text:
# Critical Temperature Shift in Weakly Interacting Bose Gas

## Abstract

With a high-performance Monte Carlo algorithm we study the interaction-induced shift of the critical point in weakly interacting three-dimensional $`|\psi |^4`$-theory (which includes quantum Bose gas). In terms of critical density, $`n_c`$, mass, $`m`$, interaction, $`U`$, and temperature, $`T`$, this shift is universal: $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_c(T)=Cm^3T^2U`$, the constant $`C`$ found to be equal to $`0.0140\pm 0.0005`$. For quantum Bose gas with the scattering length $`a`$ this implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c/T_c=C_0an^{1/3}`$, with $`C_0=1.29\pm 0.05`$.

The problem of interaction-induced shift of the critical temperature in a weakly interacting Bose gas has been attracting a lot of theoretical effort during recent years . Apart from an apparent fundamental interest, the study of this problem has been strongly stimulated by the experimental achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in ultra-cold gases  and, correspondingly, the perspective of experimental verification of theoretical predictions. The first experimental study of the critical temperature of interacting Bose gas was reported recently for the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$-Vycor system .

Despite a considerable number of papers dealing with the issue, the answer for the critical temperature shift still remains a matter of controversy. As it follows from simple analysis of dimensions, the result should have the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c}=C_0an^{1/3},$$
(1)
where $`C_0`$ is a dimensionless constant. There are reasonable physical arguments for $`C_0`$ to be positive , and most studies predict that $`C_0>0`$. However, there is a profound discrepancy between different approaches in the value of $`C_0`$. The range of variation of different predictions is an order-of-magnitude large: $`0.34`$ , $`0.7`$ , $`2.3`$ , $`2.9`$ , $`4.66`$ . As far as the experiment of Ref.  is concerned, where the law (1) was clearly observed, it should be realized that the only quantity that was really measured was the product $`C_0a`$. Therefore, until the accurate value of the scattering length $`a`$ is available, it is impossible to make a reliable conclusion about $`C_0`$ .

Though Eq. (1) formally looks like a perturbative correction in terms of the gas parameter $`an^{1/3}`$, physically it is clear that this is not the case (cf., however, ), because in the thermodynamic limit any finite interaction, no matter how small, changes the universality class of the phase transition: while the ideal Bose gas belongs to the universality class of the Gaussian complex-field model, the interacting system pertains to the $`XY`$-model universality class. Due to this fact the first-principle analytic description of the interacting Bose gas at the critical point is rather difficult. To the best of our knowledge, up to now there was done only one ab initio Monte Carlo simulation of the interacting gas in the context of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ (Grüter, Ceperley, and Laloë, Ref. ). An alternative Monte Carlo approach by Holzmann and Krauth  was based on a hypothesis that Eq. (1) can be obtained in a (rather sophisticated) perturbative way, by simulating an ideal gas.

The goal of this Letter is to develop a numeric scheme for describing weakly interacting Bose gas in the fluctuation region, which, in particular, could produce an accurate result for $`C_0`$. The crucial point that renders this aim attainable is the universality of the long-wave behavior of weakly interacting $`|\psi |^4`$-theories in the fluctuation region at transition point: All these theories, no matter quantum or classical, continuous or discrete, lead to a generic long-wave Hamiltonian (cf., e.g., )

$$H=\left\{\frac{1}{2m}|\psi |^2+\frac{U}{2}|\psi |^4\right\}𝑑𝐫.$$
(2)
From this universality it follows that in any such system the shift of the critical density (which is not sensitive to the ultra-violet cutoff of the theory) is given by the formula (from now on $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_c(T)=Cm^3T^2U,$$
(3)
where $`C`$ is a universal constant. Then, the critical temperature shift (which is not universal, being sensitive to the short-wave physics) can be obtained for each particular system from the obvious relation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }n_c}=\frac{dT_c^{(0)}(n)}{dn},$$
(4)
where $`T_c^{(0)}`$ is the critical temperature of the corresponding ideal system. From Eq. (4) one readily obtains for the quantum Bose gas

$$C_091.8C.$$
(5)
The universality of the density shift (3) suggests that it can actually be calculated not in a continuous quantum system, where simulations are computationally expensive, but in a discrete classical model

$$H=\underset{<ij>}{}[\psi _i^{}\psi _j+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]+\frac{U}{2}\underset{i}{}|\psi _i|^4,$$
(6)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ stand for the sites of 3D cubic lattice, $`<ij>`$ denotes nearest-neighbor sites, and $`\psi _i`$ is a complex variable. The long-wave behavior of the discrete system (6) is described by the Hamiltonian (2) with $`m=1/2`$. The advantage of utilizing model (6) for numeric analysis is associated with the existence of a very powerful Worm algorithm for simulating discrete classical systems of this type .

Analysis of dimensions. We start with rendering general considerations leading to Eq. (3). Consider the grand canonical counterpart of the Hamiltonian (2)

$$H^{}=\left\{\frac{1}{2m}|\psi |^2+\frac{U}{2}|\psi |^4\stackrel{~}{\mu }|\psi |^2\right\}𝑑𝐫.$$
(7)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is an effective chemical potential \[which, generally speaking, does not coincide with the bare chemical potential of the original system for which $`H^{}`$ plays the role of the effective Hamiltonian\]. As the field $`\psi `$ describes only the long-wave modes of the original system, it is supposed to have some ultra-violet cutoff:

$$\psi (𝐫)=\underset{k<k_0}{}a_𝐤e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}.$$
(8)
The choice of $`k_0`$ is arbitrary as long as $`k_0`$ is larger than the momentum $`k_c`$ which characterizes the momentum region where harmonics are strongly coupled to each other ($`kk_c`$ harmonics are almost free). If $`k_0k_c`$, then all three terms in Eq. (7) are of the same order, and we have the following relations

$$k_c^2/m|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|\stackrel{~}{n}U,$$
(9)
$$\stackrel{~}{n}|\psi |^2\underset{k<k_c}{}n_k,$$
(10)
where $`n_k=|a_𝐤|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ means statistical averaging.

According to Eq. (10), $`\stackrel{~}{n}k_c^3n_{k_c}`$. Since $`k_c`$ is a momentum separating strongly coupled long-wave harmonics from ideal short-wave ones, the order-of-magnitude estimate for $`n_{k_c}`$ may be obtained from the ideal gas formula :

$$n_{k_c}\frac{T}{k_c^2/2m\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\frac{T}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}.$$
(11)
Substituting this back to Eqs. (9)-(10) we see that

$$k_cm^2TU,\stackrel{~}{n}m^3T^2U.$$
(12)
Consider now the shift of the critical density

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_c(T)=\underset{𝐤}{}[n_k^{(\mathrm{crit})}n_k^{(\mathrm{crit},0)}],$$
(13)
where $`n_k^{(\mathrm{crit})}`$ and $`n_k^{(\mathrm{crit},0)}`$ are the occupation numbers at the critical density (corresponding to a given temperature $`T`$) for interacting and non-interacting system, respectively. The main contribution to the sum in Eq. (13) comes from $`kk_c`$, since at $`kk_c`$ the terms $`n_k^{(\mathrm{crit})}`$ and $`n_k^{(\mathrm{crit},0)}`$ are almost equal and compensate each other. At $`kk_c`$ one can use the estimate (11), which means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_c\stackrel{~}{n}`$, and we arrive at Eq. (3).

Numeric procedure and results. Our Monte Carlo scheme is based on the Worm-algorithm simulation of the high-temperature expansions for the two-point correlator $`\psi _i^{}\psi _j`$ in the grand canonical ensemble. (The description of this approach and performance tests see in Ref. ).

To proceed, we need a formal definition of the critical point for finite system with linear dimension $`L`$, which, on one hand, is consistent with the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, and, on the other hand, is convenient from the computational viewpoint. We adopt the following definition. By critical we understand the point where the condensate density equals to

$$n_0^{(\mathrm{crit})}(L)=T/(3.75L).$$
(14)
This definition is optimized for the ideal gas (minimal finite-size corrections for the total density). Nevertheless, it proved to be quite satisfactory for the interacting system as well, including the limit of strong interaction.

The classical model (6) possesses an obvious similarity property: The transformation $`\psi \sqrt{T}\psi `$, $`UU/T`$ reduces the problem to the corresponding $`T=1`$ case. Hence, without loss of generality, we set $`T=1`$.

The procedure of determining the critical density is as follows. We iteratively tune the chemical potential $`\mu `$ until (14) is satisfied with a required accuracy, and then calculate the corresponding density. For small $`U`$, where a high precision is required to resolve a small effect , we radically improve the efficiency of the pinpointing procedure by utilizing the covariance (see Ref. ) in the statistical fluctuations of Monte Carlo data for $`n_0`$ and $`n`$. The existence of strong covariance between fluctuations of $`n_0`$ and $`n`$ (Fig. 1) allows one to extract the dependence $`n_0(n)`$ with significantly higher accuracy than the accuracy of separate calculations of $`n_0(\mu )`$ and $`n(\mu )`$.

Prior to inspecting the region of small $`U`$, it is instructive to consider the behavior of the critical density for the model (6) at finite interactions, in view of a remarkable contrast to the quantum case. In a quantum gas with the parameter $`an^{1/3}`$ of order unity, the shift of the critical temperature is determined by a competition of two effects: (i) the suppression of the long-wave fluctuations of density (which stimulates condensation), and (ii) the depletion of the long-wave components of the field (which effectively reduces density, and thus drives the system away from the phase transition). The first circumstance dominates at small interaction, while for larger $`an^{1/3}`$ the second effect takes over. Following this competition, the shift of the critical temperature goes through a maximum around $`an^{1/3}1`$, and then goes down finally becoming negative . While the first effect is of classical-field nature and thus is relevant to (6), the second effect is of quantum nature, and does not have any classical analog. That is why in the classical system we expect that the (negative) shift of the critical density will be a monotonous function of $`U`$. This is precisely what is revealed by our simulation (Fig. 2). The critical density is monotonously decreasing with interaction, saturating at $`U\mathrm{}`$ to the known value $`(n/T)_c0.22708`$ corresponding to the $`XY`$-model (see, e.g., Ref. ). \[As an illustration of the fact that the criterion (14) works reasonably well for the strongly interacting system, we reproduced the above-mentioned critical point of the $`XY`$-model with the accuracy of $`5`$ significant digits by the brut-force simulation of large systems with $`L=160`$, and checked that finite-size systematic errors are almost irrelevant already for $`L=40`$.\]

Now we turn to the region of small $`U`$. As the accuracy of calculations can be significantly improved by a proper finite-size analysis of the data, we begin with generalizing relation (3) to the finite-size case. We note that in the limit $`U0`$ the only relevant lengthscale is the mode-coupling radius

$$r_c=\frac{2\pi }{k_c}\frac{1}{m^2TU},$$
(15)
Hence, $`r_c`$ defines the characteristic size of the system that can be considered as macroscopic with respect to (small) interaction: The system is in the proper thermodynamic limit if, and only if $`Lr_c`$. In the limit $`Lr_c`$ interactions can be treated perturbatively, and thus are essentially irrelevant. From this consideration we arrive at the following generalization of Eq. (3):

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_c(T,L)}{m^3T^2U}=f(r_c/L)+𝒪(U),$$
(16)
where the particular form of the dimensionless function $`f`$ depends on the definition of $`n_c(L)`$, apart from universal limits $`f(0)=C`$ and $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$. On the basis of Eq. (16), we employ the following scaling function which should adequately describe the limit $`U0`$, $`L\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_c(T,L)}{m^3T^2U}=\frac{C}{1+b_0U+(a_1+b_1U)x^\eta },$$
(17)
where $`x=1/(Lm^2TU)`$ and $`\eta =1.038`$  in accordance with expected asymptotic behavior of the finite-size corrections for $`XY`$-type models. Fitting parameters $`C`$, $`b_0`$, $`a_1`$, and $`b_1`$ were obtained by stochastic optimization ($`C=0.0140`$, $`a_1=1.29`$, $`b_0=0.123`$, $`b_1=0.744`$). As is seen from Fig. 3, the scaling function (17) works extremely well. With errorbars defined from the uncertainty of the fitting procedure, for the constant $`C`$ we have

$$C=0.0140\pm 0.0005,$$
(18)
which, according to Eq. (5), means

$$C_0=1.29\pm 0.05.$$
(19)
While the particular form of $`f(x)`$ in the region $`0<x<\mathrm{}`$ is sensitive to the definition of $`n_c(L)`$, the typical scale $`xx_c`$ of significant variation of $`f(x)`$ from its limiting value $`f(0)`$ depends only on the mode-coupling radius: $`x_c1/(r_cm^2TU)`$. From Fig. 3 we deduce

$$r_c1/(m^2TU).$$
(20)
Using Eq. (20), one can readily estimate how small should be the interaction for a particular weakly interacting system to demonstrate the universal long-wave behavior. The generic requirement is that $`r_c`$ be much larger than other microscopic lengthscales at which the behavior of the system becomes non-universal (due to the discreteness of the system, or/and quantization of occupation numbers). The most severe requirement for the quantum Bose gas is $`r_c\lambda _T`$, where $`\lambda _Tn^{1/3}`$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength at the Bose condensation point. In terms of the gas parameter this means $`an^{1/3}0.025`$, and we immediately realize that neither Monte Carlo simulation of Ref. , nor the experiment of Ref.  have reached the universality region: In both cases the minimal value of $`na^3`$ was $`10^5`$, while our estimate shows that one may expect universality only at $`na^310^7`$.

In conclusion, we have developed a Monte Carlo approach for the study of weakly interacting $`|\psi |^4`$-theories in the fluctuation region. With this technique we obtained an accurate result for the critical temperature of weakly interacting three-dimensional Bose gas, and established a criterion of its applicability. We note that the method can be also applied to weakly interacting Bose gas in two dimensions. The CPU time required for collecting high-precision data reported above is equivalent to two years on PIII-733 processor.

We are grateful to J. Machta for his interest and discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DMR-0071767.


format: text

text:
# SU-4240-730 Fuzzy ℂ𝑃²

## 1 Introduction

We can find few fundamental physical models amenable to exact treatment. Approximation methods like perturbation theory are necessary and are part of our physics culture.

Among the important approximation methods for quantum field theories (QFT’s) are strong coupling methods based on lattice discretisation of underlying spacetime or perhaps its time-slice. They are among the rare effective approaches for the study of confinement in QCD and for non-perturbative regularization of QFT’s. They enjoyed much popularity in their early days and have retained their good reputation for addressing certain fundamental problems.

One feature of naive lattice discretisations however can be criticised. They do not retain the symmetries of the exact theory except in some rough sense. A related feature is that topology and differential geometry of the underlying manifolds are treated only indirectly, by limiting the couplings to “nearest neighbours”. Thus lattice points are generally manipulated like a trivial topological set, with a point being both open and closed. The upshot is that these models have no rigorous representation of topological defects and lumps like vortices, solitons and monopoles. The complexities in the ingenious solutions for the discrete QCD $`\theta `$-term  illustrate such limitations. There do exist radical attempts to overcome these limitations using partially ordered sets , but their potentials are yet to be adequately studied.

A new approach to discretisation, inspired by non-commutative geometry (NCG), is being developed since a few years \[4-15\]. The key remark here is that when the underlying spacetime or spatial cut can be treated as a phase space and quantized, with a parameter $`\widehat{h}`$ assuming the role of $`\mathrm{}`$, the emergent quantum space is fuzzy, and the number of independent states per (“classical”) unit volume becomes finite. We have known this result after Planck and Bose introduced such an unltraviolet cut-off and quantum physics later justified it. “Fuzzified” manifold is ultraviolet finite, and if the parent manifold is compact too, supports only finitely many independent states. The continuum limit is the semiclassical $`\widehat{h}0`$ limit. This unconventional discretization of classical topology is not at all equivalent to the naive one, and we shall see that it does significantly overcome the previous criticisms.

There are other reasons also to pay attention to fuzzy spaces, be they spacetimes or spatial cuts. There is much interest among string theorists in matrix models and in describing D-branes using matrices. Fuzzy spaces lead to matrix models too and their ability to reflect topology better than elsewhere should therefore evoke our curiosity. They let us devise new sorts of discrete models and are interesting from that perspective. In addition, it has now been discovered that when open strings end on D-branes which are symplectic manifolds, then the branes can  become fuzzy, in this way one comes across fuzzy tori, $`P^N`$ and many such spaces in string physics.

The central idea behind fuzzy spaces is discretisation by quantization. It does not always work. An obvious limitation is that the parent manifold has to be even dimensional. (See however ref.  for fuzzyfying $`RP^3/_2`$ and other non-symplectic manifolds, even or odd). If it is not, it has no chance of being a phase space. But that is not all. Successful use of fuzzy spaces for QFT’s requires good fuzzy versions of the Laplacian, Dirac equation, chirality operator and so forth, and their incorporation can make the entire enterprise complicated. The torus $`T^2`$ is compact, admits a symplectic structure and on quantization becomes fuzzy, or a non-commutative torus. It supports a finite number of states if the symplectic form satisfies the Dirac quantization condition. But it is impossible to introduce suitable derivations without escalating the formalism to infinite dimensions .

But we do find a family of classical manifolds elegantly escaping these limitations. They are the co-adjoint orbits of Lie groups. For semi-simple Lie groups, they are the same as adjoint orbits. It is a theorem that these orbits are symplectic . They can often be quantized when the symplectic forms satisfy the Dirac quantization condition. The resultant fuzzy spaces are described by linear operators on irreducible representations (IRR’s) of the group. For compact orbits, the latter are finite-dimensional. In addition, the elements of the Lie algebra define natural derivations, and that helps to find Laplacian and the Dirac operator. We can even define chirality with no fermion doubling and represent monopoles and instantons (See \[4-9\] and the first 3 papers in ). These orbits therefore are altogether well-adapted for QFT’s.

Let us give examples of these orbits:

* $`S^2`$: This is the orbit of $`SU(2)`$ through the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _3`$ or any of its multiples $`\lambda \sigma _3`$ ($`\lambda 0`$). It is the set $`\{\lambda g\sigma _3g^1:gSU(2)\}`$. The symplectic form is $`jd\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$ with $`\theta ,\varphi `$ being the usual $`S^2`$ coordinates, . Quantization gives the spin $`j`$ $`SU(2)`$ representations.
* $`P^2`$: $`P^2`$ is of particular interest being of dimension 4. It is the orbit of $`SU(3)`$ through the hypercharge $`Y=1/3\mathrm{diag}(1,1,2)`$ (or its multiples):

$$P^2:\{gYg^1:gSU(3)\}.$$
(1.1)
The associated representations are symmetric products of $`3`$’s or $`\overline{3}`$’s. (See section 2).
* $`SU(3)/[U(1)\times U(1)]`$: This 6-dimensional manifold is the orbit of $`SU(3)`$ through $`\lambda _3=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0)`$ and its multiples. These orbits give all the IRR’s containing a zero hypercharge state.

In the literature, there are several studies of the fuzzy physics of $`P^1=S^2`$ \[3-15\] while there is also a rigorous and beautiful treatment of $`CP^2`$ by Grosse and Strohmaier . The present work develops an alternative formulation for $`P^2`$. It is close to earlier treatments of $`S^2`$  and seems to generalize to other quantizable orbits. It is eventually equivalent to that of  as we show, so that the first study of $`P^2`$ is of that reference.

Throughout this paper, we treat $`P^2`$ as Euclidean spacetime even though the possibility of treating it as spacial slice is also available.

Section 2 explains the basic properties of $`P^2`$. We quantize it in Section 3 to produce the fuzzy $`P^2`$ (Some technical details necsessary to quantization are provided in the Appendix A). Functional integral quantization of tensorial fields can also be done as we show in Section 4 (although topological considerations would prefer a more elaborate approach; see especially the first and last papers of ref. ). In non-commutative geometry (NCG), a central role is assumed by the (massless) Dirac operator. Section 5 reviews it for $`S^2=P^1`$ while Section 6 studies our approach to it in detail for $`P^2`$. Analysis shows its equivalence to the Dirac-Kähler operator . $`P^2`$ is not a spin, but a spinc manifold, and that has exotic consequences for the $`SU(3)`$ spectrum: left and right chiral modes transform differently under $`SU(3)`$. Section 7 studies the fuzzy analogue of the Dirac operator. This work is greatly facilitated by coherent states and star ($``$) products. The necessary material, contained in , is reviewed and used to discretise the continuum material here for both $`S^2=P^1`$ and $`P^2`$. Incidentally the $``$ product is particularly useful for formulating fuzzy analogues of important continuum quantities like correlation functions.

$`P^2`$ is a surface in $`^8`$ described by an algebraic equation. Appendix A establishes the fuzzy version of this equation and in addition useful identities among $`SU(3)`$ generators.

Appendix B is pedagogical and explains why $`P^2`$ is not spin and why the $`SU(3)`$ spectrum of the spinc Dirac operator has exotic features.

## 2 On $`P^2`$

$`P^2`$ is a Kähler manifold describable in different ways. Thus, as mentioned before it is the orbit of $`SU(3)`$ through the hypercharge operator $`Y`$ or its multiples (the group $`SU(3)`$ has eight generators $`t_i`$ which satisfy $`[t_i,t_j]=if_{ijk}t_k`$; the hypercharge is $`Y=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}t_8`$; in the 3 representation the generators are $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda _i`$, where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the eight Gell-Mann matrices). As the stability group of $`Y`$ is $`U(2)`$:

$$U(2)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& 0\\ 0& detu^1\end{array}\right)SU(3)\right\},$$
(2.1)
we have that

$$P^2=SU(3)/U(2).$$
(2.2)
As its name reveals, it is also a projective complex space or the space of $`C^1`$ subspaces in $`C^3`$. If $`\xi C^3\{0\}`$, a point of $`P^2`$ is the equivalence class $`\xi =\lambda \xi `$ for all $`\lambda C^1\{0\}`$. Choosing $`\lambda =\left(|\xi _i|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, we see that $`P^2=\{\xi =\xi e^{i\theta }`$: $`(|\xi _i|^2)=1\}`$. Hence

$$P^2=S^5/U(1).$$
(2.3)
In (2.2), we can first quotient $`SU(3)`$ by $`SU(2)`$. That is just the above $`S^5`$. That is because $`SU(3)`$ acts on $`C^3`$ and transitively on its sphere $`S^5=\{\zeta C^3:|\zeta _i|^2=1\}`$. At $`(1,0,0)S^5`$, the stability group is $`SU(2)`$ showing the result. In this way we see that

$$P^2=[SU(3)/SU(2)]/U(1)=S^5/U(1).$$
(2.4)
The eight Gell-Mann matrices form a basis for the real vector space of traceless hermitian matrices $`\{\xi _i\lambda _i,\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _8)R^8\}`$. So $`P^2`$ is a submanifold of $`R^8`$. There is a beautiful algebraic equation for this submanifold. It is this: Let $`d_{ijk}`$ be the totally symmetric $`SU(3)`$-invariant tensor defined by

$$\lambda _i\lambda _j=\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ij}+(d_{ijk}+if_{ijk})\lambda _k$$
(2.5)
Then

$$\xi P^2d_{ijk}\xi _i\xi _j=\mathrm{constant}\times \xi _k.$$
(2.6)
A pleasant manner to demonstrate this result is as follows. The symmetric $`SU(3)`$ invariant product $`\chi ,\eta \chi \eta ,(\chi \eta )_i:=d_{ijk}\chi _j\eta _k`$ can be rewritten in terms of traceless hermitian matrices $`M,N`$ as

$$MN=\frac{1}{2}\{M,N\}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\{M,N\}\right),$$
(2.7)
where

$$M=\chi _j\lambda _j,N=\eta _j\lambda _j.$$
(2.8)
For this product, $`M=\delta \lambda _8`$ fulfills

$$MM=\frac{\delta }{\sqrt{3}}M$$
(2.9)
This relation is valid for points on the entire orbit through $`\delta \lambda _8`$ by $`SU(3)`$ invariance of the $``$ product.

Conversely, relation (2.9) implies that $`M`$ is in the orbit of $`\lambda _8`$. For we can diagonalize $`M`$ by an $`SU(3)`$ transformation $`g`$ while keeping (2.9). After scaling the diagonal $`M_D=gMg^1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to reduce $`\frac{\delta }{\sqrt{3}}`$ to 1, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{diag}(a,b,ab)`$. Comparing the difference of the first two rows on both sides, we get $`ab=(a+b)(ab)`$. If $`a=b`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3aY`$. If $`ab`$, then $`a+b=1`$. Comparing the first row, we get $`a^2a2=0`$, or $`a=2`$ or $`1`$. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{diag}(2,1,1)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,2,1)`$. Both become proportional to $`Y`$ after Weyl reflections, establishing the result.

## 3 Quantizing $`P^2`$

A particular approach to quantizing coadjoint orbits was developed many years ago in . According to that method we obtain fuzzy $`P^2`$ quantizing the Lagrangian:

$$L=i\overline{N}\mathrm{Tr}Yg(t)^1\dot{g}(t),g(t)SU(3),\overline{N}=\mathrm{constant},Y=\frac{\lambda _8}{\sqrt{3}}$$
(3.1)
A point $`\xi (t)P^2`$ is related to $`g(t)`$ by $`\xi (t)_i\lambda _i=g(t)Yg^1(t)`$, while on $`P^2`$ the symplectic form is $`i\overline{N}d\mathrm{Tr}Yg^1dg=i\overline{N}\mathrm{Tr}Y\left[g^1dgg^1dg\right]`$. Writing $`g=e^{i\lambda _i\theta ^i/2}`$, for a Hamiltonian description we may take as phase space (local) coordinates the $`\theta ^i`$ and their conjugates $`\pi _i=\frac{L}{\dot{\theta }^i}`$, but the Lagrangian being of first order the latter are all constraints. To simplify the constraints we define $`E_{ij}`$ by $`g^1dg=\frac{\lambda _j}{2i}E_{ji}d\theta ^i`$, and use the variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{iR}=\pi _j(E^1)_{ji}`$, which have Poisson brackets:

$$\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{iR},g\}=g\frac{\lambda _i}{2i};\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{iR},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jR}\}=f_{ijk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kR}$$
(3.2)
and are therefore the generators of $`SU(3)`$ transformations on $`g(t)`$ acting on the right. In terms of these variables the constraints $`\pi _ii\overline{N}\mathrm{Tr}(Yg^1\frac{g}{\theta ^i})0`$ become:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{iR}+\frac{\overline{N}}{\sqrt{3}}\delta _{i,8}0$$
(3.3)
They are second class for $`i=4,..,7`$, first class for $`i=1,2,3,8`$, corresponding to the fact that if $`g(t)g(t)e^{i\lambda _i\theta (t)/2},i=1,2,3,8`$, then $`LL\frac{\overline{N}}{\sqrt{3}}\dot{\theta }\delta _{i,8}`$. Thus for the generator $`Y_R`$ for right hypercharge we have $`Y_R\frac{2}{3}\overline{N}`$, and the right ”isospin” generators $`I_{\alpha R},\alpha =1,2,3`$ vanish, $`I_{\alpha R}0`$. We can make a first class set (classically equivalent to all the constraints) by adding to these constraints complex combinations of the second class constraints: $`Y_R\frac{2}{3}\overline{N},I_{\alpha R}0`$ and for $`\overline{N}0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4R}i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5R}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{6R}i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{7R}0`$ and for $`\overline{N}0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4R}+i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5R}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{6R}+i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{7R}0`$.

These constraints can be realized on functions on $`SU(3)`$. As isospin singlets have hypercharge in integral multiples of $`\frac{2}{3}`$, we find that $`\overline{N}`$. With $`\overline{N}`$ fixed accordingly, the constraints together mean that for right action, we have highest weight isospin singlet states of hypercharge $`\frac{2}{3}\overline{N}`$.

An IRR of $`SU(3)`$ is labeled by $`(n_1,n_2),n_i`$. It comes from the symmetric product of $`n_1`$ 3’s and $`n_2`$ $`\underset{¯}{3}^{}`$’s: A tensor $`T_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n_2}}^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n_1}}`$ for $`(n_1,n_2)`$ has $`n_1`$ upper indices, $`n_2`$ lower indices and is traceless, $`T_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{n_2}}^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{n_1}}=0`$. Within an IRR, the orthonormal basis can be written as $`|(n_1,n_2),I^2,I_3,Y`$ where $`I^2,I_3`$ and $`Y`$ are square of isospin, its third component and hypercharge.

Let $`gU^{(n_1,n_2)}(g)`$ define the representation $`(n_1,n_2)`$ of $`SU(3)`$. Then the functions given by $`(n_1,n_2),I^2,I_3,Y|U^{(n_1,n_2)}(g)|(n_1,n_2),0,0,\frac{2}{3}\overline{N}`$ fulfill the constraints. By the Peter-Weyl theorem, their linear span

$$\xi _{I^2,I_3,Y}^{(n_1,n_2)}(n_1,n_2),I^2,I_3,Y|U^{(n_1,n_2)}(g)|(n_1,n_2),0,0,\frac{2}{3}\overline{N}$$

gives all the functions of interest.

If $`\overline{N}=N0`$, that requires that $`(n_1,n_2)=(N,0)`$. These are just the symmetric products of $`N`$ $`\underset{¯}{3}`$’s. If $`\overline{N}=N0`$, $`(n_1,n_2)=(0,N)`$ or we get the symmetric product of $`N`$ $`\underset{¯}{3}^{}`$’s. The representations that we get by quantizing the Lagrangian (3.1) are thus $`(N,0)`$ or $`(0,N)`$.

For $`P^2`$, there are coordinate functions $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$ where $`\widehat{\xi }_i(\xi )=\xi _i`$. $`\widehat{\xi }_i\widehat{\xi }_i`$ is a constant function which we can take to be $`𝕀`$, the function with value one. On quantization, $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$ become the operators constant$`\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L`$ which we also denote as $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L=C_2𝕀`$, and $`C_2=\frac{1}{3}N^2+N`$ in $`(N,0)`$ or $`(0,N)`$ (see Appendix A), their exact form is

$$\widehat{\xi }_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}N^2+N}},\widehat{\xi }_i\widehat{\xi }_i=𝕀.$$
(3.4)
So

$$[\widehat{\xi }_i,\widehat{\xi }_j]=\frac{i}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}N^2+N}}f_{ijk}\widehat{\xi }_k$$
(3.5)
and they commute in the large $`N`$ limit.

It is a remarkable fact that $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$ fulfill (2.6) for any $`N`$ if $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$’s belong to $`(N,0)`$ or $`(0,N)`$. A proof that uses the creation-annihilation operator techniques of Grosse, Klimčik and Prešnajder \[6-9\] is given in Appendix A. The result is a “fuzzy” analog of the defining relation (2.6):

$$d_{ijk}\widehat{\xi }_i\widehat{\xi }_j=\frac{\frac{N}{3}+\frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}N^2+N}}\times \widehat{\xi }_k.$$
(3.6)
The algebra $`A`$ generated by $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$ is what substitutes for the algebra of functions $`𝒜=C^{\mathrm{}}(P^2)`$. By Burnside’s theorem , it is the full matrix algebra in the IRR. Fuzzy $`P^2`$ is just the algebra $`A`$.

The following point, emphasised by  is noteworthy. If $`f𝒜`$, it has the partial-wave expansion

$`f(\xi )={\displaystyle f_{I^2,I_3,Y}^n(n_1,n_2),I^2,I_3,Y|U^{(n_1,n_2)}(g)|(n_1,n_2),0,0,0},`$ (3.7)
$`\xi _\alpha \lambda _\alpha :=g\lambda _8g^1.`$
The ket $`|(n_1,n_2),0,0,0`$ exists only if $`n_1=n_2`$ so that the sum in (3.7) can be restricted to $`n_1=n_2`$. If $`FA`$, then $`F`$ too has an expansion like (3.7) where the series is cut-off at $`n=N`$. That is because of the following. The $`SU(3)`$ Lie algebra $`su(3)`$ has two actions on $`F`$: $`FL_\alpha ^LF=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha F`$ and $`FL_\alpha ^RF=F\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$. The derivation $`FadL_\alpha F=L_\alpha ^LFL_\alpha ^RF=[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,F]`$ is the action which annihilates $`𝕀`$ and corresponds to the $`su(3)`$ action on $`P^2`$. As $`F`$ transforms as $`(N,0)`$ (for $`\overline{N}0`$ say) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^L`$ and as $`(0,N)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^R`$, $`A`$ decomposes into direct sum of IRR’s: $`(N,0)(0,N)=_{n=0}^N(n,n)`$. If $`(n,n),I^2,I_3,Y`$ furnishes a basis for $`(n,n)`$, then $`F=_0^NF_{I^2,I_3,Y}^n|(n,n),I^2,I_3,Y`$. Identifying this basis with the one in (3.7) for $`nN`$, we see that $`F`$ transforms like a function on $`P^2`$ with a terminating partial wave expansion.

A more precise statement is as follows . We can put a scalar product on $`𝒜`$ using the Haar measure on $`SU(3)`$ and complete $`𝒜`$ into a Hilbert space $``$. On $``$, elements $``$ of $`𝒜`$ act as linear operators by point-wise multiplication. Let $`_{(N,0)}`$ be the subspace of $``$ carrying the IRR $`(N,0)`$ and $`P_{(N,0)}:_{(N,0)}`$ the corresponding projector. Then we have a map $`𝒜P_{(N,0)}𝒜P_{(N,0)}`$; $`P_{(N,0)}P_{(N,0)}`$ which is onto $`A`$. Thus elements of $`A`$ approximate functions in a good sense.

## 4 Fuzzy Scalar Fields

Here we briefly indicate a certain fuzzy version of the free scalar field action. It is very natural and a generalization of fuzzy $`P^1`$ action proposed earlier \[5-11\]. Still certain less obvious actions based on cyclic cohomology have been proposed , they have distinct topological advantages and correct continuum limits as well.

The operators $`adL_i=L_i^LL_i^R`$ correspond to the $`SU(3)`$ generators for functions on $`P^2`$. A Laplacian for fuzzy $`P^2`$ is thus $`adL_i^2`$. A scalar field $`\varphi `$ is a polynomial in the fuzzy coordinate functions $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$, so $`\varphi `$ is just a matrix in $`A`$. The Euclidean action for $`\varphi `$ is

$`S(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{constant}\times Tr(\varphi ^+adL_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi ),`$
$`adL_i\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`[L_i,\varphi ].`$ (4.1)
Let $`\lambda _K`$ be the eigenvalue of the continuum operator for the IRR $`(K,K)`$. Ref.  gives

$$\lambda _K=2K(K+1).$$
(4.2)
If $`N`$ is the maximum $`K`$ for the fuzzy space, then $`adL_i^2`$ has the spectrum $`\{\lambda _0,\lambda _1,..\lambda _N\}`$, it is just the cut-off spectrum of the continuum Laplacian.

## 5 The Dirac Operator on $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐏^\mathrm{𝟏}`$

This section is a warm up for what follows on $`P^2`$ next. It contains a partial-wave analysis for the eigenstates of the $`S^2`$ Dirac operator $`𝒟`$ which can be generalised to $`P^2`$.

Let

$$S^2=\{xR^3:x_\alpha ^2=1\},$$
(5.1)
and $`\widehat{x}`$ be the coordinate functions: $`\widehat{x}_\alpha (x)=x_\alpha `$.

Then the Dirac operator is

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _\alpha 𝒫_{\alpha \beta }J_\beta ,`$
$`𝒫_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{x}_\alpha \widehat{x}_\beta ,J_\beta =_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\beta }{2}},`$
$`_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`i(\widehat{x}\stackrel{}{})_\alpha .`$ (5.2)
$`𝒫`$ projects the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _\alpha `$ to their tangent space components $`\sigma _\alpha 𝒫_{\alpha \beta }`$ . $`_\beta `$ and $`J_\beta `$ are orbital and total angular momenta respectively.

If $`f𝒜=C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)`$, it has the partial wave expansion:

$$f(x)=\underset{kM}{}f_M^k<kM|D^{(k)}(g)|k0>$$
(5.3)
where $`D^{(k)}:gD^{(k)}(g)`$ define the angular momentum $`k`$ IRR of $`SU(2)`$ and $`g\sigma _3g^1=\sigma x`$. The action of $`_\alpha `$ on it is specified by:

$$_\alpha <kM|D^{(k)}(g)|k0>=<kM|J_\alpha ^{(k)}D^{(k)}(g)|k0>$$
(5.4)
where $`J_\alpha ^{(k)}`$ are angular momentum $`k`$ $`SU(2)`$generators.

$`𝒟`$ acts on $`𝒜C^2𝒜^2=\{(a_{1/2},a_{1/2}):a_\lambda C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)\}`$. It anticommutes with the chirality operator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sigma \widehat{x}.$$
(5.5)
We now find the eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Following (5.3), we can define a function $`x_\alpha `$ on $`SU(2)`$ as follows. For $`gSU(2)`$, $`x_\alpha (g)`$ is defined by $`g\sigma _3g^+=\sigma x(g)`$. $`\sigma \widehat{x}`$ is now the chirality operator on $`𝒜^2`$ defined in the following way. The action of $`\sigma \widehat{x}`$ on $`D^{(k)}`$ is specified by $`[\sigma \widehat{x}D^{(1/2)}](g)=\sigma x(g)D^{(1/2)}(g)`$. We will henceforth often omit $`g`$ in writing $`x(g)`$. Since $`D^{(1/2)}(g)=g`$, it follows that helicity $`\pm 1`$ eigenfunctions of $`\sigma \widehat{x}=D^{(1/2)}\sigma _3D_{}^{(1/2)}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ are

$$D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}=(D_{1/2,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)},D_{1/2,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}).$$
(5.6)
Here, $`D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}\widehat{g}_{.,\pm 1/2}`$, $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ being functions on $`SU(2)`$: $`\widehat{g}_{ij}(g)=g_{ij}`$. They have the equivariance property

$$D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}(ge^{i\sigma _3\theta })=D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}(g)e^{\pm i\theta }.$$
(5.7)
Unlike (5.7), elements of $`𝒜^2`$ and hence too its chirality $`\pm 1`$ subspaces $`\frac{1\pm \sigma .\widehat{x}}{2}𝒜^2`$ are invariant under $`gge^{i\sigma _3\theta }`$ . The expansion of elements of these subspaces using the above $`D`$’s must thus have another $`D`$ in each term transforming with the opposite phase to that in (5.7). Accounting for this fact, we can write for $`aA^2`$,

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`a^++a^{},`$
$`a^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(a_{1/2}^\pm ,a_{1/2}^\pm ){\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \sigma .\widehat{x}}{2}}𝒜^2,`$
$`a_\lambda ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,j}{}}\xi _n^{j\pm }D_{n,1/2}^{(j)}D_{\lambda ,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)},\xi _n^{j\pm }.`$ (5.8)
Now orbital angular momentum $`_\beta `$ is not defined on the individual factors in (5.8). We must lift it to the operator $`𝒥_\beta ^L`$ which acts on $`D^{(j)}`$ and $`D^{(\frac{1}{2})}`$ in such a manner that $`\widehat{x}`$ transforms like a vector; $`𝒥_\beta ^L`$ are $`SU(2)`$ generators acting by left translation:

$`[e^{i\theta _\beta 𝒥_\beta ^L}D_{ij}^{(\frac{1}{2})}](g)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{ij}^{(\frac{1}{2})}(e^{i\theta _\beta \frac{\sigma _\beta }{2}}g)`$ (5.9)
$`=`$ $`[e^{i\theta _\beta \frac{\sigma _\beta }{2}}g]_{ij}.`$
We now reinterpret $`J_\beta `$ as

$$J_\beta =𝒥_\beta ^L+\frac{\sigma _\beta }{2}.$$
(5.10)
Because of the transformation rule (5.9), we find,

$$J_\beta D_{.,\pm }^{(1/2)}=0.$$
(5.11)
So

$$𝒟D_{n,1/2}^{(j)}D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}=[𝒥_\beta ^LD_{n,1/2}^{(j)}][\sigma _\alpha 𝒫_{\alpha \beta }D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}].$$
(5.12)
Further simplification can be achieved by writing

$`\sigma _\alpha 𝒫_{\alpha \beta }=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \widehat{x},[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \widehat{x},\sigma _\beta ]]=D^{(\frac{1}{2})}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _3,[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _3,\sigma _\alpha ]]D^{(\frac{1}{2})1}D_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}.`$ (5.13)
and noticing that $`D_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}𝒥_\beta ^L=𝒥_\alpha ^R`$ are $`SU(2)`$ generators acting in the right of $`g`$,

$$[e^{i\theta _\alpha 𝒥_\alpha ^R}f](g)=f[ge^{i\theta _\alpha \frac{\sigma _\alpha }{2}}]$$
(5.14)
($`f:SU(2))`$ being a function on $`SU(2)`$). Putting this in (5.12),

$$𝒟D_{n,1/2}^{(j)}D_{.,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}=[D_{n,n^{}}^{(j)}(J_\alpha ^{(j)})_{n^{},1/2}]D_{.,\mu ^{}}^{(1/2)}[\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3,[\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3,\sigma _\alpha ]]_{\mu ^{},\pm 1/2}$$
(5.15)
The summation on $`\alpha `$ can be restricted to $`\pm `$ corresponding to raising and lowering operators as the $`\alpha =3`$ term vanishes in the last factor.

It follows that

$`\left(𝒟a\right)_\lambda =`$ $``$ $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{j,n}{}}\xi _n^{j+}D_{n,1/2}^{(j)}(J_+^{(j)})_{1/2,1/2}D_{\lambda ,1/2}^{(\frac{1}{2})}+`$ (5.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,n}{}}\xi _n^jD_{n,1/2}^{(j)}(J_{}^{(j)})_{1/2,+1/2}D_{\lambda ,+1/2}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\},`$
which can also be written in the “Dirac-Kähler” form

$$𝒟\left[\begin{array}{c}\xi _n^{j+}D_{n,1/2}^{(j)}\\ \xi _n^jD_{n,+1/2}^{(j)}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& (J_{}^{(j)})_{1/2,+1/2}\\ (J_+^{(j)})_{+1/2,1/2}& 0\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\xi _n^{j+}D_{n,+1/2}^{(j)}\\ \xi _n^jD_{n,1/2}^{(j)}\end{array}\right]$$
(5.17)
The eigenvalues of $`𝒟`$ are $`ϵ(j+\frac{1}{2})`$ with $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, each with degeneracy $`(2j+1)`$, while the corresponding eigenfunctions have $`\xi _n^{jϵ\pm }=c_n^{jϵ}j,\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2}|j\frac{ϵ}{2},0`$. Explicitly,

$$(a^{jϵ})_\lambda =\underset{n}{}c_n^{jϵ}j,n;\frac{1}{2},\lambda |D(g)|j\frac{ϵ}{2},0$$
(5.18)
where additional superscripts have been added to the eigenfunction.

## 6 The Dirac Operator on $`P^2`$

$`P^2`$ is not spin, but spinc . This fact introduces serious differences between the $`P^2`$ Dirac operator and the Dirac operator for a spin manifold such as $`P^1`$ discussed last.

The $`P^2`$ Dirac operator and its fuzzy version have been treated in . Here we develop an alternative approach which seems capable of generalisation to other coset spaces.

Elsewhere , we plan to treat tensor analysis on $`P^N`$ and its fuzzy versions in the language of projective modules. Here we will summarize just some points relevant for us. The next section will give their fuzzy versions.

### 6.1 The Projective Module For Tangent Bundle and its Complex Structure

The generators $`ad\lambda _i`$ in the adjoint representation $`Ad:gAdg`$ of $`SU(3)=\{g\}`$ have matrix elements $`(ad\lambda _i)_{jk}=2if_{ijk}`$ where $`f_{ijk}`$ is totally antisymmetric. We have the identity $`[\lambda _i,\lambda _j]=2if_{ijk}\lambda _k`$ and a similar relation for $`ad\lambda _i`$. As hypercharge commutes with itself and isospin generators, it follows that $`f_{8ij}=0`$ if $`i`$ or $`j=1,2,3`$ or $`8`$. Thus the tangent vectors to $`P^2`$ at $`\xi ^0=(0,\mathrm{..0},1)`$, or equivalently at $`\lambda _8=\lambda _i\xi _i^0`$, are $`ad\lambda _j`$, $`j=4,5,6,7`$. The directions $`ad\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,2,3,8`$ are normal. At any other point $`\xi _i\lambda _i=g\lambda _8g^1P^2`$, the normals accordingly are $`Adg(ad\lambda _j)Adg^1:=\xi _i^{(j)}ad\lambda _i`$, $`j=1,2,3,8`$ where $`\xi _i^{(8)}=\xi _i`$. That means that $`f_{ikl}\xi _k\xi _l^{(j)}=0`$ The four orthogonal directions $`Adg(ad\lambda _j)Adg^1(j=4,5,6,7)`$ in the trace norm span the tangent space.

The eigenvalues of $`adY(Y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\lambda _8)`$, and hence also of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\xi _iad\lambda _i`$ are $`\pm 1,0`$ corresponding to the mesons $`K`$, $`\overline{K}`$,$`\eta ^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ in the flavor octet terminology. If $`\chi ^{(+)}`$ is an eigenvector for eigenvalue $`+1`$, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\xi _iad\lambda _i)\chi ^{(+)}=\chi ^{(+)}`$, then $`\xi _i^{(j)}\chi _i^{(+)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\xi _k^{(j)}(\xi _l^{(8)}ad\lambda _l)_{ki}\chi _i^{(+)}=0`$ from above where $`j=1,2,3,8`$. Hence $`\chi ^{(+)}`$ is a tangent at $`\xi `$. So is $`\chi ^{()}`$ for eigenvalue $`1`$. Hence $`\chi ^{(\pm )}`$ span the tangent space and the null space of $`\xi _iad\lambda _i`$ spans the space of normals.

We can now present sections of the tangent bundle $`TP^2`$ as a projective module. Let $`𝒜^8=𝒜C^8=\{(\widehat{\xi }_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{\xi }_8)\}`$.

$$\frac{1}{3}(\widehat{\xi }_iad\lambda _i)^2=𝒫$$
(6.1)
is a projector and $`𝒫𝒜^8`$ is seen to consist of the sections of tangent bundle from the above remarks.

The complex structure on $`P^2`$ can be thought of as a splitting of the tangent space $`T_\xi P^2`$ as the direct sum $`T_\xi ^{(+)}P^2+T_\xi ^{()}P^2`$ for all $`\xi P^2`$ in a smooth manner . The tensor $`𝒥`$ of complex analysis at $`\xi `$ is then $`\pm i`$ on $`T_\xi ^{(\pm )}P^2`$.

In the language of projective modules , we must thus split $`𝒫`$ as the sum of two orthogonal projectors $`𝒫^{(\pm )}`$. The tensor $`𝒥`$ is $`\pm i`$ on $`𝒫^{(\pm )}𝒜^8`$, that is, $`𝒥=i(𝒫^{(+)}𝒫^{()})`$. Hence also $`𝒥𝒫=𝒫𝒥=𝒥`$.

$`SU(3)`$covariance suggests the choice of $`𝒫^{(\pm )}𝒜^8`$ as eigenspaces of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\widehat{\xi }_iad\lambda _i`$ for eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. Hence

$$𝒫^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\widehat{\xi }_iad\lambda _i(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\widehat{\xi }_jad\lambda _j\pm 1).$$
(6.2)
As $`ad\lambda _\alpha `$ is antisymmetric, we have that

$$𝒫^{(+)T}=𝒫^{()},𝒥^T=𝒥.$$
(6.3)
From $`𝒥`$, we can also write the Levi-Civita symbol in an $`SU(3)`$covariant way. It is

$$ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=3𝒥_{[\alpha \beta }𝒥_{\gamma \delta ]},[]:\mathrm{antisymmetrisation}.$$
(6.4)
### 6.2 The Gamma Matrices

Since $`P^2`$ is a submanifold of $`R^8`$ , it is natural to start from the Clifford algebra on $`R^8`$. Let its basis be the $`16\times 16`$ matrices $`\widehat{\gamma }_i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{}8)`$ with the relations

$$\{\widehat{\gamma }_i,\widehat{\gamma }_j\}=2\delta _{ij},\widehat{\gamma }_i^{}=\widehat{\gamma }_i$$
(6.5)
The $`\gamma `$ matrices which will occur in the Dirac operator are not these, rather they will be $`16\times 16`$ $`\gamma `$matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$ with the same relations

$$\{\gamma _i,\gamma _j\}=2\delta _{ij},\gamma _i^{}=\gamma _i$$
(6.6)
but which act by left multiplication on the algebra generated by $`\widehat{\gamma }_i`$, that is on the algebra $`Mat_{16}`$ of $`16\times 16`$ matrices $`M`$. Thus

$$\gamma _iM=\widehat{\gamma }_iM.$$
(6.7)
The matrices of $`Mat_{16}`$ have a scalar product $`(M,N)=\mathrm{Tr}(M^{}N)`$ for which $`\gamma _i^{}=\gamma _i`$.

The $`P^2`$ $`\gamma ^{}s`$ are the tangent projections $`\gamma _i𝒫_{ij}`$. There are only four of them at each $`\xi `$ which are linearly independent. We have to find a four-dimension subspace of $`Mat_{16}`$ at each $`\xi `$ on which they can act. If we fail in that, we will end up with more than one fermion.

We first find this subspace at $`\xi ^0`$. At $`\xi ^0`$, define the fermionic creation-annihilation operators

$`\widehat{a}_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_4+i\widehat{\gamma }_5),\widehat{a}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_4i\widehat{\gamma }_5),`$
$`\widehat{a}_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_6+i\widehat{\gamma }_7),\widehat{a}_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_6i\widehat{\gamma }_7).`$ (6.8)
$`\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}`$ transform as $`(K^+,K^0)`$, $`\widehat{a}_\alpha `$ as $`(K^{},\overline{K}^0)`$. Let

$$|0=\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2,|\alpha =\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}|0(\alpha =1,2),|3=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}|0.$$
(6.9)
They span a $`4`$dimensional space. $`\gamma _\alpha `$ $`(4\alpha 7)`$ act irreducibly on this space. If

$$a_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _4+i\gamma _5),a_2^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _6+i\gamma _7)$$
(6.10)
and their adjoints define their creation-annihilation operators, $`|0`$ is their vacuum state.

For an appropriate subspace at other points of $`P^2`$, we use the fact that $`SU(3)`$ acts transitively on $`P^2`$. Thus we can regard $`\xi P^2`$ as a function on $`SU(3)`$ with value $`\xi (g)`$ at $`g`$ via the relation $`g\lambda _8g^1=\lambda _i\xi _{i(g)}`$. Then $`\xi ^0=\xi (e)`$, $`e=\mathrm{identity}`$.

Now the algebra of $`SU(3)`$ can be realised using $`\gamma _i`$, the generators being

$$t_i^c=\frac{1}{4i}f_{ijk}\gamma _j\gamma _k$$
(6.11)
Their $`16`$dimensional representation can be split into $`\underset{¯}{8}\underset{¯}{8}`$ using the projectors $`P_\pm =\frac{1\pm \widehat{\gamma }_9}{2}`$ , $`\widehat{\gamma }_9=\widehat{\gamma }_1\widehat{\gamma }_2\mathrm{}\widehat{\gamma }_8`$. The $`\gamma _i`$ transform as an $`\underset{¯}{8}`$ under the action $`\gamma _i[t_j^c,\gamma _i]`$ by derivation:

$$[t_j^c,\gamma _i]:=adt_j\gamma _i=if_{jil}\gamma _l.$$
(6.12)
Let $`T(g)`$ be the image of $`g`$ in the $`SU(3)`$ representation given by (6.12). $`T(g)`$ can act on $`Mat_{16}`$ by conjugation according to $`AdT(g)M=T(g)MT(g)^1`$. $`adt_i`$ are the infinitesimal generators for the action $`AdT(g)`$ of $`SU(3)`$.

The $`4`$dimensional vector space at $`g=e`$ and its basis can be labelled as $`V(e)`$ and $`\{|\nu ;e,\nu =0,\alpha ,3:|\nu ;e=|\nu \}`$. The vector space and its basis at $`g`$ are then

$`V(g)`$ $`=`$ $`AdT(g)V(e)=T(g)V(e)T(g)^1,`$
$`|\nu ;g`$ $`=`$ $`AdT(g)|\nu ;e=T(g)|\nu ;eT(g)^1.`$ (6.13)
It is on this vector space that $`\gamma _iP_{ij}(\xi (g))`$ acts by left-multiplication.

On the vector space $`V(e)`$, the $`U(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ acts by conjugation. From the particle physics interpretation of $`\widehat{a}_\alpha ^+`$, we see that $`V(e)`$ decomposes into the direct sum

$$(I=0,Y=2)(\frac{1}{2},1)(0,0).$$
(6.14)
To see the $`SU(3)`$ representation content of $`|\nu ,g`$, let us first focus on $`|0;g`$. $`|0;e|0`$ is bilinear and antisymmetric in the $`\gamma ^{}s`$ and has $`I=0,Y=2`$. The action $`T(g)`$ preserves the number of $`\gamma ^{}s`$. Thus its $`SU(3)`$ orbit is contained in the vector space spanned by the antisymmetric product of two $`\gamma ^{}s`$, that is, $`\gamma _{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _i\gamma _j\gamma _j\gamma _i)`$. This vector space transforms as $`\underset{¯}{10}\overline{\underset{¯}{1}0}\underset{¯}{8}`$. Only $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ contains an $`I=0,Y=2`$ vector, namely $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, thus $`|0;g\underset{¯}{10}=(N_1=3,N_2=0)`$.

A more explicit formula can be written. Let $`|(3,0);(I,I_3,Y);e`$ be the basis of vectors, which are linear in $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and transforms as $`\underset{¯}{10}`$. We have: $`|(3,0);(0,0,2);e|0;e`$. Then

$$|0;g=AdT(g)|0;e=|(3,0);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y);(0,0,2)}^{(3,0)}(g)$$
(6.15)
where $`D^{(3,0)}:gD^{(3,0)}(g)`$ is the IRR $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ of $`SU(3)`$ and the basis is labelled by $`(I,I_3,Y)`$.

We can analyse the $`SU(3)`$ content and write an explicit formula for every $`|\nu ;g`$ . $`|\alpha ;e(\alpha =1,2)`$ has $`\gamma _i`$’s and $`\gamma _{ijk}`$’s where we mean by $`\gamma _{ijk..l}`$ the totally antisymmetrised product of $`\gamma _i`$, $`\gamma _j`$, $`\gamma _k`$, …,$`\gamma _l`$. $`\gamma _i`$ transforms as an $`\underset{¯}{8}`$ or $`(N_1=1,N_2=1)`$ while $`\gamma _{ijk}`$ transforms as $`\underset{¯}{27}\underset{¯}{10}\overline{\underset{¯}{10}}\underset{¯}{8}\underset{¯}{1}`$. We can take linear combination of $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{ijk}`$ to form two new $`\underset{¯}{8}`$’s such that the $`\underset{¯}{8}`$ part of $`|\alpha ;e`$ is in a single $`\underset{¯}{8}`$. Also $`|\alpha ;e`$ has $`I=1/2`$,$`Y=1`$ and such a vector occurs only in $`\underset{¯}{8}`$, $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{27}`$. Thus $`|\alpha ;g(\alpha =1,2)`$ transforms as the direct sum $`\underset{¯}{8}\underset{¯}{10}\underset{¯}{27}`$; calculating explicitely the coefficients we find:

$`|\alpha ;g`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}|(1,1);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y),(1/2,(32\alpha )/2,1)}^{(1,1)}(g)`$ (6.16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(3,0);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y),(1/2,(32\alpha )/2,1)}^{(3,0)}(g)`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}}|(2,2);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y),(1/2,(32\alpha )/2,1)}^{(2,2)}(g)`$
There remains $`|3;e`$ with $`I=Y=0`$. It is a linear combination of a constant, $`\gamma _{ij}`$, and $`\gamma _{ijkl}`$. i) The constant part transforms as an $`SU(3)`$singlet. ii) $`\gamma _{ij}`$ was treated above. iii) $`\gamma _{ijkl}`$ is $`\underset{¯}{27}\underset{¯}{8}`$. $`U(2)`$ singlets with $`I=Y=0`$ are contained only in $`SU(3)`$ singlet $`\underset{¯}{8}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{27}`$ so that $`|3;g`$ transforms as $`\underset{¯}{1}\underset{¯}{8}\underset{¯}{27}`$, the $`\underset{¯}{8}`$ being a mixture of $`\underset{¯}{8}^{}s`$ from $`\gamma _{ij}`$, $`\gamma _{ijkl}`$. Calculating the coefficients explicitely, we find,

$`|3;g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|0;(0,0,0);e`$ (6.17)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}|(1,1);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y),(0,0,0)}^{(1,1)}(g)`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}}|(2,2);(I,I_3,Y);eD_{(I,I_3,Y),(0,0,0)}^{(2,2)}(g).`$
### 6.3 The Dirac Operator

We require of the $`P^2`$ Dirac operator $`𝒟`$ that it is linear in derivatives and anticommutes with the chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ_{ijkl}\gamma _i\gamma _j\gamma _k\gamma _l.`$ (6.18)
At $`\xi =\xi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _4\gamma _5\gamma _6\gamma _7`$ and is $`+1`$ on $`|0;e`$ and $`|3;e`$, and $`1`$ on $`|\alpha ;e(\alpha =1,2)`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=+1`$ on $`|0;g,|3;g`$ and $`1`$ on $`|\alpha ;g`$ for all $`g`$. The former have even chirality and the latter have odd chirality.

Now $`\gamma _iP_{ij}`$ anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while the $`SU(3)`$ generators

$`J_i`$ $`=`$ $`_i+adt_i^c,`$
$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`if_{ijk}\widehat{\xi }_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{\xi }_k}}`$ (6.19)
commute with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence

$$𝒟=\gamma _i𝒫_{ij}J_j$$
(6.20)
anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒟\}=0,$$
(6.21)
and is a good choice for the Dirac operator.

$`𝒟`$ acts on $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$. But there are only four tangent gammas at each $`\xi (g)`$, so we have to reduce $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$ to $`V(g)`$ (in an appropriate sense) at each $`\xi (g)`$. We can achieve this reduction as follows. The functions $`\widehat{\xi }`$ are defined according to

$$\widehat{\xi }(g)=T(g)t_8^cT^1(g).$$
(6.22)
where the notation means that $`T`$ and $`T^1`$ are to be evaluated at $`g`$. Hence if $`uU(2)`$, the stability group of $`t_8^c`$, $`\widehat{\xi }(gu)=\widehat{\xi }(g)`$. This means that $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$ consists of sections of the trivial $`U(2)`$bundle over $`P^2`$. The same is the case for its left- and right- chiral projections

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =\frac{1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}𝒜Mat_{16}.$$
(6.23)
But that is not the case for $`|0;g`$ and $`|\alpha ;g`$. Under $`ggu`$, $`|0;g`$ transforms as an $`SU(2)`$ singlet with $`Y=2`$ and $`|\alpha ;g`$ transforms as an $`SU(2)`$ doublet with hypercharge $`Y=1`$.

Let $`\widehat{g}`$ denote the matrix of functions on $`SU(3)`$ with $`\widehat{g}_{ij}(g)=g_{ij},gSU(3)`$. ($`\widehat{g}`$ is just a simplified notation for $`D^{(1,0)}`$). We regard elements of $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$ as functions of $`g`$, invariant under the substitution $`ggu`$. Accordingly, let us also introduce the vectors $`|a;\widehat{g};a=0,\alpha ,3`$ which at $`g`$ are the vectors $`|a;\widehat{g}(g)=|a;g`$. Note that on a function $`f`$ on $`SU(3)`$, the left- and right- actions of $`hSU(3)`$ are $`fh^{L,R}f`$ where $`(h^Lf)(g)=f(h^1g)`$ and $`(h^Rf)(g)=f(gh)`$.

Now consider, in the case of $`|0,g`$, the wave functions $`D_{(II_3Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N_1,N_2)}`$. They exist only if $`N_2=N_1+3`$. The combination

$$D_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N,N+3)}|0,\widehat{g}$$
(6.24)
is invariant under $`ggu`$ at each $`g`$ and can form constituents of a basis for the expansion of functions in $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$.

The remaining elements of a basis can be found in the same manner, being

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}D_{(I,I_3,Y)(\frac{1}{2},m,1)}^{(N_1,N_2)}|\stackrel{~}{m},\widehat{g};N_2N_1=0\mathrm{or}3,`$
$`D_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,0)}^{(N,N)}|3,\widehat{g}`$ (6.25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\frac{1}{2}}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\frac{1}{2}}`$ stand for $`\alpha =1,2`$ and $`m`$ is summed over.

There is a subtlety we encounter at this point. \[We also came across it for $`S^2`$\]. ”Orbital” $`SU(3)`$ momentum $`_\alpha `$ does not act on the individual factors in (6.24,6.25), which are functions on $`SU(3)`$ and not just $`P^2`$. It is thus necessary to lift them to operators $`\widehat{𝒥}_i^L`$ which act on $`\widehat{g}`$ in such a manner that when (6.22) is used, $`\widehat{\xi }`$ transform under $`SU(3)`$ in the way desired: $`\widehat{\xi }h^L\widehat{\xi }`$. Thus $`\widehat{𝒥}_i^L`$ are generators of $`SU(3)_L`$, the left-regular representation, and the Dirac equation is to be reinterpreted with $`J_j`$ replaced by:

$$J_j=\widehat{𝒥}_j^L+adt_j^c.$$
(6.26)
Restricted to $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$, (6.26) is the same as (6.20).

$`|\nu ;g`$ is $`T(g)|\nu ;eT(g)^1`$ so $`|\nu ;\widehat{g}`$ is $`T|\nu ;eT^1`$. Now $`(h^LT)(g)=T(h^1g)`$. That is, $`h^L(T|\nu ;eT^1)(g)=T(h^1)T(g)|\nu ;eT(g)^1T(h)`$, which has the infinitesimal form $`\widehat{𝒥}_j^L(T|\nu ;eT^1)(g)=adt_j^c(T(g)|\nu ;eT(g)^1)`$. We conclude that

$$J_j|\nu ,\widehat{g}=0.$$
(6.27)
The expression for $`𝒫`$ is in (6.1). Using commutation relations, we can write

$$\gamma _j𝒫_{ji}=\frac{4}{3}[t_k^c\widehat{\xi }_k,[t_j^c\widehat{\xi }_j,\gamma _i]].$$
(6.28)
Now $`AdT\gamma _j=T\gamma _jT^1=\gamma _kAd\widehat{g}_{kj}`$ where $`Ad\widehat{g}(g)=Adg`$ represents $`g`$ in the octet representation, it is real and orthogonal. Hence

$$\gamma _j𝒫_{ji}=\frac{4}{3}\{[AdT][t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _j]][AdT^1]\}Ad\widehat{g}_{ij}.$$
(6.29)
Since $`|\nu ,\widehat{g}=AdT|\nu ;e`$, $`AdT^1|\nu ;\widehat{g}=|\nu ;e`$; $`[t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _i]]`$ consists only of tangent space $`\gamma ^{}s`$ at $`e`$. The action of $`\{.\}`$ on $`|\nu ;\widehat{g}`$ is thus

$$AdT[t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _i]]AdT^1|\nu ;\widehat{g}=AdT\{[t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _i]|\nu ;e\}.$$
(6.30)
The action of $`𝒟`$ on typical basis vectors like (6.24) follows:

$`𝒟D_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N,N+3)}|0;\widehat{g}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\{Ad\widehat{g}_{ij}𝒥_iD_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N,N+3)}\}AdT[t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _j]]|0;e.`$ (6.31)
The term in braces also has a considerable simplification. Since $`(h^Lf)(g)=f(h^1g)`$ $`=f(g(g^1h^1g))=[(\widehat{g}^1\widehat{h}^1\widehat{g})^Rf](g)`$, $`Ad\widehat{g}_{ij}𝒥_i^L`$ are the generators $`𝒥_\lambda ^R`$ for the $`SU(3)`$ acting on the right of $`g`$, they have the standard commutation relations $`[𝒥_i^R,𝒥_j^R]=if_{ijk}𝒥_k^R`$. We thus find that

$`𝒟D_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N,N+3)}|0;\widehat{g}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left\{𝒥_i^RD_{(I,I_3,Y)(0,0,2)}^{(N,N+3)}\right\}AdT[t_8^c,[t_8^c,\gamma _i]]|0;e.`$ (6.32)
The general wave function for even and odd chiralities can be written as

$`\xi _j^{(i)}D_{jj^{^{}}}^{(i)}|j^{^{\prime \prime }};\widehat{g};j^{^{}}=(0,0,2),(0,0,0);i=N_1,N_2,`$
$`N_2N_1=3\mathrm{if}j^{^{}}=(0,0,2)\mathrm{and}N_2=N_1\mathrm{if}j^{^{}}=(0,0,0),`$ (6.33)
$$\eta _b^{(i)}D_{bb^{^{}}}^{(i)}|b^{^{\prime \prime }};\widehat{g};b^{^{}}=(1/2,(32\alpha )/2,1);i=N_1,N_2,N_1N_2=0mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}.$$
(6.34)
Here $`j^{^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`b^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ are the state vectors for $`\gamma `$’s pairing with $`j^{^{}}`$, $`b^{^{}}`$ as in (6.24) and $`\xi _j^{(i)}`$, $`\eta _b^{(i)}`$ and repeated indices are summed. Since $`\gamma _j𝒫_{ji}`$ anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can represent the effect of $`𝒟`$ on wave functions in terms of the off-diagonal block

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& d\\ d^+& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(6.35)
acting on

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _j^{(i)}D_{jj^{^{}}}^{(i)}\\ \eta _b^{(i)}D_{bb^{^{\prime \prime }}}^{(i)}\end{array}\right)$$
(6.36)
The result is the equation of  for $`m=0`$. Ref.  has also found the spectrum of $`𝒟`$.

The zero modes of $`𝒟`$ can be easily worked out from (6.32). When $`j^{^{}}=(0,0,0)`$, $`i`$ can be $`(0,0)`$ \[but not otherwise\], and in that case, $`D^{(0,0)}`$ is a constant and is annihilated by $`\widehat{𝒥}_i^R`$. Hence the index of $`𝒟`$ is $`1`$ and the zero mode has even chirality, consistently with .

## 7  Fuzzification

$`𝒟`$ acts on a subspace of $`𝒜Mat_{16}`$. We can thus conceive of a fuzzy Dirac operator $`D`$ which acts on a subspace of $`AMat_{16}`$, $`A`$ being obtained from $`𝒜`$ by restricting “orbital” $`SU(3)`$ IRR’s to $`(n,n)`$, $`nN`$. $`D`$ is then obtained from $`𝒟`$ by projection to this subspace. $`𝒟`$ commutes only with the total $`SU(3)`$ Casimir $`J_i^2`$ and not with orbital $`SU(3)`$ Casimir $`_i^2`$. This causes edge effects distorting the spectrum of $`D`$ for those states having $`(n,n)`$ near $`(N,N)`$ which $`𝒟`$ mixes with $`(n^{^{}},n^{^{}})`$, $`n^{^{}}N`$. This particular edge phenomenon does not occur for $`S^2=P^1`$ where orbital angular momentum $`_\alpha ^2`$ commutes with the Dirac operator. A way to eliminate such problems is suggested by the work of \[6-9\]: We introduce the cut-off not on the orbital Casimir, but on the total Casimir, retaining all states upto the cut-off. That seems the best strategy as it will give a fuzzy Dirac operator $`D`$ with a spectrum exactly that of the continuum operator $`𝒟`$ upto the cut-off point, and which has chirality (chirality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`𝒟`$ commutes with $`J_i^2`$) and no fermion doubling. This approach is the same as the method adopted for $`S^2`$ in \[6-9\]. For $`S^2`$, the edge effect turned up as the absence of the $`E`$ eigenvalue subspace for the maximum total angular momentum when the cut-off is introduced in orbital angular momentum, and attendant problems with chirality.

$`D`$ being just a restriction of $`𝒟`$, we can continue to use (6.20) in calculation, just remembering the truncation of the spectrum. That means that the analysis in Section 6 can be used intact. In the final expressions like (6.35,6.36), $`i`$ labels the IRR and the Dirac operator acts in subspace with fixed $`i`$. So the cut-off can be introduced on $`i=N_1,N_2`$.

### 7.1 Coherent States and Star Products

These have been treated in . Here we summarize the main points so that we can outline the relation of wave functions like (6.24) and those based on matrices for fuzzy physics.

i) The Case of $`S^2P^1`$

Let us first consider $`S^2=P^1`$ and its fuzzy versions. The algebra $`A`$ is $`Mat_{2l+1}`$. $`SU(2)`$ acts on $`A`$ on left and right with generators $`L_i^L`$ and $`L_i^R`$, and orbital angular momentum is $`_i=L_i^LL_i^R`$. The spectrum of $`^2`$ is $`K(K+1)`$, $`K=0,1,..,2l`$. We can find a basis of matrices $`T_M^K`$ diagonal in $`^2`$ and $`_3`$(with eigenvalue $`M`$) and standard matrix elements for $`_i`$. $`A`$ acts on a $`(2l+1)`$dimensional vector space with the familiar basis $`|l,m`$. $`T_M^K`$ are orthogonal, $`K(K+1)`$ and $`M`$ being eigenvalues of $`^2`$ and $`_3`$:

$$(T_M^K,T_M^{^{}}^K^{^{}}):=TrT_M^KT_M^{^{}}^K^{^{}}=\mathrm{constant}\times \delta _{KK^{^{}}}\delta _{MM^{^{}}}.$$
(7.1)
The above suggests that there is a way to regard $`A`$ as “functions” on $`S^2`$ with angular momenta cut-off at $`2l`$. Such functions are also represented by the linear span of spherical harmonics $`Y_{KM}`$, $`K2l`$. We want to clarify the relation of $`Y_{KM}`$’s to the matrices $`T_M^K`$ in $`A`$.

Towards this end, let us introduce the coherent states

$$|g;l=U^{(l)}(g)|l,l$$
(7.2)
induced from the highest weight vector $`|l;l`$. $`gU^{(K)}(g)`$ is the angular momentum $`K`$ IRR of $`SU(2)`$. Note the identity

$$|ge^{i\frac{\sigma _3}{2}\theta };l=e^{il\theta }|g;l.$$
(7.3)
It is a theorem  that the diagonal matrix elements $`g;l|a|g;l`$ completely determine the operator $`a`$. Further $`ge^{i\frac{\sigma _3}{2}\theta };l|a|ge^{i\frac{\sigma _3}{2}\theta };l=g;l|a|g;l`$ so that $`g|a|g`$ depends only on

$$g\sigma _3g^+=\sigma x,x_i^2=1;xS^2.$$
(7.4)
In this way, we have the map $`AC^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)`$, $`a\stackrel{~}{a}`$; where $`\stackrel{~}{a}(x)=g|a|g`$. In this map, the image of $`T_M^K`$ is $`Y_{KM}`$ after a phase choice:

$$g;l|T_M^K|g;l=Y_{KM}(x).$$
(7.5)
For, under $`ghg`$ , $`xR(h)x`$ where $`hR(h)`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ vector representation. Under this transformation, since

$$Y_{KM}(R(h)x)=D^{(K)}(h)_{MM^{^{}}}Y_{KM^{^{}}}(x)$$
(7.6)
and

$$T_M^KU(h)^1T_M^KU(h)=D^{(K)}(h)_{MM^{^{}}}T_M^{^{}}^K,$$
(7.7)
where $`hD^{(K)}(h)`$ is the angular momentum $`K`$ IRR of $`SU(2)`$ in a matrix representation, we have the proportionality of the two sides. (7.5) and phase conventions fix the constant of proportionality.

The map $`T_M^KY_{KM}`$ is an isomorphism at the level of vector spaces. It can be extended to the noncommutative algebra $`A`$ by defining a new product on $`Y_{KM}`$’s, the star product. Thus consider $`g;l|T_M^KT_N^L|g;l`$. The functions $`Y_{KM}`$ and $`Y_{LN}`$ completely determine $`T_M^K`$ and $`T_N^L`$, and for that reason also this matrix element. Hence it is the value of a function $`Y_{KM}Y_{LN}`$, linear in each factor, at $`x`$:

$$g;l|T_M^KT_N^L|g;l=[Y_{KM}Y_{LN}](x).$$
(7.8)
The product $``$ here, the star product, extends by linearity to all functions with angular momenta $`2l`$. The resultant algebra is isomorphic to the algebra $`A`$.

The explicit formula for $``$ has been found by Prešnajder  (see also ). The image of $`_\alpha a`$ is just $`i(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{})_\alpha \stackrel{~}{a}`$. We will use the same symbol $`_\alpha `$ to denote $`i(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{})_\alpha `$ derivation. The $``$ product is covariant under the $`SU(2)`$ action in the sense that

$$_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{b})=(_\alpha \stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{a}(_\alpha \stackrel{~}{b}).$$
(7.9)
It depends on $`l`$ and approaches the commutative product of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$.

Coherent states thus give an intuitive handle on the matrix representation of functions. But on $`S^2`$, we also have monopole bundles. Sections of these bundles for Chern class $`n`$ are spanned by the rotation matrices $`D_{mn}^{(j)}`$, $`j|n|`$. They have the equivariance property

$$D_{mn}^{(j)}(ge^{i\frac{\sigma _3}{2}\theta })=D_{mn}^{(j)}(g)e^{in\theta }.$$
(7.10)
How do we represent them by matrices?

In the first instance, let $`n0`$ and consider the coherent states

$`|g;l+n`$ $`=`$ $`U^{(l+n)}(g)|l+n,l+n`$
$`|g;l`$ $`=`$ $`U^{(l)}(g)|l,l.`$ (7.11)
They span vector spaces $`V_{l+n}`$ and $`V_l`$. We can consider the linear operators $`Hom(V_{l+n},V_l)`$ from $`V_{l+n}`$ to $`V_l`$. They are $`[2l+1]\times [2(l+n)+1]`$ matrices in a basis of $`V_{l+n}`$ and $`V_l`$, and have $`U^{(l)}(g)`$ acting on their left(with generators $`L_i^L`$) and $`U^{(l+n)}(g)`$ acting on their right (with generators $`L_i^R`$). We can decompose $`Hom(V_{l+n},V_l)`$ under the “orbital” angular momentum group $`U^{(l)}U^{(l+n)}`$ (with generators $`_\alpha =L_\alpha ^LL_\alpha ^R`$) into the direct sum $`_{K=n}^{2l+n}(K)`$ with the IRR $`K`$ having the basis $`T_M^K`$, with $`_3T_M^K=MT_M^K`$. As before, we choose $`T_M^K`$ so that $`_i`$ follow standard phase conventions. $`T_M^K`$ are orthogonal

$$Tr(T_M^{^{}}^K^{^{}})^{}T_M^K=\mathrm{constant}\times \delta _{K^{^{}}K}\delta _{M^{^{}}M}.$$
(7.12)
Now consider

$$l;g|T_M^K|g;l+n.$$
(7.13)
It transforms in precisely the same manner as $`D_{Mn}^{(K)}(g)`$ under $`ghg`$ and $`gge^{i\frac{\sigma _3}{2}\theta /2}`$ and hence after an overall normalisation,

$$l;g|T_M^K|g;l+n=D_{Mn}^{(K)}(g).$$
(7.14)
Thus $`Hom(V_{l+n},V_l)`$ are fuzzy versions of sections of vector bundles for Chern class $`n0`$. For $`n<0`$, they are similarly $`Hom(V_l,V_{l+|n|})`$. This result is due to  (see also \[6-9,14\] An explicit formulae for the fuzzy version of rotation matrices can be found in .

It is interesting that Chern class has a clear meaning even in this matrix model: It is $`|V||W|`$ for $`Hom(V,W)`$, where $`|V|`$ and $`|W|`$ are dimensions of $`V`$ and $`W`$.

There are two (inequivalent) fuzzy algebras acting on $`Hom(V,W)`$. $`Mat_{|V|}:=A_{|V|}`$ acts on the right and $`Mat_{|W|}:=A_{|W|}`$ acts on the left, where now a subscript has been introduced on $`A`$. These left and right actions have their own $``$’s, call them $`_{|V|}`$ and $`_{|W|}`$: if $`aA_V`$, $`bA_W`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ are the corresponding functions, then

$$aT_M^Kb\stackrel{~}{a}_{|W|}Y_{KM}_{|V|}\stackrel{~}{b}$$
(7.15)
under the map of $`Hom(V,W)`$ to sections of bundles.

There is also a fuzzy analogue for tensor products of bundles. Thus we can compose elements of $`Hom(V,W)`$ and $`Hom(W,X)`$ to get $`Hom(V,X)`$

$$Hom(V,X)=Hom(V,W)_{A_{|W|}}Hom(W,X).$$
(7.16)
Its elements are $`ST`$, $`SHom(V,W)`$, $`THom(W,X)`$. Its Chern class is $`|V||X|`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ are the representatives of $`S`$ and $`T`$ in terms of sections of bundles, then $`ST\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{T}`$.

Tensor products $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ of two vector spaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ over an algebra $`B`$ are defined only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ is a right-(left-) $`B`$-module . Hence $`Hom(V,W)_{A_{|W|}}Hom(W^{^{}},X)`$ is defined only if $`W=W^{^{}}`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is rather different in its properties from the usual tensor product of bundle sections, in particular $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{S}`$ makes no sense if $`VX`$.

We can now comment on the fuzzy form of (5.17). Elsewhere the Watamuras  and following them, us , investigated the Dirac operator as acting on $`AC^2=A^2`$, $`A=Mat_{2l+1}`$. That led to rather an elaborate formalism because of the cut-off in orbital angular momentum. So as indicated earlier, it seems more elegant to cut-off total angular momentum at some value $`j_0`$.

We can now argue such a cut-off leads to the formalism of \[5-9\] and to supersymmetry. Thus let $`T_{n+}^jHom(V_{l+1/2},V_l)`$ with the transformation property

$$U^{(l)}(g)^{}T_{n+}^jU^{(l+1/2)}(g)=D_{nn^{^{}}}^{(j)}(g)T_{n^{^{}}+}^j$$
(7.17)
\[So $`j2l+1/2`$ and $`j_0=2l+1/2`$\]. Then

$$D_{n+}^j(g)=g;l|T_{n+}^j|g;l+1/2$$
(7.18)
and an overall constant of proportionality has been set equal to 1 by suitably scaling $`T_{n+}^j`$. The subscript $`+`$ indicates helicity $``$ \[see Eq.(5.8)\].

For helicity $`+`$, but for same $`j_0`$, we have to consider $`T_n^jHom(V_l,V_{l+1/2})`$, with

$$U^{(l+1/2)}(g)^{}T_n^jU^{(l)}(g)=D_{nn^{^{}}}^{(j)}(g)T_n^{^{}}^j.$$
(7.19)
This is the formalism of \[5-9\] As we have united $`V^{(l)}`$ and $`V^{(l+1/2)}`$, it is natural to consider $`OSp(2,1)`$ or even $`OSp(2,2)`$ $`SUSY`$ as discovered first by Grosse et al. in the second paper of . The action of the fuzzy Dirac operator $`D`$ on $`T_{n\pm }^j`$ is merely the truncated form of (5.17):

$$DT_{n\pm }=\left(J_\pm ^{(j)}\right)_{\pm \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}T_n^j,j2l+1/2.$$
(7.20)
Because of the mixing of $`l`$ and $`l+1/2`$, we have to reconsider the action of the matrix algebra $`A`$ approximating $`𝒜=C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)`$. $`Mat_{2l+1}`$ acts on $`T_{n+}^j(T_n^j)`$ on the left(right) while $`Mat_{2l+2}`$ acts on $`T_{n+}^j(T_n^j)`$ on the right(left). So it is best to regard fuzzy functions to act on left(say) of $`T_{n+}^j`$ and right of $`T_n^j`$ as $`Mat_{2l+1}`$. This suggestion is slightly different from that of \[5-9\] where they regard the fuzzy algebra to be $`Mat_{2l+1}`$ on $`T_{n+}^j`$ and $`Mat_{2l+2}`$ on $`T_n^j`$, both acting on left. However, our proposal does not generalize to instanton (monopole) sectors.

We can restore spin parts to fuzzy wave functions. The spin wave functions for helicity $`\pm `$ are $`T_{m\pm }^{1/2}`$. So the two components of the total fuzzy wave functions for helicity $`\pm `$ are

$$\xi _n^{j\pm }T_n^jT_{\lambda \pm }^{1/2},\xi _n^{j\pm },\lambda =1,2.$$
(7.21)
The Dirac operator $`D`$ is given by the truncated version of (5.16):

$`D_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \xi _n^{j+}T_n^jT_{\lambda ^{}+}^{1/2}}+{\displaystyle \xi _n^jT_{n+}^jT_\lambda ^{}^{1/2}}\right\}_m=`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \xi _n^{j+}T_{n+}^j(J_+^{(j)})_{+1/2,1/2}}\right\}\left\{T_\lambda ^{1/2}\right\}\left\{{\displaystyle \xi _n^jT_n^j(J_{}^{(j)})_{1/2,+1/2}}\right\}\left\{T_{\lambda +}^{1/2}\right\},`$
$`j2l+1/2,`$ (7.22)
$`J_\alpha ^{(j)}`$ being the angular momentum $`j`$ images of $`\frac{\sigma _\alpha }{2}`$.

ii) The Case of $`P^2`$

Coherent states for $`P^2`$ can be defined using highest weight states. For IRR $`(3,0)`$, we can pick the highest weight state with $`I=I_3=0,Y=2/3`$, namely the $`\lambda `$quark: $`|0,0,2/3`$ $``$ $`|0,0,2/3;(3,0)`$. Then if $`gU^{(3,0)}(g)`$ defines the IRR, $`|g;(3,0)=U^{(3,0)}(g)|0,0,2/3;(3,0)`$. For the IRR $`(N,0)`$, we can simply replace $`|0,0,2/3;(3,0)`$ by its $`N`$fold tensor product $`|0,0,2/3;(3,0)|0,0,2/3;(3,0)\mathrm{}|0,0,2/3;(3,0)`$ $`=|0,0,2N/3;(N,0)`$ and set

$$|g;(N,0)=U^{(N,0)}(g)|0,0,\frac{2N}{3};(N,0).$$
(7.23)
For $`(0,N)`$, we can use the $`\overline{\lambda }`$quark state $`|g;(0,3)`$ $`=U^{(0,N)}(g)|0,0,+2/3;(0,3)`$ and its tensor product states.

The development of ideas now keep following $`S^2=P^1`$. Full details can be found in . General theory confirms that the map $`a\stackrel{~}{a}`$ from matrices in the $`(N,0)[(0,N)]`$ IRR to functions on $`P^2`$, defined by $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\xi )=(N,0);g|a|g;(N,0)(\stackrel{~}{a}(\xi )=(0,N);g|a|g;(0,N))`$ is one-to-one so that a $``$product on $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$’s exists. In this map, the $`SU(3)`$ generators $`_i`$ acting on $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ become the corresponding $`P^2`$ $`SU(3)`$ operators $`if_{ijk}\widehat{\xi }_j\frac{}{\widehat{\xi }_k}`$. We shall use the same symbol $`_i`$ for these operators too. The orbital $`SU(3)`$ action is compatible with $``$ in the sense that $`_i(\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{b})=(_i\stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{a}(_i\stackrel{~}{b})`$. Irreducible tensor operators of $`SU(3)`$ are well studied . With their help, fuzzy analogues of $`D`$matrices can be constructed, as also sections of $`U(1)`$ and $`U(2)`$ bundles.

The fuzzy $`P^2`$ Dirac operator is the cut-off version of (6.32). It can be put in a matrix form as in (6.35,6.36). We omit the details: the necessary group theory is already to be found in  while the rest is routine.

Acknowledgements

We have benefited greately from by participating in the study groups at CINVESTAV, Mexico D.F. and Syracuse during the Summer and Fall of 2000. We are especially grateful to Brian Dolan, Xavier Martin, Denjoe O’Connor and Peter Prešnajder for their numerous inputs. This work was supported by DOE and NSF under contract numbers DE-FG02-85ERR40231 and INT-9908763 repectively and by INFN, Italy.

Appendix A

Fuzzy $`P^2`$ as “Fuzzy” Algebraic Variety

Here we will provide the derivation of Eq. (3.6) and derive therefrom the expressions for the quadratic Casimir operator $`C_2`$ in $`(N,0)`$ and $`(0,N)`$ representations.

The symmetric representations $`(N,0)`$ of $`SU(3)`$ that appear in our $`P^2`$ study can be constructed using three creation operators $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and their adjoints $`a_i`$. We have

$$[a_i,a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]=\delta _{ij},i,j=1,2,3.$$
(A.1)
For the representations $`(0,N)`$, we need three more creation operators $`b_i^{}`$ and their adjoints $`b_j`$. We concentrate below on $`(N,0)`$, the treatment of $`(0,N)`$ being similar.

The $`SU(3)`$ generators are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a=a^{}t_aa,t_a=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a`$. They fulfill

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b]=if^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c.$$
(A.2)
The Hilbert space $`_{(N,0)}`$ for $`(N,0)`$ is spanned by states of the form

$`|n_1,n_2,n_3`$ $`=`$ $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_2}a_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_3}|0,n_1+n_2+n_3=N,`$
$`a_i|0`$ $`=`$ $`0,i=1,2,3.`$ (A.3)
The dimension of this space is $`\frac{1}{2}(N+1)(N+2)`$.

Using the definition $`d_{abc}=2\mathrm{Tr}(t^a\{t^b,t^c\})`$ the left-hand side of (2.6) becomes

$`d_{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(t^a\{t^b,t^c\})\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=`$ (A.4)
$`=`$ $`2t_{ij}^a(t_{jk}^bt_{ki}^c+t_{jk}^ct_{ki}^b){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_m^{}t_{mn}^ba_na_p^{}t_{pq}^ca_q`$ (A.5)
The similar expression for the quadratic Casimir $`C_2`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=a_m^{}t_{mn}^ba_na_k^{}t_{kl}^ba_l$$
(A.6)
Taking advantage of the Fierz identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(t^\alpha )_{ij}(t^\alpha )_{kl}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}`$ (A.7)
to reduce the summations over the $`b`$ and $`c`$ indices, after a somewhat tedious, but straitforward, computation one gets

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_m^{}a_na_n^{}a_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a_m^{}a_ma_n^{}a_n,`$ (A.8)
$`d_{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ $`=`$ $`2t_{\alpha \beta }^a\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_l^{}a_\beta a_\alpha ^{}a_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a_m^{}a_ma_\alpha ^{}a_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a_\alpha ^{}a_\beta a_l^{}a_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_\alpha ^{}a_ka_k^{}a_\beta \right].`$ (A.9)
where summation over the repeated indices is assumed.

At this point we have to use the fact that these operators act on the special states that belong to $`_{(N,0)}`$. For the states in (A.3), one has

$$\underset{i}{}a_i^{}a_i|n_1,n_2,n_3=(n_1+n_2+n_3)|n_1,n_2,n_3=N|n_1,n_2,n_3.$$
(A.10)
From this and (A.1) we have the value of the quadratic Casimir $`C_2:C_2=\frac{1}{3}N^2+N`$. Using the fact that $`t^a`$’s are traceless, we find that the right-hand side of (A.9) when acting on the states from $`_{(N,0)}`$ becomes

$$d_{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=2t_{\alpha \beta }^a\left[\frac{N}{6}+\frac{1}{4}\right]a_\alpha ^{}a_\beta =\left(\frac{N}{3}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a.$$
(A.11)
Since $`a_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}a_j`$ transforms like $`(N,0)(0,N)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L`$ also fulfills (A.11).
With $`\widehat{\xi }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^L/\sqrt{N^2/3+N}`$, (3.6) follows.

There are identical results for the $`(0,N)`$ representations. The proofs only involve replacing $`a_i^{}`$ and $`a_j`$ by $`b_i^{}`$ and $`b_j`$ in the preceding discussion.

Appendix B

Why $`P^2`$ is not Spin

It is a standard result that $`P^2`$ does not admit a spin structure, but does admit a spinc structure. We plan to explain this result here adapting an argument of Hawking and Pope . The reasoning shows that $`P^N`$ for any even $`N2`$ is not spin whereas it is spin if $`N`$ is odd.

The obstruction to the $`P^2`$ spin structure comes from noncontractibile two-spheres in $`P^2`$. Since $`P^2SU(3)/U(2)`$, $`\pi _2(P^2)=\pi _1[U(2)]=`$. Also $`\pi _1(P^2)=\{0\}`$ so that Hurewitz’s theorem  leads to $`H^2(P^2,)=`$. Its mod $`2`$ reduction is $`H^2(P^2,_2)=_2`$. The absence of spin structure means that the tangent bundle is associated with the non-trivial element of $`_2`$.

Consider a continuous map $`g`$ of the square $`\{(s,t):0s;t1\}`$ into $`SU(3)`$ which obeys the following conditions:

$`g(s,0)=g(0,t)=g(1,t)=\mathrm{identity}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},`$ (B.1)
$`g(s,1)=e^{i\pi s(\lambda _3+\sqrt{3}\lambda _8)}.`$ (B.2)
\[See Fig.1.\]

The curve $`g:(s,1)g(s,1)`$ is a loop in $`U(2)=\{\mathrm{stability}\mathrm{group}\mathrm{of}\xi ^0\}`$ not contractible to identity while staying within $`U(2)`$. It is the generator of $`\pi _1(U(2))`$ and is associated with nonabelian $`U(2)`$ monopoles . But since $`\pi _1(SU(3))=\{0\}`$, $`g`$ can be defined smoothly in the entire square.

Now $`U(2)`$ being the stability group of $`\xi ^0`$ is contained in the tangent space group $`SO(4)`$ at $`\xi ^0`$. If $`x=(x_\mu :\mu =1,2,3,4)`$ is a tangent vector at $`\xi ^0`$, we can map it to a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`M(x)=x_4+i\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{x}`$ ($`\tau _i=`$ Pauli matrices) with the reality property $`M(x)^{}=\tau _2M(x)\tau _2`$. $`SO(4)=[SU(2)\times SU(2)]/_2`$ acts on $`M(x)`$ according to $`M(x)h_1M(x)h_2^{}`$, $`h_iSU(2)`$ preserving the reality property and the determinant $`\mathrm{det}M(x)=x_\mu ^2`$, and hence induces an $`SO(4)`$ transformation on $`x`$. $`U(2)`$ is imbedded in this $`SO(4)`$, acting on $`M(x)`$ as follows: $`M(x)h_1M(x)e^{i\tau _3\theta }`$.

The spin group $`SU(2)\times SU(2)=\{(h_1,h_2)\}`$ is a two-fold cover of $`SO(4)`$. The inverse image of $`U(2)`$ in $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ is $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, also a two-fold cover of $`U(2)`$. In this cover the loop $`g:(s,1)g(s,1)`$ becomes $`s(e^{i\pi s\tau _3},e^{i\pi s\tau _3})`$. It is no longer a loop, but runs from $`(𝕀,𝕀)`$ to $`(𝕀,𝕀)`$. It is this that obstructs the spin structure, as the following reasoning encountered in  shows.

Let $`SU(3)P^2SU(3)/U(2)`$ be the map $`hSU(3)h\lambda _8h^1=\lambda _\alpha \xi _\alpha `$. $`U(2)`$ here has generators $`\lambda _i(i=1,2,3)`$ and $`\lambda _8`$. This map takes the entire boundary of the square $`\{g(s,t)\}`$ to $`\xi ^0`$ and the square itself to a $`2`$sphere $`S^2`$.

Now the tangent space at $`\xi ^0`$ of $`P^2`$ is spanned by the four $`SU(3)`$ Lie algebra directions $`K^+,K^0,\overline{K}^0,K^{}`$ (in a complex basis). If we write $`P^2`$ as $`\{h\lambda _8h^1\}`$, a basis of tangents (a frame) at $`\xi ^0`$ is $`\lambda _a(a=4,5,6,7)`$. Clearly $`g(s,t)\lambda _ag(s,t)^1`$ gives a frame at $`g(s,t)\lambda _8g(s,t)^1`$ of $`P^2`$. This gives us a rule for transporting this frame (and hence any frame) smoothly along curves over $`S^2P^2`$: If $`\{(s(\tau ),t(\tau )),0\tau 1\}`$ is a curve on the square, the transport of the frame along the curve $`g(s(\tau ),t(\tau ))\lambda _8g(s(\tau ),t(\tau ))^1`$ in $`S^2`$ is $`g(s(\tau ),t(\tau ))\lambda _ag(s(\tau ),t(\tau ))^1`$. In this rule, for the three sides I, II, III (see Fig.2), we have $`g(s,t)\lambda _8g(s,t)^1=\lambda _8`$ and $`g(s,t)\lambda _ag(s,t)^1=\lambda _a`$, so that we are at $`\xi ^0`$ with the frame held fixed. Along side IV, we are still at $`\lambda _8`$ or $`\xi ^0`$, but we are rotating $`\lambda _a`$ according to $`exp\{i\pi s(\lambda _3+\sqrt{3}\lambda _8)\}\lambda _aexp\{i\pi s(\lambda _3+\sqrt{3}\lambda _8)\}`$, it is a $`2\pi `$ rotation of the frame as $`s`$ varies from $`0`$ to $`1`$.

If spinors can be defined on $`P^2`$, this transport of frames will consistently lead to their transport as well. Thus along sides I, II, III, we should be able to pick a suitable constant spinor $`\psi `$. But then, along IV, as $`s`$ increases to $`1`$, we will arrive at $`Q`$ with $`\psi `$ as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ flips the sign of a spinor. As we had $`\psi `$ along III, we lose continuity at $`P`$ and find that spinors do not exist for $`P^2`$.

It is possible to show that this conclusion is not sensitive to our choice of rule of transport of frames (that is, connection in the frame bundle).

The $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ structure is achieved by introducing an additional $`U(1)`$ connection for spinors which amounts to adding a hypercharge of magnitude $`1`$. That would give an additional phase $`exp(i\pi \sqrt{3}\lambda _8s)`$ along IV and an extra minus sign at $`s=1`$ cancelling the above unwanted minus sign. Note that $`1)`$ this connection and extra hypercharge cancels out for frames which contain a spinor and a complex conjugate spinor, $`2)`$ there is no vector bundle with this extra connection as its existence gives a contradiction just as does the existence of the spin bundle.

Let us see what all this means for $`SU(3)`$. Under $`U(2)`$, at $`\xi ^0`$, the tangents transform as $`K^{}s`$ and $`\overline{K}^{}s`$, that is as the IRR’s $`(I,Y)=(\frac{1}{2},1)`$ and $`(\frac{1}{2},1)`$. From the way $`M(x)`$ transforms, we can see that $`Y`$ corresponds to $`\tau _3`$ where $`\tau _\alpha /2`$ are $`SU(2)`$ generators acting on the right of $`M(x)`$.

The $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ IRR’s of the non-existent spinors are as follows: $`i)`$Left-handed spinors: $`(1/2,0)`$, $`ii)`$right-handed spinors: $`(0,1/2)`$. The corresponding $`(I,Y)`$ quantum numbers are thus: $`i)`$ left-handed spinors: $`(1/2,0)`$, $`ii)`$ right-handed spinors: $`(0,1)`$ and $`(0,1)`$. The quantum numbers in the $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ case follows by adding an additional hypercharge which we can take to be $`1`$: $`1)`$ Left-handed $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ : $`(1/2,1)`$. $`2)`$ Right-handed $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ : $`(0,0)`$ and $`(0,2)`$. These are precisely the $`U(2)`$ quantum numbers of the representation space of tangent $`\gamma ^{}s`$ in Section $`6`$. The $`SU(3)`$ IRR’s have to contain these $`U(2)`$ IRR’s. They are not symmetric between left- and right-handed spinors.

The $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ structures are not unique. Thus we have the freedom to add additional hypercharge $`2n`$ $`(nZ)`$ to the $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ spinors, that is, tensor the $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ bundle with any $`U(1)`$ bundle. The choice of $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ in our text is natural for our Dirac operator.

On General $`P^N`$

$`P^N`$ for all odd $`N`$ admits a spin structure whereas those for even $`N`$ admit only a $`\mathrm{spin}_c`$ structure . We can understand this result too by pursuing the preceding arguments.

Let $`Y^{(N+1)}=\frac{1}{N+1}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{}1,N)`$ be the $`SU(N+1)`$ “hypercharge”. The previous $`Y`$ is $`Y^{(3)}`$. We can represent $`P^N=SU(N+1)/U(N)`$ as $`\{hY^{(N+1)}h^1:hSU(N+1)\}`$, the stability group $`\{uSU(N+1):uY^{(N+1)}u^1=Y^{(N+1)}\}`$ being $`U(N)`$.

For all $`N1`$, the square of Figs.1 and 2 and the map $`g:(s,t)g(s,t)SU(N+1)`$ can be constructed so that it is constant on sides I,II and III while $`g:(s,1)g(s,1)`$ gives a generator of $`\pi _1(U(N))`$. There is obstruction to spin structure if this loop when it acts on a frame at $`Y^{(N+1)}`$ rotates it by $`2\pi `$, that is acts as the noncontractible loop of $`SO(2N)`$.

Let $`(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_{N+1})`$ be the “quarks” of $`SU(N+1)`$. The hypercharge $`Y^{(N)}`$ of $`SU(N)`$ acts as the generator $`\overline{Y}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{N}(1,1,..,(N1),0)`$ on these quarks. We can choose the loop $`g:(s,1)g(s,1)`$ according to

$`g(s,1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{2\pi s}{N}(N\overline{Y}^{(N)})}e^{i\frac{2\pi s}{N}(N+1)Y^{(N+1)}}`$ (B.8)
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& .& .& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& .& 0\\ 0& .& .& 1& 0\\ 0& .& .& e^{i2\pi s}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& e^{i2\pi s}\end{array}\right].`$
The tangent vectors at $`Y^{(N+1)}`$ transform like $`\overline{q}^{(i)}q^{(N+1)}`$ and $`\overline{q}^{(N+1)}q^{(i)}(1iN)`$. So under $`g(s,1)`$,

$`\overline{q}^{(i)}q^{(N+1)}`$ $``$ $`e^{i2\pi s}\overline{q}^{(i)}q^{(N+1)},iN1,`$
$`\overline{q}^{(i)}q^{(N+1)}`$ $``$ $`e^{i4\pi s}\overline{q}^{(i)}q^{(N+1)}\mathrm{for}i=N,`$
$`\overline{q}^{(N+1)}q^{(i)}`$ $``$ $`e^{i2\pi s}\overline{q}^{(N+1)}q^{(i)},iN1,`$
$`\overline{q}^{(N+1)}q^{(i)}`$ $``$ $`e^{i4\pi s}\overline{q}^{(N+1)}q^{(i)}\mathrm{for}i=N.`$ (B.9)
Each $`i`$ gives a plane in $`2N`$ dimensions and each factor $`e^{i2\pi s}`$ in the first two lines gives a $`2\pi `$rotation.

Thus we have a product of $`(N1)+2=(N+1)`$ $`2\pi `$rotations. For $`N`$ odd, they are contractible in $`SO(2N)`$, and for $`N`$ even, they are not, showing the result we were after.