text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of more mysterious results from study of string theory, is existence of nontrivial quantum theories in six dimensions. One class of these are known simply as $`(2,0)`$ theories, which are supposed to be a non-Abelian generalization of free noninteracting tensor theories. Furthermore, there are three different types of $`(2,0)`$ theories, classified by the ubiquitous ADE classification. One way  of realizing these theories is to consider type IIB compactification on an ALE space that asymptotes to $`R^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is one of finite subgroups of $`SU(2)`$, and take a small coupling limit of the string theory, while collapsing the cycles in the ALE spaces appropriately. Chiral 2-form tensors arise from chiral 4-form tensor of type IIB theories, while D3-branes wrapped on the collapsing cycles provide “charged” degrees of freedom that are necessary to complete the $`(2,0)`$ theories. The ADE classification of the $`(2,0)`$ theories follows from ADE classification of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In part because these theories cannot be written down in terms of usual path integral of local fields, very little is known about them. On the other hand, the question of gravitational and axial anomaly is inherently topological, and should be accessible without detailed knowledge of the theory. Indeed the question of gravitational and axial anomaly of these theories has a close tie to various topological terms in M-theory, in much the same way that the anomaly structure of heterotic string theory was vital in understanding topological aspects of M-theory . For the purpose, one considers $`N`$ coincident M5 branes  in the limit of divergent Planck scale. In the flat space-time background, the tensor multiplets living on the M5 branes, along with degrees of freedom from open membranes suspended between adjacent M5, constitute $`A_{N1}`$ $`(2,0)`$ theory plus a free $`(2,0)`$ tensor theory. To produce $`D`$-type, we replace the flat space-time with an orbifold $`R^{1+5}\times R^5/Z_2`$, and put M5’s at the origin.

In this latter context, anomaly of $`(2,0)`$ theories can be computed indirectly by asking what is the anomaly inflow from bulk onto M5 brane system; the total anomaly should vanish since we expect M-theory with M5 brane to be self-consistent. For the case of a single M5 brane in flat spacetime, Freed, Harvey, Minasian and Moore (FHMM)  observed that a particular deformation of the cubic Chern-Simon term of M-theory,

$$CdCdC,$$
(1)
appears naturally and seems necessary to cancel a single M5 brane anomaly  completely.

Subsequent extrapolation to many coincident M5’s, due to Harvey, Minasian and Moore (HMM)  allows a simple computation of the anomaly polynomial of A-type theory. Eleven dimensional Lorentz group descends down to the six-dimensional Lorentz group and the axial $`SO(5)`$ group, each becoming structure groups of tangent and normal bundles of the M5’s, respectively. In this unified Language, the total anomaly polynomial was argued to be,

$$N𝒥_8+(N^3N)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24},$$
(2)
where $`𝒥_8`$ is the one-loop anomaly polynomial of a single $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet, while $`p_2`$ is the second Pontryagin class of the normal bundle. After removing contribution from the free, “center of mass”, (2,0) tensor multiplet, one finds

$$(N1)𝒥_8+(N^3N)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24},$$
(3)
as the anomaly of $`A_{N1}`$ theory.

In this paper, we compute the anomaly polynomial of for D-type $`(2,0)`$ theories by computing net anomaly inflow from bulk onto $`N`$ pairs of coincident M5 branes at $`R^5/Z_2`$ orbifold fixed point. We will argue that the anomaly polynomial in this case is,

$$N𝒥_8+N(2N1)(2N2)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}.$$
(4)
The method here relies on an extension of FHMM combined with the consistency of $`T^5/Z_2`$ compactification of M-theory.

In section 2, we review anomaly cancellation for an M5-brane in flat space-time, and then summarize FHMM. We close the section with HMM anomaly computation of A-type theories. In section 3, we generalize to the D-type theory by introducing an orbifold of the form $`R^5/Z_2`$. We propose a simple extension of FHMM to backgrounds with orbifold point, and point out how the anomaly inflow mediated by the antisymmetric tensor charge would be modified. Furthermore, we point out that there is additional inflow associated with the orbifold singularities. We deduce this last contribution from the consistency of the $`T^5/Z_2`$ compactification, and compute the anomaly of D-type $`(2,0)`$ theories. In section 4, we offer an independent check by estimating the one-loop anomaly contribution from the untwisted sector. It turns out to be consistent with the procedure we adopted, modulo a term that could be cancelled by a six-dimensional local counter-term. In the final section, we discuss a recent conjecture by Intriligator on general form of anomaly of all ADE $`(2,0)`$ theories, and close with a few related comments.

## 2 Anomaly Inflow onto M5 Branes

Let us define an eight-form character $`I_8`$ of the space-time curvature $`R`$,

$$I_8\frac{1}{48}\left(p_2\frac{p_1^2}{4}\right),$$
(5)
where $`p_n`$ is the n-th Pontryagin character. $`I_8`$ appears in numerous context in superstring theories and M-theory, but one directly relevant to us is the topological coupling that exists in M-theory ,

$$CI_8=GI_7^{(0)}.$$
(6)
$`C`$ is the 3-form tensor, $`G`$ is the field strength of $`C`$, and $`dI_7^{(0)}=I_8`$.

Consider an M5 brane in flat space-time. Because M5 is a magnetically charged object,

$$dG=2\pi \delta _{\mathrm{M5}},$$
(7)
there is a six-dimensional gravitational anomaly, generated by variation of the above coupling,

$$2\pi \delta _{\mathrm{M5}}I_6^{(1)}=2\pi _{\mathrm{M5}}I_6^{(1)},$$
(8)
with $`dI_6^{(1)}=\delta I_7^{(0)}`$. On the other hand, a single M5 composed of a single tensor multiplet of $`(2,0)`$ supersymmmetry. This field content is anomalous and generate one-loop gravitational anomaly of amount

$$2\pi _{M5}J_6^{(1)}$$
(9)
where $`dJ_6^{(1)}=\delta J_7^{(0)}`$, $`dJ_7^{(0)}=J_8`$, and

$$J_8=\frac{1}{48}\left(p_2(𝒯)\frac{p_1^2(𝒯)}{4}\right).$$
(10)
where the characters are those of the tangent bundle $`𝒯`$ of the six dimensional worldvolume. This anomaly polynomial is equal to $`I_8`$ provided that the latter is also evaluated for $`𝒯`$. The resulting anomaly is purely gravitational in six dimensions, and the two clearly cancel each other. We learn that $`CI_8`$ is essential in establishing consistency of M5 branes in M theory.

However, not all eleven-dimensional gravitational anomaly would be cancelled this way. Following , we split the spacetime curvature $`R`$ into two parts; one associated with the six-dimensional tangent bundle $`𝒯`$ of M5 and the other associated with the five-dimensional normal bundle $`𝒩`$ of M5. On closer inspection, the actual anomaly inflow from $`CI_8`$ term corresponds to an anomaly polynomial of the form

$`I_8(𝒯𝒩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left(p_2(𝒯𝒩){\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2(𝒯𝒩)}{4}}\right)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left(p_2(𝒯)+p_2(𝒩){\displaystyle \frac{(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩))^2}{4}}\right).`$
We used the fact, $`p_2(𝒯𝒩)=p_2(𝒯)+p_2(𝒩)+p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩)`$. The structure group $`SO(5)`$ of the normal bundle acts as the R-symmetry group in six-dimensional theory, so the part dependent on $`𝒩`$ generates the axial anomaly.

However, the anomaly associated with a single tensor multiplet is found to be,

$$𝒥_8\frac{1}{48}\left(p_2(𝒯)p_2(𝒩)\frac{(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩))^2}{4}\right),$$
(12)
and we have uncanceled anomaly of the amount ,

$$I_8(𝒯𝒩)+𝒥_8=\frac{1}{24}p_2(𝒩),$$
(13)
which is purely axial. Since the axial group $`SO(5)`$ also came from space-time symmetry, its anomaly must cancel in the full M-theory context.

An elegant solution to this puzzle has been proposed by FHMM. They considered a Chern-Simons term,

$$\frac{2\pi }{6}CdCdC,$$
(14)
argued that this coupling must be modified in a very specific manner in the presence of magnetic sources to $`C`$. Introducing the Thom class $`e_4`$ for the normal bundle $`𝒩`$ of the magnetic source, they smeared out the magnetic source by writing

$$dG=d\rho (r)e_4/2,$$
(15)
where the one-form $`d\rho `$ is essentially the distribution of the smeared out magnetic source . This allows a simple modification of the above coupling to

$$\frac{2\pi }{6}\stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C},$$
(16)
with $`\stackrel{~}{C}=C\rho e_3^{(0)}/2`$, while the gauge invariant, everywhere finite, field strength $`G`$ is also modified to

$$G=dCd\rho e_3^{(0)}/2=d\stackrel{~}{C}+\rho e_4/2.$$
(17)
Gauge transformation of $`e_3^{(0)}`$ induces that of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$,

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{C}=d(\rho e_2^{(1)})/2,$$
(18)
which leads to another anomaly inflow,

$$\frac{2\pi }{6}\delta \stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C}$$
(19)
The integrand is exact, so the integral reduces to the boundary which is the infinitesimal sphere bundle enclosing the M5 brane. Because the boundary involves the infinitesimal sphere, the integral actually reduces to that over M5 brane. Results by Bott and Cattaneo  show that the resulting anomaly inflow corresponds to the anomaly polynomial,

$$\frac{1}{24}p_2(𝒩).$$
(20)
Note that this precisely cancels the remaining anomaly. This mechanism was further studied by Becker and Becker  who reconciled it with the cancellation mechanism suggested by Witten  in type II perspective, while Ref.  made an attempt to study the origin of the function $`\rho `$.

Subsequently, Harvey, Minasian, and Moore (HMM) observed  that this last anomaly inflow from Chern-Simons term is cubic in the magnetic charge, so the net anomaly inflow onto $`N`$ coincident M5 branes must be

$$\left(NI_8(𝒯𝒩)N^3\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right)=\left(N𝒥_8+(N^3N)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right),$$
(21)
## 3 Anomaly of D-type Theories

To study D-type $`(2,0)`$ theory, it suffices to put $`2N`$ coincident M5-branes at origin of $`R^5`$ and orbifolding the latter by the parity $`Z_2`$,

$$x^ix^ii=6,7,8,9,11.$$
(22)
This $`Z_2`$ has to act on the antisymmetric tensor $`C`$ as

$$CC,$$
(23)
upon which both topological terms of the previous section remain invariant.

Since this background is not a string theory vacuum, the role of orbifold fixed point is less transparent. Nevertheless, there are several facts known about it. First of all, the orbifold preserves the same set of supersymmetry preserved by M5 branes, so that the world-volume supersymmetry remains $`(2,0)`$ on any M5 transverse to $`R^5/Z_2`$. It is also known that the twisted sector fields can be attributed to world-volume degrees of freedom of M5 branes sitting at the singular point , which allows us to keep track of the orbifold physics without worrying about how to quantize M-theory.

For the moment, let us first concentrate on anomaly inflow mediated by $`C`$ field. Early studies taught us that the orbifold fixed point itself has to carry $`1`$ unit of M5 brane charge . After taking this into account, the net M5 brane charge (in the covering space) is $`2N1`$, so the anomaly inflow induced by the M5 brane charge would be111 One may worry that we are smearing out the -1 charge of the fixed point just as we smear out $`2N`$ charge from M5 brane. However, we find no reason to treat -1 charge differently. For instance, there is a known case, say, in F-theory context, where an orientifold 7-plane is realized as a bound state of 7-branes, each of which are U-dual to D-branes .

$$\frac{1}{2}\left((2N1)I_8(2N1)^3\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right).$$
(24)
The overall factor 1/2 takes into account the $`Z_2`$ modding of $`R^5`$. In the covering space, all that happens is that the field strength $`G`$ and the normal bundle $`𝒩`$ are restricted to respect the orbifolding action. This is more suggestively written as

$$\left(\left(N\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒥_8+N(2N1)(2N2)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right),$$
(25)
where we used the identity (13).

However, this cannot be the end of story. In particular, the correct anomaly inflow must vanish when $`N=0`$, since there is no worldvolume anomaly to cancel in that case. Also $`N=1`$ should correspond to a free (2,0) tensor theory, whose anomaly is $`𝒥_8`$. The above inflow is clearly incapable of cancelling this worldvolume anomaly. There must be additional inflow.

A well-known fact is that failure of diffeomorphism invariance may occur at fixed points in a background that is otherwise smooth . In other words, there is an additional anomaly inflow that is associated with the geometry of the orbifold fixed point. Such contribution would have little to do with the topological terms, $`CI_8`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C}d\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and will generate new kind of anomaly inflow associated with the singular nature of the fixed point. One source of anomaly is from the fact that the dimensional reduction of the supergravity is itself anomalous and contributes six-dimensional anomaly localized at the singularities. In the following, we will try to deduce such additional inflow from consistency of an orbifold compactification.

For this, consider anomaly associated with the compactification of M-theory on $`T^5/Z_2`$ with 32 fixed points. It has been observed that six-dimensional gravitational anomaly is cancelled satisfactorily if each fixed point carries $`1`$ of M5 brane charge and if we include 16 pairs of M5 branes stuck at half of 32 fixed points . Let us work backward from this knowledge, then, and ask what conclusion we can draw on the contribution associated with the singularity of the fixed point when we include the $`SO(5)`$ anomaly in the discussion.

Using extension of FHMM adopted above (25), the inflow mediated by $`C`$-charge is

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(I_8(𝒯𝒩)+\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right)=\frac{𝒥_8}{2},$$
(26)
for each of 16 orbifold points without M5 brane ($`N=0`$). For a fixed point with an M5 brane pair ($`N=1`$), on the other hand, the world-volume tensor multiplet contributes additional $`𝒥_8`$, while the anomaly inflow changes the sign,

$$𝒥_8+\frac{1}{2}\left(I_8(𝒯𝒩)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right)=𝒥_8\frac{𝒥_8}{2}=\frac{𝒥_8}{2}.$$
(27)
Thus, for either kind of fixed point, we find combined anomaly of amount $`𝒥_8/2`$ from $`C`$-induced inflow and from worldvolume contribution. The net anomaly must be zero, which happens only if further contribution of $`𝒥_8/2`$ exists at each orbifold fixed point.

| Anomaly contribution | fixed point | fixed point with a M5-brane pair |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tensor multiplet on M5 | 0 | $`𝒥_8`$ |
| Inflow mediated by $`C`$ | $`𝒥_8/2`$ | $`𝒥_8/2`$ |
| Inflow due to singularity | $`𝒥_8/2`$ | $`𝒥_8/2`$ |

> Table 1. The first row is due to one-loop contribution from worldvolume fields. The second row is the anomaly inflow from spacetime action involving $`C`$-field. Finally, we used anomaly cancellation on the $`T^5/Z_2`$ orbifold to determine the last row. See next section for an independent estimate of the last row.

This clearly indicates that we must assign $`𝒥_8/2`$ to each of 32 fixed points, which are all locally of type $`R^5/Z_2`$.

Coming back to $`N`$ pairs of M5-branes on $`R^5/Z_2`$, this implies that the additional anomaly at origin of $`R^5/Z_2`$ should be $`𝒥_8/2`$. Net inflow is then

$$\left(\left(N\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒥_8+N(2N1)(2N2)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}\right)\frac{𝒥_8}{2},$$
(28)
negative of which should be the anomaly of rank $`N`$ D-type theory. We conclude that the anomaly of rank $`N`$ D-type theory is given by

$$N𝒥_8+N(2N1)(2N2)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}.$$
(29)
This does reduce to the free tensor theory anomaly when $`N=1`$, as it should.

## 4 Untwisted Sector One-loop Anomaly

However, this is not a rigorous computation. In particular, we have not computed the anomaly inflow due to the singularity; rather we surmised its value, $`𝒥_8/2`$, by relying on the consistency of the $`T^5/Z_2`$ compactification. We computed the twisted sector one-loop anomaly and $`C`$-induced anomaly, and then inferred what contribution at the singularity is necessary to cancel these. With no particular reason to doubt the consistency of the orbifold in question, any failure of the above procedure would be traced to the fact that we adopted and generalized the FHMM prescription to compute $`C`$-induced anomaly inflow, both in the M5 realization of (2,0) theories and in the $`T^5/Z_2`$ compactification.

More specifically, there are two potential issues. One is that the FHMM proposal itself involves higher order terms in the M-theory action, which has not been derived independently.222 A different mechanism of anomaly cancellation for a single M5 brane has been suggested . The other, more worrisome issue is whether the orbifolding might induce other changes in the FHMM reasoning that we somehow missed. To the same extent this prescription may be in doubt, so would be the inferred fixed point contribution, $`𝒥_8/2`$, and vice versa. An independent estimate of the latter would go a long way in checking the overall validity of our computation.

Purely gravitational part of $`𝒥_8/2`$, namely $`J_8/2`$, was computed directly from the untwisted sector . It arises at one-loop from untwisted sector fields, which is chiral in the $`T^5/Z_2`$ orbifold case.333 Since the initial 11-dimensional supergravity is anomaly free, failure of diffeomorphism invariance must localize to orbifold fixed points. A similar phenomenon occurs in the Horava-Witten realization of heterotic string, i.e., M-theory compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$ . The dimensional reduction of 11-dimensional supergravity multiplet produces 10-dimensional chiral supergravity multiplet. Anomaly of the latter is distributed equally at the two fixed points and is cancelled by the twisted sector anomaly from the Yang-Mills multiplets in the two $`E_8`$’s. We must at least generalize this computation to include axial one-loop anomaly from untwisted sector. One might hope that the required anomaly, $`𝒥_8/2`$, at each fixed point is explained entirely by the one loop contribution. We will see shortly that this is the case up to a (yet to be identified) local counter term.

When one compactifies the 11-dimensional supergravity on $`T^5/Z_2`$, dimensional reduction produces the following field contents: one graviton and fifteen scalars from the metric; four anti-chiral gravitino and twenty chiral spinors from the 11-dimensional gravitino; ten scalars, five chiral 2-forms, and five anti-chiral 2-forms from the 3-tensor $`C`$. With respect to the unbroken $`(2,0)`$ supersymmetry, they group into a supergravity multiplet and five tensor multiplets.

To compute the one-loop anomaly, we also need to know the $`SO(5)`$ representations under which these untwisted sector fields fall into. With respect to the $`SO(5)`$ R-symmetry, which is nothing but the rotational group in the compactified direction, the representations are

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`1,`$
$`\psi _\mu ^{s()}`$ $``$ $`4,`$
$`B_{i\mu \nu }^{()}`$ $``$ $`5;`$ (30)
$`B_{i\mu \nu }^{(+)}`$ $``$ $`15,`$
$`\psi _i^{s(+)}`$ $``$ $`45,`$
$`\varphi _{ij}`$ $``$ $`55=(141)10.`$ (31)
In other words, in addition to acting within each supermultiplet as R-symmetry usually does, $`SO(5)`$ also rotates the five tensor multiplets. This can be seen by observing that chiral and anti-chiral tensors, $`B_{i\mu \nu }^{(\pm )}`$, combines to form $`C_{i\mu \nu }`$, or by observing that out of the 25 scalars, $`(14+1)`$ come from the metric and 10 come from the Hodge dual of $`C`$ along $`T^5/Z_2`$.

To the one-loop anomaly, contributions from the chiral and anti-chiral tensors cancel away, and the nontrivial contribution arises only from fermionic fields. Following Alvarez-Gaume and Witten , we find that the anomaly polynomial is the eight-form part of

$$\frac{1}{2}𝒜(𝒯)(ch_V(𝒯)1)ch_4(𝒩)+\frac{1}{2}𝒜(𝒯)ch_{45}(𝒩),$$
(32)
where $`ch_{}()`$ is the Chern-character of the bundle $``$ evaluated on representation $``$, and $`𝒜`$ is the $`𝒜`$-genus associated with the Dirac operator on spinor. A direct evaluation gives,

$$\frac{1}{3}\left(p_2(𝒯)p_2(𝒩)\frac{(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩))^2}{4}\right)\frac{1}{2}p_1(𝒩)\left(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩)\right),$$
(33)
which contributes

$$\frac{1}{2}𝒥_8\frac{1}{64}p_1(𝒩)\left(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩)\right),$$
(34)
to each of 32 fixed points.

The first term reproduces the anomaly inflow due to the singularity  of Table 1.,

$$\frac{1}{2}𝒥_8,$$
(35)
but we find a disagreement of amount,

$$\frac{1}{64}p_1(𝒩)\left(p_1(𝒯)p_1(𝒩)\right),$$
(36)
from the second term. The discrepancy may not be as bad as it appears, however. It does reproduce both purely gravitational and purely axial part. In particular, the part proportional to $`p_2(𝒩)`$ is consistent with the previous estimate; we set out to check the validity of the FHMM-like prescription producing the irreducible term, $`p_2(𝒩)`$, and found that this part of anomaly is reproduced satisfactorily by untwisted sector one-loop computation.

The remaining piece is in a product form and could be cancelled away by a local counter term on the fixed point. A priori, what we computed above is only one specific type of contribution from untwisted sector. Since the discrepancy seems to lie entirely at the orbifold fixed point, we suspect that the failure here has something to do with not taking into full account of the orbifold geometry. One property of the fixed point we have not used properly is that the space $`R^5/Z_2`$ has the nontrivial Stieffel-Whitney class $`w_4`$, or equivalently $`p_1/2`$ considered as an element of the $`Z_2`$ cohomology. While this fact is related to the $`1`$ charge of the fixed point, nontrivial $`w_4`$ should have its own physical consequences. It is conceivable that such a twist generates a counter-term, either via a boundary term in the spacetime action or via a mechanism similar to FHMM but associated with curvature.

## 5 Conclusion

Adopting an extension of FHMM and HMM, and employing the consistency of $`T^5/Z_2`$ orbifold of M-theory, we argued that the anomaly polynomial of rank $`N`$ D-type $`(2,0)`$ theory is

$$N𝒥_8+N(2N1)(2N2)\frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24}.$$
(37)
An independent check was performed by computing one-loop untwisted sector contribution in M-theory compactified on $`T^5/Z_2`$. Modulo a term cancellable by a local counter-term, it supports the above anomaly estimate.

Recently, K. Intriligator put forward an interesting conjecture  that the general anomaly polynomial of the ADE $`(2,0)`$ theories takes the form,

$$r𝒥_8+g\times c_2\times \frac{p_2(𝒩)}{24},$$
(38)
where $`r`$, $`g`$, $`c_2`$ are the rank, the dimension, the dual Coxeter number of the respective Lie algebra. As noted by Intriligator, the FMM estimate of the anomaly for A theories indeed agrees with the conjecture. The rank $`r=N`$ D-type algebra is $`so(2N)`$, whose dimension is $`g=N(2N1)`$ and whose dual Coxeter number is $`c_2=2N2`$, so the result for D-type theories here also agrees with the conjecture. Microscopic origin of order $`N^3`$ anomaly  has been of considerable interest but still remains mysterious. We hope that one might gain insight from the particular algebraic structure of its coefficient, advocated by Intriligator and confirmed in part here.

An independent confirmation of the result might be available in the AdS/CFT setting. A. Tseytlin  attempted to compute sub-leading contributions to conformal anomaly, which is presumably connected to the gravitational and axial anomaly via supersymmetry. His computation revealed no conflict with Ref. , but the agreement was somewhat partial since only some of order $`N`$ terms are computed explicitly. One may hope that a refined version of such computation will give a powerful, albeit indirect, check of axial anomaly computation of both A-type and D-type theories; In the AdS/CFT picture, the dual spacetime backgrounds are devoid of any singularity; the two cases differ only by the transverse four-manifold being either $`S^4`$ or $`RP^4`$. This suggests that no extra difficulty would arise for D-type theories.

Similar computation of anomaly for E-type theories would be desirable, but this case seems much more elusive. No brane picture is known to exist, while a useful AdS/CFT picture is also difficult to come in part by due to the lack of large $`N`$ limit. A type IIB picture may work better for a universal approach to all ADE cases, but it remains an open problem.

I am grateful to Sangmin Lee for an independent check of Eq. (33) and to Gabriele Ferretti for pointing out a notational error in an earlier version. I would like to thank Theory Group at University of Chicago, where bulk of the manuscript was written, for warm hospitality.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Explaining the small observed value of the cosmological constant is one of the crucial problems in contemporary theoretical physics (see  for reviews). Although classically the value of the cosmological constant can be tuned to an arbitrarily small value, one cannot do so in a quantum theory. In general quantum fluctuations force one to relate the vacuum energy density to the UV cut-off scale in the theory, $`\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$. From the theoretical point of view, the most natural thing is to identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the Planck scale. However, this yields a cosmological constant which is enormously bigger than the estimated value.

In supersymmetric theories the vacuum energy is exactly zero, due to the cancellation of fermionic and bosonic fluctuations. However, once supersymmetry is broken, “mixed” contributions of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^2(m_B^2m_F^2)`$ arise (where $`m_B`$ and $`m_F`$ are bosonic and fermionic masses respectively). Thus, although supersymmetry might reduce the value of the vacuum energy, the problem remains unsolved.

It was suggested that certain non-supersymmetric theories, called “orbifold field theories” , might lead to a small value of the vacuum energy. From the field theory point of view the reason is the following: the planar graphs of these theories are exactly the same as the planar graphs of the parent supersymmetric theories . Therefore, at the large $`N`$ limit, the value of the vacuum energy is exactly zero. The problem is that there is no control on the non-planar graphs. In particular, $`U(1)`$ contributions lead to a large vacuum energy $`\rho \frac{1}{N^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^4`$.

In this note we combine the above mentioned approach with the suggestion that non–commutativity might be a useful ingredient in the solution of the cosmological constant problem . In fact, non–commutativity can play the role of a UV cut–off for non-planar graphs . In a generic non–commutative field theory this fact would not improve the situation. The planar graphs would contribute exactly as the ordinary theory, namely $`\rho _{planar}\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^4`$. However, in non–commutative orbifold theory planar graphs are the same as in the parent supersymmetric theory  and thus do not contribute to the vacuum energy. The contributions from non-planar graphs are expected to be controlled by the non–commutativity parameter. Thus, in this setup, there is the possibility to disentangle the cosmological constant problem from the value of the UV cut–off.

As we shall see, the situation is a bit more involved than that. In fact, it is well known that the presence of time–like non–commutativity implies a breakdown of unitarity , making the field theory not consistent. Thus we are forced to consider four dimensional field theories with only two non–commuting space directions ($`[x^1,x^2]=\mathrm{i}\theta 0`$) . In this case the presence of $`\theta `$ does not completely regulate the loop integrals. In particular, UV divergences can appear in non–planar graph when the Moyal phases involve only internal (i. e. integrated) momenta. Of course this is always the case for the vacuum bubbles, where there are no external legs. For example, the first contribution to the vacuum energy coming from a non-planar diagram is at two loop level. This contribution is, indeed, controlled by the non–commutativity scale, but in theories with only space-space non–commutativity a soft logarithmic dependence on the Planck scale survives. This behavior is not surprising: a logarithmic dependence on the UV cut-off is typical of two dimensional theories and, because of the presence of space-like $`\theta `$, also in our four dimensional theories UV divergences can come only from the commutative plane.

We suggest that this situation persists to all orders and that the leading value of the vacuum energy in non-supersymmetric orbifold field theories is

$$\rho \frac{1}{\theta ^2}P(\lambda ,\mathrm{log}\sqrt{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_P),$$
(1)
where $`P`$ is a polynomial of the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda =g^2N`$ and the $`log`$. Note that the leading term of expression (1) is also suppressed by $`\frac{1}{N^2}`$ with respect to the usual result, since the vacuum energy generically is $`N^2`$.

Some remarks are necessary in order to make this statement more precise. First, eq. (1) strongly depends on the UV/IR mixing and on the possibility of re-summing classes of non-planar diagrams, as suggested in . However, it turns out that this re-summation can not be performed when the number of bosonic degrees of freedom in the adjoint representation exceeds that of the adjoint fermions. This pathology was to be expected, since for these non–commutative field theories the 1-loop dispersion relation signals that the trivial vacuum is quantum–mechanically unstable . In general, the nature of the vacuum state of the non–commutative field theories has not been fully understood yet. However, in the case where there are more fermionic fields in the adjoint representation than bosonic ones, the re-summation proposed by  can be performed without creating any evident instability. Thus, for these theories, we will take a pragmatic approach: we will consider the expansion around the usual vacuum and analyze the generic degree of divergence of the vacuum bubbles.

In addition, in the usual commutative case vacuum bubbles are immediately related to the cosmological constant because of Lorentz invariance. On the contrary, in non–commutative theories, this invariance is explicitly broken and the v.e.v. of the matter energy–momentum tensor can take a more general form $`T_{\mu \nu }=\rho g_{\mu \nu }+\sigma (\theta ^2)_{\mu \nu }`$. In this setup vacuum diagrams correspond to the combination of the above two terms. We will not separate the contribution related to $`\rho `$, because we are interested in the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$, that is of the form of eq. (1) for both $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$.

Moreover, there are “phenomenological” obstacles that generally make the relation between non–commutative theories and the real world difficult. A realization of a consistent quantum NC $`SU(N)`$ model is not at hand at the moment (see however  for a recent attempt in this direction). In particular, the baryon number is always gauged in non–commutative theories. In addition, due to UV/IR mixing it is not clear whether a non-supersymmetric non–commutative theory would flow in the IR to its commutative counterpart. A recent analysis of the non-commutative $`𝒩=2`$model suggests that this indeed might be the case . The running of the effective coupling in non-commutative $`𝒩=1`$SQCD also supports such a scenario .

Finally, the cosmological constant receives contributions also from the gravity sector (closed strings) beyond those coming from the gauge theory sector (open string). The non–commutativity we consider does not affect gravitational interactions (closed string amplitudes) and thus $`\theta `$ cannot act as a regulator for those contributions.

The organization of this manuscript is as follows. In Section 2 we briefly recall the main features of the orbifold field theories derived from the supersymmetric gauge theories. In Section 3 we focus on vacuum diagrams and argue that, in these theories, the non–commutative parameter plays a crucial role in regulating the UV divergences. In Section 4 we use the D-brane picture of the orbifold field theories to discuss the general structure of the vacuum diagrams.

## II Orbifold field theories

Orbifold field theories are obtained by a certain truncation of a supersymmetric gauge theory. For instance, let us consider the special case of $`𝒩=4`$supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The truncation procedure is as follows: consider a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`𝒩=4`$R-symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. For each element of the orbifold group, the regular representation $`\gamma `$ inside $`U(|\mathrm{\Gamma }|N)`$ should be specified. Each field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ transform as $`\mathrm{\Phi }r\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma `$, where $`r`$ is a representation matrix inside the R-symmetry group. The truncation is achieved by keeping invariant fields. The resulting theory has a reduced amount of supersymmetry, or no supersymmetry at all. It was suggested , based on the AdS/CFT conjecture, that the truncated large $`N`$ theories are finite as the parent $`𝒩=4`$theory. Later it was proved  that the planar diagrams of the truncated theory and parent theories are identical.

Let us consider a specific example . The example is an $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ gauge theory with 6 scalars in the adjoint of each of the gauge groups and 4 Weyl fermions in the $`(N,\overline{N})`$ and 4 Weyl fermions in the $`(\overline{N},N)`$ bi-fundamental representations. This is the theory that lives on dyonic D3 branes of type 0 string theory and can be also understood, from the field theory point of view, as a $`Z_2`$ orbifold projection of $`𝒩=4`$SYM . Other examples of large $`N`$ finite non-supersymmetric theories can be found in .

In all these examples there are more bosonic fields in the adjoint representation than fermionic fields in the adjoint representation. As was already mentioned in the introduction, the non–commutative version of these field theories displays “tachyonic” instabilities  and is not useful for our purposes. Thus we wish to give an example of an orbifold field theory with more fermionic fields in the adjoint representation than bosonic ones. We will start from a $`U(2N)`$ $`𝒩=1`$SYM with chiral multiplets and no superpotential as a parent theory, and perform a projection similar to the one just described to get a $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ gauge theory. The content of the “vector multiplet” in the orbifolded theory is a vector in the adjoint of each of the group factor and a fermion in the bi-fundamental representation. In addition we can have $`F`$ copies of “chiral multiplets” with fermions in the adjoint of each group and scalars in the bi-fundamental. We do not add a superpotential to the action. The planar sector of this theory is in one–to–one correspondence with $`𝒩=1`$SYM with $`F`$ chiral multiplets. Note also that when $`F>1`$ we have more fermions than bosons in the adjoint representation.

## III Field theory analysis

In this section we would like to see how a small vacuum energy can be achieved in a world with large non–commutativity. The trace of the v.e.v. of the energy–momentum tensor is related to the partition function as follows

$$\mathrm{i}V\tau =\mathrm{log}Z,$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the system.

For a free field theory, it is possible to perform the Gaussian integration and to calculate $`\tau `$. The bosons and fermions contribute with opposite signs. The result is

$$\tau ^{(1)}=2(N_BN_F)N^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{log}k^2,$$
(3)
and can be viewed, diagrammatically, as a sum over configurations of bosonic or fermionic loops. $`N_B`$ and $`N_F`$ count the bosonic and the fermionic degrees of freedom respectively. In the specific case of the $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ theory related to $`𝒩=4`$one has $`N_B=N_F=8`$ (six scalars plus the two physical degrees of freedom of the gluon for the bosons and two physical d.o.f. for each one of the four Weyl fermions), while for the example related to $`𝒩=1`$one has $`N_B=N_F=2+2F`$. This pattern is general to all orbifold field theories: the number of bosons and fermions is the same and the cosmological constant vanishes at the one loop level.

Let us turn now to the two loop calculation. The various contributions are described in figure (1) below.

In the parent non–commutative theory, the sum of all contributions vanishes as required by supersymmetry. In the case of the orbifold theory, the situation is different. Some fields are in the bi-fundamental representation whereas others are in the adjoint and the Feynman rules for the two representations are clearly different. For example: the vertex of a gluon coupled to fundamental matter is

$$V_{fund}=g\times T_{ij}^a\times \mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}p\theta q),$$
(4)
while for a gluon coupled to an adjoint matter the vertex is

$$V_{adj}=\frac{1}{2}g\times \left(\mathrm{tr}[T^a,T^b]T^c\times \mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}p\theta q)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{tr}\{T^a,T^b\}T^c\times \mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}p\theta q)\right).$$
(5)
For a full list of Feynman rules, in the case of adjoint matter see . Let us start by focusing on the planar graphs. The sum of these contributions takes the following form

$$\tau _{planar}^{(2)}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}N_B\left(N_BN_F\right)N^2(\mathrm{i}\lambda )\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{p^2}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{q^2},$$
(6)
The vacuum energy vanishes in the planar limit, as required by the properties inherited from the original supersymmetric theory. The contribution related to the non–planar diagrams breaks this cancellation. In ’t Hooft’s two index notation, the reason for this non-vanishing contribution is the presence of non-planar diagrams which exist only for the case of fields in the adjoint representation. On the contrary, fields in the bi-fundamental representation cannot give rise to any non-planar vertex. Thus, the only 2-loop non-planar diagrams come from the adjoint sector of the theory and the sum of these contributions is

$$\tau _{nonplanar}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda N_B^A\left(N_B^AN_F^A\right)\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{1}{q^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\theta q},$$
(7)
where $`N_B^A`$ is the number of bosons in the adjoint representation and $`N_F^A`$ is the number of fermions in adjoint representation. In the specific example of the $`𝒩=4`$daughter theory, $`N_B^A=8`$ and $`N_F^A=0`$ and hence $`N_B^AN_F^A>0`$, whereas in the example of the $`𝒩=1`$daughter theory $`N_B^A=2,N_F^A=2F`$ and hence $`N_B^AN_F^A<0`$ for $`F>1`$. As we shall see, this difference in sign will be important later on.

It is convenient (and useful for comparison with string theory amplitudes) to use the Schwinger parameterization in order to calculate (7)

$$\tau _{nonplanar}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda }{(4\pi )^4}N_B^A\left(N_B^AN_F^A\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\frac{1}{t_1t_2(t_1t_2+\frac{\theta ^2}{4})}$$
(8)
The integral (8) is both UV divergent (small $`t`$) and IR divergent. The IR divergences are not manifest in (8), but exist due to massless degrees of freedom (see (7)). In order to regulate (8), both UV and IR cut-offs are needed. In principle a regulator which preserves gauge invariance should be used. However, since we know that in the supersymmetric case the sum of all the contributions should vanish, all the results reported in this work are determined unambiguously by using a naive cut-off. Once the integral is regulated, the vacuum energy is suppressed by $`\frac{1}{\theta ^2}`$. Note also that the UV divergences are only logarithmic due to the presence of $`\theta `$. Let us ignore for a moment the logarithmic IR divergences. The result is

$$\tau ^{(2)}\lambda \frac{N_B^A(N_B^AN_F^A)}{\theta ^2}(\mathrm{log}\sqrt{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_P)^2$$
(9)
We would like to give another example. The example is a 4-loops non-planar diagram which involves quartic interactions. Although we do not consider all other 4-loop contributions (and even all 3-loop contributions), we compute this diagram since it captures the nature of diagrams with maximal non-planarity. Maximal non-planarity means that the determinant of the intersection matrix, describing which propagators are crossing, is non-vanishing. In the next section we will give a string picture of the field theory perturbation expansion in the non–commutative case and it will be more clear why these diagrams have a special status. The non-planar 2-loop diagrams and the 4-loop example given in figure (2) below are of this type.

The corresponding expression is

$`\tau ^{(4)}`$ $``$ $`\lambda g^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{p^2}\right)^2\frac{1}{q^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\theta q}}\right)^2`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^3}{(4\pi )^8}}\left({\displaystyle t_1𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\frac{1}{t_1t_2(t_1t_2+\frac{\theta ^2}{4})}}\right)^2,`$ (11)
which yields a contribution that is suppressed by higher powers of $`N`$ and $`\theta `$ with respect to the two loop one (figure (1)). In addition, due to UV/IR mixing effects, there is a contribution to (10) of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^4\left(\mathrm{log}(1+\frac{1}{\theta ^2m^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^2})\right)^2,$$
(12)
which we can neglect. This is justified if we assume that $`\theta m\mathrm{\Lambda }_P1`$ (where $`m`$ is the IR cut-off) and, in this limit, only negative power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$ are generated.

The general rule is that higher genus maximal non-planar diagram are suppressed by both powers of $`N^2`$ and $`\theta `$.

So far we ignored the infra-red divergences appearing in the integrals over Schwinger parameters. The reason is that these IR divergences might disappear after re-summation of higher order contributions, as suggested by . Consider the non-planar diagram in figure (3) below.

This is a typical higher loop diagram. Denoting the internal momenta in the dashed loops by $`q_i`$ and the momentum in the “overall” loop by $`p`$, the potentially divergent contribution takes the form

$$\left((N_B^AN_F^A)\lambda \right)^n\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q_1}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q_2}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{}\frac{d^4q_n}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{p^2}\right)^n\frac{1}{q_1^2}\frac{1}{q_2^2}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{q_n^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\theta _iq_i}$$
(13)
Upon integration over $`q_i`$, (13) takes the following form

$`\left((N_B^AN_F^A)\lambda \right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{p^2(\theta p)^2}\right)^n}`$ (14)
$`\left((N_B^AN_F^A)\lambda \right)^n{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\left(\frac{t_1}{t_2}\right)^{n1}\frac{1}{t_1t_2(t_1t_2+\frac{\theta ^2}{4})}}.`$ (15)
At any order $`n`$ the contribution (15) seems to be severely IR and UV divergent divergent. However, before integrating over $`t_1,t_2`$ let us re-sum all orders. This is possible only when $`N_F^A>N_B^A`$, since only in this case does the series have alternating signs, allowing us to arrive to a meaningful finite answer. Otherwise we will obtain a divergent answer. The result is

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}((N_B^AN_F^A)\lambda )^n𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\left(\frac{t_1}{t_2}\right)^{n1}\frac{1}{t_1t_2(t_1t_2+\frac{\theta ^2}{4})}\lambda \frac{1}{\theta ^2}\mathrm{log}(\sqrt{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_P)$$
(16)
The integral is (16) logarithmically divergent. It suggests that upon summation all orders the vacuum energy is indeed (1).

Following , we suggest that the scenario that was mentioned above is general: in each case where non-planarity introduces IR divergences, these divergences would disappear upon re-summation (or would result in at most as logarithmic IR divergences). The algorithm is the following: each non-planar graph can be “opened” by cutting a propagator, then it can be glued to itself $`n1`$ times and finally it can be “closed” by gluing the ends of the propagator and integrating over the momentum flow. A re-summation of all orders graphs should result with at most logarithmic divergences. This procedure makes sense only in theories with $`N_F^A>N_B^A`$.

Another important issue is the existence of mixed planar and non-planar graphs. There is a danger that in such a case there will be quadratic UV divergences. However, since the parent theory is supersymmetric, this problem is avoided. The reason is that a generic mixed diagram can be divided to its planar and non-planar parts connected by propagators. Let us assume, for simplicity, that the propagators are bosonic. Each propagator carries a factor of $`\frac{1}{p^2}`$. The planar part must be $`p^2\mathrm{log}p/\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$, since this sector is supersymmetric and therefore diverges, at most, logarithmically. It means that the two propagators and the planar piece together contributes $`1/p^2\mathrm{log}p/\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$. Therefore they can be substituted by a single propagator (for the sake of finding the $`\theta `$ dependence of the whole graph). It means that a non-planar graph connected to a planar piece behaves as a fully non-planar graph. This argument holds also for planar and non-planar graphs which are connected by fermionic propagators or by ghosts. In the case of fermionic propagators, the planar part of the graph diverges logarithmically due to supersymmetry. In the case of ghosts, the reasoning is different: the planar graph must diverge at most logarithmically in order to preserve gauge invariance.

## IV String theory calculations

It is well known that non–commutative field theories can be nicely embedded in string theory . This means that, also in the non–commutative case, it is possible to perform a particular decoupling limit on various string quantities and recover the corresponding field theoretic results. Indeed the string setup seems to be the most natural one for studying non–commutativity. In fact, at a field theory level the presence of non–commutativity requires to modify the form of the interactions terms in the microscopic Lagrangian. In a string setup, on the contrary, the building blocks, like the $`3`$-string vertex operator, are unmodified , and, in order to recover non–commutativity, it is sufficient to expand the usual theory around a slightly different vacuum containing a constant $`B`$-field. In the decoupling limit ($`\alpha ^{}0`$), a particular combination of $`B`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is kept fixed and gives rise to the non–commutative parameter $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$.

From the world-sheet point of view the presence of $`B`$ just affects the commutations relations among the string modes  and the nontrivial modification is concentrated in the zero-modes part. Because of this, it was possible to derive , at least in the bosonic case, a master formula which contains any loop string amplitude in presence of a background $`B`$-field. The same decoupling limit used at tree level can be applied on this formula and many explicit checks  showed that in this way one can recover exactly the Feynman diagrams of various field theories. Thus, the embedding of non–commutative field theory in a string setup is not only useful at a conceptual level, but also represents a simplifying technique for the computation of perturbative amplitudes. This is the same pattern that emerged after the first string revolution in the study of the usual gauge and gravity interactions .

In this section we will use the general result derived at the string level to study the main features of the higher loops vacuum bubbles. Even if the string formula we will use takes into account only bosonic degrees of freedom, it is able to capture the relevant properties of the non–planar diagrams. At each order in the string perturbative expansion, all the vacuum graphs are re-summed in few Riemann surfaces. Remembering that we need to consider only oriented open strings, at the first order we encounter just the annulus which, in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit, degenerates into a planar diagram. At the next order we have two possibilities: a planar disk with two holes and a non–planar surface where two propagators have to cross, see Figure (4).

In general the string result depends on two topological properties of the surfaces: the number of loops $`h`$ (or the number of independent momenta flowing in the propagators) and the number of borders (or equivalently the intersection matrix $`𝒥_{IJ}`$ among the internal momenta). In a compact form the contribution to the vacuum bubbles can be written as

$$V_{0;h}^\theta =\left[\sqrt{detM}\right]^{1h}\left[det\left(\frac{A}{2}\right)\right]^{1/2}[dm]_h,$$
(17)
where the integration is taken over the moduli of the Riemann surface and $`M`$ is the open string metric $`M_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }(Bg^1B)_{\mu \nu }`$. $`A`$ contains the period matrix $`\tau _{IJ}`$, the non–commutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1}{g+B}B\frac{1}{gB}\right)^{\mu \nu }`$ and the intersection matrix $`𝒥_{IJ}`$

$$A_{IJ}^{\mu \nu }=2\alpha ^{}(2\pi \mathrm{i}\tau _{IJ})(M^1)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{i}\theta ^{\mu \nu }𝒥_{IJ}.$$
(18)
In order to make the comparison with the field theory result simpler, one can rescale the string coordinates and simply use $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ as open string metric and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}B^{\mu \nu }`$ as noncommutative parameter. It is important to stress that, in (17), the determinant is taken over the space of both Lorentz $`(\mu )`$ and loop indices $`(I)`$. Just to give a flavor of how this expression can be made explicit we report the expression for the measure in the case of bosonic string written in the Schottky parameterization of the world–sheet surface and refer to  for the derivation and the explicit form of the other quantities

$$[dm]_h=\frac{1}{dV_{abc}}\underset{I=1}{\overset{h}{}}\left[\frac{dk_Id\xi _Id\eta _I}{k_I^2(\xi _I\eta _I)^2}(1k_I)^2\right]\underset{\alpha }{\overset{}{}}\left[\frac{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1k_\alpha ^n)^{d+2}}{(1k_\alpha )^2}\right].$$
(19)
For each hole one needs to introduce 3 real parameters $`(\eta _I,\xi _I,k_I)`$ that specify its position and its width. The $`k_\alpha `$’s are the multipliers of the other elements of the Schottky group and can be written as function of the elementary parameters $`(\eta _I,\xi _I,k_I)`$, related to the generators of the group. Finally $`dV_{abc}`$ remembers that, because of the projective invariance, one has to fix the values of three of these variables. Thus at $`h`$ loops, one has $`3h3`$ integrations which is exactly the number of propagator one has in a $`\varphi ^3`$–like vacuum bubble. In fact for each propagator one can introduce a Schwinger parameter and the moduli of the Riemann surface are generically connected to these parameters by relations like $`f(\eta _I,\xi _I,k_I)\mathrm{exp}(t/\alpha ^{})`$. The exact form of such relations depends on the specific corner of the moduli space one is looking at. The contribution of each corner resum the results of the Feynman diagrams with the same topology. This one-to-one mapping between string and field theoretic result is pictorially intuitive. For instance, it is possible to recover also diagrams with quartic interactions, both in the usual  and in the non–commutative case , when some of the string moduli are related to Schwinger parameters of finite length in unit of $`\alpha ^{}`$, which means they are vanishing in the field theory limit. Actually, the case of diagrams with only four–point vertices is the easiest, because all the factors of $`\alpha ^{}`$ in the string formula cancel after the change of variable from the string moduli to the Schwinger parameter is performed . Thus it is sufficient to consider only the leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ in all the string expressions appearing in (17).

For instance, let see how the diagrams in Figure (4), reduces to the field theory diagrams of Figure (1). In this case $`A`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with respect to the loop indices. In the $`SL(2,R)`$ gauge $`\xi _1=\mathrm{}`$, $`\eta _1=0`$ and $`\xi _2=1`$, the leading of the matrix $`A`$ entering in the non–planar diagram is

$$A=2\alpha ^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}k_1& \eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}\eta _2+\mathrm{i}\frac{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2\alpha ^{}}\\ \eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}\eta _2\mathrm{i}\frac{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2\alpha ^{}}& \eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}k_2\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(20)
while for the planar diagram, one get a similar result, but without $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ terms in the off-diagonal entries since the intersection matrix is zero. In the case of quartic interactions, the propagator in the middle, related to $`\mathrm{log}\eta _2`$, has vanishing length $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}\eta _20`$, while $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}k_i=t_i`$. In particular, for the non–planar bubbles that correspond to a surface with $`h=2`$, but with only one border ($`b=1`$), one gets

$$V_{h=2,b=1}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\frac{1}{t_1t_2(t_1t_2+\frac{\theta ^2}{4})}.$$
(21)
As we noticed, this integral has at most logarithmic UV divergences. In fact, the UV behavior is encoded in the region of small $`t`$’s. The presence of the space–space non–commutative parameter is sufficient to change the usual dependence on the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^4`$ into a milder $`1/\theta ^2\mathrm{log}\sqrt{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$. This pattern generalizes to all the maximal non–planar diagrams, that is those with arbitrary $`h`$, but always with one border (this request implies that $`h`$ is even). In fact, for quartic interactions one gets

$$V_{h,b=1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2h2}{}}dt_i\frac{1}{P_0^{(h)}(t_i)\left(_{j=0}^{h/2}(\frac{\theta ^2}{4})^jP_j^{(h2j)}(t_i)\right)},$$
(22)
where $`P_j^{(a)}`$ are polynomials of order $`a`$ in the Schwinger parameters and are linear in each $`t_i`$. Here $`P^{(0)}(t_i)=1`$. Thus, the presence of a term$`\theta ^h`$ regulates the contribution coming from the Gaussian integration over the plane where the non–commutativity is present. The other two directions give the usual result, but again the UV divergences are of logarithmic type $`dt_i/t_i`$.

The presence of three–point vertices makes it more difficult to write a general formula for the vacuum bubbles and to read from it the singular behaviour for small $`t`$’s. In fact, in these diagrams there are more propagators in comparison to the case of four–point vertices and, thus, more Schwinger parameters. For instance, at two loops, one needs to associate a Schwinger parameter also to $`\eta _2`$ ($`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}k_i=t_i+t_3`$ and $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}\eta _2=t_3`$). This means that the change of variable from the string moduli to the field theory $`t`$’s generates extra factors of $`1/\alpha ^{}`$ that need to be compensated by considering also the subleading terms in the string expression of $`1/\sqrt{detA}`$. This expansion has two effects: it generates higher powers of the polynomial appearing in the denominator of (22) and a new polynomial at the numerator, that takes into account the dependence of the three-point vertices on the inflowing momenta. For instance, a generic $`4`$–loop diagram with six three–point vertices will look like

$$V_{4,b=1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}dt_i\frac{Q^{(9)}(t_i)}{\left[P_0^{(4)}(t_i)\right]^{5x}\left[\left(_{j=0}^2(\frac{\theta ^2}{4})^jP_j^{(42j)}(t_i)\right)\right]^x},$$
(23)
where $`1x4`$. It is clear that the most divergent contributions come from the terms with $`x=1`$. We explicitly computed some diagrams of this kind and always found that $`t`$’s present in the polynomial $`Q^{(9)}`$ cancel the power-like divergence of the denominator. We think that this pattern is general, because the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^2`$ terms in the non–commutative computation would imply the existence of an unwanted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P^6`$ contribution in the commutative case.

What we said up to now is valid for the maximal non–planar diagrams, that have only one border. From the string master formula it is clear that the diagrams with $`b>1`$ are more divergent. In this case the determinant of the intersection matrix is vanishing and thus the regulating term in (22) with $`\theta ^h`$ and no $`t_i^{}s`$ is absent. In general, the maximal power of $`\theta `$ present is equal to the rank of the first minor with nonvanishing determinant. The diagram considered in Figure (3) is of this kind, like all those entering in the resummation procedure outlined in the previous section, after the first one that is maximal non–planar. As we already suggested, after resummation these power–like divergences should disappear. Clearly other diagrams with more than one border are those containing a planar part. In this case it is clear that the bosonic contribution will contain a power–like dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$; however, as we argued in the previous section, these terms disappear once also the fermion diagrams are taken into account, since the planar part of the whole diagram is supersymmetric.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank C. Angelantonj, I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas, C.-S. Chu, E. Dudas, E. Fuchs, C. Kounnas, E. Lopez and N. Nekrasov for discussions. This work has been supported by the European Union under RTN contracts HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and HPRN-CT-2000-00131.


text:
# Violation of Lorentz Invariance and neutral component of UHECR

## 1 Introduction

Ultra-high energy cosmic ray (UHECR) experiments are believed to be one of the promising places where physics beyond the Standard Model may be discovered. Until recently this expectation was based on a number of arguments of which the non-observation  of the GZK cutoff  is most acknowledged. The case is strengthened by the absence of nearby candidate sources in the directions of the observed UHECR, large-scale isotropy of arrival directions and generic difficulties with acceleration of particles to energies of order $`10^{20}`$ eV.

The apparent absence of the GZK cutoff by itself can be explained within the conventional physics. For instance, several models have been proposed which assume isotropization of arrival directions in strong magnetic fields and attribute the observed UHECR to neutron stars of our Galaxy , Virgo cluster  or the nearby radio-galaxy Cen A . Regardless of a particular model, assuming hard injection spectrum in combination with local overdensity of sources at scales $`50`$ Mpc makes the discrepancy between the observed and predicted spectra significantly smaller .

A new ingredient in this problem is the small scale anisotropy of UHECR. The study of arrival directions of UHECR reveals the existence of clusters of events . The analysis based on angular correlation function shows that the typical size of clusters is comparable with the experimental angular resolution . A most natural interpretation of this result is the existence of point-like sources of UHECR whose image is smeared by errors in determination of UHECR arrival directions.

If this interpretation is believed, it has several important consequences. First, it excludes the models which assume diffuse propagation of UHECR in strong magnetic fields. Second, it makes very unlikely the scenarios which explain the absence of the GZK cutoff by assuming hard spectrum and local overdensity of sources. Indeed, in the latter case the arguments based on statistics of clustering impose unrealistic bounds on the local density of sources . Finally, the observed clustering suggests the existence of neutral primary particles, since otherwise they would be deflected in the Galactic magnetic fields and clusters would not be so tight.

Even stronger argument in favor of neutral particles follows from the correlation of arrival directions with BL Lacertae objects (BL Lac) . BL Lacs are located at cosmological distances. For instance, two of the BL Lacs which coincide with triplets of UHECR are both at $`600`$ Mpc. If primary particles of the triplet events indeed came from BL Lacs, they must be neutral; moreover, they must be able to propagate over cosmological distances without substantial attenuation.

The existence of neutral particles imposes further constraints on possible models of UHECR. Within the Standard Model, there are two stable neutral particles, photon and neutrino. The photon attenuation length due to $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production on infrared background is of order $`1020`$ Mpc in the energy range $`10^{19}10^{20}`$ eV , so photons cannot explain the observed events unless the infrared background is extremely low and/or their initial energies are extremely high.

Neutrinos by themselves cannot be particles which initiate airshowers if standard neutrino cross sections are assumed. They have to be converted into hadrons and photons through interactions with primordial neutrino background . Photons obtained in this way could account for the observed tight clusters. There are generic problems with this scenario . First, the smallness of neutrino cross sections implies large neutrino flux. Second, the production of neutrinos by accelerated protons requires significantly higher proton energy, while even energies of order $`10^{20}`$ eV are difficult to achieve in most acceleration sites. If these difficulties can be overcome, neutrino may be an appealing candidate.

While the situation with neutrinos is unclear, it is worth considering other possibilities. Outside of the Standard Model, several candidates for neutral primary particles have been proposed. One of them is a light SUSY hadron  which can be, e.g., a $`uds`$-gluino bound state or gluon-gluino bound state. Another possible candidate suggested recently is a light sgoldstino . The models of this type have an advantage of explaining the neutral component and the absence of the GZK cutoff at the same time. The disadvantage is that primary particles have to be produced by accelerated protons, which leads to losses in both flux and energy. As a result, already very tight requirements on acceleration energy and efficiency become even tighter.

An attractive model which shares the same advantages but does not have the latter drawback has been proposed in Ref. . It is based on possible violation of Lorentz invariance at high energies  (see, e.g.,  for further discussion of Lorentz invariance violation in the context of UHECR). Models of this type can be constructed without giving up the main principles of quantum field theory in the framework of the brane world scenario . Under rather general assumptions, violation of Lorentz invariance can be described phenomenologically by introducing different maximum velocities for different particles. As noted in Ref. , these parameters can be arranged in such a way that the main cause of the GZK cutoff, the pion photoproduction process, is not operative. At the same value of parameters, neutron may become heavier than proton at sufficiently high energy, and therefore stable. Thus, it can serve as a neutral primary particle which is indistinguishable from proton in other respects. Moreover, protons (which are stable at low energies) may be accelerated in a usual way. Once they reach the threshold energy and become unstable, they decay into neutrons by “$`\beta `$-decay” with no loss in the flux and practically no loss in energy. Another way to produce UHE neutrons is in collisions of UHE protons with synchrotron photons in the acceleration site.

How the above models can be distinguished? A clear signature of the neutrino model is the direct detection of ultra-high energy neutrinos, whose flux is expected to be in the range of sensitivity of the Pierre Auger and Telescope Array experiments . An indirect argument in favor of neutrino models would be identification of the neutral component as photons. On the contrary, the hadronic neutral component speaks in favor of light SUSY hadron models or violation of Lorentz invariance.

The purpose of this paper is to point out the signature which can discriminate between the latter two possibilities. It is based on the fact that within the model of Ref.  the behavior of proton and neutron masses with energy follows a certain pattern: with increasing energy, first the neutron becomes stable at some energy $`E_0`$, and then proton becomes unstable at some higher energy $`E_1>E_0`$. In other words, there is a window in which both neutron and proton are stable, while at higher energies proton becomes unstable. Thus, in the model of Ref. , one generically expects that there is only charged component at $`E<E_0`$, both charged and neutral components at $`E_0<E<E_1`$, and only neutral component at $`E>E_1`$. The appearance and disappearance of components is a threshold effect and is, therefore, a step-like function of energy. This step-like behavior is the specific signature of models with violation of Lorentz invariance.

## 2 Kinematics of the nucleon decays

Let us now calculate the width of the energy window in which the two components coexist. Following Ref.  consider the model characterized by the maximum attainable velocities of neutron, proton, electron and neutrino equal to $`c_n`$, $`c_p`$, $`c_e`$ and $`c_\nu `$, respectively. Without loss of generality one may set

$$c_n=1.$$

Certainly, $`c_p`$, $`c_e`$ and $`c_\nu `$ should be very close to 1 as well. The differences between them are at the level of $`10^{20}`$ . As it was shown in Ref. , the neutron is stable at high energies only if

$$c_p,c_e,c_\nu 1.$$

Moreover, if $`c_p1`$ then proton becomes unstable at high enough energy. We will show that the ratio $`E_0/E_1`$ is determined by the parameter

$$\alpha \frac{c_e^2c_n^2}{c_p^2c_n^2},$$
(1)
while the absolute magnitudes of both $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are proportional to $`ϵ^1`$, where

$$ϵ(c_p^2c_n^2)^{1/2}.$$
(2)
Following the formalism of Ref. , let us find the energy $`E_0`$ above which the neutron is stable, as a function of the parameters $`c_p`$, $`c_e`$ and $`c_\nu `$. In order to do this one has to find the minimum possible energy $`E_{\mathrm{mn}}(p_n)`$ of the potential decay products, i.e. proton, electron and neutrino, at fixed total momentum $`p_n`$. The condition of stability of the neutron with the momentum $`p_n`$ and energy $`E_n=\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}`$ has the form

$$\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}E_{\mathrm{mn}}(p_n).$$
(3)
As it was shown in Ref. , the equality in Eq. (3) may hold only at one value of the momentum $`p_n`$. Consequently, the energy $`E_0`$ is equal to

$$E_0=\sqrt{p_0^2+m_n^2},$$
(4)
where $`p_0`$ is a solution to the equation

$$\sqrt{p_0^2+m_n^2}=E_{mn}(p_0).$$
(5)
Clearly, the minimum total energy of the proton, electron and neutrino with the fixed total momentum is achieved when the momenta of all three particles are collinear. Thus, in order to calculate $`E_{mn}(p_0)`$ one should find the minimum value of the following function

$$_n(p_p,p_e,p_\nu )=c_p\sqrt{p_p^2+m_p^2c_p^2}+c_e\sqrt{p_e^2+m_e^2c_e^2}+c_\nu p_\nu $$
(6)
of three positive variables $`p_p,p_e`$ and $`p_\nu `$ subject to the constraint

$$p_0=p_p+p_e+p_\nu .$$
(7)
This minimum may be either an extremum of the function $`_n(p_p,p_e,p_\nu )`$, or belong to the boundary of the triangular region determined by the constraint (7) and positivity conditions

$$p_p,p_e,p_\nu 0.$$

As is shown in the Appendix, the minimum is achieved at zero neutrino energy and momentum,

$$p_\nu =0.$$

Therefore, in order to find the energy at which neutron becomes stable one should study the kinematics of two-body decay $`npe`$. As a consequence, $`E_0`$ does not depend on the neutrino velocity $`c_\nu `$. The problem reduces to the following system of equations

$`p_0`$ $`=`$ $`p_e+p_p`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_ep_e}{\sqrt{p_e^2+m_e^2c_e^2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_pp_p}{\sqrt{p_p^2+m_p^2c_p^2}}}`$ (9)
$`\sqrt{p_0^2+m_n^2}`$ $`=`$ $`c_e\sqrt{p_e^2+m_e^2c_e^2}+c_p\sqrt{p_p^2+m_p^2c_p^2}.`$ (10)
Here eq.(8) is the momentum conservation condition (7) with $`p_\nu =0`$, eq.(9) is the extremality condition for the function $`(p_p,p_e,0)`$ and eq.(9) is the stability condition (5). It is straightforward to solve this system analytically in the case $`c_e=c_p`$ with the result

$$E_0\sqrt{\frac{m_n^2(m_p+m_e)^2}{c_p^21}}3.85\times 10^{19}\left(\frac{10^{12}}{ϵ}\right)\text{eV},$$
(11)
in agreement with Ref. .

In the case $`c_pc_e`$ it is convenient to express the velocities in terms of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ`$ according to

$$c_p^2=1+ϵ^2,c_e^2=1+\alpha ϵ^2,$$

and rescale the momenta

$$p_i=\frac{q_i}{ϵ}.$$

We assume $`ϵ`$ to be very small, but make no assumptions about the value of $`\alpha `$. Expanding eqs.(8)-(10) to the lowest non-trivial order in $`ϵ`$ we obtain a system of polynomial equations for three unknowns $`q_0,q_p,q_e`$, which depends on one parameter $`\alpha `$. This system can be solved for $`q_0`$ numerically. The threshold energy is determined by the relation

$$E_0=\frac{q_0(\alpha )}{ϵ},$$
(12)
where the difference between $`E_0`$ and $`p_0`$ has been neglected. The numerical solution for $`q_0`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ is plotted in Fig. 1.

Let us now find the threshold energy $`E_1`$ above which the decay $`pne\overline{\nu }`$ is kinematicaly allowed. We follow the similar procedure as in the case of neutron, i.e., find the threshold momentum $`p_1`$ from the equation

$$c_p\sqrt{p_1^2+m_p^2c_p^2}=E_{mp}(p_1),$$
(13)
where $`E_{mp}(p_p)`$ is the minimum total energy of a neutron, electron and neutrino with the fixed total momentum $`p_p`$. This energy is obtained by the minimization of the function

$$_p(p_n,p_e,p_\nu )=\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}+c_e\sqrt{p_e^2+m_e^2c_e^2}+c_\nu p_\nu $$
(14)
under the constraints

$$p_n+p_e+p_\nu =p_p,p_n,p_e,p_\nu 0.$$
(15)
As in the case of a neutron one may show that the minimum is reached at $`p_\nu =0`$ and therefore it is sufficient to study the kinematics of the two-body decay $`pne`$ when both momenta $`p_p`$ and $`p_e`$ are non-zero. The system of equations determining the threshold momentum $`p_1`$ has the following form (cf. Eqs. (8)-(10))

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`p_e+p_n`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_ep_e}{\sqrt{p_e^2+m_e^2c_e^2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_n}{\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}}}`$ (17)
$`c_p\sqrt{p_1^2+c_p^2m_p^2}`$ $`=`$ $`c_e\sqrt{p_e^2+c_e^2m_e^2}+\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}.`$ (18)
Again, the solution is straightforward to find in the case $`c_p=c_e`$ (cf. Ref. ),

$$E_1\frac{\sqrt{m_n^2(m_pm_e)^2}}{ϵ}5.83\times 10^{19}\left(\frac{10^{12}}{ϵ}\right)\text{eV},$$
(19)
At $`c_pc_e`$, the solution can be obtained numerically. The resulting function $`q_1(\alpha )`$ is plotted in Fig. 1. At small $`ϵ`$, the threshold energy $`E_1`$ is related to $`q_1(\alpha )`$ by

$$E_1=\frac{q_1(\alpha )}{ϵ}.$$
(20)
Comparing Eqs.(11) and (19) one finds that the ratio $`E_1/E_01.5`$ at $`c_p=c_e`$ (i.e., at $`\alpha =1`$). It grows with $`\alpha `$, as is shown in Fig. 2. The dependence becomes nearly linear at the values $`\alpha >m_p/m_e2000`$.

## 3 Discussion

As we have seen in Sect. 2, the threshold energies of neutron stability and proton instability, $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$, depend on two parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\alpha `$ as defined by eqs. (12) and (20). The parameter $`ϵ`$ sets an overall scale of $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$, while the parameter $`\alpha `$ uniquely determines the ratio $`E_1/E_0`$. This ratio is always larger than $`1.5`$.

In order to be of phenomenological interest, the neutron stability threshold $`E_0`$ must be low enough. If clustering in Yakutsk data  is attributed to neutrons, the existence of triplet with energies $`(2.5;2.8;3.4)\times 10^{19}`$ eV implies $`E_0<2.5\times 10^{19}`$ eV. At $`\alpha m_p/m_e`$ this requires in turn $`ϵ>1.5\times 10^{12}`$, or $`c_p^2c_n^2>2\times 10^{24}`$ (this constraint is somewhat weaker for large values of $`\alpha `$, see fig.1). This constraint does not contradict the existing upper bounds  on $`c_p^21`$ and $`c_n^21`$. Interestingly, the threshold at $`E_0`$ may, in principle, be detected (or ruled out) with already existing experimental data at low energies $`E<4\times 10^{19}`$ eV. For this analysis the key issue is the angular resolution of the experiment, so the AGASA data seems the most suitable choice. Note that the improvement of upper limits on $`c_p^2c_n^2`$ may rule out the models which explain the neutral component of UHECR by the violation of the Lorentz invariance.

The threshold of proton instability $`E_1`$ is more difficult to detect since this would require good identification of charged component. In principle, this can be done by making use of the deflections in the Galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields. Two different situations should be distinguished. If at energies smaller than $`E_1`$ the extragalactic fields cause random deflections by angles larger than the typical distance between the sources, the charged component would look like a uniform background. It will be difficult, if possible at all, to separate such a component from unresolved sources.

On the contrary, if random deflections are smaller than typical separation between the sources, one would see “halos” of the events formed by charged primary particles around clusters of the events with neutral primaries. If correlations with BL Lacs at large angles  are believed, current data favor the latter situation. If so, with enough statistics one will be able to identify the charged component reliably. Even better situation is possible if random deflections are negligible. In that case not only the charged particles can be identified, but their charges and the structure of magnetic fields can, in principle, be determined.

It is worth noting that models with exotic neutral primaries also generically predict the flux of charged particles, the direct protons from the source. The difference with the previous case is that in these models the proton component has a conventional GZK cutoff which occurs at fixed and calculable energy $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$, while the proton instability threshold $`E_1`$ is, in general, different. If by chance $`E_1E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$, the discrimination between the two models would be very difficult.

To summarize, we argue that the characteristic threshold behavior of charged and neutral components in models with violation of Lorentz invariance can be used as their experimental signature. Upper bound on the neutron stability threshold $`E_0`$ can be obtained from already existing data. the proton stability threshold $`E_1`$ may be seen by the Pierre Auger experiment  where about 1000 events in the energy range $`10^{19}10^{20}`$ eV are expected in a year.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to M. Teshima and V. Rubakov for useful discussions. This work is supported by the Swiss Science Foundation, grant 21-58947.99. The work of S.D is supported in part by RFBR grant 99-01-18410, by the Council for Presidential Grants and State Support of Leading Scientific Schools, grant 00-15-96626, by Swiss Science Foundation grant 7SUPJ062239 and by CRDF grant (award RP1-2103). S.D. thanks IPT, University of Lausanne, for hospitality.

## Appendix. Minimization of $`_n(p_p,p_e,p_\nu )`$

It is straightforward to check that function $`_n(p_p,p_e,p_\nu )`$ has an extremum inside the triangular region if the inequality $`c_p,c_e>c_\nu `$ and the following condition is satisfied

$$p_n>\frac{c_\nu c_e}{(c_e^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}}m_e+\frac{c_\nu c_p}{(c_p^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}}m_p.$$
(21)
The total energy of the proton, electron and neutrino in this extremum is

$$E_1(p_n)=c_\nu p_n+m_pc_p(c_p^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}+m_ec_e(c_e^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}.$$
(22)
Now one can readily check that the equation

$$\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}=E_1(p_n)$$

is incompatible with the inequality (21). Therefore, in order to determine the threshold momentum $`p_0`$ of neutron stability one should find the minimum value of the function $`_n(p_p,p_e,p_\nu )`$ on the boundary of momentum region. For that one should consider six cases when either one or two of the momenta $`p_p,p_e,p_\nu `$ are zero.

Let us start with the case $`p_e=0`$. The function $`_n(p_p,0,p_\nu )`$ has an extremum with respect to $`p_p`$ and $`p_\nu `$ provided that $`c_p>c_\nu `$ and

$$p_n>\frac{c_\nu c_p}{(c_p^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}}m_p.$$

The energy corresponding to this extremum is

$$E_2(p_n)=c_\nu p_n+m_pc_p(c_p^2c_\nu ^2)^{1/2}+m_ec_e^2.$$

This energy becomes larger than the energy of neutron with the momentum $`p_n`$ at very low momenta $`p_n(m_n^2m_e^2)/2m_e`$. Thus, this kinematical channel of the neutron decay is closed at energies higher than a few GeV even in the Lorentz-invariant case. It is straightforward to check that the same happens in the case $`p_p=0`$ and when any two momenta of the decay products are zero. Therefore, the minimum of interest corresponds to the case $`p_\nu =0`$.

The threshold of proton instability is found in a similar way. The result is the following: in order to find the energy $`E_1`$, where proton becomes unstable one should set $`p_\nu =0`$ and study two-body decay $`pn,e`$. To illustrate some differences with the case of neutron decay, let us consider just one alternative kinematical regime, corresponding to point on the boundary of the region determined by (15) where only the proton momentum is non-zero. In this case equation (13) reduces to

$$c_p\sqrt{p_1^2+m_p^2c_p^2}=\sqrt{p_n^2+m_n^2}+m_e^2c_e^4$$

which gives

$$p_1\frac{2m_e}{c_p^21}$$

This value is indeed much larger than the one in the extremum with non-zero $`p_e`$, see Eq. (19) and Fig. 1.


text:
# References

Bi-Hamiltonian structure as a shadow of non-Noether symmetry
George Chavchanidze

## Abstract

In the present paper correspondence between non-Noether symmetries and bi-Hamiltonian structures is disscussed. We show that in regular Hamiltonian systems presence of the global bi-Hamiltonian structure is caused by symmetry of the space of solution. As an example well known bi-Hamiltonian realisation of Korteweg- De Vries equation is disscussed.

2000 Mathematical Subject Classification: 70H33, 70H06, 53Z05
Key words and phrases: Bi-Hamiltonian system, Non-Noether symmetry, Non-Cartan symmetry, Korteweg- De Vries equation.

Noether theorem, Lutzky’s theorem, bi-Hamiltonian formalism and bidifferential calculi are often used in generating conservation laws and all this approaches are unified by the single idea - to construct conserved quantities out of some invariant geometric object (generator of the symmetry - Hamiltonian vector field in Noether theorem, non-Hamiltonian one in Lutzky’s approach, closed 2-form in bi-Hamiltonian formalism and auxiliary differential in case of bidifferential calculi). There is close relationship between later three approaches. Some aspects of this relationship has been uncovered in \[3-4\]. In the present paper it is discussed how bi-Hamiltonian structure can be interpreted as a manifestation of symmetry of space of solutions. Good candidate for this role is non-Noether symmetry. Such a symmetry is a group of transformation that maps the space of solutions of equations of motion onto itself, but unlike the Noether one, does not preserve action.
In the case of regular Hamiltonian system phase space is equipped with symplectic form $`\omega `$ (closed $`d\omega =0`$ and nondegenerate $`i_X\omega =0X=0`$ 2-form) and time evolution is governed by Hamilton’s equation

$`i_{X_h}\omega +dh=0`$ (1)
where $`X_h`$ is vector field tangent to solutions $`X_h=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\dot{p}_i_{p_i}+\dot{q}_i_{q_i}`$ and $`i_{X_h}\omega `$ denotes contraction of $`X_h`$ and $`\omega `$. Vector field is said to be (locally) Hamiltonian if it preserves $`\omega `$. According to the Liouville’s theorem $`X_h`$ defined by (1) automatically preserves $`\omega `$ (indeed $`L_{X_h}\omega =di_{X_h}\omega +i_{X_h}d\omega =ddh=0`$).
One can show that group of transformations of phase space generated by any non-Hamiltonian vector field $`E`$

$`g(a)=e^{aL_E}`$ (2)
does not preserve action

$`g_{}(A)=g_{}({\displaystyle p𝑑q}hdt)={\displaystyle g_{}(pdqhdt)}0`$ (3)
because $`d(L_E(pdqhdt))=L_E\omega dE(h)dt0`$ (first term in rhs does not vanish since $`E`$ is non-Hamiltonian and as far as $`E`$ is time independent $`L_E\omega `$ and $`dE(h)dt`$ are linearly independent 2-forms). As a result every non-Hamiltonian vector field $`E`$ commuting with $`X_h`$ leads to the non-Noether symmetry (since $`E`$ preserves vector field tangent to solutions $`L_E(X_h)=[E,X_h]=0`$ it maps the space of solutions onto itself). Any such symmetry yields the following integrals of motion \[1-2\], \[4-5\]

$`l_k=Tr(R^k)k=1,2\mathrm{}n`$ (4)
where $`R=\omega ^1L_E\omega `$ and $`n`$ is half-dimension of phase space.
It is interesting that for any non-Noether symmetry, triple $`(h,\omega ,\omega _E)`$ carries bi-Hamiltonian structure ( §4.12 in , \[7-9\]). Indeed $`\omega _E`$ is closed ($`d\omega _E=dL_E\omega =L_Ed\omega =0`$) and invariant ($`L_{X_h}\omega _E=L_{X_h}L_E\omega =L_EL_{X_h}\omega =0`$) 2-form (but generic $`\omega _E`$ is degenerate). So every non-Noether symmetry quite naturally endows dynamical system with bi-Hamiltonian structure.
Now let’s discuss how non-Noether symmetry can be recovered from bi-Hamiltonian system. Generic bi-Hamiltonian structure on phase space consists of Hamiltonian system $`h,\omega `$ and auxiliary closed 2- form $`\omega ^{}`$ satisfying $`L_{X_h}\omega ^{}=0`$. Let us call it global bi-Hamiltonian structure whenever $`\omega ^{}`$ is exact (there exists 1-form $`\theta ^{}`$ such that $`\omega ^{}=d\theta ^{}`$) and $`X_h`$ is (globally) Hamiltonian vector field with respect to $`\omega ^{}`$ ($`i_{X_h}\omega ^{}+dh^{}=0`$). In the local coordinates $`\theta ^{}=\theta _i^{}dz^i.`$ As far as $`\omega `$ is nondegenerate there exists vector field $`E^{}=E^i_{z^i}`$ such that $`i_E^{}\omega =\theta ^{}`$ (in local coordinates $`E^i=(\omega ^1)^{ij}\theta _j^{}`$). By construction

$`L_E^{}\omega =\omega ^{}`$ (5)
Indeed $`L_E^{}\omega =di_E^{}\omega +i_E^{}d\omega =d\theta ^{}=\omega ^{}`$.
And

$`i_{[E^{},X_h]}\omega =L_E^{}(i_{X_h}\omega )i_{X_h}L_E^{}\omega =d(E^{}(h)h^{})=dh^{}`$ (6)
In other words $`[X_h,E^{}]`$ is Hamiltonian vector field, i. e., $`[X_h,E]=X_h^{}`$. So $`E^{}`$ is not generator of symmetry since it does not commute with $`X_h`$ but one can construct (locally) Hamiltonian counterpart of $`E^{}`$ (note that $`E^{}`$ itself is non-Hamiltonian) - $`X_g`$ with

$`g(z)={\displaystyle _0^t}h^{}𝑑t.`$ (7)
Here integration along solution of Hamilton’s equation, with fixed origin and end point in $`z(t)=z`$, is assumed. Note that (7) defines $`g(z)`$ only locally and, as a result, $`X_g`$ is a locally Hamiltonian vector field, satisfying, by construction, the same commutation relations as $`E^{}`$ (namely $`[X_h,X_g]=X_h^{}`$). Finally one recovers generator of non-Noether symmetry - non-Hamiltonian vector field $`E=E^{}X_g`$ commuting with $`X_h`$ and satisfying

$`L_E\omega =L_E^{}\omega L_{X_g}\omega =L_E^{}\omega =\omega ^{}`$ (8)
(thanks to Liouville’s theorem $`L_{X_g}\omega =0`$). So in case of regular Hamiltonian system every global bi-Hamiltonian structure is naturally associated with (non-Noether) symmetry of space of solutions.

Example 1 As a toy example one can consider free particle

$`h={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i^2\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dp_idq_i`$ (9)
this Hamiltonian system can be extended to the bi-Hamiltonian one

$`h,\omega ,\omega ^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_idp_idq_i`$ (10)
clearly $`d\omega ^{}=0`$ and $`X_h=_ip_i_{q_i}`$ preserves $`\omega ^{}`$. Conserved quantities $`p_i`$ are associated with this simple bi-Hamiltonian structure. This system can be obtained from the following (non-Noether) symmetry (infinitesimal form)

$`q_i(1+ap_i)q_i`$ (11)
$`p_i(1+ap_i)p_i`$ (12)
generated by $`E=_ip_iq_i_{q_i}+_ip_i^2_{p_i}`$

Example 2. The earliest and probably the most well known bi-Hamiltonian structure is the one discovered by F. Magri and assosiated with Korteweg- De Vries integrable hierarchy. The KdV equation

$`u_t+u_{xxx}+uu_x=0`$ (13)
(zero boundary conditions for $`u`$ and its derivatives are assumed) appears to be Hamilton’s equation

$`i_{X_h}\omega +dh=0`$ (14)
where $`X_h=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xu_t_u`$ (here $`_u`$ denotes variational derivative with respect to the field $`u(x)`$) is the vector field tangent to the solutions,

$`\omega ={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x𝑑udv`$ (15)
is the symplectic form (here $`v=_x^1u`$) and the function

$`h={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{3}}u_x^2)`$ (16)
plays the role of Hamiltonian. This dynamical system possesses non-trivial symmetry - one-parameter group of non-cannonical transformations $`g(a)=e^{L_E}`$ generated by the non-Hamiltonian vector field

$`E={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x(u_{xx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u^2)_u+X_F`$ (17)
here first term represents non-Hamiltonian part of the generator of the symmetry, while the second one is its Hamiltonian counterpart assosiated with

$`F={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}u^2v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{3}}u_x^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}v{\displaystyle \frac{l_3}{l_2}})𝑑x`$ (18)
($`l_{2,3}`$ are defined in (19). The physical origin of this symmetry is unclear, however the symmetry seems to be very important since it leads to the celebrated infinite sequence of conservation laws in involution:

$`l_1={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}u𝑑x`$
$`l_2={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}u^2𝑑x`$
$`l_3={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{3}}u_x^2)𝑑x`$
$`l_4={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}u^4{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}uu_x^2+u_{xx}^2)𝑑x`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{}`$
and ensures integrability of KdV equation. Second Hamiltonian realization of KdV equation discovered by F. Magri

$`i_{X_h^{}}\omega ^{}+dh^{}=0`$ (20)
(where $`\omega ^{}=L_E\omega `$ and $`h^{}=L_Eh`$) is a result of invariance of KdV under aforementioned transformations $`g(a)`$.

Acknowledgements. Author is grateful to Z. Giunashvili for constructive discussions and to G. Jorjadze for support. This work was supported by INTAS (00-00561) and Scholarship from World Federation of Scientists.

Author’s Address:
A. Razmadze Mathematical Institute
1 Aleksidze St. , Tbilisi 380093, Georgia
E-mail: gch@rmi.acnet.ge