text:
# Topics :

## Topics :

length scale1)
the ways of gravitationgauging spin (- Lie group)eaμgμνλ>12eV 10 8fm(no) response to vacuum energy density2)+QED
gauging charge U1emγ,e±,μ±,τ±λ>λcle=αme 3fmwhat is the relation between charge and spin ?3)+QCD
SU3cgauging color chargesglA,(u,d;c,s;t,b)c and qq¯λ>(2GF)1/2 103fm4)+SU2L×U1Ythe electroweakcompletionλ>απ(2GF)1/2 106fmgauge groups, + exact , - brokenSO(3,1)×SU3c×U1emSU2L×U1Y+++grglγW±,ZφH#d.o.f.216291 30\begin{array}[]{llr}&&\mbox{length scale}\\
\hline\cr\\
1)&\mbox{
\begin{tabular}[t]{l}the ways of gravitation\\
gauging spin (- Lie group)\\
$e^{\ a}_{\ \mu}\ \leftrightarrow\ g_{\ \mu\nu}$\end{tabular}}&\lambda\ >\ \begin{array}[]{c}1\vspace*{0.3cm}\\
\hline\cr\vspace*{-0.3cm}\hfil\\
2\ eV\end{array}\ \sim\ 10^{\ 8}\ fm\\
\lx@intercol\mbox{(no) response to vacuum energy density}\hfil\lx@intercol\vspace*{0.3cm}\\
2)&+\ QED\ \mbox{
\begin{tabular}[t]{l}gauging charge $U1_{\ em}$\\
$\gamma,\ e^{\ \pm},\ \mu^{\ \pm},\ \tau^{\ \pm}$\end{tabular}}&\lambda\ >\ \lambda^{e}_{cl}\ =\begin{array}[]{c}\alpha\vspace*{0.3cm}\\
\hline\cr\vspace*{-0.3cm}\hfil\\
m_{\ e}\end{array}\ \sim\ 3\ fm\\
\lx@intercol\mbox{what is the relation between charge and spin ?}\hfil\lx@intercol\vspace*{0.3cm}\\
3)&+\ QCD\mbox{\begin{tabular}[t]{l}$SU3_{\ c}$\\
gauging color charges\\
$gl^{\ A},\ (\ u,d;c,s;t,b\ )^{c}$\\
\hskip 28.45274pt and $q\ \rightarrow\ \overline{q}$\end{tabular}}&\lambda\ >\ (\sqrt{2}G_{F})^{1/2}\ \sim\ 10^{-3}\ fm\\
4)&+\ SU2_{L}\times U1_{Y}\ \mbox{\begin{tabular}[t]{l}the electroweak\\
completion\end{tabular}}&\lambda\ >\ \begin{array}[]{c}\alpha\vspace*{0.3cm}\\
\hline\cr\vspace*{-0.3cm}\hfil\\
\pi\end{array}\ (\sqrt{2}G_{F})^{1/2}\ \sim\ 10^{-6}\ fm\\
\lx@intercol\mbox{gauge groups, + exact , - broken}\hfil\lx@intercol\\
\lx@intercol\begin{array}[]{ccc ccc ccc}&SO\ (3,1)&\times&SU3_{c}&\times&U1_{em}\ \rightarrow&SU2_{L}\times U1_{Y}&&\\
&+&&+&&+&-&&\\
&gr&&gl&&\gamma&W^{\pm},Z&\varphi_{H}&\\
\#\ d.o.f.&2&&16&&2&9&1&\rightarrow\ 30\end{array}\hfil\lx@intercol\end{array}
topics continued

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \hfill \text{length scale}\\ & & \\ & & \\ 5)\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\text{unification of charges}\hfill \\ SU3_c\times SU2_L\times U1_YSO10E6\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \hfill \lambda 10^{17}fm\\ 6)\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\text{gauging fermionic charges}\hfill \\ \text{susy }\text{ anti-simplicity}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \hfill \lambda 10^4fm\\ 7)\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}\text{exact}\hfill & \text{broken symmetries}\hfill \\ \text{+ gauge symmetries, CPT}\hfill & \text{leptonic numbers}\hfill \\ & L_{e,\mu ,\tau }(\nu ,𝒩)\hfill \\ & \text{neutrino pairs}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \hfill \lambda 10^{11}fm\\ 8)\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\text{primary breakdown}\hfill \\ \text{difficulties}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \hfill \lambda 10^{17}fm\\ 9)\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\text{4 dimensions and cosmological term : a paradox}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \hfill \text{all}\\ 10)\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\text{outlook ( quo vadis ? )}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \end{array}$$

## 1 The ways of gravitation

The base quantities involve the structural forms with respect to tangent space of vierbein, spin connection and Riemann curvature

$$\begin{array}{c}e^a=\left(e_{1}\right)^a=dx^\mu e_\mu ^a;\omega _b^a=\left(\omega _{1}\right)_b^a=dx^\mu \left(\omega _\mu \right)_b^a\hfill \\ R_b^a=\left(R_{2}\right)_b^a=\frac{1}{2}dx^\mu dx^\nu \left(R_{\mu \nu }\right)_b^a\hfill \\ g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^a\eta _{ab}e_\nu ^b;\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)_\varrho ^\nu =e_a^\nu \left[_\mu e_\varrho ^a+\left(\omega _\mu \right)_b^ae_\varrho ^b\right]\hfill \\ R_{\sigma \mu \nu }^\varrho =e_a^\varrho e_\sigma ^b\left(R_{\mu \nu }\right)_b^a\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
with the structural relations

$$\begin{array}{c}de^a+\omega _b^ae^b=2T^a=2\left(T_{2}\right)^a\hfill \\ T^a=\frac{1}{2}dx^\mu dx^\varrho T_{\mu \varrho }^a\hfill \\ T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right]}^\sigma =e_a^\sigma T_{\mu \varrho }^a=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)_\varrho ^\sigma \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varrho \right)_\mu ^\sigma \right]\hfill \\ R_b^a=\left(d\omega +\omega ^{2}\right)_b^a\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
In eq. (1) $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho }^\nu `$ denote the metric and vector connection respectively. $`\eta _{ab}`$ denotes the tangent space Lorentz invariant metric. Vector and spin connections are characterized by their minimal representatives

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho }^\sigma ==\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)_\varrho ^\sigma ;T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right]}^\sigma =T_{\mu \varrho }^\sigma =g^{\sigma \tau }T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right];\tau }\hfill \\ \gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\}}^\sigma =g^{\sigma \tau }\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\tau };\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu g_{\varrho \sigma }+_\varrho g_{\mu \sigma }_\sigma g_{\mu \varrho }\right)\hfill \\ \widehat{\omega }:de^a+\widehat{\omega }_b^ae^b=0\hfill \\ \widehat{\omega }_\mu ^{\left[ab\right]}=\eta ^{bb^{}}\left(\widehat{\omega }_\mu \right)_b^{}^a=\frac{1}{2}\{\begin{array}{c}e^{\varrho b}\left(_\varrho e_\mu ^a_\mu e_\varrho ^a\right)\hfill \\ [ab]\hfill \\ +e^{\varrho b}e^{\sigma a}e_{\mu c}\left(_\varrho e_\sigma ^c_\sigma e_\varrho ^c\right)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
In eqs. (2) and (3) and in the following tensor (or tangent space) indices in brackets denote antisymmetric $`\left[\right]`$ and symmetric $`\left\{\right\}`$ symmetric combinations respectively.

Torsion and contorsion

The difference of two connections, for a given metric, defines a covariant quantity, a three tensor in the case of vector or spin connections, with the respective relations

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega _{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=e_{\nu a}e_\varrho ^b\left(\omega _\mu \right)_b^a;\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }=g_{\nu \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho }^\sigma \hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }=e_{\nu a}_\mu e_\varrho ^a+\omega _{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\nu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }\hfill \\ \omega _{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=\widehat{\omega }_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\nu }=e_{\nu a}_\mu e_\varrho ^a+\widehat{\omega }_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}\hfill \\ \widehat{\omega }_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\begin{array}{c}e_{\nu a}\left(_\varrho e_\mu ^a_\mu e_\varrho ^a\right)\hfill \\ e_{\varrho a}\left(_\nu e_\mu ^a_\mu e_\nu ^a\right)\hfill \\ +e_{\mu a}\left(_\varrho e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\varrho ^a\right)\hfill \end{array}\right\}\hfill \\ \text{contorsion :}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]};\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }=K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}\hfill \\ T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right];\nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varrho \mu ;\nu }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}K_{\varrho ;\left[\nu \mu \right]}\right)\hfill \\ K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=T_{\left[\nu \varrho \right];\mu }T_{\left[\mu \nu \right];\varrho }T_{\left[\varrho \mu \right];\nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
It follows that all covariant quantities derived from the difference of vector or spin connections and their minimal forms are equivalently determined from either the torsion or contorsion three tensor

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\nu }=\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho ;\nu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varrho \mu ;\nu }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}+K_{\varrho ;\left[\nu \mu \right]}\right)\hfill \\ =T_{\left[\nu \varrho \right];\mu }+T_{\left[\nu \mu \right];\varrho }\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
A special case arises if torsion and contorsion tensors are totally antisymmetric

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\};\nu }=0T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right];\nu }=T_{\left[\mu \varrho \nu \right]}=K_{\mu ;\left[\nu \varrho \right]}=K_{\left[\mu \nu \varrho \right]}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Then autoparallel curves and geodesics, obeying inequivalent differential equations in general, coincide

$$\begin{array}{c}\ddot{Y}^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \varrho }^\nu \dot{Y}^\mu \dot{Y}^\varrho =0\ddot{X}^\nu +\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\}}^\nu \dot{X}^\mu \dot{X}^\varrho =0\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Action densities

We will restrict the discussion to minimal connections in the following, because torsion (contorsion) fields become dynamically dependent on matter fields, through their coupling to gravity. This is of course particularly so in supergravity theories where gravitinos give rise to torsion

$$\begin{array}{c}T_{\left[\mu \varrho \right]}^a_i\overline{\psi }_\mu ^i\gamma ^a\psi _\varrho ^i\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
In eq. (9) $`\psi _\mu ^i`$ $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$ denote N irreducible spin 3/2 fields, obeying in $`d=4`$ dimensions a Majorana condition $`C\gamma _{0}\left(\psi _\mu ^i\right)^{}=\psi _\mu ^i`$ .

Let us consider a class of action densities of the Brans-Dicke type

$$\begin{array}{c}s=eQR+e_{matter}\hfill \\ Q(x)\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 16\pi G_N\end{array}=\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 16\pi l_{Pl}^{2}\end{array}\text{for}\begin{array}{c}d4\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}\text{in the long range}\hfill \\ \text{classical limit}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ e=det(e_\mu ^a);l_{Pl}=\mathrm{1.62\; 10}^{20}fm\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
In eq. (10) Q is thought to be a quadratic function of a set of real scalar fields

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=\frac{1}{2}C^{\alpha \beta }\phi _\alpha (x)\phi _\beta (x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
A nontrivial set of scalars $`\phi _\alpha `$ is necessary to generate simultaneously and spontaneously cuvature as well as the Newton constant.

Infinitesimal variation of s with respect to e or g then yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta s=e\left(\delta g^{\mu \nu }\right)s_{\mu \nu };s_{\mu \nu }=\{\begin{array}{c}\left[D_\mu D_\nu g_{\mu \nu }D^{2}\right]Q\hfill \\ +QE_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\vartheta _{\mu \nu }^{matter}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ E_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
In eq. (12) covariant derivatives relate to the minimal (metric) connection. $`E_{\mu \nu }`$, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ denote Einstein and Ricci tensor respectively and R the curvature scalar. The Riemann curvature tensor takes its conventional form

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{\nu \left[\sigma \tau \right]}^\mu =g^{\mu \mu ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{\left\{\mu ^{}\tau \right\};\alpha }g^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\left\{\sigma \nu \right\};\beta }[\sigma \tau ]\\ _\tau \gamma _{\left\{\sigma \nu \right\};\mu ^{}}+_\sigma \gamma _{\left\{\tau \nu \right\};\mu ^{}}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
It is instructive to retain the characteristic part $`\chi `$ of the Riemann curvature tensor upon dropping terms containing (quadratically) single space time derivatives

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _{\nu \left[\sigma \tau \right]}^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \mu ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}_\tau _\nu g_{\sigma \mu ^{}}_\tau _\mu ^{}g_{\sigma \nu }\\ _\sigma _\nu g_{\tau \mu ^{}}+_\sigma _\mu ^{}g_{\tau \nu }\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
For definiteness we exhibit the structure of the Ricci tensor and the curvature scalar explicitely

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{\nu \tau }=\left\{\begin{array}{c}g^{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{}\tau \right\};\alpha }\gamma _{\left\{\beta ^{}\nu \right\};\beta }\gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\right\};\alpha }\gamma _{\left\{\tau \nu \right\};\beta }\end{array}\right)\\ +g^{\alpha \beta }\left(_\tau \gamma _{\left\{\alpha \nu \right\};\beta }_\alpha \gamma _{\left\{\tau \nu \right\};\beta }\right)\end{array}\right\}\hfill \\ \chi _{\nu \tau }=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\begin{array}{c}_\tau _\nu g_{\alpha \beta }_\tau _\alpha g_{\beta \nu }\\ _\nu _\alpha g_{\beta \tau }+_\alpha _\beta g_{\tau \nu }\end{array}\right)=D_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}g_{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\hfill \\ D_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}(g;_\varrho )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta +g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}_\nu _\tau \\ \delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}g^{\tau ^{}\alpha }_\tau _\alpha \delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}g^{\nu ^{}\alpha }_\nu _\alpha \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
The second order differential operator $`D_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}`$ is understood to by symmetrized with respect to the index pair $`^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}`$.

Finally the curvature scalar becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}R=\left\{\begin{array}{c}g^{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}g^{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\right\};\alpha }\gamma _{\left\{\beta ^{}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\right\};\beta }\\ \gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\right\};\alpha }\gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\beta ^{\prime \prime }\right\};\beta }\end{array}\right)\\ +g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}\left(_\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\left\{\alpha \beta ^{}\right\};\beta }_\alpha \gamma _{\left\{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\right\};\beta }\right)\end{array}\right\}\hfill \\ \chi =g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}_\alpha ^{}_\beta ^{}g_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha ^{}_\alpha g_{\beta \beta ^{}}\end{array}\right)=D^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}g_{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\hfill \\ D^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}=\left(g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\nu ^{}\alpha }g^{\tau ^{}\beta }\right)_\alpha _\beta \hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
We give also the form of the action density s containing only first derivatives in quadratic form modulo a total divergence

$$\begin{array}{c}s=\left\{\begin{array}{c}eQg^{\alpha \beta }\left(\gamma _{\left\{\alpha \sigma \right\}}^\varrho \gamma _{\left\{\beta \varrho \right\}}^\sigma +\gamma _{\left\{\alpha \beta \right\}}^\varrho \gamma _{\left\{\varrho \sigma \right\}}^\sigma \right)\hfill \\ +e\left(_\alpha Q\right)\left(g^{\varrho \sigma }\gamma _{\left\{\varrho \sigma \right\}}^\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\left\{\beta \sigma \right\}}^\sigma \right)\hfill \\ _\alpha \left[eQ\left(g^{\varrho \sigma }\gamma _{\left\{\varrho \sigma \right\}}^\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\left\{\beta \sigma \right\}}^\sigma \right)\right]\hfill \end{array}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
We note the form of the second order differential operator corresponding to $`E_{\nu \tau }`$

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}(g;_\varrho )=D_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\frac{1}{2}g_{\nu \tau }D^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\hfill \\ E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}g_{\nu \tau }g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\right)g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta \\ +g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}_\nu _\tau \\ \delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}g^{\tau ^{}\alpha }_\tau _\alpha \delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}g^{\nu ^{}\alpha }_\nu _\alpha \\ +g_{\nu \tau }g^{\nu ^{}\alpha }g^{\tau ^{}\beta }_\alpha _\beta \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The characteristic propagation cone is obtained replacing the partial derivatives in the expression for $`E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}`$ in eq. (18) by the directional vector $`_\varrho \xi _\varrho `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}(g;\xi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}g_{\nu \tau }g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\right)\xi ^{2}\\ +g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\xi _\nu \xi _\tau +g_{\nu \tau }\xi ^\nu ^{}\xi ^\tau ^{}\\ \delta _\nu ^\nu ^{}\xi _\tau \xi ^\tau ^{}\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}\xi _\nu \xi ^\nu ^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
Upon symmetrization of $`E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}`$ with respect to $`^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}`$ we verify the transverse projection condition

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^\nu E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi ^\nu ^{}\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}+\xi ^\tau ^{}\delta _\tau ^\nu ^{}2\xi _\tau g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\right)\xi ^{2}\\ +g^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}\xi _\tau \xi ^{2}+\xi _\tau \xi ^\nu ^{}\xi ^\tau ^{}\\ \xi _\tau \xi ^\nu ^{}\xi ^\tau ^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _\tau ^\tau ^{}\xi ^\nu ^{}+\delta _\tau ^\nu ^{}\xi ^\tau ^{}\right)\xi ^{2}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \xi ^\nu E_{\nu \tau }^{\nu ^{}\tau ^{}}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
This allows to illustrate the quantized nature of configuration space variables, given the quantized nature of the gravitational field, as is evident from the equations of motion derived from eq. (12) ( actio = reactio )

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[D_\mu D_\nu g_{\mu \nu }D^{2}\right]Q\hfill \\ +QE_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\vartheta _{\mu \nu }^{matter}\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
The characteristic light cone variables $`\xi `$ in eqs. (19, 20) appears as tangent vector to the light like geodesics and obey the geodesic equaion ( eq. 8 )

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{\xi }^\nu +\gamma _{\left\{\mu \varrho \right\}}^\nu \xi ^\mu \xi ^\varrho =0;g_{\mu \nu }\xi ^\mu \xi ^\nu =0;\dot{X}^\mu =\xi ^\mu \hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
While the dot in eq. (22) denotes the derivative with respect to a classical path variable $`\tau _{cl}`$ along the sought light like geodesic, the relations in eqs. (21, 22) reveal the configuration space variables $`\xi `$ and X as quantized operators, depending together with $`\tau _{cl}`$ on an exhaustive set of classical base space variables $`y_{cl}`$.

Thus the configuration space variables X, necessarily the arguments of quantized fields in order to safeguard locality, describe a quantum deformation of the base space, spanned by $`y_{cl}`$, as is illustrated by target space and base space in string theory. The associated space geometry is sometimes referred to as noncommutative .

These considerations are simple and straightforward, yet the dimensionality of both target and base space is by no means clearly ten to eleven for the former and two for the latter. As a general warning let me state here, that the noncommutativity of target space variables $`X^\mu y_{cl}^\nu `$ is encoded in the dynamics, which influences causally dependent variables and the latter does not allow in general for any nontrivial algebraic reduction.

Looking back at eqs. (10) and (11) we show the effect of a Weyl transformation with a constant scale function f :

$$\begin{array}{c}e_\mu ^afe_\mu ^a=\overline{e}_\mu ^a;Rf^2R=\overline{R}\hfill \\ eQR\overline{e}\overline{Q}\overline{R};\overline{Q}=f^{d2}Q\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
When the rescaling function f is chosen x-dependent in order to eliminate the factor $`Q(\phi )`$ in the expression for the action density s in eq. (10) the quadratic dependence of s including the kinetic terms in $`_{matter}`$ is lost.

In the flat space limit and $`d4`$ as indicated in eq. (10) and neglecting further gravitational effects in the remaining matter interactions we reduce eq. (12) to the (approximate) Einstein equations focusing on QCD in flat space-time :

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N\vartheta _{\mu \nu };\text{QCD :}\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\vartheta _{\mu \nu }\right|\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon g_{\mu \nu }\epsilon \eta _{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu };\epsilon \epsilon _{QCD}\hfill \\ \epsilon _{QCD}=\left(0.23GeV\right)^{4}÷\left(0.28GeV\right)^{4}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
In eq. (23) $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the conventional Lorentz metric, normalized to $`\eta _{00}=1`$.

The negative vacuum energy density (or positive vacuum pressure) was deduced first by Shifman, Vainshtain and Zakharov  from charmonium sum rules  , .

The dog that did not bark

The content of eq. (24) brings about a paradox, since restricting our view to $`d=1+3`$ dimensions space time becomes a homogeneous space or as the mathematical language says ’inherits a cosmological term’ :

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\epsilon g_{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ R_{\mu \nu }=\left(8\pi G_N\epsilon /(\frac{1}{2}d1)\right)g_{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ R_{\left[\alpha \mu \right];\left[\beta \nu \right]}=\sigma a^2\left(g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \nu }g_{\beta \mu }\right);\sigma =\pm 1\hfill \\ R_{\mu \nu }=(d1)\sigma a^2g_{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \sigma a^2=\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ (d1)(\frac{1}{2}d1)\end{array}8\pi G_N\epsilon \hfill \\ \sigma =\epsilon /\left|\epsilon \right|;\sigma _{QCD}=1\hfill \\ d4:a_{QCD}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi }}\begin{array}{c}m_{Pl}\\ \\ \\ \left|\epsilon _{QCD}\right|^{1/4}\end{array}\left|\epsilon _{QCD}\right|^{1/4}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
The negative sign $`\sigma _{QCD}=1`$ selects Anti de Sitter space

$$AdS4=SO(2,3)/SO(1,3)$$

as homogeneous four dimensional space time.

The positive sign would select de Sitter space

$$dS4=SO(1,4)/SO(4)$$

The curvature radius becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{QCD}=13.5km\left(\begin{array}{c}0.25GeV\\ \\ \\ \left|\epsilon _{QCD}\right|^{1/4}\end{array}\right)^{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
New York would not be the same.

There is no doubt that the above curvature is not present in the (almost) flat four dimensions, and an interesting paradox arises. Yet if the above deduced curvature in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\sigma a^2\right)_{QCD}\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
does not curve the four known dimensions it should then curve some other space.

cosmological acceleration and negative pressure

If we interpret the large scale cosmological acceleration found by the large z supernova Ia redshift surveys  ,  as due to a cosmological constant (constant in time) then it follows

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _{cos}=+1\sigma _{QCD}=1\hfill \\ a_{cos}=\begin{array}{c}c\\ \\ \\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{cos}}H_{0}\end{array}=\mathrm{2.2\; 10}^{23}km\left(\begin{array}{c}0.7\\ \\ \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{cos}\end{array}\right)^{1/2}/h_{50}\hfill \\ h_{50}=H_{0}/\left(50km/sec/Mpsec\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
In eq. (28) $`H_{0}`$ denotes the Hubble expansion parameter at present and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cos}=\epsilon /\epsilon _{cr}`$ where the critical energy density is

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{cr}=3(H_{0})^{2}/(8\pi G_N)\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
The large curvature radius $`a_{cos}`$ as deduced in eq. (28) while acceptable phenomenologically together with the notable change of sign $`\sigma _{cos}=+1`$ does not seem to resolve the paradoxical situation with respect to the cosmological term, which we summarize in table 1 :

## 2 + 3 QED and QCD

We restrict this section to the structure of the QCD Lagrangean and the ensuing two central anomaliesr, inasfar as these are relevant for the study of vacuum energy density and potential induced cosmological terms.

For a review see e.g. refs. , , . The Lagrangean (flat space) density with Fermi gauge parameter $`\eta `$ is of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}_{QCD}=\{\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 2\eta g^{2}\end{array}C^AC^A+2tr^\mu \overline{c}D_\mu c\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 4g^{2}\end{array}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{\mu \nu A}+\overline{q}i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu qm_q\overline{q}q\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ D_\mu =_\mu +𝒲_\mu ;𝒲_\mu =i𝒟^AV_\mu ^A\hfill \\ C^A=_\mu V_\mu ^A;c=i𝒟^Ac^A;\overline{c}=i𝒟^Ac^A\hfill \\ F_{\mu \nu }^A=_\nu V_\mu ^A_\mu V_\nu ^Af_{ABC}V_\nu ^BV_\mu ^C\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
In eq. (30) $`𝒟_A`$ denotes the fundamental representation of $`SUN_c`$ with $`N_c3`$ and the conventional normalization

$$\begin{array}{c}tr𝒟^A𝒟^B=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{AB};[𝒟^A,𝒟^B]=if_{ABC}𝒟^C\hfill \\ \text{with}D_\mu c=_\mu c+[𝒲_\mu ,c]\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
The central anomalies become ’trace’ or conformal and singlet axial current anomalies in flat d = 4 space time

$$\begin{array}{c}\vartheta _\mu ^\mu =\begin{array}{c}b_{1}\\ \\ \\ 8\pi ^{2}\end{array}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{\mu \nu A}\right)_{ren.gr.inv.}+m_q\overline{q}q\hfill \\ j_\mu ^{5}=_q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _{5}^Rq;\gamma _{5}^R=i\gamma _{0}\gamma _{1}\gamma _{2}\gamma _{3}\gamma _{5}\hfill \\ ^\mu j_\mu ^{5}=2n_{fl}\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 8\pi ^{2}\end{array}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^A\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu A}\right)_{ren.gr.inv.}+2m_q\overline{q}i\gamma _{5}q\hfill \\ \left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^A\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu A}\right)_{ren.gr.inv.}ch_{2}(F)8\pi ^{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
In eq. (32) $`n_{fl}`$ denotes the number of quark flavors and $`b_{1}`$ refers to the (perturbative) rescaling function

$$\begin{array}{c}b(\kappa )=\beta (g)/g=_{1}^{\mathrm{}}b_n\kappa ^n;\kappa =\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ \\ 16\pi ^{2}\end{array}g^{2}\hfill \\ b_{1}=\frac{11}{3}C_{2}(G)\frac{2}{3}n_{fl}\hfill \\ b_{2}=\frac{34}{3}\left(C_{2}(G)\right)^{2}2C_{2}(q)n_{fl}\frac{10}{3}C_{2}(G)n_{fl}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
In eq. (33) $`C_{2}(G)`$, $`C_{2}(q)`$ denote the second Casimir invariant for the adjoint ( G ) and the defining ( q ) representations of the gauge group respectively.

For $`G=SUN_c`$ and $`N_c3`$ these quantities become

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{2}(G)N_c3;C_{2}(q)\begin{array}{c}N_c^{2}1\\ \\ \\ 2𝒩_c\end{array}\frac{4}{3}\hfill \\ b_{1}11\frac{2}{3}n_{fl},b_{2}102\frac{38}{3}n_{fl}\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The ’trace’ $`\vartheta _\mu ^\mu `$ in eq. (32) relates to the ’base’ condensates and to the vacuum energy density $`\epsilon _{QCD}=p_{0}`$ defined in eq. (24)

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{\mu \nu A}\right)_{ren.gr.inv.}\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{\mu \nu A}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }\left|\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{\mu \nu A}\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=^{2}=\{\begin{array}{c}0.250GeV^{4}\text{[4]}\hfill \\ 0.125GeV^{4}\text{[3]}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }\left|\left(\overline{u}u\right)\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=f_\pi ^{2}M_{0}\left(0.24GeV\right)^{3}\hfill \\ M_{0}=\begin{array}{c}m_\pi ^{2}\\ \\ \\ m_u+m_d\end{array}1.3GeV\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The quantity $`M_{0}`$ in eq. (35) is ’scale’ dependent and corresponds to that scale here where $`m_u+m_d=14MeV`$.

Then the spontaneous QCD parameters $`\epsilon _{QCD}=p_{0}`$ ( eqs. 24 , 35 ) become restricting QCD to the three light flavors u, d, s

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\vartheta _{\mu \nu }^{QCD}\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=\epsilon _{QCD}\eta _{\mu \nu };\epsilon _{QCD}=p_{0}\hfill \\ p_{0}=\begin{array}{c}9\\ \\ \\ 32\pi ^{2}\end{array}^{2}+f_\pi ^{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}m_\pi ^{2}+m_K^{2}\right)=\left(0.23÷0.28GeV\right)^4\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
The range of values for the vacuum pressure $`p_{0}`$ in eq. (36) corresponds to the lower and higher value for the spontaneous parameter $`^{2}`$ given in eq. (35).

This led to the attempt to map out the thermodynamically the phase structure of QCD in nucleus-nucleus, $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions in ref. , extrapolating all systems to zero chemical potentials. The Gibbs potentials $`g(T)=p(T)/T`$ for the hadronic ($`g^H`$) and the plasma ($`g^{QGP}`$) phase, where hadronic interactions in the hadron phase are replaced by a representative set of noninteracting resonances, while in the plasma phase u, d , s flavored quarks are endowed with masses and further interactions are neglectedm are shown in figure 1.

The determination of the temperature characterizing various collision systems are shown in figure 2.

Equating the pressure for the two phases yields for the critical temperature at zero chemical potentials the estimate

$$\begin{array}{c}T_{cr}=194\pm 18MeV\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
In the error for $`T_{cr}`$ in eq. (37) the systematic errors both in theoretical approximations and in the thermal description of the scattering dynamics are included.

## 4 Completing the standard model

In this section I concentrate on spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking , , .

The new feature is the appearance of a multiplet of scalar elementary fields. The minimal single doublet represents a quaternion, two doublets an octonion:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi ^{0}\\ \phi ^{}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\phi ^{0}& \hfill \left(\phi ^{}\right)^{}\\ \phi ^{}& \hfill \left(\phi ^{0}\right)^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}i\mathrm{\Phi }_{3}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{2}i\mathrm{\Phi }_{1}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{2}i\mathrm{\Phi }_{1}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{0}+i\mathrm{\Phi }_{3}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}+\frac{1}{i}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\xi \hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
The invariant of the electroweak gauge group $`SU2_LU1_𝒴`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\xi }\xi =2\phi ^{}\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}^{2}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{2}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
exhibits the enlarged $`SU2_L\times SU2^{}`$ invariance.

The scalar self interaction generates after $`\epsilon _{QCD}`$ the next higher spontaneous effect in mass scale. The former is responsible for most of the nucleon mass ( $`900`$ out of $`938`$ MeV ) , while the latter generates mass for all quark and charged lepton flavors, the W and Z gauge bosons and minimally the one remaining scalar Higgs boson :

$$\begin{array}{c}V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2}+\frac{1}{8}\lambda \left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{2}\right)^{2}(+constant)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{0}=v+H(x)\hfill \\ v=\sqrt{2}\mu /\sqrt{\lambda }=\left(\sqrt{2}G_F\right)^{1/2}246.2GeV\hfill \\ V(v+H)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2}v^{2}+\frac{1}{8}\lambda v^{4}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu ^{2}+\frac{3}{2}\lambda v^{2}\right)H^{2}\hfill \\ m_H^{2}=2\mu ^{2}=\lambda v^{2}\hfill \\ V(v)=\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{8}m_H^{2}v^{2}(+constant)\hfill \\ \epsilon _{vac}^\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(104.3GeV\right)^{4}\left(m_H/125GeV\right)^{2}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
Upon neglecting the free constant in the definition of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ potential we obtain a negative induced curvature as in the case of QCD with a correspondingly smaller curvature radius

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{vac}^\mathrm{\Phi }\\ \\ \\ \epsilon _{QCD}\end{array}\right)^{1/2}(417)^{2}\left(m_H/125GeV\right)^{2}\hfill \\ a_{\mathrm{\Phi }4d}=417^2a_{QCD}\frac{1}{2}cm\text{for}m_H=125GeV\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
$`\mathrm{}`$ they prove the impossible and disprove the obvious $`\mathrm{}`$ ”.

Table 1 thus obtains a new entry :

## 5 + 6 Unification of charges and susy

Susy and vacuum energy density

As in the preceding section we focus on the aspect of spontaneous vacuum energy density in the context of initially flat 4-d rigid supersymmetry.

For a recent overview see e.g. .

We consider the ’once local’ form of the algebra of N susy charges

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_{\dot{\beta }}^k\}=\delta ^{ik}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^\nu P_\nu ;i,k=1\mathrm{}N\hfill \\ \{j_{\mu \alpha }^i(x),Q_{\dot{\beta }}^k\}=\delta ^{ik}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^\nu \vartheta _{\mu \nu }(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
In eq. (42) $`j_{\mu \alpha }^i(x)`$ denote the N local and conserved spinorial susy currents, whereas $`\vartheta _{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is the (conserved) energy momentum density operator, in d = 1 + 3 flat dimensions.

An eventual spontaneous vacuum energy density of the form defined in eq. (24)

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{susy :}\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\vartheta _{\mu \nu }\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=\epsilon _{susy}g_{\mu \nu }\epsilon _{susy}\eta _{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
in the susy environment leads not only to the spontaneous breakdown of all N supersymmetries but to a most notable change of sign, relative to the case encountered in QCD and in the Higgs effect

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{susy}0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }\left|\{j_{\mu \alpha }^i(x),j_{\nu \dot{\beta }}^k(y)\}\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta ^{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \varrho }(z)\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^\varrho ;z=xy\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \varrho }(z)=\left(2\pi \right)^3d^{4}q\epsilon (q^{0})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu \varrho }(q,\epsilon _{susy})\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu \varrho }(q,\epsilon _{susy})=\epsilon _{susy}\delta (q^{2})\gamma _{\mu \nu \varrho }(q)+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu \varrho }(q,\epsilon _{susy})\hfill \\ \gamma _{\mu \nu \varrho }(q)=\eta _{\mu \varrho }q_\nu +\eta _{\nu \varrho }q_\mu \eta _{\mu \nu }q_\varrho \hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
In the second last relation in eq. (44) the leading spectral singularity
( $`\delta (q^{2})`$ ) arises - - for $`\epsilon _{susy}>0`$ \- - from N goldstino modes, as a consequence of the (universal) spontaneous breaking of all N supersymmetries. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ denotes all residual contribution to the susy current current correlation function, less singular for $`q^{2}0`$.

The condition $`\epsilon _{susy}0`$ follows from the Källen-Lehmann representation for a local anticommutator and the positivity of $`jj^{}`$ and $`j^{}j`$ products.

We note the Christoffel-symbol like structure of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \varrho }`$ as displayed in eq. (44), which is not accidental.

With respect to primordial cosmological inflation and the apparent present day remnant as shown in table 2 the sign of $`\epsilon _{susy}`$ is the same.

Unification of charges $`SU3_c\times SU2_L\times U1_𝒴`$

The three running coupling constants $`\overline{g}_k(\mu ^{2});k=1,2,3`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{g}_{3}SU3_c;\overline{g}_{2}SU2_L;\overline{g}_{1}U1_𝒴\hfill \end{array}$$

defined in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and normalized to a common Casimir operator of one chiral fermion family are defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\alpha }_{1}=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^{2}\overline{\vartheta }_W\overline{\alpha }_{2};\overline{\alpha }_{2(3)}=\overline{g}_{2(3)}^{2}/(4\pi )\hfill \\ \overline{\alpha }_{1}=\frac{5}{3}\left(1/\mathrm{cos}^{2}\overline{\vartheta }_W\right)\overline{\alpha }_{em};\overline{\alpha }_{3}=\left(1/\mathrm{sin}^{2}\overline{\vartheta }_W\right)\overline{\alpha }_{em}\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
We thus pick up the three coupling constants at the scale $`\mu =m_Z`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{at}m_Z:\mathrm{sin}^{2}\overline{\vartheta }_W=0.231078;\left(\overline{\alpha }_{em}\right)^1=127.934(27)\hfill \\ \left(\overline{\alpha }_{1}\right)^1=59.02(2);\left(\overline{\alpha }_{2}\right)^1=29.56(1);\left(\overline{\alpha }_{3}\right)^1=8.47(14)\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
The rescaling equations are

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\kappa }_k=\frac{1}{4\pi }\overline{\alpha }_k;\begin{array}{c}d\\ \\ \\ dt\end{array}\overline{\kappa }_k=b_k(\overline{\kappa }_{1,2,3})\overline{\kappa }_k\hfill \\ t=\mathrm{log}(\mu ^{2}/m_Z^{2});b_k=\beta _k/\overline{g}_k\hfill \\ b_k=B_k\overline{\kappa }_k+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
We only illustrate the coupling constant evolution to one loop and ignore the threshold effects above $`m_Z`$ caused by the interestingly large value of the top quark mass ($`174GeV`$) :

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\overline{\alpha }_k\right)^1\left(\alpha _{k(0)}\right)^1+\frac{1}{4\pi }B_kt\hfill \\ B_{1}=\frac{3}{5}𝒴^{2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{3}\hfill & \text{chiral fermions}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{3}\hfill & \text{complex scalars}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ B_{2}=7\frac{1}{3}(6)_{susy}_{doublets}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}\hfill & \text{chiral fermions}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{6}\hfill & \text{complex scalars}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ B_{3}=11(9)_{susy}_{3\&\overline{3}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}\hfill & \text{chiral fermions}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{6}\hfill & \text{complex scalars}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
In eq. (48) $`\alpha _{k(0)}`$ denote the values of the coupling constants at scale $`\mu =m_Z`$ as given in eq. (46).

We list the three constants $`B_k`$ for the standard model (SM) and the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) in table 3 below (abbreviating doublets by dblts).

The three pairs of coupling constants $`kl`$ with $`kl`$ cross at three respective crossing points

$$\begin{array}{c}t_{kl}=\begin{array}{c}4\pi \\ \\ \\ B_lB_k\end{array}\left(\left(\alpha _{k(0)}\right)^1\left(\alpha _{l(0)}\right)^1\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
The evolution of the (inverse) coupling constants according to the SM and the MSSM ,  is shown in figures 3 (a) and (b) respectively as a function of $`t=\mathrm{log}(\mu ^{2}/m_Z^{2})`$

The scales $`M_{kl}`$ corresponding to the crossing points $`t_{kl},k,l=12,13,23`$ for the SM and the almost perfect unification scale $`M_{susy}`$ for MSSM are shown in table 4

## 7 + 8 SO10 and $`(\nu ,𝒩)`$ neutrino sector

We focus here on the completion of the fermion families to three 16 (spinor) representations of SO10 (spin10).

The two decay chains of SO10 ,  proceed along SU5 and $`SU4_c`$  as largest simple subgroups

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}& SO10\hfill & \\ SU4_c\times SU2_L\times SU2_R\hfill & & SU5\times U1_𝒩\hfill \\ SU3_c\times U1_{BL}\times SU2_R\hfill & & SU3_c\times SU2_L\times U1_𝒴\times U1_𝒩\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{SU3_c\times SU2_L\times U1_𝒴}\\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{SU3_c\times U1_{em}}\end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
The group $`SU4_c`$ in eq. (50) is the largest subgroup of SO10 realized in a vectorlike fashion in the 16 spin10 representation attributed to one family of (spin 1/2) fermions in the left chiral 4-d spinor basis :

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\gamma _{5}^L\right)ff^{\dot{\gamma }}\hfill \\ f^{\dot{\gamma }}:16=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}4& 2& 1& +& \overline{4}& 1& 2\\ SU4_c& SU2_L& SU2_R& & SU4_c& SU2_L& SU2_R\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccccc}& SU2_L& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}u^{1}& u^{2}& u^{3}& \nu _e& 𝒩_e& \widehat{u}^{1}& \widehat{u}^{2}& \widehat{u}^{3}& \\ & & & & & & & & \\ d^{1}& d^{2}& d^{3}& e^{}& e^+& \widehat{d}^{1}& \widehat{d}^{2}& \widehat{d}^{3}& \end{array}\right)}& SU2_R& \\ & & & & & \\ & & SU4_c& SU4_c& & \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
In the $`SU5\times U1_𝒩`$ basis the 16 representation decomposes into

$$\begin{array}{c}(1,5)+(10,1)+(\overline{5},3)\hfill \\ \begin{array}{ccc}U1_𝒩\hfill & & SU5\hfill \\ 5\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & 𝒩_e& & & & \end{array}\right)\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}u^{1}& u^{2}& u^{3}& & & \widehat{u}^{1}& \widehat{u}^{2}& \widehat{u}^{3}& \\ & & & & & & & & \\ d^{1}& d^{2}& d^{3}& & e^+& & & & \end{array}\right)\hfill & 10\hfill \\ 3\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & \nu _e& & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & & e^{}& & \widehat{d}^{1}& \widehat{d}^{2}& \widehat{d}^{3}& \end{array}\right)\hfill & \overline{5}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \text{and :}\left(\begin{array}{cc}u\hfill & \nu _e\hfill \\ d\hfill & e^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}c\hfill & \nu _\mu \hfill \\ s\hfill & \mu ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}t\hfill & \nu _\tau \hfill \\ b\hfill & \tau ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
The integer eigenvalues of the $`U1_𝒩`$ generator in eq. (52) are normalized to

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\left\{16\right\}}\left(U1_𝒩\right)^{2}=50\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
In order to achieve the same normalization as for $`I_{3w}`$ we would substitute

$$\begin{array}{c}U1_𝒩J_𝒩=\sqrt{\frac{2}{50}}U1_𝒩=\frac{1}{5}U1_𝒩\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
$`(\nu ,𝒩)`$ mass matrix

The fields $`𝒩_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ are singlets under SU5 and a fortiori under the SM gauge group. They can participate however in the so extended SM through Yukawa interactions with the (or several) doublet scalars

$$\begin{array}{c}_Y(𝒩\mathrm{}\phi ^{})=g_{IJ}^{(\nu ,𝒩)}𝒩_{\dot{\gamma }}^I\left[\begin{array}{c}\nu ^{\dot{\gamma }J}\left(\phi ^{0}\right)^{}+\hfill \\ \mathrm{}^{\dot{\gamma }J}\left(\phi ^{}\right)^{}\hfill \end{array}\right]+h.c.\hfill \\ I,J=1,2,3\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
The $`u,c,t`$-like Yukawa couplings defined in eq. (55) induce through the Higgs scalar vacuum expected value (eq. 40) a Dirac mass matrix, pairing $`\nu 𝒩`$, of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}vg^{(\nu ,𝒩)}\right)_{IJ}\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
The above notation of $`\mu `$ as the part of the neutrino mass matrix induced by Yukawa couplings of the form given in eq. (56) shall not be confused with the scale parameter $`\mu `$ used in the previous section.

In addition an unrestricted Majorana mass term is compatible with the SM gauge group, of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}_M=\frac{1}{2}M_{IJ}𝒩_{\dot{\gamma }}^I𝒩^{\dot{\gamma }J}+h.c.;M_{IJ}=M_{JI}\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
Apart from the symmetry condition for M in eq. (57) the three by three matrices $`\mu `$ and M are (a priory) complex arbitrary and thus represent 18 + 12 real parameters. They form the symmetric restricted six by six $`(\nu ,𝒩)`$ mass matrix

$$\begin{array}{c}=\begin{array}{c}\\ \begin{array}{ccc}\nu & 𝒩& \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mu ^T\\ \mu & M\end{array}\right)}& \begin{array}{c}\nu \\ 𝒩\end{array}\end{array}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
In eq. (58) $`\mu ^T`$ denotes the transpose matrix of $`\mu `$.

B - L invariance, with $`L(𝒩)=1`$, is violated by the Majorana mass term at some larege scale.

For details of mass and mixing structure see e.g. ref. .

The 0 entry in $``$ gives rise to one exact mass relation, valid through renormalization. This involves the 3 nonnegative eigenvalues of the hermitian three by three matrix $`\mu \mu ^{}`$ and the six physical neutrino masses of the full (hermitian) mass matrix $`^{}`$. The latter are assumed to contain three light and three heavy masses :

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu \mu ^{}\mu _{1,2,3}0\hfill \\ ^{}m_{1,2,3},M_{1,2,3}0;M_Jm_K\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
The relation which is known by the name sea-saw ,  becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}Det_{6\times 6}=\left(Det_{3\times 3}\mu \right)^{2}m_{1/3}M_{1/3}=\left(\mu _{1/3}\right)^{2}\hfill \\ m_{1/3}=\left(m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}\right)^{1/3};M_{1/3}=\left(M_{1}M_{2}M_{3}\right)^{1/3}\hfill \\ \mu _{1/3}=\left(\mu _{1}\mu _{2}\mu _{3}\right)^{1/3}\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
A generic estimate can be obtained assuming at unification scale the SO10 inspired relation of equal mass matrices for the $`(\nu ,N)`$ Yukawa couplings and for u,c,t quarks and values of the light neutrino masses characteristic of the mass square differences compatible with the solar neutrino deficit and the atmospheric neutrino anomaly , ,

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mu }_{unif}=\overline{\mu }_{u,c,t}\mu _{1/3}\frac{1}{3}\left(m_um_cm_t\right)^{1/3}0.4GeV\hfill \\ m_{1}m_{2}10^3eV;m_{3}\mathrm{5\; 10}^2eV\hfill \\ m_{1/3}\mathrm{3.6\; 10}^3eVM_{1/3}\mathrm{4.4\; 10}^{11}GeV\hfill \end{array}$$
(61)
The order of magnitude estimate in eq. (61) $`M_{1/3}\mathrm{4.4\; 10}^{11}GeV`$ reveals a high mass scale which serves through inverse powers as a protection of lepton number(s) as well as B-L approximate conservation at low energy. Nevertheless this mass scale is several orders of magnitude smaller than the unification scale obtained from the MSSMoin table 4.

Thus the successful neutrino oscillation interpretation of the associated solar and atmospheric anomalies , ,  is, since this workshop took place, augmented by the hint of the observation of a light Higgs boson with a mass $`115GeV`$ at LEP ,  and by the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon at BNL ,  as yet uncertain but characteristic signatures of small deviations from SM expectations. They all point towards intermediary mass scales between the electroweak scale as characterized by $`v`$ or $`m_Z`$ and the unification scale for charges , represented within the MSSM by $`M_{susy}\mathrm{2\; 10}^{16}GeV`$, bearing on physics beyond the standard model.

One aspect related to spontaneous generation of mass in QCD for (the main mass of) nucleons and through the Higgs effect in the SM or its supersymmetric extensions for all elementary quanta except neutrinos, was the central topic in our discussion of the cosmological constant in sections 1-6 as summarized in table 2. This topic has an apparently paradoxical yet important bearing on the unification of charge like and spin like gauge interactions, including gravity among the latter.

I would like to appreciate the outstanding contributions of Alberto Sirlin to the backbones of the perturbative structure of gauge field theory. They were for me guidelines since student years and they serve to substancify that the quest for unification is not a dream but based on physical and logical reality - - for all I know.

## 9 + 10 Outlook ( quo vadis ? )

1. Spontaneous susy breaking in flat 4-d space time generates vacuum energy density

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\vartheta _{\mu \nu }\right|\mathrm{\Omega }=\epsilon _{susy}g_{\mu \nu }\text{with}\epsilon _{susy}>0\hfill \end{array}$$

This sign is opposite to the corresponding vacuum energy densities in QCD and with respect to the Higgs effect.
2. The metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ does not react through d=4 curvature to any of the vacuum energy densities $`\epsilon _{susy}>0`$, $`\epsilon _{QCD,Higgseffect}<0`$. Through the absorption of goldstino modes into gravitinos the mass scale of susy braking is linked to gravitino masses, which at present remain unknown.
3. This absence of 4-d curvature ($`AdS_{4}\epsilon <0`$ , $`dS_{4}\epsilon >0`$) indicates indirectly the presence of extra dimensions with unknown curvature scale.
4. All ungauged U1-like symmetries : B, $`L_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$, B-L $`\mathrm{}`$ are broken and protected, except for B, at low energy by the mass of heavy neutrino flavors $`𝒩`$ : $`M_{1/3}(𝒩)10^{11}GeV`$.
5. While signatures of the path towards unification ( of all gauge and associated symmetries) appear – to me – to be elusive as to the scale of $`1`$ TeV, they hopefully will manifest themselves first in small effects or the absence of expected large ones and this rightly so will demand a definite alertness in spirit and a wide open mind towards consistent speculations.


format: text

text:
# Quasiprobability and Probability Distributions for Spin 1/2 States11footnote 1Accepted by Foun. Phys. Lett., copyright©by Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.

## Introduction

The idea of finding a description of quantum states in terms of (generalized) functions which are analogous to probability distributions in particle phase space was realized by Wigner (see also ref.). The Wigner function, which is a real valued distribution, turned out to take negative values in some domains of phase space for some quantum states. Due to this the Wigner function was called a quasiprobability distribution (or a quasidistribution). The quantum mechanical basic equations were rewritten in terms of the Wigner function by Moyal. Feynman has even discussed the possibility to drop the assumption that the probabilities of an event must be a nonnegative number. These attempts are compared with the permanent wish to explain quantum mechanics in intuitively more acceptable classical notions. The hidden variables theories are examples of attempts in this direction.

Addressing the question of how to make quantum mechanics look like a hidden variable theory and vice versa, an analog of Glauber-Sudarshan $`P`$ distribution was constructed for spin $`1/2`$ states by one of the authors. The introduced quasiprobability distribution was expressed in terms of the conventional density matrix description of spin $`1/2`$ states. This distribution was applied to propose a hidden variable theory, whose predictions agree with quantum mechanical ones in various cases (for a tutorial, see ref.). This technique was generalized to any pair of noncommuting observables and used to reinterpret Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm “paradox”, and the role of Feynman’s negative probabilities was made concrete in the example of interferometers with which path (WW for the German welcher Weg) detectors. Furthermore, the question of operator ordering was addressed in ref., where some analogous distributions were proposed.

Recently the tomographic methods of measuring quantum states were discussed. In these schemes the invertible Radon transform was used to express the Wigner function in terms of positive probability distributions (called marginal distributions). Such marginal distributions can be obtained directly from measurements, and are used to completely characterize a quantum state. The tomography of spin states was discussed in refs.. On the other hand, for spin $`1/2`$ states the relation between quasiprobability $`P`$ distribution and positive probability distribution has not been discussed yet.

The aim of our work is to find the map which is analog of Radon transform used in tomographic schemes for connecting the quasiprobability distribution for spin $`1/2`$ particles with measurable probability distributions. We also express the density matrix in terms of the distributions $`P`$ and $`w`$, and relate the last with Bloch vector.

This Letter is organized as follows: in section 1 the properties of $`P`$ quasiprobability distribution are reviewed; in section 2 the $`w`$ probability distribution is discussed. In section 3 their relation is shown. The paper ends with a few concluding remarks and some calculational tools are collected in the appendix.

## 1 A Review on $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ Spin $`1/2`$ Quasiprobability Distribution

Some years ago, one of the authors has introduced a quasiprobability distribution $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ in order to describe a spin $`1/2`$ quantum state. In some features it can be viewed as an analog of Glauber-Sudarshan $`P`$ distributions for light (equivalently harmonic oscillator) quantum states. For a tutorial, the reader is referred to ref.
citeScuMex.

In order to define $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ we should first introduce the $`\delta `$ operator given by

$$\delta \left(c\widehat{𝒪}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi \left(c\widehat{𝒪}\right)\right],$$

where $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ is an operator (e.g. Pauli spin operator $`\widehat{\sigma _z}`$) and $`c`$ is a real variable which plays the role of its classical analog (e.g. $`s_z`$). Then, given an operator $`\widehat{Q}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$, we can define a classical counterpart $`Q\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ by

$$\widehat{Q}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)=d^3sQ(s_x,s_y,s_z)\delta \left(s_x\widehat{\sigma _x}\right)\delta \left(s_y\widehat{\sigma _y}\right)\delta \left(s_z\widehat{\sigma _z}\right),$$

where should be noticed that an operator ordering was chosen. Quantum mean value

$$\widehat{Q}=Tr\left(\rho \widehat{Q}\right),$$
(1)
and “classical” mean value

$$\widehat{Q}=d^3sP\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)Q\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right),$$
(2)
suggest the definition

$$P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)=Tr\left[\rho \delta \left(s_x\widehat{\sigma _x}\right)\delta \left(s_y\widehat{\sigma _y}\right)\delta \left(s_z\widehat{\sigma _z}\right)\right],$$
(3)
which makes quantum and “classical” mean values (eqs. (1) and (2)) to coincide.

For the purposes of ref. (treat Stern-Gerlach like experiments) the referred author has “traced out” the $`y`$ variable. We will not proceed in this way! We will treat $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ in its full glory, in the same spirit as in ref., where some important properties are made more evident.

### 1.1 An Equivalent $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ Presentation

With a few algebraic manipulation, we get another expression for $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$, in which some important features easily appears.

Just inserting the definitions of $`\delta \left(m_i\widehat{\sigma _i}\right)`$ and using eigenvectors of $`\widehat{\sigma _z}`$ to calculate trace, we get

$$P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)=\underset{a}{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{2\pi }}e^{i\chi s_x}e^{i\zeta s_y}e^{i\eta s_z}a_z\left|\rho e^{i\chi \widehat{\sigma _x}}e^{i\zeta \widehat{\sigma _y}}e^{i\eta \widehat{\sigma _z}}\right|a_z,$$
(4)
where

$$\widehat{\sigma _z}|a_z=a|a_z.$$

Standard quantum mechanical calculation immediately leads to

$`a_z\left|\rho e^{i\chi \widehat{\sigma _x}}e^{i\zeta \widehat{\sigma _y}}e^{i\eta \widehat{\sigma _z}}\right|a_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b,c}{}}e^{i\eta a}e^{i\zeta b}e^{i\chi c}`$
$`c_xb_yb_ya_za_z\left|\rho \right|c_x,`$
where

$`\widehat{\sigma _x}|c_x`$ $`=`$ $`c|c_x,`$
$`\widehat{\sigma _y}|b_y`$ $`=`$ $`b|b_y.`$
Substitution of eq. (1.1) in eq. (4) yields

$$P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)=\underset{a,b,c}{}\delta ^3\left(\stackrel{}{s}(c,b,a)\right)c_xb_yb_ya_za_z\left|\rho \right|c_x,$$

where we made use of the notation

$$\delta ^3\left(\stackrel{}{s}(c,b,a)\right)\delta \left(s_xc\right)\delta \left(s_yb\right)\delta \left(s_za\right).$$

Decomposition of $`|c_x`$ in $`|a_z`$ basis leads to

$`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c}{}}\delta ^3\left(\stackrel{}{s}(c,b,a)\right)c_xb_yb_ya_z`$
$`\left\{a_zc_xa_z\left|\rho \right|a_z+a_zc_xa_z\left|\rho \right|a_z\right\}.`$
The above expression (which corresponds to eq.(2.18) in ref., but written in coordinates) makes clear the singular character of $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ for quantum mechanical allowed states. It can assume non null values only in the eight vertices of a cube centered at the origin and parallel to the Cartesian axis. This is an obvious manifestation of the fact that only eigenvalues are allowed as results of a single measurement in quantum mechanics.

We make use of this singular character and define $`p(c,b,a)`$ by

$$P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)=\underset{a,b,c}{}\delta ^3\left(\stackrel{}{s}(c,b,a)\right)p(c,b,a).$$
(7)
Straightforward calculation (see appendix) leads to

$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[\rho _{++}+\rho _+\right],`$ (8)
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[\rho _{++}\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[\rho _{++}+\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[\rho _{++}\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[\rho _{}+\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[\rho _{}\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[\rho _{}+\rho _+\right],`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[\rho _{}\rho _+\right],`$
where we used the simple notation

$`\rho _{++}`$ $`=`$ $`+_z\left|\rho \right|+_z,`$
$`\rho _+`$ $`=`$ $`+_z\left|\rho \right|_z,`$
$`\rho _+`$ $`=`$ $`_z\left|\rho \right|+_z,`$
$`\rho _{}`$ $`=`$ $`_z\left|\rho \right|_z.`$
### 1.2 Density Matrix from $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$

We now show how to invert relation (1.1) and obtain density matrix from $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ quasiprobability distribution. Then, with aid of simple properties of density matrices, we derive some properties which a $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ distribution should obey to correspond to a quantum mechanical possible state.

From the first two lines of eqs. (8) one easily obtains

$`\rho _{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1i\right)p(1,1,1)+\left(1+i\right)p(1,1,1),`$ (9)
$`\rho _+`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1i\right)p(1,1,1)\left(1+i\right)p(1,1,1),`$
and using the properties of hermiticity and unitary trace of density matrix, one gets

$$\rho =\left[\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{++}& \rho _+\\ \rho _+^{}& 1\rho _{++}\end{array}\right].$$

This result shows us that from an information theoretical viewpoint all other six $`p(c,b,a)`$ are redundant information. Algebraically, this redundant information manifests itself as a set of constraints which a $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ distribution must obey, in order to represent a quantum mechanical allowed state (e.g. one which obeys uncertainty relations). One of this constraints is just marginal distribution property:

$$\underset{b,c}{}p(c,b,a)=a_z\left|\rho \right|a_z=𝒫\left(s_z=a\right),$$

with similar relations holding for $`𝒫\left(s_x=c\right)`$ and $`𝒫\left(s_y=b\right)`$, where $`𝒫()`$ denotes probability of $``$. So now it is clear that $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ is a complex valued quasiprobability distribution.

### 1.3 Examples

We now work out some simple examples.

i) Spin up in $`z`$-axis:

As its density matrix in $`|a_z`$ basis is given by

$$\rho _{+z}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right],$$

one immediately obtains

$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right),`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right),`$
$`p(c,b,1)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
This example was also worked out in ref., but considering only $`x`$ and $`z`$ directions. If we add all $`y`$ possibilities ($`b=\pm 1`$) we reobtain that result.

ii) Spin “up” in $`x`$-axis:

Equivalently, the density matrix is given by

$$\rho _{+x}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2& 1/2\\ 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right],$$

and then

$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right),`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right),`$
$`p(1,b,a)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
iii) Spin “up” in $`y`$-axis:

Density matrix is given by

$$\rho _{+y}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2& i/2\\ i/2& 1/2\end{array}\right],$$

and then

$`p(c,1,a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1,1,1)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}.`$
Those examples show how peculiar is the behaviour of $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ quasiprobability with respect to cube symmetries. This is a consequence of the noncommutativity of $`\delta `$ operators in eq. (3), which makes $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ distribution noncovariant. In case we had used the symmetric Margenau-Hill $`P`$, $`P_s\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$, or the Wigner-Weyl $`P`$, $`P_w\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$, as defined in ref., they would have a covariant behaviour, but in this work we intend to discuss the original $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ distribution (denoted $`P_{xyz}`$ in ref.).

iv) Unpolarized spin:

In this last example, density matrix is given by

$$\rho _o=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2& 0\\ 0& 1/2\end{array}\right],$$

and one gets

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}p(1,1,1)& =& p(1,1,1)& =& \\ p(1,1,1)& =& p(1,1,1)& =& \frac{1}{8}\left(1+i\right),\\ p(1,1,1)& =& p(1,1,1)& =& \\ p(1,1,1)& =& p(1,1,1)& =& \frac{1}{8}\left(1i\right).\end{array}$$

Those four examples span all possibilities, since any spin $`1/2`$ density operator can be written as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left\{\widehat{1}+\widehat{\sigma _x}\widehat{\sigma _x}+\widehat{\sigma _y}\widehat{\sigma _y}+\widehat{\sigma _z}\widehat{\sigma _z}\right\},$$
(10)
and the relation between $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ and $`\rho `$ is linear.

## 2 Spin States in the Probability Representation

We review in this section the probability representation of spin $`1/2`$ states. This representation was introduced in refs. and treats both, pure states and statistical mixtures equally via probability distributions. For a general review, see ref..

The central point in such a representation is the property of density matrices that, in whatever basis they are written, theirs diagonal elements are nonnegative probabilities. If a spin state is given by a density matrix $`\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}`$ (written with respect to the $`\widehat{\sigma _z}`$ eigenvectors), one can describe the same state by a rotated reference frame density matrix $`\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$, where $`u`$ is the set of Euler angles $`\varphi `$, $`\theta `$, $`\psi `$, which defines the rotation (as usual $`0\varphi ,\psi <2\pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$).

Let us describe in some detail how such a rotation is done. For the sake of simplicity, let us work first with a pure state, described by a spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _+\\ \chi _{}\end{array}\right)`$, again with respect to the $`\widehat{\sigma _z}`$ eigenvectors. In a rotated reference frame, the same state is described by the rotated spinor given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(u\right)=𝐃\left(u\right)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(11)
where

$$𝐃\left(u\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\left(\varphi +\psi \right)/2}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\left(\varphi \psi \right)/2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\left(\varphi \psi \right)/2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\left(\varphi +\psi \right)/2}\end{array}\right]$$

is an irreducible spin $`1/2`$ matrix representation of the rotation group. In components eq. (11) reads

$$\chi _s\left(u\right)=\underset{m}{}D_{sm}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)\chi _m,$$

and it is worthy to note that the matrix elements $`D_{sm}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$ are also named Wigner functions (for rotations).

It is now straightforward to pass to density matrix. The same state is described by

$$\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{},$$

and rotation gives

$`\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(u\right)\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\left(u\right)\right)^{}=𝐃\left(u\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐃\left(u\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^{}`$
$`=`$ $`𝐃\left(u\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(𝐃\left(u\right)\right)^{}=𝐃\left(u\right)\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(𝐃\left(u\right)\right)^{}.`$
As eq. (2) is linear in $`\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}`$, it also applies for mixed states.

The nonnegative matrix elements $`\rho _{ii}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$ have the meaning of probability distribution of obtaining $`i`$ when the rotated $`z`$-axis spin component is measured in this state. By the geometry of Euler angles it is clear that $`\rho _{ii}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$ do not depend on $`\psi `$, so $`u(\theta ,\varphi )`$ can be viewed as points in a sphere (equivalently, $`\rho _{ii}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)`$ does not depend on the rotation itself, but only on the new oriented quantization axis, defined by $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$). The central object in this approach is then defined

$$w(i,u)\rho _{ii}^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right),$$
(13)
which is a positive distribution obeying

$$\underset{i}{}w(i,u)=1,$$
(14)
for all $`u`$ (i.e.: marginal probabilities property). It should be viewed as a probability distribution for spin $`1/2`$ states.

### 2.1 Density Matrix from $`w(i,u)`$

In refs. $`w(i,u)`$ probability distributions are worked out for arbitrary spin states. With aid of some general properties of $`SU\left(2\right)`$ group, inverse integral transformations are obtained, and density matrix is given in terms of $`w(i,u)`$. As in the present work we are only interested in spin $`1/2`$ states, we will use a more direct tomographic approach.

As spin Hilbert Spaces are finite dimensional, the complete description of physical state can be achieved by using a finite set of real numbers. In particular, for two level systems, three real numbers are necessary and sufficient to completely describe an arbitrary state. Tomographically, it means that three well chosen axis can give the complete knowledge of the state of the system. A manifestation of these facts, with a canonical choice of axis, is given by eq. (10).

The mean values involved in eq. (10) can be directly obtained by the definition of $`w(i,u)`$ distribution, since

$$\widehat{\sigma _u}=w(+\frac{1}{2},u)w(\frac{1}{2},u),$$

where $`\widehat{\sigma _u}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\sigma }}\stackrel{}{u}`$, and marginal probability property (eq. (14)). One obtains

$$\widehat{\sigma _u}=2w(+\frac{1}{2},u)1.$$
(15)
Substitution of eqs. (15) in eq. (10) then gives

$$\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{1}+\left(w_x^+\frac{1}{2}\right)\widehat{\sigma _x}+\left(w_y^+\frac{1}{2}\right)\widehat{\sigma _y}+\left(w_z^+\frac{1}{2}\right)\widehat{\sigma _z},$$
(16)
where we made use of the short notation $`w_j^\pm w(\pm \frac{1}{2},u\left(j\right))`$, $`j=x,y,z`$ and $`u\left(j\right)`$ the respective $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ pair. An analogous expression holds with $`w_j^{}`$. In matrix form, eq. (16) can be written (with aid of eq. (14)):

$$\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}w_z^+& \left(w_x^+\frac{1}{2}\right)i\left(w_y^+\frac{1}{2}\right)\\ \left(w_x^+\frac{1}{2}\right)+i\left(w_y^+\frac{1}{2}\right)& w_z^{}\end{array}\right].$$
(17)
This shows that also $`w(i,u)`$ contains redundant information, which are translated as constraints that a function must obey to describe a quantum mechanical state. In this case, the knowledge of three points determine the behaviour of the whole function.

A similar treatment, but which makes use of a nonredundant quorum is made by Weigert. In this treatment, the complete state of a spin $`j`$ is reconstructed by measuring $`4j\left(j+1\right)`$ (tomographically) independent spin projection mean values.

For completeness, we reproduce here the general formula which gives density operator from $`w(i,u)`$ for any spin value. This formula is deduced in refs. from general properties of Wigner’s $`3j`$ symbols (equivalently, Clebsch-Gordan coefficients). It reads

$`\left(1\right)^{m_2^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j_3=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3=j_3}{\overset{j_3}{}}}\left(2j_3+1\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{m_1=j}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \left(1\right)^{m_1}w(m_1,\theta ,\varphi )D_{0m_3}^{\left(j_3\right)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )}`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}j& j& j_3\\ m_1& m_1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j& j& j_3\\ m_1^{}& m_2^{}& m_3\end{array}\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho _{m_1^{}m_2^{}}^{\left(j\right)},`$ (22)
where $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_3\end{array}\right)`$ are Wigner’s $`3j`$ symbols, and

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\psi .$$

### 2.2 Examples

In this subsection we compute $`w(i,u)`$ for the same four examples given in $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ representation.

i) Spin up in $`z`$-axis: In this case, the rotated density matrix reads

$$\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}\left(u\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\psi }\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\psi }& \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right],$$

and one gets

$`w(+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)=\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),`$
$`w({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)=\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right).`$
ii) Spin “up” in $`x`$-axis: In this case one gets

$`w(+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \right),`$
$`w({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \right).`$
iii) Spin “up” in $`y`$-axis: In this case one gets

$`w(+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \right),`$
$`w({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \right).`$
iv) Unpolarized spin: Finally, in this case one gets

$$w(+\frac{1}{2},u)=\frac{1}{2}=w(\frac{1}{2},u).$$

This last example simply exhibits the isotropy of the state. The other three examples are best understood if one remembers polar spherical coordinates expressions.

In fact, the $`w`$ distribution for spin $`1/2`$ can be visualized with aid of the Bloch ball (i.e. Bloch sphere for pure states and its interior for mixed ones). The connection between Bloch vector $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ and density matrix is made by (see eq. (10))

$$\rho ^{\left(1/2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{1}+\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\sigma }},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{b}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\sigma }}`$ has Euclidean norm lower than or equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$. From the definition of $`w`$ one obtains

$$w(\pm \frac{1}{2},u)=\frac{1}{2}\pm \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{u},$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ is the unitary vector defined by the polar angles $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$.

## 3 QUASIPROBABILITY $`P`$ FROM PROBABILITY $`w`$

In this section we explicit formulas which give the quasiprobability distribution $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ (in fact the $`p(c,b,a)`$ of eq. (7)) from the knowledge of the tomographic probability distribution $`w(i,u)`$

The composition of eqs. (8) and (17) directly give

$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[w_x^+iw_y^++w_z^+\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (24)
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[w_x^++iw_y^++w_z^+\right]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[w_x^+iw_y^++w_z^+\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[w_x^++iw_y^++w_z^+\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[w_x^++iw_y^++w_z^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[w_x^+iw_y^++w_z^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+i\right)\left[w_x^++iw_y^++w_z^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}},`$
$`p(1,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1i\right)\left[w_x^+iw_y^++w_z^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$
Those equations are analogous to Radon transform, where Wigner quasiprobability distribution is written down from tomographic probabilities.

In this way, the “hidden” quasiprobability $`P\left(\stackrel{}{s}\right)`$ can be obtained directly from the knowledge of tomographic probabilities $`w_j^\pm `$.

In particular, the four examples worked out previously can be checked, and the knowledge of the three Cartesian axis tomographic probabilities allows one to completely determine the “joint quasiprobability” $`P`$.

## Concluding Remarks

We have developed a Radon like transformation, in which $`P`$ quasiprobability distribution for spin $`1/2`$ states is written in terms of (some special points of) the tomographic probability distribution $`w`$.

The theme of (quasi)probability distributions for spin states is much more rich, and besides these two treated here, there are some others “Wigner” distributions proposed by diverse authors, with different motivations. As an example, in ref., Chumakov, Klimov and Wolf show that a Wigner quasiprobability distribution proposed by Agarwal is a restriction of a Wigner function later proposed by Wolf for generic Lie groups.

Some peculiar properties of $`P`$ quasiprobability are evidenced. They are related to the operator ordering question, also addressed in ref..

The connection between Bloch vector and $`w`$ tomographic distribution is also made (eq. (23)). It shows a direct geometric interpretation of $`w`$ in the case of two level systems.

## Acknowledgement

Authors thank organizers of XXXI Latin American School of Physics (ELAF ’98), held in Mexico city, in honor of Professor Marcos Moshinsky, where part of this work was done, for hospitality, and one anonymous referee for suggestions.

## Appendix: Calculational tools

In this work we made use of Pauli spin matrices in the form

$$\widehat{\sigma _x}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{\sigma _y}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{\sigma _z}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Conventionally,

$`|\pm x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|z\pm |z\right\},`$
$`|\pm y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|z\pm i|z\right\},`$
and follows

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}+x+y+y+z+z+x& =& xyy+z+zx& =& \\ x+y+yzzx& =& +xyyzz+x& =& \frac{1}{4}\left(1+i\right),\\ xyyzzx& =& +x+y+yzz+x& =& \\ +xyy+z+z+x& =& x+y+y+z+zx& =& \frac{1}{4}\left(1i\right),\\ +x+y+y+zz+x& =& xyy+zzx& =& \\ x+y+yz+zx& =& +xyyz+z+x& =& \frac{1}{4}\left(1+i\right),\\ +xyy+zz+x& =& x+y+y+zzx& =& \\ xyyz+zx& =& +x+y+yz+z+x& =& \frac{1}{4}\left(1i\right).\end{array}$$