text:
# Requirement for quantum computation

## 1 Introduction

Quantum computation  offers the possibility of (i) efficiently simulating quantum dynamics for which classical simulations are hard and (ii) solving computational problems for which no efficient algorithm is known for classical computation. In the latter case, Shor’s algorithm for efficient factorization  is a famous example of the potential of quantum computation, which has motivated a global effort to develop quantum computers. As quantum mechanics underpins all physical theories, it is important to identify the requirements for “proper quantum computation,” where we use this term to refer to quantum computations that outperform those allowed by a strict application of the laws of classical physics.

A key issue in the design of these quantum computers is identifying requirements such as gates with entanglement capability and appropriate sources and detectors that can perform tasks not possible with a classical machine. An important question is: How do we know when a quantum process may yield a computational advantage?

One approach to identifying quantum processes that may potentially lead to quantum computation is to identify what *is not* proper quantum computation. To address this question in a quantum optics setting, we have identified a large “toolkit” consisting of sources, processors and detectors such that any network consisting of these devices can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer. With this toolkit, we construct no-go theorems that elucidate requirements for quantum computation. On one hand, a surprisingly large class of quantum networks are shown not to allow for quantum computation in the sense of solving problems that are intractable on a classical machine. On the other hand, the critical resources for performing quantum computation are exposed as violations of assumptions in the theorems. Identifying resources through violations of assumptions is particularly useful in understanding schemes that eliminate the apparent requirement of an optical nonlinearity by utilizing certain measurements. Our no-go theorems also suggest how stringent criteria might be relaxed and still be able to deliver powerful quantum computation.

## 2 Computing: problems and algorithms

Quantum computation is often regarded as a powerful, “non-classical” computation, i.e., a computation that cannot be performed “easily” on a conventional computer. However, this description requires us to be specific about what we mean by a computation, by “non-classical”, and by computationally “easy”. Because we expect a quantum computer to be able to do anything that a classical computer can do (and possibly much more), we need to rule out classes of computations on a quantum computer that are not *proper*, in the sense that they could equally well be performed on a classical computer. In this section, we define relevant computing concepts and terms with the aim of identifying what constitutes proper quantum computation.

A *computational problem* is a mathematical function that maps an *instance* (i.e., an input) to a *solution*. The sets of instances and solutions are classical sets of distinguishable elements, e.g., integer numbers. For example, the problem, “Is an integer $`p`$ a prime number?” is a computational problem, one for which the set of instances is the set of integer numbers and the set of solutions consists of the logical output “yes (it is prime)” and “no (it is not)”.

For a specific computational problem, an *algorithm* is a detailed, step-by-step method or recipe for finding the solution corresponding to a given instance , using an agreed set of operations. These operations may include boolean operations or unitary quantum transformations or something else. An algorithm is thus a prescription, using specified operations, for solving the problem in general. Finding the solution for a given instance simply becomes a mechanistic process: follow the steps of the algorithm to obtain the solution.

Once an algorithm for a problem is devised, the process of calculating solutions for various instances can be automated. A *computer* is a physical, mechanistic device used to implement the steps of an algorithm, thus calculating a solution for a given instance of the problem. A computer is mechanistic and employs specific operations, and it is important to identify the physical laws governing the computer’s operations; different physical laws underpinning the computation could affect the computer’s capabilities. We define a *classical computer* as a computer whose architecture obeys the laws of classical physics. This point is rather subtle: the architecture of existing computers is classical because it *can*, in principle, be implemented in systems that obey the laws of classical physics; in reality devices such as transistors, which are described as quantum devices, does not render such architectures quantal because quantum devices are a technical convenience, not an in principle requirement.

The definition of a classical computer is now clear and can be extended to define the quantum computer. A *quantum computer* is one whose processes obey the laws of quantum physics. Because quantum physics is fundamental (and classical physics emerges from quantum laws in particular circumstances), our definition leads to a classical computer being a special case of a quantum computer, one for which the governing natural laws are restricted to the limit where classical physics applies.

For a specified computation problem, the chosen algorithm determines if a quantum computer is required or if a classical computer will suffice. If the algorithm employs classical operations, a classical computer suffices; if quantum operations are employed, then a quantum computer is needed (although of course a classical computer may be able to simulate the quantum algorithm). Thus, we define a *quantum algorithm* as one that requires quantum operations to implement. In contrast, a classical computer program is a *classical algorithm* that requires only classical operations for its execution.

With these definitions, we can address the question, “What is a quantum computation?” It seems natural to define quantum computation as a physical process, obeying the laws of quantum physics, that provides a solution for a given instance of a computational problem. This definition is unsatisfactory for our purposes: any computation on a conventional computer (which fundamentally obeys the laws of quantum physics) would thus be considered a quantum computation.

A better definition might be obtained by demanding that demonstratable quantum dynamics (such as quantum tunnelling, quantum superpositions or entanglement) occur during the computation. This approach is appealing because one could experimentally test for quantum effects and claim that a quantum computation is occurring. However, the problem with this extended definition is that the presence of quantum effects may not yield a quantum computation that performs better than a classical computation. Quantum effects could enhance the performance of computation, but incorporating entanglement does not guarantee this performance enhancement. The definition needs to consider the performance of the computation.

Proper quantum computation may be described as computation that outperforms comparable (or possibly any) classical computation. In order to quantify this concept of outperformance, we appeal to the subject of computational complexity.

### 2.1 Computational complexity

Quantum computation, per se, had its origins in Feynman’s musings , motivated by using quantum processes to efficiently simulate quantum dynamics for cases where classical computers appear to be grossly inadequate. The issues of *efficiency* and *efficient simulation* are an active area of research in computer science known as computational complexity , and will be useful in defining a concept of proper quantum computation.

The motivation of computational complexity is to quantify the difficulty of an algorithm for a computational problem. Note that “difficulty” does not quantify how challenging it is for a researcher to devise an algorithm for a problem, but instead quantifies the physical resources that are required by a computer to implement an algorithm for a given instance size. More precisely, it is a comparison of the amount of physical resources $`R`$ (e.g., the number of computational steps, or the amount of physical memory) required in order to obtain a solution for an instance with size $`S`$ (e.g., the number of bits needed to write the instance into memory).

The computational complexity class $`𝐏`$ is, loosely, the set of algorithms for which $`R`$ is bounded by a polynomial function of $`S`$. For such an algorithm, it is often said that the amount of physical resources required to solve the problem “scales polynomially” in the size of the instance. Classical algorithms that are in $`𝐏`$ are generally considered to be easy, or *efficient*, whereas an algorithm that is not in $`𝐏`$ is considered hard and inefficient. Note that this classification is a loose guide (an algorithm where $`R`$ behaves as $`S^{100}`$ is in $`𝐏`$ but may be practically intractable), but is one that in practice serves as an excellent classification of easy and hard algorithms.

It could be argued that the goal of quantum computer science is to devise quantum algorithms for which the number of quantum operations required scales polynomially in the size of the instance, but where no classical algorithm in $`𝐏`$ is known or even possible. In such cases, allowing for quantum operations clearly results in an advantage from a computational perspective. Shor’s quantum algorithm for efficient factorization is one such example; finding more examples may lead to an understanding of how quantum computation may be more powerful than classical.

### 2.2 Classical simulation of quantum processes

As discussed in the previous section, allowing quantum operations in a computation does not guarantee an advantage from a computational complexity perspective. In order to identify requirements for proper quantum computation as distinct from classical computing, we require that proper quantum computation offers an advantage over classical computing. Consider a quantum algorithm, or even more generally, a quantum process. We say that this process can be *efficiently simulated* on a classical computer if the classical computing resources required to simulate it scale polynomially in the size of the quantum process; i.e., if the classical algorithm simulating the quantum one is in $`𝐏`$. The concept of efficient classical simulation leads us to the following definition.

Definition (proper quantum computation): A quantum computation that cannot be efficiently simulated on a classical computer.

We immediately see that this definition is unsatisfactory in some respects: some quantum computations offer a polynomial speedup over classical algorithms (such as Grover’s search algorithm , which offers a quadratic speedup over classical searches). These computations can be efficiently classically simulated and are thus not proper quantum computations by our definition; nevertheless they still qualify as quantum algorithms. However, quantum computations that are proper (and thus not efficiently classically simulatable) are of paramount importance, and thus we focus our attention on identifying requirements for them.

Proving that a quantum algorithm is proper and will outperform *any* classical algorithm is difficult. One fruitful direction towards this goal is to identify large classes of quantum processes that do *not* offer an advantage over a classical system: this exclusive direction serves to focus the search for proper quantum algorithms. Such efficient simulation does not imply that quantum effects are not present in the quantum system, but simply notes that the quantum system does not provide a computational advantage. Appealing to Feynman’s original concept, the interesting applications for a quantum computer are for quantum processes that *cannot* be efficiently simulated on a classical computer.

## 3 Optical realizations of quantum computation

We now turn our attention to performing quantum computation with quantum optics. Optical realizations of quantum information processing benefit from advanced techniques in quantum optics for state preparation, unitary evolution with low decoherence and high-efficiency measurement. Both qubit  and continuous-variable  schemes allow optical quantum information processing; experiments demonstrating optical quantum teleportation  and proposals for schemes such as optical quantum secret sharing  are testimony to advances in quantum optical quantum information tasks and processes.

It is important to determine the useful and necessary optical processes to perform proper quantum computation, and we specifically identify classes of processes that can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer. The Gottesman-Knill (GK) theorem  for qubits shows that it is sometimes possible to efficiently simulate a restricted set of quantum operations on a classical computer via a clever representation. In the following, we construct a large toolkit of quantum optics sources, processors and detectors that can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer. This construction allows us to identify key resources outside of this toolkit that may allow for proper quantum computation.

### 3.1 Simulating optical quantum processes

A full quantal treatment of a mode of the electromagnetic field requires the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space of a harmonic oscillator. Clearly, attempting to represent the state of many coupled optical modes on a classical computer is a daunting task due to the shear size of the quantum Hilbert space. Only more compact representations of a restricted set of such quantum states and corresponding transformations could ever be made tractable on a classical computer. We demonstrate in the following that such compact representations exist for a wide range of optical quantum networks.

Linear optics, consisting of beam splitters, phase-shifters and other linear couplers together with semiclassical sources and coherence measurements can be described purely through a semiclassical description, and thus cannot yield proper quantum computation because the linear semiclassical evolution can be efficiently simulated. Also, single-photon schemes that employ only linear optics  are not scalable, in that they require resources that grow exponentially in the number of qubits . Squeezing processes are realised by a $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinearity; if the pump is treated classically using a mean-field approximation, the resulting operation can be viewed as linear on a single mode (one-mode squeezing) or two modes (yielding an entangling transformation). The addition of squeezing and entangling transformations to this scheme is also insufficient, as proven by the continuous-variable classical simulatability theorem of Bartlett *et al*:

Theorem 1 (Efficient Classical Simulation of Continuous Variable Quantum Information): Any continuous variable quantum information process that initiates with Gaussian product states (products of squeezed displaced vacuum states) and performs only (i) linear phase-space displacements, (ii) squeezing transformations on a single oscillator mode, (iii) two-mode squeezing transformations, (iv) measurements of quadrature phase (i.e., homodyne detection) with finite losses, and (v) any such operations conditioned on classical numbers or homodyne detection (classical feed-forward), can be *efficiently* simulated using a classical computer.

An outline of the proof of this theorem is as follows. Gaussian states of an $`N`$-mode optical system are completely characterised by the vector consisting of the mean values of the canonical variables and by the covariance matrix. This representation of the states can be stored efficiently on a classical computer. Linear optics and one- and two-mode squeezing transformations possess a straightforward group action on this representation: these operations displace the means and transform the covariance matrix but maintain the Gaussian property of the multi-mode state. Because of the ease of this representation, these calculations can be simulated efficiently on a classical computer.

We note that the inclusion of squeezing into this list allows for non-Poissonian photon statistics. For example, the output of parametric downconversion is described by a state with only even photon number contributions. Such squeezed states, however, are still Gaussian and fall within the constraints of our theorem. Thus, although techniques of linear optics and squeezing with semiclassical sources and homodyne detection are highly advanced and can demonstrate non-classical properties such as quantum teleportation  and quantum secret sharing , they are insufficient to perform proper quantum computation.

Recently, non-unitary processes such as measurement have been identified as a means to extend the power of optical quantum information processing . The essence of such schemes is that two optical systems (e.g., modes) are entangled, followed by a measurement on one system. The other system “collapses” into a state that depends on the measurement outcome; for certain outcomes this collapse can be seen as equivalent to a unitary transformation. Proposals by Knill, Laflamme and Milburn  (KLM) and Gottesman, Kitaev and Preskill  (GKP) employ photon counting to induce unitary transformations in optical systems non-deterministically (i.e., they occur when certain measurement outcomes are observed), which leads to potential experimental schemes for optical quantum computation.

The above classical simulatability theorem can be extended to include non-unitary processes such as measurement. The classical simulatability theorem of Bartlett and Sanders  employs the powerful formalism of Gaussian completely positive (CP) maps  to describe efficiently simulatable operations (including some non-unitary processes such as measurement) on Gaussian states.

Theorem 2 (Efficient Classical Simulation of Optical Processes): Any quantum information process that initiates in a Gaussian state and that performs only Gaussian CP maps can be *efficiently* simulated using a classical computer. These maps include (i) the unitary transformations corresponding to linear optics and squeezing, (ii) linear amplification (including phase-insensitive and phase-sensitive amplification and optimal cloning), linear loss mechanisms or additive noise, (iii) measurements that are Gaussian CP maps including, but not limited to, projective measurements in the position/momentum eigenstate basis or coherent/squeezed state basis, with finite losses, and (iv) any of the above Gaussian CP maps conditioned on classical numbers or the outcomes of prior Gaussian CP measurements (classical feedforward).

Again, the proof of this theorem lies in the simple representation for Gaussian states given by the means and covariance matrix. The non-unitary operations covered by this theorem form a semigroup (similar to a group but without the guarantee that every element is invertible) that again preserve the Gaussian nature of the states. This theorem for efficient classical simulation provides a powerful tool in assessing whether a given optical process can enhance linear optics to allow for proper quantum computation. Algorithms or circuits employing Gaussian-preserving maps can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer, and thus cannot lead to proper quantum computation.

The results of this section reveal the limitation of using Gaussian states for quantum information processing: the existence of a compact representation for these states (and Gaussian-preserving transformations and measurements on them) leads to no-go theorems for proper quantum computation. Clearly, “going beyond” Gaussian states in optical quantum computation is necessary (although possibly not sufficient).

### 3.2 Requirement of optical nonlinearity

In particular, higher-order optical nonlinear processes (such as a Kerr nonlinearity ), which can yield non-Gaussian states, have been identified as a necessary requirement  for proper quantum computation with optics. Unfortunately, Kerr nonlinearities suffer either from weak strengths or high losses, and the lack of appropriate nonlinear materials greatly restricts the type of processes that can be performed in practice. Optical quantum computation schemes such as  use measurements to induce a nonlinear transformation; however, as shown in the previous theorems, not all forms of measurement can yield proper quantum computation. In this section, we discuss measurements that may be used to induce an optical nonlinearty and those which cannot by employing the results of our no-go theorems.

First, our theorem provides a strong no-go result for the use of homodyne measurement:

Corollary 1: *Linear optics or squeezing transformations conditioned on the measurement outcome of homodyne detection with finite losses using Gaussian states cannot induce a nonlinearity.*

Thus, initiating with Gaussian states, it is not possible to use homodyne measurements and feedforward of measurement results to induce a (possibly nondeterministic) optical nonlinearity in the way that photon counting allows in the KLM scheme. In terms of optical implementations of quantum computing, this theorem reveals why all previous schemes either propose some form of optical nonlinearity , use other forms of measurement such as photon counting  or are not efficiently scalable .

This theorem also places severe constraints on the use of photodetection to perform nonlinear transformations in realizations of optical quantum computing. For a threshold photodetector  with perfect efficiency, the POVM is given by two elements, corresponding to “absorption” and “no-absorption” of light. Photon counters are effectively constructed as arrays of such detectors . The vacuum projection describes the non-absorption measurement, and the corresponding map describing this measurement result is Gaussian CP. However, the absorption outcome is not.

Corollary 2: *Gaussian-preserving maps conditioned on the no-absorption outcome of a photodetection measurement can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer; transformations conditioned on the absorption outcome cannot be efficiently simulated in this manner.*

Note that the same result holds for finite-efficiency photodetectors: such detectors can be modelled as unit efficiency photodetectors with a linear loss mechanism describable using Gaussian CP maps. Thus, the absorption outcome of photodetection and the feedforward of this measurement result is a key resource for optical quantum information processing. This corollary also proves that any nonlinear gate employing linear optics and photon counting *must* be nondeterministic; a photon counting measurement of a Gaussian state could possibly result in an outcome of zero photons, and such a result corresponds to an efficient, classically simulatable process. (Note that nonlinear optics, in contrast, allows deterministic processing.)

Our classical simulatability theorem may be useful in assessing the minimum requirements for proper quantum computation with optics. Table 1 presents various classes of initial states, unitary gates, and measurements (that can be used for classical feedforward) and their classical simulatability according to our theorem. Employing only Gaussian states and Gaussian CP maps results in an efficiently simulatable circuit; one can now consider supplementing this set with various “resources” that may allow for proper quantum computation. As shown by Lloyd and Braunstein , the addition of a Kerr nonlinearity or any higher-order transformation on a single mode results in the ability to efficiently simulate the evolution of any polynomial Hamiltonian. The schemes of KLM and GKP reveal that photon counting is also a resource that allows for universal quantum computation. The KLM scheme also requires single photon Fock states “on demand” as ancilla inputs to their nondeterministic nonlinear gates; such states lie outside the domain of our theorem (they are not Gaussian) and may serve as a resource for performing nonlinear operations.

It is interesting to consider, then, if single photons on demand are by themselves sufficient to bestow Gaussian CP maps with the power to perform nonlinear operations and thus possibly proper quantum computation. Considering the recent progress in creating single photon turnstile devices  (with low probablility of producing zero or two photons by accident), a scheme that requires single photons but otherwise employs only linear optics, squeezing, and high-efficiency homodyne detection would obviate the need for ultra-high efficiency photon counters .

## 4 Discussion

Quantum optics is challenged by the advent of quantum computation, not only by the technical hurdles that must be overcome to achieve scalable quantum computers, but also by the fundamental question of creating and verifying proper quantum computation in the laboratory. Here we have elucidated the nature of quantum computation, pointed out that a large quantum optics toolkit is insufficient to realise proper quantum computation and illustrated how violating assumptions in our no-go theorems may correspond to requirements for quantum computation.

We have established that optical transformations that map Gaussian wavefunctions into Gaussian wavefunctions, whether unitary or not, are insufficient to perform proper quantum computation. If the Gaussian nature of wavefunctions is preserved by the operations, then we can exploit the mean-and-covariance representation of states to implement an efficient classical simulation of the quantum system; hence this quantum computation does not sufficiently outperform a classical computation to qualify as proper quantum computation according to our criteria.

We highlight the importance of non-Gaussian transformations, whether they correspond to nonlinear unitary evolutions or to the nonlinear CP-map of conditioning a unitary transformation on detecting photons (the absorption outcome), and also the initiation with non-Gaussian states, to violate our theorems. If the initial states are non-Gaussian, or if the transformations do not preserve the Gaussian representation of wavefunctions, then the “clever” representation of Gaussian states in terms of means and variances is no longer adequate to provide algorithms for efficient classical simulation. Although we cannot guarantee that violating our theorem is enough for proper quantum computation, we can – and do – rule out classes of experiments (as determined by the “toolkit” in the laboratory) as being sufficient for proper quantum computation.

In designing experiments for quantum computation, one must always consider the most efficient means to simulate the processes and outcomes on a classical computer. If a clever means exists to simulate the experimental quantum computation on a classical computer such that this simulation is in P, then the quantum computation is not *proper*: our requirement is that the toolkit must be sufficient to produce quantum computations that defy efficient classical simulation.

### Acknowledgments

This project has been supported by the Australian Research Council and Macquarie University.


format: text

text:
# Recent Results from PHOBOS at RHIC

## 1 Introduction

The results presented here are based on PHOBOS data taken during the first two RHIC physics runs for Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 19.6, 130 and 200 GeV. Event centrality (impact parameter) is characterized by the number of participating nucleons, $`N_{part}`$, allowing direct comparison to elementary systems, like $`pp`$, $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$. The PHOBOS detector consists mainly of silicon pad sensors to perform particle tracking, vertex detection and multiplicity measurements. This set of detectors has nearly full azimuthal coverage over a large pseudorapidity range $`|\eta |<`$ 5.4. Details of the layout of the Si sensors can be found elsewhere . Our methods for event triggering and centrality selection have been previously described . The raw data came in the form of energy depositions from the passage of charged particles above threshold through individual Si pads, known as hits. The position of the primary collision vertex was determined on an event-by-event basis by extrapolating tracks found in the spectrometer arms and/or the vertex detector.

## 2 Flow

The particle emission pattern created in heavy-ion collisions can be probed by measuring azimuthal anisotropy about the event plane, i.e., elliptic flow. The event plane was determined by a standard subevent technique  using hits in symmetric and uniform regions of the octagonal barrel multiplicity detector. The second Fourier coefficient of the hit azimuthal angle distribution, v2, (elliptic flow) was evaluated by correlating the event plane to hits in a different region of the multiplicity detectors and corrected for event plane resolution. Details of this flow analysis are provided in Ref. .

Flow results are shown in Fig. 2, where the error bars indicate 1$`\sigma `$ statistical errors. The 90% confidence level systematic errors are shown as boxes for the 200 GeV data points. The flow signal changes little with the increase in the center-of-mass energy of the collision from 130 to 200 GeV. Fig. 2 shows a substantial drop in v2 as a function of $`|\eta |`$ in contradiction with the idea of longitudinal boost invariance over a broad rapidity range in RHIC collisions.

## 3 Multiplicity

Fig. 2 shows charged particle pseudorapidity distributions scaled by the number of participant pairs, $`dN_{ch}/d\eta ^{}/N_{part}/2`$ (where $`\eta ^{}=\eta y_{\mathrm{beam}}`$), measured at three different RHIC energies for peripheral ($`N_{part}100`$) and central events ($`N_{part}355`$), in the left and right panels, respectively. Shifting into the rest frame of one of the colliding nuclei clearly demonstrates the “limiting behavior” in the fragmentation region, i.e., the distributions are independent of beam energy over a substantial range in $`\eta ^{}`$ . Similar behavior has been observed in $`\overline{p}p`$ , $`pA`$ , and $`e^+e^{}`$  collisions over a large range of energies. In Fig. 2 the extent of the limiting fragmentation region significantly grows with collision energy in sharp contrast to a boost-invariant scenario.

Comparison of the data at a fixed beam energy between the left and right panels of Fig. 2 demonstrates that even though the shapes of the distributions dramatically change, the extent of the fragmentation region is nearly independent of centrality. The total charged particle multiplicity, $`N_{ch}`$, was determined by integrating $`dN_{ch}/d\eta ^{}`$, where the low energy data along with fits to the higher energy data was used to extrapolate out to larger $`\eta ^{}`$ for the higher energies. Repeating this procedure at each beam energy for all centrality classes results in Fig. 4, which shows $`N_{ch}/N_{part}/2`$ is centrality independent.

In Fig. 4, $`N_{ch}/N_{part}/2`$ in central heavy-ion collisions  is compared to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`pp/\overline{p}p`$ data over a large range in collision energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$ . $`N_{ch}/N_{part}/2`$ is observed to lie below $`pp`$ at low energies, passing through the $`pp`$ data around $`\sqrt{s}10`$ GeV, and then gradually converging with the $`e^+e^{}`$ trend above CERN SPS energies. These comparisons can be made clearer by dividing all of the data with a fit to the $`e^+e^{}`$ data  as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 4. The $`pp/\overline{p}p`$ data (open squares) follows the same trend as $`e^+e^{}`$, but agrees better if rescaled to an “effective energy” $`\sqrt{s}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{s}/2`$ (open diamonds), which approximately accounts for the leading particle effect seen in $`pp`$ collisions . Ref.  finds that bulk particle production in $`pp`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ data does not depend in detail on the collision system, but rather the energy available for particle production. In this scenario, the Au-Au data suggests a substantially reduced leading particle effect in central collisions of heavy nuclei at high energy .

Modulation of the leading particle effect in nuclear collisions may be the result of multiple scattering. For example, each participating nucleon is typically struck three times on average as it passes through the oncoming Au nucleus for $`N_{part}>65`$. This rescattering could transfer much more of the initial longitudinal energy into particle production. This naturally leads to the scaling of total particle production in heavy-ion collisions with $`N_{part}`$, as seen in Fig. 4, suggestive of the “wounded nucleon model”  but with the scaling factor determined by $`e^+e^{}`$ rather than $`pp`$ .

## 4 Summary

Recent results from PHOBOS at RHIC indicate clear evidence of limiting fragmentation in Au-Au collisions. Also, longitudinal boost invariance occurs only over a limited region, because this fragmentation region grows with beam energy, along with the pronounced drop in flow at high $`\eta `$. Finally, there is a striking similarity of particle production in $`e^+e^{}`$ and particle production per participating nucleon pair in Au-Au collisions.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38, and NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish group was partially supported by KBN grant 2-P03B-10323. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.


text:
# ANTHROPIC ESTIMATES OF THE CHARGE AND MASS OF THE PROTON Alberta-Thy-03-04, hep-th/0203051

## 1 Introduction

One prominent idea of recent decades is that some of the ‘constants of physics’ may only be constant (or nearly so) in our observable region of the universe (our ‘subuniverse’) but may take on a range of values in the entire universe (or ‘multiverse,’ though I shall eschew this terminology here). Two examples to be considered here are the electromagnetic fine structure constant, $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c)`$ (the square of the charge of the proton, $`e`$, in the Planck units $`\mathrm{}=c=G=4\pi ϵ_0=1`$ I shall use here), and the gravitational fine structure constant for the proton, $`\alpha _G=Gm_p^2/(\mathrm{}c)(m_p/m_P)^2`$ (the square of the mass of the proton, $`m_p`$, in Planck units). If these ‘constants’ vary widely over the entire universe, most of the universe may be unsuitable for observers, and hence one might expect that observed values would statistically have a narrower range. One goal of a complete theory of physics and of observership would be to calculate the statistical distribution of the observed values of such ‘constants.’

Of course, we are nowhere near achieving such a goal. However, here I wish to use come crude hypotheses and arguments about the conditions that might be conducive for typical observers in order to come up with some rough values that typical observers might be expected to see for the electromagnetic and gravitational fine structure constants. (Such arguments often go under the name of anthropic arguments, but they are really about observership rather than about anthropos. Because these arguments can be made only very crudely at present, they are often deprecated, but I shall take the view that they are just the beginning hints of what should in principle be possible with a complete theory of the universe, including the physical conditions for observership.)

Rather remarkably, one finds that without using any observational data except for certain discrete integers (e.g., the dimension of space, the number of generations of quarks and leptons, etc.), one can get crude estimates for typical observed values of both of these parameters that are in the right ballpark to explain our particular observations. In this paper I shall show how one can get a crude estimate for the magnitude of the charge of the proton ($`e\sqrt{\alpha }`$ in Planck units) that differs from what we observe by only a few percent. One can also get a somewhat more crude estimate for the mass of the proton ($`m_p\sqrt{\alpha _G}`$ in Planck units) that differs by about 3 orders of magnitude from the value that we observe. However, since the observed value is about 19 orders of magnitude smaller than unity, on a logarithmic scale the crude estimate is not that far off.

Furthermore, one just needs a single previously-published fudge factor of 10 to reduce the error to about 2% for the charge of the proton (or to within 1.1% error for the charge and to within 0.7% error for the mass if this 10 were replaced by 15). Of course, it is a cheat to take these revised values as predictions, but to the degree that it is not implausible that a factor of the order of 10 or 15 could arise from a more detailed calculation, it is not implausible that such a calculation could give a statistical distribution of observed values of the charge and mass of the proton such that our observations of these values would be typical. In other words, the ‘errors’ of the crude estimates previously mentioned, which do not use as input any observed continuous parameters like the fudge factors of the present paragraph, seem small enough not to be fatal to the form of the argument.

## 2 The Carter-Carr-Rees anthropic argument

We will need two independent formulas relating the charge and mass of the proton in order to deduce approximations for their values. First I shall give the Carter-Carr-Rees formula, and then in the next section I shall add my own renormalization group argument to get a new formula that one can combine with the Carter-Carr-Rees one to get actual estimates for the charge and mass of the proton.

Brandon Carter  noted that typical observers may live on planets, as we do, and that planetary formation may depend upon the formation of convective red stars. For the existence of these he deduced that

$$\alpha _Gm_p^2\stackrel{<}{}\alpha ^{12}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^4,$$
(1)
where $`m_e`$ is the mass of the electron. Then Bernard Carr and Martin Rees  noted that if $`\alpha _G`$ were a lot smaller than the right hand side of Eq. (1), one might not get supernovae that are necessary for producing the elements needed for observers like us. Putting these two arguments together, one may conclude that for observers like us that live on planets and have a complex chemistry, one may need

$$\alpha _G\alpha ^{12}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^4.$$
(2)
One might alternatively write this relation as

$$\alpha _G=C\alpha ^{12}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^4$$
(3)
with a ‘Carter constant’ $`C`$ that is predicted to be observed to be of the order of unity by typical observers. We observe it to be $`C2.944`$ in our sub-universe .

In their Eq. (58), Carr and Rees  also cited Carter  in noting four key coincidences of nuclear physics that may be necessary for observers like us. Together they imply what Carr and Rees write, in Eq. (45) of their paper , as

$$\frac{m_e}{m_p}10\alpha ^2.$$
(4)
The 10 is really just an order-of-magnitude estimate for a numerical coefficient that is not predicted precisely, a ‘fudge factor’ as it were, so to get relations without including unpredicted factors, one might write this relation merely as

$$\frac{m_e}{m_p}\alpha ^2.$$
(5)
Alternatively, one might write this relation as

$$\frac{m_e}{m_p}=R\alpha ^2$$
(6)
with a ‘Carr-Rees constant’ $`R`$ that is predicted to be somewhat larger than unity. To give an order of magnitude estimate, Carr and Rees say $`R10`$. We actually observe it to be $`R10.227290`$ in our subuniverse .

If we now combine these two relations without the numerical factors of $`C`$ and $`R`$, we get what I shall call the basic Carter-Carr-Rees relation

$$\alpha _G\alpha ^{20},$$
(7)
which is also listed explicitly as Eq. (57) of .

If one does include the fudge factor of 10 that Carr and Rees include in their Eq. (45), copied as Eq. (4) above, then one gets what I shall call the fudged Carter-Carr-Rees relation

$$\alpha _G10^4\alpha ^{20}.$$
(8)
Alternatively, one can write

$$\alpha _G=E\alpha ^{20}=(F\alpha )^{20},$$
(9)
where $`E=F^{20}=CR^4`$. In our subuniverse, we observe $`E32205`$, or $`F1.68032^{0.7487}`$ . Since $`F`$ is fairly close to $`2^{3/4}`$, as a mnemonic device one can remember a fairly good approximation to Eq. (9) in our subuniverse as the “2-3-4” formula

$$\alpha _G(2^{3/4}\alpha )^{20}.$$
(10)
Thus we have one rough relation between $`\alpha e^2`$ and $`\alpha _Gm_p^2`$, or between the charge $`e`$ and mass $`m_p`$ of the proton. To get an estimate for both values, we need another relation. This I shall provide by a crude renormalization-group (RG) analysis of supersymmetric (SUSY) Grand Unified Theory (GUT) couplings in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

But before I do that, I should note that the Carr-Rees paper, though preceding most of the development of the MSSM, did also propose a second relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$ based upon some arguments about a self-consistent quantum electrodynamics, namely Eq. (54) of , which I shall call the Carr-Rees log relation:

$$\alpha ^1\mathrm{log}\alpha _G^1.$$
(11)
Although Carr and Rees did not carry this further in their paper, it is trivial to combine Eqs. (7) and (11) \[their Eqs. (57) and (54) respectively\] to estimate that $`\alpha ^190`$, which is about 66% of the value we observe in our subuniverse , $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1137.036000`$, and to estimate that $`\alpha _G^11.2\times 10^{39}`$, about 7 times the value we observe in our subuniverse , $`\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}^11.693\times 10^{38}2^{126.993}2^{2^{2^{2^21}1}1}1`$ (the 12th smallest Mersenne prime and largest prime found without computers, in 1876 by Edouard Lucas ). It is remarkable that even these very crude estimates give values for the charge and mass of the proton that are within the right ballpark for our observations.

## 3 The renormalization group argument

Now I shall show how to deduce a better relation between $`\alpha ^1`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G^1`$ by using a renormalization group analysis of supersymmetric grand unified theories, e.g., that of William Marciano and Goran Senjanović .

I shall assume that there are $`n_g=3`$ generations of quarks and leptons and $`N_H=2`$ relatively light Higgs doublets in low-energy $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$, which are discrete choices that themselves might by justified in the future by some anthropic argument that typical observers would see those values.

However, I shall not use any observational results of parameters that are believed to have a potentially continuous range (like the charge and mass of the proton). (More precisely, parameters like the charge and mass of the proton are not now known to be limited to discrete values, so for the sake of argument I shall assume that they can in principle have continuous ranges, even though a future theory could conceivably show that they really are limited to certain discrete values.)

Then, to one-loop order and ignoring additive numbers like $`1/4\pi `$, the results of Marciano and Senjanović  imply that the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ inverse coupling constants, and the inverse electromagnetic fine-structure constant, run with the energy scale $`\mu `$, in the range $`m_W<\mu <m_S`$ between the weak energy scale $`m_W`$ and the unification mass scale $`m_S`$, in the following way, when $`n_g=3`$ and $`N_H=2`$:

$`\alpha _1^1(\mu )\alpha _1^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{2n_g+0.3N_H}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{3.3}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }},`$ (12)
$`\alpha _2^1(\mu )\alpha _2^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{2n_g+0.5N_H6}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }}`$ $``$ $`\alpha _1^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{0.5}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }},`$ (13)
$`\alpha _3^1(\mu )\alpha _3^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{2n_g9}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }}`$ $``$ $`\alpha _1^1(m_S){\displaystyle \frac{1.5}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }},`$ (14)
$`\alpha ^1(\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\alpha _1^1(\mu )+\alpha _2^1(\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _1^1(m_S)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S}{\mu }}.`$ (15)
Now the proton mass is set roughly by the scale $`\mu `$ at which the $`SU(3)`$ coupling constant $`\alpha _3(\mu )`$ becomes large, say

$$0\alpha _3^1(m_p)\alpha _1^1(m_S)\frac{1.5}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_S}{m_p}.$$
(16)
For this equation to be approximately valid despite the fact that the proton mass $`m_p`$ is not in the range $`m_W<\mu <m_S`$ where Eqs. (12)-(15) are valid, I shall assume that on a logarithmic scale, $`m_p`$ is fairly close to $`m_W`$, in comparison with a much greater logarithmic range where Eqs. (12)-(15) are valid, as is indeed the case in the subuniverse that we observe.

If we approximate the electromagnetic coupling constant at zero momentum transfer, which is the quantity we have been calling $`\alpha `$, with the electromagnetic coupling constant at energy scale $`\mu =m_p`$, we get from Eqs. (15) and (16) that

$$\alpha ^1\alpha ^1(m_p)\frac{10}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_S}{m_p}.$$
(17)
The next approximation we shall make is that on a logarithmic scale, the unification mass $`m_S`$ is nearly the Planck mass $`m_P`$, so we can replace $`\mathrm{ln}(m_S/m_p)`$ with $`\mathrm{ln}(m_P/m_p)=0.5\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G^1`$ in Eq. (17). This then gives us our new relation between the electromagnetic and gravitational fine structure constants (or between the charge and mass of the proton in Planck units, as given in the Abstract):

$$\alpha ^1\frac{5}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G^1.$$
(18)
One can note that if we stick with $`n_g=3`$ generations of quarks and leptons but allow the number of relatively light Higgs doublets, $`N_H`$, to be different from its minimal value of 2, then we get instead

$$\alpha ^1\frac{9+0.5N_H}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G^1.$$
(19)
Alternatively, one can replace the approximate Eqs. (18)-(19) with the exact equation

$$\alpha ^1=\frac{N}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G^1$$
(20)
(taking $`N`$ to be defined by this equation) and the approximate relation

$$N9+0.5N_H.$$
(21)
Since $`N_H`$ must be an even integer, the right hand side of Eq. (21) must be an integer, 10 if $`N_H=2`$, whereas we can take the left hand side, $`N`$, to be defined by Eq. (20). In our subuniverse, we observe $`N9.7816`$ . This is close enough to 10 that we might conclude that it is likely that our assumption of $`N_H=2`$ is correct for our subuniverse.

Incidentally, to get some feel for the accuracy of the approximations above, one may note that at the same level of approximation and truncation of the MSSM renormalization group equations , one gets that the weak-mixing angle $`\theta _W`$ gives

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.2,$$
(22)
about 13% less than the observed value 0.231 in our subuniverse .

## 4 Combining the two relations between $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$

Now we can combine some form of the Carter-Carr-Rees anthropic relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$ with the new MSSM renormalization group approximate Eq. (18) to derive approximate estimates for values of both $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$ that a typical observer might be expected to see.

If we use the basic Carter-Carr-Rees relation above, Eq. (7), $`\alpha _G\alpha ^{20}`$, then we get for the electromagnetic fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ or the charge $`e=\sqrt{\alpha }`$ of the proton in Planck units,

$$\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha =2e^2\mathrm{ln}e\frac{\pi }{100},$$
(23)
with the solution

$$\alpha ^1162\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.18}\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1.$$
(24)
The prediction for a typical observed value of the charge of the proton is then

$$e0.07861.47\times 10^{19}\mathrm{coulomb}0.920e_{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(25)
within about 8% of the experimental value observed in our subuniverse near our present time and location, $`e_{\mathrm{exp}}=\sqrt{\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}}0.0854245431.6021765\times 10^{19}`$ coulomb .

Similarly, we can combine Eqs. (7) and (18) to get an equation for the gravitational fine structure constant $`\alpha _G`$ or the mass $`m_p=\sqrt{\alpha _G}`$ of the proton in Planck units,

$$\alpha _G^{1/20}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G=2m_p^{1/10}\mathrm{ln}m_p\frac{\pi }{5}.$$
(26)
This has the solution

$$\alpha _G^11.54\times 10^{45}2^{147}\mathrm{907\hspace{0.17em}000}\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}^1,$$
(27)
or

$$m_p=\sqrt{\alpha _G}8.1\times 10^{23}1.76\times 10^{30}\mathrm{kg}0.00105m_{p\mathrm{exp}}.$$
(28)
In this case the agreement is not so good, as the estimated mass of the proton comes out to be only about 0.1% of the value we observe in our subuniverse. The large magnitude of the error can be attributed to the the large exponent of 20 in the basic Carter-Carr-Rees relation of Eq. (7), $`\alpha _G\alpha ^{20}`$. This makes it so that a relatively small error in the estimate for $`\alpha `$ can get converted into a relatively large error in $`\alpha _G`$. However, since $`m_p`$ is so small in Planck units, it might be more natural to make the comparison on a logarithmic scale, in which case one gets

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}m_p}{\mathrm{ln}m_{p\mathrm{exp}}}1.156,$$
(29)
which has an error of less than 16%.

Although of course it is a cheat for getting a true estimate, one can improve the estimate by using the fudged Carter-Carr-Rees relation, Eq. (8), $`\alpha _G10^4\alpha ^{20}`$, along with the MSSM renormalization group approximate Eq. (18) to get the fudged improved equations

$$\alpha \mathrm{ln}(10^{0.2}\alpha )=2e^2\mathrm{ln}(10^{0.1}e)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01}\pi ,$$
(30)
$$\alpha _G^{0.05}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G=2m_p^{0.1}\mathrm{ln}m_p10^{0.2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\pi .$$
(31)
The approximate numerical solutions of these fudged equations are

$$\alpha ^1143.41.046\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1,$$
(32)
$$e0.083511.566\times 10^{19}\mathrm{coulomb}0.9775e_{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(33)
$$\alpha _G^11.35\times 10^{39}2^{130}7.99\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}^1,$$
(34)
$$m_p=\sqrt{\alpha _G}2.72\times 10^{20}5.92\times 10^{28}\mathrm{kg}0.354m_{p\mathrm{exp}}.$$
(35)
Thus the fudged equations give an estimated charge of the proton within about 2.25% of the observed value nearby in our subuniverse, and an estimated mass of the proton within a factor of 3 of the observed value. Of course, the factor of 10 in Eq. (4), which gets raised to the 4th power in Eq. (8), was just an order-of-magnitude estimate that was no doubt biased by the observed value of this factor in our subuniverse, so it is not expected to be reliable. However, it does show that if one combines my new MSSM renormalization group approximate Eq. (18) (having no continuous free parameters) with the previously-published anthropic equations with this previously-published fudge factor, one gets a remarkable agreement with the observed charge of the proton, nearly 98% of the observed value, and reasonably good agreement with the observed mass, nearly 98% of its logarithm.

More importantly, since it shows that one needs a fudge factor, like the factor of 10 in Eq. (4), that is of the same general order of magnitude as unity to get good agreement with the observations in our subuniverse, it does make it plausible to conjecture that when we gain sufficient knowledge to be able to calculate more precisely the statistical distribution of observed values of the charge and mass of the proton over all subuniverses, the values we observe in our subuniverse will turn out to be typical, even if the values can vary widely over the full range of subuniverses.

If one cheats even more and uses the MSSM renormalization group approximate Eq. (18) with the 2-3-4 formula (10), one gets an even better fit to our observations, with the charge of the proton being predicted to be 0.986 of the observed value, and the mass of the proton being predicted to be 0.760 of the observed value. (This replacement is equivalent to replacing the Carr-Rees fudge factor of 10, in Eq. (8) where it is raised to the 4th power, with $`2^{15/4}13.4543`$.) Since the new fudge factor of $`2^{3/4}`$ in the 2-3-4 formula (10) was chosen as a simple expression close to the numerical value for that equation to be true in our subuniverse, it cannot be counted as a prediction at all. Then the main error in the ‘predicted’ charge and mass of the proton comes from the MSSM renormalization group approximate Eq. (18).

Alternatively, one can choose $`F`$ in Eq. (9) so that when it is combined with Eq. (18) to get separate equations for $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$,

$$\alpha \mathrm{ln}(F\alpha )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01}\pi ,$$
(36)
$$\alpha _G^{1/20}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _G=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\pi F,$$
(37)
one fits the observed value of either $`\alpha `$ or $`\alpha _G`$ and then predicts the other one.

For example, if one uses our observed value of $`\alpha ^1`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1137.036000`$ , and solves Eq. (36) for

$$F=\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01}\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}^1)1.8498985$$
(38)
and then inserts this into Eq. (37) to solve for $`\alpha _G=m_p^2`$, one gets a value for the mass of the proton that is too large by a factor of about 2.615, rather oppositely to the previous predicted values that were all too small.

On the other hand, if one uses our observed value of $`\alpha _G`$, $`\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}2^{126.993}`$ , and solves Eq. (37) for

$$F=\frac{5}{\pi }\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}^{0.05}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{G\mathrm{exp}}1.7179$$
(39)
and then inserts this into Eq. (36) to solve for $`\alpha =e^2`$, one gets a value for the charge of the proton that is 0.989 of the observed value.

A possibility very similar to this last one is to replace the 10 in Eqs. (30)-(31) with 15, which is equivalent to using $`F=15^{0.2}1.7188`$ in Eqs. (36)-(37). Then one gets $`e0.9891e_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`m_p1.0069m_{p\mathrm{exp}}`$, so then the errors are less than 1.1% and 0.7% respectively.

To fit our observed values of both the charge and mass of the proton to better than 99% accuracy, we need not only a single fudge factor like $`F`$ in Eq. (9), but also a second fudge factor in Eq. (18), such as the $`N`$ in Eq. (20). As noted previously, if we set $`N9.7816`$, as well as $`F1.6803`$, then we can reproduce our observed values of both the charge and mass of the proton. However, with 3 generations of quarks and leptons, and the minimal number (2) of relatively light Higgs doublets, the coefficient $`N`$ in Eq. (20) is predicted to be precisely 10. Thus if we did put a fudge factor into that equation, it should be somewhere else.

The main error of Eq. (18) seems to come from the approximations that on a logarithmic scale, the unification mass is close to the Planck mass and the weak energy scale is close to the proton mass. The first of these errors tends to increase the right hand side above the left hand side, and the second tends to decrease it. If we wildly conjecture that the ratios of the unification mass to the Planck mass and of the weak energy scale to the proton mass might be expected anthropically to go as some powers of the running coupling constants at those scales, then we might naïvely expect that a first correction to Eq. (18) would be to replace it with

$$\alpha ^1\frac{5}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\alpha ^p\alpha _G^1)$$
(40)
for some exponent $`p`$ that might conceivably be predictable. If we then set $`F=e^q`$ for another exponent $`q`$ (where here and in the following equation $`e`$ means the base of the natural logarithms rather than the charge of the proton), then Eq. (9) becomes

$$\alpha _G=(e^q\alpha )^{20}.$$
(41)
Here the factor of $`5/\pi `$ in Eq. (40) and the exponent of 20 in Eq. (41) are determined by discrete parameters of the crude theory used to derive these equations, but $`p`$ and $`q`$ are not so determined, at least not yet. The simplest version of the argument above would just suggest that $`p`$ and $`q`$ should both be roughly 0.

Using both fudge factors $`p`$ and $`q`$ in Eqs. (40) and Eq. (41), we can fit the observations in our subuniverse with $`p0.390782`$ and $`q0.518993`$.

Now the point of a complete anthropic argument would not be to predict precise values for $`p`$ and $`q`$ (which would give precise values for the charge and mass of the proton), but rather to predict a joint statistical distribution for their observed values over the entire universe. The simple argument given above just suggests that typical observers, if they are like us in living on planets, having complex chemistry, etc., might expect to see values of $`p`$ and $`q`$ that are not too different from zero (i.e., having magnitudes not very large in comparison with unity). This does fit the observations in our subuniverse, where both $`p`$ and $`q`$ are even somewhat smaller than unity. In this way our observations are consistent with the simple argument given above.

Of course, this consistency just means that the simple argument passed its first test in not being falsified where it conceivably could have been, but the consistency does not confirm the basic truth of the simple argument. For example, we do not yet know whether the charge and mass of the proton really do have a distribution of different values over all subuniverses. However, it is at least encouraging that one can find a simple argument of this form that does so well in giving rough values for our observations of the charge and mass of the proton.

I have benefited from discussions on this topic with Bruce Campbell, Gerald Cleaver, Valeri Frolov, Gordon Kane, Sharon Morsink, Roger Penrose, Lenny Susskind, and no doubt others. This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Gerbes, Clifford modules and the index theorem

## 1. Introduction

If $`M`$ is an even-dimensional, oriented, spin-manifold with spin-bundles $`S^\pm `$ and $`W`$ is a vector bundle with unitary connection $`A`$ then the coupled Dirac operator is a natural first-order differential operator

(1.1)
$$D_A^+:C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^+)C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^{}).$$

where

(1.2)
$$E^+:=S^+W,E^{}:=S^{}W.$$

If $`M`$ is compact, the Atiyah-Singer index theorem  gives a topological formula for the index of $`D_A^+`$,

(1.3)
$$\mathrm{ind}(D_A^+):=dim\mathrm{ker}(D_A^+)dim\mathrm{coker}(D_A^+)=\widehat{A}(M)\mathrm{ch}(W),[M].$$

If $`M`$ is not a spin-manifold, ‘generalized Dirac operators’ can be introduced, even though the Dirac operator itself is not well-defined. This can be done by observing that $`E=E^+E^{}`$ is a Clifford module (Clifford multiplication is extended to act as the identity on $`W`$) so that a compatible connection on $`E`$ leads to a Dirac operator as before. If $`M`$ is not spin, there is an index theorem for Dirac operators defined on (hermitian) Clifford modules $`E`$ which can be expressed in the form

(1.4)
$$\mathrm{ind}(D_A^+)=\widehat{A}(M)\mathrm{ch}(E/S),[M]$$

where the notation will be explained below. The definition is such that if $`M`$ is spin and (1.2) holds, then the relative Chern character $`\mathrm{ch}(E/S)`$ reduces to $`\mathrm{ch}(W)`$, the Chern character of $`W`$.

In this note we explore an alternative approach to this index theorem, using bundle gerbes and bundle gerbe modules . The point is that there is a so-called spin bundle gerbe $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined on any manifold, which is trivial if $`M`$ is spin, and modules for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are defined for any representation of the spin group. In particular, the spin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module is always defined, and this reduces, in a suitable sense, to the spin-bundle, if $`M`$ happens to be spin. We construct a ‘twisted Dirac operator’ $`\overline{D}`$ between the two spin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-modules, and show that when this is coupled to any suitable auxiliary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module $`W`$ then the resulting differential operator reduces to a Dirac-type operator between Clifford modules.

Furthermore, we show how to define the Chern character $`\mathrm{ch}(W)`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module $`W`$ and that the index formula (1.3) holds with this definition. Once all the definitions are in place, the proof of the index theorem is mainly a question of matching up the formalism of Clifford modules with that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules.

Some of our constructions are relevant, and familiar, in relation to anomalies in quantum field theory. The failure of $`M`$ to be spin can be regarded as an anomaly in the global definition of spinor fields. As is is typically done in anomaly theory our solution is to introduce some additional fields which also have an anomaly in their global definition and choose these so that the two anomalies cancel in the coupled theory.

We note two recent preprints. The first  discusses the interesting situation of the families index theorem for projective families of pseudo-differential operators. In that case the index takes value in the twisted $`K`$-theory of the parameter space. Although this is related in spirit to this note, the situation considered there is rather different. The second  presents a general Atiyah-Singer index theorem for gerbes of which our result is an example.

The first author thanks Mathai Varghese for useful discussions.

## 2. Background on lifting bundle gerbes

In this section we recall the definition of the lifting bundle gerbe and the corresponding bundle gerbe modules. The references for this material are .

### 2.1. Generalities on central extensions of Lie groups

Let

(2.1)
$$0_k\widehat{G}\stackrel{\pi }{}G1$$

be a central extension of finite-dimensional Lie groups, where $`_k`$ is the cyclic subgroup $`/k`$ of the circle $`U(1)`$. The example of ultimate interest in this note is

(2.2)
$$0_2\text{Spin}(n)\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{SO}(n)1,$$

where $`\text{Spin}(n)`$ is the universal cover of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$, but it is clearer to work with the general case to begin with.

We will be interested in spaces on which $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`G`$ act. Notice that if $`G`$ acts on a space then so also does $`\widehat{G}`$ via the projection. We shall often assume this action in the discussion below without further comment. In such a case the center $`_k`$ of course acts trivially. To begin our discussion let $`X`$ and $`\widehat{X}`$ be right principal sets for $`G`$ and $`\widehat{G}`$ respectively. As sets, $`X`$ and $`\widehat{X}`$ are just $`G`$ and $`\widehat{G}`$: in particular we can choose a map $`\pi :\widehat{X}X`$ which is compatible with the respective actions of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`\widehat{X}`$ and of $`G`$ on $`X`$. Notice that $`\pi :\widehat{G}G`$ induces an action of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`X`$.

Let $`\rho :\widehat{G}GL(V)`$ denote a (finite-dimensional) representation of $`\widehat{G}`$ and let $`V_X`$ denote the bundle $`X\times V`$. With the $`\widehat{G}`$ action $`\widehat{g}(x,v)=(x\widehat{g}^1,\rho (g)v)`$ this is an equivariant $`\widehat{G}`$ bundle. As the isotropy subgroup of the $`\widehat{G}`$ action at any $`xX`$ is $`_k`$ we must have that $`_k`$ acts on the fibres of $`V_XX`$ and it is clear that it does so by the restriction of the representation $`\rho `$.

The product $`X^2:=X\times X`$ has a canonical map

$$\tau :X^2G,x_1\tau (x_1,x_2)=x_2,$$

so that $`\tau (x_1,x_2)`$ is the unique element of $`G`$ that translates $`x_1`$ to $`x_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\tau ^{}\widehat{G}X^2`$ be the pull-back of the $`_k`$ bundle $`\widehat{G}G`$. By definition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_1,x_2)}=\{\widehat{g}\widehat{G}:\pi (g)=\tau (x_1,x_2)\}$$

is the set of all lifts to $`\widehat{G}`$ of $`\tau (x_1,x_2)`$.

The $`_k`$-principal bundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains almost the same information as $`\widehat{X}`$: if we denote by $`\widehat{X}_1`$ and $`\widehat{X}_2`$ the pull-backs of $`\widehat{X}X`$ by the two projections $`X^2X`$, then the principal bundle of $`_k`$-equivariant maps $`\widehat{X}_1\widehat{X}_2`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Indeed, at $`(x_1,x_2)`$, the fibres of $`\widehat{X}_1`$ and $`\widehat{X}_2`$ are by definition

$$\{\xi :\pi (\xi )=x_1\}\text{ and }\{\xi :\pi (\xi )=x_2\}$$

respectively and it is clear that equivariant maps between these sets correspond precisely to elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_1,x_2}`$.

The $`\widehat{G}`$-equivariant bundle $`V_XX`$ is a ‘module’ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the following sense. Let $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ be the pull-backs of $`V_X`$ by the two projections $`X^2X`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_1,x_2)}\widehat{G}`$ acts through $`\rho `$ to map the fibre at $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`V_1`$ to that of $`V_2`$.

Notice that if $`\rho (_k)=\{1\}`$ then $`\rho `$ is really a representation of $`G`$ and one can divide $`V_X`$ by $`G`$ to get back the representation space $`V`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{End}(V_X)`$ is always $`G`$-equivariant so that $`\mathrm{End}(V_X)/G=\mathrm{End}(V)`$.

Finally we notice that, because $`_k`$ is finite, there is a natural $`\widehat{G}`$-equivariant flat connection $`_X`$ on any of the bundles $`V_X`$.

### 2.2. The lifting bundle gerbe and associated modules

Let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold of dimension $`n`$. We now globalize the considerations of the previous section so that they correspond to the case when $`M`$ is a point.

We stay with the central extension (2.1) and replace $`X`$ by a given principal $`G`$-bundle $`\pi :PM`$. Correspondingly $`X^2`$ is replaced by the fibre product $`P^{[2]}M`$. Extending the notation from the previous section, the map $`\tau :P^{[2]}G`$ is defined exactly as before and we put $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\tau ^{}\widehat{G}`$. This is a $`_k`$ bundle over $`P^{[2]}`$ and in the language of  is called the lifting bundle gerbe associated to $`P`$ and the central extension (2.1). Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`_k`$ bundle gerbe whereas  was mostly concerned with $`U(1)`$ bundle gerbes.

We will be interested in $`\widehat{G}`$ equivariant bundles over $`P`$. Recall first that a finite-dimensional representation $`U`$ of $`_k`$ decomposes into a direct sum of weight spaces $`U_d`$ defined to be the largest subspaces on which the action of every $`z_k`$ is just multiplication by $`z^d`$. We say that $`_k`$ acts on $`U_d`$ with weight $`d`$. Notice that if $`m`$ is any integer and $`z_k`$ then $`z^{d+mk}=z^d`$ so that the weight $`d`$ is an element of $`_k`$.

Let $`WP`$ be a $`\widehat{G}`$ equivariant bundle for the action of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`P`$. The isotropy subgroup $`_k`$ acts on the fibres of $`WP`$. If it acts with weight $`d`$ then we call $`W`$ a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module. In the language of  a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module is precisely a bundle gerbe module for the bundle gerbe $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d=\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$.

We note, as an aside, that if $`W`$ is any $`\widehat{G}`$-equivariant bundle then at every point $`pP`$ we can decompose the fibre of $`W`$ into weight spaces for the $`_k`$ action. The action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ maps fibres to fibres and, because $`_k`$ is central, preserves these weight spaces. Hence $`W`$ is a vector bundle direct sum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules so we lose nothing by concentrating attention on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules.

Of particular importance for us are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-modules. Then every element of $`_k`$ acts by the identity on $`W`$ so that $`W`$ is $`G`$-equivariant and hence it descends to a bundle on $`M`$ after quotienting by $`G`$.

If $`\rho :\widehat{G}GL(V)`$ is a representation then $`V_P=P\times V`$ defines a $`\widehat{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle, with $`\widehat{G}`$ action $`g(p,v)=(pg^1,gv)`$ and such that the restriction of $`V_P`$ to each fibre of $`P`$ is isomorphic to $`V_XX`$. If the action $`_k`$ defined by $`\rho `$ is of weight $`d`$ then $`V_P`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module. Note that $`V_P`$ is a trivial module if and only if the representation of $`\widehat{G}`$ factors through a representation $`\rho ^{}`$, say, of $`G`$. Then

$$V_P=\pi ^1(V_M),\text{ where }V_M:=P\times _GV$$

where $`G`$ acts by $`\rho ^{}`$ on $`V`$ (so that $`V_M`$ is the vector bundle over $`M`$ associated by $`\rho ^{}`$ to $`P`$).

Define a group $`\widehat{G}_c`$ by

$$\widehat{G}_c=\left(U(1)\times \widehat{G}\right)/_k$$

where $`_kU(1)\times \widehat{G}`$ is included as the anti-diagonal subgroup $`\{(z,z^1)z_k\}`$. The group $`\widehat{G}_c`$ is a central extension of $`G`$ by $`U(1)`$ and there is a short exact sequence

$$0U(1)\widehat{G}_cG0$$

induced by 2.1. A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module $`W`$ has a natural $`\widehat{G}_c`$ bundle action defined by $`(z,g)w=z^dgw`$. If it happens that there exists a principal $`\widehat{G}_c`$-bundle $`\widehat{P}_cM`$ covering $`P`$, then one can pull back any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module $`W`$ to $`\widehat{P}`$ and divide by $`\widehat{G}`$ to get the associated vector bundle $`W_M:=\widehat{P}_c\times _{\widehat{G}}W`$. Notice that we can repeat the construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to define a $`U(1)`$-bundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=\tau ^1(\widehat{G}_c)P^{[2]}`$. In  it is shown that the lift of $`P`$ to the $`\widehat{G}_c`$ bundle $`\widehat{P}_cM`$ exists exactly when the $`U(1)`$-bundle gerbe $`\widehat{G}_c`$ is trivial.

Notice that there are thus two ways in which a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module $`W`$ may be a legitimate vector bundle on $`M`$. Either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ is a trivial bundle gerbe or $`W`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-module, i.e $`d=0`$ modulo $`k`$.

In the next few sections we shall make definitions (for example of connections and curvature) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules on $`M`$ that run parallel to the usual theory of vector bundles on $`M`$. The reader should have no difficulty in verifying that these definitions always reduce to the standard ones in the case that $`d=0`$ is trivial or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ is trivial.

If $`W`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module then $`\mathrm{End}(W)`$ is a trivial module. This situation will occur frequently below, and we shall write

$$(W)=\mathrm{End}(W)/G.$$

### 2.3. Concrete representation

We can obtain a Čech description of the above structures by choosing a good cover $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`M`$ and local cross-sections $`s_\alpha :U_\alpha P`$. Then the transition functions

$$g_{\alpha \beta }:U_\alpha U_\beta G$$

are defined by the conditions $`s_\alpha =s_\beta g_{\alpha \beta }`$. The problem of constructing a covering principal bundle $`\widehat{P}`$ is the same as that of making a consistent choice of lifts $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. Indeed, if we make an arbitrary choice of such lifts, then we obtain a $`_k`$-valued Čech 2-cocycle $`e_{\alpha \beta \gamma }H^2(M,_k)`$ defined as

(2.3)
$$e_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{g}_{\beta \gamma }\widehat{g}_{\gamma \alpha }$$

We can also regard $`e_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ as a $`U(1)`$ 2-cocycle by inclusion of $`_k`$ in $`U(1)`$. Using the exact sequence

$$0U(1)$$

we obtain, in the usual way a class $`[e]H^3(M,)H^2(M,U(1))`$. This class is the obstruction to the existence of $`\widehat{P}_c`$.

Similarly, given a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module $`W`$, set $`W_\alpha =s_\alpha ^1(W)`$. The lifted transition map $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ induces a map $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }:W_\beta W_\alpha `$. The $`\varphi `$’s determine a cocycle

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{\gamma \alpha }=e_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^d$$

If this cocycle is a coboundary then the locally defined bundles $`W_\alpha `$ patch together to form a genuine bundle on $`M`$ whose pull-back is $`W`$. This is the case if $`(e_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$ is a coboundary (as a $`U(1)`$ 2-cocycle) or if $`d=0`$.

An alternative description of the local structure of $`W`$ can be obtained by defining $`U(1)`$ bundles $`L_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }^1(\widehat{G}_c)U_\alpha U_\beta `$. Then there are isomorphisms $`W_\alpha =L_{\alpha \beta }^dW_\beta `$.

### 2.4. Operations on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules

The following observations are easy but important :

1. There is a bijection between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-modules and bundles on $`M`$. (Induced by pull back to $`P`$ in one direction, division by $`G`$ in the other.)
2. The tensor product of a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1}`$-module and a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_2}`$-module is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1+d_2}`$-module.
3. The endomorphism bundle of an $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-module.
4. The direct sum of two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module.

These properties (especially the last one) lead to a definition of twisted $`K`$-theory, by introducing the $`K`$-group of the semi-group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules . In this case the ‘twist’ is by $`d.\delta [e]H^3(M,)`$ where $`[e]`$ was defined in (2.3).

### 2.5. The spin-bundle gerbe

The main example in this paper arises by taking the central extension

$$0_2\text{Spin}(n)SO(n)1,$$

and $`P`$ to be the bundle of oriented orthonormal frames in $`TM`$. The lifting bundle gerbe $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in this case is called the spin-bundle gerbe.

In the spin case the construction of $`\widehat{G}_c`$ is the well-known construction of the group $`\text{Spin}_c(n)`$. The manifold $`M`$ is spin when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a trivial $`_2`$ bundle gerbe and spin-c when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ is a trivial $`U(1)`$ bundle gerbe.

If (as we assume throughout) $`n`$ is even then we have the two half-spin representations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ of $`\text{Spin}(n)`$ as well as the full spin representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-modules associated to these representations are called the spin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-modules, and will be our replacement for honest spin-bundles on $`M`$.

## 3. Connections and curvature for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules

### 3.1. Definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection

In this note we shall generally be identifying connections with the corresponding covariant derivative operators. In particular a connection on $`W`$ is a linear differential operator

$$_A:\mathrm{\Omega }^0(P,W)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(P,W)$$

which satisfies the Leibnitz rule $`_A(fs)=dfs+f_As`$ for all functions $`f`$ and sections $`s`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

The connection $`_A`$ on a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module is called a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection if it is $`\widehat{G}_c`$-equivariant and restricts to the flat connection $`_X`$ on the fibres of $`P`$.

If $`U`$ is a sufficiently small open set of $`M`$ then we can identify the restriction of $`P`$ to $`U`$ with $`U\times X`$ and the restriction of $`W`$ with $`W_X`$ (or rather with the pull-back of this bundle by the projection $`U\times XX`$). With these identifications, a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection takes the form

$$_A=_X+_B$$

where $`_B`$ is the pull-back of a connection from the base $`U`$. It is straightforward to use a partition of unity argument to patch such local descriptions to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connections exist on any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module. The following proposition gathers some basic information about $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connections.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let the notation be as above and $`W`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module.

1. The set of all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connections on $`W`$ is an affine space relative to the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,(W))`$.
2. The curvature of a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection descends to define an element $`_A\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M,(W))`$.
3. If $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ are two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-modules, and $`_A`$ and $`_A^{}`$ are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module conections on $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$, then the curvature of the tensor product connection $`_B`$ on $`WW^{}`$ is

$$_B=_A1+1_A^{}$$

an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M,(WW^{}))=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M,(W)(W^{}))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ be two connections on $`W`$. It follows as usual from the Leibnitz rule that $`a=_2_1`$ lies in the vector space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(P,\mathrm{End}(W))`$. If now $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connections it follows that $`a`$ is $`\widehat{G}`$-equivariant. Since the centre acts trivially here, $`a`$ is actually $`G`$-equivariant. But from the local description it follows that $`i_\xi (a)=0`$ for any vertical vector field $`\xi `$. Hence we can divide by $`G`$ to realize $`a`$ as an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,(W))`$. It is even easier to see that if $`_A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection and $`a\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,(W))`$, then $`_A+a`$ is another $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection.

The proof of the statement about the curvature is very similar. The curvature $`F_A`$ of $`_A`$ is an element of the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(P,\mathrm{End}(W))`$. This element is $`G`$-equivariant and satisfies $`i_\xi (F_A)=0`$ if $`\xi `$ is any vertical tangent vector (from the local description and the fact that $`_X`$ is flat). Hence it descends to an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M,(W_P))`$ as required.

The proof of the last statement is trivial.

If $`d=0`$ and $`W=\pi ^1(W_M)`$ and $`W_M=W/G`$ then it is easy to see that there is a bijective correspondence between connections on $`W_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-module connections on $`W`$. Similarly the descended curvature in (ii) above is just the curvature of the connection on $`W_M`$.

We remark that if a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module $`W`$ is given any $`\widehat{G}`$ invariant connection $``$ we can find a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection by choosing a connection $`A`$ on $`PM`$. Indeed $`A`$ is a one-form on $`P`$ with values in the Lie algebra of $`G`$ which equals the Lie algebra of $`\widehat{G}`$ which acts on the fibres of $`W`$. The connection $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection. In particular if $`V`$ is a representation of $`\widehat{G}`$ and we take the flat connection $`d`$ on $`W=P\times V`$ then $`d\rho (A)`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection. Here we abuse notation: $`\rho `$ is a representation of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`V`$ and we use this to obtain a representation of the Lie algebra of $`\widehat{G}`$ and hence the Lie algebra of $`G`$ on $`V`$.

### 3.2. (Twisted) Chern character

Let the data be as before, so that $`_A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection on $`W`$, with (descended) curvature-form $`_A`$.

#### 3.2.1. Definition

The (twisted) Chern character of $`_A`$ is defined to be

$$\mathrm{ch}(_A)=\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{exp}(_A/2\pi i).$$

As in  one shows that $`\mathrm{ch}(_A/2\pi i)`$ is closed and that its de Rham cohomology class is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module connection $`A`$. Define $`\mathrm{ch}(W)`$ to be this cohomology class, called the (twisted) Chern character of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module $`W`$. It is readily checked that if $`W=\pi ^1(W_M)`$ is a trivial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$-module then $`\mathrm{ch}(W)=\mathrm{ch}(W_M)`$.

### 3.3. (Twisted) Dirac operator

We apply the above theory in our main example, to construct a replacement for the Dirac operator. Recall the notation of §2.5 for the spin-bundle gerbe, and denote by $`^n`$ the fundamental representation of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$, so that $`_P^n=\pi ^{}(TM)`$ is the pull-back to the frame-bundle of the tangent bundle. Then Clifford multiplication is defined as a map between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules

$$c:(_P^n)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{}$$

The Riemannian metric on $`M`$ induces a standard connection on the frame-bundle $`P`$ and this in turn induces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connections on all associated bundles. Using these data, we define a differential operator (the twisted Dirac operator)

(3.1)
$$\overline{D}^+:C^{\mathrm{}}(P,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^+)C^{\mathrm{}}(P,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{})$$

by composing covariant differentiation with Clifford multiplication. This operator is $`\text{Spin}(n)`$-equivariant but not elliptic because it doesn’t differentiate in the vertical directions.

Now let $`W`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module connection $`A`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Of course, as $`d=2`$, we have $`1=1`$.. Then there is a coupled version of (3.1)

(3.2)
$$\overline{D}_A:C^{\mathrm{}}(P,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^+W)C^{\mathrm{}}(P,\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^{}W).$$

(Here Clifford multiplication is extended to act trivially in $`W`$.) Because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P^\pm W`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$-module it descends to a bundle $`E^\pm `$ on $`M`$ and so also does the Dirac operator to give the twisted Dirac operator:

(3.3)
$$D_A^+:C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^+)C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^{}).$$

If $`M`$ is spin, then both (3.1) and (3.2) descend to $`M`$ and $`E^\pm =\mathrm{\Sigma }_M^\pm W_M`$. In general, however, this tensor product decomposition exists only locally on $`M`$.

We can now state:

###### Proposition 3.3 (Twisted Index Theorem).

If $`M`$ is compact, then the Dirac operator defined above satisfies the index formula

$$\mathrm{ind}(D_A^+)=\widehat{A}(M)\mathrm{ch}(W),[M].$$

The proof will be given in the next section, by showing how the present gerbe framework fits with the more standard formalism of Clifford modules.

## 4. Clifford modules and generalized Dirac operators

In the present section we recall the definition of Clifford modules, and show how they correspond to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules (from now on, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spin-bundle gerbe). The index theorem for generalized Dirac operators, in the form stated in  then yields Proposition 3.3 at once.

### 4.1. Clifford algebras and their representations

If $`V`$ is a real vector space of even dimension $`n`$, equipped with a positive-definite inner product, then $`C(V)`$ will denote the corresponding (complex) Clifford algebra. This is a superalgebra in the sense that the underlying vector space is $`_2`$-graded,

$$C(V)=C_+(V)C_{}(V)$$

and the algebra operations are compatible with this grading (even times even and odd times odd are even, even times odd is odd). If $`C(V)`$ is identified with the complex exterior algebra of $`V`$ (but with a different product) then $`C_+(V)`$ corresponds to the forms of even degree and $`C_{}(V)`$ corresponds to the forms of odd degree. The chirality operator will be denoted by $`\gamma `$, so $`\gamma =\pm 1`$ on $`C_\pm (V)`$. Recall that there is an embedding $`c:VC(V)`$ called Clifford multiplication.

A $`_2`$-graded complex inner product space $`E`$ is called a hermitian Clifford module if there is an even action of $`C(V)`$ on $`E`$ (i.e. the grading is preserved by $`C^+(V)`$ and altered by $`C^{}(V)`$) and $`c(v)`$ is skew-adjoint for all $`vV`$. The spin representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is a hermitian Clifford module which has the property

$$C(V)=\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

Moreover, it is a basic fact that every finite-dimensional hermitian Clifford module $`E`$ has the form

(4.1)
$$E=\mathrm{\Sigma }W$$

where $`W`$ is some complex vector space carrying a trivial $`C(V)`$-action. In this situation one has the basic formulae:

$$W=\mathrm{Hom}_{C(V)}(S,E),\mathrm{End}(W)=\mathrm{End}_{C(V)}(E).$$

The subscript $`C(V)`$ here means ‘commutes with the action of $`C(V)`$’.

### 4.2. Clifford bundles and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules

Let $`M`$ be an even-dimensional oriented Riemannian manifold. Introduce $`C(M)`$, the bundle of complex Clifford algebras of $`T^{}M`$ and continue to denote Clifford multiplication by $`c:T^{}MC(M)`$.

A complex $`_2`$-graded hermitian vector bundle $`E=E_+E_{}`$ over $`M`$ is called a Clifford module if

1. the sub-bundles $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ are orthogonal with respect to the inner product;
2. for each point $`xM`$, $`E_x`$ is a hermitian Clifford module for $`C_x(M)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the spin-bundle gerbe of §2.5 and recall that $`\pi :PM`$ is the frame-bundle. Let $`E_P=\pi ^1(E)`$ be the pull-back of $`E`$ to $`P`$. Each point $`p`$ of $`P`$ is an isomorphism of $`^n`$ with the $`T_{\pi (p)}M`$ which maps the standard inner product to the metric on the tangent space. It follows that $`p`$ induces an isomorphism $`(E_P)_p`$ can be made into a $`C(^n)`$ Clifford module. We define

$$W_p=\mathrm{Hom}_{C(^n)}(\mathrm{\Sigma },(E_P)_p)$$

and we have

$$(E_P)_p=\mathrm{\Sigma }W_p$$

or globally

$$E_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_PW.$$

The action of $`\text{Spin}(n)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ induces an action on $`W`$ making it a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module. From the definition of $`W`$ we see that it is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module. This gives us a generalisation of the basic result of :

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its Spin bundle gerbe. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ is the spin bundle gerbe module then every Clifford module $`E`$ on $`M`$ has the form $`E=\mathrm{\Sigma }_PW`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$-module $`W`$.

Remark In  it was shown that if $`M`$ is spin then every Clifford module is the tensor product of the spin bundle with an arbitrary bundle.

### 4.3. Generalized Dirac operators

Given a Clifford module $`E`$ for $`C(M)`$, the next step in the definition of a generalized Dirac operator is the introduction of a connection $`_A`$ on $`E`$ compatible with the grading, the metric $`h`$ and with the Clifford action in the sense that

$$_A[c(\xi )f]=c(\xi )e+c(\xi )_Ae$$

for all $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ and $`eC^{\mathrm{}}(M,E)`$. In other words, if $`c`$ is viewed as a smooth section of $`TM\mathrm{End}(E)`$, then $`c`$ is parallel with respect to the tensor product connection on this bundle.

Given a Clifford module with a compatible connection $`_A`$, the associated Dirac operator $`D_A`$ is defined as the composite

$$C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E)\stackrel{_A}{}C^{\mathrm{}}(M,T^{}ME)\stackrel{c}{}C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E).$$

Since Clifford multiplication by $`T^{}M`$ is in the odd part of $`C(M)`$, and the connection is even, the composite $`D_A`$ is an odd operator. It can therefore be broken into two pieces, traditionally written

$$D_A^\pm :C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^\pm )C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E^{})$$

with the property that $`D_A^+`$ and $`D_A^{}`$ are formal adjoints of each other with respect to the standard $`L^2`$ inner product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,E)`$.

In order to write a cohomological formula for the index of $`D_A^+`$ we need to know a little about the curvature $`F_A`$ of our connection $`_A`$. Now $`F_A`$ is a $`2`$-form with values in $`\mathrm{End}(E)`$ and we can try to decompose $`F_A`$ according to the decomposition

$$\mathrm{End}(E)=C(M)\mathrm{End}_{C(M)}(E).$$

Because of the compatibility between $`_A`$ and $`c`$, we have

$$[F_A,c(\xi )]=c(R(\xi ))$$

for any tangent vector $`\xi `$. It is easy to show that there is an element $`c(R)C(M)`$ such that

$$[c(R),c(\xi )]=c(R(\xi ))$$

and hence if we define

$$F_{E/S}=F_Ac(R)$$

then $`F_{E/S}`$ automatically commutes with the action of $`C(M)`$. The quantity $`F_{E/S}`$ is called the twisting curvature in .

If $`M`$ is spin and $`E=\mathrm{\Sigma }W`$, the connection on $`E`$ would be given by the tensor product of the spin connection on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and an auxiliary unitary connection $`A`$ on $`W`$ and the curvature decomposes according to the tensor product; in this case, $`F_{E/S}=1F_A`$ where $`F_A`$ just the curvature of the auxiliary connection $`A`$.

If $`M`$ is not spin, we pass to the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ and $`W`$. It is easy to check that a Clifford-module connection on $`E`$ always lifts as the tensor product of the standard $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ with a unitary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module connection on $`W`$. Conversely the tensor product of such connections always descends to define a Clifford-compatible connection on $`E`$. Moreover, if $``$ is the (descended) curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_PW`$ then we have $`=R1+1_A`$ where $`R`$ is the (descended) curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ (essentially the Riemann curvature of the given Riemannian metric). Hence $`F_{E/S}=1_A`$.

The index formula for generalized Dirac operators now takes the form :

(4.2)
$$\mathrm{ind}(D_A^+)=\widehat{A}(M)\mathrm{ch}(E/S),[M]$$

where the relative Chern character is defined as the relative supertrace of the exponential of the twisting curvature:

$$\mathrm{ch}(E/S)=\mathrm{Str}_{E/S}[\mathrm{exp}(F_{E/S}/2\pi i)].$$

Here the relative supertrace is a way of defining the trace of an endomorphism of the auxiliary bundle $`W`$, without having to separate it off. More precisely, for an endomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`E`$ (super-)commuting with the action of $`C(M)`$ we define

$$\mathrm{Str}_{E/S}(\varphi )=2^{n/2}\mathrm{Str}_E(\gamma \varphi )$$

where $`\gamma `$ is the chirality operator of $`E`$.

Using the fact that $`F_{E/S}=1_A`$ we see that $`\mathrm{ch}(E/S)=\mathrm{ch}(W)`$ and hence our twisted index theorem follows.

## 5. Concluding remarks

In the discussion of lifting bundle gerbes we specialised to the case of a central extension with center $`_k`$ as for the application to the Dirac operator we only needed $`_2`$. If we allow central extensions with center $`U(1)`$ the only additional complication is that the bundle gerbe does not have a canonical flat connection and we need to introduce the notion of a bundle gerbe connection and its associated curving and three-curvature  which are fed into the definition of bundle gerbe module and its Chern character. This more general case might be useful for constructing a twisted Dirac-Raymond operator on a non-string manifold.