text:
# String bits in small radius AdS and weakly coupled 𝒩=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory: I

## 1 Introduction

The connection between $`4`$-dim. gauge theories and string theory is an idea with a long history that goes back to attempts to discover strings and string dynamics in gauge theories. A part of this history, in connection with the 1/N expansion, can be found in . See also . The hope underlying such attempts was to guarantee consistent string dynamics in the context of a theory in 4 spacetime dimensions rather than in 10 or 26 spacetime dimensions. The main motivation for finding a description of gauge theories in terms of a string theory was to solve the problem of quark confinement. This problem remains unsolved even today. For a semi-popular account of this problem see .

It took more than two decades to arrive at a precise formulation of this idea in the form of the AdS/CFT correspondence proposed by Maldacena . The most studied case of this correspondence is the duality between $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in 4-dimensions and type IIB string theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5. The clue came from the seemingly unrelated problem of understanding thermal properties of a class of black holes in terms of D-branes111see  for a recent review of this subject..

The AdS/CFT correspondence has been precisely formulated in the limit when the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N`$ is large . On the AdS side this means that $`R^2=\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\lambda }`$ is large and the dual type IIB string theory is approximated by supergravity. A correspondence between local gauge-invariant operators of the gauge theory and local supergravity fields has been extensively discussed in the literature . Besides the local operators, the correspondence has also been studied for gauge-invariant Wilson loop operators . Here one is aided by the fact that $`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N`$ is precisely the semi-classical expansion parameter for the loop equations.

In this paper we study AdS/CFT correspondence in the opposite limit viz. $`\lambda 0`$. In this limit the gauge theory can be analyzed perturbatively but the string theory is more difficult and the standard semi-classical expansion of strings when $`R^2=\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\lambda }`$ is large, breaks down. The problem is conceptually similar to the treatment of gauge theories on the lattice  where the gluon picture breaks down at strong coupling. The zeroth order solution of the lattice gauge theory is obtained by exactly diagonalizing the kinetic (square of the electric field) term of the Hamiltonian. Gauge invariance (Gauss’ law) then connects the individual string bits on the links of the lattice into long strings which can connect charged sources. The potential energy (magnetic term) is treated perturbatively and it corrects the energy and wave function of the string state of the zeroth order Hamiltonian .

We adopt a similar method, for the strongly coupled world sheet string theory, when $`\lambda 0`$. We assume that $`N`$ is large enough so that string loops are suppressed and the first quantized picture is an adequate starting point. We work in the light cone gauge which leaves only global reparametrizations of the string as a residual symmetry. We consider the parameter space of the gauge-fixedstring as a discrete lattice consisting of $`M`$ string bits. At $`\lambda =0`$, the string bits are non-interacting. On each bit we have a Hilbert space which turns out to consist of the states of a super-particle in AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. The total wave function of the string is a cyclically symmetric direct product of states carried by the bits. We explicitly present these states.

Bit strings have been discussed earlier in the context of strings in flat space and more recently in the pp-wave background . A problem similar to the one treated here is that of bosonic strings in AdS5 in the small radius limit, which has been addressed in , using somewhat different methods. A sensible perturbative treatment is unlikely to exist in this case since fermionic contributions turn out to be crucial to give finite results in our calculations. The idea of string bits has also appeared in ’t Hooft’s paper  on planar diagrams.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section we will review the quantization of Green-Schwarz world-sheet type IIB string theory in the light-cone gauge. This gauge-fixing uses Poincare co-ordinates. In section 3 we will discuss a limit of this theory in which the AdS radius vanishes. In this limit the theory reduces to a system of non-interacting bits. We make this more explicit by introducing discrete bits of string. Each bit behaves like a superparticle moving in the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5 background, carrying “appropriate representations” of the superconformal group222In the light cone gauge, some of the generators of the superconformal algebra, which involve $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$, the non-zero mode of $`x^{}`$, do not have well-defined action on a single bit and one needs to consider at least two bits to define their action. A single bit carries a representation of the superconformal algebra only in the naive sense that $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$, which is defined in terms of gradients of the independent coordinates or momenta, is taken to be zero by fiat. We will discuss the action of these generators on multi-bit states in Appendix D.. In the light-cone gauge, the operator that gives evolution in light-cone time has continuous eigenvalues. This basis is not convenient for comparison with the gauge theory at the boundary. For this purpose, it is desirable to work with the basis frequently used in describing the UIR’s of the superconformal group PSU$`(2,2|4)`$. We identify the operators in the light-cone gauge which have this basis as eigenstates333 One can encounter continuous or discrete eigenvalues in a given physical system depending on which operator is being diagonalized, e.g. in the case of the two-dimensional rotor we have continuous eigenvalues of linear momentum but discrete eigenvalues of angular momentum.. In section 4 we discuss the states of a single bit in such a basis. In section 5 we discuss corrections to the multi-bit spectrum due to a small but non-vanishing value of the AdS radius. A non-vanishing value of the radius introduces bit-bit interactions which modifies the spectrum. We compute the leading order corrections to the simplest, but potentially the most singular, multi-bit states. We find that potential divergences from the boundary $`z=0`$ cancel between fermionic and bosonic contributions, leaving only finite corrections to the anomalous dimensions. In section 6 we make preliminary attempts at constructing string states out of multi-bit states. There are difficulties in doing this, which we discuss in this section. A naive continuum limit, which is arranged so as to give finite energy states, seems to be in conflict with unitarity bounds444We thank Shiraz Minwalla for discussions on this point. on the representations of the superconformal group. This motivates us to consider the alternative possibility that discretization is essential. In this case one must include string states made of varying number of bits. This is because splitting and joining of strings with a given number of bits will produce strings with lower as well as higher number of bits. However, we find that the string spectrum made this way does not agree with that of the gauge theory operators. We discuss this in this detail in this section. We end with some discussion and concluding remarks in section 7. Appendix A contains the continuum expressions for superconformal generators as realized in our string theory, and Appendix B the discrete version. Appendix C contains details of perturbation calculation and the cancellation of divergences. Appendix D contains a discussion on stringy features of the superconformal generators and their action on multi-bit states.

In this paper, we will work in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit and ignore string-string interactions.

## 2 Type IIB strings in AdS background in the light-cone gauge

In this section we will review type IIB Green-Schwarz superstring in the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5 background geometry in the light-cone gauge . This will also serve to set our notations and conventions. We will use Poincare co-ordinates since the discussion of light-cone gauge fixing is simplest in these co-ordinates. Also, in these co-ordinates comparison with the boundary gauge theory is the most direct. We will not address global issues arising out of the use of a Poincare patch in the present work.

The AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5 metric in Poincare co-ordinates is

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}^2}{z^2}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^adz^a),`$ (1)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(,+,+,+)`$ is the Minkowski metric and the six co-ordinates $`z^a,a=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$ parametrize the S5 and the AdS “radial” direction. The transformation between the “Cartesian” $`z^a`$ and the more customary $`z,\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$ is given by

$$z^a=z𝚗^a,𝚗^a𝚗^a=1,$$

where the six-dimensional unit vector $`𝚗^a`$ represents $`S^5`$ angles $`\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$. The $`z0`$ limit is called the AdS boundary whereas $`z\mathrm{}`$ is called the Poincare horizon.

The AdS radius $`R`$ is related to the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$ and the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$ by the standard expression

$$\mathrm{R}^2=\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\lambda },\lambda =g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N$$
(2)
Note that in the world-sheet action the AdS radius $`R`$ naturally appears in the combination $`\mathrm{R}^2/\alpha ^{}=\sqrt{\lambda }`$. This is the effective tension of the string moving in AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5. For later convenience we introduce the parameter

$$\mathrm{T}=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{2\pi }$$
(3)
In addition to the bosonic co-ordinates, appearing in (1), the world-sheet superstring action has two left Majorana-Weyl spinors. In the light-cone gauge, the $`\kappa `$-symmetry of the Green-Schwarz action can be used to gauge away half of the fermionic degrees of freedom of each of these two spinors . The remaining $`16`$ physical fermionic degrees of freedom can be rearranged into two fundamental representations of the R-symmetry group SU$`(4)`$, $`\theta ^i,\eta ^i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ and their conjugates, $`\theta _i,\eta _i`$ . The $`\theta ^i`$ are related to the $`8`$ linear Poincare supersymmetries while the $`\eta ^i`$ are related to the $`8`$ non-linear “conformal” supersymmetries of the $`psu(2,2|4)`$ superconformal algebra. In fact, $`\theta `$ appears at most quadratically in the generators of this algebra, while there are also terms quartic in $`\eta `$ in these generators. These latter terms reflect the presence of curvature and the five form flux.

On the bosonic side, it turns out  that the usual light-cone gauge choice

$$x^+\frac{x^3+x^0}{\sqrt{2}}=p^+\tau ,$$

where $`\tau `$ is the world-sheet time co-ordinate, cannot be combined with a conformal gauge on the world-sheet metric since that is not consistent with equations of motion of the system. A modified gauge choice for the world-sheet metric, $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, which is consistent with the gauge choice on $`x^+`$, is

$$\sqrt{g}g^{\tau \tau }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}g^{\sigma \sigma }}=\frac{2\pi z^2}{\sqrt{\lambda }},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ is the world-sheet co-ordinate running along the string555This gauge choice is potentially singular near the boundary, $`z0`$. However, as we shall see later in this paper, physical quantities seem to be regular, so presumably this is just a gauge artifact. Note that $`\lambda 0`$ is not a problem since the Hamiltonian (5) is well-defined in this limit..

Before gauge fixing, the Green-Schwarz type IIB superstring moving in AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ S5 background manifestly has the global isometries of the supergroup PSU$`(2,2|4)`$. The choice of a light-cone gauge destroys manifest symmetry, but one can still derive expressions for the generators of the symmetry algebra in terms of the light-cone bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom of the superstring . For example, the “Hamiltonian” which generates evolution in the light-cone time variable $`x^+`$, and is one of the generators of the superalgebra $`psu(2,2|4)`$, is given by $`𝑑\sigma 𝒫^{}(\sigma )`$, where

$`𝒫^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}\left(2p^xp^{\overline{x}}_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}\left[l_j^il_i^j+4\eta _il_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\eta ^j+(\eta _i\eta ^i2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}^2}{2p^+z^4}}(2x^{}\overline{x}^{}+(z_a^{})^2)`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z^2p^+}}\eta ^i\rho _{ij}^a𝚗^a(\theta ^ji{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}}\eta ^jx^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z^2p^+}}\eta _i\rho _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{ij}𝚗^a(\theta _j^{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}}\eta _j\overline{x}^{}),`$
Here, T is given by (3). The notation is as in Appendix A, in particular $`l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}`$ is as in (50). In this appendix, for the convenience of the reader, we have also given the light-cone gauge expressions for the basic generators of $`psu(2,2|4)`$ algebra, together with their (anti)commutation relations. This algebra, and the light-cone gauge realization of it, will play a central role in what follows.

## 3 String bits and the limit of zero radius

We begin by noting that due to the gauge choice (4) the AdS radius R enters the expression in (5), through T, only in the terms that have $`\sigma `$-derivatives. This is, in fact, the case with all the generators666except for generators mentioned in footnote (2) on page 2 which we discuss in Appendix D., as can be seen from the expressions given in Appendix A. As a consequence of this, in the limit R $`0`$ all the $`\sigma `$-derivative terms disappear from these generators and they become pointwise local in $`\sigma `$. That is, the string “breaks up” into independent bits. Since the finite T terms are apparently singular at the boundary $`z0`$, one might worry whether it makes any sense to think of a non-zero radius in (5) as a perturbation. Later in this paper we will see by explicit calculations that perturbation expansion in T is finite. With this post facto justification, we will just go ahead with the naive zero radius limit.

To make the bit picture manifest, let us discretize $`\sigma `$ into a lattice of $`M`$ points with a lattice spacing $`ϵ=l/M`$, where $`l`$ is the total length of the string. As usual, we need to rescale continuum variables by powers of $`ϵ`$ to get the lattice variables. Thus, the fact that the total light cone momentum $`P^+=_0^l𝑑\sigma p_{\mathrm{cont}.}^+=lp_{\mathrm{cont}.}^+`$ must be equated to $`Mp_{\mathrm{latt}.}^+`$ implies that the momentum of each bit must be $`p_{\mathrm{latt}.}^+=ϵp_{cont.}^+`$. We will permit ourselves the abuse of notation $`p_{\mathrm{latt}.}^+=p^+`$ when we are discussing bit variables. Similarly, the momentum densities (at any point $`\sigma =nϵ`$ along the string) in the directions $`(x^i,z^a),i=1,2;a=1,\mathrm{},6,`$ are related to the discrete momenta of the $`n`$th bit by relations such as $`p_n^i=ϵp^i(\sigma )`$. This implies that (a) the total momenta reduce to simple sums, e.g. $`P^i=_1^Mp_n^i`$, and (b) since we should not rescale the $`x`$’s, so that the continuum canonical commutation relation, $`[x^i(\sigma ),p_j(\sigma ^{})]=i\delta _j^i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$, translates to the discrete expression $`[x_n^i,p_{m,j}]=i\delta _j^i\delta _{mn}`$, which is free of $`ϵ`$. Here we have used $`\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})=(1/ϵ)\delta _{mn}`$. A similar rescaling of the superpartners, $`\sqrt{ϵ}\theta \theta ,\sqrt{ϵ}\eta \eta `$ removes the lattice spacing from their anti-commutation relations. The above rescalings are summarized in (59).

In terms of these discrete bit variables, the T-independent part of the Hamiltonian, is given by

$$P_0^{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_n^{}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{1}{2p^+}\left(2p_n^xp_n^{\overline{x}}_{z_n}^2+\frac{1}{z_n^2}\left[(l_{n,j}^il_{n,i}^j)+4\eta _{n,i}l_{}^{i}{}_{n,j}{}^{}\eta _n^j+(\eta _{n,i}\eta _n^i2)^2\frac{1}{4}\right]\right)$$
(6)
The subscript on $`P_0^{}`$ denotes that T has been set to zero. We see that the lattice spacing has completely disappeared from the expression on the right hand side of (6). In fact, this continues to be so even when finite T parts are included. This property of the Hamiltonian is actually shared by all the generators of the superconformal algebra.

In the limit of vanishing AdS radius we thus see that the string “falls apart” into non-interacting discrete bits. The first step in the problem of solving for the spectrum of states of the free (i.e. $`\lambda =0`$) superstring then reduces to the problem of solving for the spectrum of a single string bit777Provided that generators which involve $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$, such as $`K^x`$, which a priori do not have any well-defined action on a single bit Hilbert space, act appropriately on these tensor product states. See footnote (2).. It is to this problem that we will now turn our attention. In Appendix B we have listed discretized expressions for all the generators, including the finite T parts. We have also listed there the canonical commutation relations satisfied by the bits. We will need these expressions in the discussions that follow.

## 4 States of a single bit

In thinking of the spectrum of states of a single bit, the first difficulty that we face is that the spectrum of the single-bit Hamiltonian $`p_n^{}`$ is continuous. Clearly the eigenstates of $`p_n^{}`$ are not a good starting point for building free superstring states since these states cannot be directly compared with the gauge-invariant operators of the boundary theory. This is because the latter have definite integer or half-integer dimensions in the limit of vanishing ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$. It is, however, easy to resolve this problem. The unitary irreducible representations (see, e.g.  of the global symmetry group SO$`(4,2)`$ of AdS5 are well-known to be labeled by three numbers corresponding to the representations of the maximal compact subgroup SO(2) $`\times `$ SO(4)= SO(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2). Here SO(2) denotes rotation in the $`(1,0)`$ directions (generated by $`S_{1,0}`$ of (29)) while SO(4) denotes rotation in the remaining four directions (see (29),(30) for notation). These quantum numbers are denoted as $`(E_0,J_1,J_2)`$ (, see also ), where $`E_0`$ physically means the energy, conjugate to time translations in global co-ordinates, and $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ denote the angular momentum representations associated with the two SU(2) factors in the SO(4). (see equations in section A.2 for more detail). Equations (53) and (54) express these generators in terms of the generators of the conformal algebra in $`(3+1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space. It turns out from these considerations (see Sec 2.2 of ) that the Euclidean dimension operator of the conformal algebra (equivalently the dimension in the boundary gauge theory) corresponds to $`E_0`$.

Clearly, the spectrum should be arranged in terms of simultaneous eigenfunctions of $`(E_0,J_1,J_2)`$, or equivalently, $`(H_+,H_{},J_1J_2)`$, where $`H_\pm E_0(J_1+J_2)`$ (on a suitable highest weight state, see (56)). The latter basis is particularly convenient because these operators have simple expressions in the light-cone frame, viz.

$`H_+=P^{}+K^+,H_{}=K^{}+P^+,J_1J_2=J^{x\overline{x}}.`$ (7)
Thus, we should find simultaneous eigenstates of these operators 888Similar operators have also been considered in . (and not of $`P^{}`$) in order to determine which UIR’s of SO$`(4,2)`$ appear. Representations of the full superalgebra, which includes additional bosonic generators (of the $`SU(4)`$ R-symmetry), are constructed in our case by acting on the abovementioned eigenstates with supersymmetry “raising operators” (57) (cf. ).

### 4.1 The spectrum of $`h_+`$

In this section we will determine the spectrum of the single-bit operator $`h_{+,n}`$ where

$$H_+=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}h_{+,n}$$
(8)
in the limit $`\lambda =0`$. In a later section we will determine the perturbative correction to the spectrum of $`H_+`$ at small $`\lambda `$. Since $`H_+=E_0(J_1+J_2)`$ on a highest weight state, as mentioned above, and since $`J_1J_2`$, being an integer or a half-integer, does not receive perturbative corrections, the perturbative correction to the spectrum of $`E_0`$ is the same as that of $`H_+`$. Henceforth, we will sometimes use the word “Hamiltonian” for the operator $`H_+`$.

We will see that it is easy to determine $`J^{x\overline{x}}`$ on the eigenfunctions of (8). In order to determine the triple $`(E_0,J_1,J_2)`$, we also need to evaluate $`H_{}`$; this is not easy because it involves $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ and is hence non-local even at $`\lambda =0`$. However, we will be able to measure $`H_{}`$ indirectly on states of our interest 999 We stress that $`J_1,J_2`$ are both (half-)integers and are immune from perturbative corrections. Since $`H_{}H_+=2(J_1+J_2)`$, it is enough to consider perturbative correction to $`H_+`$ which, as argued earlier, represents also the perturbative correction to $`E_0`$.

The expression for $`h_+`$, as defined in (8), can be obtained from the equations (62) and (67) given in Appendix B:

$$h_+=\frac{_x_{\overline{x}}}{p^+}+p^+x\overline{x}\frac{_z^2}{2p^+}+\frac{p^+}{2}z^2+\frac{1}{2p^+z^2}\left[(l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{})^2+4\eta _il_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\eta ^j+(\eta _i\eta ^i2)^2\frac{1}{4}\right]$$
(9)
Here and in the rest of this section we will drop the bit index $`n`$ from single bit operators to simplify the notation. Note that the fermionic terms in the above come entirely from the $`p^{}`$ part of $`h_+`$.

#### 4.1.1 States with no fermions= eight bosonic oscillators

To find the purely bosonic states, it is more instructive first to transform from the “polar coordinates” $`(z,𝚗_a)`$ used in (9), to “Cartesian coordinates” $`z_a=z𝚗_a,a=1,\mathrm{},6`$. The Hamiltonian appropriate to the Cartesian coordinates, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{h}_+`$, is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_+`$ $`=z^{5/2}h_+z^{5/2}`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{p^xp^{\overline{x}}}{p^+}}+p^+x\overline{x}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p^a)^2}{2p^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{2}}(z^a)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+z^2}}(4\eta _il_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\eta ^j+(\eta _i\eta ^i)^24\eta _i\eta ^i).`$
Here $`h_+`$ refers to (9). The eigenfunctions of (10), $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, are related to eigenfunctions $`\psi `$, by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=z^{5/2}\psi `$. Here $`p^x=i_{\overline{x}},p^{\overline{x}}=i_x,p^a=i/z_a`$.

On states that do not contain any fermions, the coefficient of $`1/z^2`$ in (10) vanishes. The rest of the terms represent eight harmonic oscillators corresponding to the eight transverse bosonic degrees of freedom of the light-cone gauge-fixed string. The spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_+`$ (hence of $`h_+`$) is obviously discrete (in fact, integer101010 Although each of the triple $`(E_0,J_1,J_2)`$ can be an integer or half integer, it turns out that $`H_+E_0(J_1+J_2)`$ is always an integer.), and is given by

$$E=\underset{\iota =1}{\overset{8}{}}(n_\iota +1/2),n_\iota =0,1,\mathrm{}$$
(11)
The length scale of the harmonic oscillators is set by $`p^+`$, e.g. $`x\overline{x}=(z^a)^2=1/p^+`$, although the spectrum is free of $`p^+`$. The creation and annihilation operators are defined in Appendix B (see (61)).

Note that the existence of the eight bosonic oscillators ties up with the fact that there are precisely eight fermionic oscillators $`\eta _i,\theta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, as we expect from supersymmetry.

#### 4.1.2 General wavefunctions

Let us now consider the more general case when fermionic degrees of freedom are excited. We will first write down the result.

The spectrum of $`h_+`$ ((9)) is given by (see footnote (10))

$$e_+=\alpha +2r+s+\overline{s}+2,\alpha ,r,s,\overline{s}𝐙$$
(12)
where the corresponding eigenfunction is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\eta |\theta \times \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l;s,\overline{s},r}^\alpha (x,\overline{x},z)\times |l$$
(13)
Here $`|\eta |\theta `$ denotes the part of the wavefunction involving fermionic coordinates. $`|\eta `$ is any polynomial in the four variables $`\eta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, understood as acting on the fermionic ground state $`|0`$. There are 16 such linearly independent polynomials: $`1,\eta _i,\eta _i\eta _j,\mathrm{},\eta _1\eta _2\eta _3\eta _4`$. Similarly $`|\theta `$ denotes any polynomial in $`\theta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$. Recall that $`\{\theta _i,\theta ^j\}=\{\eta _i,\eta ^j\}=\delta _i^j,\eta ^i|0=0=\theta ^i|0`$.

The various parts of the wavefunction depending on the bosonic coordinates are as follows.

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l;s,\overline{s},r}^\alpha (x,\overline{x},z):=h_{s,\overline{s}}(x,\overline{x})\psi _{p^+,r}^\alpha (z)$$
(14)
Here $`h_{s,\overline{s}}(x,\overline{x})`$ is the standard harmonic oscillator wavefunction of a pair of complex coordinates (see (10) and Appendix B) at level $`s,\overline{s}`$ respectively, and

$$\psi _r^\alpha (z)=e^{p^+z^2/2}z^{\alpha +\frac{1}{2}}L_r^\alpha (p^+z^2)\sqrt{\frac{2.r!}{(r+\alpha )!}},$$
(15)
where $`L_r^\alpha `$ are generalized Laguerre functions. $`\alpha `$ is an integer defined below and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\psi _r^\alpha (z)^2=1`$ for $`p^+=1`$.

The wavefunction $`|l`$ depends on the $`S^5`$ angles, equivalently on the $`𝚗_a,a=1,\mathrm{..6}`$, and is given by the spherical harmonic

$$|l=C_{a_1\mathrm{}a_l}𝚗^{a_1}\mathrm{}𝚗^{a_l}$$

where $`C_{a_1\mathrm{}a_l}`$ is a symmetric, traceless, rank $`l`$ tensor. $`|l`$ satisfies $`l^{ab}l^{ba}|l=l(l+4)|l`$ ($`l^{ab}`$ is defined in (50)).

Definition of $`\alpha `$

The integer $`\alpha `$ appearing in (12) and (13) and onwards, depends on the $`S^5`$ angular momentum $`l`$ and the fermion wavefunction $`|\eta `$, as follows .

Case $`l=0`$: $`\alpha =|2F_\eta |`$ where $`F_\eta `$ is the number of $`\eta `$’s in the wavefunction $`|\eta `$.

Case $`l0`$:

1. $`F_\eta =0`$ or $`F_\eta =4`$: $`\alpha =l+2`$.
2. $`F_\eta =1`$: the canonical choices for the wavefunction $`|\eta `$, viz. $`\eta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ do not diagonalize $`h_+`$. The operator $`h_+`$ splits the 4-dimensional space $`𝚅_1=\mathrm{Span}\{\eta _i\}`$ complex linear combinations of $`\{\eta _i\}`$, into two 2-dimensional spaces given by $`P_1𝚅_1`$ and $`Q_1𝚅_1`$, where $`P_1,Q_1`$ are orthogonal projection operators,

$$(P_1)_j^i=\frac{l+4}{2l+4}\left(\delta _j^i\frac{2}{l+4}l_j^i\right),(Q_1)_j^i=\frac{l}{2l+4}\left(\delta _j^i+\frac{2}{l}l_j^i\right)$$
(16)
If $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`P_1𝚅_1`$, then $`\alpha =l+1`$, if $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`Q_1𝚅_1`$, then $`\alpha =l+3`$.
3. $`F_\eta =3`$: Once again the four canonical basis vectors $`\eta _i\eta _j\eta _k`$ do not diagonalize $`h_+`$. The operator $`h_+`$ splits the 4-dimensional space $`𝚅_3=\mathrm{Span}\{\eta _i\eta _j\eta _k\}`$ into two 2-dimensional spaces given by $`P_3𝚅_3`$ and $`Q_3𝚅_3`$, where $`P_3,Q_3`$ are orthogonal projection operators,

$`(P_3)_{mnp}^{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{l+4}{2l+4}}\left(\delta _{[m}^i\delta _n^j\delta _{p]}^k{\displaystyle \frac{6}{l+4}}\delta _{[m}^i\delta _n^jl_{p]}^k\right),`$
$`(Q_3)_{mnp}^{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2l+4}}\left(\delta _{[m}^i\delta _n^j\delta _{p]}^k+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{l}}\delta _{[m}^i\delta _n^jl_{p]}^k\right)`$ (17)
Here $`[]`$ on the subscripts denote antisymmetrization with weight unity. If $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`P_3𝚅_3`$, then $`\alpha =l+1`$, if $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`Q_3𝚅_3`$, then $`\alpha =l+3`$.
4. $`F_\eta =2`$: Here the operator $`h_+`$ splits the 6-dimensional space $`𝚅_2=\mathrm{Span}\{\eta _i\eta _j\}`$ into three 2-dimensional spaces given by $`P_2𝚅_2,Q_2𝚅_2`$ and $`R_2𝚅_2`$, where $`P_2,Q_2,R_2`$ are orthogonal projection operators,

$`(P_2)_{mn}^{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{l+4}{4(l+1)}}\left(\delta _{[m}^i\delta _{n]}^j{\displaystyle \frac{4(l+3)}{(l+2)(l+4)}}\delta _{[m}^il_{n]}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(l+2)(l+4)}}l_{[m}^il_{n]}^j\right)`$
$`(Q_2)_{mn}^{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{l(l+4)}{2(l+1)(l+3)}}\left(\delta _{[m}^i\delta _{n]}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{l(l+4)}}\delta _{[m}^il_{n]}^j{\displaystyle \frac{4}{l(l+4)}}l_{[m}^il_{n]}^j\right)`$
$`(R_2)_{mn}^{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{l}{4(l+3)}}\left(\delta _{[m}^i\delta _{n]}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{4(l+1)}{l(l+2)}}\delta _{[m}^il_{n]}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{l(l+2)}}l_{[m}^il_{n]}^j\right)`$ (18)
If $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`P_2𝚅_2`$, then $`\alpha =l`$, if $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`Q_2𝚅_2`$, then $`\alpha =l+2`$, if $`|\eta `$ belongs to $`R_2𝚅_2`$, then $`\alpha =l+4`$.

The value of $`J^{x\overline{x}}`$

(13) is also an eigenfunction of $`J^{x\overline{x}}`$ (see (42)), with eigenvalue

$$J^{x\overline{x}}=s+\overline{s}+\frac{1}{2}(F_\eta F_\theta )$$

A note about normalizability

Note that in (13) we have considered only normalizable solutions 111111In the light-cone gauge, the time evolution of the states of a bit is governed by a Schrodinger type evolution equation in flat space with a potential. The appropriate norm in this case is the usual Schrodinger norm.. This is appropriate for constructing the space of states of the superstring. Alternatively, this can be seen from requiring that the solution be regular at $`z\mathrm{}`$. This condition uniquely picks the normalizable solution because of the harmonic oscillator potential piece in (9).

#### 4.1.3 Summary of this subsection

The spectrum of states for a bit that we have obtained here is identical to that of the type IIB supergravity multiplet . For instance, the 20-plet of states

$$|A=A^{ij,kl}\eta _i\eta _j\theta _k\theta _l|0\times \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{0;0,0,0}^0(p^+,x,\overline{x},z)|l=0,$$
(19)
where the tensor $`A^{ij,kl}`$ belongs to the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}`$, i.e. the Dynkin label $`(0,2,0)`$ of SU(4), corresponds to the part of the supergravity multiplet characterized by $`(2,0,0|\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{})`$. The fact that the $`so(4,2)`$ quantum numbers $`(E_0,J_1,J_2)`$ are given by $`(2,0,0)`$ follows from the fact that $`h_+=2,j^{x\overline{x}}=0`$ and, as we discuss in Appendix D, $`h_{}=2`$.

Note that since the states of a single bit just constitute the supergravity multiplet these states are all part of a short multiplet. This is consistent with the non-renormalization theorems, at least in the limit in which string interactions are ignored, since a single bit cannot receive corrections due to bit-bit interactions.

## 5 Multi-bit spectrum

The first step in the construction of the states of a free string from the states of a bit is to construct multi-bit states. To do this one needs to note the following points:

1. The phase space of the string is given by the canonically conjugate pairs in (52). This shows that $`p^+`$ does not depend on $`\sigma `$; consequently all bit wavefunctions in the multi-bit state must have the same value of $`p^+`$. The final multi-bit wavefunction for $`m`$ bits contains a function of $`p^+`$ in addition to the plane wave $`\mathrm{exp}(imp^+x_0^{})`$. This is because multi-bit wavefunctions do not have a definite value of $`p^+`$ in the basis in which $`H_{}`$ is diagonal.
2. Physical string states must satisfy the constraint coming from the residual global reparametrization symmetry in the light-cone gauge. In the discrete version what this means is that to get a physical state of a string from a multi-bit state with $`m`$ bits, one should cyclically symmetrize a tensor product state of $`m`$ bits. Thus, we should only consider multi-bit states of the following form:

$$|p^+;\psi _1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{}=\underset{\sigma P}{}|p^+;\psi _{\sigma (1)}|p^+;\psi _{\sigma (2)}\mathrm{}|p^+;\psi _{\sigma (m)}.$$
(20)
Here $`P`$ is the group of cyclic permutations of $`m`$ variables. We have inserted the value of $`p^+`$ as an explicit reminder of point (1) above. Henceforth, in future references to (20) the $`p^+`$ factors will not be explicitly written.

In the rest of this section we will first discuss the multi-bit states at zero radius and then compute corrections to the spectrum of these states due to a non-zero, but small, value of the radius.

### 5.1 Multi-bit spectrum at $`\lambda =0`$

For the state (20), the value of $`H_+`$ at $`\lambda =0`$ is clearly given by

$$E_{+,0}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_{+,n}$$
(21)
where $`e_{+,n}`$ denotes the value (12) for the state $`|\psi _n`$. As an example, we can construct a state (20), where we take each wavefunction to be of the type given by (19). Explicitly, the state will look like

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=𝒜_{i_1,j_1,\mathrm{},k_m,l_m}\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}\eta _{i_n}\eta _{j_n}\theta _{k_n}\theta _{l_n}|0\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{0;0,0,0}^0(x_n,\overline{x}_n,z_n)|l=0$$
(22)
Here we have allowed for a general polarization $`𝒜`$ rather than a simple cyclically symmetrized product of individual polarizations $`A_{i_n,j_n;k_n,l_n}^{(n)}`$. If we take the polarization $`𝒜`$ to correspond to a traceless symmetric product of the individual polarizations $`A^{(n)}`$’s, then the state becomes

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sym}}=𝒜_{i_1,j_1,\mathrm{},k_m,l_m}^{\mathrm{sym}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}\eta _{i_n}\eta _{j_n}\theta _{k_n}\theta _{l_n}|0\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{0;0,0,0}^0(x_n,\overline{x}_n,z_n)|l=0$$
(23)
Under $`psu(2,2|4)`$, this state transforms as $`(2m,0,0|\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐}𝐦,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ which is a BPS state made out of $`m`$ bits (this can be seen by noting that, in the notation of Gunaydin et al , this corresponds to the multiplet based on the Fock space vacuum $`|0`$ with $`p=2m`$ oscillators).

### 5.2 Finite radius correction to multi-bit spectrum

In this section we will compute corrections to the free spectrum, (21), of multi-bit states due to bit-bit interactions introduced by turning on a small T$`=\sqrt{\lambda }/(2\pi )`$ (see (3)). Let us write

$$H_+=H_+^0+\mathrm{T}V_1+\mathrm{T}^2V_2$$

where $`H_+^0,V_1,V_2`$ are defined in (74). The leading correction to (21) is given by T$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }E_+`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_+=\mathrm{\Psi }_0|V_2|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\underset{int}{}^{}\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|V_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}|^2}{E_{+,int}E_{+,0}}$$
(24)
In Appendix C we present a calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_+`$ for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ given in (22). Here we present the main points.

#### 5.2.1 Potential divergence from the region $`z0`$

Consider the $`V_2`$ term in (24). Let us look at the term involving $`(x_{n+1}x_n)^2/z_n^2`$ in $`V_2`$ (see (74)). The numerator and the denominator separate out in the expectation value: the first gives a simple factor of $`1/p^+`$ and the second an integral of the kind

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_n}{z_n^4}|\psi _{r=0}^{\alpha =0}(z_n)|^2$$

Using $`\psi _0^0(z)\sqrt{z}`$ near $`z=0`$ (see (15)) the above integral, summed over $`M`$ bits, gives a leading divergence

$$M_{z_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{z^3}M\frac{1}{z_{min}^2}$$
(25)
Here we have put an infra-red cut-off $`z_{min}`$ near the boundary $`z=0`$.

As for the $`V_1`$ contribution in (24) (see Appendix C for details), the matrix element $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|V_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ has finite $`z`$-integrals of the type

$$\underset{n}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_n}{z_n^3}\psi _{r=0}^{\alpha =0}(z_n)\psi _r^{\alpha =2}(z_n)=MC_1(r)$$
(26)
where $`C_1(r)`$ also includes the finite angular and fermion matrix elements. The $`z`$-integral is finite (esp. at $`z0`$), being $`𝑑zz^{1/2+7/2}/z^3`$, using the fact that for $`z0`$, $`\psi _r^\alpha (z)z^{\alpha +1/2}`$ (see (15)). The initial state has $`\alpha =0,r=0`$. The reason for the appearance of $`\alpha =2`$ in the intermediate state is that $`V_1`$ contains (i) a $`𝚗^a`$ which converts the initial $`l=0`$ state to a $`l=1`$ state, and (ii) an $`\eta _i\eta _j`$ term (or its conjugate), which converts the initial $`F_\eta =2`$ state to a $`F_\eta =4`$ (or 0, respectively). For such fermion states, (see definition of $`\alpha `$ following (15)), we have $`\alpha =l+2`$ which $`=3`$ in this case.

However, although we do not have a divergent matrix element, we have a sum over an infinite number of intermediate states, given by

$$M\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_1^2(r)}{E_1(r)}=M\underset{r}{\overset{r_{max}}{}}\left(A_1+\frac{B_1}{r}+O(\frac{1}{r^2})\right)M\left(A_1r_{max}+B_1\mathrm{ln}r_{max}+\mathrm{finite}\right)$$
(27)
since $`E_1(r)E_{int}(r)E_0r,C_1(r)\sqrt{r}`$ for large $`r`$.

#### 5.2.2 Cancellation between $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ contributions

The two divergences (25) and (27) are hard to compare since the cut-off’s are different. There is a way, however, to recast the $`V_2`$ calculation using the $`r_{max}`$ cut-off. By using (see (37)) $`\{Q_i^{},Q^j\}=P^{}\delta _i^j`$ we can write the $`V_2`$ term in (24) as

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{int}{}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\underset{n}{}q_{n+1,n}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}|^2$$

In a manner similar to (27), the matrix element is now finite, say $`C_2(r)`$ (which includes a finite $`z`$-integral !)

$$M\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_2^2(r)=M\underset{r}{\overset{r_{max}}{}}\left(A_2+\frac{B_2}{r}+O(\frac{1}{r^2})\right)M\left(A_2r_{max}+B_2\mathrm{ln}r_{max}+\mathrm{finite}\right)$$
(28)
As we will find in Appendix C, $`A_1=A_2,B_1=B_2`$.

This implies that the divergent contributions from $`V_2`$ and $`V_1`$ in (24) cancel, leaving a finite result 121212It might seem surprising at first that there is a cancellation of divergences between two rather different looking terms. This is, however, standard in supersymmetric theories. E.g. in a theory with one scalar superfield with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ interaction the mass corrections cancel between a second order perturbation coming from $`V_1=g\overline{\psi }\psi \varphi `$ and a first order perturbation coming from $`V_2=g^2\varphi ^4`$.. Since for the $`V_2`$ contribution, we have calculated the same quantity using the $`z_{min}`$ cut-off as well as the $`r_{max}`$ cut-off, these two cut-offs are clearly related

$$\frac{1}{z_{min}^2}r_{max}$$

reflecting a UV-IR relation. This in particular implies that the divergence from both $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ can be interpreted as coming from strings near $`z=0`$.

#### 5.2.3 Other states

In the above we have considered as initial state a tensor product of specific single-bit states. Our choice was prompted by the maximally divergent $`z_{min}`$ behaviour in the $`V_2`$ contribution. For instance, instead of an $`F_\eta =2`$ state, if we take $`F_\eta =1`$ or $`F_\eta =3`$ states, we will have a $`\mathrm{ln}z_{min}`$ divergence. In fact these two cases are the only ones with a potential divergence. None of the infinite number of other states, with additional $`s,\overline{s}`$ or $`r`$ excitations, or $`F_\eta =0`$ or $`F_\eta =4`$, have any divergent $`z`$-integration. The methods we have employed work pretty much the same way for the other divergent initial states. Calculations to check the cancellation of divergences in these remaining cases are in progress and will be reported elsewhere.

#### 5.2.4 Summary of this subsection

The fact that the $`z0`$ divergences cancel implies that our postulate of treating the string world sheet theory perturbatively around $`\lambda =0`$ is the correct one. It is clear that in a purely bosonic model without fermionic terms such a cancellation would not have occurred. We believe that the cancellation will persist to all orders of perturbation theory. It is clearly important to explicitly check this.

## 6 String spectrum and AdS/CFT

In this section we will try to construct string states out of the multi-bit states discussed above. Our attempts to do so and to compare with the boundary gauge theory will turn out to be unsuccessful, for reasons which are discussed below.

The only multi-bit states that are relevant in a straightforward continuum limit are the ones with an infinite number of bits. All such states have infinite energy. Consider, for example, the state in (22). For a large number of bits $`m`$, it is a highly degenerate state, with the energy diverging as $`2m`$. A simple “normal ordering” prescription that gets rid of this divergence does not work. This is because these states satisfy a unitarity bound, which is saturated by the symmetric state in (23) which transforms as $`(2m,0,0|\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐}𝐦,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ under the superconformal group. For example, subtracting out the divergence from the energy will violate the unitarity bound for this state. In fact, it is easy to see that this is generically the case. One needs a much more sophisticated normal ordering prescription which depends on the $`SO(6)`$ quantum numbers of the state in such a way that the finite part in energy left after the subtraction continues to satisfy the unitarity bound. This requirement is equivalent to preserving the superconformal algebra in the normal ordered theory since the unitarity bounds follow from this algebra. It is not obvious how to do this. At any rate, we have so far not succeeded in finding such a normal ordering prescription.

This difficulty in the construction of continuum strings motivates us to consider the alternative possibility of an essential discreteness to strings in AdS at zero radius. Thus we may consider the possibility of defining string states as the multi-bit states constructed in the previous section with a finite number of bits. In this case strings with any number of bits must be considered since even if to start with all strings consist of the same number of bits, their splitting and joining will give rise to other strings with smaller as well as larger number of bits. Thus we must consider strings made up of $`1,2,3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ bits. In the following we will consider such string states and compare their properties with the corresponding operators in the boundary gauge theory. Like in the previous section, the states/operators will be labeled by their energy/dimension ($`E_0`$ value). As discussed below, it turns out that the spectrum of the multi-bit states does not agree with the spectrum of operators in the boundary gauge theory.

1. Dimension 1: There are no gauge invariant operators of dimension 1 (e.g. Tr $`F_{\mu \nu }=0`$, since we are dealing with SU(N) gauge theory). On the string theory side too, there is no state of dimension 1.

2. Dimension 2: String states of dimension 2 are provided by single bit strings (which correspond to $`m=1`$ in the notation of point (2) in section 6). As we have remarked in section 4.1.3, such states simply form the supergravity multiplet in AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ background. The lowest dimension state of this multiplet (19) corresponds to dimension 2. The states in the supergravity multiplet have been extensively studied  and shown to be in one-to-one correspondence with the local, gauge-invariant, single-trace chiral operators of the boundary gauge theory, establishing a complete equivalence of such Yang-Mills operators with single-bit string states in our theory. In particular, the state (19) corresponds to the dimension 2, traceless, symmetric tensor Tr $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^b`$.

Missing non-BPS states in the string description: Besides the chiral operators, however, there are non-chiral gauge invariant operators such as Tr $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$ 131313In the usual discussion of AdS supergravity vs CFT at large ’tHooft coupling, one normally ignores these non-chiral operators because they have large anomalous dimensions which corresponds to large curvature corrections in supergravity and hence such states are not considered accessible in AdS supergravity which is concerned with small curvature. We are, however, dealing with strings at small radius AdS or small $`\lambda `$ for which the anomalous dimensions of non-chiral operators become small; thus we must address these states., which fall in the SU(2,2$`|`$4) multiplet (2,0,0 — 0,0,0). Unfortunately, we do not have any such normalizable state in the string spectrum 141414There is a non-normalizable state carrying these quantum numbers..

3. Dimension 3: We found that at dimension 2, the BPS counting matches between string theory and gauge theory. How about dimension 3? We find that the matching continues there: Consider the gauge theory operator $`O_3=A_{(abc)|}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\varphi ^c)`$, which has the PSU(2,2$`|`$4) quantum numbers (3,0,0$`|`$50. With these quantum numbers this is the only gauge invariant operator, since in a SU(N) YM theory, we cannot for example have $`O_{1,2}=A_{(abc)|}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^a)\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^b\varphi ^c)`$. Interestingly the story is similar in our string construction. As we remarked above, corresponding to $`O_3=`$ (3,0,0$`|`$50), there is a single-bit string state. It turns out that this is the only state, since there cannot be a multi-bit state because even for $`m=2`$ bits, the minimum value of $`E_0`$ will be 4, one higher than that of $`O_3`$.

Non-BPS: The mismatch vis-a-vis non-BPS states continues at dimension 3, however. For instance, there is no string state corresponding to Tr $`\varphi ^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$.

4. Dimension 4 and above— extra states in string theory: At dimension 4, we have the following two chiral gauge theory operators in gauge theory $`O_4=A_{(abcd)|}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\varphi ^c\varphi ^d)`$ and $`O_{2,2}=A_{(abcd)|}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b)\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^c\varphi ^d)`$, both carrying quantum numbers $`(E_0,J_1,J_2|\mathrm{𝚂𝚄}(\mathrm{𝟺})\mathrm{𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛}.)=(4,0,0|\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓})`$. A dimension 4 state in the string theory can arise in the following ways:

(a) one 2-bit dimension 4 state (see $`m=2`$ in (23): this has a dimension 2, $`l=0`$ excitation at each bit)

(b) tensor product of two 1-bit, $`l=0`$ string states (this is a multiple-string state)

(c) an $`l=1`$ excited state of a 1-bit string state.

Clearly we have extra states in the string theory. Since the states (a) and (b) appear to be in natural correspondence with the operators $`O_4`$ and $`O_{2,2}`$ respectively, the state (c) appears to be a misfit. Indeed, the state (c) is part of a “Kaluza-Klein tower” over a single bit. Ideally one would have liked to have one state per bit and a string description to arise after combining various bits, but this is not the situation we have. In our formalism each bit behaves like a free superparticle in the AdS background with all the corresponding states available to it.

Generalization to operators of higher dimensions is straightforward. At dimension 5, we have $`O_5=\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^5,O_{2,3}=\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^2\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^3`$, and there are again three string states, (a) a 2-bit string state (a dimension 3 excitation in one bit, and a dimension 2 in the other), (b) a 2-string state, each with one bit, where the bits are similar to (a), and (c) a single bit state of dimension 5. Again (c), belonging to the tower over a string state, appears as extra.

We conclude that the spectrum of string states considered as multi-bit states with finite number of bits does not agree with the spectrum of the operators in the boundary gauge theory.

## 7 Discussion and concluding remarks

In this paper we have begun the program of quantizing string theory in AdS at small radius. We make essential use of the light cone gauge. In this gauge, strings at zero radius seem to fall apart into discrete bits. We have computed the free spectrum of multi-bit states and demonstrated that the leading corrections to this spectrum, coming from a non-zero value of the radius, are finite. Potential divergences which arise from strings near the boundary $`z=0`$ cancel because of bose-fermi cancellations.

Our central aim is to establish a working framework of string theory in AdS at small radius as a perturbative expansion around zero radius. Although we have made some progress towards this goal, the most important problem of obtaining the spectrum of free strings at zero radius remains unsolved. The importance of a resolution of this issue cannot be overstated. One immediate application of these ideas would then be to test the strong (arbitrary $`\lambda `$) version of Maldacena conjecture. The strong version of the conjecture allows definition of nonperturbative string theory (in AdS) in terms of gauge theory.

We also have here the beginnings of a calculable framework of strings coupled to a noncompact space whose gravity description approaches a singular limit. This example is more non-trivial than that of a string theory in backgrounds where the compact part of the spacetime includes an orbifold or a conifold singularity. The singularity here is not only in a finite codimensional submanifold in space, but the entire spacetime collapses in the sense that the (constant) curvature blows up uniformly all over spacetime. Calculation of string theory correlation functions in such a background should be interesting.

Finally, the success of the light-cone gauge, at least perturbatively, encourages its use in other backgrounds which have physical gauge theory duals, especially those which describe a confining gauge theory like .

We end by mentioning that it will clearly be important to eventually extend the present framework to take into account string-string interactions, which we have ignored in this paper.

Acknowledgments

One of us (GM) would like to to acknowledge many useful discussions with Sumit Das, Rajesh Gopakumar, Juan Maldacena, Shiraz Minwalla, Lubos Motl, Joe Polchinski and Soo-Jong Rey. We would like to thank Vladimir Dobrev for pointing out an error in an earlier version of the paper. Part of this work was done during the String Theory workshop (December, 2002) at the Harish Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad. We would like to thank the organizers of the meeting for providing a stimulating atmosphere and for their excellent hospitality. One of us (SRW) would like to thank the ASICTP for hospitality during part of this work.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to the memory of Professor Bunji Sakita, who passed away on 31st August 2002. Prof. Sakita made many pioneering contributions to high energy physics and in particular to string theory. His ‘Reminiscences’  are a striking summary of an exciting period in high energy physics. He was a great mentor and a deeply humble and generous man. He also contributed significantly to the high energy physics effort at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. His obituary can be found at http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/9/20/3.

## Appendix A Generators of the superconformal algebra in the light-cone gauge

The bosonic part of the $`psu(2,2|4)`$ superalgebra is the so$`(4,2)`$ algebra. In terms of the standard hermitian rotation generators, $`S_{AB}`$, this algebra is

$`[S_{AB},S_{CD}]=i(\eta _{BC}S_{AB}\eta _{BD}S_{AC}+\eta _{AD}S_{BC}\eta _{AC}S_{BD}),`$ (29)
where $`A,B,\mathrm{}=1,0,1,\mathrm{},4`$ and the metric $`\eta _{AB}`$ is diag $`[1,1,1,1,1,1]`$. The $`S_{AB}`$ acts on AdS5, viewed as the hyperbola

$$\eta _{AB}Y^AY^B=R^2$$
(30)
Eqn. (29) can be recast into the standard conformal algebra in $`(3+1)`$-dimensions by the redefinitions (see, for example, )

$`\stackrel{~}{D}=S_{14},S_{\mu 1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu +\stackrel{~}{K}_\mu ),S_{\mu 4}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu \stackrel{~}{K}_\mu ),S_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mu \nu },`$ (31)
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$. We will actually be working with a slightly different set of generators for the conformal algebra. We will use anti-hermitian generators for the dilations and rotations, while retaining hermitian generators for translations and special conformal transformations. That is, we will set

$`\stackrel{~}{D}=iD,\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mu \nu }=iJ_{\mu \nu }.`$ (32)
It will also be convenient to set

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu =\sqrt{2}P_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{K}_\mu =\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{K}_\mu .`$ (33)
In terms of these generators the conformal algebra is

$`[D,P_\mu ]=P_\mu ,[D,K_\mu ]=K_\mu ,[P_\mu ,K_\nu ]=\eta _{\mu \nu }DJ_{\mu \nu },`$
$`[J_{\mu \nu },P_\gamma ]=\eta _{\nu \gamma }P_\mu \eta _{\mu \gamma }P_\nu ,[J_{\mu \nu },K_\gamma ]=\eta _{\nu \gamma }K_\mu \eta _{\mu \gamma }K_\nu ,`$
$`[J_{\mu \nu },J_{\gamma \tau }]=\eta _{\nu \gamma }J_{\mu \tau }\eta _{\nu \tau }J_{\mu \gamma }+\eta _{\mu \tau }J_{\nu \gamma }\eta _{\mu \gamma }J_{\nu \tau }.`$ (34)
To fix conventions for our light-cone frame, we define the light-cone variables as follows.

$$x^\pm \frac{(x^3\pm x^0)}{\sqrt{2}},x=\frac{(x^1+ix^2)}{\sqrt{2}},\overline{x}=\frac{(x^1ix^2)}{\sqrt{2}}.$$

Similarly

$$p_\pm \frac{(p_3\pm p_0)}{\sqrt{2}},p^x=\frac{(p_1+ip_2)}{\sqrt{2}},p^{\overline{x}}=\frac{(p_1ip_2)}{\sqrt{2}}.$$

The corresponding operator statements are in (38). The metric in the light-cone frame is

$$\eta _+=\eta _+=\eta _{x\overline{x}}=\eta _{\overline{x}x}=1.$$

The algebra in (34) needs to be supplemented by the supersymmetry generators, $`Q_i^\pm `$ and $`S_i^\pm `$ in the light-cone gauge, to get the full superconformal algebra. The additional commutators are

$`[D,Q_i^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_i^\pm ,[D,S_i^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i^\pm ,`$
$`[J^+,Q_i^\pm ]=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_i^\pm ,[J^+,S_i^\pm ]=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i^\pm ,[J^{x\overline{x}},Q_i^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_i^\pm ,[J^{x\overline{x}},S_i^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i^\pm ,`$
$`[Q_i^\pm ,J_{}^{j}{}_{k}{}^{}]=\delta _i^jQ_k^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _k^jQ_i^\pm ,[S_i^\pm ,J_{}^{j}{}_{k}{}^{}]=\delta _i^jS_k^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _k^jS_i^\pm ,`$
$`[J^{+x},Q^i]=Q^{+i},[J^{\overline{x}},Q^{+i}]=Q^i,[J^x,S^{+i}]=S^i,[J^{+\overline{x}},S^i]=S^{+i},`$
$`[S_i^{},P^\pm ]=Q_i^\pm ,[S_i^{},P^x]=Q_i^{},[S_i^+,P^{\overline{x}}]=Q_i^+,`$
$`[Q_i^{},K^\pm ]=S_i^\pm ,[Q_i^{},K^{\overline{x}}]=S_i^{},[Q_i^+,K^x]=S_i^+.`$ (35)
Here $`J_{}^{j}{}_{k}{}^{}`$ are the generators of su$`(4)`$ algebra in hermitian basis, $`(J_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{})^{}=J_{}^{j}{}_{i}{}^{}`$,

$`[J_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{},J_{}^{k}{}_{l}{}^{}]=\delta _j^kJ_{}^{i}{}_{l}{}^{}\delta _l^iJ_{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}.`$ (36)
The anticommutators are

$`\{Q^{\pm i},Q_j^\pm \}=\pm P^\pm \delta _j^i,\{Q^{+i},Q_j^{}\}=P^x\delta _j^i,`$
$`\{S^{\pm i},S_j^\pm \}=\pm K^\pm \delta _j^i,\{S^{+i},S_j^{}\}=K^{\overline{x}}\delta _j^i,`$
$`\{Q^{+i},S_j^+\}=J^{+x}\delta _j^i,\{Q^i,S_j^{}\}=J^{\overline{x}}\delta _j^i,`$
$`\{Q^{\pm i},S_j^{}\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^++J^{x\overline{x}}D)\delta _j^iJ_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}.`$ (37)
The rest of the (anti)commutation relations are obtained by using the hermiticity conditions

$`P^\pm =P^\pm ,P^x=P^{\overline{x}},K^\pm =K^\pm ,K^x=K^{\overline{x}},(Q^{\pm i})^{}=Q_i^\pm ,(S^{\pm i})^{}=S_i^\pm ,`$
$`(J^{\pm x})^{}=J^{\pm \overline{x}},(J^+)^{}=J^+,(J^{x\overline{x}})^{}=J^{x\overline{x}},D^{}=D.`$ (38)
### A.1 String realization of the superconformal generators

Expressions for many of the generators have been obtained in  151515Expressions for the rest can be obtained from these by using the (anti)commutation relations given above.. All the generators may be written as integrals over the closed string of the corresponding density,

$$G=_0^l𝑑\sigma 𝒢(\sigma ),$$

where $`l`$ is the length of the string. Below we reproduce the light-cone gauge expressions obtained in  for these densities. These are written in terms of the bosonic transverse co-ordinates, $`x(\sigma ),\overline{x}(\sigma ),z^a(\sigma )`$, their momentum conjugates $`p^x(\sigma ),p^{\overline{x}}(\sigma ),p^a(\sigma )`$, the superpartners $`\theta ^i(\sigma ),\eta ^i(\sigma )`$ and their conjugates.

$`𝒫^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}\left(2p^xp^{\overline{x}}+(p^z)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}\left[l_j^il_i^j+4\eta _il_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\eta ^j+(\eta _i\eta ^i2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}^2}{2p^+z^4}}(2x^{}\overline{x}^{}+(z_a^{})^2)`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z^2p^+}}\eta ^i\rho _{ij}^a𝚗^a(\theta ^ji{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}}\eta ^jx^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z^2p^+}}\eta _i\rho _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{ij}𝚗^a(\theta _j^{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}}\eta _j\overline{x}^{}),`$
$`𝒥^{+x}`$ $`=`$ $`ixp^+,`$ (40)
$`𝒥^+`$ $`=`$ $`ix^{}p^++2,`$ (41)
$`𝒥^{x\overline{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`i(xp^{\overline{x}}\overline{x}p^x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta ^i\theta _i\eta ^i\eta _i),`$ (42)
$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`i(x^{}p^++xp^{\overline{x}}+\overline{x}p^x)+izp^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (43)
$`𝒦^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(z^2+2x\overline{x})p^+,`$ (44)
$`𝒦^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z^2p^xx(x^{}p^++xp^{\overline{x}}+zp^z+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\theta ^i\theta _i+\eta ^i\eta _i))+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^i}{\sqrt{p^+}}}𝒮_i^+,`$ (45)
$`𝒥_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}+\theta ^i\theta _j+\eta ^i\eta _j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _j^i(\theta ^k\theta _k+\eta ^k\eta _k),`$ (46)
$`𝒬_i^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p^+}\theta _i,𝒮_i^+=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{2}}}z\eta _i+i\sqrt{p^+}x\theta _i,`$ (47)
$`𝒬_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p^+}}}(\sqrt{2}p^x\theta _ii\eta _ip^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}(3\eta _i/2+\eta ^j\eta _j\eta _i2(\eta l)_i))`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{2p^+}z^2}}\rho _{ij}^az^a(\theta ^ji{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}}\eta ^jx^{}).`$
Notation used above: $`\rho _{ij}^a`$ and $`\rho ^{aij}`$ are SU$`(4)`$ Clebsh-Gordon coefficients (SO$`(6)`$ Dirac matrices in the chiral representation). Some useful identities involving them are

$`\rho _{ij}^a\rho ^{bjk}+\rho _{ij}^b\rho ^{ajk}=2\delta ^{ab}\delta _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{},`$
$`\rho _{ij}^a=\rho _{ji}^a,\rho _{ij}^a=(\rho ^{aji})^{},\rho ^{aij}\rho _{km}^a=2(\delta _{}^{i}{}_{m}{}^{}\delta _{}^{j}{}_{k}{}^{}\delta _{}^{i}{}_{k}{}^{}\delta _{}^{j}{}_{m}{}^{})`$
$`\rho _{ij}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijkl}\rho ^{a,kl}`$ (49)
Also, $`l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}`$ is given by

$$l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}=\frac{i}{8}[\rho ^a,\rho ^b]_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}l^{ab},l^{ab}=𝚗^a𝒫^b𝚗^b𝒫^a,$$
(50)
and satisfies the identities

$`l_{}^{i}{}_{m}{}^{}l_{}^{m}{}_{j}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}l_{}^{p}{}_{q}{}^{}l_{}^{q}{}_{p}{}^{}\delta _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}+2l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{},[l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{},l_{}^{k}{}_{m}{}^{}]=\delta _j^kl_{}^{i}{}_{m}{}^{}\delta _m^il_{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}.`$ (51)
In the above formulae, $`p^z`$ is the momentum conjugate to $`z`$ in the spherical polar co-ordinates and $`𝒫^a`$ is the corresponding quantity for $`𝚗^a`$. Also, note that $`𝚗^a𝒫^a=0`$.

Canonical (anti)commutation relations:

In order to evaluate the above generators (41)-(48) on wavefunctions we need the (anti)commutation relations between the fundamental variables, which are as follows:

$`[x_0^{},p^+]`$ $`=i,`$
$`[x(\sigma ),p^{\overline{x}}(\sigma ^{})]`$ $`=[\overline{x}(\sigma ),p^x(\sigma ^{})]=[z(\sigma ),p^z(\sigma ^{})]=i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`[𝚗^a(\sigma ),𝒫^b(\sigma ^{})]`$ $`=i(\delta ^{ab}𝚗^a𝚗^b)\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`[𝒫^a(\sigma ),𝒫^b(\sigma ^{})]`$ $`=i(𝚗^a𝒫^b𝚗^b𝒫^a)\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{\eta ^i(\sigma ),\eta _j(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=\{\theta ^i(\sigma ),\theta _j(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta _j^i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (52)
### A.2 Useful linear combinations

In addition to the above generators, some special linear combinations turn out to be useful (see (7). We have already used $`H_\pm ,E_0`$ which are given by:

$$H_+=P^{}+K^+,H_{}=P^+K^{},E_0=\frac{1}{2}(H_++H_{})$$
(53)
We list below some more. Consider the $`so(4)=su(2)\times su(2)`$ subalgebra of $`so(4,2)`$; let us call its generators $`𝐈_i,𝐊_i`$. We write these in terms of the above generators as

$`𝐈_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^{x\overline{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(H_+H_{}),𝐊_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^{x\overline{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(H_+H_{})`$
$`𝐈_+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^{+x}+J^xP^x+K^x),𝐊_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^{+x}+J^x+P^xK^x),`$
$`𝐈_{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^{+\overline{x}}J^{\overline{x}}P^{\overline{x}}+K^{\overline{x}}),𝐊_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^{+\overline{x}}J^{\overline{x}}+P^{\overline{x}}K^{\overline{x}})`$ (54)
Using the above we get

$$J^{x\overline{x}}=𝐊_3+𝐈_3,H_\pm =E_0(𝐊_3𝐈_3)$$
(55)
On a state annihilated by $`𝐈_{},𝐊_+`$, we have $`𝐊_3=J_1,𝐈_3=J_2`$, therefore

$$H_\pm =E_0(J_1+J_2),J^{x\overline{x}}=J_1J_2$$
(56)
We also list here some special linear combinations of the odd generators which are particularly useful:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^\pm =Q_i^\pm S_i^{},\stackrel{~}{Q}^{\pm i}=Q^{\pm i}\pm S^i,`$ (57)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_i^\pm =Q_i^\pm \pm S_i^{},\stackrel{~}{S}^{\pm i}=Q^{\pm i}S^i`$ (58)
The first line raises the value of $`E_0`$, while the second lowers the value of $`E_0`$, by $`1/2`$. The bottom of a supermultiplet is defined by annihilation of the $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ operators (cf. these are similar to the $`Q^{},S^{}`$ operators discussed in .)

## Appendix B Discretized expressions for the generators

In this appendix we list the discretized versions of the expressions for the generators given above. As discussed in the main text, section 3, the lattice spacing $`ϵ`$ completely disappears from these expressions after appropriately rescaling the momenta and the fermionic variables to have finite canonical commutation relations among the bit variables. These rescalings are

$`(p_n^+,p_n^x,p_n^{\overline{x}},p_n^z,𝒫_n^a)`$ $`=ϵ(p^+(\sigma ),p^x(\sigma ),p^{\overline{x}}(\sigma ),p^z(\sigma ),𝒫^a(\sigma )),\sigma =nϵ`$
$`(x_0^{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,z_n,𝚗_n^a)`$ $`=(x^{}(\sigma ),x(\sigma ),\overline{x}(\sigma ),z(\sigma ),𝚗^a(\sigma )),`$
$`(\eta _n^i,\eta _{j,n},\theta _n^i,\theta _{j,n})`$ $`=ϵ^{1/2}(\eta ^i(\sigma ),\eta _j(\sigma ),\theta ^i(\sigma ),\theta _j(\sigma ))`$ (59)
The discrete version of the canonical (anti)commutation relations (52) is

$`[x_n,p_m^{\overline{x}}]=i\delta _{nm},[\overline{x}_n,p_m^x]=i\delta _{nm},[z_n,p_m^z]=i\delta _{nm},`$
$`[𝚗_m^a,𝒫_n^b]=i(\delta ^{ab}𝚗_m^a𝚗_m^b)\delta _{nm},`$
$`[𝒫_m^a,𝒫_n^b]=i(𝚗_m^a𝒫_m^b𝚗_m^b𝒫_m^a)\delta _{nm},`$
$`\{\eta _n^i,\eta _{jm}\}=\delta _{nm}\delta _j^i,\{\theta _n^i,\theta _{jm}\}=\delta _{nm}\delta _j^i.`$ (60)
The oscillators for the two transverse directions $`x,\overline{x}`$, parallel to the boundary, are defined as follows:

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{p^xip^+x}{\sqrt{2p^+}}},a^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p^{\overline{x}}+ip^+\overline{x}}{\sqrt{2p^+}}},[a,a^{}]=1,`$
$`\overline{a}={\displaystyle \frac{p^{\overline{x}}ip^+\overline{x}}{\sqrt{2p^+}}},\overline{a}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p^x+ip^+x}{\sqrt{2p^+}}},[\overline{a},\overline{a}^{}]=1.`$ (61)
The general form of the discrete version of the generators, in the limit T $`0`$ indicated by the subscript $`{}_{}{}^{}0_{}^{}`$ on the generators, is $`G_0=_{n=1}^Mg_{0n}`$, where $`g_{0n}`$ is the corresponding generator for the $`n`$th bit. We list the latter below, but omit the bit index for ease of notation.

$`p_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}\left(2p^xp^{\overline{x}}+(p^z)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}((l_j^il_i^j)+4\eta _il_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\eta ^j+(\eta _i\eta ^i2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\right),`$ (62)
$`j_0^{+x}`$ $`=`$ $`ixp^+,`$ (63)
$`j_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`ix^{}p^++2,`$ (64)
$`j_0^{x\overline{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`i(xp^{\overline{x}}\overline{x}p^x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _i\eta ^i\theta _i\theta ^i),`$ (65)
$`d_0`$ $`=`$ $`i(x^{}p^++xp^{\overline{x}}+\overline{x}p^x)+izp^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (66)
$`k_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(z^2+2x\overline{x})p^+,`$ (67)
$`k_0^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z^2p^xx\left(x^{}p^++xp^{\overline{x}}+zp^z+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\theta ^i\theta _i+\eta ^i\eta _i)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p^+}}}\theta ^is_{0i}^+,`$
$`j_{0}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`l_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}+\theta ^i\theta _j+\eta ^i\eta _j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _j^i(\theta ^k\theta _k+\eta ^k\eta _k),`$ (69)
$`q_{0i}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p^+}\theta _i,s_{0i}^+=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{2}}}z\eta _i+i\sqrt{p^+}x\theta _i,`$ (70)
$`q_{0i}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p^+}}}(\sqrt{2}p^x\theta _ii\eta _ip^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}(3\eta _i/2+\eta ^j\eta _j\eta _i2(\eta l)_i)).`$ (71)
Others can be obtained using the (anti)commutation relations.

When T is non-zero some of the generators 161616These are $`P^{},K^{},J^x,J^{\overline{x}},Q^i`$ and $`S^i`$, the so-called dynamical generators. Note that they also receive corrections from string-string interactions, which we are ignoring here. get modified by terms that involve bit-bit interactions. We write these generators as $`G=G_0+G_1`$, where $`G_1=_ng_{1(n+1,n)}`$ vanishes for T$`=0`$. We list $`g_{1(n+1,n)}`$ terms for some of the generators that get modified.

$`p_{1(n+1,n)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}^2}{2p^+}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{|x_{n+1}x_n|^2}{z_n^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{n+1}^az_n^a)^2}{z_{n+1}^2z_n^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z_n^2p^+}}\eta _n^i\rho _{ij}^a𝚗_n^a((\theta _{n+1}^j\theta _n^j).`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z_n}}\eta _n^j(x_{n+1}x_n).)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{z_n^2p^+}}\eta _{ni}\rho ^a^{ij}𝚗_n^a((\theta _{n+1j}\theta _{nj})+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z_n}}\eta _{nj}(\overline{x}_{n+1}\overline{x}_n)),`$
$`q_{1i(n+1,n)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{2p^+}}}\rho _{ij}^a\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝚗_n^a}{z_n}}(\theta _{n+1}^j\theta _n^j)i\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚗_n^a}{z_n^2}}\eta _n^j(x_{n+1}x_n)\right).`$ (73)
These expressions are obtained by a straightforward discretization of the corresponding continuum expressions in (39) and (48). There is of course no a priori unique discretized expression. We make a natural choice for a minimal set and then fix the rest by demanding that the algebra be satisfied. Thus, e.g., (LABEL:B12) can be independently obtained from (73) using (37): $`\{Q^i,Q_j^{}\}=P^{}\delta _j^i`$.

## Appendix C Perturbation of $`H_+`$ spectrum and cancellation of $`z0`$ divergence

We assume the string to consist of $`M`$ bits. We define $`H_+=H_+^0+TV_1+T^2V_2`$:

$`H_+^0={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{_{x_n}_{\overline{x}_n}}{p^+}}+p^+x_n\overline{x}_n`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{z_n}^2}{2p^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{2}}z_n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+z_n^2}}((l_{}^{i}{}_{n,j}{}^{})^2+4\eta _{n,i}l_{}^{i}{}_{n,j}{}^{}\eta _n^j+(\eta _{n,i}\eta _n^i2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})]`$
$`V_2={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{|x_{n+1}x_n|^2}{z_n^4}}+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{n+1}^az_n^a)^2}{z_{n+1}^2z_n^2}})]`$
$`V_1={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}v_{1(n+1,n)}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}[`$ $`.{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n^2p^+}}\eta _n^i\rho _{ij}^a𝚗_n^a(.(\theta _{n+1}^j\theta _n^j)i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z_n}}\eta _n^j(x_{n+1}x_n).)`$ (74)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n^2p^+}}\eta _{ni}\rho _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{ij}𝚗_n^a((\theta _{n+1j}\theta _{nj})+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{z_n}}\eta _{nj}(\overline{x}_{n+1}\overline{x}_n)).]`$
### C.1 Calculation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|V_2|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$

We will calculate this quantity as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|V_2|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\{Q_{1,i}^{},Q_1^i\}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{int}{}}`$ $`[.\mathrm{\Psi }_0|q_{(n+1,n)i}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}|q_{(n+1,n)}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (75)
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }_0|q_{(n+1,n)}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}|q_{(n+1,n)i}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0.]`$
The first equality can be derived by considering the $`T^2`$ term in the equality $`P^{}=\frac{1}{4}\{Q_i^{},Q^i\}`$. Here,

$$q_{(n+1,n)i}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z_n}(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}[(\theta _{n+1}^j\theta _n^j)+\frac{1}{z_n}\eta _n^j((a_{n+1}\overline{a}_{n+1}^{})(a_n\overline{a}_n^{}))]$$
(76)
This expression is as in (73) except that we have rescaled $`\sqrt{p^+}z_nz_n,\sqrt{p^+}x_nx_n`$ and have used $`i\sqrt{2}x_n=a_n\overline{a}_n^{}`$.

Since the intermediate states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ involved for various terms in (76) are different, we can separately treat the contribution of each term in (76) to (75). Let us consider, e.g., the term

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z_n}(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\theta _{n+1}^j$$
(77)
The intermediate state that will click here is represented in the figure below. The wavefunction in the picture differs from the initial state only in the $`n`$-th and the $`n+1`$-th bits (the solid circles) and only in the quantum numbers exhibited 171717The full $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ is a cyclic permutation of such wavefunctions. ($`|2\eta `$ denotes $`|F_\eta =2`$, etc). Explanation for the $`n`$-th bit: $`l=1`$ appears because $`𝚗_n^a`$ carries $`l=1`$, the values of $`\alpha `$ can be $`l,l+2`$ or $`l+4`$, i.e. 1,3 or 5, depending on whether $`|2\eta `$ belongs to $`P_2𝚅_2,Q_2𝚅_2`$ or $`R_2𝚅_2`$ (see (18) and below). Only the quantum number $`r`$ remains unspecified, any $`r=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ clicks. The corresponding matrix element of the $`z`$-wavefunctions is (cf. $`C_2(r)`$ in (28))

$$C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha }(r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\psi _0^0(z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z}\psi _r^\alpha (z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{(r+\frac{\alpha 1}{2})!}{r!}\sqrt{\frac{r!}{(r+\alpha )!}}$$
(78)
Having done the $`z`$-(and the trivial $`x,\overline{x}`$-)integration let us now leave the S5 and the fermion matrix elements unevaluated. This amounts to finding an effective interaction in the finite dimensional S5 and fermionic sector, after integrating out the bosonic degrees of freedom $`z,x,\overline{x}`$. After carrying out the sum $`_r`$ involved in the Eqn. (75) for each $`\alpha =1,3`$ or 5, we get the following contribution of the interaction (77) to (75):

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{n,m}{}\underset{\alpha =1,3,5}{}C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\theta _{n+1}^j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(2\eta ,\alpha )}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(2\eta ,\alpha )}|(\rho .𝚗_m)^{ki}\theta _{m+1,k}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0$$
(79)
where

$$C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha }=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha }(r)\right)^2$$
(80)
In the above, the tildes on the wavefunctions denote that they depend now only on the $`S^5`$ and the fermionic coordinates. The $`(2\eta ,\alpha )`$ tag on the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}`$ reminds us that we must choose the appropriate projection ($`P_2,Q_2`$ or $`R_2`$) on the wavefunction $`|l=1,2\eta `$ on whichever bit it appears.

What remains now is to compute the equivalent of (79) for all the other interaction terms. We will write here only one other term in (76) in some detail, viz.

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z_n}(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\eta _n^ja_{n+1}$$
(81)
The pictorial representation of the intermediate state now is

Once again only the changed quantum numbers are shown. $`s=1`$ means a harmonic oscillator excitation of the ’$`a`$’ type (see (15)). The $`\alpha `$ value of $`|l=1,3\eta `$ is determined ($`\alpha =l+1=2`$ or $`\alpha =l+3=4`$), depending on whether the $`F_\eta =3`$ state belongs to $`P_3𝚅_3`$ or $`Q_3𝚅_3`$. The $`z,x,\overline{x}`$ integration gives

$$C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }(r)=_0^\alpha 𝑑z\psi _0^0(z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z}\psi _r^\alpha (z)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\alpha }\frac{(r+\frac{\alpha }{2})!}{\sqrt{r!(r+\alpha )!}}$$

The contribution to (75) in terms of $`S^5`$ and fermions is, in this case,

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{n,m}{}\underset{\alpha =2,4}{}C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\eta _n^ja_{n+1}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha )}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha )}|(\rho .𝚗_m)^{ki}\eta _{m+1,k}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0$$
(82)
where

$$C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }\right)^2$$
(83)
From these examples, it is clear how to compute equations like (82) and (83) for all the other terms in (75).

Divergence:

If we explicitly evaluate $`C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha },C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }`$ using their definitions, we find that

$`C_2^{2\eta ,\alpha }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+F_2(\alpha )`$
$`C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }`$ $`=A_2^{}(\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}1+B_2^{}(\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+F_2^{}(\alpha )`$ (84)
Thus the two types of divergences that appear here are $`_{r=1}^{r_{max}}1`$ and $`_{r=1}^{r_{max}}\frac{1}{r}`$, where we have replaced the upper limit $`r=\mathrm{}`$ by a cut-off $`r_{max}`$. The coefficients of such divergences in (75) are calculated by combining equations like (79) and (82).

### C.2 The $`V_1`$ contribution

This term has an expression

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{n,m}{}\underset{int}{}\frac{1}{E_{int}E_0}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_0|v_{1(n+1,n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}|v_{1(n+1,n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right]$$
(85)
which is similar to (75), except that it has an additional factor due to the energy denominator.

Like in the case of the $`V_2`$ term in the previous subsection, we will consider each term of $`v_{1(n+1,n)}`$ in turn (see (74)), consider the intermediate states that click in each case, and “integrate out” the $`z,x,\overline{x}`$ variables, leaving matrix elements depending on $`S^5`$ and fermions.

As an example we consider

$$\frac{1}{z_n^2p^+}\eta _n^i(\rho .𝚗)_{ij}\theta _{n+1}^j$$

The intermediate state is represented by the diagram

The values of $`\alpha `$ here are $`l+1=2`$ or $`l+3=4`$. The $`z`$-integral involved in the matrix element is $`C_1^{3\eta ,\alpha }(r)`$, which is identical to $`C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }(r)`$. After performing the $`r`$-sum we get the following contribution

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{n,m}{}\underset{\alpha =2,4}{}C_1^{3\eta ,\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|\eta _n^i(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\theta _{n+1}^j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha )}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha )}|(\rho .𝚗_m)^{kl}\theta _{m+1,k}\eta _{n,l}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0$$
(86)
where

$$C_1^{3\eta ,\alpha }=\underset{r}{}\frac{\left[C_2^{3\eta ,\alpha }(r)\right]^2}{(2r+\alpha +2)2}$$
(87)
The divergence of this term is of the type $`_r^{r_{max}}1/r`$.

### C.3 Cancellation of Divergence

We now collect the coefficient of $`_r^{r_{max}}1`$ and $`_r^{r_{max}}(1/r)`$ of all the terms in (75) and (85). We will explicitly write here only the coefficient of $`_r1`$. This is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}[.\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\eta _n^j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha =2)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha =2)}|(\rho .𝚗_m)^{ki}\eta _{m,k}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\eta _n^j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha =4)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(3\eta ,\alpha =4)}|(\rho .𝚗_m)^{ki}\eta _{m,k}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}[.\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)^{ij}\eta _{n,i}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(1\eta ,\alpha =2)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(1\eta ,\alpha =2)}|(\rho .𝚗_m)_{jk}\eta _m^k|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|(\rho .𝚗_n)^{ij}\eta _{n,i}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(1\eta ,\alpha =4)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(1\eta ,\alpha =4)}|(\rho .𝚗_m)_{jk}\eta _m^k|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|\eta _n^i(\rho .𝚗_n)_{ij}\eta _n^i|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(4\eta ,\alpha =3)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(4\eta ,\alpha =3)}|\eta _{m,k}(\rho .𝚗_m)^{kl}\eta _{m,l}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|\eta _{n,i}(\rho .𝚗_n)^{ij}\eta _{n,i}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(0\eta ,\alpha =3)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int,(0\eta ,\alpha =3)}|\eta _{m,k}(\rho .𝚗_m)_{kl}\eta _{m,l}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$
By repeatedly using (a) the fundamental anticommutation relations of the fermions (60), (b) the explicit form of the projection operators $`P_1,Q_1,P_3`$ and $`Q_3`$ (see (16), (17)), and (c) $`𝚗^a`$-space vev’s such as

$$𝚗^a𝚗^b=\frac{1}{6}\delta ^{ab},𝚗^al_j^i𝚗^b=\frac{1}{24}[\rho ^a,\rho ^b]_j^i$$

we find that the above term (C.3) indeed vanishes. Note that the first two terms (with positive sign) arise from $`V_2`$ the last two (negative sign) from $`V_1`$.

The coefficient of $`_r^{r_{max}}1/r`$ vanishes by a similar, but somewhat lengthier computation.

## Appendix D Nonlocal features of stringy representation in the light cone gauge

Although many generators of the superconformal algebra involve only the zero mode $`x_0^{}`$ of $`x^{}(\sigma )`$, some of the generators, like $`K^x`$, also involve non-zero modes of $`x^{}(\sigma )`$. These generators have expressions which are non-local in $`\sigma `$. In general, therefore, even at $`T=0`$, a representation of the stringy realization of the superconformal algebra may be achieved only by taking linear combinations (over and above the cyclic sum in (20)) of naive tensor product of single-bit states. In the following we will consider the simplest possible example of such a state (23) where a linear combination (a la Clebsch-Gordon) is already in place because we have taken a symmetric and traceless tensor product of the $`SU(4)`$ polarizations.

In order to see if such states carry a representation of the superconformal algebra, including the non-local generators, let us consider the example of the $`so(4)`$ subalgebra of the AdS5 group $`so(4,2)`$. As shown in (54), the generators of this algebra involve $`K^x`$ which contains $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ and the action of $`so(4)`$ therefore constitutes a non-trivial example.

The state (23) is expected to be a singlet of $`so(4)`$. Therefore it must be annihilated by $`𝐊_\pm ,𝐈_\pm `$. Since these generators depend on $`x^{}`$, we need to first construct an appropriate action of this operator on the states. Recall that in the light cone gauge the classical Gauss law constraint of $`\sigma `$-reparametrizations is

$`x^{}(\sigma )=x(0)`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{2p^+}}(x^{}p^{\overline{x}}+\overline{x}^{}p^x+z^{}p^z+𝚗_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}𝒫^a`$ (89)
$`+i(\eta ^i\eta _i^{}\eta _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\eta _i+\theta ^i\theta _i^{}\theta _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\theta _i))(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }).`$
Here $`x(0)`$ is related to the zero mode $`x_0^{}_0^1𝑑\sigma x^{}(\sigma )`$ by

$`x(0)=x_0^{}+{\displaystyle _0^1}d\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{2p^+}}(`$ $`x^{}p^{\overline{x}}+\overline{x}^{}p^x+z^{}p^z+𝚗_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}𝒫^a`$ (90)
$`+i(\eta ^i\eta _i^{}\eta _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\eta _i+\theta ^i\theta _i^{}\theta _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\theta _i))(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }).`$
To discretize a combination of the form $`p^i(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })x_i^{}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })`$, we replace the local term $`p^i(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })`$ by $`(p_{k+1}^i+p_k^i)/2`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$-derivative by a discrete difference, i.e., $`x_i^{}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })ϵ^1(x_{i,k+1}x_{i,k})`$ and perform the rescalings (59). This leads to

$`x_{n+1}^{}=x_0^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[.(x_{k+1}x_k)(p_{k+1}^{\overline{x}}+p_k^{\overline{x}})+(\overline{x}_{k+1}\overline{x}_k)(p_{k+1}^x+p_k^x)`$ (91)
$`+(z_{k+1}z_k)(p_{k+1}^z+p_k^z)+(𝚗_{k+1}^a𝒫_k^a𝚗_k^a𝒫_{k+1}^a)+i\beta ({\displaystyle \frac{z_{k+1}}{z_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k}{z_{k+1}}})`$
$`+i\{(\eta _{k+1}^i\eta _{i,k}\eta _k^i\eta _{i,k+1})+(\theta _{k+1}^i\theta _{i,k}\theta _k^i\theta _{i,k+1})\}.]`$
In this expression $`\beta `$ is a constant. This extra term is expected in the quantum theory for the action of $`x^{}(\sigma )`$ on wave-functions $`\psi `$ in the polar coordinates $`z,𝚗^a`$.

To evaluate the action of the $`so(4)`$ generators $`𝐊_\pm ,𝐈_\pm `$ on the state (23) we also need a discretized expression for the generator $`J^x`$. This can be guessed from the clasical continuum expression for it, which may be obtained from the known generators by using the algebra and the basic Poisson brackets. In this way we get

$`J^x={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}[.ip_n^xx_n^{}`$ $`ix_np_n^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p^+}}}\theta _n^iQ_{i,n}^{}`$ (92)
$`\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _n^i\theta _{i,n}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _n^i\eta _{i,n}\}{\displaystyle \frac{p_n^x}{p^+}}.]`$
Using this one can show that, for an appropriate value of the constant $`\beta `$ in (91), the $`so(4)`$ generators $`𝐊_\pm ,𝐈_\pm `$ annihilate the state (23). Note that in the fermionc part of the wavefunction, it is important to take the traceless symmetric linear combination of the fermion polarizations. For instance, one could consider a state which has only $`\eta _{1,n}\eta _{2,n}\theta _{1,n}\theta _{2,n}`$ at each bit $`n`$.

One needs to check that the value of $`\beta `$ for which the above is true is compatible with the superconformal algebra. In fact, it is an open question whether the discretized algebra is satisfied. It is likely that the specific prescription for discretization plays an important role in this. We do not have a complete understanding of this issue yet and hope to come back to it .

Summary:

With the above action of $`x^{}(\sigma )`$ on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sym}}`$, it is easy to see that both $`H_{}`$ and the lowering operators $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ (see (58)) annihilate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sym}}`$.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Comments on “Composite Fermion (CF) model of quantum Hall effect - Two-dimensional electron system in high magnetic fields, S. S. Mandal, M. R. Peterson and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 106403 (2003).
Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

The flux quanta attachment to the electrons creates composite fermions (CFs). The mass, the size and the density of the CF are inconsistent with real material. The sequence of fractional charges which suggest formation of CF agrees with the data but there are no monopoles in GaAs. Hence the CF model is internally inconsistent. There are two options at this stage. (1) The flux quanta are attached to the electrons. This is a theoretical possibility with nothing to do with any experiment ever performed within the last seventy five years. It will violate Maxwell equations and create unreal objects. (2) The CF give a sequence which is deduced from the experimental data and hence agrees with the data. In this case, the masses, the sizes and the densities are internally inconsistent.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-402-301 0145.Phone: 301 0811. 1. Introduction

The paper by Mandal et al shows that even number of magnetic flux quanta are attached to the electron. We find that this flux attachment is internally inconsistent. If there is a contact between the sequence and the data then the model does not have Lorentz invariance and mass and size are inconsistent. If the flux quanta are attached to the electron then there is no contact of this flux-attached model with the experimental data on quantum Hall effect because there are no monopoles in GaAs. By using the experimental numbers, Jain\[1-3\] constructed a sequence which gives the correct plateaus in the quantum Hall effect. From these sequences, effort is made to construct a formula for the magnetic field. This field formula is interpreted in terms of flux quanta attachment to the electron but it is internally inconsistent.

We find that whenever effort is made to compare this composite fermion (CF) model with the data, some thing or the other is always wrong. There are many different number of flux quanta required to reach agreement with the experimental data. These are denoted by 6CF, 8CF and 10CF.

Several questions arise. This CF model is correct and should be accepted as new physics. It will be immediately obvious that CF model is not internally consistent and hence should be discarded. Let us examine a few points.

2. Comments.

(i) Abundance of flux quanta and Monopoles

Usually the flux is generated by the flow of current in a coil. In the CF model, the current which generates the flux quanta is missing. On page 106403-2, left column, para 2, it is mentioned that

“N electrons are confined to the two dimensional surface of a sphere, moving under the influence of a radial magnetic field produced by a magnetic monopole of strength, Q, at the center. According to Dirac’s quantization condition, Q can be either an integer or a half integer, and produces a total flux of 2Q$`\varphi _o`$ …” \[Surely, Dirac’s monopoles do not exist in GaAs/AlGaAs and hence the CF model does not apply\]. Dirac symmetrized the Maxwell equations and predicted the monopoles in 1931 but these monopoles have not been seen in any of the experiments. Although ’tHooft removed the string of the Dirac’s monopole, it is still not found in nature. In the ’tHooft’s theory, the Maxwell equations remain unchanged except at one point. Therefore, whereas there are no monopoles in the Maxwell theory, there is a monopole in ’tHooft’s. There is a report of finding a monopole, the mass of which may be equal to that of an atom of atomic number 200. In that case, the difference between a heavy atom and a monopole was not resolved. In that case the mass of the monopole will be about 105 times larger than that of an electron. Naturally impossible in GaAs . The number of such monopoles will be very small but 8CF or 10CF require far too many monopoles to be present. As far as the number of monopoles is concerned for 10CF, 10 times more monopoles are required than the number of electrons and what will be the mass of such a large number of monopoles? It is obvious that the CF model is demanding far too many flux quanta than can be available. Therefore, on the grounds of abundance of free flux quanta, the CF model can not be accepted as a new theory.

(ii) Mass.

What is the mass of a vortex? The vortices are found in superconductors with unit flux $`\varphi _o`$=hc/2e. In the normal state we need not take the charge as $`2e`$ but $`e`$. Hence the normal unit flux is $`\varphi _o`$=hc/e. The mass was calculated by Suhl and found to be 104 per unit length in the units of the mass of the electron. If we take an order of magnitude of a flux mass as 104, then no such free mass is available in GaAs. If the CF model is correct, then the mass of GaAs after CF formation will become 104 times the mass before CF formation. Therefore, CF model is surely inapplicable. Let us examine this mass from another view point. The magnetic length is $`l_o`$=$`(\varphi _o/B)^{1/2}`$. At 8 Tesla, the magnetic length is about 10-6 cm so that the wave vector is 106 cm-1. The mass due to kinetic energy is the mass per unit length mk$`{}_{F}{}^{}m\times 10^6`$. The wave vector of the electron is about 108 cm-1 so that for the same energy, which is of the order of cyclotron energy, the mass of the vortex should be 100 times larger than the electron mass. Therefore, when 10CF are formed the mass of the CF will be 1000 times the mass of an electron but there is no evidence of such a large massive quasiparticle.

(iii) Free flux.

Let us take a positive approach to the problem. The fluxes that get attached to the electrons in any of the various composite fermion models are not physical magnetic fields and therefore need no persistent currents to create them. They are either short hand for rearrangement of purely electronic states or a mathematical transformation that does nothing but change the description of the system but no such transformation is known. The general motivation for the “attached flux” language is that one imagines putting a real magnetic solenoid through a point (or electron) in the 2DEG and gradually increases the field in the solenoid untill it contains one unit of flux, (it may never happen so). The electric field due to the changing magnetic field acts on the other electrons outside the solenoid and changes their state. The final unit flux, however, is invisible to all electrons since only fractional fluxes produce a Bohm-Aharonov effect. It is therefore discarded and the word “attached flux” is retained as the appropriate language to describe the rearranged many-electron state created by this mechanism. \[Jain does not do this any way and this mechanism will not produce the experimental sequence of plateaus\]. In a Chern-Simon field, a unit flux does nothing physical at all. It allows us to describe the Laughlin state as a kind of Bose condensate of the purely mathematical composite boson.

A good analogy for these purely mathematical transformations is provided by the two dimensional Ising model. A Jordan-Wigner transformation which is similar in character to a “flux attachment”, turns the spins into Majorana fermions.(Majorana means that which exchanges the space coordinates of two interacting particles). These are free fermions so the model is easily solved in this language. All these “attached fluxex” are loosely related to the operation but all have in common that no real magnetic flux is being attached to anything. Similarly, Holstein-Primakopf transformation transforms the spin operators into bosons so that the boson Hamiltonian can be solved by usual methods. The fermion transformation does not introduce internal inconsistencies nor does the boson transformation. In Jain’s CF there are too many inconsistencies and the whole thing does not work like a transformation. Therefore, even if the “flux attachment” model is correct, the series which agree with the quantum Hall effect data are unphysical. Hence when “flux attachment” models are solved, they will have nothing to do with the experimental data. In the case of Chern-Simons fields, the scalar potential term has been set to zero and then only the vector potential is changed so there is no Lorentz condition. Therefore, Jain’s CF model has nothing to do with the experimental work on GaAs. The electron scattering or attachment to magnetic monopoles may be interesting by itself as a good problem but it will have nothing to do with quantum Hall effect. Dyakonov and Farid have also shown that there is a lack of theoretical basis in CF model.

(iv) Exactness.

Some of the parts of the calculation are exact but Laughlin has used $`e`$ in place of $`e/a_o^2`$ where $`Ba_o^2`$=$`\varphi _o`$. Therefore, $`e`$ becomes fractional or $`B`$, cannot be resolved. Laughlin performed the calculation of energy for $`m`$=1/3 and 1/5 but suggested that the ground state may cross the charge-density wave at 1/7. Now, Mandal et al have extended the calculation to 1/7, 1/9 and 1/11 and exactness is preserved. This means that 6CF, 8CF and 10CFs are correct but attaching 10 flux quanta to one electron has no chances of agreeing with size or mass requirements and the density of 10CFs, on physical grounds can not be equal to that of electrons and hence CF model becomes internally inconsistent. Is there enough room in GaAs to keep all these flux quanta? The answer is, no. There is no room to keep so many flux quanta. So what is an exact answer is also a wrong answer. So if there is a model of flux attachment to electrons, then it will have nothing to do with the experimental data. If the series agrees with the data, then it has nothing to do with flux attachment.

3. Conclusions.

The attachment of flux quanta can work like a Holstein-Primakopf transformation but Jain has not found the transformation. As and when such a transformation is found, it will not be a theory of GaAs like real material. The sequences which are made to agree with the experimental data create internal inconsistencies. The exactness is limited to the product of charge and the field and hence can not resolve whether charge or field has been fractionalized. The experimental data is not consistent with 1/odd fractions. It is important to learn the numerator also. The mass of the vortices is not consistent with GaAs. The abundance of the vortices is also not consistent with what is possible in GaAs. Pan et al have also noted that the experimental data are not consistent with the sequences suggested by Jain\[1-3\]. There are too many inconsistencies in the CF model and hence they can not be resolved. If the flux attachment transformation is worked out it will not be relevent to experimental work. Hence, CF model should be discarded in as much as its comparison with the experimental data is concerned .

About the author: Keshav Shrivastava has obtained Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology and D. Sc. from Calcutta University. He is a member of the American Physical Society, Fellow of the Institute of Physics (U.K.)and Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India. He has worked in the Harvard University, University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of Houston and the Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm. He has published 170 papers in the last 40 years. He is the author of two books. Shrivastava’s paper with Roy Anderson, published in J. Chem. Phys. 48, 4599(1967) was found to be useful by M. C. R. Symons,F. R. S. The letter with K. W. H. Stevens, J. Phys. C 3, L 64 (1970) was useful to D. I. Bolef, the paper with Vincent Jaccarino,Phys. Rev. B13, 299(1976) was useful to J. B. Goodenough, F. R. S. His paper, J. Phys. C 20, L789 (1987) on the microwave absorption, was useful to Nobel Laureate K. Alex Müller. His paper published in the Proc. Roy. Soc. A419, 287- 303(1988), communicated by B. Bleaney, F.R.S. represents original work of interest to Nobel Laureate J. H. van Vleck. He discovered the flux quantized energy levels in superconductors and the correct theory of 1/3 charge in quantum Hall effect. The correct theory of quantum Hall effect is given in ref.9.

5. References

1. J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).
2. K. Park and J. K. Jain, 80, 437 (1998)
3. S. S. Mandal, M. R. Peterson and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 106403(2003).
4. G.’tHooft, Nuc. Phys. B 72,461 (1974);75, 461(1974); 79. 276 (1974).
5. M. I. Dyakonov, cond-mat/0209206.
6. B. Farid, cond-mat/0003064.
7. W. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 016801(2003)
8. K. N. Shrivastava, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. J1.209 (2003)
9. K. N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect,
Nova Science Pub. Inc., N. Y. (2002).

Note: Ref. 9 is available from:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600,
Hauppauge, N. Y.. 11788-3619,
Tel.(631)-231-7269, Fax: (631)-231-8175,
ISBN 1-59033-419-1 US$`\$69`$.
E-mail: novascience@Earthlink.net