text:
# Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation with an optimal Ground State

## Abstract

A new Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation approach is presented. The corresponding ground state is variationally determined and exhibits a minimum energy. New solutions for the ground state, some with spontaneously broken symmetry, of a solvable Hamiltonian are found. A non-iterative procedure to solve the non-linear QRPA equations is used and thus all possible solutions are found. These are compared with the exact results as well as with the solutions provided by other approaches.

PACS number(s):21.60.Jz,21.60.Fw,21.60.Ev,23.40.Hc

The random phase approximation (RPA) and its quasiparticle (qp) generalization (QRPA) are powerful tools for describing the collective degrees of freedom of many-fermion systems in various branches of physics like nuclear physics, solid state, plasma physics, atomic clusters.

Usually the RPA and QRPA are presented by making use of boson expansion techniques. If the one body transition operator is expressed linearly in bosons, the many body Hamiltonian with the two body interaction included becomes a quadratic polynomial in bosons describing harmonic motion of the selected degree of freedom. For the evident reasons the resulting approach is called a quasiboson approximation (QBA). The main drawback of this approximation scheme is that the QRPA (henceforth called as the standard QRPA) exhibits a collapse for a critical value of the strength of the attractive particle-particle force, i.e. the lowest eigenvalue becomes imaginary. In the case of the many body Hamiltonians used for the description of the transition rates of single and double beta decays the realistic proton-neutron force is expected to be close to its critical value. Due to this feature many theoretical works have been devoted to improving the standard QRPA by removing the ground state instabilities .

It is a common practice to investigate the validity of different approximation schemes within exactly solvable models, which describe the gross properties of the fermion many-body systems . Recently, it has been shown that the QRPA does not develop any collapse and is in good agreement with exact results, if the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) is consistently implemented in this approach . However, there is another group of studies saying that the collapse of the QRPA indicates a phase transition, i.e., a rearrangement of the nuclear ground state . In Ref., in order to avoid the QRPA collapse, a new static ground state is defined by means of a semiclassical approach. A new collective mode, for a many-body system with proton-neutron pairing interaction, has been found beyond the point where the QRPA breaks down. This new solution requires the restoration of the PEP, objective that can be touched through a boson expansion technique. We note that the main difference between the semiclassical and the QRPA solutions consists in the description of the ground state.

In this letter we point out new features for a many fermion system by improving the QRPA description of the ground state. A new ansatz for the QRPA wave functions is proposed, which allows us to minimize the QRPA ground state energy and, at the same time, to diagonalize the QRPA equations. The method proposed will be conventionally called as QRPA with an optimal ground state. One hopes that the present approach is a suitable tool for a realistic treatment of many body systems. It is worth mentioning that the correct description of the ground state of a many-body system is a steady interesting subject which has attracted the efforts of many groups .

For the sake of simplicity we consider the proton-neutron monopole Lipkin Hamiltonian which is exactly solvable

$$H_F=ϵ(\widehat{N}_p+\widehat{N}_n)+\lambda _1A^{}A+\lambda _2(A^{}A^{}+AA),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{N}_p`$ ($`\widehat{N}_n`$) and $`A^{}`$ are the proton (neutron) number and proton-neutron pair qp operators, respectively . The spaces of single particle states associated to the proton and neutron systems, respectively, are restricted to a single j-shell. The model Hamiltonian can be obtained from a Hamiltonian which in the particle representation, consists of pairing interaction for alike nucleons, and a monopole-monopole proton-neutron two body interaction of particle–hole and particle–particle types . For the single j-shell, considered here, one obtains:

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Omega }[\chi (u_p^2v_n^2+v_p^2u_n^2)\kappa (u_p^2u_n^2+v_p^2v_n^2)],`$ (2)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Omega }(\chi +\kappa )u_pv_pu_nv_n\mathrm{\Omega }=j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (3)
where $`u_p,v_p`$ and $`u_n,v_n`$ are the coefficients of the Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation for protons and neutrons, respectively. The parameters $`\chi `$ and $`\kappa `$ are the strengths of particle–hole and particle–particle proton-neutron interactions, respectively. We consider the boson mapping of the model Hamiltonian, following the Marumori recipe, i.e. the boson representation $`H_B`$ is chosen so that its matrix elements (m.e.) between boson states are equal to the m.e. of $`H_F`$ between the corresponding many fermion states . The final result is :

$`H_B`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{11}B^+B+\alpha _{02}(B^+B^++BB)+\alpha _{22}B^+B^+BB`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\alpha _{13}(B^+BBB+B^+B^+B^+B),`$ (5)
with

$`\alpha _{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\epsilon +\lambda _1),\alpha _{02}=\lambda _2\sqrt{(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}})},\alpha _{22}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}},`$ (6)
$`\alpha _{13}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2\left[\sqrt{(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}})}\sqrt{(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}})}\right].`$ (7)
The operator $`B^{}`$ is a creation boson operator, while $`B`$ is its hermitian conjugate operator.

The QRPA treatment of $`H_F`$ is determined by a RPA-like procedure applied to $`H_B`$. This consists in determining the phonon operator

$$Q^{}=X(B^{}+t)Y(B+t^{}),Q=(Q^{})^{}$$
(8)
as well as the vacuum state $`|rpa`$ and the one phonon state $`|Q`$

$$|Q>=Q^{}|rpa>,Q|rpa>=0.$$
(9)
From the set of solutions depending on the parameters $`(t,t^{})`$ one depicts that one for which the state $`|rpa`$ has a minimum energy. In contradistinction to the usual QRPA, here the phonon operator involves a C number which results in having a nonvanishing expected value for $`Q`$, in the state $`|rpa`$, i.e. a ”deformed ground state”.

The ansatz for the QRPA ground state $`|rpa>`$, defined as vacuum state for $`Q`$ \[see Eq. (9)\], is taken as follows:

$$|rpa>=e^{t^{}BtB^{}}e^{zB^{}B^{}z^{}BB}|>.$$
(10)
Here $`|>`$ denotes the vacuum state for the boson operator B, which might be the mapping of the uncorrelated BCS ground state. $`t`$, $`z`$ are complex parameters: $`t=re^{i\theta }`$, $`z=\rho e^{i\varphi }`$. The ansatz (10) obeys the second eq. (9) provided the following equation holds:

$$(r,\theta ,\rho ,\varphi )\mathrm{sinh}(2\rho )\frac{Y}{X}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cosh}(2\rho )=0,$$
(11)
where the function $``$ depends implicitly on $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ variables, by means of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ amplitudes. It is worth to note that the functions describing the limiting cases $`(\rho ,\varphi )=(0,0)`$ and $`(r,\theta )=(0,0)`$ were earlier considered  as trial states in a time dependent formalism:

$$|rpa=e^{\frac{r^2}{2}}e^{tB^{}},|rpa>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(2\rho )}}e^{dB^{}B^{}}|>$$
(12)
with $`d=e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{tanh}(2\rho )/2`$. Due to this feature one expects that the present trial function accounts for new correlations in the ground state. The phonon amplitudes $`X,Y`$ satisfy the QRPA equations

$`𝒜X+Y`$ $`=`$ $`E_{rpa}𝒰X,`$ (13)
$`^{}X+𝒜Y`$ $`=`$ $`E_{rpa}𝒰Y,`$ (14)
where the RPA energy $`E_{rpa}`$ is the excitation energy for the RPA state $`|Q`$, i.e. $`E_{rpa}=E_1E_{g.s.}`$. The RPA matrices $`𝒜,,𝒰`$, are determined in the usual manner and have the expressions:

$`𝒜`$ $``$ $`<rpa|[B,H_B,B^{}]|rpa>`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`a_{11}+4a_{22}v^2+6a_{13}uv\mathrm{cos}\varphi +r^2[4a_{22}+6a_{13}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )],`$ (16)
$``$ $``$ $`<rpa|[B,H_B,B]|rpa>`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`2a_{02}+2a_{22}uv[\mathrm{cos}\varphi +i\mathrm{sin}\varphi ]+6a_{13}v^2+r^2(2a_{22}[\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+i\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )]+6a_{13}),`$ (18)
$`𝒰`$ $``$ $`<rpa|[B,B^{}]|rpa>=1.`$ (19)
The double commutators are defined as 2$`[A,B,C]=[A,[B,C]]+[[A,B],C]`$. Also, the notations $`u=\mathrm{cosh}(2\rho )`$ and $`v=\mathrm{sinh}(2\rho )`$ have been newly introduced. The matrix $`𝒜`$ is real, while $``$ might be a complex number. In this letter we consider only situations where the solutions for the $`X,Y`$ amplitudes are real. The arguments which support our choice is that the resulting phonon state should be the image, through the boson mapping, of a state in the fermionic space. However the amplitudes of the eigenstates of $`H_F`$, in the basis $`\{(A^{})^n\}`$, are real numbers. Thus the possible solutions for $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are $`\theta =n\pi /2`$ and $`\varphi =n\pi `$ (n = 1,2,…). The additional parameters $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ entering the QRPA eigenvalue problem will be fixed by requiring that the expectation value of $`H_B`$ in the RPA ground state reaches its minimum value $`E_{g.s.}`$, in the space of these parameters. One finds

$`H(r)`$ $``$ $`<rpa|H_B|rpa>=C_0+C_2r^2+C_4r^4,`$ (20)
$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`a_{11}v^2+2a_{02}uv\mathrm{cos}\varphi +a_{22}[u^2v^2+2v^4]`$ (22)
$`+6a_{13}uv^3\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_{11}+2a_{02}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+a_{22}[4v^2+2uv\mathrm{cos}(2\theta +\varphi )]`$ (24)
$`+6a_{13}[uv\mathrm{cos}\varphi +v^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )],`$
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`a_{22}+2a_{13}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ).`$ (25)
Several minima for $`E_{g.s.}`$ are to be mentioned:
a) $`r=0`$ and $`\theta =anything`$. This solution corresponds to the RPA ground state given by the second Eq. (12).
b) $`r=\sqrt{C_2/2C_4}`$ , $`\theta =0`$, c) $`r=\sqrt{C_2/2C_4}`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$,
d) $`r=\sqrt{C_2/2C_4}`$, $`\theta n\pi /2`$ (n=1,2,3 …).
The case d) yields a complex $``$ and therefore is not considered here. The solutions b), c) and d) are specific for the ansatz (10). If only the quadratic terms in bosons are considered in $`H_B`$ (i.e., $`a_{22},a_{13}=0`$) then only the solution a) survives. The equations (10), (8) and one of a),b),c) are to be simultaneously solved. This non-linear problem is usually treated iteratively. However, this procedure does not guarantees that all solutions of this system of equations, are found. The procedure used in the present paper is as follows. First, we insert the solution for $`r`$ ($`r=0`$ or $`r^2=C_2/2C_4`$) in the expressions defining the matrices $`𝒜`$ and $``$ by Eqs.(11), (19). Determine the ratio $`Y/X`$ from any of equations (14) and insert the result in Eq. (11). Then Eq. (11) provides $`\rho `$ which is to be inserted in the equations for the RPA matrices. With the matrices $`𝒜,`$ fully known one determines the QRPA eigenvalue and eigenvectors, by solving the equations (10). This procedure is repeated for each minimum of $`E_{g.s.}`$ \[the cases a), b) and c) mentioned above\]. We note that solutions with ($`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$) and ($`\rho `$, $`\varphi \pm \pi `$) are degenerate.

The numerical application is performed for a system of 4 protons and 6 neutrons moving in a $`j=\frac{9}{2}`$ shell. The strength parameters defining the model Hamiltonian are $`ϵ=1MeV`$ while the two body interaction strengths $`\kappa `$ and $`\chi `$ are re-scaled as in Refs. : $`\kappa \kappa ^{}2\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa `$, $`\chi \chi ^{}2\mathrm{\Omega }\chi `$. We adopt $`\chi ^{}=0.5`$ while $`\kappa ^{}`$ is considered as a free parameter in the interval $`(0,3)MeV`$. In Table I we present the results for the QRPA and ground state energies corresponding to three values of $`\kappa ^{}`$. If $`\kappa ^{}=0.5`$ there are only two solutions of type a), associated with the ansatz (12) (second equation). The solution a2) is similar to that obtained in  within the EPP QRPA formalism. The solution a1), with small QRPA energy and a very large value of $`E_{g.s.}`$, has not been seen before. Its finding is a merit of the adopted numerical procedure. For $`\kappa ^{}=1.5,2.5`$ one finds solutions of type c) which are specific for the new ansatz of the RPA wave functions.

In Fig. 1 we present the potential energy surface as function of $`r`$ for the solutions a2), c1), c2) and c3), assuming $`\kappa ^{}=2.5`$. Note that for the solution c) $`H(r)`$ has two minima, at $`r=\pm \sqrt{C_2/(2C_4)}`$.

The meaning of the negative r consists of that the result for energy is not affected if we change the ansatz by replacing $`t`$ with $`t`$.

In Fig. 2 the values of $`\rho `$ corresponding to different solutions are presented. Within the QBA, i.e. the quadratic bosonic Hamiltonian is considered, the value of $`\rho `$ is increasing rapidly in the vicinity of the QRPA collapse. The solution a2) does exist within the whole interval of $`\kappa ^{}`$. This is caused by that the PEP principle included in the higher order bosonic expansion Hamiltonian prevents the collapse of the QRPA . The solution a1) was found within the range $`0.0\kappa ^{}1.29`$ and continues further as c1) solution. The solutions c2) and c3) start with $`\kappa ^{}=1.53`$ where they have equal values. For large value of $`\kappa ^{}`$ the solution c2) is close to a2). It is worthwhile to notice that in the case of c3), with the lowest value of $`E_{g.s}`$ and large $`\kappa ^{}`$ (see Table I), the corresponding values of $`\rho `$ are rather small. One may say that the corellations in the ground state are mainly induced by the ”deformation” of the system, i.e. the stationary value of r. For $`\kappa ^{}>2`$, $`\rho `$ is slightly negative. This branch is obtained by shifting the phase $`\varphi `$ with $`\pi `$ which is equivalent to changing the sign of $`\rho `$ but keeping $`\varphi `$ unchanged.

In Fig. 3 we plotted the ground state energy $`E_{g.s}`$, the QRPA energy $`E_{rpa}`$ and the first excitation energy $`E_1`$ obtained by the standard QRPA, QRPA with an optimal ground state and by diagonalizing $`H_F`$, as function of $`\kappa ^{}`$. Only solutions with low ground state energy are drawn. One remarks that by including the higher order boson terms in the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ and considering the standard ansatz for $`|rpa`$ (see the second Eq. (9)) \[solution a2)\], there is no collapse of the QRPA solution. This solution coincides well with that provided by the EPP QRPA formalism . However, for large values of $`\kappa ^{}`$ ($`\kappa ^{}1.6`$) this solution approximates poorly the exact result for $`E_{g.s}`$ . On other hand the new solution c3) is in an excellent agreement with the exact $`E_{g.s}`$ for this range of $`\kappa ^{}`$. In fact, the exact result for $`E_{g.s}`$ is very well described by matching the approaches a2) and c3). Despite the fact the c3) approach simulates excellently the exact result for the ground state energy, the two treatments predict QRPA energies which deviate from each other by a large amount.

In summary, a new ansatz for the QRPA wave functions was proposed. The additional new factor in this ansatz depends on a complex parameter t which is fixed by requiring that the corresponding expectation value of the model Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ is minimum. The present paper constitute the first attempt in the literature, to determine the QRPA ground state (the vacuum state for the Q operator) as a solution of a variational equation. The numerical application shows clearly new effects caused by the presence of higher order boson terms in $`H_B`$ and by the complex structure of the ansatz for the state $`|rpa`$. Both features mentioned above prevent the QRPA to collapse. Several solutions are found in the interval of the interaction strength $`\kappa ^{}`$ beyond the critical value. Each solution corresponds to a certain type of minimum in the $`(r,\theta )`$ variable and by that to a certain symmetry of the wave function. One may say that the present approach accounts, in an unified fashion, for the complementary features described by the EPP QRPA and the semiclassical formalism, which defines a new ground state for those $`\kappa ^{}`$ where the standard QRPA fails.


format: text

text:
# On the effective light-cone QCD-Hamiltonian: Application to the pion and other mesons

## 1 The eigenvalue equation in the $`q\overline{q}`$-space

For flavor off-diagonal mesons (to mesons with a different flavor for quark and anti-quark), the effective one-body equation  is shockingly simple:

$`M^2x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\lambda _1,\lambda _2|\psi =\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}}\right]x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\lambda _1,\lambda _2|\psi `$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _q^{},\lambda _2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}R(x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{};\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}}\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{Q^2}\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{};\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}|\psi }.`$
Here, $`M^2`$ is the eigenvalue of the invariant-mass squared. The associated eigenfunction $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}}`$ is the probability amplitude $`x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\lambda _1,\lambda _2|\psi `$ for finding a quark with momentum fraction $`x`$, transversal momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and helicity $`\lambda _1`$, and correspondingly the anti-quark with $`1x`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. The $`\overline{m}_1`$ and $`\overline{m}_2`$ are (effective) quark masses and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is the (effective) coupling constant. The mean Feynman-momentum transfer of the quarks is denoted by $`Q^2`$,

$$Q^2(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})=\frac{1}{2}\left[(k_1k_1^{})^2+(k_2k_2^{})^2\right],$$
(2)
the spinor factor $`S=S(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})`$ by

$$\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}=\left[\overline{u}(k_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},\lambda _1^{})\right]\left[\overline{v}(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\gamma _\mu v(k_2,\lambda _2)\right].$$
(3)
The regulator function $`R(x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{};\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ restricts the range of integration as function of some mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. I happen to choose here a soft cut-off (see below), in contrast to the previous sharp cut-off . Note that Eq.(1) is a fully relativistic equation.

The full QCD-Hamiltonian in 3+1 dimensions must be regulated from the outset. There are arbitrarily many possible ways to do that, see f.e. Hiller . One of the few practical ways is vertex regularization , where every Hamiltonian matrix element, particularly those of the vertex interaction (the Dirac interaction proper), is multiplied with a convergence-enforcing momentum-dependent function, which is kind of a form factor . The precise form of this function is unimportant here, provided it prevents that the scattered particles go too much off-shell as function of a cut-off scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ the full unregulated theory is restored. The effective quark masses $`\overline{m}_1`$ and $`\overline{m}_2`$ and the effective coupling constant $`\overline{\alpha }`$ depend, in general, on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Explicit expressions for a sharp cut-off are available . In the spirit of renormalization theory they are renormalization constants, subject to be determined by experiment, and hence-forward will be denoted by $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, and $`\alpha `$, respectively. In next-to-lowest order of approximation the coupling constant becomes a function of the momentum transfer, $`\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }(Q;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, with the explicit expression given in .

Why is Eq.(1) so shocking?

In the first place, I am baffled by the fact that the effective interaction for QCD and QED differs only by the color factor $`(n_c^21)/(2n_c)=4/3`$. This is in raging conflict with all what I have learned over the past 20 years on vacuum structure, condensates, soft pion theorems, confinement, and the like. In fact, I knew the simple color factor already at the first light-cone meeting in 1991. I have hidden it quite well in Ref., where I had obtained Eq.(1) by a light-cone adapted Tamm-Dancoff approach, which is an educated guess at the most. Like everybody else, I could not believe that Eq.(1) is applicable to the pion, for example, although it really should, since no assumption was made on the size of the quark masses. In consequence, I have spent in vain many painful years to accumulate counter evidence by a more rigorous formalism, first by investigating the zero modes , then by developing the method of iterated resolvents . For some time around the 1998 meeting in St. Petersburg, I believed that the salvation was in the functional behaviour of the running coupling constant $`\overline{\alpha }(Q;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. But without screwing the parameters beyond all reason, I could not get the pion quantitatively (unpublished), the pion that mystery particle of QCD. Ultimately I am thrown back to Eq.(1), the point of departure.

But nowadays I am in a better shape. I have obtained Eq.(1) by two different but well founded methods: by the iterated resolvents  and by the Hamiltonian flow equations .

It might be to early for solving Eq.(1) numerically in full glory like in Ref.. Rather should I try to dismantle the equation of all irrelevant details (or what I think they are) and work as much as possible analytically. With other words, I should develop a simple model.

## 2 The $``$-model and its application to the pion

In light-cone parametrization, the quarks are at relative rest when $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}=0`$ and $`x=\overline{x}m_1/(m_1+m_2)`$. For very small deviations from these equilibrium values the spinor matrix is proportional to the unit matrix, with

$$\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}4m_1m_2\delta _{\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{}}\delta _{\lambda _2,\lambda _2^{}},$$
(4)
see Compendium. For very large deviations, particularly for $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, holds

$$Q^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},\text{ and }\text{ }|S|2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.$$
(5)
Both extremes are combined in the “$``$-model”:

$$\frac{|S|}{Q^2}=\frac{|S|}{Q^2}\frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}+2.$$
(6)
It interpolates between two extremes: For small momentum transfer, the ‘2’ is unimportant and the dominantly Coulomb aspects of the first term prevail. For large momentum transfers the Coulomb aspects are unimportant and the hyperfine interaction is dominant. But the model over-emphasizes many aspects: It neglects the momentum dependence of the Dirac spinors and thus the spin-orbit interaction; it also neglects the momentum dependence of the spin-spin interaction, keeping only the ‘2’ as its residue. This ‘2’ creates havoc: Its Fourier transform is a Dirac-delta function with all its consequences in a bound-state equation.

Here is an interesting point: We are all familiar with the field theoretic divergences residing in the effective masses and the effective coupling constant. We are not used to “divergences” residing in a finite number ‘2’. They must also be regulated and renormalized.

I regulate thus the kernel by

$$R(\mu )\frac{S}{Q^2}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}\left(\frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}+2\right)\frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}+\frac{2\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}.$$
(7)
I denote the soft cut-off by $`\mu `$ (in contrast to a sharp cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The Coulomb interaction in first term needs no regularization. In consequence I replace Eq.(1) by

$`M^2`$ $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}}\right]\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}{\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}}\left(\frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}+\frac{2\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}\right)\psi (x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})},`$
where $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};,|\psi `$. On top of the canonical parameters $`m`$ and $`\alpha `$, the eigenvalues depend now on a regularization scale $`\mu `$.

Since $`\mu `$ is an unphysical parameter, I must remove its impact. I do that in the spirit we had treated the pairing interaction in nuclei . It also has a Dirac-delta function. As emphasized repeatedly by the late and un-forgotten Strutinky , one must adjust the (pairing) coupling constant and the (pairing) cut-off such, that the binding energy and the pairing gap would not depend on either of them. I proceed therefore by looking for a cut-off dependent coupling function $`\alpha _\mu `$ such, that the calculated mass of the pion agrees with the empirical value. The so obtained function $`\alpha _\mu `$ is considered universal. The actual value of $`\mu `$ must be fixed by a second requirement. I emphasize that this procedure is not a renormalization group treatment in the modern sense; but it is a first step in the right direction.

For carrying out this programme in practice, I need an efficient tool for solving Eq.(8). Such one has been developed recently . I outline in short the procedure for the special case $`m_1=m_2=m`$. I change integration variables from $`x`$ to $`k_z`$ by the Sawicki transformation and substitute

$$x(k_z)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k_z}{2\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_z^2}},\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\frac{\varphi (k_z,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}.$$
(9)
The variables $`(k_z,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ are collected in a 3-vector $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, with all further details in the Compendium . Eq.(8) becomes then

$`M^2\varphi (\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4m^2+4\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right]\varphi (\stackrel{}{p})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{p}^{}\left(\frac{2m}{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+\frac{1}{m}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})^2}\right)\varphi (\stackrel{}{p}^{})}.`$
For the present purpose it suffices to restrict to spherically symmetric $`s`$states and to apply Gaussian quadratures with 16 points. On an alpha work station it takes a couple of micro-seconds to solve for the spectrum of a particular case. Fixing the up and the down mass to $`m_u=m_d=m`$ (the codes work with dimensionless units)

$$m=1.16\kappa =406\mathrm{MeV},\kappa =350\mathrm{MeV},$$
(11)
the calculated pion mass can be made to agree within eight digits with the experimental value . For every value of $`\mu `$ one obtains thus an $`\alpha _\mu `$ which is displayed in Fig. 2. For every value of $`\mu `$ (thus $`\alpha _\mu `$), I get a whole spectrum, as plotted in Fig. 2. The lowest state corresponds to the the $`\pi ^+`$ and stays nailed fixed to the empirical value. Much to my surprise, the second and the third (as well as the higher ones) expose an extremum. At the extremum, I fulfill Strutinsky’s requirement

$$\frac{d}{d\mu }M_n^2(\mu )|_{\mu =\mu _0}=0,\mathrm{with}\mu _03.8\kappa ,\alpha _{\mu _0}=0.6904.$$
(12)
The regularization scale $`\mu `$ determines itself from the solution!

Here comes the next problem: How should I determine the quark mass? In Eq.(11), I selected a particular value of $`m`$; I could have taken any other and would have gotten $`\mu (m)`$ and $`\alpha _\mu (m)`$. I obviously need a second empirical datum. Which one? I could choose the first excited state of $`\pi ^+`$; but that is not known with sufficient accuracy for my purposes and, moreover, there are uncertainties of interpretation, see Morningstar  and Llanes-Estrada . I could take the mass of the $`\rho ^+`$; but the present $``$-model is not particularly suited for vector mesons. I remain thus with the pions size. Knowing the wavefunction, see below, I could calculate the form factor  and thus the exact root-mean-square radius. But I replace this non-trivial calculation by the the following very drastic but simpler construction: I parametrize the numerical results by a fit function with one free parameter ($`p_a`$) to be,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a(p)=\frac{10}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p_a^2}}\right)^2},\mathrm{with}p_a=1.471\kappa .$$
(13)
The quality of this fit can be judged by Fig. 4. I Fourier-transform this function to configuration space, giving $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})e^{p_ar}`$, and calculate trivially

$$<r^2>_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{p_a}=0.663\mathrm{fm}.$$
(14)
Finally, I vary $`m`$ until I get about agreement with $`<r^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.657`$ fm, the experimental value . This exhausts all freedom in choosing the parameters of Eq.(8). Of course, the drastic assumption behind Eq.(14) has to replaced in the future by the correct prescription . Actually, I had started the procedure with $`m=1.00\kappa `$. Eq.(11) quotes the result after iteration. After inserting the inverse Sawicki transformation Eq.(9) into the fit Eq.(13), I obtain

$`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4x(1x)p_a^2}}\right)^2}}.`$ (15)
This completes my goal: I have a pion with the correct mass and size, and I have an analytic expression for its light-cone wave function.

For the first time in my life I see in Eq.(15) a genuine light-cone wave function, which is directly related to the QCD-Lagrangian (although only after quite a few approximations and simplifications). It could be used thus as a baseline for calculating the higher Fock-space amplitudes, as explained in . It differs from the literature  by the preceding factor. I like to emphasize that regulated delta-interaction, the Yukawa potential in Eq.(8) at the scale $`\mu _0`$, acts like a genuine Dirac-delta function: it pulls down essentially only one state, the pion, in analogy with the pairing model . The others are left more or less unperturbed at their Bohr values, see Fig. 2. I like to emphasize further that I am not in conflict with the usual perturbative inclusion of the hyperfine interaction. For sufficiently large values of $`\mu `$, say for $`\mu 10`$, see Fig. 2, the coupling constant decreases strongly and the spectrum becomes more and more the familiar Bohr spectrum with a small hyperfine shift, such that it can be calculated perturbatively, indeed. In a future and more rigorous solution of the full equation I expect that the excited states can be disentangled into almost degenerate singlets and triplets, which in turn can be interpreted as an excitation of the pseudo-scalar pion, or the ground state of a vector meson, respectively. In any case, the first excited state of the simple model correlates very well with the mass of the $`\rho ^+`$ and the other vector mesons, see below.

## 3 Extensions and conclusions

I can apply the same procedure also to the other mesons. Once I have the up and down mass, I determine the strange, charm and bottom quark mass by reproducing the masses of the $`K,^{}`$ $`D^0`$ and $`B,^{}`$ respectively. This gives $`m_s=508`$, $`m_c=1666`$ and $`m_b=5054\text{ MeV}`$. All these numbers as well as those in Tables 2 and 2 are rounded for convenience; the calculations or the experiments are available with greater precision. This fixes all parameters which there possibly are. I generate with them all off-diagonal pseudo-scalar mesons and compile their mass in Table 2. The corresponding wave functions are also available but not shown. In view of the simplicity of the model, the agreement with the empirical values in Table 2 is remarkable. The mass of the first excited states in Table 2 correlates astoundingly well with the associated vector meson in Table 2.

After so many years, I am forced to conclude that the pion looks quite a bit different than told in the literature. Although the above picture is kind of wood-carved, the previous work with Kalloniatis and Pinsky lets appear it unlikely that the zero modes, once included, change the picture drastically. I have found no evidence that the vacuum condensates are important. I conclude that the pion is describable by a QCD: The very large coupling constant in conjunction with a very strong hyperfine (spin-spin-) interaction makes it a ultra strongly bounded system of constituent quarks. More then 80% of the constituent quark mass is eaten up by binding effects. No other physical system has such a property. But this pion is not the one I was dreaming of when this work began.

The theory has three parameters. Two are determined by the pions mass and size, and one determines itself from the theory. In the lack of further empirical data, I have no independent check for the above strong statements, except that the first excited state should roughly be degenerate with the mass of the $`\rho `$-meson. At present I am working on a check  whether Eq.(15) is consistent with Ashery’s experiment .

The question of confinement is closely related to a the potential, the strong potential $`V_s(r)`$, but in the present approach the relation is subtle. One of the great advantages of light-cone quantization is the additivity of the free part and the interaction. Because of the dimensions of invariant mass squares the relation of potential and kinetic energy is somewhat hidden. What I can do, however is to Fourier transform Eq.(8) and to interpret the operators $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ as the classical analogue of momentum and position. Instead of an Hamiltonian $`H(q,p)`$ I then have an invariant mass-squared $`M^2(q,p)`$, but for the argument that does not matter. I thus have

$`M(r,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m_s\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m_sm_r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_s}}V_s(r)},V_s(r){\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{3r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_sm_r}}\mathrm{e}^{p_ar}\right).`$ (16)
The expansion into rest mass + kinetic energy + potential energy,

$$M(r,p)m_s+\frac{p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2m_r}+V_s(r),$$
(17)
is justified however only for $`p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}m_sm_r`$, *a*nd $`V_s(r)m_s`$, which can not be satisfied for all $`r`$. I therefore propose to introduce a relativistic potential energy by $`W(r)M(r,p=0)`$ as the closest relativistic analogue to a non-relativistic potential $`V_s(r)`$, which we all have in the back of our mind. This function is plotted in Fig. 4. It vanishes at $`r_0=0.5194`$ fm and the classical turning point is $`r_t=0.5300`$ fm. Since the sum of the quark masses is 812 MeV, the ionization threshold occurs at 542 MeV: In order to liberate the quarks in the pion, one has to invest more than three times the rest mass of a pion; I call this practical confinement.

I contrast these results to Lattice Gauge Calculations. It is not generally known that LGC’s have considerable uncertainty to extrapolate their results down to such light mesons as a pion; it exceeds their grid sizes. It is also not generally known that Lattice Gauge Calculations get  *always strict and linear confinement* even for QED, where we positively know the ionization threshold. The ‘breaking of the string’, or in a more physical language, the ionization threshold is one of the hot topics at the lattice conferences . Moreover, in order to get the size of the pion, thus the form factor, requires another generation of computers and physicists to run them.

I contrast these results also to phenomenological approaches. They usually do not address to get the pion, and for the heavy mesons, where they are so successful, a good phenomenological model has quite many parameters, in any case more that the above canonical ones. A detailed comparison and systematic discussion of the bulky literature can however be postponed, until we are ready to solve the full Eq.(1) and do not restrict ourselves to the caricature of the QCD-interaction, the $``$-model.

I contrast these results, finally, to the Nambu-Jona-Lasio-based models which are so successful in accounting for the isospin. I do not even think of quoting from the huge body of literature but mention in passing that the NJL-models are not renormalizable, have no relation to QCD, and deal mostly with the very light mesons. They just about can handle strangeness and break down for the heavy flavors.

In conclusion I may state that not a single model can describe quantitatively  *all mesons* from the $`\pi `$ up to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ from a common point of view, from QCD. By solving the $``$-model I provide at least some evidence that Eq.(1) can eventually give that, perhaps sometimes in the future.

Acknowledgement. I thank Susanne Bielefeld for her unselfish help during the past three years.


text:
# Symmetries of Everything

## 1 What’s wrong with string theory?

Recently111The bulk text was written in spring 2001 and is identical to version 2, except for the corrected definition of $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, which has been available in . The footnotes contain some observations added after the appearance of D. Friedan: A tentative theory of large-distance physics, hep-th/0204131 (2002).  it has become clear that not all mathematical physicists are entirely convinced that string theory is the ultimate Theory of Everything (ToE) 222Note added in version 3: A popular version of Woit’s article appeared in American Scientist 90 110–112 (March-April 2000).. According to my own prejudices, there are only two valid reasons to pursue a branch of theoretical physics: experimental support and intrinsic mathematical beauty. String theory has always disagreed with experiments, to the extent that it makes any falsifyable predictions whatsoever (extra dimensions, supersymmetric partners, $`496`$ gauge bosons, …). Of course, one may always argue that these features will show up at higher energies, not accessible to experimental falsification within the forseeable future. However, my objection to string theory is not the fact that it is experimentally wrong (or void, according to taste), but rather that it is not based on the deepest and most general algebraic structures conceivable333It is difficult to argue about mathematical beauty, since beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Generality is less ambiguous, and depth even has a technical definition, although I admit that using this term to mean profound is a rhetoric trick.. The algebraic structures of string theory (finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras such as $`so(32)`$ and $`E_8\times E_8`$, and central extensions of infinite-dimensional Lie algebras such as the Virasoro and superconformal algebras) were probably the deepest structures known in 1984, at the time of the first string revolution. Actually, several of these algebras were discovered by string theorists in an earlier era. However, the algebra community has not been lazy after 1984. During the 1990s, there has been progress along at least two lines, which make the symmetries of string theory appear shallow in comparison.

1. String theory relies on the distinguished status of central extensions of infinite-dimensional Lie (super)algebras of linear growth. While it is true that only a few algebras admit central extensions, the algebra $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ of vector fields acting on $`N`$-dimensional spacetime admits abelian but non-central extensions, which naturally generalize the Virasoro algebra to $`N>1`$ dimensions444Privately, I refer to the abelian but non-central Virasoro-like cocycles as viral cocycles.. Geometrically, the multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra is an extension by the module of closed dual one-forms, i.e. closed $`(N1)`$-forms. In particular, in $`N=1`$ dimension, a closed dual one-form is a closed zero-form is a constant function, so the extension is central in this case, but not otherwise. However, compared to other abelian extensions, this cocycle is very close to central, as discussed in the next section.

Modulo technicalities, $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ is the Lie algebra of the diffeomorphism group in $`N`$ dimensions555For this reason, I have denoted this algebra $`diff(N)`$ in previous writings.. Other names for this algebra are diffeomorphism algebra and generalized Witt algebra. Clearly, abelian extensions of algebras of polynomial growth are more general than central extensions of algebras of linear growth, since central is a special case of abelian and linear is a special case of polynomial.

The point that the existence of multi-dimensional Virasoro algebras is a problem for string theory’s credibility was made already in , in the following form: There are no obstructions to superization, so the algebra $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ acting on $`n|m`$-dimensional superspace also admits two Virasoro-like extensions. Naïvely, one would expect to obtain such extensions of every subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ by restriction, but in some boring cases, the generically non-central extension reduces to a central one. And in some trivial cases, it vanishes completely, apart from cohomologically trivial terms. The superconformal algebra is such a boring but non-trivial case, rather than being algebraically distinguished.

These algebras ought to be relevant to quantum gravity, because666Note added in version 3: Diffeomorphism symmetry (without compensating background fields) is the key lesson from general relativity. Projectivity is the key lesson from quantum theory. To ignore the key lessons from the two main discoveries in twentieth century physics does not seem to be the right approach to quantum gravity.

* The symmetry group of classical gravity is the full space-time diffeomorphism group.
* In quantum theory, symmetries are only represented projectively. On the Lie algebra level, this means that the symmetry algebra acquires an extension (provided that the algebra is big enough).

If we put these two observations together, we see that the symmetry algebra of quantum gravity should be an extension of the diffeomorphism algebra $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(4)`$. Phrased differently: I suggest that quantum gravity should be quantum general covariant.

$`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ has no central extensions if $`N>1`$ , but it has many abelian extensions by irreducible modules . However, most (possibly all) extensions by tensor modules are limiting cases of trivial extensions, in the sense that one can construct a one-parameter family of trivial cocycles reducing to the non-trivial cocycle for a critical value of the parameter (= the conformal weight). In contrast, the Virasoro-like cocycles are not limits of trivial cocycles, because the module of closed dual forms does not depend on any continuous parameter. Moreover, these are the kinds of cocycles that arise in Fock representations. There are indications that an interesting class of lowest-energy modules can only be constructed in four spacetime dimensions .

2. The classification of simple infinite-dimensional Lie superalgebras of vector fields was recently completed by Kac, Leites, Shchepochkina, and Cheng. In particular, the exception $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ ($`=E(3|8)`$)777 When an algebra is first mentioned, I give both the names used by Shchepochkina and Leites (lowercase fraktur) and those used by Kac and Cheng (uppercase roman). Subsequently, I prefer the former notation, both because it was Shchepochkina who discovered the exceptions, and because Kac’ notation is unsuitable to exhibit the family structure of the regradings. is the deepest possible symmetry, at least in a technical sense (depth $`3`$ in its consistent Weisfeiler grading). Moreover, its grade zero subalgebra, which largely governs the representation theory, is $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, i.e. the non-compact form of the symmetries of the standard model. The irreps of an algebra of vector fields is 1-1 with the irreps of its grade zero subalgebra. E.g., the $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ irreps (tensor densities and closed forms) are 1-1 with the irreps of its grade zero subalgebra $`gl(N)`$. One may therefore speculate that an $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ symmetry could be mistaken experimentally for an $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ symmetry.

It is remarkable that the sole requirements of simplicity and maximal depth immediately lead to the symmetries of the standard model, without any arbitrary symmetry breaking, compactification, magic, or mystery. Of course, this observation does not prove that $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is relevant to physics, but I believe that this is line of research worth pursuing. Although $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ acts on $`3|8`$-dimensional superspace, it is not technically a supersymmetry, which would require that the fermionic coordinates carry Lorentz spin. Supersymmetry has attracted much interest because it is the only known way to combine the Poincaré algebra with internal symmetries in a non-trivial way, thus circumventing the Coleman-Mandula theorem. It also makes it possible to unite bosons and fermions into the same multiplet. On the other hand, the assumption that such unification is desirable remains experimentally unproven, despite 30 years of effort. In contrast, in conformal field theory (CFT), several Virasoro multiplets (both bosons and fermions) are combined into a single algebraic entity united by fusion rules. E.g., the Ising model consists of three Virasoro modules (unity, spin, and energy), and the situation is similar for all other CFTs. Avoiding supersymmetry has the additional benefit that the theory will not be plagued by supersymmetric partners, none of which has been experimentally observed.

Kac has appearently been talking about the possible connection between the exceptional superalgebras and the standard model for well over a year888 Kac has mainly worked with another exception $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ ($`=E(3|6)`$), which has the same grade zero subalgebra but is not quite as deep as $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ (depth $`2`$ versus depth $`3`$) , but so far has the physics community avoided to notice this development. Even though Kac’ suggestion is not at all convincing in its details, the observation that the standard model algebra arises naturally in a mathematically deep context should evoke interest. To my knowledge, the exceptional Lie superalgebras is the only place were this happens in an unambigous way. In section 3 I discuss some immediate consequences of a tentative $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ gauge theory: several generations of fermions, absense of proton decay, no additional gauge bosons, manifest CP violation, and particle/anti-particle asymmetry. Further progress must await the development of $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ representation theory.

It is an undeniable fact that some of the methods of string theory have found very fruitful applications in other places. In particular, CFT is an extremely successful theory of two-dimensional critical phenomena , and many string theorists have made important contributions to this area. However, that CFT is useful in two-dimensional statistical physics does not mean that it has anything to do with four-dimensional high-energy physics. Moreover, CFT is not the ToE even in statistical physics, because it does not apply to the experimentally more interesting case of three-dimensional phase transitions. It should be noted that anomaly cancellation is not an issue in this context, because every interesting statistical model corresponds to a CFT with non-zero central charge.

Mirror symmetry also led to progress in algebraic geometry quite a few years back, although I know very little about this subject. However, it should be noted that the structures described in the present paper are local. Interesting new local structures are not so easy to come across, and local is a prerequisite for global.

Several string theorists have informed me that symmetry considerations not apply to M-theory, because nobody knows the algebraic structures behind it, and symmetries are not important in M-theory anyway. In all established and successful physical theories, such as special and general relativity, Maxwell/Yang-Mills theory, Dirac equation, and the standard model, symmetries are absolutely fundamental. And the arguably most successful theory of all in its domain of validity, namely CFT applied to two-dimensional critical phenomena, is nothing but representation theory thinly veiled by physics formalism. That symmetries should be unimportant in M-theory, the alledged mother of all theories, does not seem plausible to me. It is also notable that the importance of symmetries was down-played during the 1990s, at the same time as it became obvious that string theorists are no longer in touch with the research frontier on infinite-dimensional Lie (super)algebras.

The multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra and its Fock modules are described in section 2, and the simple Lie superalgebras in section 3. In the last section I discuss to what extent every conceivable symmetry is known. The title of this paper is thus not only a travesty of string theory’s claim to be the ToE, but it also carries some algebraic substance.

## 2 Multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra

To make the connection to the Virasoro algebra very explicit, I write down the brackets in a Fourier basis. Start with the Virasoro algebra $`Vir`$:

$$[L_m,L_n]=(nm)L_{m+n}\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n},$$

where $`\delta _m`$ is the Kronecker delta. When $`c=0`$, $`L_m=i\mathrm{exp}(imx)d/dx`$, $`m`$. The element $`c`$ is central, meaning that it commutes with all of $`Vir`$; by Schur’s lemma, it can therefore be considered as a c-number. Now rewrite $`Vir`$ as

$`[L_m,L_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(nm)L_{m+n}cm^2nS_{m+n},`$
$`[L_m,S_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(n+m)S_{m+n},`$
$`[S_m,S_n]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`mS_m`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
It is easy to see that the two formulations of $`Vir`$ are equivalent (I have absorbed the linear cocycle into a redefinition of $`L_0`$). The second formulation immediately generalizes to $`N`$ dimensions. The generators are $`L_\mu (m)=i\mathrm{exp}(im_\rho x^\rho )_\mu `$ and $`S^\mu (m)`$, where $`x=(x^\mu )`$, $`\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ is a point in $`N`$-dimensional space and $`m=(m_\mu )`$. The Einstein convention is used (repeated indices, one up and one down, are implicitly summed over). The defining relations are

$`[L_\mu (m),L_\nu (n)]`$ $`=`$ $`n_\mu L_\nu (m+n)m_\nu L_\mu (m+n)`$
$`+(c_1m_\nu n_\mu +c_2m_\mu n_\nu )m_\rho S^\rho (m+n),`$
$`[L_\mu (m),S^\nu (n)]`$ $`=`$ $`n_\mu S^\nu (m+n)+\delta _\mu ^\nu m_\rho S^\rho (m+n),`$
$`[S^\mu (m),S^\nu (n)]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`m_\mu S^\mu (m)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
This is an extension of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ by the abelian ideal with basis $`S^\mu (m)`$. This algebra is even valid globally on the $`N`$-dimensional torus $`𝕋^N`$. Geometrically, we can think of $`L_\mu (m)`$ as a vector field and $`S^\mu (m)`$ as a dual one-form; the last condition expresses closedness. The cocycle proportional to $`c_1`$ was discovered by Rao and Moody , and the one proportional to $`c_2`$ by myself . There is also a similar multi-dimensional generalization of affine Kac-Moody algebras. The relevant cocycle was presumably first written down by Kassel , and its modules were studied in . In the mathematics literature, the multi-dimensional Virasoro and affine algebras are often refered to as “Toroidal Lie algebras”.

The $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ module spanned by $`S^\nu (n)`$ contains the trivial submodule $`^N=H_{dR}^1(𝕋^N)`$ (de Rham homology) spanned by $`S^\nu (0)`$:

$$[L_\mu (m),S^\nu (0)]=\delta _\mu ^\nu m_\rho S^\rho (m)0.$$

Since $`S^\nu (0)`$ is central, it can be considered as a c-number. If we replace $`S^\nu (n)S^\nu (n)+n_\rho F^{\nu \rho }(n)`$, where $`F^{\rho \nu }(n)=F^{\nu \rho }(n)`$ and

$$[L_\mu (m),F^{\nu \rho }(n)]=n_\mu F^{\nu \rho }(m+n)+\delta _\mu ^\nu m_\sigma F^{\sigma \rho }(m+n)+\delta _\mu ^\rho m_\sigma F^{\nu \sigma }(m+n),$$

the $`LS`$ bracket is unchanged, whereas the cocycle becomes

$$(c_1m_\nu n_\mu +c_2m_\mu n_\nu )(m_\rho S^\rho (m+n)+m_\rho n_\sigma F^{\rho \sigma }(m+n)).$$

We can use this freedom to set $`S^\nu (n)=0`$ for all $`n0`$, so we have almost a central extension by the $`N`$-dimensional module $`H_{dR}^1(𝕋^N)`$. However, not quite, because the condition is not preserved:

$$[L_\mu (n),S^\nu (n)]=\delta _\mu ^\nu n_\rho S^\rho (0),$$

which is non-zero unless all $`S^\rho (0)=0`$. Nevertheless, this argument shows that the multi-dimensional Virasoro cocycle is close to central. Similarly, I expect that $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(M_N)`$, where $`M_N`$ is an $`N`$-dimensional manifold, has Virasoro-like extensions labelled by $`H_{dR}^1(M_N)`$.

The theory of Fock modules was constructed in . $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ is generated by Lie derivatives $`_\xi `$, where $`\xi =\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu `$ is a vector field; $`L_\mu (m)`$ is the Lie derivative corresponding to $`\xi =i\mathrm{exp}(im_\rho x^\rho )_\mu `$. The classical modules are tensor densities  (primary fields in CFT parlance), which transform as

$$[_\xi ,\varphi (x)]=\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu \varphi (x)_\nu \xi ^\mu (x)T_\mu ^\nu \varphi (x),$$

where $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ satisfies $`gl(N)`$:

$$[T_\nu ^\mu ,T_\sigma ^\rho ]=\delta _\nu ^\rho T_\sigma ^\mu \delta _\sigma ^\mu T_\nu ^\rho .$$

Naïvely, one would start from a classical field and introduce canonical momenta $`\pi (x)`$ satisfying $`[\pi (x),\varphi (y)]=\delta ^N(xy)`$. This gives the following expression for $`_\xi `$:

$$_\xi =d^Nx\xi ^\mu (x)\pi (x)_\mu \varphi (x)+_\nu \xi ^\mu (x)\pi (x)T_\mu ^\nu \varphi (x).$$

To remove an infinite vacuum energy, we must normal order. However, this approach only works when $`N=1`$, because in higher dimensions infinities are encountered. This is in accordance with the well-known fact the $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ only admits central extensions when $`N=1`$.

Instead, the crucial idea is to first expand all fields in a multi-dimensional Taylor series around the points along a one-dimensional curve (“the observer’s trajectory”), and then to truncate at some finite order $`p`$. Let $`𝐦=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N)`$, all $`m_\mu 0`$, be a multi-index of length $`|𝐦|=_{\mu =1}^Nm_\mu `$. Denote by $`\mu `$ a unit vector in the $`\mu `$:th direction, so that $`𝐦+\mu =(m_1,\mathrm{},m_\mu +1,\mathrm{},m_N)`$, and let

$$\varphi _{,𝐦}(t)=_𝐦\varphi (q(t),t)=\underset{m_1}{\underset{}{_1.._1}}..\underset{m_N}{\underset{}{_N.._N}}\varphi (q(t))$$

be the $`|𝐦|`$:th order derivative of $`\varphi (x)`$ on the observer’s trajectory $`q^\mu (t)`$. Such objects transform as

$`[_\xi ,\varphi _{,𝐦}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐦([_\xi ,\varphi (q(t))])+[_\xi ,q^\mu (t)]_\mu _𝐦\varphi (q(t))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}}T_𝐦^𝐧(\xi (q(t)))\varphi _{,𝐧}(t),`$
$`[_\xi ,q^\mu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (q(t)),`$
where explicit expressions for the matrices $`T_𝐦^𝐧(\xi )`$ are given in . We thus obtain a realization of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ on the space of trajectories in the space of tensor-valued $`p`$-jets. This space consists of finitely many functions of a single variable, which is precisely the situation where the normal ordering prescription works. After normal ordering, we obtain a Fock representation of the multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra described above. The expression for $`_\xi `$ reads

$$_\xi =dt\{:\xi ^\mu (q(t))p_\mu (t):+\underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}:\pi ^{,𝐦}(t)T_𝐦^𝐧(\xi (q(t)))\varphi _{,𝐧}(t):\},$$

where $`[p_\nu (s),q^\mu (t)]=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta (st)`$ and $`[\pi ^{,𝐦}(s),\varphi _{,𝐧}(t)]=\delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st)`$.

Some observations are in order:

1. The action on jet space is non-linear; the observer’s trajectory transforms non-linearly, and although vector fields act linearly on the Taylor coefficients, they act with matrices depending non-linearly on the base point. Hence the resulting extension is non-central.
2. Classically, $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ acts in a highly reducible fashion. In fact, the realization is an infinite direct sum because neighboring points on the trajectory transform independently of each other. To lift this degeneracy, I introduced an additional $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)`$ factor, describing reparametrizations. The relevant algebra is thus the DRO (Diffeomorphism, Reparametrization, Observer) algebra $`DRO(N)`$, which is the extension of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)`$ by its four Virasoro-like cocycles.
3. The reparametrization symmetry can be eliminated with a constraint, but then one of the spacetime direction (“time”) is singled out. Two of the four Virasoro-like cocycles of $`DRO(N)`$ transmute into the complicated anisotropic cocycles found in ; these are colloquially known as the “messy cocycles”. By further specialization to scalar-valued zero-jets on the torus, the results of Rao and Moody are recovered .

After the Fock modules were constructed, more interesting lowest-energy modules were considered in . This unpublished paper is far too long and contains some flaws, mainly because I didn’t have the right expressions for the abelian charges999 I refer to the parameters multiplying the cocycles as abelian charges, in analogy with the central charge of the Virasoro algebra. at the time, but I think that the main idea is sound.

In classical physics one wants to find the stationary surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. the set of solutions to the Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations, viewed as a submanifold embedded in configuration space $`𝒬`$. Dually, one wants to construct the function algebra $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })=C(𝒬)/`$, where $``$ is the ideal generated by the EL equations. For each field $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and EL equation $`^\alpha =0`$, introduce an anti-field $`\varphi ^\alpha `$ of opposite Grassmann parity. The extended configuration space $`C(𝒬^{})=C[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ can be decomposed into subspaces $`C^g(𝒬^{})`$ of fixed antifield number $`g`$, where $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi _\alpha =0`$, $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi ^\alpha =1`$. The Koszul-Tate (KT) complex

$$0\stackrel{\delta }{}C^0(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^1(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^2(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{},$$

where $`\delta \varphi _\alpha =0`$ and $`\delta \varphi ^\alpha =^\alpha `$, yields a resolution of $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$; the cohomology groups $`H^g(\delta )=0`$ unless $`g=0`$, and $`H^0(\delta )=C(𝒬)/`$ .

My idea was to consider not just functions on the stationary surface, but all differential operators on it. The KT differential $`\delta `$ can then be written as a bracket: $`\delta F=[Q,F]`$, where the KT charge $`Q=^\alpha \pi _\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\pi _\alpha ^{}`$ is the canonical momentum corresponding to $`\varphi ^\alpha `$. If we pass to the space of $`p`$-jets before momenta are introduced, the construction of Fock modules above applies. Since the KT charge consists of commuting operators, it does not need to be normal ordered, and the cohomology groups are well-defined $`DRO(N)`$ modules of lowest-energy type.

I think that this construction can be viewed as a novel method for quantization, although the relation to other methods is not clear. However, it was never my intention to invent a new quantization scheme, but rather to construct interesting $`DRO(N)`$ modules. An outstanding problem is to take the maximal jet order $`p`$ to infinity, because infinite jets essentially contain the same information as the original fields. This limit is problematic, because the abelian charges diverge with $`p`$, but it seems that this difficulty may be bypassed in four dimensions, as announced in .

## 3  Classification of simple infinite-dimensional Lie superalgebras of vector fields and the exceptional Lie superalgebra $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$

Technically, the classification deals with polynomial vector fields acting on a superspace of dimension $`n|m`$ ($`n`$ bosonic and $`m`$ fermionic directions), i.e. of simple subalgebras of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$. However, the restriction to polynomials is not philosophically essential, because the results also apply to functions that can be approximated by polynomials, e.g. analytic functions. So it is really a classification of simple algebras of local vector fields.

Let $`𝔤vect(n|m)`$ be such an algebra. It has a Weisfeiler grading of depth $`d`$ if it can be written as

$$𝔤=𝔤_d+\mathrm{}+𝔤_1+𝔤_0+𝔤_1+\mathrm{},$$

where $`𝔤_1`$ is an irreducible $`𝔤_0`$ module and $`𝔤_k`$ consists of vector fields that are homogeneous of degree $`k`$. However, it is not the usual kind of homogeneity, because we do not assume that all directions are equivalent. Denote the coordinates of $`n|m`$-dimensional superspace by $`x^i`$ and let $`_i`$ be the corresponding derivatives. Then we define the grading by introducing positive integers $`w_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}x^i=w_i`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_i=w_i`$. The operator which computes the Weisfeiler grading is $`Z=_iw_ix^i_i`$, and $`𝔤_k`$ is the subspace of vector fields $`X=X^i(x)_i`$ satisfying $`[Z,X]=kX`$. If we only considered $`𝔤`$ as a graded vector space, we could of course make any choice of integers $`w_i`$, but we also want $`𝔤`$ to be graded as a Lie algebra: $`[𝔤_i,𝔤_j]𝔤_{i+j}`$. The depth $`d`$ is identified with the maximal $`w_i`$. Denote the negative part by $`𝔤_{}=𝔤_d+\mathrm{}+𝔤_1`$; it is a nilpotent algebra and a $`𝔤_0`$ module.

The main tool for constructing algebras of vector fields is Cartan prolongation. In the mathematics literature, it is defined recursively in a way which is not so easy for a physicist to understand. Therefore, I propose the following alternative definition of Cartan prolongation:

1. Start with a realization for the non-positive part $`𝔤_0𝔤_{}`$ of $`𝔤`$ in $`n|m`$-dimensional superspace.
2. Determine the most general set of structures preserved by $`𝔤_0𝔤_{}`$. Such a structure is either some differential form, or an equation satisfied by forms (Pfaff equation), or a system of Pfaff equations.
3. Define the Cartan prolong $`𝔤=(𝔤_d,\mathrm{},𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$ as the full subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ preserving the same structures.

Clearly, the set of vector fields that preserve some structure automatically define a subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$. By choosing the maximal set of equations, this subalgebra must be $`𝔤`$ itself. If one is lucky, $`𝔤`$ is now simple and infinite-dimensional. The mathematicians have determined when this happens.

The simplest example is the prolong $`(\underset{¯}{𝐧},sl(n))_{}`$, where $`\underset{¯}{𝐧}`$ stands for the $`n`$-dimensional $`sl(n)`$ module with basis $`_i`$. The vector fields are, at non-positive degrees

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ \hfill \mathrm{deg}& \text{vector field}\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 1:& _i\hfill \\ \hfill 0:& x^i_j\frac{1}{n}\delta _j^ix^k_k\hfill \end{array}$$

These vector fields $`X=X^i(x)_i`$ preserve the volume form $`vol`$. The prolong is the algebra $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$ of all divergence-free vector fields, all of which preserve $`vol`$.

The classification  consists of a list of ten series101010 Leites and Shchepochkina use different names for $`𝔰𝔪_\beta (n)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔩𝔢}(n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔪}(n)`$, but unfortunately I do not quite understand their notation.:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)=W(n|m)\hfill & \text{ arbitrary v.f. in }n|m\text{ dimensions, }\hfill \\ 𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)=S(n|m)\hfill & \text{ divergence-free v.f., }\hfill \\ 𝔥(n|m)=H(n|m)\hfill & \text{ Hamiltonian v.f. (}n\text{ even), }\hfill \\ 𝔩𝔢(n)=HO(n|n)\hfill & \text{ odd Hamiltonian or Leitesian v.f. }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|n)\text{}\hfill \\ 𝔰𝔩𝔢(n)=SHO(n|n)\hfill & \text{ divergence free Leitesian v.f., }\hfill \\ 𝔨(n|m)=K(n|m)\hfill & \text{ contact v.f. (}n\text{ odd), }\hfill \\ 𝔪(n)=KO(n|n+1)\hfill & \text{ odd contact v.f. }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|n+1)\text{}\hfill \\ 𝔰𝔪_\beta (n)=SKO(n|n+1;\beta )\hfill & \text{ a deformation of div-free odd contact v.f.,}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔩𝔢}(n)=SHO\stackrel{~}{}(n|n)\hfill & \text{ a deformation of }𝔰𝔩𝔢(n),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔪}(n)=SKO\stackrel{~}{}(n|n+1)\hfill & \text{ a deformation of }𝔰𝔪(n).\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, there are five exceptions, described as Cartan prolongs

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔳𝔞𝔰(4|4)=E(4|4)=(\mathrm{spin},𝔞𝔰)_{},\hfill \\ 𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)=E(3|6)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{},\hfill \\ 𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)=E(5|10)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{},sl(5))_{},\hfill \\ 𝔪𝔟(3|8)=E(3|8)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{},\hfill \\ 𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)=E(1|6)𝔨(1|6)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟏}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟔}},so(6)g1(1)).\hfill \end{array}$$

The finite-dimensional superalgebra $`𝔞𝔰`$ is the central extension of the special periplectic algebra $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)`$ discovered by A. Sergeev; $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$ has no central extensions for other values of $`n`$. The construction of $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)`$ is slightly more complicated than Cartan prolongation; it is a subalgebra of $`𝔨(1|6)`$.

A more geometric way to describe these algebras is by stating what structures they preserve, or what other conditions the vector fields obey. This is a very new result for the exceptions .

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \text{Algebra}\hfill & \text{Basis}\hfill & \text{Description/structure preserved}\hfill \\ & & \\ 𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)\hfill & u^i,\theta ^a\hfill & \hfill \\ 𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)\hfill & u^i,\theta ^a\hfill & vol\hfill \\ 𝔥(n|m)\hfill & u^i,\theta ^a\hfill & \omega _{ij}du^idu^j+g_{ab}d\theta ^ad\theta ^b\hfill \\ 𝔩𝔢(n)\hfill & u^i,\theta _i\hfill & du^id\theta _i\hfill \\ 𝔰𝔩𝔢(n)\hfill & u^i,\theta _i\hfill & du^id\theta _i,vol\hfill \\ 𝔨(n+1|m)\hfill & t,u^i,\theta ^a\hfill & dt+\omega _{ij}u^idu^j+g_{ab}\theta ^ad\theta ^b=0\hfill \\ 𝔪(n)\hfill & \tau ,u^i,\theta _i\hfill & d\tau +u^id\theta _i+\theta _idu^i=0\hfill \\ 𝔰𝔪_\beta (n)\hfill & \tau ,u^i,\theta _i\hfill & M_f𝔪(n):\mathrm{div}_\beta M_f=0\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔩𝔢}(n)\hfill & u^i,\theta _i\hfill & (1+\theta _1..\theta _n)\xi ,\xi 𝔰𝔩𝔢(n)\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔪}(n)\hfill & \tau ,u^i,\theta _i\hfill & (1+\theta _1..\theta _n)\xi ,\xi 𝔰𝔪_{\frac{n+2}{n}}(n)\hfill \\ 𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)\hfill & u^i,\theta _{ij}\hfill & du^i+\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{ijklm}\theta _{jk}d\theta _{lm}=0,vol\hfill \\ 𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)\hfill & u^i,\theta _{ia}\hfill & du^i+ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{ab}\theta _{ja}d\theta _{kb}=0,vol\hfill \\ 𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)\hfill & t,\theta ^a\hfill & K_f𝔨(1|6):\frac{^3f}{\theta ^c\theta ^c\theta ^c}=ϵ_{abcdef}\frac{^3f}{\theta _d\theta _e\theta _f}(\mathrm{?})\hfill \end{array}$$

In this table, $`u^i`$ denotes bosonic variables, $`\theta ^a`$, $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _{ij}`$ fermionic variables, and $`t`$ ($`\tau `$) is an extra bosonic (fermionic) variable. The indices range over the dimensions indicated: $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`a=1,\mathrm{},m`$, except for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ where $`a=1,2`$ only. $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _{ji}`$ in $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ so there are only ten independent fermions. $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ji}`$ and $`g_{ab}=g_{ba}`$ are structure constants, and $`ϵ^{ab}`$, $`ϵ^{ijk}`$ and $`ϵ^{ijklm}`$ are the totally anti-symmetric constant tensors in the appropriate dimensions. The notation $`\alpha =0`$ (or $`\alpha ^i=0`$) implies that it is this Pfaff equation that is preserved, not the form $`\alpha `$ itself; a vector field $`\xi `$ acts on $`\alpha `$ as $`_\xi \alpha =f_\xi \alpha `$, $`f_\xi `$ some polynomial function. $`vol`$ denotes the volume form; vector fields preserving $`vol`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{div}\xi =()^{\xi \mu +\mu }_\mu \xi ^\mu =0`$.

$$\mathrm{div}_\beta M_f=2()^f(\frac{^2f}{u^i\theta _i}+(u^i\frac{}{u^i}+\theta _i\frac{}{\theta _i}n\beta )\frac{f}{\tau })$$

is a deformed divergence. In the conjectured description of $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)`$, indices are lowered by means of the metric $`g_{ab}`$. The geometrical meaning of $`𝔳𝔞𝔰(4|4)`$ is not clear to me, but the differential equations that it satisfies are written down in .

Finally, let us describe the exceptional algebra $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{}`$. A basis for $`3|8`$-dimensional space is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\theta _{ia},\hfill & \text{(degree }1\text{}2\times 3=6\text{ fermions)},\hfill \\ u^i,\hfill & \text{(degree }2\text{}3\text{ bosons)},\hfill \\ \vartheta ^a,\hfill & \text{(degree }3\text{}2\text{ fermions)},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`i=1,2,3`$ is a three-dimensional index and $`a=1,2`$ a two-dimensional index. Denote the corresponding derivatives by $`d^{ia}`$, $`_i`$ and $`ð_a`$, respectively. We can explicitly describe the vector fields at non-positive degree111111Note added in version 3: The following two formulas were incorrect in version 2..

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill \mathrm{deg}& \text{vector field}\hfill & \\ & & \\ \hfill 3& F_a=ð_a\hfill & \\ \hfill 2& E_i=_i+\theta _i^að_a\hfill & \\ \hfill 1& D^{ia}=d^{ia}+3ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a_k+ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a\theta _k^bð_b+u^ið^a\hfill & \\ \hfill 0& I_l^k=u^k_l\theta _{la}d^{ka}\frac{1}{3}\delta _l^k(u^i_i\theta _{ia}d^{ia})\hfill & (sl(3))\hfill \\ \hfill 0& J_d^c=\vartheta ^cð_d\theta _{id}d^{ic}\frac{1}{2}\delta _d^c(\vartheta ^að_a\theta _{ia}d^{ia})\hfill & (sl(2))\hfill \\ \hfill 0& Z=3\vartheta ^að_a+2u^i_i+\theta _{ia}d^{ia}\hfill & (gl(1))\hfill \end{array}$$

Geometrically, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ preserves the system of dual Pfaff equations $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{ia}=0`$, where

$`\stackrel{~}{D}^{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`d^{ia}3ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a_k+ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a\theta _k^bð_bu^ið^a.`$
In other words, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ consists of vector fields $`X`$ such that $`[\stackrel{~}{D}^{ia},X]=f_{jb}^{ia}(X)\stackrel{~}{D}^{jb}`$ for some polynomial functions $`f_{jb}^{ia}(X)`$.

Given an algebra $`𝔤`$, a subalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$, and an $`𝔥`$ representation $`\varrho `$, one can always construct the induced $`𝔤`$ representation $`𝒰(𝔤)_{𝒰(h)}\varrho `$, where $`𝒰()`$ denotes the universal enveloping algebra. For finite-dimensional algebras, the induced representation is usually too big to be of interest, but for Cartan prolongs the situation is different. There is a 1-1 correspondance between $`𝔤`$ irreps and irreps of its grade zero subalgebra $`𝔤_0`$, as follows. Start from a $`𝔤_0`$ irrep and construct the corresponding induced $`𝔤`$ representation. If this is irreducible, which is often the case, we are done. Otherwise, it contains an irreducible subrepresentation. A well-known example is the Cartan prolong $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)=(\underset{¯}{𝐧},gl(n))_{}`$. A $`gl(n)`$ module is a tensor with certain symmetries, and the induced $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$ module is the corresponding tensor density. It is irreducible unless it is totally anti-symmetric and has weight zero, i.e. it is a differential form. Then it contains the submodule of closed forms .

It sometimes happens that a Lie superalgebra can be realized in more than one way as vector fields acting on superspaces (of different dimensions). One then says that the algebra has a Weisfeiler regrading. No proper Lie algebra has a regrading. The five exceptional Lie superalgebras have fifteen regradings altogether, listed in the format $`name(n|m):depth`$: $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(4|3):1`$, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(5|4):2`$, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6):2`$, $`𝔳𝔞𝔰(4|4):1`$, $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6):2`$, $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(5|5):2`$, $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(4|4):1`$, $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(4|3):1`$, $`𝔪𝔟(4|5):2`$, $`𝔪𝔟(5|6):2`$, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8):3`$, $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(9|6):2`$, $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(11|9):2`$, $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10):2`$, $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(11|9;CK):3`$. Note that $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ has two inequivalent realizations on $`11|9`$-dimensional superspace.

Among all gradings, the consistent ones play a distinguished role. A grading is consistent if the even subspaces are purely bosonic and the odd ones are purely fermionic. Most gradings are inconsistent, and no superalgebra has more than one consistent grading.

Theorem : The only simple Lie superalgebras with consistent gradings are the contact algebras $`𝔨(1|m)`$ and the exceptions $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ and $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)`$.

If we change the function class from polynomials to Laurent polynomials, the contact algebras $`𝔨(1|m)`$ for $`m4`$ have central extensions, known in physics as the $`N=m`$ superconformal algebra (the case $`m=0`$ is the Virasoro algebra). Conjecture: these central extensions are obtained by restriction from the abelian Virasoro-like extensions of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1|m)`$. This statement has been proven in the case $`m=1`$ . $`𝔨(1|m)`$ does not have central extensions for $`m>4`$, but clearly it has abelian Viraosoro-like extensions, which could be called the $`N=m`$ superconformal algebra also for $`m>4`$. Although the superconformal algebras play an important role in string theory, their description as the vector fields that preserve the Pfaff equation $`\alpha =dt+g_{ab}\theta ^ad\theta ^b=0`$ might be unknown to some physicists. Nor is it common knowledge that the restriction to $`m4`$ is unnecessary in the centerless case.

If $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is to replace the standard model algebra, it must be gauged, i.e. one must pass to the algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔪𝔟(3|8))`$ of maps from four-dimensional spacetime to $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$. After inclusion of gravity, the full symmetry algebra becomes $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(4)𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔪𝔟(3|8))`$. Obviously,

$$𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(4)𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔪𝔟(3|8))𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(4)𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|8))𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(7|8).$$

The middle algebra consists of those vector fields in $`7|8`$-dimensional space that preserve the splitting between horizontal and vertical directions. This chain of inclusions proves that $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(4)𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔪𝔟(3|8))`$ has well-defined abelian extensions and Fock modules; consider the restriction from $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(7|8)`$.

The algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤)`$ encodes a very natural generalization of the gauge principle. Gauging a rigid symmetry $`𝔤_0`$ makes it local in spacetime, but it is still rigid in the fiber directions; the finite-dimensional algebra $`𝔤_0`$ acts on each fiber. The replacement of $`𝔤_0`$ by its infinite-dimensional prolong $`𝔤=(𝔤_{},𝔤_0)_{}`$ makes the symmetry local in the fibers as well, while maintaining the essential features of representations and physical predictions. The only freedom lies in the nilpotent algebra $`𝔤_{}`$; it is natural to choose it such that $`𝔤`$ is simple.

Unfortunately, the details of an $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ gauge theory must await the development of the $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ representation theory, in particular the list of degenerate irreducible modules which is not yet available.121212Note added in version 3: This list has now been worked out by several authors; the first were V.G. Kac and A.N. Rudakov: Complexes of modules over exceptional Lie superalgebras $`E(3|8)`$ and $`E(5|10)`$, math-ph/0112022 (2001). As explained in , the hypercharge assignments did not quite work out the way I hoped. However, the analogous list for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ has recently been worked out by Kac and Rudakov , so a $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ gauge theory can be written down at this time . But even before its construction, we know enough about the exceptional Lie superalgebras to make some non-trivial, and falsifyable, predictions.

Let me sketch the construction of a $`𝔤`$ gauge theory, where $`𝔤=𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ or $`𝔤=𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$. Let $`\varrho `$ denote a $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ module. The $`𝔤`$ tensor modules $`T(\varrho )`$ are $`\varrho `$-valued functions $`\psi (\theta ,u,\vartheta )`$, where $`(\theta ,u,\vartheta )^{3|8}`$ are the coordinates in the internal directions ($`(\theta ,u)^{3|6}`$ for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$). The corresponding $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤)`$ tensor module, also denoted by $`T(\varrho )`$, is either irreducible, or contains an irreducible submodule consisting of tensors satisfying $`\psi (x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )=0`$. Here $`x=(x^\mu )^4`$ is a point in spacetime and $``$ is a morphism inherited from $`𝔤`$, i.e. a differential operator acting on the internal directions only. Kac and Rudakov call the modules $`I(\varrho )=\mathrm{ker}=\mathrm{im}^{}`$ (cohomology is almost always absent) “degenerate irreducible modules”, but I will use the shorter name form modules131313More precisely, one should call $`T(\varrho )`$ a form module if it is reducible, and its irreducible quotient $`I(\varrho )=\mathrm{ker}T(\varrho )`$ a closed form module. The distinction should be clear from the context., because we can think of $`\psi `$ as a differential form and of $``$ as the exterior derivative.

Theorem : The $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ form modules are

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)=I(p,0;r;\frac{2}{3}pr),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)=I(p,0;r;\frac{2}{3}p+r+2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)=I(0,q;r;\frac{2}{3}qr2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)=I(0,q;r;\frac{2}{3}q+r),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`(p,q;r;y)`$ is an $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ lowest weight ($`(p,q)^2`$ for $`sl(3)`$, $`r`$ for $`sl(2)`$, and $`y`$ for $`gl(1)`$).

The gl(1) generator is the operator which computes the Weisfeiler grading; up to normalization, it can be identified with weak hypercharge: $`Y=Z/3`$ . By the Gell-Mann-Nishiyima formula, the electric charge in $`(p,q;r;y)`$ ranges from $`y/2r/2`$ to $`y/2+r/2`$ in integer steps.

We identify the fermions (quarks and leptons) in the first generation with form modules, and additionally assume that they transform as spinors under the Lorentz group in the usual way. This leads to the following assignment of fermions:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ \text{Multiplet}& \text{Charges}& & & & \text{Form}\\ & & & & & \\ (0,1;1;\frac{1}{3})& \frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}& \left(\begin{array}{c}u_L\\ d_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}c_L\\ s_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\\ b_L\end{array}\right)& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,1)\\ (1,0;1;\frac{1}{3})& \frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{u}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{d}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{s}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{b}_R\end{array}\right)& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,1)\\ (1,0;0;\frac{4}{3})& \frac{2}{3}& \stackrel{~}{u}_L& \stackrel{~}{c}_L& \stackrel{~}{t}_L& \\ (0,1;0;\frac{4}{3})& \frac{2}{3}& u_R& c_R& t_R& \\ (0,1;0;\frac{2}{3})& \frac{1}{3}& d_R& s_R& b_R& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,0)\\ (1,0;0;\frac{2}{3})& \frac{1}{3}& \stackrel{~}{d}_L& \stackrel{~}{s}_L& \stackrel{~}{b}_L& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,0)\\ & & & & & \\ (0,0;1;1)& 0,1& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ e_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \mu _L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\tau L}\\ \tau _L\end{array}\right)& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)\\ (0,0;1;1)& 0,1& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{eR}\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mu R}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\tau R}\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }_R\end{array}\right)& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)\\ (0,0;0;2)& 1& \stackrel{~}{e}_L& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_L& \stackrel{~}{\tau }_L& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(0,0)\\ (0,0;0;2)& 1& e_R& \mu _R& \tau _R& \mathrm{\Omega }_B(0,0)\end{array}$$

In the usual $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ gauge they, the gauge bosons are $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤_0)`$ connections, which can be regarded as functions $`A_\mu ^a(x)`$, with $`a`$ a $`𝔤_0`$ index. From this one can construct the covariant derivative $`_\mu +A_\mu ^a(x)T_a`$, where $`T_a`$ are the $`𝔤_0`$ generators. In a $`𝔤`$ gauge theory, the gauge bosons must analogously be taken as $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤)`$ connections, i.e. $`𝔤_0`$-valued functions $`A_\mu ^a(x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )`$ with a twisted action of $`𝔤`$. The $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤)`$ covariant derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu +A_\mu ^a(x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )T_a`$ acts on tensor and form modules, making $`D_\mu \psi `$ transform as a vector-spinor under the Lorentz group, and as $`\psi `$ itself under $`𝔤`$. The $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(4,𝔤)`$ action on $`A_\mu ^a`$ follows from the definition $`A_\mu ^aT_a=D_\mu _\mu `$, and the curvature is $`F_{\mu \nu }=[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]`$, as usual. The equations of motion are thus the same as in the standard model, except for the replacements $`\psi (x)\psi (x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )`$, $`A_\mu ^a(x)A_\mu ^a(x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )`$, and the additional conditions $`\psi (x,\theta ,u,\vartheta )=0`$.

Since fermions in several different form modules are introduced, the natural question is which multiplets to consider. I suggest that one must choose a fundamental set of form modules (actually two sets, one for each helicity), from which all forms can be built by taking appropriate “wedge products”, i.e. bilinear maps

$$:I(\varrho _1)\times I(\varrho _2)I(\varrho _3)T(\varrho _1)T(\varrho _2)=T(\varrho _1\varrho _2),$$

where $`\varrho _3\varrho _1\varrho _2`$ is such that $`T(\varrho _3)`$ is reducible. Unfortunately, these wedge products are not known, even for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$, so this idea remains a hypothesis.

The $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ gauge theory leads to several predictions, which are in rough agreement with experiments:

1. Since $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, many good properties are inherited from the standard model.
2. Under the restriction to $`𝔤_0`$, a $`𝔤`$ module $`I(\varrho )`$ decomposes into many $`𝔤_0`$ modules, several of which may be isomorphic to $`\varrho `$. These may be identified with different generations of the same fermion. Thus I suggest unification of e.g. $`(d_R,s_R,b_R)`$ into the same $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ multiplet $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,0)`$. However, since the isomorphic $`𝔤_0`$ modules sit in different ways in the parent $`𝔤`$ module, the properties of the different generations should be different.
3. The fermions in the first generation belong to different $`𝔤`$ multiplets. In particular, the proton is stable because quarks and leptons are not unified into the same multiplet.
4. The $`𝔤`$ connections are “fatter” than the $`𝔤_0`$ connections, being functions of the internal coordinates as well, but they have no new components. Thus there are no new unobserved gauge bosons. This rules out e.g. technicolor scenarios.
5. A particle/anti-particle asymmetry has been built into the theory: $`𝔤`$ consists of subspaces $`𝔤_k`$, where the $`Z`$ eigenvalue $`k`$ ranges from $`3`$ ($`2`$ for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$) to $`+\mathrm{}`$, so this algebra is not symmetric under the reflection $`ZZ`$. A related observation is that in the definition $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)=(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟐}},sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{}`$, the fundamental $`sl(3)`$ modules $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}`$ enter asymmetrically. This asymmetry should be reflected in nature, maybe in the relative abundance of matter and anti-matter.
6. CP amounts to the permutations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(p,r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_C(p,r)`$, but the directions of the morphisms $``$ are unchanged. Equivalently, if a particle is described as $`\mathrm{ker}=\mathrm{im}^{}`$, its CP conjugate is $`\mathrm{im}=\mathrm{ker}^{}`$, i.e. the kernel and image are interchanged. Thus the theory predicts manifest CP violation, without the need for $`\theta `$ vacua. However, CPT is conserved because T reverses the direction of all morphisms.
7. $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ shed no light on the origin of masses. A Higgs particle (a boson of type $`I(0,0;1;1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)`$, i.e. an $`sl(2)`$ doublet with charges $`0`$ and $`+1`$) can be added by hand in the same way as in the standard model, but this is no more (and no less) satisfactory than in the standard model.
8. One could add a fermion in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,0)=I(0,0;0;0)`$. It would appear as a sterile neutrino.

Despite these successes, the $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ theory is fundamentally flawed. In the table above, we see that the right-handed $`u`$ quark $`u_R=(0,1;0;\frac{4}{3})`$ and its anti-particle $`\stackrel{~}{u}_L=(1,0;0;\frac{4}{3})`$ do not correspond to form modules. The absence of a right-handed $`u`$ quark is of course fatal for the $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ theory. However, this result has no bearing on $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, because its list of form modules has not yet been worked out, and one may hope that all quarks and leptons in the table above will correspond to forms. Conversely, we can turn this physical requirement into a conjecture about the list of form modules for $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$. Fortunately, this problem is of considerable mathematical interest in its own right, so algebraists are likely to attack it soon.

Finally some history. In 1977, Kac classified the finite-dimensional Lie superalgebras , and conjectured that the infinite-dimensional case would be the obvious super analogoue to Cartan’s list $`(W_n,S_n,H_n,K_n)`$ . However, it was immediately pointed out  that there are also odd versions of $`H_n`$ and $`K_n`$; the odd Hamiltonian algebra was introduced in physics soon thereafter by Batalin and Vilkovisky. The deformations were also found . It was a complete surprise when Shchepochkina found three exceptions , followed by two more ; the exception $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)`$ was independently found by Cheng and Kac . Important techniques were developed by Leites and Shchepochkina , and the classification was known to them in 1996 (announced in ), but I have only seen their paper in preprint form . Meanwhile, Kac also worked out the classification , together with Cheng .

## 4 Discussion

In the introduction, I made the claim that $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ and the multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra are essentially the deepest and most general symmetries possible. This statement assumes that one interprets the word “symmetry” in a conservative sense, to mean semisimple Lie algebras or superalgebras, finite-dimensional algebras or infinite-dimensional algebras of vector fields, and abelian extensions thereof. One can view this list as the definition of the present paradigm. This list covers many algebraic structures, including all infinitesimal quantum deformations, which are always of the form

$`[J^a,J^b]`$ $`=`$ $`f^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}J_{}^{c}+k^{ab}{}_{i}{}^{}\mathrm{}E^i+O(\mathrm{}^2),`$
$`[J^a,\mathrm{}E^i]`$ $`=`$ $`g^{ai}{}_{j}{}^{}\mathrm{}E^j+O(\mathrm{}^2),`$
$`[\mathrm{}E^i,\mathrm{}E^j]`$ $`=`$ $`0+O(\mathrm{}^2).`$
We see that every deformation reduces to an abelian (but not necessarily central) extension in the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit.

However, my definition of symmetry excludes algebras of exponential growth, e.g. non-affine Kac-Moody algebras. The reason is that I think of algebras as infinitesimal transformation groups. In particular, $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ is the Lie algebra of the diffeomorphism group in $`n|m`$ dimensions, and this algebra is of polynomial growth. It is difficult to visualize any interesting symmetry that is essentially bigger than the full diffeomorphism group, maybe acting on the total space of some bundle over the base manifold. That the lack of an explicit realization is a problem for non-affine Kac-Moody algebras has been drastically formulated by Kac: “It is a well kept secret that the theory of Kac-Moody algebras has been a disaster.” .

If one stays within the present paradigm, there are really no unknown possibilities; classifications exist141414 Abelian extensions of superalgebras are not yet classified.. However, if there is a paradigm shift, all bets are off. Paradigm shifts have occurred in the past. Examples are given by the transitions from Lie algebras to superalgebras, from semisimple algebras to central extensions, and presumably also from central extensions to abelian but non-central Virasoro-like extensions.

What makes me believe that there will be no further paradigm shift is the convergence between the deepest algebraic structures and the deepest experimental physics: both mathematics and physics seem to require four dimensions and the $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ symmetry at their deepest levels. But even if these structures turn out to be unrelated to physics, it is still worthwhile to pursue them. Hardly anything in mathematics is more natural than the representation theory of interesting algebras, so the efforts will not be wasted.