text:
# Measurements of Inclusive 𝐵→𝜓 Production

CLEO Collaboration

(May 5, 2002)

## Abstract

Using the combined CLEO II and CLEO II.V data sets of 9.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, we measure properties of $`\psi `$ mesons produced directly from decays of the $`B`$ meson, where “$`B`$” denotes an admixture of $`B^+`$, $`B^{}`$, $`B^0`$, and $`\overline{B^0}`$, and “$`\psi `$” denotes either $`J/\psi (1S)`$ or $`\psi (2S)`$. We report first measurements of $`\psi `$ polarization in $`B\psi \text{(direct)}X`$: $`\alpha _{\psi (1S)}=0.30_{0.06}^{+0.07}\pm 0.04`$ and $`\alpha _{\psi (2S)}=0.45_{0.19}^{+0.22}\pm 0.04`$. We also report improved measurements of the momentum distributions of $`\psi `$ produced directly from $`B`$ decays, correcting for measurement smearing. Finally, we report measurements of the inclusive branching fraction for $`B\psi X`$ and $`B\chi _{c1}X`$.

preprint:   CLNS 02/1785 CLEO 02-06

Inclusive production of $`\psi `$ is currently understood in the framework of Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD) effective field theory Bodwin et al. (1995). In 1995, measurements of prompt $`\psi `$ production at the Tevatron F. Abe et al. (1997a, b) ruled out the then-dominant Color Singlet Model (CSM); in contrast, NRQCD calculations Braaten and Fleming (1995) could accommodate the relatively large production rate. However, measurements of the polarization of these prompt $`\psi `$ T. Affolder et al. (2000) deviated from NRQCD calculations at high $`p_T`$. The precision of these calculations is limited by the knowledge of the process-independent, long-distance matrix elements (LDME’s), which also appear in NRQCD calculations of $`\psi `$ production in $`B`$ decays. The polarization of $`\psi `$ produced from $`B`$ decays Ma (2000a); Fleming et al. (1997) is sensitive to the color-octet LDME’s; however, these calculations have been done only to leading order (LO). The momentum distribution of $`\psi `$ produced in $`B`$ decays Beneke et al. (2000, 1999); Palmer et al. (1997) is also sensitive to the dominant color octet terms, particularly at low $`p_\psi `$. Additionally, the low-momentum region would also be affected by the existence of an intrinsic charm component in $`B`$ mesons Chang and Hou (2001). Finally, the inclusive branching fraction $`(B\psi X)`$ Beneke et al. (1999); Ma (2000b); Ko et al. (1995) constrains a sum of LDME’s. This Letter reports measurements of these three properties of $`\psi `$ production in $`B`$ decays, which could significantly improve the knowledge of the non-perturbative parameters of NRQCD.

Our analysis Kim (2002) is based on 9.7 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events ($`9.1\text{fb}^1`$) produced on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. Additionally, $`4.4\text{fb}^1`$ of data collected slightly below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance were used to subtract the small $`(2\%)`$ contribution of continuum ($`e^+e^{}q\overline{q},q\{u,d,c,s\}`$) $`\psi (1S)`$ production. The $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions were delivered by the Cornell Electron Stoarge Ring (CESR) and detected with two configurations of the CLEO detector, CLEO II Y. Kubota et al. (1992) and CLEO II.V Hill (1998).

We select events that have spherical energy distributions and are likely to be hadronic. We reconstruct $`\psi `$ candidates in the dilepton modes $`\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\psi e^+(\gamma )e^{}(\gamma )`$. The selection criteria were chosen with a goal of high detection efficiency. In the di-muon channel, at least one of the muon candidates must penetrate at least 3 interaction lengths into the iron of the solenoid return yoke; if only one candidate satisfies this, then the other candidate must leave a shower in the crystal calorimeter which is consistent with that of a minimum ionizing particle. In the di-electron channel, we use shower information from the crystal calorimeter and measurements of specific ionization from the drift chamber to identify electron candidates. We also attempt to recover up to one Bremsstrahlung photon for each electron candidate. To do this, we select the most collinear shower within a five-degree cone around the initial electron direction; furthermore, the shower must not be associated with any track, and, when combined with any other shower in the event, must not result in an invariant mass consistent with a $`\pi ^0`$. The PDG 2001 D. E. Groom et al. (2000) branching fractions are used to combine results from the electron and muon channels, except for $`(\psi (2S)\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$, which we assume by lepton universality to be equal to $`(\psi (2S)e^+e^{})`$, with an uncertainty of 20% of itself; this is consistent with recent measurements B. Aubert et al. (2001).

About 30% of $`\psi (1S)`$ from $`B`$ decays have intermediate parents of $`\psi (2S)`$ or $`\chi _{c1}`$ D. E. Groom et al. (2000). Our measurements of directly produced $`\psi (1S)`$ are obtained by subtracting the contributions of these “feed-down” $`\psi (1S)`$ from the inclusive $`\psi (1S)`$ sample. For every event with a $`\psi (1S)`$ candidate within $`{}_{50}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+25}`$ MeV of the nominal mass, we search for these intermediate parents through the decay chains $`\chi _{c1}\psi (1S)\gamma `$ and $`\psi (2S)\psi (1S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. We reconstruct $`(M_{\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ and $`(M_{\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma }M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, which have better resolution than the reconstructed $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\chi _{c1}`$ invariant masses themselves. In the $`\psi (2S)\psi (1S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay chain, we reduce low-momentum pion background by requiring $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}>0.45`$ GeV, which has a efficiency of about 85%, from Monte Carlo simulation. This decay mode is also used to improve the statistics in our measurements of the inclusive branching fraction and the $`\psi (2S)`$ momentum distribution in $`B\psi (2S)X`$. We do not reconstruct the related decay $`\psi (2S)\psi (1S)\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, and argue that the properties of $`\psi (1S)`$ from this decay are identical to those of $`\psi (1S)`$ from $`\psi (2S)\psi (1S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$; the kinematic difference in the momentum distribution is small compared to the experimental resolution, and the isospin state of the $`\pi \pi `$ state has no bearing on the polarization of the $`\psi (1S)`$.

The CLEO Monte Carlo simulation, based on GEANT Application Software Group, Computing and Networks Division, CERN (1993), is used to obtain the invariant mass lineshape for signal events and to estimate the detection efficiency. In these simulated signal events, one of the $`B`$ mesons decays via one of the decay chains listed above. For each decay chain, we generate two samples of events; one with all $`\psi `$ longitudinally polarized, the other with all $`\psi `$ transversely polarized. We find that the detection efficiency varies slightly as a function of $`\psi `$ momentum and polarization.

The procedure and results for the inclusive branching fraction and momentum distribution measurements are as follows. We divide the data into partitions in $`p_\psi `$, the momentum of the $`\psi `$ candidate, using a binsize of 0.1 GeV/$`c`$. For each partition, the invariant mass distribution of $`\psi `$ candidates is fit to a sum of a signal lineshape, obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation, and a cubic polynomial background. The average $`\chi ^2`$ of the fits is consistent with the number of degrees of freedom, thus justifying our choice of the above parametrization. We repeat this procedure using signal Monte Carlo events, binning in generated $`\psi `$ momentum, to obtain detection efficiencies as a function of $`p_\psi `$. The data is then corrected for detection efficiency bin by bin; this minimizes the effect of any discrepancy between the true $`p_\psi `$ distribution and that generated by the Monte Carlo simulation. Similarly, we fit the invariant mass distributions of $`(M_{\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ and $`(M_{\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma }M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, to extract efficiency-corrected yields of feed-down $`\psi (1S)`$. We thus obtain momentum distributions of $`\psi (1S)`$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ which have been corrected for detection efficiency, $`\psi (1S)`$ feed-down, and continuum background. The yields are then normalized by $`n_B\times (\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\pi ^+\pi ^{}))`$, where $`n_B`$ is the number of $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ mesons in the data; the uncertainties in these quantities are reflected in our results as an overall scale factor error. Inclusive branching fractions are obtained by summing the normalized momentum distributions over all bins. Finally, the Monte Carlo simulation is used to obtain a matrix which correlates the momentum of the $`\psi `$ as generated to the momentum as measured; by inverting this matrix and applying it to the observed momentum distribution, we are able to deconvolve the effects of detector measurement smearing from the distribution.

We investigate the possible sources of systematic error; for each source, we make an appropriate modification to the measurement procedure and observe the deviation of the resulting yield relative to the nominal procedure. The deviations are then combined to obtain final systematic errors. The sources of error are grouped as follows: (1) Monte Carlo simulation of track and shower finding, electron and muon identification, $`\psi `$ polarization, global event and kinematic cuts, (2) invariant mass fit procedure; (3) branching fractions of unmeasured modes; and (4) overall scale factor.

The results for the inclusive branching fractions are given in Table 1 and the momentum distributions are shown in Figure 1. Our branching fraction results are consistent with previous published measurements R. Balest et al. (1995) as well as preliminary measurements Brigljevic (2001), and are limited by systematic errors. The combined error for $`(B\psi (1S)(\text{direct})X)`$ is smaller than the error of the PDG 2001 average D. E. Groom et al. (2000) by a factor of two. However, the theoretical uncertainties in the NRQCD calculations of the branching fractions are such that the improved accuracy of this measurement is unlikely to further constrain the NRQCD LDME’s. The momentum distributions reported here are the first to subtract the measured distributions of feed-down and continuum $`\psi `$, correct for detector measurement smearing, and analyze systematic errors for each bin individually. Figure 1(b) is also the first to show the momentum distribution of multibody ($`3`$-body) decays in $`B\psi (2S)X`$ production; these decays account for much of the total $`B\psi (2S)X`$ production, as is also the case with $`B\psi (1S)X`$ Beneke et al. (1999). It should be possible to update previous phenomenological studies of the $`\psi `$ momentum distribution with these improved measurements.

The polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ is equal to ($`+1`$, 0, $`1`$) for a population of (transversely, randomly, longitudinally) polarized $`\psi `$. For $`\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, it is determined experimentally by measuring the decay angle $`\theta `$, which is defined as the angle between the $`\mathrm{}^+`$ direction in the $`\psi `$ rest frame and the $`\psi `$ direction in the $`B`$ rest frame. The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution for a population of $`\psi `$ is proportional to $`(1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$. The angular distribution is obtained in a similar manner as the momentum distributions: the dataset is partitioned into 5 equal bins in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ between $`1`$ and $`1`$; for each partition, we fit the invariant mass distribution to find the signal yield. In addition to measuring the polarization of direct $`\psi (1S)`$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ for all momenta, we also extract $`\alpha _{\psi (1S)}`$ in 3 coarse momentum bins.

At CLEO, $`B`$ mesons are produced with a small boost in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ (lab) frame, the direction of which is unknown. The boost of the $`B`$ results in a smeared measurement of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$; directly fitting for $`\alpha `$ using the measured $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution would yield a biased result. However, this kinematic smearing is accurately modeled by the Monte Carlo simulation. Our procedure is to generate Monte Carlo events in two sets; one with all $`\psi `$ generated longitudinally, the other with all transverse. The measured $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution from the data is then fit to a sum of the reconstructed $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distributions from the polarized Monte Carlo sets. This procedure correctly accounts for both the boost smearing and detection efficiency. Since the efficiency also depends on $`p_\psi `$, we must ensure that the Monte Carlo distributions of generated $`p_\psi `$ match those of Figure 1; this is accomplished through a rejection technique. Because the observed $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distributions are not directly corrected for detection efficiency, the observed feed-down distributions are corrected only for the efficiency of detecting the additional particles needed to reconstruct the $`\psi (2S)`$ or $`\chi _{c1}`$. The final feed-down and continuum-subtracted angular distributions are shown in Figure 2. The systematic error study included the previously mentioned sources of bias; additionally, we have investigated the possible systematic error arising for the methods for feed-down subtraction and fitting for $`\alpha `$.

The final polarization results are listed in Table 2; these are the first results for the polarization of $`\psi (1S)`$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ from $`B\psi \text{(direct)}X`$. For comparison, we measure $`\alpha =0.35\pm 0.03`$ (statistical error only) for $`\psi (1S)`$ from $`B\psi (1S)\text{(all)}X`$. Our result for $`\alpha _{\psi (1S)}`$ is about $`4`$ standard deviations from zero; this measurement therefore strongly disfavors the color evaporation model of charmonium production Fritzsch (1977), which predicts zero net polarization, independent of the production mechanism. When next-to-leading-order calculations become available, these results also have the potential to significantly constrain the long-distance matrix elements of NRQCD.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Research Corporation, and the Texas Advanced Research Program.


format: text

text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In order to interpret the so-called internal symmetry phenomena, discovered in particle physics, it has been supposed that space-time $`M`$, where these phenomena evolve, may be ten dimensional with lorentzian signature: $`M=^{1,9}`$. In order to obtain ordinary, four dimensional, space-time, the extra dimensions $`(>4)`$ are subsequently eliminated through “dimensional reduction”; that is by confining them in compact manifolds of very small, unobservable size. We will tentatively adopt this, by now almost universally adopted, hypothesis and start by dealing, in its framework, with the dynamics of the elementary constituents of matter, that is of fermions: the quanta of spinor fields (bosons may be represented bilinearly, in general, in terms of fermions).

Spinors are vectors of the automorphism space of Clifford algebras, now these happen to be narrowly correlated with the four existing division algebras: real and complex fields of numbers, quaternions and octonions, and, as we will see, it is through Clifford algebras and through the associated spinor spaces that division algebras manifest their role at the origin of the $`SU(3)SU(2)_LU(1)`$ groups of the standard model, at present the most appropriate to represent internal symmetry. We will show, in fact, that they derive from the complex division algebras. Precisely $`U(1)`$ from complex numbers, $`SU(2)`$ from quaternions, and $`SU(3)`$ from octonions.

In order to prove this correlation we will adopt the spinor geometry as formulated by its discoverer É. Cartan , who has specially stressed the great mathematical elegance of the spinors he named “simple” (renamed “pure” by C. Chevalley ). We will show in fact how the Cartan’s equation defining simple or pure spinors may be identified as the spinor field equations in the ten dimensional space-time $`M`$, after setting to zero the coordinates of the extra-dimensions $`(>4)`$. In this way most of the equations, adopted traditionally ad hoc by theoretical physics, in order to describe the behaviour of fermion multiplets, presenting internal symmetry, are naturally found. The fact that they may be obtained from the traditional, ten dimensional, approach after setting to zero the extra dimensions could mean that these are redundant, at least for some of the internal symmetry groups (like isospin $`SU(2)`$ and flavour $`SU(3)`$). In fact what appears in the spinor field equations are not the covering of rotation groups, like $`SU(2)`$ covering of $`SO(3)`$, but rather the Lie algebras ($`su(2)`$) represented by the generators of the Clifford algebra, meaning then that the corresponding symmetry is generated by reflection groups in spinor space. In this way the origin of the equations of motion can be identified in the Cartan’s equation defining spinor, and then internal symmetry may be directly correlated with the representation of Clifford algebra in terms of the division algebras. So, for example, isospin $`SU(2)`$ derives from the fact that $`\mathrm{}(7,1)=H(8)`$ where $`H`$ stands for quaternions, $`SU(3)`$-flavour from $`\mathrm{Spin}(9,1)SL(2,o)`$, where $`o`$ stands for octonions, and the isomorphism is only meant restricted to the Lie algebra .

Several more properties of Clifford algebras and of associated spinors may plainly explain some problematic features of elementary particles, like the origin of strong and electro weak charges, and perhaps also of their relative values, as well as the correlation of the 3 families of leptons, with the 3 imaginary units of quaternions .

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this approach is that, if one adopts the elegant geometry of simple or pure spinors, the vectors of momentum spaces (bilinear in spinors), where the spinor field equations are formulated, are null and then the corresponding spaces result compact, where then quantum field theory will result, a priori, free from ultraviolet divergencies. Furthermore, if we adopt the É. Cartan’s conjecture that the geometry of simple or pure spinor might be conceived as the elementary constituent of euclidean geometry, a striking parallelism may emerge between geometry and physics, in so far while euclidean geometry is well appropriate to describe classical mechanics of macroscopic matter, the (quantum) mechanics of its elementary constituents; the fermions, will have to be described with the elementary constituent of euclidean geometry: the one of simple or pure spinors. In this framework it appears obvious not only why some elementary particle properties may already appear in Clifford algebras of which spinors build up the representation spaces, but also why euclidean geometry well appropriate to represent celestial mechanics may not be any more adopted for the description of the microscopic world of matter constituents where then the purely euclidean concept of point – event might have to be substituted by that of strings: continuous sums of null-vectors.

## 2 CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS, SPINORS AND CARTAN’S EQUATIONS

We will summarize here some elements of Clifford algebras and associated spinor geometry necessary for the following. For more on the subject see refs. .

### 2.1 Hints on Spinors

Given $`V=^{2n}`$ and the corresponding Clifford algebra $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$, generated by $`\gamma _a`$; a spinor $`\psi `$ is a $`2^n`$-dimensional vector of the endomorphism space $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{}(2n):\psi S`$ and $`\mathrm{}(2n)=\mathrm{End}S`$.

The Cartan’s equation defining $`\psi `$ is:

$$z_a\gamma ^a\psi =0;a=1,2,\mathrm{}2n$$
(2.1)
where $`zV`$, given $`\psi 0`$ (implying $`z_az^a=0`$), defines the $`d`$-dimensional totally null, projective plane $`T_d(\psi )`$. For $`d=n`$ (maximal), $`\psi `$ was named simple (by Cartan ) or pure (by Chevalley ), and, according to Cartan, it is isomorphic (up to a sign) to $`T_n(\psi ):=M(\psi )`$.

Given $`\mathrm{}(2n)=\mathrm{End}S`$ and $`\psi ,\varphi S`$, we have :

$$\varphi B\psi =\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}F_j$$
(2.2)
where $`B`$ is the main automorphism of $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$  and:

$$F_j={}_{[}{}^{}\gamma _{a_1}\gamma _{a_2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_j}{}_{]}{}^{}T_{}^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_j},$$
(2.3)
in which the $`\gamma `$ matrices are antisymmetrized and the emisymmetric tensor $`T`$ is given by:

$$T_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_j}=\frac{1}{2^n}B\psi ,{}_{[}{}^{}\gamma _{a_1}\gamma _{a_2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_j}{}_{]}{}^{}\varphi .$$
(2.4)
Proposition 1: Take $`\varphi =\psi `$ in (2.2), then $`\varphi `$ is simple or pure iff:

$$F_0=F_1=\mathrm{}F_{n1}=0;F_n0$$
(2.5)
while eq.(2.2) becomes:

$$\varphi B\varphi =F_n$$
(2.6)
representing the maximal totally null, plane $`M(\varphi )`$, to which, $`\varphi `$ is isomorphic (up to a sign) .

For $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$ with generators $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{2n}`$ and with volume element (normalized to one) $`\gamma _{2n+1}:=\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{2n}`$ the spinors: $`\psi _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _{2n+1})\psi `$ are named Weyl spinors, which are $`2^{n1}`$-dimensional vectors of the automorphism space of the non simple, even subalgebra $`\mathrm{}_0(2n)`$ of the simple algebra $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$. Weyl spinors may be simple or pure, and they are all so for $`n3`$. For $`n>3`$ the number of constraint equations given by eqs.(2.5) is $`1,10,66,364`$ for $`n=4,5,6,7`$, respectively.

### 2.2 Isomorphisms of Clifford Algebras and of Spinors

There are the isomorphisms of Clifford algebras:

$$\mathrm{}(2n)\mathrm{}_0(2n+1)$$
(2.7)
both central simple. The spinors associated with $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_0(2n+1)`$ are named Dirac and Pauli spinors and are indicated with $`\psi _D`$ and $`\psi _P`$ respectively.

There are also the ismorphisms:

$$\mathrm{}(2n+1)\mathrm{}_0(2n+2)$$
(2.8)
both non simple. The spinors associated with $`\mathrm{}_0(2n+2)`$ are named Weyl spinors and are indicated with $`\psi _W`$.

¿From the above we get the embeddings of Clifford algebras:

$$\mathrm{}(2n)\mathrm{}_0(2n+1)\mathrm{}(2n+1)\mathrm{}_0(2n+2)\mathrm{}(2n+2)$$
(2.9)
and the corresponding ones for spinors:

$$\psi _D\psi _P\psi _P\psi _P\psi _W\psi _W\mathrm{\Psi }_D\psi _D\psi _D$$
(2.10)
which implies that a Dirac or Pauli spinor is isomorphic to a doublet of Dirac, Pauli or Weyl spinors. These isomorphisms may be explicitly represented. In fact let $`\gamma _a`$ be the generators of $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ those of $`\mathrm{}(2n+2)`$. Then we have:

$$\mathrm{and}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(j)}=\sigma _j\gamma _a:\mathrm{\Psi }^{(j)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^{(j)}\\ \psi _2^{(j)}\end{array}\right),j=0,1,2,3$$
(2.11)
where $`\sigma _j`$ are Pauli matrices for $`j=1,2,3`$, while $`\sigma _0:=1_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}`$ is a doublet of Dirac spinors while $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(j)}`$ a doublet of Weyl $`(j=1,2)`$ or Pauli $`(j=3)`$ spinors.

Now define the chiral projectors:

$$L:=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _{2n+1});R:=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _{2n+1}),$$
(2.12)
there are the unitary transformations $`U_j`$:

$$U_j=1L+\sigma _jR=U_j^1;j=0,1,2,3.$$
(2.13)
We have :
Proposition 2: Dirac, Pauli, Weyl spinor doublets are isomorphic.

In fact:

$$U_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{(0)}U_j^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{(j)};U_j\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(j)};A=1,2\mathrm{}2n+2;j=0,1,2,3.$$
(2.14)
Remark: The doublets $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(j)}`$ are geometrically isomorphic, because of eqs.(2.14), however physically inequivalent; in fact (massive) Weyl spinors, as here defined, may not represent free, stable particles, while Dirac and Pauli spinors may.

### 2.3 Cartan’s Equations

Cartan’s equations may be obtained if we multiply eq.(2.3) from the left by $`\gamma _a`$ and from the right by $`\gamma _a\varphi `$ and set it to zero after summing over $`a`$:

$$\gamma _a\varphi B\psi \gamma ^a\varphi =z_a\gamma ^a\varphi =0$$
(2.15)
where

$$z_a=\frac{1}{2^n}B\psi ,\gamma _a\varphi .$$
(2.16)
We have :
Proposition 3: For arbitrary $`\psi `$ in eq.(2.16), $`z_az^a=0`$ if and only if $`\varphi `$ is simple or pure.

Following Cartan  we know that for $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$ only Weyl spinors, or semispinors, how he called them, may be simple. These are spinors with only $`2^{n1}`$ non null components of the even subalgebra $`\mathrm{}_0(2n)`$. Therefore the equations for the $`2^n`$ component simple or pure spinors $`\varphi `$ may be only obtained from $`\mathrm{}(2n+2)`$. Let us therefore consider $`\mathrm{}(2n+2)=\mathrm{End}S`$ with generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ and volume element $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2n+3}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represent a $`2^{n+1}`$ component Dirac spinor. The Cartan’s equation for simple or pure spinors may be written in the form of the Weyl equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$z_A\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2n+3})\mathrm{\Phi }=0,A=1,2,\mathrm{}2n+2$$
(2.17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _+\\ \varphi _{}\end{array}\right)$$
(2.18)
where $`\varphi _\pm `$ are $`2^n`$ component Weyl spinors associated with $`\mathrm{}_0(2n+2)`$. Adopting for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ the representation:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\sigma _1\gamma _a;\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2n+1}=i\sigma _1\gamma _{2n+1};\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2n+2}=i\sigma _21,a=1,2,\mathrm{}2n$$
(2.19)
where $`\gamma _a`$ and $`\gamma _{2n+1}`$ are the generators and volume element of $`\mathrm{}(2n)`$ eqs.(2.17) become:

$$\left(z_a\gamma ^a+z_{2n+1}\gamma ^{2n+1}\pm z_{2n+2}\right)\varphi _\pm =0$$
(2.20)
where $`\varphi _\pm `$ are simple or pure provided they satisfy the 1, 10, 66 constraint equations for $`n=3,4,5`$ respectively.

The above (including Proposition 3) may be easily restricted to the real for pseudoeuclidean Clifford algebras $`\mathrm{}(1,2n1)`$ of lorentzian signature of our interest.

And we obtain :

$$\left(p_a^\pm \gamma ^a+ip_{2n+1}^\pm \gamma _{2n+1}\pm p_{2n+2}^\pm \right)\varphi _\pm =0$$
(2.21)
where the real null vectors are obtained from (2.16) setting $`B=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$; precisely:

$$p_A^\pm =\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2n+3})\mathrm{\Phi },A=1,2,\mathrm{}2n+2$$
(2.22)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ means $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ hermitian conjugate.

For $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ we must have:

$$p_A^\pm p_\pm ^A=0$$
(2.23)
that is $`p^\pm `$ must be null or optical. Because of Proposition 3 eq.(2.23) is satisfied for $`p_A^\pm `$ bilinear in spinors and containing $`\varphi _\pm `$ simple or pure. However, simplicity of $`\varphi _\pm `$ is not a necessary condition for the existence of solutions of eq.(2.21), while eq.(2.23) is necessary.

Remark 1. For $`p^\pm `$ optical eq.(2.21) admits for $`\varphi _\pm `$ non null solutions with components functions of $`p_A^\pm `$. One may also substitute the $`p_A^\pm `$ given in eq.(2.22) in eq.(2.21) by which this becomes a purely spinorial equation. However the spinors $`\varphi _\pm `$ appearing in eq.(2.22) have to be generally different from the ones appearing in eq.(2.21).
Remark 2. Because of the isomorphism discussed in section 2.2, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (2.19) could also be a doublet of Dirac or of Pauli spinors. Precisely there are four of them $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}`$ for $`j=0,1,2,3`$, and they are isomorphic according to eq.(2.14). Correspondingly there are four equivalent equations of the type (2.20) and (2.21) for $`\varphi ^{(j)}`$ with the notation of section 2.2 where $`j=0,3`$ refers to Dirac and Pauli spinors respectively, while $`j=1,2`$ to Weyl ones.

## 3 THE EQUATIONS OF MOTION FOR FERMION MULTIPLETS, THE $`U(1)`$ OF THE STRONG CHARGE

We will now apply the above formalism for spinors to the case of the ten dimensional space-time $`M=^{1,9}`$, trying to derive the classical equations of motion (in first quantization) to be after quantised. For this purpose one generally starts from Lagrangians. However dealing with spinor the transition to the field equations is straightforward and then we may as well start directly from the equations of motion.

Let us then consider $`\mathrm{}(1,9)=\mathrm{End}S`$ with generators $`𝒢_\alpha `$ whose Dirac spinors $`\mathrm{\Phi }S`$ have 32 components (they may also be Majorana since $`\mathrm{}(1,9)=(32)`$). As seen above we may obtain the Cartan’s equations for the corresponding simple or pure spinors starting from $`\mathrm{}(1,11)=\mathrm{End}S`$ with generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$, volume element $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$ and 64 components Dirac spinor $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$:

$$P_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta (1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13})\mathrm{\Xi }=0,\beta =1,2,\mathrm{},12$$
(3.1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_+\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.2)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ 32 component Weyl spinor. From (3.1) we obtain:

$$(P_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha +iP_{11}𝒢_{11}+P_{12})\mathrm{\Phi }=0,\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},10$$
(3.3)
(that is eq.(2.22) with $`n=5`$) where we have taken (3.1) only with the $`+`$ sign and then eliminated the super and subscripts from $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Because of the isomorphisms discussed in section 2.2, we can consider the 32-component spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a Dirac spinor of $`\mathrm{}(1,9)`$. In fact we have only to take for the generators $`𝒢_\alpha `$ and volume element $`𝒢_{11}`$ the representation:

$$𝒢_A=1_2G_A;𝒢_{9,10,11}=i\sigma _{1,2,3}G_9,A=1,2,\mathrm{},8$$
(3.4)
where $`G_A`$ and $`G_9`$ are the generators and volume element of $`\mathrm{}(1,7)`$ and:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }_1\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2\end{array}\right)$$
(3.5)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ are 16 component Dirac spinors of $`\mathrm{}(1,7)`$ and eq.(3.3) becomes:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (P_AG^A+iP_{11}G_9+P_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }_1+i(P_9iP_{10})G_9\mathrm{\Theta }_2& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill (P_AG^AiP_{11}G_9+P_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }_2+i(P_9+iP_{10})G_9\mathrm{\Theta }_1& =0\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.3^{})`$
Now defining:

$$(P_9\pm iP_{10})=\rho e^{i\frac{\phi }{2}}$$
(3.6)
where $`\rho =\sqrt{P_9^2+P_{10}^2}`$, eq.(3.3) may be written in the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (P_AG^A+iP_{11}G_9+P_{12})e^{i\frac{\phi }{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }_1+i\rho G_9\mathrm{\Theta }_2& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill (P_AG^AiP_{11}G_9+P_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }_2+i\rho G_9e^{i\frac{\phi }{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }_1& =0\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.3^{\prime \prime })`$
which manifests the $`U(1)`$ invariance of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ spinor with respect to a phase factor $`e^{i\frac{\phi }{2}}`$ corresponding to a rotation of an angle $`\phi `$ in the circle.

$$P_9^2+P_{10}^2=\rho ^2$$
(3.7)
generated in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ spinor space by $`𝒢_9𝒢_{10}`$.

We will interpret it as the origin of the strong charge for the quadruplet of fermions represented by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ of which those represented by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ should then be free. Then it is natural to conjecture that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1:=\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ represents baryons and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2:=\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ leptons.

Before trying to define the equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ let us observe that in order to have non null solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for eq.(3.3) the vector $`P`$ must be null:

$$P_\beta P^\beta =0,\beta =1,2\mathrm{},12$$
(3.8)
and if $`P_\beta `$ are bilinear in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and if these are simple or pure this is identically guaranteed by Proposition 3. Now simplicity constraints for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ implies 66 constraint equations which should be further studied. (They forbid most transitions between $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ and could then be at the origin of the stability of the proton .)

## 4 THE BARYONS $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ IN $`M=^{1,9}`$

Let us now derive from eq.(3.3) the equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$. Reminding that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in eq.(3.3) is a $`\mathrm{}(1,9)`$ Dirac spinor we may, exploiting the known isomorphism, adopt the projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1+𝒢_{11})`$, and taking into account that:

$$P_{11}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒢_0𝒢_{11}(1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }0\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒢_0(1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=P_{12}$$
(4.1)
we easily obtain:

$$P_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha (1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=(P_AG^A+iP_9G^9+P_{10})\mathrm{\Theta }_B=0,A=1,2,\mathrm{},8$$
(4.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ may be conceived as $`\mathrm{}(1,9)`$ Weyl spinor or a $`\mathrm{}(1,7)`$ Dirac spinor, apt to represent a quadruplet of $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$-Dirac spinors.

Observe that the 32 component spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ obeying eq.(3.3) in $`P=^{1,11}`$ has been reduced to the 16 component spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ obeying eq.(4.2) in $`P=^{1,9}`$; it might be conceived as a form of “dimensional reduction” by which the dimension of momentum space are decreased of two and, correspondingly, from the equations of motion, two terms are eliminated: that is they are decoupled; therefore in this approach dimensional reduction consists in reducing to one half the dimension of spinor space while decoupling two terms from the equations of motion.

### 4.1 The equations in $`M=^{1,3}`$

Let us now consider $`M=^{1,9}`$ and indicate with $`x_\mu `$ the first four coordinates of ordinary space-time and with $`X_j,(j=5,6,\mathrm{},10)`$ the other six.

Then eq.(4.2) may be considered as the Fourier transform of the spinor field equation in $`M`$:

$$\left(i\frac{}{x_\mu }G^\mu +i\underset{j=5}{\overset{10}{}}\frac{}{X_j}G^j\right)\mathrm{\Theta }_B(x,X)=0$$
(4.3)
where $`G_{10}=1`$.

Let us now restrict it to ordinary space-time $`M=^{1,3}`$ by setting $`X_j=0`$. Then, defining:

$$i\frac{}{X_j}\mathrm{\Theta }_B(x,X)|_{X_j=0}:=P_j(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_B(x)$$
(4.4)
we obtain:

$$\left[i\frac{}{x_\mu }G^\mu +\underset{j=5}{\overset{9}{}}P_j(x)G_j+P_{10}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }_B(x)=0$$
(4.5)
which identifies with (4.2) if $`P_\mu `$ are considered as generators of Poincaré translations: $`P_\mu i\frac{}{x_\mu }`$ and then the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ spinor and $`P_j`$, for $`j>5`$, have to be considered $`x`$-dependent, following (2.22). In eq.(4.5) the terms with $`P_j`$ may be conceived as representing interactions with external fields.

We may then conclude that the Cartan’s equations for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ apt to represent a quadruplet of fermions presenting a strong charge may be identified with those defined in the ten dimensional space-time $`M=^{1,9}`$ after restricting it to $`M=^{1,3}`$.

Let us now remind that, as shown in chapter 3, that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ presents a $`U(1)`$ invariance represented by $`e^{i\frac{\phi }{2}}`$ and from eqs.(3.6) and (4.5) we see that the phase angle $`\phi `$ results $`x`$-dependent, therefore to maintain the covariance we have to introduce in eq.(4.5) a covariant derivative with gauge potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ and the resulting equation (3.3) may be written in the form:

$$\left\{𝒢^\mu \left[i\frac{}{x_\mu }+\frac{ig}{2}(1𝒢_9𝒢_{10})𝒜_\mu \right]+\underset{j=1}{\overset{12}{}}𝒢_jP_j(x)\right\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }_B\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{}\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(4.6)
where $`g`$ is a strong coupling contstant.

Let us see which are the further physical information which can be directly read from eqs.(4.2) or (4.5). To admit non null solutions for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$, the vector $`P`$ has to be null<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1If, in the framework of Cartan’s geometry, we express $`P`$ bilinearly in terms of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$, eq.(4.7) is an identity, because of Proposition 3, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ is simple and it satisfies the ten constraint equations; which could indicate that, while these are geometrically relevant, they are not necessary conditions for the existence of physical fermions, which could be then represented also by non simple or pure spinors.:

$$P_\alpha P^\alpha =0\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},10$$
(4.7)
which defines the invariant mass $``$:

$$P_\mu P^\mu =P_5^2+P_6^2+P_7^2+P_8^2+P_9^2+P_{10}^2=^2$$
(4.8)
in turn defining $`S^5`$ presenting an $`SU(6)`$ group of symmetry orthogonal to the Poincaré group, therefore the maximal internal symmetry for the quadruplet of fermions represented by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ will be $`SU(4)`$, covering of $`SU(6)`$. Observe that dimensional reduction decouples the equations of motion and therefore the invariant mass $``$ will be smaller for fermion doublets and singlets.

### 4.2 Flavour $`SU(3)`$

We know that spinors are vectors of the representation spaces of Clifford algebras and therefore we may expect that already in these we may read some of their properties. Now in this case: $`\mathrm{Spin}(1,9)SL(2,o)`$ where $`o`$ stands for octonions, and the isomorphism is only valid if restricted to the Lie algebra . The automorphism group $`G_2`$ of octonions has a subgroup $`SU(3)`$ if one of its seven imaginary units is fixed, and this could explain the origin of the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry of flavour. In fact it may be shown  that some of the generators $`𝒢_\alpha `$ of $`\mathrm{}(1,9)`$ may be expressed in terms of the seven imaginary units of octonions: $`e_1,e_2,e_3,e_7`$ and $`\widehat{e}_1,\widehat{e}_2,\widehat{e}_3`$, where $`\widehat{e}_n:=e_ne_7`$ for $`n=1,2,3`$.

Precisely, after defining $`e_n:=i\sigma _2\sigma _n`$ and $`e_7:i\sigma _31_2`$  one may define:

$$𝒢_{6+n}:=e_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_7;𝒢_{11}:=ie_71_8,n=1,2,3.$$
(4.9)
The resulting algebra is non associative nevertheless it may be closed either redefining matrix multiplications  or redefining products of octonian units expressed in terms of Clifford algebra generators ; however, we do not need to deal here with this problem since we will only use the associative $`SU(3)`$ subalgebra of octonions. In fact it is known  that the complex octonions:

$$U_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm ie_7);V_\pm ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2}e_n(1\pm ie_7),n=1,2,3,$$
(4.10)
define an $`SU(3)`$ invariant algebra for which $`V_+^{(n)}`$ and $`V_{}^{(n)}`$ transform as the $`(3)`$ and $`(\overline{3})`$ representations of $`SU(3)`$ respectively, while $`U_+`$ and $`U_{}`$ as singlets. Therefore, writing eq.(4.2) in the form:

$$P_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha (1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(P_a𝒢^a+\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}P_{6+n}𝒢_{6+n}+P_{10}\right)(1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=0,a=1,2\mathrm{},6$$
(4.11)
we may through (4.9) and (4.10) insert in it $`U_+=\frac{1}{2}(1+𝒢_{11})`$ and $`V_+^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2}𝒢_{6+n}(1+𝒢_{11})`$:

$$P_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha (1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(P_a𝒢^a+\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}P_{6+n}V_+^{(n)}+P_{10}\right)U_+\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(4.12)
which for

$$P_{6+n}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒢_0𝒢_{6+n}(1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}G_0V_+^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(4.13)
is $`SU(3)`$ covariant.

Now acting with $`V_+^{(n)}`$ on the Cartan’s standard spinors (or on the vacuum of a Fock representation of spinor space ) one could represent the 3 spinors representing quarks and then the known $`3\times 3`$ representation of the pseudo-octonions algebra  for baryons conceived as 3-quark states, which could represent $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry for baryons. Observe that the $`𝒢_{6+n}`$ from which $`SU(3)`$ derives are reflection operators in spinor space.

### 4.3 Color $`SU(3)`$

Complex octonions may be also defined with the first four generators $`𝒢_\mu `$ in eqs.(4.6) and (4.11). They are :

$$V_\mu ^{(0)}=\frac{i}{2}𝒢_\mu ^{(0)}(1+𝒢_{11});V_\mu ^{(n)}=\frac{i}{2}𝒢_\mu ^{(n)}(1+𝒢_{11}),n=1,2,3$$
(4.14)
where $`𝒢_\mu ^{(0)}=e_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ where $`e_0=1`$ and $`𝒢_\mu ^{(n)}=e_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =i\sigma _2\sigma _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ and the indices $`n`$ refers to the isomorphism discussed in section 2.2. As before they transform as singlets and triplets for $`SU(3)`$. We have seen that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ presents an $`U(1)`$ symmetry in form of a local phase factor which will impose a covariant derivative and eq.(4.12) takes the form :

$$P_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha (1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=\left[i\left(\frac{}{x_\mu }gA_{(n)}^\mu \right)V_\mu ^{(n)}+P_5𝒢_5+P_6𝒢_6+\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}P_{6+n}V_+^{(n)}+P_{10}\right]U_+\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
$`(4.12^{})`$
where

$$A_\mu ^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒢_0𝒢_\mu ^{(n)}(1+𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=2i\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒢_0V_\mu ^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

and then, in the covariant derivative, an $`SU(3)`$ covariant term appears interpretable as $`SU(3)`$-color. It could allow to correlate the three colors with the imaginary units of quaternions (Pauli matrices). On acting with $`V_\mu ^{(n)}`$ on standard spinors one would generate colored quarks and the baryons as 3 colored quark states. If we impose that the physical fermions are represented by Dirac spinors then: $`𝒢_\mu ^{(0)}=e_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ and if inserted in (4.12) they give $`V_\mu ^{(0)}`$ which are $`SU(3)`$-color singlets and the impossibility of physical colored baryons could be correlated with the fact that massive Weyl spinors may not represent free particles.

### 4.4 The nucleon doublet, isospin $`SU(2)`$ and the $`U(1)`$ of the electric charge

Let us now perform a further dimensional reduction. We will use the projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1+G_9)`$ which will reduce the 16-component spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ to an 8-component one $`N`$:

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=N=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right)$$
(4.15)
and correspondingly as easily verified:

$$P_9=\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0G_9(1+G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B0\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0(1+G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=P_{10}$$
(4.16)
and the equation of motion for $`N`$ will be:

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=\left(i\frac{}{x_\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu +P_5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+P_6\mathrm{\Gamma }_6+P_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_7+P_8\right)N=0$$
(4.17)
We will now suppose that $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ in (4.15) represent $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$ Dirac spinor, by which we have to impose:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(0)}=1\gamma _\mu ;\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5,6,7}^{(0)}=i\sigma _{1,2,3}\gamma _5$$
(4.18)
and (4.17) becomes:

$$\left(i\frac{}{x_\mu }\gamma ^\mu i𝝅𝝈\gamma _5+P_8\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ n\end{array}\right)=0$$
(4.19)
where

$$𝝅=N^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0𝝈\gamma _5N$$
(4.20)
and where we have set $`\psi _1=p`$ and $`\psi _2=n`$ representing the proton and neutron respectively, since eq.(4.19) is well representing the $`SU(2)`$-isospin covariant nucleon-pion equation of motion. Observe that the pseudoscalar nature of the pion isotriplet $`𝝅(x)`$ derives from having imposed that $`p`$ and $`n`$ are $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$-Dirac spinors because of which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ in (4.18) have to contain $`\gamma _5`$, in order to anticommute with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$.

Observe that isospin $`SU(2)`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_6,\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ which are reflection operators in the spinor space spanned by $`N`$. It is not then the covering of $`SO(3)`$ in the space spanned by $`X_5,X_6,X_7`$ and it could not be otherwise, since, to obtain eq.(4.19) these coordinates have been set to zero. It derives instead from quaternions. In fact $`\mathrm{}(1,7)=H(8)`$ and consequently eq.(4.19) is manifestly quaternionic and then one may affirm that, according to this derivation, quaternions appear to be at the origin of the isospin symmetry of nuclear forces.

Let us now write explicitly (4.19) for $`p`$ and $`n`$: defining $`p_5\pm ip_6=\rho ^{i\frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$, it may be easily brought to the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (P_\mu \gamma ^\mu +iP_7\gamma _5+P_8)e^{i\frac{\epsilon }{2}}p\rho \gamma _5n& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill (P_\mu \gamma ^\mu ipP_7\gamma _5+P_8)n+\rho \gamma _5e^{i\frac{\epsilon }{2}}p& =0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.21)
where $`\epsilon `$ is an angle of rotation in the circle

$$P_5^2+P_6^2=\rho ^2$$
(4.22)
generating the $`U(1)`$ phase invariance of the proton $`p`$ represented by $`e^{i\frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$ and generated by $`J_{56}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_6]`$.

Since $`\epsilon (x)`$ is local it imposes a covariant derivative, and then an electric charge, $`e`$ for the proton: in fact the resulting equation of motion for the doublet $`N`$ is:

$$\left\{\left[i\frac{}{x_\mu }\frac{e}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\mathrm{\Gamma }_6)A_\mu \right]\gamma ^\mu i𝝅𝝈\gamma _5+P_8\right\}\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ n\end{array}\right)=0$$
(4.23)
well representing the nuclear and electromagnetic properties of the nucleon. One may also represent in one quadruplet $`p,n`$, electron and neutrino and the electric charges of proton and electron result of opposite sign .

## 5 THE LEPTONS $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$

The equation for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ will be:

$$p_\alpha 𝒢^\alpha (1𝒢_{11})\mathrm{\Phi }=0\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{}10$$
(5.1)
from which we will derive the equation in $`M^{1,3}`$:

$$\left[i\frac{}{x_\mu }G^\mu +\underset{j=5}{\overset{9}{}}p_j(x)G_jp_{10}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }_{}=0$$
(5.2)
### 5.1 The equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ and the $`U(1)`$ for the electroweak charge

Let us now suppose $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ to have the form:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}L_1\\ L_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}_{11}\\ \mathrm{}_{12}\\ \mathrm{}_{21}\\ \mathrm{}_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(5.3)
where $`L_1,L_2`$ are $`\mathrm{}(1,7)`$-Dirac spinors, and then take for the generators $`G_A`$ and volume elements $`G_9`$ the representation:

$$G_a=1\mathrm{\Gamma }_a;G_{7,8,9}=i\sigma _{1,2,3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_7a=1,2,\mathrm{}6$$
(5.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ are generators and volume element of $`\mathrm{}(1,5)`$, and we obtain, operating as above, for $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ the system of equations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (p_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^a+ip_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_7p_{10})e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}}L_1+i\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_7L_2& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill (p_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^aip_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_7p_{10})L_2+i\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_7e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}}L_1& =0\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.5)
where now $`\tau `$ is an angle of rotation on the circle

$$p_7^2+p_8^2=\rho ^2$$

at the origin of the $`U(1)`$ phase invariance of $`L_1`$ in spinor space generated by $`G_7G_8`$. We will suppose it at the origin of a charge (different from the strong one generated by $`𝒢_9𝒢_{10}`$) for the lepton doublet $`L_1`$ from which instead $`L_2`$ should be free.

### 5.2 The $`SU(2)_L`$ phase invariance and the electroweak model

Let us suppose that the four leptons in $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ of eq.(5.3) may represent four free fermions in space-time $`M=^{1,3}`$; they should then be either Dirac or Pauli spinors, and, for the representation of $`G_\mu `$ we have then four possible choices, diagonal in $`\gamma _\mu `$: generators of $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$, precisely:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_\mu ^{(0,0)}=11\gamma _\mu ;& G_\mu ^{(0,3)}=1\sigma _3\gamma _\mu ;\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill G_\mu ^{(3,0)}=\sigma _31\gamma _\mu ;& G_\mu ^{(3,3)}=\sigma _3\sigma _3\gamma _\mu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.6)
Correspondingly we have four possible systems of equations for the doublets $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. Let us take as an example $`G_\mu ^{(0,3)}`$, then the other generators are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{5,6}^{(0,3)}=i\sigma _1\sigma _{1,2}1_4;& G_7^{(0,3)}=i\sigma _1\sigma _3\gamma _5;\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill G_8^{(0,3)}=i\sigma _21_2\gamma _5;& G_9^{(0,3)}=i\sigma _31_2\gamma _5\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.7)
where $`\gamma _5`$ is the volume element of $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$, and the corresponding equations are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu +p_9\gamma _5p_{10})L_1+[i(p_5\sigma _1+p_6\sigma _2+p_7\sigma _3\gamma _5)+p_8\gamma _5]L_2& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill (p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu p_9\gamma _5p_{10})L_2+[i(p_5\sigma _1+p_6\sigma _2+p_7\sigma _3\gamma _5)p_8\gamma _5]L_1& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.8)
¿From the other $`G_\mu `$ in (5.6) we obtain three other systems which differ for the distribution of the $`\gamma _5`$. Let us now define the projectors:

$$:=\frac{1}{2}(1+1\gamma _5);:=\frac{1}{2}(11\gamma _5)$$

and introduce the notation:

$$L_1:=L_{1L};L_1:=L_{1R}$$

and the same for $`L_2`$.

We have $`\gamma _5L_{1L}=L_{1L}`$ and $`\gamma _5L_{2L}=L_{2L}`$. Applying $``$ to (5.8), after defining $`p_5\sigma _1+p_6\sigma _2+p_7\sigma _3:=\frac{1}{2}𝝎𝝈`$ we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu L_{1R}+(p_9p_{10})L_{1L}+\left(p_8+\frac{i}{2}𝝎𝝈\right)L_{2L}& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu L_{2R}(p_9+p_{10})L_{2L}\left(p_8\frac{i}{2}𝝎𝝈\right)L_{1L}& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.8^{})`$
Let us now define:

$$\left(p_8\frac{i}{2}𝝎𝝈\right)=\rho e^{\frac{i}{2}𝝎𝝈}=\rho e^{\frac{q}{2}}$$
(5.9)
where $`q=i𝝈𝝎`$ is an imaginary quaternion and $`\rho =\sqrt{p_5^2+p_6^2+p_7^2+p_8^2}`$. Eq.(5.8) may be brought to the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{\frac{q}{2}}p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu L_{1R}+(p_9p_{10})e^{\frac{q}{2}}L_{1L}+\rho L_{2L}& =0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill p_\mu \sigma _3\gamma ^\mu L_{2R}(p_9+p_{10})L_{2L}+\rho e^{\frac{q}{2}}L_{1L}& =0\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.8^{\prime \prime })`$
manifesting a quaternionic on $`SU(2)_L`$ phase invariance for $`L_{1L}`$, which being $`x`$ dependent will induce a covariant derivative with a non abelian gauge interaction:

$$D_\mu =\frac{}{x_\mu }i𝝈𝐖_\mu $$
(5.10)
for $`L_{1L}`$ only and then the Dirac equation for $`L_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \nu _L\end{array}\right)`$ where $`e`$ represents the electron and $`\nu _L`$ the left-handed neutrino is easily obtained to be:

$$\left(i\frac{}{x_\mu }\gamma ^\mu +m\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \nu _L\end{array}\right)+𝝈𝐖_\mu \gamma ^\mu \left(\begin{array}{c}e_L\\ \nu _L\end{array}\right)+B_\mu \gamma ^\mu e_R=0$$
(5.11)
where $`𝐖_\mu `$ is an isotriplet vector field and $`B_\mu `$ an isosinglet. Eq.(5.11) is notoriously the geometrical starting point of the electroweak model. It derives, like isospin, from the quaternion division algebra and it may be also obtained  from the isomorphisms discussed in section 2.2 (from which it also here effectively derives).

## 6 DIMENSIONAL REDUCTION AND FAMILIES FOR $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ AND $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$

Let us now return to the problem of dimensional reduction which, as mentioned in chapter 4, consists, in our approach, in reducing to one half the dimensions of spinor space, while decoupling two terms from the equations of motion. In section 4.4 we have adopted the projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1+G_9)`$ to reduce the 16 component spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ to the 8 component one $`N`$. Now the six first generators $`G_a`$ of $`\mathrm{}(1,7)`$ are traditionally set in the form:

$$G_a^{(j)}=\sigma _j\mathrm{\Gamma }_a;j=0,1,2,3,a=1,2,\mathrm{},6$$
(6.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ are the generators of $`\mathrm{}(1,5)`$ and $`\sigma _0=1`$. The above projector is obtained for $`j=1,2`$, therefore we will now indicate $`\frac{1}{2}(1+G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1,2)}`$, and we have seen in eq.(4.16) that $`P_90P_{10}`$. Instead for $`j=0`$ and $`j=3`$ we obtain the projectors

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+iG_7G_8)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}\text{and}\frac{1}{2}(1+iG_8G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(3)}$$
(6.2)
respectively and, correspondingly:

$$P_7=\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0G_7(1+iG_7G_8)\mathrm{\Theta }_B0\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0G_8(1+iG_7G_8)=P_8$$

and (6.3)

$$P_8=\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0G_8(1+iG_8G_9)\mathrm{\Theta }_B0\mathrm{\Theta }_B^{}G_0G_9(1+iG_8G_9)=P_9$$

respectively and the corresponding so reduced 8 dimensional space, for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ simple or pure (one constraint equation), is null defining then the invariant masses.

$`P_\mu P^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`P_5^2+P_6^2+P_7^2+P_8^2=M_{(1,2)}^2`$
$`P_\mu P^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`P_5^2+P_6^2+P_7^2+P_{10}^2=M_{(3)}^2`$ (6.4)
$`P_\mu P^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`P_5^2+P_6^2+P_9^2+P_{10}^2=M_{(0)}^2`$
Because of the isomorphisms discussed in section 2.2 the three spinors and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)},\mathrm{\Psi }^{(3)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1,2)}`$ may represent doublets of fermions which, in the limit of absence of external, strongly interacting fields (the pion in eq.(4.19)), will obey the Dirac equations.

Their masses might be different, and, since we know that, in general, the characteristic energy of the phenomena increases with the dimension of the $`P`$-space we could expect $`M_0>M_3>M_{(1,2)}`$.

We can now repeat the same with the lepton quadruplet $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ and we will obtain three lepton doublets $`L_1^{(1,2)},L_1^{(3)},L_1^{(0)}`$ representing charged-neutral fermions of which the changed partners will obey to the Dirac equation since now the strong charge should be zero and then the strongly interacting fields, the pions, should be absent. If these are represented by $`p_5,p_6,p_7`$ (like in eq.(4.19)), then the corresponding invariant mass equations become:

$`p_\mu p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`p_8^2=m_{(1,2)}^2`$
$`p_\mu p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`p_{10}^2=m_{(3)}^2`$ (6.5)
$`p_\mu p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`p_9^2+p_{10}^2=m_{(0)}^2`$
and then, adopting the above hypothesis, we could conjecture that $`L_1^{(1,2)},L_1^{(3)},L_1^{(0)}`$ represent the electron-neutrino, muon-neutrino, and tau-neutrino doublets respectively.

We have then that the above geometrical structure foresees three families of leptons and the corresponding ones of baryons as discovered in nature. Their origin may be assigned to the quaternion division algebra; in fact it derives from the existence of the three projectors which in turn derive from the fact that the generators $`G_a`$ may be set in the form (6.1) manifestly correlated with quaternions.

The possible quaternionic origin of three lepton families was also obtained by T. Dray and C. Monogue  from octonion division algebra correlated with $`\mathrm{}(1,9)`$.

## 7 THE CHARGELESS LEPTONS

If we act on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ with $`\frac{1}{2}(1G_9)`$ or with the other two possible projectors discussed in chapter 6 we will obtain three families of leptons $`L_2^{(1,2)},L_2^{(3)},L_2^{(0)}`$ which, however, from what is seen above, should be free from both strong and electroweak charges. Therefore we will need a further dimensional reduction. We will operate it through the projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_7)`$ and we obtain:

$$\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_7)L_2=\psi _\pm $$
(7.1)
and since

$$p_7=L_2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_7(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_7)L_20L_2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_7)L_2=p_8$$
(7.2)
the equation will be:

$$(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +p_5\gamma _5\pm p_6)\psi _\pm =0$$
(7.3)
Now for $`\psi `$ real $`p_6=\stackrel{~}{\psi }\psi 0`$ and (7.3) reduces to:

$$(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +p_5\gamma _5)\psi =0$$
$`(7.3^{})`$
which is a candidate for the Majorana equation. A further dimensional reduction through $`(1\pm \gamma _5)`$ reduces (7.3) to

$$p_\mu \gamma ^\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)\psi =0$$
(7.4)
since $`p_50p_6`$ that is the Weyl equation for massless neutrinos.

Then the final reduction brings us to Majorana and Weyl spinors. They then naturally appear as the most elementary form of fermions. As mentioned, there should be three families of them and they should be created at the Big Bang, and in a roughly computable fraction, as stable, missing known interactions, including electroweak ones and keeping only gravitational ones. Through gravitational interactions they could also have been created and accumulated during the life of the universe during high energy events connected with supernovae and black holes. Could they then contribute in furnishing an answer to the great problem of black matter?

It is remarkable that in this picture it is not Dirac’s equation the basic equation for fermions, but rather Majorana and Weyl ones. One could then try to start from these the construction of both the fermion multiplets and of space-time or momentum space and in so doing also the lorentzian signature of Minkowski space-time (or of $`\mathrm{}(1,3)`$) appears to be unambiguously defined , once more, from quaternion division algebra of which in fact it results simply to be the image.

## 8 THE BOSON FIELD EQUATIONS

In our approach the boson fields appear at first as external fields as was the case for the electromagnetic potential $`A_\mu `$ and of the pion field $`𝝅`$ in eq.(4.23). However, since the boson fields here are bilinear in spinor fields also their equations of motion should be obtainable from the spinor field equation. In fact it was shown  that from Weyl eq.(7.4) it is possible to obtain for

$$F_\pm ^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ](1\pm \gamma _5)\psi $$
(8.1)
the equations

$$p_\mu F_+^{\mu \nu }=0;\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \tau }p^\nu F_{}^{\rho \tau }=0$$
(8.2)
That is Maxwell’s homogeneous equations, and also the non homogeneous ones .

Observe that in eq.(8.1) the electromagnetic field $`F_\pm ^{\mu \nu }`$ is bilinear in the Weyl spinor fields, which does not imply that, in the quantized theory, the photon should be conceived as a bound state of neutrinos. In fact “the neutrino theory of light” is notoriously unviable .

In a similar way it is possible to obtain the equations of motion for the pion field $`𝝅(x)`$, not necessarily as a bound state of proton-neutron . It would be reasonable to expect the possibility to extend this to the other known boson fields.

## 9 THE ROLE OF SIMPLICITY

We have seen how the geometry of simple or pure spinors, if correlated with division algebras, seems to be appropriate to explain several features of elementary particle phenomenology, like the origin of charges, of families; the origin of internal symmetry groups: of the standard model $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$, in the dynamical sector of the equations, and of isospin $`SU(2)`$, of favour $`SU(3)`$ up to a possible maximum of $`SU(4)`$ all deriving from reflections, in the rest of the equations. For these matters the simplicity constraint-equations, in number 1,10,66 for the 8,16,32-component spinors we dealt with, do not seem to play a critical role.

Simplicity, through Proposition 3 in chapter 2, mainly imposes the nullness of the momentum-spaces bilinearly constructed with those spinors. This in turn implies that: to the embedding of 4-dimensional spinor spaces in 8-16- and 32-dimensional ones there correspond the parallel embedding of the corresponding 4-dimensional vector spaces in 6-,8- and 10-dimensional ones, which, being null define compact manifolds (spheres) imbedded in each other, where the concept of infinity is absent, each space being isomorphic (up to a sign), as discovered by É. Cartan, to the spinors themselves building up geometrical structures of great simplicity and elegance. This was presumably the reason why É. Cartan named them “simple”, despite the apparent complication of the constraint equations.

Because of this one might expect that simplicity, while not determinant for some features of phenomenology - where one could then expect to have also to deal with non simple or generalized pure spinors  \- determines instead rigorously the underlying projective geometry and then may have deep meanings helpful for the solution of some as yet open problems.

We will try to list and discuss preliminarily some of these problems and tentatively guess some possible answers suggested by that simple geometry.

### 9.1 The masses

If momentum spaces are null or optical they define invariant masses spheres like eq.(4.8). Before discussing their role in physics we need to remind that the terms appearing in these equations are representing external boson-field interactions and we need then first to determine the equations of motion for these boson fields. Furthermore, those terms may contain multiplicative coupling constants, like $`P_5,P_6,P_7`$ in eq.(4.17) which should contain, as a factor, the pion-nucleon coupling constants. Therefore this problem is correlated with the one of determining the values of the coupling constants and charges, after which it might present aspects of great relevance for physics.

### 9.2 The charges

The values of the charges are traditionally taken from the experimental data and as such inserted by hand in the equations of motion. In the present approach instead, in which the equations of motions are unambiguously derived from spinor geometry in momentum space, which in turn appears to consist in spheres imbedded in each other, one should expect that everything should be unambiguously defined including coupling constants and nothing but boundary conditions, should be left to be added by hand. One suggestion that this might be true and realizable comes from the old Fock equation  for the hydrogen atom written precisely in the sphere $`S_3`$ of momentum space which may be set in the following adimensional form:

$$\psi (𝐮)=\frac{1}{V(S_3)}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}\frac{mc}{p_0}_{S_3}\frac{\psi (𝐮^{})}{(𝐮𝐮^{})^2}d^3𝐮^{}$$
(9.1)
where $`𝐮`$ is a unit vector of $`S_3`$, $`p_0`$ a unit of momentum, $`m`$ the mass of the electron, and where also the electric coupling constant $`e`$ appears inserted in the adimensional fine structure constant $`\alpha ^1=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{e^2}=137,036\mathrm{}`$. Eq.(9.1) manifests the $`SO(4)`$ covariance induced in the two body system by the Coulombian potential and is obtained by Fock through a harmonic analysis on $`B_3S_3`$:

$$h(x)=\frac{1}{V(S_3)}_{S_3}G(x,𝐮^{})h(𝐮^{})d^3𝐮^{}$$
(9.2)
where $`xB_3,G(x,𝐮^{})`$ is a Green function and $`h(x)`$ is harmonic in $`B_3`$. Then for $`h(x)=r^{n1}\psi _n(𝐮)`$, spherical harmonic on $`S_3`$ eq.(9.1) is obtained representing the H-atom eigenfunctions and energy levels for stationary states (and could be also extended to the scattering states of the continuous spectrum).

It was then conjectured<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In a paper in progress with P. Nurowski. that also the factor in front of eq.(9.1); that is $`\alpha `$, could be obtained from a harmonic analysis from the five dimensional classical domain of the IV type $`D=Q_5`$ to $`D^{}=e^{i\phi }S_4`$ obtaining:

$$h(𝐮)=\frac{1}{V(S_3)}\frac{2\pi J}{V(S_4)V(Q_5)}_{S_3}\frac{h(𝐮^{})}{(𝐮𝐮^{})^2}d^3𝐮^{}$$
(9.3)
where $`J`$ derives from the integration of a Jacobian.

We have seen that in our approach simplicity defines the compact domains imbedded in each other: they are spheres, and since in case the strong charge $`g`$ of the baryon $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ is defined, as shown in chapter 3, from $`P_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta (1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13})\mathrm{\Xi }=0`$ and following ones for $`\mathrm{}(1,11)`$, one can repeat the above derivation to find:

$$h(𝐮)=\frac{1}{V(S_3)}\frac{2\pi J^{}}{V(S_{11})V(B_{12})}_{S_3}\frac{h(𝐮^{})}{(𝐮𝐮^{})^2}d^3𝐮^{}$$
(9.4)
where now one could interpret the factor in front of the integral as proportional to $`g^2/\mathrm{}c`$ where $`g`$ is the strong charge (also two body strong forces are Coulombian for high momenta or small distances). Comparison of eq.(9.4) with eq.(9.3) allows then to estimate the relative values of the electric and strong charges in our approach. In fact if we set in a first approximation $`J^{}J`$ we obtain

$$g10e$$
(9.5)
in good approximation with the known experimental values. Even if this is only a preliminary indication, one could expect to find that the strong charge $`g`$ is larger than the electric charge simply because the volumes of the unit spheres decrease after a certain dimension (since $`V(B_{2k+2})/V(B_{2k})=\pi /(k+1)`$ which is $`<1`$ for $`k>2`$).

¿From this preliminary indication we have then that, for purely geometrical reasons, both masses and charges of fermions should increase with the dimensions of the multiplets as in fact it appears in the empirical world. This will be further analyzed elsewhere.

### 9.3 The constraint equations

While determining underlying geometry, constraint equations might also have some direct physical meanings which deserve further study. One is certainly triality, arising from the one constraint equation for 8-component spinors, which could have a role in supersymmetry. Another is the role of the ten constraint equations for 16-component spinors manifest in the covariant quantization of super strings, even if at the ghost stage .

But also the sixty-six constraint equations for 32-component spinors correlating the baryon quadruplet $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ with the lepton one $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}`$ could perhaps solve the problem of the often predicted and never found lifetime of the proton, imposing its stability .

### 9.4 Laws and phenomena

The equations of motion like the ones discussed in chapter 4:

$$\left[i\frac{}{x_\mu }G^\mu +\underset{j=5}{\overset{2n1}{}}P_j(x)G_j+P_{2n}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0$$
(9.6)
represent the evolution of the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a system in space-time $`M=^{1,3}`$. For given boundary conditions a solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ represents the evolution of a particular phenomenon of that system. If that solution is inserted in eq.(9.6) this becomes an identity for all values of $`x`$; meaning the validity of the evolution of that phenomenon for the whole space and for all times.

One can write the equation in the equivalent Cartan’s form:

$$\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}P_jG^j+P_{2n}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(P)=0$$
(9.7)
and then the existence of non null solutions implies the condition

$$P_\alpha P^\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},2n$$
(9.8)
Now setting:

$$P_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}G_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^{}$$
(9.9)
and assuming $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ simple or pure eq.(9.8) is satisfied because of Proposition 3, and then there are solutions of eq.(9.7) of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Psi }^{})$$
(9.10)
which, if inserted in eq.(9.7), renders it an identity in spinor space, meaning the spinorial origin, outside of space-time, of the law represented by the equation. The Cartan’s equations for simple spinors seem to be the only ones to present this double possibility of becoming identities: both in space-time and in spinor space and might present interesting epistemological consequences which will be analyzed elsewhere.

There are more aspects of theoretical physics in which simple spinors might play a role, specially, those concerned with null or optical vectors, like strings and superstrings, which may be conceived as continuous sums, or integrals, of null vectors, where they could help us to understand also the deep reason why, for describing elementary physical phenomena, the euclidean elementary concept of point-event has to be rather substituted by that of string which may be correlated with the É. Cartan’s hypothesis of simple spinor geometry as underlying euclidean geometry , .

Concluding we may affirm that simple spinors are both elegant and rich of possibilities for the purely geometrical interpretation of the elementary physical world. We have here merely hinted to some of them. The resulting panorama, seems to us however, even at this preliminary stage, to present deep and fascinating aspects deserving further study.


text:
# Suppression of decoherence via strong intra-environmental coupling

(9th July 2002)

## Abstract

We examine the effects of intra-environmental coupling on decoherence by constructing a low temperature spin–spin-bath model of an atomic impurity in a Debye crystal. The impurity interacts with phonons of the crystal through Jahn-Teller vibronic coupling. Anharmonic intra-environmental vibrational coupling is incorporated through anti-ferromagnetic spin-spin interactions. The reduced density matrix of the central spin representing the impurity is calculated by dynamically integrating the full Schrödinger equation for the spin–spin-bath model for different thermally weighted eigenstates of the spin-bath. Exact numerical results show that increasing the intra-environmental coupling results in suppression of decoherence. This effect could play an important role in the construction of solid state quantum devices such as quantum computers.

Intra-environmental coupling has customarily been neglected in theoretical models of subsystem-environment interaction. The popular spin-boson model Leg ; UW , for example, assumes that the environment consists of a set of non-interacting harmonic oscillators linearly coupled to a central spin. The neglect of intra-environmental coupling is motivated more by mathematical convenience than by physical insight.

One failing of such models is that intra-environmental energy transfer can only proceed by using the subsystem as an intermediate. In addition, it is well known that the statistical properties of the energy eigenfunctions and eigenspectra of strongly coupled (irregular) systems is qualitatively different from that of uncoupled (regular) systems. The Wigner functions of eigenvectors for irregular systems are almost uniform over the energetically allowed classical phase space Ber . Those of regular systems are more lumpy with energy localized in a subset of the available modes Boh . Similarly, irregular eigenspectra show level repulsion while regular spectra show level clustering Ber2 . These spectral signatures have important dynamical consequences WB . For these reasons coupled environments may have decoherence properties which differ substantially from those predicted by uncoupled oscillator models.

Proposed new technologies such as quantum computing Qcom , laser control of chemical reactions Brum , and molecular electronics Ratn  all require a qualitative understanding of the effects of decoherence and dissipation for experimental implementation. Predictive theoretical studies for such systems would also greatly benefit from dynamical methods which accurately include the effects of intra-environmental coupling and environmental memory effects.

Unfortunately, exact theories such as the Feynman-Vernon influence functional method FV  and the Nakajima-Zwanzig master equation Zwan  cannot be easily applied. Approximate theories such as the Redfield Opp , completely-positive-dynamical-semigroup dsg  and SRA Wilk  master equations need testing against exact results before they can be applied with confidence. Thus, exact numerical calculations for subsystems interacting with environments of a small number of degrees of freedom provide the only practical method for exploring the effects of intra-environmental coupling. Such studies would also allow us to test the accuracy of existing master equations.

In this manuscript we report exact numerical results for the decoherence of a central spin interacting with a spin-bath with intra-environmental coupling. The model was constructed to represent an impurity in a thermal crystalline solid; the impurity being the small quantum system and the solid the environment. The first two electronic states of the impurity are vibronically coupled to a number $`n_s`$ of coupled phonon modes of the crystal. At low temperature the phonon modes can be represented as spin-1/2 modes Sta  (representing the first two states of an oscillator) with frequencies sampled from a Debye spectrum with a frequency cutoff (set here at $`\omega _D=1`$). With anharmonic phonon-phonon coupling effects included, our model Hamiltonian then takes the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H& =& \frac{\omega _0}{2}\sigma _z^{(0)}+\beta \sigma _x^{(0)}+\lambda _0\sigma _x^{(0)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}\sigma _x^{(j)}\hfill \\ & +& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}\left[\frac{\omega _j}{2}\sigma _z^{(j)}+\beta \sigma _x^{(j)}\right]+\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}\sigma _x^{(i)}\sigma _x^{(j)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where we arbitrarily chose $`\omega _0=.8288`$ as the frequency of the impurity, $`\beta =.01`$ is the coefficient of a small anharmonic correction, and $`\lambda _0=1`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the subsystem-environment and intra-environmental coupling constants. Terms one, two and four of (1) represent the uncoupled modes of the subsystem (labeled with superscript 0) and environment (labeled with superscripts 1 through $`n_s`$). The third term in (1) couples the subsystem and environment, while the last term couples the environment with itself. Here the sigmas represent Pauli matrices. In our units $`\mathrm{}=1`$. \[Note that the same Hamiltonian could also represent interacting nuclear or electronic spins in a solid.\]

We calculated the reduced density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ of the impurity via the formula

$$\rho (t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{11}(t)& \rho _{10}(t)\\ \rho _{01}(t)& \rho _{00}(t)\end{array}\right)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n_{eig}}{}}p_m\mathrm{Tr}_e\{|\psi _m(t)\psi _m(t)|\}$$
(2)
where

$$p_m=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{ϵ_m/kT\}}{_{m=1}^{n_{eig}}\mathrm{exp}\{ϵ_m/kT\}},$$

$`ϵ_m`$ and $`|m_e`$ are the energies and eigenvectors of the isolated environment, and $`kT`$ is the temperature in units of energy. The notation $`\mathrm{Tr}_e\{\widehat{𝐀}\}`$ indicates a trace of the operator $`\widehat{𝐀}`$ over the environmental degrees of freedom. The states $`|\psi _m(t)`$ are evolved via the Schrödinger equation from initial states

$$|\psi _m(0)=|1_0|m_e$$
(3)
under Hamiltonian (1). The basis of eigenstates of the $`\sigma _z`$ operators was used to represent all states. The states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ represent down and up z-components of the spin, respectively. Thus, the subsystem state $`|1`$ in Eq. (3) means that the impurity is initially in its excited state.

Equations (2) and (3) represent an impurity in a thermal solid which is excited by a fast laser pulse just prior to time $`t=0`$ (i.e., a sudden approximation) which then evolves while interacting with phonons in the solid.

The calculations reported here are for $`n_s=12`$ bath spins. The ARPACK linear algebra software Arp  was used to calculate the lowest $`n_{eig}=20`$ energies and eigenvectors of the isolated environment. A temperature of $`kT=.02`$ was chosen such that no states with energy quantum number $`m`$ higher than $`n_{eig}`$ would be populated at equilibrium. The numerical solution of the Schrödinger ordinary differential equation for $`|\psi _m(t)`$ was calculated using an eighth order Runge-Kutta routine RK . Operations of the Hamiltonian (1) on the wavevector were calculated via repeated application of Pauli matrix multiplication routines. For example

$$j_{n_s},\mathrm{},j_i,\mathrm{},j_1|\sigma _x^{(i)}|\psi =j_{n_s},\mathrm{},\overline{j_i},\mathrm{},j_1|\psi $$

for all sets of $`j_l=0,1`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},n_s`$ and where $`\overline{j_i}=1`$ if $`j_i=0`$ and $`\overline{j_i}=0`$ if $`j_i=1`$. Thus, an operation of $`\sigma _x^{(i)}`$ simply rearranges the components of $`|\psi `$. States of the basis can be represented by integers $`j=j_1+j_22+\mathrm{}+j_i2^{i1}+\mathrm{}+j_{n_s}2^{n_s1}`$ and since integers are represented in binary form on a computer, the mapping $`jj^{}=j_1+j_22+\mathrm{}+\overline{j_i}2^{i1}+\mathrm{}+j_{n_s}2^{n_s1}`$ under $`\sigma _x^{(i)}`$ can be calculated very simply using Fortran binary-operation intrinsic functions. Operations for $`\sigma _y^{(i)}`$ and $`\sigma _z^{(i)}`$ are also straightforward.

In Fig. 1 we show the calculated subsystem entropy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S(t)& =& \mathrm{Tr}_s\{\rho (t)\mathrm{ln}\rho (t)\}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\{det[\rho (t)]\}\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{14det[\rho (t)]}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\sqrt{14det[\rho (t)]}}{1\sqrt{14det[\rho (t)]}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`det[\rho (t)]=\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{00}(t)\rho _{10}(t)\rho _{01}(t)`$, for various values of the intra-environmental coupling $`\lambda `$.

For $`\lambda =0`$ (solid curve) the entropy rapidly approaches its maximum value of $`\mathrm{ln}(2)0.693147\mathrm{}`$ which corresponds to the diagonalised reduced density matrix

$`\rho _{00}(t)=\rho _{11}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\rho _{10}(t)=\rho _{01}(t)=0.`$
As $`\lambda `$ increases through 1 (long dashed curve), 2 (short dashed curve), 4 (dotted curve), and 8 (dot-dashed curve), the entropy approaches a smaller asymptotic value. This strongly suggests that increased intra-environmental coupling suppresses decoherence.

To confirm this we compare the dynamics of the three subsystem spin components

$`X(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_s\{\sigma _x^{(0)}\rho (t)\}=\rho _{10}(t)+\rho _{01}(t)`$
$`Y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_s\{\sigma _y^{(0)}\rho (t)\}=i(\rho _{10}(t)\rho _{01}(t))`$
$`Z(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_s\{\sigma _z^{(0)}\rho (t)\}=\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{00}(t)`$
calculated for Hamiltonian (1) with those of the impurity evolving in isolation (i.e., $`\lambda _0=0`$).

In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of the central spin in the absence of interaction with the bath, i.e., for $`\lambda _0=0`$ (solid line) and the evolution of the same spin for $`\lambda _0=1`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ (dashed line), i.e., when the central spin is coupled to a bath of non-interacting spins. As can be seen from Fig. 2(c), the system undergoes rapid decoherence when the interaction with the bath is turned on. In Fig. 3 we show again the behaviour of $`X(t)`$, $`Y(t)`$, and $`Z(t)`$ for $`\lambda _0=0`$ (solid line, isolated spin) and for $`\lambda _0=1`$ and $`\lambda =8`$ (dashed line, central spin coupled to a bath of strongly interacting modes). Here the agreement between the coupled and isolated dynamics is much better than in the previous case; in fact, the only significant discrepancy appears in the behaviour of $`Z(t)`$, whereas the plots of $`X(t)`$ and $`Y(t)`$ for $`\lambda _0=0`$ and $`\lambda _0=1`$ are almost indistinguishable.

Thus, at least in this simple model, increasing anharmonic intra-environmental coupling incrementally suppresses decoherence. There is a relatively simple explanation for the observed behaviour. Define an environmental super-spin with components

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}}\sigma _x^{(j)},`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_y={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}}\sigma _y^{(j)},`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}}\sigma _z^{(j)},`$
in terms of which Hamiltonian (1) can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H& =& \frac{\omega _0}{2}\sigma _z^{(0)}+\beta \sigma _x^{(0)}+\lambda _0\sigma _x^{(0)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_x\hfill \\ & +& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}\frac{\nu _j}{2}\sigma _z^{(j)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_x+\frac{\lambda }{2}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2n_s\mathrm{𝟏}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{j=1}^{n_s}\omega _j/n_s`$ is the average environment frequency and $`\nu _j=\omega _j\mathrm{\Omega }`$. When $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the last term in (5) dominates the bath Hamiltonian. This entails that the bath eigenstates are nearly eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$; specifically, the bath eigenstates with lowest energy correspond to the lowest eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$. Since the initial conditions (3) are low-energy bath eigenstates, the evolving dynamical states $`|\psi _m(t)`$ remain close to eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$ with small eigenvalues; as a consequence the central spin becomes nearly decoupled from the environment and its evolution is determined by the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_s(\omega _0/2)\sigma _z^{(0)}+(\beta +\lambda _0s_x)\sigma _x^{(0)}$$

where $`s_x`$ is a (typically small) eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$.

Our study strongly suggests that intra-environmental coupling has as important an effect on decoherence as temperature or subsystem-environmental coupling. Environments of $`N`$ (coupled oscillator) phonons should have similar decoherence properties. Since the Wigner functions of the energy eigenstates of strongly coupled systems are nearly uniform over the classical energy surface Ber , energy is distributed equally among all modes. Thus displacements from equilibrium of any phonon mode must be small at low temperature, especially in the thermodynamic limit. Since the coupling of an impurity to a phonon is through its displacement coordinate, this coupling will also be small. By contrast, energy distribution in uncoupled oscillator systems is non-uniform and may be localized in a small number of modes Boh . Hence vibronic coupling to these modes will be strong as will decoherence.

We have obtained similar results for both larger and smaller numbers of bath spins and also in the case of ferromagnetic intra-environmental coupling. We believe that our model is a reasonably accurate representation of an impurity in a low-temperature crystal. If such strong intra-environmental coupling exists in nature, it could be exploited as a platform for quantum computing. We are currently developing methods for the study of higher-temperature systems where environmental modes are modeled by coupled harmonic oscillators.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Multiwavelength evidence for a 15-year periodic activity in the symbiotic nova V1016 Cygni Partly based on observations obtained with the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) satellite retrieved from the IUE Newly Extracted Spectra (INES) Archive and the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) retrieved from the Multimission Archive at STScI (MAST).

## 1 Introduction

V1016 Cyg (MH$`\alpha `$ 328-116) is a member of a small subgroup of symbiotic stars, called symbiotic novae, also including V1329 Cyg and HM Sge, whose outbursts lead to a nebular spectrum (Mürset & Nussbaumer mur (1994)). Symbiotic novae are wide interacting binaries, where matter from a late-type giant is transferred onto the surface of the more compact companion. The nova-like optical outburst ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m57`$ mag), lasting decades, is caused by a thermonuclear runaway on the surface of a wind-accreting white dwarf after the critical amount of material has been accumulated (cf. Mikolajewska & Kenyon, mik (1992)). V1016 Cyg underwent such nova-like outburst in 1964 (McCuskey mcc (1965)). The object is classified as a D-type symbiotic, the cool component being a Mira type variable embedded in a dust envelope whose pulsation period turned out to be $``$478 (Munari mun (1988)). The onset of a dust formation episode in 1983 is reported by Taranova & Yudin (tar2 (1986)).

The orbital period of V1016 Cyg is not yet established. Taranova & Yudin (tar1 (1983)) made use of the increase of Balmer emission lines in combination with the appearance and disappearance of FeII lines to derive an orbital period of $``$20 years. Afterwards, Nussbaumer & Schmid (nuss2 (1988)), though unable of recording two consecutive maxima, proposed an orbital period of 9.5 years on the basis of the apparent periodicity seen in the flux of OI and MgII UV emission lines by means of the IUE satellite. At the same time Munari (mun (1988)), by resorting to IR observations taken over two decades, proposed instead a 6-year orbital period by modeling the sequence of dust obscuration episodes, likely related to the passage of the Mira type variable at the inferior conjunction in the system.

Much longer periods have been proposed by Wallerstein (wall (1988)) and Schild & Schmid (schi (1996)). In the former paper the author, assuming that the sharp FeII emission lines are formed in the chromosphere of the cool star so as to reflect its orbital motion, concludes that their observed radial velocities between 1978 and 1985 limit any high inclination orbit to a period greater than 25 years or to a large eccentricity. The latter analysis, based on spectropolarimetric data taken from 1991 to 1994, indicates that the orbital period is about 80 $`\pm `$ 25 years, though later observations obtained in 1997 put this result into question (Schmid, schm (1998)). Finally, Brocksopp et al. (bbe (2002)), adopting a projected separation of the two stellar components as large as 84 AU on the basis of their HST/WFPC2 images, are forced to propose an astonishingly long orbital period of $``$544 years.

In the context of this still-to-be-settled issue, one has also to interpret the evidence for the 15-year periodic activity (not necessarily representing the sought orbital period) recently presented by Parimucha et al. (pac (2000)) (hereafter PAC) who gathered and analysed long-term photographic, photoelectric and visual photometry of the object. The aim of the present paper is indeed to give further (i.e., multiwavelength) support to the existence of such a periodicity making use of both IR photometry and UV spectroscopy, as well as to investigate its own origin.

## 2 Long-term photometry

### 2.1 $`UBV`$ photoelectric and photographic data

The historical light curve of V1016 Cyg based on the photographic and $`UBV`$ data given in PAC is presented in Fig. 1. The light curve suggests four stages of activity marked by arrows in the figure: the pre-outburst flare $`a`$ in 1949, the main nova-like outburst $`b`$ in 1964 and two post-outburst, decreasing-amplitude flares $`c`$ and $`d`$ in 1980 and 1994, respectively. Evidently the activity episodes affecting the system repeat themselves (though at quite a different intensity level) with an interval of $``$15 years. The ephemeris for the activity maxima calculated in PAC is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{JD}_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{phot}}=2427590& \hfill +5510& \times E.\hfill \\ \hfill \pm 250& \hfill \pm 90& \end{array}$$
(1)
It is worth noticing that both maxima recorded in 1980 and 1994 followed appreciable brightness decreases which, in turn, could be interpreted as signatures of an enhanced mass transfer from the cool to the hot component. A similar effect has been detected in the light curve of the very slow classical nova V723 Cas (Chochol & Pribulla, chp (1998)).

### 2.2 $`JHK`$ data

Infrared photometry of V1016 Cyg was published by Harvey (har (1974)), Kenyon & Gallagher (ken (1983)), Lorenzetti et al. (lor (1985)), Taranova & Yudin (tar2 (1986)), Munari (mun (1988)), Ananth & Leahy (anan (1993)), Kamath & Ashok (kam (1999)) and Taranova & Schenavrin (tar3 (2000)). We make use here of this whole dataset plus a few unpublished $`JHK`$ observations obtained in 1993 (kindly provided by F. Strafella) to newly estimate the period of pulsation of the Mira type variable. The Fourier period analysis (Fig. 2) applied to the $`JHK`$ data leads to the values 476$`\pm `$10, 472$`\pm `$11 and 474$`\pm `$10 days for $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K`$ photometry, respectively. The adopted period of the Mira type variable pulsations (whose corresponding phase diagrams are also presented in Fig. 2) is thus $`P`$ = 474$`\pm `$6 days.

The long-term behaviour of the $`(JK)`$ color index of V1016 Cyg using all available infrared data is presented in Fig. 3. As pointed out by Whitelock (white (1987)), the $`(JK)`$ color index in symbiotic Miras is little affected by the Mira type variable pulsation, being conversely very sensitive to the amount of circumstellar dust around the cool component. As a consequence, the abrupt change ($``$1 mag) of the IR color recorded in 1983 by Taranova & Yudin (tar2 (1986)) comes likely from a short (though strong) dust formation episode. Although orbitally-related dust obscuration episodes are indeed expected in these systems, we interpret this unique, major episode which occurred three years after the observed maxima both in the $`U`$ passband and space-borne UV (see below) as dust formation in the ejecta of the symbiotic nova (cf. Bode bode (1995)).

According to this view, one has to be cautious when interpreting possible periodicities emerging from the analysis of the long-term behaviour of the $`(JK)`$ color index (Fig. 3) which shows an additional maximum in 1988 and a clear minimum in 1992, together with a more uncertain maximum (in 1973) and a further possible minimum (in 1977). Indeed, the phenomena lying beneath the two possible periods (namely, 2070 and 5630 days; see Fig. 4) one can identify by means of the Fourier analysis of its residuals (after removing a parabolic trend) is likely quite different. While the longer period, besides being close to the UBV photometric estimate, could well reflect the real orbital motion of the system, as suggested by the wave-like variation exhibited by the $`(JK)`$ residuals phased with the ephemeris (1) (see Fig. 4), the shorter period of 5.6 years, close to the 6-year period interpreted by Munari (mun (1988)) as the orbital period of the binary system, is likely due to the superposition of several effects such as dust formation induced by the activity of the hot component and possible mass tranfer events from the cool to the hot component.

## 3 UV spectroscopy

The UV dataset discussed here includes both low and high dispersion IUE (International Ultraviolet Explorer) spectra spanning the interval from Aug. 1978 to Aug. 1995 (for a complete list see Parimucha (par (2002)), and a single HUT (Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope) spectrum taken on March 6, 1995. Properly calibrated IUE NEWSIPS data have been retrieved from the IUE Newly Extracted Spectra (INES) Archive, while the calibrated HUT spectrum was extracted from the Multimission Archive at STScI (MAST).

Average continuum fluxes in emission-free, 20 Å bins centered at $`\lambda `$ 1840 Å and $`\lambda `$ 2530 Å have been derived from low dispersion, large aperture IUE spectra (SWP and LWR/LWP cameras, respectively), plus the HUT spectrum (for the $`\lambda `$ 1840 Å region alone). Both measured and dereddened fluxes are given in Table 1 (having adopted $`E(BV)`$ = 0.28, according to Nussbaumer & Schild nuss1 (1981)). Dereddened continuum fluxes are also shown in Fig. 5.

High dispersion, large aperture IUE/SWP spectra were used to derive fluxes of OIII\] ($`\lambda \lambda `$ 1661,1666 Å), NIII\] ($`\lambda `$ 1750 Å), SiIII\] ($`\lambda `$ 1892 Å) and CIII\] ($`\lambda `$ 1909 Å) emission lines. A single measurement of the OIII\] lines flux was obtained also from the HUT spectrum of 1995. The emission line profiles show a broad component superposed to the dominant, narrow component (cf. Kindl, Marxer & Nussbaumer 1982). Fluxes given here are the result of fitting Gaussian profiles to the latter narrow component. Dereddened fluxes for OIII\], NIII\] and SiIII\] lines are shown in Fig. 6 and listed (together with the original fluxes) in Table 2.

For the strong CIII\] $`\lambda `$ 1909 Å which falls by chance in the overlapping region between the IUE short-wavelength (SWP) and long-wavelength (LWR/LWP) camera spectral ranges, simultaneous flux estimates obtained from both cameras are shown in Fig. 7 and listed in Table 3. In order to make the best use of the whole dataset, Fig. 7 includes also—as a lower limit—the estimated flux of CIII\] in case the line saturation was marginal (i.e. affecting no more than 2 high-resolution pixels).

It should be stressed that the availability of a large aperture spectrum taken on August 31, 1978 (namely, LWR 2228), allowing the measurement of the CIII\] $`\lambda `$ 1909 Å emission line flux, does assure that the flux rise exhibited by the UV continua from mid-1978 to mid-1979 (see Fig. 5) also affects the UV emission lines so as both UV continua and emission lines reflect the 1980 peak of activity of the system recorded in other wavebands (see above). Strictly speaking, this verification turns out to be not possible for the remaining set of UV emission lines, as high resolution SWP spectra assured earlier than June 24, 1979 were obtained through the non-photometric IUE small aperture.

One can easily recognize that the evolution of both UV continua and emission lines from 1978 to 1996 is characterized by two maxima matching the activity epochs c,d shown by optical photometry. Moreover, interesting clues to the physical properties of the system could come from the observed delay of the onset of emission line activity, whose first maximum (at epoch JD 2444635 $`\pm `$15) appears shifted by 410 days from the corresponding epoch for both UV continua (JD 2444225 $`\pm `$ 12).

Finally, it should hold reader’s interest the fact that the major dust formation episode discussed in the Sect. 2.2 reflects in a recognizable flux drop of the majority of UV emission lines in 1983-84 (see Fig. 6).

## 4 Discussion

No doubt the symbiotic nova V1016 Cyg includes a pulsating Mira type variable and an accreting white dwarf that underwent a thermonuclear outburst in 1964, leading straight to a nebular spectrum (FitzGerald et al. fitz (1966)). According to the ionization model of symbiotic binaries, the hot luminous component ionizes the neutral wind of the giant giving rise to the nebula in the system. Such a mechanism is confirmed by the strict coincidence of the epochs of maxima in the $`U`$ passband (observed in 1980 and 1994) and those recorded in the space-UV continuum combined with the 410-day delay of the OIII\], CIII\], NIII\] and SiIII\] emission line maxima which, in turn, assures that the lines are collisionally excited in the surrounding nebula when the fast wind from the hot object interacts with the slow wind from the Mira type variable.

At present, the above well-understood phenomenology leaves still open two alternative scenarios for V1016 Cygni.

If this symbiotic nova is a wide-orbit binary with a 544-year period as proposed by Brocksopp et al. (bbe (2002)), one is forced to interpret the periodic (15-yr) variations of the optical and UV continuum as induced by flares of the hot component triggered by the recurrent enhanced mass loss episodes from the Mira type variable companion. According to Fleischer et al. (fgs (1995)), this mass loss is most pronounced every few periods of the Mira type variable pulsations. It can trigger individual flares in the accretion disk of the hot white dwarf. The existence of the disk is supported by the 3D simulation of the wind accretion by the compact star (Theuns & Jorissen, thjo (1993)).

Alternatively, V1016 Cygni could be interpreted as a triple system, whose inner, unresolved binary has an orbital period of 15 years. If this is the case, flares would be triggered by an enhanced mass transfer from a cool giant during its periastron passage on the 15-year orbit. In this respect, a hint of enhanced mass transfer, coming just before the weak flare in 1994, can be found in the long-term infrared photometry performed by Taranova & Schenavrin (tar3 (2000)) showing a brightness increase in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ passbands in 1992. Moreover, the coincidence of the observed maximum of the $`JK`$ index in 1988 (Fig. 3) and the wide minima of the UV continua (Fig. 5) would constrain to that epoch the inferior conjuction of a cool giant along its 15-year orbit.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was accomplished as a part of a PhD thesis of Š.P. and has been supported by VEGA Grant 2/1157 of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. The authors would like to thank to F. Strafella for providing his unpublished IR observations and A. Skopal for critical reading of the manuscript.