text:
# Hydrodynamics of driven granular gases

## I Introduction

The gas kinetic theory of elastic particles played important roles in history of statistical mechanicsboltzmann ; chapman . When there are inelastic interactions among particles, the behavior of collections of particles is completely different from that of elastic particles: There are no equilibrium states and any spatially homogeneous states are no longer stable. Such a collection of the particles having inelastic interactions is called the granular gas whose physical realization can be observed in rings of planets, small planets, suspended particles in fluidized beds, aerosols, and rapid granular flows etc.granular-gas .

A typical example of granular gases can be found in aerosols or suspensions etc. in which the buoyancy is balanced with gravity. friedlander ; tanaka  In dense suspensions the hydrodynamic interaction among particles are importantichiki , but effects of the air may be regarded as a thermostat driven by the Langevin forces in dilute suspensions. Most of researches for granular gases are interested in undriven systems which are difficult to be achieved in actual experiences. We believe that more systematic studies for driven granular gases are required. Montanero and Santos analyzed statistical properties of the homogeneous state and hydrodyanmics of granular gases the white noise thermostat and the Gaussian thermostat.montanero ; santos02  Carrilio et al.cercignani  and Pagnani et al.pagnani  analyzed granular gases in driven systems by the Langevin force which includes both the white noise with the friction force in proportion to the velocity of particles, but they are not interested in hydrodynamics of such the granular fluid. Since we believe that the model driven by such the thermostat, we call the Langevin thermostat, can describe physical situations of dilute suspensions, we need to clarify properties of the hydrodynamics of such the system. The main purposes of this paper is to investigate the effects of Langevin thermostat for transport coefficients

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we introduce our model and the framework of the Chapman-Enskog method for the analysis of granular gases. In section III, we calculate the valuables such as the granular temperature and the fourth cumulant in a homogeneous state. In section IV, we obtain the transport coefficients such as the viscosity and the heat conductivity. In section V, we discuss and summarize our results.

## II Framework

We consider rarefied gases of smooth identical particles with the mass $`m`$, the velocity $`𝐯`$ and the diameter $`\sigma `$. The distribution function $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ in our system obeys the inelastic Boltzmann equation

$$(_t+𝐯)f=J[f,f]+L_{FP}f,$$
(1)
where $`J[f,f]`$ represents the collisional integral given bygoldstein ; noije98

$`J[f,h]`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^{d1}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{𝝈}𝑑𝐯_1\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐠\widehat{𝝈})𝐠\widehat{𝝈}}`$ (2)
$`\times (e^2b^11)f(𝐫,𝐯,t)h(𝐫,𝐯_1,t)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is Heviside’s function, $`𝐠=𝐯𝐯_1`$, and $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ as the unit vector along the line connecting centers of mass of contacting particles. The operator $`b^1`$ is the inverse of the collisional operator $`b`$ which are defined as

$`b𝐠`$ $`=`$ $`𝐠(1+e)(𝐠\widehat{𝝈})\widehat{𝝈},`$ (3)
$`b^1𝐠`$ $`=`$ $`𝐠{\displaystyle \frac{1+e}{e}}(𝐠\widehat{𝝈})\widehat{𝝈},`$ (4)
where $`e`$ is the coefficient of restitution which is ranged $`0<e1`$. Here we assume that $`e`$ is a constant for the simplification of our argument, though the actual coefficient of restitution depends on the impact velocityimpact ; johnson ; impact2 . The effects of the impact velocity dependence of $`e`$ to macroscopic hydrodynamics can be seen in ref.brilliantov02 . It should be noted that the oblique impacts have important contributions in actual inelastic collisions.labous ; kuninaka  We, however, assume that the effects of inelastic oblique collision can be neglected, which may be justified when particles are smooth hard-core particles.

The Fokker-Planck operator $`L_{FP}`$ in eq.(1) represents the driven force coming from the Langevin force as

$$L_{FP}=\gamma _0\frac{}{𝐯}[𝐕+\frac{T_B}{m}\frac{}{𝐯}],$$
(5)
where the first term and the second term represent the frictional force and the thermal activation, respectively. In general, the temperature of the heat bath $`T_B`$ is different from granular temperature $`T`$. If there is no contribution from the collisional integral, the distribution function is relaxed to an equilibrium state as $`ff_{eq}\mathrm{exp}[mV^2/2T_B]`$. The Fokker-Planck operator (5) may be categorized into one of the white noise thermostat $`L_{white}=\gamma _0T_B/m(^2/𝐯^2).`$ However, the contribution of $`L_{FP}`$ to the distribution function, the transport coefficients and stability of the homogeneous state is different from the pure white noise thermostat. We also note that the frictional force in the first term of (5) has the inverse sign of the Gaussian thermostatmontanero  $`L_{Gauss}=\gamma _0(/𝐯)𝐕`$ which is also used in simulation of molecular hydrodynamics.hoover

Hydrodynamic variables to characterize the macroscopic behavior of the gas are the number density, the velocity field and the granular temperature defined by

$`n(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯f(𝐫,𝐯,t)},`$ (6)
$`n(𝐫,t)𝐮(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{𝐯𝐯}f(𝐫,𝐯,t)},`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}n(𝐫,t)T(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯\frac{1}{2}m𝐕^2f(𝐫,𝐯,t)},`$ (8)
where $`𝐕𝐯𝐮`$. The integral of the collisional invariance multiplied by $`J[f,f]`$ over $`𝐕`$ is zero. Since the loss of kinetic energy in each collision is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{1e^2}{4}m(𝐠\widehat{𝝈})^2,$$
(9)
the following relation holds

$$𝑑𝐯\frac{1}{2}mV^2J(f,f)=\frac{nd}{2}T\zeta [f,f]$$
(10)
Here, the cooling rate $`\zeta `$ in eq.(10)can be evaluated approximatelynoije98

$$\zeta \zeta ^{(0)}=\frac{1e^2}{4d}\nu _0(d+2)(1+\frac{3}{16}a_2),$$
(11)
where $`\nu _0=\pi ^{1/2}n\sigma ^{d1}(T/m)^{1/2}4\mathrm{\Omega }_d/(d+2)`$, $`a_2`$ is the forth cumulant defined by

$`a_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{<V^4>}{<V^2>^2}}1,`$ (12)
$`<V^k>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐕V^kf(𝐕,t)}`$ (13)
which will be determined later.

The balance equations for hydrodynamic variables are

$`D_tn`$ $`+`$ $`n𝐮=0,`$ (14)
$`D_tu_i`$ $`+`$ $`(mn)^1_jP_{ij}=0,`$ (15)
$`D_tT`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{dn}}(P_{ij}_ju_i+𝐪)+T\zeta `$ (16)
$`=`$ $`2\gamma _0(T_BT),`$
where $`D_t=_t+𝐮`$. The pressure tensor $`P_{ij}`$ and the heat flux $`𝐪`$ are respectively defined by

$`P_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`m{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯V_iV_jf(𝐫,𝐯,t)},`$ (17)
$`𝐪`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐯V^2𝐕f(𝐫,𝐯,t)}.`$ (18)
We adopt the Chapman-Enskog methodchapman , where space and time dependences appear through hydrodynamic variables. The expansion parameter is regarded as the magnitude of spatial inhomogeneity. Thus, we expand $`f`$ around the homogeneous solution $`f^{(0)}`$ as $`f=f^{(0)}+\epsilon f^{(1)}+\epsilon ^2f^{(2)}+\mathrm{},`$ derivative is also expanded as $`_t=_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}+\epsilon _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$. Here we apply the Chapman-Enskog method for dilute granular gases developed by Brey et al.brey98 ; brey00  and Santossantos02  to driven systems. To remove the ambiguity of the distribution function, we impose the solubility conditions in which hydrodynamic variables are unchanged from the evaluation by $`f^{(0)}(𝐯,t)`$.

## III Homogeneous states

As the first step of Chapman-Enskog method, we need also to obtain the homogeneous solution of the inelastic Boltzmann equation. We usually assume the scaling form

$$f(𝐯,t)=nv_0(t)^d\stackrel{~}{f}(𝐜,\tau ),𝐜=𝐕/v_0(t)$$
(19)
with $`d\tau =\omega _Edt`$ and $`v_0(t)=\sqrt{2T/m}`$. The forth cumulant introduced in (12) for the scaling function is related to $`<c^4>𝑑𝐜c^4\stackrel{~}{f}(𝐜)`$ as $`<c^4>=d(d+2)(a_2+1)/4`$. Here $`\omega _E`$ is Enskog’s collision frequency given by

$$\omega _E=\frac{d+2}{4}\nu _0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_dn\sigma ^{d1}v_0.$$
(20)
For the calculation we need to obtain

$$\mu _k𝑑𝐜c^kJ[\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f}]$$
(21)
The cumulants and $`\mu _k`$ can be evaluated by an approximate expansion of Sonine polynomialsnoije98 . For example, $`\mu _2`$ is evaulated as

$$\mu _2\frac{1}{2}(1e^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_d}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(1+\frac{3}{16}a_2),$$
(22)
$`\mu _4`$ is estimated as noije98

$$\mu _4\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_d(A_1+a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{H}A_2),$$
(23)
with

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1e^2}{4}}(d+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+e^2)`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128}}(1e^2)(10d+39+10e^2)`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1+e)(d1).`$
It should be noted that these evaluations are based on two approximations: (i) the truncation of the first Sonine expansion, and (ii) the linearization of $`a_2`$. If we adopt the first assumption, the linearization of $`a_2`$ gives a nice evaluation,brilliantov  (iii) the direct comparison of the transport coefficients obtained by the Monte Carlo simulation and the linearized approximation gives good agreement in free cooling states.brey00  However, nobody knows how to converge the Sonine expansion for driven granular gases. Thus, we may need to check the convergence of the Sonine expansion as in the case of elastic particles.kim

Now, let us discuss the time evolution of temperature field. Equation (16) becomes

$$_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\theta =2\gamma _0(2\gamma _0+\zeta )\theta $$
(25)
in the homogeneous state with the Langevin thermostat, where $`\theta T/T_B`$. Assuming $`\theta =\theta ^{(0)}+a_2\theta ^{(1)}+O(a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$, eq.(25) is reduced to

$$_\tau \theta ^{(0)}=2\{\widehat{\gamma }(\widehat{\gamma }+\widehat{\zeta })\theta ^{(0)}\}$$
(26)
in the lowest order, where $`\widehat{\gamma }=\gamma _0/\omega _E`$ and $`\widehat{\zeta }=(1e^2)/2d`$. This equation has the solution

$$\theta ^{(0)}=\theta _{\mathrm{}}+(\theta ^{(0)}(0)\theta _{\mathrm{}})e^{2(\widehat{\gamma }+\widehat{\zeta })\tau }$$
(27)
with $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\gamma }/(\widehat{\gamma }+\widehat{\zeta })`$.

In the scaling limit, the inelastic Boltzmann equation (1) is reduced to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_d}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}_\tau \stackrel{~}{f}(𝐜,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{J}[\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f}]+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{d}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐜}}(𝐜\stackrel{~}{f}(𝐜,\tau ))`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{c^2}}\stackrel{~}{f}(𝐜,\tau )`$
where $`J[f,f]=n^2(\sigma /v_0(t))^{d1}\stackrel{~}{J}[\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f}]`$. From the equation for $`<c^4>=d(d+2)(a_2+1)/4`$ we obtain the equation of lowest order of $`a_2`$:

$`_\tau a_2`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{\zeta }\widehat{A}_1+a_2[{\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}\widehat{\zeta }4{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{\theta }}\widehat{A}_2]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\widehat{\zeta }a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (29)
$``$ $`4\widehat{\zeta }\widehat{A}_1+a_2[{\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}\widehat{\zeta }4{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{\theta ^{(0)}}}\widehat{A}_2]`$ (30)
with $`\widehat{A}_1=8A_1/d(d+2)`$ and $`\widehat{A}_2=8A_2/d(d+2)`$. The solution of (30) is given by

$`a_2(\tau )`$ $``$ $`a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}+(a_2(0)a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}})`$ (31)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[({\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}\widehat{\zeta }\widehat{A}_2)\tau 4\widehat{\gamma }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau ^{}}{\theta ^{(0)}(\tau ^{})}}]`$
where

$$a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\widehat{A}_14\widehat{\zeta }}{\frac{19}{4}\widehat{\zeta }4(\widehat{\gamma }+\widehat{\zeta })\widehat{A}_2}.$$
(32)
Although we present the result of linearization of $`a_2`$, it is possible to obtain the exact steady values of $`\theta `$ and $`a_2`$ for (25) and (29). The result is presented in Appendix, but the differences between the exact values and the result from linearized approximation are invisible (Fig.1). We also compare $`a_2`$ in eq.(31)and $`\theta `$ in (27) with the numerical solution of (29) and (25) to confirm the validity of the linearization of $`a_2`$.

## IV The determination of the transport coefficients

Here, we explicitly obtain the result of the transport coefficients for heated granular gases. The solution $`f^{(0)}`$ is isotropic so that the zeroth order pressure and the heat flux are given by

$$P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}=p\delta _{ij},𝐪^{(0)}=\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(33)
where $`p=nT`$ is the hydrostatic pressure.

The first order equation of the Boltzmann equation becomes

$`(_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}+LL_{FP})f^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+𝐯)f^{(0)}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`(D_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+𝐕)f^{(0)}`$
with $`D_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+𝐮`$. Here the linear operator $`L`$ in (34) is defined by

$$Lf^{(1)}=J[f^{(0)},f^{(1)}]J[f^{(1)},f^{(0)}].$$
(35)
Multiplying both side of (34) by $`mV_iV_j`$ and integrate over $`𝐕`$, we obtain

$$(_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}+\nu )P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=p\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijkl}_ku_l$$
(36)
where

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`m{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐕V_iV_jL_{FP}f^{(1)}},`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijkl}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d}}\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}.`$ (38)
The solution of (36) can be written as

$$P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_{ijkl}_ku_l$$
(39)
where $`\eta `$ is the viscosity.

It is possible to obtain $`\nu `$ in eq.(36) through the relation

$$m𝑑𝐕V_iV_jLf^{(1)}(𝐕)=\nu P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}.$$
(40)
The evaluation of $`\nu `$ is independent of the existence of the thermostat. We have evaluated $`\nu `$ asnoije98 :

$$\nu _{\eta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{\nu }{\nu _0}\frac{3}{4d}(1e+\frac{2}{3}d)(1+e)(1\frac{1}{32}a_2).$$
(41)
With the aid of

$$_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\left(\frac{\gamma _0}{\theta }\gamma _0\frac{\zeta }{2}\right)P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)},$$
(42)
eqs.(48),(49) and (36) lead to

$$\eta ^{}\frac{\eta }{\eta _0}=\frac{2\gamma ^{}+1}{\gamma ^{}(1+\theta ^1)+\nu _{\eta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\zeta ^{}/2}$$
(43)
where $`\gamma ^{}=\gamma /\nu _0`$, $`\nu _{\eta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\nu /\nu _0`$ and $`\zeta ^{}=\zeta /\nu _0`$. $`\eta _0(\widehat{\gamma })`$ is the viscosity for $`e=1`$ which is different from the value $`\eta _e`$ of the elastic gas as $`\eta _{el}=\eta _0(2\widehat{\gamma }^{}+1)`$. The steady value of $`\eta ^{}`$ is obtained when we substitute $`\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ into (43).

Let us consider the heat flux. Multiplying both side of eq.(34) by $`mV^2𝐕/2`$ and integrate over $`𝐕`$ we obtain

$`(_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}+\nu ^{})𝐪^{(1)}+𝐐^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}(1+2a_2){\displaystyle \frac{p}{m}}T`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}a_2{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{m}}n,`$
where

$$𝐐^{(1)}=\frac{m}{2}𝑑𝐕V^2𝐕L_{FP}f^{(1)}.$$
(45)
Here, $`\nu ^{}`$ has already been calculated asbrey00

$`\nu _\kappa ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{\nu _0}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+e}{d}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(d+8)(1e)`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4+5d3(4d)e}{512}}a_2.]`$
The heat flux is described by

$$𝐪^{(1)}=\kappa T\mu n,$$
(47)
where $`\eta `$ and $`\kappa `$ are the shear viscosity and the thermal conductivity, respectively. The other transport coefficient $`\mu `$ appears only is granular gases. Through the substitution of (47) and (46) with the result of $`𝐐^{(1)}`$ into (44) we can obtain $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$.

From the scaling form (19) the following relations should be satisfied:

$`_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}𝐪^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\zeta +3\gamma _0\gamma _0/\theta )\kappa T`$ (48)
$`+\{\mu [{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\zeta +3\gamma _0(1\theta ^1)]+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \zeta T}{n}}\}n.`$
On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}`$ and $`𝐐^{(1)}`$ have the relations

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=2\gamma _0P_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)},𝐐^{(1)}=3\gamma _0𝐪^{(1)}.$$
(49)
Thus, $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ can be obtained from (48),(49) and (44) as

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2a_2}{\nu ^{}2\zeta +\gamma _0/\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{nT}{m}},`$ (50)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\kappa \zeta T}{n}+\frac{d+2}{2}a_2\frac{T^2}{m}}{\nu ^{}\frac{3}{2}\zeta 3\gamma _0/\theta }}.`$ (51)
Thus, $`\kappa ^{}=\kappa /\kappa _0`$ which is the normalized heat conductivity by its value of $`e=1`$, $`\kappa _0(\widehat{\gamma })`$, is given by

$`\kappa ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}+\gamma ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1+2a_2}{\nu _{\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{}2\zeta ^{}+\gamma ^{}/\theta }}`$ (52)
$`\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{}}{1+2a_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_2(\nu _{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\gamma ^{}/\theta )}{\nu _{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{3}{2}\zeta ^{}+3\gamma ^{}/\theta }}`$ (53)
Their steady values are evaluated replacing $`\theta `$ and $`a_2`$ by their steady values.

Figure 2 shows the time evolution of $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ for $`e=0.9`$, $`d=3`$, $`\widehat{\gamma }=0.1`$. Figure 3 shows the steady values of $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ as functions of $`e`$ for $`d=3`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }=0.1`$. As we can see from figures, $`\mu ^{}`$ can be comparable with others. This situation has not been realized for free cooling systems.

It is also remarkable that $`\mu ^{}`$ is not proportional to $`a_2`$ and keeps positive for the region of $`a_2<0`$ even in the steady limit. This result is contradicted with the framework by Santossantos02 . The difference comes from the following. In our system, the system is heated by $`T_B`$ uniformly, but the temperature field $`T`$ contains spatial fluctuations. Thus, $`_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}𝐪^{(1)}`$ cannot be zero even in steady states, because this contains the term in proportion to $`[2\gamma _0T_B+(2\gamma _0+\zeta )T]`$.

## V Concluding Remarks

We have derived hydrodynamic equations based on a systematic Chapman-Enskog method for dilute granular gases driven by the Langevin thermostat in this paper. We have determined all of the transport coefficients $`\eta `$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ appear in Navier-Stokes order as a function of the restitution coefficient $`e`$.

The result is based on the linearized approximation of $`a_2`$ in the first order truncation of Sonine expansion. Although we believe that this approximation gives a nice evaluation, nobody knows its theoretical background and quantitative validity. In particular, Pagnani et al.pagnani  has reported that deviation of $`f`$ from the Gaussian in driven granular gases is large. So we may need to check the convergence of the Sonine expansion and to compare the theoretical prediction with simulations. We also need to look for the possibility to apply our result to explain the data in actual experiments for suspensions.

The author would like to thank A. Santos for fruitful discussion. This study is partially supported by the Inamori Foundation.

## Appendix A Steady values of $`a_2`$ and $`\theta `$

As mentioned in the text, it is possible to obtain exact steady solutions of (25) and (29). The result is so complicated and difference between them and the linearized solutions is small that we do not use the exact form for later discussion. Here we present the exact solutions:

$$a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{16(13e^2+2e^4)}{Q_1}$$
(54)
where $`Q_1=7332e75e^230e^4+64d^2\widehat{\gamma }+8d(7+4e3e^2+16\widehat{\gamma })`$, and

$$\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{d\widehat{\gamma }Q_1}{Q_2+64d^3\widehat{\gamma }^2+Q_3d(1+e)Q_4},$$
(55)
where $`Q_2=2(1+e)^2(1946e+33e^212e^3+6e^4)`$, $`Q_3=8d^2\widehat{\gamma }(11+4e7e^2+16\widehat{\gamma })`$ and $`Q_3=28+e^2(2830\widehat{\gamma })137\widehat{\gamma }+6e^3(5\widehat{\gamma }2)+e(12+169\widehat{\gamma })`$.


format: text

text:
# Literatur

The basic cohomology
of the twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory

B. Geyera 111Email: geyer@itp.uni-leipzig.de and D. Mülschb 222Email: muelsch@informatik.uni-leipzig.de

a Universität Leipzig, Naturwissenschaftlich-Theoretisches Zentrum
and Institut für Theoretische Physik, D–04109 Leipzig, Germany
$`^b`$ Wissenschaftszentrum Leipzig e.V., D–04103 Leipzig, Germany

Abstract

> We consider a recently proposed two–dimensional Abelian model for a Hodge theory, which is neither a Witten type nor a Schwarz type topological gauge theory. It is argumented that this model is not a good candidate for a Hodge theory because, on–shell, the BRST Laplacian vanishes. We show, that this model allows a natural extension such that the resulting topological theory is of Witten type and can be identified with the twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory. Furthermore, the underlying basic cohomology preserves the Hodge–type structure and, on–shell, the BRST Laplacian does not vanish.

1. Introduction

It has been known for some time that two–dimensional Yang–Mills theory without matter is exactly soluble . Moreover, it has been shown that Yang–Mills theory with matter on an arbitrary orientable two–dimensional manifold $`M`$ of genus $`G`$ and area $`A`$ is equivalent to a closed, orientable, string theory with target space $`M`$ . Two–dimensional Yang–Mills theory was revisited using a non–Abelian version of the Duistermaat–Heckman formula in  and a simple mapping to topological Yang–Mills theory with an underlying $`N_T=1`$ equivariantly nilpotent shift symmetry was given. For a previous work on quantum gauge theories in two dimensions see, e.g., . In this paper we consider a Hodge type cohomological gauge theory with an underlying $`N_T=8`$ strictly nilpotent shift and co–shift symmetry (i.e., even prior to the introduction of the gauge ghost and anti–ghost fields), which leads to other topological observables.

The study of such theory was motivated by a recently series of papers  where a class of topological gauge theories in two dimensions was presented which is neither of Witten nor of Schwarz type. Rather, they show some of the characteristic features of both types of topological quantum field theories (TQFT), namely, the form of the action turns out to be of Witten type whereas the underlying supersymmetries are reminiscent of Schwarz type (for a review of TQFT, see, e.g., ).

The aim of this Letter is to reveal these rather unusual properties of a TQFT. Thereby, we focus on the simplest of the models considered in , namely the Euclidean Maxwell theory in two dimensions in the Feynman gauge. Their action is given by

$$S=_Ed^2x\{\frac{1}{4}F^{ab}(A)F_{ab}(A)+\frac{1}{2}^aA_a^bA_b+^a\overline{C}_aC\},$$
(1)
with $`F_{ab}(A)=_aA_b_bA_a`$, where $`A_a`$ is the Abelian gauge field and $`C`$, $`\overline{C}`$ are the gauge (anti)ghost fields, respectively.

In  it has been shown that the action (1) is not only invariant under the BRST symmetry, generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but also under a co–BRST symmetry, generated by $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which, together with the BRST Laplacian $`W`$, obey the following BRST–complex:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0,W=\{\mathrm{\Omega },^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\}0,[\mathrm{\Omega },W]=0,[^{}\mathrm{\Omega },W]=0.$$
(2)
Representations of this superalgebra for the first time have been considered in . Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are nilpotent hermitian operators they are realized in a Krein space $`𝒦`$  whose non–degenerate indefinite scalar product $`\chi |\psi :=(\chi ,J\psi )`$ is defined by the help of a self–adjoint metric operator $`J1`$, $`J^2=1`$. With respect to the inner product $`(,)`$ the operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\pm J\mathrm{\Omega }J`$ are adjoint to each other, $`(\chi ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi )=(\mathrm{\Omega }\chi ,\psi )`$, but with respect to the scalar product $`|`$ they are self–adjoint. From these definitions one obtains a remarkable correspondence between the BRST cohomology and the de Rham cohomology :

BRST operator $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ differential $`d,`$
co–BRST operator $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\pm J\mathrm{\Omega }J,`$ co–differential $`\delta =\pm d,`$
duality operation $`J,`$ Hodge star $`,`$
BRST Laplacian $`W=\{\mathrm{\Omega },^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\},`$ Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{d,\delta \}.`$
Hence, the action (1) provides a Hodge type field theoretical model in two dimensions. However, owing to the absence of a shift and co–shift symmetry, the action is not of Witten type and, because the Maxwell action in a gravitational background is not metric independent, it is also not of Schwarz type. Differently, the topological nature of that model is a consequence of the fact that in two dimensions there are no propagating degrees of freedom associated with the gauge field. On the other hand, as there is no topological supersymmetry, on–shell, the BRST Laplacian vanishes. This is, in fact, an unsatisfactory property of a Hodge type theory because their physical states should lie entirely in the set of harmonic states, i.e., the set of the zero modes of the BRST Laplacian. Therefore, in order to incorporate a topological supersymmetry into that model, it will be shown that it can be regarded as part of a more complex topological model of Witten type, namely the twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$, whose basic cohomology  possesses actually a Hodge type structure.

The Letter is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, as a first step, we substitute in (1) the Maxwell action by the cohomological action of twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. And we show that the BRST complex of the $`8`$ twisted scalar supercharges, i.e., the generators of the shift and co–shift symmetries, is really of Hodge type. In Sect. 3, as a second step, we complete the cohomological action by introducing the ordinary gauge fixing terms and verify that the basic cohomology, i.e., the BRST complex including also the ordinary gauge symmetry, preserves the underlying Hodge type structure. In Sect. 4 we construct topological observables for that theory.

2. The BRST complex of the twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$

As mentioned above, in order to avoid the vanishing of the BRST Laplacian of the topological model proposed in  we view the Maxwell action in (1) as the classical part of the twisted action of $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$ (see, e.g.,  where the non–Abelian extension of that action has been constructed),

$`S_T^{(N_T=8)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{ab}(A+iV)F_{ab}(AiV)+\frac{1}{2}^aV_a^bV_b`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}^aM_{\alpha \beta }_aM^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ab}\zeta _\alpha _a\psi _b^\alpha \eta _\alpha ^a\psi _b^\alpha \}.`$ (3)
Here, $`V_a`$ is a co–vector field which is combined with $`A_a`$ to forms the complexified gauge fields $`A_a\pm iV_a`$, i.e., the action (S0.Ex5) localizes onto the moduli space of complexified flat connections. Furthermore, we have introduced a $`SU(4)`$–quartet of Grassmann–odd vector fields $`\psi _a^\alpha `$, two $`SU(4)`$–quartets of Grassmann–odd scalar fields, $`\eta _\alpha `$ and $`\zeta _\alpha `$, which transform as the fundamental and its complex conjugate representation of $`SU(4)`$, respectively, and a $`SU(4)`$–sextet of Grassmann–even complex scalar fields $`M_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }M^{\gamma \delta }`$, which transform as the second–rank complex selfdual representation of $`SU(4)`$, where $`\alpha =\mathrm{1,2,3,4}`$ denotes the internal group index of $`SU(4)`$. $`ϵ_{ab}`$ is the antisymmetric Levi–Civita tensor in $`D=2`$.

Let us notice that the action (S0.Ex5) can be obtained from the Euclidean $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with R–symmetry group $`SU(4)U(1)`$ by twisting the Euclidean rotation group $`SO_E(2)U_E(1)`$ in $`D=2`$ by the $`U(1)`$ of the R–symmetry group (by simply putting together both $`U(1)`$ charges), thereby leaving the group $`SU(4)`$ intact .

The action (S0.Ex5) is invariant under the following discrete Hodge type $``$–symmetry, defined by the replacements

$$\phi \left[\begin{array}{cccc}_a& A_a& V_a& \\ \psi _a^\alpha & \eta _\alpha & \zeta _\alpha & M^{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right]\phi =\left[\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ_{ab}^b& ϵ_{ab}A^b& ϵ_{ab}V^b& \\ i\psi _a^\alpha & i\zeta _\alpha & i\eta _\alpha & M^{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
with the property $`(\phi )=\pm \phi `$.

Let us now describe the full set of twisted supersymmetry transformations which leave the action (S0.Ex5) invariant. The transformation rules for the on–shell shift symmetries $`Q^\alpha `$ are

$`Q^\alpha A_a=\psi _a^\alpha ,`$
$`Q^\alpha V_a=i\psi _a^\alpha ,`$
$`Q^\alpha M_{\beta \gamma }=2i\delta _{[\beta }^\alpha \zeta _{\gamma ]},`$
$`Q^\alpha \psi _a^\beta =iϵ_{ab}^bM^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`Q^\alpha \eta _\beta =i\delta _\beta ^\alpha ^aV_a,`$
$`Q^\alpha \zeta _\beta =\frac{1}{2}\delta _\beta ^\alpha ϵ^{ab}F_{ab}(AiV).`$ (5)
From combining $`Q^\alpha `$ with the above displayed Hodge type $``$–symmetry one gets the corresponding transformation rules for the on–shell co–shift symmetries $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$, i.e., $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }\phi =\pm Q^\alpha \phi `$, where the signs are the same as in the relation $`(\phi )=\pm \phi `$.

Furthermore, by making use of the identity $`ϵ_{ab}_c+ϵ_{bc}_a+ϵ_{ca}_b=0`$, one simply verifies that (S0.Ex5) is also invariant under the following on–shell vector supersymmetries $`Q_{a\alpha }`$,

$`Q_{a\alpha }A_b=\delta _{ab}\eta _\alpha ϵ_{ab}\zeta _\alpha ,`$
$`Q_{a\alpha }V_b=i\delta _{ab}\eta _\alpha iϵ_{ab}\zeta _\alpha ,`$
$`Q_{a\alpha }M^{\beta \gamma }=2iϵ_{ab}\delta _\alpha ^{[\beta }\psi ^{b\gamma ]},`$
$`Q_{a\alpha }\psi _b^\beta =i\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _{ab}^cV_c\delta _\alpha ^\beta _a(A_b+iV_b)+\delta _\alpha ^\beta _b(A_aiV_a),`$
$`Q_{a\alpha }\eta _\beta =iϵ_{ab}^bM_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`Q_{a\alpha }\zeta _\beta =i_aM_{\alpha \beta }.`$ (6)
In principle, owing to the Hodge type $``$–symmetry, one can also introduce on–shell co–vector supersymmetries $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{a\alpha }^{}`$, namely, similar as before, according to $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{a\alpha }^{}\phi =\pm Q_{a\alpha }\phi `$. However, they become $`i`$ times the on–shell vector supersymmetries $`Q_{a\alpha }`$, i.e., $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{a\alpha }^{}=iQ_{a\alpha }`$. Hence, it holds $`(Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\alpha ,Q_{a\alpha })S_T^{(N_T=8)}=0`$, and the total number of (real) supercharges is actually $`N=16`$.

By an explicit calculation one establishes that the $`8`$ scalar supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$, being interrelated by the $``$–operation, together with the $`8`$ vector supercharges $`Q_{\mu \alpha }`$, obey the following topological superalgebra on–shell,

$$\{Q^\alpha ,Q^\beta \}0,\{Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\beta \}2\delta _G(M^{\alpha \beta }),\{^{}Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\beta \}0,$$

$$\{Q^\alpha ,Q_{a\beta }\}2\delta _\beta ^\alpha (_a\delta _G(A_aiV_a)),\{^{}Q^\alpha ,Q_{a\beta }\}2\delta _\beta ^\alpha (_a\delta _G(A_a+iV_a)),$$

where the field–dependent gauge transformations $`\delta _G(\phi )`$, with $`\phi =(M^{\alpha \beta },A_a\pm iV_a)`$, are defined by $`\delta _G(\phi )A_a=_a\phi `$, and zero otherwise. (The symbol $``$ means that the corresponding relation is satisfied only on–shell.)

Finally, let us show that the twisted action (S0.Ex5) is actually of Witten type. For that purpose we break down the global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$ in such way that the resulting action splits into a topological term ($`Q`$–cocyle) and a $`Q`$–exact term, where $`Q`$ is a certain linear combination of $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$, and that it possesses a discrete Hodge type $``$–symmetry. This is precisely what we need in order to put the theory on a two–dimensional compact Riemannian manifold.

To begin with, let us consider the following $`N_T=1`$ topological action in five dimensions,

$`S_T^{(N_T=1)}={\displaystyle _E}d^5x\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{AB}(A+iV)F_{AB}(AiV)+\frac{1}{2}^AV_A^BV_B`$
$`\frac{1}{8}iϵ_{ABCDE}\chi ^{AB}^C\chi ^{DE}i\chi ^{AB}_A\psi _Bi\eta ^A\psi _A\},`$ (7)
which is build up from the Abelian gauge field $`A_A`$, the co–vector field $`V_A`$ and the Grassmann–odd scalar, vector and antisymmetric tensor fields $`\eta `$, $`\psi _A`$ and $`\chi _{AB}`$, respectively. Here, the space index $`A`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`5`$ and $`ϵ_{ABCDE}`$ is the complete antisymmetric Levi–Civita tensor in $`D=5`$. This action can be obtained from the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=5`$ super Maxwell theory with R–symmetry group $`SO(5)`$ by twisting the Euclidean rotation group $`SO_E(5)`$ in $`D=5`$ by the R–symmetry group (for details, we refer to , where the non–Abelian extension of that action was given).

The full set of twisted on–shell supersymmetry transformations, generated by the scalar, vector and antisymmetric tensor supercharges $`Q`$, $`Q_A`$ and $`Q_{AB}`$, respectively, are given by

$`QA_A=\psi _A,`$
$`QV_A=i\psi _A,`$
$`Q\eta =^AV_A,`$
$`Q\psi _A=0,`$
$`Q\chi _{AB}=iF_{AB}(AiV),`$ (8)
$`Q_AA_B=\delta _{AB}\eta \chi _{AB},`$
$`Q_AV_B=i\delta _{AB}\eta i\chi _{AB},`$
$`Q_A\eta =0,`$
$`Q_A\psi _B=\delta _{AB}^CV_C+i_A(A_B+iV_B)i_B(A_AiV_A),`$
$`Q_A\chi _{BC}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ABCDE}F^{DE}(A+iV)`$ (9)
and
$`Q_{AB}A_C=\delta _{C[A}\psi _{B]}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ABCDE}\chi ^{DE},`$
$`Q_{AB}V_C=i\delta _{C[A}\psi _{B]}+\frac{1}{2}iϵ_{ABCDE}\chi ^{DE},`$
$`Q_{AB}\eta =iF_{AB}(A+iV),`$
$`Q_{AB}\psi _C=\frac{1}{2}iϵ_{ABCDE}F^{DE}(AiV),`$
$`Q_{AB}\chi _{CD}=\delta _{C[A}\delta _{B]D}^EV_Ei\delta _{[C[A}(_{B]}(A_{D]}iV_{D]})_{D]}(A_{B]}+iV_{B]})).`$ (10)
By the help of the identity $`\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ABCGH}ϵ^{DEFGH}=\delta _{[A}^D\delta _B^E\delta _{C]}^F`$ it is straightforward, but tedious to prove that the action (S0.Ex18) is really left invariant under the above transformations.

Let us now group the components of the $`5`$–dimensional fields $`A_A`$, $`V_A`$, $`\chi ^{AB}`$, $`\psi _A`$, $`\eta `$ into those of the $`2`$–dimensional fields $`A_a`$, $`V_a`$, $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\eta _\alpha `$, $`\zeta _\alpha `$, $`\psi _a^\alpha `$ according to

$`M_{12}=A_3+iV_3,`$ $`M_{31}=A_4+iV_4,`$ $`M_{14}=A_5+iV_5,`$
$`M_{34}=A_3iV_3,`$ $`M_{42}=A_4iV_4,`$ $`M_{23}=A_5iV_5,`$
$`\eta _1=i\eta ,`$ $`\eta _2=i\chi ^{45},`$ $`\eta _3=i\chi ^{53},`$ $`\eta _4=i\chi ^{34},`$
$`\zeta _1=\frac{1}{2}iϵ_{ab}\chi ^{ab},`$ $`\zeta _2=i\psi _3,`$ $`\zeta _3=i\psi _4,`$ $`\zeta _4=i\psi _5,`$
$`\psi _a^1=\psi _a,`$ $`\psi _a^2=ϵ_{ab}\chi ^{b3},`$ $`\psi _a^3=ϵ_{ab}\chi ^{b4},`$ $`\psi _a^4=ϵ_{ab}\chi ^{b5},`$
where $`(A_A,V_A)`$ agrees with $`(A_a,V_b)`$ for $`A=\mathrm{1,2}`$. Then, it is easily seen that by dimensional reducing the action (S0.Ex18) and the supersymmetry transformations (8)–(10) onto two dimensions, one arrives precisely at the $`N_T=8`$ topological action (S0.Ex5) and the supersymmetry transformations (S0.Ex6) and (S0.Ex11).

On the other hand, on–shell, upon using the equation of motion for $`\eta `$, the action (S0.Ex18) can be written as a sum of a topological term ($`Q`$–cocycle) and a $`Q`$–exact term,

$$S_T^{(N_T=1)}_Ed^5x\{\frac{1}{8}iϵ_{ABCDE}\chi ^{AB}^C\chi ^{DE}\}+Q\mathrm{\Psi },Q^20,$$
(11)
with the gauge fermion

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=_Ed^5x\{\frac{1}{4}i\chi ^{AB}F_{AB}(A+iV)\frac{1}{2}\eta ^AV_A\}.$$

Hence, by reducing also (11) in the same way as above into two dimensions we get exactly the decomposition of the action (S0.Ex5) we are looking for, consisting of a topological term ($`Q`$–cocycle) and of a $`Q`$–exact term.

More precisely, if we group the components $`A_M`$, $`V_M`$, $`\psi _M`$, $`\chi _{aM}`$, $`\chi _{MN}`$, ($`M,N=\mathrm{3,4,5}`$) into $`SU(2)`$ triplets $`M^{ij}`$, $`N^{ij}`$, $`\rho ^{ij}`$, $`\chi _a^{ij}`$, $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ ($`i,j=\mathrm{1,2}`$) and identify $`\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ab}\chi _{ab}`$ with the $`SU(2)`$ singlet $`\zeta `$, we obtain the following $`N_T=8`$ topological action with a residual global symmetry group $`SU(2)U(1)`$,

$`S_T^{(N_T=8)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{ab}(A+iV)F_{ab}(AiV)+\frac{1}{2}^aV_a^bV_b`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}^a(M_{ij}+iN_{ij})_a(M^{ij}iN^{ij})`$
$`iϵ^{ab}\lambda _{ij}_a\chi _b^{ij}i\rho _{ij}^a\chi _a^{ij}iϵ^{ab}\zeta _a\psi _bi\eta ^a\psi _a\}.`$ (12)
The transformation rules for the on–shell shift symmetry $`Q`$ are given by

$`QA_a=\psi _a,`$ $`QV_a=i\psi _a,`$
$`QM^{ij}=\rho ^{ij},`$ $`QN^{ij}=i\rho ^{ij},`$
$`Q\lambda ^{ij}=0,`$ $`Q\rho ^{ij}=0,`$
$`Q\eta =^aV_a,`$ $`Q\zeta =\frac{1}{2}iϵ^{ab}F_{ab}(AiV),`$
$`Q\psi _a=0,`$ $`Q\chi _a^{ij}=i_a(M^{ij}iN^{ij}).`$
Moreover, the action (S0.Ex38) is also invariant under the following duality $``$–operation, which maps $`Q`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$,

$$\phi \left[\begin{array}{ccc}_a& A_a& V_a\\ M^{ij}& N^{ij}& \\ \psi _a& \eta & \zeta \\ \chi _a^{ij}& \rho ^{ij}& \lambda ^{ij}\end{array}\right]\phi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_{ab}^b& ϵ_{ab}A^b& ϵ_{ab}V^b\\ M^{ij}& N^{ij}& \\ i\psi _a& i\zeta & i\eta \\ i\chi _a^{ij}& i\lambda ^{ij}& i\rho ^{ij}\end{array}\right].$$

Hence, as anticipated, after breaking down the $`SU(4)`$–symmetry to $`SU(2)U(1)`$ the Hodge type structure of the theory is still preserved. Obviously, because the maximal number of scalar supercharges of twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory is $`N_T=8`$, the generator $`Q`$ must be a certain linear combination of $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$.

Up to now we have shown that the BRST complex of the twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory possesses actually a Hodge type structure. Moreover, we have verified that the cohomological action is of Witten type and that it corresponds to the case with the maximal number $`N_T=8`$ of scalar supercharges and the largest possible global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. On the other hand, we could also perform a topological twist of $`N=8`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory, whose underlying BRST complex possesses a Hodge type structure, too. In that case we would get the minimal number of $`N_T=4`$ scalar supercharges and the lowest possible global symmetry group $`SU(2)`$ .

3. The Hodge type structure of the basic cohomology

The twisted action (S0.Ex5) has still an ordinary gauge symmetry, which we have not considered yet. Now, we want to show that by adding to (S0.Ex5) the usual gauge fixing and (anti)ghost dependent terms the Hodge type structure of the underlying basic cohomology, i.e., the BRST complex including also the ordinary gauge symmetry, is preserved. To this end we introduce two $`SU(4)`$–quartets of Grassmann–odd scalar ghost and antighost fields, $`C^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{C}_\alpha `$, which transform as the fundamental and its complex conjugate representation of $`SU(4)`$, respectively.

Then, the complete gauge–fixed action reads

$`S^{(N_T=8)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{ab}(A+iV)F_{ab}(AiV)+\frac{1}{2}^a(A_a+iV_a)^b(A_biV_b)`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}^aM_{\alpha \beta }_aM^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ab}\zeta _\alpha _a\psi _b^\alpha \eta _\alpha ^a\psi _b^\alpha +^a\overline{C}_\alpha _aC^\alpha \}.`$ (13)
This action, in spite of the fact that the gauge symmetry is fixed, exhibits still an invariance under the following bosonic symmetry,

$`W^{\alpha \beta }A_a=2_aM^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`W^{\alpha \beta }M_{\gamma \delta }=4\delta _{[\gamma }^\alpha \delta _{\delta ]}^\beta ^aA_a,`$
$`W^{\alpha \beta }\psi _a^\gamma =2iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(_a\zeta _\delta +ϵ_{ab}^b\eta _\delta ),`$ (14)
where we have written down only the non–vanishing transformation rules. However, below it will be shown that the generator $`W^{\alpha \beta }`$ of that symmetry is just the BRST Laplacian.

Furthermore, in order to ensure the nilpotency of the BRST and co–BRST operators, we introduce a set of auxiliary fields, namely, the $`SU(4)`$–singlets of Grassmann–even scalar fields $`B`$, $`\overline{B}`$ and $`G`$, $`\overline{G}`$. By the help of these additional fields the action (S0.Ex46) can be rewritten as

$`S^{(N_T=8)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}iϵ^{ab}BF_{ab}(A+iV)\frac{1}{4}iϵ^{ab}\overline{B}F_{ab}(AiV)\frac{1}{2}\overline{B}B`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}iG^a(A_a+iV_a)\frac{1}{2}i\overline{G}^a(A_aiV_a)\frac{1}{2}\overline{G}G`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}^aM_{\alpha \beta }_aM^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ab}\zeta _\alpha _a\psi _b^\alpha \eta _\alpha ^a\psi _b^\alpha +^a\overline{C}_\alpha _aC^\alpha \},`$ (15)
and the Hodge type $``$–symmetry (4) must be supplemented by the following replacements,

$$\phi \left[\begin{array}{ccc}B& C^\alpha & G\\ \overline{B}& \overline{C}_\alpha & \overline{G}\end{array}\right]\phi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{B}& C^\alpha & \overline{G}\\ B& \overline{C}_\alpha & G\end{array}\right],$$
(16)
where, again, two successive $``$–operations on $`\phi `$ yield $`(\phi )=\pm \phi `$.

Let us now give the transformations rules for the generators of the basic cohomology, which, just as in (2), will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ (BRST operator), $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\alpha }=\pm \mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ (co–BRST operator) and $`W^{\alpha \beta }=\{\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\beta \}`$ (BRST Laplacian). Thereby, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\alpha }`$ include besides the shift and co–shift symmetries, $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$, the ghost–dependent ordinary gauge symmetries $`\delta _G(C^\alpha )`$ as well.

The transformation rules for the off–shell BRST symmetries $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha A_a=\psi _a^\alpha +_aC^\alpha ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \psi _a^\beta =iϵ_{ab}^bM^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha V_a=i\psi _a^\alpha ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha M_{\beta \gamma }=2i\delta _{[\beta }^\alpha \zeta _{\gamma ]},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \zeta _\beta =i\delta _\beta ^\alpha B,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha C^\beta =0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \eta _\beta =i\delta _\beta ^\alpha G,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \overline{C}_\beta =\frac{1}{2}i\delta _\beta ^\alpha (G\overline{G}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha B=0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \overline{B}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha G=0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \overline{G}=0.`$ (17)
From combining $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ with the Hodge–type $``$–symmetry (4) and (S0.Ex49) one gets the corresponding transformation rules for the off–shell co–BRST symmetries $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\alpha }`$.

Then, for the non–vanishing transformations generated by the BRST Laplacian $`W^{\alpha \beta }`$ one obtains

$`W^{\alpha \beta }A_a=2_aM^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`W^{\alpha \beta }M_{\gamma \delta }=2i\delta _{[\gamma }^\alpha \delta _{\delta ]}^\beta (G\overline{G}),`$
$`W^{\alpha \beta }\psi _a^\gamma =2iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(_a\zeta _\delta +ϵ_{ab}^b\eta _\delta ),`$
which, after elimination of $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ through their equations of motion, agree, as promised, with (S0.Ex47). Let us emphasize, that the BRST Laplacian $`W^{\alpha \beta }`$, in contrast to , does not vanish on–shell, due to the presence of scalar fields $`M^{\alpha \beta }`$. This is a consequence of the fact that the topological nature of our model is actually encoded in the shift and co–shift symmetries $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$, and not in the vanishing of the BRST Laplacian as in .

Furthermore, by a straightforward calculation it can be verified that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\alpha }`$ actually leave the action (S0.Ex49) invariant, i.e., it holds $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha )S^{(N_T=8)}=0`$. Both operators, together with $`W^{\alpha \beta }`$, satisfy the following BRST complex,

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Omega }^\beta \}=0,W^{\alpha \beta }=\{\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\beta \}0,\{^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\beta \}=0,$$

$$[W^{\alpha \beta },\mathrm{\Omega }^\gamma ]0,[W^{\alpha \beta },^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\gamma ]0.$$

Obviously, this basic cohomology is analogous to the de Rham cohomology: The both nilpotent BRST and co–BRST operators, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\alpha }=\pm \mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$, being interrelated by the duality $``$–operation, correspond to the exterior and the co–exterior derivatives, $`d`$ and $`\delta =\pm d`$, respectively, and the BRST Laplacian $`W^{\alpha \beta }=\{\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha \}`$ is the analogue of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{d,\delta \}`$, so that we have indeed a perfect example of a Hodge type cohomological theory in two dimensions.

4. Topological observables

As already pointed out earlier, when the gauge–fixed action (S0.Ex49) is formulated on a compact two–dimensional Riemannian manifold we break down the global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$ in such a way that the resulting action splits into a topological term ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$–cocycle) and a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$–exact term, and that the discrete Hodge type $``$–symmetry is preserved, mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Alternatively, the same action can be also obtained from the cohomological action (S0.Ex38) by adding the usual gauge–fixing and (anti)ghost dependent terms, see Eq. (S0.Ex5), and by introducing an appropriate set of auxiliary fields.

With regard to this, let us note two unusual features of the action (S0.Ex38) which are relevant for the construction of two–dimensional observables of that topological model. Its most striking property is that the both, shift and co–shift symmetry $`Q`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$, are not equivariantly nilpotent (due to the absence of the usual ghost for ghost field $`\varphi `$) but, on–shell, rather they are strictly nilpotent even prior to the introduction of the ghost and anti–ghost fields $`C`$ and $`\overline{C}`$.

Another remarkable property is that $`A_aiV_a`$ and $`A_a+iV_a`$ are invariant under one of the supercharges, namely $`Q`$ in the former and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$ in the latter case. Thus, for the both BRST and co–BRST operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one should expect the existence of two different sets of observables, depending either on $`A_aiV_a`$ in the former case or on $`A_a+iV_a`$ in the latter case. In fact, these observables can be constructed in a similar way as in the case of the topological sigma models . Therefore, we shall omit any details and simply quote the results.

To begin with, we first associate the zero–forms $`W_0`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}W_{0}^{}`$ to the BRST and co–BRST transforms $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C}`$ (which, on–shell, correspond to the gauge–fixing function $`^aA_a`$), respectively, via the BRST and co–BRST invariant ghost field $`C`$. These zero–forms can be used as building blocks for constructing the following both sets of $`k`$–forms, $`W_k`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}W_{k}^{}`$, being interrelated by the Hodge type $``$–operation,

$`W_0=(\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C})C,`$
$`W_1=dx^\mu ((\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C})(A_\mu iV_\mu )C_\mu \overline{C}),`$
$`W_2=dx^\mu dx^\nu (\overline{C}_\mu (A_\nu iV_\nu )(A_\mu iV_\mu )_\nu \overline{C}),`$
and
$`{}_{}{}^{}W_{0}^{}=(^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C})C,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{}W_{1}^{}=\delta x^\mu ((^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{C})(A_\mu +iV_\mu )C_\mu \overline{C}),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{}W_{2}^{}=\delta x^\mu \delta x^\nu (\overline{C}_\mu (A_\nu +iV_\nu )(A_\mu +iV_\mu )_\nu \overline{C}),`$
$`dx^\mu =e_a^\mu dx^a`$ and $`\delta x^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu }e_{\nu a}dx^a`$, with $`e_a^\mu `$ being the two–bein on a smooth connected, oriented Riemannian manifold $`M`$ endowed with metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$. Here, $`d=dx^\mu _\mu `$ and $`\delta =dx^\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\nu `$ are the exterior and co–exterior derivative, respectively.

These $`k`$–forms obey the following recursion relations, which are typical for any topological gauge theory,

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }W_0,`$ $`dW_0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }W_1,`$ $`dW_1`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }W_2,`$ $`dW_2`$ $`=0,`$
$`0`$ $`=^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}W_0,`$ $`\delta ^{}W_0`$ $`=^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}W_1,`$ $`\delta ^{}W_1`$ $`=^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}W_2,`$ $`\delta ^{}W_2`$ $`=0.`$ (18)
Now, if $`\gamma `$ is a $`k`$–dimensional homology cycle, $`\gamma =0`$, on $`M`$ then the integrated $`k`$–forms

$$I_k(\gamma )=_\gamma W_k,$$

by virtue of (18), are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$–invariant,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }I_k(\gamma )=_\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }W_k=_\gamma 𝑑W_{k1}=0,k>0.$$

Moreover, if $`\beta =\alpha `$ is the boundary of a $`(k+1)`$–dimensional surface, $`k<2`$, so that $`\beta `$ is trivial in homology, then $`I_k(\gamma )`$ depends only upon the homology class of $`\gamma `$ up to a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$–exact term,

$$I_k(\gamma +\alpha )=_{\gamma +\alpha }W_k=I_k(\gamma )+_\alpha 𝑑W_k=I_k(\gamma )+_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }W_{k+1}=I_k(\gamma ).$$

Finally, following , one can introduce gauge invariant correlation functions of arbitrary products of the $`I_k(\gamma )`$,

$$Z(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _r)=D\phi \mathrm{exp}(S(\phi ))\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}_{\gamma _i}W_{k_i}(\phi ),$$

which, by construction, both are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$–invariant and invariant under metric deformations which preserve the holonomy structure. The same constructions hold for the $`k`$–forms $`{}_{}{}^{}W_{k}^{}`$.

Summarizing, we have shown that, on–shell, the vanishing of the BRST Laplacian of the Hodge theory proposed in  can be avoided, if we view the Maxwell action as the classical part of a more involved cohomological action, which is obtained by a $`N_T=8`$ topological twist of $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Maxwell theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. Then, the complete gauge–fixed cohomological action is of Witten type and the underlying basic cohomology is really of Hodge type. The non–Abelian case will be presented elsewhere.

Acknowledgment The authors grateful acknowledge discussions with M. Blau which led them to the foregoing considerations.