text:
# Duality and Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Fibre bundles  are powerful tools to formulate the gauge theories of fundamental interactions and gravity. The question arises whether or not quantum mechanics may also be formulated using fibre bundles. Important physical motivations call for such a formulation.

In quantum mechanics one aims at constructing a Hilbert–space vector bundle over classical phase space. In geometric quantisation this goal is achieved in a two–step process that can be very succintly summarised as follows. One first constructs a certain holomorphic line bundle (the quantum line bundle) over classical phase space. Next one identifies certain sections of this line bundle as defining the Hilbert space of quantum states. Alternatively one may skip the quantum line bundle and consider the one–step process of directly constructing a Hilbert–space vector bundle over classical phase space. Associated with this vector bundle there is a principal bundle whose fibre is the unitary group of Hilbert space.

Textbooks on quantum mechanics  usually deal with the case when this Hilbert–space vector bundle is trivial. Such is the case, e.g., when classical phase space is contractible to a point. However, it seems natural to consider the case of a nontrivial bundle as well. Beyond a purely mathematical interest, important physical issues that go by the generic name of dualities  motivate the study of nontrivial bundles.

Triviality of the Hilbert–space vector bundle implies that the transition functions all equal the identity of the structure group. In passing from one coordinate chart to another on classical phase space, vectors on the fibre are acted on by the identity. Since these vectors are quantum states, we can say that all observers on classical phase space are quantised in the same way. This is no longer the case on a nontrivial vector bundle, where the transition functions are different from the identity. As opposed to the previous case, different neighbourhoods on classical phase space are quantised independently and, possibly, differently. The resulting quantisation is only local on classical phase space, instead of global. This reflects the property of local triviality satisfied by all fibre bundles.

Given a certain base manifold and a certain fibre, the trivial bundle over the given base with the given fibre is unique. This may mislead one to conclude that quantisation is also unique, or independent of the observer on classical phase space. In fact the notion of duality points precisely to the opposite conclusion, i.e., to the nonuniqueness of the quantisation procedure and to its dependence on the observer .

Clearly a framework is required in order to accommodate dualities within quantum mechanics . Nontrivial Hilbert–space vector bundles over classical phase space provide one such framework. They allow for the possibility of having different, nonequivalent quantisations, as opposed to the uniqueness of the trivial bundle. However, although nontriviality is a necessary condition, it is by no means sufficient. A flat connection on a nontrivial bundle would still allow, by parallel transport, to canonically identify the Hilbert–space fibres above different points on classical phase space. This identification would depend only on the homotopy class of the curve joining the basepoints, but not on the curve itself. Now flat connections are characterised by constant transition functions , this constant being always the identity in the case of the trivial bundle. Hence, in order to accommodate dualities, we will be looking for nonflat connections. We will see presently what connections we need on these bundles.

This article is devoted to constructing nonflat Hilbert–space vector bundles over classical phase space. Our notations are as follows. $`𝒞`$ will denote a complex $`n`$–dimensional, connected, compact classical phase space, endowed with a symplectic form $`\omega `$ and a complex structure $`𝒥`$. We will assume that $`\omega `$ and $`𝒥`$ are compatible, so holomorphic coordinate charts on $`𝒞`$ will also be Darboux charts. We will primarily concentrate on the case when $`𝒞`$ is complex projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Its holomorphic tangent bundle will be denoted $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. The tautological line bundle $`\tau ^1`$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ and its dual $`\tau `$ will also be considered. The Picard group of $`𝒞`$ will be denoted $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$. Towards the end of this article we will also consider the infinite–dimensional projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$, corresponding to complex, separable, infinite–dimensional Hilbert space $``$.

Finally we would like to draw attention to refs. , where issues partially overlapping with ours are studied.

## 2 $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as a classical phase space

We will first consider a classical mechanics whose phase space is complex, projective $`n`$–dimensional space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The following properties are well known .

Let $`Z^1,\mathrm{},Z^{n+1}`$ denote homogeneous coordinates on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The chart defined by $`Z^k0`$ covers one copy of the open set $`𝒰_k=𝐂^n`$. On the latter we have the holomorphic coordinates $`z_{(k)}^j=Z^j/Z^k`$, $`jk`$; there are $`n+1`$ such coordinate charts. $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is a Kähler manifold with respect to the Fubini–Study metric. On the chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$ the Kähler potential reads

$$K(z_{(k)}^j,\overline{z}_{(k)}^j)=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right).$$
(1)
The singular homology ring $`H_{}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)`$ contains the nonzero subgroups

$$H_{2k}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)=𝐙,k=0,1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(2)
while

$$H_{2k+1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙)=0,k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(3)
We have $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n=𝐂^n\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$, with $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$ a hyperplane at infinity. Topologically, $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is obtained by attaching a (real) $`2n`$–dimensional cell to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$. $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is simply connected,

$$\pi _1\left(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n\right)=0,$$
(4)
it is compact, and inherits its complex structure from that on $`𝐂^{n+1}`$.

Let $`\tau ^1`$ denote the tautological bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. We recall that $`\tau ^1`$ is defined as the subbundle of the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n\times 𝐂^{n+1}`$ whose fibre at $`p\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is the line in $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ represented by $`p`$. Then $`\tau ^1`$ is a holomorphic line bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Its dual, denoted $`\tau `$, is called the hyperplane bundle. For any $`l𝐙`$, the $`l`$–th power $`\tau ^l`$ is also a holomorphic line bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In fact every holomorphic line bundle $`L`$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l𝐙`$; this integer is the first Chern class of $`L`$.

## 3 The quantum line bundle

In the framework of geometric quantisation  it is customary to consider the case when $`𝒞`$ is a compact Kähler manifold. In this context one introduces the notion of a quantisable, compact, Kähler phase space $`𝒞`$, of which $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is an example. This means that there exists a quantum line bundle $`(,g,)`$ on $`𝒞`$, where $``$ is a holomorphic line bundle, $`g`$ a Hermitian metric on $``$, and $``$ a covariant derivative compatible with the complex structure and $`g`$. Furthermore, the curvature $`F`$ of $``$ and the symplectic 2–form $`\omega `$ are required to satisfy

$$F=2\pi \mathrm{i}\omega .$$
(5)
It turns out that quantisable, compact Kähler manifolds are projective algebraic manifolds and viceversa . After introducing a polarisation, the Hilbert space of quantum states is given by the global holomorphic sections of $``$.

Recalling that, on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, $``$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l𝐙`$, let $`𝒪(l)`$ denote the sheaf of holomorphic sections of $``$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. The vector space of holomorphic sections of $`=\tau ^l`$ is the sheaf cohomology space $`H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$. The latter is zero for $`l<0`$, while for $`l0`$ it can be canonically identified with the set of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`l`$ on $`𝐂^{n+1}`$. This set is a vector space of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$:

$$\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right).$$
(6)
We will give a quantum–mechanical derivation of eqn. (6) in section 4.

Equivalence classes of holomorphic line bundles over a complex manifold $`𝒞`$ are classified by the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒞)`$. The latter is defined  as the sheaf cohomology group $`H_{\mathrm{sheaf}}^1(𝒞,𝒪^{})`$, where $`𝒪^{}`$ is the sheaf of nonzero holomorphic functions on $`𝒞`$. When $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ things simplify because the above sheaf cohomology group is in fact isomorphic to a singular homology group,

$$H_{\mathrm{sheaf}}^1(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪^{})=H_{\mathrm{sing}}^2(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝐙),$$
(7)
and the latter is given in eqn. (2). Thus

$$\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=𝐙.$$
(8)
The zero class corresponds to the trivial line bundle; all other classes correspond to nontrivial line bundles. As the equivalence class of $``$ varies, so does the space $``$ of its holomorphic sections vary.

## 4 Quantum Hilbert–space bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$

In order to quantise $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ we will construct a family of vector bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, all of which will have a Hilbert space $``$ as fibre. We will analyse such bundles, that we will call quantum Hilbert–space bundles, or just $`𝒬`$–bundles for short. Our aim is to demonstrate that there are different, nonequivalent choices for the $`𝒬`$–bundles, to classify them, and to study how the corresponding quantum mechanics varies with each choice.

Compactness of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ implies that, upon quantisation, the Hilbert space $``$ is finite–dimensional, and hence isomorphic to $`𝐂^{N+1}`$ for some $`N`$. This property follows from the fact that the number of quantum states grows monotonically with the symplectic volume of $`𝒞`$; the latter is finite when $`𝒞`$ is compact. We are thus led to considering principal $`U(N+1)`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ and to their classification. Equivalently, we will consider the associated holomorphic vector bundles with fibre $`𝐂^{N+1}`$. The corresponding projective bundles are $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^N`$–bundles and principal $`PU(N)`$–bundles. Each choice of a different equivalence class of bundles will give rise to a different quantisation.

So far we have left $`N`$ undetermined. In order to fix it we first pick the symplectic volume form $`\omega ^n`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ such that

$$_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n}\omega ^n=n+1.$$
(9)
Next we set $`N=n`$, so $`\mathrm{dim}=n+1`$. This normalisation corresponds to 1 quantum state per unit of symplectic volume on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Thus, e.g., when $`n=1`$ we have the Riemann sphere $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ and $`=𝐂^2`$. The latter is the Hilbert space of a spin $`s=1/2`$ system, and the counting of states is correct. There are a number of further advantages to this normalisation. In fact eqn. (9) is more than just a normalisation, in the sense that the dependence of the right–hand side on $`n`$ is determined by physical consistency arguments. This will be explained in section 4.1. Normalisation arguments can enter eqn. (9) only through overall numerical factors such as $`2\pi `$, i$`\mathrm{}`$, or similar. It is these latter factors that we fix by hand in eqn. (9).

The right–hand of our normalisation (9) differs from that corresponding to eqn. (5). Up to numerical factors such as $`2\pi `$, $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$, etc, it is standard to set $`_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n}F^n=n`$ . There is also an alternative normalisation developed in ref. . However we will find our normalisation (9) more convenient.

### 4.1 Computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(1))`$

Next we present a quantum–mechanical computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(1))`$ without resorting to sheaf cohomology. That is, we compute $`\mathrm{dim}`$ when $`l=1`$ and prove that it coincides with the right–hand side of eqn. (9). The case $`l>1`$ will be treated in section 4.3.

Starting with $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^0`$, i.e., a point $`p`$ as classical phase space, the space of quantum rays must also reduce to a point. Then the corresponding Hilbert space is $`_1=𝐂`$. The only state in $`_1`$ is the vacuum $`|0_{l=1}`$, henceforth denoted $`|0`$ for brevity.

Next we pass from $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^0`$ to $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$. Regard $`p`$, henceforth denoted $`p_1`$, as the point at infinity with respect to a coordinate chart $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ that does not contain $`p_1`$. This chart is biholomorphic to $`𝐂`$ and supports a representation of the Heisenberg algebra in terms of creation and annihilation operators $`A^{}(1)`$, $`A(1)`$. This process adds the new state $`A^{}(1)|0(1)`$ to the spectrum. The new Hilbert space $`_2=𝐂^2`$ is the linear span of $`|0(1)`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0(1)`$.

On $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ we have the charts $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ and $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Point $`p_1`$ is at infinity with respect to $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$, while it belongs to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Similarly, the point at infinity with respect to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$, call it $`p_2`$, belongs to $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$ but not to $`(𝒰_2,z_{(2)})`$. Above we have proved that the Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_2`$ has a fibre $`_2=𝐂^2`$ which, on the chart $`𝒰_1`$, is the linear span of $`|0(1)`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0(1)`$. On the chart $`𝒰_2`$, the fibre is the linear span of $`|0(2)`$ and $`A^{}(2)|0(2)`$, $`A^{}(2)`$ being the creation operator on $`𝒰_2`$. On the common overlap $`𝒰_1𝒰_2`$, the coordinate transformation between $`z_{(1)}`$ and $`z_{(2)}`$ is holomorphic. This implies that, on $`𝒰_1𝒰_2`$, the fibre $`𝐂^2`$ can be taken in either of two equivalent ways: either as the linear span of $`|0(1)`$ and $`A^{}(1)|0(1)`$, or as that of $`|0(2)`$ and $`A^{}(2)|0(2)`$.

The general construction is now clear. Topologically we have $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n=𝐂^n\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$, with $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$ a hyperplane at infinity, but we also need to describe the coordinate charts and their overlaps. There are coordinate charts $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$ and nonempty $`f`$–fold overlaps $`_{j=1}^f𝒰_j`$ for $`f=2,3,\mathrm{},n+1`$. Each chart $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$ is biholomorphic with $`𝐂^n`$ and has a $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$–hyperplane at infinity; the latter is charted by the remaining charts $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, $`kj`$. Over $`(𝒰_j,z_{(j)})`$ the Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_{n+1}`$ has a fibre $`_{n+1}=𝐂^{n+1}`$ spanned by

$$|0(j),A_i^{}(j)|0(j),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(10)
Analyticity arguments similar to those above prove that, on every nonempty $`f`$–fold overlap $`_{j=1}^f𝒰_j`$, the fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ can be taken in $`f`$ different, but equivalent ways, as the linear span of $`|0(j)`$ and $`A_i^{}(j)|0(j)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, for every choice of $`j=1,\mathrm{},f`$.

A complete description of this bundle requires the specification of the transition functions. We take the excited states $`A_i^{}(j)|0(j)`$ to transform according to the jacobian matrices $`t(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ corresponding to coordinate changes on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, while the vacuum $`|0`$ will transform with the transition functions $`t(\tau )`$ of the line bundle $`\tau `$. Thus the complete transition functions are the direct sum

$$t(𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))=t(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)t(\tau ),$$
(11)
and the $`𝒬`$–bundle itself decomposes as the direct sum of a holomorphic line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=\tau `$, plus the holomorphic trangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$,

$$𝒬(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n).$$
(12)
It follows that tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are quantum states in (the defining representation of) Hilbert space. In eqn. (10) we have given a basis for these states in terms of creation operators acting on the vacuum $`|0`$. The latter can be regarded as the basis vector for the fibre $`𝐂`$ of the line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$.

### 4.2 Representations

The $`(n+1)`$–dimensional Hilbert space of eqn. (10) may be regarded as a kind of defining representation, in the sense of the representation theory of $`SU(n+1)`$. The latter is the structure group of the bundle (12). Comparing our results with those of section 3 we conclude that $`=\tau `$, because $`l=1`$. This is the smallest value of $`l`$ that produces a nontrivial $``$, as eqn. (6) gives a 1–dimensional Hilbert space when $`l=0`$. So our $``$ spans an $`(n+1)`$–dimensional representation of $`SU(n+1)`$, that we can identify with the defining representation. There is some ambiguity here since the dual of the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$ is also $`(n+1)`$–dimensional. This ambiguity is resolved by convening that the latter is generated by the holomorphic sections of the dual quantum line bundle $`^{}=\tau ^1`$. On the chart $`𝒰_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, the dual of the defining representation is the linear span of the covectors

$$(j)0|,(j)0|A_i(j),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(13)
Taking higher representations is equivalent to considering the principal $`SU(n+1)`$–bundle (associated with the vector $`𝐂^{n+1}`$–bundle) in a representation higher than the defining one. We will see next that this corresponds to having $`l>1`$ in our choice of the line bundle $`\tau ^l`$.

### 4.3 Computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$

We extend now our quantum–mechanical computation of $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,𝒪(l))`$ to the case $`l>1`$. As in section 4.1, we do not resort to sheaf cohomology. The values $`l=0,1`$ respectively correspond to the trivial and the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$. The restriction to nonnegative $`l`$ follows from our convention of assigning the defining representation to $`\tau `$ and its dual to $`\tau ^1`$. Higher values $`l>1`$ correspond to higher representations and can be accounted for as follows. We have

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}=SU(n+l+1)/\left(SU(n+l)\times U(1)\right),$$
(14)
where now $`SU(n+l+1)`$ and $`SU(n+l)`$ act on $`𝐂^{n+l+1}`$. Now $`SU(n+l)`$ admits $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$–dimensional representations (Young tableaux with a single column of $`n`$ boxes) that, by restriction, are also representations of $`SU(n+1)`$. Letting $`l>1`$ vary for fixed $`n`$, this reproduces the dimension of eqn. (6).

By itself, the existence of $`SU(n+1)`$ representations with the dimension of eqn. (6) does not prove that, picking $`l>1`$, the corresponding quantum states lie in those $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$–dimensional representations. We have to prove that no other value of the dimension fits the given data. In order to prove it the idea is, roughly speaking, that a value of $`l>1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ can be traded for $`l^{}=1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. That is, an $`SU(n+1)`$ representation higher than the defining one can be traded for the defining representation of $`SU(n+l+1)`$. In this way the $`𝒬`$–bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ with the Picard class $`l^{}=l`$ equals the $`𝒬`$–bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ with the Picard class $`l^{}=1`$. On the latter we have $`n+l`$ excited states (i.e., other than the vacuum), one for each complex dimension of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. We can sort them into unordered sets of $`n`$, which is the number of excited states on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$, in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+l}{n}\right)`$ different ways. This selects a specific dimension for the $`SU(n+1)`$ representations and rules out the rest. More precisely, it is only when $`n>1`$ that some representations are ruled out. When $`n=1`$, i.e. for $`SU(2)`$, all representations are allowed, since their dimension is $`l+1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+l}{1}\right)`$. However already for $`SU(3)`$ some representations are thrown out. The number $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2+l}{2}\right)`$ matches the dimension $`d(p,q)=(p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2)/2`$ of the $`(p,q)`$ irreducible representation if $`p=0`$ and $`l=q`$ or $`q=0`$ and $`l=p`$, but arbitrary values of $`(p,q)`$ are in general not allowed.

To complete our reasoning we have to prove that the quantum line bundle $`=\tau `$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ descends to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as the $`l`$–th power $`\tau ^l`$. For this we resort to the natural embedding of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Let $`(𝒰_1,z_{(1)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(𝒰_{n+1},z_{(n+1)})`$ be the coordinate charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ described in section 2, and let $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_{(1)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+1},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+1)})`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+2},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+2)})`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{n+l+1},\stackrel{~}{z}_{(n+l+1)})`$ be charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ relative to this embedding. This means that the first $`n+1`$ charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$, duly restricted, are also charts on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$; in fact every chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is contained $`l`$ times within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Let $`t_{jk}(\tau )`$, with $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},n+l+1`$, be the transition function for $`\tau `$ on the overlap $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. In passing from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$, points on the fibre are acted on by $`t_{jk}(\tau )`$. Due to our choice of embedding, the overlap $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_j\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_k`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$ contains $`l`$ copies of the overlap $`𝒰_j𝒰_k`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Thus points on the fibre over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ are acted on by $`(t_{jk}(\tau ))^l`$, where now $`j,k`$ are restricted to $`1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. This means that the line bundle on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is $`\tau ^l`$ as stated, and the vacuum $`|0_{l^{}=l}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ equals the vacuum $`|0_{l^{}=1}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$. Hence there are on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ as many inequivalent vacua as there are elements in $`𝐙=\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ (remember that sign reversal $`ll`$ within $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is the operation of taking the dual representation, i.e., $`\tau \tau ^1`$).

### 4.4 Classification of $`𝒬`$–bundles

As a holomorphic line bundle, $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is isomorphic to $`\tau ^l`$ for some $`l\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ $`=𝐙`$. Now the bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ has $`SU(n+1)`$ as its structure group, which we consider in the representation $`\rho _l`$ corresponding to the Picard class $`l𝐙`$:

$$𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=\rho _l(T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))\tau ^l,l𝐙.$$
(15)
The above generalises eqn. (12) to the case $`l>1`$. The importance of eqn. (15) is that it classifies $`𝒬`$–bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$: holomorphic equivalence classes of such bundles are in 1–to–1 correspondence with the elements of $`𝐙=\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. The class $`l=1`$ corresponds to the defining representation of $`SU(n+1)`$,

$$𝒬_{l=1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)\tau ,$$
(16)
and $`l=1`$ to its dual. The quantum Hilbert–space bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is generally nontrivial, although particular values of $`l`$ may render the direct sum (15) trivial. The separate summands $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ and $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ are both nontrivial bundles. Nontriviality of $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ means that, when $`l0`$, the state $`|0`$ transforms nontrivially (albeit as multiplication by a phase factor) between different local trivialisations of the bundle. When $`l=0`$ the vacuum transforms trivially.

According to eqn. (15), the transition functions $`t(𝒬_l)`$ for $`𝒬_l`$ decompose as a direct sum of two transition functions, one for $`\rho _l(T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$, another one for $`\tau ^l`$:

$$t(𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))=t(\rho _l(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))t(\tau ^l).$$
(17)
If the transition functions for $`\tau `$ are $`t(\tau )`$, those for $`\tau ^l`$ are $`(t(\tau ))^l`$. On the other hand, the transition functions $`t(\rho _l(T\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n))`$ are the jacobian matrices (in representation $`\rho _l`$) corresponding to coordinate changes on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Then all the $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$–bundles of eqn. (15) are nonflat because the tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ itself is nonflat. Eqn. (17) generalises eqn. (11) to the case $`l>1`$.

### 4.5 Diagonalisation of the projective Hamiltonian

Deleting from $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n1}`$–hyperplane at infinity produces the noncompact space $`𝐂^n`$. The latter is the classical phase space of the $`n`$–dimensional harmonic oscillator (now no longer projective, but linear). The corresponding Hilbert space $``$ is infinite–dimensional because the symplectic volume of $`𝐂^n`$ is infinite.

The deletion of the hyperplane at infinity may also be understood from the viewpoint of the Kähler potential (1) corresponding to the Fubini–Study metric. No longer being able to pass holomorphically from a point at finite distance to a point at infinity implies that, on the conjugate chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, the squared modulus $`|z_{(k)}|^2`$ is always small and we can Taylor–expand eqn. (1) as

$$\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j.$$
(18)
The right–hand side of eqn. (18) is the Kähler potential for the usual Hermitean metric on $`𝐂^n`$. As such, $`_{j=1}^nz_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j`$ equals the classical Hamiltonian for the $`n`$–dimensional linear harmonic oscillator. Observers on this coordinate chart effectively see $`𝐂^n`$ as their classical phase space. The corresponding Hilbert space is the (closure of the) linear span of the states $`|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$, where

$$H_{\mathrm{lin}}|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(m_j+\frac{1}{2}\right)|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n,m_j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(19)
and

$$H_{\mathrm{lin}}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(A_j^{}(k)A_j(k)+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(20)
is the quantum Hamiltonian operator corresponding to the classical Hamiltonian function on the right–hand side of eqn. (18). Then the stationary Schrödinger equation for the projective oscillator reads

$$H_{\mathrm{proj}}|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(m_j+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n,$$
(21)
where

$$H_{\mathrm{proj}}=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(A_j^{}(k)A_j(k)+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)$$
(22)
is the quantum Hamiltonian operator corresponding to the classical Hamiltonian function on the left–hand side of eqn. (18).

The same states $`|m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ that diagonalise $`H_{\mathrm{lin}}`$ also diagonalise $`H_{\mathrm{proj}}`$. However, eqns. (19)–(22) above in fact only hold locally on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, which does not cover all of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. Bearing in mind that there is one hyperplane at infinity with respect to this chart, we conclude that the arguments of section 4.1 apply in order to ensure that the projective oscillator only has $`n`$ excited states. Then the occupation numbers $`m_j`$ are either all 0 (for the vacuum state) or all zero but for one of them, where $`m_j=1`$ (for the excited states), and $`\mathrm{dim}=n+1`$ as it should. Moreover, the eigenvalues of eqn. (21) provide an alternative proof of the fact, demonstrated in section 4.3, that the Picard group class $`l^{}=l>1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ can be traded for $`l^{}=1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+l}`$.

## 5 $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ as a classical phase space

Realise $``$ as the space of infinite sequences of complex numbers $`Z^1,Z^2,\mathrm{}`$ that are square–summable, $`_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}|Z^j|^2<\mathrm{}`$. The $`Z^j`$ provide a set of holomorphic coordinates on $``$. The space of rays $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()=(\{0\})/(𝐑^+\times U(1)).$$
(23)
The $`Z^j`$ provide a set of projective coordinates on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. Now assume that $`Z^k0`$, and define $`z_{(k)}^j=Z^j/Z^k`$ for $`jk`$. Then $`_{jk}^{\mathrm{}}|z_{(k)}^j|^2<\mathrm{}`$ for every fixed value of $`k`$. As $`jk`$ varies, these $`z_{(k)}^j`$ cover one copy of $``$ that we denote by $`𝒰_k`$. The open set $`𝒰_k`$, endowed with the coordinate functions $`z_{(k)}^j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}`$, where a check over an index indicates omission, provides a holomorphic coordinate chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ for every fixed $`k`$. A holomorphic atlas is obtained as the collection of all pairs $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ There are nonempty $`f`$–fold overlaps $`_{m=1}^f𝒰_m`$ for all values of $`f=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ When $`f=2`$, tangent vectors transform according to an (infinite–dimensional) jacobian matrix.

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is a Kähler manifold. On the coordinate chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, the Kähler potential reads

$$K(z_{(k)},\overline{z}_{(k)})=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{jk}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right),$$
(24)
and the corresponding metric $`\mathrm{d}s_K^2`$ reads on this chart

$$\mathrm{d}s_K^2=\underset{m,nk}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{^2K(z_{(k)},\overline{z}_{(k)})}{z_{(k)}^m\overline{z}_{(k)}^n}\mathrm{d}z_{(k)}^m\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{(k)}^n.$$
(25)
Being infinite–dimensional, $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is noncompact. It is simply connected:

$$\pi _1\left(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()\right)=0.$$
(26)
Its Picard group is the group of integers:

$$\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())=𝐙.$$
(27)
It has trivial homology in odd real dimension,

$$H_{2k+1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(),𝐙)=0,k=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(28)
while it is nontrivial in even dimension,

$$H_{2k}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(),𝐙)=𝐙,k=0,1,\mathrm{}$$
(29)
## 6 Quantum Hilbert–space bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

By eqn. (27), for each integer $`l𝐙`$ there exists one equivalence class $`N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ of holomorphic lines bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. For $`l0`$ this bundle is nontrivial; its fibre $`𝐂`$ is generated by the vacuum state $`|0_l`$. Let $`A_j^{}(k)`$, $`A_j(k)`$, $`jk`$, be creation and annihilation operators on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, for $`k`$ fixed. We can now construct the $`𝒬_l`$–bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. To this end we will describe the fibre over each coordinate chart $`𝒰_k`$, plus the transition functions on the 2–fold overlaps $`𝒰_k𝒰_m`$, for all $`km`$.

The Hilbert–space fibre over $`𝒰_k`$ is $``$ itself, the latter being the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the infinite set of linearly independent vectors

$$|0(k)_l,A_j^{}(k)|0(k)_l,j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}$$
(30)
Reasoning as in section 4 one proves that, on the 2–fold overlaps $`𝒰_k𝒰_m`$, the fibre $``$ can be chosen in either of two equivalent ways. $``$ is either the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the vectors $`|0(k)_l`$, $`A_j^{}(k)|0(k)_l`$, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}`$, or the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the vectors $`|0(m)_l`$, $`A_j^{}(m)|0(m)_l`$, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{m},\mathrm{}`$

As in section 4 we have that the vacuum $`|0(k)_l`$ is the fibrewise generator of a holomorphic line bundle $`N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$. Its excitations $`A_j^{}(k)|0(k)_l`$ are tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, and thus transition functions are the sum of two parts. One is a phase factor accounting for the transformation of $`|0(k)_l`$; the other one is a jacobian matrix. The complete $`𝒬_l`$–bundle splits as

$$𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()).$$
(31)
## 7 Quantum Hilbert–space bundles over $`𝒞`$

Next we present a summary, drawn from ref. , on how to holomorphically embed a noncompact $`𝒞`$ within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. This procedure is applied in section 7.3 in order to quantise $`𝒞`$.

### 7.1 The Bergman metric on $`𝒞`$

Denote by $``$ the set of holomorphic, square–integrable $`n`$–forms on $`𝒞`$. $``$ is a separable, complex Hilbert space (finite–dimensional when $`𝒞`$ is compact). Let $`h_1,h_2,\mathrm{}`$ denote a complete orthonormal basis for $``$, and let $`z`$ be (local) holomorphic coordinates on $`𝒞`$. Then

$$𝒦(z,\overline{w})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_j(z)\overline{h}_j(\overline{w})$$
(32)
is a holomorphic $`2n`$–form on $`𝒞\times \overline{𝒞}`$, where $`\overline{𝒞}`$ is complex manifold conjugate to $`𝒞`$. The form $`𝒦(z,\overline{w})`$ is independent of the choice of an orthonormal basis for $``$; it is called the kernel form of $`𝒞`$. If $`\overline{z}`$ is the point of $`\overline{𝒞}`$ corresponding to a point $`z𝒞`$, the set of pairs $`(z,\overline{z})𝒞\times \overline{𝒞}`$ is naturally identified with $``$. In this way $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ can be considered as a $`2n`$–form on $`𝒞`$. One can prove that $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ is invariant under the group of holomorphic transformations of $`𝒞`$.

Next assume that, given any point $`z𝒞`$, there exists an $`f`$ such that $`f(z)0`$. That is, the kernel form $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ of $`𝒞`$ is everywhere nonzero on $`𝒞`$:

$$𝒦(z,\overline{z})0,z𝒞.$$
(33)
Let us write, in local holomorphic coordinates $`z^j`$ on $`𝒞`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$,

$$𝒦(z,\overline{z})=𝐤(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^n,$$
(34)
for a certain everywhere nonzero function $`𝐤(z,\overline{z})`$. Define a hermitean form $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^2\mathrm{log}𝐤}{z^j\overline{z}^k}\mathrm{d}z^j\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^k.$$
(35)
One can prove that $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ is independent of the choice of coordinates on $`𝒞`$. Moreover, it is positive semidefinite and invariant under the holomorphic transformations of $`𝒞`$.

Let us make the additional assumption that $`𝒞`$ is such that $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ is positive definite,

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2>0.$$
(36)
Then $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ defines a (Kähler) metric called the Bergman metric on $`𝒞`$ .

### 7.2 Embedding $`𝒞`$ within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

Let $``$ be the Hilbert space dual to $``$. Given $`f`$, let its expansion in local coordinates be

$$f=𝐟\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n,$$
(37)
for a certain function $`𝐟`$. Let $`\iota ^{}`$ denote the mapping that sends $`z𝒞`$ into $`\iota ^{}(z)`$ defined by

$$\iota ^{}(z)|f=𝐟(z).$$
(38)
Then $`\iota ^{}(z)0`$ for all $`z𝒞`$ if and only if property (33) holds. Assuming that the latter is satisfied, and denoting by $`p^{}`$ the natural projection from $`\{0\}`$ onto $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$, the composite map $`\iota =p^{}\iota ^{}`$

$$\iota :𝒞\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()$$
(39)
is well defined on $`𝒞`$, independent of the coordinates, and holomorphic.

One can prove the following results. When property (33) is true, the quadratic differential form $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ of eqn. (35) is the pullback, by $`\iota `$, of the canonical Kähler metric $`\mathrm{d}s_K^2`$ of eqn. (25):

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2=\iota ^{}(\mathrm{d}s_K^2).$$
(40)
Moreover, the differential of $`\iota `$ is nonsingular at every point of $`𝒞`$ if and only if property (36) is satisfied. These two results give us a geometric interpretation of the Bergman metric. Namely, if properties (33) and (36) hold, then $`\iota `$ is an isometric immersion of $`𝒞`$ into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$.

The map $`\iota `$ is locally one–to–one in the sense that every point of $`𝒞`$ has a neighbourhood that is mapped injectively into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. However, $`\iota `$ is not necessarily injective in the large. Conditions can be found that ensure injectivity of $`\iota `$ in the large. Assume that, if $`z`$, $`z^{}`$ are any two distinct points of $`𝒞`$, an $`f`$ can be found such that

$$f(z)0,f(z^{})=0.$$
(41)
Then $`\iota `$ is injective. Therefore, if $`𝒞`$ satisfies assumptions (33), (36) and (41), it can be holomorphically and isometrically embedded into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$.

### 7.3 Quantisation of $`𝒞`$ as a submanifold of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

Finally we quantise a noncompact $`𝒞`$ with infinite symplectic volume,

$$_𝒞\omega ^n=\mathrm{},$$
(42)
so $``$ will be infinite–dimensional. On the other hand, $`𝒞`$ admits only $`n`$ linearly independent, holomorphic tangent vectors, so the technique of section 4 must be modified.

We need an infinite–dimensional $`𝒬`$–bundle over $`𝒞`$. For this purpose we assume embedding $`𝒞`$ holomorphically and injectively within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ as in eqn. (39). Then the bundle $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ of eqn. (31) can be pulled back to $`𝒞`$ by the embedding $`\iota `$. We take this to define the bundle $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$:

$$𝒬_l(𝒞)=\iota ^{}𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()).$$
(43)
Even if $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ were trivial (which it is not for $`l0`$), it might contain nonflat (hence nontrivial) subbundles, thus allowing for nontrivial dualities.

A detailed analysis of $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$ requires specifying $`𝒞`$ explicitly. However some properties can be stated in general. Thus, e.g., the kernel form is the quantum–mechanical propagator. On $`𝐂^n`$ it reads

$$𝒦_{𝐂^n}(z,\overline{z})=N\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{z}^jz^j\right)\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^n,$$
(44)
where $`N`$ is some normalisation. The Bergman metric (35) derived from this kernel is the standard Hermitean metric on $`𝐂^n`$. The embedding $`\iota `$ naturally relates physical information (the propagator) and geometric information (the metric on $`𝒞`$). In retrospective, this justifies our quantisation of $`𝒞`$ by embedding it within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$.

## 8 Summary

Our analysis has dealt primarily with the case when $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In section 3 we have recalled some well–known facts from geometric quantisation. They concern the dimension of the space of holomorphic sections of the quantum line bundle on a compact, quantisable Kähler manifold. This dimension has been rederived in section 4 using purely quantum–mechanical arguments, by constructing the Hilbert–space bundle of quantum states over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. For brevity, the following summary deals only with the case when the Hilbert space is $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ (see sections 4.2, 4.3 for the general case). The fibre $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ over a given coordinate chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ is spanned by the vacuum state $`|0(j)_l`$, plus $`n`$ states $`A_j^{}|0(j)_l`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, obtained by the action of creation operators. We have identified the transition functions of this bundle as jacobian matrices plus a phase factor. The jacobian matrices account for the transformation (under coordinate changes on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$) of the states $`A_j^{}|0(j)_l`$, while the phase factor corresponds to $`|0(j)_l`$. This means that all quantum states (except the vacuum) are tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$. In this way the Hilbert–space bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ splits as the direct sum of two holomorphic vector bundles: the tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$, plus a line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ whose fibrewise generator is the vacuum.

All complex manifolds admit a Hermitian metric, so having tangent vectors as quantum states suggests using the Hermitian connection and the corresponding curvature tensor to measure flatness. Now $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$ is nonflat, so it fits our purposes. The freedom in having different nonflat Hilbert–space bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ resides in the different possible choices for the complex line bundle $`N(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)`$. Such choices are 1–to–1 with the elements of the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n)=𝐙`$. The latter appears as the parameter space for physically inequivalent choices of the vacuum state. Every choice of a vacuum leads to a different set of excitations and thus to a different quantum mechanics. Moreover, the $`𝒬`$–bundles constructed here are nonflat. This implies that, even after fixing a vacuum, there is still room for duality transformations between different observers on classical phase space. These two facts provide an explicit implementation of quantum–mechanical dualities.

Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to thank Prof. J. A. de Azcárraga for encouragement and support, and the organisers of the “Azcárragafest” for the invitation to participate. This work has been partially supported by research grant BFM2002–03681 from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and EU FEDER funds.


format: text

text:
# Flipping 𝑆𝑈(5) Towards Five Dimensional Unification

## I Introduction

The main motivation for supersymmetry (SUSY), besides its ability to stabilize the Higgs mass against the radiative corrections, is the way it steers the gauge couplings, within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), towards the unification at a very high energy scale ($`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$). Assuming this is not an accident but a signal for a new physics we are prompted not only to embrace the MSSM but to incorporate it into the grand unified theory (GUT) where the gauge unification represents a genuine prediction of the framework. Another genuine prediction of the true GUT is, of course, a proton decay. It turns out, however, that it is very problematic to build both realistic and simple SUSY GUT scheme and still preserve the exact gauge coupling unification. For example, the parameter space of the simplest of all such schemes, the minimal $`SU(5)`$ SUSY GUT, has been severely constrained by the experimental limits on proton lifetime Goto:1998qg ; Babu:1998ep ; Murayama:2001ur ; Bajc:2002bv ; Bajc:2002pg .

The crux of the problem is that the exact gauge unification requires threshold corrections. But to create these corrections one needs certain fields, responsible for the proton decay, to be too light compared to the existing experimental constraints unless an ad hoc tuning of parameters takes place Bajc:2002bv ; Bajc:2002pg . This problem was not so serious in the past since the low-energy values of the gauge couplings were not known well enough, leaving a lot of room for maneuvering. The situation has changed after the electroweak precision measurements and the improvements in measurements of the strong coupling constant. The error bars have simply become sufficiently small to prevent the exact unification without the help of the troublesome threshold corrections. So, the question of whether we can achieve the exact gauge unification in accord with the low-energy measurements in a natural manner within SUSY GUTs is something we have to address.

Among the fields that can improve on the gauge unification, via threshold corrections, are the familiar colored Higgsinos. These are the fields that are responsible for $`d=5`$ proton-decay operator. Therefore, one wants them light enough to generate the appropriate corrections but heavy enough to avoid violation of the experimental limits on proton lifetime. This, again, is an extremely difficult task. One can entirely avoid the need of satisfying these conflicting requirements by using a flipped $`SU(5)`$ group DeRujula:1980qc ; Georgi:1980pw ; Barr:1981qv  which automatically explains the absence of $`d=5`$ operators through the implementation of the simplest possible form of the missing partner mechanism Derendinger:1983aj ; Antoniadis:1987dx . However, flipped $`SU(5)`$ gives up one of the most attractive features of grand unification, namely unification of gauge couplings, because it is based on the group $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$. \[This is not to say that the exact unification is impossible within the four-dimensional flipped $`SU(5)`$. For the most recent considerations in this direction see Refs. Ellis:2002vk ; Nanopoulos:2002qk .\] Embedding the flipped $`SU(5)`$ within an $`SO(10)`$ gauge group retrieves the gauge unification but spoils the missing partner mechanism.

The way out, as has been recently shown Barr:2002fb , is to embed the flipped $`SU(5)`$ within an $`SO(10)`$ group in five dimensions using the extra-dimensional framework à la Kawamura Kawamura:1999nj ; Kawamura:2000ev ; Kawamura:2000ir . In this way, at the four-dimensional level, the famous missing partners can still be missing and the doublet-triplet splitting can be achieved without the dangerous Higgsino-mediated proton decay. But, one might expect naively that the exact gauge unification is impossible due to the threshold corrections that originate from the towers of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes that are inherent to the theories with the compactified extra-dimensions. This naive expectation turns out to be wrong. The five-dimensional theory, being non-renormalizable, must have a cutoff ($`M_{}`$). Therefore, the number of KK modes that contribute is finite. This also makes the threshold corrections finite and calculable so that the exact unification cannot be excluded a priori.

This paper is devoted to the issues pertaining to the gauge coupling unification in the five-dimensional setting. We show, following the footsteps of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im , that it is possible to achieve the exact unification using an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ model on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold. The orbifold has two inequivalent fixed points, $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$, identified by the action of $`(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ twisting. On the point (brane) $`O`$ there will be an $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry while on the point (brane) $`O^{}`$ there will be a flipped $`SU(5)`$ gauge symmetries. Both symmetries will be the leftovers of a bigger, $`SO(10)`$, bulk symmetry. The bulk contains, besides the vector supermultiplet, a pair of chiral hypermutiplets: $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{1H}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{2H}`$. They give the Higgs fields of the MSSM: $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The orbifolding procedure also reduces the amount of the supersymmetry from $`𝒩=1`$ in five dimensions to $`𝒩=1`$ in four dimensions. To obtain the low-energy phenomenology of the Standard Model (SM) group $``$ we break flipped $`SU(5)`$ on the $`O^{}`$ brane by implementing the missing partner mechanism. This time, in contrast to the model presented in Ref. Barr:2002fb , we do the breaking with the chiral superfields that reside on the $`O^{}`$ brane.

There are two models in the literature we are going to compare our results with that provide the exact gauge coupling unification in the five-dimensional $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ setting. The common feature for both models is the placement of the multiplets that contain the Higgs fields and the gauge sector of the MSSM in the bulk. We briefly review these models in what follows.

* The first one is an $`SU(5)`$ model of Hall and Nomura Hall:2001pg ; Hall:2001xb ; Hall:2002ci . In their model Hall:2002ci  the orbifolding yields an $`SU(5)`$ gauge symmetry on one brane and the SM gauge symmetry on the other. In addition, the orbifolding accomplishes the doublet-triplet splitting by assigning the odd parity to the triplet fields. There is no need for any extra Higgs breaking except for the usual electroweak one. For gauge coupling unification not to be spoiled by arbitrary non-universal contributions coming from the brane with the SM gauge symmetry Hall and Nomura have to invoke two requirements: (i) the couplings at the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ must enter a strong coupling regime; (ii) the dimension(s) of the bulk must be large enough (when expressed in terms of the fundamental scale, i.e. cutoff scale, of the theory). We adopt their requirements in our model, too.
* The second model is a variant of an $`SO(10)`$ model of Dermíšek and Mafi Dermisek:2001hp . Here, we just outline the features that are relevant for comparison with our work. Since the breaking of $`SO(10)`$ down to $``$ demands the reduction of the group rank Hebecker:2001jb , the authors use an extra Higgs breaking. In the original version of Dermíšek and Mafi Dermisek:2001hp  the breaking of $`SO(10)`$ down to $`SU(5)`$ takes place on the $`SO(10)`$ brane. The low-energy signature of the SM gauge group is then due to the intersection of the Pati-Salam and $`SU(5)`$. The subsequent analysis of the variant of their model proposed by Kim and Raby Kim:2002im  demonstrated the feasibility of the gauge unification. The breaking, in Kim and Raby case, takes place on a Pati-Salam brane affecting only the gauge sector of the theory. \[The orbifolding has already projected out the triplet partners by assigning them odd parity.\] We adopt and extend their method of analysis to demonstrate the successful unification in our case. The reason behind the extension is that, in our case, the extra Higgs breaking affects not only the gauge sector but also the Higgs sector. Namely, the breaking is what makes the triplets heavy via missing partner mechanism. This, as it turns out, has significant consequences on the renormalization group equation (RGE) running of the gauge couplings as we demonstrate later.

In Section II we introduce our model and specify the mass spectrum of all the fields. We then proceed with the discussion on the gauge coupling RGE running in five-dimensional orbifold setting in Section III. This is where our two main results, the relevant beta coefficients and their RGE numerical analysis, are presented. Finally, we briefly conclude in Section IV.

## II An SO(10) model

We present an $`SO(10)`$ supersymmetric model in five dimensions compactified on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold. The orbifold is created after the fifth dimension, being the circle $`S^1`$ of radius $`R`$, gets compactified through the reflection $`yy`$ under $`Z_2`$ and $`y^{}y^{}`$ under $`Z_2^{}`$, where $`y^{}=y+\pi R/2`$. There are two fixed points, $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$, that bound the physical space $`y[0,\pi R/2]`$ of the bulk. The point $`O`$ is referred to as the “visible brane” while point $`O^{}`$ at $`y^{}=0`$ is referred to as the “hidden brane”.

We assume that the bulk contains an $`𝒩=1`$ vector supermultiplet, a $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_g`$ of $`SO(10)`$, and two chiral hypermultiplets, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{1H}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{2H}`$. The vector supermultiplet decomposes into a vector multiplet $`V`$, which contains the gauge bosons $`A_\mu `$ and corresponding gauginos, and a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions. Each hypermultiplet splits into two left-handed chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, having opposite gauge quantum numbers. To reduce $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in five dimensions to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions we use the parity assignment under $`Z_2`$. To reduce the gauge symmetry from $`SO(10)`$ down to flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ on the hidden brane we use the parity assignment under $`Z_2^{}`$. The bulk content of the model is

$`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_g`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^0}^{++}+V_{\mathrm{𝟏}^0}^{++}+V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^4}^++V_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^4}^++\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^0}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏}^0}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^4}^++\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^4}^+,`$ (1a)
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{1H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{++}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1^2}^++\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1^2}^c+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{c+},`$ (1b)
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{2H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_2^2}^++\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^2}^{++}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^2}^{c+}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_2^2}^c,`$ (1c)
where the first (second) superscript denotes the parity assignment under $`Z_2`$ ($`Z_2^{}`$) transformation. Only the fields with the $`++`$ parity contain Kaluza-Klein zero mode fields ($`n=0`$) that have no effective four-dimensional mass. The masses of all other modes become quantized in units of $`1/RM_C`$, where $`M_C`$ is the compactification scale. For example, all $`+`$ and $`+`$ parity states are actually the KK towers of states with masses $`M_C,3M_C,\mathrm{},(2n+1)M_C,\mathrm{}`$, where $`n`$ is the mode number.

We want to have the low-energy phenomenology that is described by the SM group $``$. But, at this point, the brane $`O`$ feels the $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry while the brane $`O^{}`$ feels the flipped $`SU(5)`$ gauge symmetry. One could introduce a pair of Higgses in the bulk, the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H`$ and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H`$, and use the parity assignment to project out all the states except a pair $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1`$ that is needed for the missing partner mechanism on the visible brane Barr:2002fb . Here, however, we pursue slightly different direction. Namely, noting that the minimal set of Higgses that breaks flipped $`SU(5)`$ down to $``$ is a pair of Higgs fields, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1`$, we posit their existence on the hidden brane. \[Similar idea on using the minimal Higgs content within an $`SU(5)`$ model has been exploited in Ref. Hebecker:2001wq .\] With these fields in place we specify the following brane localized entry of the superpotential:

$$\kappa \left[\delta \left(y\frac{\pi R}{2}\right)+\delta \left(y\frac{3\pi R}{2}\right)\right]\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{++}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}10}_H^1\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}10}_H^1+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^2}^{++}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1\right],$$
(2)
where $`\kappa `$ represents the Yukawa coupling with the mass dimension -1/2. Clearly, by giving very large VEVs to the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},0)`$ components of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1`$, we allow the triplet partners of the doublets in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^2}^{++}`$ to get large masses through the mating with the triplets of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1`$ without disturbing the lightness of the doublets. This can be schematically depicted as Babu:1993we

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟑}\\ \overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}\end{array}\right)& & \left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\\ \mathrm{𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫}\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟑}\\ \overline{\mathrm{𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫}}\end{array}\right)& & \left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\\ \mathrm{𝟐}\end{array}\right)\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{++}& & \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1& \overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_H^1& & \mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^2}^{++}\end{array}$$
(3)
where, for simplicity, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐},1/3)+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},0)\mathrm{𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}=(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏},2/3)`$. Moreover, the symmetry breaking makes the states $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},0)`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐},1/3)`$, and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐},1/3)`$ from $`V_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^0}^{++}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{𝟏}^0}^{++}`$ of $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_g`$ absorb the corresponding components of the brane Higgses to become massive, leaving unbroken $``$ gauge symmetry behind. \[See Table 1 for the decomposition of $`SO(10)`$ down to $``$ via flipped $`SU(5)`$.\]

In the discussion from the previous paragraph, we have glossed over a fact that the bulk fields are KK towers of states. The explicit brane localized breaking terms will disturb every state of that tower due to the change of the boundary conditions. Since we want to do an RGE analysis we need to determine the KK tower position, i.e. the mass, of every state after the disturbance has taken place. This is what we do next.

### II.1 Mass Spectrum of the Gauge Fields

The five-dimensional theory is non-renormalizable. Therefore, we expect the theory to have a cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ where some new physics comes into play (e.g. other dimensions beyond five, strings). We take the VEVs of the symmetry breaking Higgs fields to be of the order of this cutoff: $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},0)MM_{}`$. Then the Lagrangian involving the gauge fields gets additional contribution Nomura:2001mf ; Kim:2002im

$$\frac{1}{2}\left[\delta \left(y\frac{\pi R}{2}\right)+\delta \left(y\frac{3\pi R}{2}\right)\right]g_5^2M^2A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}A^{\widehat{a}\mu },$$
(4)
where $`g_5^2`$ represents the gauge coupling of the five-dimensional theory and $`\widehat{a}`$ is an $`SO(10)`$ group index that goes through all the gauge fields associated with the broken $`++`$ parity generators we mentioned at the end of Section II. \[The five-dimensional gauge coupling $`g_5^2`$ has mass dimension $`1`$.\] The equations of motion for the “broken” gauge bosons are Nomura:2001mf ; Kim:2002im

$$_y^2A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}(x,y)+\left[\delta \left(y\frac{\pi R}{2}\right)+\delta \left(y\frac{3\pi R}{2}\right)\right]g_5^2M^2A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}(x,y)=(M_n^A)^2A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}(x,y),$$
(5)
where $`M_n^A`$ represents the effective Kaluza-Klein mass in four dimensions of the $`n`$th mode. It is defined via Klein-Gordon equation $`\left[_\nu ^\nu +(M_n^A)^2\right]A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}(x,y)=0`$. The second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (5) is responsible for the deviation from the usual mass spectrum of the $`++`$ parity fields ($`M_n^A=0,2M_C,\mathrm{},2nM_C,\mathrm{}`$). It reminds us of the delta function-type potential in ordinary Schrödinger’s equation. The role of this term is thus to repel the bulk field wave function away from the brane. In the language of the effective four-dimensional theory this means that even the zero mode ($`n=0`$) of the gauge bosons becomes massive. Taking the following ansatz for the five-dimensional gauge field on the segment $`y[0,\pi R/2]`$:

$$A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_nA_\mu ^{\widehat{a}(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}M_n^Ay,$$
(6)
the eigenvalue equation for the effective mass, due to the nontrivial boundary condition at the hidden brane, takes the form Nomura:2001mf

$$\mathrm{tan}\frac{M_n^A\pi R}{2}=\frac{g_5^2M^2}{2M_n^A}.$$
(7)
The normalization constant for the $`++`$ parity bulk fields also changes from $`1/\sqrt{2^{\delta _{n0}}}`$ to $`N_n=\left[1+M_Cg_5^2M^2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{M_n^A\pi R}{2}/(\pi (M_n^A)^2)\right]^{1/2}`$ Choi:2003bh . The plot of the modified wave function profile for $`n=1`$ is given in Fig. 1. \[We excluded the normalization constants for simplicity.\]

There are two interesting approximations that we can consider: $`g_5^2M^2M_n^A`$ and $`g_5^2M^2M_n^A`$. The former one generates the following approximate solution of the eigenvalue equation for the mass spectrum

$$M_n^A(2n+1)M_C\left[1\epsilon +\epsilon ^2\right],$$
(8)
while the latter one yields

$$M_0^A2M_C\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi ^2\epsilon }},\text{and}M_{n0}^A2nM_C\left[1+\frac{1}{\pi ^2\epsilon n^2}\right],$$
(9)
where we define $`\epsilon (4M_C)/(\pi g_5^2M^2)`$. The two approximations generate qualitatively different mass spectra. Therefore, it is very important to determine which one is applicable to our scenario. Assuming that all the couplings of the theory enter the strong regime at the cutoff $`M_{}`$ we can use the result of the naive dimensional analysis Chacko:1999hg  in higher dimensional theories that suggests $`g_5^224\pi ^3/M_{}`$ and $`MM_{}/(4\pi )`$, which gives $`g_5^2M^23/2\pi M_{}>M_{}M_n^A`$. We thus choose the former approximation. Following the work of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im , we introduce the parameter $`\zeta =2N\epsilon `$, where $`2N=M_{}/M_C`$ and $`\zeta 8/(3\pi ^2)0.27`$, to rewrite the approximate mass spectrum of the broken gauge bosons as

$$M_n^AM_C\left(2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta \right).$$
(10)
One interesting feature to note is that the boundary condition in Eq. (7) is not absolute Nomura:2001mf . In our case, the broken $`++`$ parity field modes start off with the mass spectrum that mimics the spectrum of the $`+`$ and $`+`$ parity field modes but then gradually merges with the spectrum of undisturbed $`++`$ and $``$ parity bulk fields as one moves up the Kaluza-Klein tower of states. One should also keep in mind that the supersymmetry ensures the same fate for the chiral partners $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the vector fields $`V`$. Namely, the mass spectrum of the fields in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are shifted in the same manner as the states in the $`V^{++}`$ that are made massive through the brane gauge breaking. With that said, we turn to the consideration of the Higgs field mass spectrum.

### II.2 Mass Spectrum of the Higgs Fields

The missing partner mechanism affects only the color triplets of the bulk states with $`++`$ and $``$ parities. To determine their effective mass spectrum we concentrate on the masses of the color Higgsinos. Supersymmetry then ensures the same mass spectrum for their bosonic partners. Moreover, since there are two separate color triplet sectors, as indicated by the vertical line in Eq. (3), we treat only one of them. The other sector will have the same mass spectrum as long as both sectors share the same dimensionful coupling $`\kappa `$. We assume this to be the case. Note that the bulk states with the $`+`$ and $`+`$ parities, i.e. the odd states, do not get affected by the brane breaking.

To make the discussion as transparent as possible we adopt the following notation for the triplet Higgsinos: $`H_C\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝟓}_1^2}^{++}`$, $`H_C^c\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1^2}^c`$, and $`H_{\overline{C}_H}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1`$. Their equations of motion, derived from the brane coupling term in Eq. (2) and the bulk action (see Arkani-Hamed:2001tb ), read Choi:2003bh

$`\mathrm{i}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu H_{\overline{C}_H}\kappa M\overline{H}_C|_{y=(\pi R/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\pi R/2)}=0,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{i}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu H_C_y\overline{H}_C^c\kappa M\overline{H}_{\overline{C}_H}\left(\delta (y\pi R/2)+\delta (y3\pi R/2)\right)=0,`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{i}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu H_C^c+_y\overline{H}_C=0.`$ (13)
These equations are satisfied by the following ansatz for the five-dimensional Higgsino fields on the segment $`y[0,\pi R/2]`$

$`H_C(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^{H_C}h_1^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}M_n^{H_C}y,`$ (14)
$`H_C^c(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^{H_C}h_2^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{sin}M_n^{H_C}y,`$ (15)
and the Higgsino field localized on the hidden brane
$`H_{\overline{C}_H}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^{H_C}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M}{M_n^{H_C}}}h_2^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{M_n^{H_C}\pi R}{2}}.`$ (16)
Here, the eigenvalue equation for the effective mass, due to the nontrivial boundary condition at the hidden brane, takes the form Choi:2003bh

$$\mathrm{tan}\frac{M_n^{H_C}\pi R}{2}=\frac{\kappa ^2M^2}{2M_n^{H_C}},$$
(17)
where we define the effective KK mass via a pair of Weyl equations: $`\mathrm{i}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu h_1^{(n)}=M_n^{H_C}\overline{h}_2^{(n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{i}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu h_2^{(n)}=M_n^{H_C}\overline{h}_1^{(n)}`$.

The naive dimensional analysis Chacko:1999hg  in the strong coupling regime yields $`\kappa (24\pi ^3/M_{})^{1/2}`$, which implies that $`\kappa ^2M^2(g_5^2M^2)M_n^{H_C}`$. In this limit, the mass spectrum of the Higgsino triplets looks, in form, exactly the same as the mass spectrum of the broken gauge fields. Namely, the mass eigenvalues of Eq. (17) are

$$M_n^{H_C}M_C\left(2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta \right),$$
(18)
where we assume that $`\kappa ^2M^2=g_5^2M^2`$ for simplicity. For completeness, the normalization constant $`N_n^{H_C}`$ is Choi:2003bh

$$N_n^{H_C}=\left(1+\frac{M_C\kappa ^2M^2}{\pi (M_n^{H_C})^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{M_n^{H_C}\pi R}{2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
In the case of the color Higgsinos there is a mixing between the bulk and the brane fields. It is the role of the brane field $`H_{\overline{C}_H}`$ to give the mass to the zero mode component of $`H_C`$. As described in Ref. Choi:2003bh , the Weyl spinors, $`h_1^{(n)}`$ and $`h_2^{(n)}`$, pair up at every Kaluza-Klein level to obtain the Dirac mass. The remaining states in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^1`$ of Higgs get absorbed by the broken gauge bosons and completely disappear as far as the running is concerned. We show the mass spectrum of one part of the Higgs sector in Fig. 2. The other part looks exactly the same.

Since this concludes the discussion on the mass spectrum of both the gauge and the Higgs fields we turn our attention towards the RGE analysis.

## III Kaluza-Klein unification

The running of the gauge couplings in our model is the same as the running in the usual four-dimensional theory as long as we stay below the compactification scale $`M_C`$. But, once we venture over $`M_C`$, the running is affected by the towers of Kaluza-Klein states until we reach the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, which we define as the scale where effective gauge couplings merge. Since there are numerous states in the KK towers one might expect that the analysis of the threshold effects on the gauge coupling running from $`M_C`$ to $`M_{}`$ is very difficult even at a one-loop level. This, however, is not the case as we show next.

Let us, for concreteness, limit our discussion to the five-dimensional theory that is based on the simple gauge group $``$. The main simplification originates from the observation that the compactification procedure forces all the states that make up a single representation of $``$ to appear within the interval $`[2nM_C,2(n+1)M_C]`$ for every $`n0`$. \[This statement is true regardless of the type of the additional brane boundary conditions we discussed in the previous two sections.\] These states obviously contribute in an $``$ invariant way to the running of all the gauge coupling constants after we go over $`2(n+1)M_C`$. Thus, the contribution of the $`n`$th Kaluza-Klein level that starts to appear at $`2nM_C`$ drops out of the running of the difference of the gauge couplings after we reach $`2(n+1)M_C`$. In view of this fact we are motivated to pursue the differential running, i.e. the running of the difference of the gauge couplings. The previous observation also implies that the beta coefficients reset themselves to the values of the familiar coefficients of the Standard Model group $``$ every time we go over another $`2(n+1)M_C`$ scale.

Nontrivial boundary conditions distort the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein masses. In our case, the members of the $`n`$th mode emerge at $`2nM_C`$, $`(2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta )M_C`$, $`(2n+1)M_C`$, and $`(2n+2)M_C`$ energy levels. We have already concluded that from $`2nM_C`$ to $`(2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta )M_C`$ the beta coefficients must be the coefficients of the SM group $``$. We call this region I. Region II is the region from $`(2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta )M_C`$ to $`(2n+1)M_C`$, while region III stretches from $`(2n+1)M_C`$ to $`(2n+2)M_C`$ for $`n0`$. The notation here and in what follows is exactly the same as the notation of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im . Note that we do not mention the matter fields at any point. The reason is that the matter fields of one family contribute equally to the running of the gauge couplings regardless of their origin, i.e. whether they are located in the bulk or on the brane.

As shown by Kim and Raby Kim:2002im , if the compactification breaks $``$ to $`𝒢`$ and, then, the brane breaking reduces $`𝒢`$ to the SM group $``$, the beta coefficients of the gauge sector are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_{\mathrm{gauge}}^\mathrm{I}& =b^{}(V);\hfill \\ \hfill b_{\mathrm{gauge}}^{\mathrm{II}}& =b^{}(V)+b^{𝒢/}(V)+b^{𝒢/}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=b^𝒢(V)+b^𝒢(\mathrm{\Sigma })b^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma });\hfill \\ \hfill b_{\mathrm{gauge}}^{\mathrm{III}}& =b^{}(V)+b^{𝒢/}(V)+b^{𝒢/}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+b^{/𝒢}(V)+b^{/𝒢}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=b^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
\[The notation is that $`b(b_1,b_2,b_3)`$, where $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$, and $`b_3`$ are the coefficients associated with the gauge couplings of $`U(1)_Y`$, $`SU(2)_L`$, and $`SU(3)_c`$ respectively.\] Here, we use the fact that $`b^{}(V)b^{}(V)+b^{𝒢/}(V)+b^{/𝒢}(V)`$ is an $``$ invariant coefficient that drops out from the running of the differences of the gauge couplings. The same statement holds for $`b^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })b^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+b^{𝒢/}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+b^{/𝒢}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ coefficient. $`𝒢/`$ and $`/𝒢`$ represent the appropriate coset-spaces (e.q. states that are in $`𝒢`$ but not in $``$ belong to $`𝒢/`$). Note that we always have $`b(\mathrm{\Sigma })=b(V)/3`$ since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the chiral superfield and $`V`$ is the vector superfield. In our case $``$ corresponds to $`SO(10)`$ and $`𝒢`$ corresponds to the flipped $`SU(5)`$ group.

Before we consider the beta coefficient of the Higgs sector we note the following: the beta coefficients of the two supersymmetric Higgs doublets (triplets) are $`b(\mathrm{𝟐})(3/5,1,0)`$ ($`b(\mathrm{𝟑})(2/5,0,1)`$). Therefore, the sum of the contributions of the pair of doublets and the pair of triplets does not affect the differential running and can be freely discarded. Moreover, as far as the differential running is concerned, we can write $`b(\mathrm{𝟐})=b(\mathrm{𝟑})=(0,2/5,3/5)`$, where we subtract the overall constant to make $`b_1=0`$. This we do with all the other beta coefficients in what follows. Recalling that there are two Higgs sectors we can write:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^\mathrm{I}& =b(\mathrm{𝟐});\hfill \\ \hfill b_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{\mathrm{II}}& =b(\mathrm{𝟐})+2b(\mathrm{𝟑})=b(\mathrm{𝟑});\hfill \\ \hfill b_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{\mathrm{III}}& =b(\mathrm{𝟑})+2b(\mathrm{𝟐})+2b(\mathrm{𝟑})=b(\mathrm{𝟑}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Finally, we are ready to analyze the running at one-loop level. The relevant RGEs and all the definitions are taken from Kim and Raby Kim:2002im . We present them here for completeness of this work. The one-loop RGEs for the gauge couplings in the effective four-dimensional theory are

$$\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _i(\mu )}=\frac{2\pi }{\alpha (M_{})}+\left[b_i^{}(V)+b_i^{}(\mathrm{𝟐})+b_{\mathrm{matter}}^{}\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_C}{\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{\mathrm{Higgs}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{\mathrm{gauge}},$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s describe the appropriate threshold corrections of the Kaluza-Klein modes from $`M_C`$ to $`M_{}`$. They are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }b^{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{}}{M_C}=b^\mathrm{I}A_\mathrm{I}+b^{\mathrm{II}}A_{\mathrm{II}}+b^{\mathrm{III}}A_{\mathrm{III}},$$
(23)
with

$`A_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta }{2n}},`$ (24a)
$`A_{\mathrm{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2n+1}{2n+1\frac{n}{N}\zeta }},`$ (24b)
$`A_{\mathrm{III}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{2n1}}.`$ (24c)
Obviously, $`A_\mathrm{I}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{II}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{III}}`$ allow us to sum over the threshold corrections from the corresponding regions.

Taking the large $`N`$ limit, where $`2N=M_{}/M_C`$, and using the approximation $`\mathrm{ln}(1+x)=x+\mathrm{}`$, Kim and Raby Kim:2002im  give the following expression for the threshold corrections of the gauge and the Higgs sector:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}(b^{\mathrm{III}}+b^I)\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{}}{M_C}+\frac{1}{2}(b^{\mathrm{III}}b^\mathrm{I})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\pi }{2}+\frac{1}{2}(b^{\mathrm{II}}b^\mathrm{I})\zeta .$$
(25)
Looking back at Eqs. (20) and (21) we have for our model

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b^{}(V)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_C}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}b^{}(V)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[b^𝒢(V)b^{}(V)\right]\zeta ,`$ (26a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $`=`$ $`b(\mathrm{𝟐})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}b(\mathrm{𝟐})\zeta .`$ (26b)
Moreover, since $`b^{}(V)`$ represents the beta coefficients of the gauge sector of the MSSM we have $`b^{}(V)=(0,6,9)`$. On the other hand, $`b^𝒢(V)`$ represents the beta coefficients of the gauge sector of the supersymmetric flipped $`SU(5)`$: $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^0+\mathrm{𝟏}^0`$. Therefore, $`b^𝒢(V)=(3/5,15,15)(0,72/5,72/5)`$, where we again subtract the overall constant contribution to make $`b_1`$ coefficient equal to zero. Using these results we find:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_C}}+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{5}}\zeta ,6\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_C}}+3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\zeta ),`$ (27a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\zeta ).`$ (27b)
Our goal is to find the values of $`M_C`$ and $`M_{}`$ that allow the exact unification, at least at one-loop level, of the gauge coupling constants at the scale $`M_{}`$. To be able to do that we first recall the situation we have in the usual four-dimensional SUSY GUT. There we define $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ to be the scale where $`\alpha _1(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=\alpha _2(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ Kim:2002im  with the running given by

$$\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _i(\mu )}=\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _i(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}+\left[b_i^{}(V)+b_i^{}(\mathrm{𝟐})+b_{\mathrm{matter}}^{}\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}{\mu }.$$
(28)
If we ask how far off from $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ the coupling $`\alpha _3(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ is, and parameterize the degree of nonunification via $`\delta _3=\left(2\pi /\alpha _3(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{GUT}}\right)`$, we obtain $`5\delta _36`$ depending on the exact spectrum of SUSY particles. We show one example of differential running in Fig. 3. This example takes into the account not only the one-loop but the two-loop effects on the running of the gauge couplings. We also assume that the superpartners have masses of the order of $`m_t`$, and take the lower experimental limit $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ :2001xx .

In the five-dimensional setting the deviation from the usual running starts at $`M_C`$ scale. Therefore, at $`M_C`$, the left-hand sides of Eqs. (22) and (28) must be the same. Thus, we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _2(M_C)& =[b_2^{}(V)+b_2^{}(\mathrm{𝟐})]\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}{M_C}=\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{\mathrm{gauge}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{\mathrm{Higgs}},\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _3(M_C)& =\left(2\pi /\alpha _3(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{GUT}}\right)\hfill \\ & +[b_3^{}(V)+b_3^{}(\mathrm{𝟐})]\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}{M_C}=\mathrm{\Delta }_3^{\mathrm{gauge}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_3^{\mathrm{Higgs}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Solving these equations yields

$$M_C5.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV},\text{and}M_{}1.0\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(30)
where we use the same value of $`\delta _3`$ as is used by Kim and Raby Kim:2002im  ($`\delta _36`$) and we take the corresponding value of $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ ($`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV). These values imply that $`N=90`$, justifying the large $`N`$ approximations. This also ensures that the effect of the non-universal brane kinetic terms, present on the $`O^{}`$ brane, on the gauge coupling unification is sufficiently small to be neglected Hall:2001pg .

In view of our results the following picture emerges. The effective theory below the compactification scale looks exactly the same as the usual MSSM theory. Then, once we go above $`M_C`$, there emerge the towers of the Kaluza-Klein states that change the behavior of the gauge running through the set of small but numerous threshold corrections. The theory finally yields the gauge unification at $`M_{}>M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ where all the couplings of the theory enter the strong regime. At that point the five-dimensional theory must be embedded into more fundamental physical picture.

We should note that our result is not very sensitive to the exact value of the small parameter $`\zeta `$. On the other hand, the values of $`M_C`$ and $`M_{}`$ depend very strongly on the value of $`\delta _3`$. We have taken $`\delta _36`$ to be able to compare our results with the analysis of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im . This value, coming from the RGE propagation of the experimental value of $`\alpha _3(m_Z)=0.118\pm 0.003`$ Hagiwara:fs  from the $`m_Z`$ scale to the GUT scale, could be reduced in near future. Namely, the new estimate of $`\alpha _3`$ from $`\tau `$ lifetime suggests $`\alpha _3(m_Z)=0.1221_{0.0023}^{+0.0026}`$ Erler:2002bu ; Langacker:2003tv . This would have a large impact on our result since the corresponding value of $`\delta _3`$ ($`\delta _33`$) would imply $`N=2`$, making the whole KK unification picture questionable. The model of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im  for the case of $`\delta _33`$ yields $`N=27`$.

This paper is devoted solely to the analysis of the gauge coupling unification. This means that there are many questions left unanswered. For example, one might ask what mechanism breaks four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. Or, how the Higgs fields responsible for the missing partner mechanism get their VEVs. Our intention was not to answer the questions like these but to demonstrate the possibility of the five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein unification and this we did. But, some of these questions, including the possibility of having a model with the realistic mass patterns, have already been tackled in Ref. Barr:2002fb . \[There are, of course, different directions one might take. Namely, a number of five-dimensional $`SO(10)`$ models with the Pati-Salam signature on one brane and $`SO(10)`$ signature on the other brane has been studied in the literature Dermisek:2001hp ; Albright:2002pt ; Kyae:2002ss ; Kim:2002im ; Kim:2003vr . Even the most general scenario of having a model with the five-dimensional $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry that is broken by compactification on both branes has also been investigated recently Kyae:2003ek .\]

Our result for $`M_C`$ and $`M_{}`$ is very similar to the result obtained by Kim and Raby Kim:2002im . This is due to the fact that the biggest correction to the standard four-dimensional running in both cases comes from the first term in Eq. (26a). Since this term involves the beta coefficients of the SM gauge group only, the leading corrections must be the same for all the schemes with the realistic low-energy signature. The main difference between the two models in the gauge sector is generated by the beta coefficients $`b^𝒢(V)`$ of the gauge group on the hidden brane. In our case the hidden brane has the flipped $`SU(5)`$ group with $`b^𝒢(V)=(0,72/5,72/5)`$, while in the case of Kim and Raby the hidden brane harbors PS gauge group with $`b^𝒢(V)=(0,12/5,18/5)`$. The main difference in the Higgs sector stems from the fact that there is no distinction between the region I and region II in Kim and Raby case since the additional boundary conditions do not affect the Higgs sector at all. Therefore, the second term in Eq. (26b) is absent in their case. It is interesting to note that the difference between the two models is in the terms that are proportional to the small parameter $`\zeta `$. Therefore, the limit $`\zeta 0`$ gives the same result in both cases. In that limit we obtain $`M_C3.2\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_{}2.2\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Interestingly enough, the same limit reproduces the results of the analysis on the gauge coupling unification of the five-dimensional $`SU(5)`$ model Hall:2002ci . One can even make a more general statement<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We thank Hyung Do Kim for pointing this out to us. about various models yielding the same result in the limit when the brane breaking is large enough ($`\zeta 0`$). Namely, one expects the same corrections to the usual four-dimensional running in all models that fulfill the following conditions: i) $``$ is a unified group; ii) $``$ corresponds to the SM group; iii) Symmetry breaking $`𝒢`$ is localized at the $`𝒢`$ brane; iv) the MSSM Higgses originate from the bulk. Clearly, all of the above conditions are satisfied by the models we consider.

Even though the exact unification of the gauge couplings in the four-dimensional flipped $`SU(5)`$ cannot be excluded Ellis:2002vk ; Nanopoulos:2002qk , one can never justify the charge quantization and the hypercharge assignment without embedding it into $`SO(10)`$. In our case this is not an issue. As long as the matter fields are placed in the bulk or on the visible brane we guarantee the charge quantization. \[Of course, if the matter comes from the bulk multiplets we might lose the unification of quarks and leptons of one family.\] The exact location of the matter fields is conditioned by the presence of $`d=6`$ proton-decay operators induced by the exchange of the $`X`$ gauge bosons. Namely, the experimental limit on proton lifetime yields the limit of $`M>2.8\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$ on the mass $`M`$ of the $`X`$ gauge bosons within the four-dimensional flipped $`SU(5)`$ Murayama:2001ur . Since the mass spectrum of $`X`$ bosons in our model starts from the compactification scale ($`M_C6\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$) it is clear that not all the families of matter fields can be placed on the visible brane. It is necessary for, at least, the first and the second family to come from the bulk multiplets. The idea of localizing the matter fields on the flipped $`SU(5)`$ brane does not appeal to us on the grounds of charge quantization. But, in that case, the suppression of the gauge field wave function on the flipped $`SU(5)`$ brane that is visible in Fig. 1 is sufficient to make the prediction for the proton decay via $`p\pi ^0e^+`$ channel very close to the present experimental bound (see for example Nomura:2001mf ; Hebecker:2002rc ). In this aspect the model of Kim and Raby Kim:2002im  does better job since the localization of the matter fields on the PS brane, in their case, still justifies the charge quantization. The only ad hoc feature of our model is the existence of the Higgses on the hidden brane. It is difficult to justify their $`U(1)`$ charges unless they originate from the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ bulk fields. \[This remains an open possibility.\] We argue that their $`U(1)`$ charges are what one expects from the fields of flipped $`SU(5)`$ and that they provide the anomaly cancellation on the hidden brane. The model can still produce interesting mass matrix patterns $`L=D`$ and $`N=U`$ that were discussed in Ref. Barr:2002fb  where, in our case, the relation $`L=D`$ holds only for the third family. In addition, it has been shown that this class of models allows for gaugino meditated supersymmetry breaking with the non-universal gaugino masses Barr:2002fb  which leads to the realistic supersymmetry mass spectra Baer:2002by ; Balazs:2003mm .

## IV Conclusion

We have presented an $`SO(10)`$ model in five dimensions. The model has served to demonstrate that the exact unification of the gauge couplings is possible even in the higher dimensional setting. The corrections to the usual four-dimensional running have been due to the Kaluza-Klein towers of states. We have shown that despite the large amount of these states the corrections for the MSSM running can be unambiguously and systematically evaluated. Demanding the exact unification, the compactification scale is deduced to be $`M_C5.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ with the cutoff of the theory at $`M_{}1.0\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Therefore, the five-dimensional theory exists in a rather large energy region before one needs to replace it with the more fundamental one.

The usual problems of SUSY GUTs, such as the doublet-triplet splitting problem, have been solved in a natural way. For example, the presence of the flipped $`SU(5)`$ symmetry on the hidden brane has allowed us to implement the missing partner mechanism. At the same time the presence of the $`SO(10)`$ symmetry on the visible brane still allows one to obtain desirable predictions for the quark and lepton masses such as $`m_b=m_\tau `$. The model yields the low-energy signature of the MSSM. In addition, it allows for the justification of the charge quantization as long as the matter lives on the visible brane or in the bulk. Due to $`d=6`$ proton-decay operators the first and the second family of the matter fields have to originate from the bulk.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Stephen M. Barr, Hyung Do Kim, and Stuart Raby for reading this manuscript and for valuable comments.


text:
# Phonon Dispersion Relations in PrBa2Cu3O6+x (𝑥≈0.2)

## I Introduction

The suppression of superconductivity by praseodymium in PrBa2Cu3O6+x has for some years presented an outstanding problem in the field of cuprate superconductivity. Radousky (1992); Boothroyd (2000) Although superconductivity at $`T_\mathrm{c}90`$ K is exhibited by the majority of compounds with the composition $`R`$Ba2Cu3O7, where $`R`$ is a rare-earth, PrBa2Cu3O6+x combines antiferromagnetic ordering with semiconducting resistivity across the whole of the known phase diagram ($`0<x<1`$).

An influential model of the electronic structure of PrBa2Cu3O6+x Fehrenbacher and Rice (1993) suggests that the absence of superconductivity is caused by localisation of holes due to hybridisation of the Pr 4$`f`$ and O 2$`p`$ orbitals. This is supported by the observation of an enhanced ordering temperature $`T_{\mathrm{Pr}}`$ of the Pr sublattice, which is an order of magnitude larger than the ordering temperature $`T_R`$ of the rare-earth sublattice in other $`R`$Ba2Cu3O7 compounds.

Neutron scattering studies of the magnetic structure Lister et al. (2001) and dispersive magnetic excitations Boothroyd et al. (1997); Gardiner et al. (2002) have probed the strengths of the different magnetic couplings in PrBa2Cu3O6+x, and indicate that the high value of $`T_{\mathrm{Pr}}`$ is partly due to an enhanced Pr–O–Pr superexchange and partly due to the presence of a significant coupling between the Cu and Pr sublattices. Both of these effects could be the result of hybridisation between Pr 4$`f`$ electrons and the CuO2 planes.

Hybridisation is expected to affect the phonon dispersion relations through the Pr–O bonds. In this paper we present measurements of the phonon dispersion relations, performed by inelastic neutron scattering on an oxygen-deficient single crystal of PrBa2Cu3O6+x ($`x0.2`$). The data are compared with a model of the lattice dynamics based on a common interatomic potential, which was originally developed for YBa2Cu3O6 and later modified for PrBa2Cu3O6. Chaplot et al. (1995)

## II Experimental details

The single crystal sample of PrBa2Cu3O6+x was prepared by top seeding a flux and had a mass of $``$ 2 g. It was reduced at 700C in a flow of 99.998% argon for 100 hours and quenched to room temperature resulting in an estimated oxygen content of $`x0.2`$. Using x-ray Laue diffraction it was aligned with the \[1$`\overline{1}`$0\] direction vertical. It was then glued onto an aluminium mount using G.E. varnish and held securely in place with aluminium wire. Preliminary neutron diffraction measurements showed the crystal mosaic to be $`1^{}`$.

The neutron scattering experiments were performed on the IN1 and IN22 triple-axis spectrometers at the Institut Laue-Langevin research reactor. The configuration of IN1 was as follows: flat copper (200) monochromator, pyrolytic graphite (002) analyser with horizontal and slight vertical focussing, no collimation before the monochromator, 60 collimator between the monochromator and sample, and pyrolytic graphite filter between the sample and analyser to reduce contamination of the beam by second and higher order reflections from the monochromator. The spectrometer was operated in the constant $`k_\mathrm{f}`$ configuration with a final energy of 34.8 meV. Low efficiency beam monitors, placed before the monochromator and between the filter and the analyser, were used to gauge the incident beam intensity and to check for accidental Bragg scattering. The crystal was mounted inside a displex refrigerator and aligned such that the  and  directions lay within the scattering plane. All measurements were performed at $`T`$ = 12 K. The configuration of IN22 was identical except for the use of a vertically curved pyrolytic graphite (002) monochromator, no collimators and a fixed final energy of 14.7 meV. A low efficiency beam monitor placed before the monochromator was used to gauge the incident beam intensity, but there was no monitor between the filter and the analyser to check for accidental Bragg scattering. The crystal was mounted inside a helium cryostat and aligned such that the  and  directions lay within the scattering plane. Most of the measurements were performed at a temperature of 1.6 K.

## III Measurements

The phonon dispersion relations in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 were measured by performing a series of constant $`𝐐`$ energy scans at positions across the Brillouin zone ($`𝐐`$ is the neutron scattering vector). On IN1, scans were performed over an energy range $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ = 30–90 meV with $`𝐐`$ = ($`3\pm h`$, $`3\pm h`$, 0) to excite predominantly longitudinal modes and $`𝐐`$ = ($`h`$, $`h`$, 15) to excite predominantly transverse modes. On IN22, scans were performed over an energy range $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ = 0–24 meV with $`𝐐`$ = ($`2h`$, $`2h`$, 0), (0, 0, $`7+l`$) to excite predominantly longitudinal modes and $`𝐐`$ = ($`h`$, $`h`$, 7), ($`h`$, $`h`$, 8), (2, 2, $`l`$) to excite predominantly transverse modes. Large values of $`𝐐`$ were chosen to maximise the phonon scattering cross section (which is proportional to $`Q^2`$), while minimising the cross section for magnetic crystal field excitations (which scales with the magnetic form factor, falling off at high $`Q`$). Squires (1996)

The scattering intensity of a phonon mode is determined by its dynamical structure factor, a quantity that varies within each Brillouin zone and also between different zones. This means that some modes have a measureable intensity only at certain points within each Brillouin zone. In such cases, or when a scan was contaminated by accidental Bragg scattering, energy scans were performed in neighbouring ($`\pm h`$) Brillouin zones to gain as many points on the dispersion curves as possible.

Some typical scans taken on IN1 and IN22 are shown in Figs. 1 (a)–(d). The peaks are quite broad because of the horizontal focussing of the analysers. There is little evidence of magnetic scattering due to crystal field excitations, which are known to exist in PrBa2Cu3O6 at energies of 61.5, 65.2, 76.0 and 84.7 meV, Hilscher et al. (1994), but it is possible that a small amount of magnetic scattering might contribute to the broadness of the observed phonon branches in the energy range 70–90 meV.

To determine the dispersion of the observed phonon modes in an unbiased way, each energy scan was fitted with a lineshape constructed from several gaussians superimposed on a constant background. The centres, amplitudes and linewidths of the gaussians and the height of the background were refined using a least squares method. Figure 2 shows the dispersion curves obtained by plotting the peak centres as a function of the phonon wavevector $`𝐪`$, where $`𝐪`$ is obtained from

$$𝐐=𝐪+𝝉,$$
(1)
and $`𝝉`$ is a reciprocal lattice vector.

## IV Model

A model based on a common interatomic potential was previously developed for the phonon dispersion curves in YBa2Cu3O6. Chaplot et al. (1995) We adapted this for PrBa2Cu3O6 by inserting the appropriate lattice parameters, atomic masses and nuclear scattering lengths, and the model was used to calculate the frequencies and dynamical structure factors of the phonon modes at the points in reciprocal space where our measurements were performed.

Comparison of the $`𝐐`$-variation of the predicted and observed modes allowed us to identify the symmetries of the different branches. In this process the predicted frequencies were used only as a guide. More weight was given to the correspondence between the predicted and observed intensities of the modes. To facilitate the comparison, simulations of the energy-scans were produced by combining the predicted dynamical structure factors with the spectrometer resolution function, calculated using the approximate Cooper-Nathans method. Cooper and Nathans (1967)

Figs. 1 (e)–(h) show the simulations corresponding to the selected raw data shown in plots (a)–(d). Most of the observed modes were in good qualitative agreement with the simulations, so assignment of the symmetries was clear. However, plots (b) and (f) show a clear discrepancy between the observed and predicted phonon spectra. We have assigned the large peak observed at 33 meV to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(4) mode (for clarity we have numbered the branches from highest to lowest in frequency). Although the energy of this peak corresponds better to the energies of the predicted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4(4)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(5)`$ modes, its intensity corresponds much better to that of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(4)`$ mode, so we are confident that our assignation is correct.

In Fig. 2 the measured dispersion curves are compared with those predicted by the model. The agreement is good for the majority of the observed branches. However, the model overestimates the energy of branch $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(1) by $``$ 8 meV (2 THz) at the zone centre and the energy of branch $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(4) by $``$ 10 meV (2.5 THz) over the whole of the Brillouin zone. The relative motions of the atoms in these branches are shown in Fig. 3, and it is clear that the motion of the copper and oxygen atoms in the CuO2 planes dominates. Both branches change character somewhat between the centre and the edge of the Brillouin zone, so the diagrams indicate the motions of the atoms at both of these positions in reciprocal space.

The broad resolution function of the spectrometer caused some ambiguity in the assignation of mode symmetries at zone centre. This was due to the possibility that we could have accidentally detected out-of-plane modes propagating in transverse directions. For instance, when we attempted to measure phonons propagating along \[hh0\] it is possible that we could also have picked up modes propagating along \[00h\]. This effect is only important at zone centre, so although it could partially account for the lowering of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(1)`$ mode at zone centre, we are confident that it could not have caused us to wrongly assign the symmetry of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(4)`$ mode.

We now compare the dispersion curves we have observed in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 with those previously observed in YBa2Cu3O6. Chaplot et al. (1995) In YBa2Cu3O6 all the branches are well described by the common interatomic potential model. Therefore the energy shifts of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(1) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(4) branches in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 are anomalous. Although the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(1) branch in YBa2Cu3O6 has a similar shape to that in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 the dip at zone centre is not so pronounced. In contrast to PrBa2Cu3O6.2, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(4) branch in YBa2Cu3O6 fits well with the model. Although the energies of the other modes are very similar in both compounds, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$(4) mode is $``$ 12 meV (3 THz) higher in YBa2Cu3O6 than in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 throughout the Brillouin zone.

The common interatomic potential model assumes that the binding mechanism is predominantly ionic, but the anomalies we have observed suggest the existence of more complex binding mechanisms. It is particularly noteworthy that the anomalous phonon branches are characterised by large displacements of the oxygen atoms whose $`2p`$ orbitals are proposed to hybridise with the Pr $`4f`$ orbitals. Pr–O hybridisation, in which the Pr–O bonds are partially covalent in character, would result in a modified electron distribution around the in-plane O atoms, which could change the strength of the Cu–O bonds and alter certain vibrational modes.

## V Conclusion

We have described inelastic neutron scattering measurements of the phonon dispersion curves in oxygen-deficient single crystal PrBa2Cu3O6+x ($`x0.2`$). The results have been compared with a model of the lattice dynamics based on a common interatomic potential, which is found to overestimate the frequencies of two branches by a considerable amount. Strikingly, these branches are dominated by motion of the oxygen atoms in the CuO2 planes: the same atoms that have been proposed to hybridise with the Pr orbitals. In contrast, the observed frequencies of all phonon branches in YBa2Cu3O6 agree well with the model. The frequency shifts observed in the two anomalous branches in PrBa2Cu3O6.2 are interpreted as indirect evidence for hybridisation of the Pr 4$`f`$ and O 2$`p`$ orbitals.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank L.-P. Regnault and A. Ivanov for help with the experiments on IN22 and IN1 respectively. Financial support for C.H.G. by the EPSRC is also acknowledged.