text:
# Pedagogical Reflections on Color Confinement in Chromostatics

## Abstract

Abelian and nonabelian gauge invariant states are directly compared to revisit how the unconfined abelian theory is expressed. It is argued that the Yang-Mills equations have no obvious physical content apart from their relation to underlying physical states. The main observation is that the physical states of electrostatics can be regarded as point charges connected by a uniform superposition of all possible Faraday lines. These states are gauge invariant only in the abelian case.

(January 2001)

After the initial wonder and awe that students experience on learning that the nuclear force can be fundamentally described with a nonabelian gauge theory, there is a natural desire to solve the equations—that is the Yang-Mills equations. There is a naive expectation that we can calculate a chromostatic potential energy for an arrangement of quark color charge in the same way as for electric charge in the Maxwell equations. Ideally, we expect to find a confining potential that would explain why unbound quarks possessing the color charge are not observed. Additionally, the conditions under which deconfinement could occur should somehow emerge from the equations.

Unfortunately, it seems that the simplest solutions have no relevance to physical hadrons. General solutions to the nonlinear field equations cannot be obtained from linear combinations of known solutions. Going to the quantized theory this implies that free quanta of the gauge fields (gluons) do not exist in the same sense as photons. In trying to understand this situation, a number of plausible explanations of color confinement have been studied. For examples, see . It has even been suggested that the confinement problem itself can be eliminated by recognizing that it is an artifact of false expectations of nonabelian gauge theories. At least at low energies, Feynman diagrams with gluon exchange are conceptually misleading and physically wrong when taken individually.

Therefore, we first want to show how the naive expectation of calculating a classical potential goes wrong. Then we try to understand color confinement as well as what is meant by deconfinement by directly comparing the nonabelian and abelian cases in the simplest situation. A way to make the comparison direct, is to consider the abelian case as an $`SO`$(2) projection of $`SO`$(3). The gauge transformations in the abelian theory are then viewed as local rotations about the third axis—quantities carrying the third free index are invariant with respect to such rotations.

Consider the Yang-Mills Gauss’ law for static color electric fields $`𝐄^b(𝐱)`$ and vector potentials $`𝐀^b(𝐱)`$ ($`b=1`$,2 or 3):

$`𝐄^a+gϵ_{abc}𝐀^b𝐄^c=\rho ^a`$ (1)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant and the antisymmetric $`ϵ_{abc}`$ gives the $`SU`$(2) structure constants (summation over the repeated indices is implied). The color electric energy associated with charge distribution $`\rho ^a(𝐱)`$ is

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x𝐄^a𝐄^a}.`$ (2)
Also, Eq. (1) is gauge covariant and $`V`$ is gauge invariant with respect to the local $`SO`$(3) transformations:

$`\rho ^a=R_{ab}\rho ^b,𝐄_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=R_{ab}𝐄^b`$ (3)
and

$`𝐀_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=R_{ab}𝐀^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}ϵ_{abc}R_{bd}R_{cd}`$ (4)
where $`R_{ab}(𝐱)R_{ac}(𝐱)=\delta _{bc}`$.

A standard approach of electrostatics would be to solve the differential equation (Eq. (1)) and evaluate the integral of Eq. (2). Of course this approach gives the Coulomb potential for point charges $`\rho ^3(𝐱)=q_1\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_1)+q_2\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_2)`$ in the abelian case where all the indices in Eqs. (1) and (2) are replaced with a 3. For the nonabelian case we are immediately faced with a puzzle—physically, what is $`\rho ^a`$? Even for the simplest situation in the classical theory there is already a puzzle. For instance, trying to define two point charges according to $`\rho ^a(𝐱)=q_1^a\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_1)+q_2^a\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_2)`$ is not physically meaningful because $`q_1^a`$ and $`q_2^a`$ can be arbitrarily and independently rotated with a gauge transformation. One could argue that specifying $`q_1^a`$, $`q_2^a`$ and $`𝐀^b(𝐱)`$ together would be mathematically sufficient to determine $`V`$, but the physical significance of $`V`$ would still be unclear without some physical gauge invariant entity (such as electric charge). It is true that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is the work required to change between different spatial configurations of $`\rho ^a`$ and $`𝐀^b`$, but spatial configurations of what? It’s as if we are given a geographer’s data on coastline locations that are hopelessly entangled with a redefinition of latitude and longitude at each point on the map. The observable changes (in climate, vegetation, etc.) associated with each data set might be known, but the existence of actual coastlines is hidden. Calculating the energy associated with different data sets i.e. $`\rho ^a`$ and $`𝐀^b`$ does not solve the puzzle of what physically exists within data. In fact, it is probably misleading because if we set $`𝐀^b=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\rho ^a(𝐱)=q_1^a\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_1)+q_2^a\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_2)`$ we obtain the Coulomb potential as in electrostatics–yet this time with nothing that can legitimately be identified as physical sources. In a similar sense, recall that the local gravitational energy density is not a meaningful observable because it always can be transformed to zero with local geodesic coordinates. Therefore, instead of approaching chromostatics in the same spirit as electrostatics, let’s turn the problem around by respecting the nonabelian gauge invariance of physical states and then show how electrostatics is recovered for the abelian theory.

To begin, let’s take the point of view that the nonabelian charge density of Eq. (1) only makes sense in terms of an operator acting on some physical state. The simplest choice for our discussion is to work with charges in the adjoint representation of $`SU`$(2)

$`\rho ^a(𝐱)=ga_b^{}(𝐱)T_{bc}^aa_c(𝐱)`$ (5)
where $`T_{bc}^a=iϵ_{bac}`$ and $`a_b^{}`$ and $`a_c`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for point charges with respect to a gauge invariant state $`|0`$ such that $`a_c|0=0`$. Also, the operators satisfy the commutation relations

$`[a_a(𝐱),a_b^{}(𝐱^{})]=\delta _{ab}\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{}).`$ (6)
Since the creation and annihilation operators transform the same way as the quantities in Eq. (3), their color indices must be contracted locally to form a gauge invariant operator. Geometrically, the simplest gauge invariant state contains two point charges and is created by the operator

$`\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]=a_a^{}(𝐱(1))U_{ab}[\gamma ]a_b^{}(𝐱(0)).`$ (7)
Such a state represents spatially separated point charges at $`𝐱(0)`$ and $`𝐱(1)`$ connected with the Wilson line along some curve $`\gamma :𝐱=𝐱_\gamma (s)`$. The parameterization used for any curve $`\gamma `$ can arbitrarily be taken on the interval $`0s1`$. The path ordered exponential $`U_{ab}[\gamma ]`$ is defined according to

$`\left(\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}igT_{ab}^c𝐀^c\left(𝐱_\gamma (s)\right){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\right)U_{bd}\left[\gamma _0^s\right]=0`$ (8)
where

$`U_{ab}[\gamma _0^0]=\delta _{ab}\text{ and}U_{ab}[\gamma ]U_{ab}[\gamma _0^1].`$ (9)
Notice that a similar $`\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]`$ creates a gauge invariant two charge state in the abelian case. The corresponding abelian forms of Eqs. (5-9) are obtained by restricting all the lower color indices to 1 or 2, or equivalently by inserting the projection $`(T^3T^3)_{ab}`$ between each matrix product. Therefore, even for the abelian case, the physical charges of a gauge invariant state require the nonlocal presence of field lines. As thoroughly explained in a series of papers by Lavelle and McMullan (for example see ), this is the point of view of Dirac. Dirac showed that the operator that creates a physical electron state, must create an electron together with its Coulomb field.

In order to satisfy Gauss’ law of Eq. (1) with an operator valued source we require that

$`[𝐄^a+gϵ_{abc}𝐀^b𝐄^cga_b^{}(𝐱)T_{bc}^aa_c(𝐱),\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]]=0`$ (10)
which implies the following commutation relation for the path ordered exponential

$`[𝐄^a(𝐱)+gϵ_{abc}𝐀^b(𝐱)𝐄^c(𝐱),U_{mn}[\gamma ]]=`$ (11)
$`ig\delta ^3\left(𝐱𝐱(0)\right)U_{mb}[\gamma ]ϵ_{abn}ig\delta ^3\left(𝐱𝐱(1)\right)ϵ_{amc}U_{cn}[\gamma ].`$ (12)
It can be shown that Eq. (12) follows from the definition of Eq. (8) if we assume that

$`[𝐄^a(𝐱),U_{mn}[\gamma ]]=ig{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\delta ^3\left(𝐱𝐱_\gamma (s)\right)U_{mb}[\gamma _s^1]iT_{bc}^aU_{cn}\left[\gamma _0^s\right].`$ (13)
It is interesting to notice that Eq. (13) would follow directly from Eq. (8) by assuming the canonical relations $`[E_j^a(𝐱),A_k^b(𝐱^{})]=i\delta _{jk}\delta _{ab}\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{})`$. This is consistent with the fact that Eq. (10) is a statement of the gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]`$. The fact that the chromostatic fields $`𝐄^a`$ are not directly observable because they are not gauge invariant suggests that Eq. (13) is as far as we can go in terms of solving Eq. (1). We get a gauge invariant expression by contracting the color indices in a double commutator using Eq. (13) twice to get

$`[E_j^a(𝐱),[E_j^a(𝐱),\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]]]=2\left|g𝚫(𝐱,\gamma )\right|^2\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]`$ (14)
where the factor of two on the right is the $`SO`$(3) representation dependent factor $`L(L+1)`$ with $`L=1`$. For $`SO`$(2) the factor itself is simply one. Also, the vector quantity on the right can be regarded as a single Faraday line of the field:

$`𝚫(𝐱,\gamma ){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\delta ^3\left(𝐱𝐱_\gamma (s)\right).`$ (15)
Assuming a gauge invariant state $`|0`$ exists such that $`E_j^a|0=0`$, Eq. (14) can be used to show that $`\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]|0`$ is an eigenstate of $`𝐄^a𝐄^a`$ and is therefore an eigenstate of $`V`$

$`V\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left|g𝚫(𝐱,\gamma )\right|^2\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]|0}`$ (16)
where the integral is proportional to the length of the curve $`\gamma `$. Although it is divergent, it can be rendered finite by absorbing a divergent factor into $`g`$. We have only verified that the state representing a single flux line gives a linear confining potential. No surprise—this is the most basic result of strong coupling on the lattice and of string models of hadrons. What might be a surprise, though, is that the abelian result also gives a linear confining potential that is identical to Eq. (16), but without the factor of two in the integrand. The fact that confinement occurs for both cases is conventionally understood as the strong coupling limit result of neglecting the magnetic energy. This is true in the nonabelian case but, notice that the key difference in the abelian case is that we can go back to Eq. (13) to use the fact that $`T^3`$ now commutes with $`U`$. Two linear combinations of $`U`$ and $`T^3U`$ allow us to obtain $`𝐄^3`$ as an observable directly

$`[𝐄^3(𝐱),\left(U[\gamma ]T^3U[\gamma ]\right)_{mn}]=\pm g𝚫(𝐱,\gamma )\left(U[\gamma ]T^3U[\gamma ]\right)_{mn}`$ (17)
where the linear combination with the $``$($`+`$) sign corresponds to a positive (negative) charge at $`𝐱(0)`$ and a negative (positive) charge at $`𝐱(1)`$. This is dramatically different from working with Eq. (14) where the coherence of the field lines has been lost. Operators involving products of $`\mathrm{\Pi }[\gamma ]`$ corresponding to more charges give an incoherent sum of squares of Faraday lines. The abelian theory is completely different at this point; because the electric field is an observable, a state corresponding to a coherent superposition of Faraday lines can be constructed with

$`P_\pm [f]=a_m^{}(𝐱(1))\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\left(U[\gamma ]T^3U[\gamma ]\right)^{f[\gamma ]}\right\}_{mn}a_n^{}(𝐱(0))`$ (18)
where a formal product over curves between $`𝐱(0)`$ and $`𝐱(1)`$ is represented. Notice that even though Eq. (18) involves a nonlocal contraction of indices within the product, it is still gauge invariant if

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}f[\gamma ]=1.`$ (19)
This would be more obvious for the analogous $`U`$(1) expression in terms of complex numbers instead of commuting matrices. Consistent with Eq. (18), the commutator

$`[𝐄^3(𝐱),P_\pm [f]]=\pm g\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}𝚫(𝐱,\gamma )f[\gamma ]\right\}P_\pm [f]`$ (20)
involves a formal average over Faraday lines between $`𝐱(0)`$ and $`𝐱(1)`$. It is this coherent average that allows deconfinement in the abelian case. We could speculate here that such a state could also arise in the nonabelian theory where some mechanism provides the appropriate abelian projections. Recall that for us, inserting $`(T^3T^3)_{ab}`$ by hand in the nonabelian expressions gives the abelian expressions.

The average of Eq. (20) can be made explicit by evaluating a “sum over curves” path integral

$`𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )_\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒩{\displaystyle _\gamma }𝒟\left[𝐱_\gamma (s)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left({\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\right)^2\right]𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )`$ (21)
where we work with the Fourier transformed Faraday line

$`𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐱_\gamma (s)\right)`$ (22)
and of course $`𝒩`$ is defined by the normalization condition

$`𝒩{\displaystyle _\gamma }𝒟\left[𝐱_\gamma (s)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left({\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\right)^2\right]=1.`$ (23)
The average in Eq. (21) corresponds to a special case of the Eq. (20) average where a single parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ regulates the scale for which the curves extend throughout space. As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to zero all curves throughout space are equally weighted; as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to infinity only the line directly between the charges contributes. It is tempting to interpret $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of a string tension, but since the line integral in the exponent in Eq. (21) is not reparameterization invariant we will resist the temptation. The practical reason for the choice of the exponent is that it is translationally invariant and can be explicitly computed from the generating functional

$`𝒵[𝐱(0),𝐱(1),𝐉(s),\mathrm{\Lambda }]={\displaystyle _\gamma }𝒟\left[𝐱_\gamma (s)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱_\gamma (s)}{ds}}\right)^2𝐉(s)𝐱_\gamma (s)\right]\right\}.`$ (24)
Evaluating the gaussian integrals of Eq. (24) gives

$`𝒵[𝐱(0),𝐱(1),𝐉(s),\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds{\displaystyle _0^1}dt𝐉(s)𝐉(t)[t\theta (st)`$ (25)
$`+s\theta (ts)st]+{\displaystyle _0^1}ds𝐉(s)[(1s)𝐱(0)+s𝐱(1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}(𝐱(1)𝐱(0))^2\}.`$ (26)
It is then straight forward using Eq. (26) to compute the average in Eq. (21) to be

$`𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )_\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i𝐤}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+𝐱(1)𝐱(0)\right]`$ (27)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i𝐤\left[(1s)𝐱(0)+s𝐱(1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{s(1s)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝐤^2\right\}.`$ (28)
Also, it is reassuring to notice that

$`i𝐤𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐱(0)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐱(1)\right),`$ (29)
meaning that Gauss’ law for point charges is satisfied by Eq. (28) for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, the integral of Eq. (28) is dominated by contributions near the limits of integration and becomes the Fourier transform of the familiar Coulomb field

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}{lim}𝚫(𝐤,\gamma )_\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{i𝐤}{k^2}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐱(1)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐱(0)\right)\right].`$ (30)
Therefore, we find that the physical state $`P_\pm [f]|0`$ of two charge electrostatics that gives

$`𝐄^3(𝐱)P_\pm [f]|0={\displaystyle \frac{\pm g}{4\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱𝐱(0)}{\left|𝐱𝐱(0)\right|^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱𝐱(1)}{\left|𝐱𝐱(1)\right|^3}}\right\}P_\pm [f]|0`$ (31)
is the one where the curve weight factors $`f[\gamma ]`$ are all equal. It is remarkable that the physical electric field can be viewed as a uniform collection of all possible Faraday lines. It is clear that this state is not available to the symmetry unbroken nonabelian theory because it is built from a product of path ordered exponentials that is gauge invariant only for the abelian case. Furthermore, we expect that deconfinement requires some mechanism to provide appropriate abelian projection operators that allow the nonabelian theory to make use of such a state. For instance, consider the operator $`(\varphi ^aT^a\varphi ^bT^b)_{mn}`$ containing a Higgs field $`\varphi ^a`$ that has uniformly fallen in the arbitrary color direction along the third axis. For the symmetry broken ground state, the operator becomes $`|\varphi _0|^2(T^3T^3)_{mn}`$ which is precisely the projection operator we have used to convert nonabelian expressions to abelian ones.

In summary, a way has been presented in which color confinement can be understood as a restriction imposed by nonabelian gauge invariance on the use of states representing a coherent superposition of color electric flux lines. Deconfinement is realized in the abelian theory by a state that represents charges joined by a coherent average of all possible flux lines. Therefore, a practical view of confinement in the nonabelian case is that this state is not allowed. It is conceivable that operators resulting from symmetry breaking could act as an abelian projection that makes such a state allowable and results in the deconfinement of color charge. Possibly, the deconfinement of weak isospin in electroweak theory could be understood in this way.

For the symmetric nonabelian case of $`SU`$(2) charge without the color magnetic interaction, the only consistent static states are one-dimensional idealized flux lines that join the nonabelian charges. It can be shown that such states are eigenstates of $`V`$ as long as flux lines do not intersect. Intersections result in off diagonal interactions that allow flux lines to re-associate with a new pairing of charges as in string-flip models. It may be possible that string-flip models can be understood from the static implications of gauge invariance. To make this connection it would be necessary to consider the more realistic case of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quarks in the fundamental representation of $`SU`$(3). Ideally, the color magnetic energy and dynamical considerations should be included in some approximation.


format: text

text:
# Two-dimensional Burgers Cellular Automaton

## 1 Introduction

Recently, cellular automaton(CA) is extensively studied as a method to make models of complex systems, such as traffic flow, fluid dynamics, immune systems. Since CA models are represented by binary procedures or discrete equations, exact analysis or explicit solutions are rarely obtained. Thus we often use numerical calculations or thermodynamical and statistical methods to study global features.

Recently, the ultradiscrete method is proposed as a new type of discretization technique which allows us to study direct relations between continuous system and CA. As for soliton equations, we can derive associated CA from a continuous equation keeping their integrable properties by the method. Another example of applying this method has been given by two of the authors and a CA associated with the 1D Burgers equation is derived as follows:

$$U_i^{t+1}=U_i^t+\mathrm{min}(U_{i1}^t,LU_i^t)\mathrm{min}(U_i^t,LU_{i+1}^t).$$
(1)
The CA is called Burgers CA(BCA), and it has nice properties; it can be transformed into a linear CA of diffusion type, and is a multi-value generalization of the rule–184 CA. Moreover, BCA and its extensions can be used as highway traffic models, and properties of models and observed data are compared in detail.

In this paper, we generalize the previous results to two spatial dimension. First, we introduce 2D Burgers equation, which can be linearized by a dependent variable transformation. Then we discretize independent variables keeping its integrable properties. Finally, we use the ultradiscrete method to obtain two-dimensional BCA. We also study some exact solutions of the CA.

## 2 Two-dimensional Burgers equation and its ultradiscretization

2D Burgers equation we consider in this paper is

$`u_t`$ $`=`$ $`u_{xx}+u_{yy}+2uu_x+2vu_y,`$ (2)
$`v_x`$ $`=`$ $`u_y,`$ (3)
or, eliminating the variable $`v`$, we can rewrite these into a single equation

$$u_t=u_{xx}+u_{yy}+2uu_x+2u_yu_y𝑑x.$$
(4)
This equation has a remarkable property that it can be linearized by the Cole–Hopf transformation

$$u=\frac{f_x}{f}$$
(5)
into a 2D diffusion equation

$$f_t=f_{xx}+f_{yy}.$$
(6)
Thus the Burgers equations are integrable in a sense that they can be transformed into a linear equation. It is noted that from (3) and (5), we obtain

$$v=\frac{f_y}{f}.$$
(7)
From (5) and (7) it is apparent that the variables $`u`$ and $`v`$ can be treated symmetrically, then we can derive the time evolution equation for $`v`$. From (6) and (7), we obtain

$$v_t=v_{xx}+v_{yy}+2vv_y+2uv_x.$$
(8)
Thus we can write 2D Burgers equation in another coupled form as

$$𝐮_t=^2𝐮+2(𝐮)𝐮,$$
(9)
where $`𝐮=(u,v)`$. This form appears in , in which it is called vector Burgers equation.

To discretize the independent variables in (2) and (3), we utilize discrete analogues to (5) and (6). Discretizing both time and space variables in (6), we obtain a discrete diffusion equation

$$f_{ij}^{t+1}=(14\delta )f_{ij}^t+\delta (f_{i+1j}^t+f_{i1j}^t+f_{ij+1}^t+f_{ij1}^t)$$
(10)
where $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }t/h^2`$ and $`h=\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }y`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ are lattice intervals in time $`t`$, space $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively. Next we define discrete analogues to the Cole–Hopf transformation (5) and (7)

$$u_{ij}^tc\frac{f_{i+1j}^t}{f_{ij}^t},v_{ij}^tc\frac{f_{ij+1}^t}{f_{ij}^t}$$
(11)
where $`c`$ is a constant. Evolution equations for $`u_{ij}^t`$ and $`v_{ij}^t`$ are derived from (10) and (11) as

$`u_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{ij}^t{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{14\delta }{c\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{i+1j}^t}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{ij}^t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{i+1j}^t}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_{i+1j1}^t}}}{{\displaystyle \frac{14\delta }{c\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{ij}^t}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{i1j}^t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{ij}^t}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_{ij1}^t}}}},`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{i+1j}^t}{v_{ij}^t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{ij+1}^t}{u_{ij}^t}}.`$ (13)
If we take an appropriate continuous limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t,h0`$, we obtain (2) and (3) from (12) and (13). Moreover, (12) and (13) can be transformed into the linear diffusion equation (10) through (11).

Next, we ultradiscretize (12) and (13), that is, discretize dependent variables $`u`$ and $`v`$. Let us introduce a transformation of variables and parameters as follows:

$`u_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`e^{U_{ij}^t/\epsilon },v_{ij}^t=e^{V_{ij}^t/\epsilon },`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{14\delta }{c\delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{M/\epsilon },`$ (15)
$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{L/\epsilon },`$ (16)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a parameter. Substituting these transformations into (12) and (13), taking a limit $`\epsilon +0`$ and using the formula

$$\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\epsilon \mathrm{log}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{A}{\epsilon })+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{B}{\epsilon }))=\mathrm{max}(A,B)=\mathrm{min}(A,B),$$
(17)
we obtain

$`U_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{ij}^t+\mathrm{min}(M,U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{ij1}^t,LV_{ij}^t)`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{min}(M,U_{ij}^t,LU_{i+1j}^t,V_{i+1j1}^t,LV_{i+1j}^t),`$
$`V_{i+1j}^tV_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`U_{ij+1}^tU_{ij}^t.`$ (19)
These are two-dimensional generalization of BCA (1). We call this system two-dimensional Burgers CA(2DBCA). In (18), we can eliminate the variable $`V`$ by using (19) and obtain

$$U_{ij}^{t+1}=U_{ij}^t+Q_{ij}^tQ_{i+1j}^t,$$
(20)
where flow $`Q_{ij}^t`$ is given by

$$Q_{ij}^t=\mathrm{min}(M,U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{0j1}^t+\underset{k=0}{\overset{i1}{}}(U_{kj}^tU_{kj1}^t),LV_{0j}^t\underset{k=0}{\overset{i1}{}}(U_{kj+1}^tU_{kj}^t)),$$
(21)
which is an ultradiscrete version of (4). In (21), $`V_{0j}^t`$ represents boundary conditions for $`V`$ at $`i=0`$. Since variables $`u`$ and $`v`$ can be treated symmetrically, we can derive an equation for $`V`$ by using a similar procedure to the above. The result is

$`V_{ij}^{t+1}=V_{ij}^t`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{min}(M,U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{ij1}^t,LV_{ij}^t)`$ (22)
$``$ $`\mathrm{min}(M,U_{i1j+1}^t,LU_{ij+1}^t,V_{ij}^t,LV_{ij+1}^t).`$
It should be noted that 2DBCA is also expressed by a set of equations (18) and (22), and it is equivalent to that of (18) and (19) under an appropriate condition. This fact is directly shown as follows. Let us define $`h_{ij}^t`$ by

$$h_{ij}^t\mathrm{min}(M,U_{ij}^t,LU_{i+1j}^t,V_{i+1j1}^t,LV_{i+1j}^t),$$
(23)
then (18) and (22) are written as

$`U_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{ij}^t+h_{i1j}^th_{ij}^t`$ (24)
$`V_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{ij}^t+h_{i1j}^th_{i1j+1}^t.`$ (25)
By using these equation we have

$`V_{i+1j}^{t+1}V_{ij}^{t+1}U_{ij+1}^{t+1}+U_{ij}^{t+1}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\{V_{i+1j}^t+h_{ij}^th_{ij+1}^t\}\{V_{ij}^t+h_{i1j}^th_{i1j+1}^t\}`$
$`\{U_{ij+1}^t+h_{i1j+1}^th_{ij+1}^t\}+\{U_{ij}^t+h_{i1j}^th_{ij}^t\}`$
$`=`$ $`V_{i+1j}^tV_{ij}^tU_{ij+1}^t+U_{ij}^t.`$
Thus

$$V_{i+1j}^tV_{ij}^tU_{ij+1}^t+U_{ij}^t=\text{const.}$$
(27)
holds for any time $`t`$. By choosing initial condition of $`U`$ and $`V`$ so that the above constant becomes zero everywhere, then (19) is always satisfied. Note that if $`U`$ is periodic in lattice $`i`$ and $`V`$ in $`j`$, then the total sums $`_iU_{ij}^t`$ and $`_jV_{ij}^t`$ are conserved quantities, which is directly shown by using (18) and (22).

Finally, we consider a relation between the ultradiscrete Burgers equation and ultradiscrete diffusion equation. Introducing a transformation

$$f_{ij}^t=\mathrm{exp}(F_{ij}^t/\epsilon ),$$
(28)
ultradiscrete Cole–Hopf transformations

$`U_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`F_{i+1j}^tF_{ij}^t+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}},`$ (29)
$`V_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`F_{ij+1}^tF_{ij}^t+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}`$ (30)
are obtained from (11) and (14) under the limit $`\epsilon +0`$. Substituting (28) into (10), we obtain an ultra-discrete diffusion equation;

$$F_{ij}^{t+1}=\mathrm{max}(F_{ij}^t+\frac{L}{2}M,F_{i+1j}^t,F_{i1j}^t,F_{ij+1}^t,F_{ij1}^t)\mathrm{max}(0,\frac{L}{2}M).$$
(31)
This is also obtained as follows. If we substitute (29) and (30) into (18), we have

$`F_{i+1j}^{t+1}F_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(F_{ij}^t+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}M,F_{i+1j}^t,F_{i1j}^t,F_{ij+1}^t,F_{ij1}^t)`$ (32)
$``$ $`\mathrm{max}(F_{i+1j}^t+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}M,F_{i+2j}^t,F_{ij}^t,F_{i+1j+1}^t,F_{i+1j1}^t).`$
Since this equation is in a recurrence form in $`i`$, we obtain (31) if we choose the decoupling constant in the above equation as $`\mathrm{max}(0,L/2M)`$. This shows that we can linearize 2DBCA by the ultradiscrete Cole-Hopf transformations and the CA can be considered to keep integrable property. (19) is automatically satisfied by substituting (29) and (30) into it, and this means that (19) represents the compatibility condition of differences in $`i`$ and $`j`$ direction of the variable $`F`$. Note that we consider a linearity of (31) in a sense that superposition of solutions is realized by $`\mathrm{max}`$ operation like ’+’ in (6).

## 3 Some solutions of 2DBCA

### 3.1 Shock wave solution

In this section, we discuss some solutions and examine their behavior in detail. First, we derive an exact solution which represents shock waves. In order to obtain the solution, we utilize the shock wave solution of the discrete Burgers equation (12) and (13). Let us assume $`f_{ij}^t`$ has the following form

$$f_{ij}^t=1+\underset{z=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}(k_zi+r_zj+\omega _zt+\xi _z),$$
(33)
where $`k_z`$, $`r_z`$, $`\omega _z`$ and $`\xi _z`$ $`(z=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ are constants. (33) is an exact solution of (10) under the condition

$$\omega _z=\mathrm{log}(14\delta +\delta (e^{k_z}+e^{k_z}+e^{r_z}+e^{r_z}))(z=1,2,\mathrm{},N),$$
(34)
which is obtained simply substituting (33) into (10). (34) is the dispersion relation between the frequency ($`\omega _z`$) and the wavenumber ($`k_z`$ and $`r_z`$). From (11) we have

$$u_{ij}^t=c\frac{1+_{z=1}^N\mathrm{exp}(k_z(i+1)+r_zj+\omega _zt+\xi _z)}{1+_{z=1}^N\mathrm{exp}(k_zi+r_zj+\omega _zt+\xi _z)},$$
(35)
and also have $`v_{ij}^t`$. We call this “$`N`$-shock wave” solution of (12) and (13). From this solution we can obtain a shock wave solution of 2DBCA by the ultradiscrete method. First we assume

$$k_z=\frac{K_z}{\epsilon },r_z=\frac{R_z}{\epsilon },\omega _z=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_z}{\epsilon },\xi _z=\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_z}{\epsilon },$$
(36)
and noticing (14) and (16), we obtain from (35)

$`U_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}+\mathrm{max}(0,\theta _1(i+1,j,t),\theta _2(i+1,j,t),\mathrm{},\theta _N(i+1,j,t))`$ (37)
$``$ $`\mathrm{max}(0,\theta _1(i,j,t),\theta _2(i,j,t),\mathrm{},\theta _N(i,j,t)),`$
by taking the limit $`\epsilon +0`$. Here phases $`\theta _z(z=1,\mathrm{},N),`$ are given by

$$\theta _z(i,j,t)=K_zi+R_zj+\mathrm{\Omega }_zt+\mathrm{\Xi }_z.$$
(38)
From (34), a dispersion relation becomes in the limit

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_z=\mathrm{max}(|K_z|,|R_z|,\frac{L}{2}M)\mathrm{max}(0,\frac{L}{2}M).$$
(39)
(37) is an exact solution of (18) and we also get a solution $`V_{ij}^t`$ by (19), which represent an ultradiscrete shock wave. The $`\mathrm{max}`$ operation in (37) represents the superposition principle, as mentioned in the previous section.

Fig.1 shows an example of shock wave solution (37) in the case of $`N=2`$. Parameters are taken as $`K_1=1,R_1=K_2=R_2=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_1=\mathrm{\Xi }_2=0`$, $`L=2`$ and $`M=2`$. We easily see that $`\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}U_{ij}^t=L/2+K_2=2`$, and $`\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}U_{ij}^t=L/2+K_1=0`$, and $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}U_{ij}^t=L/2=1`$.

### 3.2 Particle model and excitation behavior

If we assume the parameter $`M`$ is sufficiently larger than $`L/2`$, we can neglect terms that contain $`M`$ in (18), (22) and (31), and simplify the analysis on them. In this case equations on $`U`$ and $`V`$ become

$`U_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{ij}^t+\mathrm{min}(U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{ij1}^t,LV_{ij}^t)`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{min}(U_{ij}^t,LU_{i+1j}^t,V_{i+1j1}^t,LV_{i+1j}^t),`$
$`V_{ij}^{t+1}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{ij}^t+\mathrm{min}(U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{ij1},LV_{ij}^t)`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{min}(U_{i1j+1}^t,LU_{ij+1}^t,V_{ij},LV_{ij+1}^t),`$
and equation on $`F`$ becomes

$$F_{ij}^{t+1}=\mathrm{max}(F_{i+1j}^t,F_{i1j}^t,F_{ij+1}^t,F_{ij1}^t).$$
(42)
It is easily verified that if initial conditions are taken as $`0F_{ij}^0,0U_{ij}^0L`$ and $`0V_{ij}^0L`$, then these conditions hold for any time $`t`$.

The set of equations (40) and (41) express a simple particle model. Before explaining the model, we shortly review a one-dimensional particle model defined by (1) described in . In the model, there are one-dimensional infinite sites indexed by $`i`$. Every site can hold $`L`$ particles at most. Particles at each site move to empty spaces in its neighboring right site synchronously at each time step. According to this rule, flow from site $`i`$ to $`i+1`$ at time $`t`$ becomes $`\mathrm{min}(U_i^t,LU_{i+1}^t)`$ if $`U_i^t`$ denotes the number of particles at site $`i`$ and time $`t`$. Thus considering the number of particles coming into and escaping from site $`i`$, we obtain (1).

Next we explain two-dimensional particle model expressed by (40) and (41). The model is constructed as follows:

1. There are two-dimensional infinite sites indexed by $`i`$ and $`j`$.
2. There are two kinds of particles, shortly saying $`U`$-particles and $`V`$-particles. $`U`$-particles move only in positive $`i`$ direction. $`V`$-particles in positive $`j`$ direction, as shown in Fig.2.
3. Every site can hold $`L`$ particles at most of both kinds respectively.
4. $`U`$-particles at site $`(i,j)`$ can move to empty spaces in its neighboring right site $`(i+1,j)`$ per unit time. $`V`$-particles at $`(i,j)`$ can move to those in up site $`(i,j+1)`$.
5. The number of $`U`$-particles from $`(i1,j)`$ to $`(i,j)`$ from $`t`$ to $`t+1`$ must be equal to that of $`V`$-particles from $`(i,j1)`$ to $`(i,j)`$ at the same time step.
6. Under this restriction, $`U`$\- and $`V`$-particles move to occupy neighboring empty spaces.

Let us define the number of $`U`$\- and $`V`$-particles at site $`(i,j)`$ and time $`t`$ by $`U_{ij}^t`$ and $`V_{ij}^t`$ respectively. Then, according to the above rule (e) and (f), flow of $`U`$-particles from $`(i1,j)`$ to $`(i,j)`$ and that of $`V`$-particles from $`(i,j1)`$ to $`(i,j)`$ are both $`\mathrm{min}(U_{i1j}^t,LU_{ij}^t,V_{ij1}^t,LV_{ij}^t)`$. Thus, evolution equations of the above model become (40) and (41). We call this rule “pairing rule” because the same number of $`U`$\- and $`V`$-particles come into the same site.

We show simple examples of time evolution of the above model. We choose $`L=2`$ for all examples below. As the first example, we set $`F_{ij}^0=0`$ except $`F_{0,0}^0=1`$ at the origin. This means $`U_{1,0}^0=2`$, $`U_{0,0}^0=0`$, $`V_{0,1}^0=2`$, $`V_{0,0}^0=0`$ and $`U_{ij}^0=V_{ij}^0=1`$ at all other points. The time evolution is given in Fig.3. An exact solution of (42) is

$$F_{ij}^t=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|k+l|t}{|kl|t}}{k+l=t\mathrm{mod}2}}{\mathrm{max}}G_{i+i_0k,j+j_0l},$$
(43)
where $`G_{k,l}`$ is defined by

$`G_{k,l}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{max}(0,2k+1)2\mathrm{max}(0,2k)+\mathrm{max}(0,2k1),`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{max}(0,2l+1)2\mathrm{max}(0,2l)+\mathrm{max}(0,2l1)),`$
and $`i_0`$, $`j_0`$ is real phase constants. Since $`i_0`$ and $`j_0`$ are arbitrary real constants, the above solution satisfies (42) even if $`i`$$`j`$ lattice is shifted as $`ii+i_0^{}`$ and $`jj+j_0^{}`$. If we set $`i_0=j_0=0`$ in (43), we obtain the same solution shown in Fig. 3 on integer lattice points.

We can derive the above solution from a solution of difference equation (10) using ultradiscretization. The derivation is shown in Appendix. The solution represents an expansion of excited wave of $`F`$ as shown in Fig.3(a). The solutions for $`U`$ and $`V`$ are obtained by substituting (43) into (29) and (30), respectively, or simply by moving $`U`$-particles and $`V`$-particles according to the above rule. Fig.4 is an example of expanding rings of $`U`$ and $`V`$. Initial conditions are $`F_{i,j}^0=0`$ except $`F_{0,0}^0=1`$ and $`F_{1,0}^0=1`$. The solution is apparently obtained by a superposition of (43). We see that $`_iU_{ij}^t`$ and $`_jV_{ij}^t`$ are constant for time in both cases.

## 4 Concluding discussions

In this paper, two-dimensional CA associated with Burgers equation(2DBCA) is presented by using ultradiscrete method. 2DBCA has some remarkable properties that it can be linearized by means of the ultradiscrete Cole–Hopf transformation, and has exact solutions which shows $`N`$-shock wave and excitation behaviors.

We also show a particle model of the CA, which can be considered as a pairing movement of particles in $`i`$ and $`j`$ direction. We hope that this rule and its integrability contribute to make models on some multi-dimensional complex systems.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Prof. Ryogo Hirota and Prof. Yasuhiro Ohta for fruitful discussions and helpful comments. This work is partially supported by Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Appendix

In this appendix, we show that (43) can be derived from a solution of the difference equation (10) through the ultradiscretization.

First, since we consider the case that the parameter $`M`$ is sufficiently large, we can set $`\delta =1/4`$ by using (15). Then (10) becomes

$$f_{ij}^{t+1}=\frac{1}{4}(f_{i+1j}^t+f_{i1j}^t+f_{ij+1}^t+f_{ij1}^t).$$
(45)
We can interpret this equation as 2D random walk process. Therefore, we obtain an exact solution including 2D binomial distribution,

$$f_{ij}^t=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|k+l|t}{|kl|t}}{k+l=t\mathrm{mod}2}}{}c_{k,l}^tg_{i+i_0k,j+j0l},$$
(46)
where

$`c_{k,l}^t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4^t}}{\displaystyle \frac{t!}{((t|k+l|)/2)!((t+|k+l|)/2)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{t!}{((t|kl|)/2)!((t+|kl|)/2)!}}`$
$`g_{k,l}=1/\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2k/\epsilon ))^2}{(1+\mathrm{exp}((2k+1)/\epsilon ))(1+\mathrm{exp}((2k1)/\epsilon ))}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2l/\epsilon ))^2}{(1+\mathrm{exp}((2l+1)/\epsilon ))(1+\mathrm{exp}((2l1)/\epsilon ))}}\}`$
and $`i_0`$, $`j_0`$ is real phase constants, $`\epsilon `$ is a limiting parameter. We have

$$\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\epsilon \mathrm{log}g_{k,l}=G_{k,l}\mathrm{in}(\text{44})$$

and $`c_{k,l}^t`$ is always positive finite for finite $`k`$, $`l`$ and $`t`$. Therefore, taking a limit $`\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\epsilon \mathrm{log}f_{ij}^t`$, all $`c_{k,l}^t`$ terms disappear and only $`g_{k,l}`$ survive in the summation of (46). Thus we obtain $`F_{ij}^t`$ in (43) from $`f_{ij}^t`$ in (46) by the ultradiscretization. Figure A1 (a) shows $`F_{ij}^t`$ , and (b) and (c) show $`\epsilon \mathrm{log}f_{ij}^t`$. We draw all figures as continuous plot on $`i`$ and $`j`$ and set $`t=2`$ and $`i_0=j_0=0`$. Parameter $`\epsilon `$ is $`0.2`$ and $`0.01`$ in (b) and (c), respectively. From these figures, we can see a difference solution converges to a ultradiscrete one as $`\epsilon +0`$.

Figure Captions

1. The snapshot of shock wave solution at $`t=1`$ in the case of $`N=2`$. Parameters are $`K_1=1,R_1=K_2=R_2=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_1=\mathrm{\Xi }_2=0`$, $`L=2`$ and $`M=2`$.
2. A physical explanation of the (2+1)-dimensional BCA, called “pairing rule”. The same number of $`U`$-particles and $`V`$-particles come into the same site. The solid arrow and broken arrow show the movement of $`U`$ and $`V`$, respectively.
3. Excitation behavior of (a)$`F`$, (b)$`U`$, (c)$`V`$ at $`t=6`$. We choose $`L=2`$, and initial conditions are $`F_{i,j}^0=0`$ except the origin $`F_{0,0}^0=1`$. The light gray, dark gray and black square represent 0, 1, 2, respectively.
4. Expanding wave of $`U`$ and $`V`$ ((a)$`F`$, (b)$`U`$, (c)$`V`$ at $`t=6`$). Initial conditions are $`F_{i,j}^0=0`$ except $`F_{0,0}^0=1`$ and $`F_{1,0}^0=1`$. The light gray, dark gray and black square represent 0, 1, 2, respectively.
5. Plot of solutions of ultradiscrete and difference diffusion equation. (a) $`F_{ij}^t`$ in (43), (b) $`\epsilon \mathrm{log}f_{ij}^t`$ in (46) for $`\epsilon =0.2`$ and (c) $`\epsilon \mathrm{log}f_{ij}^t`$ in (46) for $`\epsilon =0.01`$. In all figures, we set $`t=2`$ and $`i_0=j_0=0`$.

Figure 1 by K. Nishinari, et al

Figure 2 by K. Nishinari, et al

Figure 3 by K. Nishinari, et al

Figure 4 by K. Nishinari, et al

Figure A1 by K. Nishinari, et al


text:
# Mixmaster Hořava-Witten Cosmology

## 1 Introduction

There are various superstring effective theories (type I, type IIA, type IIB and heterotic $`E_8\times E_8`$ or $`SO(32)`$) which can be represented by effective actions with suitable field equations which generalize general relativity. In view of duality symmetry the superstring effective actions are not necessarily the right description of physics at strong coupling, where string coupling parameter $`g_s=\mathrm{exp}(\varphi /2)\mathrm{}`$. It appears that at strong coupling regime the physics is 11-dimensional and can be described by M-theory with its low-energy limit – 11-dimensional supergravity. One of the proposals for M-theory is Hořava-Witten theory.

The main issue of this talk is to discuss the question about the implications of superstring/M-theory onto the evolution of the universe.

## 2 Cosmology of the common sector (pre-big-bang)

Let us start with the presentation of superstring effective actions. The first action under consideration is type IIA superstring effective action. It has $`N=2`$ supersymmetries of opposite chirality and reads

$`S_{\mathrm{IIA}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _s^8}}\{{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g_{10}}[e^\varphi (R_{10}+(\varphi )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_3^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(F_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{})^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }B_2F_4F_4\}`$ (1)
where $`R_{10}`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature of the spacetime with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{10}\mathrm{det}g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\lambda _s^2=\alpha ^{}`$ is the fundamental string length. Strings sweep out geodesic surfaces with respect to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The antisymmetric tensor field strengths are defined by $`H_3=dB_2`$, $`F_2=dA_1`$, $`F_4=dA_3`$ and $`F_4^{}=F_4+A_1H_3`$, where $`A_p,B_p`$ denote antisymmetric $`p`$–form potentials and $`d`$ is the exterior derivative. The last term in (2) is a Chern–Simons term and is a necessary consequence of supersymmetry . The NS–NS sector of the action contains the graviton, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the antisymmetric 2–form potential, $`B_2`$, and the dilaton field, $`\varphi `$. The RR sector contains antisymmetric $`p`$–form potentials, where $`p`$ is odd. The NS–NS sector couples directly to the dilaton, but the RR fields do not.

The bosonic type IIB superstring effective theory has $`N=2`$ supersymmetries of the same chirality and its action reads

$`S_{\mathrm{IIB}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _s^8}}\{{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g_{10}}[e^\varphi (R_{10}+(\varphi )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(H_3^{(1)})^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\chi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(H_3^{(2)}+\chi H_3^{(1)})^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{240}}(F_5)^2]+{\displaystyle }A_4H_3^{(2)}H_3^{(1)}\}.`$ (2)
Here the bosonic massless excitations arising in the NS–NS sector are the dilaton, $`\varphi `$, the metric, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and the antisymmetric, 2–form potential, denoted here by $`B_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$. The RR sector contains a scalar axion field, $`\chi `$, a 2–form potential, $`B_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ (we dropped a 4–form potential, $`D_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ here) and the RR field strengths are defined by $`H_3^{(2)}=dB_2^{(2)}`$ and $`F_5=dA_4+B_2^{(2)}H_3^{(1)}`$.

In heterotic superstring theories supersymmetry is imposed only in the right-moving sector so these theories are $`N=1`$ supersymmetric. Quantization of the left-moving sector requires the gauge groups to be either $`SO(32)`$ or $`E_8\times E_8`$ and the choice of the group depends on the boundary conditions. The heterotic superstring effective action reads

$`S_\mathrm{H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _s^8}}{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g_{10}}e^\varphi [R_{10}+(\varphi )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_2^2]`$ (3)
where $`F_2^2`$ is the field strength corresponding to the gauge groups $`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ or $`\mathrm{E}_8\times \mathrm{E}_8`$ and $`H_3=dB_2`$ is the field strength of a 2-form potential, $`B_2`$.

The last of the superstring theories is an open string theory or type I theory. Because of the obvious reason (left and right moving sectors must be the same) it has $`N=1`$ supersymmetry and the effective action reads

$`S_\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _s^8}}{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g_{10}}[e^\varphi (R_{10}+(\varphi )^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{\varphi /2}F_2^2]`$ (4)
where $`F_2^2`$ is the Yang–Mills field strength taking values in the gauge group $`G=\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ and $`H_3=dB_2`$ is the field strength of a 2–form potential, $`B_2`$. We note that this field strength is not coupled to the dilaton field in this frame and since both actions (2) and (2) have the same particle content this is the only difference between the two theories.

It is not difficult to notice that all the above theories (2)-(2) in the string frame have the common sector which (except different coupling of $`H_3`$ in type I) is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\lambda _s^8}d^{10}x\sqrt{g_{10}}e^\varphi \left[R_{10}+\left(\varphi \right)^2\frac{1}{12}H_3^2\right].$$
(5)
In particular, (5) represents a weak coupling limit ($`g_s0`$) of heterotic $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory. It is also the zeroth–order expansion in both the string coupling $`g_s`$ and the inverse string tension $`\alpha ^{}`$.

The common sector (5), after a suitable dimensional reduction to 4 dimensions on a constant Calabi-Yau manifold, gives the following elementary cosmological solutions for flat isotropic Friedmann geometry (with no axion $`H_3=0`$)

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^{\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}},`$ (6)
$`e^{\varphi (t)}`$ $`=`$ $`t^{\pm \sqrt{3}1},`$
where $`a`$ is the scale factor and $`\varphi `$ the dilaton. These solutions led to the cosmological scenario which is called pre-big-bang cosmology . It is easy to notice that the solutions (6) admit a phase of expansion for  negative times as well as for positive times (with the singularity formally located at $`t=0`$). It is both a curvature singularity (Ricci scalar diverges) and a string coupling singularity $`g_s\mathrm{}`$.

From (6) we realize that there are four possible types of the evolution for the scale factor together with four corresponding types of evolution for the dilaton. These with ‘-’ sign in (6) will be numbered as 1 and 2 while those with ‘+’ sign in (6) will be numbered as 3 and 4. All of them are commonly called branches. Branches 1 and 3 apply for negative times ($`t<0`$) while branches 2 and 4 apply for positive times ($`t>0`$). The four types of evolution are connected by the underlying symmetry of string theory namely $`Tduality`$ (also called O(d,d) symmetry ) which in the context of isotropic cosmology is called scale factor duality (SFD). Its mathematical realization is given by the relation which interchange the scale factor and the dilaton, leaving field equations unchanged, i.e.,

$`a(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(t)}},`$ (7)
$`\varphi (t)\varphi (t)\mathrm{ln}a^6(t).`$ (8)
SFD relates 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 whose domains are either for $`t<0`$ or $`t>0`$. However, there is also time-reflection symmetry

$$tt,$$
(9)
which together with SFD gives relation beetween 1 and 4 as follows

$$a_1(t)=(t)^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}t^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}=\frac{1}{a_4(t)}.$$
(10)
It is easy to show that for branch 1

$$\frac{\ddot{a}_1}{a_1}>0,$$
(11)
which means that it describes inflation which undergoes without a violation of the energy conditions and it is called superinflation. This comes form the fact that there is only kinetic term for the dilaton in the action (5) and there is no potential energy at all. Let us remind that standard inflation is potential-energy-driven inflation. It is easy to notice that the branch 4 is deflationary, i.e.,

$$\frac{\ddot{a}_4}{a_4}<0,$$
(12)
and it describes standard radiation-dominated evolution. Branches 1 and 4 are duality-related, though, they are divided by the singularity of curvature and strong coupling. The solutions with axion are qualitatively the same – still there is a curvature singularity and strong coupling singularity though a bounce of the scale factor $`a(t)`$ appears .

There are some problems with pre-big-bang scenario. One of the most interesting is that in the conformally related Einstein frame the action (5) is the same as the Einstein relativity minimally coupled to a scalar field (or stiff fluid pressure = energy density) and the solutions for negative times $`t<0`$ are just collapsing solutions and no superinflation is present. Another is the so-called ”graceful-exit” problem which is a possible physical mechanism for a transition from superinflation to a radiation-dominated universe. An interesting issue appears if one considers less symmetric geometries like homogeneous Bianchi or Kantowski-Sachs type models. In that case a choice of the antisymmetric tensor potential is unclear since one is possible to make it timely ($`B_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }(t)`$) or spatially ($`B_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }(x)`$) dependent. The first case (though makes energy momentum tensor time-dependent only) cannot be admitted to some geometries and even if it can, it may prevent isotropization of the universe for late times which is observationally unfavourable.

## 3 M-theory and Hořava-Witten theory

M-theory is defined as strong coupling limit of superstring theories. It is 11-dimensional and it has got as a weak coupling limit 11-dimensional supergravity with the action

$`S_{SUGRA}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_{11}}}({\displaystyle }d^{11}x\sqrt{g_{11}}[R_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}F_4^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle }A_3F_4F_4,)`$ (13)
where $`G_{11}`$ is 11-dimensional Newton constant and the Chern–Simons term arises as a direct consequence of the ($`N=1`$) supersymmetry.

It has been shown that the compactification of $`N=1`$, $`D=11`$ supergravity on a circle, $`S^1`$, results in the type IIA supergravity theory which was interpreted as the strongly coupled limit of the type IIA superstring (with $`N=2`$ supersymmetries) in terms of an 11-dimensional theory. This correspondence gave Hořava and Witten  the idea that one can also compactify eleven-dimensional supergravity on a $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold (which is a unit interval $`I`$) in order to get a heterotic theory with only $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. Other words, they proved that the 10-dimensional $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory results from an 11-dimensional theory compactified on the orbifold $`R^{10}\times S^1/Z_2`$ in the same way as the type IIA theory results from an 11-dimensional theory compactified on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$. This identifies strongly coupled limit of heterotic $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory as 11-dimensional supergravity compactified on an orbifold. The action for such a theory reads as

$$S=S_{SUGRA}+S_{YM},$$
(14)
where

$`S_{YM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \kappa _{11}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}}{4\pi }}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\{{\displaystyle _{M_{10}^{(1)}}}\sqrt{g_{10}}[tr\left(F^{(1)}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}trR^2]+{\displaystyle _{M_{10}^{(2)}}}\sqrt{g_{10}}[tr\left(F^{(2)}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}trR^2]\}.`$ (15)
The action (3) is composed of the two $`E_8`$ Yang-Mills theories on 10-dimensional orbifold fixed planes – manifolds $`M_{10}^{(i)}`$ (i = 1,2) and $`F^{(i)}`$ are the two gauge field strengths.

## 4 Hořava-Witten cosmological solutions

For further cosmological investigations we can compactify Hořava-Witten models on a Calabi-Yau deformed manifold $`X`$ with orbifold coordinate to make decomposition $`M^{11}=M^4\times X\times S^1/Z_2`$. It is important that the size of the orbifold is much bigger than the radius of the Calabi-Yau space and we can discuss 5-dimensional effective theory with the action

$`S={\displaystyle _{M_5}}\sqrt{g_5}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\alpha _0^2e^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }\right)`$
$`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle _{M_4^{(i)}}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}_4}\alpha _0e^{\sqrt{2}\varphi },`$ (16)
where $`M_4^{(1)},M_4^{(1)}`$ are orbifold fixed planes, $`\varphi =1/\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}V`$ is a scalar field (dilaton) which parametrizes the radius of Calabi-Yau space and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij},i,j=0,1,2,3`$ is the pull-back of 5-dimensional metric onto $`M_4^{(1)}`$ and $`M_4^{(1)}`$. In the action (4) we dropped other important fields like p-form fields, gravitini, RR scalar and fermions.

The effective field equations for the action (4) are ($`i,j=0,1,2,3,\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3,5`$)

$`R_\mu ^\nu =_\mu \varphi ^\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0^2}{9}}g_\mu ^\nu e^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }+\sqrt{2}\alpha _0e^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }`$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{g}}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}\left[g_{i\mu }g_j^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_\mu ^\nu g_{i\sigma }g_j^\sigma \right]\left[\delta (y)\delta (y\pi \lambda )\right]`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}^\mu \varphi \right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\alpha _0^2e^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }`$
$`+2\alpha _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{g}}}e^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }\left[\delta (y)\delta (y\pi \lambda )\right].`$ (18)
In (18) $`yx^5[\pi \lambda ,\pi \lambda ]`$ is a coordinate in the orbifold direction and the orbifold fixed planes are at $`y=0,\pi \lambda `$. $`Z_2`$ acts on $`S^1`$ by $`yy`$. The terms involving delta functions arise from the stress energy on the boundary planes.

Before going further we present the form of 11-dimensional metric for our cosmological solutions which is

$$ds_{11}^2=e^{\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +e^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{mn}dy^mdy^n,$$
(19)
and $`m,n=6,\mathrm{},11`$ so that the last term is simply Calabi-Yau metric. The 5-dimensional metric is given by

$$ds_5^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =N^2(\tau ,y)d\tau ^2+ds_3^2+d^2(\tau ,y)dy^2,$$
(20)
and our main task in this paper is to consider the most general form of the 3-metric of homogeneous type Bianchi IX (or Mixmaster)

$$ds_3^2=a^2(\tau ,y)(\sigma ^1)^2+b^2(\tau ,y)(\sigma ^2)^2+c^2(\tau ,y)(\sigma ^3)^2,$$
(21)
where the orthonormal forms $`\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\sigma ^3`$ are given by

$`\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,`$ (22)
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,`$ (23)
$`\sigma ^3`$ $`=`$ $`d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi ,`$ (24)
and the angular coordinates $`\psi ,\theta ,\phi `$ span the following ranges,

$$0\psi 4\pi ,0\theta \pi ,0\phi 2\pi .$$
(25)
One should notice that under a choice $`\sigma ^1=dx^1,\sigma ^2=dx^2,\sigma ^3=dx^3`$ one gets Bianchi type I flat geometry.

Similarly as in  we will look for separable solutions of the form

$`N(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`n(\tau )\stackrel{~}{a}(y),`$
$`a(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (\tau )\stackrel{~}{a}(y),`$
$`b(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\tau )\stackrel{~}{a}(y),`$
$`c(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\tau )\stackrel{~}{a}(y),`$ (26)
$`d(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\tau )\stackrel{~}{d}(y),`$
$`V(\tau ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\sqrt{2}\varphi (\tau ,y)}=\epsilon (\tau )\stackrel{~}{V}(y),.`$
In fact $`\alpha (\tau ),\beta (\tau ),\gamma (\tau )`$ are vorldvolume scale factors and $`\delta (\tau )`$ is an orbifold scale factor. It appears that the suitable equations of motion are fully separable into the orbifold-dependent part and spacetime-dependent part provided

$$n(\tau )=1,\delta (\tau )=\epsilon (\tau ),$$
(27)
where the first condition is simply the choice of the lapse function, while the second tells us that Calabi-Yau space is tracking the orbifold. One can show that orbifold-dependent part can be solved by

$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0H^{1/2}(y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ $`=`$ $`d_0H^2(y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=`$ $`d_0H^3(y),`$ (28)
where

$`H(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\alpha _0y+h_0,`$ (29)
$`H^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\alpha _0\left[\delta (y)\delta (y\pi \lambda )\right],`$ (30)
and we have applied

$$y^{}=ϵ(y)ϵ(y\pi \lambda )1,$$
(31)
so that

$$y^{\prime \prime }=2\delta (y)2\delta (y\pi \lambda ),$$
(32)
(factor 2 comes from the fact that $`y`$ is periodic) and

$`ϵ(y)=1ify0,`$ (33)
$`ϵ(y)=1ify<0.`$ (34)
After all these substitutions one can write down 5-dimensional metric in the form

$`ds_5^2=a_0^2H(y)d\tau ^2+a_0^2H(y)[\alpha ^2(\tau )(\sigma ^1)^2`$
$`+\beta ^2(\tau )(\sigma ^2)^2+\gamma ^2(\tau ,y)(\sigma ^3)^2]+d_0^2H^4(y)\delta ^2(\tau )dy^2.`$ (35)
Elementary solutions of Hořava-Witten theory for Friedmann flat geometry analogous to (6) in pre-big-bang cosmology are given by taking one scale factor $`\overline{a}=\alpha =\beta =\gamma `$ in (4) and read

$`\overline{a}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^p_{},p_{}=3/114/11\sqrt{3},`$
$`\delta (\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^q_{},q_\pm =2/11\pm 4\sqrt{3}/11,`$ (36)
for the worldvolume and orbifold respectively. From (4) one can easily deduce that there are four types of evolution of the worldvolume $`M^4`$ and the orbifold, namely: both worldvolume and orbifold contracts, both worldvolume and orbifold expand, worldvolume contracts while orbifold expands (superinflationary) and worldvolume expands while orbifold contracts. The former case corresponds to superinflation while the latter to standard radiation-dominated evolution in pre-big-bang scenario.

## 5 Kasner asymptotics of Mixmaster Hořava-Witten and pre-big-bang solutions

Using the relationship between weakly (pre-big-bang (5)) and strongly (Hořava-Witten (4)) coupled heterotic string theories  we study the problem of the emergence of chaotic oscillations in Mixmaster cosmologies based on these theories. In particular, we discuss Kasner asymptotic states (anisotropic solutions of zero curvature to the field equations) of homogeneous Bianchi type IX geometries in these string cosmologies. In order to present the time-dependent part of the Hořava-Witten field equations we use a new time coordinate

$$d\eta =\frac{d\tau }{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }.$$
(37)
From now on we will use the notation $`(\mathrm{}),_\eta =d/d\eta `$. To further simplify the equations we additionally define

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\mathrm{ln}\alpha \stackrel{~}{\beta }=\mathrm{ln}\beta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\mathrm{ln}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\delta }=\mathrm{ln}\delta ,$$
(38)
so that we get

$`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }+\stackrel{~}{\delta })_{,\eta \eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{,\eta }^2=2(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta }`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta })+2(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{,\eta },`$ (39)
$`2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(\beta ^2\gamma ^2\right)^2\alpha ^4\right]\delta ^2,`$ (40)
$`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)^2\beta ^4\right]\delta ^2,`$ (41)
$`2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(\beta ^2\gamma ^2\right)^2\alpha ^4\right]\delta ^2,`$ (42)
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{,\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (43)
The important point is that pre-big-bang field equations are the same except the constraint which now takes the form ($`\stackrel{~}{\delta }=\varphi `$)

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\right)_{,\eta \eta }\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{,\eta }^2=2\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta }\right)`$
$`2\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{,\eta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{,\eta }\right)\varphi _{,\eta }.`$ (44)
The Kasner asymptotic solutions are of the type

$$\alpha (\tau )=\alpha _0\tau ^{p_1},\beta (\tau )=\beta _0\tau ^{p_2},\gamma =\gamma _0\tau ^{p_3},\delta =e^\varphi =\delta _0\tau ^{p_4},$$
(45)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are scale factors, $`\varphi `$ is the scalar field, $`\alpha _0,\beta _0,\gamma _0,\delta _0`$ constants and $`p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4`$ the so-called Kasner indices (it is obvious that the ‘fourth’ Kasner index $`p_4`$ refers to the scalar field).

It is well-known that the approach to a singularity in Bianchi type IX models of the universe happens through a sequence of the Kasner-to-Kasner transitions (Mixmaster oscillations). These transitions can be described as the replacements of the Kasner indices of the type

$$p_i^{}=p_i^{}(p_i).$$
(46)
The main problem is to establish whether the number of these replacements will be finite (no chaos) or infinite (chaos). It is easy to notice from the field equations (5) that these transitions are possible only if the terms of the type

$`\alpha ^4\delta ^2\tau ^{(2p_1+p_4)}=\tau ^{(1+p_1p_2p_3)},`$
$`\beta ^4\delta ^2\tau ^{(2p_2+p_4)}=\tau ^{(1+p_2p_3p_1)},`$ (47)
$`\gamma ^4\delta ^2\tau ^{(2p_3+p_4)}=\tau ^{(1+p_3p_1p_2)},`$
increase in the limit $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ ($`\tau 0`$). The increase is possible in the regions which are marked in the Figures 1 and 2. Fig. 1 corresponds to pre-big-bang while Fig. 2 corresponds to Hořava-Witten. However, this is not enough to answer the question about the infinite continuation of Kasner transitions since the increase may, in general, be replaced by the decrease of these indices in the marked regions either. What is important is whether the increase (or the decrease) of the indices refers to all of them and whether they all may have the same sign. If they do have the same sign, the expansion becomes monotonic - a singularity is reached and there is no chaos.

To establich that in both limits of the heterotic $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory we obtain suitable conditions for Kasner indices (”Kasner sphere”) which are :

$$p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4=1,p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2=1$$
(48)
for weak coupling limit (pre-big-bang) and

$$p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4=1,p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2+\frac{3}{2}p_4^2=1$$
(49)
for strong coupling limit. For further discussion it is important that both Kasner asymptotics contain the isotropic solutions of Friedmann type as special cases in their domains. For (48) these points are defined by $`p_1=p_2=p_3=\pm 1/\sqrt{3},p_4=\sqrt{3}+1`$ while for (49) these points are defined by $`p_1=p_2=p_3=p_{}=3/114/11\sqrt{3},p_4=q_\pm =2/11\pm 4\sqrt{3}/11`$. This means there is a nonzero region in the parameter space where all indices can have the same sign (e.g. all positive). Once it happens the chaotic scatterings of the anisotropic Bianchi IX model stop which means that it is impossible to approach singularity in a chaotic way.

## 6 Weak coupling versus strong coupling – how to generate Hořava-Witten solutions

In fact, there is a relationships between the pre-big-bang (48) and Hořava-Witten (49) solutions and the result of our previous section is an example of generation of solutions from those known in one theory, into the other - in particular, into solutions of Hořava-Witten theory . This happens due to conformal relation between the theories:

$$g_{\mu \nu }^E=e^\varphi g_{\mu \nu }^S=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }^{HW},$$
(50)
where $`E,S,HW`$ refer to Einstein frame, string frame and Hořava-Witten, respectively, and the relation is true, provided 3-branes are given by the separable ansatz equations (4). In particular, lots of exact solutions are available for the Einstein frame (general relativity + stiff fluid matter) - having them, one is able to generate Hořava-Witten type solutions and study their properties.

Our conclusions are as follows. Hořava-Witten theory admits Mixmaster type cosmology with Kasner type asymptotic solutions. Due to conformal relations one can generate Hořava-Witten cosmological solutions (with separable 3-brane) of many types and study their properties. Hořava-Witten Mixmaster cosmology (for truncated spectrum of particles), similarly as pre-big-bang (truncated) cosmology does not admit chaos.

Finally, one should mention some open issues in the topic. Firstly, one should study non-separable ansätze for Hořava-Witten cosmology and investigate how they relate to pre-big-bang. Secondly, one should study Mixmaster behaviour of cosmological models which involve non-truncated spectrum of particles and inhomogeneities .

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Polish Research Committee (KBN) grant No 2 PO3B 105 16.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry algebras in higher dimensions  have been the subject of investigation in recent years in connection with their relation to string and M theories . The AdS-CFT correspondence (for a review, see Ref. ), which describes a duality between world-volume brane theories and AdS supergravities, has renewed the interest in superconformal field theories and their underlying superalgebras . It has also been conjectured  that brane superalgebras are closely related to the extension of superconformal algebras to larger algebras including antisymmetric tensor generators.

The most remarkable example is $`\mathrm{osp}(1|32,)`$, with 32 real spinor charges. By contraction  it gives the M-theory superalgebra (super Poincaré in an 11-dimensional space of signature $`(10,1)`$), with the maximal central extension (two and five brane charges). It also can be seen as the super conformal algebra in a space of dimension $`D=10`$ and signature $`(9,1)`$ . The conformal group in $`D=10`$ acts linearly on a space of dimension $`12`$, $`(10,2)`$, and the spinor charge is a real Weyl spinor in this space. The (1,0) chiral $`D=10`$ super Poincaré algebra with a five-brane central charge is a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{osp}(1|32,)`$.

Moving to one dimension more, the M-theory super Poincaré algebra (with two and five-brane charges) can be regarded as a subalgebra of the superconformal algebra of a space time of dimension 11. This superalgebra is $`\mathrm{osp}(1|64,)`$, whose odd part (64 spinorial charges) forms a real spinor in a space of dimension $`13`$, $`(11,2)`$ . This example is relevant because it has been shown that M-theory can be regarded as a phase of an $`\mathrm{osp}(1|64,)`$ theory . The full symmetry is spontaneously broken, so it is realized non linearly. Some attempts to derive M-theory from a gauge theory of the group $`\mathrm{Sp}(32,)`$ have been made in Ref.

In this paper we generalize the classification of space-time superalgebras given in Ref. , in terms of the dimension $`D`$ and signature $`\rho `$ of space time, to extended supersymmetry algebras with an R-symmetry group acting on the conformal spinors.

Other than brane superalgebras, the present results are in relation with different versions of supersymmetric theories with $`D11`$, in particular with the theories introduced by Hull , M, M and M’, which are formulated in 11 dimensional space-times with signatures $`(s,t)=(10,1),(9,2),(6,5)`$ respectively. Notice that the signature for all these theories is $`\rho =st=\pm 1`$ mod 8. Our analysis implies that the superalgebras appearing in them can be seen as a contraction of the very same $`\mathrm{osp}(1|32,)`$ algebra or as a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{osp}(1|64,)`$. This suggests that they are all different phases of the same theory .

The present study evidences the deep relation between the R-symmetry algebra and the space-time algebra (the $`\mathrm{Spin}(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t})`$-algebra which embeds $`\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t})`$, according to the notation of  ) that appear as simple factors in the bosonic part of the superconformal algebra. For the signature of the physical conformal group, $`(s,t)=(D2,2)`$ a compact R-symmetry group is allowed. For the Euclidean superconformal algebra, that is, for signature $`(s,t)=(D1,1)`$ only non compact R-symmetry groups are allowed. This implies that a proper treatment of Euclidean supersymmetric theories require superalgebras with non compact R-symmetry, as observed long ago by Zumino , and recently discussed in .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we extend the analysis of ref.  to N supersymmetries. In Section 3. we show how, in any dimension, the superconformal algebra has an so(1,1) grading. The super Poincaré algebra emerges as a non semisimple subalgebra of the superconformal algebra. In Section 4. we consider N-extended super Poincaré algebras with maximal central extension.

## 2 Conformal superalgebras with $`N`$ supersymmetries

We recall here briefly the formalism used in Ref. . Let $`S`$ be a complex vector space. A conjugation of $`S`$ is an antilinear map $`\sigma :SS`$,

$$\sigma (av)=a^{}\psi (v),a,vS,$$

such that $`\sigma ^2=1`$. The set

$$S^\sigma =\{vS|\sigma (v)=v\}$$

is a real vector space. If instead $`\sigma ^2=1`$ we say that $`\sigma `$ is a pseudoconjugation of $`S`$, and the condition $`\sigma (v)=v`$ is inconsistent.

Suppose now that $`S`$ is a $`𝒢`$-module, for a complex Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Let $`\sigma :SS`$ be an antilinear map satisfying $`\sigma ^2=\pm 1`$ (that is, $`\sigma `$ is a conjugation or a pseudoconjugation on $`S`$). Then the map

$$\psi (X)=\sigma X\sigma ^1$$

is a conjugation of $`𝒢`$. If $`S`$ is irreducible one can prove that $`𝒢^\psi `$ is a real form of $`𝒢`$. The action of $`𝒢^\psi `$ on $`S`$ commutes with $`\sigma `$.

The real forms of classical Lie algebras arise in this way, except for the unitary algebras $`\mathrm{su}(p,q)`$. The algebras $`\mathrm{sl}(n,)`$, $`\mathrm{so}(p,q)`$, $`\mathrm{sp}(2p,)`$ correspond to conjugations on the space of the fundamental representation and the algebras $`\mathrm{su}^{}(2p)`$, $`\mathrm{so}^{}(2p)`$ and $`\mathrm{usp}(2p,2q)`$ correspond to pseudoconjugations.

Let $`V`$ be a real vector space of dimension $`D=s+t`$ with a non degenerate symmetric bilinear form of signature $`\rho =st`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ the corresponding spin group. Spinor representations are linear, orthogonal or symplectic depending on the existence of a $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$-invariant bilinear form, which can be symmetric or antisymmetric. The existence and symmetry of the bilinear form depend exclusively on the dimension $`D`$ modulo 8 . The complexified group $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)^{}`$ is then embedded into a classical Lie group, $`\mathrm{Sl}(n,)`$, $`\mathrm{SO}(n,)`$ or $`\mathrm{Sp}(n,)`$ where $`n`$ is the dimension of the spinor representation. Denoting by $`D=D_0`$ mod(8) and $`\rho =\rho _0`$ mod(8), we have that for $`D_0=2,6`$ the spinors are linear, for $`D_0=0,1,7`$ they are orthogonal and for $`D_0=3,4,5`$ they are symplectic.

The existence of a conjugation or a pseudoconjugation in the space $`S`$ of the spinor representation (commuting with the action of the orthogonal algebra) depends on the signature $`\rho `$ mod 8. We have then that $`\mathrm{o}(s,t)`$ is embedded into a real form of the above algebra, which will be determined in terms of $`\rho `$. This real algebra is called the $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ algebra. In Table 1 the real form for each case is listed . The odd and even cases are treated separately.

We consider now superalgebras containing $`\mathrm{so}(s,t)`$ in the even part and whose odd part consists on one or more copies of the spinor representation of $`\mathrm{so}(s,t)`$. If the superalgebra is required to be simple, then the anticommutators of the odd charges generate the whole even subalgebra. In particular, the generators of the orthogonal group in the spinor representation must have the appropriate symmetry to appear in the right hand side of the anticommutator of two spinors. This analysis was carried out in Ref.  for $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. The smallest simple superalgebra containing $`\mathrm{so}(s,t)`$ has even part equal to the $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ algebra, listed in Table 1, times an R-symmetry algebra which is usp(2) or so(2) (quaternionic case) or u(1) (complex case)111Except for $`D=7`$, $`\rho =3`$, where a smaller simple superalgebra, the exceptional superalgebra $`f(4)`$, contains the orthogonal group in its even part.. This superalgebra is called $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ superalgebra. The same structure appears in the case of extended supersymmetry, although the generalization is not completely straightforward since new cases appear due to the presence of the internal index space.

The odd part of the superalgebra is, as a vector space, a tensor product $`SW`$ of the spinor representation space $`S`$ with the R-symmetry space $`W`$. If the spin algebra is a symplectic algebra, the R-symmetry is an orthogonal algebra and they build an orthosymplectic algebra. If the spin algebra is orthogonal, then the R-symmetry is symplectic and they give an orthosymplectic algebra with the roles of the orthogonal and symplectic groups interchanged. If the spin algebra is a linear (unitary) algebra, then the R-symmetry is also a linear (unitary) algebra and they build a superalgebra form the linear (unitary) series.

In order to obtain a real superalgebra, a conjugation commuting with the action of the even part of the superalgebra must exist in the total space $`SW`$. If the spinor is real then there is a conjugation $`\sigma _S`$ of $`S`$ commuting with the action of the Spin($`s,t`$) algebra. The R-symmetry factor which acts on $`W`$ also commutes with a conjugation, $`\sigma _W`$. If the spinor is quaternionic then there is a pseudoconjugation $`\sigma _S`$ on $`S`$, and there is also a pseudoconjugation on $`W`$ commuting with the R-symmetry. Then $`\sigma _S\sigma _W`$ is a conjugation in the total space. If the spinor is complex, the Spin($`V`$) algebra is either $`\mathrm{su}(p,q)`$ or a complex group (symplectic or orthogonal). In the first case the R-symmetry is also $`\mathrm{su}(m,n)`$ and in the second case the R-symmetry is a complex group (orthogonal or symplectic respectively). The real representation is obtained by taking the complex vector space as a real one of twice the dimension.

As an example, we compute the case $`D_0=1,7`$, $`\rho _0=1,7`$. The spinors are orthogonal and real. The anticommutator of two odd generators is of the form

$$\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_\beta ^j\}=\underset{k}{}A^{ij}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k]}Z_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k]}.$$
(1)
The generators of the orthogonal group are $`Z_{[\mu _1\mu _2]}`$. For $`N=1`$ the factor $`A^{ij}`$ is not present. Then, in order to have $`Z_{[\mu _1\mu _2]}`$ in the right hand side of (1), the morphism $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{[\mu _1\mu _2]}`$ must be symmetric. Since it is antisymmetric, there is no superconformal algebra in this case. For $`N>1`$, one can choose an antisymmetric matrix $`A^{ij}=ϵ^{ij}`$ and the orthogonal generators are allowed in the right hand side of (1). If follows that the R-symmetry group is $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N,)`$.

In Table 2 we list the R-symmetry groups and the $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ superalgebras. The compact cases $`D=\rho `$ are not listed but they are immediate. We mark with the symbol “$``$” the cases that do not arise in the non extended case.

The cases marked with a symbol “$``$” allow the possibility of a compact R-symmetry group. They correspond to $`\mathrm{so}(s,2)`$, that is the physical conformal groups.

## 3 $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$ grading of the $`\mathrm{Spin}(s,t)`$ superalgebra

Let $`𝒢^k`$ be a compact semisimple Lie algebra, its complexification being $`𝒢^c`$. Let $`\theta :𝒢^k𝒢^k`$ be an involutive automorphism, $`\theta ^2=1`$. $`𝒢^k`$ splits into two eigenspaces,

$$𝒢^k=𝒦+𝒫.$$

$`𝒦`$ is the eigenspace with eigenvalue $`+1`$ of $`\theta `$, and $`𝒫`$ the eigenspace with eigenvalue $`1`$. The vector space

$$𝒢=_0+i𝒫$$
(2)
is a non compact real form of $`𝒢^c`$. (2) is called a Cartan decomposition of $`𝒢`$ and the procedure is known as the Weyl unitary trick. All the Cartan decompositions are listed in Ref.. $`_0`$ is the maximal compactly embedded subalgebra of $`𝒢`$, and $`𝒫`$ carries an irreducible representation of $`_0`$.

If $`𝒢`$ is simple, then the algebra $`𝒦`$ is either semisimple or is a semisimple algebra plus a u(1) factor. For example, let $`𝒢^k=\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{q})`$ and $`\theta _{p,q}(X)=I_{p,q}XI_{p,q}`$, where

$$I_{p,q}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_p& 0\\ 0& I_q\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`𝒦=\mathrm{so}(p)\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{q})`$. $`𝒫`$ is the bifundamental representation of $`\mathrm{so}(p)\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{q})`$, $`(𝐩,𝐪)`$ .

One can apply the Weyl unitary trick to $`𝒢`$ with respect to a Cartan involution $`\theta ^{}`$ that commutes with $`\theta `$. $`𝒢`$ splits into four eigenspaces of the simultaneous eigenvalues of $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$,

$$𝒢=𝒢^{++}+𝒢^++i𝒢^++i𝒢^{}.$$

The first sign is the eigenvalue of $`\theta `$ and the second is the eigenvalue of $`\theta ^{}`$. So

$$𝒦=𝒢^{++}+𝒢^+,𝒫=𝒢^++𝒢^{}.$$

The Lie algebra

$$𝒢^{}=𝒢^{++}+i𝒢^++i𝒢^++𝒢^{}$$

is another non compact form of $`𝒢^c`$ (corresponding to the Cartan involution $`\theta ^{}\theta `$). The maximal compact subalgebra is $`𝒢^{++}+𝒢^{}`$. We take the decomposition

$$_0=𝒢^{++}+i𝒢^+,𝒫^{}=i𝒢^++𝒢^{}.$$

$`_0`$ is a non compact real form of the complexification of $`𝒦`$.

In the example of $`\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{d})`$, we can take $`\theta =\theta _{d2,2}`$ and $`\theta ^{}=\theta _{s,t}`$, $`s+t=d`$. Then

$$𝒢^{}=\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t}),_0=\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s}1,\mathrm{t}1)\mathrm{so}(1,1)$$

and the bifundamental representation $`(𝐝\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ splits into two irreducible representations, whith charges $`\pm 1`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$, $`(𝐝\mathrm{𝟐})^{+1}(𝐝\mathrm{𝟐})^1`$. This is in fact the splitting of the conformal algebra with respect to the Lorentz subalgebra times the dilatation. The vector space $`𝒫^{}`$ contains the translations $`P_\mu `$ and the conformal boosts $`K_\mu `$.

The Lie algebra $`𝒢^{}=\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t})`$ has a Lie algebra grading,

$$𝒢^{}=_1+_0+_{+1},$$

being the grade the charge with respect to $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$. $`_{\pm 1}`$ are abelian subalgebras and $`_0\mathrm{}_{\pm 1}`$ is the Poincaré algebra.

The same procedure can be applied to all the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebras in Table 1, and a grading is always found with respect to a $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$ subalgebra, which can always be identified with the dilatation of the conformal group embedded into the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra. $`_0\mathrm{}_{\pm 1}`$ is a semidirect sum of algebras that generalizes the super Poincaré algebra. $`_{\pm 1}`$ are abelian algebras containing the translations and central charges. These decompositions are listed in  for all the simple Lie algebras. In Table 3 we give $`_0`$ for all the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebras.

When the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra is an orthogonal algebra, $`_{\pm 1}`$ are in the two-fold antisymmetric representation of $`_0`$. When the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra is a symplectic algebra, then $`_{\pm 1}`$ are in the two-fold symmetric representation of $`_0`$. When the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra is a linear algebra, then $`_{\pm 1}`$ are in the bifundamental representation of $`_0`$.

The spinor representation of $`\mathrm{so}(s,t)`$, $`S_{(s,t)}`$ decomposes as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S_{(s,t)}& \underset{\mathrm{so}(s1,t1)\mathrm{so}(1,1)}{}& S_{(s1,t1)}^{1/2}S_{(s1,t1)}^{1/2}\end{array}.$$
(3)
If $`D`$ is even, then a chiral representation decomposes into two representations with opposite chirality.

$`\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s}1,\mathrm{t}1)`$ is embedded into $`_0`$. When promoting the spinor representation of $`\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t})`$ to the fundamental representation of the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra, the splitting (3) corresponds to the splitting under $`_0`$, which is given also in Table 3. $`𝐧^{}`$ denotes the dual representation of $`𝐧`$.

In fact, one can check that $`_0`$ contains in each case, the full Spin$`(s1,t1)`$-algebra. The embeddings are given in Table 4.

The superalgebras of Table 2 have also a $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$ grading

$$𝒮=_1+𝒮_{1/2}+_0+𝒮_{+1/2}+_{+1}.$$

In the case of extended supersymmetry, $`_0`$ contains also the R-symmetry factor. The spaces $`^{\pm 1}`$ have a simple meaning in terms of the $`\gamma `$-matrices of $`\mathrm{so}(\mathrm{s}1,\mathrm{t}1)`$. From the grading properties and the simplicity of the superalgebra, it is clear that

$$\{𝒮_{\pm 1/2},𝒮_{\pm 1/2}\}=_{\pm 1}.$$

In fact, $`_\pm `$ are irreducible representations of $`_0`$. The anticommutator

$$\{Q_{\pm 1/2},Q_{\pm 1/2}\}$$

can in general be written as in (1), and the term $`\gamma ^\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,\mathrm{},s+t2`$) appears since it corresponds to the momentum (with grade 1). It follows that in the r.h.s of (1) will appear only terms corresponding to matrices $`\gamma ^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _m]}`$ with the same symmetry properties as $`\gamma ^\mu `$. In fact, from dimensional considerations, all of these terms appear. For $`s+t=7,8,9`$ mod 8, the $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are antisymmetric and dim$`(_\pm )=\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$. For $`s+t=3,4,5`$ mod 8, they are symmetric and dim$`(_\pm )=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}`$. For $`s+t=2,6`$ mod 8, the relevant anticommutator is a left spinor with a right spinor. In this case the morphisms (coefficients in the r.h.s. of (1)) have no definite symmetry and dim$`(_\pm )=n^2`$.

## 4 The orthosymplectic algebra and the maximal central extension of Poincaré supersymmetry

Let $`2n`$ be the real dimension of a spinor representation and $`N`$ the number of such spinors present in the superalgebra. The spinor charges are denoted

$$Q_\alpha ^i,i=1,\mathrm{}N,\alpha =1,\mathrm{}2n.$$

Since the anticommutator $`\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_\beta ^j\}`$ is symmetric, the biggest simple superalgebra containing only these odd generators (maximal Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra in the language of Ref. ) is $`\mathrm{osp}(1|2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{N},)`$, with bosonic part $`\widehat{}=\mathrm{sp}(2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{N},)`$. It is clear that $``$ contains as a subalgebra the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra plus the R-symmetry,

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{symmetry}\widehat{}.$$

We want to show that the so(1,1) grading of $``$ extends to $`\widehat{}`$ and to $`\mathrm{osp}(1|2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{N})`$. We have that

$$\widehat{}=\widehat{}_{+1}+\widehat{}_0+\widehat{}_1,$$

where $`\widehat{}_0=\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$ and $`\widehat{}_{\pm 1}`$ are in the two-fold symmetric representation of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ with charges $`\pm 1`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$. To show that this grading is compatible with the one of the Spin$`(s,t)`$ algebra, we have to show that

$$_0\mathrm{R}\mathrm{symmetry}\widehat{}_0.$$

We consider the complex linear algebra

$$\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)\mathrm{gl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{gl}(\mathrm{N},)/^{}.$$

(The bracket in the tensor product of algebras is defined as

$$[aa^{},bb^{}]=[a,b][a^{},b^{}]).$$

One has that

$`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$
$`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},),`$
and that

$$\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},).$$

Notice that the fundamental representation of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ becomes the bifundamental ($`^n^N`$) of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)`$. The adjoint of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ decomposes under $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)`$ in the adjoint of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)`$ plus the tensor products of the adjoints of $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)`$ and $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)`$.

Let $`𝒢_n\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n},)`$ and $`𝒢_N\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N},)`$. Then we have

$$𝒢_n𝒢_N\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},).$$

In particular, $`𝒢_n`$ and $`𝒢_N`$ can be orthogonal, symplectic, or the linear algebras themselves. We have just to check that the appropriate real forms are contained in $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$. We recall that the real form $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ is obtained from a conjugation in the fundamental representation space. Moreover, $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ is the set of all traceless matrices in $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$, commuting with a conjugation in $`^{nN}`$ (which can be brought by an isomorphism to the standard conjugation on $`^{nN}`$).

The direct sum of real forms $`𝒢_n^r𝒢_N^r`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{nN},)`$ if the bifundamental representation of $`𝒢_n^r𝒢_N^r`$ commutes with a conjugation. This happens when both, $`𝒢_n^r`$ and $`𝒢_N^r`$, commute with a conjugation in their respective spaces, $`^n`$ and $`^N`$, and when they both commute with a pseudoconjugation.

If the algebras are complex, then one can see $`(𝒢_n^{})_{}`$ and $`(𝒢_N^{})_{}`$ inside a real group

$`(𝒢_n^{})_{}\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{n}^{},)_{}\mathrm{sl}(2\mathrm{n}^{},))\mathrm{sp}(4\mathrm{n}^{},),`$
$`(𝒢_N^{})_{}\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{N}^{},)_{}\mathrm{sl}(2\mathrm{N}^{},))\mathrm{sp}(4\mathrm{N}^{},)`$ (4)
with $`n=2n^{}`$, $`N=2N^{}`$.

The unitary algebras are embedded into complex algebras that one can see as real, and then embedded in a linear complex group as above (4).

We give the embeddings for all dimensions and signatures in Table 5. The real dimension of the spinor representation. is given in terms of $`D`$ and depends on the reality properties of the spinor. For clarity, it is given in Table 6.

The grading extends to the orthosymplectic superalgebra $`\widehat{𝒮}=\mathrm{osp}(1|2\mathrm{m},)`$, where $`m`$ is the number appearing in the third column of Table 5,

$$\widehat{𝒮}=\widehat{}_1+\widehat{𝒮}_{1/2}+\widehat{}_0+\widehat{𝒮}_{+1/2}+\widehat{}_{+1}.$$

To see this, it is enough to give the decomposition of the fundamental representation of $`\mathrm{sp}(2\mathrm{m},)`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{m},)\mathrm{so}(1,1)`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{𝟐}𝐦)& \underset{\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{m},)\mathrm{so}(1,1)}{}& (𝐦)^{1/2}(𝐦^{})^{1/2}\end{array}.$$

Finally, $`\widehat{𝒮}_{+1/2}+\widehat{}_{+1}`$ is a superalgebra which is the maximal central extension of the supertranslation algebra.

## Acknowledgements

S. F. wants to thank the INFN, Sezione di Torino for its kind hospitality during the completion of this work. The work of S. F. has been supported in part by the European Commission RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00131, (Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN) and by the D.O.E. grant DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C.