text:
# 𝐴_𝑁-type Dunkl operators and new spin Calogero–Sutherland models

## I Introduction

In the early seventies, Calogero calo71  and Sutherland suther71 ; suther72  introduced the celebrated exactly solvable (ES) and integrable quantum many-body problems in one dimension that bear their names. These papers had a profound impact in the whole physics community, as reflected by the vast amount of literature devoted to the study of the mathematical properties and applications of these models. Among the most recent ones we could mention soliton theory Ka95 ; Po95 , orthogonal polynomials LV96 ; BF97 ; dunkl98 , fractional statistics and anyons CL99 , random matrix theory TSA95 , and Yang–Mills theories GN94 ; DF98 , to name only a few. Later on, Olshanetsky and Perelomov OP83  explained the integrability of the original Calogero–Sutherland (CS) models by relating them to the root system of $`A_N`$ type. These authors then constructed new families of integrable many-body Hamiltonians associated with all the other root systems. Furthermore, they showed that the most general interaction potential for these models is proportional to the Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$ function.

A considerable effort has been devoted over the last decade to the extension of CS models to particles with spin. These models are a step forward towards the unification of the CS scalar models and integrable spin chains, like the Haldane–Shastry model Ha88 ; Sh88 . Several different techniques have been used to construct spin counterparts of the scalar CS models, including the exchange operator method poly92 , the Dunkl operators formalism ber93 ; cher94 , the supersymmetric approach tur98 , and reduction by discrete symmetries poly99a . In the quantum case, only the rational and trigonometric (or hyperbolic) spin CS models have been constructed, both in their $`A_N`$ poly92 ; hikami92 ; ber93 ; brink93 ; basu96 ; In97 ; take97 ; UNW98  and $`BC_N`$ yam95  versions. In the $`A_N`$ case, the integrability and the exact-solvability of these models both follow from the fact that the Hamiltonian is related to a quadratic combination of some family of Dunkl operators.

The Dunkl operators

$$T_i=\frac{}{z_i}+a\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij}),i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(1)
were originally introduced in dunk89  in connection with the theory of orthogonal polynomials associated with finite reflection groups. In the latter expression, $`a`$ is an arbitrary real parameter and the sum runs over $`j=1,\mathrm{},i1,i+1,\mathrm{},N`$. The permutation operators $`K_{ij}=K_{ji}`$ act on an arbitrary function $`f(𝐳)`$, with $`𝐳=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)^N`$, as

$$(K_{ij}f)(z_1,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_j,\mathrm{},z_N)=f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_j,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_N).$$
(2)
Using the relations

$$K_{ij}^2=1,K_{ij}K_{jk}=K_{ik}K_{ij}=K_{jk}K_{ik},K_{ij}K_{kl}=K_{kl}K_{ij},$$
(3)
where $`i,j,k,l`$ take different values in the range $`1,\mathrm{},N`$, one can establish the commutativity of the operators (1) and prove that $`T_i,K_{jk}`$$`i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},N`$, span a realization of a degenerate Hecke algebra (see cher94  for more details). Since the rational spin CS Hamiltonian is related to a polynomial in the Dunkl operators (1), these operators yield a complete set of commuting integrals of motion. In addition, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian follows immediately from that of the Dunkl operators, which can be easily computed ber93 ; basu96 .

The previous considerations also apply to the operators

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_i=z_i\frac{}{z_i}+a\underset{j<i}{}\frac{z_i}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij})+a\underset{j>i}{}\frac{z_j}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij})+1i,$$
(4)
$`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, introduced by Cherednik cher94  in connection with the trigonometric spin CS model. In other words, the operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}_i`$ commute, have an easily computable spectrum, and can be used to obtain a complete set of integrals of motion and the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. It has become customary in the literature to refer to both families of operators $`T_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_i`$ as Dunkl operators.

Recently, some partially solvable deformations of the scalar CS models with an external potential have been proposed MRT96 ; HS99 ; GGR00 . For these models —in contrast to the CS models listed in OP83 — only a finite-dimensional subset of the spectrum can be computed algebraically. Following Turbiner and Ushveridze TU87 ; Tu88 , we shall use the term quasi-exactly solvable (QES) to refer to this type of models; see also the reviews Sh89 ; GKO94 ; Us94 . In all these models, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as a quadratic combination of the generators of a realization of $`𝔰𝔩(N+1)`$ by first-order differential operators preserving a finite-dimensional space of smooth functions. The action of the Hamiltonian in this space can thus be represented by a finite-dimensional constant matrix. The eigenvalues of this matrix belong to the spectrum of the Hamiltonian provided the corresponding eigenfunctions satisfy some appropriate boundary conditions. The Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩(N+1)`$ is usually referred to as a hidden symmetry algebra of the Hamiltonian in these models.

In this paper, we propose a general procedure for constructing (Q)ES spin CS models, close in spirit to the hidden symmetry algebra approach to scalar QES models. The starting point of our construction is the well-known fact that the two standard families of Dunkl operators (1) and (4) admit an infinite sequence of invariant polynomial subspaces of finite dimension. One of the main novelties in our approach consists in the introduction of a new family of commuting Dunkl operators which, together with the other two families (1) and (4), is shown to preserve a single polynomial subspace of finite dimension. We then prove that certain quadratic combinations involving all three families of Dunkl operators always yield a spin CS Hamiltonian. The QES character of these Hamiltonians follows immediately from the fact that the Dunkl operators admit a finite-dimensional invariant subspace. Moreover, if the original quadratic combination does not involve the new family of Dunkl operators, the resulting Hamiltonian preserves an infinite sequence of finite-dimensional subspaces of smooth functions, which we shall take as the definition of exact solvability. The linear space spanned by all three types of Dunkl operators is then shown to be invariant under the projective action of the group $`\mathrm{GL}(2,)`$. We make use of this fact to perform a complete classification of the resulting (Q)ES spin CS models. All the previously known exactly-solvable spin CS models of $`A_N`$ type appear as particular cases, arising from a quadratic combination of a single type (either (1) or (4)) of Dunkl operators. In addition, we obtain many new spin CS models, both exactly and quasi-exactly solvable. These include, in particular, several elliptic QES spin CS models. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first examples of solvable quantum spin CS models involving elliptic functions.

## II A new family of $`A_N`$-type Dunkl operators

In this section we shall define a third family of Dunkl operators that preserve certain finite-dimensional polynomial subspaces. These three families shall be used in the following sections to construct exactly and quasi-exactly solvable spin many-body Hamiltonians.

Let us begin by introducing the polynomial subspaces

$`_m(𝐳)`$ $`=\text{span}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_i^{l_i}:l_im,i=1,\mathrm{},N\},`$ (5)
$`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ $`=\text{span}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_i^{l_i}:{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_in\},`$ (6)
which shall be referred to as the *rectangular* and *triangular* modules, respectively, by analogy with the two particle case FK98 .

A well-known property of the Dunkl operators (1), (4) is the fact that they preserve the triangular module $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ for arbitrary $`n`$. Seemingly less known, but central to our construction, is the fact that they preserve the rectangular module $`_m(𝐳)`$ for arbitrary $`m`$ as well. On the other hand, the differential parts of the Dunkl operators (1), (4) together with the differential operator $`z_i^2_{z_i}`$, span a realization of $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$. Inspired by this fact, it is natural to suggest the following ansatz for a third set of Dunkl operators:

$$J_i=z_i^2\frac{}{z_i}mz_i+\underset{ji}{}f_{ij}(\text{z})(1K_{ij}),i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$

where $`m`$ is an arbitrary non-negative integer and $`f_{ij}(𝐳)`$ is a function anti-symmetric in $`i,j`$. This new family does not preserve the module $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$, but for a suitable choice of the functions $`f_{ij}(𝐳)`$ it will be shown to preserve the module $`_m(𝐳)`$.

To this end, let us define the operators

$`Q_i^{}=a{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$ (7)
$`Q_i^0={\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$
$`Q_i^+=a{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$
where $`a`$ is a real parameter and the sum runs over $`j=1,\mathrm{}i1,i+1,\mathrm{}N`$.

The following lemma will be important in the sequel:

###### Lemma 1.

For any non-negative integer $`n`$, the rectangular module $`_n(𝐳)`$ is invariant under the action of the operators $`Q_i^{}`$, $`Q_i^0`$ and $`Q_i^+`$. The triangular module $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ is invariant only under the action of the operators $`Q_i^{}`$ and $`Q_i^0`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove that the inclusions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}^ϵ}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij})_n(𝐳)_n(𝐳),ϵ=\pm ,0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}^ϵ}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij})𝒫_n(𝐳)𝒫_n(𝐳),ϵ=,0,`$
hold for any pair of indices $`ij`$, where

$$h_{ij}^{}=1,h_{ij}^0=z_i+z_j,h_{ij}^+=z_iz_j.$$

The action of these operators on an arbitrary monomial

$$\frac{h_{ij}^ϵ}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij})\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_k^{l_k}=\frac{z_i^{l_i}z_j^{l_j}z_i^{l_j}z_j^{l_i}}{z_iz_j}\frac{h_{ij}^ϵ}{z_i^{l_i}z_j^{l_j}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_k^{l_k}$$

yields a polynomial, since $`z_i^{l_i}z_j^{l_j}z_i^{l_j}z_j^{l_i}`$ is a multiple of $`z_iz_j`$. The homogeneous degree of this polynomial is either $`0`$ (if $`l_i=l_j`$) or $`ϵ+_il_i`$ (if $`l_il_j`$). Therefore, if the original monomial belongs to $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ the resulting polynomial is also in $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ for $`ϵ=,0`$, but lies outside $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ for $`ϵ=+`$.

On the other hand, the degrees of the variables $`z_k`$ in the resulting polynomial remain equal to $`l_k`$ if $`ki,j`$, while the degrees of $`z_i`$ and $`z_j`$ satisfy

$$\mathrm{deg}(z_k)\mathrm{max}(l_i,l_j)1+d_ϵ,k=i,j,$$

where

$$d_ϵ=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }ϵ=,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }ϵ=0,+.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, if the original monomial belongs to the space $`_n(𝐳)`$ so does the resulting polynomial in all three cases $`ϵ=\pm ,0`$. ∎∎

The following three sets of Dunkl operators shall be the building blocks for the construction of several new (quasi-)exactly solvable spin CS models:

$`J_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$ (8)
$`J_i^0=z_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$
$`J_i^+=z_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}mz_i+a{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}),`$
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`a`$ is a real parameter, and $`m`$ is a non-negative integer. Note that the operators $`J_i^{}`$ coincide exactly with the Dunkl operators (1), while the operators $`J_i^0`$ differ from the Cherednik operators (4) by a linear combination with constant coefficients of the permutation operators $`K_{ij}`$, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_i=J_i^0+\frac{a}{2}\underset{j<i}{}(1K_{ij})\frac{a}{2}\underset{j>i}{}(1K_{ij})+\frac{m}{2}+1i.$$
(9)
The operators $`J_i^+`$ are, to the best of our knowledge, new.

The operators $`J_i^ϵ`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ obey the following commutation relations

$`[J_i^\pm ,J_j^\pm ]`$ $`=0,`$ $`[J_i^0,J_j^0]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}K_{ij}(K_{jk}K_{ik}),`$ (10)
$`[K_{ij},J_k^ϵ]`$ $`=0,`$ $`K_{ij}J_i^ϵ`$ $`=J_j^ϵK_{ij},`$ (11)
where $`ϵ=\pm ,0`$ and the indices $`i,j,k`$ are all different. The set of operators

$$\{J_i^ϵ,K_{ij}:i,j=1,\mathrm{},N\},ϵ=\pm ,0,$$

spans a degenerate affine Hecke algebra, see cher94 . This is clear for $`ϵ=\pm `$, while for $`ϵ=0`$, it follows from (9) and the commutativity of the Cherednik operators (4).

The key property in our construction of (quasi-)exactly solvable spin CS models is the fact that the operators (8) possess invariant polynomial subspaces.

###### Theorem 1.

The operators $`J_i^{}`$ and $`J_i^0`$ preserve the modules $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ and $`_n(𝐳)`$ for an arbitrary non-negative integer $`n`$. The operators $`J_i^+`$ preserve the module $`_m(𝐳)`$, but do not preserve the modules $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ and $`_k(𝐳)`$ for $`km`$.

###### Proof.

The statement follows from Lemma 1 and the fact that the differential parts of $`J_i^{}`$ and $`J_j^0`$ preserve the modules $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ and $`_n(𝐳)`$ for any non-negative integer $`n`$, whereas the differential part of $`J_i^+`$ preserves the module $`_k(𝐳)`$ only for $`k=m`$. ∎∎

The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1:

###### Corollary 1.

Any polynomial in the operators $`J_i^ϵ`$ leaves invariant the rectangular module $`_m(𝐳)`$. In addition, if the polynomial does not depend on $`J_i^+`$, it preserves the modules $`_n(𝐳)`$ and $`𝒫_n(𝐳)`$ for all $`n`$.

## III Construction of spin Calogero–Sutherland models

In the previous section we have introduced a new set of Dunkl operators preserving the space of polynomials $`_m`$. Here we shall make use of all three sets of Dunkl operators (8) to construct some multi-parameter families of spin CS models.

Consider the spin permutation operators $`S_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, whose action on a spin state $`|s_1,\mathrm{},s_N`$, $`Ms_iM`$, with $`M\frac{1}{2}`$, is given by

$$S_{ij}|s_1,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_j,\mathrm{},s_N=|s_1,\mathrm{},s_j,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_N.$$
(12)
Note that the operators $`S_{ij}`$ obey the identities (3) with $`K_{ij}`$ replaced by $`S_{ij}`$. Let $`𝔖`$ denote the linear space $`\mathrm{span}\{|s_1,\mathrm{},s_N\}_{Ms_iM}`$. The action of the operators $`S_{ij}`$ in $`𝔖`$ is thus represented by $`(2M+1)^N`$-dimensional symmetric matrices.

The starting point of our procedure is the following quadratic combination of the Dunkl operators (8):

$`H^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(`$ $`c_{++}(J_i^+)^2+c_{00}(J_i^0)^2+c_{}(J_i^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{0+}}{2}}\{J_i^0,J_i^+\}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{2}}\{J_i^0,J_i^{}\}`$ (13)
$`+c_+J_i^++c_0J_i^0+c_{}J_i^{}),`$
where $`c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ,ϵ,ϵ^{}=\pm ,0,`$ are arbitrary real constants. The term $`\frac{1}{2}_i\{J_i^{},J_i^+\}`$ differs from $`_i(J_i^0)^2`$ by a constant operator (see Appendix), and for this reason it has not been included in (13). We emphasize that only the particular cases of (13)

$$H^{}=c_{00}\underset{i}{}(J_i^0)^2,H^{}=c_{}\underset{i}{}(J_i^{})^2$$

have been previously discussed in the literature in connection with CS models; see poly92 ; ber93 ; cher94 ; yam95 ; dunkl98  and references therein.

As it is customary, we shall identify $`K_{ij}`$, $`S_{ij}`$, and $`H^{}`$ with their natural extensions $`K_{ij}1\mathrm{I}`$, $`1\mathrm{I}S_{ij}`$, and $`H^{}1\mathrm{I}`$ to the tensor product $`[z_1,\mathrm{},z_N]𝔖`$. The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Eq. (11).

###### Lemma 2.

The (Q)ES differential-difference operator $`H^{}`$ commutes with $`K_{ij}`$ and $`S_{ij}`$ for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

This property plays a crucial role in the construction of spin CS models; see, for instance, Ref. basu96 .

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the projection operator on states antisymmetric under the simultaneous interchange of any two particles’ coordinates and spins. In terms of the total permutation operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=K_{ij}S_{ij}`$, the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be alternatively defined by the relations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`j>i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Since $`K_{ij}^2=1`$, these relations are equivalent to

$$K_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }=S_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda },j>i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(14)
For the lowest values of $`N`$ the antisymmetrizer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$`N=2:\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Pi }_{12},`$
$`N=3:\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{13}\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{13}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}.`$
In general, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an $`(N1)`$-th degree polynomial in the total permutation operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$. It thus follows from Lemma 2 that $`H^{}`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Suppose that $`f(𝐳)`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H^{}`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. For instance, $`f`$ could be one of the polynomial eigenfunctions that $`H^{}`$ is guaranteed to possess in $`_m`$. Given any (constant) spin state $`|\sigma 𝔖`$, the spin function $`\phi =\mathrm{\Lambda }[f(𝐳)|\sigma ]`$ is also an eigenfunction of $`H^{}`$ with the same eigenvalue $`\lambda `$.

Next, we introduce the matrix differential operator $`\overline{H}`$ obtained from $`H^{}`$ by the formal substitutions $`K_{ij}S_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The relations (14) imply that $`\phi `$ is a spin eigenfunction of $`\overline{H}`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$.

Using the formulae (A1)–(A6) for the sums of the squares and the anticommutators of the Dunkl operators (8) given in the Appendix, we obtain the following explicit expression for $`\overline{H}`$:

$`\overline{H}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(P(z_i)_{z_i}^2+\stackrel{~}{Q}(z_i)_{z_i}+R(z_i)\right)+2ac_{++}(1m){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_j`$ (15)
$`+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(P(z_i)_{z_i}P(z_j)_{z_j}\right)a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(z_i)+P(z_j)}{(z_iz_j)^2}}\left(1+S_{ij}\right)`$
$`+a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left(c_{++}(z_i+z_j)^2+c_{0+}(z_i+z_j)+c_{00}\right)S_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{12}}c_{00}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}(1S_{ij}S_{ik}),`$
where

$`P(z)`$ $`=c_{++}z^4+c_{0+}z^3+c_{00}z^2+c_0z+c_{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(z)`$ $`=Q(z)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}\right)P^{}(z),`$
$`Q(z)`$ $`=c_+z^2+c_0z+c_{},b=1+m+a(N1),`$ (16)
$`R(z)`$ $`=c_{++}\left(b+m(m2)1\right)z^2+\left[c_{0+}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\right)b+m(m1)1\right]mc_+\right]z`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{00}}{4}}\left(2(b1)+m(m2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}c_0,`$
and $`\underset{i,j,k}{}^{}`$ denotes summation in $`i,j,k`$ with $`ijki`$.

In the final step, one performs a gauge transformation with a suitable scalar function $`\mu (𝐳)`$, followed by a change of variables $`𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)`$, $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$,

$$H=\mu \overline{H}\mu ^1|_{𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)},$$
(17)
in order to reduce the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ to the Schrödinger form

$$H=\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+V(𝐱),$$
(18)
where $`V(𝐱)`$ is a Hermitian matrix-valued function.

###### Proposition 1.

The operator $`\overline{H}`$ in Eq. (15) can be reduced to a matrix Schrödinger operator (18) by a change of variables $`𝐳=𝛇(𝐱)`$ and conjugation by a scalar gauge factor $`\mu (𝐳)`$.

###### Proof.

The gauge transformation (17) with gauge factor

$$\mu (𝐳)=\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^a\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}P(z_i)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}^{z_i}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}(y)}{2P(y)}\mathrm{d}y,$$
(19)
together with the change of variables

$$x_i=\zeta ^1(z_i)=^{z_i}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\sqrt{P(y)}},i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(20)
map the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ to a matrix Schrödinger operator (18), with potential

$`V(𝐱)`$ $`=a^2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(z_i)}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}(z_i)}{z_iz_j}}+a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(z_i)+P(z_j)}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(a+S_{ij})`$
$`2ac_{++}(1m){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_ja{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left(c_{++}(z_i+z_j)^2+c_{+0}(z_i+z_j)+c_{00}\right)S_{ij}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(z_i)}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}P^{}(z_i)^2+\stackrel{~}{Q}(z_i)^22\stackrel{~}{Q}(z_i)P^{}(z_i))P^{\prime \prime }(z_i)+2\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}(z_i)`$
$`4R(z_i)]{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{12}}c_{00}{\displaystyle }_{i,j,k}^{}(1S_{ij}S_{ik}\left)\right|_{𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)}.\mathit{}`$ (21)
Remark 1. The gauge factor $`\mu (𝐳)`$ in (19) was introduced in GGR00  in connection with a generalization of the theory of QES models with one degree of freedom to many-body problems. The existence of a (matrix or scalar) gauge factor and change of coordinates reducing a given matrix second-order differential operator in $`N>1`$ variables to a matrix Schrödinger operator (18) is not guaranteed a priori. In the scalar case this problem was first addressed by Cotton Co00 , while the matrix case has been studied recently in Ref. FK97 . In fact, the quadratic combination $`H^{}`$ has been chosen so that a scalar gauge factor and change of variables can be easily found for $`\overline{H}`$. For instance, the term $`_i[J_i^+,J_i^{}]`$ has been discarded because it involves first-order derivatives with matrix-valued coefficients, which are usually very difficult to gauge away.

Remark 2. The change of variables (20), and hence the potential $`V(𝐱)`$, are defined up to an arbitrary translation for each coordinate $`x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. We shall see that this arbitrariness can be removed in some cases by requiring the potential to be invariant under sign reversals of any coordinate $`x_i`$.

If $`\phi (𝐳)`$ is one of the eigenfunctions of $`\overline{H}`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ constructed above, the spin function $`\psi (𝐱)=\mu \left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)\phi \left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)`$ is clearly an eigenfunction of $`H`$ with the same eigenvalue. Note, however, that we have not imposed so far any boundary conditions on the eigenfunctions $`\psi `$. In general, the parameters $`a`$, $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, and $`c_ϵ`$ defining $`H^{}`$ should satisfy certain constraints in order to ensure that the appropriate boundary conditions are satisfied.

The following proposition is an immediate consequence of the previous considerations:

###### Proposition 2.

The spin Schrödinger operator (18) with potential (21) leaves invariant the module

$$_m=\mu \left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(_m\left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)𝔖\right).$$
(22)
In addition, if $`c_{++}=c_{0+}=c_+=0`$, it preserves the modules $`_n`$ and

$$𝒩_n=\mu \left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(𝒫_n\left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)𝔖\right),$$
(23)
for any non-negative integer $`n`$.

If we add a constant term

$$V_0=\gamma _0+\gamma _1\underset{i<j}{}S_{ij}+\gamma _2\underset{i,j,k}{}^{}S_{ij}S_{ik},\gamma _i,$$
(24)
to the potential (21), the previous procedure for constructing eigenfunctions of $`H`$ still applies to $`H+V_0`$. Indeed, the associated operator $`(H+V_0)^{}`$ is obtained by adding the term

$$V_0^{}=\gamma _0\gamma _1\underset{i<j}{}K_{ij}+\gamma _2\underset{i,j,k}{}^{}K_{ij}K_{ik}$$

to the initial operator $`H^{}`$. Our assertion follows from the fact that $`V_0^{}`$ preserves the modules $`𝒫_n`$ and $`_n`$ for all $`n`$, commutes with all the permutation operators $`K_{ij}`$, and acts trivially on $`𝔖`$. This observation will be used in what follows to simplify the formula for $`V(𝐱)`$ by dropping terms of the form (24).

## IV Classification of spin Calogero–Sutherland models

We have seen in Section III that any quadratic combination of the form (13) yields a spin CS model for which a number of eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenfunctions can be computed in an algebraic fashion. In this section we shall obtain a complete classification of the potentials constructed in this way.

The form of the potential $`V(𝐱)`$ in Eq. (21) depends on the choice of parameters $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`c_ϵ`$, $`ϵ,ϵ^{}=\pm ,0`$. The parameters $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ which define the polynomial $`P`$ are of particular significance, since they determine the form of the change of variables (20). However, different sets of parameters $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`c_ϵ`$ defining the operator $`H^{}`$ may give rise to the same potential. Indeed, there is a group of residual transformations preserving the vector spaces $`\mathrm{span}\{J_i^{},J_i^0,J_i^+\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The image of the operator $`H^{}`$ under these transformations is still of the form (13), albeit with different coefficients $`\widehat{c}_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{c}_ϵ`$. We shall make use of this fact to classify the starting multi-parameter family of operators (13) into conjugacy classes. This will provide a complete classification of the spin CS models obtainable within our framework. The ideas used for this classification are similar in spirit to those applied in Refs. GKO93 ; GKO94  to classify one-particle Lie-algebraic QES Schrödinger operators.

Consider the mapping

$$J_i^ϵ(𝐰)\widehat{J}_i^ϵ(𝐳)=\mu _m(𝐳)J_i^ϵ\left(𝐰(𝐳)\right)\mu _m^1(𝐳),$$
(25)
where $`𝐰=(w_1,\mathrm{},w_N)`$ is given by the projective action of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,)`$ on $`^1`$ (Möbius transformation)

$$w_i=\frac{\alpha z_i+\beta }{\gamma z_i+\delta },i=1,\mathrm{},N,\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha \delta \beta \gamma 0,$$
(26)
and the gauge factor $`\mu _m(𝐳)`$ is defined by

$$\mu _m(𝐳)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\gamma z_i+\delta )^m.$$
(27)
The following lemma is an immediate consequence of the definition of the Dunkl operators (8):

###### Lemma 3.

The mapping (25) acts linearly on the vector spaces $`\mathrm{span}\{J_i^{},J_i^0,J_i^+\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{J}_i^+(𝐳)\\ \widehat{J}_i^0(𝐳)\\ \widehat{J}_i^{}(𝐳)\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha ^2& 2\alpha \beta & \beta ^2\\ \alpha \gamma & \alpha \delta +\beta \gamma & \beta \delta \\ \gamma ^2& 2\gamma \delta & \delta ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}J_i^+(𝐳)\\ J_i^0(𝐳)\\ J_i^{}(𝐳)\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
It follows from the previous lemma that the operator $`\widehat{H}^{}`$ defined by

$$\widehat{H}^{}=\mu _m(𝐳)H^{}\left(𝐰(𝐳)\right)\mu _m^1(𝐳)$$

is still a second degree polynomial in the Dunkl operators $`J_i^ϵ(𝐳)`$, whose coefficients $`\widehat{c}_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`\widehat{c}_ϵ`$ can be easily computed using Eq. (28). The corresponding gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}\overline{H}`$ can be obtained from Eq. (15) by replacing the coefficients $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`c_ϵ`$ by their counterparts $`\widehat{c}_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{c}_ϵ`$. In particular, the polynomials $`P(z)`$ and $`Q(z)`$ in Eq. (16) are replaced by the polynomials

$$\widehat{P}(z)=\widehat{c}_{++}z^4+\widehat{c}_{0+}z^3+\widehat{c}_{00}z^2+\widehat{c}_0z+\widehat{c}_{},\widehat{Q}(z)=\widehat{c}_+z^2+\widehat{c}_0z+\widehat{c}_{}.$$
(29)
Expressing the coefficients $`\widehat{c}_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{c}_ϵ`$ in terms of the original coefficients $`c_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and $`c_ϵ`$, one easily arrives to the explicit formulas

$$\widehat{P}(z)=\frac{(\gamma z+\delta )^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}P\left(\frac{\alpha z+\beta }{\gamma z+\delta }\right),\widehat{Q}(z)=\frac{(\gamma z+\delta )^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}Q\left(\frac{\alpha z+\beta }{\gamma z+\delta }\right).$$
(30)
Recall Ol99  that the (irreducible) multiplier representation $`\rho _{n,i}`$ of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,)`$ on the space of univariate polynomials of degree at most $`n`$ is defined by the linear transformations

$$p(z)\widehat{p}(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\gamma z+\delta )^np\left(\frac{\alpha z+\beta }{\gamma z+\delta }\right).$$

By Eq. (30), the polynomials $`P`$ and $`Q`$ defining $`\overline{H}`$ transform according to the representations $`\rho _{4,2}`$ and $`\rho _{2,1}`$, respectively. Note also that the Dunkl operators (8) transform according to the representation $`\rho _{2,1}`$; see Eq. (28). The (nonzero) orbits of the representation $`\rho _{4,2}`$ can be parametrized by the following canonical forms gur64 ; GKO94 :

$$\pm 1,z,\pm \nu (1z^2),\pm \nu (1+z^2),\pm \nu z^2,\pm \nu (1+z^2)^2,$$

$$\pm \nu (1z^2)(1k^2z^2),\pm \nu (1+z^2)\left(1+k^2z^2\right),\nu (1z^2)\left(1k^2+k^2z^2\right),$$

where $`\nu >0`$ and $`0<k<1`$. The above list of canonical forms can be further reduced without any loss of generality using the complex projective (linear) transformation $`w=\mathrm{i}z`$. Since the projective transformation $`w=\mathrm{i}z`$ also induces the mapping $`c_ϵ\widehat{c}_ϵ=\mathrm{i}^ϵc_ϵ`$ for the coefficients of the polynomial $`Q`$, the resulting canonical form leads to a real potential provided that the initial coefficients $`c_\pm `$ are purely imaginary. The reduced list of canonical forms will be conveniently taken as

$`1)1,`$ $`6)`$ $`\nu (1+z^2)^2,`$ (31)
$`2)z,`$ $`7)`$ $`\nu (1z^2)(1k^2z^2),`$
$`3)\nu (z^21),`$ $`8)`$ $`\nu (z^21)\left(1k^2z^2\right),`$
$`4)\nu (1z^2),`$ $`9)`$ $`\nu (1z^2)\left(k^2+k^2z^2\right),`$
$`5)\nu z^2,`$
where $`k^2=1k^2`$. By choosing $`P(z)`$ in Eqs. (15), (16) in each of the canonical forms (LABEL:canonic), one obtains a complete classification of the spin CS models with potential (21), which are (Q)ES by construction. Recall that in the one-particle case the canonical forms 1), 2), 3), 5) give rise to rational or hyperbolic potentials, while the remaining five yield periodic (trigonometric or elliptic) potentials GKO94 .

Remark 3. The operator $`H^{}`$ in (13) is easily seen to preserve the module $`𝒮_m(𝐳)`$ of symmetric polynomials in $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$ of degree at most $`m`$, on which the permutation operators $`K_{ij}`$ act as the identity. Hence the antisymmetrizer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acts on the space $`𝒮_m𝔖`$ as the tensor product $`1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the spin antisymmetrization operator, and the $`H`$-invariant module $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(𝒮_m𝔖\right)`$ factors as the tensor product $`(\mu 𝒮_m)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0𝔖)`$. The spin permutation operators $`S_{ij}`$ on this module reduce to $`1\mathrm{I}`$. Therefore, the restriction of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ to this space is simply $`\left(H|_{S_{ij}1}\right)1\mathrm{I}`$. Thus the scalar Schrödinger operator $`H|_{S_{ij}1}`$ leaves invariant the module $`\mu 𝒮_m`$. It follows that replacing the spin permutation operators $`S_{ij}`$ by $`1`$ in one of the (Q)ES spin potentials listed below, one obtains a corresponding (Q)ES scalar potential. The scalar potentials so constructed include as particular cases all the potentials presented in GGR00 .

For each of the canonical forms (LABEL:canonic), the potential turns out to decompose as

$$V(𝐱)=\underset{i}{}U(x_i)+V_{\text{int}}(𝐱),$$
(32)
where $`U`$ plays the role of a external field potential, and the interaction potential $`V_{\text{int}}`$ is of the form

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(V^{}(x_ix_j)+V^+(x_i+x_j)\right)a(a+S_{ij}),$$
(33)
with either $`V^+=0`$ or $`V^+=V^{}`$. Indeed, making use of the identities (A7)–(A15) in the Appendix and recalling that $`c_{0+}=0`$ for all the canonical forms, the potential (21) reduces after some algebra to the form (32) with

$`U=c_{++}(1b^2)z^2+bc_+z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16P(z)}}\left(3P^{}(z)^2+4\stackrel{~}{Q}(z)^28\stackrel{~}{Q}(z)P^{}(z)\right),`$
$`V_{\text{int}}=2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_iz_j)^2\left(c_{++}z_i^2z_j^2+c_{00}z_iz_j+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{2}}(z_i+z_j)+c_{}\right)a(a+S_{ij}).`$
We have discarded here a constant term of the form (24), in accordance with the observation at the end of Section III. The interaction potential takes the form (33) after performing the change of variables (20) and using some identities for the corresponding function $`\zeta (x)`$. Moreover, if the function $`V^+`$ is nonzero, it can be reduced to $`V^{}`$ by a suitable coordinate translation (see Remark 3).

We shall now present the list of (Q)ES spin many-body potentials obtained from the canonical forms (LABEL:canonic). Note that the scaling $`(c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ)(\lambda c_{ϵϵ^{}},\lambda c_ϵ)`$ induces the mapping

$`V(𝐱;c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ)`$ $`V(𝐱;\lambda c_{ϵϵ^{}},\lambda c_ϵ)=\lambda V(\sqrt{\lambda }𝐱;c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ)`$
$`\mu (𝐱;c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ)`$ $`\mu (𝐱;\lambda c_{ϵϵ^{}},\lambda c_ϵ)\mu (\sqrt{\lambda }𝐱;c_{ϵϵ^{}},c_ϵ)`$
of the corresponding potentials and gauge factors. For this reason we shall list the potentials for a suitably chosen value of the parameter $`\nu `$ in Cases 3–9, or a suitable multiple of $`P(z)`$ in Cases 1,2. The notation

$$x_{ij}^\pm =x_i\pm x_j;\alpha _ϵ=\frac{c_ϵ}{4},ϵ=\pm ,0;\alpha =\alpha _++\alpha _0+\alpha _{}$$

shall be employed in what follows.

Case 1.$`P(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$.
Change of variables: $`z={\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}(x_{ij}^{})^a\underset{i}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{3}\alpha _+x_i^3+\alpha _0x_i^2+4\alpha _{}x_i\right).$$

External potential:

$$U(x)=\alpha _+^2x^4+4\alpha _0\alpha _+x^3+4(\alpha _0^2+2\alpha _{}\alpha _+)x^2+2(8\alpha _{}\alpha _0+b\alpha _+)x.$$

Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}(x_{ij}^{})^2a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 2.$`P(z)=4z`$.
Change of variables: $`z=x^2`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(x_{ij}^{}x_{ij}^+\right)^a\underset{i}{}x_i^{\frac{1}{2}(1b)+\alpha _{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\alpha _+x_i^4+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0x_i^2\right).$$

External potential:

$$U(x)=\alpha _+^2x^6+2\alpha _0\alpha _+x^4+\left(\alpha _0^2+\alpha _+(3b+2\alpha _{})\right)x^2+\frac{1}{4}\left((2\alpha _{}b)^21\right)\frac{1}{x^2}.$$

Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\left(x_{ij}^{}\right)^2+\left(x_{ij}^+\right)^2\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 3.$`P(z)=4(z^21)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{cosh}2x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^+\right)^a\underset{i}{}(\mathrm{sinh}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha b)}(\mathrm{cosh}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1+2\alpha _0\alpha b)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _+}{2}\mathrm{cosh}2x_i\right).$$

External potential:

$`U(x)`$ $`=\alpha _+^2\mathrm{cosh}^22x+2\alpha _+(\alpha _0+b)\mathrm{cosh}2x+2(\alpha _++\alpha _{})(\alpha _0b)\mathrm{cosh}2x\mathrm{sinh}^22x`$
$`+\left((\alpha _++\alpha _{})^2+(\alpha _0b)^21\right)\mathrm{sinh}^22x.`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}+\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^+\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 4.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{cos}2x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sin}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sin}x_{ij}^+\right)^a\underset{i}{}(\mathrm{sin}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha b)}(\mathrm{cos}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha 2\alpha _0b)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _+}{2}\mathrm{cos}2x_i\right).$$

External potential:

$`U(x)`$ $`=\alpha _+^2\mathrm{cos}^22x+2\alpha _+(b\alpha _0)\mathrm{cos}2x+2(\alpha _++\alpha _{})(b+\alpha _0)\mathrm{cos}2x\mathrm{sin}^22x`$
$`+\left((\alpha _++\alpha _{})^2+(b+\alpha _0)^21\right)\mathrm{sin}^22x.`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^{}+\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^+\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 5.$`P(z)=4z^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{e}^{2x}`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sinh}^ax_{ij}^{}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha _+\mathrm{e}^{2x_i}\alpha _{}\mathrm{e}^{2x_i}\right)+(\alpha _0m)x_i\right].$$

External potential:

$$U(x)=\alpha _+^2\mathrm{e}^{4x}+2\alpha _+(\alpha _0+b)\mathrm{e}^{2x}+2\alpha _{}(\alpha _0b)\mathrm{e}^{2x}+\alpha _{}^2\mathrm{e}^{4x}.$$

Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 6.$`P(z)=(1+z^2)^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{tan}x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sin}^ax_{ij}^{}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cos}^mx_i\mathrm{exp}\left[(\alpha _++\alpha _{})x_i+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _{}\alpha _+)\mathrm{sin}2x_i\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}2x_i\right].$$

External potential:

$`U(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((\alpha _+\alpha _{})^2\alpha _0^2\right)\mathrm{cos}4x+2(\alpha _{}^2\alpha _+^2+b\alpha _0)\mathrm{cos}2x`$
$`+\alpha _0(\alpha _{}\alpha _+)\mathrm{sin}4x+2\left(\alpha _0(\alpha _++\alpha _{})+b(\alpha _+\alpha _{})\right)\mathrm{sin}2x.`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^{}a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 7.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)(1k^2z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x}{\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x}}`$.
Gauge factor:

$`\mu (𝐱)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)^a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[(\mathrm{sn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1b\frac{\alpha }{k^2}\right)}(\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^m`$
$`\times (\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i+\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{\alpha _++\alpha _{}}{2k^2}}(\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i+k\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{}}{2kk^2}}].`$
Here (and also in Cases 8 and 9) the functions $`\mathrm{sn}x\mathrm{sn}(x|k)`$, $`\mathrm{cn}x\mathrm{cn}(x|k)`$, and $`\mathrm{dn}x\mathrm{dn}(x|k)`$ are the usual Jacobian elliptic functions of modulus $`k`$, and $`k^{}=\sqrt{1k^2}`$ is the complementary modulus.
External potential:

$$U(x)=A_7\mathrm{sn}^22x+B_7\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x+\mathrm{sn}^22x(C_7+D_7\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x),$$

where

$`A_7=k^2(b^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\alpha _0}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}2b\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}(\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{})^2,`$
$`B_7={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k^2}}(\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{})\left(b{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}\right),`$
$`C_7=b^21+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}+2b\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}(\alpha _++\alpha _{})^2,`$
$`D_7={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k^2}}(\alpha _++\alpha _{})\left(b+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}\right).`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}}+\frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 8.$`P(z)=4(z^21)(1k^2z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x}}`$ .
Gauge factor:

$`\mu (𝐱)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^+}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)^a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[(\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}\left[1b\frac{1}{k^{}k^2}(\alpha _++k^{}\alpha _0+k^2\alpha _{})\right]}`$
$`\times (\mathrm{sn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1b+\frac{\alpha }{k^2}\right)}(\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^m(1+\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{\alpha _++\alpha _{}}{2k^2}}(k^{}+\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{}}{2k^{}k^2}}].`$
External potential:

$$U(x)=\mathrm{sn}^22x(A_8+B_8\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x)+\mathrm{cn}^22x(C_8+D_8\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x),$$

where

$`A_8=b^21+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}2b\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}(\alpha _++\alpha _{})^2,`$
$`B_8={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k^2}}(\alpha _++\alpha _{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}b\right),`$
$`C_8=k^2(b^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\alpha _0}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}+2b\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}(\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{})^2,`$
$`D_8={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k^2}}(\alpha _++k^2\alpha _{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{k^2}}+b\right).`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}+\frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Case 9.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)(k^2+k^2z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x`$.
Gauge factor:

$`\mu (𝐱)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^+}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)^a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[(\mathrm{sn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha b)}(\mathrm{dn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha _0b)}`$
$`\times (1+\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i)^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _++\alpha _{})}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\alpha _{}k^2\alpha _+}{2kk^{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k^{}}}\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_i\right)\right]].`$
External potential:

$$U(x)=\mathrm{dn}^22x(A_9+B_9\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x)+\mathrm{sn}^22x(C_9+D_9\mathrm{cn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x),$$

where

$`A_9=k^2(1b^2)+k^2\alpha _0(2b\alpha _0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\left(k^2\alpha _+k^2\alpha _{}\right)^2,`$
$`B_9=2(b\alpha _0)\left(k^2\alpha _+k^2\alpha _{}\right),`$
$`C_9=(b+\alpha _0)^2+(\alpha _++\alpha _{})^21,`$
$`D_9=2(b+\alpha _0)(\alpha _++\alpha _{}).`$
Interaction potential:

$$V_{\text{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}+\frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

Remark 4. In Case 7, the alternative canonical form

$$P(z)=4z^3g_2zg_3,g_2^3>27g_3^2,$$

leads to a spin generalization of the QES potential involving Weierstrass functions studied in GGRprep . The corresponding change of variables is $`z=\mathrm{}(x+\omega _3)`$, where $`\mathrm{}(x)=\mathrm{}(x|g_2,g_3)`$ is the Weierstrass function with invariants $`g_2`$, $`g_3`$, and $`2\omega _3`$ is its purely imaginary fundamental period. The gauge factor reads

$`\mu (x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\mathrm{}(x_i+\omega _3)\mathrm{}(x_j+\omega _3))^a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\left(\mathrm{}^{}(x_i+\omega _3)\right)^\beta `$
$`\times (\mathrm{}(x_i+\omega _3)e_1)^{\gamma _1}(\mathrm{}(x_i+\omega _3)e_2)^{\gamma _2}(\mathrm{}(x_i+\omega _3)e_3)^{\gamma _3}],`$
where

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _+}{3}},`$
$`\gamma _j={\displaystyle \frac{g_2\alpha _++12(e_j\alpha _0+\alpha _{})}{24(e_je_k)(e_je_l)}},(j,k,l)=\text{cyclic permutation of }(1,2,3),`$
and $`e_j`$ are the real (different) roots of $`P(z)`$. The external and interaction potentials are given by

$$U(x)=4\beta (\beta 1)\mathrm{}(2x)+A\mathrm{}(x+\omega _3)+\left(B\mathrm{}^2(x+\omega _3)+C\mathrm{}(x+\omega _3)+D\right)\left(\mathrm{}^{}(x+\omega _3)\right)^2,$$

where

$`A=2\alpha _0+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\alpha _+(2\alpha _++3b),`$
$`B=4\alpha _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2\alpha _+3b)(12\alpha _{}+g_2\alpha _+),`$
$`C=2\alpha _0\left(4\alpha _{}+g_2(\alpha _+b)\right),`$
$`D=\left(g_2b+4\alpha _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_2\alpha _+\right)\left(\alpha _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_2\alpha _+\right)+g_3\alpha _0(3b2\alpha _+),`$
and

$$V_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐱)=2\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^{})+\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^+)\right)a(a+S_{ij}).$$

The restriction of this spin model to the polynomial space $`𝒮_m`$ (see Remark 4) yields the scalar elliptic CS model in GGRprep  provided $`\alpha _0=0`$ and $`\alpha _{}=g_2\alpha _+/12`$.

Remark 5. Case 1 with $`\alpha _+=0`$ yields the rational Calogero $`A_N`$ spin model. Case 5 with $`\alpha _+\alpha _{}=0`$ is the model studied by Inozemtsev In97 , while for $`\alpha _+=\alpha _{}=0`$ the hyperbolic Sutherland $`A_N`$ spin model is obtained. Case 6 with $`\alpha _+\alpha _{}=\alpha _0=0`$ is the trigonometric Sutherland $`A_N`$ spin model. The remaining potentials are new.

In Cases 1–5, the potential is ES if $`\alpha _+=0`$. In Case 5, the potential is also ES for $`\alpha _{}=0`$. The only ES potential in Case 6 is the trigonometric Sutherland potential ($`\alpha _+\alpha _{}=\alpha _0=0`$). The remaining potentials, including all the elliptic potentials in Cases 7–9, are QES.

Remark 6. In order to qualify as a physical wavefunction, the spin functions $`\psi (𝐱)`$ constructed in Section III must vanish at all points in which the corresponding potential $`V(𝐱)`$ is singular. In addition, in Cases 1,2,3,5 the function $`\psi `$ is required to be square-integrable over a suitable domain of $`^N`$. Both requirements impose certain constraints on the parameters $`\alpha _ϵ`$ and $`a`$ defining the potential. A detailed analysis of the necessary and sufficient conditions on these parameters lies beyond the scope of this paper; see GKO93  for a complete solution of the analogous one-particle problem. However, it is not difficult in each case to provide sufficient conditions for the above requirements to hold. For example, in Case 5 the spin functions $`\psi `$ vanish at the singularities of the potential if and only if $`a>0`$, and are square-integrable over the domain $`\{𝐱^N:x_1>\mathrm{}>x_N\}`$ provided $`\alpha _+<0`$ and $`\alpha _{}>0`$.

Remark 7. In Cases 1–6, the gauge factor is of the form

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left[f(x_{ij}^{})g(x_{ij}^+)\right]^a\underset{i}{}h(x_i),$$
(34)
with $`g=1`$ or $`g=f`$. On the other hand, in the elliptic Cases 7–9 the gauge factor does not factorize as (34). This is consistent with the analogous result proved by Calogero for elliptic potentials in the scalar case Ca75 .

## V Conclusions

We have developed in this paper a systematic method for constructing new families of exactly and quasi-exactly solvable spin Calogero–Sutherland models. The key idea consists in relating the physical spin Hamiltonian to a general quadratic combination involving the usual $`A_N`$-type Dunkl operators (1), (4), and the new family of Dunkl operators $`J_i^+`$ introduced in Section II (Eq. (8)). Our approach goes beyond the Lie algebraic method extensively used in the scalar case, since the Dunkl operators (8) do not span a Lie algebra. However, they are invariant under the projective action of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,)`$, a fact that is exploited in Section IV to classify all the potentials obtained by this method up to translations.

The potentials constructed in this paper are all invariant under the $`A_N`$ group consisting of permutations of the particles’ coordinates and spins. A remarkable feature of the potentials in Cases 2–4 and 7–9 is their additional invariance under a change of sign of the spatial coordinate of any particle. Therefore, although these potentials are not invariant under the full $`B_N`$ group of permutations and sign reversal of the particles’ coordinates and spins, they are invariant under the restriction of the action of this group to the spatial coordinates. These models thus occupy an intermediate position between the usual spin CS models of $`A_N`$ type and the fully $`B_N`$-invariant rational and trigonometric spin CS models introduced by Yamamoto yam95 . In fact, while Dunkl has recently proved the exact solvability of the rational Yamamoto model dunkl98 , there are no exact results for the eigenfunctions of its trigonometric counterpart. It is to be expected that a suitable extension of the method developed in this paper to the $`B_N`$ case will yield new families of (Q)ES spin CS models of $`B_N`$ type, including the trigonometric Yamamoto model.

## VI Appendix

The formulae for the sums of the squares and the anticommutators of the Dunkl operators (8) are given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^{})^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_{z_i}^2+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(_{z_i}_{z_j}\right)2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij}),`$ (A1)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^0)^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(z_i^2_{z_i}^2+(2b)z_i_{z_i}\right)+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(z_i^2_{z_i}z_j^2_{z_j}\right)\hfill \\ & a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2+z_j^2}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij})+a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(1K_{ij})+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}(1K_{ij}K_{jk})+{\displaystyle \frac{Nm^2}{4}},\hfill \end{array}`$ (A2)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^+)^2={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(z_i^4_{z_i}^2+2(2b)z_i^3_{z_i}\right)+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(z_i^4_{z_i}z_j^4_{z_j}\right)\hfill \\ & a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^4+z_j^4}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij})+a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_i+z_j)^2(1K_{ij})\hfill \\ & 2am{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_j+m(m1){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i^2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (A3)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{J_i^0,J_i^{}\}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(z_i_{z_i}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2b)_{z_i}\right)+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(z_i_{z_i}z_j_{z_j}\right)\hfill \\ & a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij}),\hfill \end{array}`$ (A4)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{J_i^+,J_i^{}\}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(z_i^2_{z_i}^2+(2b)z_i_{z_i}\right)+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(z_i^2_{z_i}z_j^2_{z_j}\right)\hfill \\ & a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2+z_j^2}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}(1K_{ij}K_{jk})\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{mN}{2}}\left(1+a(N1)\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (A5)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{J_i^0,J_i^+\}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(z_i^3_{z_i}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(2b)z_i^2_{z_i}\right)+2a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}\left(z_i^3_{z_i}z_j^3_{z_j}\right)\hfill \\ & a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^3+z_j^3}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(1K_{ij})+a{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_i+z_j)(1K_{ij})\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{m(2mb)}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i,\hfill \end{array}`$ (A6)
where

$$b=1+m+a(N1).$$

Here the symbol $`\underset{i,j,k}{}^{}`$ stands for summation in $`i,j,k`$ with $`ijki`$. The following identities are needed for the computation of the potential:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}=0,`$ (A7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}=0,`$ (A8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}N(N1)(N2),`$ (A9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^3}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}=(N1)(N2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i,`$ (A10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^4}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}}=(N2){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(z_i+z_j)^2,`$ (A11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}=0,`$ (A12)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{z_iz_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(N1),`$ (A13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2}{z_iz_j}}=(N1){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i,`$ (A14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^3}{z_iz_j}}=(N1){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}z_iz_j.`$ (A15)
###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the DGES under grant PB98-0821. R. Zhdanov would like to acknowledge the financial support by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture during his stay at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.


format: text

text:
# Fundamental Forces as Gauge Theories

\[

## Abstract

This study proposes that all the known fundamental forces including gravity may be described by local gauge theories. Gravitational, electroweak, and strong interactions on length scales from $`10^{33}`$ cm to $`10^{28}`$ cm are systematically discussed from the unified gauge theory point of view toward a ultimate theory for fundamental forces. New concepts such as dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge group hierarchy, coupling constant hierarchy, effective coupling constant hierarchy, cosmological constant, massive gauge bosons, massless gauge bosons, quantum weakdynamics, analogy between quantum weakdynamics and quantum chromodynamics, a possible gauge theory for the universe expansion, the relation between time and gauge boson mass, other quantum tests, etc. are briefly reported based on experiments.

\]

The longstanding problem in physics is the unification of gravitation theory and the other gauge theories for electroweak and strong interactions, which has attracted a great deal of work. Two fundamental theories, general relativity and quantum gauge theory, can together cover the energy regime from the elementary particle to the universe in describing the behavior of particles. However, the problem of unifying gravity and the other fundamental forces in nature is that general relativity theory is difficult to formulate as a renormalizable gauge theory. All the known covariant or canonical quantization methods are not yet successful in quantizing the gravitational field, even though they work well for the other physical fields. General relativity or standard big bang theory based on general relativity has outstanding problems: the singularity, cosmological constant or vacuum energy, flat universe, baryon asymmetry, horizon problem, the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, dark matter, galaxy formation, discrepancy between astrophysical age and Hubble age, etc. On the other hand, according to the recent experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 , the universe is flat and there exists repulsive force represented by non-zero vacuum energy, which plays dominant role in the universe expansion. The outstanding problem as well as the other challenging problems may be resolved systematically in this paper, which uses local gauge theories to describe all the known fundamental forces on length scales from the Planck scale $`10^{33}`$ cm to the universe scale $`10^{28}`$ cm. The present work is mainly restricted to the low, real dimensions of spacetime without considering supersymmetry and is based on phenomenology below the Planck scale: Newtonian mechanics, Einstein’s general relativity and cosmological constant , quantum gauge theories , and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum  are taken into account. This paper only briefly reports common features of gauge theories for fundamental forces, whose details are addressed by following papers, quantum gravity (QG) as an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory for gravitational interactions , quantum weakdynamics (QWD) as an $`SU(3)_I`$ gauge theory and Glasshow-Weinberg-Salam (GWS) model for weak interactions , and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and quantum nucleardynamics (QND) for strong interactions .

Toward quantum gravity as a gauge theory, its features are investigated in quantum gravity (QG) ; Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are discussed from the viewpoint of quantum gauge theory and quantum tests supporting this scheme are suggested in addition to its relation to Einstein’s general relativity. QG holds underlying principles such as special relativity, gauge invariance, and quantum mechanics under the constraint of the flat universe

$$\mathrm{\Omega }1=10^{61}.$$
(1)
The flat universe condition is required in quantum gauge theories and inflation scenario  and is verified by the experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 . $`10^{61}`$ represents the $`10^{30}`$ expansion in one dimension: $`N_R=i/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}10^{30}`$. An $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term as a trial theory is introduced and dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking (DSSB) is adopted even though the exact group for gravity is not known at present. The Lagrangian density for QG  is, in four vector notation, given by

$$_{QG}=\frac{1}{2}TrG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+\underset{i=1}{}\overline{\psi }_ii\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _i+\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{g_g^2}{16\pi ^2}TrG^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
where the bare $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term  is added as a single, additional nonperturbative term to the perturbative Lagrangian density with an $`SU(N)`$ gauge invariance. The subscript $`i`$ stands for the classes of pointlike spinor $`\psi `$ and $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_gA_\mu `$ for the covariant derivative with the gravitational coupling constant $`g_g`$. Particles carry local charges and gauge fields are denoted by $`A_\mu =_{a=0}A_\mu ^a\lambda ^a/2`$ with matrices $`\lambda ^a`$, $`a=0,..,(N^21)`$. The field strength tensor is given by $`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig_g[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual of the field strength tensor. A current anomaly is taken into account to show DSSB in analogy with the axial current anomaly, which is linked to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum in QCD as a gauge theory . Since the $`G\stackrel{~}{G}`$ term is a total derivative, it does not affect the perturbative aspects of the theory. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term plays important roles on the DSSB of the gauge group and on the quantization of the matter space and vacuum space. The gauge boson identified as the graviton is proposed as massive vector boson. Newton gravitation constant is defined as the effective coupling constant

$$G_N/\sqrt{2}=g_fg_g^2/8M_G^210^{38}\text{GeV}^2$$
(3)
with the gravitational coupling constant $`g_g`$, and the gauge boson mass $`M_GM_{Pl}10^{19}`$ GeV in QG  just as Fermi weak constant is defined as $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g_w^2/8M_W^210^5\text{GeV}^2`$ with the weak coupling constant $`g_w`$ and the intermediate vector boson mass $`M_W`$ in weak interactions . The gravitational factor $`g_f`$ in gravitational interactions is a factor depending on a gauge group just as the color factor $`c_f`$ in strong interactions is a factor depending on color dynamics: these factors are closely related to charge mixing angles . The effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ representing the vacuum energy density is related to the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_eM_{Pl}^210^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$ with $`M_G10^{19}`$ GeV at the Planck epoch and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e10^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ with $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV at the present epoch. The gauge boson mass $`M_G`$ decreases through the condensation of the singlet graviton:

$$M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]$$
(5)
where $`A_0`$ is the singlet gauge boson with even parity and $`\varphi `$ is the condensation of singlet gauge boson with odd parity. DSSB consists of two simultaneous mechanisms; the first mechanism is the explicit symmetry breaking of gauge fields, which is represented by the gravitational coupling constant $`g_f\alpha _g`$ and the gravitational fine structure constant $`\alpha _g`$, and the second mechanism is the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge fields, which is represented by the condensation of singlet gauge fields. The effective potential is related to the gauge boson mass by $`V_e=M_G^4=M_{Pl}^42g_fg_g^2M_{Pl}^2\varphi ^2+g_f^2g_g^4\varphi ^4`$. It reduces to nearly zero, $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV, at the present universe; the present universe expansion  and cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)  are suggested as conclusive evidences for nearly massless gauge bosons with the mass $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV and the number $`N_G10^{91}`$ and for massless gauge bosons (photons) as Nambu-Goldstone bosons  with the energy $`E_\gamma 10^{13}`$ GeV and the number $`N_{t\gamma }10^{88}`$. For the gauge boson mass $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV at the present epoch, the corresponding cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_010^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ or Hubble constant $`H_010^{42}`$ GeV suggests new types of fundamental forces responsible for the universe expansion and CMBR: the possible gauge groups for this process is $`SU(3)_RSU(2)_B\times U(1)_AU(1)_g`$ with the extremely strong effective coupling constant $`G_S10^{24}\text{GeV}^210^{61}G_N`$. This is supported by the recent experiments BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 . This is consistent with the theoretical, large cosmological constant at the Planck epoch and the empirical, small cosmological constant at present. This is also compatible with no detection of gravitons at present since they are extremely heavy particles with the Planck mass $`M_{Pl}`$ or extremely high energy particles with $`EM_{Pl}`$.

The extremely flat universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }1=10^{61}`$ is defined by the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\rho _m\mathrm{\Theta }\rho _m)/\rho _G`$ where $`\rho _m`$ is the zero point energy density, $`\rho _m`$ is the matter energy density, $`\rho _G=M_G^4`$ is the vacuum energy density, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the parameter of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term representing the surface term . This scheme suggests quantum tests toward resolutions to the inflation  with the universe size $`R=N_R/M_G`$ and the maximum wavevector mode of the vacuum $`N_R=i/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}=(\rho _G/\mathrm{\Theta }\rho _m)^{1/2}10^{30}`$, dark matter as strongly interacting massive particles (SIMPs) with the mass around $`10^{12}`$ GeV in addition to weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) , structure formation due to massive gauge bosons and dark matter, primordial nucleosynthesis, etc. of the universe: they constitute conclusive evidences of massive gauge bosons at different energy scales. The condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }1=10^{61}`$ of the flat universe leads to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ value $`\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}\rho _G/\rho _m`$. If the conserved matter energy density in the universe is close to the critical density $`\rho _m\rho _c10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant depends on the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}M_G^4/\rho _c.$$
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ values become $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{Pl}10^{61}`$ at the Planck energy, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{EW}10^4`$ at the weak energy, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{QCD}10^{12}`$ at the strong energy, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_010^{61}`$ at the present energy of the universe. This is consistent with the observed results, $`\mathrm{\Theta }<10^9`$ in the electric dipole moment of the neutron in strong interactions  and $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^3`$ in the neutral kaon decay in weak interactions . If the baryon mass density is $`\rho _B\mathrm{\Omega }_B\rho _c`$, the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B=N_B/N_{t\gamma }10^{78}/10^{88}=10^{10}`$ with the baryon number $`N_B=B`$ at present  is consistent with Avogadro’s number $`N_A=6.02\times 10^{23}\text{mol}^1`$ and nuclear matter density $`n_n1.95\times 10^{38}\text{cm}^3`$. Moreover, lepton asymmetries $`\delta _e=N_e/N_{t\gamma }10^{81}/10^{88}=10^7`$ for electrons, $`\delta _\mu =N_\mu /N_{t\gamma }10^{79}/10^{88}=10^9`$ for muons, and $`\delta _\tau =N_\tau /N_{t\gamma }10^{78}/10^{88}=10^{10}`$ for taus are expected if lepton matter has the same order with the critical density $`\rho _e\mathrm{\Omega }_e\rho _c\rho _c`$ . The neutrino asymmetry is $`\delta _\nu =N_\nu /N_{t\gamma }10^{88}/10^{88}=1`$ if the neutrino mass $`m_\nu 1`$ eV. Since the baryon number and the lepton number are good quantum numbers at low energies, excess lepton matter, consisted of electrons and neutrinos, over baryon matter is suggested as dark matter: equal particle numbers in quarks and leptons are crucial to the renormalization in the GWS model , which perturbatively requires no anomaly. Based on this scheme, the quantization units of energy, temperature, frequency, time, and distance in the universe are respectively $`10^{42}`$ GeV, $`10^{30}`$ K, $`10^{19}`$ Hz, $`10^{43}`$ s, and $`10^{33}`$ cm if gravitational and present interactions are concerned as interactions at the highest and lowest limits. Furthermore, the proposed relation between time and gauge boson mass  is given by

$$t=1/H_e=(3/8\pi G_NM_G^4)^{1/2},$$
(7)
which provides scales in quantum cosmology as shown in Table I.

At the Planck energy, a phase transition takes place from a certain group $`G`$ to a group $`H`$ and at the grand unification energy, the group $`H`$ breaks down to an $`SU(3)_I\times SU(3)_C`$ group, in which the $`SU(3)_I`$ denotes the isospin (isotope) $`SU(3)`$ symmetry  and the $`SU(3)_C`$ denotes the color $`SU(3)`$ symmetry : the group chain is $`GHSU(3)_I\times SU(3)_C`$. The Lagrangian density for the $`SU(3)_C`$ or $`SU(3)_I`$ gauge theory has the exactly same form with the Lagrangian density for gravitation. As the energy scale decreases the $`SU(3)_I`$ group for isospin interactions, QWD, breaks down to the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YU(1)_e`$ group for electroweak interactions, known as the GWS model , and the $`SU(3)_C`$ group for strong interactions, QCD , analogously breaks down to the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_ZU(1)_f`$ group for nuclear interactions, known as QND . The $`U(1)_e`$ gauge theory is photon dynamics known as quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory is also photon dynamics. The DSSB of local gauge symmetry and global chiral symmetry triggers the current anomaly: for example, the (V+A) current anomaly for weak interactions and the axial current anomaly for strong interactions. Coupling constants for weak and strong interactions are unified around $`10^2`$ GeV or slightly higher energy rather than the order of $`10^{15}`$ GeV of grand unified theory (GUT) : $`\alpha _i=\alpha _s0.12`$ according to the renormalization group analysis . The unification at the order of a TeV energy is consistent with the recent GUT . Important motivations of QWD are coupling constant unification and fermion mass generation and important concepts of QND are massive gluon and colorspin. In terms of the Weinberg weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1/4`$ and the strong mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R=1/4`$, coupling constant hierarchies for weak and strong interactions are respectively obtained. Electroweak coupling constants are $`\alpha _z=i_f^z\alpha _i=\alpha _i/30.04`$, $`\alpha _w=i_f^w\alpha _i=\alpha _i/40.03`$, $`\alpha _y=i_f^y\alpha _i=\alpha _i/120.01`$, and $`\alpha _e=i_f^e\alpha _i=\alpha _i/161/133`$ as symmetric isospin interactions at the weak scale and $`2\alpha _i/3`$, $`\alpha _i/2`$, $`\alpha _i/6`$, and $`\alpha _i/8`$ as asymmetric isospin interactions: $`i_f^w=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`i_f^e=\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W`$. Strong coupling constants for baryons are $`\alpha _b=c_f^b\alpha _s=\alpha _s/3`$, $`\alpha _n=c_f^n\alpha _s=\alpha _s/4`$, $`\alpha _z=c_f^z\alpha _s=\alpha _s/12`$, and $`\alpha _f=c_f^f\alpha _s=\alpha _s/16`$ as symmetric color interactions and $`2\alpha _s/3`$, $`\alpha _s/2`$, $`\alpha _s/6`$, and $`\alpha _s/8`$ as asymmetric color interactions: $`c_f^n=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R`$ and $`c_f^f=\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _R`$. The isospin factors $`i_f^s=(i_f^z,i_f^w,i_f^y,i_f^e)`$ or color factors introduced are

$$i_f^s=c_f^s=(c_f^b,c_f^n,c_f^z,c_f^f)=(1/3,1/4,1/12,1/16)$$
(8)
for symmetric interactions and

$$i_f^a=c_f^a=(2/3,1/2,1/6,1/8)$$
(9)
for asymmetric interactions. The symmetric charge factors reflect intrinsic even parity with repulsive force while the asymmetric charge factors reflect intrinsic odd parity with attractive force; this suggests electric-magnetic duality before DSSB. The coupling constant chain is $`\alpha _g\alpha _h\alpha _i\alpha _s`$ for gravitation, grand unification, weak, and strong interactions respectively. Massive gravitons at the Planck scale produce massive intermediate vector bosons and massive gluons at weak and strong interaction energies, respectively. The effective coupling constant chain is $`G_NG_HG_F\times G_R`$ for gravitation, grand unification, weak, and strong interactions respectively: effective strong coupling constants are $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=i_fg_i^2/8M_G^210^5\text{GeV}^2`$ and $`G_R/\sqrt{2}=c_fg_s^2/8M_G^210\text{GeV}^2`$. Just as the gauge boson mass below the Planck energy becomes $`M_G^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]`$, the gauge boson mass below the grand unification energy becomes

$$M_G^2=M_H^2c_fg_s^2\varphi ^2=c_fg_s^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]$$
(10)
with the grand unification mass $`M_H10^2`$ GeV: $`M_G300`$ MeV at the QCD cutoff scale. In this scheme, all the elementary fermions such as quarks and leptons possess three types of charges, (color, isospin, spin). Leptons are color singlet fermions, which are governed by the isospin dynamics of QWD as well as spin dynamics but quarks are color triplet fermions, which are governed by the color dynamics of QCD as well as isospin dynamics and spin dynamics. Combined charges are asymmetric configurations for both quarks and leptons to satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions. The essential point for DSSB is that the gauge boson decreases its mass as the gauge boson condensation increases or the charge factor (gravitational factor $`g_f`$, isospin factor $`i_f`$, or color factor $`c_f`$) decreases as the energy scale of the system decreases. The factors described above are pure color (or isospin) factors due to color (or isospin) charges but the effective color factors used in nuclear dynamics must be multiplied by the isospin factor $`i_f^w=1/4`$ since the proton and neutron are an isospin doublet as well as a color doublet:

$$c_f^{eff}=i_f^wc_f=i_f^w(c_f^b,c_f^n,c_f^z,c_f^f)=(1/12,1/16,1/48,1/64)$$
(11)
for symmetric configurations. For example, the electromagnetic color factor for the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory becomes $`\alpha _f^{eff}=\alpha /641/137`$ when $`\alpha _s=0.48`$ at the strong scale. Note that the color mixing is the origin of the Cabbibo angle for quark flavor mixing in weak interactions. Massless gauge bosons with different energies are accompanied with massive gauge bosons during DSSB at different energy scales. Table II summarizes the typical features of fundamental forces. In gravitational interactions, it is predicted that the typical cross section at a temperature $`T=1`$ GeV is $`\sigma G_N^2T^210^{70}\text{m}^2`$ and the typical lifetime for a particle with the mass $`1`$ GeV is $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }1/G_N^2m^510^{50}`$ years, which is much longer than the proton decay time predicted by GUT .

All the known fundamental forces in nature, strong, electroweak, and gravitational forces on length scales from $`10^{33}`$ cm to $`10^{28}`$ cm, may be described by local gauge theories toward a ultimate theory for fundamental forces. Comparison between QG and general relativity is summarized by Table III. QG is quantum theory holding principles of gauge invariance and special relativity while Einstein’s general theory of relativity is classical theory holding principles of equivalence and general relativity. Newly introduced concepts in this paper are the flat universe rather than the curved universe, DSSB rather than spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge group hierarchy $`GHSU(3)_I\times SU(3)_C`$, coupling constant hierarchy $`(\alpha ,\alpha /3,\alpha /4,\alpha /12,\alpha /16)`$ for both weak and strong interactions, effective coupling constant hierarchy $`G_NG_FG_R`$, effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$, massive gauge boson mass square $`M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]`$, massless gauge bosons as Nambu-Goldstone bosons including CMBR, the dynamical spontaneous breaking of discrete symmetries (C, P, T, and CP), QWD as an $`SU(3)_I`$ gauge theory beyond the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ weak dynamics, analogy between QWD and QCD, Newtonian mechanics as quadrupole (tensor) interactions, the possible modification of Einstein’s general relativity, the other quantum tests such as SIMPs in addition to WIMPs as the candidate of dark matter, the universe inflation with the order of magnitude $`10^{30}`$, the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B10^{10}`$, the relation between time and gauge boson mass, the internal and external quantization of spacetime, proton decay time much longer than one predicted by grand unified theory, mass generation mechanism with the surface effect, etc. The gauge boson mass $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV associated with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_010^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ and the Hubble constant $`H_010^{42}`$ GeV especially indicates gauge theories for new fundamental forces responsible for the universe expansion and CMBR. These predictions are compatible with the recent experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1. The potential QG as a gauge theory may resolve serious problems of GUTs and the standard model: different gauge groups, Higgs particles, the inclusion of gravity, the proton lifetime, the baryon asymmetry, the family symmetry of elementary particles, inflation, fermion mass generation, etc. This scheme may also provide possible resolutions to the problems of Einstein’s general relativity or the standard hot big bang theory: the spacetime singularity, cosmological constant, quantization, baryon asymmetry, structure formation, dark matter, flatness of the universe, and renormalizability, etc. This work may thus significantly contribute to the unification of fundamental forces since all the forces in nature might be formulated in terms of local gauge theories toward the theory of everything.

Scale Time t (s) Energy E (GeV) Temperature T (K) Universe Size R (cm)    Planck $`l_{Pl}`$ $`10^{43}`$ $`10^{19}`$ $`10^{32}`$ $`10^3`$  Weak $`l_{EW}`$ $`10^{10}`$ $`10^2`$ $`10^{15}`$ $`10^{14}`$  Strong $`l_{QCD}`$ $`10^5`$ $`10^1`$ $`10^{12}`$ $`10^{17}`$  Today $`l_0`$ $`10^{17}`$ $`10^{12}`$ $`3`$ $`10^{28}`$

Feature Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong  Gauge Boson Graviton Photon Intermediate Boson Gluon  Source Spin(?) Electric Charge Isospin Color  Coupling Constant $`\alpha _g(M_{Pl})0.02`$ (?) $`\alpha _e1/137`$ $`\alpha _i(M_Z)0.12`$ $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})0.48`$  Gauge Boson Mass $`10^{19}`$ GeV 0 $`10^2`$ GeV $`10^1`$ GeV  Effective Coupling $`G_N10^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$  $`G_F10^5\text{GeV}^2`$ $`G_R10^1\text{GeV}^2`$  Cross Section $`10^{70}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{33}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{44}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{30}\text{m}^2`$  Lifetime $`10^{57}`$ s $`10^{20}`$ s $`10^8`$ s $`10^{23}`$ s

Classification QG General Relativity    Exchange Particles massive gravitons Massless gravitons  DSSB yes no  Discrete symmetries (P, C, T, CP) breaking no  Monopole Confinement yes unknown  Cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=10^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$  Inflation $`10^{30}`$ no  Matter mass generation $`\rho _m=10^{61}\rho _G\mathrm{\Theta }`$ unknown  Baryogenesis $`10^{78}`$ for $`0.94`$ GeV proton no  Leptogenesis $`10^{81}`$ for $`0.5`$ MeV electron no  Proton decay time $`10^{57}`$ s unknown  Singularity no yes  Universe flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=110^{61}`$) curved  Dark matter yes unknown  Interactions monopole or dipole quadrupole (tensor)  Renormalization yes no  Relativity special general  Principle gauge invariance equivalence  Free parameter coupling constant ($`\alpha _g`$) effective coupling constant ($`G_N`$)