text:
# Untitled Document

RUNHETC-2001-8

hep-th/0103089

On The BV Formulation Of Boundary Superstring Field Theory

Marcos Mariño

New High Energy Theory Center

Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855-0849, USA

marcosm@physics.rutgers.edu

We propose a Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) formulation of boundary superstring field theory. The superstring field action is defined in terms of a closed one-form in the space of couplings, and we compute it explicitly for exactly solvable tachyon perturbations. We also argue that the superstring field action defined in this way is the partition function on the disc, in accord with a previous proposal.

March 12, 2001

1. Introduction

The problem of open string tachyon condensation has been studied intensively in the last two years. String field theory has shown to be a very fruitful framework to address this problem, and it has provided strong evidence for Sen’s conjectures . There are currently two different approaches to (bosonic) string field theory: the cubic string field theory formulated by Witten , and the so-called boundary string field theory (BSFT) of Witten and Shatashvili . In the cubic theory, the approach to tachyon condensation has relied so far in an approximation scheme called level truncation 1 A different approach has been proposed recently in .. On the other hand, BSFT provides exact results on the tachyon potential  and on D-brane tensions .

The bosonic BSFT has a nice geometric formulation in terms of the Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) formalism . In this formulation, the string field action $`S`$ is defined up to a constant by a locally exact one-form $`dS`$ in the space of couplings for boundary perturbations. To define $`dS`$, one needs a closed two-form $`\omega `$ of ghost number $`1`$, together with a vector field $`V`$ of ghost number $`1`$ which is a symmetry of $`\omega `$ (i.e., $`_V\omega =0`$). When this is the case, the string field action is defined by

$$dS=\iota _V\omega ,$$

which is indeed closed (since $`d\omega =_V\omega =0`$), and then locally exact.

In BSFT, the vector field $`V`$ and two-form are defined as follows (when ghosts and matter are decoupled). Take a worldsheet action with the structure

$$I=I_{\mathrm{bulk}}+_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱,$$

where $`I_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is the standard closed string background for matter and ghost, and $`𝒱`$ is a generic matter operator. Consider the ghost-number $`1`$ operator $`𝒪=c𝒱`$. We then define the two-form $`\omega `$ as follows:

$$\omega (𝒪_1,𝒪_2)=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}𝒪_1(\tau )𝒪_2(\tau ^{}),$$

where the brackets denote correlation functions in the theory with worldsheet action (1.1). Since the ghost number of the vacuum is $`3`$, $`\omega `$ has indeed ghost number $`1`$. The vector field $`V`$ is defined by the BRST operator $`Q_{\mathrm{BRST}}`$ in the bulk theory, which has ghost number $`1`$, and (1.1) gives:

$$dS=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}d𝒪(\tau )\{Q_{\mathrm{BRST}},𝒪(\tau ^{})\}.$$

The fact that $`d\omega =_V\omega =0`$ are consequences of rotation invariance, and invariance under $`b_1`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{BRST}}`$. The equation (1.1) defines the spacetime string field action in BSFT. Starting from (1.1), one can show that $`S`$ is given by :

$$S=\left(\beta ^k\frac{}{x^k}+1\right)Z,$$

where the $`x^k`$ are couplings for boundary operators, and $`\beta ^k`$ are the corresponding $`\beta `$-functions.

In the superstring case, the level truncation scheme has been also developed  in the superstring field theory formulated by Berkovits , as well as in some other models , providing again some important evidence for Sen’s conjectures. In , the problem of constructing a boundary superstring field theory (BSSFT) was addressed. Based on some previous works on the sigma model approach to superstring field theory , it was proposed that the spacetime superstring field action is given by the (perturbed) partition function on the disc. This is in contrast with the bosonic case (1.1), where the string field action differs from the partition function in a term involving the $`\beta `$-functions.

In this paper we make a few steps towards a geometric construction (a la BV) of BSSFT. We restrict ourselves to the NS sector of the open superstring, and to perturbations where the ghosts and the matter are decoupled. In section 2 we make a proposal for $`dS`$ which is a simple generalization of (1.1) to the superstring case. In section 3, we make some detailed computations for exactly solvable tachyon perturbations, and find that $`S=Z`$. In section 4, we give a simple and general argument to show that $`S=Z`$. This gives further support to the proposal made in  from a different, more geometric point of view. We end in section 5 with some open problems.

2. Proposal for BSSFT

In order to find a BV formulation of BSSFT, which generalizes the construction in , we have to construct a closed one-form in the space of coupling constants. We will restrict ourselves to the NS sector of the open superstring. We take as the perturbed action on the disc,

$$I=I_{\mathrm{bulk}}+I_\mathrm{\Gamma }+_\mathrm{\Sigma }G_{1/2}𝒪.$$

In this equation, $`I_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is the RNS bulk action including the $`bc`$ and the $`\beta \gamma `$ (super)ghosts. $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the action for the auxiliary fermionic superfield living in the boundary :

$$I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mu +\theta F$$

and $`D=_\theta +\theta _\tau `$. This auxiliary superfield is needed in order to incorporate the GSO$`()`$ states. Finally, $`𝒪`$ is the lowest component of a worldsheet superfield:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒪+\theta G_{1/2}𝒪,$$

i.e. $`G_{1/2}𝒪`$ is a NS matter operator in the 0-picture.

A natural proposal for the superstring field action is:

$$dS=\frac{1}{8}\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}c(\tau )d𝒱^{(1)}(\tau )\{Q_{\mathrm{BRST}},c(\tau ^{})𝒱^{(1)}(\tau ^{})\},$$

where

$$𝒱^{(1)}=\mathrm{e}^\varphi 𝒪$$

is the usual vertex in the $`(1)`$-picture, and the correlation function is computed in the theory with action (2.1). The operator $`Q_{\mathrm{BRST}}`$ is the BRST operator of the NSR string , and we assume that it does not act on the auxiliary field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is a natural assumption, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ comes from Chan-Paton degrees of freedom, and lives in the boundary, while $`Q_{\mathrm{BRST}}`$ comes from the bulk CFT. Notice that we have the appropriate number of (super)ghost insertions to soak up all the zero modes, and that we are working in the “small” Hilbert space, as in the formulation given in .

The above proposal is a natural generalization of (1.1). The vector field in the space of couplings is again given by the BRST operator $`Q_{\mathrm{BRST}}`$, and the two-form $`\omega `$ is a natural generalization of (1.1):

$$\omega (𝒪_1,𝒪_2)=\frac{1}{8}\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}c(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\varphi (\tau )}𝒪_1(\tau )c(\tau ^{})\mathrm{e}^{\varphi (\tau ^{})}𝒪_2(\tau ^{}),$$

after taking into account the superconformal ghosts. Since $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ has zero ghost number, $`\omega `$ has again ghost number $`1`$. It follows from the arguments in  that $`dS`$ is a closed one-form.

3. Some explicit computations

In order to illustrate the above proposal, we will compute $`dS`$ explicitly when the boundary perturbation is a constant or a linear tachyon field. As it has been shown it , in these cases the theory is exactly solvable (since it is a free theory). The superfield describing a tachyon profile is :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }T(𝐗),$$

therefore

$$𝒪=\mu T(X),$$

and

$$G_{1/2}𝒪=FT(X)+\psi ^\rho \mu _\rho T.$$

The action for the auxiliary superfield and the boundary perturbation add up to :

$$\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }\left(F^2+\dot{\mu }\mu +FT(X)+\psi ^\rho \mu _\rho T\right).$$

3.1. Constant tachyon

The computation for the constant tachyon is particularly simple. First, we have

$$\{Q_{\mathrm{BRST}},c\mu T(X)\}=\frac{1}{2}cc\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mu T(X)+2cc\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mu \frac{^2T}{X^2}.$$

Since $`T`$ is a constant, we find that

$$dS=\frac{1}{16}\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}cc(\tau )c(\tau ^{})\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau )\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau ^{})\mu (\tau )\mu (\tau ^{})T𝑑T\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4}T^2\right\}.$$

In this equation, the correlators are evaluated in the decoupled $`bc`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\mu `$ theories, and we have integrated out the auxiliary field $`F`$ as in . Using now the correlation functions,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill cc(\tau )c(\tau ^{})=& 4\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\tau \tau ^{}}{2}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau )\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau ^{})=& \frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\tau \tau ^{}}{2}\right)},\hfill \\ \hfill \mu (\tau )\mu (\tau ^{})=& \frac{\pi }{2}ϵ(\tau \tau ^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

one obtains:

$$dS=d\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}T^2}\right).$$

Integrating (3.1), we find that $`S=Z`$ (we have not included in (3.1) a global normalization proportional to the volume of the D9-brane).

3.2. Linear tachyon

The computation of $`dS`$ for a linear tachyon

$$T(X)=uX$$

is more involved. The definition gives,

$$dS=\frac{1}{16}\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}cc(\tau )c(\tau ^{})\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau )\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\tau ^{})\mu (\tau )\mu (\tau ^{})u𝑑uX(\tau )X(\tau ^{}).$$

Now the action (3.1) for $`\mu `$ is a Gaussian with a linear term. We then shift,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu +\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{_\tau }\psi ^\rho _\rho T,$$

where

$$\frac{1}{_\tau }f(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau ^{}ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})f(\tau ^{}).$$

Using all this, (3.1) becomes the sum of two terms. The first one is simply,

$$dS_1=\frac{\pi }{8}dyZ(y)\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\tau \tau ^{}}{2}\right)ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})G_B(\tau \tau ^{},y),$$

where $`y=u^2`$, $`Z(y)`$ is the partition function, and $`G_B(\tau \tau ^{},y)`$ is the perturbed bosonic propagator ,

$$G_B(\tau \tau ^{},y)=2\underset{k𝐙}{}\frac{1}{|k|+y}\mathrm{e}^{ik(\tau \tau ^{})}.$$

The second piece is:

$$dS_2=\frac{1}{64}ydyZ(y)\frac{d\tau d\tau ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\sigma ^{}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\tau \tau ^{}}{2}\right)ϵ(\tau \sigma )ϵ(\tau ^{}\sigma ^{})G_B(\tau \tau ^{},y)G_F(\sigma \sigma ^{},y),$$

where

$$G_F(\tau \tau ^{},y)=2i\underset{k𝐙+\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{k}{|k|+y}\mathrm{e}^{ik(\tau \tau ^{})}$$

is the perturbed fermionic propagator. Using the explicit representation of the step function as

$$ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{k𝐙+\frac{1}{2}>0}{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}k(\tau \tau ^{})}{r},$$

we find for the first term

$$dS_1=\frac{1}{4}dyZ(y)\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n+1/2)}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n1/2)}\right\},$$

and for the second term,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dS_2=& \frac{1}{4}ydyZ(y)\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n+y+1/2)(n+1/2)}\hfill \\ & \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n+y1/2)(n1/2)}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, the one-form (2.1) is in this case:

$$dS=\frac{1}{4}dyZ(y)\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n+y+1/2)}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+y)(n+y1/2)}\}.$$

Notice that all the infinite sums involved here are convergent. We can explicitly evaluate them by decomposing in simple fractions and using the formula

$$\psi (x)\psi (y)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{y+n}\frac{1}{x+n}\right),$$

where $`\psi (x)`$ is the logarithmic derivative of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function, as well as the doubling formula

$$\psi (2x)=\mathrm{log}2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi (x)+\psi (x+1/2)\right).$$

The infinite sums in (3.1) add up to:

$$2\left\{4\mathrm{log}2\frac{1}{y}4\left(\psi (y)\psi (2y)\right)\right\}.$$

Using the explicit results of , it is easy to see that this is nothing but the correlator

$$X^2+\psi \frac{1}{_\tau }\psi $$

regularized with a point-splitting procedure which preserves supersymmetry. We then find:

$$dS=\frac{1}{4}X^2+\psi \frac{1}{_\tau }\psi Z(y)dy,$$

On the other hand, it was shown in  that

$$\frac{d\mathrm{log}Z}{dy}=\frac{1}{4}X^2+\psi \frac{1}{_\tau }\psi .$$

Therefore, we can integrate $`dS`$ to obtain

$$S=Z(y),$$

up to an additive constant. It is interesting to note that the convergent sums involved in $`dS`$ give automatically the supersymmetric regularization of the propagators proposed in .

4. $`S=Z`$

The explicit computations of the previous section suggest that the action defined in (2.1) is in fact the partition function on the disc, i.e. $`S=Z`$. In this section we give a general argument showing that this is in fact the case, at least in the case in which matter and ghosts are decoupled. To do this, we adapt the argument given in . The idea is to consider two decoupled subsystems, with partition functions $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$, in such a way that the combined partition function is $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$. Let us now evaluate $`dS`$ in the case in which we turn on a series of operators in the GSO$`()`$ sector. If $`𝒪_i`$ denotes a basis of operators for the first subsystem, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_j`$ a basis of operators in the second subsystem, then the general operator $`𝒪`$ has the form:

$$𝒪=\underset{i}{}x^i𝒪_i+\underset{j}{}y^j\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_j.$$

In this equation, $`x^i`$ and $`y^j`$ are coupling constants for the first and second subsystems, respectively, and the operators in the GSO$`()`$ sector have the form,

$$𝒪_i=\mu _1_i,\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_j=\mu _2\stackrel{~}{}_j,$$

where $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ are the boundary fermions for the first and second subystems. and $`_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_j`$ are bosonic matter operators for the first and second subsystems. The key fact is that, since the two subsystems are decoupled,

$$\mu _1(\tau )\mu _2(\tau ^{})=0.$$

By assumption, the BRST charge does not act on the boundary fermions, and after evaluating the ghost correlation functions, we find:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dS=& d\tau d\tau ^{}d𝒪(\tau )[\left(\underset{i}{}A^i(x,\tau \tau ^{})_i(\tau ^{})\right)\mu _1(\tau ^{})\hfill \\ & +\left(\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{A}^j(y,\tau \tau ^{})\stackrel{~}{}_j(\tau ^{})\right)\mu _2(\tau ^{})],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`A^i(x,\tau \tau ^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{A}^j(y,\tau \tau ^{})`$ are some functions for the first and second subsystem, respectively, whose detailed structure will not be relevant for the argument. After evaluating the correlation functions and performing the integrals, we find, using (4.1), that $`dS`$ can be written as

$$dS=\left(\underset{i}{}dx^ia_i(x)\right)Z_2+Z_1\left(\underset{j}{}dy^j\stackrel{~}{a}_j(y)\right),$$

where again $`a_i(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j(y)`$ are some functions of the couplings for the first and second subsystems. Notice that, in contrast to the situation analyzed in , the presence of the decoupled boundary fermions implies that correlation functions of the form $`𝒪_i\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_j`$ vanish and do not appear in the final expression for $`dS`$.

We now use the key fact that $`dS`$ is a closed one-form, i.e. $`d^2S=0`$. Setting to zero the coefficient of the $`dx^idy^j`$ terms gives

$$\left(\underset{i}{}dx^ia_i(x)\right)dZ_2+dZ_1\left(\underset{j}{}dy^j\stackrel{~}{a}_j(y)\right)=0.$$

Since $`dZ_{1,2}`$ only depends on $`x`$ (respectively, $`y`$), we find that

$$gdZ_1=\underset{i}{}dx^ia_i(x),gdZ_2=\underset{j}{}dy^j\stackrel{~}{a}_j(y),$$

for some constant $`g`$. This fixes the unknown functions $`a_i(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j(y)`$ in terms of the partition functions of the subsystems. In particular, one finds that, up to an additive constant,

$$S=gZ_1Z_2.$$

The constant $`g`$ can be fixed by computing $`S`$ for some particular couplings, as we did before. We therefore find $`g=1`$ and finally

$$S=Z.$$

This argument can be extended to perturbations in the GSO$`(+)`$ sector. The key ingredient is that the operator $`𝒪`$ is again fermionic. Since the two subsystems are decoupled, correlation functions of the form $`𝒪_i\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_j`$ vanish, and the above argument goes through. This shows that $`S=Z`$ for operators in the NS sector, when matter and ghosts are decoupled.

5. Open problems

In this note we have made a proposal for a BV formulation of BSSFT, and we have shown that the spacetime superstring field action turns out to be the partition function on the disc, in agreement with . There are many problems related to this formulation that have not been addressed. Some of these problems are the following:

1) As noticed in , the BV formulation of BSFT is not covariant. The covariant definition of the string field action is rather,

$$\frac{S}{x^i}=\beta ^j𝒢_{ij},$$

where $`𝒢_{ij}`$ is a positive-definite metric. It would be very interesting to see if our definition admits such a covariant extension, involving a metric which is manifestly positive-definite. This would immediately show that the superstring field action is monotonically decreasing along RG flows, as in the bosonic case.

2) Here we have concentrated on the non-projected open NSR superstring, which describes the non-BPS D9-brane of type IIA theory. It would be interesting to extend our considerations to the D-$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$ system, which has been analyzed from the point of view of BSFT in .

3) An important open problem is the inclusion of the R sector in this formulation of BSSFT. This is a problematic issue in the existing formulations of superstring field theory, and BSSFT may turn out to be a better framework.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Nathan Berkovits and Greg Moore for collaboration at the initial stage of this work, and for many clarifying discussions. I am also grateful to Hong Liu and Greg Moore for their comments on the final version of the paper. Finally, I would like to thank the Departamento de Física de Partículas da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, for hospitality. This work has been supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40949.

References

relax A. Sen, “Non-BPS states and branes in string theory,” hep-th/9904207, and references therein. relax E. Witten, “Noncommutative geometry and string field theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 253. relax E. Witten, “On background independent open string field theory,” hep-th/9208027, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5467. relax E. Witten, “Some computations in background-independent off-shell string theory,” hep-th/9210065, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3405. relax S. Shatashvili, “Comment on the background independent open string theory,” hep-th/9303143, Phys. Lett. B 311 (1993) 83; “On the problems with background independence in string theory,” hep-th/9311177. relax V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, “The static tachyon potential in the open bosonic string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 169; “On a nonperturbative vacuum for the open bosonic string,” Nucl. Phys. B 336 (1990) 263; A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “Tachyon condensation in string field theory,” hep-th/9912249, JHEP 0003 (2000) 002; N. Moeller and W. Taylor, “Level truncation and the tachyon in open bosonic string field theory,” hep-th/0002237, Nucl. Phys. B 583 (2000) 105. relax J.A. Harvey and P. Kraus, “D-branes as unstable lumps in bosonic open string theory,” hep-th/0002117, JHEP 0004 (2000) 012; R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu, and R. Tatar, “Lumps and $`p`$-branes in open string field theory,” hep-th/0003031, Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 249; N. Moeller, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “D-branes as tachyon lumps in string field theory,” hep-th/0005036, JHEP 0008 (2000) 039. relax L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “String field theory around the tachyon vacuum,” hep-th/0012251. “Classical solutions in string field theory around the tachyon vacuum,” hep-th/0102112. relax A. Gerasimov and S. Shatashvili, “On exact tachyon potential in open string field theory,” hep-th/0009103, JHEP 0010 (2000) 034. relax D. Kutasov, M. Mariño, and G. Moore, “Some exact results on tachyon condensation in string field theory,” hep-th/0009148, JHEP 0010 (2000) 045. relax N. Berkovits, “The tachyon potential in open Neveu-Schwarz string field theory,” hep-th/0001084, JHEP 0004 (2000) 022; N. Berkovits, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “Tachyon condensation in superstring field theory,” hep-th/0002211, Nucl. Phys. B 587 (2000) 147; P. De Smet and J. Raeymaekers, “Level-four approximation to the tachyon potential in superstring field theory,” hep-th/0003220, JHEP 0005 (2000) 051; A. Iqbal and A. Naqvi, “Tachyon condensation on a non-BPS D-brane,” hep-th/0004015. relax N. Berkovits, “Super-Poincaré invariant superstring field theory,” hep-th/9503099, Nucl. Phys. B 450 (1995) 90. “A new approach to superstring field theory,” hep-th/9912121. relax I. Y. Aref’eva, A. S. Koshelev, D. M. Belov and P. B. Medvedev, “Tachyon condensation in cubic superstring field theory,” hep-th/0011117. relax D. Kutasov, M. Mariño and G. Moore, “Remarks on tachyon condensation in superstring field theory,” hep-th/0010108. relax O.D. Andreev and A.A. Tseytlin, “Partition function representation for the open superstring action,” Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1988) 205; A.A. Tseytlin, “Sigma model approach to string theory effective actions with tachyons,” hep-th/0011033. relax J. Harvey, D. Kutasov and E. Martinec, “On the relevance of tachyons,” hep-th/0003101. relax D. Friedan, E. Martinec, and S. Shenker, “Conformal invariance, supersymmetry, and string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 271 (1986) 93. relax E. Witten, “Interacting field theory of open superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B 276 (1986) 291. relax P. Kraus and F. Larsen, “Boundary string field theory of the D-$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$ system,” hep-th/0012198. relax T. Takayanagi, S. Terashima and T. Uesugi, “Brane-antibrane action from boundary string field theory,” hep-th/0012210.


format: text

text:
# On the Spectrum of a Noncommutative Formulation of the D=11 Supermembrane with Winding.

## 1 Introduction

The matrix model for bosonic membranes was first introduced in , and its study was extended to the supersymmetric case in . In that work, it was shown that the supermembrane theory could also be understood as a supersymmetric gauge theory of the infinite group of area preserving diffeomorphisms which appeared as a residual symmetry of the supermembrane in the light cone gauge. They also found a satisfactory SU(N) regularization of the model. The spectrum of the quantized model was found to be continuous , and was afterwards interpreted in terms of a multiparticle theory .

The D=11 supermembrane with winding was first analyzed in  in terms of multivalued maps from the world volume to the target space. Part of their study was based on a previous work on the area preserving diffeomorphisms in . In  the hamiltonian of the theory was explicitly obtained. Its analysis in terms of a finite $`N`$ regularization was performed, with the conclusion that the SU(N) regularization of the model, which was essential in the analysis of the spectrum of the non-compactified supermembrane in a D=11 Minkowski target space , was not possible because the structure constants associated to the presence of the non-exact modes did not fit in an SU(N) description of the model. It was also argued in  that the spectrum of the compactified D=11 supermembrane should also be continuous since the instability, caused by the string-like spikes, is also present in the compactified case. The string-like spikes are singular physical configurations (the determinant of the induced metric is zero at some points or open sets of the worldvolume) which may even change the topology of the world volume without changing the energy of the system. Together with the supersymmetry they render the spectrum of the D=11 supermembrane continuous from zero to infinity. A complete analysis of the spectrum for the compactified case similar to the one in , for the non compactified case, has not been yet presented.

The analysis of the compactified D-brane was first approached from the matrix model point of view in . The matrix models ,  describe the dynamics of the membranes in the Light Cone Gauge in the approximation of finite number of oscillations modes. They provide an equivalent description, to the one in  of the supermembrane in terms of D0-branes. The formulation of compactified D-branes in  was done by considering the universal covering of the compactified target space. In that simply connected space the matrix model may be directly formulated in terms of the infinite set of the copies of the D-brane system restricted by the symmetry generated by the covering group. An interesting result was obtained in . It was shown that the matrix model on a noncommutative torus is equivalent to M-theory compactified in a constant antisymmetric background field. The non commutative geometry of the supermembrane in terms of matrix models was also described in several papers, see  and references therein, in particular in  and . In ,  the analysis of the compactified D=11 supermembrane was performed following the original description  but the analysis emphasizes the global structure associated to the non trivial wrapping of the supermembrane in terms of an associated principal bundle which is naturally constructed from the non-trivial central charge of the supersymmetric algebra. This analysis is best performed in the dual formulation of the theory. The double compactified D=11 supermembrane dual directly introduces the connection 1-form associated to the nontrivial principal bundle. In the formulation in , the canonical lagrangian is expressed as a noncommutative gauge theory. The geometrical meaning of the non commutativity was explained in that work in terms of symplectic fibrations over the world volume. The symplectomorphisms on the fibers are generated by the area preserving diffeomorphisms on the world volume.

In this paper we present a SU(N) regularization of that formulation. All the multivalued objects related to the non trivial wrapping are handled by the connections 1-form. If the theory is restricted to a principle bundle characterized by the winding number $`n`$ , any connection on that bundle may be expressed in terms of a fix one $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ plus a uniform 1-form $`𝒜`$:

$`\widehat{𝒜}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}+𝒜`$ (1)
We consider $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ to be the connection 1-form which minimizes the Hamiltonian of the double compactified Supermembrane. Although $`𝒜`$ is a uniform 1-form it has a transformation law, under the gauge symmetry of the theory,

$`𝒜𝒜+dϵ+\{𝒜,ϵ\}=𝒜+𝒟ϵ`$ (2)
corresponding to a symplectic connection preserving the symplectic structure of the fibers under holonomies. Its regularization in terms of SU(N) valued objects has consequently a very different behaviour compared to the geometrical objects in the other approaches.

## 2 The Hamiltonian of the compactified D=11 Supermembrane.

In this section we describe the Hamiltonian of the compactified D=11 supermembrane on $`(R^9\times S^1\times S^1)`$. It seems that the best approach, from a global point of view, is to consider its dual formulation since as discussed previously the global features are geometrically handled in terms of a connection 1-form over a non-trivial principle bundle on the world volume which is intrinsically introduced in the formulation.

The Hamiltonian for the double compactified D=11 supermembrane was obtained in , starting from the lagrangian formulation of the D=11 Supermembrane. It was important to follow step by step the dualization procedure in order to show that the non-trivial winding of the supermembrane was indeed described by the nontrivial bundle over which the gauge field, dual to the compactified coordinates, is defined. Having that geometrical structure one may introduce in an intrinsic way a symplectic structure on the world volume. One finally may formulate the double compactified D=11 supermembrane as a symplectic noncommutative gauge theory , . The final form of the Hamiltonian is

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{W}}}[(P^m)^2+(\mathrm{\Pi }_r)^2+1/2W\{X^m,X^n\}^2+W(𝒟_rX^m)^2+1/2W(_{rs})^2]`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}[1/8\sqrt{W}n^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒟_r\mathrm{\Pi }^r+\{X^m,P_m\})]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sqrt{W}n^{}`$
together with its supersymmetric extension

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sqrt{W}[\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r𝒟_r\theta +\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\{X^m,\theta \}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\theta \}]`$ (4)
in terms of the original Majorana spinors of the D=11 formulation, which may be decomposed in terms of a complex 8-component spinor of $`SO(7)\times U(1)`$.

$`m=1,\mathrm{}7`$ are the indexes denoting the scalar fields once the supermembrane is formulated in the light cone gauge.

$`r,s=1,2`$ are the indexes related to the two compactified directions of the target space. Where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the spatial part of the world volume which is assumed to be closed Riemann surface of topology $`g`$.

$`P_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ are the conjugate momenta to $`X^M`$ and the connection 1-form $`𝒜_r`$ respectively. The covariant derivative is

$`𝒟_r=D_r+\{𝒜_r,\}`$ (5)
and the field strength

$`_{rs}=D_r𝒜_sD_s𝒜_r+\{𝒜_r,𝒜_s\}`$ (6)
The bracket $`\{,\}`$ is defined as

$`\{,\}={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ^{sr}}{n}}(D_r)(D_s)`$ (7)
where $`n`$ denotes the integer which characterizes the non trivial principle bundle under consideration. $`D_r`$ is a tangent space derivative

$`D_r={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a_a}{\sqrt{W}}}=\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r,\}r,s=1,2:a=1,2.`$ (8)
where $`_a`$ denotes derivatives with respect to the local coordinates of the world volume while $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a=ϵ^{au}_u\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ is a zwei-vein defined from the minimal solution of the Hamiltonian of the theory. It satisfies

$`ϵ^{rs}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s^bϵ_{ab}=n\sqrt{W}`$ (9)
equivalently

$`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s\}=1/2nϵ_{sr}`$ (10)
We consider now an expansion of the geometrical objects in the formulation in terms of an orthonormal basis in the space $`L^2`$ or functions over the world volume. They are uniform functions over the manifold. The $`X^M,P_M`$ may be expressed in the standard way since they are uniform maps from the world volume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the target space,

$`X^m(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\tau )=`$ $`{\displaystyle X^{mA}(\tau )Y_A(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)}`$ (11)
$`P_m(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\tau )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \sqrt{W}P_m^A(\tau )Y_A(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)}`$
The multivalued maps defining the non-trivial winding of the membrane are now expressed in terms of the connection and its conjugate momenta. In this sector one has performed the following decomposition

$`\widehat{𝒜}_s\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s+𝒜_s`$ (12)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s`$ is the connection 1-form which minimizes the Hamiltonian of the theory. It is a connection on a nontrivial bundle characterized by the integer $`n0`$ the central charge of the supersymmetric algebra. It is taken as a fixed geometrical object, hence the transformation law of $`𝒜_s`$ under the gauge transformations generated by the first class constraint becomes

$`\delta 𝒜_r=D_rϵ+\{𝒜_r,ϵ\}`$ (13)
It is assumed that it has no transition over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. That is, all the complicated objects are contained in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ while $`𝒜_r`$ is univalued over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This is always valid provided we are in the same principle bundle which is characterized by the winding number $`n`$. Under this assumption, which defines a geometrical sector of (3), the last term of (3) becomes zero.

We may now decompose $`𝒜_r`$ and its canonical conjugate momenta under the same basis as before:

$`𝒜_r(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\tau )=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒜_r^A(\tau )Y_A(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^r(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\tau )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \sqrt{W}\mathrm{\Pi }^{r,A}(\tau )Y_A(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)}`$
There is however a main difference between $`X^A`$ and $`𝒜_r^A`$. It is their transformation law under the symmetry generated by the first class constraint. To analyze this point we introduce as in  the structure constants $`g_{AB}^C`$

$`\{Y_A,Y_B\}={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ^{sr}}{n}}D_rY_AD_sY_B=g_{AB}^CY_C`$ (15)
Where $`Y_A`$ is a complete orthonormal basis of functions over the spatial part of the world volume,and $`g_{AB}^C`$ are the structure constants associated to the group of area preserving diffeomorphisms in this basis. That is

$`g_{AB}^C={\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{W}\{Y_A,Y_B\}Y_C}`$ (16)
Where we use the normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{W}Y_CY_B}=\delta _{B+C}`$ (17)
We then have the infinitesimal gauge transformations

$`\delta X^C=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A,B}{}}g_{AB}^Cϵ^AX^B`$ (18)
$`\delta 𝒜_r^C=`$ $`\lambda _{rA}^Cϵ^A{\displaystyle \underset{A,B}{}}g_{AB}^C𝒜_r^Aϵ^B`$
Where $`\lambda _{rA}^C`$ is defined by

$`D_rY_A=\lambda _{rA}^CY_C`$ (19)
We consider $`Y_A`$ to be a complete basis of eigenfunctions of the operator $`D_rD_r`$ . Then we have

$`D_rD_rY_A=\omega _AY_A`$ (20)
Where no summation in the index $`A`$ is performed. We assume without loosing generality that

$`\overline{Y_A}=Y_A`$ (21)
Where $`\overline{Y}_A`$ denotes the complex conjugate to $`Y_A`$. We notice the following property of the derivatives $`D_r`$

$`D_s\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s^a}{\sqrt{W}}}_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{W}}}_b\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r=\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_s,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r\}={\displaystyle \frac{nϵ_{rs}}{2}}`$ (22)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ may be identified with the angles of the compactified directions of the target space.

We may introduce $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ as local coordinates over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.We will assume from now on, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be of genus 1, although everything can be extended to arbitrary genus. We then have

$`Y_A=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{iA_r\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r}`$ (23)
$`\omega _A=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}A_r^2={\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}(A_1^2+A_2^2)`$
$`\lambda _{rA}^C=`$ $`iA_s{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}ϵ_{sr}\delta _A^C\lambda _{rA}\delta _A^C`$
Where $`𝒜_r,r=1,2`$ is a pair of integral numbers associated to $`Y_A`$. The structure functions may then be expressed as

$`g_{AB}^C=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(A\times B)\delta _{A+B}^C`$ (24)
and

$`\lambda _{rA}^C=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(V_r\times A)\delta _A^C`$ (25)
$$V_r=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1,0)& r=1\\ (0,1)& r=2\end{array}$$
(26)
then

$`\lambda _{rA}^C=`$ $`ig_{V_r,(AV_r)}^C`$ (27)
and also satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}ϵ^{sr}\lambda _{rA}\lambda _{sB}d_{AB}^C=`$ $`g_{AB}^C\text{with}`$ (28)
$`d_{AB}^C=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{W}Y_AY_B\overline{Y}_C}`$
With $`d_{AB}^C`$ related to the invariant symmetric three index tensor of SU(N).

The Hamiltonian may then be expressed as in :

$`H=`$ $`H_{bosonic}+H_{Fermionic}`$ (29)
$`H_{Bosonic}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P^{0m}P_m^0+P^{Am}P_m^A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{AB}^CX^{mA}X^{nB})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _{rA}X^{mA}+g_{BC}^A𝒜_r^BX^{mC})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{rA}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^A+\mathrm{\Pi }^{r0}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(\lambda _r𝒜_s\lambda s𝒜_r)^A+(g_{BC}^A𝒜_r^B𝒜_s^C)]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n^2`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(A)}(g_{BC}^A(X^{mB}P_m^C+𝒜_r^B\mathrm{\Pi }^{rC})+\lambda _{rA}\mathrm{\Pi }^{rA}).`$
$`H_{Fermionic}=`$ $`g_{BC}^A\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(A)}\gamma _{}\gamma _mX^{mB}\mathrm{\Psi }^C+g_{AB}^C𝒜_r^A\overline{\psi }^{(C)}\gamma _{}\gamma _r\mathrm{\Psi }^B`$
$`+\lambda _{rB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(B)}\gamma _{}\gamma _r\mathrm{\Psi }^Bg_{BC}^A\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(A)}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^B\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Psi }^C.`$
Where $`(,)^2`$ is understood as:

$`(,)^2=(,)\overline{(,)}=(,)^A(,)^A`$ (30)
Using the following definitions, $`H_{bosonic}`$ can be directly re-expressed in a simpler way, which may be useful to compare with (3)

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒟_r}=`$ $`\lambda _r+[𝒜_r,]`$ (31)
$`_{rs}^A=`$ $`\lambda _{Ar}𝒜_s^A\lambda _{sA}𝒜_r^A+[𝒜_r,𝒜_s]^A\text{with}`$
$`\lambda _r(Y_A)`$ $`\lambda _{rA}Y_A\text{ no summation over index A.}`$
$`[,]^A`$ $`g_{BC}^A_r^B_s^C`$
Then the bosonic part of the Hamiltonian appears as,

$`H_{Bosonic}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^{0m}P_m^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P^{Am}P_m^A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[X^m,X^n]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_rX^{mA})^2+`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{r0}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{rA}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_{rs}^A)^2`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^A([X^m,P_m]+\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_r\mathrm{\Pi }_r)^A`$
Where summation over A index is performed.

## 3 The Heisenberg-Weyl Group and the <br>$`N\mathrm{}`$ limit

We follow in the first part of this section standard results concerning the Heisenberg-Weyl group . We do so since in the literature there are some minor misprints that we would like to avoid.

The relevant Hilbert space $`H(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of functions on a torus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝒞/L`$ of complex modulus $`\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2`$ with integer lattice $`L=\{m_1+\tau m_2(m_1,m_2)Z\times Z\}`$ is defined as the space of functions of complex argument $`z=\sigma _1+i\sigma _2`$

$`f(z)={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}C_n\mathrm{e}^{i\pi (n^2)+2\pi (inz)}`$ (33)
With the norm

$`f^2={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\sigma \mathrm{e}^{2\pi (y^2)/\tau _2}f(z)^2`$ (34)
The subspace $`H_N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of $`H(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is defined by the periodicity condition

$`C_n=C_{n+N}`$ (35)
for a fixed natural number $`N`$. In th subspace $`H_N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ the discrete Heisenberg group with generators P and Q,

$`Qf(z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}C_n\mathrm{e}^{2\pi in/N}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi inz+\pi (in^2\tau )}`$ (36)
$`Pf(z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}C_{n1}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi in+\pi (in^2z)}`$
They satisfy the Weyl relation, :

$`QP=\kappa PQwhere\kappa =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/N)`$ (37)
The Heisenberg group elements are defined by

$`T_{r,s}=N\kappa ^{1/2rs}P^rQ^s`$ (38)
They are SU(N) matrices which satisfy the following relations:

$`T_{r,s}^{}=`$ $`T_{r,s}`$ (39)
$`(T_{r,s})^N=`$ $`N^N\mathrm{e}^{i\pi rs(N1)!}\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{N}\times \mathrm{N}}`$
$`trT_{r,s}=`$ $`0`$
$`T_{r,s}T_{r^{},s^{}}=`$ $`N\kappa ^{1/2(r^{}srs^{})}T_{r+r^{},s+s^{}}`$
$`T_{r+N,s}=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\pi s}T_{r,s}`$
$`T_{r,s+N}=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\pi r}T_{r,s}`$
The SU(N) algebra may be realized in terms of the base $`T_A`$ with $`A=(a_1,a_2)=(r,s)`$ with $`a_1,a_2=0\mathrm{}N`$ with $`(0,0)`$ excluded. We include $`T_0=NI_{N\times N}`$ to have a complete set of matrices which close under multiplication,

$`[T_A,T_B]=2iN\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(A\times B)\pi }{N}}\right)T_{A+B}`$ (40)
where $`[,]`$ is simply the commutator, (do not confuse with $`[,]`$ symbol used in the last section) the structure constants are then,

$`f_{AB}^C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^3}}tr([T_A,T_B],T_C)=2iN\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(A\times B)\pi }{N}}\right)\delta _{A+B}^C`$ (41)
When $`N\mathrm{}`$ one obtains the Poisson algebra of area preserving diffeomorphisms

$`f_{ABC}g_{ABC}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(A\times B)\delta _{A+BC}`$ (42)
We introduce $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda _{rA}^B}`$ as a particular choice of the structure constants associated to the finite group:

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda _{rA}^B}=if_{V_r(AV_r)}^B`$ (43)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda _{rA}^B}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{rA}\delta _A^B`$ (44)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ converges to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ni}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{\lambda _{rA}}\lambda _{rA}=\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r,Y_A\}=iA_s{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}ϵ_{rs}`$ (45)
## 4 The SU(N) formulation of the Theory

We may now introduce a SU(N) canonical lagrangian which in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ converges to the formulation of section 2 describing the dual of the double compactified D=11 supermembrane. The coordinates $`X^m`$ as well as the connection $`𝒜_r`$ and their canonical conjugate momenta are valued over the SU(N) algebra. The lagrangian contains unusual terms which indeed are necessary if $`𝒜_r`$ is going to converge to a connection in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. In fact, a connection of a principle bundle allows to translate the geometrical objects in the horizontal direction, however in the SU(N) model all the dependence on the world volume coordinates has been removed. We then expect some unusual terms which in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit allow that property of the connection 1-form to be recovered.

We are going to consider the Hamiltonian (29) in a particular gauge. Since the first class constraint has been expressed as a generalized Gauss law, these are several interesting conditions we may impose. We will consider the gauge condition:

$`𝒜_1=`$ $`𝒜^{a_1,0}Y_{a_1,0}`$ (46)
$`𝒜_2=`$ $`𝒜^{a_1,a_2}Y_{a_1,a_2}a_20`$
The SU(N) model we introduce is the following:

$`H=`$ $`tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^3}}(P^{0m}T_0P_m^0T_0+\mathrm{\Pi }^{r0}T_0\mathrm{\Pi }_r^0T_0+(P^m)^2+(\mathrm{\Pi })_r^2)`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{16\pi ^2N^3}}[X^{Bm},X^{Cn}]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{8\pi ^2N^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}[T_{V_r},X^m]T_{V_r}[𝒜_r,X^m])^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{16\pi ^2N^3}}([𝒜_r,𝒜_s]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}([T_{V_s},𝒜_r]T_{V_s}[T_{V_r},𝒜_s]T_{V_r}))^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi N^3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }([X^m,P_m]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}[T_{V_r},\mathrm{\Pi }_r]T_{V_r}+[𝒜_r,\mathrm{\Pi }_r])`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{in}{4\pi N^3}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{}\gamma _m[X^m,\mathrm{\Psi }]\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{}\gamma _r[𝒜_r,\mathrm{\Psi }]+\mathrm{\Lambda }[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{},\mathrm{\Psi }]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{}\gamma _r[T_{V_r},\mathrm{\Psi }]T_{V_r}))`$
subject to

$`𝒜_1=`$ $`𝒜_1^{(a_1,0)}T_{(a_1,0)},`$ (48)
$`𝒜_2=`$ $`𝒜_2^{(a_1,a_2)}T_{(a_1,a_2)}\text{with}a_20`$
Where we used the following definitions:

$`X^m=`$ $`X^{mA}T_AP^m=P^{mA}T_A`$ (49)
$`𝒜_r=`$ $`𝒜^{A_r}T_A\mathrm{\Pi }^r=\mathrm{\Pi }^{rA}T_A`$
$`[T_B,T_C]=`$ $`f_{BC}^AT_A`$
It may be expressed in the form

$`H=`$ $`tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^3}}(P^{0m}P_m^0+(P^m)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^3}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_r^0\mathrm{\Pi }_r^0+(\mathrm{\Pi }^r)^2)`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{16\pi ^2N^3}}([X^m,X^n]^2+2(\widehat{𝒟_r}X^m)^2+(\stackrel{~}{}_{rs}^A)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi N^3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }([X^m,P_m]+\widehat{𝒟}_r\mathrm{\Pi }_r)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{in}{4\pi N^3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }([\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{},\mathrm{\Psi }]+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{}\gamma _m[X^m,\mathrm{\Psi }]+\widehat{𝒟}_r\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _{}\gamma _r\mathrm{\Psi }))`$
where the identification of the terms in (50) are obvious from (47).

Each term of the above Hamiltonian density converges to the corresponding one in the formulation of the supermembrane of section 2. The condition (48) in the SU(N) model also converges to the gauge fixing condition (46) of the supermembrane.

## 5 On the Spectrum of the Hamiltonian

There are two properties of the Hamiltonian of the D=11 supermembrane on a Minkowski target space  which render the spectrum continuous:

i) the existence of local string-like configurations which may even change the topology of the membrane without changing its energy. This is a property of the bosonic sector of the supermembrane.

ii) Supersymetry. The Supersymmetry cancels an effective potential coming from the quantization of the model. It is related to the zero point energy of the harmonic oscillators which is different from zero in the bosonic case and zero in the supersymmetric one.

We will show in this section that there are no local string-like configurations with zero energy density associated to the Hamiltonian of our SU(N) model (47). It is important to come back to the global condition which was imposed in order to obtain the Hamiltonian (see the comment after (13)) of the model under consideration. It was

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sqrt{W}n{}_{}{}^{}=0`$ (51)
The annihilation of that term (51) which is perfectly valid when we formulate our model over a fixed non trivial line bundle, has important consequences with respect to the non-existence of the local string-like configurations with zero energy density. To analyze this point let us see first what occurs for the compactified membrane without that assumption.Without the assumption (51), there are local string-like configurations arising from following configurations:

$`X^m=`$ $`X^m(X(\sigma _1,\sigma _2))`$ (52)
$`𝒜_r=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r+f_r(X(\sigma _1,\sigma _2))`$
These configurations depend on an arbitrary uniform map $`X(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$. After some calculations one can show that the hamiltonian density of (3) over those configurations becomes zero. Hence the compactified supermembrane allow local string like spikes with zero energy. Let us now discuss the sector of the theory arising from the imposition of the global condition (51). In the SU(N) model of section (4), the singular configurations (52) do not arise because $`𝒜_r`$ is single valued in distinction to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ which is necessarily multivalued over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. More precisely, in order to have zero local energy density, the conditions

$`𝒟_rX=`$ $`0`$ (53)
$`_{rs}=`$ $`0`$
must be satisfied. They impose severe restrictions to $`X^A`$ and $`𝒜_r^A`$ which eliminates the possibility of having the string-like configurations. In fact, the condition $`_{rs}=0`$ yields

$`k^{1/2(V_r\times A)}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{rA}𝒜_s^Ak^{1/2(V_s\times A)}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{sA}𝒜_r^A+f_{BC}^A𝒜_r^B𝒜_s^C=0`$ (54)
and using the gauge fixing condition (48) we obtain, for any $`A`$

$`k^{1/2(V_1\times A)}N\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(V_1\times A)\pi }{N}}\right)𝒜_2^Ak^{1/2(V_2\times A)}N\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(V_2\times A)\pi }{N}}\right)𝒜_1^A+`$ (55)
$`N\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(b_1V_1\times A)\pi }{N}}\right)𝒜_1^{b_1,0}𝒜_2^{Ab_1V_1}=0`$
where $`b_1`$ are integers.

In particular for $`A=lV_1`$ we get

$`𝒜_1^{lV_1}𝒜_1^{l,0}=0`$ (56)
hence

$`𝒜_1^A=0`$ (57)
We then obtain from (55) and the gauge fixing condition

$`𝒜_2^A=0`$ (58)
The condition $`𝒟_rX^m=0`$ now reduces to

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{rA}X^{mA}=0r=1,2`$ (59)
That is

$`N\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_1\times A}{N}}\right)\pi X^{mA}=0`$ (60)
$`N\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_2\times A}{N}}\right)\pi X^{mA}=0`$
which yields

$`X^{mA}=0`$ (61)
Consecuently, there are no local string like configurations with zero energy density for the SU(N) model of section 4.

## 6 Conclusions.

We proposed a model described by SU(N) algebra valued geometrical objects which in the limit converges to the dual of the double compactified D=11 supermembrane with nontrivial winding. It describes a supermembrane with fixed winding $`n0`$ on a target space $`M_9\times S^1\times S^1`$. We showed explicitly the existence of local string-like spikes in the general formulation of compactified supermembranes, in agreement with . We then proved that in the proposed SU(N) model for supermembranes with fixed winding, which is only one sector of the full theory, there are no string like spikes and hence this sector should have discrete spectrum. We will analyzed in more detail the properties of the spectrum elsewhere. It is important to remark that this sector is described by a global condition which eliminates completely the local string like spikes.

Acknowledgments One of the authors<sup>a</sup> would like to thank to N. Hatcher and J. Ovalle for helpful conversations. We would also like to thank King s College group for kind hospitality while part of this work was done.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, the E821 experiment at the Brookhaven National Laboratory  announced their latest measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon

$`a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{g2}{2}}=11659202(14)(6)\times 10^{10}.`$ (1)
In the Standard Model(SM), the anomalous magnetic moment, $`a_\mu ^{SM}=a_\mu ^{QED}+a_\mu ^{Had}+a_\mu ^{EW}`$, is estimated to be

$`a_\mu =116591597(67)\times 10^{11},`$ (2)
where the error is mainly from $`a_\mu ^{Had}`$. An estimate of hadronic contributions has been renewed recently . From these results one obtains present deviation from SM

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=(4.3\pm 1.6)\times 10^9.`$ (3)
The size of the deviation is hotly debated due to the uncertainties in the hadron vacuum polarization in $`(g2)_\mu `$ . The deviation may give a hint of new physics. It is well-known that the progress to investigate physics beyond SM, new physics, is essentially along two different directions. One is to extend the symmetry of SM, such as supersymmetry, the fourth generation, more Higgs doublets, grand unification etc. or to assume the presence of extra dimensions, while keeping the assumption that all the SM particles as well as new particles are fundamental. The other is to assume the substructure of SM particles, such as composite models of lepton, quark and weak gauge boson, technicolor models, etc. Inspired by the exciting $`2.6\sigma `$ excess, people have suggested many possible explanations of the deviation, mostly along the first direction . In particular, supersymmetric loop effects with $`m_{SUSY}55\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\beta }`$ Gev and the radiative mass mechanism at $`12`$ TeV scale have been reviewed in . The reason of the deviation has also been probed, along the second direction, in technicolor models  and preonic models . In ref., the deviation is attributed to the presence of heavy exotic colored lepton and extra Z-boson states arising in a preonic model and essentially the bound state description of a lepton is not touched in their calculations. In ref. the model-independent limit on muon substructure has been given by using the previous formula given in ref.. The constraint from the anomalous magnetic moments of leptons on possible substructure of leptons has been analyzed in terms of a general formalism for describing a bound state in early 80’s. In the non-relativistic theory of a bound state , where the binding energy and the inverse radius $`R^1`$ are much smaller than the mass of the bound state , the magnetic moment of the bound state is the vectorial sum of the magnetic moments of the constituents. This would contradicts the precise experimental data for $`a_\mu `$ if $`\mu `$is such a bound state . It has been shown that this is not the case for the relativistic bound state . In this paper, we will consider the theoretical implication of the E821 new result in a composite model of the lepton, based on the bound state description of the muon and the general relativistic covariant quantum field theory. We generalize the previous investigations to higher orders in $`\alpha `$ and including both the heavy and light constituent cases. We shall repeat some previous derivations in order to make the paper self-contained. For the sake of simplicity we calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of a muon in a simple composite model in which the lepton is assumed to be a bound state composed of a fermion and a scalar boson. We show that the deviation, $`\delta a_\mu `$, can be a signal for compositeness of the muon and poses a constraint on the charge radius of the muon (and the masses of constituents if constituents are heavy).

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the general form of the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) bound state wave function of a lepton, calculate the lowest order matrix element of the electric current of a composite particle and estimate the order of magnitude for the anomalous magnetic moment of a composite lepton at the lowest order in $`\alpha `$. Using the spectrum representation of the wave function and the general properties of the four-point Green function containing the lepton bound state pole, the $`O(\alpha )`$ correction to the anomalous magnetic moment is estimated in Sec. III. The last section is devoted to conclusions and discussions.

## 2 The matrix element of the electric current of a composite particle at the lowest order in $`\alpha `$

For simplicity, we assume that the lepton is the bound state composed of a charged fermion and a neutral scalar boson which we shall also call as preons for convenience. We shall confine us in this article to the relativistic tightly bounded states with $`R^1m_l`$ and $`R^1m_F`$, where $`R`$ is the charge radius of the composite lepton and $`m_F`$ is the mass of the charged fermionic preon. We shall consider two cases. In the case A, the mass $`m_F`$ is of the same order as $`R^1`$ and much heavier than $`m_l`$. In the case B, $`m_F`$ and $`m_l`$ are both much smaller than $`R^1`$. In this case, if the force between the preons is some confining gauge interaction, there may be an approximate global chiral symmetry which naturally results in the small lepton mass $`m_l`$. Essentially $`R^1`$ is also the confinement scale of the gauge interaction.

The general Lorentz and space inversion invariant B-S wave function for a composite lepton composed of a fermionic and a scalar preon is

$`\chi _P^s(p)={\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}<0|T(\psi (x/2),\varphi (x/2))|P,s>}=(f_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i\widehat{p}}{M}}f_2)u^s(P),`$ (4)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are fields of the fermion and bosonic preon respectively, $`\widehat{p}=p\gamma `$, $`P=p_1+p_2`$ is the momentum of the lepton, $`p=\frac{m_Bp_1m_Fp_2}{m_B+m_F}`$ is the relative momentum between preons, $`m_B`$ and $`m_F`$ are the masses of the bosonic preon and fermionic preon respectively. The two cases mentioned above are: A. $`m_F=O(R^1)m_l`$. B. $`m_F,m_lR^1`$. In Eq. (4) the constant M with the mass dimension is introduced for convenience, $`f_i=f_i(Pp,p^2)f_i(P,p)`$, $`(i=1,2)`$, are real functions corresponding to the S wave state, and $`u^s(P)`$ is the Dirac spinor with spin component $`s_z=s`$. It is straightforward to derive from invariance under the space-time inversion that the BS wave function for a lepton final state is

$`\overline{\chi }_P^s(p)=\overline{u}^s(P)(f_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i\widehat{p}}{M}}f_2).`$ (5)
The simplest diagram for the lowest order electro-magnetic interaction of composite lepton is illustrated in Fig. 1. The corresponding bound state matrix element is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(0)}(P,q)`$ $`=`$ $`<P+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}},s|J_\mu (0)|P{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}},s>`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\overline{\chi }_{P+q/2}(k+\frac{q}{4})\gamma _\mu \chi _{Pq/2}(k\frac{q}{4})i\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1((\frac{P}{2}k)^2)}`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}(P+q/2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k[f_1^{}+\frac{i}{M}(\widehat{k}+\frac{\widehat{q}}{4})f_2^{}]}`$
$`\times \gamma _\mu [f_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{M}}(\widehat{k}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{q}}{4}})f_2]i\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1(({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}k)^2)u(Pq/2),`$
where q is the momentum of the photon,

$`f_i=f_i(Pq/2,kq/4),f_i^{}=f_i(P+q/2,k+q/4)fori=1,2,`$
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^{}`$ is the propagator of the scalar preon.

Using the Dirac equation, it is easy by a straightforward calculation to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(0)}=\overline{u}(P+q/2)\{\gamma _\mu F_1^{(0)}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\gamma _\mu ,\widehat{q}]F_2^{(0)}(q^2)\}u(Pq/2),`$ (7)
where

$`F_1^{(0)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`S_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2T}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_l}{M}}V_{1P}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}(m_l^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}})T_{PP}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M^2}}T_{qq}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M^2}}V_{2P}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M^2}}S_2,`$
$`F_2^{(0)}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{M^2}}T_{PP}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}S_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}V_{1P}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M}}V_{1q}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{2M^2}}V_{2P}.`$ (9)
In eqs. (2) and (9) the Lorentz invariant functions $`S_i`$ etc. are defined by

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_1^{}f_1\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1((P/2k)^2)},`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^{}f_2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1},`$
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^{}f_1\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^{}f_1\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1k_\mu }=V_{1P}P_\mu +V_{1q}q_\mu ,`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^{}f_2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1k_\mu }=V_{2P}P_\mu ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^{}f_2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1k_\mu k_\nu }=T_{PP}P_\mu P_\nu +T_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu +T\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$
The left hand side of the last two formulae in Eq. (10) is even in $`q`$, hence there is no term linear in $`q_\mu `$ on the right hand side.

It follows from Eq. (2) that the normalization condition of the electric charge is

$`S_1(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M^2}}T(0){\displaystyle \frac{2m_l}{M}}V_{1P}(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M^2}}T_{PP}(0)=1,`$ (11)
which can approximately be written as

$`S_1(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M^2}}T(0)=1`$ (12)
if $`m_l/M1`$. In Eq. (12)

$`T(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4kf_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1k^2}.`$ (13)
Let us choose M to make the integral of $`f_if_j\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1`$ to be of the same order for $`i,j=1,2`$. From (13) we have

$`T(0)=O(R^2)S_1(0).`$ (14)
Since $`V_{1p}(0)`$ and $`V_{1q}(0)`$ are of the same order of $`S_1(0)`$, which (as well as Eq. (14)) has been checked by using the spectra representation (25) given below, we obtain from (8),(9),(12) and (14)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(0)}{F_1(0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_2M}{M^2+C_1R^2}}`$ (15)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants of the order one.

Eq. (15) is in agreement with the result in Eq. (25) of  derived with a different approach. Authors of  asserted that the constant $`M`$ with the dimension of mass should be equal to $`m_F`$. In our opinion, $`M=m_F`$ is likely to hold in theories with vector or pseudo-vector interactions as a chirality flip along the fermion line is required for the $`F_2`$ term. However, it may not be true in theories with scalar or pseudo-scalar interactions which change the chirality. In the latter case the more natural possibility is $`M=O(R^1)`$. Thus, in general we have $`M=m_F`$ or $`O(R^1)`$. In case A, $`m_F`$ and $`R^1`$ are of the same order, from Eq. (15) the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon arising from compositeness at the leading order of $`\alpha `$ is

$`a_\mu =O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}}).`$ (16)
In case B, $`m_FR^1`$, from Eq. (15) one has

$`a_\mu =O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}}),`$ (17)
for $`M=O(R^1)`$, or

$`a_\mu =O({\displaystyle \frac{m_lm_F}{R^2}})`$ (18)
for $`M=O(m_F)`$.

Therefore, $`a_\mu `$ can be suppressed linearly or quadratically by $`O(R^1)`$ depending on whether $`m_F=O(R^1)`$ or $`m_FR^1`$ and also on different internal dynamics.

From (16), (17) and (18), the magnetic moment of the lepton bound state is found to approximately be the Dirac magnetic moment $`e/2m_l`$ at the zeroth order of $`\alpha `$ provided that the charge radius of the lepton is small enough.

By drawing lines corresponding to the “very strong” interactions which bind preons into a lepton in Feynman diagrams one can obtain diagrams more complex than Fig. 1, an example for such diagrams is shown in Fig. 3(a) . The contributions from such diagrams do not change the estimate obtained above. We shall discuss such diagrams in the next section.

## 3 Radiative corrections at the $`\alpha `$ order

### 3.1 The contribution corresponding to the simplest diagram

It is necessary to examine the radiative corrections at higher orders of $`\alpha `$ in the composite model in view of the agreement between the experimental data and the standard model prediction for $`a_\mu `$ up to the order $`10^8`$ which is of the order $`(\frac{\alpha }{\pi })^3`$. In this section, we will consider radiative corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the composite lepton at the $`\alpha `$ order.

To illustrate how the corrections at the $`\alpha `$ order in the composite model is suppressed let us consider at first the case A , $`m_F=O(R^1)m_l`$. For simplicity we set $`m_F=m_B=m`$ in this section. The simplest diagram at this order is shown in Fig. 2 and the corresponding matrix element is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4p\overline{\chi }_{P+q/2}(p+\frac{q}{4})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \chi _{Pq/2}(p\frac{q}{4})\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1((\frac{P}{2}p)^2)},`$ (19)
where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{1}{k^2}\gamma _\nu \frac{i(\widehat{p}_1^{}\widehat{k})+m}{(p_1^{}k)^2+m^2}\gamma _\mu \frac{i(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k})+m}{(p_1k)^2+m^2}\gamma _\nu },`$ (20)
$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}},p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}.`$
Firstly, let us consider the contribution of the $`f_1`$ term in the BS wave function (4). Using both the Dirac equation and the symmetry of integrand under permuting Feynman parameters, it is easy to show that (19) can be transformed into the same form as Eq. (7), which is expected from the conservation of electric current.

In calculating the anomalous magnetic moment $`q^2`$ can be put to zero. The correction to $`F_1(0)`$ from Eq. (19) is absorbed by the normalization condition $`F_1(0)=1`$. We know by examining Eq. (19) that the contribution to $`F_2(0)`$ comes from the term

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}m\overline{u}(P+q/2)u(Pq/2){\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4pf_1^2(P,p,q=0)\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1((\frac{P}{2}p)^2)}`$ (21)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{x_1+x_21}}dx_1dx_2{\displaystyle \frac{2(1x_1x_2)(\frac{P}{2}+p)_\mu }{(x_1+x_2)[(1x_1x_2)(\frac{P}{2}+p)^2+m^2]}}.`$
¿From the normalization condition (12) of the electric charge and Eq. (14), we have

$`S_1(0)=O(1)`$ (22)
because of $`M=O(R^1)=O(m)`$ in the case A.

Since $`m=O(R^1)m_l`$, $`O(m_l/m)`$ terms can be neglected. When the momentum of the internal preon $`\frac{P}{2}+p`$ is in the Euclidean region, the term in the square brackets in the denominator of the integrand in the second line of (21) is larger than $`m^2`$. Therefore, once the wave function can be continued into the Euclidean region, as verified by Wick , the contribution of (21) to the anomalous magnetic moment is

$`O(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m}})=O(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e}{2R^1}}).`$ (23)
The conclusions will not change when the contribution from the $`f_2`$ term of the BS wave function (4) is included.

Similar analysis can be carried out for the case B, $`mR^1`$, in which $`m^2`$ in the denominator of (21) can be neglected. The same result as Eq. (23) is obtained when $`M=O(R^1)`$. Nevertheless, when $`M=O(m)`$, the $`(\frac{f_2}{M})^2`$ term dominates and instead of (22) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T(0)}{M^2}}=O(1).`$ (24)
The contribution of the $`f_2^2`$ term can be obtained by replacing $`f_1^2`$ by $`(\frac{f_2}{M})^2p^2`$ in (21). Using (24) we find that the contribution of Fig.2 to the anomalous magnetic moment is $`O(\alpha \frac{em}{2R^2})`$.

### 3.2 The contributions corresponding to complex diagrams

In order to discuss more complex diagrams, we assume that the wave function has the following spectrum representation

$`f_i(P,p)={\displaystyle \underset{\mu _{min}^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\mu ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{g_i(y,\mu ^2)}{[p^22yPp+\mu ^2iϵ]^{n_i}}},i=1,2,`$ (25)
where $`\mu _{min}^2=m^2\frac{m_l^2}{4}`$. The advantage of this representation is that the dependence of $`f_i`$ on the momenta $`P`$ and $`p`$ appear directly only in the propagator-like denominator. In calculating diagrams containing B-S wave functions and additional propagators one can use Feynman parameters to combine all factors containing the momenta into a single factor and carry out the integration over the internal momenta of the diagram. This makes the dimensional estimate clear. For the purpose of illustration we use the spectrum representation to the simplest diagram, Fig. 2, discussed in last subsection. Substituting Eq. (25) into Eq. (19) and using the approximation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Pp)^2+m^2,`$ (26)
the contribution of $`f_1`$ to the anomalous magnetic moment becomes

$`\alpha {\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _1^2𝑑\mu _2^2𝑑y_1𝑑y_2g_1(y_1,\mu _1^2)g_1(y_2,\mu _2^2)\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}dx_i\delta (1\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}x_i)}`$ (27)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{mb_1(y_i,x_i)}{[a(y_i,x_i)q^2+x_1\mu _1^2+x_2\mu _2^2+(x_3+x_4)m^2]^{2n_12}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^3b_2(y_i,x_i)}{[a(y_i,x_i)q^2+x_1\mu _1^2+x_2\mu _2^2+(x_3+x_4)m^2]^{2n_11}}}\}`$
where $`a`$, $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are rational functions of $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ whose explicit expressions are omitted here.

Using the spectrum representation (25), it is easy to obtain

$`S_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2^3\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2n_14)!}{[(n_11)!]^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _1^2𝑑\mu _2^2𝑑y_1𝑑y_2g_1(y_1,\mu _1^2)g_1(y_2,\mu _2^2)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2(x_1x_2)^{n_11}\delta (1x_1x_2)`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{2n3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{[x_1x_2(\frac{1}{2}y_1)(\frac{1}{2}y_2)q^2+x_1\mu _1^2+x_2\mu _2^2]}}+1\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[x_1x_2(\frac{1}{2}y_1)(\frac{1}{2}y_2)+x_1\mu _1^2+x_2\mu _2^2]^{2n_13}}}.`$
Comparing (27) with (3.2), the conclusion that the $`\alpha `$ order correction of the anomalous magnetic moment from the diagram in Fig. 2 is given by (23) in the case A is obtained once again, as expected.

Similar analysis can be carried out for the case B, $`m_FO(R^1)`$. The difference is that in the case B the contribution of the $`f_2^2`$ term dominates if $`M=m_F`$.

When the ”very strong” interaction binding preons into a lepton is considered, it will bring corrections to the electro-magnetic vertex of the lepton. Accordingly, there will appear much more complex diagrams. If we assume that the constituent fermion interacts with the constituent boson through exchanging bosons, we get complex diagrams, for example, those in Fig. 3 at the lowest order of $`\alpha `$. Such diagrams can be calculated with the procedure similar to that used to obtain (23). Combining the denominators of the integrand in the electro-magnetic vertex with Feynman parameters and integrating out the internal momentum, there always appear terms with a factor $`(x_1\mu _1^2+x_2\mu _2^2+\underset{i=3}{\overset{N}{}}x_im^2)^L`$ in the denominator in the approximation $`\mu _i^2m_l^2,q^2`$ or $`m^2m_l^2,q^2`$ . The corresponding numerator is a polynomial in $`m_l`$, $`m`$ and $`\mu _i`$ with the appropriate dimension. Since the effective value of $`\mu _i^2`$ is of the order $`R^2`$, the order of magnitude of the denominator is controlled by the larger one of $`R^2`$ and $`m^2`$. Since $`L`$ is increased by 1 for one additional propagator and correspondingly the order of magnitude of the polynomial in the nominator is increased by 2 from the dimensional reason, the contributions from all these diagrams to the anomalous magnetic moment are at most of the order of that from the diagram with the least number of propagators which is Fig.1 at the zeroth order of $`\alpha `$ and is Fig.2 at the first order of $`\alpha `$. If the exchanged boson is a scalar, we assume that the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ of three scalar particles is of $`O(m)`$. If the exchanged boson is a gauge boson, the derivative coupling does not change the result of the dimensional analysis here.

The above discussion can also be applied to the diagrams in which a bosonic preon is converted into a pair of fermionic preons. Under the assumption that all preons have the same mass m, which is used in the above discussion for simplicity, the result is of the same form as that described above.

From the above discussions we conclude that the contribution to $`F_2(0)`$ from any individual diagram, which contains BS wave functions and additional finite number of propagators of the preons or the particles mediating the ”very strong” interaction, is suppressed by $`O(\alpha R)`$ or $`O(\alpha mR^2)`$ at the order $`\alpha `$. However, can the QED result for $`a_\mu `$ at the $`\alpha `$ order approximately be obtained in the composite model and how large is the deviation from the QED result? This question is answered as follows.

Now we return to the general case. Adding infinite diagrams, we will get the pole term contribution of the bound state (see Fig. 4). The four point Green function $`𝒦`$ in Fig. 4 is the Fourier transform of $`<0|T(\psi (x_1)\varphi (x_2)\overline{\psi }(y_1)\overline{\varphi }(y_2))|0>`$. It can be written as

$`𝒦(K;p^{},p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _K(p)\overline{\chi }_K(p^{})}{K^2+m_l^2}}+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`(f_1(K,p)+{\displaystyle \frac{if_2(K,p)\widehat{p}}{M}}){\displaystyle \frac{i\widehat{K}+m_l}{K^2+m_l^2}}`$
$`\times (f_1(K,p^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{if_2(K,p^{})\widehat{p}^{}}{M}})+\mathrm{}.`$
The terms which have not been written explicitly in Eq. (3.2) correspond to contributions from possible excited states of the lepton or states of free preons. In the case A of heavy preons, these terms can be neglected when $`K^2m^2=O(R^2)`$. In case B of light preons, these terms can be neglected when $`K^2`$ is much smaller than the scale of confinement, which is essentially equivalent to $`K^2R^2`$. (If a lepton has high excited states accessible through the electro-magnetic transition, it is required that $`K`$ is much smaller than the masses of excited states which are of the same order as $`R^1`$ ). Therefore, the contributions of these omitted terms to the anomalous magnetic moment are of the order $`O(R^2)`$ or $`O(m^2)`$. The sub-diagram $`T`$ in Fig. 4 represents a five point vertex function with two fermionic preons, two bosonic preons and the electro-magnetic current. Each sub-diagram $`T`$ in Fig. 4 combining with two factors $`f_i,f_j^{^{}}`$ which are associated with the two adjacent $`𝒦`$ diagrams according to (3.2) forms an on-shell electro-magnetic vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(0)}`$ at the zeroth order in $`\alpha `$. Since in (7), $`F_1^{(0)}1`$ and $`F_2^{(0)}`$ can be neglected when the photon momentum squared is much smaller than $`R^2`$ , and the contribution from the region of large momentum squared $`k^2`$ of the virtual photon in Fig. 4 is highly suppressed, we get the electro-magnetic vertex at the $`\alpha `$ order corresponding to Fig.4

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}=\frac{ie^2}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(P^{})\gamma _\nu \frac{i(\widehat{P}^{}+\widehat{k})+m_l}{(P^{}+k)^2+m_l^2}\gamma _\mu \frac{i(\widehat{P}+\widehat{k})+m_l}{(P+k)^2+m_l^2}\gamma _\nu \frac{d^4k}{k^2}u(P)+O(\alpha R).$$
(30)
Eq. (30) is the same as the radiative correction at the $`\alpha `$ order of the QED vertex to a point particle when R is small enough.

## 4 Conclusions and discussions

The above calculations show that the anomalous magnetic moment of a composite lepton up to $`e^3`$ order is

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m_l}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}+O(\alpha ^2)+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}})]`$ (31)
in the case A and it is

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m_l}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}+O(\alpha ^2)+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}})]`$ (32)
or

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m_l}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}+O(\alpha ^2)+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_lm_F}{R^2}})].`$ (33)
depending on the internal dynamics in the case B.

Apparently, these results may be generalized to arbitrary order in $`\alpha `$ and we have

$`a_\mu =a_\mu ^{SM}+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}})`$ (34)
for the case A, and

$`a_\mu =a_\mu ^{SM}+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{R^1}})`$ (35)
for theories without a chiral symmetry or

$`a_\mu =a_\mu ^{SM}+O({\displaystyle \frac{m_lm_F}{R^2}})`$ (36)
for theories of the confining gauge interactions with an approximate global chiral symmetry in the case B. In Eq. (34), (35) and (36) we have assumed $`R^1m_Z`$, which is necessary when including the electro-weak corrections. In the recent literature, e.g., the refs.  and , it is stated that the corrections from compositeness to $`a_\mu `$ is of the order $`O(\frac{m_l^2}{R^2})`$. This corresponds to the case (36) if $`m_F`$ is of the same order as $`m_l`$.

Similar conclusions can be obtained if the scalar preon is charged. In contrast with the non-relativistic loose bound state , the magnetic moment of a relativistic tight bound state is not of the vectorial sum of the magnetic moments of its constituents. When the radius of the bound state is sufficiently small, the bound state behaves as a whole in electro-magnetic field, like a point particle does. Although our conclusions are obtained in a simple composite model, they depend only on the dimensional analysis and the analytical property of the BS wave function. So it is expected that the conclusions will stand also in other more complex models.

It is obvious from Eqs. (34), (35) and (36) that the observed deviation of $`a_\mu `$ can be a demonstration of the substructure of the muon and give a constraint on the radius of the muon or the masses of preons. From the theoretical Eqs. (34), (35), (36) and the experimental results, we get

$`R^110^8m_\mu `$ (37)
for theories without an approximate chiral symmetry, or

$`R^110^4m_\mu `$ (38)
for composite leptons bound by gauge interactions with an approximate global chiral symmetry if $`m_F`$ is of the same order as $`m_l`$.

Surely, when the E821 result is regarded as the consequence of the substructure of leptons, it is necessary to re-analyze the features of leptons, especially their decay characters, in composite models and probe the fundamental theory which governs the dynamic of composite models in the deeper layer of the structure of matter. One has started the research in the direction .

## Acknowledgments

The work was partly supported by the national natural science foundation of China.