text:
# Boson-Fermion Confusion: The String Path To Supersymmetry

## 1 Introduction

Although the idea of a symmetry between bosons and fermions must be very old, after all both are present in Nature, I am only aware of non-relativistic attempts in that direction in the 1960’s. Stavraki  (1967) proposed a current algebra with both commutators and anticommutators. Myazawa  (1968), then at the University of Chicago, put together the fermions in the $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}`$ with the bosons in the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}`$ of $`SU(6)`$ into one algebraic structure, which led him to invent the superalgebra we now call $`SU(6/21)`$!

In the Soviet Union, a brilliant generalization of the Poincaré group to include anticommuting charges is proposed in 1971 by Golfand and Likhtman , realizing relativistic supersymmetry in $`3+1`$ dimensions for the first time. This is followed in 1972 by a non-linear realization of this symmetry by Volkov and Akulov .

String Theory stems from the Dual Resonance Model, formulated to satisfy Dolen-Horn-Schmid duality , according to which, in pion-nucleon scattering, the averaged s-channel fermionic resonances were related to the t-channel boson exchanges. As such it implied a relation between bosons and fermions, although early workers seem to have put aside spin as an inessential complication. Amplitudes involving only bosons, known today as the Veneziano (open string) and Virasoro-Shapiro (closed string) models, are the progenitors of modern string theories. The generalization of Dual Models to include half-odd integer spins  followed soon after in early 1971. When expressed in terms of world-sheet symmetries, both R and NS formulations were shown  to be examples of supersymmetry on the $`1+1`$ world-sheet. This in turn led to supersymmetry in $`3+1`$ dimensions, with explicit local interacting field-theories . It is only later that space-time supersymmetry between the R and NS sectors was realized in $`9+1`$ dimensions by the GSO  projection. Born in the context of Dual Resonance Models, relativistic supersymmetry has now been found to play a central role in the formulation of quantum field theories, and perhaps even of Nature itself.

## 2 Reminiscences

This conference affected me like a madeleine, and although still quite young, I will take a few lines to offer some recollections of the epic period when the building blocks of supersymmetry were being laid down. Soon after graduating from Syracuse University in spring 1969, my wife and I sailed to Europe to spend the summer at the ICTP, where J. Nuyts and H. Sugawara introduced me to the joys of working on the Veneziano model. By the time we sailed back to the United States to join the Fermi National Laboratory (then known as NAL) as one of its first postdocs, I had been hopelessly seduced by their elegance and promise of simplicity. So much so that, in the middle of the Atlantic, I found myself in the reading room of the liner France, with a seminal paper by Fubini and Veneziano on the harmonic oscillator formulation. I then went to my cabin to fetch postcards. Upon my return I saw the Fubini-Veneziano preprint on the table I had vacated. Doubly puzzled, since I had just left it in my cabin, and it was, unlike my copy, heavily annotated, I decided to wait for its owner. In walks a rather lanky individual to reclaim his posession; it was André Neveu, on his way to join Joël Scherk in Princeton!

In the Fall of 1969, at NAL, I started working with Lou Clavelli on the group theoretical structure of the Veneziano amplitudes. There were no senior theorists at NAL; we were on our own, but for Nambu, who was very supportive of our work, and even invited us to lunch at the Quadrangle Club! I also met in that period, many of the early luminaries: M. Virasoro, then at Madison, Scherk and his first wife (whom he had met at the Club Méditerranée!), S. Fubini, B. Sakita, and G. Veneziano.

In the spring of 1970, the Director of NAL, Bob Wilson decreed: “All theorists must go to Aspen”. I had never heard of the place, did not want to go, but one did not resist Bob very long. That summer, at the Aspen Center for Physics, the break from grungy calculations, combined with the mountain air and the wonderful music, made me realize an easy way to look at these models. I decided to use the generalized position and momentum operators, introduced by Fubini and Veneziano, in devising equations of motion. Upon my return at NAL, I wrote a short paper on the Dual Klein-Gordon equation, where I spoke of the correspondance between Dual systems and point particles (later to be known as the zero-slope limit). To my dismay, it was rejected by Physics Letters, and I withdrew the paper. Shaken but undaunted, I proceeded to generalize the Dirac equation. There I found to my surprise a new algebraic structure, the square root of the Virasoro algebra. That Fall, I went to the Institute in Princeton where Nambu was spending a sabbatical. Again he was very supportive of my ideas, and encouraged me further, but I got stuck because I did not know Grassmann variables! It is during that visit that I met Mike Green, but I had to wait until the spring of 1971 to meet John Schwarz, and even longer L. Brink, and C. Thorn, my lifelong dual friends!

## 3 The First Fermion-Boson Confusion

Fermions and bosons cannot easily be confused, as they differ both by their quantization and space-transformation properties, but the latter can be very similar in some dimensions. An early example, where assigning bosonic quantum numbers to fermions leads to a relativistic theory, is the introduction of fermions to Dual Models . The $`N`$-point (bosonic) Veneziano amplitude is a sum of terms of the form

$$<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}|V(2)V(3)\mathrm{}V(N1)|N>,$$
(1)
where

$$V(j):e^{ik_jQ(\theta _j)}:,$$
(2)
is the vertex for the emission of the $`jth`$ particle of momentum $`k_j`$, which resembles a plane wave with a generalized coordinate

$$Q_\mu (\theta )=x_\mu +\theta p_\mu +\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(a_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }+a_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }\right).$$
(3)
Here $`x_\mu `$ and $`p_\mu `$ are the usual position and momentum, and there are an infinite number of relativistic harmonic oscillators

$$[a_\mu ^{(n)},a_\rho ^{(m)}]=\delta ^{nm}g_{\mu \rho }.$$
(4)
This leads to a generalized momentum

$$P_\mu (\theta )=\frac{dQ_\mu (\theta )}{d\theta }=p_\mu i\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{n}\left(a_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }a_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }\right).$$
(5)
Both operators reduce to their point limit in the (zero slope) limit

$$Q_\mu (\theta )x_\mu ;P_\mu (\theta )p_\mu .$$
(6)
Now if we apply this correspondance to the Klein-Gordon operator,

$$p_\mu p^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0P_\mu (\theta )P^\mu (\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(7)
with

$$P_\mu (\theta )P^\mu (\theta )=L_0+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(L_ne^{in\theta }+L_ne^{in\theta }\right),$$
(8)
where the $`L`$’s satisfy the Virasoro algebra. In particular, $`L_0`$ is, up to an additive constant, the equation of motion for the bosons, and the $`L_npa^{(n)}`$ are akin to the decoupling operators of QED. Hence the analogy is established: take the generalized quantities, and replace the product of the averages by the average of the products:

$$<P_\mu (\theta )><P^\mu (\theta )><P_\mu (\theta )P^\mu (\theta )>,$$
(9)
where $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes the average, or integration over $`\theta `$.

The same procedure can be applied to the Dirac equation

$$\gamma p\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(10)
by imagining that the gamma matrices are themselves averages of something

$$\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\theta )=\gamma _\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(11)
leading to a generalized Dirac equation

$$<\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta )P(\theta )>\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(12)
together with

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\theta ),\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (\theta ^{})\}=2g_{\mu \rho }\delta (\theta \theta ^{}).$$
(13)
this requires the introduction of anticommuting harmonic oscillators which carry vector indices

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\theta )=\gamma _\mu +\gamma _5\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(b_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }+b_\mu ^{(n)}e^{in\theta }\right),$$
(14)
where $`\gamma _5`$ anticommutes with the Dirac matrices. Then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta )P(\theta )=F_0+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(F_ne^{in\theta }+F_ne^{in\theta }\right),$$
(15)
where the $`F`$’s satisfy the superVirasoro algebra. This chain of reasoning covers the genesis of the Dirac equation and the appearance of commuting and anticommuting structures in a relativistic framework. It is merely a generalization of the algebra of Dirac’s operator

$$\{\gamma p,\gamma p\}=2pp.$$
(16)
This procedure, assigning a vector index to a fermion, might appear foolish at first glance, except in $`9+1`$ dimensions where the light-cone little group is $`SO(8)`$, spinors and vectors have the same number of degrees of freedom.

In relativistic theories, bosons and fermions usually transform differently under space rotations. For massless particles the relevant group of rotations is the light-cone little group. In $`1+1`$ dimensions, there is no such group, and bosons differ from fermions only by quantization, and one can build bosons out of fermions without group-theoretical obstructions; the same applies to $`2+1`$ dimensions. In $`3+1`$ dimensions, the little group is non-trivial and fermions are distinguished by their helicities– integer for bosons, half-integer for fermions. In higher dimensions, fermions (bosons) transform according to the spinor (tensor) representations of the Non-Abelian little group. In $`9+1`$ dimensions, the massless little group is $`SO(8)`$ and bosons and fermions have the same number of degrees of freedom. This fact lies at the heart of the superstring constructions. In $`10+1`$ dimensions and above, they become different again. However, in special numbers of dimensions, a strange kinship between spinor and tensor representations of the appropriate rotation group appears. In eleven dimensions, it leads to the supergravity theory, and, as we will show, possibly more.

## 4 A Second Fermion-Boson Confusion?

In $`10+1`$ dimensions, there is no apparent kinship between fermions and bosons. Yet there exists a supersymmetric theory in eleven dimensions, M-theory, with supergravity as its local limit. The degrees of freedom of supergravity are massless particles, belonging to representations of $`SO(9)`$, the light-cone little group:

* Graviton as a symmetric second-rank tensor $`h_{(ij)}`$, with Dynkin label $`[2000]`$,
* Third-rank antisymmetric tensor, $`A_{[ijk]}`$, with Dynkin label $`[0010]`$,
* Rarita-Schwinger spinor-vector, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha i}`$, with label $`[1001]`$.

Their group-theoretical properties are summarized in the following table of Dynkin indices of different orders

| $`\mathrm{irrep}`$ | $`[1001]`$ | $`[2000]`$ | $`[0010]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`I_0`$ | $`128`$ | $`44`$ | $`84`$ |
| $`I_2`$ | $`256`$ | $`88`$ | $`168`$ |
| $`I_4`$ | $`640`$ | $`232`$ | $`408`$ |
| $`I_6`$ | $`1792`$ | $`712`$ | $`1080`$ |
| $`I_8`$ | $`5248`$ | $`2440`$ | $`3000`$ |

These indices, except for $`I_8`$, match between the fermion and the two bosons. It turns out that there are infinitely many trios of representations of $`SO(9)`$ with similar group-theoretic relations among them. The simplest example is given by the triplet made of fields with index structure

$$h_{(ijk)l}+A_{(ij)(kl)m}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha (ij)k},$$
(17)
and group-theoretical properties

| $`\mathrm{irrep}`$ | $`[2100]`$ | $`[0110]`$ | $`[1101]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`I_0`$ | $`910`$ | $`1650`$ | $`2560`$ |
| $`I_2`$ | $`3640`$ | $`6600`$ | $`10240`$ |
| $`I_4`$ | $`19864`$ | $`34920`$ | $`54784`$ |
| $`I_6`$ | $`130840`$ | $`217320`$ | $`348160`$ |
| $`I_8`$ | $`977944`$ | $`1498344`$ | $`2466304`$ |

They describe higher spin massless fields, with no apparent supersymmetry. This is only one example of this infinite set, which can be obtained from a character formula, traced to the three equivalent embeddings of $`SO(9)`$ inside the exceptional group $`F_4`$! Under the embedding $`F_4SO(9)`$, the $`52`$ parameters of $`F_4`$ contain the $`36`$ generators of $`SO(9)`$ and $`16`$ parameters which transform as the $`SO(9)`$ spinor representation, and label the coset $`F_4/SO_9`$. Kostant introduces over that space sixteen $`(256\times 256)`$ gamma matrices which generate the Clifford algebra

$$\{\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b\}=2\delta ^{ab},a,b=1,2\mathrm{},16.$$
(18)
Note that the “vector indices” of these matrices actually transform as the spinor of $`SO(9)`$! This is possible because of the anomalous embedding $`SO(16)SO(9)`$, where the $`16`$ vector of $`SO(16)`$ is the $`16`$ spinor of $`SO9)`$. Another example of fermion-boson confusion. Let $`T^a`$ be the generators of $`F_4`$ not contained in $`SO(9)`$, and form the Kostant equation

$$\underset{1}{\overset{16}{}}\gamma ^aT^a\mathrm{\Psi }𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(19)
Its solutions consist of all triples, including the supergravity multiplet. It is convenient to rewrite the gamma matrices in terms of eight Grassmann variables, and express the solutions as chiral superfields in these variables,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _0+\psi _i\theta _1+\psi _{ij}\theta _i\theta _j+\mathrm{},$$
(20)
and the supergravity solution corresponds to all constant $`\psi `$. Under $`SO(9)SO(7)\times SO(2)`$, these split as

$$\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}+\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟖}}+\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(21)
reproducing the supergravity multiplet. Other solutions involve fields of higher spin. If these fields are to be incorporated in a relativistic theory, we must overcome the problem of massless spins with spins higher than two, bringing in well documented difficulties, with coupling spin-one current  and energy-momentum tensor  to massless particles of spin greater than one.

## 5 A Simpler Example

A similar but much simpler construction can be achieved for the coset $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. At the lowest level, it leads to a triplet of representations on which $`N=2`$ supersymmetry can be realized in $`3+1`$ dimensions.

### 5.1 The $`N=2`$ Hypermultiplet

We first recall the well-known light-cone description of the massless $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet in $`3+1`$ dimensions , which contains two Weyl spinors and two complex scalar fields, on which the $`N=2`$ SuperPoincaré algebra is realized. Introduce the light-cone Hamiltonian

$$P^{}=\frac{p\overline{p}}{2p^+},$$
(22)
where $`p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p^1+ip^2).`$ The front-form supersymmetry generators satisfy the anticommutation relations

$`\{𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_+^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{mn}p^+,`$
$`\{𝒬_{}^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{p\overline{p}}{p^+}},m,n=1,2,`$ (23)
$`\{𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2p\delta ^{mn}.`$
The kinematic supersymmetries are expressed as

$$𝒬_+^m=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+,\overline{𝒬}_+^m=\frac{}{\theta ^m}+\overline{\theta }_mp^+,$$
(24)
while the kinematic Lorentz generators are given by

$`M^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`i(x\overline{p}\overline{x}p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$
$`M^+`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p^+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$
$`M^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(M^{+1}+iM^{+2})=xp^+,`$
$`\overline{M}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}p^+,`$ (25)
where the two complex Grassmann variables satisfy the anticommutation relations

$`\{\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\overline{\theta }^m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^n}}\}=\delta ^{mn},`$
$`\{\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\overline{\theta }^m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _n}}\}=0.`$
The (free) Hamiltonian-like supersymmetry generators are simply

$$𝒬_{}^m=\frac{\overline{p}}{p^+}𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^m=\frac{p}{p^+}\overline{𝒬}_+^m,$$
(26)
and the light-cone boosts are given by

$`M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{x,P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p^+}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}},`$ (27)
$`\overline{M}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}\overline{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\overline{x},P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}}{p^+}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$
where

$$x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^1+ix^2).$$

These generators represent the superPoincaré algebra on reducible superfields because the operators

$$𝒟_+^m=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+,$$
(28)
anticommute with the supersymmetry generators. Irreducibility is achieved by acting on superfields for which

$$𝒟_+^m\mathrm{\Phi }=[\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+]\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(29)
solved by the chiral superfield

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},x^i,\theta _m)=\psi _0+\theta _m\psi ^m+\theta _1\theta _2\psi ^{12},$$
(30)
where the arguments of the $`\psi `$’s depend on

$$y^{}=x^{}i\theta _m\overline{\theta }^m,$$
(31)
and the transverse variables. Acting on this chiral superfield, the constraint is equivalent to requiring that

$$𝒬_+^m2p^+\theta _m,\overline{𝒬}_+^m\frac{}{\theta _m},$$
(32)
where the derivative is meant to act only on the naked $`\theta _m`$’s, not on those hiding in $`y^{}`$.

### 5.2 Coset Construction

The degrees of freedom of the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet in four dimensions appear as trivial solutions of the Kostant equation associated with the coset $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Let $`T^A`$ , $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$, be the generators of $`SU(3)`$. Among those, $`T^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`T^8`$ generate its $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ subalgebra. Introduce Dirac matrices over the coset

$$\{\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b\}=2\delta ^{ab},a,b=4,5,6,7.$$
(33)
The Kostant equation over the coset $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$

$$𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a=4,5,6,7}{}\gamma ^aT_a\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$

has an infinite number of solutions which come in groups of three representations of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, called Euler triplets. For each representation of $`SU(3)`$, there is a unique Euler triplet, $`\{a_1,a_2\}`$:

$$[a_2]_{\frac{2a_1+a_2+3}{6}}[a_1+a_2+1]_{\frac{a_1a_2}{6}}[a_1]_{\frac{2a_2+a_1+3}{6}},$$
(34)
where $`a_1,a_2`$ are the Dynkin labels of the associated $`SU(3)`$ representation. Here, $`[a]`$ stands for the $`a=2j`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, and the subscript denotes the $`U(1)`$ charge. Kostant’s operator commutes with the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generated by

$$L_i=T_i+S_i,i=1,2,3;L_8=T_8+S_8,$$
(35)
a sum of the $`SU(3)`$ generators and the “spin” part, expressed in terms of the $`\gamma `$-matrices as

$$S_j=\frac{i}{4}f_{jab}\gamma ^{ab},S_8=\frac{i}{4}f_{8ab}\gamma ^{ab},$$
(36)
where $`\gamma ^{ab}=\gamma ^a\gamma ^b,ab,`$ and $`f_{jab},f_{8ab}`$ are structure functions of $`SU(3)`$. The Euler triplet corresponding to $`a_1=a_2=0`$,

$$\{0,0\}=[0]_{\frac{1}{2}}[1]_0[0]_{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(37)
describes the degrees of freedom of the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric multiplet, when the $`U(1)`$ is interpreted as the helicity of the four-dimensional Poincaré algebra.

Is it possible to link this supersymmetric triplet to the others for which $`a_{1,2}0`$, while preserving relativistic invariance? Not all triplets can decribe relativistic particles, since their $`U(1)`$ charges are in general fractional numbers, leading to states that pick up strange phases after a space rotation by $`2\pi `$, while Fermi-Dirac statistics only allows states for which this phase is $`\pm 1`$. Only Euler triplets for which

$$a_1a_2=3n,$$
(38)
where $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, yield half-odd integer or integer $`U(1)`$ charges fit the bill. These Euler multiplets split into two groups, the self-conjugate,

$$\{a,a\}:[a]_{\frac{a+1}{2}}[2a+1]_0[a]_{\frac{a+1}{2}},$$
(39)
which contain equal number of half-odd integer-helicity fermions and integer-helicity bosons, and naturally satisfy CPT. The other possible Euler multiplets are of the form $`\{a,a+3n\}`$ with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$[a]_{\frac{a+2n+1}{2}}[2a+3n+1]_{\frac{n}{2}}[a+3n]_{\frac{a+n+1}{2}}.$$

Since CPT requires states of opposite helicity, these must be accompanied by their conjugates, $`\{a+3n,a\}`$, with all helicities reversed. If both $`n`$ and $`a`$ are even, each representation contains $`(2a+3n+2)`$ bosons and fermions, the fermions appearing in two different $`SU(2)`$ representations.

The helicities within each triplet are separated by more than half a unit, and they cannot be related by operations, such as supersymmetry, which change helicity by half a unit. Thus a necessary condition for supersymmetry to be realized is to include all triplets, leading to an infinite-component theory.

We also note that there are states in the higher Euler triplets with helicities larger than $`2`$. If they are to be interpreted as massive relativistic states, they must arrange themselves in $`SO(3)`$ representations, which does not appear likely. Otherwise they must be interpreted as massless particles in four dimensions, lealing with a theory of massless states of spin higher than two.

There are well-known difficulties with such theories. In particular, they do not have covariant energy momentum tensors, and it must be that in the flat space limit they decouple from the gravitational sector. Alternatively, the no-go theorems do not apply if there are an infinite number of such particles. The best argument against such theories is that no working example has yet been produced, but we hope such a theory can be formulated with an infinite number of Euler multiplets.

### 5.3 Grassmann Numbers and Dirac Matrices

In order to make contact with the supersymmetry of the lowest Euler triplet, we represent  the $`\gamma `$-matrices in terms of Grassmann numbers and their derivatives as

$`\gamma _{4+i5}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}𝒬_+^1,\gamma _{4i5}=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}\overline{𝒬}_+^1`$
$`\gamma _{6+i7}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}𝒬_+^2,\gamma _{6i7}=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}\overline{𝒬}_+^2,`$
in terms of the kinematic $`N=2`$ light-cone supersymmetry generators defined in the previous section. It follows that the Kostant operator anticommutes with the constraint operators

$$\{𝒦/,𝒟_+^m\}=0,$$
(40)
so that we can simplify its solutions to chiral superfields, on which these become

$`\gamma _{4+i5}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\sqrt{2p^+}\theta _1,\gamma _{4i5}=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}`$
$`\gamma _{6+i7}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\sqrt{2p^+}\theta _2,\gamma _{6i7}=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}},`$
The “spin” parts of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generators, expressed in terms of Grassmann variables, do not depend on $`p^+`$,

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}+\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}),`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}),`$
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}),`$
and

$$S_8=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(\theta _1\frac{}{\theta _1}+\theta _2\frac{}{\theta _2}1),$$

identified with the helicity, up to a factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$.

### 5.4 Linear Realization of $`SU(3)`$

The $`SU(3)`$ generators can be conveniently expressed on three complex variables and their conjugates. Define for convenience the differential operators

$$_1\frac{}{z_1},\overline{}_1\frac{}{\overline{z}_1},\mathrm{etc}.,$$

in terms of which the generators are given by

$$T_1+iT_2=z_1_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_1,T_1iT_2=z_2_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_2,$$

$$T_4+iT_5=z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1,T_4iT_5=z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3,$$

$$T_6+iT_7=z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2,T_6iT_7=z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3,$$

and

$$T_3=\frac{1}{2}(z_1_1z_2_2\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1+\overline{z}_2\overline{}_2),$$

$$T_8=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(z_1_1+z_2_2\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1\overline{z}_2\overline{}_22z_3_3+2\overline{z}_3\overline{}_3).$$

These act as hermitian operators on holomorphic functions of $`z_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{z}_{1,2,3}`$, normalized with respect to the inner product

$$(f,g)d^3zd^3\overline{z}e^{_i|z_i|^2}f^{}(z,\overline{z})g(z,\overline{z}).$$

It is convenient to introduce the positive integer Dynkin labels $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, for which

$$T_3|a_1,a_2>=\frac{a_1}{2}|a_1,a_2>,$$

and

$$T_8|a_1,a_2>=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(a_1+2a_2)|a_1,a_2>.$$

The highest-weight states of each $`SU(3)`$ representation are holomorphic polynomials of the form

$$z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_3^{a_2},$$

where $`a_1,a_2`$ are the Dynkin indices, since it is easily seen to reproduce the above values for $`T_3`$ and $`T_8`$. This describes all representations of $`SU(3)`$ as homogeneous holomorphic polynomials. Finally we note that any function of the quadratic invariant

$$Z^2|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2,$$

can multiply these polynomials without affecting their $`SU(3)`$ transformation properties.

### 5.5 Solutions of Kostant’s Equation

Kostant’s equation

$$𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a=4,5,6,7}{}\gamma ^aT_a\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$

now becomes two coupled systems of equations

$`(z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1)\psi _1+(z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2)\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3)\psi _2(z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3)\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
and

$`(z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3)\psi _0(z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2)\psi _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3)\psi _0+(z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1)\psi _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The homogeneity operators

$$D=z_1_1+z_2_2+z_3_3,\overline{D}=\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1+\overline{z}_2\overline{}_2+\overline{z}_3\overline{}_3$$

commute with $`𝒦/`$, allowing the solutions of the Kostant equation to be arranged as irreps of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generated by the operators

$$L_i=T_i+S_i,i=1,2,3;L_8=T_8+S_8.$$

The solutions for each triplet, conveniently written only for the highest weight states, are of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`z_3^{a_1}\overline{z}_2^{a_2}:[a_2]_{\frac{2a_1+a_2+3}{6}},`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_2^{a_2}:[a_1+a_2+1]_{\frac{a_1a_2}{6}},`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\theta _2z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_3^{a_2}:[a_1]_{\frac{2a_2+a_1+3}{6}},`$ (43)
where we have indicated their $`SU(2)`$ Dynkin labels. All other solutions in the same Euler triplet can be obtained by repeated action of the lowering operator

$$L_1iL_2=\theta _2\frac{}{\theta _1}+(z_2_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_2).$$

We now see how the triplets arise as polynomials of the same degree.

### 5.6 The Poincaré Algebra

It is easy te represent the Poincaré algebra on the Euler triplets. Starting from the more general representation

$`M^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`i(x\overline{p}\overline{x}p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}}+S^{12},`$
$`M^+`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p^+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$
$`M^+`$ $`=`$ $`xp^+,\overline{M}^+=\overline{x}p^+,`$
$`M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{x,P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p^+}}(\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}+S^{12}),`$
$`\overline{M}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}\overline{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\overline{x},P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}}{p^+}}(\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}}S^{12}),`$
and identify the rest of the helicity generator as

$$S^{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}T_8.$$

These act on chiral superfields whose entries are polynomials in $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$.

There is no difficulty in writing a free Lagrangian for these solutions, but one could contemplate writing a free Lagrangian for all the solutions at one fell swoop. For this, we need to consider a chiral superfield whose entries are arbitrary polynomials in the complex variables, but subject to the Kostant equation as a constraint. The action would be of the form

$$S=d^2x𝑑x^{}d^3zd^3\overline{z},$$
(44)
suggesting that the classical space includes the group manifold as well. The Lagrange density would then be built out of chiral superfields of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y^{},x^i,z_a,\overline{z}_a,\theta _i)`$, which satisfy both the chiral and Kostant constraints. Work is in progress to see if one can introduce interactions among these light-cone superfields .

## 6 Outlook

This example only serves to introduce the method we intend to pursue. The interesting case in eleven dimensions singles out the coset $`F_4/SO(9)`$. A similar procedure will lead us to consider light-cone superfields over $`4`$ copies of $`26`$ real variables, and eight Grassmann variables. The light-cone Lorentz group generators are now built out of the $`SO(9)`$ generators, of the form

$$L^{ij}=T^{ij}+S^{ij},i,j=1,2\mathrm{},9,$$
(45)
in which $`T^{ij}`$ generate the $`SO(9)`$ little group in the particular representation associated with each Euler triplet, and they act along the $`256\times 256`$ unit matrix. In particular, $`T^{ij}=0`$ for the supergravity multiplet, and the “spin” part is

$$S^{ij}=\frac{i}{4}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{16}{}}f^{ijab}\gamma ^{ab}.$$
(46)
Here the $`f^{ijab}`$ are the structure functions of the exceptional group $`F_4`$! In closing we note that the same coset plays a prominent role in the projective geometry associated with the Exceptional Jordan Algebra, leading one to hope in a new interpretation with $`SO(9)`$ as a space group. Details will be presented elsewhere.

I wish to think Professors Shifman and Vainshtein for their warm and wonderful hospitality, and the opportunity to meet some pioneers of supersymmetry, and re-acquaint myself with many old friends.


format: text

text:
# References

## Abstract

We propose a novel BF-type formulation of real four-dimensional gravity, which generalizes previous models. In particular, it allows for an arbitrary Immirzi parameter. We also construct the analogue of the Urbantke metric for this model.

BF gravity and the Immirzi parameter
R. Capovilla(1), M. Montesinos(1), V. A. Prieto(2), and E. Rojas(1)
(1) Departamento de Física
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del I.P.N.
Apdo Postal 14-740, 07000 México, D. F., MEXICO
(2) Department of Physics
University of Maryland
College Park MD 20742-4111, USA

PACS: 04.60.Ds

Real general relativity can be formulated as a constrained first-order BF-type theory of the form  (for an earlier alternative approach, see )

$$S[B,A,\varphi ,\mu ]=\left[B^{IJ}F_{IJ}(A)+G(B,\varphi ,\mu )\right],$$
(1)
where $`B^{IJ}=B^{JI}`$ are six real 2-forms, $`A^{IJ}=A^{JI}`$ is an $`SO(3,1)`$ connection, with $`F^{IJ}=dA^{IJ}+A^I{}_{K}{}^{}A^{KJ}`$ its curvature (Lorentz indices $`I,J,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ are raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{IJ}`$). $`G(B,\varphi ,\mu )`$ denotes a constraint quadratic in the 2-forms $`B^{IJ}`$. Its role is to implement that, for some tetrad $`e^I`$, the 2-forms take the form $`B^{IJ}=(e^Ie^J)`$, with $``$ the duality operator on Lorentz indices ( $`^2=1`$). When the constraint is solved, substitution back in the action of this specific form would then recover general relativity in its first-order tetrad formulation. For Euclidean gravity, we have $`\eta ^{IJ}\delta ^{IJ}`$, the connection is valued in $`SO(4)`$, and $`^2=+1`$.

The constraint is of the form

$$G(B,\varphi ,\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{IJKL}B^{IJ}B^{KL}+\mu H(\varphi ),$$
(2)
with $`\varphi _{IJKL}`$ a Lagrange multiplier with obvious symmetries $`\varphi _{IJKL}=\varphi _{JIKL}=\varphi _{IJLK}=\varphi _{KLIJ}`$. It has 21 independent components. Since this is one too many, as the $`B^{IJ}`$ have 36 and the $`e^I`$ have 16, one needs to impose some extra conditions on $`\varphi `$, via the 4-form Lagrange multiplier $`\mu `$, which sets $`H(\varphi )=0`$. The following conditions were considered :

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{IJ}{}_{}{}^{IJ}=0,`$ (3)
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{IJKL}\epsilon ^{IJKL}=0.`$ (4)
The solution of the associated constraints on the $`B^{IJ}`$ in terms of an arbitrary real tetrad $`e^I`$ leads to a modified version of tetrad gravity,

$$S[e,A]=\alpha (e^Ie^J)F_{IJ}(A)+\beta e^Ie^JF_{IJ}(A).$$
(5)
where for $`H_1`$, we have the four independent solutions $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ and $`\beta =\pm 1`$, whereas from $`H_2`$ one obtains the four independent solutions $`\alpha =\pm 1,\beta =0`$, or $`\alpha =0,\beta =\pm 1`$. Apart from the annoying sign ambiguities, the first term gives the Einstein-Hilbert action, and, at least for non-degenerate tetrads, the second term vanishes on shell.

These formulations have been put to use both in the Lorentzian and the Euclidean cases in the context of various real four-dimensional approaches to quantum gravity that have come to be known as spin foam models , or Feynman diagrams for gravity . These approaches were motivated initially by canonical quantum gravity, first in its complex version based on the Ashtekar phase space variables , then in its real version based on the Ashtekar-Barbero phase space variables . In the latter there is an arbitrary real parameter, which enters in the spectra of geometric operators, which has come to be known as the Immirzi parameter . It corresponds to $`\alpha /\beta `$ in (5). One would expect it to play a role also in these various four-dimensional approaches, but as their continuum analog is given by the BF models described above, this appears not to be the case.

The purpose of this note is to point out that the Immirzi parameter emerges naturally if one considers a condition more general than (3) and (4). This seems to have been overlooked in previous investigations. (This possibility was advocated first in , but at the time its relevance was not recognized.) We assume that, rather than vanishing separately, the invariants are proportional so that

$$H_3=a_1\varphi _{IJ}{}_{}{}^{IJ}+a_2\varphi _{IJKL}\epsilon ^{IJKL}=0,$$
(6)
with $`a_1,a_2`$ arbitrary constants. The previous cases are obtained as either one vanishes. We emphasize that this possibility is available only in four dimensions. In the BF formulation of higher dimensional gravity, there is no difference between (3) and the equivalent of (4) .

Variation of the action with respect to the Lagrange multipliers, and taking the appropriate traces, gives that the constraints on the $`B^{IJ}`$ are

$`B^{IJ}B^{KL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(B^{MN}B_{MN})\eta ^{[IK}\eta ^{J]L}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{12}}(B^{MN}B_{MN})\epsilon ^{IJKL},`$ (7)
$`2a_2B^{IJ}B_{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵa_1B^{IJ}B_{IJ},`$ (8)
with $`ϵ=1`$ in the Euclidean case and $`ϵ=1`$ in the Lorentzian one. It is easy to show that in this case the 2-forms are given in terms of some tetrad $`e^I`$ by

$$B^{IJ}=\alpha (e^Ie^J)+\beta e^Ie^J,$$
(9)
with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ arbitrary non-vanishing real parameters that satisfy $`\alpha ^2\beta ^2`$ (the case $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2`$ gives the special case (3)). It is only a matter of calculation to prove that this condition is necessary. For the sufficiency it is convenient to break explicit internal Lorentz invariance and express the constraints in terms of $`B^{0i},B^{ij}`$ ($`i`$, $`j=`$ 1,2,3), and the problem reduces to a set of constraints on three 2-forms, say $`B^{0i}`$, with (9) as its immediate solution. The ratio $`\beta /\alpha `$ is determined algebraically by the ratio $`a_2/a_1=(\alpha ^2+ϵ\beta ^2)/4\alpha \beta `$, as follows from (8). Substitution of (9) in (1) gives the tetrad action (5), with arbitrary Immirzi parameter $`\alpha /\beta `$.

When either $`a_1`$ or $`a_2`$ vanishes, we see by inspection of (8) that we obtain the degenerate cases in which $`B^{IJ}B_{IJ}`$ or $`B^{IJ}B_{IJ}`$ vanish respectively. This modifies (7), and the form of the $`B^{IJ}`$ is restricted accordingly.

It is interesting to construct the metric directly in terms of the $`B^{IJ}`$. Guided by its analogue in the self-dual case, which has come to be known as the Urbantke metric , we consider the two possible invariants, of weight two, cubic in the $`B^{IJ}`$,

$`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \alpha }{}_{}{}^{IJ}B_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{KL}\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^{\beta \nu }{}_{}{}^{MN}\eta _{IN}^{}ϵ_{JKLM},`$ (10)
$`^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \alpha }{}_{}{}^{IJ}B_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{KL}\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^{\beta \nu }{}_{}{}^{MN}\eta _{IN}^{}\eta _{JK}\eta _{LM},`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{IJ}=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }B_{\rho \sigma }^{IJ}`$, $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ denotes the spacetime Levi-Civita tensor density, and greek indices denote spacetime indices.

Using (9) the following is obtained

$`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`6\alpha (ϵ\alpha ^2+3\beta ^2)gg^{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
$`^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`3\beta (ϵ\beta ^2+3\alpha ^2)gg^{\mu \nu }`$ (13)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }=e^\mu {}_{I}{}^{}e_{}^{\nu }{}_{J}{}^{}\eta _{}^{IJ}`$, $`g`$ its determinant and $`e^\mu _I`$ the inverse tetrad. These expressions allow us to express the (densitized) metric in various ways in terms of the $`B^{IJ}`$. In the special cases of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ is enough one of the metrics $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$ or $`^{\mu \nu }`$. Considering that we are assuming $`\alpha ^2\beta ^2`$, the natural choice is

$$gg^{\mu \nu }=\frac{ϵ}{3(\beta ^4\alpha ^4)}\left(\beta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\alpha 𝒢^{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(14)
The Hamiltonian formulation of the action (5) has been performed in  for arbitrary parameters, and leads to the Ashtekar-Barbero phase space variables  (see also ). Alternatively, one can perform the canonical analysis directly from the BF action (1), with the condition (6), arriving at the same result .

We emphasize that the constraint (2) is what distinguishes a topological field theory (the BF part), from a theory with local degrees of freedom like gravity. It is crucial to understand how to impose it at the quantum level. In particular, our observation suggests that in current discrete models which use a triangulation of spacetime, the partition function should be extended to include non-simple representations associated with the triangles, and change appropriately the intertwiners. One expects that under this generalization, one would arrive at the same conclusion of the canonical approaches: a one-parameter ambiguity in the spectra of geometric operators such as area and volume.

Acknowledgements

RC and ER acknowledge partial support from CONACyT grant 32187-E. We thank J Zapata for useful criticism of an early draft of the paper.


text:
# Generalized WDVV equations for 𝐵_𝑟 and 𝐶_𝑟 pure N=2 Super-Yang-Mills theory

## 1 Introduction

In 1994, Seiberg and Witten  solved the low energy behaviour of pure N=2 Super-Yang-Mills theory by giving the solution of the prepotential $``$. The essential ingredients in their construction are a family of Riemann surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a meromorphic differential $`\lambda _{SW}`$ on it and the definition of the prepotential in terms of period integrals of $`\lambda _{SW}`$

$$a_i=_{A_i}\lambda _{SW}\text{ }\frac{}{a_i}=_{B_i}\lambda _{SW}$$
(1.1)
where $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ belong to a subset of the canonical cycles on the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the $`a_i`$ are a subset of the moduli parameters of the family of surfaces. These formulas define the prepotential $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ implicitly; here $`r`$ denotes the rank of the gauge group under consideration.

A link between the prepotential and the Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde equations , was first suggested in . Since then an extensive literature on the subject was formed. It was found that the perturbative piece of the prepotential $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ for pure N=2 SYM theory satisfies the generalized WDVV equations ,,

$$_i_k^1_j=_j_k^1_i\text{ }i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},r$$
(1.2)
where the $`_i`$ are matrices given by $`\left(_i\right)_{jk}=\frac{^3}{a_ia_ja_k}`$.

Moreover, it was shown that the full prepotential for simple Lie algebras of type A,B,C,D  and type E  and F  satisfies this generalized WDVV system111The generalized WDVV equations for $`G_2`$ are trivial. The approach used by Ito and Yang in  differs from the other two, due to the type of associative algebra that is being used: they use the Landau-Ginzburg chiral ring while the others use an algebra of holomorphic differentials. For the A,D,E cases this difference in approach is negligible since the two different types of algebras are isomorphic. For the Lie algebras of B,C type this is not the case and this leads to some problems. The present article deals with these problems and shows that the proper algebra to use is the one suggested in . A survey of these matters, as well as the results of the present paper can be found in the internal publication .

This paper is outlined as follows: in the first section we will review Ito and Yang’s method for the A,D,E Lie algebras. In the second section their approach to B,C Lie algebras is discussed. Finally in section three we show that Ito and Yang’s construction naturally leads to the algebra of holomorphic differentials used in .

## 2 A review of the simply laced case

In this section, we will describe the proof in  that the prepotential of 4-dimensional pure $`N=2`$ SYM theory with Lie algebra of simply laced (ADE) type satisfies the generalized WDVV system. The Seiberg-Witten data , ,  consists of:

* a family of Riemann surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g`$ given by

$$z+\frac{\mu }{z}=W(x,u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)$$
(2.1)
where $`W`$ is a particular function which is polynomial for Lie algebras $`A_r`$, rational for $`D_r`$ and contains some radicals for the exceptional algebras. Furthermore $`\mu `$ is a scaling parameter which plays a role in the physical theory, $`r`$ is the rank of the Lie algebra and the $`u_i`$ its Casimirs, which play the role of moduli parameters for the family of surfaces.
* a meromorphic differential $`\lambda _{SW}`$ on the surfaces, called the Seiberg-Witten differential. It is defined by

$$\lambda _{SW}=x\frac{dz}{z}$$
(2.2)
and has the property that $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{SW}}{u_i}}`$ is a holomorphic differential modulo exact forms.
* a particular subset $`\{A_i,B_i\}`$ containing $`2r`$ of a set of $`2g`$ canonical homology cycles.

From this data one can implicitly construct the prepotential by first defining

$$a_i:=_{A_i}\lambda _{SW}_j:=_{B_j}\lambda _{SW}$$
(2.3)
and noting that the period matrix $`{\displaystyle \frac{_j}{a_i}}`$ is symmetric. This implies that $`_j`$ can be thought of as a gradient, which leads to the following

###### Definition 1

The prepotential is a function $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ such that

$$_j=\frac{}{a_j}$$
(2.4)
We also define a system of third order nonlinear partial differential equations:

###### Definition 2

Let $`f:^r`$, then the generalized WDVV system ,  for $`f`$ is

$$f_iK^1f_j=f_jK^1f_ii,j\{1,\mathrm{},r\}$$
(2.5)
where the $`f_i`$ are matrices with entries

$$(f_i)_{jk}=\frac{^3f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)}{a_ia_ja_k}$$
(2.6)
and $`K=_{l=1}^r\alpha _lf_l`$ is an invertible linear combination of them.

The main result of this section is

###### Proposition 3

The prepotential satisfies the generalized WDVV system

Proof. We will prove that the prepotential satisfies this system by showing existence of the following:

1. an ‘invertible metric’ $`K`$
2. an associative algebra with structure constants $`C_{ij}^k`$
3. a relation between the third order derivatives of $``$ and the structure constants:

$$(_i)_{jk}=C_{ij}^lK_{kl}$$
(2.7)

###### Lemma 4

If conditions $`13`$ are met, then $`F`$ satisfies the generalized WDVV system.

Proof. Associativity of the algebra can be expressed through an identity on the structure constants

$$C_iC_j=C_jC_i$$
(2.8)
which due to 3 also reads

$$_iK^1_jK^1=_jK^1_iK^1$$
(2.9)
and multiplying by $`K`$ from the right gives the desired result.

The rest of the proof deals with a discussion of the conditions 1-3. It is well-known  that the right hand side of (2.1) equals the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential associated with the corresponding Lie algebra. Using this connection, we can define the primary fields $`\varphi _i(u):={\displaystyle \frac{W}{u_i}}`$ and

###### Definition 5

The chiral ring is an associative algebra defined by

$$\varphi _i(u)\varphi _j(u)=C_{ij}^k(u)\varphi _k(u)\text{mod}\left(\frac{W}{x}\right)$$
(2.10)
Instead of using the $`u_i`$ as coordinates on the part of the moduli space we’re interested in, we want to use the $`a_i`$. For the chiral ring this implies that in the new coordinates

$`({\displaystyle \frac{W}{a_i}})({\displaystyle \frac{W}{a_j}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_x}{a_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{a_j}}C_{xy}^z(u){\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{u_z}}({\displaystyle \frac{W}{a_k}})\text{mod}({\displaystyle \frac{W}{x}})`$
$`\varphi _i(a)\varphi _j(a)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ij}^k(a)\varphi _k(a)\text{mod}({\displaystyle \frac{W}{x}})`$ (2.11)
which again is an associative algebra, but with different structure constants $`C_{ij}^k(a)C_{ij}^k(u)`$. This is the algebra we will use in the rest of the proof.

For the relation (2.7) we turn to another aspect of Landau-Ginzburg theory: the Picard-Fuchs equations (see e.g  and references therein). These form a coupled set of first order partial differential equations which express how the integrals of holomorphic differentials over homology cycles of a Riemann surface in a family depend on the moduli.

###### Definition 6

Flat coordinates of the Landau-Ginzburg theory are a set of coordinates $`\{t_i\}`$ on moduli space such that

$$\frac{^2W}{t_it_j}=\frac{Q_{ij}}{x}$$
(2.12)
where $`Q_{ij}`$ is given by

$$\varphi _i(t)\varphi _j(t)=C_{ij}^k(t)\varphi _k(t)+Q_{ij}\frac{W}{x}$$
(2.13)
The fact that such coordinates indeed exist will not be discussed here. In terms of these coordinates the following set of Picard-Fuchs equations hold

$$\frac{}{t_i}\left[_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda sw}{t_j}\right]=C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{}{t_k}\left[_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda sw}{t_r}\right]$$
(2.14)
for any cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{A_i,B_i\}`$. These equations were derived by making use of the chiral ring, expressed in the flat coordinates, and therefore the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k(t)`$ appear. Making a change of coordinates to the $`a_i`$ and using the fact that the $`a_i`$ satisfy (2.14) one finds

$$\frac{}{a_i}\left[_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda sw}{a_j}\right]C_{ij}^l(a)\frac{}{a_l}\left[_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda sw}{a_m}\right]\frac{a_m}{t_r}$$
(2.15)
Taking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=B_k`$ we get

$$_i{}_{jk}{}^{}=C_{ij}^l(a)K_{kl}$$
(2.16)
which is the intended relation (2.7). The only thing that is left to do, is to prove that $`K_{kl}={\displaystyle \frac{a_m}{t_r}}_{mkl}`$ is invertible. This will not be discussed in the present paper.

In conclusion, the most important ingredients in the proof are the chiral ring and the Picard-Fuchs equations. In the following sections we will show that in the case of $`B_r,C_r`$ Lie algebras, the Picard-Fuchs equations can still play an important role, but the chiral ring should be replaced by the algebra of holomorphic differentials considered by the authors of . These algebras are isomorphic to the chiral rings in the ADE cases, but not for Lie algebras $`B_r,C_r`$.

## 3 Ito & Yang’s approach to $`B_r`$ and $`C_r`$

In this section, we discuss the attempt made in  to generalize the contents of the previous section to the Lie algebras $`B_r,C_r`$. We will discuss only $`B_r`$ since the situation for $`C_r`$ is completely analogous. The Riemann surfaces are given by

$$z+\frac{\mu }{z}=\frac{W_{BC}(x,u_i)}{x}$$
(3.1)
where $`W_{BC}`$ is the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential associated with the theory of type $`BC`$. From the superpotential we again construct the chiral ring in flat coordinates where

$$\varphi _i(t):=\frac{W_{BC}}{t_i}\varphi _i(t)\varphi _j(t)=C_{ij}^k(t)\varphi _k(t)+Q_{ij}\left[\frac{W_{BC}}{x}\right]$$
(3.2)
However, the fact that the right-hand side of (3.1) does not equal the superpotential is reflected by the Picard-Fuchs equations, which no longer relate the third order derivatives of $``$ with the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k(a)`$. Instead, they read

$$_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^l(a)K_{kl}$$
(3.3)
where $`K_{kl}={\displaystyle \frac{a_m}{t_r}}_{mkl}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)=C_{ij}^k(t)+D_{ij}^l\underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{2nt_n}{2r1}\stackrel{~}{C}_{nl}^k(t).$$
(3.4)
The $`D_{ij}^l`$ are defined by

$$Q_{ij}=xD_{ij}^l\varphi _l$$
(3.5)
and we switched from $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(a)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)`$ in order to compare these with the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k(t)`$. At this point, it is unknown222Except for rank 3 and 4, for which explicit calculations of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)`$ were made in  whether the $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)`$ (and therefore the $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(a)`$) are structure constants of an associative algebra. This issue will be resolved in the next section.

## 4 The identification of the structure constants

The method of proof that is being used in  for the $`B_r,C_r`$ case also involves an associative algebra. However, theirs is an algebra of holomorphic differentials which is isomorphic to

$$\varphi _i(t)\varphi _j(t)=\gamma _{ij}^k(t)\varphi _k(t)\text{mod}(x\frac{W_{BC}}{x}W_{BC}).$$
(4.1)
In the rest of this section we will show that

###### Theorem 7

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)=\gamma _{ij}^k(t)`$

Proof. Starting from the multiplication structure in (3.2) we find (see (3.5))

$$\varphi _i(t)\varphi _j(t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k(t)\varphi _k(t)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}D_{ij}^k\varphi _k(t)x_xW_{BC}$$
(4.2)
we will rewrite it in such a way that it becomes of the form

$$\varphi _i(t)\varphi _j(t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(t)\varphi _k(t)+P_{ij}\left[x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}\right]$$
(4.3)
As a first step, we use (3.4):

$`\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$ (4.4)
$`=`$ $`\left[\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_iD_i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nt^n}{2r1}}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\right)\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }D_i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nt^n}{2r1}}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$
The notation $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ stands for the vector with components $`\varphi _k`$ and we used a matrix notation for the structure constants.

The proof becomes somewhat technical, so let us first give a general outline of it. The strategy will be to get rid of the second term of (4.4) by cancelling it with part of the third term, since we want an algebra in which the first term gives the structure constants. For this cancelling we’ll use equation $`\left(\text{3.4}\right)`$ in combination with the following relation which expresses the fact that $`W_{BC}`$ is a graded function

$$x\frac{W_{BC}}{x}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}2nt_n\frac{W_{BC}}{t_n}=2rW_{BC}$$
(4.5)
Cancelling is possible at the expense of introducing yet another term which then has to be canceled etcetera. This recursive process does come to an end however, and by performing it we automatically calculate modulo $`x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}`$ instead of $`x_xW_{BC}`$.

We rewrite $`\left(\text{4.4}\right)`$ by splitting up the third term and rewriting one part of it using $`\left(\text{4.5}\right)`$:

$`\left[D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r1}}D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r1}}\right)D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$ (4.6)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D_i}{2r1}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }\left(2rW_{BC}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}2nt_n\varphi _n\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2rD_i}{2r1}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$
Now we use (4.2) to work out the product $`\varphi _k\varphi _n`$ and the result is:

$`\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{D_i}{2r1}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}2nt_n\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }C_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_i}{2r1}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}2nt_nD_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j`$ (4.7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2rD_i}{2r1}}\left[x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}\right]_j`$
We now use (3.4) again to rewrite the second term in the first line:

$`\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{D_i}{2r1}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}}2nt_n\left(D_n{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2mt^m}{2r1}}\stackrel{~}{C}_m\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right)\right]_j`$ (4.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2rD_i}{2r1}}\left[x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}\right]_j`$
Note that by cancelling the one term, we automatically calculate modulo $`x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}`$. The expression between brackets in the first line seems to spoil our achievement but it doesn’t: until now we rewrote

$$\left[D_i\underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{2nt_n}{2r1}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j$$
(4.9)
and we can now rewrite using the same procedure

$$\left[D_n\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{2mt^m}{2r1}\stackrel{~}{C}_m\stackrel{}{\varphi }+D_n\stackrel{}{\varphi }x_xW_{BC}\right]_j$$
(4.10)
This is a recursive process. If it stops at some point, then we get a multiplication structure

$$\varphi _i\varphi _j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\varphi _k+P_{ij}\left(x_xW_{BC}W_{BC}\right)$$
(4.11)
for some polynomial $`P_{ij}`$ and the theorem is proven. To see that the process indeed stops, we refer to the lemma below.

We note that the recursive process adds a matrix $`D_i`$ each time, and these matrices have a pleasant property:

###### Lemma 8

The matrices $`D_i`$ are nilpotent.

Proof. One finds  that the degree of $`Q_{ij}`$ is

$$\mathrm{deg}\left(Q_{ij}\right)=2r+12\left(i+j\right)$$
(4.12)
Dividing this by $`x`$, we get an object of degree $`2r2\left(i+j\right)`$. The $`D_{ij}^k`$ are defined through $`\left(\text{3.5}\right)`$and if we can show that for $`jk`$ we can’t divide $`\frac{Q_{ij}}{x}`$ by $`\varphi _k`$, we have shown that $`D_i`$ is nilpotent since it is strictly upper triangular. Since

$$\mathrm{deg}\left(\varphi _k\right)=2r2k$$
(4.13)
we find that indeed for $`jk`$ the degree of $`\varphi _k`$ is bigger than the degree of $`\frac{Q_{ij}}{x}`$ and since they are both polynomials we can’t divide the two. This finishes the proof of the lemma.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

In this letter we have shown that the unknown quantities $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k`$ of  are none other than the structure constants of the algebra of holomorphic differentials introduced in . Therefore this is the algebra that should be used, and not the Landau-Ginzburg chiral ring. However, the connection with Landau-Ginzburg can still be very useful since the Picard-Fuchs equations may serve as an alternative to the residue formulas considered in .


text:
# TURKU-FL-P37-01 Excited Q-Balls in the MSSM with gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking

## 1 Introduction

A scalar field theory with a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry can contain a class of non-topological solitons, Q-balls . A Q-ball is the ground state of the theory in the sector of fixed charge so that its stability and existence are due to the conservation of the $`U(1)`$ charge. In realistic theories, Q-balls are generally present in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model . In particular the scalar potential of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) has several flat directions  that can support lepton and/or baryon number carrying Q-ball solutions in its spectrum.

In cosmology, Q-balls can play a significant role in the phenomenology of the early universe. The Affleck-Dine condensate is unstable with respect to fragmentation into Q-balls so that the small perturbations naturally present in the AD-condensate lead to the formation of Q-balls . The fate of the Q-balls then depends on the supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking mechanism: if SUSY is broken by a gauge mediated mechanism they can be absolutely stable and contribute to the dark matter content of the universe , whereas if the SUSY breaking mechanism is gravity mediated, the Q-balls will be short-lived but can still have interesting cosmological consequences, e.g. they may explain the ratio of baryons to dark matter in the universe . The charge spectrum and the number of balls is dependent on the form of the potential and initial conditions of the AD-condensate .

After the Q-balls have formed, they will be subjected to the thermal bath of the early universe. The effect of the background clearly depends on how energetic the background radiation is and how strongly the Q-ball field couples to it. The temperature of the universe is hence significant in determining the importance of the thermal background for Q-balls.

Thermal effects on Q-balls have been previously considered via two different mechanisms, dissociation  and dissolution . Dissociation of Q-balls proceeds through the collisions of thermal particles with the “hard-core” of a Q-ball so that excess energy is transferred to the Q-ball. This excess energy can then overcome the binding energy and dissociate the Q-ball. Dissolution occurs due to the thermalization of the “soft edge” of the Q-ball leading to charge transport from the Q-ball to the background. In this work, dissolution and dissociation have been considered in the gravity mediated scenario by studying the time development of Q-balls with initial excess charge. The gauge mediated case has been studied by thermodynamical means in .

In addition to thermal erosion, Q-balls are also subjected to evaporation , where Q-balls lose their charge via pair production at their surface. The loss of charge through evaporation is generally much slower than that due to thermal processes so evaporation becomes effective only after the universe has cooled enough for the thermal effects to be insignificant.

The scalar potential in the case of MSSM with SUSY broken by a gravity mediated scenario is given by (omitting the $`A`$-terms)

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=m^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2(1+K\mathrm{log}(\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2}{M^2}))+\frac{\lambda ^2}{M_{Pl}^{2(d3)}}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^{2(d1)},$$
(1)
where $`d`$ is the dimension of the non-renormalizable term in the superpotential, $`m`$ is the mass scale given by the SUSY breaking scale, $`M`$ is a large mass scale and $`K`$ a negative constant of order one. The interesting cases for Q-balls are the d=4 $`u^cu^cd^ce^c`$ and d=6 $`u^cd^cd^c`$ directions in the superpotential. Q-balls in this potential are well represented by a Gaussian approximation , where the Q-ball field is approximated by $`\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})=e^{i\omega t}\varphi _0e^{r^2/R^2}`$. Here $`\omega `$ is the so called Q-ball frequency and $`Rm^1|K|^{1/2}`$. As can be seen from the form of the Gaussian approximation, Q-balls in the gravity mediated case have thick walls. Their charge-energy relation is well approximated by $`EmQ`$.

### 1.1 Dissociation and Dissolution

A particle with energy $`T`$ can penetrate a Q-ball up to a distance where its effective mass $`g\varphi (r)`$ is equal to its energy i.e. $`Tg\varphi (r)`$, where $`\varphi (r)`$ is the Q-ball scalar field and $`g`$ the coupling of the thermal particle to the ball. The thermal particle entering the ball will then lose some of its kinetic energy to the classical Q-ball field and come to a temporary halt. The excess energy transferred to the Q-ball can then be radiated as scalar field waves or lumps of charge, or some combination of these.

The rate of the number of particles hitting a Q-ball of radius $`R`$ in a thermal path of temperature T is

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(T)}{\pi ^2}4\pi R^2T^3,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}(T)`$ is the effective number of thermal degrees of freedom coupling to the Q-ball scalar. Typically we can set $`\stackrel{~}{g}(T)10^2`$.

The question of how much of the energy of an incoming particle will be transferred to the Q-ball was considered in . Assuming that the Q-ball field can reconfigure itself over a time scale of $`m^1`$, the Q-ball can typically absorb most of the energy of the incoming particle. Hence, in each collision an energy of $`\gamma _TT`$, where $`\gamma _T<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$, is transferred to the Q-ball. The rate at which energy is being added to the Q-ball by the thermal background is therefore given by

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\gamma _TT\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(T)}{\pi }4\gamma _TR^2T^4.$$
(3)
To avoid dissociation, a Q-ball should be able to radiate the excess energy as scalar field waves at a rate faster than given by (3). Otherwise, energy will be accumulated in the Q-ball until it begins to dissociate.

In addition to dissociation, a Q-ball can lose its charge by dissolution where charge is removed from the “soft edge” of the Q-ball. For $`T>m`$, the thermal background quarks have a much smaller mean free path, $`\lambda _{mfp}k_q/T(k_q6)`$ than the width of the soft edge of a Gaussian Q-ball, $`\delta rR/(2\beta )`$, where $`\beta =\mathrm{ln}(g\varphi _0/3T)^{1/2}`$. The charge contained in the soft edge is approximately $`Q_{\mathrm{soft}}4\pi \omega (T/g)^2(\beta R)^2\delta r`$ . The background quarks can therefore thermalize the soft edge of a Q-ball at high temperatures. The time taken for a charge to leave the soft edge by a random walk process is

$$\tau _d(\frac{R}{2\beta })^2\frac{T}{k_q}\frac{T}{4\beta ^2m^2|K|k_q}.$$
(4)
The rate at which charge can be removed then depends on how quickly the Q-ball can reconfigure itself and replenish charge in the soft edge. If the charge is replenished quickly enough, the rate of charge loss is $`dQ/dtQ_{soft}/\tau _d`$, where $`Q_{soft}`$ is the charge contained in the soft edge. However, if the Q-ball does not reconfigure and hence replenish the charge quickly enough, the rate of charge loss will be suppressed.

## 2 Numerical simulations

### 2.1 Preliminaries

To study the dynamics of excited Q-balls, they have been simulated numerically on a 2+1 dimensional lattice. Obviously, a 3+1 dimensional simulation would be more realistic but it is expected that a 2+1 dimensional simulation gives a fair approximation to the more realistic case while greatly reducing the required CPU time.

The equation of motion in flat space corresponding to the potential (1) is

$$\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+^2\mathrm{\Phi }+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }[1+\frac{K}{\mathrm{log}(10)}+K\mathrm{log}(\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2}{M^2})]+\frac{2(d1)\lambda ^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2(d3)}}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^{2(d2)}\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(5)
(We can neglect the expansion of the universe for our purposes since we are interested in the behaviour of a single, isolated Q-ball.)

Since our goal is to address questions relevant to Q-balls subjected to a thermal background radiation, it is necessary to consider exactly what to simulate while taking into account the numerical and practical problems that may arise.

Simulating the collision of a single particle of energy $`T`$ with the Q-ball is cumbersome due to the vastly different energy scales involved. In a realistic cosmological setting, the energy of a Q-ball is typically much larger than $`T`$. Keeping track of such a tiny change in energy would require a simulation where the Q-ball field is let to evolve at very high accuracy while keeping the time and spatial steps very small. This in order requires a large lattice and several orders of magnitude more time steps. Also simulating a single particle hitting the Q-ball is not realistic since a Q-ball in the thermal bath of the early universe is subjected to several particles interacting with it simultaneously.

Another approach would be to fully simulate both a generic background field and the Q-ball field. The difficulty in this approach is to keep the background field at a constant temperature at large distances i.e. to keep the system from reaching a global equilibrium state due to the smallness of the lattice compared to the Q-ball size. By using a much larger lattice this approach would probably be more feasible but would again require more CPU time. Hence an approximate method has been adopted: instead of simulating the whole thermal erosion process, we simply study the evolution of a Q-ball with excess energy added in the form of a random perturbation, $`\varphi =\varphi _0+\delta \varphi `$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the Q-ball field and $`\delta \varphi `$ is a stochastic term. Such a perturbation adds to the energy of the Q-ball while keeping the contribution to the charge small. The exact form of the perturbation is not important; the relaxation times are insensitive of how the extra energy is added to the Q-ball. For example, if energy is added asymmetrically, it has been noted that the fluctuations of the field quickly distribute around the Q-ball before excess energy begins to radiate.

After the perturbation is added to the initial configuration, the field is allowed to develop until the Q-ball becomes stable again i.e. excess energy and possibly charge is radiated from the ball. To avoid any excess energy and possible charge radiated by the Q-ball from entering the system due to continuous boundary conditions, the lattice has dissipative zones near the boundaries (to minimize back-scattering from the boundaries of the dissipative regions the dissipation term is increased gradually). For the numerical simulations the field was decomposed into real and imaginary parts, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)`$, and re-scaled along with the spatial and temporal unit, $`\phi _i=\frac{\varphi _i}{\sqrt{2}M},\tau =mt,\xi =mx`$. The parameter values we used in the numerical simulations were $`m=100\mathrm{GeV},K=0.1,M=10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$. The calculations were done mainly for the $`d=4`$ case but we have checked that the $`d=6`$ case does not significantly differ from these results. We have also verified that varying $`K`$ in the typical range $`(0.010.1)`$ does not markedly affect the relaxation rate. The lattice size was typically $`200\times 200`$ and the lattice parameters were chosen as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi =0.6,\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.3`$ (a number of simulations with varying values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ were done to ensure that the exact values of the lattice parameters do not affect the results).

### 2.2 Numerical results

We have studied numerically the relaxation of Q-balls for different Q-ball charges and excess energies. For each set of parameter values a number of simulations were run to account for the effect induced by the stochastic term i.e. a different seed for the pseudo random number generator in the stochastic term was used.

A typical relaxation process is shown in Fig. 1 where the amplitude of the scalar field is plotted. The initial configuration, with $`\omega =0.80m`$ corresponding to $`Q=9100`$ and $`E=7600`$ (in lattice units), is shown in Fig. 1(a), is put on a $`200\times 200`$ lattice and the field is let to evolve. Note that the images are not taken at equal time intervals: the time units at which snapshots are taken are $`\tau _a=0,\tau _b=20,\tau _c=40,\tau _d=990`$. From the figures it can be seen how the Q-ball quickly radiates the excess energy in the form of scalar field waves which propagate spherically from the ball. The waves are dissipated at the dissipation zones as they reach the boundaries of the lattice. Radiation gradually decreases and in the last panel one can see virtually no radiation. From Fig. 1(d) one can also note how the Q-ball has slightly moved from its initial position in the center of the lattice due to a spatial asymmetry present in the initial conditions.

The energy and charge of the Q-ball in lattice units have been plotted in Fig. 2. From the figure it can be seen how energy is emitted from the ball while the charge remains virtually constant, even though a significant amount of excess charge is introduced to the Q-ball initially. The slight fluctuation of charge at the beginning of the simulation is shown in the close up in Fig. 2(b).

To study how the energy is emitted from the Q-ball a number of different functions has been fitted to the energy curves. It is found that the energy curve is well described by

$$E(\tau )=A[\theta (\tau _0\tau )+\theta (\tau \tau _0)\text{e}^{\lambda (\tau \tau _0)}]+E_0,$$
(6)
where $`A,\lambda ,E_0`$ are the fitting parameters and $`\theta (\tau )`$ is the step function. The presence of a non-zero $`\tau _0`$-term implies that the excess energy first spreads around the ball before it is emitted.

The rate at which excess energy is emitted has been studied for $`\omega =0.78m0.98m`$, which in two spatial dimensions corresponds to Q-ball charges in the range $`Q10^{16}10^{18}`$ (note that smaller values of $`\omega `$ correspond to larger charges). The values of $`\lambda `$ have been plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of the unperturbed Q-ball energy (in lattice units). For each value of $`\omega `$ the maximum amplitude of the perturbation $`\delta \varphi `$ was varied, $`|\delta \varphi |a\varphi (0)`$, where $`a`$ was varied in the range $`0.010.10`$. The maximum value of $`a`$ for each $`\omega `$ was chosen so that the charge of the Q-ball varied less than $`1\%`$ from its initial value during the relaxation process. Ten simulations were run with a different initial stochastic perturbation for each $`a`$.

The amount of excess charge is obviously a function of $`a`$ and hence it varies greatly for each value of $`\omega `$. For example, for the $`\omega =0.78m`$ case, the values of $`\lambda `$ have been calculated for increases in energy between $`1\%`$ and $`40\%`$ of the energy of the ground state. However, as from Fig. 3 can be seen, the variations in $`\lambda `$ are small compared to the changes in energy. The values of $`\lambda `$ increase slightly with smaller energy so that smaller Q-balls radiate their excess energy more quickly than larger Q-balls.

We have also studied the effect of adding larger amounts of excess energy to a Q-ball. The time development of energy and charge of a Q-ball with perturbations of different magnitude for $`\omega =0.80m`$ is shown in Fig. 4. The ground state has charge $`Q_0=9100`$ and energy $`E_0=7600`$. From the figure it can be seen how energy still decreases exponentially even with very large initial excess energy. As the amount of excess energy grows, the Q-ball emits more charge along with the energy but still retains most of its charge in a single Q-ball. In the case shown in Fig. 4, more than $`75\%`$ of the initial charge remains in the Q-ball even if the excess energy is $`10^5`$. A Q-ball can hence survive fragmentation even with initial excess energies of the order of $`10`$ times its initial energy.

## 3 Discussion

From the numerical results we have seen that the energy loss experienced by an excited Q-ball is well described by an exponential function, $`\dot{E}_Q(t)=\lambda (E_Q(t)E_{Q_0})`$, where $`E_{Q_0}`$ is the ground state of the Q-ball.

To study the dissociation of Q-balls in the early universe we need to consider the energy increase due to the thermal background. Since the rate at which energy is being added to the Q-ball due to the thermal background is given by (3), we can model the energy of the Q-ball in the early universe by

$$\dot{E}_Q(t)=\lambda (E_Q(t)E_{Q_0})+\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(T)}{\pi }4\gamma _TR^2T^4.$$
(7)
Here we can approximate that $`R`$ is approximately independent of the charge (and energy) of the Q-ball, assuming that the energy increase is not large enough to dissociate the Q-ball.

The temperature, $`T`$, decreases with time due to the expansion the universe so that in a radiation dominated universe $`T^2tM_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and in a matter dominated universe $`T^{3/2}tM_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. In general one can therefore write (7) as

$$\dot{E}_Q(t)=\lambda (E_Q(t)E_{Q_0})+\frac{A}{t^B},$$
(8)
where $`A`$ is a constant and $`B=2`$ (radiation dominated) or $`B=\frac{8}{3}`$ (matter dominated). Integrating once with respect to time one gets

$$E_Q(t)=E_{Q_0}+(E_Q(t_0)E_{Q_0})\text{e}^{\lambda (tt_0)}+A\text{e}^{\lambda t}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑x\frac{\text{e}^{\lambda x}}{x^B},$$
(9)
where $`t_0`$ is now the time at which the Q-ball is formed.

The relevant features of the time evolution of Q-ball energy can be extracted from (7). As $`t\mathrm{}`$, the energy of a Q-ball tends to the ground state (assuming that the Q-ball does not dissociate during the process) i.e. $`E_Q(t\mathrm{})=E_{Q_0}`$. If there exists an extremum $`t_c`$, $`\dot{E}(t_c)=0`$, any subsequent extremum points, $`\dot{E}(t)=0`$, will occur at a lower energy i.e. $`E(t_c)>E(t)`$ for $`B>1`$. Hence the value of $`E(t_0)`$ determines the features of the time evolution of a Q-ball: If $`E_Q(t_0)<A/(\lambda t_0^B)+E_{Q_0}`$, $`\dot{E}(t_0)`$ is positive and the Q-ball energy will initially increase until the energy loss from the Q-ball exceeds the contribution from the background. The increase in energy is clearly bounded from above by $`At_0^{1B}/(B1)`$. If, on the other hand, $`\dot{E}(t_0)<0`$, the energy of a Q-ball will monotonously decrease with time.

If one assumes a situation where Q-balls are formed before reheating due to the inflaton decays and are approximately at their ground state, $`E_Q(t=t_0)E_{Q_0}`$, the energy of a Q-ball will initially increase, $`\dot{E}(t)>0`$. The temperature of the universe after reheating can be approximated by $`T(t)=\sqrt{\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{t}},tt_{\mathrm{RH}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/T_{\mathrm{RH}}^2`$, where $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}`$ is the reheating temperature and $`t_{RH}`$ is the reheating time. The maximum energy of a Q-ball clearly depends on the exact value of parameters. However, for typical parameter values, numerical work shows that for $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}10^210^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ the increase in energy is well approximated by

$$E_Q^{\mathrm{max}}(t>t_{\mathrm{RH}})E_Q(t_{\mathrm{RH}})+\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(T)}{\pi \lambda }4\gamma _TR^2T_{RH}^4,$$
(10)
which corresponds to the point at which the rates at which energy is emitted and absorbed are equal. Clearly, (10) is valid only if the Q-balls emit their excess charge quickly enough compared to the rate of energy increase due to the energetic background.

From the simulations we know that to significantly remove charge from a Q-ball we need to add a perturbation whose energy is comparable to the energy of the Q-ball itself. Therefore, to avoid significant loss of charge the energy of a Q-ball is bounded from below by

$$E_QmQ>\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(T)}{\pi \lambda \alpha }4\gamma _TR^2T_{RH}^4,$$
(11)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fraction of excess energy that is required to significantly remove charge from the Q-ball. Using $`Rm^1|K|^{1/2}`$, $`K=0.1`$, $`\gamma _T1`$ (i.e. all of the energy of an incoming particle is transferred to the Q-ball), $`\stackrel{~}{g}(T)100`$, $`\lambda 0.02m`$ and $`\alpha 1`$ we get

$$T_{RH}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\times Q^{1/4}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(12)
On the other hand, if Q-balls are still at an excited state at the time of reheating and the reheating temperature is low, the rate of energy loss from a Q-ball can be greater than the rate of energy increase due to reheating. The energy of a Q-ball can then be monotonously decreasing with time during the reheating process and dissociation due to the energetic background will not play a major role in the evolution of Q-balls.

In addition to dissociation, dissolution can also be a significant factor in determining the fate of Q-balls in the thermal bath of the early universe. For dissolution to be important the rate of charge loss from the soft edge, $`\tau _{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, must be smaller than the rate at which charge is replenished. The rate which a Q-ball can reconfigure itself and replenish charge in the soft edge now becomes important. The numerical simulations show that the Q-ball emits excess charge at a slow rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda m`$ compared to dynamical scale of the scalar field, $`m`$. One can then speculate that there is a suppression factor in how quickly charge is replenished in the soft edge, $`\tau _r(\kappa m)^1`$.

For efficient dissolution we need $`\tau _d^1<\tau _r^1`$ so that using (4) we get a lower bound for the background temperature for ,

$$T>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\beta ^2m|K|k_q\kappa ^1.$$
(13)
Using typical values, we get $`T>\frac{4}{\kappa }\times 10^3\mathrm{GeV}`$ so that the presence of a suppression factor can significantly increase this bound. For example, assuming that $`\kappa \lambda `$, we get $`T>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

At temperatures high enough for efficient dissolution, charge in the soft edge is replenished quickly enough and dissolution is efficient. The rate of charge loss is then given by,

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}\frac{Q_{\mathrm{soft}}}{\tau _d}=8\pi \omega \beta ^3k_qRg^2T,$$
(14)
where (4) has been used. Using $`T=(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/2k_Tt)^{1/2}`$ and integrating, the total loss of charge from the time of reheating until temperature has decreased to $`T`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q=8\pi \omega \beta ^3k_qRg^2k_T^1M_{\mathrm{Pl}}(\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{T_{RH}}).$$
(15)
The temperature at which the loss of charge due to dissolution is no longer efficient is given by (13) and hence (15) is bounded from above by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q\frac{2\pi \omega \beta \kappa M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{g^2k_Tm^2|K|^{3/2}}.$$
(16)
For typical values $`\omega m,\beta 4,g1,k_T17`$ and $`K=0.1`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q0.5\kappa (M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\mathrm{GeV})`$. One should also note that the rate at which charge leaves the soft edge of a Q-ball by random walk will in reality be less than $`\tau _{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ since random walk transports charges in all spatial directions and the rate at which charge drifts away from the Q-ball will depend on the gradient of the charge density. Furthermore, charge diffusion away from the edge of the Q-ball needs to be efficient to prevent charges being transported back into the Q-ball. These considerations can further suppress the dissolution process.

## 4 Conclusions

We have studied the effect of adding excess energy to a Q-ball by numerical means. From doing a set of simulations we have found that the excess energy is lost as $`E(t)e^{\lambda \tau }e^{\lambda mt}`$, where $`\lambda 0.020.06`$ in the studied parameter range. From naive arguments one would expect that the relaxation rate of the Q-ball would be of the order of $`m`$. The numerical simulations show that there is a suppression factor $`𝒪(10^2)`$ in how quickly Q-balls radiate their excess energy. We expect that this suppression factor would also be present in full 3D simulations even though the Q-balls are likely to radiate their excess energy slightly more quickly due to the presence of an additional degree of freedom. We have also observed the slow relaxation rate of excited Q-balls when studying Q-ball collisions .

In addition to the fact that Q-balls tend to radiate their excess energy more slowly than what one might expect, it has also been found that the Q-balls are surprisingly robust. Even when the excess energy added is a significant fraction of the energy of the unperturbed Q-ball and clearly exceeds the binding energy, $`mQE`$, only a very small fraction of the charge is lost in emitting the excess energy. Only when the excess energy is much larger than the Q-ball energy we start to see a significant loss of charge. One can gain an insight into this by looking at the effective potential of a single “free” $`\varphi `$ particle inside the Q-ball: the particle is typically in a deep potential well with a high barrier that also suppresses quantum tunneling.

On the basis of the small rate of radiation of the excess energy, one can speculate that also the reconfiguration rate may be suppressed. This would then reduce the rate at which a Q-ball can absorb energy from the thermal background and suppress the charge loss by dissolution. Especially the effect on dissolution is significant since a suppression factor in the reconfiguration rate affects linearly the lower bound for efficient dissolution (13) and hence also the upper bound for charge loss (16).

The slow relaxation rate and the robustness of Q-balls have an effect on how well they can avoid thermal erosion in the early universe. The slow relaxation rate allows for the excess energy to build up in a Q-ball but on the other hand the excess energy required to significantly reduce the charge of Q-ball by dissociation is large. In a realistic cosmological setting one should also take into account the effect of preheating due to inflaton decays and the decays of the remains of the AD-condensate. However, on the basis of the arguments presented in , preheating effects should not significantly affect the bounds for the Q-ball charge and reheat temperature.

Q-balls formed from the Affleck-Dine condensate can survive the thermal background of the early universe if the reheat temperature is not too large. On the basis of the results presented in this work Q-balls with charges $`10^{20}`$ should survive reheat temperatures around $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$. The question of how quickly a Q-ball can absorb energy and replenish charge in its soft edge can, however, change theses limits so further work is still needed to understand the exact dynamics of how Q-balls erode thermally.

## Acknowledgments

I. Vilja is thanked for helpful discussions and careful reading of the manuscript. This work has been supported by the Finnish Graduate School in Nuclear and Particle Physics.