text:
# Free-field realisation of boundary states and boundary correlation functions of minimal models

## I Introduction

Modular invariance of partition functions plays extremely important roles in two-dimensional conformal field theory (CFT). The ADE classification of modular invariants by Cappelli, Itzykson and Zuber  (see also ) is obtained by considering CFTs on the torus. The classified modular invariants correspond to particular sets of operators, which are supposed to model critical systems in certain universality classes. Similar consideration also applies to CFTs defined on a manifold with boundary. For a CFT on the cylinder, the constraints from modular invariance lead to a classification of boundary states. This method was invented by Cardy in the eighties and developed by many in the nineties. Such a classification of boundary states with consistent modular properties has recently attracted much attention along with the development of D-brane / string theory and various application of boundary CFT to statistical physics.

Boundary states with consistent modular properties, or consistent boundary states, are normally believed to represent boundary conditions which may be physically imposed on D-branes or borders of statistical systems. In order to understand the behaviour of observables in the presence of such a boundary, we need to find correlation functions for consistent boundary states which are defined through Cardy’s classification. In principle this can be accomplished by operator product expansions (OPEs), that is, by finding boundary operators for a given boundary state, solving the constraints satisfied by coupling constants, and then obtaining the correlation functions by OPEs using the boundary operators. The correlation functions obtained in this way are perturbative, that is, in the form of series expansion. For practical use, we often need to know exact correlation functions and in such a case we normally solve differential equations to find conformal blocks and fix their coefficients by physical considerations. In this differential equation method, however, the relation to Cardy’s classification of boundary states is not quite evident.

In this paper, we present an alternative formalism for finding boundary correlation functions***We use this term for correlation functions of bulk operators in the presence of boundary. directly using boundary states obtained by Cardy’s method. It is well known in string theory that correlation functions are simply given by inserting vertex operators within amplitudes (with or without boundaries). This picture is generalised to non-bosonic ($`c1`$) CFTs using the Coulomb-gas formalism on arbitrary Riemann surfaces (without boundaries) . The purpose of this paper is to present a method to calculate boundary correlation functions based on the Coulomb-gas picture, by using the free-field representation of boundary states developed in . Driven by a similar motivation, Coulomb-gas system on the half plane is discussed in , where the Ising model conformal blocks are reproduced using the contour integration technique of  and insertion of boundary operators. The key ingredient of the formalism proposed in the present paper is boundary states having boundary charges, which account both for the contour integral expression of conformal blocks and for their coefficients. The role of such boundary states has not been fully investigated so far in this context, and our formalism allows a systematic study on the relation between correlation functions and algebraically defined boundary states. In the following we shall mainly consider Coulomb-gas systems on the unit disk, where Felder’s charged bosonic Fock space (CBFS) construction is readily used. Although our method itself is quite general, we shall focus on presenting the ideas in simplest cases and show that it reproduces known results obtained by the conventional approach.

We organise the rest of this paper as follows. In the next section we fix our notations and review the free-field construction of boundary states. We describe in Sec. III our method to compute correlation functions on the disk and on the half plane. In Sec. IV we illustrate the method using the Ising model and show that it reproduces the results of . Finally in Sec. V we summarise and conclude.

## II Boundary states in Coulomb-gas formalism

Let us start, for the sake of self-containedness, by summarising the Coulomb-gas construction of boundary states . The idea is to define coherent states in the charged bosonic Fock spaces (CBFSs) and find conditions for their diffeomorphism invariance and modular consistency.

### A Coulomb-gas and charged bosonic Fock space

In the Coulomb-gas formalism, the Virasoro minimal models are realised by the action,

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{8\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+2\sqrt{2}\alpha _0i\mathrm{\Phi }R),$$
(1)
where the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is assumed to decouple into two chiral sectors, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z})=\phi (z)+\overline{\phi }(\overline{z})`$. The energy-momentum tensor is obtained by the variation of the action (1) as

$$T(z)=2\pi T_{zz}=\frac{1}{2}:\phi \phi :+i\sqrt{2}\alpha _0^2\phi .$$
(2)
The central charge of this system is

$$c=124\alpha _0^2.$$
(3)
The vertex operators,

$$V_\alpha (z)=:e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha \phi (z)}:,$$
(4)
are chiral fields of conformal dimensions $`h_\alpha =\alpha ^22\alpha _0\alpha .`$ In particular, the primary fields $`\varphi _{r,s}`$ ($`0<r<p^{}`$, $`0<s<p`$) of a minimal model are realised by the vertex operators $`V_{\alpha _{r,s}}(z)`$ with

$$\alpha _{r,s}=\frac{1}{2}(1r)\alpha _++\frac{1}{2}(1s)\alpha _{},$$
(5)
where $`\alpha _+=\sqrt{p/p^{}}`$, $`\alpha _{}=\sqrt{p^{}/p}`$, and $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ (we assume $`p>p^{}`$) are the two coprime integers characterising the minimal model. The conformal dimensions of the operators are

$$h_{r,s}=\frac{1}{4}(r\alpha _++s\alpha _{})^2\alpha _0^2,$$
(6)
which agree with the Kac formula.

The holomorphic chiral boson field is expanded in modes as

$$\phi (z)=\phi _0ia_0\mathrm{ln}z+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n}{n}z^n,$$
(7)
and likewise for the antiholomorphic counterpart,

$$\overline{\phi }(\overline{z})=\overline{\phi }_0i\overline{a}_0\mathrm{ln}\overline{z}+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\overline{a}_n}{n}\overline{z}^n.$$
(8)
As we try to consider boundary CFT in the Coulomb-gas picture, a subtlety arises in the treatment of zero-mode, since the zero-mode of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z})`$ does not naturally decouple into the holomorphic and antiholomorphic sectors. In our formalism, we shall simply split it into two identical and independent copies. In this sense, the boundary theory we shall consider is not exactly a non-chiral theory on a manifold with boundary but rather a chiral theory on its Schottky doubleThe Schottky double is a Riemann surface obtained by doubling the manifold except for boundaries. See, e.g., .. We thus have two copies of Heisenberg operators, satisfying the algebra

$`[a_m,a_n]=m\delta _{m+n,0},[\phi _0,a_0]=i,`$ (9)
$`[\overline{a}_m,\overline{a}_n]=m\delta _{m+n,0},[\overline{\phi }_0,\overline{a}_0]=i,`$ (10)
with no interaction,

$$[a_m,\overline{a}_n]=0,[\phi _0,\overline{a}_0]=[\overline{\phi }_0,a_0]=[\phi _0,\overline{\phi }_0]=0.$$
(11)
In terms of the Heisenberg operators, the Virasoro operators are written as

$`L_{n0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}a_{nk}a_k\sqrt{2}\alpha _0(n+1)a_n,`$ (12)
$`L_0={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}a_ka_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_0^2\sqrt{2}\alpha _0a_0,`$ (13)
and likewise for the antiholomorphic counterparts.

The Hilbert space of CFT is realised in CBFSs with BRST projection . For a chiral theory the CBFS $`F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}`$ is defined as a space obtained by operating with the creation operators $`a_{n<0}`$ on the chiral highest weight state $`|\alpha ;\alpha _0`$ (see ). Since the boundary intertwines the two chiral sectors, we need to construct non-chiral Fock spaces $`_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0}`$ in order to describe boundary states. We denote the Möbius invariant non-chiral vacua with background charge $`\alpha _0`$ asHere we give the same background charge $`\alpha _0`$ to both sectors. Even if we relax this condition and start by allocating different background charges $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_0`$ to holomorphic and antiholomorphic sectors, respectively, the condition (27) restricts either $`\alpha _0=\pm \overline{\alpha }_0`$. For $`\alpha _0=\overline{\alpha }_0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\alpha \overline{\alpha }2\alpha _0=0`$ instead of (32) and (33). This merely flips the sign of all antiholomorphic charges and thus does not give any new results. $`0,0;\alpha _0|`$ and $`|0,0;\alpha _0`$, and define highest weight vectors $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|`$ and $`|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0`$ as

$`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|=0,0;\alpha _0|e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha \phi _0}e^{i\sqrt{2}\overline{\alpha }\overline{\phi }_0},`$ (14)
$`|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0=e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha \phi _0}e^{i\sqrt{2}\overline{\alpha }\overline{\phi }_0}|0,0;\alpha _0.`$ (15)
The state $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|`$ has holomorphic and antiholomorphic charges $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$, respectively. Likewise, $`|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0`$ has holomorphic and antiholomorphic charges $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$. Using the Heisenberg algebra (10) it is easy to verify that these states satisfy

$`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|a_0=\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\sqrt{2}\alpha ,`$ (16)
$`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\overline{a}_0=\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\sqrt{2}\overline{\alpha },`$ (17)
$`a_0|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0=\sqrt{2}\alpha |\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0,`$ (18)
$`\overline{a}_0|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0=\sqrt{2}\overline{\alpha }|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0.`$ (19)
These highest weight vectors are eigen states of the Virasoro zero-modes:

$`L_0|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0=(\alpha ^22\alpha \alpha _0)|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0,`$ (20)
$`\overline{L}_0|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0=(\overline{\alpha }^22\overline{\alpha }\alpha _0)|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0.`$ (21)
The states $`|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0`$ are annihilated by $`a_{n>0}`$, $`\overline{a}_{n>0}`$, $`L_{n>0}`$, $`\overline{L}_{n>0}`$, and $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|`$ are annihilated by $`a_{n<0}`$, $`\overline{a}_{n<0}`$, $`L_{n<0}`$, $`\overline{L}_{n<0}`$. The non-chiral CBFS $`_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0}`$ is built on the highest weight vector $`|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0`$ by operating with $`a_{n<0}`$ and $`\overline{a}_{n<0}`$. The dual space $`_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0}^{}`$ is defined similarly, by acting with $`a_{n>0}`$ and $`\overline{a}_{n>0}`$ on $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|`$. The non-chiral CBFSs thus defined are essentially the direct products of chiral CBFSs, $`_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0}=F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}\overline{F}_{\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0}`$.

The inner products of highest weight vectors are subject to charge neutrality, i.e. they are non-vanishing only if the net charges in the two sectors are both zero. The normalisation of the highest weight vectors must be in accordance with this condition and thus we have

$$\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\beta ,\overline{\beta };\alpha _0=\kappa \delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }}.$$
(22)
In particular, the vacua are normalised as

$$0,0;\alpha _0|0,0;\alpha _0=\kappa .$$
(23)
In unitary theories the constant $`\kappa `$ is usually positive and we normalise it to unity. As the Coulomb-gas system may well include non-unitary theories, $`\kappa `$ can be negative. In that case we choose $`\kappa =1`$. Thus we have

$`{}_{U}{}^{}\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\beta ,\overline{\beta };\alpha _0_{U}^{}=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }},`$ (24)
$`{}_{N}{}^{}\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|\beta ,\overline{\beta };\alpha _0_{N}^{}=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }}.`$ (25)
The subscripts $`U`$ and $`N`$ stand for unitary and non-unitary sectors, respectively. Those two sectors have no intersection.

### B Diffeomorphism invariant boundary states

Boundary states appearing in CFT are diffeomorphism invariant in the following sense. Let us consider a CFT on the upper half plane $`\mathrm{Im}\zeta 0`$, where $`\zeta `$ is a complex coordinate, $`\zeta =x+iy`$, $`x`$, $`y`$. The boundary is $`y=0`$, or $`\zeta =\zeta ^{}`$. Since the antiholomorphic coordinate dependence $`\overline{\zeta }`$ on the upper half plane may be mapped into the holomorphic dependence $`\zeta ^{}`$ on the lower half plane , we often identify $`\overline{\zeta }`$ with $`\zeta ^{}`$. Now, once the boundary is fixed, the conformal symmetry of the theory should be restricted so that the boundary is kept fixed. In other words, as the conformal transformation is generated by the energy-momentum tensor, the energy-momentum flow across the boundary must vanish,

$$\left[T(\zeta )\overline{T}(\overline{\zeta })\right]_{\zeta =\overline{\zeta }}=0.$$
(26)
This may be translated into a condition on boundary states by mapping a semiannular domain on the upper half $`\zeta `$-plane into a full-annulus on the $`z`$-plane by $`z=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\xi /L)`$, $`\xi =(T/\pi )\mathrm{ln}\zeta `$. The boundary of the $`\zeta `$-plane is mapped to the two concentric circles $`|z|=1`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T/L)`$ bordering the annulus on the $`z`$-plane. Since the $`z`$-plane allows radial quantisation, (26) is written as the condition on the boundary states $`|B`$ (on $`|z|=1`$),

$$(L_k\overline{L}_k)|B=0.$$
(27)
This condition, often called the Ishibashi condition, must then be satisfied by any boundary state in CFT.

We may follow the standard construction of boundary states in open string theory and find boundary states on CBFS by starting from the coherent state ansatz,

$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}B_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }}|={}_{\kappa }{}^{}\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0|{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\mathrm{\Omega }}}a_k\overline{a}_k),`$ (28)
(29)
$`|B_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }}_\kappa ={\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{k}}a_k\overline{a}_k\right)|\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0_\kappa .`$ (30)
(31)
The subscript $`\kappa `$ is either $`U`$ or $`N`$, specifying the normalisation of the vacuum. As we have expressions of the Virasoro operators (12), (13) written in terms of the Heisenberg operators, one can see how the Virasoro modes $`L_n`$ and $`\overline{L}_n`$ operate on the coherent states $`|B_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }}_\kappa `$ by an explicit computation. It is shown  that the condition (27) is satisfied if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=1,$$
(32)
and

$$\alpha +\overline{\alpha }2\alpha _0=0.$$
(33)
Similarly, we see that $`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}B_{\alpha ,\overline{\alpha };\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }}|(L_n\overline{L}_n)=0`$ as long as (32) and (33). In the following we shall only consider such manifestly diffeomorphism invariant boundary states satisfying (32) and (33), and for simplicity we denote,

$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}B(\alpha )|={}_{\kappa }{}^{}B_{\alpha ,2\alpha _0\alpha ;\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }=1}|,`$ (34)
$`|B(\alpha )_\kappa =|B_{\alpha ,2\alpha _0\alpha ;\alpha _0;\mathrm{\Omega }=1}_\kappa .`$ (35)
We note that the sum of the (holomorphic $`+`$ antiholomorphic) boundary charges agrees with the topological background charge on the Schottky double. Due to the condition (33), an inner boundary (on the $`z`$-plane) contributes $`2\alpha _0`$ to the sum of the charges, and an outer boundary contributes $`2\alpha _0`$. When we consider an annulus whose Schottky double is a torus, the sum of the boundary charges is zero ($`2\alpha _02\alpha _0=0`$), which coincides with the background charge of the torus expected from the Gauss-Bonnet theorem (the Euler number of a torus vanishes). For a disk, there is only an outer boundary which gives a charge $`2\alpha _0`$. This agrees with the background charge of a sphere, which is the Schottky double of the disk. Thus, the geometry of bulk can be assumed to be flat everywhere, since the curvature of the manifold is concentrated on boundary.

### C Ishibashi states in free-field representation

As the basis of boundary states in CFT is normally spanned by Ishibashi states, we need to construct Ishibashi states in terms of our Fock space representation in order to translate existing results of boundary CFT into Coulomb-gas language. At least for the diagonal minimal models, it is shown  that the Ishibashi states are expressible as linear combinations of $`|B(\alpha )_\kappa `$, as far as partition functions on the cylinder are concerned.

Ishibashi states are defined for chiral representations of CFT and diagonalise the cylinder amplitudes (overlaps) to give characters,

$$i|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|j=\delta _{ij}\chi _j(\stackrel{~}{q}).$$
(36)
Here, we are considering a cylinder of length $`T`$ and circumference $`L`$, or equivalently, an annulus on the $`z`$-plane with $`1|z|\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T/L)`$. As the Hamiltonian is written as $`H=(2\pi /L)(L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12)`$, the left hand side of (36) is $`i|e^{TH}|j`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{q}=e^{4\pi T/L}`$. The characters of the minimal models are given by Rocha-Caridi ,

$`\chi _{(r,s)}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{(r,s)}q^{L_0c/24}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{prp^{}s,pp^{}}(\tau )\mathrm{\Theta }_{pr+p^{}s,pp^{}}(\tau )}{\eta (\tau )}},`$ (38)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\lambda ,\mu }(\tau )`$ and $`\eta (\tau )`$ are the Jacobi theta function and the Dedekind eta function, defined as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\lambda ,\mu }(\tau )_kq^{(2\mu k+\lambda )^2/4\mu }`$ and $`\eta (\tau )q^{1/24}_{n1}(1q^n)`$, with $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$. Thus, the cylinder amplitudes (36) are power series in $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, divided by $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$.

As our boundary states $`|B(\alpha )_\kappa `$ are defined in a Fock space representation, we may explicitly compute the cylinder amplitudes between such states. They are,

$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}B(\alpha )|e^{TH}|B(\beta )_{\kappa }^{}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}B(\alpha )|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|B(\beta )_{\kappa }^{}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(\alpha \alpha _0)^2}}{\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })}}\kappa \delta _{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ (41)
The amplitudes between unitary and non-unitary sectors (e.g. $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|e^{TH}|B(\beta )_{N}^{}`$) vanish because these sectors do not intersect. Note that $`q^{(\alpha \alpha _0)^2}/\eta (\tau )`$ is the character $`\chi _{\alpha ;\alpha _0}(q)`$ of the chiral CBFS $`F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}`$. In this sense, the state $`|B(\alpha )_\kappa `$ may be regarded as the Ishibashi state of $`F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}`$.

We may now compare the expressions (36) and (41) to find a possible free-field representation of the Ishibashi states of minimal models. Defining

$$(r,s)|={}_{U}{}^{}a_{r,s}|+{}_{N}{}^{}a_{r,s}|,$$
(42)
and

$$|(r,s)=|a_{r,s}_U+|a_{r,s}_N,$$
(43)
with

$`{}_{U}{}^{}a_{r,s}|={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{r,s}+k\sqrt{pp^{}})|,`$ (44)
$`{}_{N}{}^{}a_{r,s}|={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{N}{}^{}B(\alpha _{r,s}+k\sqrt{pp^{}})|,`$ (45)
$`|a_{r,s}_U={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|B(\alpha _{r,s}+k\sqrt{pp^{}})_U,`$ (46)
$`|a_{r,s}_N={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|B(\alpha _{r,s}+k\sqrt{pp^{}})_N,`$ (47)
where $`\alpha _{r,s}`$ are given by (5), one can show that the states $`|(r,s)`$ diagonalise the overlaps and give minimal model characters,

$$(r,s)|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|(r^{},s^{})=\delta _{rr^{}}\delta _{ss^{}}\chi _{(r,s)}(\stackrel{~}{q}).$$
(48)
The appearance of the non-unitary sector even in unitary CFTs may seem odd, but this is necessary to describe cylinder diagrams where otherwise unphysical states would propagate. On the disk the non-unitary sector decouples and does not contribute to correlation functions (Sec. III). The states (42), (43) are a good candidate for the minimal model Ishibashi states as far as the modular properties are concerned. We, however, immediately notice that such ‘Ishibashi’ states are not unique since $`|(r,s)`$ and $`|(p^{}r,ps)`$ give rise to the same character but are perpendicular to each other. In order to have a unique Ishibashi state for each primary field $`(r,s)(p^{}r,ps)`$ of minimal models, we define the symmetrised states,

$`\varphi _{r,s}|=\varphi _{p^{}r,ps}|`$ (49)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}((r,s)|+(p^{}r,ps)|),`$ (50)
$`|\varphi _{r,s}=|\varphi _{p^{}r,ps}`$ (51)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|(r,s)+|(p^{}r,ps)),`$ (52)
and shall regard them as our free-field realisation of the Ishibashi states. Although this ‘symmetrisation’ was not considered in , such a prescription to ensure the equivalence of $`(r,s)(p^{}r,ps)`$ is necessary.

### D Cardy’s consistent boundary states

Physical boundary states in CFT are not only diffeomorphism invariant, but must also satisfy an extra constraint called Cardy’s consistency condition. We consider a cylinder of length $`T`$ and circumference $`L`$ as before and assume that boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are imposed on the two boundaries. Then, depending on how we define the direction of time, the partition function on this cylinder may be written in two different ways. We may first regard the cylinder as an open string propagating in the periodic direction of time, with boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ imposed at the two ends of the string. The partition function is then a sum of the chiral characters, $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(q)=_jn_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^j\chi _j(q)`$, where $`\chi _j(q)`$ is the character for the chiral representation $`j`$ and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^j`$ is a non-negative integer representing the multiplicity of the representations. We have defined $`q=e^{\pi L/T}`$. We may also see the cylinder as a closed string propagating from one boundary (with boundary condition $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$) to the other (with $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$). Then the partition function is simply the cylinder amplitude between the two boundaries, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|e^{TH}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Due to the equivalence of the two pictures, we have $`_jn_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^j\chi _j(q)=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\stackrel{~}{L}_0c/12}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. This is the consistency condition which needs to be satisfied by the boundary states $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$.

If we have an appropriate basis of the boundary states, the right hand side of the consistency equation may be expanded using the basis states $`\{a|\}`$, $`\{|b\}`$ as

$$\underset{j}{}n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^j\chi _j(q)=\underset{a,b}{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|aa|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|bb|\stackrel{~}{\beta }.$$
(53)
Solving this equation, the consistent boundary states $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\}`$ are found as linear combinations of the basis states. It is convenient to use the Ishibashi states for such a basis. For diagonal minimal models, using the property (36) of the Ishibashi states and the modular transformation of the characters $`\chi _i(q)=_jS_{ij}\chi _j(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ under $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=1/\tau `$, we have, by equating the coefficients of the characters,

$$\underset{i}{}n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^iS_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|jj|\stackrel{~}{\beta }.$$
(54)
Assuming the existence of a state $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ such that $`n_{\stackrel{~}{0}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^i=n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{0}}^i=\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^i`$, (54) was solved by Cardy as,

$$|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\underset{j}{}|jj|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\underset{j}{}\frac{S_{\alpha j}}{\sqrt{S_{0j}}}|j.$$
(55)
Now, as the minimal model Ishibashi states have been written in the free-field representation (50) (52), Cardy’s consistent boundary states (55) can also be expressed using our coherent boundary states by substituting (52) into (55).

For the convenience of later discussions, let us spell out these in the specific example of the Ising model. The Ising model is the simplest non-trivial minimal model having the central charge $`c=1/2`$ and is characterised by the two coprime integers $`p=4`$ and $`p^{}=3`$. There are three operators, the identity $`I`$, the energy $`ϵ`$ and the spin $`\sigma `$, having the conformal dimensions $`0`$, $`1/2`$, and $`1/16`$, respectively, and are identified in the Kac table as $`I=\varphi _{1,1}=\varphi _{2,3}`$, $`ϵ=\varphi _{2,1}=\varphi _{1,3}`$ and $`\sigma =\varphi _{1,2}=\varphi _{2,2}`$. Using the modular transformation matrices for the characters, Cardy’s boundary states are written as

$`|\stackrel{~}{I}=|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}|I+2^{1/2}|ϵ+2^{1/4}|\sigma ,`$ (56)
$`|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}|I+2^{1/2}|ϵ2^{1/4}|\sigma ,`$ (57)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`|I|ϵ.`$ (58)
It is argued that the first two states correspond to the fixed (up and down) boundary conditions since they differ only by the sign of $`|\sigma `$ which is associated with the spin operator. The last state (58) is then identified as the free boundary state. Using (43) and (52), these states are written in our free-field representation as

$`|\stackrel{~}{I}`$ $`=`$ $`2^1(|a_{1,1}_U+|a_{1,1}_N+|a_{2,3}_U+|a_{2,3}_N`$ (61)
$`+|a_{2,1}_U+|a_{2,1}_N+|a_{1,3}_U+|a_{1,3}_N)`$
$`+2^{3/4}(|a_{1,2}_U+|a_{1,2}_N+|a_{2,2}_U+|a_{2,2}_N),`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`2^1(|a_{1,1}_U+|a_{1,1}_N+|a_{2,3}_U+|a_{2,3}_N`$ (65)
$`+|a_{2,1}_U+|a_{2,1}_N+|a_{1,3}_U+|a_{1,3}_N)`$
$`2^{3/4}(|a_{1,2}_U+|a_{1,2}_N+|a_{2,2}_U+|a_{2,2}_N),`$
(66)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}(|a_{1,1}_U+|a_{1,1}_N+|a_{2,3}_U+|a_{2,3}_N`$ (68)
$`|a_{2,1}_U|a_{2,1}_N|a_{1,3}_U|a_{1,3}_N),`$
where the states on the right hand sides are defined by (46), (47). They are superpositions of countably many coherent states with different boundary charges.

## III Boundary correlation functions

Now let us discuss how to compute boundary correlation functions in our Coulomb-gas picture. After giving the general formalism, we shall focus on the one point function of $`\varphi _{r,s}(z,\overline{z})`$ and the two point function of $`\varphi _{1,2}(z,\overline{z})`$, and derive their explicit expressions on the unit disk. Once correlators on the disk are obtained, it is straightforward to map them on the half plane. At the end of this section, we compare our free-field approach and OPE computation of boundary correlation functions.

### A Screened vertex operators and BRST states

In the CBFS language, correlation functions on the full plane are described as follows. We define chiral screened vertex operators $`V_{r,s}^{m,n}(z)`$ as

$`V_{r,s}^{m,n}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}du_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}dv_jV_{r,s}(z)V_+(u_1)\mathrm{}V_+(u_m)}`$ (71)
$`\times V_{}(v_1)\mathrm{}V_{}(v_n),`$
where for conciseness we have denoted $`V_{\alpha _{r,s}}(z)`$ as $`V_{r,s}(z)`$ and $`V_{\alpha _\pm }(z)`$ as $`V_\pm (z)`$, and the integration contours are those of Felder’s, all going through $`z`$ and encircling the origin (Fig.1 of ). Such an operator is a primary field of conformal dimension $`h_{r,s}`$. We also denote the chiral CBFS $`F_{\alpha _{r,s};\alpha _0}`$ as $`F_{r,s}`$. The operator $`V_{r,s}^{m,n}(z)`$ defines a map from one Fock space to another,

$$V_{r,s}^{m,n}(z):F_{r_0,s_0}F_{r_0+r2m1,s_0+s2n1}.$$
(72)
The $`p`$-point correlator,

$$0;\alpha _0|V_{r_1,s_1}^{m_1,n_1}(z_1)\mathrm{}V_{r_p,s_p}^{m_p,n_p}(z_p)|0;\alpha _0,$$
(73)
is then seen as a sequence of mappings,

$$F_{1,1}F_{r_p2m_p,s_p2n_p}\mathrm{},$$
(74)
and the final state $`V_{r_1,s_1}^{m_1,n_1}(z_1)\mathrm{}V_{r_p,s_p}^{m_p,n_p}(z_p)|0;\alpha _0`$ must belong to $`F_{1,1}`$ in order to have a non-trivial inner product with $`0;\alpha _0|F_{1,1}^{}`$ (the dual module of $`F_{1,1}`$). The same $`p`$-point correlator may be expressed differently, as

$$\alpha _{p^{}1,p1};\alpha _0|V_{r_1,s_1}^{m_1^{},n_1^{}}(z_1)\mathrm{}V_{r_p,s_p}^{m_p^{},n_p^{}}(z_p)|0;\alpha _0,$$
(75)
but this is in fact proportional to (73). A key object in this formalism is the BRST operator,

$$Q_r=\frac{e^{2\pi i\alpha _+^2r}1}{r(e^{2\pi i\alpha _+^2}1)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}du_iV_+(u_1)\mathrm{}V_+(u_r),$$
(76)
which maps $`F_{r,s}`$ to $`F_{r,s}`$. The BRST operator is nilpotent, $`Q_rQ_{p^{}r}=0`$, and physical states are realised as the cohomology space, $`\mathrm{Ker}Q_r/\mathrm{Im}Q_{p^{}r}`$. An important point which is evident in this picture is that all intermediate states appearing in the correlator are BRST states since the vacuum $`|0;\alpha _0`$ is a BRST state and the screened vertex operators map BRST states to BRST states.

We shall combine the above machinery and the boundary states of the previous section to compute correlation functions on the unit disk. The in-state of the correlators is the non-chiral vacuum (in the unitary sector) at the origin, $`|0=|0,0;\alpha _0_U`$, which is a BRST state. For the out-state, we choose a boundary state $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|`$ of (34) with a fixed boundary charge $`\alpha `$. We only consider the unitary sector since the non-unitary sector does not give non-trivial inner products with the in-state vacuum. The correlators are then obtained by inserting non-chiral screened vertex operators,

$$𝒱_{(r_i,s_i),(\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i)}^{(m_i,n_i),(\overline{m}_i,\overline{n}_i)}(z_i,\overline{z}_i)=V_{r_i,s_i}^{m_i,n_i}(z_i)\overline{V}_{\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i}^{\overline{m}_i,\overline{n}_i}(\overline{z}_i),$$
(77)
between $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|`$ and $`|0,0;\alpha _0_U`$. As we focus on diagonal theories, the antiholomorphic vertex operators have the same conformal dimensions as the holomorphic counterparts, i.e., either $`(\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i)=(r_i,s_i)`$ or $`(\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i)=(p^{}r_i,ps_i)`$. Note that, in this construction, all the intermediate states are manifestly BRST invariant because no spurious states arise. Actual boundary $`p`$-point correlation functions for physical boundary conditions are obtained by summing the fixed boundary-charge correlators,

$${}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}V_{r_i,s_i}^{m_i,n_i}(z_i)\overline{V}_{\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i}^{\overline{m}_i,\overline{n}_i}(\overline{z}_i)|0,0;\alpha _0_{U}^{},$$
(78)
over the boundary charges according to the linear combinations (such as (LABEL:eqn:cfixed1) - (LABEL:eqn:cfree)) given by Cardy’s method. Note that (78) is non-vanishing only for certain configurations of screening charges. The net holomorphic and antiholomorphic charges are respectively,

$$\alpha +\underset{i}{}\alpha _{r_i,s_i}+\underset{i}{}m_i\alpha _++\underset{i}{}n_i\alpha _{},$$
(79)
and

$$\alpha 2\alpha _0+\underset{i}{}\alpha _{\overline{r}_i,\overline{s}_i}+\underset{i}{}\overline{m}_i\alpha _++\underset{i}{}\overline{n}_i\alpha _{},$$
(80)
which must vanish independently. These charge neutrality conditions associate the allowed values of $`\alpha `$ with the numbers of holomorphic and antiholomorphic screening operators.

In the computation of the expression (78), $`V_{r,s}(z)\overline{V}_{r,s}(\overline{z})`$$`V_{r,s}(z)\overline{V}_{p^{}r,ps}(\overline{z})`$$`V_{p^{}r,ps}(z)\overline{V}_{r,s}(\overline{z})`$ and $`V_{p^{}r,ps}(z)\overline{V}_{p^{}r,ps}(\overline{z})`$ all correspond to a non-chiral field $`\varphi _{r,s}(z,\overline{z})`$ and one may use whichever combinations one wishes to use. This is ensured by the fact that (78) is essentially a chiral $`2p`$-point function where the equivalence of $`(r,s)(p^{}r,ps)`$ (after the truncation of unphysical states) is guaranteed. In particular, we are allowed to use $`V_{r,s}(z)`$ as the holomorphic and $`\overline{V}_{p^{}r,ps}(\overline{z})`$ as the antiholomorphic (‘mirror image’) part of a single non-chiral operator (the analogy of a mirror and a boundary of CFT is based on the conformal Ward identity which does not distinguish $`\overline{V}_{r,s}(\overline{z})`$ from $`\overline{V}_{p^{}r,ps}(\overline{z})`$). Due to this equivalence, apparently different choices of vertex operators should all lead to a same conformal block function. In practice, likewise to the case of the Coulomb-gas computation without boundary, we shall choose such vertex operators that the number of screening operators is minimised. In the following subsections we shall evaluate the expression (78) for particular cases of one and two point functions.

### B Boundary one point functions

For evaluation of the boundary one point correlator,

$${}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|V_{r,s}^{m,n}(z)\overline{V}_{\overline{r},\overline{s}}^{\overline{m},\overline{n}}(\overline{z})|0,0;\alpha _0_{U}^{},$$
(81)
it is convenient to choose $`(\overline{r},\overline{s})=(p^{}r,ps)`$ (the other choice $`(\overline{r},\overline{s})=(r,s)`$ should lead to the same result but involves complicated integral expressions). According to (72), the holomorphic part of the CBFS is mapped as

$$F_{1,1}F_{r2m,s2n},$$
(82)
and the antiholomorphic part is mapped as

$$\overline{F}_{1,1}\overline{F}_{p^{}r2\overline{m},ps2\overline{n}}.$$
(83)
Since $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}^{}F_{2\alpha _0\alpha ;\alpha _0}^{}`$, the correlator is non-vanishing only when $`F_{\alpha ;\alpha _0}=F_{r2m,s2n}`$ and $`\overline{F}_{2\alpha _0\alpha ;\alpha _0}=\overline{F}_{p^{}r2\overline{m},ps2\overline{n}}`$, that is,

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(1r+2m)\alpha _++\frac{1}{2}(1s+2n)\alpha _{},$$
(84)
and

$$2\alpha _0\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(1p^{}+r+2\overline{m})\alpha _++\frac{1}{2}(1p+s+2\overline{n})\alpha _{}.$$
(85)
Summing (84), (85) and using $`\alpha _+=\sqrt{p/p^{}}`$, $`\alpha _{}=\sqrt{p^{}/p}`$, we have $`(m+\overline{m})\alpha _++(n+\overline{n})\alpha _{}=0`$, or

$$m+\overline{m}=0,n+\overline{n}=0,$$
(86)
implying no screening charges. Then from (84) we have $`\alpha =\alpha _{r,s}`$, and the correlator (81) is evaluated as

$${}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{r,s})|V_{r,s}^{0,0}(z)\overline{V}_{\overline{r},\overline{s}}^{0,0}(\overline{z})|0,0;\alpha _0_{U}^{}=(1z\overline{z})^{2h},$$
(87)
where $`h=\alpha _{r,s}(\alpha _{r,s}2\alpha _0)`$. As we shall see later, this is proportional to the two point correlator on the full plane.

### C Boundary two point functions of $`\varphi _{1,2}`$

As a less trivial case, we consider the two point correlator of the primary field $`\varphi _{1,2}`$. For the convenience of calculation we define one of the operators as $`\varphi _{1,2}(z_1,\overline{z}_1)=V_{1,2}(z_1)\overline{V}_{p^{}1,p2}(\overline{z}_1)`$ and the other as $`\varphi _{1,2}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)=V_{1,2}(z_2)\overline{V}_{1,2}(\overline{z}_2)`$. The expression (78) then becomes

$`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha )|V_{1,2}^{m_1,n_1}(z_1)\overline{V}_{p^{}1,p2}^{\overline{m}_1,\overline{n}_1}(\overline{z}_1)`$ (88)
$`\times V_{1,2}^{m_2,n_2}(z_2)\overline{V}_{1,2}^{\overline{m}_2,\overline{n}_2}(\overline{z}_2)|0,0;\alpha _0_U.`$ (89)
In the holomorphic and antiholomorphic sectors, the CBFSs are mapped as

$`F_{1,1}F_{12m_2,22n_2}F_{12m_12m_2,32n_12n_2},`$ (90)
$`\overline{F}_{1,1}\overline{F}_{12\overline{m}_2,22\overline{n}_2}\overline{F}_{p^{}2\overline{m}_12\overline{m}_21,p2\overline{n}_12\overline{n}_21},`$ (91)
and hence, in order that the correlator be non-vanishing we must have

$`\alpha =(m_1+m_2)\alpha _++(n_1+n_21)\alpha _{},`$ (93)
$`2\alpha _0\alpha =(\overline{m}_1+\overline{m}_2+1)\alpha _++(\overline{n}_1+\overline{n}_2+1)\alpha _{}.`$ (94)
Adding the above two expressions we have $`(m+\overline{m})\alpha _++(n+\overline{n}1)\alpha _{}=0`$, where $`m=m_1+m_2`$ and $`n=n_1+n_2`$ are the numbers of positive ($`\alpha _+`$) and negative ($`\alpha _{}`$) screening operators in the holomorphic sector, and similarly $`\overline{m}=\overline{m}_1+\overline{m}_2`$ and $`\overline{n}=\overline{n}_1+\overline{n}_2`$ for the antiholomorphic counterparts. This charge neutrality condition implies

$$m+\overline{m}=0,n+\overline{n}=1.$$
(96)
Then we have two possibilities:

$`(\mathrm{I})`$ $`m=\overline{m}=\overline{n}=0,n=1,`$ (97)
$`(\mathrm{II})`$ $`m=\overline{m}=n=0,\overline{n}=1.`$ (98)
From (93), we have the boundary charge $`\alpha =\alpha _{1,1}=0`$ for (I) and $`\alpha =\alpha _{1,3}=\alpha _{}`$ for (II).

For the charge configuration (I), we have one screening operator

$$Q_{}=𝑑vV_{}(v),$$
(99)
in the holomorphic sector and thus the correlator (89) takes the form,

$`I_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|{\displaystyle }dvV_{1,2}(z_1)\overline{V}_{p^{}1,p2}(\overline{z}_1)V_{}(v)`$ (101)
$`\times V_{1,2}(z_2)\overline{V}_{1,2}(\overline{z}_2)|0,0;\alpha _0_U,`$
which, by an explicit calculation, reduces to

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑v(1z_1\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_1\overline{z}_2)^b(1v\overline{z}_1)^c(1v\overline{z}_2)^d}`$ (102)
$`\times (1z_2\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_2\overline{z}_2)^b(z_1v)^d`$ (103)
$`\times (z_1z_2)^b(vz_2)^d(\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2)^a,`$ (104)
with $`a=2\alpha _{1,2}(2\alpha _0\alpha _{1,2})`$, $`b=2\alpha _{1,2}^2`$, $`c=2\alpha _{}(2\alpha _0\alpha _{1,2})`$, and $`d=2\alpha _{}\alpha _{1,2}`$. As this expression is analytic, we may deform the integration contour as long as it is closed and non-contractable. In this case the screening operator must lie entirely on the holomorphic part and Felder’s contour can be deformed into the Pochhammer type, going around $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. The correlator is then proportional to the integration from $`z_2`$ to $`z_1`$, and is written as

$`I_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_\mathrm{I}(1z_1\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_1\overline{z}_2)^b(1z_2\overline{z}_1)^a`$ (106)
$`\times (1z_2\overline{z}_2)^b(z_1z_2)^b(\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2)^a`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{z_2}^{z_1}}𝑑v(1v\overline{z}_1)^c(1v\overline{z}_2)^d(z_1v)^d(vz_2)^d.`$ (107)
Here, $`𝒩_\mathrm{I}`$ is a constant arising from the deformation of the contour. Note that, at this point, the expression is similar (in fact, proportional) to the integral representation of a chiral four point conformal block  (without boundary). One may then proceed in the standard manner, namely, by fixing the projective $`SL(2,)`$ gauge, performing the integration, and then recovering the coordinate dependence. We thus have,

$`I_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_\mathrm{I}(1z_1\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_2\overline{z}_2)^a[\eta (\eta 1)]^a`$ (109)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _{}^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22\alpha _{}^2)}}F(2a,1\alpha _{}^2,22\alpha _{}^2;\eta ),`$ (110)
where $`F={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function of the Gaussian type, and $`\eta `$ is defined as

$$\eta =\frac{(z_1z_2)(\overline{z}_2\overline{z}_1)}{(1z_1\overline{z}_1)(1z_2\overline{z}_2)}.$$
(111)
The calculation for (II) goes similarly. As we have one screening operator

$$\overline{Q}_{}=𝑑\overline{v}\overline{V}_{}(\overline{v}),$$
(112)
in the antiholomorphic sector, the correlator is written as

$`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,3})|{\displaystyle }d\overline{v}V_{1,2}(z_1)\overline{V}_{p^{}1,p2}(\overline{z}_1)\overline{V}_{}(\overline{v})`$ (114)
$`\times V_{1,2}(z_2)\overline{V}_{1,2}(\overline{z}_2)|0,0;\alpha _0_U`$
$`=`$ $`𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}(z_1z_2)^b(\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2)^a(1z_1\overline{z}_1)^a`$ (116)
$`\times (1z_1\overline{z}_2)^b(1z_2\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_2\overline{z}_2)^b`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\overline{z}_2}^{\overline{z}_1}}𝑑\overline{v}(\overline{z}_1\overline{v})^c(\overline{v}\overline{z}_2)^d(1z_1\overline{v})^d(1z_2\overline{v})^d.`$ (117)
We have again deformed Felder’s integration contour (this time in the antiholomorphic sector) into the Pochhammer contour around $`\overline{z}_1`$ and $`\overline{z}_2`$. The resulting integral is proportional to the one from $`\overline{z}_2`$ to $`\overline{z}_1`$, and $`𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}`$ is a constant. Performing the integration we have

$`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}(1z_1\overline{z}_1)^a(1z_2\overline{z}_2)^a[\eta (\eta 1)]^a(\eta )^{ba}`$ (119)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _{}^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\alpha _{}^21)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha _{}^2)}}`$ (120)
$`\times `$ $`F(\alpha _{}^2,1\alpha _{}^2,2\alpha _{}^2;\eta ).`$ (121)
The two correlators $`I_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$ with fixed boundary charges are represented schematically (in the Schottky double picture) in Fig.1. They correspond to the two conformal blocks of the chiral four point function.

### D Correlation functions on the half plane

Boundary correlation functions obtained on the unit disk are mapped on the half plane by the global conformal transformation,

$$w=iy_0\frac{z1}{z+1},\overline{w}=iy_0\frac{\overline{z}1}{\overline{z}+1},$$
(122)
which takes the unit circle $`|z|=1`$ on the $`z`$-plane to the infinite line $`\mathrm{Im}w=0`$ on the $`w`$-plane, and the origin $`z=0`$ to the point $`w=iy_0`$, $`y_0`$. Under this transformation the holomorphic coordinate dependence on the unit disk is mapped on to the upper half $`w`$-plane, and the antiholomorphic dependence is mapped on to the lower half $`\overline{w}`$-plane. Using the transformation (122), $`p`$-point correlation functions on the half plane are written using those on the $`z`$-plane, i.e. on the disk, as

$`\varphi _1(w_1,\overline{w}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _p(w_p,\overline{w}_p)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$ (123)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dw_i}{dz_i}}\right)^{h_i}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{w}_i}{d\overline{z}_i}}\right)^{\overline{h}_i}\varphi _1(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _p(z_p,\overline{z}_p)_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ (124)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2y_0}{(z_i+1)(\overline{z}_i+1)}}\right\}^{2h_i}\varphi _1(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _p(z_p,\overline{z}_p)_{\mathrm{disk}},`$ (125)
where we have assumed $`h_i=\overline{h}_i`$. The parameter $`\eta `$ of (111) is mapped under this transformation as

$$\eta =\frac{(z_1z_2)(\overline{z}_2\overline{z}_1)}{(1z_1\overline{z}_1)(1z_2\overline{z}_2)}=\frac{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)}{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(w_2\overline{w}_2)},$$
(127)
which is an anharmonic ratio of the four points $`w_1`$, $`w_2`$, $`\overline{w}_1`$ and $`\overline{w}_2`$.

Now, the boundary one point function of $`\varphi _{r,s}`$ on the upper half plane is easily found by using (87) as

$`\varphi _{r,s}(w,\overline{w})_{B(\alpha _{r,s})}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2y_0(1z\overline{z})}{(z+1)(\overline{z}+1)}}\right\}^{2h}`$ (128)
$`=`$ $`[i(w\overline{w})]^{2h}`$ (129)
$`=`$ $`(2y)^{2h},`$ (130)
where $`h=h_{r,s}=\alpha _{r,s}(\alpha _{r,s}2\alpha _0)`$ is the conformal dimension of the operator $`\varphi _{r,s}`$, and $`w=x+iy`$, $`\overline{w}=w^{}=xiy`$, $`x,y`$. Note that the result is $`y_0`$-independent. The two point function of $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ on the disk is mapped on to the half plane similarly. For the conformal block (I) we have

$`\varphi _{1,2}(w_1,\overline{w}_1)\varphi _{1,2}(w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{B(\alpha _{1,1})}`$ (131)
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4y_0^2}{(z_1+1)(\overline{z}_1+1)(z_2+1)(\overline{z}_2+1)}}\right\}^{2h}I_\mathrm{I}`$ (132)
$`=`$ $`𝒩_\mathrm{I}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(\overline{w}_2w_2)}{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)(w_1\overline{w}_2)(\overline{w}_1w_2)}}\right\}^{2h}`$ (134)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _{}^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22\alpha _{}^2)}}F(4h,1\alpha _{}^2,22\alpha _{}^2;\eta ),`$
and for (II) we have

$`\varphi _{1,2}(w_1,\overline{w}_1)\varphi _{1,2}(w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{B(\alpha _{1,3})}`$ (135)
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4y_0^2}{(z_1+1)(\overline{z}_1+1)(z_2+1)(\overline{z}_2+1)}}\right\}^{2h}I_{\mathrm{II}}`$ (136)
$`=`$ $`𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(\overline{w}_2w_2)}{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)(w_1\overline{w}_2)(\overline{w}_1w_2)}}\right\}^{2h}`$ (139)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _{}^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\alpha _{}^21)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha _{}^2)}}(\eta )^{2h+2\alpha _{}^2}`$
$`\times F(\alpha _{}^2,1\alpha _{}^2,2\alpha _{}^2;\eta ),`$
where $`h=h_{1,2}=\alpha _{1,2}(\alpha _{1,2}2\alpha _0)`$. Physical correlation functions are linear sums of these conformal blocks where the coefficients are given by Cardy’s states.

### E Boundary states and conformal blocks

Before illustrating in specific examples, we mention how the above description of boundary correlation functions fits into the conventional discussion of , and see the validity and limitation of the Coulomb-gas approach.

The charge neutrality conditions (84) (85) for a one-point function pick up the coefficient of the corresponding Ishibashi state from a Cardy state, since $`\alpha =\alpha _{r,s}`$ is the only boundary charge which gives a non-vanishing term. This agrees with our understanding that the coefficients of Cardy’s state are essentially the one-point coupling constants of bulk (closed string vertex) operators to the boundary (brane). Once one-point coupling constants are known, it is in principle possible to compute boundary multipoint functions since they reduce to one point functions after repeated use of bulk OPEs (Fig.2a). In particular, we may start such a procedure from the farthest point from the boundary (in the radial ordering sense), approaching the boundary by performing OPE with the farthest remaining point one by one. Due to naturality of CFT, such OPEs are translated into the fusions of operators,

$`[\varphi _1]\times [\varphi _2]=[j_1],`$ (140)
$`[j_1]\times [\varphi _3]=[j_2],`$ (141)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (142)
$`[j_{p2}]\times [\varphi _p]=[j_{p1}],`$ (143)
which define a conformal block with no subchains (Fig.2b). As the fusion of primary operators is equivalent to the map (72) between CBFSs restricted to BRST subspaces, the conformal block of Fig.2b is represented by our fixed boundary-charge correlator (78) with $`\alpha `$ corresponding to $`[j_{p1}]`$. The Ishibashi state $`j_{p1}|`$ acts as a filter (or a half mirror) transmitting only the Virasoro representation $`[j_{p1}]`$. This property of Ishibashi states is captured by boundary charges and charge neutrality.

Due to the absence of internal channels, two point functions on the disk (or half plane) are completely determined by a boundary state, apart from the normalisation of conformal blocks. In the case of $`p`$-point functions with $`p3`$, however, states in the internal channels $`j_{i<p1}`$ cannot in general be determined uniquely even if the state in the ‘boundary channel’ $`j_{p1}`$ is fixed (an example is the spin three point function of the Ising model with $`j_2=\sigma `$, where $`j_1`$ can be $`I`$ or $`ϵ`$). Corresponding to this, the contours of (78) with $`p3`$ may be deformed in several different ways to give independent convergent functions which are expected to reproduce conformal blocks with different internal states. The relative coefficients of such conformal blocks in a boundary correlation function cannot be determined by the boundary state (as these conformal blocks belong to the same Ishibashi state) but should be constrained by information of the bulk.

## IV Ising model

We shall illustrate the method presented in the previous section in the example of the critical Ising model. Before starting actual calculations we notice from the discussions of the previous section that the non-unitary sector and the boundary states with charges outside the Kac table do not contribute to correlation functions. Neglecting such unnecessary terms in (LABEL:eqn:cfixed1) - (LABEL:eqn:cfree), for the bra-boundary states of the Ising model we have,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}|`$ $``$ $`2^1({}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,3})|`$ (146)
$`+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,1})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,3})|)`$
$`+2^{3/4}({}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,2})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,2})|),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}|`$ $``$ $`2^1({}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,3})|`$ (149)
$`+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,1})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,3})|)`$
$`2^{3/4}({}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,2})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,2})|),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|`$ $``$ $`2^{1/2}({}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|+{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,3})|`$ (151)
$`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{2,1})|{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,3})|).`$
Since these are linear combinations of fixed boundary-charge states $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{r,s})|`$, the correlation functions on the disk with physical boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ are given by linear combinations of fixed boundary-charge correlators (78). Using the global conformal transformation explained in the last section, we shall obtain correlation functions on the half plane and compare them with existing results.

### A One point functions of spin and energy operators

Let us first consider the spin one point function. We may choose either $`\sigma =\varphi _{1,2}`$ or $`\sigma =\varphi _{2,2}`$. Let, for definiteness, $`(r,s)=(1,2)`$ in the holomorphic part and in order to use the result of the last section, $`(\overline{r},\overline{s})=(2,2)`$ in the antiholomorphic part. From (87) we immediately notice that only the state $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,2})|`$ contributes to the one point function, all other states giving vanishing correlators. For the boundary condition $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$, the one point function on the disk is

$`\stackrel{~}{I}|\sigma (z,\overline{z})|0`$ (152)
$`=\stackrel{~}{I}|V_{1,2}(z)\overline{V}_{2,2}(\overline{z})|0,0;\alpha _0_U`$ (153)
$`=2^{3/4}{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,2})|V_{1,2}(z)\overline{V}_{2,2}(\overline{z})|0,0;\alpha _0_{U}^{}`$ (154)
$`=2^{3/4}(1z\overline{z})^{1/8}.`$ (155)
Properly normalised one point function is then,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}|\sigma (z,\overline{z})|0}{\stackrel{~}{I}|0}=2^{1/4}(1z\overline{z})^{1/8}.$$
(156)
This is mapped on to the half plane by using the conformal transformation (130), as

$$\sigma (w,\overline{w})_{\stackrel{~}{I}}=\sigma (y)_{\stackrel{~}{I}}=2^{1/4}(2y)^{1/8},$$
(157)
where $`y`$ is the distance from the boundary. Likewise, boundary spin correlation functions for the conditions $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ are obtained simply by picking up the coefficients of $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,2})|`$ in (149) and (151), and are normalised using $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}|0=1/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|0=1/\sqrt{2}`$. On the half plane, they are

$$\sigma (w,\overline{w})_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}=\sigma (y)_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}=2^{1/4}(2y)^{1/8},$$
(158)
and

$$\sigma (w,\overline{w})_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}=\sigma (y)_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}=0.$$
(159)
Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ are indeed the fixed (up and down) and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is the free boundary condition, as is stated in . In our Coulomb-gas formalism the relation between one point functions and the coefficients of Ishibashi states is explained by the neutrality of charges.

Putting, say, $`(r,s)=(2,1)`$ and $`(\overline{r},\overline{s})=(1,3)`$, the energy one point function is obtained similarly. On the half plane we have,

$`ϵ(y)_{\stackrel{~}{I}}=ϵ(y)_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}=(2y)^1,`$ (160)
$`ϵ(y)_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}=(2y)^1.`$ (161)
### B Spin two point function

Next, let us consider the spin two point function. Since $`\sigma =\varphi _{1,2}`$, we can use the result of Subsec.C of the preceding section. There are only two values of boundary charges, $`\alpha _{1,1}`$ and $`\alpha _{1,3}`$, which give non-trivial contributions to the correlator. The two corresponding states $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|`$ and $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,3})|`$ give rise to the two conformal blocks $`I_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$, respectively, and the correlation function is a linear combination of these conformal blocks with coefficients given by Cardy’s states (146) - (151). Then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{I}|\sigma (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\sigma (z_2,\overline{z}_2)|0}{\stackrel{~}{I}|0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}|\sigma (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\sigma (z_2,\overline{z}_2)|0}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}|0}}`$ (162)
$`=`$ $`I_\mathrm{I}+I_{\mathrm{II}},`$ (163)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|\sigma (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\sigma (z_2,\overline{z}_2)|0}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|0}}`$ $`=`$ $`I_\mathrm{I}I_{\mathrm{II}},`$ (164)
where the actual forms of $`I_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$ are given by (110) and (121), with $`a=1/8`$, $`b=3/8`$ and $`\alpha _{}^2=3/4`$. In this case the hypergeometric functions reduce to,

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1\eta }}}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (165)
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2(1\sqrt{1\eta })}}{\sqrt{\eta }}}.`$ (166)
Using (165), (166) and the conformal transformation (122), we find the two point functions on the half plane,

$`\sigma (w_1,\overline{w}_1)\sigma (w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ (167)
$`=`$ $`\sigma (w_1,\overline{w}_1)\sigma (w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}`$ (168)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(\overline{w}_2w_2)}{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)(w_1\overline{w}_2)(\overline{w}_1w_2)}}\right\}^{1/8}`$ (171)
$`\times \left(𝒩_\mathrm{I}\sqrt{\sqrt{1\eta }+1}+𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}\sqrt{\sqrt{1\eta }1}\right),`$
$`\sigma (w_1,\overline{w}_1)\sigma (w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(\overline{w}_2w_2)}{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)(w_1\overline{w}_2)(\overline{w}_1w_2)}}\right\}^{1/8}`$ (173)
$`\times \left(𝒩_\mathrm{I}\sqrt{\sqrt{1\eta }+1}𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}\sqrt{\sqrt{1\eta }1}\right),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/4)^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)`$. Studying the behaviours away from the boundary (we accept the convention that two point functions of bulk operators are normalised as $`\varphi _i(w_1)\varphi _j(w_2)=\delta _{ij}(w_1w_2)^{2h_i}`$) and comparing the leading terms with the OPE coefficients of , the normalisation of the conformal blocks are fixed as $`𝒩_\mathrm{I}=𝒩_{\mathrm{II}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/4)^2`$.

This result was obtained long time ago, by solving a differential equation to find the two conformal blocks $`I_\mathrm{I}`$, $`I_{\mathrm{II}}`$, and then fixing the coefficients by considering asymptotic behaviours of the correlation function. The (relative) coefficients of the conformal blocks are now attributed to the coefficients of Cardy’s states in our Coulomb-gas approach, although we have used the asymptotic behaviours to fix the normalisation of each conformal block.

### C Energy two point function

Finally we derive the energy two point function in our formalism. As $`ϵ=\varphi _{2,1}`$, the calculation is parallel to the case of the spin two point function. From the charge neutrality condition we find that non-vanishing correlators arise from the states $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|`$ and $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{3,1})|`$. However, as none of the boundary states (146) - (151) contain $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{3,1})|`$, only $`{}_{U}{}^{}B(\alpha _{1,1})|`$ gives non-trivial contribution to the correlation function. Hence, the energy two point function does not depend on boundary conditions. After a simple calculation we find, on the half plane,

$`ϵ(w_1,\overline{w}_1)ϵ(w_2,\overline{w}_2)_{\stackrel{~}{I},\stackrel{~}{ϵ},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}`$ (174)
$`=`$ $`𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{(w_1\overline{w}_1)(\overline{w}_2w_2)}{(w_1w_2)(\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2)(w_1\overline{w}_2)(\overline{w}_1w_2)}}`$ (175)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/3)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)}}F(2,1/3,2/3;\eta ).`$ (176)
The normalisation constant $`𝒩`$ is determined as $`𝒩=\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/3)^2`$, by considering the off-boundary behaviour. The hypergeometric function turns out to be an algebraic function $`F(2,1/3,2/3;\eta )=1\eta +\eta ^2`$, and using the coordinates $`w_i=x_i+iy_i`$, $`\overline{w}_i=w_i^{}=x_iiy_i`$ ($`x_i`$, $`y_i`$), the correlation function (176) is written as

$`ϵ(x_1,y_1)ϵ(x_2,y_2)_{\stackrel{~}{I},\stackrel{~}{ϵ},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}`$ (177)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4y_1y_2}{[(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2][(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2]}}`$ (178)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4y_1y_2}}.`$ (179)
This agrees with the result in .

## V Summary

In this paper we have described a novel method to calculate correlation functions of two dimensional CFT on the disk and on the half plane. We have used the free-field construction of boundary states developed in , and derived boundary correlation functions for the boundary states classified by Cardy’s method. The key feature of our formalism is the neutrality of bulk and boundary charges, which associates the coefficients in Cardy’s boundary states directly with the linear combinations of conformal blocks. Thus we could unify the two important pieces of boundary CFT, namely, boundary correlation functions and consistent boundary states of Cardy, by using the Coulomb-gas picture. We have checked the formalism in the Ising model, and shown that our method reproduces the known results.

Cardy’s classification of boundary states has been generalised by Lewellen  and Pradisi, Sagnotti, Stanev beyond the diagonal models, and the Coulomb-gas technique is also known to be applicable to more general CFTs, such as WZNW models and CFTs with W-algebra . We therefore expect that the method discussed in this paper may be applied to such CFTs relatively easily. In particular, from a string theory point of view, application to WZNW theories seems to be quite fruitful since it would provide an alternative method to find correlation functions with D-branes on a group manifold. We shall discuss such issues in separate publications.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Dr. John Wheater for useful discussions and constant encouragement. I am also grateful to Prof. John Cardy, Dr. Matthias Gaberdiel and Dr. Ian Kogan for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Spacetime Structure of Massive Gravitinos

## 1 Introduction

This talk is adapted from our recent works . The goal is to review new insights into the spacetime properties of massive gravitinos. We examine the nature of the spinor-vector $`\psi ^\mu `$ that appears in supersymmetric theories as a fermionic gauge field, the so called gravitino, and show that its single-spin interpretation is unjustified. Rather, this particle represents itself as a multispin object. The presentation is organized as follows.

In the next Section we briefly outline the construction of the Dirac $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. Section 3 is devoted to the massive gravitino. There we show that the so called auxiliary conditions to the spinor-vector $`\psi ^\mu `$ are nothing but defining conditions for the subspace of $`\psi ^\mu `$ that carries the maximal spin of $`3/2^{}`$ in the rest frame. In particular, we derive an equation for $`\psi ^\mu \gamma _\mu `$ showing that the latter auxiliary condition is not arbitrary at all and can not be set equal to zero unconditionally. We suggest sets of such defining–“auxiliary”– conditions for each one of the spin-1/2- and spin-1/2+ rest-frame sectors of $`\psi ^\mu `$ and show that none of them is more or less physical than the other two. From that we derive the conclusion about the multi-spin character of the massive gravitino. The talk ends with a brief outlook.

## 2 Dirac’s $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ representation space

In this section we outline a general new procedure for obtaining the Dirac equation that relies on nothing more but the boost operators and a phase relationship between right and left handed Weyl spinors at rest. We begin with the rest-frame spinors and boost them using the following boosts

$`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})}=\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})},`$ (1)
with

$`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right),`$ (2)
$`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right).`$ (3)
In Eqs. (2) and (3) the boost parameter is defined as:

$`\mathrm{cosh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}},\mathrm{sinh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{m}},\widehat{𝝋}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}}.`$ (4)
The boosts take a particle at rest to a particle moving with momentum $`𝐩`$ in the “boosted frame.” We use the notation in which $`1_n`$ and $`0_n`$ represent $`n\times n`$ identity and null matrices, respectively. The remaining symbols carry their usual contextual meaning. We define the spin-$`1/2`$ helicity operator: $`𝚺=(𝝈/2)\widehat{𝐩},`$ where $`\widehat{𝐩}=𝐩/|𝐩|`$, and $`𝐩=|𝐩|(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))`$. Its positive and negative helicity states are:

$`h^+=N\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
$`h^{}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\\ \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
The rest-frame $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinors are then chosen to be:

$`u_{+1/2}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}h^+\\ h^+\end{array}\right),u_{1/2}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}h^{}\\ h^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (15)
$`v_{+1/2}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}h^+\\ h^+\end{array}\right),v_{1/2}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}h^{}\\ h^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
The choice of the phases made in writing down these spinors has been determined by the demand of parity covariance . The boosted spinors, $`u_{\pm 1/2}(𝐩)`$ and $`v_{\pm 1/2}(𝐩)`$ are obtained by applying the boost operator $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ to the above spinors, yielding:

$`u_{+1/2}(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2m(m+E)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (25)
$`u_{1/2}(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2m(m+E)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (30)
$`v_{+1/2}(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2m(m+E)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
$`v_{1/2}(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2m(m+E)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)(m+|𝐩|+E)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right).`$ (40)
These satisfy the orthonormality and completeness relations (in standard notation):

$`\overline{u}_h(𝐩)u_h^{}(𝐩)=+2N^2\delta _{hh^{}},\overline{v}_h(𝐩)v_h^{}(𝐩)=2N^2\delta _{hh^{}},`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}u_h(𝐩)\overline{u}_h(𝐩){\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}v_h(𝐩)\overline{v}_h(𝐩)\right]=1_4.`$ (42)
In order to obtain the wave equation satisfied by the $`u_h(𝐩)`$ and $`v_h(𝐩)`$ spinors we first note that 111This part of the calculation is best done if one starts with the momenta in the Cartesian co-ordinates, and takes the “axis of spin quantization” to be the z-axis.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}u_h(𝐩)\overline{u}_h(𝐩)+{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}v_h(𝐩)\overline{v}_h(𝐩)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu p^\mu }{m}},`$ (43)
where we defined,

$`\gamma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& I_2\\ I_2& 0_2\end{array}\right),\gamma _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0_2\end{array}\right).`$ (48)
Adding/subtracting Eqs. (42) and (43), yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}u_h(𝐩)\overline{u}_h(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu p^\mu +m1_4}{2m}},`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}v_h(𝐩)\overline{v}_h(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu p^\mu m1_4}{2m}},`$ (50)
respectively. Multiplying Eq. (49) from the right by $`u_h^{}(𝐩)`$, and Eq. (50) by $`v_h^{}(𝐩)`$, and using Eqs. (41), immediately yields the well known momentum-space Dirac equation for the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space,

$`\left(\gamma _\mu p^\mu \pm m1_4\right)\psi _h(𝐩)=0.`$ (51)
In Eq. (51), the minus sign is to be taken for, $`\psi _h(𝐩)=u_h(𝐩)`$, and the plus sign for, $`\psi _h(𝐩)=v_h(𝐩)`$. The essential element to note in regard to the derivation of Eq. (51) is that it follows directly from the explicit expressions for the $`u_h(𝐩)`$ and $`v_h(𝐩)`$.

## 3 Spacetime properties of massive gravitino

A massive gravitino is described by $`\psi ^\mu `$. As far as its spacetime properties are concerned, it transforms as a finite dimensional non-unitary representation of the Lorentz group,

$`\psi ^\mu :\underset{\text{Spinor}\text{Sector}}{\underset{}{\left[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},0)(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right]}}\underset{\text{Vector}\text{Sector}}{\underset{}{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})}}.`$ (52)
The unitarily transforming physical states are built upon this structure .

We enumerate two circumstances that motivate us to take an ab initio look at this representation space.

1. For the vector sector, it has recently been called to attention that the Proca description of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space is incomplete . An ab initio construction of this sector reveals that the Stückelberg contribution to the propagator, so important for the renormalization of the gauge theories with massive bosons , is found to naturally reside in the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space.
2. At the same time, the properties of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$, along with that of the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$, representation space determine the structure of $`\psi ^\mu `$. In order to impose a single-spin, i.e., spin $`3/2`$, interpretation on the latter, the lower spin-$`1/2^+`$ and spin-$`1/2^{}`$ components of $`\psi ^\mu `$ are considered as redundant, unphysical, states that are claimed to be excluded from consideration by means of the two supplementary conditions: $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (x)=0`$, and $`_\mu \psi ^\mu (x)=0`$, respectively. However, this time-honored framework was questioned by a recent empirical observation regarding the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances . The available data on high-spin resonances reveal an unexpected and systematic clustering in terms of the $`(j/2,j/2)[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)]`$ representations with $`j=1,3`$ and $`5`$ without imposition of the supplementary conditions. For the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances these results are summarized in Figure 1. For example, in the standard theoretical framework $`N(1440)`$, $`N(1535)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1620)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1750)`$ should have been absent. Experimental data shows them to be present at statistically significant level.222The $`N(1440)`$, $`N(1535)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1620)`$ carry four star status, while at present $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1750)`$ simply has a one star significance .

In regard to the latter of the two enumerated circumstances, we take the position that any solution of the QCD Lagrangian for particle resonances must carry well-defined transformation properties when looked upon from different inertial frames. This forces these resonances to belong to one, or the other, of various representation spaces of the Lorentz group. For this reason the data on particle resonances may furnish hints on physical interpretation of various Lorentz group representations that one needs in gauge theories, or theories of supergravity.

For exploring the spacetime structure of massive gravitinos the charge conjugation properties play an important role. Under the operation of charge conjugation, one may choose the spinor sector to behave as a Dirac object, and implement the Majorana nature of the massive gravitino at the level of the Fock space. This is standard, see, e.g., Ref. . Or, from the very beginning choose the spinor sector to behave as a Majorana object. Since we wish to stress certain non-trivial aspects of massive gravitino that do not – at least qualitatively – depend on this choice, we shall here treat the spinor sector to be of Dirac type.

Very nature of our ab initio look at the representation space defined in Eq. (52), obliges us to present sufficient pedagogic details so that by the end of the lecture much that is needed to form an opinion on the arrived results is readily available. At the same time, length constraints of this manuscript would prevent us from delving into subtle details which are, for present, of secondary importance (but have been studied and are planned to be presented elsewhere).

We shall work in the momentum space. The notation will be essentially that introduced in Ref. .

### 3.1 $`(1/2,1/2)`$ Representation space – An ab initio construct

We have constructed in Section 2 the spinorial sector entering $`\psi ^\mu `$ in Eq. (52). Therefore, our next task is to construct the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space. As such, now we introduce the rest-frame vectors for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space,

$`\xi _1(\mathrm{𝟎})=h^+h^+,`$ (53)
$`\xi _2(\mathrm{𝟎})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(h^+h^{}+h^{}h^+\right),`$ (54)
$`\xi _3(\mathrm{𝟎})=h^{}h^{},`$ (55)
$`\xi _4(\mathrm{𝟎})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(h^+h^{}h^{}h^+\right).`$ (56)
The boosted vectors are thus: $`\xi _\zeta (𝐩)=\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}\xi _\zeta (\mathrm{𝟎}),\zeta =1,2,3,4,`$

$`\xi _1(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ 2\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (61)
$`\xi _2(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )E\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \left(|𝐩|+E\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right)\\ |𝐩|E\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )E\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\end{array}\right),`$ (66)
$`\xi _3(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ 2\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (71)
$`\xi _4(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )|𝐩|\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \left(E+|𝐩|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right)\\ E|𝐩|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )|𝐩|\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\end{array}\right).`$ (76)
Here $`\kappa ^{(1/2,1/2)}=\kappa ^{(1/2,0)}\kappa ^{(0,1/2)}`$.

In the notation of Ref. ,333In the cited work we presented the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space in its parity realization. Here, the presentation is in terms of helicity realization. The two descriptions have mathematically similar but physically distinct structures, which, e.g., show up in their different behavior under the operation of Parity. these satisfy the orthonormality and completeness relations, along with a new wave equation. The orthonormality and completeness relations are:

$`\overline{\xi }_\zeta (𝐩)\xi _\zeta ^{}(𝐩)=N^4\delta _{\zeta \zeta ^{}},\zeta =1,2,3,`$
$`\overline{\xi }_\zeta (𝐩)\xi _\zeta ^{}(𝐩)=+N^4\delta _{\zeta \zeta ^{}},\zeta =4,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^4}}\left[\xi _4(𝐩)\overline{\xi }_4(𝐩){\displaystyle \underset{\zeta =1,2,3}{}}\xi _\zeta (𝐩)\overline{\xi }_\zeta (𝐩)\right]=1_4,`$ (77)
where

$`\overline{\xi }_\zeta (𝐩)\xi _\zeta (𝐩)^{}\lambda _{00},`$ (78)
with

$`\lambda _{00}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (83)
The parity operator for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space is:

$`𝒫=\lambda _{00}\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha ],`$ $`:\{\theta \pi \theta ,\varphi \pi +\varphi \}`$ (84)
$`\alpha =\text{a real number},`$
while the helicity operator for this space is, $`𝐉\widehat{𝐩}`$, with $`𝐉`$ given by:

$`J_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`J_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& i& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (98)
$`J_z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$
We now must take a small definitional detour towards the notion of the dragged Casimirs for spacetime symmetries. It arises in the following fashion. The second Casimir operator, $`C_2`$, of the Poincaré group is defined as the square of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector:

$`𝒲^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }M_{\nu \rho }P_\sigma ,`$ (99)
where $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the standard Levi-Civita symbol in four dimensions, while $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ denote generators of the Lorentz group,

$`M_{0i}=K_i,M_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}J^k,`$ (100)
where each of the $`i,j,k`$ runs over $`1,2,3`$. The $`P_\mu `$ are generators of the spacetime translations. In general, these have non-vanishing commutators with $`M_{\mu \nu }`$,

$`[P_\mu ,M_{\rho \sigma }]=i\left(\eta _{\mu \rho }P_\sigma \eta _{\mu \sigma }P_\rho \right).`$ (101)
On using Eq. (101), we rewrite $`C_2`$ as

$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \lambda \kappa \zeta }M_{\nu \rho }M^{\lambda \kappa }P_\sigma P^\zeta `$ (102)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \lambda \kappa \zeta }M_{\nu \rho }\eta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }P^\kappa P^\zeta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \kappa \lambda \zeta }M_{\nu \rho }\eta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\kappa }P^\lambda P^\zeta \right].`$
The squared bracket vanishes due to antisymmetry of the Levi-Civita symbol. As such, the space-time translation operators entering the definition of $`C_2`$ can be moved to the very right. This observation allows for introducing the dragged Casimir $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ as an operator with the same form as $`C_2`$ – the difference being that the commutator in Eq. (101) is now set to zero \[as is appropriate for finite dimensional $`SU_R(2)SU_L(2)`$ representations\]. Consequently, while $`C_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ carry same invariant eigenvalues when acting upon momentum eigenstates, their commutators with the Lorentz group generators are no longer identical.444To avoid confusion, note that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ is defined in the $`SU_R(2)SU_L(2)`$; while $`C_2`$ is defined in the Poincaré group. For the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space, $`[\stackrel{~}{C_2},𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}]`$ vanishes. For the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space, $`[\stackrel{~}{C_2},𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}]`$ does not vanish (except when acting upon rest states), and equals $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}iE𝐏𝐊`$. This leads to the fact that while the former representation space is endowed with a well-defined spin, the latter is not:

> As an immediate application, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space bifurcates this space into two sectors. The three states $`\xi _\zeta (𝐩)`$ with $`\zeta =1,2,3`$ are associated with the $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ eigenvalue, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m^2`$; while the, $`\zeta =4`$, corresponds to eigenvalue zero.
>
> Thus, all the $`\xi _\zeta (𝐩)`$, except for the rest frame, cease to be eigenstates of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$’s $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and do not carry definite spins. This contrasts with the situation for the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space, where the $`\psi _h(𝐩)`$ are eigenstates of the corresponding $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$.

Now in order that the $`\xi _\zeta (𝐩)`$ carry the standard contravariant Lorentz index, we introduce a rotation in the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space via :

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& i& i& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (107)
Then, the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space is spanned by four Lorentz vectors:

$`𝒜_\zeta ^\mu (𝐩)=S^{\mu \alpha }\left[\xi _\zeta (𝐩)\right]_\alpha ,\zeta =1,2,3,4,`$ (108)
and the superscript $`\mu `$ is the standard Lorentz index. Note that the $`𝒲^\mu `$’s by themselves are $`4\times 4`$ matrices in Lorentz index space, i.e. $`𝒲_{\nu \eta }^\mu `$. Following the procedure established in Sec. II, they can be shown to satisfy a new wave equation ,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu \pm m^2I_4\right)𝒜_\zeta (𝐩)=0,`$ (109)
where the plus sign is to be taken for, $`\zeta =1,2,3`$, while the minus sign belongs to, $`\zeta =4`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ matrices are: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{33}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{01}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{02}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{03}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (122)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (131)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (136)
The remaining $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ are obtained from the above expressions by noting: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu \mu }`$. Parenthetically, we note that the S-transformed $`\lambda _{00}`$ equals $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}`$ and is nothing but the standard spacetime metric (for flat spacetime).

The massive (1/2,1/2) propagators that follow from the completeness relation within the (1/2,1/2) representation space in Eq. (77) read (in the notations of Eq. (108))

$`[𝒜_4(\stackrel{}{p})\overline{𝒜}_4(\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}]_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}},`$ (137)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}[𝒜_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\overline{𝒜}_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}]_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}}.`$ (138)
One immediately realizes that the massive (1/2,1/2) propagator contains both the Stückelberg (137) and the Proca (138) terms .

This feature of the completeness relation within the (1/2,1/2) representation space appears quite appealing to us as it leads to a well behaved propagator of a massive gauge boson as arising in a spontaneously broken local gauge theory. Within the context of the scenario presented above, the Proca sector is characterized by vanishing of $`p^\mu 𝒜_\mu =0`$, while the Stückelberg sector is characterized by vanishing of $`p^\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\mu =0`$ (see Table I).

It can also be seen that $`\xi _\zeta (𝐩)`$, for $`\zeta =1,2,3`$, coincide with the solutions of Proca framework (and are divergence-less); whereas $`\xi _4(𝐩)`$, that gives the Stückelberg contribution to the propagator, lies outside the Proca framework:555We define the dragged Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲_\mu }`$, in a manner parallel to the introduction of the dragged second Casimir operator.

| $`\zeta `$ | $`p_\mu 𝒜^\mu \left(𝐩\right)`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲_\mu }^{(1/2,1/2)}𝒜^\mu \left(𝐩\right)`$ | $`\lambda _\tau `$ | Remarks |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1,2,3`$ | $`=0`$ | $`0`$ | $`2`$ | Proca Sector |
| $`4`$ | $`0`$ | $`=0`$ | $`0`$ | Stückelberg Sector |

In the above table we have introduced the $`\lambda _\tau `$ via the equation:

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{(1/2,1/2)}𝒜(𝐩)=\lambda _\tau m^2𝒜(𝐩).`$ (139)
### 3.2 Construction of spinor vector: Massive gravitino

We now wish to present the basis vectors for the representation space defined by Eq. (52) in a language which is widely used . This would allow the present analysis to be more readily available, and also bring out the relevant similarities and differences with the framework of Rarita and Schwinger .

In writing down the basis spinor-vectors, we will use the fact that in the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space the charge conjugation is implemented by

$`𝒞^{(1/2,1/2)}:𝒜(𝐩)\left[𝒜(𝐩)\right]^{}.`$ (140)
In the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space the charge conjugation operator is $`𝒞^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}:i\gamma ^2K,`$ where $`K`$ complex conjugates the spinor to its right. Then, we obtain:

$`𝒞^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}:\{\begin{array}{c}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)v_{1/2}(𝐩),u_{1/2}(𝐩)v_{+1/2}(𝐩),\hfill \\ v_{+1/2}(𝐩)u_{1/2}(𝐩),v_{1/2}(𝐩)u_{+1/2}(𝐩).\hfill \end{array}`$ (143)
In the spirit outlined, the massive gravitino lives in a space spanned by sixteen spinor-vectors defined in items A, B, C below:

1. Of these, eight spinor-vectors have $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ – but not $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ – eigenvalues, $`\frac{15}{4}m^2`$. These can be further subdivided into particle,

$`\psi _a^\mu (𝐩):\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _1^\mu (𝐩)=u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _2^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _3^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)+\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _4^\mu (𝐩)=u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$
and antiparticle sectors:

$`[\psi _a^\mu (𝐩)]^𝒞:\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _5^\mu (𝐩)=v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _6^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}v_{+1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _7^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}v_{+1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _8^\mu (𝐩)=v_{+1/2}(𝐩)[𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)]^{}\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$
Here, $`[\psi _\tau ^\mu (𝐩)]^𝒞=𝒞^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}𝒞^{(1/2,1/2)}\psi _\tau ^\mu (𝐩)`$, $`\tau =a,b,c`$.
2. Four spinor-vectors have $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ – but not $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ – eigenvalues, $`\frac{3}{4}m^2`$:

$`\psi _b^\mu (𝐩):\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _9^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _{10}^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`[\psi _b^\mu (𝐩)]^𝒞:\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _{11}^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}v_{+1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_1^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _{12}^\mu (𝐩)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}v_{+1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_2^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_3^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$
3. Another set of four spinor-vectors with $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ – but not $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ – eigenvalues, $`\frac{3}{4}m^2`$:

$`\psi _c^\mu (𝐩):\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _{13}^\mu (𝐩)=u_{+1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_4^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _{14}^\mu (𝐩)=u_{1/2}(𝐩)𝒜_4^\mu (𝐩)\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`[\psi _c^\mu 𝐩]^𝒞:\{\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _{15}^\mu (𝐩)=v_{1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_4^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ & \psi _{16}^\mu (𝐩)=v_{+1/2}(𝐩)\left[𝒜_4^\mu (𝐩)\right]^{}\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$

We have evaluated $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$, $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\mu ^{(1/2,1/2)}\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$, for all of the above sixteen spinor vectors. The $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$, when transformed to the configuration space, tests the divergence of $`\psi ^\mu (x)`$.

For $`\eta =1,4,5,8`$, $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ identically vanishes. Requiring it to vanish for $`\eta =2,3,6,7`$ results in $`E^2=|𝐩|^2+m^2`$.

The $`\tau =b,c`$ sectors, if (wrongly) imposed with the vanishing of, $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ and $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$, results in kinematically acausal dispersion relation (i.e., in $`E^2|𝐩|^2+m^2`$). This could be the source of the well-known problems of the Rarita-Schwinger framework as noted in works of Johnson and Sudarshan , and those of Velo and Zwanziger . In this context one may wish to recall that interactions can induce transitions between different $`\tau `$ sectors.

The analysis for all the $`\tau `$ sectors of the $`\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ can be summarized in the following table:

| $`\tau `$ | $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ | $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\mu ^{(1/2,1/2)}\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ | $`\lambda _\tau `$ | $`\beta _\tau `$ | $`\alpha _\tau `$ | Remarks |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a`$ | $`=0`$ | $`=0`$ | $`0`$ | $`15/4`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ | Rarita-Schwinger Sector |
| $`b`$ | $`=0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`3/4`$ | $`2`$ | $`2`$ |  |
| $`c`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`=0`$ | $`3/4`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |  |

The table clearly illustrates that there is no particular reason – except (the unjustified) insistence that each particle of nature be associated with a definite spin – to favor one $`\tau `$ sector over the other. Each of the $`\tau `$ sectors is endowed with specific properties. The Rarita-Schwinger sector has no more, or no less, physical significance than the other two sectors. While, for instance, the Rarita-Schwinger sector can be characterized by vanishing of the $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ and $`\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$; the $`\tau =c`$ sector is uniquely characterized by vanishing of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒲}_\mu ^{(1/2,1/2)}\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$. The $`\tau =b`$ sector allows for vanishing of $`p_\mu \psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ only.

Except for the rest frame, the $`\psi _\tau ^\mu (𝐩)`$, in general, are not eigenstates of the $`𝐉^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for representation space (52). Instead, the three $`\tau `$ sectors of the representation space under consideration correspond to the following inertial-frame independent values of the associated dragged second Casimir invariant:

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}\psi _\tau (𝐩)=m^2\lambda _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩).`$ (144)
Note that the latter equation is a matrix equation in the Lorentz index space. For this reason the index $`\mu `$ of the spinor-vector does not show up. Yet, $`\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ is still the vector spinor and should not be confused with an ordinary Dirac spinor. Also there is no summation over the index $`W^2`$-sector index $`\tau `$. In fact, the defining Eq. (144) of the various $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}`$ sectors of $`\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ translates into an equation for $`\gamma _\mu \psi _\tau ^\mu (𝐩)`$. To establish it, we note that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}`$ is given as the squared sum of the (dragged) Pauli-Lubanski pseudovectors $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}`$. In other words, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}\psi _\tau (𝐩)=\left(\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}+\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}\right)^2\psi _\tau (𝐩).$$
(145)
The action of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}`$ upon $`\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ (with $`\tau =a,b,c`$) takes the form

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`((\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}+\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{(1/2,1/2)}`$ (146)
$`+`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{W}_\beta ^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}\stackrel{~}{W}^\beta {}_{}{}^{(1/2,1/2)})\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1\right)m^2\beta _\tau m^2\alpha _\tau \right)\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$
$`=`$ $`m^2\lambda _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩),\beta _\tau =0,2.`$
The latter equation shows that the values of $`\alpha _\tau `$ and $`\beta _\tau `$, which in turn determine the eigenvalues of $`2\stackrel{~}{W}^\beta {}_{}{}^{(1/2,1/2)}\stackrel{~}{W}_{\beta }^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{(1/2,1/2)}`$ with respect to $`\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ are well suited to label the various $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)](1/2,1/2)}`$ sectors. Indeed, one can replace Eq. (144) by

$`2\stackrel{~}{W}^\beta {}_{}{}^{(1/2,1/2)}\stackrel{~}{W}_{\beta }^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩),`$ (147)
$`\alpha _\tau =\lambda _\tau \beta _\tau {\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}.`$
Insertion of the explicit expression for $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,0)(0,1/2)}`$ into (147) and usage of the Dirac equation leads to

$`2\stackrel{~}{W}_\nu ^{(1/2,1/2)}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _5[p/,\gamma ^\nu ]_{})\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_\nu ^{(1/2,1/2)}\gamma _5(p/\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\nu p/)\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`2m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_\nu ^{(1/2,1/2)}\gamma _5(2g^{\alpha \nu }p_\lambda 2\gamma ^\nu p/)\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`2m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}p\gamma _5\psi _\tau (𝐩)+\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}\gamma \gamma _5m\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩)`$
$`\left(\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}p+\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}\gamma \right)\gamma _5m\psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\alpha _\tau \psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ (148)
In taking Lorentz contraction of both sides of the last equation with $`\gamma ^ϵ`$ and in accounting for $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{(1/2,1/2)}p=0`$, one arrives at the following equation for the $`\gamma \psi _\tau (𝐩)`$ spinor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\alpha _\tau }}\gamma ^ϵ\left(\stackrel{~}{W}_{ϵ\eta }^{(1/2,1/2)}\gamma \gamma _5\right)\psi _\tau ^\eta (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \psi _\tau (𝐩).`$ (149)
The non-relativistic counterpart of Eq. (149) reads

$$(1+\frac{2}{\alpha _\tau })𝝈\psi _\tau (\mathrm{𝟎})=0.$$
(150)
For $`\alpha _a=1`$ one finds $`𝝈\psi _a(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ (corresponding to $`\gamma \psi _a=0`$) while for $`\alpha _b=2`$, where the numerical factor in (150) vanishes, one encounters $`𝝈\psi _b(\mathrm{𝟎})0`$ (corresponding to $`\gamma \psi _b0`$). In our opinion, the troubles with the supplementaary conditions in the Rarita-Schwinger framework is that after gauging, the full equation (149) does not reduce any longer to $`\gamma \psi (𝐩)`$.

For each one of the $`\tau `$ sectors, the $`\lambda _\tau `$, $`\beta _\tau `$, and $`\alpha _\tau `$ are given in the table above. Stated differently, the boosted $`\tau =b,c`$ sectors do not carry spin one half. Similarly, the, $`\tau =a`$, sector is not a spin three half sector. The consequence is that the boosted $`\tau =b,c`$ sector, in particular, should not be treated as a Dirac representation space. The correct wave equation for $`\psi ^\mu (𝐩)`$ is:

$`\left[\left(\gamma _\mu p^\mu \pm mI_4\right)\right]\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu \pm m^2I_4\right)_{\eta ϵ}\psi ^ϵ(𝐩)=0.`$ (151)
In the standard Rarita-Schwinger framework $`_\mu \psi ^\mu (x)`$ and $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (x)`$ do indeed behave as Dirac spinors, and do indeed satisfy the Dirac equation. However, they are not identical to the $`\tau =b,c`$ sectors (which do not carry a characterization in terms of spin one half). If one (mistakenly) makes this identification, and sets $`_\mu \psi ^\mu (x)`$ and $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi ^\mu (x)`$ to zero, one introduces an element of kinematic acausality. The covariant quantum numbers that are appropriate for labeling the basis vectors of the spinor-vector (and consequently for carrying out the quantization procedure) are

$`|\lambda _\tau \beta _\tau h,`$ (152)
where $`h`$ is the eigenvalue of the helicity ($`𝐉\widehat{𝐩}`$ ) operator in the $`\tau `$ sector under consideration.

### 3.3 Interpretation of the massive gravitino as a particle of multiple spin

If one is to respect the mathematical completeness of the spinor-vector representation space associated with $`\psi ^\mu (x)`$, the Rarita-Schwinger framework cannot be considered to describe the full physical content of the representation space associated with a massive gravitino. This circumstance is akin to Dirac’s observation that a part of a representation space \[which would have violated the completeness of the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$\] cannot be “projected out” without introducing certain mathematical inconsistencies, and loosing its physical content (i.e. antiparticles, or particles). Further, the same qualitative remarks apply to the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space when in the Proca framework one only confines to the divergence-less vectors. The “projecting out” of the divergence-full vector, throws away the Stückelberg contribution to the propagator, and in addition leaves the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space mathematically incomplete. Now, we suggest that for the representation space defined by Eq. (52), one needs to consider all three $`\tau `$ sectors of $`\psi ^\mu (x)`$ as physical, and necessary for its mathematical consistency. The suggested framework already carries consistency with the known data on the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances, and asks that massive gravitino be considered as an object that is better described by the eigenvalues of the dragged second Casimir operator. In its rest frame it is endowed with a spin three half, and two spin half, components. A spin measurement for unpolarized ensemble of massive gravitinos at rest would yield the results $`3/2`$ with probability one half, and $`1/2`$ with probability one half. The latter probability is distributed uniformly, i.e. as one quarter, over each of the, $`\tau =b`$, and, $`\tau =c`$, sectors.

## 4  Outlook

The systematic and self-contained description of the spacetime structure of fundamental particles presented in this talk calls for a more detailed analysis of the consequences of the multi-spin character of the massive gravitino for the renormalizability of supergravity and the phenomenology of the early universe. We also conjectured in  that gauge bosons of a quantum theory of gravity shall have a well pronounced multi-spin character. In particular, the above considerations suggest that a natural extension of this work to finite-range gravity shall endow the graviton with spins 0, 1, and 2 components, a possibility that has been partly entertained only very recently in .

## Acknowledgments

Work supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT, Mexico) under grant number 32067-E. The organizers of Beyond02 deserve special thanks for having created that pervading friendly atmosphere which makes scientific events so stimulating.

## References