format: text

text:
# RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS AND SUPERCONFORMAL INVARIANCE

## 1. Introduction

The Riemann hypothesis \[Rie, Tit86\] states that the non-trivial zeros (as opposed to zeros at $`s=2n`$, $`n1`$ integer) of Riemann Zeta function obtained by analytically continuing the function

$`\zeta (s)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^s}}`$ (1)
from the region $`Re[s]>1`$ to the entire complex plane, lie on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. Hilbert and Polya \[Edw74\] conjectured a long time ago that the non-trivial zeroes of Riemann Zeta function could have spectral interpretation in terms of the eigenvalues of a suitable self-adjoint differential operator $`H`$ such that the eigenvalues of this operator correspond to the imaginary parts of the nontrivial zeros $`z=x+iy`$ of $`\zeta `$. One can however consider a variant of this hypothesis stating that the eigenvalue spectrum of a non-Hermitian operator $`D^+`$ contains the non-trivial zeros of $`\zeta `$. The eigenstates in question are eigenstates of an annihilation operator type operator $`D^+`$ and analogous to the so called coherent states encountered in quantum physics \[IZ80\]. In particular, the eigenfunctions are in general non-orthogonal and this is a quintessential element of the the proposed strategy of proof.

In the following an explicit operator having as its eigenvalues the non-trivial zeros of $`\zeta `$ is constructed.

a) The construction relies crucially on the interpretation of the vanishing of $`\zeta `$ as an orthogonality condition in a Hermitian metric which is is a priori more general than Hilbert space inner product.

b) Second basic element is the scaling invariance motivated by the belief that $`\zeta `$ is associated with a physical system which has superconformal transformations \[ISZ88\] as its symmetries. This vision was inspired by the generalization of $`\zeta `$ and the Riemann hypothesis to a $`p`$-adic context forcing the sharpening of the Riemann hypothesis to the conjecture that $`p^{iy}`$ defines a rational phase factor for all non-trivial zeros $`x+iy`$ of $`\zeta `$ and for all primes $`p`$ \[Pit95\]. Here however only the Riemann hypothesis is discussed.

The core elements of the construction are following.

a) All complex numbers are candidates for the eigenvalues of $`D^+`$ and genuine eigenvalues are selected by the requirement that the condition $`D^{}=D^+`$ holds true in the set of the genuine eigenfunctions. This condition is equivalent with the Hermiticity of the Hermitian metric defined by a function proportional to $`\zeta `$.

b) The eigenvalues turn out to consist of $`z=0`$ and the non-trivial zeros of $`\zeta `$ and only the zeros with $`Re[z]=1/2`$ correspond to the eigenfunctions having real norm. The vanishing of $`\zeta `$ tells that the ’physical’ positive norm eigenfunctions, which are not orthogonal to each other, are orthogonal to the the ’unphysical’ negative norm eigenfunction associated with the eigenvalue $`z=0`$. The requirement that the Hermitian form in question defines an inner product implies that the the sums $`z_{12}=1+i(y_1+y_2)`$ of the zeros $`z=1/2+y_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, of $`\zeta `$ correspond to almost-zeros of $`\zeta `$ for large values of $`y_1+y_2`$.

c) The theory allows supersymmetrization and second quantization in tems of the representations of a superconformal algebra associated with the operator $`D^+`$ and containing the ordinary superconformal algebra \[ISZ88\] as its subalgebra. The states on the critical line correspond to the representations of the ordinary superconformal algebra acting as gauge symmetries. If one requires that this is also the case for the might-exist unphysical coherent states orthogonal to the vacuum state but off from the critical line, Riemann hypothesis follows by a reductio ad absurdum argument.

## 2. Modified form of the Hilbert-Polya conjecture

One can modify the Hilbert-Polya conjecture by assuming scaling invariance and giving up the Hermiticity of the Hilber-Polya operator. This means introduction of the non-Hermitian operators $`D^+`$ and $`D`$ which are Hermitian conjugates of each other such that $`D^+`$ has the nontrivial zeros of $`\zeta `$ as its complex eigenvalues

$`\begin{array}{cc}D^+\mathrm{\Psi }=z\mathrm{\Psi }.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (3)
The counterparts of the so called coherent states \[IZ80\] are in question and the eigenfunctions of $`D^+`$ are not expected to be orthogonal in general. The following construction is based on the idea that $`D^+`$ also allows the eigenvalue $`z=0`$ and that the vanishing of $`\zeta `$ at $`z`$ expresses the orthogonality of the states with eigenvalue $`z=x+iy0`$ and the state with eigenvalue $`z=0`$ which turns out to have a negative norm.

The trial

$`\begin{array}{cc}D=L_0+V,\hfill & D^+=L_0+V\hfill \\ & \\ L_0=t\frac{d}{dt},\hfill & V=\frac{dlog(F)}{d(log(t))}=t\frac{dF}{dt}\frac{1}{F}\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
is motivated by the requirement of invariance with respect to scalings $`t\lambda t`$ and $`F\lambda F`$. The range of variation for the variable $`t`$ consists of non-negative real numbers $`t0`$. The scaling invariance implying conformal invariance (Virasoro generator $`L_0`$ represents scaling which plays a fundamental role in the superconformal theories \[ISZ88\]) is motivated by the belief that $`\zeta `$ codes for the physics of a quantum critical system having, not only supersymmetries \[BK99\], but also superconformal transformations as its basic symmetries \[Pit95, Cas01\].

## 3. Formal solution of the eigenvalue equation for operator $`D^+`$

One can formally solve the eigenvalue equation

$`D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_z=\left[t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}+t{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_z=z\mathrm{\Psi }_z.`$ (8)
for $`D^+`$ by factoring the eigenfunction to a product:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_z=f_zF.`$ (9)
The substitution into the eigenvalue equation gives

$`L_0f_z=t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}f_z=zf_z`$ (10)
allowing as its solution the functions

$`f_z(t)=t^z.`$ (11)
These functions are nothing but eigenfunctions of the scaling operator $`L_0`$ of the superconformal algebra analogous to the eigenstates of a translation operator. A priori all complex numbers $`z`$ are candidates for the eigenvalues of $`D^+`$ and one must select the genuine eigenvalues by applying the requirement $`D^{}=D^+`$ in the space spanned by the genuine eigenfunctions.

It must be emphasized that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ is not an eigenfunction of $`D`$. Indeed, one has

$`D\mathrm{\Psi }_z=D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_z+2V\mathrm{\Psi }_z=z\mathrm{\Psi }_z+2V\mathrm{\Psi }_z.`$ (12)
This is in accordance with the analogy with the coherent states which are eigenstates of annihilation operator but not those of creation operator.

## 4. $`D^+=D^{}`$ condition and Hermitian form

The requirement that $`D^+`$ is indeed the Hermitian conjugate of $`D`$ implies that the Hermitian form satisfies

$`f|D^+g=Df|g.`$ (13)
This condition implies

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=D\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}.`$ (14)
The first (not quite correct) guess is that the Hermitian form is defined as an integral of the product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{z_1}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ of the eigenfunctions of the operator $`D`$ over the non-negative real axis using a suitable integration measure. The Hermitian form can be defined by continuing the integrand from the non-negative real axis to the entire complex $`t`$-plane and noticing that it has a cut along the non-negative real axis. This suggests the definition of the Hermitian form, not as a mere integral over the non-negative real axis, but as a contour integral along curve $`C`$ defined so that it encloses the non-negative real axis, that is $`C`$

a) traverses the non-negative real axis along the line $`Im[t]=0_{}`$ from $`t=\mathrm{}+i0_{}`$ to $`t=0_++i0_{}`$,

b) encircles the origin around a small circle from $`t=0_++i0_{}`$ to $`t=0_++i0_+`$,

c) traverses the non-negative real axis along the line $`Im[t]=0_+`$ from $`t=0_++i0_+`$ to $`t=\mathrm{}+i0_+`$ .
Here $`0_\pm `$ signifies taking the limit $`x=\pm ϵ`$, $`ϵ>0`$, $`ϵ0`$.

$`C`$ is the correct choice if the integrand defining the inner product approaches zero sufficiently fast at the limit $`Re[t]\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise one must assume that the integration contour continues along the circle $`S_R`$ of radius $`R\mathrm{}`$ back to $`t=\mathrm{}+i0_{}`$ to form a closed contour. It however turns out that this is not necessary. One can deform the integration contour rather freely: the only constraint is that the deformed integration contour does not cross over any cut or pole associated with the analytic continuation of the integrand from the non-negative real axis to the entire complex plane.

Scaling invariance dictates the form of the integration measure appearing in the Hermitian form uniquely to be $`dt/t`$. The Hermitian form thus obtained also makes possible to satisfy the crucial $`D^+=D^{}`$ condition. The Hermitian form is thus defined as

$`f|g={\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}\overline{f}g{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}.`$ (15)
$`K`$ is a numerical constant to be determined later. The possibility to deform the shape of $`C`$ in wide limits realizes conformal invariance stating that the change of the shape of the integration contour induced by a conformal transformation, which is nonsingular inside the integration contour, leaves the value of the contour integral of an analytic function unchanged. This scaling invariant Hermitian form is indeed a correct guess. By applying partial integration one can write

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=D\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{z_1}(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}(t)\right].`$ (16)
The integral of a total differential comes from the operator $`L_0=td/dt`$ and must vanish. For a non-closed integration contour $`C`$ the boundary terms from the partial integration could spoil the $`D^+=D^{}`$ condition unless the eigenfunctions vanish at the end points of the integration contour ($`t=\mathrm{}+i0_\pm `$).

The explicit expression of the Hermitian form is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}F^2(t)t^{z_{12}},`$
$`z_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}_1+z_2.`$ (17)
It must be emphasized that it is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{z_1}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ rather than eigenfunctions which is continued from the non-negative real axis to the complex $`t`$-plane: therefore one indeed obtains an analytic function as a result.

An essential role in the argument claimed to prove the Riemann hypothesis is played by the crossing symmetry

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{z}_1+z_2}`$ (18)
of the Hermitian form. This symmetry is analogous to the crossing symmetry of particle physics stating that the S-matrix is symmetric with respect to the replacement of the particles in the initial state with their antiparticles in the final state or vice versa \[IZ80\].

The Hermiticity of the Hermitian form implies

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}}.`$ (19)
This condition, which is not trivially satisfied, in fact determines the eigenvalue spectrum.

## 5. How to choose the function $`F`$?

The remaining task is to choose the function $`F`$ in such a manner that the orthogonality conditions for the solutions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ reduce to the condition that $`\zeta `$ or some function proportional to $`\zeta `$ vanishes at the point $`z`$. The definition of $`\zeta `$ based on analytical continuation performed by Riemann suggests how to proceed. Recall that the expression of $`\zeta `$ converging in the region $`Re[s]>1`$ reads \[Tit86\] as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\zeta (s)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}}t^s.`$ (20)
One can analytically continue this expression to a function defined in the entire complex plane by noticing that the integrand is discontinuous along the cut extending from $`t=0`$ to $`t=\mathrm{}`$. Following Riemann it is however more convenient to consider the discontinuity for a function obtained by multiplying the integrand with the factor

$$(1)^sexp(i\pi s).$$

The discontinuity $`Disc(f)f(t)f(texp(i2\pi ))`$ of the resulting function is given by

$`Disc\left[{\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}}(t)^{s1}\right]=2isin(i\pi s){\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}}t^{s1}.`$ (21)
The discontinuity vanishes at the limit $`t0`$ for $`Re[s]>1`$. Hence one can define $`\zeta `$ by modifying the integration contour from the non-negative real axis to an integration contour $`C`$ enclosing non-negative real axis defined in the previous section.

This amounts to writing the analytical continuation of $`\zeta (s)`$ in the form

$`2i\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\zeta (s)sin(i\pi s)={\displaystyle _C}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}}(t)^{s1}.`$ (22)
This expression equals to $`\zeta (s)`$ for $`Re[s]>1`$ and defines $`\zeta (s)`$ in the entire complex plane since the integral around the origin eliminates the singularity.

The crucial observation is that the integrand on the righthand side of Eq. 22 has precisely the same general form as that appearing in the Hermitian form defined in Eq. 17 defined using the same integration contour $`C`$. The integration measure is $`dt/t`$, the factor $`t^s`$ is of the same form as the factor $`t^{\overline{z}_1+z_2}`$ appearing in the Hermitian form, and the function $`F^2(t)`$ is given by

$$F^2(t)=\frac{exp(t)}{1exp(t)}.$$

Therefore one can make the identification

$`F(t)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{1exp(t)}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (23)
Note that the argument of the square root is non-negative on the non-negative real axis and that $`F(t)`$ decays exponentially on the non-negative real axis and has $`1/\sqrt{t}`$ type singularity at origin. From this it follows that the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z(t)`$ approach zero exponentially at the limit $`Re[t]\mathrm{}`$ so that one can use the non-closed integration contour $`C`$.

With this assumption, the Hermitian form reduces to the expression

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{exp(t)}{[1exp(t]}}(t)^{z_{12}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\pi }}sin(i\pi z_{12})\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_{12})\zeta (z_{12}).`$
Recall that the definition $`z_{12}=\overline{z}_1+z_2`$ is adopted. Thus the orthogonality of the eigenfunctions is equivalent to the vanishing of $`\zeta (z_{12})`$.

## 6. Study of the Hermiticity condition

In order to derive information about the spectrum one must explicitely study what the statement that $`D^{}`$ is Hermitian conjugate of $`D`$ means. The defining equation is just the generalization of the equation

$`A_{mn}^{}=\overline{A}_{nm}.`$ (25)
defining the notion of Hermiticity for matrices. Now indices $`m`$ and $`n`$ correspond to the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_i}`$, and one obtains

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=z_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|D\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}}=\overline{D^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}}=z_2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus one has

$`G(z_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{G(z_{21})}=\overline{G(\overline{z}_{12})}`$
$`G(z_{12})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}.`$ (26)
The condition states that the Hermitian form defined by the contour integral is indeed Hermitian. This is not trivially true. Hermiticity condition obviously determines the spectrum of the eigenvalues of $`D^+`$.

To see the implications of the Hermiticity condition, one must study the behaviour of the function $`G(z_{12})`$ under complex conjugation of both the argument and the value of the function itself. To achieve this one must write the integral

$$G(z_{12})=\frac{K}{2\pi i}_C\frac{dt}{t}\frac{exp(t)}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}(t)^{z_{12}}$$

in a form from which one can easily deduce the behaviour of this function under complex conjugation. To achieve this, one must perform the change $`tu=log(exp(i\pi )t)`$ of the integration variable giving

$`G(z_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _D}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{exp(exp(u))}{\left[1exp((exp(u)))\right]}}exp(z_{12}u).`$
Here $`D`$ denotes the image of the integration contour $`C`$ under $`tu=log(t)`$. $`D`$ is a fork-like contour which
a) traverses the line $`Im[u]=i\pi `$ from $`u=\mathrm{}+i\pi `$ to $`u=\mathrm{}+i\pi `$ ,
b) continues from $`\mathrm{}+i\pi `$ to $`\mathrm{}i\pi `$ along the imaginary $`u`$-axis (it is easy to see that the contribution from this part of the contour vanishes),
c) traverses the real $`u`$-axis from $`u=\mathrm{}i\pi `$ to $`u=\mathrm{}i\pi `$,

The integrand differs on the line $`Im[u]=\pm i\pi `$ from that on the line $`Im[u]=0`$ by the factor $`exp(i\pi z_{12})`$ so that one can write $`G(z_{12})`$ as integral over real $`u`$-axis

$`G(z_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{\pi }}sin(i\pi z_{12}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{exp(exp(u))}{\left[1exp((exp(u)))\right]}}exp(z_{12}u).`$
From this form the effect of the transformation $`G(z)\overline{G(\overline{z})}`$ can be deduced. Since the integral is along the real $`u`$-axis, complex conjugation amounts only to the replacement $`z_{21}z_{12}`$, and one has

$`\overline{G(\overline{z}_{12})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{\pi }}\overline{sin(i\pi z_{12})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{exp(exp(u))}{\left[1exp((exp(u)))\right]}}exp(z_{12}u)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{sin(\pi z_{12})}}{sin(\pi z_{12})}}G(z_{12}).`$
The substitution of this result to the Hermiticity condition gives

$`G(z_{12})={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{sin(i\pi z_{12})}}{sin(i\pi z_{12})}}G(z_{12})\text{for}x_1+x_21.`$ (30)
There are two manners to satisfy the Hermiticity condition.

a) The condition

$`G(z_{12})=0`$ (31)
is the only manner to satisfy the Hermiticity condition for $`x_1+x_2<1`$ and $`y_2y_10`$. This implies the vanishing of $`\zeta `$:

$`\zeta (z_{12})=0\text{for}0<x_1+x_2<1,y_1y_2.`$ (32)
In particular, this condition must be true for $`z_1=0`$ and $`z_2=1/2+iy`$. Hence the eigenfunctions with the eigenvalue $`z=1/2+iy`$ correspond to the zeros of $`\zeta `$.

b) The condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{sin(i\pi z_{12})}}{sin(i\pi z_{12})}}=1,`$ (33)
implying

$`exp(\pi i(x_1+x_2))=1,`$ (34)
is satisfied. This condition is satisfied for $`x_1+x_2=n`$. The highly non-trivial implication is that the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ having real norm and $`0<Re[z]<1`$ correspond to the zeros of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. Thus the study of mere Hermiticity conditions almost proves the Riemann hypothesis.

## 7. Does the Hermitian form define inner product?

Before considering the question whether the Hermitian form defines a positive definite Hilbert space inner product, a couple of comments concerning the general properties of the Hermitian form are in order.

a) The Hermitian form is proportional to the factor

$$sin(i\pi (y_2y_1)),$$

which vanishes for $`y_1=y_2`$. For $`y_1=y_2`$ and $`x_1+x_2=1`$ ($`x_1+x_2=0`$) the diverging factor $`\zeta (1)`$ ($`\zeta (0)`$) compensates the vanishing of this factor. Therefore the norms of the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ with $`z=1/2+iy`$ must be calculated explicitly from the defining integral. Since the contribution from the cut vanishes in this case, one obtains only an integral along a small circle around the origin. This gives the result

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}=K\text{for}z_1=\frac{1}{2}+iy,\hfill & \mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{K}{2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
Thus the norms of the eigenfunctions are finite. For $`K=1`$ the norms of $`z=1/2+iy`$ eigenfunctions are equal to one. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ has however negative norm $`1/2`$ so that the Hermitian form in question is not a genuine inner product in the space containing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$.

b) For $`x_1=x_2=1/2`$ and $`y_1y_2`$ the factor is nonvanishing and one has

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\zeta (1+i(y_2y_1))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i(y_2y_1))sinh(\pi (y_2y_1)).`$
The nontrivial zeros of $`\zeta `$ are known to belong to the critical strip defined by $`0<Re[s]<1`$. Indeed, the theorem of Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin \[Var99\] states the non-vanishing of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1`$. Since the non-trivial zeros of $`\zeta `$ are located symmetrically with respect to the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$, this implies that the line $`Re[s]=0`$ cannot contain zeros of $`\zeta `$. This result implies that the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z=1/2+y}`$ are non-orthogonal unless $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i(y_2y_1))`$ vanishes for some pair of eigenfunctions.

It is quite possible that the Hermitian form in question defines an inner product in the space spanned by the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$, $`z=1/2+iy`$ having real and positive norm. Besides Hermiticity, a necessary condition for this is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|1$$

and gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}|\zeta (1+iy_{12})|\times |\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy_{12})\times |sin(i\pi y_{12})|1,`$ (38)
where the shorthand notation $`y_{12}=y_2y_1`$ has been used. The diagonalized metric is positive definite if $`G(1/2+iy_{12})`$ approaches zero sufficiently fast for large values of argument $`y_2y_1`$ so that the nondiagonal part of the metric can be regarded as a small perturbation. On physical grounds this is to be expected since coherent states should have overlap which is essentially Gaussian function of the distance $`y_2y_1`$. $`sin(i\pi y_{12})`$ however increases exponentially and this growth must be compensated by the behaviour of the the remaining terms.

To get some grasp on the behaviour of the Hermitian metric, one can use the integral formula

$`\zeta (s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}I(s),`$
$`I(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[1exp(t)\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\right]exp(t)t^s,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}exp(t)t^s`$ (39)
proved already by Riemann. Applying the formula in present case, one has

$`G(1+iy_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi i}}sinh(\pi y_{12})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy_{12})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iy_{12}}})`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi i}}sinh(\pi y_{12})I(1+iy_{12}).`$
Hyperbolic sine increases exponentially as a function of $`y_{12}`$ but cannot spoil the Gaussian decay suggested by the analogy with the coherent states. One can try ot demonstrate the Gaussian behaviour by an approximate evaluation of the integrals appearing on the left hand side by changing the integration variable to $`t=exp(u)`$. This gives

$`I(1+iy_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[1exp(e^u))]}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^u}}\right]exp(e^u+u+iy_{12}u),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uexp(e^u+u+iy_{12}).`$ (41)
The exponential term has a maximum at $`u=0`$ and vanishes extremely rapidly as a function of $`u`$ for $`u>0`$. The troublesome feature is that for $`u<0`$ the integrand decays only exponentially and is expected to give a slowly decreasing contribution which oscillates as a function of $`y`$. Thus it seems that a Gaussian, and even an exponential, overall decay is excluded.

The analogy with the coherent states however requires that the integral decomposes to a Gaussian term plus an oscillating remainder which becomes very small for $`y=y_{12}`$. Even the inner product property requires that the oscillating term decays faster than $`exp(\pi y_{12})`$ as a function of $`y_{12}`$. The needed faster than $`exp(\pi y_{12})`$ decay requires that that the points $`y=y_2y_1`$ are approximate zeros of $`G(1+iy)`$, that is approximate zeros of $`\zeta (1+iy)`$ or, less probably, those of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy)`$. The mechanism giving rise to an approximate zero would be a cancellation of the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy)`$ and $`I(1+iy)`$ in the expression of Eq. 39 for $`\zeta `$. An extremely intricate organization of the apparently chaotically located zeros and almost-zeros of $`\zeta `$ is required to guarantee that the Hermitian form defines an inner product. Whether the differences $`y=y_2y_1`$ represent approximate zeros of $`\zeta (1+iy)`$ on the line $`Re[s]=1`$, can be tested numerically.

That the behaviour of $`\zeta (1+iy)`$ as a function of $`y`$ can be regarded as a superposition of a Gaussian term and an oscillating term, is suggested by the following argument. If the Gaussian approximation around the origin

$$exp(u)+u\frac{u^2}{2}$$

were a good approximation, the integrals in question would reduce to Gaussian integrals

$`I(1+iy)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e1}}J(y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iy)`$ $``$ $`J(y),`$
$`J(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uexp({\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}+iyu)=\sqrt{2\pi }exp({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}).`$ (42)
Thus one would have

$`G(1+iy)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi }i}}sinh(\pi y)exp({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{e1}}\right].`$ (43)
The behaviour would be indeed Gaussian for large values of $`y`$.

Possible problems are also caused by the small values of $`y_{12}`$ for which one might have $`|G(1+iy12)|>1`$ implying the failure of the Schwartz inequality

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}||\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}|`$ (44)
chararacterizing positive definite metric. In the Gaussian approximation the value of $`|G(1+iy12)|`$ at the limit $`y_{12}=0`$ is $`\sqrt{2\pi }2.5066`$ so that the danger is real. The direct calculation of $`G(1+iy)`$ at the limit $`y0`$ by using $`\zeta (1+iy)1/iy`$ however gives

$`G(1)=1.`$ (45)
By a straighforward calculation one can also verify that $`z=1`$ is a local maximum of $`|G(z)|`$.

Intuitively it seems obvious that Schwartz inequality must hold true quite generally. The point is that the might-be inner product for the superpositions $`_yf(y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2+iy}`$ and $`_yg(y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2+iy}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ describes net correlation for the functions $`\overline{f}(y)`$ and $`g(y)`$. This correlation can be written as

$`f|g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{y_1,y_2}{}}\overline{f}(y_1)G(1+i(y_1y_2))g(y_2).`$ (46)
Since $`G(1+i(y_1y_2))`$ decays like Gaussian, the correlation of the functions $`\overline{f}`$ and $`g`$ is determined mainly by the correlation $`\overline{f}`$ and $`g`$ at very small distances $`y_1y_2`$. It is obvious that correlation is largest when $`f`$ and $`g`$ resemble each other maximally, that is when one has $`f=g`$.

It is easy to see that arbitrary small values of $`y_{12}`$ are unavoidable. The estimate of Riemann for the number of the zeros of $`\zeta `$ in the interval $`Im[s][0,T]`$ along the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$ reads as

$`N(T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }}\left[log({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }})1\right],`$ (47)
and allows to estimate the average density $`dN_T/dy`$ of the zeros and to deduce an upper limit for the minimum distance $`y_{12}^{min}`$ between two zeros in the interval $`T`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_T}{dy}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[log({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }})1\right],`$
$`y_{12}^{min}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{dN_T}{dy}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\left[log(\frac{T}{2\pi })1\right]}}0\text{for}T\mathrm{}.`$ (48)
This implies that arbitrary small values of $`y_{12}`$ are unavoidable. Thus a rigorous proof for $`|G(1+i(y_1+y_2)|<1`$ for $`y_1+y_20`$ is required.

## 8. Superconformal symmetry

The reduction ad absurdum argument to be discussed below relies on the assumption that the orthogonality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_w`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ for $`Re[w]<1/2`$ implies the orthogonality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_w`$ with all eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$, $`z=1/2+iy`$ zero of $`\zeta `$. In other words, the vanishing of $`\zeta (w)`$ implies the vanishing of $`\zeta (w+z)`$ for any zero $`z`$ of $`\zeta `$, and one has an infinite number of zeros on the line $`Re[s]=Re[w]+1/2`$.

This means the decomposition of the space of the eigenfunctions orthogonal with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ to a direct sum $`V=_{x<1/2}V_xH_{1/2}`$, such that $`V_x`$ (for which Hermitian form is not inner product) contains the non-orthogonal eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x+iy}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1xiy}`$ and the spaces $`H_x`$ and $`H_{1/2}`$ are orthogonal to each other for each value of $`x`$. The requirement that the eigenfunctions having a positive norm are orthogonal to the eigenfunctions with complex norm and orthogonal to the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, looks very natural but it is not easy to justify rigorously this assumption without assuming some kind of a symmetry.

Here superconformal symmetry, which stimulated the idea behind the proposed proof of the Riemann hypothesis, could come in rescue. First of all, one can ’understand’ the restriction of the non-trivial zeros to the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$ by noticing that $`x`$ can be interpreted as the real part of conformal weight defined as eigenvalue of the scaling operator $`L_0=td/dt`$ in superconformal field theories \[ISZ88, Pit90, Pit95\]. For the generators of the superconformal algebra, conformal weights are indeed half-integer valued. The following construction is essentially a construction of a second-quantized superconformal quantum field theory for the system described by $`D^+`$.

One can indeed identify a conformal algebra naturally associated with the proposed dynamical system. The generators

$`L_z=\mathrm{\Psi }_zD^+`$ (49)
generate conformal algebra with commutation relations ($`[A,B]ABBA`$)

$`[L_{z_1},L_{z_2}]`$ $`=`$ $`(z_2z_1)L_{z_1+z_2}.`$ (50)
The extension of this algebra to superconformal algebra requires the introduction of the fermionic generators $`G_z`$ and $`G_z^{}`$. To avoid confusions it must be emphasized that following convention concerning Hermitian conjugation is adopted to make notation more fluent:

$`(O_w)^{}=O_{\overline{w}}^{}.`$ (51)
Fermionic generators $`G_z`$ and $`G_z^{}`$ satisfy the following anticommutation and commutation relations:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\{G_{z_1},G_{z_2}^{}\}=L_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & [L_{z_1},G_{z_2}]=z_2G_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & [L_{z_1},G_{z_2}^{}]=z_2G_{z_1+z_2}^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (53)
This definition differs from that used in the standard approach \[ISZ88\] in that generators $`G_z`$ and $`G_z^{}`$ are introduced separately. Usually one introduces only the the generators $`G_n`$ and assumes Hermiticity condition $`G_n=G_n^{}`$. The anticommutation relations of $`G_z`$ contain usually also central extension term. Now this term is not present as will be found.

Conformal algebras are accompanied by Kac Moody algebra which results as a central extension of the algebra of the local gauge transformations for some Lie group on circle or line \[ISZ88\]. In the standard approach Kac Moody generators are Hermitian in the sense that one has $`T_n=T_n^{}`$ \[ISZ88\]. Now this condition is dropped and one introduces also the generators $`T_z^{}`$. In present case the counterparts for the generators $`T_z^{}`$ of the local gauge transformations act as translations $`z_1z_1+z`$ in the index space labelling eigenfunctions and geometrically correspond to the multiplication of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}`$ with the function $`t^z`$

$`T_{z_1}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=t^{z_1}\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1+z_2}.`$ (55)
These transformations correspond to the isometries of the Hermitian form defined by $`G(z_{12})`$ and are therefore natural symmetries at the level of the entire space of the eigenfunctions.

The commutation relations with the conformal generators follow from this definition and are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}[L_{z_1},T_{z_2}]=z_2T_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & [L_{z_1},T_{z_2}^{}]=z_2T_{z_1+z_2}^{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (57)
The central extension making this commutative algebra to Kac-Moody algebra is proportional to the Hermitian metric

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[T_{z_1},T_{z_2}]=0,\hfill & [T_{z_1}^{},T_{z_2}^{}]=0,\hfill & [T_{z_1}^{},T_{z_2}]=(z_1z_2)G(z_1+z_2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (59)
One could also consider the central extension $`[T_{z_1}^{},T_{z_2}]=G(z_1+z_2)`$, which is however not the standard Kac-Moody central extension.

One can extend Kac Moody algebra to a super Kac Moody algebra by adding the fermionic generators $`Q_z`$ and $`Q_z^{}`$ obeying the anticommutation relations ($`\{A,B\}AB+BA`$)

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\{Q_{z_1},Q_{z_2}\}=0,\hfill & \{Q_{z_1}^{},Q_{z_2}^{}\}=0,\{Q_{z_1},Q_{z_2}^{}\}=G(z_1+z_2).\hfill & \end{array}`$ (61)
Note that also $`Q_0`$ has a Hermitian conjugate $`Q_0^{}`$, and one has

$`\{Q_0,Q_0^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`G(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (62)
implying that also the fermionic counterpart of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ has negative norm. One can identify the fermionic generators as the gamma matrices of the infinite-dimensional Hermitian space spanned by the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$. By their very definition, the complexified gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{z}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{z_2}`$ anticommute to the Hermitian metric $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_2}=G(\overline{z}_1+z_2)`$.

The commutation relations of the conformal and Kac Moody generators with the fermionic generators are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}[L_{z_1},Q_{z_2}]=z_2Q_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & [L_{z_1},Q_{z_2}^{}]=z_2Q_{z_1+z_2}^{},\hfill \\ [T_{z_1},Q_{z_2}^{}]=0,\hfill & [T_{z_1},Q_{z_2}]=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (65)
The nonvanishing commutation relations of $`T_z`$ with $`G_z`$ and nonvanishing anticomutation relations of $`Q_z`$ with $`G_z`$ are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}[G_{z_1},T_{z_2}^{}]=Q_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & [G_{z_1}^{},T_{z_2}]=Q_{z_1+z_2}^{},\hfill \\ \{G_{z_1},Q_{z_2}^{}\}=T_{z_1+z_2},\hfill & \{G_{z_1}^{},Q_{z_2}\}=T_{z_1+z_2}^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (68)
Superconformal generators clearly transform bosonic and fermionic Super Kac-Moody generators to each other.

The final step is to construct an explicit representation for the generators $`G_z`$ and $`L_z`$ in terms of the Super Kac Moody algebra generators as a generalization of the Sugawara representation \[ISZ88\]. To achieve this, one must introduce the inverse $`G^1(z_az_b)`$ of the metric tensor $`G(z_az_b)\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_a}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{z_b}`$, which geometrically corresponds to the contravariant form of the Hermitian metric defined by $`G`$. Adopting these notations, one can write the generalization for the Sugawara representation of the superconformal generators as

$`G_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_a}{}}T_{z+z_a}G^{z_az_b}Q_{z_b}^{},`$
$`G_z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_a}{}}T_{z+z_a}^{}G^{z_az_b}Q_{z_b}.`$ (69)
One can easily verify that the commutation and anticommutation relations with the super Kac-Moody generators are indeed correct. The generators $`L_z`$ are obtained as the anticommutators of the generators $`G_z`$ and $`G_z^{}`$. Due to the introduction of the generators $`T_z`$, $`T_z^{}`$ and $`G_z`$, $`G_z^{}`$, the anticommutators $`\{G_{z_1},G_{z_2}^{}\}`$ do not contain any central extension terms. The expressions for the anticommutators however contains terms of form $`T^{}TQ^{}Q`$ whereas the generators in the usual Sugawara representation contain only bilinears of type $`T^{}T`$ and $`Q^{}Q`$. The inspiration for introducing the generators $`T_z`$,$`G_z`$ and $`T_z^{}`$, $`G_z^{}`$ separately comes from the construction of the physical states as generalized superconformal representations in quantum TGD \[Pit90\]. The proposed algebra differs from the standard superconformal algebra \[ISZ88\] also in that the indices $`z`$ are now complex numbers rather than half-integers or integers as in the case of the ordinary superconformal algebras \[ISZ88\]. It must be emphasized that one could also consider the commutation relations $`[T_{z_1}^{},T_{z_2}]=iG(z_1+z_2)`$ and they might be more the physical choice since $`z_2z_1`$ is now a complex number unlike for ordinary superconformal representations. It is not however clear how and whether one could construct the counterpart of the Sugawara representation in this case.

Imitating the standard procedure used in the construction of the representations of the superconformal algebras \[ISZ88\], one can assume that the vacuum state is annihilated by all generators $`L_z`$ irrespective of the value of $`z`$:

$`\begin{array}{cc}L_z|0=0,\hfill & G_z|0=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (71)
That all generators $`L_z`$ annihilate the vacuum state follows from the representation $`L_z=\mathrm{\Psi }_zD_+`$ because $`D_+`$ annihilates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. If $`G_0`$ annihilates vacuum then also $`G_z[L_z,G_0]`$ does the same.

The action of $`T_z^{}`$ on an eigenfunction is simply a multiplication by $`t^z`$: therefore one cannot require that $`T_z`$ annihilates the vacuum state as is usually done \[ISZ88\]. The action of $`T_0`$ is multiplication by $`t^0=1`$ so that $`T^0`$ and $`T_0^{}`$ act as unit operators in the space of the physical states. In particular,

$`T_0|0=T_0^{}|0=|0.`$ (72)
This implies the condition

$`[T_0,T_z^{}]=izG(z)=0`$ (73)
in the space of the physical states so that physical states must correspond to the zeros of $`\zeta `$ and possibly to $`z=0`$. Thus one can generate the physical states from vacuum by acting using operators $`Q_z^{}`$ and $`T_z^{}`$ with $`\zeta (z)=0`$. If one requires that the physical states also have real and positive norm squared, only the zeros of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$ are allowed. Hence the requirement that a unitary representation of the superconformal algebra is in question, forces Riemann hypothesis.

It is important to notice that $`T_z^{}`$ and $`Q_z^{}`$ cannot annihilate the vacuum: this would lead to the condition $`G(z_1+z_2)=0`$ implying the vanishing of $`\zeta (z_1+z_2)`$ for any pair $`z_1+z_2`$. One can however assume that $`Q_z`$ annhilates the vacuum state

$`Q_z|0=0.`$ (74)
This inspires the hypothesis that only the generators with conformal weights $`z=1/2+iy`$ generate physical states from vacuum realizable in the space of the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ and their fermionic counterparts. This means that the action of the bosonic generators $`T_{1/2+iy}^{}`$ and fermionic generators $`Q_0^{}`$ and $`Q_{1/2+iy}^{}`$, as well as the action of the corresponding superconformal generators $`G_{1/2+iy}^{}`$, generates bosonic and fermionic states with conformal weight $`z=1/2+iy`$ from the vacuum state:

$`\begin{array}{cc}|1/2+iy_BT_{1/2+iy}^{}|0,\hfill & |1/2+iy_FQ_{1/2+iy}^{}|0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (76)
One can identify the states generated by the Kac Moody generators $`T_z^{}`$ from the vacuum as the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$. The system as a whole represents a second quantized supersymmetric version of the bosonic system defined by the eigenvalue equation for $`D^+`$ obtained by assigning to each eigenfunction a fermionic counterpart and performing second quantization as a free quantum field theory.

## 9. Is the proof of the Riemann hypothesis by reductio ad absurdum possible using superconformal invariance?

Riemann hypothesis is proven if all eigenfunctions for which the Riemann Zeta function vanishes, correspond to the states having a real and positive norm squared. The expectation is that superconformal invariance realized in some sense excludes all zeros of $`\zeta `$ except those on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. The problem is to define precisely what one means with superconformal invariance and one can generate large number of reduction ad absurdum type proofs depending on how superconformal invariance is assumed to be realized.

The most conservative option is that superconformal invariance is realized in the standard sense. The action of the ordinary superconformal generators $`L_n`$, and $`G_n`$, $`n0`$ on the vacuum states $`|0_{B/F}`$ or on any state $`|1/2+iy_{B/F}`$ indeed creates zero norm states as is obvious from the vanishing of the factor $`sin(i\pi z_{12})=sin(\pi (x_1+x_2))`$ associated with the inner inner products of these states. Thus the zeros of $`\zeta `$ define an infinite family of ground states for the representations of the ordinary superconformal algebra. A generalization of this hypothesis is that the action of $`L_n`$ and $`G_n`$, $`n0`$, on any state $`|w_{B/F}`$, $`\zeta (w)=0`$, creates states which are mutually orthogonal zero norm states. This implies $`\zeta (n+2Re[w])=0`$ for all values of $`n0`$ and, since the real axis contains zeros of $`\zeta `$ only at the points $`Re[s]=2n`$, $`n>0`$, leads to a reductio ad absurdum unless one has $`Re[w]=1/2`$. Thus the proof of the Riemann hypothesis would reduce to showing that the action of the ordinary superconformal algebra generates mutually orthogonal zero norm states from any state $`|w_{B/F}`$ with $`\zeta (w)=0`$. The proof of this physically plausible hypothesis is not obvious.

One can imagine also other strategies. The minimal requirement is certainly that some subalgebra of the superconformal algebra generates a space of states satisfying the Hermiticity condition. The quantity

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{w}_1+w_2)`$ $``$ $`w_1|w_2\overline{w_2|w_1}=G(\overline{w}_1+w_2)\overline{G(\overline{w}_2+w_1)}`$ (77)
must define the conformal invariant in question since this quantity must vanish in the space of the physical states for which the metric is Hermitian. This requirement does not however imply anything nontrivial for the ordinary conformal algebra having generators $`L_n`$ and $`G_n`$: for $`Re[w]1/2`$ the condition is indeed satisfied because $`G(n+2Re[w])`$ does not satisfy the Hermiticity condition for any value of $`n`$.

One can try to abstract some property of the states associated with the zeros of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. The generators $`L_{1/2iy}`$ and $`G_{1/2iy}`$ generate zero norm states from the states $`|1/2+iy_{B/F}`$, when $`1/2+iy`$ corresponds to the zero of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. One can try to generalize this observation so that it applies to an arbitrary state $`|w_{B/F}`$, $`\zeta (w)=0`$. The generators $`L_{1\overline{w}}`$ and $`G_{1\overline{w}}`$ certainly generate zero norm states from the states $`|w_{B/F}`$. Also the Hermiticity condition holds true identically and does not have nontrivial implications. One can however consider alternative generalizations by assuming that

a) either the generators $`L_{\overline{w}}`$ and $`G_{\overline{w}}`$ or

b) $`L_{1/2+iy}`$ and $`G_{1/2+iy}`$ generate from the states $`|w_{B/F}`$, $`\zeta (w)=0`$ states satisfying the Hermiticity condition.

These two hypothesis lead to two versions of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Suppose that $`w`$ is a zero of $`\zeta `$. This means that the inner product of the states $`Q_0^{}|0`$ and $`Q_w^{}|0`$ and thus also $`\mathrm{\Delta }(w)`$ vanishes:

$`\begin{array}{cc}0|Q_0Q_w^{}|0=0,\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }(w)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (79)
a) By acting on this matrix element by the conformal algebra generator $`L_{\overline{w}}`$ (which acts like derivative operator on the arguments of the should-be Hermitian form), and using the fact that $`L_{\overline{w}}`$ annilates the vacuum state, one obtains

$`0|Q_0Q_{\overline{w}+w}^{}|0=G(w+\overline{w}).`$ (80)
The requirement $`\mathrm{\Delta }(w+\overline{w})=0`$ implies the reality of $`G(w+\overline{w})`$ and thus the condition $`Re[w]=1/2`$ leading to the Riemann hypothesis. Note that the argument implying the reality of $`G(w+\overline{w})`$ assumes only that $`L_w`$ annihilates vacuum.

If this line of approach is correct, the basic challenge would be to show on the basis of the superconformal invariance alone that the condition $`\zeta (w)=0`$ implies that the generators $`L_{\overline{w}}`$ and $`G_{\overline{w}}`$ generate new ground states satisfying the Hermiticity condition.

b) An alternative line of argument uses only the invariance under the generators $`L_{1/2+iy}`$ associated with the zeros of $`\zeta `$, and thus certainly belonging to the conformal algebra associated with the physical states. By applying the generators $`L_{1/2+iy_i}`$ to the the matrix element $`0|Q_0Q_w^{}|0=0`$ and requiring that Hermiticity is respected, one can deduce that $`G(w+1/2+iy_i)`$ satisfies the Hermiticity condition. Hence the line $`Re[s]=Re[w]+1/2`$, and by the reflection symmetry also the line $`Re[s]=1/2Re[w]`$, contain an infinite number of zeros of $`\zeta `$ if one has $`Re[w]1/2`$. By repeating this process once for the zeros on the line $`Re[s]=1/2Re[w]`$, one finds that the lines $`Re[s]=1Re[w]`$ and $`Re[s]=Re[w]`$ contain infinite number of the zeros of $`\zeta `$ of form $`w_{ij}=w+i(y_i+y_j)`$, where $`y_i`$ and $`y_j`$ are associated with the zeros of $`\zeta `$ on the line $`Re[s]=1/2`$. By applying this two-step procedure repeatedly, one can fill the lines $`Re[s]=Re[w]`$,$`1Re[w]`$, $`1/2Re[w]`$, $`1/2+Re[w]`$ with the zeros of $`\zeta `$.

To sum up, contrary to the original over-optimistic beliefs inspired by the beauty of the proposed quantum model, Riemann hypothesis demonstrates once again that it is equally resistible against proof as it is capable of stimulating new mathematical ideas. One might however hope that superconformal invariance could in one of the proposed forms or in some other form be used to rigorously prove Riemann hypothesis.


text:
# Structural Properties of Self-Attracting Walks

## I Introduction

In previous years various models of random walks (RW) with memory or interaction have been studied , in order to account for distinct features of physical, chemical, and biological systems whose complexity goes beyond what can be obtained from the simple random walk picture. Perhaps the most extensive studied model is the self-avoiding walk (SAW), where the random walker is not permitted to step on already visited sites, simulating the behavior of linear polymers. Although all investigated RW models with memory are similar in the sense that they incorporate interactions between steps, they display quite distinct asymptotic properties. Therefore, they belong to universality classes which are usually different from RW or SAW, though they may cross over to either RW or SAW behavior in some limits. Common properties for describing the behavior of a walker are the exponents $`\nu `$ and $`k`$, characterizing the scaling with time $`t`$ of the mean square end-to-end distance

$`R^2(t)t^{2\nu }(1\text{a})`$ (1)
and the average number of visited sites (2)
$`S(t)t^k.(3\text{b})`$ (3)
For RW the exponents are $`\nu =1/2`$ for all dimensions $`d`$, $`k=1/2`$ for $`d=1`$ and $`k=1`$ for $`d2`$ . For SAW, $`k=1`$ for all $`d`$ and $`\nu 3/(d+2)`$ . A comparative study  of some of these models  in one dimension has shown that the characteristic exponents depend crucially on the particular form of the interaction between the steps. Some of the important mechanisms are the range of the interaction, the presence of cumulative memory effects, and the global or local normalization conditions. Models with global and local normalization conditions are also refered to in the literature as static and dynamic models, respectively.

Recently, one of the dynamic models without cumulative memory effects, the self-attracting random walk (SATW, has been found to display, in contrast to all other models, a swelling-collapse transition at a critical attractive interaction $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d2`$ . The characteristic exponents $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ for SATW are in different universality classes for below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ (swollen walk), at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, and above $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ (collapsed walk). Above and below criticality, $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ have been determined analytically. At criticality, the exponents could only be studied numerically, and due to the finite-size effects close to a transition, there have remained open questions regarding the asymptotic behavior of SATW. A careful analysis of the simulation data and a scaling approach different from the one developed in  is found to be necessary for a comprehensive study of the structural properties of SATW, especially at critical $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$, which is the focus of this paper. To determine the fractal dimension of the cluster and the interface generated by the walker, and to give more precise results for the characteristic exponents, we investigate the temporal development of the number of sites visited by the walker which have a certain amount of already visited next nearest neighbor sites. Identifying the sites belonging to the external and internal perimeter of the cluster in $`d=2`$, the fractal dimensions of these structures are studied for attractions below, at, and above criticality.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II several known RW models with interactions are summarized and their behavior is compared. The SATW model is briefly reviewed in Sec. III, presenting the analytical and numerical results for the mean square end-to-end distance and the average number of visited sites for varying strength of attractive interaction following , showing the evidence for the phase transition. In Sec. IV we investigate the structure of the cluster grown by the walker for different attractive interactions using a new approach consisting of scaling arguments and Monte Carlo simulations which leads to more insight for the behavior of the system at criticality. We study the fractal dimensions of the cluster and its interface in $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$. Closed form expressions for the average number of visited sites and the mean time to visit a certain number of sites in $`d=1`$ are given in Sec. V. Finally, in Sec. VI we summarize our main results.

## II RW models with interaction

When a self-avoiding constraint like in the SAW model is added to the RW, the evolution of the walk becomes heavily dependent on the entire history of the walk, converting it into a non-Markovian system. A bridge between ordinary RW and non-Markovian walks can be constructed by associating energies $`E_t(w)`$ to all possible configurations $`w`$ of a $`t`$ step random walk, defining an ensemble probability for a certain walk configuration as $`P_t(w)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta E_t(w)]/_w\mathrm{exp}[\beta E_t(w)]`$, with $`\beta =(k_\mathrm{B}T)^1`$, where $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`T`$ is the absolute temperature. In the high-temperature limit all walks become equally likely, but at finite temperatures the ensemble probabilities of individual paths differ. If $`E_t(w)<0`$ for walks with many visited sites, walks prefering to explore new terrain dominate the system, whereas if $`E_t(w)>0`$ for walks with many visited sites, the system is governed by configurations of walks attracted to their own path. Models based on this concept are by definition in the class of static models, for a comprehensive overview see . One straightforward way of modelling attractive and repulsive interaction between steps, known as the interacting walk , is to assign an energy $`E_t(w)=gS_t(w)`$ to a walk configuration, where $`S_t(w)`$ is the number of visited sites of a $`t`$ step RW configuration. For interaction parameter $`g=0`$ the simple random walk is recovered, while for $`g<0`$ the walk becomes repulsive, and the characteristic exponents are $`\nu =k=1`$ in $`d=1`$ . For $`g>0`$ the walk is attractive and $`k=1/3`$ and $`2/3`$, in $`d=1`$ and $`2`$, respectively, as well as $`d/(d+2)`$ in $`d3`$ .

In a more generalized static model including cumulative memory effects  the energy of a walk configuration is $`E_t(w,\alpha )=g_sn_t^\alpha (s)`$, with $`0\alpha 2`$, where $`n_t(s)`$ is the number of times a certain site $`s`$ has been visited after $`t`$ steps. For cumulative memory parameter $`\alpha =0`$ the previous model of  is recovered, and for $`\alpha =2`$ it is also known as the Domb-Joyce model , while for $`g=0`$ or $`\alpha =1`$ it reduces to simple random walks. The model is repulsive for $`\alpha <1`$ and $`g<0`$ or $`\alpha >1`$ and $`g>0`$, in the latter case Flory arguments give $`\nu =(\alpha +1)/(2+\alpha dd)`$ independent of $`g`$ for $`dd_\mathrm{c}=2\alpha /(\alpha 1)`$, where $`d_\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical dimension. For the attractive regime results are only known in $`d=1`$, where for $`\alpha <1`$ and $`g>0`$ it exhibits continuous varying exponents depending on $`\alpha `$ with $`\nu =k=(1\alpha )/(3\alpha )`$, while for the other attractive branch $`\alpha >1`$ and $`g<0`$ it is always self-trapping as $`R`$ and $`S`$ saturate.

An approach analogous to the one above for the static models can be made for the less investigated dynamic models, where the local normalization is done by assigning a probability $`P_i`$ to the walker to step to the next nearest neighbor site $`i`$ during the evolution of the walk, with $`P_i=\mathrm{exp}(gn_i^\alpha )/_{i=1}^{2d}\mathrm{exp}(gn_i^\alpha )`$, $`\alpha >0`$. Here, $`n_i`$ is the number of times the neighbor site $`i`$ has already been visited in the previous $`t`$ time steps . For $`g=0`$ the simple random walk is recovered, while for $`g<0`$ the walk is repulsive and the exponent $`\nu `$ is determined to be $`\nu =(\alpha +1)/(2+\alpha d)`$ for $`dd_\mathrm{c}=2`$. For the attractive regime $`g>0`$ it is known that in $`d=1`$ the walk is always self-trapping. A special case of this model is the true self-avoiding walk of  with $`g<0`$ and $`\alpha =1`$.

In surprising contrast to the results for all above mentioned models, where the characteristic exponents are always independent of the actual strength of the attraction or repulsion parameter $`g`$, are the results for the SATW model  focused on here. In this model a random walker jumps with probability $`P\mathrm{exp}(un)`$  to a next nearest neighbor site, with $`n=1`$ for already visited sites and $`n=0`$ for not visited sites. For $`u>0`$, the walk is attracted to its own trajectory, so that SATW is an extension of  with attraction parameter $`u=g>0`$ in the limit of no cumulative memory effect $`\alpha 0`$. Note that the results of Ref.  can not be directly applied to the SATW model as they are based on the restriction $`\alpha >0`$. Some representative examples of two dimensional clusters grown by SATW for different values of $`u`$ at three distinct times $`t`$ of evolution are shown in Fig. 1. The exponents $`k`$ and $`\nu `$ of SATW have been found to depend on $`u`$ , although it was not clear for some time if $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ decrease continuously with increasing $`u`$ , or if a critical value $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ exists, below, at, and above which the exponents show different universal behavior . Recently, it was found by exhaustive computer simulations up to $`t=510^9`$ time steps that there exists a swelling-collapse transition for SATW at a critical attraction $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ , analogous to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ transition in linear polymers at temperature $`T=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ when an attraction term $`\mathrm{exp}(A/T)`$, $`A<0`$, is added to the self-avoiding constraint . This phenomenon of a swelling-collapse transition can only occur because of a balance of the interaction energy and the configurational entropy of the SATW at criticality. When the energy is not of the order of the entropy as investigated in  for $`\alpha >0`$, the walk collapses for any attraction $`u=g>0`$.

## III Swelling-collapse transition for SATW

In  it was shown that the characteristic exponents $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ for SATW are in different universality classes for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$, and $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$. Above $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, the walk collapses for $`d2`$, and $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ are given by

$`\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}(5\text{a})`$ (5)
and (6)
$`k={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d+1}}.(7\text{b})`$ (7)
Eqs. (5) follow (cf. ), since for sufficiently strong attraction $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$ the grown clusters are compact (see Fig.1), so the average number of visited sites scales with the root mean square displacement $`RR^2^{1/2}`$ as $`SR^d`$. Comparing this to Eqs. (1) yields $`k=\nu d`$ for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$. Also, the mean cluster growth rate is proportional to the ratio between the number of boundary sites and the total number of the cluster sites, $`\mathrm{d}S/\mathrm{d}tR^{d1}/R^dt^\nu `$ . Thus $`St^{\nu +1}`$. Combining these results with Eq. (1b), one obtains Eqs. (5). Below a critical interaction $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, the walk swells and the exponents are as with no interaction , i.e. $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`k=1`$ for $`d2`$. The above analytic arguments are in good agreement with numerical simulations in $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ (see Fig. 2). At $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, the exponents are numerically determined to be $`\nu _\mathrm{c}=0.40\pm 0.01`$ and $`k_\mathrm{c}=0.80\pm 0.01`$ for $`d=2`$ as well as $`\nu _\mathrm{c}=0.32\pm 0.01`$ and $`k_\mathrm{c}=0.91\pm 0.03`$ for $`d=3`$ . Note that for $`d=1`$ no swelling-collapse transition exists, as the walk is collapsed for all $`u`$, and Eqs. (5) reveals the known values $`k=1/2`$ and $`\nu =1/2`$ for random walk in $`d=1`$  (see also Sec. V).

In the analogous static model of the interacting walk  with attractive interaction and no cumulative memory effects, a phase transition can not be observed due to the fact that the global normalization condition increases the weight of the interaction energy more than the local normalization condition, as already observed in  for $`d=1`$. This can also be seen from the asymptotic behavior of the characteristic exponent $`k=d/(d+2)`$ for the attractive interacting walk  in comparison to the ’less collapsed’ $`k=d/(d+1)`$, Eq. (5b), for the SATW discussed here. Therefore, a static interacting walk with the slightest attraction $`u=g>0`$ has a qualitatively different behavior than the ordinary RW and is collapsed. Note that in both models $`k`$ never becomes independent of the dimension, although it approaches unity from below in the large dimensionality limit.

Due to finite time effects at criticality it is not possible to determine the exponents $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{c}`$ more and more accurately by simply increasing the number $`t`$ of time steps performed by the walker. As long as the attraction is slightly above or below criticality, asit is always the case in numerical simulations, the exponents will finally cross over to their expected values above resp. below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ after some time $`t`$. Introducing a crossover time $`t_\xi `$, below which the exponent $`\nu `$ is close to $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ and above which $`\nu `$ approaches $`1/2`$ for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`1/(d+1)`$ for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$ (see Fig. 1 of ), the following scaling theory holds:

$`R(t)t^{\nu _\mathrm{c}}f_\pm (t/t_\xi ),(9\text{a})`$ (9)
with (10)
$`t_\xi =|uu_\mathrm{c}|^\alpha ,(11\text{b})`$ (11)
where the plus sign refers to $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$, the minus sign to $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, and the exponent $`\alpha `$  has to be determined numerically. As $`t_\xi `$ is the only relevant time scale, the scaling functions bridge the short time and the long time regime. To match both regimes, it is require that $`f_\pm (x)=\mathrm{const}`$ for $`x1`$ ($`tt_\xi `$), and $`f_+(x)x^{1/(d+1)\nu _\mathrm{c}}`$, $`f_{}(x)x^{1/2\nu _\mathrm{c}}`$ for $`x1`$. An analogous scaling approach holds for $`S(t)`$, and an excellent data collapse can be obtained for $`\alpha =7\pm 1`$ in $`d=2`$ and $`\alpha =5.0\pm 0.5`$ in $`d=3`$ (see Fig. 3 of ), confirming the numerical values for $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$, $`k_\mathrm{c}`$, and $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ determined from Fig. 2.

Since the mass of the cluster generated by the walker, consisting of all visited sites, scales as

$$SR^{k/\nu },$$
(13)
the ratio $`k/\nu `$ corresponds to the fractal dimension $`d_\mathrm{f}`$ of the cluster,

$$d_\mathrm{f}=\frac{k}{\nu }.$$
(14)
In $`d=2`$ the clusters are compact for all $`u`$ as $`k/\nu =d_\mathrm{f}=d`$. In $`d=3`$ they are compact for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$, while for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, the fractal dimension of clusters generated by simple random walks $`d_\mathrm{f}=2<d`$ is obtained. At the criticality, $`d_\mathrm{f}`$ was found numerically to be $`d_\mathrm{f}=2.84\pm 0.25`$, but the possibility that $`d_\mathrm{f}=d`$ could not be ruled out in Ref. .

## IV The cluster and its interface at criticality

To clarify if the grown clusters in $`d=3`$ at $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ are compact or fractal, and to learn more about the structure of the SATW-clusters and their interfaces at criticality, we consider the following: Denoting by $`N_i(t)`$ the number of cluster sites which have $`i`$ of their $`2d`$ next nearest neighbor sites belonging to the cluster after $`t`$ time steps, then the number of all cluster sites $`S(t)`$ is the sum of all $`N_i(t)`$

$$S(t)=N_1(t)+N_2(t)+\mathrm{}+N_{2d}(t).$$
(15)
The cluster growth rate is equal to the probability to be on the boundary of the cluster multiplied by the conditional probability to expand the cluster while being on its boundary. Suppose the walker is on a site which has $`i`$ visited next nearest neighbor sites. As the probability to step to a next nearest neighbor site is $`P\mathrm{exp}(un)`$, with $`n=1`$ for already visited sites and $`n=0`$ for unvisited sites, the probability to jump on a visited neighbor site is proportional to $`i\mathrm{exp}(u)`$, whereas the probability to jump on an unvisited neighbor site is proportional to $`2di`$. Thus the normalized probability $`\stackrel{~}{P}_i`$ to expand, i.e. to jump on one of the $`2di`$ unvisited next nearest neighbor sites, is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_i=\frac{2di}{i\mathrm{exp}(u)+2di}.$$
(16)
Therefore, the average cluster growth rate is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\mathrm{d}t}=\stackrel{~}{P}_1\frac{N_1}{S}+\stackrel{~}{P}_2\frac{N_2}{S}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{P}_{2d1}\frac{N_{2d1}}{S}.$$
(17)
The situation $`i=2d`$ is special because $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{2d}=0`$, as the cluster cannot be expanded from a site where all surrounding sites already belong to the cluster. Assuming that the average number of cluster sites $`N_i`$ which have $`i`$ already visited nearest neighbor sites scales as

$$N_iS^{a_i}\text{with}0a_i1,$$
(18)
there must be at least one $`i`$ for which $`a_i=1`$ to ensure that Eq. (15) holds. In general, one can distinguish between two different cases:

* there exists at least one $`i<2d`$ for which $`a_i=1`$
* only $`a_{2d}=1`$.

In case (i), the average cluster growth rate $`\mathrm{d}S/\mathrm{d}t`$ is dominated by the $`N_i`$ for which $`a_i=1`$, leading to $`\mathrm{d}S/\mathrm{d}t\stackrel{~}{P}_iN_i/S=\stackrel{~}{P}_iS^{a_i}/S=\mathrm{const}`$. Therefore, in this case one gets $`k=1`$ as $`St`$. In case (ii), when only $`a_{2d}=1`$, the cluster growth rate is dominated by the $`N_i`$ for which $`a_i=a_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{2d1})`$. This gives $`\mathrm{d}S/\mathrm{d}tS^{a_{\mathrm{max}}}/S=S^{a_{\mathrm{max}}1}`$, and hence

$$k=\frac{1}{2a_{\mathrm{max}}}$$
(19)
when compared to Eq. (1b). As shown below, the grown cluster is fractal for case (i) while for case (ii) it is compact.

The above considerations also enable us to determine numerically the exponent $`k`$ in a way different to Ref. , and additionally to gain more insight into the grown structures, especially in the regime at $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$. Fig. 3 shows that the assumption of Eq. (18) is clearly supported by numerical results. When plotting $`N_i`$ versus $`S`$, the decision to which case (i) or (ii) a certain regime belongs becomes obvious from Fig. 3 for all regimes except for $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d=3`$. For $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d=3`$ we observe case (i) (see Fig. 3d), as $`a_i=1`$ for all $`i`$. The other regimes belong to case (ii) (see Figs. 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3f), since only $`a_{2d}=1`$. At $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d=3`$ (Fig. 3e), a more detailed investigation of the results is necessary. By plotting the successive slopes $`a_i=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}N_i/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}S`$ of the data of Fig. 3e versus $`1/\mathrm{ln}S`$ (Fig. 4a), it becomes obvious that only $`a_{2d}=1`$. Thus this regime is belonging to case (ii). Moreover, Fig. 4a indicates that all $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{2d1}`$ asymptotically have the same value, so $`a_{\mathrm{max}}=a_1=a_2=\mathrm{}=a_{2d1}`$. As this is also found for all other regimes, in the following we will denote $`a_\mathrm{I}=a_i`$ for all $`1i2d1`$ in both cases (i) and (ii), in distinction to $`a_{2d}`$. The values of the exponents are summarized in Table II, confirming the previous results for the exponent $`k`$ (see Table I) when following Eq. (19). At $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d=3`$, $`k_\mathrm{c}`$ can be determined more precisely than in Ref.  to be $`k_\mathrm{c}=0.91\pm 0.01`$. Note that another approach to confirm our numerical results for $`k`$ is to plot $`N_i`$ versus $`t`$ in a double logarithmic plot. Denoting the resulting slopes as $`\kappa _i`$, we expect

$$\kappa _i=ka_i$$
(20)
as $`N_iS^{a_i}t^{ka_i}t^{\kappa _i}`$ when combining Eqs. (1b) and (18). The numerical values determined for $`\kappa _i`$ are summarized in Table II and are in excellent agreement with the values determined for $`a_i`$ when comparing with Eq. (20).

When examining the distinction between cases (i) and (ii), it becomes clear that the structures grown by the walker in case (i) are fractal, while the ones in case (ii) are compact. This can be explained by considering that in case (ii) the sites which do not belong to the interface dominate the growth process as $`a_{2d}>a_\mathrm{I}`$, leading to a compact structure (i.e. $`d_\mathrm{f}=d`$). In case (i) all sites have the same contribution to the growth of the structure due to $`a_{2d}=a_\mathrm{I}`$ . As we found that $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d=3`$ belongs to case (ii) (see Fig. 4a), the structure must be compact, and we can definitely conclude that in this regime $`d_\mathrm{f}`$ has to be $`d_\mathrm{f}=d=3`$, correcting the value $`2.84\pm 0.25`$ obtained earlier . The latter value was calculated by combining the numerical results for the exponents $`k_\mathrm{c}=0.91\pm 0.03`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}=0.32\pm 0.01`$ following Eq. (14). From the new numerical result $`k_\mathrm{c}=0.91\pm 0.01`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}=k_\mathrm{c}/d_\mathrm{f}=k_\mathrm{c}/d`$, we obtain the more accurate estimate $`\nu _\mathrm{c}=0.303\pm 0.005`$.

Next we focus on the interface of the grown cluster. The total interface can be divided into the external perimeter, which is usually the more interesting fraction as it constitutes the reaction front with the environment, and the internal perimeter, which is the boundary of the inner holes of the cluster . First we investigate the total interface. Its mass $`I`$ is equal to $`N_1+N_2+\mathrm{}+N_{2d1}`$ and therefore scales as

$$IS^{a_\mathrm{I}}.$$
(21)
Combining Eqs. (13) and (14) with Eq. (21) yields $`IR^{a_\mathrm{I}d_\mathrm{f}}`$. Hence the fractal dimension $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ of the interface is simply

$$d_\mathrm{I}=a_\mathrm{I}d_\mathrm{f}.$$
(22)
The values for $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ according to Eq. (22) are given in Table III. For $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, we recover the values for normal random walks , $`d_\mathrm{I}=2`$ in $`d=2`$ and $`3`$. As the fractal dimension of the external perimeter of a random walk is $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=4/3<d_\mathrm{I}`$ in $`d=2`$ , this suggests that the internal perimeter is dominating the interface for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$. In contrast, in $`d=3`$ the external perimeter governs the interface, $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=2=d_\mathrm{I}`$ , as three dimensional holes are less likely than two dimensional ones due to geometrical constraints. For $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$, we find $`d_\mathrm{I}=d1`$, clearly confirming the assumption that the structure of this regime is collapsed (see Fig. 1). It forms a compact disk resp. a compact sphere with a rather smooth surface and holes only in the surface layer. The clusters are similar to the clusters grown in the Eden model , where each unvisited next nearest neighbor site of the cluster has the same probability to be occupied at the given time step. It remains an open question whether these clusters are in the same universality class, as one has to check if the surface for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$ resembles the self-affine surface of Eden cluster. At $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$, the structure of the interface is fractal in both $`d=2`$ and $`3`$ with the novel values of $`d_\mathrm{I}=1.50\pm 0.01`$ and $`d_\mathrm{I}=2.73\pm 0.03`$, respectively. The rather surprising result for $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ in $`d=3`$ can be understood when considering that the structure of the interface at $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ is more compact than for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$ but the cluster is not collapsed as for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$.

A straightforward way to confirm the above numerical results for $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ is to determine the fractal dimension of the interface by measuring it directly on the grown clusters instead of calculating it dynamically during the growth process. Using the sandbox method , the outcome supports the results stated above, although they are less precise due to the fact that the information about the growth process is lost. For the results of $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ at criticality in $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ see Fig. 5, showing a good agreement with the values summarized in Table III and clearly excluding the value of $`d_\mathrm{f}=2.84`$ determined in  for $`d=3`$, which would lead to $`d_\mathrm{I}=2.58`$ when following Eq. (22).

A further interesting question is which perimeter, external or internal, is dominating the interface of the clusters at criticality, and what is the actual value of the non-dominating perimeter. Using the approach of Ref.  to identify the sites $`N_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ belonging to the external perimeter of a cluster in $`d=2`$, and identifying the internal perimeter sites $`N_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ as the interface sites not belonging to $`N_{\mathrm{EP}}`$, we expect the average number of external perimeter sites $`N_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ to scale as

$`N_{\mathrm{EP}}S^{a_{\mathrm{EP}}},(23\text{a})`$ (23)
and the average number of internal perimeter sites $`N_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ to scale as (24)
$`N_{\mathrm{IP}}S^{a_{\mathrm{IP}}}.(25\text{b})`$ (25)
Following the reasoning leading to Eq. (22) yields

$`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=a_{\mathrm{EP}}d_\mathrm{f}(27\text{a})`$ (27)
and (28)
$`d_{\mathrm{IP}}=a_{\mathrm{IP}}d_\mathrm{f}.(29\text{b})`$ (29)
The results for $`a_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ (see Fig. 6) recover the expected behavior of $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=4/3`$ for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, and indicate that at criticality $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ is clearly smaller than for below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, although it is difficult to determine the precise value of $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ from this plot. Thus, at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ the interface is dominated by the internal perimeter as $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}<d_\mathrm{I}`$. This is confirmed by the results for $`a_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ at criticality, were the expected value of $`d_{\mathrm{IP}}=d_\mathrm{I}=1.5`$ is recovered, although with unsatisfactory precision . Using the sandbox method  to measure the fractal dimension of the perimeter directly, the results support $`d_{\mathrm{IP}}=1.5`$ more precisely, and we find $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=1.25\pm 0.05`$ for $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ (see Fig. 7a). The fact that $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$ is definitely smaller than $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ at $`u=u_\mathrm{c}`$ reinforces that at criticality the SATW model is in a new universality class. For $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$ one might expect that the interface is dominated by the external perimeter due to the collapsed structure of the cluster. However, we find that the internal and the external perimeter contribute equally to the interface, $`d_{\mathrm{IP}}=d_{\mathrm{EP}}=1=d_\mathrm{I}`$ (see Fig. 7b).

In $`d=3`$, the fractal dimension of the external perimeter is $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=2=d_\mathrm{I}`$ for $`u<u_\mathrm{c}`$, supposing that $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ follows the random walk result  like all other characteristic values determined for the SATW in this regime. Unfortunately it is not possible to determine $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ or $`d_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ in $`d=3`$ numerically using the algorithm of  to check which one, the external or the internal perimeter, governs the behavior at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, and to decide whether the external perimeter dominates the interface for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$, i.e. $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=d_\mathrm{I}>d_{\mathrm{IP}}`$, or if $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=d_\mathrm{I}=d_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ in this regime. The values for $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ according to the above considerations are given in Table III.

## V SATW in one dimension

As we mentioned above, in $`d=1`$ there is no swelling-collapse transition, as the walk is collapsed for all $`u`$. The exponents $`k`$ and $`\nu `$ are $`k=1/2`$ and $`\nu =1/2`$ , in accordance with Eqs. (5). Following the considerations leading to Eq. (19), the probability of the walker to be on the boundary of a SATW-cluster is $`N_1/S=2/S`$, therefore SATW in $`d=1`$ belongs to case (ii), since $`a_1=a_{\mathrm{max}}=a_\mathrm{I}=0`$ and $`a_{2d}=1`$. Thus, $`k=1/(2a_{\mathrm{max}})=1/2`$ as expected from analytical results . Note that, based on Eq. (17), one can derive (although not rigorously) a closed form expression for $`S(t)`$ in $`d=1`$, extending the results of . Since in $`d=1`$ the conditional probability to expand the cluster while being on a perimeter site is $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1=1/(\mathrm{exp}(u)+1)`$ (cf. Eq. (16)) and $`N_1=2`$, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}S(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(u)+1}\frac{2}{S(t)},$$
(31)
yielding

$$S(t)=\left(\frac{2t}{\mathrm{exp}(u)+1}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(32)
This result is strongly supported by numerical simulations, see Fig. 8.

In $`d=1`$ it is also possible to solve the inverse problem of deriving the average time $`t(S)`$ to visit a fixed number of visited sites $`S`$,

$$t(S)=S1+\frac{(S2)(S1)(1\stackrel{~}{P}_1)}{2\stackrel{~}{P}_1}.$$
(33)
For asymptotically large $`S`$, Eq. (33) yields $`t(S)S^2`$, recovering the expected scaling with $`k=1/2`$. To derive Eq. (33) we use the standard approach to RW in $`d=1`$ (see, for instance, Ref. ): The number of sites $`S`$ visited by a walker in $`d=1`$ is equal to the span of the random walk. The time $`t(S)`$ passed before the span reaches $`S`$ can be represented as the sum

$$t(S)=\underset{i=2}{\overset{S}{}}\chi _i,$$
(34)
with $`\chi _i=t(i)t(i1)`$ being the time spent before the span increases from $`i1`$ to $`i`$, given that the walker is initially at the boundary. Thus, the mean time $`t(S)`$ to visit $`S`$ sites can be calculated as

$$t(S)=\underset{i=2}{\overset{S}{}}\chi _i,$$
(35)
with $`t(1)=0`$ and $`t(2)=1`$. Let us consider the nature of the variable $`\chi _i`$ in some detail. When at the boundary, the walker increases the span with the probability of succeess $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1`$. With probability $`1\stackrel{~}{P}_1`$ the walker stays inside the cluster and undertakes an excursion until it hits the boundary again, which presents him with another opportunity to increase the span. We introduce the random variable $`\mu `$ which is the number of unsuccessful attempts before the span is increased. In other words, $`\mu `$ is the number of excursions into the cluster, and with probability $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1(1\stackrel{~}{P}_1)^m`$, $`m0`$, $`\mu `$ is equal to $`m`$. Now we can decompose the $`\chi _i`$ as

$$\chi _i=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}(\tau _j+1),$$
(36)
where $`\tau _j`$ is the lenght of the $`j`$-th excursion, and 1 is added to account for the jump from the boundary into the cluster before the excursion started. The random variable $`\tau _j`$ can be viewed as the time a random walker started at site 1 with the boundaries at 0 and $`i2`$ needs to reach a boundary. Its mean is known to be $`\tau _j=i3`$ . The mean of $`\chi _i`$ is just the average number of excursions multiplied by the average length of one excursion. More rigorously, we express $`\chi _i`$ in terms of conditional averages as follows

$$\chi _i=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}(\tau _j+1)=1+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}(\tau _j+1)|\mu =mP(\mu =m).$$
(37)
The variables $`\tau _j`$ are independent identically distributed random variables, therefore

$$\chi _i=1+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m\tau _j+1P(\mu =m)=1+(i2)\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m\stackrel{~}{P}_1(1\stackrel{~}{P}_1)^m=1+\frac{(i2)(1\stackrel{~}{P}_1)}{\stackrel{~}{P}_1}.$$
(38)
By combining Eqs. (35) and (38) one obtains Eq. (33).

## VI Concluding remarks

In contrast to all other known random walk models with interaction, the SATW model exhibits a swelling-collapse transition at a critical attraction $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ in $`d2`$. The transition is similar to the swelling-collapse transition observed at the ‘$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point’ $`T=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of SAW with an attraction term $`\mathrm{exp}(A/T)`$, $`A<0`$ . It can only arise because the attractive interaction energy is of the same order as the configurational entropy in $`d2`$. Below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ the entropy dominates and the walk is in the universality class of simple RW, above $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ the energy governs the behavior and the walk collapses. At $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, both contributions balance each other, leading to a new universality class. In $`d=1`$, due to small number of possible configuration caused by the geometrical constraints, the walk is always collapsed, even without interaction $`u=0`$.

Analyzing the structure of the cluster grown by SATW in detail, we determined the fractal dimension of the cluster and its interface. In $`d=2`$, the cluster is always compact while the interface has a fractal dimension $`d_\mathrm{I}=2`$ and $`1.50\pm 0.01`$ below and at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, respectively, dominated by the internal perimeter. Above $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, we found $`d_\mathrm{I}=d_{\mathrm{IP}}=d_{\mathrm{EP}}=1`$. The fractal dimension of the external perimeter at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=1.25\pm 0.05`$, is smaller than below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{EP}}=4/3`$, demonstrating once more the novel universality class at criticality. In $`d=3`$ the cluster is compact for $`uu_\mathrm{c}`$, while for $`u>u_\mathrm{c}`$ the fractal dimension is $`d_\mathrm{f}=2`$. Probably the most unexpected result is that in $`d=3`$ the interface has a fractal dimension $`d_\mathrm{I}=2`$ above and below $`u_\mathrm{c}`$, whereas at criticality it increases to $`d_\mathrm{I}=2.73\pm 0.03`$. This appealing structure at $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ is of interest on its own regarding that many challenging problems in physics, chemistry, and biology are associated with growth patterns in clusters and solidification fronts. The results for the fractal dimensions of the perimeters could also be helpful when investigating the structure of the cluster grown by SAW at the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ transition, where sufficiently large clusters are difficult to simulate because of the attrition of the walkers when stepping into its own dead ends.

## Acknowledgement

Financial support from the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF), the Minerva Center for Mesoscopics, Fractals, and Neural Networks and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# COSMIC SUPERNOVA RATE HISTORY AND TYPE IA SUPERNOVA PROGENITORS

## 1 Metallicity Effects on Type Ia Supernova Progenitors and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

We adopt a single-degenerate (SD) scenario, which assumes that a C+O white dwarf accretes H-rich meterials from the binary companion star and grows its mass to the Chandrasekhar mass to explode as a Type Ia supernova (SN Ia). There are two progenitor systems: One is a red-giant (RG) companion with the initial mass of $`M_{\mathrm{RG},0}0.91.5M_{}`$ and an orbital period of tens to hundreds days $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The other is a near main-sequence (MS) companion with an initial mass of $`M_{\mathrm{MS},0}1.82.6M_{}`$ and a period of several tenths of a day to several days $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Optically thick winds from the mass accreting WD play an essential role in stabilizing the mass transfer and escaping from forming a common envelope. Since the optically thick winds are driven by a strong peak of iron lines, the occurrence of SNe Ia depends strongly on the iron abundance. If the iron abundance is as low as \[Fe/H\] $`<1.1`$, then the wind is too weak for SNe Ia to occur $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Our model successfully reproduces \[O/Fe\]-\[Fe/H\] relation observed by oxygen forbidden lines, which has a constant \[O/Fe\] of $`0.45`$ at \[Fe/H\] $`<1`$ and a decrease in \[O/Fe\] with increasing metallicity. If we do not include the metallicity effect, the largest companion star with $`M2.6M_{}`$ produce SNe Ia at the age of $`0.5`$ Gyr and decrease \[O/Fe\] too early to be compatible with the observations. For the metallicity dependent SD scenario, SNe Ia occur at \[Fe/H\] $`>1`$, which naturally reproduce the observed break in \[O/Fe\] at \[Fe/H\] $`1`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

We construct the galaxy models to meet the latest observational constraints of chemical and photometrical properties, and can reproduce the present supernova rates in the galaxy. For spirals, owing to the presence of the two kinds of the SN Ia progenitor systems (MS+WD and RG+WD) with shorter ($`0.51.5`$ Gyr) and longer lifetimes ($`220`$ Gyr), respectively, we can explain the difference in the relative ratio of the SN Ia to SN II rate $`_{\mathrm{Ia}}/_{\mathrm{II}}`$ between early and late types of spirals. For ellipticals, owing to the presence of the RG+WD systems with over $`10`$ Gyr lifetime, SNe Ia can be seen even at present in ellipticals where the star formation has already ceased more than 10 Gyr before because of a supernova-driven galactic wind $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 2 Cosmic Supernovae Rate

Galaxies that are responsible for the cosmic SFR have different timescales for the heavy-element enrichment, and the occurrence of supernovae depends on the metallicity therein. Therefore we calculate the cosmic supernova rate by summing up the supernova rates in spirals and ellipticals with the ratio of the relative mass contribution $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Here we adopt $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0.7`$, and the formation epoch of $`z_\mathrm{f}=5`$.

Figure 1 shows the cosmic supernova rates in cluster galaxies. The SN Ia rate in spirals drops at $`z1.9`$ because of the low-metallicity inhibition of SNe Ia. We can precisely test the metallicity effect by finding this drop of the SN Ia in spirals, if high-redshift SNe Ia at $`z>1.5`$ and their host galaxies are observed with the Next Generation Space Telescope. In ellipticals, the chemical enrichment takes place so early that the metallicity is large enough to produce SNe Ia at $`z>2`$. The two peaks of SN Ia rates at $`z2.6`$ and $`z1.6`$ come from the MS+WD and the RG+WD systems, respectively. The SN Ia rate in ellipticals decreases at $`z2.6`$, which is determined from the shortest lifetime of SNe Ia of $`0.5`$ Gyr. Thus, the total SN Ia rate decrease at the same redshift as ellipticals, i.e., $`z2.6`$.

We also predict the cosmic supernova rates assuming that the formation of ellipticals in field took place for over the wide range of redshifts, which is imprinted in the observed spectra of ellipticals in the Hubble Deep Field. The adopted SFRs are the same as the case of cluster galaxies, but for the formation epochs $`z_\mathrm{f}`$ of ellipticals distribute in the range of $`0z5`$. Figure 2 shows the cosmic supernova rates in field galaxies. As in Figure 1, the SN Ia rate in spirals drops at $`z1.9`$. The averaged SN Ia rate in ellipticals decreases at $`z2.2`$ as a result of $`0.5`$ Gyr delay of the decrease in the SFR at $`z>3`$. Then, the total SN Ia rate decreases gradually from $`z2`$ to $`z3`$.

Although the error bars are large, there is a hint that the observed SN Ia rate decreases from $`z0.4`$ to the present. If this is confirmed, it could imply that the rate of SNe Ia from long-lived $`0.9M_{}`$ companions is lower than that assumed in our model. From $`z0.4`$, the observed SN Ia rate seems to slightly decrease toward higher redshifts. To discuss their implications in terms of the progenitors’ evolution, we should exclude the luminosity uncertainties in the unit of supernova rates and introduce more detail galaxy models including internal structure of a galaxy and galaxy number evolution.

The rate of SNe II in ellipticals evolves following the SFR without time delay. Then, it is possible to observe SNe II in ellipticals around $`z1`$. The difference in the SN II and Ia rates between cluster and field ellipticals reflects the difference in the galaxy formation histories in the different environments.

## 3 Discussion

We make the following predictions that can test this metallicity effect. 1) SNe Ia are not found in the low iron abundance environments such as dwarf galaxies and the outskirts of spirals. 2) The SN Ia rate in spirals drops at $`z2`$ due to the low-iron abundance, while SNe Ia can be found at $`z>2.5`$ in cluster ellipticals, where the timescale of metal enrichment is sufficiently short. 3) If the formation of field ellipticals is protracted to lower redshifts, the SNe Ia rate decreases from $`z2`$ in the field ellipticals.

Our predicted cosmic SN Ia rate is consistent with the recent observation within error bars up to $`z0.55`$. If stronger dependences on redshifts are found, it would provide important constraints on the mass-range (i.e., lifetime) of the WD’s companions and metallicity effects.

## References