text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been special interest in the bosonic counterpart of the neutrino appearing in supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the Standard Model , the sneutrino. This is due to the intimate relation of neutrino and sneutrino properties as regards the violation of the lepton number L: either both neutrino and sneutrino violate L or both do not . If L is violated, the sneutrino states in one generation exhibit a mass-splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$=$`m_1`$-$`m_2`$, independent of the precise mechanism which generates L violation in the sneutrino sector. The masses $`m_{1,2}`$ correspond to the mass states $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N`$, $`N`$=1,2 (without mixing in generation space, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes generation) which (in the effective low-energy theory) are the physical states instead of the weak interaction states $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L(\mathrm{}),\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L^{}(\mathrm{})`$ (degenerate in mass in the absence of L violation) . For the masses $`m_{1,2}`$ the relation $`m_{1,2}`$=$`\overline{m}`$$`\pm `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m/2`$ holds, where $`\overline{m}`$=$`(m_1+m_2)/2`$ is the average sneutrino mass.

Examples for the generation of a mass-splitting in the light sneutrino sector include the SUSY sea-saw mechanism  and bilinear R-parity violating models . In the sea-saw picture, below the electroweak symmetry breaking scale L violation is transferred from $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet sneutrinos to the light sneutrino sector. In models with bilinear R-parity breaking $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet sneutrinos mix with the Higgs sector and automatically violate L.

The amount of L-violation (or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$) is restricted by the kinematical upper limits on neutrino masses and neutrinoless double beta decay : the limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is very stringent for the first generation, but leaves room for appreciable L violation for the second and third generation (see the more detailed discussion in section 5). For example, the SUSY inverse of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ could be observable at a future muon collider . If the electroweak phase transition is weakly first or second order, a generation independent constraint on the mass splitting is set by baryogenesis .

A mass splitting also implies that the lightest sneutrino state may become the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and - if its mass is around 70 GeV - a candidate for the cold dark matter in the universe . This case should be easily discernable at a future lepton collider facility . In the absence of L violation the sneutrino cannot account for the cold dark matter in the universe . In collider experiments, L violation in the sneutrino sector could manifest itself by a wrong sign lepton stemming from the decay of a sneutrino in a lepton and a chargino : the electric charge of the lepton produced in the decay of sneutrinos (assumed heavier than charginos)

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^\pm \chi ^{}`$ (1)
may be of the wrong sign compared to the L-conserving case. In sneutrino pair production or associated single sneutrino production mechanisms the signal final state then contains a pair of like sign leptons (like sign dilepton or LSD). In the following, the LSD will be used as a signal for sneutrino-induced L violation and its cross section at proton and electron colliders will be estimated for different sneutrino production mechanisms under the assumption that R-parity is conserved. The LSD in a R-parity violating scenario (without sneutrino L violation) has been considered in ref. . In view of the constraints on the mass-splitting mentioned above the discussion will be focussed on L-violation in the second and third generation.

The most obvious channel for sneutrino production is pair production: $`f\overline{f}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in the $`L`$-violating case or $`f\overline{f}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L(\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L^{}(\mathrm{})`$ in the L-conserving case. Here $`f`$ stands for either leptons or quarks. At the TEVATRON (LHC) the pair production cross section for a 100 GeV sneutrino is around 30 fb (200 fb) , but drops quickly for larger values of the sneutrino mass: for a 300 GeV sneutrino the cross section is 0.03 fb (3 fb).

On the other hand, at a future electron positron Linear Collider (LC)  or at an accompanying electron-photon collider  the available energy in the center of mass system (c.m.s.) may be substantially smaller than at the LHC and the sneutrino pair production may be not available. In this case single sneutrino production has to be considered in order to gain some insight into the sneutrino properties. Examples of processes, where a single sneutrino of any flavour is produced at the LC or an accompanying electron-photon collider are:

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^\pm \chi _k^{}`$ (2)
$`e^+\gamma `$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+`$ (3)
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^NW^\pm \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^{},`$ (4)
where $`k`$=1,2 and $`\chi _2^\pm `$ is the lighter of the two chargino states. In R-parity violating frameworks, in addition to the mechanisms Eqs. (1) single sneutrinos may be produced in resonances or in two body final states both at hadron or lepton colliders .

The processes in Eqs. (2,3) can be regarded as the leptonic SUSY analogues of single top-quark production  in the SM. It should also be recalled that sneutrinos can in addition be produced with accompanying neutrinos and neutralinos, e.g. by the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\nu _{\mathrm{}}\chi _k^0`$, resulting in a final state very difficult to observe or not observable at all. Hence this possibility will not be considered further.

As the aim of this work is largely exploratory the attention is focussed on the value of total cross sections which are estimated at the energies the TEVATRON, LHC and a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC). Kinematic cuts, which may be specific of the particular detector and/or experiment are not included. These can only be implemented in a realistic MonteCarlo simulation of the signal with a parallel detailed study of the background which is however beyond the scope of this work. Nonetheless in order to have an idea of the observability of such phenomena the estimated total cross sections are compared to the (prospected) annual integrated luminosities of the TEVATRON, LHC and LC. The TEVATRON luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.8 TeV is $`_{}`$=2$`fb^1`$, the LHC luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}`$=14 TeV is expected to be $`_{}`$=10$`fb^1`$-100$`fb^1`$, and the projected luminosity of the TESLA LC project is  $`L_{}`$=300 fb-1 at $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 GeV, and $`L_{}`$=500 fb-1 at $`\sqrt{s}`$=800 GeV. It is also expected that the LC will be able to operate in the electron-photon ($`e^{}\gamma `$), photon-photon ($`\gamma \gamma `$) and electron-electron ($`e^{}e^{}`$) modes with luminosities comparable to that of the underlying $`e^+e^{}`$ machine (even higher in the case of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode) .

The outline of this note is as follows: In the next section we start with an estimation of the LSD via sneutrino pair production at the TEVATRON, the LHC and the LC. In section 3 the LSD produced in the reaction of Eq. (2) is presented and in section 4 the LSD triggered by the process in Eq. (3) will be considered. Since the reaction in Eq. (4) produces a more difficult signature due to the additional $`W`$ boson in the final state it will not be analysed. In section 5 the results are compared to low-energy constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and section 6 contains the conclusions.

## 2 The LSD in sneutrino pair production at TEVATRON, LHC and LC

The graph contributing to the LSD generated by the Drell-Yan sneutrino pair production mechanism is depicted in Fig. 1 and its amplitude is given explicitely in appendix A, Eq. (23). The LSD is induced by the L-violating sneutrino propagator

$`0|T[\stackrel{~}{\nu }(x)\stackrel{~}{\nu }(y)]|0={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik(xy)}\left[\frac{1}{m_1^2k^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\frac{1}{m_2^2k^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\right]},`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ is the total width of sneutrino mass state $`N`$. In the small width approximation $`1/(x^2+ϵ^2)\pi \delta (x)/ϵ`$ (for $`ϵx`$) the LSD cross section becomes

$`\sigma ^{LSD}=\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2)\xi ^{pair}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\chi ^\pm l^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\chi ^\pm l^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}},`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(\chi ^\pm l^{})`$ is the partial width of sneutrino mass state $`N`$ into chargino final states. The effect of L violation in sneutrino pair production is measured by the factor

$`\xi ^{pair}=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(m_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2)}{m_1^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2m_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2+\left[(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+m_1^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2\right][(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+m_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2]}},0\xi <1.`$ (7)
The factor $`\xi ^{pair}`$ is plotted in Fig. 4 for two sets of sample parameters defined in Table 1 and for different values of $`\overline{m}`$ as a function of the relative mass-splitting

$`:={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\overline{m}}}:`$ (8)
$`\xi ^{pair}`$ is of order $`𝒪`$(1) for $`𝒪`$(0.01) for moderate values of $`\overline{m}`$, whereas, for large $`\overline{m}`$, $`\xi ^{pair}`$ is of order $`𝒪`$(1) only if $``$ is of order $`𝒪`$(0.1).

Integrating over the parton distribution functions, the cross section in Eq. (6) to be expected at the TEVATRON and at the LHC is plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. (our results for the bare pair production cross section coincide with the results of ref. ).

The total sneutrino width is estimated taking into account only two body decay modes

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^{1,2}\mathrm{}^\pm \chi _j^{},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^{1,2}\nu \chi _j^0.`$ (9)
since it is assumed that the sneutrino is heavier than the lighter chargino. For the parameters chosen in Table 1 the difference between the average sneutrino mass and the charged slepton mass is smaller than the mass of the weak gauge bosons. However, for a large mass-splitting the heavier sneutrino may decay as $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^\pm +W^{}`$. Since the charged slepton usually decays with a large branching fraction into a neutralino-lepton final state, the L-violating signal would be slightly enhanced.

The final state charginos decay themselves mainly into the LSP neutralino and a fermion pair (to a small fraction charginos decay into four-fermion final states via gluinos or non-LSP neutralinos, see the detailed discussion in ref. ). Therefore the signal final states are

$`\text{LSD}^\pm +\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^\mathrm{`}+E/,\text{LSD}^\pm +\mathrm{}^{}+\text{ 2 jets }+E/,\text{LSD}^\pm +\text{ 4 jets }+E/.`$ (10)
That is, if both charginos decay into leptons the final state may be an exotic “double” LSD, e.g. $`\tau ^{}\tau ^{}e^+\mu ^+`$. In the SM, a LSD is produced in the decays of $`t\overline{t}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$, $`WW`$, $`WZ`$ and $`ZZ`$ pairs or a singly produced $`t`$, c.f. the discussion in ref. . The LSD in such events is, apart from a LSD in $`ZZ`$ production, always accompanied by jets, therefore the purely leptonic final states in Eq. (10) remain unaffected by such a background. The background from the decays of $`ZZ`$ pairs into four charged leptons of same generation is vetoed by requiring $`E/>2m_{LSP}`$.

As regards the semihadronic final states, provided that the velocity of the decaying sneutrinos is large enough, the background event topology differs from the signal topology: hadron pairs decay into an odd number of jets on each side, while the number of jets in hadronic chargino decays is even; the LSD in the decays of a $`WW`$ pair is accompanied by four jets on one side, the LSD in a semihadronic decay of a $`ZZ`$ pair contains four jets on one and two jets on the other side, and the LSD in the decay of $`WZ`$ is accompanied by one single lepton.

Conceivable SUSY background stems from decaying squark or gaugino pairs (in analogy to the SM background mentioned above) and decaying slepton pairs. Here the LSD in decays of non-LSP neutralinos into two charged lepton pairs may be eliminated rejecting events containing four same-generation charged leptons. The LSD in the decay of a slepton pair is accompanied by a one-sided lepton pair in contrast to a single lepton in the signal final state. In respect to semi-hadronic LSD production channels, the same remarks as in the SM case apply. It therefore may be concluded that the signal is virtually background-free.

At the TEVATRON, even in favourable circumstances the LSD cross section (Eq. 6)for the parameter sets chosen is, at most, of order $`𝒪`$(0.1 fb), see Fig. 5. Note that for large values of $``$ and small $`\overline{m}`$ the LSD cross section drops to zero since the lighter sneutrino cannot decay into the wrong sign charged lepton final state. Hence the resulting event rate at TEVATRON is less than one event per year and detecting a sneutrino-induced LSD seems to be virtually impossible.

Given the larger $`pp`$$`pp`$$`pp`$ c.m.s. energy and luminosity the prospects of detecting a sneutrino-induced LSD certainly seem much brighter at the LHC. Since the LSD is virtually background-free, one LSD event per year could be sufficient for detecting the effect. This in turn implies that for a LHC-luminosity of $`_{}`$=10$`fb^1`$ ($`_{}`$=100$`fb^1`$) a cross-section of 0.1fb (0.01fb) yields an observable LSD signal. Therefore for $`\overline{m}`$ not much larger than 200 GeV the LSD is observable (for both projected luminosities) for $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(10-3), see Fig. 6. Even for $`\overline{m}`$ as large as 600 GeV the LSD could be visible if $`_{}`$=100$`fb^1`$ and $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(0.01) (without L violation the LHC may search for sleptons not much larger than 350 GeV ). In section 5 the range of $``$ yielding an observable LSD signal is compared with the limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ from neutrino masses.

Finally, at a LC with a c.m.s. energy of 500 GeV (800 GeV) and for $`\overline{m}`$ not much larger than 220 GeV (300 GeV), the LSD cross section is of order $`𝒪`$(0.01 fb) (yielding an annual event rate of order $`𝒪`$(few/year)) for $``$ of order $`𝒪`$(10-3), see Fig. 7.

In section 5 the range of $``$ yielding an observable LSD signal at the LHC and LC is compared with the limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ from neutrino masses.

## 3 The LSD in the reaction $`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$

The Feynman graphs contributing to this reaction are depicted in Fig. 2 if the flavour of the final state sneutrino is either $`\mathrm{}`$=$`\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{}`$=$`\tau `$. If $`\mathrm{}`$=$`e`$, then further contributions similar to those examined in  (replacing the proton with an electron) have to be taken into account. The resulting cross section can be written as

$`\sigma ^{tot}={\displaystyle \underset{k,l=\text{I};kl}{\overset{\text{III}}{}}}\sigma ^{(k,l)}`$ (11)
where e.g. $`\sigma ^{\text{I,II}}`$ is the contribution from the interference of $`s`$-channel gauge boson exchange (Fig. 2-I) and $`t`$-channel sneutrino exchange (Fig. 2-II). The explicit expressions of the various contributions are listed in appendix B.

Since the graph in Fig. 2-III contains the derivative coupling of the $`Z^0`$ to the sneutrinos (see the previous section), its contribution is $`\beta `$-suppressed below the threshold of sneutrino pair production. For the sneutrino mass range considered in this section it is therefore always much smaller than the modes in Figs. 2-I and 2-II and in the following it is neglected.

The three-particle phase space integral of graphs can be split into two two-particle phase space integrals (see e.g. ref. ), so that the phase space integrals relative to the contributions in Fig. 2-I and 2-II (and their interference) can be evaluated analytically up to the integration over $`Q^2`$ to be integrated numerically, where $`Q`$ is the sum of the lepton and sneutrino impulses. We have checked, that using the small width approximation the three body cross sections $`\sigma ^{\text{(III,III)}}`$ and $`\sigma ^{\text{(I,I)+(II,II)+(I,II)}}`$ simplify in factorised expressions of the sneutrino and chargino pair production times the corresponding sneutrino and chargino partial decay width if kinematically allowed.

If the final state sneutrino is lighter than at least one of the charginos, the cross section depends very sensitively on the chargino width. However, in what follows the sneutrino will taken to be heavier than both charginos and their width will be neglected. In Fig. 8 the cross section Eq. (11) is plotted for the L-conserving case in terms of the final state sneutrino mass for two sets of SUSY parameters $`\mu ,M_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mu `$ is the Higgs mixing parameter, $`M_2`$ is the gaugino mass associated to $`SU(2)_L`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets) defined in Table 1 and for beam energies $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 GeV and $`\sqrt{s}`$=800 GeV. In the following the unification condition in a minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model $`M_1`$=(5/3)$`M_2`$$`\times `$tan$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_{W}^{}`$ is assumed unless stated otherwise. In the sneutrio mass region where sneutrino pair production is kinematically excluded the cross section is of order $`𝒪`$(0.1 fb) or less.

In order to estimate the cross section for the LSD, we use the L-violating propagator Eq. (5) and again apply the small width approximation. The cross section Eq. (11) becomes:

$`\sigma ^{LSD}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{single}[\sigma ^{tot}(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\chi ^\pm \mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}\mathrm{\Theta }(m_1^2\overline{s}_{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\overline{s}_+m_1^2)+`$ (12)
$`\sigma ^{tot}(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\chi ^\pm \mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(m_2^2\overline{s}_{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\overline{s}_+m_2^2)],`$
where

$`\overline{s}_+=\sqrt{s}m_{\chi _2}m_{\mathrm{}},\overline{s}_{}=m_{\chi _1}+m_{\mathrm{}}.`$
The definition of $`\overline{s}_{}`$ implies that the light sneutrino state contributes only if it is heavier than both charginos. Otherwise the light sneutrino may be produced by the decays of a real chargino and the width has to be taken into account (see the comment above). The L-violating factor $`\xi ^{single}`$ measures the effect of L violation in single sneutrino production and is defined as

$`\xi ^{single}=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+m_1^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2+m_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2}},0\xi <1.`$ (13)
The behaviour of $`\xi ^{single}`$ in dependence on $``$ is illustrated in Fig. 9. For the parameters chosen $`\xi ^{single}`$ is of order $`𝒪`$(1) for $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(0.1).

The LSD signal final states in single sneutrino production are the same as in pair production listed in Eq. (10), though the topology is different: the LSD lepton pair is one-sided, whereas in pair production it is back to back. Conceivable SM and SUSY background sources are the same as in sneutrino production, and in prinicple the same remarks concerning their suppression apply. However, the one-sidedness of the LSD in single sneutrino production is not inherent to any of the SM or SUSY background sources and itself provides a powerful criterium to distinct signal from background. Therefore again it seems reasonable to conclude that the signal is virtually background-free and we assume that an event rate of order $`𝒪`$(1/year) is sufficient to detect the effect so that for an integrated luminosity of order $`𝒪`$(few$`\times `$100 fb-1) a cross section as small as $`𝒪`$(0.01 fb) could be measured.

In Fig. 10 the cross section for the L-violating signal is plotted versus the relative sneutrino mass-splitting $``$ for the parameter sets as defined in Table 1 and for different values of the average sneutrino mass $`\overline{m}`$. The dominant contribution comes always from the lighter sneutrino state, and in extending the amount of L-violation it has been made sure that the lighter sneutrino is sufficiently heavy so that the widths of both charginos may be safely neglected. In the cases ($`\overline{m}`$=275 GeV; $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 GeV; set A) and ($`\overline{m}`$=450 GeV; $`\sqrt{s}`$=800 GeV; sets A and B) a relative mass-splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m/\overline{m}`$ of order $`𝒪`$(0.01) is sufficient to produce an $`L`$-violating cross section of order $`𝒪`$(0.01 fb). For the remaining cases ($`\overline{m}`$=350 GeV; $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 GeV; set A) and ($`\overline{m}`$=600 GeV; $`\sqrt{s}`$=800 GeV; sets A and B) the relative mass-splitting has to be one or two orders of magnitude larger in order to produce a visible signal. The range of $``$ yielding an observable LSD signal is compared to the low energy limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ in section 5.

## 4 The LSD in the reaction $`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,,(\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau )`$$`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,,(\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau )`$$`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,,(\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau )`$

In electron-photon collisions $`\mu `$\- and $`\tau `$-sneutrinos are necessarily produced by graphs at least of order three in perturbation theory. The dominant contributions to higher generation sneutrino production at an electron-photon collider are the ones depicted in Fig. 3, which, as mentioned above, are the leptonic SUSY equivalents to single top-quark production in the SM at an electron-photon facility  (the conventions adopted in this section follow closely those of ). For the production of first generation slepton pairs additional contributions have to be taken into account, replacing for example in Fig. 3-III the $`W`$-boson by a chargino and interchange the sneutrino and the neutrino, and similarly for the remaining contributions. The relevant SUSY interaction Lagrangian are :

$`_{W\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}}W_\mu ^+(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{},L}^{}\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L)+h.c.,`$
$`_{\gamma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`ieA_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{L,R}^{}\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{L,R},`$
$`_{\gamma W\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}eA^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{},L}W_\mu ^++h.c..`$ (14)
The gauge invariant amplitude consists of four terms and can be written as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{ieg^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=\text{I}}{\overset{\text{IV}}{}}}T_\mu ^iϵ^\mu (p_g).`$ (15)
The various contributions are listed in Appendix C.

Here it is not possible to factorize the phase space integral into two two-particle integrations as it was done in the previous section so that the phase space integration is performed numerically using the VEGAS  code. Following , in the frame $`\stackrel{}{𝐩}_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=\stackrel{}{𝐩}_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ the total cross section is given by

$`\sigma _{tot}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1024\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}+m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2}{\overset{s}{}}}𝑑s_2{\displaystyle \underset{(ss_2)}{\overset{0}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi \frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)}{s_2}||^2},`$
where $`s_2=(p_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N})^2`$ and $`t_1=(p_ep_\nu )^2`$. The explicit parameterization of the individual four-vectors in terms of the invariants $`s_2,t_1`$ and the polar angles of $`\stackrel{}{𝐩}_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ is given in appendix D.

However the $`e\gamma `$ option of a LC will be realized producing high energy photons through Compton-backscattering of a low energy laser beam with an high energy positron beam . Thus the resulting photons are not monochromatic and one has to fold the cross section of any $`e\gamma `$ process over a photon energy spectrum. It is expected that a photon collider will operate at luminosities very close to that of the $`e^+e^{}`$ machine. In terms of the variables

$`x={\displaystyle \frac{4E_{e^+}E_{Laser}}{m_e^2}}2(1+\sqrt{2}),y={\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{E_{e^+}}}`$
the photon energy spectrum is given by

$`𝒫(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[1y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y}}{\displaystyle \frac{4y}{x(1y)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4y^2}{x^2(1y)^2}}\right].`$ (17)
Here the factor

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{1+x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2x(1+x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x(1+x)^2}}+(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{x^2}})\mathrm{ln}(1+x)`$
normalizes $`𝒫(y)𝑑y`$ to unity. The resulting cross section applying Eq. (17) is

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}+m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2/s}{\overset{x(x+1)}{}}}𝒫(y)\sigma _{tot}(ys)𝑑y.`$ (18)
where $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is defined in Eq. (4). Assuming the mSUGRA relations for the slepton masses

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^2+0.07m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\beta M_Z^2`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^2+0.07m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\beta M_Z^2(2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W1)`$
The cross section Eq. (4) is plotted in Fig. 11 for the parameters defined in Table 1 and for two different values of the center-of-mass energy of the $`e^+e^{}`$-pair ($`x`$ was set to its maximum). The cross section is of order $`𝒪`$(0.1 fb) at $`\sqrt{s}`$=800 GeV and $`M_0`$ masses of order $`𝒪`$(100 GeV). For a more realistic center of mass energy of $`500`$ GeV the resulting cross sections are about an order of magnitude smaller. With luminosities as those projected for a LC of several $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 one produces several tens of single sneutrino events per year.

The process $`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,(\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau )`$ can also be exploited at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Here infact by taking the photon to be virtual the diagrams of Fig. 3 can be attached to the electron current thus describing slepton associated single sneutrino production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders The full process involving virtual photons (with possibly other diagrams) due to the fact that the photon is massless (its propagator gives a factor $`Q^4`$ in the squared amplitude if $`Q`$ is the virtual photon momentum) is dominated by small values of $`Q`$ i.e. quasi real photons and the full $`e^+e^{}`$ process is approximated by folding the cross section of Eq. (4) with a photon distribution function $`f_\gamma (x)`$. This is the so-called equivalent photon (Weiszäcker-Williams) approximation (E.P.A) which, quite generally, for any scattering process involving a charged particle in the initial state that interacts via a virtual photon, consist in approximating the full process by defining a distribution function for the photon in the electron of energy $`E`$. The Weiszäcker-Williams spectrum is given by

$`f_\gamma (x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{m_e}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1+(1x)^2}{x}}`$
and $`f_\gamma (x)`$ is interpreted as the photon distribution of an electron of energy $`E`$ i.e. the probability that an electron of energy $`E`$ radiates a quasi-real photon in the forward direction with energy $`E_\gamma =xE`$. The cross section at the $`e^+e^{}`$ machine is estimated using the following formula:

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}+m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2/s}{\overset{1}{}}}f_\gamma (x)\sigma _{tot}(xs)𝑑x.`$ (19)
Some examples of the results employing Eq. (19) for the production of second and third generation single sneutrinos are shown in Fig. 11. Again, for plausible values of slepton masses and center-of-mass energies the resulting total cross sections are of the order of $`𝒪(0.1fb)`$. Therefore, as in the production of first generation sneutrinos (see ref. ) the production of second and third generation sneutrinos at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider through the $`e\gamma `$ subprocess appears to be at observable rates provided that the LC will operate at the prospected luminosities of several $`10^{34}`$ cm-2 s-1.

Applying the procedure of the previous section, it is possible to estimate the rate of wrong charged lepton events coming from L-violating sneutrino decays. If the initial state lepton is a positron, the signal final states are (assuming the final state leptons being not too soft)

$`\text{LSD}^++\chi ^{}+E/\text{(for }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}+\chi ^0\text{)},`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{}^++\chi ^{}+\chi ^++E/\text{(for }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\chi ^+\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\text{)},`$ (21)
and the possible chargino decay modes have been mentioned in section 2. In the SM the second or third generation LSD in Eq. (20) may be produced in $`e`$-$`\gamma `$-collisions in at least 7th order of perturbation theory in the decay chain of a top-bottom final state (with additional CKM suppression). The rate of such a process is negligible even compared to the very low signal rate. The wrong charged sign lepton in Eq. (21) may be mimicked by the production of a $`Z^0`$-$`e^+`$ pair (the $`Z^0`$ decaying into $`\mathrm{}`$’s), when the charginos to a large fraction decay into the $`\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}\chi ^0`$ final state. The same reasoning holds for the SUSY background: e.g. the final state containing two charginos may be reproduced by the decays of a selectron and a non-LSP neutralino

$`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}^+\chi ^0,\stackrel{~}{e}^+\chi ^+\overline{\nu }_e,\chi ^0\chi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}.`$
If the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ decays to a large fraction directly into the LSP (thus producing a $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ final state) the background may be eliminated discarding events with only one $`\mathrm{}^+`$ in the final state. In the opposite case, a detailed analysis of the angular and energy distribution of the final state particles is required.

The resulting cross section for the LSD signal and the wrong sign charged lepton signal is plotted in Fig. 12 for different combinations of parameters. In the examples chosen, for a moderate ratio $`10^2`$ the L-violating signal may be observable only if both sleptons and charginos are light ($`M_0M_2|\mu |100`$ GeV ). For higher masses an appreciable signal is reached only for a large amount of L-violation.

Note that in mSUGRA the $`SU(2)_L`$-doublet charged sleptons are slightly heavier than the $`SU(2)_L`$-doublet sneutrinos. This fact renders the process discussed here less favourable than the process discussed in the previous section. Larger cross sections for single $`\mu `$\- and $`\tau `$-sneutrino production may be possible in scenarios where charged sleptons are allowed to be (considerably) lighter than the sneutrinos. Two examples shown in Fig. 13 illustrate this fact. For the parameters chosen, L-violating cross sections of order $`𝒪`$(0.01 fb) can be obtained for $`0.01`$ for higher values of $`\overline{m}`$ in respect to the mSUGRA case in Fig. 12. In the next section the range of $``$ rendering an observable L-violating signal is compared to the low-energy constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$.

## 5 Observability of the LSD SIGNAL in view of low–energy constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$

The results for the LSD signal obtained in the previous sections should be compared to the low-energy limits on the sneutrino mass-splitting. The most stringent bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ come from the smallness of neutrino masses: loops containing L-violating sneutrinos and neutralinos contribute to the Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`_{LL}`$ mixing the $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet fields . In ref.  a scan over a large range of the SUSY parameter space has been carried out and the following “absolute” limit has been derived from the upper limits on neutrino masses:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m(\mathrm{})<156{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^{exp}(\mathrm{})}{1\text{ eV}}}\text{ keV},`$ (22)
where $`\overline{m}`$ has been set to 100 GeV. Higher values for $`\overline{m}`$ result in less stringent bounds. This in turn implies that: $`(i)`$ a relative mass-splitting $`10^2`$ (yielding observable LSD event rates in sneutrino pair production at the LHC and a LC and in single sneutrino production at a LC) is compatible with a neutrino mass of order $`𝒪(10\text{keV}`$) and $`(ii)`$ $``$ being of order $`𝒪(10^3)`$ (yielding observable LSD event rates in sneutrino pair production at the LHC and a LC) is compatible with a neutrino mass of order $`𝒪`$(1 keV). It is interesting to note that a neutrino with a mass of order $`𝒪`$(1 keV) could provide warm dark matter without overclosing the universe . The current kinematical limits on neutrino masses are

$`m_\nu ^{exp}(e)<3\text{ eV},m_\nu ^{exp}(\mu )<190\text{ keV},m_\nu ^{exp}(\tau )<18.2\text{ MeV},`$
i.e. the kinematical limits leave room for an observable sneutrino mass-splitting in LSD events in the second and third generation.

On the other hand, the limit on the $`m_{ee}`$ entry of $`_{LL}`$ from the Heidelberg-Moscow $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay experiment  together with the preliminary results of neutrino oscillation experiments (for a recent overview see e.g. ) imply that all entries of $`_{LL}`$ should satisfy $`m_{ij}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}`$ eV . If the oscillation solution (requiring mass-squared differences between the neutrino states of order $`𝒪`$(1 eV2) or less) will be confirmed both for the atmospheric and for the solar neutrino problem, sneutrino-induced L violation will not be directly visible for sneutrino decay widths of order $`𝒪`$(1 GeV). If, on the other hand, the oscillation solution to one or both of the neutrino problems are not confirmed, several entries of $`_{LL}`$ are no longer required to be small, and neutrinos could still be much heavier than currently accepted.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out in ref.  that sneutrino oscillations could be observable even for neutrino masses of order $`𝒪`$(1 eV) provided that the total decay widths of the sneutrino mass states are very small. In the approach taken here this means that $`\xi `$ is of order $`𝒪`$(1) for very small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. As an example, this fact is illustrated for associated sneutrino production at a future LC: for a neutrino mass of 1 eV (corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$=156 keV) the L-violating cross section for set A and $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 GeV is of order $`𝒪`$(0.01 fb) provided that the sneutrino widths are of order $`𝒪`$(1 MeV), see Fig. 14 where the sneutrino width has been varied freely. Such tiny sneutrino widths are conceivable for a small mass difference of sneutrinos in respect to the lighter chargino and the LSP neutralino (still it has to made sure that the final state leptons are not too soft to be detectable). This is usually impossible in a mSUGRA context, where the LSP is considerably lighter than the lighter chargino, but in a more general context may well be possible. If e.g. $`M_1=M_2`$, it is always possible to find regions in the SUSY parameter space where the sneutrino width becomes very small and L violation may be directly visible.

## 6 Conclusions

In conclusion, L violation in the sneutrino sector of supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model may manifest itself by decays of sneutrinos into final states containing a like sign dilepton. Since the LSD signal is virtually background-free even very small event rates of order $`𝒪`$(1/year) could be observable at hadron, electron or electron-photon collider facilities.

At the LHC or a future electron linear collider (LC) with a c.m.s. energy of 800 GeV, an observable LSD is triggered in sneutrino pair production for a relative mass-splitting $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(10-3) if the average mass of the two sneutrino mass states $`\overline{m}`$ is not much larger than 400 GeV. At a LC with a c.m.s. energy of 500 GeV the LSD is observable for $``$ being of order $`𝒪(10^3`$) if $`\overline{m}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}220`$ GeV. At the TEVATRON, the LSD event rate is less than one per year for realistic SUSY parameters and therefore virtually not observable.

If $`\overline{m}`$ is larger than the c.m.s. energy available (e.g. at 500 GeV next linear collider), sneutrino pair production is excluded and associated single sneutrino production has to be considered in future collider facilities such as a LC or an electron-photon machine. For chargino-associated single sneutrino prodution at a LC, under favourable cirumstances (large branching fraction of the chargino-lepton decay channel and a relative low average sneutrino mass) one may expect about ten LSD events per year for $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(0.01). Under unfavourable circumstances less than one LSD event per year is expected. Then an appreciable event rate is possible only for $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(1).

For charged slepton associated sneutrino production at an electron-photon collider, in mSUGRA models the event rate of the LSD or the wrong charged lepton signal is very low for realistic slepton masses and $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(0.01). In order to produce a detectable event rate $``$ must be close to one. If the charged slepton is considerably lighter than the average sneutrino mass, an observable event rate is possible for moderate values of the mass-splitting.

L violation in the sneutrino sector induces radiative contributions to the left-handed Majorana mass-matrix $`_{LL}`$: $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(10-3) corresponds to a neutrino mass of order $`𝒪`$(1 keV), $``$ being of order $`𝒪`$(10-2) corresponds to a neutrino mass of order $`𝒪`$(10 keV). Such an amount of L violation is compatible with the kinematical limits on second and third generation neutrino, but not compatible with the limits on the entries of $`_{LL}`$ from the neutrinoless double beta decay combined with the oscillation solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems.

Acknowledgments

O. P. would like to thank the Max-Plank-Institut für Kernphysik, for the very warm hospitality during his stay in Heidelberg. The work of St. K. was in part supported by a Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (European Union), under contract N. HPMF-CT-2000-00752.

## Appendix A LSD in sneutrino pair production

The amplitude for the LSD in sneutrino pair production at a hadron collider is (see Fig. 1)

$`𝒯_{fi}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4\mathrm{cos}^3\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}V_{i1}V_{i^{}1}|𝒟_Z(s)|^2(p_{34}p_{12})j^{quark}j_{il}^{lep}j_{i^{}l^{}}^{lep}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`(𝒟_1(s_{34})𝒟_2(s_{12})𝒟_1(s_{12})𝒟_2(s_{34})).`$
Here $`j`$ are the quark and lepton currents and propagator factors are denoted as $`𝒟(x)=(m^2xi\mathrm{\Gamma }m)^1`$. The invariants are $`s_{12}=p_{12}^2=(p_i+p_l)^2`$, $`s_{34}=p_{34}^2=(p_i^{}+p_l^{})^2`$ an $`V`$ is the chargino mixing matrix. Note that Eq. (23) reflects the off-diagonality of the sneutrino-$`Z`$ vertex.

## Appendix B Contributions to $`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$

In the following individual contributions to the cross section for the reaction $`e^+e^{}\chi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\mathrm{}^{}`$ (Fig. 2) are listed for $`\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$. For $`\mathrm{}=e`$ further contributions have to be taken into account. The contribution of the Higgs exchange diagram has been neglected since it is proportional to the electron mass. The index $`i`$ corresponds to the final state chargino (for obtaining numerical results only production of the lighter chargino was considered), the indices $`j,j^{}`$ correspond to exchanged charginos. $`V,V^{}`$ stands for either $`\gamma `$ or $`Z^0`$ and $`N`$ is the index for the heavier ($`N`$=1) or lighter ($`N`$=2) sneutrino mass states. $`m_D`$ is the usual $`L`$-conserving sneutrino mass. The modification of the sneutrino propagator in the presence of $`L`$ violation has been neglected. Propagator factors $`1/\left[(M^2X)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^2\right]`$ are denoted by $`P(M,X)`$. The integration limits of $`Q^2=(p_{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}}+p_{\mathrm{}})^2`$ are

$`Q_{max,min}^2=(\sqrt{s}m_i)^2,(m_{\mathrm{}}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N})^2`$
unless noted otherwise. The total cross section is a sum of the contributions depicted in Fig. 2 and their interferences. The interference between 2-III and the other graphs is neglected since in the numerical examples displayed in Table 1 the contribution of 2-III is much smaller than the contribution from both 2-I and 2-II.

The contribution from ($`t`$-channel) sneutrino-exchange shown in Fig. 2-I is defined as

$`\sigma _i^{(\text{I,I})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}g^6|V_i|^2|V_j|^2|V_j^{}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q^2\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{Q^2},\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}}{Q^2})P(m_j,Q^2)}`$
$`\times `$ $`P(m_j^{},Q^2)(Q^2+m_{\mathrm{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)((m_j^2Q^2)(m_j^{}^2Q^2)+m_jm_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{})`$
$`\times `$ $`[\lambda ^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{s}},1)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(Q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)(m_i^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)}{(Q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)(m_i^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2s}})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}(2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2m_i^2Q^2)\mathrm{ln}F(Q^2)],`$
where as usual $`\lambda (a,b,c)`$=$`a^2+b^2+c^2+2ab+2ac+2bc`$ and the function $`F(Q^2)`$ is defined as

$`F(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(m_i^2\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Q^2m_i^2s)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^{1/2}(Q^2,m_i^2,s))`$
$`\times `$ $`(m_i^2\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Q^2m_i^2s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^{1/2}(Q^2,m_i^2,s))^1.`$
The contribution from ($`s`$-channel) gauge-boson-exchange depicted in Fig. 2-II is defined as

$`\sigma _i^{(\text{II,II})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{V,V^{}}{}}g^2V_{j1}V_{j^{}1}(g_V^Lg_V^{}^L+g_V^Rg_V^{}^R){\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q^2\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{Q^2},\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2}{Q^2})}`$
$`\times `$ $`(Q^2+m_{\mathrm{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}})P(V,s)P(V^{},s)P(j,Q^2)P(j^{},Q^2)`$
$`\times `$ $`G(Q^2)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2[\lambda (1,{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}})+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(m_i^2Q^2)^2}{s^2}})]`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[Q^2(O_{ji}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_V(O_{j^{}i}^{}_{}{}^{}L)^{}+m_jm_j^{}(O_{ji}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_V(O_{j^{}i}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_V^{}^{}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2Q^2s[m_j^{}m_i(O_{ji}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_V(O_{j^{}i}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_V^{}^{}+m_j^{}m_i(O_{ji}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_V(O_{j^{}i}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_V^{}^{}]\},`$
where the function $`G(Q^2)`$ is given by

$`G(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`[(m_V^2s)\{(m_V^{}^2s)am_V^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^{}b\}`$
$`+`$ $`m_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_V\{m_V^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^{}a+(m_V^{}^2s)b\}];`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`(m_j^2Q^2)(m_j^{}^2Q^2)+m_jm_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`m_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}(m_j^2Q^2)m_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(m_j^{}^2Q^2).`$
The lepton-gauge boson couplings $`g_V^{L,R}`$ are

$`g_{Z^0}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W),g_{Z^0}^R={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}(\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W)`$
$`g_\gamma ^L`$ $`=`$ $`g_\gamma ^R=e,`$
and the gauge boson-chargino couplings $`(O_{ij}^{{}_{}{}^{}L,R})_V`$ are

$`(O_{ij}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_{Z^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}(V_{i1}V_{j1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{i2}V_{j2}^{}+\delta _{ij}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W)`$
$`(O_{ij}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_{Z^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}(U_{i1}^{}U_{j1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{i2}^{}U_{j2}+\delta _{ij}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W)`$
$`(O_{ij}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`(O_{ij}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_\gamma =e\delta _{ij}`$
(Note that $`(O_{ij}^{{}_{}{}^{}L,R})_V=(O_{ji}^{{}_{}{}^{}L,R})_V^{})`$.

The interference between sneutrino and gauge boson graphs is

$`\sigma _i^{(\text{I,II})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}g^4|V_{i1}|^2|V_{j1}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q^2(Q^2+m_l^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{s},\frac{Q^2}{s})}`$
$`\times `$ $`P(j,Q^2)P(j^{},Q^2)P(V,s)\{(m_V^2s)[(m_j^2Q^2)(m_j^{}^2Q^2)+m_jm_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}]`$
$``$ $`m_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_V[(m_j^2Q^2)m_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}(m_j^{}^2Q^2)m_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j]\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{m_im_j^{}(O_{ij^{}}^{}_{}{}^{}R)_V^{}(\mathrm{ln}F(Q^2))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(O_{ij^{}}^{}_{}{}^{}L)_V^{}[\lambda ^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{s}},1)`$
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Q^2+m_i^2s)\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}(Q^2\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2)(m_i^2\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2)\mathrm{ln}F(Q^2)]\}`$
and the function $`F(Q^2)`$ has been defined above.

The contribution from the double sneutrino graph is

$`\sigma _i^{(\text{III,III})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}|V_{i1}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^6}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}s^2{\displaystyle 𝑑Q^2P(m_{Z^0},s)P(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l^N^{}},Q^2)}`$
$`\times `$ $`\lambda ^{1/2}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2}{s}})\lambda ^{1/2}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{Q^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _i}^2}{Q^2}})(Q^2m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[12{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2}{s}}2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda (1,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2}{s}})+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2Q^2)^2}{s^2}}\right].`$
The integration limits are $`Q_{min}^2=(m_{\mathrm{}}+m_{\chi _i})^2`$ and $`Q_{max}^2=(\sqrt{s}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N})^2`$. Note that $`NN^{}`$ due to the off-diagonality of the $`Z^0\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ vertex.

## Appendix C Contributions to $`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$$`e^+\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\overline{\nu }_e,\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau `$

The indivual amplitudes of the graphs shown in Fig. 3 are given by

$`T_\mu ^{(I)}`$ $`=`$ $`D(s_2)D(t_1)j^\alpha (p_{})_\beta (g^{\beta \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{Q^\beta Q^\nu }{m_W^2}})S_{\mu \nu \alpha },`$
$`T_\mu ^{(II)}`$ $`=`$ $`D(s_2)(p_{})_\alpha (g^{\alpha \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{Q^\alpha Q^\nu }{m_W^2}})\overline{v}(p_e)\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(p_g/+p_e/)}{s}}\gamma _\nu P_Lv(p_\nu ),`$
$`T_\mu ^{(III)}`$ $`=`$ $`D(t_1)j_\mu ,`$
$`T_\mu ^{(IV)}`$ $`=`$ $`D(t_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2K^2}}j^\alpha [K_\mu K_\alpha +(p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l^N})_\alpha (Kp_{\stackrel{~}{l}})_\mu (p_{\stackrel{~}{l}})_\mu K_\alpha ].`$
The sum of the first and the third contribution can be simplified to give

$`(T^{(I)}+T^{(III)})_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`D(s_2)D(t_1)j^\alpha p_{}^\beta 2(g_{\alpha \beta }P_\mu +g_{\mu \alpha }(p_g)_\beta g_{\mu \beta }(p_g)_\alpha )`$
$`+`$ $`D(s_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}p_{}^\alpha \overline{v}(p_e)\gamma _\mu (p_g/+p_e/)\gamma _\alpha P_Lv(p_\nu ).`$
Here we have defined

$`p_{}=p_{\stackrel{~}{l}}p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l^N},K=p_gp_{\stackrel{~}{l}},Q=p_{\stackrel{~}{l}}+p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l^N},P=p_ep_\nu ,t_1=P^2,s_2=Q^2,`$
$`j^\alpha =\overline{v}(p_e)\gamma ^\alpha P_Lv(p_{\overline{\nu }}),S_{\mu \nu \alpha }=g_{\alpha \nu }(P+Q)_\mu +g_{\mu \alpha }(Pp_g)_\nu +g_{\mu \nu }(Q+p_g)_\alpha ,`$
$`D(s_2)=(m_W^2s_2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_Wm_W)^1,D(t_1)=(m_W^2t_1)^1.`$
Replacing in  the quark charges $`e_t,e_b`$ by 0, 1 respectively and the quark current $`J_{quark}^\mu `$ by $`p_{}^\mu =p_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}`$ (stemming from the derivative $`W\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ coupling) leads to the equivalent expressions of the amplitudes $`T_\lambda ^{(\text{III})},T_\lambda ^{(\text{IV})}`$ in . A subtlety known from scalar electrodynamics arises in the calculation of the time ordered product of the propagators of the exchanged scalar fields. Here the additional contribution from taking the partial derivatives out of the time ordered product is cancelled by the $`W\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ four point vertex.

## Appendix D Four-vector parametrization in terms of two invariants and two angles

In order to carry out the numerical phase space integration in the process $`e\gamma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N\overline{\nu }_e`$ following  the four-vectors in the process can be parametrized in terms of two invariants (see appendix C) and one solid angle as

$`p_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }+(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{s_2t_1}{ss_2}})^2\right]^{1/2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\\ 0\\ {\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{s_2t_1}{ss_2}}\right]\end{array}\right),p_e=\left(\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{s_2t_1}{2\sqrt{s}}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ {\displaystyle \frac{s_2t_1}{2\sqrt{s}}}\end{array}\right),`$ (32)
$`p_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\\ 0\\ \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{ss_2}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\end{array}\right),p_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left[m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)}{4s_2}}\right]^{1/2}\\ {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{s_2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)`$ (41)
$`p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^N}^2,m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)}{4s_2}}\right]^{1/2}\\ \stackrel{}{𝐩}_3\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ss_2)(s_2t_1)2s_2(ss_2t_1)}{(s_2t_1)(ss_2)}}.`$


format: text

text:
# IMSC/2001/02/08hep-th/0102017 Wave Functionals, Gauge Invariant Equations for Massive Modes and the Born-Infeld Equation in the Loop Variable Approach to String Theory.

## 1 Introduction

One of the outstanding issues in string theory is that of understanding the fundamental symmetry principle underlying it. These symmetries are partly manifested in the gauge invariance of the theory and also in the duality symmetries such as T-duality and S-duality. A formulation that manifests some of these symmetries would be invaluable. The BRST formulation of string field theory solves the technical problem of constructing a gauge invariant action -. Nevertheless a space-time interpretation is obscured by the heavy reliance on world sheet BRST properties. The sigma model approach -is somewhat more geometrical, but the issue of understanding gauge invariance or of going off-shell is rife with difficulty. Some progress on this has been recently achieved . The loop variable approach motivated by the sigma model was used to obtain the free equations of motion in a simple manner . It had the added advantage that the gauge transformations had a simple space-time interpretation of being scale transformations. Speculations on the symmetry principle of string theory are also contained in . More recently, in papers  (hereafter I and II respectively) we had discussed a loop variable approach to gauge invariant string interactions. In this paper we describe some concrete applications of this method.

The basic idea of the loop variable approach is to describe the space time fields in string theory, using a generalized Fourier transform, in terms of a “wave functional” $`\mathrm{\Psi }[k(s)]`$. On mode expanding, the wave functional becomes a function $`\mathrm{\Psi }[k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n,\mathrm{}]`$, where $`n`$ runs over all natural numbers. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[X(z+s)]=𝒟k(s)e^{i_c𝑑sX(z+s)k(s)}\mathrm{\Psi }[k(s)]$$
(1.0.1)
The free equations of motion are obtained by working with the the loop variable $`e^{i_c𝑑sX(z+s)k(s)}`$. Actually the modified loop variable $`e^{ia_ck(s)_zX(z+as)ds+ik_0X(z)}`$ was used earlier and is more appropriate for our purposes . The gauge transformation is given by

$$k(s)k(s)\lambda (s).$$
(1.0.2)
The interacting equation was obtained by broadening the loop to a band whose width is parametrized by $`t`$, so that $`k_1`$’s at different $`t`$ correspond to different strings and at the same $`t`$ would correspond to the same string. The loop variable thus takes the form:

$`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t_ck(s,t)_zX(z+s,t)ds}+i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tk_0(t)X(t)}}`$
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }[k(s,t)]`$ is the form of the wave functional. Now the fully interacting gauge transformation is

$$k(t,s)𝑑t^{}\lambda (t^{},s)k(t,s).$$
(1.0.3)
An important feature is that this symmetry does not depend on world sheet properties and holds even when there is a short distance cutoff on the world sheet.

On mode expanding the wave functional qq becomes $`\mathrm{\Psi }[k_1(t),k_2(t),\mathrm{}k_n(t),\mathrm{}]`$. This is described in detail in I and II. The wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ was assumed to have certain properties defined below, but beyond that, was not discussed at all. In Sec 2 of this paper we discuss $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. We give an explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. A wave functional with these properties can describe the perturbative equations of motion. In Section 3 and Section 4 we work out the equation for the first massive mode of the string interacting with electromagnetism. This equation is valid off the free mass shell also. The full equation has an infinite number of terms involving all the massive modes. We keep only the massless and first massive modes. We also show the gauge invariance to leading order in momenta and explain the role of the higher modes in preserving gauge invariance in higher orders.

However if one wants to describe non perturbative equations with some specific functional form for the fields, other forms of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are required. An example is the Born-Infeld equation, describing uniform field strengths . In Section 5 we give a construction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for this situation as well. In this approach, $`z`$, the position of the vertex operator, is also labelled by $`t`$, i.e. $`z(t)`$. Since $`z`$ is real for an open string, it is possible to let $`z(t)=t`$. This is done in this paper and one makes more direct contact with the open string sigma-model or boundary string field theory approaches .

## 2 $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for Perturbation Theory

Let us recollect the basic properties required of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t)]=\underset{t}{}\delta (k_0(t))$$

In position space this equation would read:

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t)]=[\underset{n0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tk_0(t)X(t)}}\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t)]=1$$

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]k_1^\mu (t_1)\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t)]=A^\mu (k_0(t_1))\underset{tt_1}{}\delta (k_0(t))$$

In position space:

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]k_1^\mu (t_1)\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t)]=A^\mu (X(t_1)),$$

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]k_1^\mu (t_1)k_1^\nu (t_2)\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t)]=A^\mu (k_0(t_1))A^\nu (k_0(t_2))\underset{tt_1,t_2}{}\delta (k_0(t))$$

$$+\delta (t_1t_2)S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(t_1))\underset{tt_1}{}\delta (k_0(t)).$$
(2.0.1)
In position space:

$$[\underset{n>0}{}𝒟k_n(t)]k_1^\mu (t_1)k_1^\nu (t_2)\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t)]=A^\mu (X(t_1))A^\nu (X(t_2))$$

$$+\delta (t_1t_2)S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(X(t_1)).$$
(2.0.2)
A word on the notation used in these equations: $`k_0(t)`$ refers to the momentum of the vertex operator located at the point $`z(t)`$($`=t`$ in this paper). $`t`$ is only a label. Thus while $`X(t)`$ is a non-trivial function of $`t`$, $`k_0(t)`$ is not. Further in the end all momenta are integrated over. Thus $`k_0(t)`$ is only an integration variable: $`𝑑k_0(t)\varphi (k_0(t))e^{ik_0(t)X}=\varphi (X)`$. It also follows that $`\varphi (k_0(t))`$ is not explicitly or implicitly a function of $`t`$.

We can easily construct a wave functional, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, with these properties. Let us first set $`S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }=0`$. Then the solution is very simple:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t)]=\underset{t,\mu }{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t))]\underset{t,n>0,\mu }{}\delta [k_n^\mu (t)]$$
(2.0.3)
In momentum space one can write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t)]=𝒟X(t)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tk_0(t)X(t)}}\underset{t,\mu }{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t))]\underset{t,n>0,\mu }{}\delta [k_n^\mu (t)]$$
(2.0.4)
The generalization, to include the massive modes, $`S_n^\mu ,n>1`$ is obvious.

One can easily check that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies (2.0.2). To make sense of the product over $`t`$, one has to regularise. This is done below.

Let us introduce $`S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }`$. This can be done by broadening the delta function to include a non-trivial two-point function. Let us first discretise the parameter $`t`$ and set $`t=na`$ where $`n𝐙`$ and $`a`$ is a regulator. Then the wave functional

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_1(t),k_m(t),X(t)]=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\underset{n=N/2}{\overset{N/2}{}}\frac{\underset{m>0}{}\delta [k_m(n)]}{\sqrt{\frac{2\pi S_{1,1}(X(n))}{a}}}]e^{_{n=N/2}^{N/2}\frac{[k_1(n)A_1(X(n))]^2a}{2S_{1,1}(X(n))}}$$
(2.0.5)
This satisfies

$$k_1(n_1)=A(X(n_1))$$

$$k_1(n_1)k_1(n_2)k_1(n_1)k_1(n_2)=S_{1,1}(X(n_1))\frac{\delta _{n_1,n_2}}{a}$$
(2.0.6)
where $`\mathrm{}=[_{n>0}𝒟k_n]\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }[k_n(t),X(t)]`$.

We can Fourier transform $`X(n)`$ and write down the momentum space wave functional

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_1(t),k_m(t),k_0(t)]=$$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\underset{n=N/2}{\overset{N/2}{}}dX(n)e^{iak_0(n)X(n)}\frac{\underset{m>0}{}\delta [k_m(n)]}{\sqrt{\frac{2\pi S_{1,1}(X(n))}{a}}}]e^{_{n=N/2}^{N/2}\frac{[k_1(n)A_1(X(n))]^2a}{2S_{1,1}(X(n))}}$$
(2.0.7)
From (2.0.7) it is clear that the momentum variable conjugate to $`X(n)`$ is $`ak_0(n)`$ and thus in the inverse Fourier transform, the measure $`𝒟k_0(t)`$ is to be interpreted as $`_n(adk_0(n))`$. Let us call $`ak_0=\overline{k_0}`$

If we define in the usual way

$$𝑑Xe^{ikX}A(X)=A(k)$$

Then

$$𝑑Xe^{iakX}A(X)=A(ak)=A(\overline{k_0})$$

The wave functional (2.0.7) satisfies

$$k_1^\mu (n_1)k_0^\nu (n_2)=A^\mu (\overline{k_0}(n_1))\overline{k_0}^\nu (n_1)\frac{\delta _{n_1,n_2}}{a}\underset{nn_1}{}\delta [\overline{k_0}(n)].$$

Here $`\overline{k_0}`$ is the (physical) momentum conjugate to the position. Since the measure of integration is also $`d\overline{k_0}`$ this overall factor of $`a`$ is not important.

Note also that in momentum space,

$$1=\underset{n}{}\delta [\overline{k_0}(n)],$$

This is the regularized version of the first equation in (2.0.1), which is the statement that the vacuum is translationally invariant. 111We have set the tachyon field to zero in this paper

We can also include the gauge transformations of the loop variable by incorporating $`\lambda _1(t),\lambda _2(t)\mathrm{}`$into the wave functional. Let us consider (2.0.3).

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t)]=\underset{t,\mu }{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t))]\underset{t,n>0,\mu }{}\delta [k_n^\mu (t)]$$

One can incorporate $`\lambda _1(t)`$ by adding a delta function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t),\lambda _1(t)]=\underset{t,\mu }{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t))]\underset{t}{}\delta [\lambda _1(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(X(t))]$$
(2.0.8)
In momentum space

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_n(t),\lambda _1(t)]=𝒟X(t)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tk_0(t)X(t)}}\mathrm{\Psi }[X(t),k_n(t),\lambda _1(t)]$$

Regularization is understood and has not been explicitly shown.

The above wave functional satisfies

$$\lambda _1(n_1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{k_0}(n_1))$$

$$\lambda _1(n_1)k_0^\mu (n_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{k_0}(n_1))\overline{k_0}^\mu (n_2)\frac{\delta _{n_1,n_2}}{a}\underset{nn_1}{}\delta [\overline{k_0}(n)].$$

as required. $`\lambda _n`$ , $`n>2`$, can also similarly be included.

## 3 Gauge Transformations of Space-Time Fields

In this section we show that gauge transformations can be consistently defined for space-time fields.

In II, a scheme was described for defining gauge transformations on space-time fields. The basic idea was to first move all vertex operators to one location and then use these vertex operators to define combinations of fields (and loop variables) whose gauge transformations are then worked out.

Thus

$$e^{i_nk_n(z_1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z_1)}=e^{i_nK_n(z_1,zz_1)\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(z)}$$

This equation defines the $`K_n`$. The precise expressions for $`K_n(z_1,zz_1)`$ are given in II. All the $`z_i`$ dependence is thus made explicit. Then we consider combinations of the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}K_{n_i}(z_i,zz_i)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{n_i}(z).$$

This is used to define the transformation laws for the highest level field $`k_{n_1}k_{n_2}\mathrm{}k_{n_N}=S_{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_N}`$ in terms of the gauge transformation of lower fields. In this way gauge transformation laws for all fields can be recursively defined.

The crucial point in this construction is that we are using a regularized greens function that has no short distance singularity. This is what allows us to move all vertex operators to one point, and also allows us to contract them if necessary. Furthermore we will also integrate the location of the vertex operator over some (finite) range - this is the usual Koba-Nielsen integration. In the examples considered in  the $`z`$-dependence somehow dropped out and it wasn’t necessary to do the integrals. In general, the $`z`$-dependence will not drop out (indeed, they are essential) and only the integrated equation makes sense. The combination of operators used here for defining the gauge transformations are precisely the combinations that occur in any equation of motion - along with contractions of the $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$’s. Since this contraction does not affect the consistency of this procedure it follows that there is a well defined map from loop variables and their gauge transformation to space-time fields and their gauge transformation. Thus gauge invariance at the level of loop variables implies gauge invariance of the field equations.

Below we discuss the gauge invariance of the $`Y_2`$ equation of . We will demonstrate the leading order gauge invariance explicitly. For the non-leading term we will show how massive modes contribute in a crucial way by providing the types of terms required for gauge invariance. Explicit calculations of numerical coefficients is rather tedious and will not be attempted.

We will include the contributions of some of the massive modes and will go some way in proving the gauge invariance of that equation - far enough to make the pattern clear.

We use $`ln(ϵ^2+(z_1z_2)^2)`$ as the two point function $`X(z_1)X(z_2)`$. If we use this, the equation of motion corresponding to $`Y_2`$ from  (combining equations (5.3.39),(5.3.40), (5.3.45), (5.3.50) , (5.3.51) and (5.3.54)) becomes the sum of various terms listed below:

$$A(p).(p+q)iA^\mu (q)|\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}+1|^{p.q}(ϵ)^{(p+q)^2}Y_2^\mu e^{i(p+q)Y}$$
(3.0.1)
$$S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }k_0^\nu iY_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}(ϵ)^{k_0^2}$$
(3.0.2)
$$(ϵ)^{k_0^2}S_2(k_0).k_0ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}$$
(3.0.3)
$$(ϵ)^{(p+q)^2}|\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}+1|^{p.q}A(p).A(q)i(p+q)^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}$$
(3.0.4)
$$(ϵ)^{k_0^2}S_{1,1\nu }^\nu (k_0)ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}$$
(3.0.5)
$$(ϵ)^{k_0^2}k_0^2iS_2^\mu (k_0)Y_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}$$
(3.0.6)
The notation is that of I and II. The reader need only note that after obtaining the equations of motion one can set $`x_n=0`$ (again in the notation of I and II) and after that $`Y_2\stackrel{~}{Y}_2_z^2X`$ and $`YX`$.

The gauge transformations of the fields are (according to the method defined above and in ) :

$`\delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k)e^{ik_0Y}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^{(\mu }(k)k_0^{\nu )}+\delta _{int}S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k)]e^{ik_0Y}`$
$`\delta A_1^\mu (p)e^{ip_0Y}`$ $`=`$ $`p^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)e^{ip_0Y}`$ (3.0.7)
and

$$\delta _{int}S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k)=𝑑p𝑑q\delta (p+qk)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)q^{(\nu }A_1^{\mu )}(q)]$$
(3.0.8)
$$\delta S_2^\mu (k_0)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(k_0)k_0^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu (k_0)+\delta _{int}S_2^\mu (k_0)$$
(3.0.9)
with

$$\delta _{int}S_2^\mu (k_0)=𝑑p𝑑q\delta (p+qk_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)A_1^\nu (q)$$
(3.0.10)
Let us write down the contribution of the various terms:

$`\delta (\text{3.0.1})=`$
$`(p.(p+q)\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)iA^\mu (q)A(p).(p+q)iq^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(q))[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}}]^{p.q}ϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$
$`\delta (\text{3.0.2})=`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^{(\mu }k_0^{\nu )}k_0^\nu iϵ^{k_0^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)q^{(\nu }A_1^{\mu )}(q)(p+q)^\nu iϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$
$`\delta (\text{3.0.3})=`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(k_0)k_0^2ik_0^\mu ϵ^{k_0^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}(k_0).k_0ik_0^\mu ϵ^{k_0^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)A_1(q).(p+q)i(p+q)^\mu ϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$
$`\delta (\text{3.0.4})=`$
$`2p.A(q)\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)i(p+q)^\mu [1+{\displaystyle \frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}}]^{p.q}ϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$ (3.0.14)
$`\delta (\text{3.0.5})=`$
$`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}(k_0).k_0ik_0^\mu ϵ^{k_0^2}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)q.A_1(q)i(p+q)^\mu ϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$
$`\delta (\text{3.0.6})=`$
$`k_0^2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(k_0)k_0^\mu ϵ^{k_0^2}+i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu (k_0)k_0^2ϵ^{k_0^2}+i\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)A_1^\mu (q)(p+q)^2ϵ^{(p+q)^2}`$
In the above expressions, integration over momenta $`p,q`$ with momentum conserving delta function, and the Koba-Nielsen variables $`w,z`$ with suitable regularization, are understood.

Terms involving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}`$ can easily be seen to add up to zero. We are left with

$$A(p).(p+q)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(q)[iq^\mu [1+\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}]^{p.q}ip^\mu i(p+q)^\mu ]$$

$$+A(p).p\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(q)2i(p+q)^\mu +A(p).q\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(q)2i(p+q)^\mu [1+\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}]^{p.q}$$
(3.0.17)
and

$$iA^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)[p.(p+q)[1+\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}]^{p.q}q.(p+q)+(p+q)^2]$$
(3.0.18)
If one expands $`[1+\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}]^{p.q}1+p.q\frac{(zw)^2}{ϵ^2}+\mathrm{}O((zw)^4)`$ in the above expressions, it is easy to see that the leading terms cancel leaving uncancelled terms of order $`(zw)^2`$.

Where does one find contributions to cancel these terms? The answer is that they come from the variations of higher modes such as $`S_{1,1,2}^{\mu \nu \rho }`$. These higher modes do contribute to the $`Y_2`$ equation through the following terms in the loop variable

$$𝑑t_1𝑑t_2𝑑t_3𝑑t_4k_1(t_1).k_1(t_2)\frac{^2[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](t_1,t_2)}{x_1(t_1)x_1(t_2)}$$

$$k_2(t_3).k_0(t_4)\frac{[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](t_3,t_4)}{x_2(t_3)}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}k_0(t)}.k_0(t^{})[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](t,t^{})}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}$$
(3.0.19)
and also

$$𝑑t_1𝑑t_2k_1(t_1).k_1(t_2)\frac{^2[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](t_1,t_2)}{x_1(t_1)x_1(t_2)}$$

$$𝑑t_3e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}k_0(t)}.k_0(t^{})[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{G}](t,t^{})}ik_2^\nu (t_3)Y_2^\mu (t_3)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}$$
(3.0.20)
using $`\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(t_1,t_2)}{x_1(t_1)x_1(t_2)}_{x_n(t_1)=x_n(t_2)}\frac{1}{2}(\frac{^2}{x_1^2}\frac{}{x_2})\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ,$`\frac{}{x_2(\sigma _1)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{x_n(t_1)=x_n(t_2)}\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{x_2}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\frac{}{x_2}\stackrel{~}{G}_{t_1=t_2,x_n=0}=\frac{1}{ϵ^2}`$, and $`\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{G}(t_1,t_2)}{x_1(t_1)x_1(t_2)}_{x_n=0)}=\frac{1}{ϵ^2}`$ we get on varying $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (3.0.19) and taking expectation of the loop variable,

$$\frac{3}{2ϵ^2}k_1.k_1k_2.k_0ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu \frac{3}{2ϵ^2}S_{1,1,2}^{\rho \rho \nu }(k_0)k_0^\nu ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu $$
(3.0.21)
where we have kept only the $`S_{112}`$ “contact” term in the expectation value.

The second term, (3.0.20), gives analogously

$$\frac{1}{ϵ^2}k_1.k_1k_0^2ik_2^\nu Y_2^\mu \frac{1}{ϵ^2}k_0^2S_{1,1,2}^{\rho \rho \mu }(k_0)Y_2^\mu $$
(3.0.22)
There are also terms of the form $`k_1.k_2k_1.k_0,k_1.k_2k_1^\mu `$ that can contribute to the $`Y_2`$ equation. Since we are only interested in showing that these terms contribute $`O(z^2)`$ terms to the equation of motion, and not in the precise coefficient, we will not worry about it here.

Let us now turn to the scheme of  to evaluate $`\delta S_{1,1,2}^{\mu \nu \rho }`$.

Let us start with $`K_1^\mu (z_1,zz_1)K_1^\nu (z_2,zz_2)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\mu (z)\stackrel{~}{Y}_1^\nu (z)`$.

$$𝑑z_1𝑑z_2K_1^\mu (z_1,zz_1)K_1^\nu (z_2,zz_2)$$

$$=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2(k_1^\mu (z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^\mu )(k_1^\nu (z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^\nu )$$

$$=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))\delta (z_1z_2)+A_1^\mu (k_0(z_1))A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))$$

$$+(z_1z)k_0^\mu (z_1)A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))\delta (z_1z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^\nu (z_2)A_1^\mu (k_0(z_1))\delta (z_1z_2)$$

$$=𝑑z_1S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))+𝑑z_1𝑑z_2A_1^\mu (k_0(z_1))A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))$$

$$+𝑑z_1(z_1z)k_0^{(\mu }(z_1)A_1^{\nu )}(k_0(z_1))$$
(3.0.23)
We remind the reader about the following two points. First, $`k_0(z)`$ refers to a momentum of a field associated with a particular vertex operator located at $`z`$. $`k_0`$ is not a function of $`z`$. In the same way $`S_{1,1}(k_0(z))`$ is a field with momentum $`k_0(z)`$ \- it is not a function, implicitly or explicitly, of $`z`$. The $`z`$-dependence in this approach is all explicitly there in the equations because we have extracted all the $`z`$-dependences by Taylor expanding the vertex operators. Second, integration of $`z_i`$ over some suitable range is understood in all these equations.222Thus $`𝑑z_1_a^R𝑑z_1`$ for some $`a,R`$ that we will leave unspecified. If we are working on a unit disk then $`z_1`$ has a range of $`2\pi `$. If on the upper half plane, $`z_1`$ ranges from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. In the context of the proper time formalism, $`z`$ would range from $`0`$ to $`R`$. This scheme dependence is expected in any off shell description.

We now consider the variation of both sides.

$$\delta 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2(k_1^\mu (z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^\mu )(k_1^\nu (z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^\nu )$$

$$=𝑑z^{}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\lambda _1(z^{})(k_0^\mu (z_1)(k_1^\nu (z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^\nu )+(k_1^\mu (z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^\mu )k_0^\nu (z_2))$$
(3.0.24)
Thus variation of the space-time fields gives:

$$\delta \{dz_1S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))+dz_1dz_2A_1^\mu (k_0(z_1))A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))$$

$$+dz_1(z_1z)k_0^{(\mu }(z_1)A_1^{\nu )}(k_0(z_1))\}$$

$$=𝑑z_1[\delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))]+𝑑z_1𝑑z_2[\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k_0(z_1))k_0^{(\mu }(z_1)A_1^{\nu )}(k_0(z_2))]$$

$$+𝑑z_1[(z_1z)k_0^{(\mu }(z_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k_0(z_1))k_0^{\nu )}(z_1)].$$
(3.0.25)
Whereas variation of the loop variable momenta yields

$$𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^{(\nu }(k_0(z^{}))k_0^{\mu )}(z^{})+𝑑z^{}𝑑z^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k_0(z^{}))A_1^{(\nu }(k_0(z^{}))[k_0(z^{})+k_0(z^{\prime \prime })]^{\mu )}$$

$$+𝑑z^{}2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k_0(z^{}))k_0^\mu (z^{})k_0^\nu (z^{})(z^{}z)$$
(3.0.26)
Comparison of the two equations gives:

$$𝑑z_1\delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))=$$

$$𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^{(\nu }(k_0(z^{}))k_0^{\mu )}(z^{})+𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k_0(z_1))A_1^{(\nu }(k_0(z_2))k_0^{\mu )}(z_2)$$
(3.0.27)
One can extract from this $`\delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ if one uses the fact that the integral over $`z^{}`$ in the LHS of (3.0.27) gives simply $`rangeofz^{}\times \delta S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }`$.

As pointed out in  earlier, there are no $`z`$-dependent terms in this variation. However when we turn to $`S_{1,1,2}`$ this will not be true.

Let us turn to $`S_{1,1,2}`$:

We start with

$$𝑑z_1𝑑z_2𝑑z_3K_1^\mu (z_1,zz_1)K_1^\nu (z_2,zz_2)K_2^\rho (z_3,zz_3)$$

$$=(k_1^\mu (z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^\mu (z_1))(k_1^\nu (z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^\nu (z_2))(k_2^\rho (z_3)+(z_3z)k_1^\rho +\frac{(z_3z)^2}{2}k_0^\rho )$$

We will focus our attention on the $`O(z^2)`$ terms, which are:

$$k_1^\mu (z_1)k_1^\nu (z_2)k_0^\rho (z_3)\frac{(z_3z)^2}{2}+k_0^\mu (z_1)k_0^\nu (z_2)k_2^\rho (z_3)(z_1z)(z_2z)+$$

$$k_0^\mu (z_1)k_1^\nu (z_2)k_1^\rho (z_3)(z_1z)(z_3z)+k_1^\mu (z_1)k_0^\nu (z_2)k_1^\rho (z_3)(z_3z)(z_2z)$$
(3.0.28)
Taking the expectation value one gets (Integration over $`z_i`$ is understood):

$$S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(k_0(z_1))k_0^\rho (z_1)\frac{(z_1z)^2}{2}+$$

$$A_1^\mu (k_0(z_1))A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))[k_0^\rho (z_1)\frac{(z_1z)^2}{2}+k_0^\rho (z_2)\frac{(z_2z)^2}{2}]+$$

$$\{S_{1,1}^{\nu \rho }(k_0(z_1))k_0^\mu (z_1)(z_1z)^2+$$

$$A_1^\nu (k_0(z_2))A_1^\rho (k_0(z_3))[k_0^\mu (z_2)(z_2z)+k_0^\mu (z_3)(z_3z)](z_3z)+$$

$$+\mu \nu \}+$$

$$S_2^\rho (z_2)k_0^\mu (z_3)k_0^\nu (z_3)(z_3z)^2$$
(3.0.29)
For clarity we will rewrite this expression with momenta $`p.q`$. This gives

$$S_{1,1}^{\mu \nu }(p)p^\rho \frac{(z_1z)^2}{2}+$$

$$A_1^\mu (p)A_1^\nu (q)[p^\rho \frac{(z_1z)^2}{2}+q^\rho \frac{(z_2z)^2}{2}]+$$

$$\{S_{1,1}^{\nu \rho }(p)p^\mu (z_1z)^2+$$

$$A_1^\nu (q)A_1^\rho (p)[q^\mu (z_2z)+p^\mu (z_3z)](z_3z)+$$

$$+\mu \nu \}+$$

$$S_2^\rho (p)p^\mu p^\nu (z_3z)^2$$
(3.0.30)
We have to compare the gauge transformation of this expression (using the previously determined variations of the fields), and compare with what one gets on varying the loop variable expression directly. If they are not equal, the difference will be assigned to the gauge transformation of $`S_{1,1,2}`$. Let us focus on terms having the structure $`A_1^\nu (q)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)p^\mu q^\rho `$.

Note that in (3.0.30) there are two contributions that have this structure: One is multiplied by $`(z_3z)^2`$ and the other by $`(z_2z)^2`$, which is the same since $`z_i`$ are integration variables.

Now we vary the $`k_i`$ in (3.0.28) and look at the terms that can give $`A_i^\nu `$. These are:

$$dz^{}\lambda _1(z^{})(k_0^\mu (z_1)k_1^\nu (z_2)k_0^\rho (z_3)\frac{(z_3z)^2}{2}+$$

$$k_0^\mu (z_1)k_1^\nu (z_2)k_0^\rho (z_3)(z_1z)(z_3z))$$

The second term gives a contribution proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)p^\mu A_1^\nu (q)q^\rho (z_1z)(z_2z)`$. which is clearly different from anything obtained from (3.0.30). This term has thus to be assigned to $`\delta S_{1,1,2}^{\mu \nu \rho }`$. Thus we have shown that there are $`O(z^2)`$ terms in the gauge variation of $`S_{1,1,2}`$ contribution to the $`Y_2`$ equation of motion.

The above calculation gives us a picture of how the contributions from the higher modes to a given equation of motion add up to reproduce expressions of the form $`𝑑z𝑑w(zw)^{2p.q}`$. As mentioned in  , the fact that the equations are gauge invariant follows from the gauge invariance of the loop variable expression and the fact that the above map - from loop variables to space-time fields and their respective gauge transformations - is well defined. Furthermore the space-time gauge invariance does not depend on any world sheet properties such as BRST invariance, so this is possible. This also allows one to go off-shell without violating gauge invariance.

## 4 Dimensional Reduction

We can dimensionally reduce the above equations to obtain equations for the massive modes with masses equal to that in string theory. This is where we make contact with string theory. The prescription was given in . We start with the loop variable:

$$exp\{d\sigma _1d\sigma _2\underset{n,m0}{}(k_n(\sigma _1).k_m(\sigma _2)\frac{^2[\stackrel{~}{G}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}](\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_n(\sigma _1)x_m(\sigma _2)}+$$

$$k_{n,V}(\sigma _1)k_{m,V}(\sigma _2)\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)}{x_n(\sigma _1)x_m(\sigma _2)})\}:exp\{id\sigma \underset{n0}{}k_nY_n(z(\sigma )\}:.$$
(4.0.1)
The extra dimension (27th in the bosonic string, or 11th in the superstring) is denoted by $`V`$ in the above equation. In  we set $`k_0^V=\frac{\sqrt{P1}}{N}`$ where $`N`$ is the number of fields in a particular term in the equation of motion. (Thus $`N=1`$ for the free theory, $`N=2`$ in the quadratic term of an equation of motion, etc.) and $`P`$ is the engineering dimension of the vertex operator for which the equation is being written. Thus $`P=0`$ for $`e^{ikX}`$, $`P=1`$ for $`_zXe^{ikX}`$ , etc. Note that if some of the $`Y`$’s are contracted then we get powers of $`ϵ`$, and $`P`$ must count these powers also as contributing to the engineering dimension. Furthermore we will let

$$k_n^V=S_n^V$$

The factor $`\frac{1}{N}`$ in $`k_0^V`$ can also be thought of as being equivalent to the imposition of momentum conservation in the extra dimension so that the total momentum of each term in an equation adds up to the same value as for the linear term, where it is set equal to the mass of the field.

Let us apply this to the first massive level equation of the last section. This has $`P=2`$.

First we have to establish the gauge transformation laws for the fields $`A_1^V,S_{1,1}^{VV},S_{1,1}^{\mu V}`$, and $`S_2^V`$. We start with

$$K_1^V(z_1,zz_1)Y_1^V=(k_1^V(z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^V)Y_1^V$$

$$=A_1^V(k_0(z_1))Y_1^V$$
(4.0.2)
$$\delta K_1^V(z_1,zz_1)Y_1^V=𝑑z^{}\lambda _1(z^{})k_0^V(z_1)Y_1^V$$
(4.0.3)
Since $`P=1`$, $`k_0^V=0`$ in the above equation. So,

$$\delta A_1^V(k_0)=0$$
(4.0.4)
This is just as well, since for making contact with string theory, we will set this field to zero. Note also, that if $`Y_1^V`$ in (4.0.3) is contracted with $`Y^V`$ in $`e^{ik_0^VY^V}`$ we get (Using $`Y_1^V(z)Y^V(z)=ϵ_1\frac{1}{ϵ}`$)

$$\delta 𝑑zK_1^V(z_1,zz_1)k_0^V(z)ϵ_1=𝑑z^{}𝑑z\lambda _1(z^{})k_0^V(z_1)k_0^V(z)ϵ_1=0$$

since $`(P1)ϵ_1=0`$. Thus the above procedure is consisitent with contractions.

We now turn to

$$𝑑z_1𝑑z_2K_1^V(z_1,zz_1)K_1^V(z_2,zz_2)Y_1^VY_1^V$$

$$=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2(k_1^V(z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^V)(k_1^V(z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^V)Y_1^VY_1^V$$

$$=[dz_1dz_2S_{1,1}^{VV}(k_0(z_1))\delta (z_1z_2)+A_1^V(k_0(z_1))A_1^V(k_0(z_2))$$

$$+(z_1z)k_0^V(z_1)A_1^V(k_0(z_2))\delta (z_1z_2)+(z_2z)k_0^V(z_2)A_1^V(k_0(z_1))\delta (z_1z_2)]Y^V_1Y^V_1$$

Since $`A_1^V=0`$ we have

$$=𝑑z_1S_{1,1}^{VV}(k_0(z_1))Y_1^VY_1^V$$
(4.0.5)
We turn to the variations.

$$\delta K_1^VK_1^VY_1^VY_1^V=𝑑z^{}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\lambda (z^{})(k_0^V(z_1)k_1^V(z_2)+k_1^V(z_1)k_0^V(z_2)+2k_0^V(z_1)k_0^V(z_2)(z_2z))Y_1^VY_1^V$$

$$=2𝑑z_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(z_2)Y_1^VY_1^V+2𝑑z^{}\underset{1}{\underset{}{k_0^V(z^{})}}\underset{1}{\underset{}{k_0^V(z^{})}}(z^{}z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z^{})Y_1^VY_1^V$$

$$=2𝑑z_2[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(z_2)+(z_2z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z_2)]Y_1^VY_1^V$$
(4.0.6)
Again we have set $`A_1^V=0`$.

Thus we get

$$\delta 𝑑z_2S_{1,1}^{VV}=2𝑑z_2[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(z_2)+(z_2z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z_2)]$$
(4.0.7)
We now turn to

$$𝑑z_1𝑑z_2K_1^V(z_1,zz_1)K_1^\mu (z_2,zz_2)Y_1^VY_1^\mu $$

$$=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2(k_1^V(z_1)+(z_2z)k_0^V(z_1))(k_1^\mu (z_2)+(z_1z)k_0^\mu (z_2))Y_1^VY_1^\mu $$

$$=[𝑑z_1S_{1,1}^{\mu V}(k_0(z_1))+𝑑z_2(z_2z)A_1^\mu (k_0(z_2))]Y_1^\mu Y_1^V$$

Consider the variations of both sides.

$$\delta K_1^VK_1^\mu Y_1^VY_1^\mu $$

$$=𝑑z^{}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\lambda (z^{})(k_0^V(z_1)k_1^\mu (z_2)+k_1^V(z_1)k_0^\mu (z_2)+2k_0^V(z_1)k_0^\mu (z_2)(z_2z))Y_1^VY_1^\mu $$

$$=[dz^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(z^{})k_0^\mu +2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z^{})(z^{}z)k_0^\mu )+$$

$$𝑑z^{}𝑑z_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z^{})A_1^\mu (z_1)\underset{1}{\underset{}{[k_0^V(z^{})+k_0^V(z_1)]}}Y_1^VY_1^\mu $$

We also have

$$𝑑z_2\delta A_1^\mu (k_0)(z_2z)=𝑑z_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1k_0^\mu (z_2z)$$

Thus, comparing as before, the gauge variations of both sides, we find

$$𝑑z_2\delta S_{1,1}^{V\mu }(k_0)=𝑑z_2[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^\mu (k_0)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(k_0)k_0^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_1A_1^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_1k_0^\mu (z_2z)]$$
(4.0.8)
Finally, consider

$$K_2^V(z_1,zz_1)Y_2^V=S_2^VY_2^V$$

Varying we get

$$\delta K_2^VY_2^V=dz^{}[\lambda _1(z^{})[k_1^V(z_1)+(z_1z)k_0^V(z_1)]+\lambda _2(z^{})k_0^V(z_1)Y_2^V$$

$$=𝑑z_1[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V(z_1)+(z_1z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(z_1)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(z_1)]Y_2^V$$

Comparing gauge variations on both sides gives:

$$𝑑z_1\delta S_2^V=𝑑z_1[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+(z_1z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1]$$
(4.0.9)
At this point one can make the following observation: If we set

$$𝑑z^{}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}^V+(z^{}z)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1]=𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2$$

we see that

$$\delta S_{1,1}^{V\mu }=\delta S_2^\mu $$

$$\delta S_{1,1}^{VV}=\delta S_2^V$$

Thus as discussed in  for the free theory, we can reduce the number of degrees of freedom in this theory to match that of critical string theory by setting $`k_1^V=A_1^V=0`$, $`S_{1,1}^{VV}=S_2^V`$ and $`S_{1,1}^{V\mu }=S_2^\mu `$ consistently.

These identifications follow from the identification at the loop variable level:

$$K_1(z_1,zz_1)^V\lambda _1(z_2)=\lambda _2(z_1)$$

and

$$k_1^Vk_1^\mu =k_2^\nu $$

and

$$k_1^Vk_1^V=k_2^V$$

This is very similar to what was done at the free level in .

We go back to the loop variable equation for $`Y_2^\mu `$ from  ((5.3.39),(5.3.40), (5.3.45), (5.3.50) , (5.3.51) and (5.3.54)) We consider the terms that involve a contraction of the ‘$`V`$’ index. These are

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(z_3)}.k_0(z_4)\stackrel{~}{G}}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2k_1(z_1).k_0(z_2)i𝑑zk_1^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}$$

$$=[iA_1^V(p)A_1^\mu (q)(z_1z_2)^{2p.q}e^{i(p+q)Y}ϵ^{(p+q)^2}iS_{1,1}^{V\mu }e^{ikY}ϵ^{k^2}]Y_2^\mu $$

$$=iS_{1,1}^{V\mu }e^{ikY}ϵ^{k^2}Y_2^\mu $$
(4.0.10)
where we have set $`A_1^V=0`$.

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(z_3)}.k_0(z_4)\stackrel{~}{G}}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2k_2(z_1)^vk_0^V(z_2)ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}$$

$$=S_2^Vik_0^\mu ϵ^{k^2}e^{ikY}Y_2^\mu $$
(4.0.11)
$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(z_3)}.k_0(z_4)\stackrel{~}{G}}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2k_1(z_1)^Vk_1^V(z_2)ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}$$

$$=[ϵ^{k^2}S_{1,1}^{VV}(k)ık_0^\mu +ϵ^{(p+q)^2}A_1^V(p)A_1^V(q)i(p+q)^\mu e^{i(p+q)Y}(zw)^{2p.q}]Y_2^\mu $$

$$=ϵ^{k^2}S_{1,1}^{VV}(k)ik_0^\mu Y_2^\mu e^{ikY}$$
(4.0.12)
$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k_0(z_3)}.k_0(z_4)\stackrel{~}{G}}k_0^Vk_0^Vik_2^\nu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_0Y}}Y_2^\mu $$

$$=ϵ^{k^2}iS_2^\mu e^{ik_0Y}Y_2^\mu $$
(4.0.13)
When we apply the variations (4.0.4),(4.0.7),(4.0.9),(4.0.8) to (4.0.10),(4.0.11),(4.0.12) and (4.0.13), we find that they add up to zero. 333Note also that they add upto zero, (to leading order in $`zw`$) even if we don’t work with the reduced set of fields, i.e. even without setting $`A_1^V=0`$ or making any of the other identifications, the equations are gauge invariant. One can speculate that this describes some version of a non critical string theory. Thus the full (tree level) equations of string theory for the vertex operator $`Y_2^\mu e^{ikY}`$ are the sum of the terms in the last section (with indices running 26 dimensions) plus the terms calculated in this section.

This illustrates the dimensional reduction and compatibility with gauge invariance. As explained earlier the contribution of all the infinite number of fields have to be included in order for the cancellation to be exact.

## 5 Uniform electromagnetic field: Born-Infeld Action

We discuss, in this section, the loop variable approach in a non-perturbative setting. This is the situation of a uniform electromagnetic field. In the sigma model approach this can be done to all orders in the field strength. This gives the Born-Infeld action. More precisely, it gives the $`\beta `$ -function, which, as emphasised in , is only proportional to the equation of motion. The proportionality constant is the Zamolodchikov metric . We will show in this section how this is done in the loop variable approach. As in the perturbative case it involves writing down a suitable wave functional. The main purpose of this section is to reproduce, using loop variables, the results in the literature that have been obtained using the sigma model or more precisely boundary conformal field theory techniques. Gauge invariance is not an issue here since only the field strength enters the equation of motion.

The loop variable approach involves writing down (we set $`x_n=0`$ since we are not concerned with gauge invariance) the following object:

$$𝒟k_0^\mu (t)𝒟k_1^\mu (t)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^\mu (t)X^\mu (t)+k_1^\mu (t)_tX^\mu (t)]}}$$

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}[_{n,m=0,1}k_m^\mu (t)𝒢_{m,n}^{\mu \nu }(t,t^{})k_n^\nu (t^{})]}}\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)].$$
(5.0.14)
Here $`𝒢`$ is the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}G& 0& _t^{}G& 0\\ 0& G& 0& _t^{}G\\ _tG& 0& _t_t^{}G& 0\\ 0& _tG& 0& _t_t^{}G\end{array}\right)$$
(5.0.15)
where the row vector, $`k_m^\mu `$, ($`\mu `$ is the Lorentz index and $`m`$ is the mode index) multiplying the matrix, is written in the following order: $`(k_0^0k_0^1k_1^0k_1^1)`$. $`G(t,t^{})=X(t)X(t^{})`$ where $`t,t^{}`$ are points on the boundary of the string world sheet. This could be a disk or the upper half plane. $`G`$ satisfies the identity $`𝑑t^{\prime \prime }_tG(t,t^{\prime \prime })_{t^{\prime \prime }}G(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})=1`$ .

The wave functional in this case is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)]=𝒟X(t)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^\mu (t)X^\mu (t)]}}\underset{\mu t}{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t)]$$
(5.0.16)
where $`A^\mu =1/2F^{\mu \nu }X^\nu `$. For simplicity we take the two dimensional case, where $`\mu =0,1`$. Thus the delta function becomes

$$\underset{t}{}\delta [X^1(t)\frac{2k_1^0(t)}{F}]\delta [X^0(t)+\frac{2k_0^1(t)}{F}]\frac{1}{F^2}$$

Here $`F=F^{01}=F^{10}`$.

Doing the the integral gives

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)]=e^{\frac{2i}{F}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^0(t)k_1^1(t)k_0^1(t)k_1^0(t)]}}\underset{t}{}\frac{1}{F^2}$$

When we substitute this expression in (5.0.14), we get

$$𝒟k_0(t)𝒟k_1(t)e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}[_{n,m=0,1}k_m^\mu (t)𝒢_{F,m,n}^{\mu \nu }(t,t^{})k_n^\nu (t^{})]}}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^\mu (t)X^\mu (t)+k_1^\mu (t)_tX^\mu (t)]}}$$
(5.0.17)
where $`𝒢_F`$ is the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}G& 0& _t^{}G& \frac{2i}{F}\\ 0& G& \frac{2i}{F}& _t^{}G\\ _tG& \frac{2i}{F}& _t_t^{}G& 0\\ \frac{2i}{F}& _tG& 0& _t_t^{}G\end{array}\right)$$

The Gaussian integral can easily be done and using the identity obeyed by $`G`$ we get

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}𝐗^T𝒢_F^1𝐗}}Det^{1/2}[F^2(1+F^2)\delta (tt^{})]=$$

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}𝐗^T𝒢_F^1𝐗}}Det[F^2(1+F^2)^{1/2}\delta (tt^{})]$$

Here $`𝐗=(X^0,X^1,_tX^0,_tX^1)`$

Combining the $`\frac{1}{F^2}`$ in the wave functional we get

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}𝐗^T𝒢_F^1𝐗}}Det[1+F^2]^{1/2}\delta (tt^{})$$

Using zeta function regularization (as explained in ) the determinant gives $`[1+F^2]^{+1/2}`$. Thus the final answer is

$$Z[𝐗]=e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}𝐗^T𝒢_F^1𝐗}}[1+F^2]^{+1/2}.$$
(5.0.18)
$`Z[0]`$ is the Born Infeld Lagrangian. The precise connection between the sigma model “partition function” and the actual space-time effective action of the fields of the string is not clear to us, although in this particular example they seem to coincide. What we do know is that the $`\beta `$-function gives the equation of motion upto the Zamolodchikov metric prefactor. 444It was also shown in  that the proper-time equation gives the full equation. The equations obtained in the loop variable approach are the equivalent of the $`\beta `$-function. They are a gauge invariant generalization obtained by making the cutoff depend on the world sheet location.

One can obtain the equation for the photon by looking at the coefficient of $`_tX^\mu `$ in the conformal variation of the above “generating functional with sources X”, (5.0.18). In the loop variable approach this was done by replacing $`G`$ by $`G+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gave the equation of motion.555We remind the reader that all the $`x_n`$ variables used in the loop variable approach have been set to zero, as we are not concerned with gauge invariance related issues. It is clear here that there are no terms linear in $`X`$ and the equation is trivial. In order to get a non-trivial equation one has to include a perturbation describing the non-uniformity of $`F`$.

Thus we change the expression for $`A`$ into:

$$A^\mu (X)=\frac{1}{2}F^{\mu \nu }X^\nu +\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }X^\rho X^\nu $$
(5.0.19)
The delta function in (5.0.16) changes to

$$\underset{t}{}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)\frac{1}{2}F^{\mu \nu }X^\nu (t)+\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }X^\rho (t)X^\nu (t)]$$

$$=(1+dt^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }X^\rho (t^{})X^\nu (t^{})]\frac{\delta }{\delta k_1^\mu (t^{})})_t\delta [k_1^\mu (t)\frac{1}{2}F^{\mu \nu }X^\nu (t)]$$

If we insert this into (5.0.16) we get for the modified wave functional,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)]=𝒟X(t)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^\mu (t)X^\mu (t)]}}$$

$$(1+dt^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }X^\rho (t^{})X^\nu (t^{})]\frac{\delta }{\delta k_1^\mu (t^{})})_{\mu t}\delta [k_1^\mu (t)A^\mu (X(t)]$$

$$=(1dt^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i\frac{\delta }{\delta k_0^\rho (t^{})}i\frac{\delta }{\delta k_0^\nu (t^{})})\frac{\delta }{\delta k_1^\mu (t^{})})\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)]$$
(5.0.20)
We insert the modified wave functional into (5.0.14), integrate by parts on $`k_1,k_0`$ and pick the piece proportional to $`\dot{X}`$:

$$𝒟k_0^\mu (t)𝒟k_1^\mu (t)𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i_t^{}X^\mu (t^{})[𝒢^{0\rho ,0\nu }(t^{},t^{})+(𝒢k)^{0\rho }(𝒢k)^{0\nu }]$$

$$e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t[k_0^\mu (t)X^\mu (t)+k_1^\mu (t)_tX^\mu (t)]}}$$

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}[_{n,m=0,1}k_m^\mu (t)𝒢_{m,n}^{\mu \nu }(t,t^{})k_n^\nu (t^{})]}}\mathrm{\Psi }[k_0(t),k_1(t)].$$
(5.0.21)
Replacing $`k_0^\mu `$ by $`i\frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu (t^{})}`$ we get and $`k_1^\mu `$ by $`i\frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{X}^\mu (t^{})}`$, (We let $`X^\alpha `$ represent $`X^\mu ,\dot{X}^\mu `$)

$$𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i_t^{}X^\mu (t^{})$$

$$[𝒢^{0\rho ,0\nu }(t^{},t^{})+dt^{\prime \prime }dt^{\prime \prime \prime }(𝒢(t^{},t^{\prime \prime })^{0\rho ,\alpha }i\frac{\delta }{\delta X^\alpha (t^{\prime \prime })}(𝒢^{0\nu ,\beta }(t^{},t^{\prime \prime \prime })i\frac{\delta }{\delta X^\beta (t^{\prime \prime \prime })}]$$

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t𝑑t^{}𝐗^T𝒢_F^1𝐗}}[1+F^2]^{+1/2}.$$

$$=𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i_t^{}X^\mu (t^{})$$

$$[𝒢^{0\rho ,0\nu }(t^{},t^{})(𝒢𝒢_F^1𝒢)^{0\rho ,0\nu }(t^{},t^{})]Z[𝐗]$$

One can easily evaluate the expression multiplying $`Z[𝐗]`$. It is the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{G(t,t^{})}{1+F^2}& 𝑑t^{\prime \prime }iFG(t,t^{\prime \prime })_{t^{\prime \prime }}G(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})\\ 𝑑t^{\prime \prime }iFG(t,t^{\prime \prime })_{t^{\prime \prime }}G(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})& \frac{G(t,t^{})}{1+F^2}\end{array}\right)$$
(5.0.22)
multiplied by $`\delta (t^{}t)`$.

The off diagonal elements are antisymmetric in $`t,t^{}`$ and therefore vanish when $`t=t^{}`$. Thus we get

$$\delta ^{\rho \nu }𝑑t\frac{G(t,t^{})}{1+F^2}\delta (tt^{})$$

When we make a conformal transformation the change in $`G`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so we get a term

$$\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i_t^{}X^\mu (t^{})\delta ^{\rho \nu }𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(t,t^{})}{1+F^2}\delta (tt^{})=\frac{1}{3}_\rho F^{\mu \nu }i_t^{}X^\mu (t^{})\delta ^{\rho \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(t^{},t^{})}{1+F^2}$$
(5.0.23)
The coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the above expression is one contribution to the $`\beta `$-function. Variation of $`\delta (tt^{})`$ gives terms proportional to delta function and it’s derivatives (times the parameter of conformal transformation). Multiplying $`G`$ this is singular and introduces further powers of the cutoff. These are equivalent to $`(lna)^2`$ divergences and do not contribute to the $`\beta `$-function. Thus the coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (5.0.23) is the full expression for the $`\beta `$-function.

As explained in  one can get the full equation of motion (= $`\beta `$-function $`\times `$ Zamolodchikov metric) if one uses the proper time equation. But the method here gives only the $`\beta `$-function. That this answer is correct can be seen by consulting .

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have given some examples of loop variable calculations. We have tried to make concrete, some of the ideas described in . We have given examples of the wave functional that is ubiquitous in these two papers. We have also worked out in detail the equations of a massive mode interacting with electromagnetism. Most importantly while a formal argument of the gauge invariance was given in , there was not a detailed understanding of how the infinite tower of massive modes contribute in the gauge invariance of any one equation. This understanding has now been obtained, as described in Section 3.

Before dimensional reduction, all the modes are massless and we are not describing critical string theory - at least not in any recognizable way. Thus dimensional reduction is crucial for making contact with string theory. This was described in a general way in . Here we have worked out all the details in this particular example. We have also shown how the truncation of fields necessary for making contact with string theory works.

Finally, by reproducing the Born -Infeld equations, we make contact with the open string sigma model (or boundary conformal field theory) approach. This was useful in explaining the ideas of  in more conventional terms.

It is tempting to speculate that the higher dimensional massless theory is some more “symmetric” phase of string theory. The idea that the interactions emerge naturally by broadening the string to a band is reminiscent of membranes. All this points to M-theory. But we do not see any way of making a connection.

As another interesting test one could try to reproduce the results on the tachyon that have been obtained in the literature using other techniques such as String Field Theory or Background Independent String Field Theory .