text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The maximally supersymmetric pp-wave space-time  (henceforth referred to as the plane wave)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =2dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{x}^2\left(dx^+\right)^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2,\hfill \\ \hfill F_5& =4\mu dx^+\left(dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4+dx^5dx^6dx^7dx^8\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
provides an interesting and tractable example of a curved background with R-R flux on which many aspects of (type IIB) string theory can be studied. In particular, in the Green-Schwarz formalism, the world-sheet action is quadratic in light-cone gauge and hence can be quantized exactly . The spectrum of the closed string consists of a unique massless ground-state $`|v`$ and an infinite tower of excited states whose masses are of order $`\omega _n/\alpha ^{}p^+`$ , where

$$\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+\left(\mu \alpha ^{}p^+\right)^2},n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},$$
(1.2)
$`p^+`$ is the light-cone momentum. An important aspect of the plane wave is that it can be obtained as a Penrose-Güven limit  of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ . This allowed  to derive a duality between string theory on the plane wave and a double-scaling limit of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills (SYM) from the AdS/CFT correspondence . The latter can then be studied, albeit in a special limit, beyond the supergravity approximation due to the solvability of string theory in this background.

The Penrose limit induces the following relations between string and gauge theory parameters

$$\frac{1}{\mu }H=\mathrm{\Delta }J,\frac{1}{\left(\mu \alpha ^{}p^+\right)^2}=\frac{g_{\text{YM}}^2N}{J^2}\lambda ^{},4\pi g_\text{s}\left(\mu \alpha ^{}p^+\right)^2=\frac{J^2}{N}g_2$$
(1.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the conformal dimension and $`J`$ the charge of a $`U(1)_R`$ subgroup (corresponding to a $`S^1`$ inside the $`S^5`$ that is singled out by the Penrose limit) of the $`SU(4)_R`$ $`R`$-symmetry of SYM. The composite (BMN) operators with large charge $`J`$ and conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ whose difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ remains fixed in the double scaling limit

$$N\mathrm{}\text{and}J\mathrm{}\text{with}\frac{J^2}{N}\text{fixed},g_{\text{YM}}\text{fixed},$$
(1.4)
are the field theory duals of perturbative string states . For these operators the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ is a function of the effective coupling $`\lambda ^{}`$  and the effective genus counting parameter $`g_2^2`$  (see also ). Subsequently the gauge theory side of this novel duality has been extensively studied, see e.g. .

String interactions in the plane wave space-time correspond to the non-planar sector (i.e. finite $`g_2`$) of interacting gauge theory, cf. (1.3). In light-cone gauge in flat space-time string interactions can be studied using the vertex operator approach. The difficulties associated with the fact that $`x^{}`$ is quadratic in transverse coordinates can be circumvented exploiting the ten-dimensional Lorentz-symmetry. In the plane wave this is broken by the R-R flux, in particular there is no $`J^+`$ generator, and the study of interactions is more involved. On the other hand, the light-cone string field theory formalism developed in flat space-time for the bosonic string (see e.g. ) and extended to the superstring in  was successfully generalized to the plane wave for closed strings  and for open strings . In light-cone string field theory the cubic interaction vertex is a first order in $`g_\text{s}`$ correction to the free Hamiltonian. In the bosonic string it is constructed by requiring continuity of string fields on the world-sheet; in the number basis continuity is enforced mode by mode by an exponential of creation oscillators. In the superstring additional ‘dynamical’ constraints arise from the requirement that the superalgebra is realized in the interacting theory; hence the dynamical supercharges that anticommute to the Hamiltonian have to acquire corrections as well. These additional constraints on the interaction vertex (and dynamical supercharges) are solved by introducing prefactors, polynomial in creation oscillators, acting on the exponential part of the vertex. In the functional formalism these prefactors have the interpretation of interaction point operators .

Light-cone string field theory has been used to perform a successful test of the duality beyond the free string/planar gauge theory level in , where the leading non-planar correction of certain BMN operators  was reproduced from a string field theory computation (see also ). For further aspects of string interactions and the duality to SYM see e.g. . In spite of this success there remains a puzzle concerning the correct approach to light-cone string field theory on the plane wave background. Whereas  used the $`SO(8)`$ formalism to construct the cubic interaction vertex and thereby closely followed the flat space-time approach , an alternative and apparently different construction (called the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formalism in what follows) was initiated in , where the continuity conditions were solved. The difference in the two formulations lies in their starting point: in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism the vertex is built on the state $`|0`$ (with energy $`\mu `$) that is not the ground state of string theory on the plane wave, rather it corresponds to the dilaton/axion fluctuation mode of plane wave supergravity . Then, by construction, one has a smooth connection to flat space-time string field theory as $`\mu 0`$. On the other hand, in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ setup, the vertex is built on the vacuum $`|v`$ of plane wave string theory, which corresponds to the fluctuation mode of a mixture of the trace of the graviton and the R-R potential on one of the two transverse $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4`$’s . The presence of the R-R flux breaks the transverse $`SO(8)`$ symmetry of the metric to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times 𝖹𝖹_2`$, where the discrete $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ is a particular $`SO(8)`$ transformation that exchanges the two $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4`$’s (cf. (1.1)). Based on this $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ symmetry it was argued in  that only the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formalism yields a vertex which respects the complete transverse symmetry. In this paper we attempt to resolve this puzzle by solving the dynamical constraints in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formalism. With the complete solution for the cubic interaction vertex and dynamical supercharges at hand, we find strong indications that both formulations preserve all the transverse symmetries and propose that they are physically equivalent.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the free string and recall the solution to the continuity conditions in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formalism. In section 3 we present the solution of the dynamical constraints, i.e. the prefactors both of the cubic interaction vertex and dynamical supercharges. In section 4 we use these results to compute the leading order (for large $`\mu `$) mass-shift of the simplest stringy state using perturbation theory and truncation to the so called impurity-conserving channel. We conclude in section 5. Several appendices are also included: in appendix A we summarize our notations and conventions, appendices B and C contain details on the derivation of the prefactors and appendix D provides the functional expressions for the fermionic constituents of the prefactors.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 The free string

The free string in the plane wave background in light-cone gauge is described by $`x_r^I(\sigma _r)`$ and $`\vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r)`$ in position space or by $`p_r^I(\sigma _r)`$ and $`\lambda _r^a(\sigma _r)`$ in momentum space, where $`I`$ is a transverse SO(8) vector index, $`a`$ is a SO(8) spinor index. The index $`r=1,2,3`$ denotes the $`r`$th string. The bosonic part of the light-cone action in the plane wave background is

$$S_{\text{bos.}(r)}=\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}𝑑\sigma _r\left[\dot{x}_r^2x_r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mu ^2x_r^2\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`\dot{x}_r_\tau x_r`$, $`x_r^{}_{\sigma _r}x_r`$, $`\alpha _r\alpha ^{}p_r^+`$ and $`e(\alpha _r)\alpha _r/|\alpha _r|`$. In a collision process $`p_r^+`$ will be positive for an incoming string and negative for an outgoing one. The mode expansions of the fields $`x_r^I(\sigma _r,\tau )`$ and $`p_r^I(\sigma _r,\tau )`$ at $`\tau =0`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x_r^I(\sigma _r)& =x_{0(r)}^I+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(x_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+x_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill p_r^I(\sigma _r)& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha _r|}\left[p_{0(r)}^I+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(p_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+p_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
The Fourier modes can be reexpressed in terms of creation and annihilation operators as

$$x_{n(r)}^I=i\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\omega _{n(r)}}}\left(a_{n(r)}^Ia_{n(r)}^I\right),p_{n(r)}^I=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{n(r)}}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(a_{n(r)}^I+a_{n(r)}^I\right).$$
(2.3)
Canonical quantization of the bosonic coordinates yields the usual commutation relations

$$[x_r^I(\sigma _r),p_s^J(\sigma _s)]=i\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{rs}\delta (\sigma _r\sigma _s)[a_{n(r)}^I,a_{m(s)}^J]=\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.4)
The fermionic part of the light-cone action in the plane wave is

$$S_{\text{ferm.}(r)}=\frac{1}{8\pi }𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}𝑑\sigma _r[i(\overline{\vartheta }_r\dot{\vartheta }_r+\vartheta _r\dot{\overline{\vartheta }}_r)\vartheta _r\vartheta _r^{}+\overline{\vartheta }_r\overline{\vartheta }_r^{}2\mu \overline{\vartheta }_r\mathrm{\Pi }\vartheta _r],$$
(2.5)
where $`\vartheta _r^a`$ is a complex, positive chirality SO(8) spinor and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}(\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4)_{ab}`$ is symmetric, traceless and squares to one. The mode expansions of $`\vartheta _r^a`$ and its conjugate momentum $`\lambda _r^a`$ at $`\tau =0`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r)& =\vartheta _{0(r)}^a+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\vartheta _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+\vartheta _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _r^a(\sigma _r)& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha _r|}\left[\lambda _{0(r)}^a+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+\lambda _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
The Fourier modes satisfy $`2\lambda _{n(r)}^a=|\alpha _r|\overline{\vartheta }_{n(r)}^a`$ and the canonical anti-commutation relations for the fermionic coordinates yield the anti-commutation rules

$$\{\vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r),\lambda _s^b(\sigma _s)\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{rs}\delta (\sigma _r\sigma _s)\{\vartheta _{n(r)}^a,\lambda _{m(s)}^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.7)
The fermionic normal modes are defined via

$$\vartheta _{n(r)}=\frac{c_{n(r)}}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[(1+\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi })b_{n(r)}+e(\alpha _r)e(n)(1\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi })b_{n(r)}^{}\right],n𝖹𝖹,$$
(2.8)
and break the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$. Here

$$\rho _{n(r)}=\rho _{n(r)}=\frac{\omega _{n(r)}|n|}{\mu \alpha _r},c_{n(r)}=c_{n(r)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho _{n(r)}^2}}.$$
(2.9)
These modes satisfy

$$\{b_{n(r)}^a,b_{m(s)}^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.10)
In what follows it will be important to use a $`\gamma `$-matrix representation for which the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry of the plane wave space-time is manifest for the fermions. In this basis

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}\delta _{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.11)
where $`\alpha _k`$, $`\dot{\alpha }_k`$ ($`\beta _k`$, $`\dot{\beta }_k`$) are two-component Weyl indices of $`SO(4)_k`$, see appendix A for our conventions. Hence $`(1\pm \mathrm{\Pi })/2`$ project onto $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐}^{})`$ of $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$, respectively, and

$$\{b_{n(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2},b_{m(s)}^{\beta _1\beta _2}\}=\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs},\{b_{n(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},b_{m(s)}^{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\beta }_2}\}=\delta _{\dot{\alpha }_1}^{\dot{\beta }_1}\delta _{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\dot{\beta }_2}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.12)
The free string light-cone Hamiltonian is

$$H_{2(r)}=\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}\omega _{n(r)}\left(a_{n(r)}^Ia_{n(r)}^I+b_{n(r)}^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}b_{n(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2}+b_{n(r)}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}b_{n(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}\right).$$
(2.13)
In the above the zero-point energies cancel between bosons and fermions. The vacuum $`|v_r`$ is defined as

$$a_{n(r)}|v_r=0,b_{n(r)}|v_r=0,n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}.$$
(2.14)
We will sometimes suppress the spinor indices and go back and forth between expressions which are formally $`SO(8)`$ invariant but contain $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and those where the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry is manifest.

The isometries of the plane wave superalgebra are generated by $`H`$, $`P^+`$, $`J^{+I}`$, $`J^{ij}`$ and $`J^{i^{}j^{}}`$. The latter two are angular momentum generators of the transverse $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry of the plane wave space-time. The 32 supersymmetries are generated by $`Q^+`$, $`\overline{Q}^+`$ and $`Q^{}`$, $`\overline{Q}^{}`$. The former correspond to inhomogeneous shift symmetries on the world-sheet (‘non-linearly realized’ supersymmetries), whereas the latter generate the linearly realized world-sheet supersymmetries. An important subset of the superalgebra is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [H,P^I]& =i\mu ^2J^{+I},[H,Q^+]=\mu \mathrm{\Pi }Q^+,\hfill \\ \hfill \{Q_{\dot{\alpha }}^{},\overline{Q}_{\dot{\beta }}^{}\}& =2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}Hi\mu \left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{ij}+i\mu \left(\gamma _{i^{}j^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{i^{}j^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.15)
The supercharges, obtained by the standard Noether method in , are

$`Q_{(r)}^+`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}}𝑑\sigma _r\sqrt{2}\lambda _r,`$ (2.16)
$`Q_{(r)}^{}`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}}𝑑\sigma _r\left[2\pi \alpha ^{}e(\alpha _r)p_r\gamma \lambda _rix_r^{}\gamma \overline{\lambda }_ri\mu x_r\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }\lambda _r\right],`$ (2.17)
and $`\overline{Q}_{(r)}^\pm =e(\alpha _r)\left[Q_{(r)}^\pm \right]^{}`$. Expanding $`Q^{}`$ in modes one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_{(r)}^{}& =\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\gamma (\sqrt{\mu }[a_{0(r)}(1+e(\alpha _r)\mathrm{\Pi })+a_{0(r)}^{}(1e(\alpha _r)\mathrm{\Pi })]\lambda _{0(r)}\hfill \\ & +\underset{n0}{}\sqrt{|n|}[a_{n(r)}P_{n(r)}^1b_{n(r)}^{}+e(\alpha _r)e(n)a_{n(r)}^{}P_{n(r)}b_{n(r)}]),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.18)
where

$$P_{n(r)}\frac{1\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi }}{\sqrt{1\rho _{n(r)}^2}}=\frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}U_{|n|(r)}^{1/2}+\frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}U_{|n|(r)}^{1/2},U_{n(r)}\frac{\omega _{n(r)}\mu \alpha _r}{n}.$$
(2.19)
### 2.2 The kinematical part of the vertex

The guiding principles in the construction of light-cone string field theory are world-sheet continuity and the realization of the superalgebra in the full interacting theory. One can distinguish two sets of generators. One consists of the kinematical generators $`P^+`$, $`P^I`$, $`J^{+I}`$, $`J^{ij}`$, $`J^{i^{}j^{}}`$, $`Q^+`$ and $`\overline{Q}^+`$ which are not corrected by interactions, in other words the symmetries they generate are not affected by adding higher order terms to the action. On the other hand, the dynamical generators $`H`$, $`Q^{}`$ and $`\overline{Q}^{}`$ do receive corrections in the presence of interactions. The requirement that the superalgebra is satisfied in the interacting theory, now gives rise to two kinds of constraints: kinematical constraints arising from the (anti)commutation relations of kinematical with dynamical generators and dynamical constraints arising from the (anti)commutation relations of dynamical generators alone. The former lead to the continuity conditions in superspace, whereas the latter require the insertion of interaction point operators . In practice these constraints will be solved in perturbation theory, for example $`H`$, the full Hamiltonian of the interacting theory, has an expansion in the string coupling

$$H=H_2+g_\text{s}H_3+\mathrm{},$$
(2.20)
and $`H_3`$ leads to a three-string interaction. Then it follows that e.g.

$$[H,P^I]=i\mu ^2J^{+I}[H_3,P^I]=0,$$
(2.21)
so the interaction vertex is translationally invariant and conserves transverse momentum (which is not a good quantum number in the plane wave space-time due to the confining harmonic oscillator potential). This constraint is the same as world-sheet continuity in momentum space and will be realized by constructing an interaction vertex which conserves $`_rp_r(\sigma _r)`$ locally . Analogously the fermionic world-sheet continuity condition follows from

$$[H,Q^+]=\mu \mathrm{\Pi }Q^+[H_3,Q^+]=0,$$
(2.22)
and will be implemented by local conservation of $`_r\lambda _r(\sigma _r)`$, cf. (2.16). In practice it is useful to express e.g. $`H_3`$ not as an operator, but as a state $`|H_3`$ in the multi-string Hilbert space and work in the number basis . Then the dynamical generators are of the form $`𝒫|V`$, where $`𝒫`$ are the prefactors determined by the dynamical constraints (i.e. the oscillator expressions of the interaction point operators mentioned above) and the kinematical part of the vertex $`|V`$ common to all the dynamical generators implements the continuity conditions. In the number basis it has the form

$$|V|E_a|E_b\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\right),$$
(2.23)
where $`|E_a`$ and $`|E_b`$ are exponentials of bosonic and fermionic creation oscillators, respectively. The bosonic solution to the kinematic constraints is

$$|E_a=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n𝖹𝖹}{}a_{m(r)}^I\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^I\right)|v_{123},$$
(2.24)
where $`|v_{123}=|v_1|v_2|v_3`$ is the tensor product of three (bosonic) vacuum states and $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ are the so called Neumann matrices, see e.g.  for their formal definitions and  for explicit expressions as functions of $`\mu `$, $`\alpha _r`$. A solution of the fermionic kinematical constraints built on $`|v_{123}`$ (instead of $`|0_{123}`$ , cf. the discussion in the introduction) is 111To compare with the expression in , note that
$$\underset{s,t}{}\epsilon ^{st}\sqrt{\alpha _s}\alpha _tb_{0(s)}^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha _1\alpha _2},\underset{s,t}{}\epsilon ^{st}\sqrt{\alpha _s}\alpha _tb_{0(s)}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}.$$
(2.25)

$$|E_b=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n0}{}\left(b_{m(r)}^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}b_{n(s)\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{}+b_{m(r)}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}b_{n(s)\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}^{}\right)\overline{Q}_{mn}^{rs}\right)|v_{123},$$
(2.26)
where the non-vanishing components of the fermionic Neumann matrices are  ($`m`$, $`n>0`$; no sum over $`r`$ in (2.28) and we use the notations of )

$`\overline{Q}_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right|}\left[U_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}U_{(s)}^{1/2}\right]_{mn},`$ (2.27)
$`\overline{Q}_{0n}^{rs}`$ $`=\epsilon ^{rt}\sqrt{\alpha _r}\alpha _t{\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _s)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _s|}}}\left[\left(U_{(s)}C_{(s)}C\right)^{1/2}\overline{N}^s\right]_n,`$ (2.28)
$`\overline{Q}_{00}^{3r}`$ $`=\overline{Q}_{00}^{r3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}}.`$ (2.29)
## 3 A supersymmetric extension in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$
formalism

### 3.1 The superalgebra and the constituents of the prefactor

It is convenient to define the linear combinations of the free supercharges ($`\eta =e^{i\pi /4}`$)

$$\sqrt{2}\eta QQ^{}+i\overline{Q}^{},\text{and}\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q^{}i\overline{Q}^{}$$
(3.1)
which, on the subspace of physical states satisfying the level-matching condition  (see also the recent ), satisfy

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{Q_{\dot{a}},Q_{\dot{b}}\}& =\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}},\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\}=2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}H,\hfill \\ \hfill \{Q_{\dot{a}},\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\}& =\mu \left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{ij}+\mu \left(\gamma _{i^{}j^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{i^{}j^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
Since $`J^{ij}`$ and $`J^{i^{}j^{}}`$ are not corrected by the interaction, it follows that at order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$ the dynamical generators have to obey

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{a}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{b}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=2|H_3\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}},`$ (3.3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=2|H_3\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}},`$ (3.4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{a}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=0.`$ (3.5)
Rewriting these constraints in $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ notation, each gives rise to four constraints, e.g. (3.3) yields

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2}|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}|Q_{3\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2}`$ $`=2\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}|H_3,`$ (3.6)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2}|Q_{3\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}|Q_{3\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2}`$ $`=2\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}|H_3,`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2}|Q_{3\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}|Q_{3\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2}`$ $`=0,`$ (3.8)
with the fourth constraint equivalent to the third one. So as not to destroy world-sheet continuity, the prefactors have to (anti)commute with the kinematical constraints. The relevant bosonic combinations that are linear in creation oscillators are

$$K^I\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}K_{n(r)}a_{n(r)}^I,\stackrel{~}{K}^I\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{n(r)}a_{n(r)}^I,$$
(3.9)
where

$$K_{n(r)}(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{0(r)},\hfill & n=0\hfill \\ F_{n(r)},\hfill & n>0\hfill \\ iU_{n(r)}F_{n(r)},\hfill & n<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
and $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{n(r)}=K_{n(r)}^{}`$. For the explicit expressions of $`K`$ and $`F_{n(r)}`$ see e.g. . The fermionic expressions anticommuting with the kinematical constraints that are linear in creation oscillators are (see also ) 222There exist further expressions anticommuting with the kinematical constraints , which however can be written as $`_\sigma Y`$ and $`_\sigma Z`$, cf. appendices C and D.

$$Y^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n0}{}\overline{G}_{n(r)}b_{n(r)}^{\alpha _1\alpha _2},Z^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n0}{}\overline{G}_{n(r)}b_{n(r)}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},$$
(3.11)
where

$$\overline{G}_{(r)}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}U_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}F_{(r)},$$
(3.12)
and we have chosen a normalization convenient for what follows. In order to derive equations that determine the dynamical generators one has to compute (anti)commutators of $`Q_{\dot{a}(r)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}(r)}`$ with the constituents of the prefactors. Moreover, the action of the supercharges on $`|V`$ has to be known in terms of these constituents. To determine the equations arising from the constraints (3.3) and (3.4) we will need

$`\eta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[Q_{(r)},\stackrel{~}{K}^I]=2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma ^I\left(Y+iZ\right),`$ (3.13)
$`\overline{\eta }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},K^I]=2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma ^I\left(YiZ\right).`$ (3.14)
Furthermore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \eta \sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\{Q_{(r)},Y+iZ\}& =i\gamma ^IK^I,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{\eta }\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},YiZ\}& =i\gamma ^I\stackrel{~}{K}^I.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.15)
Finally, the action of the supercharges on $`|V`$ is

$`\eta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{(r)}|V`$ $`=K^I\gamma ^I(Y+iZ)|V,`$ (3.16)
$`\overline{\eta }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)}|V`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{K}^I\gamma ^I(YiZ)|V.`$ (3.17)
These equations can be written in $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ notation, the resulting formulae are relegated to appendix B. It is useful to note the reality properties under complex conjugation defined as

$$K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}K_{n(r)}^{}a_{n(r)}^I=\stackrel{~}{K}^I,Y^{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n0}{}\overline{G}_{n(r)}^{}b_{n(r)}^{}=Y,Z^{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n0}{}\overline{G}_{n(r)}^{}b_{n(r)}^{}=Z,$$
(3.18)
which enable us to immediately write down the solution for $`|\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, once we determined $`|Q`$.

### 3.2 The dynamical generators at $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$

To construct a solution to the dynamical constraints we will proceed as follows: first we write down an ansatz for, say $`|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}`$, which is of the form

$$|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}=\left(f_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i(Y,Z)\stackrel{~}{K}^i+g_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i^{}(Y,Z)\stackrel{~}{K}^i^{}\right)|V,$$
(3.19)
where $`f_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i(Y,Z)`$ and $`g_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i^{}(Y,Z)`$ are the most general polynomials in $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ compatible with the index structure. Computing the left-hand-side of equation (3.6) and requiring that the result only contains the tensor $`\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}`$ fixes all the coefficients except for the overall normalization and analogously for (3.7); the relative normalization between $`|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}`$ and $`|Q_{3\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}`$ is fixed by demanding that the right-hand-sides of (3.6) and (3.7) result in the same cubic interaction vertex. Finally, one can check that (3.8) is satisfied with these fixed coefficients.

To determine the most general ansatz for the fermionic polynomials we define the following quantities which are quadratic in $`Y`$ and symmetric in spinor indices

$$Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Y_{\beta _1}^{\alpha _2},Y_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^2Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Y_{\beta _2}^{\alpha _1},$$
(3.20)
cubic in $`Y`$

$$Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2}^3Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2Y_{\beta _2}^{\beta _1}=Y_{\beta _2\alpha _2}^2Y_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2},$$
(3.21)
and, finally, quartic in $`Y`$ and antisymmetric in spinor indices

$$Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^4Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _1}^2Y_{}^{2}{}_{\beta _1}{}^{\gamma _1}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}Y^4,Y_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^4Y_{\alpha _2\gamma _2}^2Y_{}^{2}{}_{\beta _2}{}^{\gamma _2}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}Y^4,$$
(3.22)
where

$$Y^4Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _1\beta _1}=Y_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^2Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _2\beta _2}.$$
(3.23)
These quantities satisfy various useful relations given in appendix B, (B.1)–(B.4). Analogous definitions are made for $`Z`$. Performing the above procedure (cf. appendices B and C for details) we find the following solution for the dynamical supercharges

$$\overline{\eta }\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}=\left(s_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\beta }_2}(Z)t_{\beta _1\gamma _1}(Y)\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\gamma _1}+is_{\beta _1\gamma _2}(Y)t_{\dot{\beta }_2\dot{\gamma }_2}^{}(Z)\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_2\gamma _2}\right)|V,$$
(3.24)
$$\eta \sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}|Q_{3\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}=\left(s_{\gamma _1\beta _2}^{}(Y)t_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_1}^{}(Z)\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\gamma _1}+is_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}^{}(Z)t_{\beta _2\gamma _2}(Y)\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_2\gamma _2}\right)|V.$$
(3.25)
Here we defined

$$\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\gamma _1}\stackrel{~}{K}^i\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\gamma _1},\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_2\gamma _2}\stackrel{~}{K}^i^{}\sigma _{}^{i^{}}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\gamma }_2\gamma _2},$$
(3.26)
and the spinorial quantities, say for $`Y`$

$$s(Y)Y+\frac{i}{3}Y^3,t(Y)\epsilon +iY^2\frac{1}{6}Y^4.$$
(3.27)
The remaining dynamical supercharges are $`|\stackrel{~}{Q}=|Q^{}`$, some details for the proof of the remaining constraint (3.5) are given in appendix C. The cubic interaction vertex is

$`|H_3`$ $`=[(K_i\stackrel{~}{K}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\delta _{ij})v^{ij}(K_i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}_j^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\delta _{i^{}j^{}})v^{i^{}j^{}}`$
$`K^{\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _1}\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\alpha }_2\alpha _2}s_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(Y)s_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}^{}(Z)\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _1}K^{\dot{\alpha }_2\alpha _2}s_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{}(Y)s_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}(Z)]|V,`$ (3.28)
where333The first line can also be written as    $`\left(K_i\stackrel{~}{K}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\delta _{ij}\right)v^{ij}\left(K_i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}_j^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\delta _{i^{}j^{}}\right)v^{i^{}j^{}}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K^{\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _1}\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\beta }_1\beta _1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\epsilon ^{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon ^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}\right)t_{\alpha _1\beta _1}(Y)t_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}^{}(Z)`$     $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K^{\dot{\alpha }_2\alpha _2}\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\beta }_2\beta _2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\epsilon ^{\alpha _2\beta _2}\epsilon ^{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\right)t_{\alpha _2\beta _2}(Y)t_{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}^{}(Z).`$  (3.29)

$`v^{ij}`$ $`=\delta ^{ij}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(Y^4+Z^4\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}Y^4Z^4\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}Z^4\right)Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}Y^4\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[Y^2Z^2\right]^{ij},`$ (3.30)
$`v^{i^{}j^{}}`$ $`=\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(Y^4+Z^4\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}Y^4Z^4\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{i^{}j^{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}Z^4\right)Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{i^{}j^{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}Y^4\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[Y^2Z^2\right]^{i^{}j^{}}.`$ (3.31)
Here we defined

$$Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}\sigma _{\alpha _1\beta _1}^{ij}Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _1\beta _1},Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}^{ij}Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1},\left(Y^2Z^2\right)^{ij}Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{k(i}Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{j)k}$$
(3.32)
and analogously for the primed indices. Notice that $`v_{ij}^{}=v_{ji}`$, $`v_{i^{}j^{}}^{}=v_{j^{}i^{}}`$ and $`\delta _{ij}v^{ij}\delta _{i^{}j^{}}v^{i^{}j^{}}`$ only yields a contribution quartic in $`Y`$ and $`Z`$.

From the purely bosonic part of the prefactor it is manifest that it has negative parity under the discrete $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ symmetry of the plane wave space-time. Indeed, taking the overall normalization (which cannot be fixed by the dynamical constraints) to be $`\pi g_\text{s}\alpha ^{}\mu ^2`$, the effective interaction vertex for states containing only bosonic oscillators is

$`\pi g_\text{s}\alpha ^{}\mu ^2|H_{3\text{bos}}=\pi g_\text{s}\alpha ^{}\mu ^2\left(K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^iK^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^i^{}\right)|E_a\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _r\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2\beta (\beta +1){\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{n(r)}}{\alpha _r}}\left(a_{n(r)}^ia_{n(r)}^ia_{n(r)}^i^{}a_{n(r)}^i^{}\right)|E_a|\alpha _3|\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _r\right).`$ (3.33)
In the second equality we have used an identity derived in . The effective vertex is identical to that obtained in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism (there one has to take into account an expectation value of fermionic zero-modes, see e.g. ). In particular it follows that we have to assign negative $`𝖹𝖹_2`$-parity to the vacuum states $`|v_r`$ if the solution we have found should preserve all the transverse symmetries of the plane wave. Then, the vertex in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism preserves all the symmetries as well, since the parity of $`|0`$ is positive. In  it was proposed that the parity of the plane wave vacuum $`|v`$ should be positive in order to obtain an interaction vertex in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formalism that preserves the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ symmetry. Then the vertex of  would break the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$-symmetry. This proposal however, was based on the assertion that the constant part of the fermionic prefactor is $`SO(8)`$ invariant. Now that we have solved the constraints we see that this is not the case and, therefore, the full transverse symmetry is preserved in both formulations. Further evidence for the above assignment of parity can be extracted from earlier literature: the spectrum of type IIB string theory on the plane wave was analyzed in detail in , in particular the precise correspondence between the lowest lying string states and the fluctuation modes of supergravity on the plane wave was established. As mentioned in the introduction, the state $`|0`$ corresponds to a complex scalar arising from the dilaton-axion system, whereas the state $`|v`$ corresponds to a complex scalar being a mixture of the trace of the graviton and the R-R potential on one of the $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4`$’s, i.e. the chiral primary sector. Since the dilaton and axion are scalars under $`SO(8)`$ and the discrete $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ is just a particular $`SO(8)`$ transformation, the assignment of positive parity to $`|0`$ appears to be the correct one. Moreover, analysis of the interaction Hamiltonian for the chiral primary sector shows that invariance of the Hamiltonian under the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ requires the chiral primaries to have negative parity .

It is therefore natural to conjecture that the two apparently different formulations for light-cone string field theory are physically equivalent. In the next section we will present additional evidence for this claim by computing the leading order mass-shift of the simplest stringy state and showing that at leading order in large $`\mu `$ the torus anomalous dimension of the dual gauge theory operators is again reproduced (as in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism ).

We know that the vertex of  reduces to the one in flat space when $`\mu 0`$. It is quite plausible that even in flat space one could construct a solution to the constraints starting with any state in the massless multiplet, e.g. in  the closed string cubic interaction vertex was constructed in the $`SU(4)`$ formalism, where only a $`SU(4)\times U(1)`$ subgroup of the transverse $`SO(8)`$ symmetry is manifest. In flat space the most natural approach is the $`SO(8)`$ formalism, since there the maximal transverse symmetry is manifest. In the plane wave however, there are two natural choices: to have a manifest flat space limit (and therefore to be able to work with quantities that are formally $`SO(8)`$ invariant) or to have the true transverse symmetry manifest, but give up the (manifest) smooth connection to the flat space vertex of the $`SO(8)`$ formalism; both approaches have their advantages, e.g., as we will see in the next section, it is simpler to compute correlators with fermionic oscillators in the formalism presented here.

Note that our reasoning implies that if the plane wave ground state $`|v`$ is odd under the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ then the recent solution to the dynamical constraints given in , which is of the form $`|H_3_\tau |V`$, is only $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ but not $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ invariant. If, on the contrary, one insists on assigning positive $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ parity to $`|v`$ , then the $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ invariant vertex would be given in . It would be nice to understand the origin for the successful tests of the vertex-correlator duality reported in  given the fact that the ‘phenomenological’ prefactor proposed in  does not agree with the result found here (nor with the one of ).

## 4 Anomalous dimension from string field theory

In this section we compute the mass-shift due to interactions of the simplest stringy state 444The change of basis $`\alpha _n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(a_{|n|}+ie(n)a_{|n|}\right)`$ for $`n0`$ is for convenience.

$$|n\alpha _{n(3)}^I\alpha _{n(3)}^J|v_3.$$
(4.1)
using non-degenerate perturbation theory. In principle one should use degenerate perturbation theory as the single string state can mix with multi-string states having the same energy. The same caveat holds for the computation in gauge theory and we will ignore this complication here. In the $`SO(8)`$ formalism this has been done for the symmetric-traceless $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and antisymmetric $`\mathrm{𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ of either one of the $`SO(4)`$’s in  and for the trace $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in . Here we repeat this computation in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ formulation constructed in the previous section and also extend the analysis to the $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_\pm `$555We define the states in $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_\pm `$ as $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha _{n(3)}^i\alpha _{n(3)}^j^{}\pm \alpha _{n(3)}^i\alpha _{n(3)}^j^{}\right)|v_3`$. of $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$. These correspond to BMN operators with mixed scalar/vector impurities and superconformal symmetry of the gauge theory implies that they have the same anomalous dimension as the other representations .

At lowest order the eigenvalue correction comes from two contributions; one-loop diagram and contact term

$$\delta E_n^{(2)}n|n=g_2^2\underset{1,2}{}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left|n|H_3|1,2\right|^2}{E_n^{(0)}E_{1,2}^{(0)}}\frac{g_2^2}{4}n|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}Q_3^{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}|n.$$
(4.2)
Factors different from $`g_2`$ in the normalization (cf. (3.2)) are absorbed in the definition of $`H_3`$ and $`Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}`$, the extra factor of $`1/2`$ in the first term is due to the reflection symmetry of the one-loop diagram. The sum over $`1`$$`2`$ is over physical double string states, i.e. those obeying the level-matching condition and for the case at hand $`Q_3^2`$ is the only relevant contribution to the quartic coupling. As the generators are hermitian we take the absolute value squared of the matrix elements (also for the contact term after inserting a suitable projection operator). Time-reversal in the plane wave background consists in the transformation

$$x^+x^+,x^{}x^{},\mu \mu ,$$
(4.3)
in particular the reversal of $`\mu `$ is needed due to the presence of the R-R flux. Up to now we have always assumed that $`\mu `$ is non-negative and $`\alpha _3<0`$, $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2>0`$. This is, say, the process where a single string splits into two strings. One can show that for the process in which two strings join to form a single string, i.e. $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2<0`$ and $`\alpha _3>0`$, one should make the additional replacements

$$\mu \mu ,\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(4.4)
in all expressions. This is in agreement with equation (4.3). Notice that the transformation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is needed to leave the fermionic mass term invariant. From the formal expressions for the Neumann matrices it is not manifest that the cubic corrections to the dynamical generators are hermitian as they have to be. However, from the explicit expressions for the Neumann matrices  one can see that all the quantities are in fact invariant under the time-reversal. The string states obey the delta-function normalization $`n|n^{}=𝒩|\alpha _3|\delta (\alpha _3\alpha _4)`$, where $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}(1+\delta ^{ij})`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, $`𝒩=\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ij}`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}`$ otherwise. The sum over double string states includes a double integral over light-cone momenta, one integral is trivial due to the string-length conservation of the cubic interaction and the factor of $`|\alpha _3|\delta (\alpha _3\alpha _4)`$ can be cancelled on both sides of equation (4.2). The remaining sum is then the usual completeness relation for harmonic oscillators projected on physical states and we have ($`\beta \alpha _1/\alpha _3`$)

$$𝒩\delta E_n^{(2)}=g_2^2_1^0\frac{d\beta }{\beta (\beta +1)}\underset{\text{modes}}{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left|n|H_3|1,2\right|^2}{E_n^{(0)}E_{1,2}^{(0)}}\frac{1}{4}n|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}|1,21,2|Q_3^{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}|n\right].$$
(4.5)
The measure arises due to the fact that string states are delta-function normalized.

It is important to note that in gauge theory the dilatation operator was diagonalized within the subspace of two-impurity BMN operators in perturbation theory in the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$ and then extrapolated to $`\lambda `$, $`J\mathrm{}`$. But it is not obvious that the large $`J`$ limit of the perturbation series in $`\lambda `$ has to agree order by order with the perturbation series in $`\lambda ^{}`$, see for example . Indeed there is evidence from string theory that this is not the case. For large $`\mu `$ the denominator of the first term in equation (4.5) is of order $`𝒪(\mu ^1)`$ in the impurity conserving channel, whereas it is of order $`𝒪(\mu )`$ in the impurity non-conserving one. However, as already noticed in , matrix elements where the number of impurities changes by two are of order $`𝒪(1)`$ and, therefore potentially can contribute to the mass-shift at leading order, that is $`𝒪(\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{})`$. Notice that impurity non-conserving matrix elements being of order one, means actually $`𝒪(\mu g_2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}})`$ and as the overall factor of $`\mu `$ is simply for dimensional reasons and should not be counted when translating to gauge theory, implies contributions $`g_2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$ to matrix elements of the dilatation operator. It was observed in  that the contribution of the impurity non-conserving channel to (4.5) is linearly divergent. This is due to the fact that the large $`\mu `$ limit does not commute with the infinite sums over mode numbers; for finite $`\mu `$ the divergence is regularized. So a linear divergence reflects a contribution $`\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}(\mu \alpha _3)=\mu g_2^2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$ and hence of order $`g_2^2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$ to the anomalous dimension. This constitutes a non-perturbative, ‘stringy’ effect. It remains a very interesting challenge to investigate the contribution of the impurity non-conserving channel in detail. In principle, it is possible that besides a divergent contribution there is also a finite one; this would then scale as $`\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}`$. However, to reproduce the gauge theory result for the anomalous dimensions of two-impurity BMN operators in string theory one is led to a truncation of equation (4.5) to the impurity conserving channel . This analysis will be performed below.

### 4.1 Contribution of one-loop diagram

The matrix element $`n|H_3|1,2`$ in the impurity conserving channel is non-zero only if the double string state contains either two bosonic or two fermionic oscillators. The relevant projection operator is (for brevity written in $`SO(8)`$ form)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _{0(1)}^K\alpha _{0(2)}^L|vv|\alpha _{0(2)}^L\alpha _{0(1)}^K& +\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,k𝖹𝖹}{}\alpha _{k(r)}^K\alpha _{k(r)}^L|vv|\alpha _{k(r)}^L\alpha _{k(r)}^K\hfill \\ \hfill +b_{0(1)}^ab_{0(2)}^b|vv|b_{0(2)}^bb_{0(1)}^a& +\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,k𝖹𝖹}{}b_{k(r)}^ab_{k(r)}^b|vv|b_{k(r)}^bb_{k(r)}^a,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the sum over $`K`$, $`L`$ and $`a`$, $`b`$ is understood. We get the contribution of the first line ‘for free’: since the effective vertex for bosonic oscillator states is the same as in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism, we can use the results of . Using the large $`\mu `$ expansions for the bosonic Neumann matrices  one finds, for example for $`(I,J)=(i,j)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill n|H_3|\alpha _{0(r)}^k\alpha _{0(s)}^l|v_{12}& \mu \lambda ^{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}\left(\delta ^{rs}+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}}{\alpha _3}\right)S^{ijkl},\hfill \\ \hfill n|H_3|\alpha _{k(r)}^k\alpha _{k(r)}^l|v_{12}& \mu \lambda ^{}\beta (\beta +1)\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}S^{ijkl},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.6)
and the analogous expression for $`(I,J)=(i^{},j^{})`$ with an (inessential) overall minus sign. Here

$$S^{ijkl}T^{ijkl}+\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ij}T^{kl},T^{ijkl}=\delta ^{ik}\delta ^{jl}+\delta ^{jk}\delta ^{il}\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl},T^{kl}=2\delta ^{kl}$$
(4.7)
can be split into a symmetric-traceless and a trace part. There is no contribution to the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ nor to $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_\pm `$. The sum over $`k`$ and the integral over $`\beta `$ can be done and the complete contribution of the impurity conserving channel with bosonic excitations at one-loop is

$$\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{15}{64\pi ^2n^2}\underset{k,l}{}S^{ijkl}S^{ijkl}=\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{15}{16\pi ^2n^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ij}\right].$$
(4.8)
The factors of $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij})`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ij}`$ equal the normalization $`𝒩`$ of the string states. Thus the contribution to the $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is in both cases

$$\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{15}{16\pi ^2n^2}.$$
(4.9)
The second case with two fermionic oscillators in the double string state was not analyzed in  and is quite tedious in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism. In the formulation used here the computation is comparable to the one with bosonic oscillators. This time the bosonic contribution including the normalization is for large $`\mu `$

$$\pi \alpha ^{}\mu ^2n|K^M\stackrel{~}{K}^N|E_a\frac{\mu \sqrt{\lambda ^{}}}{2\pi }\beta (\beta +1)\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta \left(\delta ^{MI}\delta ^{NJ}+\delta ^{NI}\delta ^{MJ}\right).$$
(4.10)
This is automatically symmetric in $`(I,J)`$ and $`(M,N)`$. In particular, only the symmetric part of $`v_{mn}(Y)`$ (and $`v_{m^{}n^{}}(Y)`$) can contribute. In this case we have e.g.

$`{}_{123}{}^{}v|b_{k(r)\beta _1\beta _2}b_{k(r)}^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}|E_b`$ $`=\delta _{\beta _1}^{\alpha _1}\delta _{\beta _2}^{\alpha _2}e(k)Q_{|k||k|}^{rr}\delta _{\beta _1}^{\alpha _1}\delta _{\beta _2}^{\alpha _2}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi \left(\mu \alpha _r\right)^2}},`$ (4.11)
and, therefore, there is no contribution to the representations $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as the sum over $`k`$ is vanishing. There is a contribution to the representation $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_+`$: the relevant matrix element with fermionic oscillators is ($`k0`$)

$${}_{123}{}^{}v|b_{k(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2}b_{k(s)\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}|E_b=\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\gamma _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\gamma _2}\delta _{\dot{\alpha }_1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\delta _{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\dot{\gamma }_2}\overline{G}_{k(r)}\overline{G}_{k(s)}.$$
(4.12)
Taking the large $`\mu `$ limit and summing all the contributions we find

$$\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{3}{8\pi ^2n^2}\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4n\pi ^3}_1^0𝑑\beta \mathrm{sin}^4n\pi \beta \mathrm{cot}n\pi \beta (\beta +1)=\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{15}{16\pi ^2n^2}\frac{1}{2},$$
(4.13)
giving the same contribution as for $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. 666We have also checked this in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism.

### 4.2 Contribution of contact term

To have a non-zero contribution from $`Q_3^2`$ the intermediate states need to have an odd number of bosonic oscillators and an odd number of fermionic oscillators. Thus the simplest contribution comes from the impurity conserving channel. In this case the projector is

$$\alpha _{0(1)}^Kb_{0(2)}^a|vv|b_{0(2)}^a\alpha _{0(1)}^K+(12)+\underset{r,k𝖹𝖹}{}\alpha _{k(r)}^Kb_{k(r)}^a|vv|b_{k(r)}^a\alpha _{k(r)}^K.$$

Including the normalization and taking into account that we already absorbed the string-length conserving delta-function $`|Q_3`$ is

$$\eta |Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{8\alpha _3^3}}\sqrt{\beta (\beta +1)}\left(Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\gamma _2}iZ_{\dot{\gamma }_1\beta _2}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\beta _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\right)|E_a|E_b,$$
(4.14)
and the fermionic contribution is again rather trivial. The bosonic expectation value for large $`\mu `$ has been computed in  so we shall not repeat it here. Taking into account all the contributions, doing the sum over $`k`$ and integral over $`\beta `$ results in

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{12}+\frac{35}{32n^2\pi ^2}\right),$$
(4.15)
for the antisymmetric $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_{}`$ and

$$\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{12}+\frac{5}{32n^2\pi ^2}\right)\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ij}\right],$$
(4.16)
for the $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟒})_+`$. Summing the contributions of one-loop and contact diagrams we see that all (bosonic) two-impurity irreducible representations of $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ get the same contribution to the mass-shift from the impurity-conserving channels

$$\delta E_n^{(2)}=\frac{\mu g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{12}+\frac{35}{32n^2\pi ^2}\right).$$
(4.17)
This is in exact agreement with the gauge theory result of .

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have presented a supersymmetric extension of the cubic interaction vertex and dynamical supercharges with the manifest $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry of the plane wave space-time. We have argued that this solution provides an equivalent formulation to the previously known one in the $`SO(8)`$ formalism. Our arguments were based on the discrete $`𝖹𝖹_2`$ symmetry of the plane wave, the equivalence of the effective interaction vertices for states containing only bosonic creation oscillators in both formulations and, finally, the agreement of the leading order mass-shift for the simplest string states. It would be nice to find an exact proof of this conjectured equivalence and understand the relevance of the solution recently given in .

## Acknowledgement

I am grateful for discussions with G. Arutyunov, N. Beisert, J. Plefka, M. Pössel and S. Theisen. In particular I would like to thank B. Stefański for useful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by GIF, the German-Israeli foundation for Scientific Research.

## Appendix A Conventions and Notation

The R-R flux in the plane wave geometry breaks the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry of the metric into $`SO(4)\times SO(4)\times 𝖹𝖹_2`$. Then

$$\mathrm{𝟖}_v(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒}),\mathrm{𝟖}_s(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐}^{}),\mathrm{𝟖}_c(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐}^{})(\mathrm{𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐}),$$
(A.1)
where $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$ are the inequivalent Weyl representations of $`SO(4)`$. We decompose $`\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I`$ and $`\gamma _{\dot{a}a}^I`$ into $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ as follows

$`\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _{\alpha _1\dot{\beta }_1}^i\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}\\ \sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\beta _1}\delta _{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _{\dot{a}a}^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _{\alpha _1\dot{\beta }_1}^i\delta _{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}\\ \sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }_1\beta _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (A.2)
$`\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i^{}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\sigma _{\alpha _2\dot{\beta }_2}^i^{}& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}\sigma _{}^{i^{}}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }_2\beta _2}\end{array}\right),\gamma _{\dot{a}a}^i^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\sigma _{}^{i^{}}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }_2\beta _2}& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}\sigma _{\alpha _2\dot{\beta }_2}^i^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (A.3)
Here the $`\sigma `$-matrices consist of the usual Pauli-matrices together with the 2d unit matrix

$$\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^i=(i\tau ^1,i\tau ^2,i\tau ^3,1)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}$$
(A.4)
and we raise and lower spinor indices with the two-dimensional Levi-Civita symbols, e.g.

$$\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^i=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }\beta }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{\beta }\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{\alpha }{}^{\dot{\beta }}.$$
(A.5)
The $`\sigma `$-matrices obey the relations

$$\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^i\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\beta }+\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^j\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\beta }=2\delta ^{ij}\delta _\alpha ^\beta ,\sigma _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^j+\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^i=2\delta ^{ij}\delta _{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}.$$
(A.6)
In particular, in this basis

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\sigma ^1\sigma ^2\sigma ^3\sigma ^4\right)_{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}& 0\\ 0& \left(\sigma ^1\sigma ^2\sigma ^3\sigma ^4\right)_{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}\delta _{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha _1}^{\beta _1}\delta _{\alpha _2}^{\beta _2}& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}\delta _{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}\end{array}\right),$$
(A.7)
that is $`(1\pm \mathrm{\Pi })/2`$ project onto $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐}^{})`$, respectively. A number of useful relations we have to use are

$`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\epsilon ^{\gamma \delta }`$ $`=\delta _\alpha ^\delta \delta _\beta ^\gamma \delta _\alpha ^\gamma \delta _\beta ^\delta ,`$ (A.8)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^i\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\beta }{}^{\dot{\beta }}`$ $`=\delta ^{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }+\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{ij},(\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{ij}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{[i}\sigma _{}^{j]}{}_{\beta }{}^{\dot{\alpha }}=\sigma _{\beta \alpha }^{ij})`$ (A.9)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^i\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\dot{\beta }}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=\delta ^{ij}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}+\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}^{ij},(\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}^{ij}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{[i}\sigma _{}^{j]}{}_{\dot{\beta }}{}^{\alpha }=\sigma _{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }}^{ij})`$ (A.10)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^k\sigma _{\beta \dot{\beta }}^k`$ $`=2\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }},`$ (A.11)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{kl}\sigma _{\gamma \delta }^{kl}`$ $`=4(\epsilon _{\alpha \gamma }\epsilon _{\beta \delta }+\epsilon _{\alpha \delta }\epsilon _{\beta \gamma }),`$ (A.12)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{kl}\sigma _{\dot{\gamma }\dot{\delta }}^{kl}`$ $`=0,`$ (A.13)
$`2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^i\sigma _{\beta \dot{\beta }}^j`$ $`=\delta ^{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}+\sigma _{\alpha _1\beta _1}^{k(i}\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}^{j)k}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}^{ij}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{ij}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}.`$ (A.14)
## Appendix B Useful identities and (anti)commutators

The multi-linears in $`Y`$, defined in section 3, (3.20)–(3.23) satisfy

$`Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Y_{\beta _1\beta _2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}Y_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^2+\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2\right),`$ (B.1)
$`Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Y_{\beta _2\gamma _2}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\epsilon _{\alpha _2\gamma _2}Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2}^3+\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}^3\right),`$ (B.2)
$`Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Y_{\beta _1\gamma _1}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}Y_{\gamma _1\alpha _2}^3+\epsilon _{\alpha _1\gamma _1}Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^3\right),`$ (B.3)
$`Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}^3Y_{\alpha _1\delta _2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\epsilon _{\beta _1\alpha _1}\epsilon _{\gamma _2\delta _2}Y^4,`$ (B.4)
and analogously for $`Z`$. Then the most general ansatz of the form in (3.19) is

$`f_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i\stackrel{~}{K}^i`$ $`=\left(Z\left[(a_{0,1}+a_{4,1}Y^4)\epsilon +a_{2,1}Y^2\right]+Z^3\left[(a_{0,3}+a_{4,3}Y^4)\epsilon +a_{2,3}Y^2\right]\right)_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\beta }_2;\beta _1\gamma _1}\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\gamma _1},`$ (B.5)
$`g_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_2}^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^i^{}`$ $`=\left(Y\left[(a_{1,0}+a_{1,4}Z^4)\epsilon +a_{1,2}Z^2\right]+Y^3\left[(a_{3,0}+a_{3,4}Z^4)\epsilon +a_{3,2}Z^2\right]\right)_{\beta _1\gamma _2;\dot{\beta }_2\dot{\gamma }_2}\stackrel{~}{K}^{\dot{\gamma }_2\gamma _2}.`$ (B.6)
The (anti)commutators of the free supercharges with the prefactor constituents in the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ basis are (for simplicity we suppress factors of $`\eta \sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}`$).

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\{Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Y_{\beta _1\beta _2}\}`$ $`=i\epsilon _{\beta _1\alpha _1}K_{\beta _2\dot{\alpha }_2},`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\{Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},Y_{\beta _1\beta _2}\}`$ $`=iK_{\beta _1\dot{\alpha }_1}\epsilon _{\beta _2\alpha _2},`$ (B.7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\{Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\beta }_2}\}`$ $`=K_{\alpha _1\dot{\beta }_1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2},`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\{Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\beta }_2}\}`$ $`=\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_1}K_{\alpha _2\dot{\beta }_2}.`$ (B.8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},\stackrel{~}{K}_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}i\epsilon _{\beta _1\alpha _1}Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}[Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},\stackrel{~}{K}_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\epsilon _{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_1}Y_{\beta _1\alpha _2},`$ (B.9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},\stackrel{~}{K}_{\beta _2\dot{\beta }_2}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2},`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}[Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},\stackrel{~}{K}_{\beta _2\dot{\beta }_2}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}i\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_2}.`$ (B.10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2}|V`$ $`=\left(K_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\alpha _2}Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}+iK_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}\right)|V,`$ (B.11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2}|V`$ $`=\left(K_{\dot{\alpha }_1}^{\alpha _1}Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}iK_{\alpha _2}^{\dot{\alpha }_2}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}\right)|V.`$ (B.12)
Further useful relations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Y_{\beta _1\gamma _1}^2]& =i\left(\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}Y_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}+\epsilon _{\alpha _1\gamma _1}Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}\right)K_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\gamma _2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Y_{\beta _2\gamma _2}^2]& =i\left(Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2}K_{\gamma _2\dot{\alpha }_2}+Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}K_{\beta _2\dot{\alpha }_2}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}\{Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}^3\}& =3iY_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}Y_{\beta _1\delta _2}K_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\delta _2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Y^4]& =4iY_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^3K_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\alpha _2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.13)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _1}^2]& =i\left(Y_{\gamma _1\beta _2}K_{\alpha _1\dot{\beta }_1}+Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2}K_{\gamma _1\dot{\beta }_1}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Y_{\alpha _2\gamma _2}^2]& =i\left(\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}Y_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}+\epsilon _{\gamma _2\beta _2}Y_{\gamma _1\alpha _2}\right)K_{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\gamma _1},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}\{Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}^3\}& =3iY_{\alpha _1\beta _2}Y_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}K_{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\gamma _1},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Y^4]& =4iY_{\alpha _1\beta _2}^3K_{\dot{\beta }_1}^{\alpha _1},\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.14)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_1}^2]& =K_{\alpha _1\dot{\beta }_1}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}+K_{\alpha _1\dot{\gamma }_1}Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Z_{\dot{\beta }_2\dot{\gamma }_2}^2]& =\left(\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}+\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\gamma }_2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\beta }_2}\right)K_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}\{Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}^3\}& =3Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}K_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},Z^4]& =4Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}^3K_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\alpha }_1},\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.15)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\gamma }_1}^2]& =\left(\epsilon _{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_1}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}+\epsilon _{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_1}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}\right)K_{\beta _2}^{\dot{\gamma }_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Z_{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\gamma }_2}^2]& =K_{\beta _2\dot{\alpha }_2}Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}+K_{\beta _2\dot{\gamma }_2}Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}\{Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}^3\}& =3Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\delta }_2}K_{\beta _2}^{\dot{\delta }_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2},Z^4]& =4Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}^3K_{\beta _2}^{\dot{\gamma }_2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.16)
All the (anti)commutators involving $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)}`$ can be obtained with the help of the reality properties.

## Appendix C More detailed computations

In this section we provide some details for the computation determining $`|Q_{3\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}`$ and $`|H_3`$, as well as for the proof of (3.5). We substitute the general ansatz given in (3.19) and (B.5) in (3.6), use the various identities (A.8)–(A.14), (B.1)–(B.4) and (anti)commutators (B.7)–(B.16) given in the previous sections and analyze the resulting contributions order by order in $`Y`$ and $`Z`$.

Consider first the terms independent of $`K`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. We get (here and below we suppress an overall factor of $`\overline{\eta }\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}`$)

$$4\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(a_{3,0}Y^4+ia_{0,3}Z^4+(a_{3,4}+ia_{4,3})Y^4Z^4\right),\text{and}a_{2,1}=ia_{1,2}.$$
(C.1)
The latter condition arises to cancel a contribution proportional to the tensor $`Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2Z_{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}^2`$. Next we take into account the terms proportional to $`K\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and summarize the results order by order in fermions in the table below:

| $`𝒪(Y^mZ^n)`$ | contribution | condition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (0,0) | $`2\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(a_{0,1}K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\delta ^{ij}+ia_{1,0}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ |  |
| (2,0) | $`\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(a_{2,1}K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^jY_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}a_{1,0}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}Y_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ | $`a_{3,0}=\frac{i}{3}a_{1,0}`$ |
| (0,2) | $`i\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(a_{0,1}K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^jZ_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{ij}a_{1,2}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}Z_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ | $`a_{0,3}=\frac{i}{3}a_{0,1}`$ |
| (1,1) | $`2a_{0,1}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(K_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}K_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\right)Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}`$ | $`a_{1,2}=a_{0,1}=ia_{1,0}`$ |
| (4,0) | $`2\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Y^4\left(a_{4,1}K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\delta ^{ij}+\frac{1}{12}a_{0,1}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ |  |
| (0,4) | $`2\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Z^4\left(\frac{1}{12}a_{0,1}K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\delta ^{ij}+ia_{1,4}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ |  |
| (2,2) | $`\frac{a_{0,1}}{2}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\left(Y^2Z^2\right)^{ij}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\left(Y^2Z^2\right)^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ | $`a_{3,2}=ia_{2,3}=\frac{i}{3}a_{0,1}`$ |
| (1,3) | $`\frac{2}{3}a_{1,0}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(K_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}K_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\right)Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}`$ | $`a_{1,4}=\frac{1}{12}a_{1,0}`$ |
| (3,1) | $`\frac{2}{3}a_{1,0}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(K_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}K_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\right)Y_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}`$ | $`a_{4,1}=\frac{i}{12}a_{1,0}`$ |
| (4,2) | $`\frac{a_{1,0}}{12}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Y^4\left(K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\left(Z^2\right)^{ij}+K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\left(Z^2\right)^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ | $`a_{4,3}=\frac{i}{36}a_{0,1}`$ |
| (2,4) | $`\frac{a_{1,0}}{12}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Z^4\left(K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\left(Y^2\right)^{ij}+K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\left(Y^2\right)^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ | $`a_{3,4}=\frac{i}{36}a_{1,0}`$ |
| (3,3) | $`\frac{2}{9}a_{0,1}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(K_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}K_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}\right)Y_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}`$ |  |
| (4,4) | $`\frac{1}{72}a_{0,1}\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Y^4Z^4\left(K^i\stackrel{~}{K}^j\delta ^{ij}K^i^{}\stackrel{~}{K}^j^{}\delta ^{i^{}j^{}}\right)`$ |  |

Two further relations we had to use in the above are e.g.

$$2Y_{[\alpha _1\gamma _2}K_{\beta _1]}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}=\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}Y_{\gamma _2}^{\gamma _1}K_{\gamma _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1},$$
(C.2)
and

$`Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}K_{\beta _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\gamma _2}+Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\beta }_2}K_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\gamma _2}Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\beta }_2}K_{\beta _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\dot{\alpha }_2}^{\gamma _2}Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}Z_{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}K_{\alpha _1}^{\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\dot{\beta }_2}^{\gamma _2}`$
$`=\epsilon _{\alpha _1\beta _1}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}Z^{\dot{\gamma }_1\dot{\gamma }_2}K_{\gamma _1\dot{\gamma }_1}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\gamma _2\dot{\gamma }_2}.`$ (C.3)
The computation determining $`|Q_{3\dot{\beta }_1\beta _2}`$ proceeds in an analogous fashion. One can check that then (3.8) is identically satisfied.

The equations arising from the constraint (3.5) can again be proved by associating phase factors to the oscillators as in  and integrating by parts. Recall that we associate the world-sheet coordinate dependence with the oscillators as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{n(r)}\\ b_{n(r)}\end{array}\right)e^{i\omega _{n(r)}\tau /\alpha _r}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{n(r)}\\ b_{n(r)}\end{array}\right),$$
(C.4)
and analogously for the bosonic oscillators. We also define $`_\sigma _r_{\sigma _r}`$. One needs

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},K_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}]& =4\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\epsilon _{\beta _1\alpha _1}\left(_\tau +_\sigma \right)Z_{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},K_{\beta _1\dot{\beta }_1}]& =4i\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\epsilon _{\dot{\beta }_1\dot{\alpha }_1}\left(_\tau +_\sigma \right)Y_{\beta _1\alpha _2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(C.5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\alpha _1\dot{\alpha }_2},K_{\beta _2\dot{\beta }_2}]& =4i\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }_2\dot{\beta }_2}\left(_\tau +_\sigma \right)Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2},\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r}{}[Q_{(r)\dot{\alpha }_1\alpha _2},K_{\beta _2\dot{\beta }_2}]& =4\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\epsilon _{\alpha _2\beta _2}\left(_\tau +_\sigma \right)Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\beta }_2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(C.6)
and

$$_\sigma |V=\frac{i}{4}\left[\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\left(K^IK^I\stackrel{~}{K}^I\stackrel{~}{K}^I\right)4\left(Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}_\tau Y^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}Z_{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}_\tau Z^{\dot{\alpha }_1\dot{\alpha }_2}\right)\right]|V.$$
(C.7)
Notice that $`_\tau _\tau `$ under complex conjugation. Further identities include e.g.

$`_\sigma Y_{\alpha _1\beta _2}^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _1}^2_\sigma Y_{\beta _2}^{\gamma _1}Y_{\beta _2\gamma _2}^2_\sigma Y_{\alpha _1}^{\gamma _2}\right),`$ (C.8)
$`_\sigma Y^4`$ $`=4Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^3_\sigma Y^{\alpha _1\alpha _2},`$ (C.9)
$`Y_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^2Y_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}_\sigma Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(Y_{\alpha _1\gamma _2}^3_\sigma Y_{\beta _1}^{\gamma _2}+Y_{\beta _1\gamma _2}^3_\sigma Y_{\alpha _1}^{\gamma _2}\right),`$ (C.10)
$`Y_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^2Y_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}_\sigma Y^{\gamma _1\gamma _2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(Y_{\gamma _1\alpha _2}^3_\sigma Y_{\beta _2}^{\gamma _1}+Y_{\gamma _1\beta _2}^3_\sigma Y_{\alpha _2}^{\gamma _1}\right),`$ (C.11)
$`Y^4_\sigma Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}`$ $`=_\sigma \left(Y^4Y_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\right)=0.`$ (C.12)
## Appendix D Functional expressions for the prefactor

The functional expressions for the fermionic constituents of the prefactor are

$`Y(\sigma )`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\pi (\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\lambda _1(\sigma )+\lambda _1(\sigma )\right),`$ (D.1)
$`Z(\sigma )`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\vartheta _1(\sigma )+\vartheta _1(\sigma )\right).`$ (D.2)
These satisfy

$$\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V=Y|V,\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Z(\sigma )|V=Z|V.$$
(D.3)
We show this for $`Y(\sigma )`$, the analysis involving $`Z(\sigma )`$ is similar. We have

$`\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha _1}}}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\times `$
$`\times \left[\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{Q}_n^1+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}Q_{nm}^{1r}b_{m(r)}^{}\right]|V.`$ (D.4)
For large $`n`$

$`\overline{Q}_n^1`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha _1}}}\left(C\overline{N}^1\right)_n,`$ (D.5)
$`Q_{nm}^{1r}`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha _1}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\left(C\overline{N}^1\right)_n\overline{G}_{m(r)}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _r}}\overline{N}_n^1\left(C\overline{G}_{(r)}\right)_m\right).`$ (D.6)
In fact, only the terms proportional to $`(1+\mathrm{\Pi })`$ survive the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. Then we get

$$\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V=f(\mu )(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}Y|V,$$
(D.7)
where

$$f(\mu )2\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha _1}\underset{e0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nn\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\overline{N}_n^1=(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}.$$
(D.8)
The last identity was conjectured in  and recently proved in .


format: text

text:
# Tests of Quantum Gravity and Large Extra Dimensions Models using High Energy Gamma Ray Observations

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, I will first present and discuss the evidence for absorption features at the multi-TeV end of the $`\gamma `$-ray spectra of the two active galactic nuclei for which we have the most detailed and highest quality spectral data. These $`\gamma `$-ray sources are the BL Lac objects known as Markarian (Mkn) 501 and Mkn 421. I will then show how this absorption is due to the expected $`\gamma `$-ray annihilation caused by electron-positron pair production interactions of these $`\gamma `$-rays with intergalactic low energy photons having the flux level as determined by theoretical considerations combined with various astronomical observations.

Stecker and Glashow have shown that the very existence of these interactions puts quantitative constraints on Lorentz invariance violation at high energies . I will show here that this also implies significant constraints on a class of propsed models where quantum effects at the Planck length scale of $`10^{35}`$m, or a much larger modified Planck length scale in the case of large extra dimension models, can alter the relativistic energy-momentum dispersion relations for particles at energy scales much lower than the Planck scale ($`10^{19}`$ GeV). I will also discuss more severe indirect constraints on quantum gravity models which follow from observations of the $`\gamma `$-ray emission spectrum of the Crab Nebula.

## 2 Absorption of Gamma-Rays at Low Redshifts

The formulae relevant to absorption calculations involving pair-production are given and discussed in Ref. . For $`\gamma `$-rays in the TeV energy range, the pair-production cross section is maximized when the soft photon energy is in the infrared range. In terms of the observed soft photon wavelength and $`\gamma `$-ray energy as a function of redshift, $`z`$,

$$\frac{\lambda }{(1+z)}\lambda _e\frac{E_\gamma (1+z)}{2m_ec^2}=1.24E_{\gamma ,TeV}(1+z)\mu m$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _e=h/(m_ec)`$ is the Compton wavelength of the electron. For a 1 TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emitted by a source at low redshifts, this corresponds to a soft photon having a wavelength in the J-band of IR astronomy (1.25$`\mu `$m). (Pair-production interactions actually take place with photons over a range of wavelengths around the optimal value as determined by the energy dependence of the cross section.) If the emission spectrum of an extragalactic source extends beyond 20 TeV, then the extragalactic infrared field should produce an absorption effect in the observed spectrum between $`20`$ GeV and $`5`$ TeV, depending on the redshift of the source .

Absorption of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays from extragalactic sources occurs via interactions of these photons with low energy photons of intergalactic radiation. These low energy photons are produced by stellar radiation and the reemission of such radiation by interstellar dust in galaxies. These photons then leave the galaxies in which they were produced, escaping into intergalactic space.

Malkan and Stecker (MS01)  used empirically based spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of galaxies as a function of galaxy luminosity together with galaxy luminosity distribution functions to derive the SED of the cosmic infrared background (CIB). The advantage of using empirical data to construct the SED of the CIB, as done in MS01, is particularly important in the mid IR range. In this region of the spectrum, galaxy observations indicate more flux from warm dust in galaxies than that taken account of in some more theoretically oriented models, e.g., Ref. . De Jager and Stecker (DS02)  extended these SEDs into the optical and UV using a hybrid model based on Hubble Space Telescope (HST) galaxy counts from the Hubble Deep Field (HDF). The lower curve in Figure 1 from DS02 (adapted from MS01) assumes a redshift (temporal) luminosity evolution of galaxies $`(1+z)^3`$ out to $`z_{flat}=2`$ (baseline model), whereas the upper curve assumes “fast” $`(1+z)^4`$ evolution out to $`z_{flat}=1.3`$. For $`z>z_{flat}`$ no evolution is assumed to occur. This is because evolution in star formation and stellar emissivity in galaxies appears to level off at redshifts greater than $`2`$. -

Figure 1 shows the SED curves from SD02 in comparison with various data and limits. The results of the MS01  fast evolution SED generally agree well with directly measured COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) data. These results are also in agreement with upper limits obtained from TeV $`\gamma `$-ray studies  \-  and lower limits obtained from various infrared galaxy count studies.

## 3 Observations of the Blazars Mkn 501 and Mkn 421

The highest energy extragalactic $`\gamma `$-ray sources in the known universe are the active galaxies called ‘blazars’, objects that emit jets of relativistic plasma aimed directly at us. Those blazars known as X-ray selected BL Lac objects (XBLs), or alternatively as high frequency BL Lac objects (HBLs), are expected to emit photons in the multi-TeV energy range, but only the nearest ones are expected to be observable at TeV energies, the others being hidden by intergalactic absorption .

Extragalactic photons with the highest energies yet observed originated in a powerful flare coming from the giant elliptical active galaxy known as Mkn 501 . Its spectrum is most easily understood and interpreted as manifesting the high energy absorption to be expected from $`\gamma `$-ray annihilation by extragalactic pair production interactions. The analyses of de Jager and Stecker (DS02)  and Konopelko et al.  indicate the presence of the absorption effect predicted by calculating the expected energy dependent opacity inferred from the background light SEDs of of MS01 and DS02 (see previous section).This absorption is the result of electron-positron pair production by interactions of the multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Mkn 501 primarily with intergalactic infrared photons. Intrinsic absorption by pair production interactions within $`\gamma `$-ray sources such as Mkn 421 and Mkn 501 is expected to be negligible because such giant elliptical galaxies contain little dust to emit infrared radiation and because BL Lac objects have little gas (and therefore most likely little dust) in their nuclear regions. It also appears that $`\gamma `$-ray emission in blazars takes place at superluminal knots in their jets, downstream of the radio cores of these active galaxies and therefore downstream of any putative accretion disks .

The spectrum of Mkn 501 in the flaring phase extends to an energy of at least 24 TeV . The DS02 calculations predict that intergalactic absorption should strongly supress the spectra of these sources at multi-TeV energies. Figure 2 shows observed spectrum from HEGRA  and the Whipple telescope  (lower curve and points) and the derived intrinsic spectrum (upper curve and points) for Mkn501 in the flaring phase as given by de Jager and Stecker . The intrinsic spectrum was derived by correcting for the opacity calculated for $`z=0.03`$ as a function of energy, based on models of MS01, extended into the optical and UV range .

Konopelko, et al.  have reexmained the spectra of both Mkn 421 and Mkn 501 corrected for absorption and have found that they fit synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission models from the radio to TeV $`\gamma `$-ray range. Both the X-ray and intrinsic TeV spectra of Mkn 421 peak at lower energies than those of the flaring spectrum of Mkn 501 (see Figs. 3 and 4) which can be understood if electrons were accelerated to higher energies in the April 1997 flare of Mkn 501 than in Mkn 421. As shown in Figure 2, the intrinsic spectrum of Mkn 501 with the absorption effect removed actually peaks at multi-TeV energies, rather than falling off in this energy range. Thus, it appears that the dropoff in the observed $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum of Mkn 501 above $``$ 5 TeV is a direct consequence of intergalactic absorption. We will therefore interpret the Mkn 501 data as evidence for intergalactic absorption with no indication of Lorentz invariance violation (see next section) up to a photon energy of $``$20 TeV. This conclusion can be substantiated by observations of other extragalactic $`\gamma `$-ray sources at differing redshifts .

## 4 High Energy Consequences of Breaking of Lorentz Invariance

It has been suggested that Lorentz invariance (LI) may be only an approximate symmetry of nature  \- . A simple and self-consistent framework for analyzing possible departures from exact LI was suggested by Coleman and Glashow , who assume LI to be broken perturbatively in the context of conventional quantum field theory. Small Lorentz noninvariant terms are introduced that are renormalizable, being of mass dimension no greater than four and having dimensionless coupling constants in the kinetic part of the Lagrangian. These terms are also chosen to be gauge invariant under $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ (“the almost standard model”). It is further assumed that the Lagrangian is rotationally invariant in a preferred frame which is presumed to be the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background.

Consequent observable manifestations of LI breaking can be described quite simply in terms of different maximal attainable velocities of different particle species as measured in the preferred frame. This is because the small LI violating terms modify the free-field propagators so that the maximum velocities of various particles are not equal to $`c`$. Indeed, this type of LI breaking within the hadron sector is one way to circumvent the predicted but unseen ‘GZK cutoff’ in the ultrahigh energy cosmic-ray spectrum owing to photomeson interactions of such cosmic rays with photons of the 2.7K cosmic background radiation , . These interactions are expected to produce an effective attenuation mean-free-path for ultrahigh energy cosmic rays ($`E>10^{20}`$ eV) in intergalactic space of $`<100`$ Mpc  in the absence of LI breaking.

## 5 The LI Breaking Parameter $`\delta `$

The discussion in the previous section shows that if LI is violated the maximum attainable velocity of an electron need not equal the velocity of light in vacuo, i.e., $`c_ec_\gamma `$. The physical consequences of this violation of LI depend on the sign of the difference between $`c_e`$ and $`c_\gamma `$ . Following the discussion of Stecker and Glashow , we define

$$c_ec_\gamma (1+\delta ),0<|\delta |1,$$
(2)
and consider the two cases of positive and negative values of $`\delta `$ separately.

Case I: If $`c_e<c_\gamma `$ ($`\delta <0`$), the decay of a photon into an electron-positron pair is kinematically allowed for photons with energies exceeding

$$E_{\mathrm{max}}=m_e\sqrt{2/|\delta |}.$$
(3)
The decay would take place rapidly, so that photons with energies exceeding $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ could not be observed either in the laboratory or as cosmic rays. Since photons have been observed with energies $`E_\gamma `$ 50 TeV from the Crab nebula , we deduce for this case that $`E_{\mathrm{max}}50`$TeV, or that $`|\delta |<2\times 10^{16}`$ . Stronger bounds on $`\delta `$ can be set through observations of very high energy (TeV) photons. The detection of cosmic $`\gamma `$-rays with energies greater that 50 TeV from sources within our galaxy would improve the bound on $`\delta `$.

Case II: Here we are concerned with the remaining possibility, where $`c_e>c_\gamma `$ ($`\delta >0`$) and electrons become superluminal if their energies exceed $`E_{\mathrm{max}}/\sqrt{2}`$. Electrons traveling faster than light will emit light at all frequencies by a process of ‘vacuum Čerenkov radiation.’ This process occurs rapidly, so that superluminal electron energies quickly approach $`E_{\mathrm{max}}/\sqrt{2}`$. Because electrons have been seen in the cosmic radiation with energies up to $``$2 TeV, it follows that $`\delta <3\times 10^{14}`$. This upper limit is about two orders of magnitude weaker than the limit obtained for Case I.

A smaller, but more indirect, upper limit on $`\delta `$ for the $`\delta >0`$ case can be obtained from theoretical considerations of $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the Crab Nebula. The unpulsed $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum of the Crab Nebula can be understood to be produced by sychrotron emission up to the $`0.1`$ GeV $`\gamma `$-ray energy range (see Figure 5).

Above 25 MeV, the synchrotron component falls off very rapidly with energy as expected from theoretical limits on electron acceleration . Emission above 0.1 GeV, extending into the TeV range, can be explained as synchrotron self-Compton emission of the same relativistic electrons which produce the synchrotron radiation. The Compton component, extending to 50 TeV, implies the existence of electrons having energies at least this great in order to produce 50 TeV photons, even in the extreme Klein-Nishina limit. This is, of course, required by conservation of energy. This indirect argument, based on the reasonable assumption that the 50 TeV $`\gamma `$-rays are from Compton interactions, leads to a smaller upper limit on $`\delta `$, viz., $`\delta <10^{16}`$. Better observational $`\gamma `$-ray data for the Crab Nebula at multi-TeV energies, and data on the shape of its $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum above 50 TeV, will be needed to further test this indirect constraint on $`\delta `$. One open question involves the possibility of hadronic interactions involving cosmic ray nucleons producing $`\pi ^0`$’s which decay into observed high energy $`\gamma `$-rays(although there is no present indication of this). Hopefully, better data will determine whether or not there is a significant hadronically induced component contributing to the multi-TeV spectrum of the Crab.

A further constraint on $`\delta `$ for $`\delta >0`$ ($`c_e>c_\gamma `$) follows from the modification of the threshold energy for the pair production process $`\gamma +\gamma e^++e^{}`$. This follows from the fact that the square of the four-momentum is changed to give the threshold condition

$$2ϵE_\gamma (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )2E_\gamma ^2\delta >4m_e^2,$$
(4)
where $`ϵ`$ is the energy of the low energy photon and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the two photons. The second term on the left-hand-side comes from the fact that $`c_\gamma =E_\gamma /p_\gamma `$.

For head-on collisions ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$) the minimum low energy photon energy for pair production becomes

$$ϵ_{min}=\frac{m_e^2}{E_\gamma }+\frac{E_\gamma \delta }{2}.$$
(5)
It follows that the condition for a significant increase in the energy threshold for pair production is $`E_\gamma \delta /2`$ $``$ $`m_e^2/E_\gamma `$, or equivalently,

$$\delta \frac{2m_e^2}{E_\gamma ^2}.$$
(6)
As discussed in the previous section, there is no indication of LI violation supressing the physics of pair production for photons up to an energy of $`20`$ TeV. Thus, it follows from eq. (6) that the Mkn 501 observations imply the constraint $`\delta 2m_e^2/E_\gamma ^2=1.3\times 10^{15}`$ . This constraint on positive $`\delta `$ is more secure than the smaller, but indirect, limit given by the Crab Nebula acceleration model.

## 6 Quantum Gravity Models

In the absence of a true and complete theory of quantum gravity, theorists have been suggesting and exploring models to provide experimental and observational tests of possible manifestations of quantum gravity phenomena. Such phenomena have usually been suggested to be a possible result of quantum fluctuations on the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}1.22\times 10^{19}`$ GeV/c2, corresponding to a length scale $`1.6\times 10^{35}`$ m  \- . In models involving large extra dimensions, the energy scale at which gravity becomes strong can be much smaller than $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$, with the quantum gravity scale, $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}`$, approaching the TeV scale , .

In many of these models Lorentz invariance is predicted to be violated at high energy. This results in interesting modifications of particle physics that are accesible to observational tests using TeV $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes and cosmic ray detectors. An example of such a model is the loop quantum gravity model with a preferred inertial frame given by the cosmological rest frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation (For an extensive discussion, see the review given in Ref. .)

In the most commonly considered of these models, the usual relativistic dispersion relations between energy and momentum of the photon and the electron

$$E_\gamma ^2=p_\gamma ^2$$
(7)
$$E_e^2=p_e^2+m_e^2$$
(8)
(with the “low energy” speed of light, $`c1`$) are modified by a leading order quantum space-time geometry corrections which are cubic in $`pE`$ and are supressed by the quantum gravity mass scale $`M_{QG}`$. Following Refs.  and , we take the modified dispersion relations to be of the form

$$E_\gamma ^2=p_\gamma ^2\frac{p_\gamma ^3}{M_{QG}}$$
(9)
$$E_e^2=p_e^2+m_e^2\frac{p_e^3}{M_{QG}}$$
(10)
We assume that the cubic terms are the same for the photon and electron as in eqs. (9) and (10). More general formulations have been considered by Jacobson, Liberati and Mattingly  and Konopka and Major .

As opposed to the Coleman-Glashow formalism, which involves mass dimension four operators in the Lagrangian and preserves power-counting renormalizablility, the cubic term which modifies the dispersion relations may be considered in the context of an effective “low energy” field theory, valid for $`EM_{QG}`$, in which case the cubic term is a small perturbation involving dimension five operators whose construction is discussed in Ref. . With this caveat, we can generalize the LI violation parameter $`\delta `$ to an energy dependent form

$$\delta \frac{E_e}{p_e}\frac{E_\gamma }{p_\gamma }\frac{E_\gamma }{M_{QG}}\frac{m_e^2}{2E_e^2}\frac{E_e}{M_{QG}},$$
(11)
which is a valid approximation for the energy regime $`E_em_e`$. Note that the maximum velocities of particles of type $`i`$ are reduced by $`𝒪(E_i/M_{QG})`$.

For pair production then, with the positron and electron energy $`E_eE_\gamma /2`$,

$$\delta =\frac{E_\gamma }{2M_{QG}}\frac{2m_e^2}{E_\gamma ^2}$$
(12)
and the threshold condition given by eq.(6) reduces to the constraint

$$M_{QG}\frac{E_\gamma ^3}{8m_e^2}.$$
(13)
Since pair production occurs for energies of at least 20 TeV, as indicated by our analyses of the Mkn 501 and Mkn 421 spectra ,, we then find the constraint on the quantum gravity scale $`M_{QG}0.3M_{Planck}`$. This constriant contradicts the predictions of some proposed quantum gravity models involving large extra dimensions and smaller effective Planck masses. Previous constraints on $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}`$ for the cubic model, obtained from limits on the energy dependent velocity dispersion of $`\gamma `$-rays for a TeV flare in Mkn 421  and from $`\gamma `$-ray bursts  were in the much less restrictive range $`M_{QG}(57)\times 10^3M_{Planck}`$.

## 7 Beyond the Planck Scale: Implied Constraints from Crab Nebula $`\gamma `$-rays

Within the context of a more general cubic modification of the dispersion relations given by eqs. (9) and (10), Jacobson, et al.  have obtained an indirect limit on $`M_{QG}`$ from the apparent cutoff in the synchrotron component of the in the Crab Nebula $`\gamma `$-ray emission at $`0.1`$ GeV (see Figure 5). By making reasonable assumptions to modify the standard synchrotron radiation formula to allow for Lorentz invariance violation, they have concluded that the maximium synchrotron photon energy will be given by $`E_{\gamma ,\mathrm{max}}`$ = 0.34 $`(eB/m_e)(m_e/M_{QG})^{2/3}.`$ This reasoning leads to the constraint $`M_{QG}`$$`>`$$`1.2\times 10^7M_{Planck}.`$

Future observations of the Crab Nebula with the GLAST (Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope) satellite, scheduled to be launched in 2005, will provide a better determination of its unpulsed $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum in the energy range above 30 MeV where the transition from the synchrotron emission component to the Compton emission component occurs. This will provide a more precise determination of the maximum electron energy in the Nebula and therefore provide a more precise constraint on the parameter $`M_{QG}`$ as we have defined it here. However, this constraint will still be orders of magnitude above the Planck scale.

## 8 Conclusions

Nearly a century after the inception of special relativity, high energy $`\gamma `$-ray observations have confirmed its validity up to electron energies of 2 TeV, photon energies of 20 TeV and, indirectly, up to electron energies in the PeV range. These results indicate an absence of evidence for proposed violations of Lorentz invariance as predicted by some phenomenological quantum gravity and large extra dimension models. Thus, high energy astrophysics has provided important empirical constraints on Planck scale physics.

Models with large extra dimensions are ruled out by the existence of absorption in the very high energy spectra of nearby BL Lac objects. The fact that more distant brighter sources are not seen can also be taken as indirect evidence of intergalactic absorption by pair production interactions .

The constraints based on analysis of the Crab Nebula $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum, discussed in the previous section, imply that the quantum gravity scale is orders of magnitude above the Planck mass scale. This indicates that the class of models considered here cannot be reflective of physics at the Planck scale. Models such as loop quantum gravity with a preferred inertial frame are ruled out by this line of reasoning. Alternative models to consider might be models with a quartic term with $`M_{QG}^2`$ supression in the dispersion relations, Lorentz invariant quantum gravity models, or really new Planck scale physics such as string theory, which preserves Lorentz invariance.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Ted Jacobson, Stefano Liberati, David Mattingly and Serge Rudaz for helpful discussions.