format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Selfdual quantum field and string theories describe a sector of both gauge and gravity theories . Perturbations of these selfdual models generate reformulations of quantum gauge theories that have simplified expansions about the selfdual limit . In this work, we examine a selfdual inspired reformulation of quantum gauge theory possessing a covariant mass term that is renormalizable and unitary. Selfdual systems are quasi two-dimensional in the sense that the analytic properties of the scattering are contained in one half of the Lorentz group. The mass term that we examine in this work is a generalization of the integrated axial anomaly in two dimensions; it has a local description via the implementation of auxiliary fields, describing a perturbation of selfduality.

A Lorentz covariant form of selfdual quantum field theory is described by the lagrangians $`=\mathrm{Tr}G^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$ for spin one and $`=\rho ^{\alpha \beta }R_{\alpha \beta }`$ for spin two theories (proposed in  and quantized in ). We adopt the conventions of those in . Non-lorentz covariant versions  involving one degree of freedom give identical one-loop results (modulo a factor of half) but are inconsistent at higher loop orders. The selfdual field strengths are the selfdual projections with $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ the selfdual component of the Weyl tensor. The quantum theories may be solved exactly in perturbation theory with the former described by the S-matrix ,

$`A_{n;1}^{[J]}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1i<j<k<ln}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ij[jk]kl[ln]}{1223\mathrm{}n1}},`$ (1.1)
with $`[J]`$ denoting the spin of the internal virtual particle111Reviews of the techniques in calculating gauge theory amplitudes are found in  for tree-level processes and in  at the one-loop level.. The tree-level amplitudes of the selfdual gauge theory are equal to zero except for a nonvanishing three-point vertex. The expression is written in spinor helicity form , in which $`ij=k_i^\alpha k_{j,\beta }`$ and $`[ij]=k_i^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}k_{j,\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}`$ are inner products with respect to the covering of the Lorentz group; they are complex conjugates in $`d=3+1`$ dimensions, but real and independent in $`d=2+2`$ dimensions. The subscript on $`A_{n;1}^{[J]}`$ denotes the leading in color component of the quantum amplitude in color-ordered form , and is expressed in terms of the basis,

$`N^2\mathrm{Tr}T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_n},`$ (1.2)
for an internal state of spin $`[J]`$ in the adjoint representation. Sub-leading in color partial amplitudes may be deduced via permutations of the indices of the former . A similar exact expression follows for the gravitational theory . Furthermore, these S-matrices have a description in terms of the $`N=2`$ quantum string theory defined by self-consistency between different orders in the loop expansion  rather than the usual path integral quantization . Several exact sequences of amplitudes have compact forms, including the tree-level next-to-maximal Parke-Taylor helicity violating amplitudes  and those in supersymmetric theories .

The description of quantum gauge theory may be simplified by perturbing the selfdual gauge theory by dualizing the theory with $`G^{\alpha \beta }`$ transforming as the anti-selfdual $`(0,1)`$ tensor ,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta }+G^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right),`$ (1.3)
which generates $`\mathrm{Tr}F^2`$. The perturbations of this theory and its massive version describing spontaneously broken gauge theories  generate simplified Feynman diagrammatics when expanded around the selfdual helicity configuration; This expansion is one in helicity flips around the maximally helicity violating amplitude in (1.1). Interestingly, these S-matrices also have a description in terms of the $`𝒩=2`$ quantum string theory (and non-maximal helicity violating amplitudes may be obtained by deformations) and maps a direct perturbative QCD/string relation . In this work we examine more general deformations of selfdual quantum field theories that describe massive gauge theories. As the Higgs particle has not been found it is of interest to generate alternative means to describe massive vector theories.

This work is organized as follows. In section 2 we dualize the massive theory beginning with a local representation of the theory and generate the interactions, comparing with previous work. In section 3 we list the diagrammatic rules and analyze briefly the renormalizability and unitarity properties of the theory.

## 2 Dual Lagrangian

Self-dual field theories, quantum field theories with selfdual equations of motion, have been extensively studied and multiple actions have been proposed. A Lorentz covariant version is described by the Lagrangian,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}G^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (2.1)
and admits an exact solution which consists of a one-loop amplitude together with a non-vanishing three-point tree vertex. Gauge theory in general may be dualized by expressing the theory via

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta }+G^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right),`$ (2.2)
that is, as a deformation around the self-dual sector. More general deformations of self-duality are also obtained and may be used to formulate a massive version of gauge theory.

The modified selfdual gauge theory we examine is given by,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\alpha \beta }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G_{\alpha \beta }+MG^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}+MG^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+F^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}\right),`$ (2.3)
with the field strengths defined as $`F_{\alpha \beta }=i\frac{1}{2}_{(\alpha }^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}A_{\beta )}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}+A_{(\alpha }{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}A_{\beta \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}^{}`$ which differs from 2.2 via a covariant ’de Lambertian on the dual fields<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The form in four-component vector notation follows from replacing $`G_{\alpha \beta }G_{\mu \nu }+i\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}G_{\mu \nu }i\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \gamma }G^{\rho \gamma }`$.. As the theory in (2.3) has terms of mass dimension less than or equal to four the theory is renormalizable. To implement the dualization we need to add in a counterterm $`Z_mm^2/2(G^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta }+G^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}G_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }})`$ so that the renormalized mass is equal to zero. The theory in (2.3) is distinguished from a propagating Kalb-Ramond field with kinetic term $`=1/4H^{\mu \nu \rho }H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and field strength $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }=_\mu G_{\nu \rho }+_\nu G_{\mu \rho }+_\rho G_{\mu \nu }`$.

The covariant derivatives are defined as,

$`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}+\{A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }},_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\}+A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }},`$ (2.4)
which requires expansions in the forms of the interactions that follow in the denominator. The Lagrangian has equations of motion,

$`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G^{\alpha \beta }+MF^{\alpha \beta }=0G^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (2.5)
which generates the classical theory,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}F_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}F^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}\right),`$ (2.6)
with a covariant mass term,

$`F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}F_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}^{(\alpha }{}_{\dot{\gamma }}{}^{}A_{}^{\beta )\dot{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}_{(\alpha \dot{\rho }}A^{\dot{\rho }}{}_{\beta )}{}^{}+\mathrm{}=A^{\alpha \beta }A_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{},`$ (2.7)
after integrating by parts. The theory is a four-dimensional version of the chiral anomaly in two dimensions. The quantum extension of (2.6) has a different form that we next analyze. Because the theory has a local form that is manifestly real, the theory is renormalizable and unitary (after projecting out the three negative norm states of the tensor fields $`G^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`G^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}`$). The three-component anti-selfdual tensor $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ gives the degrees of freedom describing the massive vector. One may consider processes with external $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ fields as required by unitarity; we integrate them out in the loop to generate the massive component of the gauge fields.

The theory in four-vector notation has the form,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+MG^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.`$ (2.8)
(We could write the gauge field kinetic term as $`\frac{1}{8}F^2\frac{1}{8}\stackrel{~}{F}^2`$ as in (2.3).) We conclude this section with a discussion of the unitarity and the unphysical modes of the tensor field. The action in (2.8) has the linearized gauge invariance

$`G^{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+^\mu \theta ^\nu ^\nu \theta ^\mu `$ (2.9)
and

$`A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\theta ^\mu ,`$ (2.10)
upon restricting to

$`M=1M^2\theta ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\theta ^\mu =0.`$ (2.11)
This invariance possesses three components as the latter equation restricts the vector to be massive. The action is invariant under $`G\lambda G`$, $`x^\mu \lambda ^1x^\mu `$, $`A^\mu \lambda A`$, $`M\lambda M`$ and $`gg`$; as a result the invariance holds for all values of the mass parameter as this scaling results in $`\lambda M=1`$. The three components are sufficient to cancel the three modes of the anti-symmetric $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ tensor possessing negative norm, rendering the propagator well-defined. After the dualization, one mode is absorbed by the gauge the field and two remain. The gauge covariantization of this symmetry lifts to the full theory.

## 3 Quantum Extension

The quantum extension of (2.6) is found by summing the one-particle reducible bubble diagrams and covariantizing. It has the form,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\right)^kF_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right]F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (3.1)
There are two regimes in which we may expand the denominator in (3.1). In the momentum range $`k^2>>M^2`$ we obtain the interaction from the series

$`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(a)}={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\right\}^nF_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.2)
and in the range $`M^2>>k^2`$,

$`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(b)}=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\right)}}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{M^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right\}^kF_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (3.3)
Both expanded forms permit a representation in diagrammatic rules. The logarithmic terms in $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(a)}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(b)}`$ are non-analytic and appear not to generate local interactions; however, they can be mapped into local interactions via analytic continuation or through the use of auxiliary fields. At high energies, greater than $`M^2`$ the theory consists of massive vector bosons. There is a Landau pole located to this order in the quantum expansion at approximately $`k^2M^2\mathrm{ln}(M^2/k^2)`$.

The expansion of the inverse of the covariant box is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0+\{A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }},_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\}+A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\left(\{A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }},_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\}+A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\right)\right]^k,`$ (3.4)
and generates the interactions in the second regime in which $`k^2>>M^2`$ from (3.1)

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\{A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }},_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\}+A^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\right]^k`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[1\frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0\right]}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}M_k\right]^pF_{\alpha \beta }`$ (3.5)
with terms in $`M_k`$ containing products of $`k`$ gauge fields. The complete theory includes also the interaction $`\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{Tr}F^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}`$.

We next expand the theory in a series in the gauge couplings in the first regime. The theory expanded to order $`𝒪(A)`$ contains the zeroeth order term,

$`=\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}\mathrm{ln}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right]F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.6)
and the first order correction,

$`_a={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\{A,\}\right)F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (3.7)
The expanded form to order $`𝒪(A^2)`$ has the form,

$`_b={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}F^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right]`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0^2}}A^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0^2}}\{A,\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_0}}\{A,\}\right]F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (3.8)
together with the hermitian conjugate. There are an infinite number of higher order terms in the expansion but these vertices are sufficient to generate the four-point function.

## 4 Diagrammatic Rules

We first specify the line factors associated with the massive vector bosons . There are three independent polarizations that satisfy the completeness relation,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =\pm ,0}{}}ϵ_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}^{}(k,M)ϵ_{\beta \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}(k,M)=C_{\alpha \beta }C_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}k_{\beta \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}}{2M^2}}.`$ (4.1)
The polarizations written in terms of spinor inner products of legs with an arbitary massive momentum $`k_{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}=k_{,\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}+k_{+,\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}`$, and $`k_+^2=k_{}^2=0`$ (so that $`k_\pm ^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}=k_\pm ^\alpha k_\pm ^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}`$), have the explicit form,

$`ϵ_+^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}(k;M)={\displaystyle \frac{k_+^\alpha k_{}^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}}{M}}ϵ_{}^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}(k;M)={\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^\alpha k_+^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}}{M}},`$ (4.2)
and

$`ϵ_0^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}(k;M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}M}}\left(k_+^\alpha k_+^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}k_{}^\alpha k_{}^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}\right),`$ (4.3)
and momentum in spinor form,

$`M^2=k^2=k_+k_{}[k_{}k_+].`$ (4.4)
These leg factors have the ambiguity in the representation of breaking the off-shell momentum into two null vectors, which may be utilized to simplify calculations.

The local form of the massive theory (2.2) has the Feynman rules, with the gauge-fixing term for the $`A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}`$ field specified with $`_{\mathrm{gf}}=\lambda ^2/2(A)^2`$ and $`\lambda =1`$, consisting of the propagators,

$`G^{\alpha \beta }(k)G^{\mu \nu }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+m_0^2}}\left(C^{\alpha \mu }C^{\beta \nu }+C^{\alpha \nu }C^{\beta \mu }\right),`$
$`A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}(k)A^{\beta \dot{\gamma }}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}C^{\alpha \beta }C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }\dot{\gamma }},`$ (4.5)
and the two-point interaction,

$`G^{\alpha \beta }(k)A^{\mu \dot{\nu }}(k)=Mk^{(\alpha |\dot{\nu }}C^{\beta )}{}_{\mu }{}^{}.`$
Summing the diagrams with the $`AG`$ vertex generates the mass term for $`A`$. The three- and four-point vertices are,

$`A^{\mu \dot{\nu }}(k_1)A^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}(k_2)G^{\gamma \delta }(k_3)=C^{\dot{\nu }\dot{\beta }}\left(C^{\mu \nu }C^{\alpha \delta }+C^{\mu \delta }C^{\alpha \gamma }\right)`$
$`A^{\alpha _1\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1}(k_1)A^{\alpha _2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}(k_2)A^{\alpha _3\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}(k_3)=k_3^{\dot{\beta }_3(\alpha _1}C^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_1\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_2}+\mathrm{perms},`$ (4.6)
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}A^{\alpha _j\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_j}(k_j)=C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_1\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_2}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_3\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }_4}\left(C^{\alpha _1\alpha _3}C^{\alpha _2\alpha _4}+C^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}C^{\alpha _1\alpha _4}\right)+\mathrm{perms}.`$ (4.7)
These interactions generate the local form of the dualized massive theory.

The quantum one-loop effective action following from integrating out the auxiliary $`G^{\alpha \beta }`$ fields in the two-point function and covariantizing is listed in (3.1). These vertices follow from a resummation of one loop diagrams. The propagator is,

$`V_2=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1+11{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}}\}(k^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}k^{\beta \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}k^2C^{\alpha \beta }C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }})`$ (4.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1+9{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}}\}(k^{\alpha \stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}k^{\beta \stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}C^{\alpha \beta }C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}))^1`$ (4.9)
The third variation of the Lagrangian generates the color ordered three-point vertices,

$`V_3^{(a)}=\lambda \left[k_1^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1\alpha _2}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}C^{\alpha _1\alpha _3}+k_2^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2\alpha _3}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1}C^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}+k_2^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3\alpha _1}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}C^{\alpha _3\alpha _2}\right]`$ (4.10)
$`V_3^{(b)}={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k_1^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/k_1^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1^2}}\left[k_1^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1(\alpha }C^{\beta )\alpha _1}k_3^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}C_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _4}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1^2}}\left(k_3+2k_2\right)^{\alpha _2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}\right]`$ (4.11)
$`V_3^{(c)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k_1^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/k_1^2\right)}}[k_1^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1\alpha _2}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}C^{\alpha _1\alpha _3}+k_2^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2\alpha _3}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1}C^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}`$
$`+k_2^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3\alpha _1}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}C^{\alpha _3\alpha _2}]`$ (4.12)
and the fourth, the color ordered four-point vertices,

$`V_4^{(a)}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{(k_2+k_3)^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/k_1^2\right)}}\right]C^{(\alpha _1|\alpha _2}C^{\alpha _3)a_4}C^{(\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1|\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3)\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_4}`$ (4.13)
$`V_4^{(b)}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k_1^2+M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/k_1^2\right)}}\right]\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{k_1^4}})k_1^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_1(\alpha }C^{\beta )\alpha _1}k_4^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_4}{}_{(\alpha }{}^{}C_{\beta }^{}{}_{4}{}^{\alpha }C_{}^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}C^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}`$
$`\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k_1^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M^4}{k_1^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_3+k_4)^2}}(k_2+2k_3+2k_4)^{\alpha _2\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_2}(k_4+2k_3)^{\alpha _3\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }_3}\}`$ (4.14)
The ordering of the inverse boxes follows from the expansion of the one-loop effective action. There are an infinite number of higher-point interaction vertices in the fully expanded form; for simplicity we derive the vertices up to the four-point order.

## 5 Summary

In this work we examine a selfdual inspired reformulation of a theory of massive vector bosons found by perturbing a Lorentz covariant selfdual theory  to

$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\alpha \beta }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G_{\alpha \beta }+MG^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }G_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}+MG^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+F^{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}F_{\stackrel{\text{.}}{\alpha }\stackrel{\text{.}}{\beta }}\right),`$ (5.1)
in which the selfdual theory is described by $`=\mathrm{Tr}G^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$. At low-energies the dynamics is governed by an exactly solvable selfdual system and at higher energies, above the energy scale set by the dimensionful coupling $`M`$, the theory consists of massive vector bosons in which the additional degrees of freedom are absorbed by the auxiliary field imposing the selfduality constraint. The Lagrangian (5.1) possesses a gauge symmetry. This symmetry is sufficient to gauge away half of the components of the tensor fields and allows for unitary propagation of the modes.

In previous works selfdual inspired reformulations of gauge theories has led to improved Feynman rules and expansions . These include second order reformulations of fermionic couplings  and spontaneously broken gauge theories . In this work the additional degrees of freedom required to compose a massive vector are replaced by a Lagrange multiplier field that imposes the selfduality constraint in the undeformed case. The Lagrangian we consider in this work has a non-local form with an expansion containing an infinite number of interactions; it is an analog of the chiral anomaly in two dimensions. Furthermore the theory permits a local form (5.1) in which the renormalizibility and unitarity properties are manifest. We examine the interactions up to four-point order.

## Acknowledgements

The work of GC is supported in part by the US Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, contract W-31-109-ENG-38. GC thanks Cosmas Zachos and the referee for helpful comments.


text:
# Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger paradox for continuous variables

We show how to construct states for which a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger type paradox occurs if each party measures either the position or momentum of his particle. The paradox can be ascribed to the anticommutation of certain translation operators in phase space. We then rephrase the paradox in terms of modular and binary variables. The origin of the paradox is then due to the fact that the associativity of addition of modular variables is true only for c-numbers but does not hold for operators.

The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) paradox exhibits in a very simple way the non locality inherent to quantum mechanics. The paradox is based on the following state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}=\frac{|_A_B_C|_A_B_C}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(1)
of three spin 1/2 particles shared among three spatially separated parties A,B,C. The GHZ state is an eigenstate of four commuting operators, the GHZ operators:

$`\sigma _x^A\sigma _x^B\sigma _x^C|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ},`$ (2)
$`\sigma _x^A\sigma _y^B\sigma _y^C|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ},`$ (3)
$`\sigma _y^A\sigma _x^B\sigma _y^C|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ},`$ (4)
$`\sigma _y^A\sigma _y^B\sigma _x^C|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}.`$ (5)
The paradox arises when one compares the predictions of quantum mechanics and of local hidden variable theories for local measurements of $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ by the three parties. By carrying out such local measurements, one can measure any of the four GHZ operators that appear on the left hand side of (5). Quantum mechanics predicts that for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{GHZ}`$ measuring any of the four GHZ operators must yield a result equal to the eigenvalue appearing on the right hand side of (5). On the other hand in a local hidden variable theory one must, prior to the measurement, assign values to all six of the operators $`\sigma _{x,y}^j`$, $`j=A,B,C`$. These values must be equal to one of the eigenvalues of the operators, ie. to $`\pm 1`$. But it is impossible to assign values to all six operators $`\sigma _{x,y}^j`$ and be compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. Indeed taking the product of the 4 GHZ equations one obtains $`+1`$ when the $`\sigma _{x,y}^j`$ are replaced by c-numbers. Quantum mechanically one obtains $`1`$ because $`\sigma _x^j`$ and $`\sigma _y^j`$ anti-commute.

The aim of the present paper is to show how one can generalize in a natural way the GHZ paradox to continuous variables such as position and momentum. Our analysis is inspired by the analogy between the EPR state for continuous variables $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{EPR}=𝑑x|x_A,x_B`$ and the singlet state for discrete systems $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=(|_A_B|_A_B)/\sqrt{2}`$. These states can be defined in terms of the operators of which they are eigenstates: $`(x_A+x_B)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{EPR}=0`$ , $`(p_Ap_B)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{EPR}=0`$ and $`\sigma _z^A\sigma _z^B|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, $`\sigma _x^A\sigma _x^B|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. This suggests that the way to pass from discrete variables to continuous variables is to replace products of Pauli matrices by sums of position and momentum operators. But then one does not see how to obtain a GHZ paradox of the form eq. (5) since addition of operators is always commutative. We shall show that their are two equivalent ways to circumvent this. The first is to work with products of translation operators of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha x)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\beta p)`$; the second is to work with sums of modular variables (first introduced in ). The origin of the paradox is in one case the non-commutativity of translation operators and in the second the non associativity of the modulo operation for operators. Finally we introduce a new kind of variable, which we call binary variables, in terms of which the continuous variable GHZ paradox can be mapped onto the the GHZ paradox for spins eq. (5).

Multi-particle non local states for continuous variables have been considered previously by van Loock and Braunstein. One of the interests of the states considered by van Loock and Braunstein is that they can be easily constructed using squeezed states and beam splitters. But the measurements that exhibit the non locality are complicated and cannot be realized in the laboratory at present. On the other hand the states we discuss here seem significantly more complicated to construct than those considered by van Loock and Braunstein (in particular they cannot be constructed using squeezers and beam splitters). But the measurements that exhibit the non locality are simple position and momentum measurements.

Let us consider a set of unitary operators $`X_j`$, $`Y_j`$, $`j=A,B,C`$ acting on A,B and C’s particles respectively. Using these operators we construct the following 4 GHZ operators:

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`X_AX_BX_C,`$ (6)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`X_A^{}Y_BY_C^{},`$ (7)
$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`Y_A^{}X_B^{}Y_C,`$ (8)
$`V_4`$ $`=`$ $`Y_AY_B^{}X_C^{}.`$ (9)
These four operators give rise to a GHZ paradox if $`X_j`$ and $`Y_j(Y_j^{})`$ anticommute:

$$X_jY_j+Y_jX_j=0\text{and}X_jY_j^{}+Y_j^{}X_j=0.$$
(10)
This implies that the following two properties hold:

1. $`V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4`$ all commute. This ensures that they can be simultaneously diagonalized (in fact there exists a complete set of common eigenvectors).
2. The product $`V_1V_2V_3V_4=I_{ABC}`$ equals minus the identity operator.

Any common eigenstate of $`V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4`$ will then give rise to a GHZ paradox. Indeed suppose that parties measure the hermitian operators $`i\mathrm{ln}X_j`$ or $`i\mathrm{ln}Y_j`$, $`j=A,B,C`$ on this common eigenstate. The result of the measurement associates a complex number of unit norm to either the $`X_j`$ or $`Y_j`$ operators. Hence if one of the combinations of operators that occurs in eq. (9) is measured, one can assign a value to one of the operators $`V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4`$. Quantum mechanics imposes that this value is equal to the corresponding eigenvalue.

But in a local hidden variables theory this is impossible because in this case one must assign, prior to the measurement, a complex number of unit norm to all the operators $`X_j`$ and $`Y_j`$. But then taking the product of the four c-numbers assigned simultaneously to $`V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4`$ yields $`+1`$ whereas -due to property 2- the product of the eigenvalues is $`1`$.

In order to construct such unitary operators in the continuous case, let us introduce the dimensionless variables

$$\stackrel{~}{x}=\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi }L},\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{pL}{\sqrt{\pi }}$$
(11)
where $`L`$ is an arbitrary length scale. Upon taking

$$X_j=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_j)\text{and}Y_j=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{p}_j),j=A,B,C$$
(12)
one finds that the anticommutation relations eq. (10) are satisfied. This follows from the identity

$`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_j\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{p}_j\beta )`$ (13)
$`=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{p}_j\beta )\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_j\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \alpha \beta ).`$ (14)
In particular we see that if the product $`\alpha \beta `$ is an even integer, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_j\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \stackrel{~}{p}_j\beta )`$ commute, whereas if $`\alpha \beta `$ is an odd integer they anti-commute.

Thus any common eigenstate of $`V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4`$ with $`X_j,Y_j`$ given in eq. (12) yields a GHZ paradox if the three parties carry out local measurements of either $`x`$ or $`p`$. Before describing the states that yield the GHZ paradox, we pursue the algebraic analysis of these equations.

By taking the logarithm of the GHZ equations and dividing by $`i\pi `$, we obtain the following form in terms of hermitian operators

$`(\stackrel{~}{x}_A+\stackrel{~}{x}_B+\stackrel{~}{x}_C)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (15)
$`(\stackrel{~}{x}_A+\stackrel{~}{p}_B\stackrel{~}{p}_C)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (16)
$`(\stackrel{~}{p}_A\stackrel{~}{x}_B+\stackrel{~}{p}_C)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _3|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (17)
$`(\stackrel{~}{p}_A\stackrel{~}{p}_B\stackrel{~}{x}_C)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (18)
where the eigenvalues $`\eta _k[0,2[`$ obey the relation

$$(\eta _1+\eta _2+\eta _3+\eta _4)\text{mod}2=1$$
(19)
We recall that if $`|a`$ is an eigenvector of the operator $`A`$ with eigenvalue $`a`$, then the modular operator $`(A)\text{mod}k`$ is defined by $`(A)\text{mod}k|a=(a)\text{mod}k|a`$. Modular variables where introduced in  as a general tool to study non-locality in quantum mechanics. It is interesting that they reappear in the context of the GHZ paradox.

In the case of eq. (18), the paradox arises because the associativity of the modulo operation $`(A+B)\text{mod}k=((A)\text{mod}k+(B)\text{mod}k)\text{mod}k`$ which holds for c-numbers is in general not valid when $`A`$ and $`B`$ are non-commuting operators. Thus in a local hidden variable theory one must assign real values to $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_j)\text{mod}2`$ and to $`(\stackrel{~}{p}_j)\text{mod}2`$. Then taking the sum of the 4 equations (18) and using the associativity property of modulo for c-numbers one finds $`(\eta _1+\eta _2+\eta _3+\eta _4)\text{mod}2=0`$ in contradiction with the quantum condition eq. (19).

We shall now rephrase the GHZ paradox eq. (18) in a different way by using binary variables. Consider a position eigenstate $`|x`$ and write its eigenvalue in base 2 as

$$x=(1)^{\text{sgn}x}L\sqrt{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n2^n.$$
(20)
This allows us to introduce the sign operator $`\widehat{\text{sgn}x}`$ and the binary operators $`\widehat{[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n}`$ defined by

$`\widehat{\text{sgn}x}|x`$ $`=`$ $`\text{sgn}x|x,`$ (21)
$`\widehat{[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n}|x`$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n|x.`$ (22)
The modular position is then written as

$$(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{mod}2^k=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{k1}{}}\widehat{[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n}2^n$$
(23)
Similarly we can introduce the operators $`\widehat{\text{sgn}p}`$ and $`\widehat{[\stackrel{~}{p}]_n}`$ using the base 2 decomposition of momentum

$$p=(1)^{\text{sgn}p}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{L}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}[\stackrel{~}{p}]_n2^n.$$
(24)
Using these definitions we have the relation

$$(z)\text{mod}2^{k+1}=(z)\text{mod}2^k+[z]_k2^k$$
(25)
for $`z=\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p}`$ (from now on we drop the $`\widehat{}`$ over operators since it will be clear from the context whether $`x,p`$ denote operators or c-numbers). We can then rewrite eq. (18) as

$`((\stackrel{~}{x}_A)\text{mod}1+(\stackrel{~}{x}_B)\text{mod}1+(\stackrel{~}{x}_C)\text{mod}1`$ (26)
$`+[\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}=\eta _1|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (27)
$`((\stackrel{~}{x}_A)\text{mod}1+(\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\text{mod}1(\stackrel{~}{p}_C)\text{mod}1`$ (28)
$`+[\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}=\eta _2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (29)
$`((\stackrel{~}{p}_A)\text{mod}1(\stackrel{~}{x}_B)\text{mod}1+(\stackrel{~}{p}_C)\text{mod}1`$ (30)
$`+[\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}=\eta _3|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (31)
$`((\stackrel{~}{p}_A)\text{mod}1(\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\text{mod}1(\stackrel{~}{x}_C)\text{mod}1`$ (32)
$`+[\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}=\eta _4|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{},`$ (33)
(34)
where we have used the fact that $`[z]_0=[z]_0`$.

In order to understand the structure of eq. (34), we note that (14) implies that $`(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{mod}2^k`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{p})\text{mod}2^l`$ commute if $`k+l1`$. Indeed, $`(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{mod}2^k`$ and $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^k}\pi \stackrel{~}{x}}`$ have the same eigenstates and similarly $`(\stackrel{~}{p})\text{mod}2^l`$ and $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^l}\pi \stackrel{~}{p}}`$. Thus if $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^k}\pi \stackrel{~}{x}}`$ and $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^l}\pi \stackrel{~}{p}}`$ commute, they share a common basis of eigenstates, and therefore $`(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{mod}2^k`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{p})\text{mod}2^l`$ do too. But from (14), $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^k}\pi \stackrel{~}{x}}`$ and $`e^{i\frac{2}{2^l}\pi \stackrel{~}{p}}`$ commute only if $`k+l1`$. Using (25), we also have that $`(\stackrel{~}{x})\text{mod}2^k`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{p}]_m`$ commute if $`k+m0`$; $`(\stackrel{~}{p})\text{mod}2^l`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{x}]_m`$ commute if $`l+m0`$; $`[\stackrel{~}{x}]_n`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{p}]_m`$ commute if $`n+m1`$.

From these properties we deduce that the mod1 terms on the left hand side of the four equations (34) commute with all the other terms that appear in these equations. These terms are therefore not essential to the paradox and can be dropped. Ommiting them yields the following simple form for eq. (34)

$`([\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`b_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (35)
$`([\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`b_2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (36)
$`([\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`b_3|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (37)
$`([\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0+[\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0+[\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0)\text{mod}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`b_4|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (38)
where $`b_{1,2,3,4}\{0,1\}`$ satisfy

$$(b_1+b_2+b_3+b_4)\text{mod}2=1$$
(40)
Once again the paradox is due to the associativity of the modulo operation which holds for c-numbers but does not hold for operators. (As an example the sum of two even integers is an even integer, but if one takes the sum of two operators both of whose eigenvalues are even integers, one does not in general obtain an operator whose eigenvalues are only even integers).

Exponentiating eq. (LABEL:binary1GHZ) we obtain

$`e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi b_1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (41)
$`e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_A]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi b_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (42)
$`e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_B]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_C]_0}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi b_3}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ},`$ (43)
$`e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_A]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{p}_B]_0}e^{i\pi [\stackrel{~}{x}_C]_0}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi b_4}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}.`$ (44)
We now show that this is identical to the original GHZ paradox for spins. Indeed the operators $`X=e^{i\pi \widehat{[\stackrel{~}{x}]_0}}`$, $`Y=e^{i\pi \widehat{[\stackrel{~}{p}]_0}}`$, and $`Z=iXY`$ are a representation of $`su(2)`$ that obey the usual commutation relations $`[X,Y]=2iZ`$ and cyclic permutations. This can be verified using the eigenstates of $`Z`$:

$`|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{i\pi 2k\stackrel{~}{p}_0}\right|\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}_0+2k`$ (46)
$`+i{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{i\pi (2k+1)\stackrel{~}{p}_0}|\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}_0+2k+1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{p}_0}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{ik\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_0}\right|\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{p}_0+k`$ (48)
$`+i{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{ik\pi (\stackrel{~}{x}_0+1)}|\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{p}_0+k)`$
and

$`|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\pi 2k\stackrel{~}{p}_0}\right|\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}_0+2k`$ (50)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{i\pi (2k+1)\stackrel{~}{p}_0}|\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}_0+2k+1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{p}_0}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{ik\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_0}\right|\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{p}_0+k`$ (52)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{ik\pi (\stackrel{~}{x}_0+1)}|\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{p}_0+k)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_0[0,1[`$ and where we have defined

$$|\stackrel{~}{x}=|x=\sqrt{\pi }L\stackrel{~}{x},|\stackrel{~}{p}=|p=\sqrt{\pi }\stackrel{~}{p}/L$$
(53)
These states form a basis of the Hilbert space. The action of $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ on them is

$`X|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}`$ , $`X|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0},`$ (54)
$`Y|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=i|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0},`$ , $`Y|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=i|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0},`$ (55)
$`Z|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0},`$ , $`Z|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{p}_0}.`$ (56)
This shows that the GHZ paradox we have constructed for continuous variables is not fundamentally different from the original paradox. It is only expressed in terms of an $`su(2)`$ sub-algebra of an infinite dimensional Hilbert space.

To conclude we now describe the common eigenstate of the four GHZ operators in the case of eqs.(18) and (44). Define

$`|b_i_j`$ $`=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0^j,\stackrel{~}{p}_0^j}`$ $`\text{if}b_i\text{mod}2=0`$ (58)
$`=|_{\stackrel{~}{x}_0^j,\stackrel{~}{p}_0^j}`$ $`\text{if}b_i\text{mod}2=1`$ (59)
where $`j=A,B,C`$. Using this notation, the state

$`|\psi (𝐛,𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\right|b_2_A|b_3_B|b_4_C`$ (61)
$`+(1)^{b_1}|b_2+1_A|b_3+1_B|b_4+1_C)`$
depending on the variables $`𝐛=(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)`$ and $`𝐳=(\stackrel{~}{x}_0^A,\stackrel{~}{x}_0^B,\stackrel{~}{x}_0^C,\stackrel{~}{p}_0^A,\stackrel{~}{p}_0^B,\stackrel{~}{p}_0^C)`$ is a solution of eq. (44). The general eigenstate of eq. (44) is then of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}(𝐛)=𝑑𝐳f(𝐳)|\psi (𝐛,𝐳)$$
(62)
where $`f(𝐳)`$ is some normalized function.

Finally, we can use this expression to obtain the eigenstates of eq (18) (or equivalently (34)). It is easy to check that

$`\left[(z_A)\text{mod}1+(z_B)\text{mod}1+(z_C)\text{mod}1\right]|\psi (𝐛,𝐳)`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`\left[z_0^A+z_0^B+z_0^C\right]|\psi (𝐛,𝐳)`$ (64)
where $`z`$ stands for $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$. Therefore inserting the state (61) into eq. (34) we obtain the equations

$`(\stackrel{~}{x}_0^A+\stackrel{~}{x}_0^B+\stackrel{~}{x}_0^C+b_1)\text{mod}2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1`$ (65)
$`(\stackrel{~}{x}_0^A+\stackrel{~}{p}_0^B\stackrel{~}{p}_0^C+b_2)\text{mod}2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _2`$ (66)
$`(\stackrel{~}{p}_0^A\stackrel{~}{x}_0^B+\stackrel{~}{p}_0^C+b_3)\text{mod}2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _3`$ (67)
$`(\stackrel{~}{p}_0^A\stackrel{~}{p}_0^B\stackrel{~}{x}_0^C+b_4)\text{mod}2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4.`$ (68)
The general solution of eq. (34) is then an arbitrary superposition of states (61) for which $`𝐛,𝐳`$ obey the constraints (68). If we denote by $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ the set of solutions of (68), then the general solution can be written

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}^{}=_\mathrm{\Xi }𝑑𝝃g(𝝃)|\psi (𝝃)$$
(69)
where $`𝝃=(𝐛,𝐳)`$.

In summary we have exhibited a large class of states that satisfy a GHZ paradox. Exhibiting the paradox is very simple: it requires only that the parties carry out local measurements of position and momentum. However constructing these states is a much more difficult task. For instance it seems impossible to even approximately construct them using squeezers and beam splitters, contrary to the states described in . Constructing them explicitly will therefore require more sophisticated quantum state engineering than we presently possess.

Acknowledgements: S.M. is a research associate of the Belgian National Research Foundation. He acknowledges funding by the European Union under project EQUIP (IST-FET program).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The superembedding formalism provides a powerful and systematic method for deriving the dynamics of super $`p`$-branes. A detailed review of the subject is given in  where a comprehensive list of references can be found. There is a natural constraint on such an embedding, namely that the odd tangent space of the brane should be a subspace of the odd tangent space of the target superspace at all points on the brane. It was noted in  that this constraint is applicable to all branes, including those which have worldvolume multiplets containing gauge fields such as D-branes and the M5-brane, and that it determines a worldvolume multiplet which can be one of three distinct types.

The three types of multiplet are: (a) on-shell multiplets, that is the basic embedding condition determines the dynamics, (b) off-shell multiplets where the embedding condition leads to a recognisable off-shell multiplet for which a superfield action can be written down, and (c) underconstrained multiplets. By underconstrained we mean that, although the worldvolume multiplet is off-shell, the resulting multiplet cannot be used to construct a Lagrangian. In the case where the target space has 32 supersymmetries (and the worldvolume 16) the multiplets are mostly of type (a) but occasionally of type (c), the latter situation occurring for low (bosonic) codimension. For fewer supersymmetries the worldvolume multiplets are more often of type (b), but again type (c) multiplets arise for low codimension. For type (c), an additional constraint is required, and in all cases studied so far it turns out that it is sufficient to impose the so-called $``$-constraint, that is, one introduces an extra gauge field on the worldvolume and then constrains all of its components to vanish except for the purely bosonic ones. (For type (a) or (b) such gauge fields, if present, do not have to be introduced independently). If one considers systems of branes the $``$-constraint can be derived from considerations of branes ending on other branes . In  a detailed study was made of superembeddings with codimension one, where the worldvolume multiplet is an unconstrained scalar superfield. Except for the case of the membrane in $`D=4`$, which is type (b), these superembeddings are of type (c) and so it is necessary to impose the $``$-constraint. Alternatively, one can impose further constraints directly on the superembedding which are equivalent to the $``$-constraint, but it is simpler to impose the latter directly as it is unambiguous. An example of this is given by the 5-brane in $`D=7`$ for which the equations were obtained by an additional geometrical constraint in  and then by the $``$-constraint in .

One can also derive actions starting from the superembedding formalism. Green-Schwarz type actions for branes can be obtained using the generalised action principle  which was reinterptreted in  as a constructive principle. For multiplets of type (a) one can also find superfield actions, the first model studied, the superparticle in $`D=3`$ being an example of this  (see also  and  for other early papers). A third possibility, also requiring type (a) multiplets, is to construct actions in the static gauge. This has been done, for example, for the supermembrane in $`N=1,D=4`$ superspace indirectly in , using partially broken supersymmetry systematically in  and more recently, starting from the superembedding approach in .

In this paper we consider superembeddings with bosonic codimension zero for spacetime dimensions three, four and six. The worldvolume multiplets are off-shell Maxwell multiplets in these dimensions and consist of a spinor field, a Maxwell field strength tensor and zero, one or three auxiliary scalars respectively combined together in a spinor superfield which can be identified with the transverse fermionic coordinate. The case of the D9-brane in ten dimensions has been studied previously in ; it differs from the others in the series in that the worldvolume multiplet is on-shell. A special feature of codimension zero is that, for these embeddings, the standard embedding condition imposes no constraint at all; one can always make a choice of the odd tangent bundle of the brane in such a way that it sits inside the odd tangent bundle of the target restricted to the brane. However, it still turns out that the $``$-constraint is sufficient to generate the required off-shell multiplets.

It is quite simple to understand how this arises. Since the standard embedding condition imposes no constraints on the worldvolume multiplet, the latter must be an unconstrained spinor superfield corresponding to the transverse fermionic coordinate. One then introduces a new worldvolume Maxwell field with modified field strength $``$. In each of the three cases the standard constraint in flat superspace is that the odd-odd part of the field strength should vanish, so if we impose this (on $``$) there will be an off-shell Maxwell multiplet in addition to the spinor superfield. If we now require that the even-odd component of the field strength should vanish as well we eliminate one of the spinor fields, and thereby equate the (fermionic) Goldstone field of the superembedding with the field strength superfield of the Maxwell multiplet. Moreover, it is the unique covariant constraint which has this property.

The notion of a brane in a flat superspace is directly related to the notion of partial breaking of supersymmetry (specifically by one-half) . In a superspace context this idea can be implemented using the group-theoretical method of non-linear realisations for supersymmetry . It is related to the superembedding formalism in that the former can be derived from the latter by working in a suitable gauge, and in some recent papers  membranes and the $`N=2,D=2`$ superparticle have been discussed from this point of view. An advantage of the superembedding formalism is that it can be applied to arbitrary target superspaces, although, as in the case of the $`\kappa `$-symmetric Green-Schwarz formalism , the presence of branes may lead to constraints on the target superspace.

The non-linear realisation method has been applied to many examples; see, for example . In the present context its relevance is that the worldvolume theory should then presumably be supersymmetric Born-Infeld theory in superspace. This has been studied in a number of papers, for example, . In , some partial results were given for higher-dimensional Yang-Mills theories, and a general analysis of the ten-dimensional superspace Bianchi identities which should be compatible with Born-Infeld theory has also appeared . Some of these results have included work on non-Abelian extensions of Born-Infeld and this is one of the main motivations for the current study. The hope is that by discussing the theory in a superembedding context one might be able to gain some insight into how to derive the non-Abelian generalisation which would be the right one for branes (although it is not known whether it would be unique). A discussion of this problem from the point of view of $`\kappa `$-symmetry has been given in . In fact, in the current paper, we shall not have much to say about the non-Abelian case. However, in order to be able to study this problem from the superembedding point of view, it is necessary to understand the abelian case first. Even here our results, obtained by going to the static gauge, are as yet incomplete. We are able to derive superspace Lagrangians for $`N=1,D=3`$ and $`D=4`$, but we have not yet made direct comparisons with the known results mentioned above. In order to do this, it is necessary to implemement the field redefinitions relating the different formalisms; work on this is in progress. The $`D=6`$ case is yet more complicated, and we also hope to study this problem in more detail in the near future.

One aspect that we are able to comment on is the geometry induced on the worldvolume of the brane. For the $`D=3`$ case this is not terribly exciting, but for $`D=4`$ we find that there is an induced chiral supergeometry for which the Ogievetsky-Sokatchev potential $`H^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$  (see also ), or rather its deviation from the flat case, is reminiscent of the supercurrent multiplet of the worldvolume gauge supermultiplet. One might anticipate that there could be a harmonic superpace extension of this result in the $`D=6`$ case where the corresponding supergravity potential structure is also known .

## 2 Superembeddings

We consider a superembedding $`f:M\underset{¯}{M}`$. Our index conventions are as follows; coordinate indices are taken from the middle of the alphabet with capitals for all, Latin for bosonic and Greek for fermionic, $`M=(m,\mu )`$, tangent space indices are taken in a similar fashion from the beginning of the aplphabet so that $`A=(a,\alpha )`$. The distinguished tangent space bases are related to coordinate bases by means of the supervielbein, $`E_M^A`$, and its inverse $`E_A^M`$. Coordinates are denoted $`z^M=(x^m,\theta ^\mu )`$. We use exactly the same notation for the target space but with all of the indices underlined. Indices for the normal bundle are denoted by primes, so that $`A^{}=(a^{},\alpha ^{})`$.

The embedding matrix is the derivative of $`f`$ referred to the preferred tangent frames, thus

$$E_A{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{A}}:=E_A{}_{}{}^{M}_{M}^{}z^{\underset{¯}{M}}E_{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\underset{¯}{A}}$$
(1)
The basic embedding condition is

$$E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0$$
(2)
To see the content of this constraint we can consider a linearised embedding in a flat target space in the static gauge. This gauge is specified by identifying the coordinates of the brane with a subset of the coordinates of the worldvolume, so that

$`x^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^a\hfill & \\ x^a^{}(x,\theta )\hfill & \end{array}`$ (3)
$`\theta ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\theta ^\alpha \hfill & \\ \theta ^\alpha ^{}(x,\theta )\hfill & \end{array}`$ (4)
Since

$$E^{\underset{¯}{a}}=dx^{\underset{¯}{a}}\frac{i}{2}d\theta ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}})_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{}\beta }\theta ^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }$$
(5)
in flat space, it is easy to see that, to first order in the transverse fields, the embedding condition implies

$$D_\alpha X^a^{}=i(\mathrm{\Gamma }^a^{})_{\alpha \beta ^{}}\theta ^\beta ^{}$$
(6)
where

$$X^a^{}=x^a^{}+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }^a^{})_{\alpha \beta ^{}}\theta ^\beta ^{}$$
(7)
The worldvolume multiplet is therefore described by a set of scalar superfields equal in number to the bosonic codimension and obeying the constraint (6). Clearly, for codimension one, one has a single otherwise unconstrained scalar superfield, which gives rise to a type (c) multiplet in general. For codimension zero, there are no transverse scalars, and so one has an unconstrained spinor superfield $`\theta ^\alpha ^{}(x,\theta )`$.

In the non-linear theory it is useful to study this multiplet in a covariant fashion using the geometrical quantities that are available. In order to do this it is first of all necessary to parametrise the odd-odd part of the superembedding matrix $`E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$. Preferred bases for the odd tangent bundle $`\underset{¯}{F}`$ will be acted on by a group $`\underset{¯}{G}`$, which is either the spin group or a product of the spin group with an internal symmetry group. Without loss of generality we can write

$$E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=u_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}u_{\beta ^{}}^{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}$$
(8)
where $`u`$ is an element of the group $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ which will depend on the brane coordinates in general. In other words, we split the odd target space basis into two, with the same dimension, but allow this splitting to depend on where we are on the brane. We can also parametrise the even-even part of the embedding matrix in terms of the Lorentz transformation corresponding to the spin transformation in $`u`$; so we can choose

$$E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=u_a^{\underset{¯}{a}}$$
(9)
At this stage there is still a local $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ symmetry; that is, if we transform $`ugu,g\underset{¯}{G}`$, the frame $`E_\alpha `$ will go into itself up to linear transformation as long as we also transform $`hh^{}`$ where

$$h_\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}=(g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}}+g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\delta }h_{\delta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}})(g_\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}g_\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{ϵ}h_{ϵ}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}})^1$$
(10)
In other words, $`h`$ transforms projectively under $`\underset{¯}{G}`$. This symmetry was discussed for the 3-brane in six dimensions in ; it can be used to choose different gauges for $`E_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$.

The field $`h`$ was first introduced in  and plays a crucial röle whenever there are gauge fields on the brane. It is related in a non-linear fashion to the field strength of the gauge field for D-branes, for example. For scalar branes $`h`$ vanishes except if there are auxiliary scalar fields.

## 3 Static gauge

It is not difficult to extend the linearised analysis presented above to the non-linear case when the target space is flat. This has been discussed in some examples in , and shows how the superembedding formalism is related to the non-linear realisation formalism .

We can always choose coordinates, at least locally on the brane, in which the odd frame has the form

$$E_\alpha =A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(D_\beta +\psi _\beta {}_{}{}^{b}_{b}^{})$$
(11)
where, since we are discussing flat space, we no longer need to distinguish coordinate indices. We may take the even basis vectors to be

$$E_a=B_a{}_{}{}^{b}_{b}^{}$$
(12)
The matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ are included for convenience in order to facilitate comparison with the covariant approach.

The dual form bases are

$`E^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`e^\beta (A^1)_\beta ^\alpha `$ (13)
$`E^a`$ $`=`$ $`(e^be^\beta \psi _\beta {}_{}{}^{b})(B^1)_b^a`$ (14)
where $`e^a,e^\alpha `$ denote the standard bases of flat superspace,

$`e^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^\alpha `$ (15)
$`e^a`$ $`=`$ $`dx^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d\theta ^\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }^a)_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\beta `$ (16)
If we then pull back the target space preferred frames and express the result in terms of the frame $`E^A`$, the basic embedding condition gives rise to a number of results. Firstly, we find that the field $`\psi _\alpha ^a`$ is given by

$$\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{i}{2}D_\alpha \theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\theta ^{}(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}\frac{i}{2}_b\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\theta ^{})^1$$
(17)
This expresion essentially determines the induced geometry on the brane. We also find the non-linear version of (6); it is

$$𝒟_\alpha X^a^{}=i(\mathrm{\Gamma }^a^{})_{\alpha \beta ^{}}\theta ^\beta ^{}$$
(18)
where

$$𝒟_\alpha :=D_\alpha +\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}$$
(19)
with $`X^a^{}`$ given by (7) as before. For the embedding matrix we find

$$E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }\{\begin{array}{cc}E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=A_\alpha ^\beta \hfill & \\ E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}=A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{\gamma }^{}\theta ^\beta ^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(20)
as well as

$$E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{b}}\{\begin{array}{cc}E_a{}_{}{}^{b}=B_a{}_{}{}^{c}(\delta _c{}_{}{}^{b}\frac{i}{2}_c\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\theta ^{})\hfill & \\ E_a{}_{}{}^{b^{}}=B_a{}_{}{}^{c}_{c}^{}X^b^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(21)
and

$$E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }\{\begin{array}{cc}E_a{}_{}{}^{\beta }=0\hfill & \\ E_a{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}=B_a{}_{}{}^{b}_{b}^{}\theta ^\beta ^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(22)
The matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ can then be determined by comparing with the covariant forms for the embedding matrix so that

$`u_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}}u_{\gamma ^{}}^{}^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`A_\alpha ^\beta `$ (23)
$`u_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}}u_{\gamma ^{}}^{}^\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{\gamma }^{}\theta ^\beta ^{}`$ (24)
while

$`u_a^b`$ $`=`$ $`B_a{}_{}{}^{c}(\delta _c{}_{}{}^{b}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_c\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\theta ^{})`$ (25)
$`u_a^b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`B_a{}_{}{}^{c}_{c}^{}X^b^{}`$ (26)
For the codimension zero case we have the same set of equations with the difference that those equations involving $`a^{}`$ indices are no longer present. Since the bosonic tangent spaces for brane and target are the same, it is permissible to take $`u_a{}_{}{}^{b}=\delta _a^b`$, and so we find an explicit expression for $`B`$ in terms of the field $`\theta ^{}(x,\theta )`$:

$$B_a{}_{}{}^{b}=(\delta _a{}_{}{}^{b}\frac{i}{2}_a\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\theta ^{})^1$$
(27)
The corresponding spin group matrix is also trivial but $`u`$ with odd indices need not be because of the presence of an internal symmetry group.

## 4 Codimension zero

It is well-known that the super Maxwell multiplets in $`D=3,4,6`$ and $`10`$ dimensions are associated with the division algebras $`\text{𝕂}=\text{},\text{},\text{}`$ and 𝕆 respectively . The codimension zero embeddings in these dimensions can be understood in this light, too, particularly for the cases we discuss in this paper, namely $`D=3,4,6`$. In all four cases we have superembeddings of an $`N=1`$ worldvolume superspace into an $`N=2`$ target superspace. The spin group in these dimensions can be viewed as $`SL(2,\text{𝕂})`$, the internal symmetry group of the target space is $`U(2,\text{𝕂})`$ and the internal symmetry group of the worldvolume is $`U(1,\text{𝕂})`$, although the internal symmetry groups for $`D=10`$ do not seem to fit into this pattern. Translated into more standard language, the internal symmetry groups are $`SO(2),U(2)`$ and $`USp(4)`$ for $`N=2`$ in $`D=3,4`$ and 6 respectively, and $`1,U(1)`$ and $`USp(2)=SU(2)`$ for $`N=1`$. In the following we shall use standard notation for each of the three cases, so that spinors are real with two-components in $`D=3`$, complex with two-components in $`D=4`$, and pseudo-Majorana-Weyl with eight components subject to a reality condition in $`D=6`$.

In view of the fact that we may choose the even-even part of the embedding matrix to be the unit matrix for codimension zero, and take the Lorentz group factor of the group element $`u`$ which occurs in the embedding matrix to be $`1`$, the odd tangent space basis vectors on the brane can be written

$$E_\alpha =v_1{}_{}{}^{i}E_{\alpha i}^{}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }v_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}E_{\beta j}^{}$$
(28)
where $`i=1,2`$ for $`D=3,4`$, and

$$E_{\alpha i}=v_i{}_{}{}^{I}E_{\alpha I}^{}+h_{\alpha i}{}_{}{}^{\beta j^{}}v_{j^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{J}E_{\beta J}^{}$$
(29)
where $`i=1,2`$, and $`I=1,2,3,4`$ for $`D=6`$. In both of these formulae, the basis vectors on the right-hand side are standard frames for the target space which we shall take to be flat for simplicity throughout this paper. The matrix $`v`$, composed of $`(v_1{}_{}{}^{i},v_2{}_{}{}^{i})`$ for $`D=3,4`$ and of $`(v_i{}_{}{}^{I},v_i^{}{}_{}{}^{I})`$ for $`D=6`$ is an element of the target space internal symmetry group. Strictly, in equation (28), the spinor indices should be four-component with the spinors obeying a pseudo-Majorana-Weyl condition in the $`D=4`$ case, but when we have imposed the $``$-constraint we shall see that it can be interpreted in terms of two-component complex spinors.

The task now is to compute the dimension zero torsion on the brane,

$$T_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{c}=E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}E_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{}\beta }^{}^c$$
(30)
and then to introduce $``$ satisfying the modified Bianchi identity

$$d=\underset{¯}{H}$$
(31)
where $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ denotes the pull-back of a closed three-form on the target superspace, $`\underset{¯}{H}=d\underset{¯}{B}`$. One then imposes the $``$-constraint

$$_{\alpha \beta }=_{\alpha b}=0$$
(32)
and analyses (31) at dimension zero. This completes the determination of the multiplet as a non-linear super-Maxwell multiplet, and shows how the fields $`h`$ and $`v`$ in (28) or $`(\text{29})`$ are related to the dimension zero fields in the Maxwell multiplets, i.e. the field strength tensors and auxiliary scalars. To find the action it then only remains to specify the Wess-Zumino $`D+1`$-form.

### 4.1 D=3

For dimension three we choose the gauge $`v=1`$ in (28) so that

$$E_\alpha =E_{\alpha 1}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }E_{\beta 2}^{}$$
(33)
with

$$h_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }k+(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }h_a$$
(34)
The target space dimension zero torsion is

$$T_{\alpha i\beta j}{}_{}{}^{c}=i\delta _{ij}(\gamma ^c)_{\alpha \beta }$$
(35)
using which we find the worldvolume dimension zero torsion is

$$T_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{a}=i(\gamma ^b)_{\alpha \beta }m_b^a$$
(36)
where

$$m_{ab}=f\eta _{ab}2h_ah_b2ϵ_{abc}kh^c$$
(37)
with

$$f=1+k^2+h^2$$
(38)
The closed target space three-form $`H`$ can be chosen to be such that its only non-vanishing component (in flat space) is

$$H_{\alpha i\beta jc}=i(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _1)_{ij}$$
(39)
where $`\tau _1`$ is the first Pauli matrix. When the $``$-constraint has been imposed the dimension zero component of the $``$ Bianchi identity (31) reads

$$T_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{b}_{bc}^{}=E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}E_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{}\beta }H_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{}\beta c}^{}$$
(40)
where $`_{ab}=ϵ_{abc}^c`$. From this we find that $`k=0`$ so that $`f=1+h^2`$, and also that

$$_a=\frac{2h_a}{(1+h^2)}$$
(41)
As promised, therefore, the $`h_\alpha ^\beta `$ field in the embedding matrix is non-linearly related to the field strength tensor of the Maxwell multiplet.

### 4.2 D=4

For $`D=4`$ we can choose $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ to be such that its only non-vanishing component is

$$H_{\alpha i\dot{\beta }c}^j=i(\tau _1)_i{}_{}{}^{j}(\sigma _c)_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^{}$$
(42)
where $`\tau _1`$ again denotes the first Pauli matrix. If we use the gauge in which $`v=1`$, it is straightforward to show that the embedding is chiral in the sense that, in two-component notation, there is no $`h_\alpha ^{\dot{\beta }}`$. We simply have

$$E_\alpha =E_{\alpha 1}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }E_{\beta 2}^{}$$
(43)
and similarly for the dotted odd basis vectors which are obtained by complex conjugation. Using this in the $``$ identity one can show that $`h_\alpha ^\alpha `$ is subject to one real algebraic constraint while $`h_{(\alpha \beta )}`$ is proportional to $`_{\alpha \beta }`$, so that the embedding describes the correct degrees of freedom of the off-shell $`N=1,D=4`$ Maxwell supermultiplet. (Here $`_{\alpha \beta }`$ refers to the self-dual part of $`_{ab}`$ in spinor notation.) However, for computational purposes it is easier to switch to the gauge where $`h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }=0`$, which requires the introduction of a non-trivial $`v`$. If we do this and then impose the $``$-constraint we find, after making a choice of $`U(1)`$ gauge ($`U(1)`$ being the internal symmetry group of the worldvolume), that

$$v=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{iu}{2}\tau _1)$$
(44)
as well as

$$h_{\alpha \beta }=A_{\alpha \beta }$$
(45)
where $`A`$ is a complex function which satisfies

$$1+f^2A\overline{A}=\overline{A}$$
(46)
where $`_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }_{\gamma \beta }^{}:=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }f^2`$. In this gauge the auxiliary field is $`u`$ while $`A`$ is determined in terms of $`_{ab}`$ from (46).

### 4.3 D=6

For $`D=6`$ it is again convenient to choose a gauge in which $`v`$ is non-trivial. Implementing the $``$-constraint, where

$$H_{\alpha I\beta J}=i(\gamma )_{\alpha \beta }H_{IJ}$$
(47)
and with

$$H_{IJ}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ_{ij^{}}\\ ϵ_{i^{}j}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(48)
we find

$$E_{\alpha i}=v_i{}_{}{}^{J}E_{\alpha J}^{}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j^{}}v_{j^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{J}E_{\beta J}^{}$$
(49)
where

$$v=\mathrm{exp}iu_r\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill \tau _r\\ \hfill \tau _r& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)$$
(50)
where $`\tau _r,r=1,2,3`$ are the Pauli matrices. The three fields $`u_r`$ can be identified as the triplet of auxiliary fields while $`h_\alpha ^\beta `$ is a non-linear function of $`_{ab}`$.

## 5 Actions

In this section we discuss Green-Schwarz actions and superfield actions for codimension zero branes. We concentrate on the $`D=3`$ case for simplicity adding some comments on the other cases at the end.

We recall that the Wess-Zumino form $`W_{D+1}`$ is a closed $`D+1`$-form which can be written in the explicit form $`W_{D+1}=dZ_D`$ where $`Z_D`$ is a potential $`D`$-form constructed from given target space fields and $``$. On the brane it is exact and so can be written $`W_{D+1}=dK_D`$. The Lagrangian form is $`L_D=K_DZ_D`$ and is closed by construction. The Green-Schwarz action for the brane is

$$S_{GS}=d^Dxϵ^{m_1\mathrm{}m_D}L_{m_1\mathrm{}m_D}(x,\theta =0)$$
(51)
where the integration is taking over the bosonic worldvolume $`M_o`$. A simple argument shows that this action is $`\kappa `$-symmetric and reparametrisation invariant on $`M_o`$ . This procedure works for all branes, provided that the worldvolume is not type (c), with the exception of those whose worldvolume multiplets contain self-dual tensor fields for which other techniques are available . In the case where the worldvolume multiplet is off-shell one can construct superfield actions using two different approaches. The first method involves imposing the embedding condition by a Lagrange multiplier, as in the superparticle in $`D=10`$  or the heterotic string , for example. Presumably this approach can be generalised to codimension zero, but here we shall focus on the second approach which can be used to derive an interacting superfield Lagrangian for the worldvolume multiplet in the static gauge. Superfield actions in the static gauge have been derived for membranes in .

### 5.1 D=3

For $`D=3`$ the Wess-Zumino form for our choice of $`H_3`$ is

$$W_4=\underset{¯}{G}_4+\underset{¯}{G}_2$$
(52)
where $`\underset{¯}{G}_2`$ is a closed target space two-form and $`\underset{¯}{G}_4`$ satisfies

$$d\underset{¯}{G}_4=\underset{¯}{G}_2\underset{¯}{H}_3$$
(53)
we therefore have

$`\underset{¯}{G}_2`$ $`=`$ $`d\underset{¯}{C}_1`$ (54)
$`\underset{¯}{G}_4`$ $`=`$ $`d\underset{¯}{C}_3\underset{¯}{C}_1\underset{¯}{H}_3`$ (55)
where $`\underset{¯}{C}_1`$ and $`\underset{¯}{C}_3`$ are potential forms and $`\underset{¯}{H}_3`$ being the three-form appearing in the $``$ Bianchi identity. In flat target space the non-vanishing components of the $`\underset{¯}{G}`$-forms are

$`G_{\alpha i\beta j}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{ij}`$ (56)
$`G_{\alpha i\beta jcd}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma _{cd})_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _3)_{ij}`$ (57)
As noted above $`W_4`$ can be written as $`dK_3`$. It is straightforward to check that the only non-vanishing component of $`K_3`$ is the purely even one $`K_{abc}=ϵ_{abc}K`$, where

$$K=\frac{(1h^2)}{(1+h^2)}$$
(58)
Moreover, given the relation (41) between $`h_a`$ and $`_a`$, it is easy to check that $`K`$ is the Born-Infeld Lagrangian

$$K=\sqrt{(\eta _{ab}+_{ab})}$$
(59)
To compute the kinetic part of the action one then has to convert to a coordinate basis using $`E_m^a`$ evaluated at $`\theta =0`$. This gives a factor of the determinant of this bosonic worldvolume dreibein, which is the dreibein for the usual GS metric. The GS action is then completed by the Wess-Zumino term. However, for codimension zero it is possible to arrange for $`E_m^\alpha `$ to vanish, so that one only needs to find $`Z_{abc}`$ in order to find the Wess-Zumino term. The even-even part of the worldvolume supervielbein is

$$E_m{}_{}{}^{a}=\delta _m{}_{}{}^{b}(B^1)_{b}^{}^a$$
(60)
so that in any gauge the Green-Schwarz Lagrangian for the system is

$$L_{GS}=\left(\mathrm{det}(B^1)L\right)|$$
(61)
where $`L_{abc}:=ϵ_{abc}L`$, and where the bar denotes evaluation of a superfield at $`\theta =0`$.

The superfield Lagrangian is more difficult to compute. We use the method advocated in  to relate $`x`$ space actions to closed $`D`$-forms in superspace and work in the static gauge discussed in section 3 with the matrix $`A`$ set equal to the unit matrix. The basis forms are then

$`E^a`$ $`=`$ $`(e^be^\beta \psi _\beta {}_{}{}^{b})(B^1)_b^a`$ (62)
$`E^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`e^\alpha `$ (63)
where $`e^A=(e^a,e^\alpha )`$ are the standard basis forms for $`N=1,D=3`$ flat superspace. The idea is now to identify a component of the three-form $`L_3`$ as the superspace Lagrangian and then to show that the resulting $`x`$-space action is the same as the GS action. This is most easily done by working in the flat basis $`e^A`$, so we shall write the components of $`L_3`$ in this basis as $`\mathrm{}_{ABC}`$, whereas its components in the $`E^A`$ basis will be denoted by $`L_{ABC}`$.

Now, if the Lagrangian three-form is changed by the addition of an expression of the form $`dX_2`$, where $`X_2`$ is some two-form, the action will be unaltered, so we can make use of this freedom to change $`L_3`$ such

$$\mathrm{}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=0$$
(64)
(Note that this is not the case for the original $`L_3`$.) This is always possible by a suitable choice of $`X_{\alpha b}`$ since $`(dX)_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ includes a term of the form $`(\gamma ^d)_{(\alpha \beta }X_{\gamma )d}`$; in fact, $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ can be made equal to zero by such a transformation where $`X_{\alpha b}`$ is gamma-traceless. Since the new $`L`$ is still closed it is straightforward to check that this implies, for an appropriate choice of $`X_{ab}`$,

$$\mathrm{}_{\alpha \beta c}=(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }L_o$$
(65)
It is $`L_o`$ which is to be identified with the superspace Lagrangian. To prove that this is correct we first note that the scalar part is unaffected by the change of $`L_3`$ by $`dX_2`$ due to the gamma-tracelessness of $`X_{\alpha b}`$ (It is also assumed that $`X_{\alpha \beta }=0`$.) Secondly, it is easy to show that the top component of $`L`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{}_{abc}:=ϵ_{abc}\mathrm{}`$, is the top component of the scalar superfield $`L_o`$ and is thus the $`x`$-space Lagrangian for the superfield action

$$S_{SF}=d^3xd^2\theta L_o,$$
(66)
i.e. $`\mathrm{}=D_\alpha D^\alpha L_o`$. Now, under the change $`L_3L_3+dX_2`$, $`\mathrm{}_{abc}`$ does change, but by $`_{[a}X_{bc]}`$ and this is irrelevant in the ($`x`$-space) action. On the other hand it is easy to see that

$$L_{abc}=B_a{}_{}{}^{d}B_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}B_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\mathrm{}_{def}^{}$$
(67)
from which we find that $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{det}(B^1)L=L_{GS}`$ when evaluated at $`\theta =0`$ as claimed.

To compute it explicitly it is necessary to make gauge choices for the $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ fields. Normally one would do this treating $`\theta ^{\alpha 1}`$ and $`\theta ^{\alpha 2}`$ on an equal footing. However, in the present context we do not wish to have explicit worldvolume $`x^{}s`$ or $`\theta ^{}s`$ appearing in the Lagrangian, so it is better to choose a gauge in which the potentials only depend on $`\theta ^2`$, which becomes the brane superfield, and which we shall denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\theta )`$.

For the three-form potential $`\underset{¯}{C}_3`$ we can choose a gauge in which the non-vanishing components are

$`C_{\alpha 1\beta 1c}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }(\theta ^2)^2`$ (68)
$`C_{\alpha 2\beta 2c}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }(\theta ^2)^2`$ (69)
$`C_{\alpha 2bc}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma _{bc})_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\beta 2}`$ (70)
$`C_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{abc}`$ (71)
where $`\theta ^{\alpha 2}\theta ^{\beta 2}:=ϵ^{\alpha \beta }(\theta ^2)^2`$. For $`\underset{¯}{C}_1`$ we have

$$C_{\alpha 1}=i\theta _\alpha ^2$$
(72)
Given these choices it is straightforward to find the Lagrangian three-form and compute its components with respect to the flat basis. To find the superfield Lagrangian we need

$$L_o(\gamma ^c)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}_{\alpha \beta c}$$
(73)
A shortish computation yields

$$L_o=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(1\frac{1}{2}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta D^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta \right)^1$$
(74)
This final Lagrangian is in agreement with that derived in  using partially broken supersymmetry (after a field redefinition).

### 5.2 D=4,6

For $`D=4,6`$ deriving the Green-Schwarz actions is a similar procedure. In $`D=4`$ the Wess-Zumino form is

$$W_5=\underset{¯}{G}_5+\underset{¯}{G}_3$$
(75)
where $`d\underset{¯}{G}_5=\underset{¯}{G}_3\underset{¯}{H}_3`$. The non-vanishing components of the $`\underset{¯}{G}`$’s are

$`G_{\alpha i\dot{\beta }c}^j`$ $`=`$ $`i(\sigma _c)_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}(\tau _2)_i^j`$ (76)
$`G_{\alpha i\dot{\beta }cde}^j`$ $`=`$ $`2(\sigma _{cde})_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}(\tau _3)_i^j`$ (77)
Using the results of subsection 4.2 it is relatively straightforward to show that $`K_{abcd}:=ϵ_{abcd}K`$ is the only non-vanishing component of $`K_4`$ and that it has the explicit form

$$K=\mathrm{cos}u\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\delta _a{}_{}{}^{b}+_a{}_{}{}^{b})}$$
(78)
so that, on eliminating $`u`$, we recover the standard Born-Infeld form.

For $`D=6`$ we have

$$W_7=\underset{¯}{G}_7+\underset{¯}{G}_5+\frac{1}{2}\underset{¯}{G}_3^2$$
(79)
where

$`d\underset{¯}{G}_7`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{G}_5\underset{¯}{H}_3`$ (80)
$`d\underset{¯}{G}_5`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{G}_3\underset{¯}{H}_3`$ (81)
The non-vanishing components of the target space forms are

$`G_{\alpha I\beta Jc}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }G_{IJ}^3`$ (82)
$`G_{\alpha I\beta Jcde}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _{cde})_{\alpha \beta }G_{IJ}^5`$ (83)
$`G_{\alpha I\beta Jcdefg}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{cdefgh}(\gamma ^h)_{\alpha \beta }G_{IJ}^7`$ (84)
where the matrices $`G^3`$ , $`G^5`$ , $`G^7`$ are

$$G_{IJ}^3=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ_{ij}& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill ϵ_{i^{}j^{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(85)
$$G_{IJ}^5=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill ϵ_{ij^{}}\\ \hfill ϵ_{i^{}j}& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)$$
(86)
$$G_{IJ}^7=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ_{ij}& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill ϵ_{i^{}j^{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(87)
The $`USp(4)`$ invariant metric is

$$\eta _{IJ}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ_{ij}& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill ϵ_{i^{}j^{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(88)
In this case one can again verify $`W_7=dK_6`$, and that the only non-vanishing compoent of $`K_6`$ is the purely even one. We anticipate that we should again find the Born-Infeld Lagrangian dressed by the auxiliary scalar fields.

As in the $`D=3`$ case we can construct superfield actions although they are no longer full superspace integrals. It is easy to see, for $`D=4,6`$, that $`L_D`$ does not contain a scalar component of the right dimension to be a candidate Lagrangian for such an action.

The $`D=4`$ case was studied in detail for a general theory in . In flat superspace, for example, given a closed four-form $`L_4`$ satisfying the constraints

$`L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (89)
$`L_{\alpha \beta \gamma d}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (90)
one can find a chiral Lagrangian in the component $`L_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }cd}`$ which includes a term of the form $`(\sigma _{cd})_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}L_o`$. The real part of the top component of this form is the purely even part of $`L_4`$, i.e. $`L`$, where $`L_{abcd}=ϵ_{abcd}L`$, so that $`L=D^2L_o+\overline{D}^2\overline{L}_o`$. Again one is allowed to change $`L_4`$ by $`dX_3`$ for some three-form $`X_3`$. To apply this to the brane case, we can use a similar argument to the the $`D=3`$ case to show that the chiral action constructed from $`L_4=K_4Z_4`$ in the flat basis $`e^A`$ reproduces the Green-Schwarz action.

In the $`D=6`$ case, the superfield action we are able to construct relatively easily is an example of a superaction , discussed for $`D=6`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in . This time, in flat space, if all the lower components in $`L_6`$ vanish one can show that

$$L_{abcd\alpha i\beta j}=(\gamma _{[abc})_{\alpha \beta }L_{d]ij}$$
(91)
The field $`L_{aij}`$ (symmetric on $`ij`$) is the candidate Lagrangian; it is to be integrated with respect to the “measure” $`d^6xD_\alpha ^iD_\beta ^j(\gamma ^a)^{\alpha \beta }`$. The resulting action is supersymmetric due to the fact that $`dL_6=0`$. For the brane we anticipate that the argument given above for the $`D=3`$ and $`D=4`$ cases will work here as well, although the full details remain to be worked out.

## 6 Induced geometry

In this section we discuss some aspects of the supergeometry induced on the brane for codimension zero embeddings. In the case of $`D=3`$, the choice of bases we made earlier led to a non-standard form for the worldvolume dimension zero torsion. However, we can easily bring it to standard form by a change of even basis using the matrix $`m_a^b`$. One can then modify $`E_a`$ and fix the $`SL(2,\text{})`$ connection on the brane to obtain the standard form of $`D=3`$ supergeometry. Essentially the only constraints one imposes in $`D=3`$ are conventional ones. In the embedding framework, the geometry is therefore completely standard and the induced supergravity potential is the field $`\psi _\alpha ^b`$ which is given explicitly in terms of the transverse fermion field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$.

For $`D=4`$ the situation is more interesting because, as we have seen, the $``$-constraint enforces chirality. In two-component notation the even target space basis forms are

$$E^a=dx^a+\frac{i}{2}d\theta ^{\alpha i}(\sigma ^a)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }_i^{\dot{\alpha }}+\frac{i}{2}d\overline{\theta }_i^{\dot{\alpha }}(\sigma ^a)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\theta ^{\alpha i}$$
(92)
Pulling this back to the worldvolume in the gauge where $`v=1`$ and exploiting chirality we find

$$𝒟_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\dot{\beta }}=0$$
(93)
where

$$𝒟_\alpha :=D_\alpha +\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}$$
(94)
as before, with

$$\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{i}{2}(D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+D_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sigma ^b\mathrm{\Lambda })(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}+\frac{i}{2}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{i}{2}_b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sigma ^a\mathrm{\Lambda })^1$$
(95)
From these equations we see that the chirality constraint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given in (93) is highly non-linear. However, after a little algebra (and using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chiral) we find that $`\psi _\alpha ^a`$ can be rewritten as

$$\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}=iD_\alpha J^b(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}i_bJ^a)^1$$
(96)
where

$$J^a:=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(97)
From this, we find that the odd basis vector on the worldvolume is

$$E_\alpha =D_\alpha +iD_\alpha J^b(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}i_bJ^a)^1_a$$
(98)
This is reminiscent of the form of $`E_\alpha `$ in Ogievetsky-Sokatchev supergravity obtained by transforming from special chiral coordinates to standard coordinates. To see this we recall that we can complexify an $`N=1,D=4`$ superspace $`M`$ with a chiral structure to $`M_L`$, say, and then use Frobenius’ theorem to write the continuation of the dotted basis as

$$E_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\phi _L^{\dot{\alpha }}}$$
(99)
in adapted coordinates $`(x_L,\theta _L,\phi _L)`$. These coordinates are related to the analytic continuation of the coordinates of $`M`$ by

$`x_L^a`$ $`=`$ $`x^a+iH^a(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ (100)
$`\theta _L^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^\alpha `$ (101)
$`\phi _L^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (102)
where $`H^a`$ is the Ogievetsky-Sokatchev potential, and $`\overline{\theta }`$ becomes the complex conjugate of $`\theta `$ when we return to the real superspace. When we express $`E_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ in terms of $`(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ and return to real superspace we find (taking the complex conjugate)

$$E_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }+i_\alpha H^b(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}i_bH^a)^1$$
(103)
This is the same as (98) provided that we set

$$H^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^\alpha \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}+J^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}$$
(104)
Note that the first term in this expression is just the potential for flat superspace. In other words the induced Born-Infeld geometry for $`D=4`$ is an Ogievetsksy-Sokatchev geometry with potential equal to the flat potential plus a term which looks to be the supercurrent for the Maxwell multiplet.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have described some aspects of superembeddings with bosonic codimension zero in $`D=3,4,6`$. In particular, we have discussed how the worldvolume super-Maxwell multiplets arise when the $``$-constraint is imposed and we have seen how one can construct Green-Schwarz type actions and superfield actions in the static gauge. Further calculations will be necessary in order to have a completely satisfactory description of these theories as superembeddings, particularly from the point of view of comparing the results that can be derived from this formalism with superspace Born-Infeld theory.

One task that we have not carried out in this paper is to find the worldvolume superspace field strength in the static gauge. If we write $`=F\underset{¯}{B}_2`$, then $`F`$ satisfies a normal Bianchi identity $`dF=0`$. Its components can be computed quite straightforwardly knowing $`\underset{¯}{B}_2`$ and $``$. Again, it is preferable to choose a gauge for $`\underset{¯}{B}_2`$ on the target space such that its components depend only on $`\theta ^2`$ and not on $`x`$ or $`\theta ^1`$. This is always possible, although the resulting $`F`$ is complicated. Moreover, the field strength superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not the standard one that one would use in flat superspace. For $`D=4`$, for example, the field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is covariantly chiral, whereas the usual field strength is ordinarily chiral, as it is in . However, it is not difficult to construct a chiral field $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}..`$ and this will be discussed in more detail elsewhere. (The relation between the chiral and covariantly chiral spinor superfields has been discussed in the context of partially broken supersymmetry in .)

One generalisation that can be made concerns the target space geometry. In this paper we have made the simplest choices possible for the various forms that are needed, i.e. the $`\underset{¯}{G}^{}s`$ and $`\underset{¯}{H}^{}s`$, but it is possible to treat these in a more systematic fashion. The sets of forms that arise in this way presumably reflect the supergravity theories which can provide consistent backgrounds for these objects.

Finally, we have noted that the induced geometry for $`D=4`$ turns out to have a simple interpretation in terms of the Ogievetsky-Sokatchev potential. As we remarked earlier, it would be interesting to see if this could be generalised to the $`D=6`$ case where one might suspect that harmonic superspace methods could come into play.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by PPARC through SPG grant 68.

## Note added

In a recent preprint some similar results have been derived for the D=4 case .