format: text

text:
# References

Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18 (2003) Brief Review
c World Scientific Publishing Company

QUANTUM HAMILTONIANS AND PRIME NUMBERS

HARET C. ROSU

hcr@ipicyt.edu.mx

Applied Mathematics, IPICyT,

Apdo Postal 3-74 Tangamanga, 78231 San Luis Potosi, Mexico

A short review of Schrödinger hamiltonians for which the spectral problem has been related in the literature to the distribution of the prime numbers is presented here. We notice a possible connection between prime numbers and centrifugal inversions in black holes and suggest that this remarkable link could be directly studied within trapped Bose-Einstein condensates. In addition, when referring to the factorizing operators of Pitkanen and Castro and collaborators, we perform a mathematical extension allowing a more standard supersymmetric approach.

PACS number(s): 98.80.Hw, 11.30.Pb

1. Introduction

The problem of the nontrivial zeros of Riemann’s zeta function, i.e., whether they all lie on the line $`z=\frac{1}{2}+it`$ in the complex plane or not, is a famous unsolved mathematical problem in which physics, especially quantum mechanics and chaos theory, could have a substantial and rewarding contribution in view of its direct connection with the distribution of prime numbers.? The phase of Riemann’s zeta function could be considered the main mathematical object able to trace this important arithmetic distribution.

In this work, my first goal is to provide a short survey of the hamiltonians that so far have been proposed to give hints for a spectral solution (also known as the Hilbert-Polya conjecture) of the location of the zeta zeros on the critical line. Along the review the reader can encounter several relevant novel implications in this highly interesting topic, especially in sections 2 and 4. Since the logderivative of the phase shift of the Coulomb repulsive potential with reversed centrifugal barrier is a function that approximates very well the Riemann phase for the negative orbital number $`l=1/4`$ and because centrifugal inversions have been conjectured in black holes a promising connection between prime numbers and black hole solutions in general relativity is suggested. Moreover, this could be under direct experimental investigation in the not quite far future if sonic black hole configurations could be produced in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates. In addition, when addressing the factorizing operators of Pitkanen and Castro and collaborators, a simple mathematical extension of their work is dealt that brings their approach closer to the standard supersymmetric methods of quantum mechanics.

2. Bhaduri, Khare, Low (1995) ?

BKL showed that the density of zeros of Riemann’s $`\zeta `$ function is determined by its phase $`\theta (t)`$

$$\mathrm{exp}[2i\theta (t)]=\mathrm{exp}(it\mathrm{ln}\pi )R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t),R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{it}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{it}{2}\right)},$$
(1)
where the convention $`\theta (0)=\pi `$ has been introduced. Although this phase is smooth, i.e., it does not include the jumps by $`\pi `$ due to the zeros of the modulus of $`\zeta `$, it counts well the zeros on the critical line. It can also be expressed as the logderivative of the $`l=\frac{1}{4}`$ phase shift ($`\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{it}{2}\right)`$) with respect to the distorted Coulomb wave of the repulsive Coulomb potential

$$H_{bkl}=\frac{d^2}{dy^2}\frac{l(l+1)}{y^2}\frac{ϵ}{y}+k^2,$$
(2)
where $`l=\frac{1}{4}`$, $`ϵ=\frac{mE}{2\mathrm{}^2}`$, and $`k=\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}`$.

The potential in Eq. (2) is also equivalent to an inverted harmonic half-oscillator. Of course, such a negative fractional phase shift does not look physical at first glance as it points to an attractive centrifugal barrier (i.e., well) but this is precisely the case for its application to prime numbers. Even more, I hail this as a very appealing feature because of a paper of Cirone et al,? where the $`1/4`$ correction is called the quantum anti-centrifugal force being a metric effect related to the radial derivatives in the Laplacian. Furthermore it is well established that a ‘centrifugal force reversal’ occurs for $`r<3m`$ in a Schwarzschild spacetime.? The connection between prime numbers and black holes is of course a distinguished one and of much transcendence.

It is not hopeless to succeed in touching experimentally the promising connections alluded above. Especially suitable is the BEC physics. According to Garay, sonic black holes could be created in BECs trapped by means of sufficiently tight ring-shaped external potentials produced with state-of-the-art or planned technology.? In this case, the sonic black holes are stationary solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinear equation displaying a boundary from which only a tiny thermal quantum sound radiation can escape. Of course, a detailed study of the instablility of these sonic horizons is needed as recently emphasized by Leonhardt and collaborators.?

But most promising, in 2001, Ott et al,? reported the production of a BE condensate in a microstructured magnetic surface trap. This is remarkable because the booming realm of surface-patterning technological processes opens up for the beautiful physical phase-shift approach to prime numbers. Thus, by means of micro-fabricated electrical circuits, precision measurement of scattering properties becomes feasible and interferometric measurements should allow soon a direct access of the phase shifts that was never available in the past.?

Fig. 1 The BKL Coulomb potential with $`1/4`$ centrifugal correction and the other parameters scaled to unity.

3. Berry and Keating (1999) ?

This is in the class of Berry and Keating contributions, who were stimulated by ideas and remarks of Connes. According to Berry and Keating, the hamiltonian

$$H_{bk}=i\mathrm{}\left(x_x+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(3)
is the simplest hermitian operator connected to Riemann’s $`\zeta `$, though it is only a canonically rotated form of the upturned harmonic oscillator $`p^2x^2`$. The simplicity results from avoiding the complications of the parabolic cylinder eigenfunctions. The linear independent wave functions in the $`x`$ representation are of the type

$$\psi _\pm (x;E)=\frac{A\theta (\pm x)}{|x|^{1/2iE/\mathrm{}}},$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function. One can also write them in terms of the smoothed counting function of the Riemann zeros

$$\psi _\pm (x;E)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}[i\pi (N_{sm}(E)1]}{|x|^{1/2iE/\mathrm{}}},$$
(5)
where Berry and Keating define $`N_{\mathrm{sm}}(E)=\theta _R(E)/\pi +1`$, and

$$\theta _R(E)=\frac{E}{2}\mathrm{log}\pi +Im\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}iE\right).$$
(6)
In addition, Aneva,? considered chaos quantization conditions for $`H_{bk}`$ and their geometrical (group) interpretation in an effort to get a discrete spectrum for $`H_{bk}`$.

4. Castro et al (2001, 2002) ?

Castro and collaborators, based on works of Pitkanen,? introduced the simple and appealing nonrelativistic supersymmetric quantum mechanical (SUSYQM) schemes for the Riemann zeros problem. They also elaborated on p-adic oscillators for the same problem. Their first order “ladder” operators are

$$D_1=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+\frac{dV(t)}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+k_c\mathrm{and}D_2=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+\frac{dV(1/t)}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+k_c,$$
(7)
where $`k_c`$ is a constant parameter and $`V(t)`$ is given by the logarithm of the Gauss-Jacobi theta series $`G(t^l)`$, $`e^{2V(t)}=G(t^l)`$, $`l=\mathrm{const}`$

$$G(t^l)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\pi n^2t^l}$$
(8)
and $`V(1/t)V(t)`$. The resulting pair of susy partner hamiltonians have the same real spectrum $`s(1s)`$ on both the real line (trivial zeros) and Riemann’s critical line (nontrivial zeros). The ‘coherent’ eigenfunctions are written $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(1/t)`$, respectively, where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_s(t)=t^z\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}(t)}{1\mathrm{exp}(t)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(9)
The Mellin transform of the Gauss-Jacobi theta series is the zeta function $`\zeta (s)`$ and the inner product of two eigenfunctions, say $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{s1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{s2}`$, can be written in terms of $`\zeta (a(s_1^{}+s_2)+b\frac{a}{2})`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be expressed in terms of $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$ and $`l`$. The zeta zeros are in one-to-one correspondence with the ‘orthogonality’ conditions.

Here I will show that there is a standard way of doing SUSYQM for this important case. Using a relationship of Gauss that was mentioned by Castro

$$G(1/x)=x^{1/2}G(x),$$
(10)
one can write the above ladder operators in the form

$$D_1=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+\frac{dV(t)}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+k_1\mathrm{and}D_2=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+\frac{dV(t)}{d\mathrm{ln}t}+k_2,$$
(11)
where $`k_2=k_1+\frac{l}{4}`$.

This leads to

$$H_A\mathrm{\Psi }_A=D_2D_1\mathrm{\Psi }_A=[d_t^2+(k_1k_2)d_t+d_tV+V^2+(k_1+k_2)V+k_1k_2]\mathrm{\Psi }_A$$
(12)
and

$$H_B\mathrm{\Psi }_B=D_1D_2\mathrm{\Psi }_B=[d_t^2+(k_1k_2)d_td_tV+V^2+(k_1+k_2)V+k_1k_2]\mathrm{\Psi }_B,$$
(13)
where $`d_t=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}t}`$ and $`V=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}G(t^l)`$.

Using now the gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{A,B}=\psi _{A,B}t^{l/4}`$ one can eliminate the first derivative $`d_t`$ and get the Schroedinger equations

$$d_t^2\psi _{A,B}+S_{A,B}\psi _{A,B}=\lambda _{k_1,k_2}\psi _{A,B},$$
(14)
where $`\lambda _{k_1,k_2}=(\frac{k_1k_2}{2})^2k_1k_2`$ plays the role of eigenvalue and $`S_{A,B}`$ are in the position of Schroedinger susy partner potentials

$$S_{A,B}=\pm d_tV+V^2+(k_1+k_2)V.$$
(15)
5. Chadan and Musette (1993) ?

These authors used

$$H_{cm}=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\frac{\left[l(l+1)f_{cm}(x;g,\alpha ,\beta )\right]}{x^2},$$
(16)
where the centrifugal correction of Chadan and Musette is

$$F_{cm}=\frac{f_{cm}(x;g,\alpha ,\beta )}{x^2}=\frac{\frac{g}{L^2(x)}\frac{\alpha }{L(x)}\frac{\beta }{L(x)LL(x)}}{x^2}.$$
(17)
In Eq. (17) $`L=\mathrm{log}(1/x)`$, $`LL=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(1/x)`$, $`l=1`$, $`\alpha =27/4`$, $`\beta =3/2`$ and $`g`$ is a coupling constant.

Chadan and Musette proposed the above rather complicated singular potential in a closed interval \[0,$`R`$\] and Dirichlet boundary conditions at both ends. They gave arguments that the spectrum in the coupling constant $`g=\frac{1}{4}+\frac{t^2}{4}`$ ($`t`$ is the imaginary part on the critical line), which is real and discrete, with $`g_n>1/4`$, coincides approximately with the nontrivial Riemann zeros when $`R=e^{4\pi /3}`$.

We note that this is a so-called Sturmian quantum problem, i.e., a quantization problem in the coupling constant of the potential. A very detailed analysis of this singular hamiltonian and a generalization thereof from the point of view of inverse scattering and $`s`$-wave Jost functions has been performed in the important work of Khuri.?

Fig. 2 The centrifugal correction $`F_{cm}`$ of Chadan and Musette for $`R0.015`$ and $`g50`$.

6. Joffily (2003): zeros of s-wave Jost functions ?

The first to relate the nontrivial zeta zeros to the complex poles of a scattering matrix were Pavlov and Fadeev,? for the case of a particle on a surface of negative curvature.

Joffily, on the other hand, suggested a ‘potential scattering’ Hilbert-Polya conjecture. He argued that the zeros of Riemann’s zeta function could be put in one-to-one correspondence with the zeros of the s-wave Jost function for cutoffed potentials in the complex momenta plane. Joffily considered the s-wave Jost function $`f_+(\gamma )`$ in the dimensionless argument $`\gamma =kR`$ ($`R`$ is the cutoff of the potential) and the transformation

$$z=i\frac{\gamma }{2Im\gamma }$$
(18)
by which the lower half of complex $`\gamma `$-plane is mapped onto the critical zeta line.

7. The fractal potential of Wu and Sprung (1993) ?

Wu and Sprung obtained a local potential given by an Abel integral equation based on the smooth number of Riemann zeros below $`E`$, $`N(E)=\frac{E}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{E}{2\pi e}+\frac{7}{8}`$, considered as the semiclassical WKB density of states below $`E`$ of a potential. Their potential $`y(x)=\frac{V}{V_0}`$ scaled with respect to $`V(0)=V_0`$ (Wu and Sprung chose $`V_0=3.10073\pi `$) is given by

$$x=\frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{\pi }\left[\sqrt{y1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_0}{2\pi e^2}+\sqrt{y}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{y}+\sqrt{y1}}{\sqrt{y}\sqrt{y1}}\right].$$
(19)
As a function of the fitted Riemann zeros, $`y(x;N)`$ shows fluctuations with respect to the smooth potential $`y(x)`$ and therefore $`y(x;N)`$ is a fractal curve. Using a box-counting-method analysis, Wu and Sprung obtained the result that the first 500 Riemann nontrivial zeros can be fitted with the fractal potential $`y(x;500)`$ of fractal dimension 1.5.

8. Okubo’s two-dimensional potential (1998) ?

Okubo introduced

$$H_{\mathrm{ok}}(x,y;\beta _{\mathrm{ok}})=\frac{^2}{xy}+i\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}y\frac{}{y}+i(1\beta _{\mathrm{ok}})x\frac{}{x}+\frac{i}{2},$$
(20)
where $`\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}`$ is a real parameter. He gave arguments that this two-dimensional Lorentz-invariant Hamiltonian may be relevant to the RH. Some eigenfunctions of his two-dimensional Hamiltonian corresponding to infinite-dimensional representation of the Lorentz group have many interesting properties. Especially, a relationship exists between the zero zeta function condition (ZZFC) that should be satisfied by any nontrivial zeta zero

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\tau ^{z1}}{1+\mathrm{exp}\tau }=0,$$
(21)
for $`Rez(0,1)`$ and the absence of trivial representations in the wave function. The eigenfunctions of $`H_{\mathrm{ok}}\varphi =\lambda \varphi `$ with $`z=\frac{1}{2}+i\lambda `$ are of the form

$$\varphi (x,y)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \tau ^{z1}\mathrm{exp}(ix\tau ^{1\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}})g(\tau +y\tau ^{\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}}),$$
(22)
where $`g`$ is an arbitrary function which vanishes as its argument goes to $`\mathrm{}`$. The choice

$$g_0(\tau +y\tau ^{\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}})=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\tau +y\tau ^{\beta _{\mathrm{ok}}})}$$
(23)
yields a function $`\varphi _0`$ which is an infinite-dimensional unitary realization of the Lorentz group SO(1,1). If the so-called ZZFC condition is applied to $`\varphi _0`$ the representation space of SO(1,1) does not contain any singlet representation of the group.

Berry and Keating commented that Okubo’s hamiltonian is a more general, relativistic oscillator than their own quantized $`xp`$.

9. Mussardo’s potential (1997) ?

Mussardo’s potential $`W`$ is given by

$$x(W)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu (m)}{m}_{E_0}^W\frac{ϵ^{\frac{1m}{m}}}{\mathrm{ln}ϵ\sqrt{Wϵ}}𝑑ϵ,$$
(24)
where $`\mu `$ is the Möbius function.

Since Mussardo applies, like Wu and Sprung, the semiclassical method, his work is based on Abel’s integral equation. All that we said with respect to the work of Wu and Sprung applies here as well.

Mussardo also suggested a resonance experiment to implement the primality test up to a maximum number $`N`$ depending on a cutoff $`ϵ_0`$. Sharp resonances in the transmission amplitude $`T_N(E)`$ of plane waves impinging on the potential $`W(x;ϵ_0(N))`$ would indicate that the numbers $`N`$ are prime.

10. de Oliveira and Pellegrino (2001) ?

These authors considered discrete Schrödinger operators of the type

$$(H_Vu)_n=u_{n+1}+u_{n1}+\lambda V_nu_n$$
(25)
defining $`V_0=0`$, $`V_n=1`$ if $`n+1`$ is a prime number, and $`V_n=0`$ if not. They have found a localization-delocalization transition as a function of the potential strength $`\lambda `$.

11. Many-body hamiltonians: Boos and Korepin (2001, 2002) ?

Many-body hamiltonians are interesting more from the statistical physics point of view than the spectral one. Boos and Korepin,? showed that particular correlation functions in quantum spin chains can be expressed in terms of the values of Riemann zeta function at odd arguments (for even arguments, it is known that $`\zeta (2n)B_{2n}`$, the even Bernoulli numbers). They put forward the following conjecture

Arbitrary correlators of the $`XXX`$ antiferromagnet are described as certain combinations of $`\mathrm{ln}2`$, the Riemann zeta function with odd arguments and rational coefficients.

An extension of this result to complex arguments could be interpreted as decay (decoherence) of the spin chain correlators.

We recall that the $`XXX`$ finite $`N`$ chain antiferromagnet is described since 1928 by the following Heisenberg hamiltonian

$$H_{XXX}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\sigma _i^x\sigma _{i+1}^x+\sigma _i^y\sigma _{i+1}^y+\sigma _i^z\sigma _{i+1}^z1),$$
(26)
where the $`\sigma `$’s are Pauli matrices.

12. Crehan (1995)  ?

Crehan used a classical theorem of Hardy and Littlewood stating that the position of the $`n`$th prime on the critical line is limited by $`t_n<a^1n`$ ($`a=\mathrm{const}`$) to get a theorem asserting that there is an infinite family of classically integrable nonlinear oscillators whose quantum spectrum is given by the imaginary part of the sequence of zeros on the critical line of the Riemann zeta function. In addition, Forrester and Odlyzko,? related the distribution of zeta critical zeros to generalized Painleve fifth differential equation.

13. Conclusion

The spectral interpretation of the imaginary parts of the nontrivial Riemann zeros stimulated mathematical physicists to propose several quantum hamiltonians with spectra that could be useful in tackling with this century-old problem. Here the suggestions made in this area are gathered together in order to catch a global glimpse of these research facts. I provide a number of useful comments that hopefully will be taken into account in future possible experiments. The most exciting issue is the possibility of direct experimental access to negative phase shifts in the physics of trapped BECs. This cutting-edge research is of direct relevance for the link between prime numbers and black holes. I also hint that the rapidly developing PT quantum mechanics,? a specific type of non-hermitic hamiltonians symmetric with respect to parity and time reversal discrete operations that display real spectra, will have an important contribution in this field. In fact, the susy hamiltonian pair of Pitkanen and Castro and collaborators are not hermitic but have real spectra.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the Editor for useful remarks that led to the improvement of presentation and V. Korepin, M. Novello and C. Castro who concerned to email me their comments on the arXiv preprint of this work (quant-ph/0304139).

References


text:
# Magnetism and Superconductivity in a Two-band Hubbard Model in Infinite Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

The two-band Hubbard model has been extensively studied as a simple model simulating transition-metal compounds and high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, which is characterized by two parameters: the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$ at the $`d`$-orbital and the charge-transfer energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the $`d`$\- and $`p`$-orbitals. Recently, several authors have studied the model using the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) which becomes exact in infinite spatial dimensions .$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The Mott metal-insulator transition was found to occur at $`n=1`$ (or $`n=3`$) ,$`^{\text{?, ?, ?, ?, ?)}}`$ where $`n`$ is the total electron number per unit cell and given by the sum of $`p`$\- and $`d`$-electron numbers: $`n=n_p+n_d`$. Antiferromagnetism $`^{\text{?)}}`$ and superconductivity $`^{\text{?, ?, ?)}}`$ were also observed in this model. However, the ferromagnetism was not discussed there.

Recent findings of the high-temperature ferromagnetism in doped CaB6 and the high-temperature superconductivity in MgB2 have simulated a renewed interest in strong electron correlation in the multi-band systems. Therefore, we study the ferromagnetism and the superconductivity in the two-band Hubbard model using the DMFT combined with the exact diagonalization (ED) method .$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ We especially focus on the electronic states near $`n=2`$ where the system is semimetal or band-insulator in the non-interacting case.

## 2 Formulation

The two-band Hubbard model is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}(t_{ij}d_{i\sigma }^{}p_{j\sigma }+h.c.)+ϵ_p{\displaystyle \underset{j,\sigma }{}}p_{j\sigma }^{}p_{j\sigma }`$ (2.1)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_d{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_i^{}d_id_i^{}d_i,`$
where $`d_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`p_{j\sigma }^{}`$ are creation operators for an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ in the $`d`$\- orbital at site $`i`$ and in the $`p`$\- orbital at site $`j`$, respectively. The charge-transfer energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ_pϵ_d`$. In eq.(2.1), we assume that $`p`$\- and $`d`$-orbitals are on different sub-lattices of a bipartite lattice.

In the limit of infinite dimensions, the self-energy becomes purely site-diagonal and the DMFT becomes exact. The local Green’s function for the $`d`$-electron, $`D_\sigma (\tau \tau ^{})=Td_\sigma (\tau )d_\sigma ^{}(\tau ^{})`$, can be given by the impurity Green’s function of an effective single impurity Anderson model,

$`H_{\mathrm{And}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\epsilon _{f\sigma }f_\sigma ^{}f_\sigma +Uf_{}^{}f_{}f_{}^{}f_{}`$ (2.2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,\sigma }{}}\epsilon _{k\sigma }c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{k,\sigma }{}}V_{k\sigma }(f_\sigma ^{}c_{k\sigma }+c_{k\sigma }^{}f_\sigma ),`$
where $`\epsilon _{f\sigma }`$ is the impurity level and $`\epsilon _{k\sigma }`$ are energies of conduction electrons hybridized with the impurity by $`V_{k\sigma }`$. In the model eq. (2.2), the non-interacting impurity Green’s function, $`𝒢_{0\sigma }(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)=\left(\mathrm{i}\omega _n\epsilon _{f\sigma }_k\frac{V_{k\sigma }^2}{\mathrm{i}\omega _n\epsilon _{k\sigma }}\right)^1,`$ includes effects of the interaction at all the sites except the impurity site and is determined self-consistently so as to satisfy the self-consistency equation.

For simplicity, the calculations in this paper are restricted to the Bethe lattice with the connectivity $`z`$ and the hopping $`t_{ij}=\frac{t_{pd}}{\sqrt{z}}`$, and we set $`t_{pd}=1`$. In the limit $`z=\mathrm{}`$, the self-consistency equations for the local Green’s functions are given by$`^{\text{?)}}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒢_{0\sigma }(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)^1& =& \mathrm{i}\omega _n+\mu \epsilon _dt_{pd}^2P_\sigma (\mathrm{i}\omega _n),\hfill \\ \hfill P_\sigma (\mathrm{i}\omega _n)^1& =& \mathrm{i}\omega _n+\mu \epsilon _pt_{pd}^2D_\sigma (i\omega _n),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`P_\sigma (i\omega )`$ is the local Green’s function for the $`p`$-electron and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential.

To solve the impurity Anderson model eq.(2.2) we use the exact diagonalization of a finite-size cluster with $`\epsilon _{k\sigma }`$ and $`V_{k\sigma }`$ for $`k=2,3,\mathrm{},N_s`$ (ED method) .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ First, we assume $`4N_s2`$ parameters: $`\{\epsilon _{f\sigma },\epsilon _{k\sigma },V_{k\sigma }\}_{\mathrm{old}}`$. Next, we diagonalize the finite-size cluster with these parameters, and calculate the local (impurity) Green’s function $`D_\sigma (\mathrm{i}\omega _n)`$. Finally, we calculate $`𝒢_{0\sigma }(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)`$ through the self-consistency equations (2), and determine the new parameters $`\{\epsilon _{f\sigma },\epsilon _{k\sigma },V_{k\sigma }\}_{\mathrm{new}}`$ so as to make the non-interacting Green’s function with finite $`N_s`$, $`𝒢_{0\sigma }^{N_s}(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)`$, as close to $`𝒢_{0\sigma }(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)`$ as possible, namely, so as to minimize $`\chi ^2`$ defined by $`\chi ^2=_{\omega _n}|𝒢_{0\sigma }(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)^1𝒢_{0\sigma }^{N_s}(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)^1|^2,`$ where $`𝒢_{0\sigma }^{N_s}(\mathrm{i}\omega _n)=(\mathrm{i}\omega _n\epsilon _{f\sigma }_{k=2}^{N_s}\frac{V_{k\sigma }^2}{\mathrm{i}\omega _n\epsilon _{k\sigma }})^1.`$ This process is iterated until the solutions converge.

## 3 Metal-Insulator Transition at $`n=2`$

First, we consider the paramagnetic state at zero temperature for $`n=n_d+n_p=2`$. In the non-interacting case $`U=0`$, the system is a band-insulator for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ while it is a semimetal for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. Within the restricted Hartree-Fock approximation (HFA), the energy gap is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{Un_d}{2}`$. Then the system is metallic for $`U=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, otherwise it is insulating. We note that $`n_d=n_p=1`$ for $`U=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ due to the particle-hole symmetry.

In the inset in Fig. 1, we show the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as functions of $`n`$ for $`U=7,8,9,10`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=6`$ and $`T=0`$ calculated from the ED method with the system size $`N_s=8`$. In this calculation, the solution is restricted to the paramagntic state with $`\epsilon _{f\sigma }=\epsilon _f`$, $`\epsilon _{k\sigma }=\epsilon _k`$ and $`V_{k\sigma }=V_k`$ for $`k=2,3,\mathrm{},N_s`$. When $`U`$ increases from $`U=0`$, the discontinuity in the chemical potential at $`n=2`$ decreases and finally becomes zero at a critical value, where a transition from the band-insulator to the correlated semimetal occurs .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ The critical values for the metal-insulator transition are plotted in Fig. 1. In contrast to the restricted HFA, the metallic state is found in the wide parameter region due to a correlation effect considered in the DMFT.

## 4 Ferromagnetism

At low temperature, the correlated semimetal mentioned above becomes unstable compared to a ferromagnetic state. In Fig. 2 we plotted the magnetization for the $`d`$-electron $`M_d`$, that for the $`p`$-electron $`M_p`$ and the total magnetization $`M=M_d+M_p`$ as functions of the temperature $`T`$ at $`n=2`$ for $`U=8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ calculated from the ED method with $`N_s=6`$. As shown in Fig. 2, $`M_d`$ and $`M_p`$ have opposite sign to each other. In the low temperature limit, both of $`M_d`$ and $`M_p`$ become constant, while the sum of them $`M`$ becomes zero. The feature of the ferromagnetism from the DMFT is similar to that from the HFA as shown in Fig. 2. However, the transition temperature $`T_c`$ from the HFA is much higher than that from the DMFT (see also Fig. 4).

Fig. 3 shows the total magnetization $`M`$ as a function of the electron number $`n`$. When $`n`$ decreases, $`M`$ continuously becomes zero at a critical value of $`n`$ for high temperatures (see for $`T=0.025`$), while it discontinuously becomes zero for low temperatures (see for $`T=0.01`$). The similar properties are also observed within the HFA as shown in Fig. 3. At low temperatures, however, the HFA also predicts a metastable state where $`M`$ decreases with increasing $`n`$ and continuously becomes zero at a critical $`n`$ (see for $`T=0.025`$). By calculating the thermodynamic potential, we find that the phase separation of the ferromagnetic state and the paramagnetic state occurs at the low temperatures as shown in Fig. 4. The possible metastable state and the phase separation within the ED method will be reported elsewhere.

Fig. 4 shows the transition temperature for the ferromagnetism $`T_c`$ as a function of $`n`$ for several values of $`U(=2\mathrm{\Delta })`$. $`T_c`$ monotonically decreases with decreasing $`n`$. The closed circles show the second-order phase transition, while the open circles show the discontinuous transition as seen in Fig. 3. Within the HFA, the second-order phase transition occurs at the high temperature (solid line), while the phase separation occurs at the low temperature (area between the dotted lines).

## 5 Superconductivity

Finally, we discuss the superconductivity .$`^{\text{?, ?, ?)}}`$ The on-site paring susceptibility $`\chi _p`$ is given by $`^{\text{?)}}`$

$`\chi _p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}Td_i(\tau )d_i(\tau )d_j^{}(0)d_j^{}(0)`$ (5.1)
$`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}}{}}[\alpha ^{1/2}\{I\mathrm{\Lambda }\}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^{1/2}]_{\nu ,\nu ^{}},`$
where $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{\nu ,\nu ^{}}=t_{pd}^4|P(\mathrm{i}\nu )|[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mathrm{loc}}]_{\nu ,\nu ^{}}|P(\mathrm{i}\nu ^{})|,`$ and $`[\alpha ]_{\nu ,\nu ^{}}=t_{pd}^4|P(\mathrm{i}\nu )|^2\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}.`$ Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ is the local paring susceptibility on a $`d`$-orbital given by

$`[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mathrm{loc}}]_{\nu ,\nu ^{}}=T^2{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau _3{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau _4\mathrm{e}^{i\nu (\tau _1\tau _2)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{i\nu ^{}(\tau _3\tau _4)}Td_{}(\tau _1)d_{}(\tau _2)d_{}^{}(\tau _3)d_{}^{}(\tau _4).`$ (5.2)
To calculate $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ within the exact diagonalization method, we use a spectral representation of r.h.s. in eq.(5.2) by inserting a complete set of eigenstates $`|i`$. When the largest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches unity, the paring susceptibility diverges. It signals the transition into the superconducting state from the normal state.

In Fig. 5, the transition temperature for the singlet superconductivity $`T_s`$ is plotted as a function of $`n`$ for $`U=8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$, obtained from the ED method with $`N_s=4`$ .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ We also plotted the transition temperature for the ferromagnetism $`T_c`$ calculated in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 together with that for the antiferromagnetism $`T_N`$ calculated from the ED method with $`N_s=6`$.

## 6 Discussion

We have obtained a phase diagram including the metal-insulator transition, the ferromagnetism, the antiferromagnetism and the superconductivity using the DMFT combined with the ED method, for the two-band Hubbard model with typical values of the parameters $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. More systematic calculations for various values of the parameters are now under the way.

Effects of the hopping integrals between the $`p`$-$`p`$ and the $`d`$-$`d`$ orbitals, which are not considered in the present study but are not negligible in actual compounds, make important contribution to the transition temperatures. Such effects and the detailed analysis of the mechanism for the superconductivity will be reported in a future publication.


text:
# References

1. Introduction

Systems describing pairwise interactions on $`n`$ particles in one dimension are important for several reasons. At the classical level they provide interesting examples of integrable models (see Ref.  for a review) and exhibit intriguing relations with semisimple Lie algebras  and Hamiltonian reductions of $`2d`$ Yang–Mills theory . At the quantum level they turn out to be completely solvable (see e.g. Refs. , and references therein).

Apart from the mathematical concern in the chain of the one–dimensional many–body systems, some of them admit interesting physical applications. It has been known for a long time that the $`n`$–particle Calogero model  characterized by the potential $`_{i<j}\frac{g}{(x_ix_j)^2}`$, with $`g`$ being a dimensionless coupling constant, exhibits conformal invariance . Exploiting the latter Gibbons and Townsend argued recently  that an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension of the Calogero model could be relevant for a microscopic description of the extremal Reissner–Nordström black hole, at least near the horizon. Unfortunately, beyond the two–particle case  no such model has been constructed so far.

Generally, one works within the framework of supersymmetric (quantum) mechanics, where an attempt to incorporate superconformal generators leads one to contradictory equations . Surprisingly enough, in $`d=2`$ the situation turns out to be simpler  and an $`N=4`$ superconformal Calogero model can be constructed. However, a naive dimensional reduction to one dimension breaks $`N=4`$ down to $`N=2`$.

It is worth mentioning also the approach of Ref. , where an $`N=4`$ supersymmetric multidimensional quantum mechanics involving an arbitrary potential has been constructed. However, no specific choice for the potential that would reproduce the Calogero model has been presented.

In the present paper we suggest a simple method for constructing variant $`N=4`$ superconformal many–body theories out of a composite system containing one free particle (describing the center of mass) and $`\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ copies of the conventional $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics . The approach appeals to a specific reduction where one imposes constrains on an original (simple) model in order to generate a nontrivial potential for a resulting reduced system. As will be discussed in detail below, the key point is not to destroy the standard structure of a kinetic term (i.e. $`_{i=1}^n\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i`$) when implementing the reduction. As an application we construct an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension for a complexification of the Calogero model and extend the $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$–invariant mechanics of Ref.  to the $`n`$–particle case.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we illustrate the method and show how the reduction works to yield the purely bosonic Calogero model. In Sect. 3 we incorporate $`N=2`$ supersymmetry in the scheme and reproduce the earlier result by Freedman and Mende . It turns out to be most efficient to work off-shell and implement constraints directly in a superfield form. Sect. 4 is split into three subsections respective to three different $`N=4`$ off–shell superconformal multiplets known. Here we construct the two models mentioned above and comment on the problems one reveals when trying to apply the method for constructing an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension for the real Calogero model. Possible further developments are outlined in the concluding Sect. 5.

2. The bosonic Calogero model

Before we treat in detail the entire superconformal case, it is worth illustrating how the reduction works for bosonic systems, the simplest conformally invariant many–body theory being the three–particle Calogero model in one dimension. To this end, let us consider the composite theory which involves a free particle and three copies of conformal mechanics  with the (dimensionless positive) coupling constants being equal to each other

$`S_0={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[\frac{\dot{x}_0^2}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\frac{\dot{x}_i^2}{2}\frac{g}{x_i^2})\right]}.`$ (1)
The free particle degree of freedom has a distinguished status and is reserved for the center of mass coordinate of a resulting many–body conformal model to be derived below. Being a composite system, the theory (1) possesses an invariance which is the direct product of four $`SO(1,2)`$ groups. Aiming at the construction of a many–body interacting theory exhibiting a single conformal symmetry, let us reduce the model (1) to the plane in the configuration space at hand

$$x_1+x_2+x_3=0.$$
(2)
This constraint can be readily enforced by means of the Lagrange multiplier $`\pi `$, the reduced action functional acquiring the form

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[\frac{\dot{x}_0^2}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\frac{\dot{x}_i^2}{2}\frac{g}{x_i^2})+\pi (x_1+x_2+x_3)\right]}.`$ (3)
We next wonder which is the dynamics of physical degrees of freedom in the reduced theory. Applying the standard Dirac method one finds111$`(p_0,p_i,p_\pi )`$ denote momenta canonically conjugate to the configuration space variables $`(x_0,x_i,\pi )`$.

$$p_\pi =0,$$
(4)
as the primary constraint and Eq. (2) as the secondary one. Besides, there appear two tertiary constraints

$$p_1+p_2+p_3=0,\pi +\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{2g}{3x_i^3}=0,$$
(5)
whose conservation in time fixes the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda _\pi `$ entering the canonical Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p_0^2}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{p_i^2}{2}+p_\pi \lambda _\pi +\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{g}{x_i^2}\pi (x_1+x_2+x_3).$$
(6)
Its explicit form is irrelevant for the subsequent consideration.

It is important to notice that only a specific linear combination of the original conserved charges

$`D=tH{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}x_np_np_\pi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{x_i^3}},K=t^2Ht({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}x_np_n+2p_\pi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{x_i^3}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}x_nx_n,`$
leaves the constraint surface (2),(4),(5) invariant222There is also an extra $`SO(1,2)`$ invariance realized on the center of mass coordinates $`(x_0,p_0)`$ which we ignore here.. Together with the Hamiltonian (6) they form the conformal algebra $`so(1,2)`$ modulo the constraint terms.

Alternatively, working in the Lagrangian framework one could observe that the coordinates of each individual particle entering the original composite system transform linearly and homogeneously with respect to the proper $`SO(1,2)`$ group

$$\delta x_i=\frac{1}{2}\dot{f}x_i,\delta t=a+bt+ct^2f(t).$$
(8)
In fact, it is this observation which prompts one to impose the linear constraint (2) and guarantees the residual ”diagonal” conformal symmetry for the reduced system.

Being second class, the constraints revealed above can be resolved after introducing the Dirac bracket. This allows one to remove the pair $`(\pi ,p_\pi )`$ and, say $`(x_3,p_3)`$, from the consideration, while brackets for the remaining variables prove to have the following form (only the non vanishing brackets are given):

$`\{x_0,p_0\}_D=1,\{x_1,p_1\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},\{x_1,p_2\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},\{x_2,p_1\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},\{x_2,p_2\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}.`$
It is then easy to find an invertible change of variables $`(x_0,x_1,x_2)(q_1,q_2,q_3)`$ which diagonalizes the bracket (S0.Ex2)

$`x_0=q_1+q_2+q_3,x_1=q_1q_2,x_2=q_2q_3,`$
$`p_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{q_1}+p_{q_2}+p_{q_3}),p_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{q_1}p_{q_2}),p_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{q_2}p_{q_3}),`$ (10)
with $`\{q_i,p_{q_j}\}_D=\delta _{ij}`$. Being rewritten in terms of the new variables, the equations of motion coincide with those following from the Hamiltonian333Here we made the additional trivial change $`p_{q_i}^{}=1/\sqrt{3}p_{q_i}`$, $`q_i^{}=\sqrt{3}q_i`$ and $`g^{}=3g`$.

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_{q_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\underset{i<j}{}\frac{g^{}}{(q_i^{}q_j^{})^2},$$
(11)
which is precisely the Hamiltonian of the three–particle Calogero model.

Thus, starting from the simple system composed of a free particle (the center of mass) and three copies of the conformal mechanics and applying the reduction (2) one produces the three–particle Calogero model with the pairwise interaction in one dimension.

Our analysis above relies upon the rigorous Hamiltonian procedure. However, the same conclusion can be reached in a simpler way if one just solves the constraint (2)

$$x_1=q_1q_2,x_2=q_2q_3,x_3=q_3q_1,$$
(12)
immediately in the Lagrangian (1), with $`x_0`$ being the center of mass, $`x_0=q_1+q_2+q_3`$. It is worth mentioning that a peculiar feature of the reduction used is that it preserves the kinetic term, i.e. $`_{k=0}^4\dot{x}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=3_{i=1}^3\dot{q}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$.

Obviously, the method is general enough and is applicable to any $`n`$–particle system with a potential of the form $`_{i<j}V(q_iq_j)`$. For example, the $`n`$–particle Calogero model with the harmonic oscillator potential

$$S=𝑑t\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\dot{q}_i^2}{2}\underset{i<j}{}\omega ^2(q_iq_j)^2\underset{i<j}{}\frac{g}{(q_iq_j)^2}\right),$$
(13)
can be obtained from a composite system which contains a free particle and $`\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ copies of the conformal mechanics which are modified by the inclusion of the harmonic oscillator potential

$$S=dt(\frac{\dot{x}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}+\underset{i<j}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{\dot{x}_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\frac{g}{x_{ij}^2}\omega ^2x_{ij}^2)),x_{ij}=x_{ji}.$$
(14)
The aforementioned reduction is implemented with the help of the relations

$$x_0=\underset{i}{}q_i,x_{ij}=q_iq_j,i<j.$$
(15)
The variables $`x`$ obey $`(n1)(\frac{n}{2}1)`$ linear constraints which leave one with $`n`$ physical degrees of freedom $`(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ and the Calogero action functional (13).

The fact that one can treat the $`n`$–particle Calogero model as a specific reduction of a simpler composite system is not just the matter of aesthetics. It is well known that conformal transformations characterizing the model  are compatible with $`N=2`$ sypersymmetry  and $`N=4`$ supersymmetry . The trick described above suggests quite new and intriguing possibility to attack the problem of a superconformal generalization of the $`n`$–particle Calogero model. It suffices to start with a composite system involving a superconformal extension of a free particle and $`\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ copies of the superconformal mechanics  and apply an appropriate reduction. In the next section we treat in detail the $`N=2`$ case. $`N=4`$ models are discussed in Sect. 4.

3. $`N=2`$ superconformal Calogero model

We next wonder how to incorporate $`N=2`$ supersymmetry in the reduction scheme outlined above. In analogy with the bosonic case, in order to guarantee a residual superconformal symmetry for a reduced system, one is to impose constraints on the coordinates which transform linearly and homogeneously under the superconformal group. This suggests, in particular, that one should work with superfields because, in general, after eliminating auxiliary fields supersymmetry transformations become nonlinear.

Thus, our starting point is the $`N=2`$ superconformal mechanics  which is described by the superfield action functional

$$S_0=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }\left(DX\overline{D}X2g\mathrm{log}|X|\right).$$
(16)
Here $`X(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ is a bosonic $`N=2`$ real superfield and the covariant derivatives are defined in the usual way $`D=\frac{}{\theta }+i\overline{\theta }\frac{}{t}`$, $`\overline{D}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}+i\theta \frac{}{t}`$, $`\{D,\overline{D}\}=2i\frac{}{t}`$.

The action (16) holds invariant with respect to the following transformations

$$\delta t=E\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\overline{D}E\frac{1}{2}\theta DE,\delta \theta =\frac{i}{2}\overline{D}E,\delta \overline{\theta }=\frac{i}{2}DE,\delta X=\frac{1}{2}\dot{E}X,$$
(17)
where the superfunction $`E(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ collects all the infinitesimal parameters of the $`N=2,d=1`$ superconformal group

$$E(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=f(t)2i\left(\epsilon +\beta t\right)\overline{\theta }2i\left(\overline{\epsilon }+\overline{\beta }t\right)\theta +\theta \overline{\theta }h.$$
(18)
Here $`f(t)`$ is the same as that in Eq. (8) above, $`h`$ is a $`U(1)`$ rotation parameter, while $`\epsilon `$ and $`\beta `$ correspond to the Poincaré and conformal supersymmetries, respectively.

Aiming at the construction of an $`N=2`$ superconformal Calogero model, let us consider a composite system which involves an $`N=2`$ superconformal extension of a free particle and $`n(n1)/2`$ copies of the $`N=2`$ superconformal mechanics discussed above

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }\left[DX_0\overline{D}X_0+\underset{i<j}{}\left(DX_{ij}\overline{D}X_{ij}2g\mathrm{log}|X_{ij}|\right)\right],$$
(19)
where $`X_{ij}=X_{ji}`$ and $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Alike the bosonic case, we then impose the reduction constraints which express $`n(n1)/2+1`$ original superfields $`X_0,X_{ij}`$ in terms of $`n`$ new superfields $`V_i`$

$$X_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\underset{i}{}V_iX_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(V_iV_j\right).$$
(20)
As each of the superfields $`X_0,X_{ij}`$ transforms linearly and homogeneously with respect to the proper $`SU(1,1|1)`$ transformation, the constraints (20) hold invariant under the residual $`SU(1,1|1)`$ group acting in a uniform way on all the superfields

$$\delta V_i=\frac{1}{2}\dot{E}V_i.$$
(21)
Thus, a residual $`N=2`$ superconformal symmetry is guaranteed by the construction.

Implementing the reduction directly in the action functional of the composite system (19) one gets the following $`N=2`$ superconformal $`n`$-particle model with the pairwise interaction

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}DV_i\overline{D}V_i2g\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{log}|V_iV_j|\right).$$
(22)
Eliminating the auxiliary fields $`F_i=[\overline{D},D]V_i|_{\theta =0}`$ with the use of their equations of motion one can formulate the model in terms of the physical degrees of freedom

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\dot{q_i}^2i\overline{\psi }_i\dot{\psi }_i+i\dot{\overline{\psi }_i}\psi _i)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{g^2g(\psi _i\psi _j)(\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j)}{(q_iq_j)^2}\right],$$
(23)
where $`q_i=V_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\psi _i=iDV_i|_{\theta =0}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_i=i\overline{D}V_i|_{\theta =0}`$. Being rewritten in the Hamiltonian form, the latter theory coincides with the $`N=2`$ superconformal Calogero model constructed by Freedman and Mende in the framework of many–body supersymmetric quantum mechanics .

Thus, we indeed checked that the reduction scheme advocated in the previous section can incorporate the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. Obviously, one can employ this reduction, in order to build supersymmetric many–body systems with a potential of a more general form $`_{i<j}\mathrm{\Phi }(V_iV_j)`$. It suffices to start with a proper composite system.

4. Calogero–type models with $`N=4`$ superconformal symmetry

The situation becomes more complicated when one tries to extend the analysis, in order to incorporate $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. Let us remind first that the $`N=4`$ superconformal group in $`d=1`$ is the exceptional supergroup $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$ . Only for specific values of the parameter, namely $`\alpha =1,0`$ (with the notation from Ref. ), the corresponding superalgebra is isomorphic to $`su(1,1|2)su(2)`$. Generally, only the $`su(1,1|2)`$ part is taken into account, while the $`su(2)`$ subalgebra is kept explicitly broken. Besides, three different $`N=4`$ off-shell supermultiplets are known, which can be used for constructing $`N=4`$ superconformal Calogero–type models. The first multiplet contains one real scalar, four real fermions and three real auxiliary fields . We shall call this the 4a multiplet. The second multiplet involves one complex scalar, four real fermions and one complex auxiliary scalar . We will call this the 4b multiplet. Finally, it was recognized recently that a multiplet with three real scalars, four real fermions and one real auxiliary field  underlies a new version  of an $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics (for the case of a vanishing coupling constant, see also Ref. ). We will call the latter the $`4c`$ multiplet. It is important to stress that in all three cases the $`N=4`$ superfields involved are subject to constraints. Therefore, one should check that the proposed reduction is compatible with those conditions.

Keeping all this in mind, we proceed to construct $`N=4`$ superconformal Calogero–type models.

4.1 The 4b multiplet

The 4b multiplet proves to be the simplest multiplet to handle. It underlies the following $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑td^4\theta Y\overline{Y}g𝑑td^2\theta \mathrm{log}|Y|g𝑑td^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{log}|\overline{Y}|\right),$$
(24)
where the $`N=4`$ superfields $`Y,\overline{Y}`$ are constrained to obey the chirality conditions $`\overline{D}^aY=0`$, $`D_a\overline{Y}=0`$ which involve the covariant derivatives $`D_a=\frac{}{\theta ^a}+i\overline{\theta }_a\frac{}{t}`$, $`\overline{D}^a=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }_a}i\theta ^a\frac{}{t}`$, $`a=1,2`$.

The $`SU(1,1|2)`$ symmetry characterizing the theory is realized in the following way

$$\delta t=E\frac{1}{2}\theta ^2D_aE+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }_a\overline{D}^aE,\delta \theta ^a=\frac{i}{2}\overline{D}^aE,\delta \overline{\theta }_a=\frac{i}{2}D_aE,\delta Y=\dot{E_L}(t_L,\theta )Y,$$
(25)
where the superfunction $`E=f2i\left(\epsilon (t)\overline{\theta }\theta \overline{\epsilon }(t)\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta \tau ^k\overline{\theta }\right)b^k2\left(\dot{\epsilon }\overline{\theta }+\theta \dot{\overline{\epsilon }}\right)\theta \overline{\theta }+\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta \overline{\theta }\right)^2\ddot{f}`$ collects all the parameters of the $`SU(1,1|2)`$ group. Here we made use of the notation $`f=a+bt+ct^2`$, $`\epsilon ^a(t)=\epsilon ^a+\beta ^at`$, $`E_L=\frac{1}{2}f(t_L)+2i\theta ^a\overline{\epsilon }_a(t_L)`$, $`t_L=t+i\theta \overline{\theta }`$ and $`t_R=ti\theta \overline{\theta }`$.

Owing to the homogeneous transformation law (25) for $`Y`$ and $`\overline{Y}`$, one can safely use this model as a constituent of a larger composite system. As before, the latter is taken to be the sum of a kinetic term for the superfield $`Y_0`$ $`(g=0)`$ and $`n(n1)/2`$ extra terms of the form (24) with $`Y_{ij}=Y_{ji}`$. Imposing the reduction constraints on such a composite system

$$Y_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\underset{i}{}V_iY_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(V_iV_j\right),$$
(26)
where $`V_i`$ denote $`n`$ new independent superfields obeying the same chirality conditions $`\overline{D}^aV_i=0`$, $`D_a\overline{V}_i=0`$, one ends up with the superfield action functional

$$S_{4b}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑td^4\theta \underset{i}{}V_i\overline{V}_ig𝑑td^2\theta \underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{log}|V_iV_j|g𝑑td^2\overline{\theta }\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{log}|\overline{V}_i\overline{V}_j|\right).$$
(27)
By construction this holds invariant under the ”diagonal” $`SU(1,1|2)`$ transformations which act in a uniform way on all the superfields $`V_i,\overline{V}_i`$.

In order to clarify the status of this model, we eliminate auxiliary fields and go over to physical components

$`S_{4b}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }dt[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\dot{q}_i\dot{\overline{q}_i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\chi }_i\overline{\chi }_i){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(q_iq_j)(\overline{q}_i\overline{q}_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{g(\chi _i\chi _j)(\chi _i\chi _j)}{4(q_iq_j)^2}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(\overline{\chi }_i\overline{\chi }_j)(\overline{\chi }_i\overline{\chi }_j)}{4(\overline{q}_i\overline{q}_j)^2}})],`$
where $`q_i=V_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\overline{q_i}=\overline{V}_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\chi _{ia}=iD_aV_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\overline{\chi }_i^a=i\overline{D}^a\overline{V}_i|_{\theta =0}`$. As is seen from the component action, the theory at hand describes an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension of a complexification of the $`n`$–particle Calogero model. It is worth noting that taking a real slice of the latter theory one breaks the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry and, hence, an $`N=4`$ superconformal real Calogero model can not be constructed in this way. We will return to this issue later on in Sect. 4.3.

4.2 The 4c multiplet

This model is based on a recently proposed version  of an $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics. In the bosonic sector the system contains a dilaton field together with two variables parameterizing the two-sphere $`S^2SU(2)/U(1)`$. It was suggested in  that this variant of the superconformal mechanics is a disguised form of a charged superparticle moving in $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ background. Inspired by the use of the $`n`$–particle Calogero model in the context of black hole physics , in this section we extend the system to the $`n`$-particle case.

The starting point is the superfield action functional

$$S=𝑑td^2\theta \left[\frac{1}{4}\left(v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }\right)^{\frac{12\alpha }{2\alpha }}\left(Dv\overline{D}v+D\rho \overline{D}\overline{\rho }\right)+g\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{v+\sqrt{v^2+4\rho \overline{\rho }}}{2}\right|\right],$$
(29)
which depends on the parameter $`\alpha `$ characterizing the supergroup $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$, the latter being the symmetry group of the model. The superfield $`v`$ entering the problem is an unconstrained bosonic $`N=2`$ superfield, while the $`N=2`$ superfields $`\rho `$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$ are taken to obey the chirality conditions $`D\overline{\rho }=0`$, $`\overline{D}\rho =0.`$ Altogether they form an irreducible $`N=4`$ supermultiplet .

The fact that $`v,\rho ,\overline{\rho }`$ transform linearly and homogeneously under the action of the $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$ supergroup allows one to use this theory for the construction of a composite system and then apply to the latter the reduction scheme. Omitting the details we expose the resulting action functional

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dtd^2\theta [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(Y_0^2+4X_0\overline{X}_0)^{\frac{12\alpha }{2\alpha }}(DY_0\overline{D}Y_0+DX_0\overline{D}\overline{X}_0)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(Y_{ij}^2+4X_{ij}\overline{X}_{ij})^{\frac{12\alpha }{2\alpha }}(DY_{ij}\overline{D}Y_{ij}+DX_{ij}\overline{D}\overline{X}_{ij})+g\mathrm{log}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{ij}+\sqrt{Y_{ij}^2+4X_{ij}\overline{X}_{ij}}}{2}}\right|],`$
where $`Y_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}_{i=1}^nv_i`$, $`X_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}_{i=1}^n\rho _i`$, $`Y_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(v_iv_j\right)`$, $`X_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\rho _i\rho _j\right)`$ and the superfields $`\overline{\rho }_i(\rho _i)`$ are chiral (anti-chiral).

As formulated in Eq. (S0.Ex5) above, the action functional exists for generic values of the parameter $`\alpha `$ 444A singular value of the parameter $`\alpha =0`$ is equivalent to $`\alpha =1`$, see e.g. Ref. .. Notice, however, that only for $`\alpha =1/2`$ the kinetic term takes the standard flat form. In what follows we concentrate on this particularly interesting case for which the action functional is simplified drastically. After eliminating auxiliary fields with the use of their equations of motion one finds the resulting component action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{v}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\dot{\rho }_i\dot{\overline{\rho }_i}\frac{i}{2}\dot{\xi }_i\overline{\xi }_i+\frac{i}{2}\xi _i\dot{\overline{\xi }_i}\frac{i}{2}\dot{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_i+\frac{i}{2}\psi _i\dot{\overline{\psi }_i}\right)}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{8g^2}{v_{ij}^2+4\rho _{ij}\overline{\rho }_{ij}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8ig\left(\rho _{ij}\dot{\overline{\rho }_{ij}}\dot{\rho }_{ij}\overline{\rho }_{ij}\right)}{\sqrt{v_{ij}^2+4\rho _{ij}\overline{\rho }_{ij}}\left(v_{ij}+\sqrt{v_{ij}^2+4\rho _{ij}\overline{\rho }_{ij}}\right)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4g}{(v_{ij}^2+4\rho _{ij}\overline{\rho }_{ij})^{3/2}}}(v_{ij}\xi _{ij}\overline{\xi }_{ij}v_{ij}\psi _{ij}\overline{\psi }_{ij}+2\rho _{ij}\xi _{ij}\overline{\psi }_{ij}+2\overline{\rho }_{ij}\psi _{ij}\overline{\xi }_{ij})),`$
where the physical components are defined as follows $`v_i=v_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\rho _i=\rho _i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\xi _i=Dv_i|_{\theta =0}`$, $`\psi _i=D\rho _i|_{\theta =0}`$ and we made use of the notation $`\rho _{ij}=\rho _i\rho _j`$, $`v_{ij}=v_iv_j`$, $`\psi _{ij}=\psi _i\psi _j`$, $`\xi _{ij}=\xi _i\xi _j`$.

To summarize, the model constructed in this subsection can be viewed as an $`N=4`$ superconformal Calogero–type model in three dimensions.

4.3 Troubles with the 4a multiplet

Being the most interesting multiplet in view of the conjecture of Ref. , this case turns out to be the most difficult to handle. In the framework of the Hamiltonian formalism the trouble has been revealed already in Ref.  (see also the related work ). In order to encounter the problem in our setting, let us recall the form of the action functional of an $`N=4`$ superconformal mechanics which relies upon the multiplet at hand

$$S=\frac{1}{16}𝑑td^4\theta \left(e^u\frac{1}{8}\theta _\alpha ^a\theta _{\beta a}m^{\alpha \beta }u\right).$$
(32)
Here $`m^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a constant $`SU(2)`$ vector which plays the role of a coupling constant, whereas the $`N=4`$ superfield $`u`$ is constrained to obey the equation

$$D_{a(\alpha }D_{b)}^\alpha u=0.$$
(33)
Because the superfield $`u`$ transforms linearly and homogeneously with respect to the supergroup $`SU(1,1|2)`$ one can still try to use this theory in the context of the procedure we developed in the preceeding sections. As an outcome of this one finds the action functional

$$S=\frac{1}{16}𝑑td^4\theta \left[e^{Y_0}+\underset{i<j}{}\left(e^{Y_{ij}}\frac{1}{8}\theta _\alpha ^a\theta _{\beta a}m^{\alpha \beta }Y_{ij}\right)\right],$$
(34)
where, as before, $`Y_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}_{i=1}^nv_i`$, $`Y_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(v_iv_j\right)`$ and all the superfields $`v_i`$ satisfy the constraints (33). A simple inspection then shows that the kinetic term of the component action includes a non-trivial coupling to a specific metric and thus the model fails to reproduce the real Calogero model in the bosonic limit. A way out could be to perform the reduction not in terms of the superfield $`u`$, but rather $`e^{\frac{1}{2}u}`$. In other words, one can pass to the new variable $`w=e^{\frac{1}{2}u}`$ in the action (32) and then apply the same reduction as before for the newly introduced superfields. Unfortunately, this step proves to be incompatible with the constraints (33) which are of the second order in the covariant derivatives. Thus, for the 4a multiplet our reduction fails to produce an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension of the real Calogero model.

5. Concluding remarks

To summarize, in this paper we implemented a new reduction mechanism and constructed Calogero–type models with extended superconformal symmetry starting from simple composite systems. As was mentioned above, the range of possible applications of the scheme is actually larger than just the (super) conformal theories. Whenever the constraints preserve the standard structure of a kinetic term, a many–body system with the general potential $`_{i<j}V(x_ix_j)`$ can be constructed. Using this variant of the reduction we built an $`N=4`$ superconformal extension for a complexification of the Calogero model and a $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$–invariant $`n`$–particle system.

Turning to possible further developments it seems interesting to study whether the reduction proposed in this work allows one to generate solutions for a reduced $`n`$–particle model proceeding from those characterizing an initial simple composite system. A related question is whether the $`D(2,1|\alpha )`$–invariant many–body theory constructed in this paper is integrable. It is also interesting to examine the range of applicability of this scheme in the context of two-dimensional field theory.

Acknowledgements

We thank E.A. Ivanov, A.P. Nersessian and especially M.A. Olshanetsky for clarifying discussions. This work was partially supported by INTAS grant No 00–254 (S.B., A.G. and S.K.), European Community’s Human Potential Programme contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 (S.B.) and NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant PST.CLG.979389 (S.B. and A.G.). The work of A.G. has been supported by the President of Russian Federation, grant MD-252.2003.02 and the Ministry of Education of Russian Federation, grant E02-2.0-7. S.K. acknowledges the support of DFG, grant No.436 RUS 113/669 and RFBR-DFG 02-02-04002.