extensions to vanish.

## 6 Acknowledgement

I gratefully acknowledge J. Sonnenschein, M. Kroyter U. Fuchs, and N. Kashman for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, by GIF - the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientic Research, and by the Israel Science Foundation.