text:
# Covariant approach to equilibration in effective field theories

## 1 Introduction

Effective field theory is an increasingly important tool in the repertoire of theoretical physics. The problem of the equilibration of statistical systems has been studied in many contexts , but has not been formulated in the language of effective quantum field theories, where re-parameterizations of basic quantities can obscure the physics of the process.

Suppose we consider two systems with different mechanical and thermodynamical properties and couple these together. What is the outcome? Intuition tells us that such a system must achieve a state of thermodynamical equilibrium. However, it is not clear how this equilibrium is achieved using the language of effective field theory. In terms of particles, it is straightforward to picture the exchange of energy between heat baths: there is a physical flow of point-like objects carrying momentum, which are exchanged until, eventually, there is an equal spectrum of energies on both sides of the interface. In a field theory however, one deals with quanta or modes of the field, so there is no direct notion of a flow of hot into cold or vice versa, only the occupation of states in a Fock space.

The procedure of identifying a functional effective field theory involves many variable redefinitions and partial summations. Each re-parameterization distances the system from any intuition one might have about its behaviour. Our goal in this paper is to understand the process of equilibration in the language of field theory in the context of a specific model. We consider a pair of essentially free scalar fields with different masses and different initial temperatures which are coupled minimally at an initial time. For definiteness we assume that the systems are in direct contact, rather than interacting through a boundary layer, so that the two systems essentially occupy the same space. Although it is convenient to focus on a specific model, our aim is to extract general principles about non-equilibrium field theory. We employ the methods of general covariance during field redefinitions, in order to track the meaning of the quantities which arise in the formulation, and also to find the optimal parameterization for solving the equations. As is often the case with covariance, this leads to important physical insights.

The notation and conventions are those of reference , with $`n`$ spatial dimensions and one time dimension. To simplify notation we shall use Schwinger’s shorthand for the measures:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{n+1}k}{(2\pi )^{n+1}}}`$ $``$ $`(dk)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n𝐤}{(2\pi )^n}}`$ $``$ $`(d𝐤)`$
$`dV_x=dtd^n𝐱`$ $``$ $`(dx)`$ (1)
and so on.

A non-equilibrium system remembers its history; it is not translationally invariant in time. It is convenient to parameterize Green functions in terms of even and odd variables over any interval from $`x`$ to $`x^{}`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ $`=`$ $`(xx^{})`$
$`\overline{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x+x^{}).`$ (2)
The odd variables $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ characterize translational degrees of freedom, while the even variables $`\overline{x}`$ represent inhomogeneous impediments to translational freedom, or alternatively, characterize local curvature in the dynamical and kinematical parameters.

The formulation we adopt is based on , which is built around Schwinger’s closed time path quantum action principle. We do not need to formulate the full closed time path problem here, but our approach is easily generalizable for future problems. We concentrate on understanding the basic unitary processes which act in the system, and employ the language of sources and Green functions to describe the development.

## 2 The model

Consider two systems which are brought into contact, so as to interact through a minimal coupling which is not manifestly $`Z_2`$ ($`\varphi \varphi `$) invariant. Once coupled, the systems influence one another. Since the systems are statistical mixtures of field modes, this influence can be viewed at two levels: as the microscopic interaction of individual field solutions between the two systems, or as a change in the statistical averages of the two systems as a result of the microscopic interaction. It is at this latter level that one expects to achieve equilibrium. The model we choose begins as a free field theory, composed of a thermal mixture of quanta. This initial state is clearly idealized since one normally requires some form of interaction in order to achieve thermal equilibrium in the first place. In the interests of simplicity, we suppress all such non-linear interactions and assume that the initial state is two effectively free thermal baths.

We formulate the physical system using the Schwinger action principle. The uncoupled systems have the action operators:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (dx)\left\{(_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1)^{}(^\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1)+\widehat{m}_1^2\right\}}`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (dx)\left\{(_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2)^{}(^\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2)+\widehat{m}_2^2\right\}}.`$ (3)
Before coupling the equations of motion give us the eigenvalue equation:

$`\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0\mathrm{or}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2& 0\\ 0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (8)
The Green function $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ for the operator $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ satisfies the equation $`\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{𝒢}=I`$. We write the Green function as the sum of a particular integral and a complementary function

$`\widehat{𝒢}=\widehat{G}+2\pi i\widehat{}`$ (9)
which satisfy

$`\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{G}=I;\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{}=0.`$ (10)
In most pure state cases one sets $`\widehat{}=0`$ and chooses a special solution for the Green function $`G`$ which satisfies certain specific boundary conditions (retarded, advanced, etc.). The complementary function $`\widehat{}`$ becomes important in statistical many particle systems where mixtures of fields are significant. However, it is not possible to associate specific boundary conditions with the free particle solutions that are contained in the complementary piece (free particle solutions do not respect time-specific boundary conditions, since plane-wave solutions have no beginning or end). The coefficients of plane wave solutions must therefore change in time in order to follow the development of the system, in a non-equilibrium many particle system. This time dependence is discussed in detail in the next sections. We obtain,

$`\widehat{G}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2}\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
and

$`\widehat{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{f}_1(k_0)\delta (\widehat{\chi }_1)& 0\\ 0& \widehat{f}_2(k_0)\delta (\widehat{\chi }_2)\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
Although nothing formally precludes off diagonal terms in $`\widehat{}`$ where the upper right contribution is proportional to $`\delta (\widehat{\chi }_1)`$ and the lower left contribution is proportional to $`\delta (\widehat{\chi }_2)`$, the boundary conditions tell us that there is no interaction between the two systems, so off-diagonal terms would not make sense.

Once coupled, the fields are influenced by their mutual interaction. Since this interaction leads to modifications to the constraints (mass shell) of the systems, we denote the coupled variables without carets:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (dx)\left\{(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1)^{}(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1)+\widehat{m}_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+J_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+J_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\right\}}`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (dx)\left\{(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2)^{}(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2)+\widehat{m}_2^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+J_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+J_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\right\}}`$ (17)
Both systems interact only through linear perturbations. In order to couple the systems together we choose:

$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1,`$ (18)
where $`m_p^2`$ is a squared polaron mass introduced for dimensional consistency so that each field is a source for the other. Starting from the total action,

$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=(S_1+S_2)|_{J_1=m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2,J_2=m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1},`$ (19)
the operator equations of motion are,

$`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$
$`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_p^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1.`$ (20)
Note that the coupling destroys the diagonal structure of the equations of motion. We have:

$`\widehat{𝒪}\mathrm{\Phi }=J\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (21)
With $`𝒪=\widehat{𝒪}J`$ we can write,

$`𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }=0\mathrm{or}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2& m_p^2\\ m_p^2& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (26)
In order to find the corresponding Green function we diagonalize the matrix $`𝒪`$. The technique is standard. We solve the eigenvalue equation

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2& m_p^2\\ m_p^2& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1\\ \phi _2\end{array}\right)=(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_\pm ^2)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1\\ \phi _2\end{array}\right).`$ (33)
and compute the invertible unitary matrix of eigenvectors $`U`$. The diagonalized matrix is obtained from the similarity transformation,

$`𝒪^{}=(U^{})^1𝒪U^1=U𝒪U^1`$ (34)
The Green function matrix transforms according to the same rule as the operator itself:

$`𝒢𝒢^{}=U𝒢U^1.`$ (35)
which preserves the relationship

$`𝒪𝒢=𝒪^{}𝒢^{}=I`$ (36)
The similarity transformation corresponds to a field transformation of the form,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_A=U_{AB}\phi _B,`$ (37)
where $`A,B=1,2`$.

We proceed as follows. Solving the eigenvalue equation (33) for the eigenvalues gives,

$`m_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}^2\pm \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{m}^4+m_p^4}`$ (38)
$``$ $`\overline{m}^2\pm m_R^2.`$
with

$`\overline{m}^2:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{m}_1^2+\widehat{m}_2^2);\stackrel{~}{m}^2:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{m}_1^2\widehat{m}_2^2)`$ (39)
Using the identities,

$`(m_\pm ^2\widehat{m}_1^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2\pm m_R^2`$
$`(m_\pm ^2\widehat{m}_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2\pm m_R^2,`$ (40)
the invertible unitary matrix of eigenvectors is easily calculated:

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_p^4+(\stackrel{~}{m}^2m_R^2)^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_p^2& (m_R^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)\\ (m_R^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)& m_p^2\end{array}\right):=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)`$ (45)
Using (26), (34) and (45) we obtain the diagonalized form of the operator $`𝒪`$:

$`𝒪^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_+^2& 0\\ 0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_{}^2\end{array}\right).`$ (48)
Note that when $`\widehat{m}_1=\widehat{m}_2`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$) this result reduces to a familiar $`\pi /4`$ rotation of field variables. The matrix (45) becomes,

$`U{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (51)
which we use in (37) to obtain the simple rotational form of the transformation,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\phi _1+\phi _2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\phi _2\phi _1)`$ (52)
To rewrite the Green function in the eigenbasis of the coupled system we solve the equation $`𝒪^{}𝒢^{}=I`$. As before, we separate the Green function into the sum of a particular solution and a complementary function: $`𝒢^{}=G^{}+2\pi i^{}`$ which satisfy

$`𝒪^{}G^{}=I;𝒪^{}^{}=0`$ (53)
The inverse of the diagonal operator $`𝒪^{}`$ is trivial to evaluate. We obtain

$`G^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{11}^{}& G_{12}^{}\\ G_{21}^{}& G_{22}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_+^2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_{}^2}\end{array}\right).`$ (58)
In the coupled system, the diagonal form of the complementary function does not have to be preserved. However, we know that:

$`^{}=UU^1.`$ (59)
In addition, we know that $`^{}`$ must satisfy (53) which means that it must have the form,

$`^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_{11}^{}(k_0)\delta (\chi _+)& f_{12}^{}(k_0)\delta (\chi _+)\\ f_{21}^{}(k_0)\delta (\chi _{})& f_{22}^{}(k_0)\delta (\chi _{})\end{array}\right)`$ (62)
We assume that the original $`\widehat{}`$ is diagonal just prior to the interaction begin turned on, so that if the interaction is turned on suddenly, $``$ remains diagonal:

$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_1(k_0)\delta (\chi _1)& 0\\ 0& f_2(k_0)\delta (\chi _2)\end{array}\right)`$ (65)
where $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are as yet undetermined mass shells. Using (45) and (65) in (59) and comparing with (62) we obtain the relationship between the components of $``$ and $`^{}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{11}^{}}{\omega _+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{\omega _1}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{\omega _2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{22}^{}}{\omega _{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{\omega _2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{\omega _1}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{12}^{}}{\omega _+}}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{\omega _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{\omega _1}})\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{21}^{}}{\omega _{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{\omega _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{\omega _1}})\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta .`$ (66)
## 3 Covariant analysis at $`\overline{t}0`$

Now we consider the behaviour of the system for $`\overline{t}0`$. We make use of the covariant method of  to solve for the Wightman or complementary Green functions for the effective theory. The off-diagonal terms are irrelevant to further analysis; they trivially satisfy the equations of motion by virtue of the fact that their particular solutions are identically zero and their complementary parts contain delta-function constraints. For notational simplicity we therefore refer to the diagonal components as $`G_{11}^{}:=G_+^{}`$, $`G_{22}^{}:=G_{}^{}`$, $`f_{11}^{}:=f_+^{}`$ and $`f_{22}^{}:=f_{}^{}`$.

Our strategy is to find the dispersion relation for the positive frequency Wightman function. This dispersion relation does not have a unique form: it depends on the ansatz used for the Green function itself. By using a conformally covariant form for the ansatz and introducing vector fields $`A_\mu `$, we obtain a form for the dispersion relation which is independent of $`\overline{x}`$. This approach is useful in two ways: it results in a neater form for the dispersion relation, and it allows the internal conformal symmetry to be seen directly and used to simplify calculations where the dispersion relation is not $`\overline{x}`$ independent. Note that we are not claiming that the theory is conformally invariant. We are only noting that an overall $`\overline{x}`$ scaling of the action can be used to express any statistical theory in terms of dimensionless variables, provided partial derivatives are replaced by covariant ones . By formally introducing covariant connections, we can exploit our ability to rescale a slowly varying non-equilibrium theory so that it appears to be an equilibrium one, for the purposes of calculation.

The positive frequency Wightman functions satisfy the equations of motion:

$`(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+m_a^2)G_{a}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (67)
where the index $`a`$ takes values $`\{+,\}`$. We attempt to find solutions to these equations using the ansatz,

$`G_{a}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i{\displaystyle (d𝐤)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{x}+i_0^{\overline{x}}A_{a\mu }𝑑X^\mu }\frac{(1+f_a^{}(\omega _a(\overline{x}),\overline{x}))}{2\omega _a(\overline{x})}}.`$ (68)
The formal dependence of the distribution functions $`f_a^{}`$ and on the average coordinate $`\overline{x}`$ seems peculiar in a free theory, where there is no apparent cause for a re-distribution of quanta amongst different modes in either time or space. Such a change would have to be represented by an additional source or sink (a potential), which we do not have. However, there is nothing in the field equations to exclude a combination of solutions which oscillates with a steady periodic signature. Such a steady-state oscillation could be fed in as a boundary condition. Another example would be the analysis of low-order terms in an interacting theory, where the effective mass was changing with time $`m^2(t)`$. Such a change makes no sense without a broader theory to explain it, but as an effective model it can still be analyzed in a consistent framework.

The purpose of the auxiliary field $`A_\mu `$ is as follows. Since external boundary conditions and renormalizations might impose a time-dependence in the dispersion relation, one needs a generic term $`A_\mu `$ to absorb the effect of the changing distribution. Its introduction allows us to formulate the theory in terms of a time-independent frequency, by moving the dependence of the average coordinate into the phase.

Taking the derivative we obtain,

$`\stackrel{x}{_\mu }G_{a}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i{\displaystyle }(dk)[ik_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}A_{a\mu }+i{\displaystyle _0^{\overline{x}}}(\stackrel{~}{}_\mu A_{a\nu })dX^\nu `$ (69)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{}_\mu \omega _a)\stackrel{~}{t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{a\mu }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu }]G_a^{(+)^{}}(k,\overline{x}),`$
where,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu }=_\mu \omega _a(\overline{x})/\omega _a(\overline{x});F_{a\mu }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{_\mu f_a^{}}{1+f_a^{}}}`$ (70)
and

$`\underset{\mu }{\overset{x}{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}_\mu `$
$`\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \overline{}^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}.`$ (71)
Notice that the second term of the first line above behaves as an auxiliary field. It is this term that will be absorbed by the auxiliary field.

We proceed as follows. We make the choice $`A_{a\mu }=\stackrel{~}{t}\overline{}_\mu \omega _a`$. Substituting into $`i_0^{\overline{x}}(\stackrel{~}{}_\mu A_{a\nu })𝑑\overline{x}^\nu `$ and integrating by parts we obtain,

$`i{\displaystyle _0^{\overline{x}}}(\stackrel{~}{}_\mu A_{a\nu })𝑑\overline{x}^\nu =i\delta _\mu ^0[\omega _a(\overline{x})\omega _a(0)].`$ (72)
When we substitute this result back into the dispersion relation we obtain,

$`_\mu ^xG_a^{(+)^{}}=2\pi i{\displaystyle (dk)\left[i(k_{a\mu }+\delta _\mu ^0[\omega _a(\overline{x})\omega _a(0)])+\frac{1}{2}(F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })\right]G_a^{(+)^{}}}`$ (73)
We re-express this result covariantly by defining the vector $`k_{a\mu }(0)=\omega _a(0)\delta _{\mu 0}+k^i\delta _{i\mu }`$ which allows us to write

$`_\mu G_a^{(+)^{}}=2\pi i{\displaystyle (dk)[ik_{a\mu }(0)+\frac{1}{2}(F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })]G_a^{(+)^{}}}`$ (74)
Performing another derivative and substituting into (67) we obtain,

$`k_{a\mu }(0)k_a^\mu (0)m_a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\overline{}^\mu (F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })+(F_a^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_a)^2]+ik_a^\mu (0)(F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })=0`$ (75)
The first two terms give $`k_a(0)^2m_a^2=\omega _a^2(0)𝐤^2m_a^2`$ which we set to zero as an initial condition on $`\omega _a(\overline{x})`$. More precisely if $`\omega _a`$ is constant it must equal the equilibrium value for the given mass. Then we are left with two equations

$`k_a^\mu (0)(F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })=0`$
$`\overline{}^\mu (F_{a\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\mu })+(F_a^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_a)^2=0`$ (76)
## 4 Solutions

In order to look for solutions we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0`$. The first part of (76) gives

$`k^\mu (0)_\mu f_a^{}=0`$ (77)
If we assume spatial homogeneity then this equation reduces to

$`_tf_a^{}=0.`$ (78)
Now we want to ask what this result implies about the distribution functions of the original degrees of freedom. Using (66) we obtain,

$`_tf_a^{}=0\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\omega _+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\omega _1}& \frac{\omega _+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\omega _2}\\ \frac{\omega _{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\omega _2}& \frac{\omega _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\omega _1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}_tf_1\\ _tf_2\end{array}\right)=0`$ (83)
In general, this implies that the distribution functions in terms of the original degrees of freedom must also be constant. The only way to obtain non-trivial solutions to this equation is to require that the determinant of the matrix of coefficients must vanish. This requires

$`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \omega _+^2\omega _{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _2^2}}\right)=0.`$ (84)
Since $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ can only vanish when the coupling, $`m_p`$, vanishes (cf (38)) the only possible solution to this equation is for $`\omega _1`$ to equal $`\omega _2`$.

## 5 A Generalizable Analysis

An explicit rotation of variables is not the approach normally used in solving field theories, since it does not readily generalize to arbitrary higher order interactions. An alternative method, which leads to an effective theory for one of the systems can be found by making a change of variable:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2{\displaystyle (dx^{})G_2(x,x^{})J_2(x^{})}`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _2m_p^2{\displaystyle (dx^{})G_2(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^{})}.`$
The shift involves a non-local Green function, which is assumed to satisfy

$`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2)G_2(x,x^{})=\delta (x,x^{}).`$ (86)
The boundary conditions on $`G_2(x,x^{})`$ are not determined by this equation or by the Schwinger action principle itself. To determine these boundary conditions we use the fact that the interacting fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are influenced by one another only after they are coupled at time $`\overline{t}=0`$. This physical consideration leads us to choose the retarded Green function.

Making the shift of variables (85) in (19) gives,

$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }(dx)\{\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(x)(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)m_p^4{\displaystyle }(dx^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(x)G_2(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^{})`$ (87)
$`+`$ $`\varphi _2^{}(x)(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2)\varphi _2(x)\}`$
We are left with a non-local interaction in terms of the original variables. The resulting equations of motion have the matrix form,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \varphi _1\end{array}\right)=0`$ (90)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2\frac{m_p^4}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_2^2}& 0\\ 0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2\end{array}\right)`$ (93)
To find the particular part of the corresponding Green function we need to invert the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. We obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{det}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2& 0\\ 0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2\frac{m_p^4}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_2^2}\end{array}\right).`$ (96)
Using

$`\mathrm{det}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}=(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_1^2)(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2)m_p^4=(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_+^2)(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_{}^2)`$ (97)
it is clear that the Green function has poles at the excitation masses $`m_+`$ and $`m_{}`$. This result agrees with the result found in the previous section: the true mass shell of the excitations is given by the eigenmasses of the system.

In order to find the complementary part of the Green function we follow the method of the previous section. We define the matrix

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{m_p^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (100)
The equation that is analogous to (37) is then

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi .`$ (101)
We can obtain the diagonalized matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ given in (93) by performing the transformation on $`𝒪`$ analogous to (34):

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^1𝒪\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.`$ (102)
Using $`𝒪`$ as defined in (26) we reproduce (93). The complementary piece of the Green function is obtained from the equation analogous to (34):

$`\stackrel{~}{}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.`$ (103)
To proceed we rewrite (93) in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_+^2)(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_{}^2)& 0\\ 0& (\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m_2^2)\end{array}\right),`$ (106)
and impose $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}\stackrel{~}{}=0`$ by writing

$`\stackrel{~}{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_{11}\delta (\chi _\pm )& \stackrel{~}{f}_{12}\delta (\chi _\pm )\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{21}\delta (\widehat{\chi }_2)& \stackrel{~}{f}_{22}\delta (\widehat{\chi }_2)\end{array}\right)`$ (109)
where $`\delta (\chi _\pm )`$ indicates any linear combination of $`\delta (\chi _+)`$ and $`\delta (\chi _{})`$. Using (65) and (100) in (103) and comparing with (109) we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{22}\delta (\widehat{\chi }_2)`$ $`=f_2\delta (\chi _2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{11}\delta (\chi _\pm )`$ $`=f_1\delta (\chi _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_p^4}{(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\widehat{m}_2^2)^2}}f_2\delta (\chi _2)`$ (110)
In order to study the time dependence of the distribution functions $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ we proceed as in the previous section. The $`\varphi _2(x)`$ Wightman function obeys the equation of motion,

$`(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\widehat{m}_2^2)\stackrel{~}{G}_2^{(+)}(x,x^{})=0,`$ (111)
and its dispersion constraint is the free mass-shell

$`\widehat{\chi }_2=k^2+\widehat{m}_2^2=0.`$ (112)
We postulate an ansatz of the form,

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_2^{(+)}(x,x^{})=2\pi i{\displaystyle (d𝐤)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{x}+i_0^{\overline{x}}A_{2\mu }𝑑X^\mu }\frac{(1+\stackrel{~}{f}_{22}(\omega _{22}(\overline{x}),\overline{x}))}{2\omega _{22}(\overline{x})}}.`$ (113)
Substituting into (111) gives,

$`_t\stackrel{~}{f}_{22}=0`$ (114)
Using (110) we get $`_tf_2=0`$ or $`f_2=`$ constant.

The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)`$ Wightman function is more complex; it satisfies the equation of motion,

$`(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\widehat{m}_1^2)\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}(x,x^{})m_p^4{\displaystyle }(dx^{\prime \prime })G_2(x,x^{\prime \prime })\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}(x^{\prime \prime },x^{})=0.`$ (115)
To simplify this expression we operate on the left with $`(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\widehat{m}_2^2)`$ which gives,

$`[(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\widehat{m}_2^2)(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\widehat{m}_1^2)m_p^2]\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}=(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+m_+^2)(\stackrel{x}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+m_{}^2)\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}=0`$ (116)
We postulate an expression for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}(x,x^{})`$ of the form,

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(+)}(x,x^{})=2\pi i{\displaystyle (d𝐤)e^{ik\stackrel{~}{x}+i_0^{\overline{x}}A_{1\mu }𝑑X^\mu }\frac{(1+\stackrel{~}{f}_{11}(\omega _{11}(\overline{x}),\overline{x}))}{2\omega _{11}(\overline{x})}}.`$ (117)
Substituting (117) into (116) we could solve for the dispersion relation, as in the previous section. The formalism discussed in this section could be used to study a system with a more complicated non-linear interaction, which would lead to non-trivial solutions.

## 6 Conclusion

We have studied a system which consists of two initially independent scalar systems that are minimally coupled at some initial time. We have used the machinery of Green functions and effective field theory to study the time evolution of the statistical distribution functions. This problem is an inherently non-equilibrium one. We have discussed how to parameterize such an equilibrating system, and how to perform calculations when equations of motion and thus dispersion relations change with time. Building on the earlier work in  we have adopted a covariant approach to handle time dependent dispersion relations and used the underlying conformal structure to show the consistency of working with perturbation theory in which dispersion relations are time-independent. We have shown that by formally introducing covariant connections, one can rescale a slowly varying non-equilibrium theory so that it appears to be an equilibrium one, for the purposes of calculation. This approach turns out to be of only formal utility in the example provided, but can be generalized to more complex and realistic models. The simple minimally coupled system studied here does not reach a conventional kind of macroscopic equilibrium. In order to study more conventional equilibration, in which the statistical properties are related to the mechanical interactions, we would need to include higher order interactions.

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by NATO collaborative research grant CRG950018.


format: text

text:
# References

1. Introduction

The $`N=2`$ string has attracted considerable interest over the past decade (see  for an older review and  for BRST quantization). Being relatively simple to analyze, the theory displays a few peculiar properties which distinguish it among others. To mention only the most significant points, there appears only a finite number of physical states in the excitation spectrum. However, one encounters a continuous family of sectors interpolating between $`R`$ and $`NS`$ and being connected by spectral flow . The latter is essentially a consequence of the complex geometry intrinsic to the RNS formulation of the $`N=2`$ string (see e.g. ). A remnant of the gauged $`U(1)`$ R symmetry, spectral flow enables one to restrict oneself to a preferred sector, say the NS one. All tree–level amplitudes with more than three external legs prove to vanish  (for details of loop calculations see a recent work  and references therein), in complete agreement with the fact that the massless excitations of the $`N=2`$ string parametrize self–dual gauge or gravitational theory in two spatial and two temporal dimensions . Also worth mentioning is a “universal string” interpretation deriving from the fact that $`N=0`$ and $`N=1`$ strings can be viewed as special classes of vacua of the $`N=2`$ string .

On the downside, the Brink-Schwarz action  lacks manifest $`SO(2,2)`$ Lorentz covariance, and the world–sheet theory of $`N=2`$ supergravity coupled to matter supermultiplets is unable to produce space–time fermions in the excitation spectrum. An early attempt  to gain fermions by adding twisted sectors  to the $`N=2`$ string failed because the necessary GSO projection prevented any interaction between bosonic and fermionic states (see, however,  for a different strategy).

Alternatively, a manifestly space–time supersymmetric and $`SO(2,2)`$ covariant Green–Schwarz–type formulation of the $`N=2`$ string was proposed in . Yet, as was later recognized , the set of currents invented in  does not form a closed algebra. This drawback was overcome in  by taking a smaller but closed subset of the constraints. However, the massless states of the resulting $`N=2`$ string, although consisting of a scalar and a spinor, do not interact according to self–dual super Yang–Mills or self–dual supergravity.

A more successful approach has been advocated by de Boer and Skenderis  who combined a right–moving heterotic $`N=(1,2)`$ string with a left–moving Green–Schwarz–Berkovits type sigma model . Since, by the very construction, the $`N=(1,2)`$ string lives in a two- or three-dimensional target, the analysis of  is likely to yield only a dimensional reduction of self–dual supergravity to $`2+1`$ dimensions. A common feature of both approaches is the introduction of momenta canonically conjugate to the space–time spinors and a manifest Lorentz covariance.

Quite recently, the zero–mode structure was investigated for a potential string theory which would be capable of describing supersymmetric self–dual Yang–Mills in $`2+2`$ dimensions . In agreement with  the analysis suggests that the ultimate formulation seems to be doubly supersymmetric, i.e. possessing both local world–sheet supersymmetry and kappa symmetry.

In the present paper we reconsider the issue of embedding space–time fermions into the $`N=2`$ string. We take advantage of the existing literature  and construct a new heterotic string in two spatial and two temporal dimensions. In our scenario self–duality is implemented by the right–movers while manifest target–space supersymmetry is captured by left–movers. The drawbacks of the previous attempts we discussed above suggest, however, that the presence of space–time fermions in the spectrum might be incompatible with manifest $`SO(2,2)`$ Lorentz invariance. Here, we choose to relax the latter property and build a new heterotic string which supports $`U(1,1)`$, just as the conventional $`N=2`$ string does.

Since there are two time–like directions in the target space one can introduce two light–cone structures. When specifying left–moving degrees of freedom we use the hitherto unexploited possibility to supersymmetrize only one light–cone direction just in the way it works in $`(1,0)`$ supergravity (see e.g. Ref. ). Remarkably, this can be done without spoiling the global $`U(1,1)`$ group which is installed in the formalism by the left–movers. The system of currents we use here looks very similar to that examined in  but differs in the global symmetry structure. As to the right–movers, a first guess would be to take those of the conventional $`N=2`$ string. Surprisingly, this proves to be incompatible with the $`U(1,1)`$ kept by the left–movers. In order to reconcile the two points we turn to the $`N=4`$ topological reformulation of the $`N=2`$ string proposed by Berkovits and Vafa  and further studied in , which thus specifies the right–moving sector of the model. Quantization of the theory reveals only two physical states in the spectrum, one boson and one fermion, which prove to fall in a multiplet of the $`(1,0)`$ space–time supersymmetry.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we briefly review the salient features concerning the conventional $`N=2`$ string and its $`N=4`$ topological reformulation. We also specify the right–movers and fix our notation. Sect. 3 contains a description of the left–moving sector and a realization of the space–time supersymmetry. The global symmetry structure of the complete model is discussed in detail in Sect. 4. In particular, a supersymmetric extension of the $`U(1,1)`$ group is given. Sects. 5 and 6 perform the quantization of the right- and left–movers, respectively. We summarize our results and discuss possible further developments in Sect. 7.

2. The right–moving sector

As has been discussed in the Introduction, the right–movers in the new model are designed to keep the self–duality for the massless states. Guided by the formalism for the conventional closed $`N=2`$ string, it seems natural to choose them to be just the right–movers of the latter. We proceed directly to the superconformal gauge. Then the space of histories is spanned by the canonical pair $`(z^a,p_{za})`$, $`a=0,1`$, its complex conjugate $`(\overline{z}^a,p_{\overline{z}a})`$, and a couple of complex conjugate fermions $`\psi ^a,\overline{\psi }^a`$. The canonical brackets imposed on the fields are

$`\{z^a(\sigma ),p_z^b(\sigma ^{})\}=\eta ^{ab}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{\overline{z}^a(\sigma ),p_{\overline{z}}^b(\sigma ^{})\}=\eta ^{ab}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{\psi ^a(\sigma ),\overline{\psi }^b(\sigma ^{})\}=i\eta ^{ab}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (1)
with the Minkowski metric $`\eta ^{ab}=\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔}(,+).`$

The dynamics in the sector is governed by the Hamiltonian

$$H=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \{2\pi (p_z^ap_{\overline{z}a}+\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_1z^a_1\overline{z}_a)\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }^a_1\psi _a\frac{i}{2}\psi ^a_1\overline{\psi }_a\},$$
(2)
where $`_1`$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`\sigma `$.

Given the space, one can build a set of currents (a contraction of indices is implied),

$`T=(p_z+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1\overline{z})(p_{\overline{z}}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1z)\frac{i}{2\pi }(\psi _1\overline{\psi }+\overline{\psi }_1\psi )=0,`$ (3)
$`G=(p_z+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1\overline{z})\psi =0,\overline{G}=(p_{\overline{z}}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1z)\overline{\psi }=0,`$
$`J=\overline{\psi }\psi =0,`$
which is closed under the bracket (S0.Ex1) and forms nothing but the $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra.

Making use of the brackets (S0.Ex1), the equations of motion can be easily derived from the Hamiltonian (as usual $`_\pm =_0\pm _1`$),

$`\dot{z}^a2\pi p_{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,\dot{p}_{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1_1z^a=0,`$
$`\dot{\overline{z}}^a2\pi p_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,\dot{p}_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1_1\overline{z}^a=0,`$
$`_{}\psi ^a=0,_{}\overline{\psi }^a=0.`$ (4)
Being applied to the currents, these yield

$$_{}T=0,_{}G=0,_{}\overline{G}=0,_{}J=0.$$
(5)
Notice further that the equations (S0.Ex4) are amended by the periodicity conditions

$$(\delta z_1\overline{z}+\delta \overline{z}_1z)|_0^{2\pi }=0,(\overline{\psi }\delta \psi +\psi \delta \overline{\psi })|_0^{2\pi }=0.$$
(6)
The bosons describe string coordinates and are single–valued (periodic) in the flat space. Due to their complex nature, the NSR fermions live in a twisted spinor bundle , i.e.

$`\psi (\sigma +2\pi )=e^{2i\nu \pi }\psi (\sigma ),\overline{\psi }(\sigma +2\pi )=e^{2i\nu \pi }\overline{\psi }(\sigma ),`$ (7)
with $`\nu `$ being an arbitrary real number. For the currents this amounts to

$`G(\sigma +2\pi )=e^{2i\nu \pi }G(\sigma ),\overline{G}(\sigma +2\pi )=e^{2i\nu \pi }\overline{G}(\sigma ),`$
$`T(\sigma +2\pi )=T(\sigma ),J(\sigma +2\pi )=J(\sigma ).`$ (8)
The choice of the parameter $`\nu `$ determines the moding for the fermionic fields. This is in contrast with the conventional $`N=1`$ string for which only two options ($`R`$ or $`NS`$) are available.

Varying $`\nu `$ changes the representation of the $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra, an effect known as “spectral flow”. However, all such representations are in fact equivalent  Actually, it is straightforward to check that the continuous automorphism (preserving Eq. (5))

$$G^{}=e^{i\alpha (\tau +\sigma )}G,\overline{G}^{}=e^{i\alpha (\tau +\sigma )}\overline{G},T^{}=T\frac{\alpha }{\pi }J,J^{}=J,$$
(9)
does the job for an arbitrary real number $`\alpha `$, since

$$G^{}(\sigma +2\pi )=e^{2i(\nu \alpha )\pi }G^{}(\sigma ).$$
(10)
Because $`\alpha `$ is at our disposal, one can always stick with a preferred representation.444 Because $`\alpha `$ is a $`U(1)`$ modulus, it must be considered beyond tree level . For the rest of this paper we choose to work in the NS picture, thus just putting $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ in Eq. (7) above.

It is worth noting further that, due to the complex structure intrinsic to the $`N=2`$ string, the (spin cover of the) full target–space Lorentz group $`Spin(2,2)=SU(1,1)\times SU(1,1)^{}`$ gets broken to $`U(1)\times SU(1,1)U(1,1)`$ which is then the global symmetry group of the formalism under consideration.

So far, our discussion made use of complex field variables. In the next section, where we shall introduce the left–movers, it will turn out that the formulation is more transparent in a specific real field basis. We thus devote the remnant of this section to conform the present analysis to a real notation.

Given a fermionic field $`\psi ^a`$, with $`a=0,1`$, we first transform the vector index $`a`$ to a “light–cone” basis,

$$\psi ^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi ^0\pm \psi ^1),\overline{\psi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{\psi }^0\pm \overline{\psi }^1),$$
(11)
and then take the real and imaginary parts,

$$\psi ^\pm =\phi ^\pm +i\chi ^\pm ,\overline{\psi }^\pm =\phi ^\pm i\chi ^\pm ,$$
(12)
to be the new field variables. The only nonvanishing brackets are

$$\{\phi ^+(\sigma ),\phi ^{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{i}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{\chi ^+(\sigma ),\chi ^{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{i}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).$$
(13)
Analogously, for the bosonic variables one performs a similar coordinate change,

$$z^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z^0\pm z^1),\overline{z}^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{z}^0\pm \overline{z}^1),$$
(14)
and defines the new fields

$$z^\pm =X^\pm +iY^\pm ,p_z^\pm =p^\pm +ip_Y^\pm ,\overline{z}^\pm =X^\pm iY^\pm ,p_{\overline{z}}^\pm =p^\pm ip_Y^\pm .$$
(15)
The latter prove to obey

$`\{X^+(\sigma ),p^{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{X^{}(\sigma ),p^+(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{Y^+(\sigma ),p_Y^{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{Y^{}(\sigma ),p_Y^+(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).`$ (16)
It is now trivial to conform the Hamiltonian to the new notation,

$`H={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma \{4\pi p^+p^{}4\pi p_Y^+p_Y^{}\frac{1}{\pi }_1X^+_1X^{}\frac{1}{\pi }_1Y^+_1Y^{}+i\phi ^+_1\phi ^{}+`$ (17)
$`i\phi ^{}_1\phi ^++i\chi ^+_1\chi ^{}+i\chi ^{}_1\chi ^+\}.`$
Analogous manipulations with the set of currents, after some simple algebra, yield

$`\stackrel{~}{T}=2(p^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})(p^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)2(p_Y^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})(p_Y^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)+`$
$`\frac{i}{\pi }\phi ^+_1\phi ^{}+\frac{i}{\pi }\phi ^{}_1\phi ^++\frac{i}{\pi }\chi ^+_1\chi ^{}+\frac{i}{\pi }\chi ^{}_1\chi ^+=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{G}=(p^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)\phi ^{}+(p^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})\phi ^+(p_Y^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)\chi ^{}`$
$`(p_Y^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\chi ^+=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}=(p^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)\chi ^{}+(p^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})\chi ^++(p_Y^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)\phi ^{}+`$
$`(p_Y^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\phi ^+=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}=i\chi ^+\phi ^{}+i\chi ^{}\phi ^+=0.`$ (18)
We do not see the vector indices any more, and the invariance under $`U(1,1)`$ is kept by contracting a “$`+`$“ with a “$``$“ (for more details see Sect. 4). The only nonvanishing brackets in practical calculations are those involving plus and minus indices simultaneously. In view of implementing global supersymmetry in the target, one can now see an intriguing possibility: One may try to supersymmetrize in only half the spatial directions, making recourse to $`(1,0)`$ superspace (see e.g. Ref. )! Thus, our main reason to prefer a real notation is the greater transparency of the target–space supersymmetry in this basis.

No work has to be done with the equations of motion, these just acquiring the form

$`\dot{X}^\pm 2\pi p^\pm =0,\dot{p}^\pm \frac{1}{2\pi }_1_1X^\pm =0,`$
$`\dot{Y}^\pm +2\pi p_Y^\pm =0,\dot{p}_Y^\pm +\frac{1}{2\pi }_1_1Y^\pm =0,`$
$`_{}\phi ^\pm =0,_{}\chi ^\pm =0.`$ (19)
Recalling that we can always stick with the NS periodicity conditions thanks to spectral flow, we finally write down the general solution in the right–moving sector

$`X^\pm (\tau ,\sigma )=x^\pm +\tau p^\pm +\frac{i}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\frac{1}{n}a_n^\pm e^{in(\tau \sigma )}+\frac{i}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\frac{1}{n}b_n^\pm e^{in(\tau +\sigma )},`$
$`Y^\pm (\tau ,\sigma )=y^\pm +\tau p_y^\pm +\frac{i}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\frac{1}{n}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^\pm e^{in(\tau \sigma )}+\frac{i}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\frac{1}{n}\stackrel{~}{b}_n^\pm e^{in(\tau +\sigma )},`$
$`\phi ^\pm =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{rZ+1/2}{}}f_r^\pm e^{ir(\tau +\sigma )},\chi ^\pm =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{rZ+1/2}{}}g_r^\pm e^{ir(\tau +\sigma )}.`$ (20)
The index “$`+`$” is not to be confused with the hermitian conjugation which in the following we denote by “$``$”.

The reality condition for the fields together with the brackets (13) and (S0.Ex7) specify the hermiticity properties and the Poisson brackets for the Fourier modes in the usual way,

$`\{a_n^{},a_m^+\}=in\delta _{n+m,0},\{a_n^+,a_m^{}\}=in\delta _{n+m,0},(a_n^\pm )^{}=a_n^\pm ,`$
$`\{x^{},p^+\}=\frac{1}{2},\{x^+,p^{}\}=\frac{1}{2},`$
$`\{f_r^+,f_q^{}\}=i\delta _{r+q,0},(f_r^\pm )^{}=f_r^\pm .`$ (21)
The modes $`b_n^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{a}_n^\pm ,\stackrel{~}{b}_n^\pm ,g_r^\pm ,y^\pm ,p_y^\pm `$ satisfy precisely the same relations.

It is noteworthy that the $`N=2`$ superconformal currents given in Eq. (3) above are not the maximal closed set one can realize on the matter fields. As was pointed out by Siegel  and later on by Berkovits and Vafa , two more bosonic currents (of spin 1 before twisting) and two more fermionic ones (of spin 3/2),

$$ϵ^{ab}\psi _a\psi _b=0,ϵ^{ab}\overline{\psi }_a\overline{\psi }_b=0,ϵ^{ab}(p_{\overline{z}a}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1z_a)\psi _b=0,ϵ^{ab}(p_{za}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1\overline{z}_a)\overline{\psi }_b=0,$$
(22)
or, in real notation,

$`\stackrel{~}{G_1}=(p^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})\chi ^+(p^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)\chi ^{}(p_Y^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\phi ^++`$
$`(p_Y^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)\phi ^{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H_1}=(p^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})\phi ^++(p^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)\phi ^{}(p_Y^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\chi ^++`$
$`(p_Y^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)\chi ^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J_1}=i\chi ^{}\phi ^+i\chi ^+\phi ^{}=0,\stackrel{~}{J_2}=i\phi ^+\phi ^{}i\chi ^+\chi ^{}=0,`$ (23)
extend the algebra to a “small” $`N=4`$ superconformal algebra. We remark that the triplet of spin–one currents ($`\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2`$) forms an $`su(1,1)`$ subalgebra. Furthermore, adding the new currents enlarges the symmetry of the formalism. Besides the $`U(1,1)`$ group which comes with the $`N=2`$ string currents and acts as a trivial automorphism on the $`N=4`$ superconformal algebra just leaving each current invariant, there appears an extra external automorphism group $`U(1,1)`$ which maps $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$ generators one into another. Before twisting, the symmetry of the topological extension is $`U(1,1)\times U(1,1)`$ which includes the full Lorentz group $`SO(2,2)`$. After a topological twist 555 It is worth recalling that a topological twist by $`J`$ implemented in Ref.  does not treat all the currents on equal footing. The twisting chooses a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(1,1)`$, thus breaking the full Lorentz group $`SO(2,2)`$ to $`U(1,1)`$., this $`N=4`$ extension turns out to be equivalent to the $`N=2`$ formulation, as has been demonstrated by the computation of scattering amplitudes . It should be stressed that, being quantum mechanically equivalent to the $`N=2`$ string after the twisting, the $`N=4`$ topological formalism offers a larger freedom in formulating a heterotic theory. Since prior to the twisting there are two global $`U(1,1)`$ groups available, it seems reasonable to preserve at least one when adding a left–moving sector. In the next section we shall propose the left–movers and establish explicit space–time supersymmetry. Interestingly enough, we shall find that exactly this type of scenario takes place and the left movers are compatible with only one of the $`U(1,1)`$ groups intrinsic to the $`N=4`$ topological formalism and they explicitly violate the other. To put it in other words, one could proceed with the ordinary $`N=2`$ string taken to describe right movers. These are invariant under $`U(1,1)`$. Then one could add manifestly sypersymmetric left movers which prove to be invariant under another $`U(1,1)`$. What happens is that each of the $`U(1,1)`$ groups leaves only one chiral half invariant at a time and not the full formalism. A remarkable fact, however, is that when acting on the $`N=2`$ superconformal currents, the left $`U(1,1)`$ automatically generates the “small” $`N=4`$ superconformal algebra. In order to keep a single $`U(1,1)`$ for the whole string one is forced to turn to the topological description by Berkovits and Vafa, the global symmetry group of the full formalism being the $`U(1,1)`$ coming with the left movers. We thus conclude that, together with the Hamiltonian (17), the currents (S0.Ex9) and (S0.Ex21) completely specify the right–moving sector.

3. The left–moving sector

Since the string coordinates are automatically decomposed into right and left modes, they are already present in the left sector. In the spirit of the GS string, we add space–time spinors which are world–sheet scalars. In spite of the heterotic construction adopted in this paper, we still choose to keep a balance between left– and right–moving degrees of freedom and introduce two canonical pairs,

$$\{\theta ^{(+)}(\sigma ),p_{(+)}(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{\theta ^{()}(\sigma ),p_{()}(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$
(24)
where $`(\theta ^{(+)},\theta ^{()})`$ are real and $`(p_{\theta (+)},p_{\theta ()})`$ are imaginary. The indices $`(\pm )`$ signify weights equal to $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to the $`SO(1,1)`$ subgroup of the full $`U(1,1)`$ group and are viewed as would-be spinor indices. In this space one immediately observes the intriguing possibility to have a $`c=0`$ conformal field theory, matching perfectly the one for the right–movers.

The dynamics of the new fields gets fixed by adding two new terms to the Hamiltonian (17) to arrive at

$`H={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\{4\pi p^+p^{}4\pi p_Y^+p_Y^{}\frac{1}{\pi }_1X^+_1X^{}\frac{1}{\pi }_1Y^+_1Y^{}+i\phi ^+_1\phi ^{}+`$
$`i\phi ^{}_1\phi ^++i\chi ^+_1\chi ^{}+i\chi ^{}_1\chi ^+p_{(+)}_1\theta ^{(+)}p_{()}_1\theta ^{()}\}.`$ (25)
This yields the free equations of motion

$$_+\theta ^{(\pm )}=0,_+p_{\theta (\pm )}=0.$$
(26)
Since the GS-type scalars are single–valued on the world–sheet, they must be taken to be periodic functions on the cylinder.

The set of currents we postulate in the sector is

$`T=2(p^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})(p^+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^+)2(p_Y^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})(p_Y^++\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^+)`$
$`\frac{1}{\pi }p_{(+)}_1\theta ^{(+)}\frac{1}{\pi }p_{()}_1\theta ^{()}=0,`$
$`G=(p^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})p_{()}=0,H=(p_Y^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})p_{()}=0,`$
$`J=p_{(+)}p_{()}=0,`$ (27)
satisfying

$$_+T=0,_+G=0,_+H=0,_+J=0.$$
(28)
It is relevant to note that the constraints proposed look very similar to those studied in . They differ, however, in the global symmetry structure. The currents studied in  support the full Lorentz group $`SO(2,2)`$, while in the present formalism we are forced to stick with a $`U(1,1)`$ subgroup.

The only non-vanishing brackets in the corresponding algebra are

$`\{T(\sigma ),T(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{2}{\pi }T(\sigma )_1\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\frac{1}{\pi }_1T(\sigma )\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{G(\sigma ),T(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{2}{\pi }G(\sigma )_1\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\frac{1}{\pi }_1G(\sigma )\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{H(\sigma ),T(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{2}{\pi }H(\sigma )_1\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\frac{1}{\pi }_1H(\sigma )\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
$`\{J(\sigma ),T(\sigma ^{})\}=\frac{2}{\pi }J(\sigma )_1\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\frac{1}{\pi }_1J(\sigma )\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (29)
implying that all the currents carry conformal spin 2. Two comments are in order. Firstly, the set constructed is invariant under $`U(1,1)`$ (see Sect. 4 for the explicit realization). Secondly, making use of arguments like those exploited in  one can show that the set above is functionally dependent which brings serious problems when one tries to apply BRST techniques. This may be seen by evaluating the functional determinant of the matrix of first derivatives of the constraints with respect to all the variables in the problem: its rank equals two. Unfortunately, choosing an irreducible subset would break the $`U(1,1)`$ symmetry. Interestingly, this seems to be analogous to the situation in the conventional $`d=10`$ Green–Schwarz superstring.666 The implication of computing conventional constraints in terms of dual fields for the type-II Green-Schwarz theory has been considered in . For a detailed discussion about the covariant quantization and kappa symmetry, see e.g. .

Let us turn to the issue of global supersymmetry. Since, by the very construction, the subspace spanned by $`(X^+,\theta ^{(+)})`$ is nothing other than a $`(1,0)`$–superspace (see Ref.  for our definition), it is straightforward to realize the following on–shell global supersymmetry,

$`\delta \theta ^{(+)}=ϵ^{(+)},\delta X^+=i\theta ^{(+)}ϵ^{(+)},`$
$`\delta p_{(+)}=2i(p^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})ϵ^{(+)},\delta p^+=\frac{i}{2\pi }_1\theta ^{(+)}ϵ^{(+)}.`$ (30)
As usual, the corresponding current is defined via the Poisson bracket,

$$\delta A=\{A,_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}q_{(+)}(\sigma ^{})\}ϵ^{(+)},$$
(31)
which yields

$`q_{(+)}=p_{(+)}2i\theta ^{(+)}(p^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{}),\{q_{(+)}(\sigma ),q_{(+)}(\sigma ^{})\}=2iP^{}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (32)
with $`P^{}2(p^{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^{})`$ being the generator of translations in the $`X^+`$–direction.

Due to the equation

$$_+q_{(+)}=0,$$
(33)
the integral

$$Q_{(+)}=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma q_{(+)}(\sigma )$$
(34)
gives a conserved charge. The supersymmetry transformations defined above leave the constraint surface (strongly) invariant, as they should.

Finally, we give the classical solutions in the sector (recall that $`p_{\theta (+)}`$ and $`p_{\theta ()}`$ are imaginary):

$`\theta ^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}d_n^{(\pm )}e^{in(\tau \sigma )},p_{(\pm )}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\mathrm{}_{n(\pm )}e^{in(\tau \sigma )},`$
$`\{d_n^{(\pm )},\mathrm{}_{m(\pm )}\}=i\delta _{n+m,0},(d_n^{(\pm )})^{}=d_n^{(\pm )},(\mathrm{}_{n(\pm )})^{}=\mathrm{}_{n(\pm )}.`$ (35)
To conclude the section, it is worth noting that the structure of the left–moving “spinors” resembles what one usually expects of a ghost system. Each pair $`(\theta ^{(+)},p_{(+)})`$, $`(\theta ^{()},p_{()})`$ makes a contribution of $`2`$ to the conformal anomaly, and altogether they cancel $`c=4`$ coming from the $`X^\pm ,Y^\pm `$ matter system. Also one suspects them to bring about a degeneracy of the vacuum. We shall turn to this issue later in Sect. 6, where we shall make explicit use of this degeneracy in establishing global supersymmetry of the string spectrum.

4. Global symmetry structure

Having formulated both left and right–movers, we are now in a position to discuss the global symmetry structure of the full theory. For the right–movers it is trivial to transform the common $`U(1,1)`$ transformations to the real notation. We gather them in the following table.

|  | $`X^+`$ | $`X^{}`$ | $`Y^+`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\phi ^+`$ | $`\phi ^{}`$ | $`\chi ^+`$ | $`\chi ^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\alpha `$ | $`\alpha X^+`$ | $`\alpha X^{}`$ | $`\alpha Y^+`$ | $`\alpha Y^{}`$ | $`\alpha \phi ^+`$ | $`\alpha \phi ^{}`$ | $`\alpha \chi ^+`$ | $`\alpha \chi ^{}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\beta `$ | $`\beta Y^+`$ | $`\beta Y^{}`$ | $`\beta X^+`$ | $`\beta X^{}`$ | $`\beta \chi ^+`$ | $`\beta \chi ^{}`$ | $`\beta \phi ^+`$ | $`\beta \phi ^{}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _{\gamma ^{++}}`$ | $`\gamma ^{++}Y^{}`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{++}X^{}`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{++}\chi ^{}`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{++}\phi ^{}`$ | 0 |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\gamma ^{}`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{}Y^+`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{}X^+`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{}\chi ^+`$ | 0 | $`\gamma ^{}\phi ^+`$ |

Table 1. Global U(1,1) transformations acting in the right sector.

These leave invariant the equations of motion and map the $`N=2`$ superconformal currents into each other. The corresponding conserved charges, obviously, form a $`u(1,1)`$ algebra. Being symmetries of the right sector, the transformations, however, do not hold in the left sector as they do not leave the currents (S0.Ex26) invariant. However, in the left sector one finds an independent $`u(1,1)`$ realized in the following way.

|  | $`X^+`$ | $`X^{}`$ | $`Y^+`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\theta ^{(+)}`$ | $`p_{(+)}`$ | $`\theta ^{()}`$ | $`p_{()}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\omega `$ | $`\omega X^+`$ | $`\omega X^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | $`\frac{1}{2}\omega \theta ^{(+)}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\omega p_{(+)}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\omega \theta ^{()}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\omega p_{()}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\zeta `$ | 0 | 0 | $`\zeta Y^+`$ | $`\zeta Y^{}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\zeta \theta ^{(+)}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\zeta p_{(+)}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\zeta \theta ^{()}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\zeta p_{()}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\lambda `$ | 0 | $`\lambda Y^{}`$ | $`\lambda X^+`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\delta _\mu `$ | $`\mu Y^+`$ | 0 | 0 | $`\mu X^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Table 2. Global U(1,1) transformations acting in the left sector.

We indeed verify that the associated generators,

$`A_1=2p^{}X^++2p^+X^{}+\frac{1}{2}p_{(+)}\theta ^{(+)}\frac{1}{2}p_{()}\theta ^{()},`$
$`A_2=2p_Y^{}Y^+2p_Y^+Y^{}+\frac{1}{2}p_{(+)}\theta ^{(+)}\frac{1}{2}p_{()}\theta ^{()},`$
$`A_3=2p^+Y^{}2p_Y^{}X^+,A_4=2p^{}Y^+2p_Y^+X^{},`$ (36)
lead to the conserved charges

$`L_1=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (A_1+A_2)},L_2=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (A_1A_2)},`$
$`L_3=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (A_3+A_4)},L_4=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (A_3A_4)},`$ (37)
which obey a $`u(1,1)`$ algebra. Like the transformations discussed above, these symmetries do not hold for the other sector. The crucial observation, however, is that extending the charge $`L_1`$ by two new contributions (which do not spoil the algebra!),

$$L_1L_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=i𝑑\sigma (A_1+A_2+2i\phi ^{}\phi ^++2i\chi ^{}\chi ^+),$$
(38)
one arrives at the transformations which map the currents $`\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{H}`$ of the right sector onto $`\stackrel{~}{G_1},\stackrel{~}{H_1}`$ and vice versa. Then the closure of the algebra automatically produces the remaining currents $`\stackrel{~}{J_1},\stackrel{~}{J_2}`$ of the $`N=4`$ topological formalism.

Thus, we see that by adopting the $`N=4`$ topological description for the right–movers, one can have a unique $`U(1,1)`$ global group acting on the right– and left–movers simultaneously while keeping space–time supersymmetry in the left sector. It should be stressed that, although there are two $`U(1,1)`$ groups intrinsic to the $`N=4`$ formalism, only one of them is compatible with the left–moving sector, while the other is explicitly violated by the latter. The global symmetry group of the whole string is thus a single $`U(1,1)`$.

In the previous section, the global supersymmetry transformation was specified. Adjoining it to the $`U(1,1)`$ transformations, the larger algebra closes upon adding two new transformations with the fermionic parameters $`\rho ^{(+)}`$ and $`\kappa ^{(+)}`$,

$`\delta _\rho Y^+=i\theta ^{(+)}\rho ^{(+)},\delta _\rho p_Y^+=\frac{i}{2\pi }_1\theta ^{(+)}\rho ^{(+)},\delta _\rho p_{(+)}=2i(p_Y^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\rho ^{(+)},`$
$`\delta _\rho \theta ^{(+)}=0;\delta _\kappa \theta ^{(+)}=\kappa ^{(+)}.`$ (39)
It has to be mentioned that these leave invariant the currents in the right sector. The corresponding conserved charges are given by

$$S_{(+)}=2i𝑑\sigma (p_Y^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^{})\theta ^{(+)},\stackrel{~}{S}_{(+)}=𝑑\sigma p_{(+)}.$$
(40)
Taking into account the additional charges associated with the translation invariance $`\delta X^\pm =a^\pm `$ and $`\delta Y^\pm =b^\pm `$,

$`B^\pm =2{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (p^\pm \frac{1}{2\pi }_1X^\pm )},B_Y^\pm =2{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma (p_Y^\pm +\frac{1}{2\pi }_1Y^\pm )},`$ (41)
one can finally write down a complete superalgebra. Most compactly, this is represented by the following table (equal–time brackets involving $`B^\pm `$, $`B_Y^\pm `$ vanish and are omitted here):

| $`{\displaystyle }`$ {, } | Q | S | $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | $`L_1`$ | $`L_2`$ | $`L_3`$ | $`L_4`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ Q | $`2iB^{}`$ | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | $`iB^{}`$ | $`i\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ | $`iS`$ | $`iS`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ S | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | 0 | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | 0 | $`iS`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | $`iB^{}`$ | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | 0 | $`i\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`L_1`$ | $`i\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | 0 | $`i\stackrel{~}{S}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`L_2`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ | $`iS`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`2iL_4`$ | $`2iL_3`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`L_3`$ | $`iS`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ | 0 | 0 | $`2iL_4`$ | 0 | $`2iL_2`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`L_4`$ | $`iS`$ | $`i(Q\stackrel{~}{S})`$ | 0 | 0 | $`2iL_3`$ | $`2iL_2`$ | 0 |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`B^+`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`iB^+`$ | $`iB^+`$ | $`iB_Y^+`$ | $`iB_Y^+`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`B^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`iB^{}`$ | $`iB^{}`$ | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | $`iB_Y^{}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`B_Y^+`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`iB_Y^+`$ | $`iB_Y^+`$ | $`iB^+`$ | $`iB^+`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`B_Y^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | $`iB_Y^{}`$ | $`iB^{}`$ | $`iB^{}`$ |

Table 3. The supersymmetry algebra of the full model.

It is straightforward to verify that the Jacobi identities hold for this superalgebra. Note further that the bracket of the $`S_{(+)}`$ charge with itself is zero. The same is true for $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(+)}`$. Because the generators are composed of “spinors”, at the quantum level they will be represented by nilpotent operators, failing the usual unitarity argument to show that these symmetries are trivial. In Sect. 6 we will see that $`S_{(+)},\stackrel{~}{S}_{(+)}`$ indeed act on a quantum space, although not playing a significant role.

Before closing this section, it seems instructive to inspect the above symmetry transformations in complex notation. Putting $`z^a`$ and $`\overline{z}^a`$ in a single row $`Z^A=(z^a,\overline{z}^a)`$ with $`A=1,2,3,4`$, one can conveniently rewrite the (infinitesimal) transformations gathered in Table 1 as follows,

$$\delta Z^A=i\alpha ^iL_{i}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}Z^B,\overline{L}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\eta =\eta L_i,\eta _{AB}=diag(,+,,+),$$
(42)
where the matrices $`L_i`$ form a basis for the $`u(1,1)`$ algebra,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & L_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& i& 0\end{array}\right),L_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& +1\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ & & L_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& +1& 0& 0\\ 1& +1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +1& 1\\ 0& 0& +1& 1\end{array}\right),L_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ +1& +1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +1& +1\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(43)`$
Analogously, for the transformations from Table 2 one finds another set of basis elements,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & L_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& i& 0\end{array}\right),L_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ & & L_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& +1\end{array}\right),L_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& +1& 0& 0\\ +1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(44)`$
We see from here that in the former case the matrices are block–diagonal. In other words, the fields $`z^a`$ and $`\overline{z}^a`$ do not mix under these transformations. In the latter case, some of the generators are off–diagonal, mixing $`z^a`$ with $`\overline{z}^a`$. This means, in particular, that a combination of the form $`\overline{z}^a\eta _{ab}y^b`$, which is trivially invariant under the action of the right $`U(1,1)`$, does not hold invariant under the action of the left $`U(1,1)`$, and a more general object like $`\overline{Z}^A\eta _{AB}Y^B`$ is to be handled with. As we shall discuss in Sect. 7, this causes certain problems in constructing scattering amplitudes because it prevents one from a naive use of the vertex operator known for the conventional $`N=2`$ string.

5. Quantized right–movers

As has been discussed in Sect. 2, the right–moving sector of our model relies on the $`N=4`$ topological extension of (a chiral half of) the $`N=2`$ string. At the level of string amplitudes a detailed proof of equivalence of the two formalisms was given in . Alternatively, one could proceed directly from the small $`N=4`$ superconformal algebra to verify that the positive (half–integer) modes of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$ kill all physical states, provided so do the zero modes of $`\stackrel{~}{J}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_2`$ (see also the discussion in Ref. ). Since even for the smaller $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra a proper analysis shows the absence of excited states and because the zero modes of $`\stackrel{~}{J}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_2`$ annihilate the ground state, one arrives at the same spectrum as for the ordinary $`N=2`$ string. Below we briefly sketch the main points (conformed to our notation). A more detailed exposition can be found in .

Given the matter system $`X^\pm ,Y^\pm ,\phi ^\pm ,\chi ^\pm `$ one finds $`c=6`$ for the conformal anomaly. Introducing the superconformal ghosts $`(c,b),(\gamma ,\beta ),(\gamma _1,\beta _1),(c_1,b_1)`$ associated with the $`N=2`$ superconformal currents $`\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{J}`$, the ghost contribution to the anomaly adds up to $`26+11+112=6`$. Thus, this sector is critical in $`2+2`$ dimensions. Evaluating the normal-ordering constants one finds a vanishing critical intercept so that the ground state is a massless scalar. The BRST analysis shows that the latter is in fact the only physical state in the spectrum . It is created from the (zero-momentum) NS vacuum by application of a vertex operator whose form depends on the superconformal ghost picture  chosen. Abbreviating $`K^\pm =k^\pm +i\kappa ^\pm `$ and suppressing the ghost structure, one has in the $`(1)`$ picture

$`V_1(K,z)=:e^{i(K\overline{z}+\overline{K}z)}:=:e^{2i(k^+X^{}+k^{}X^++\kappa ^+Y^{}+\kappa ^{}Y^+)}:,`$ (45)
while the $`0`$-picture vertex operator reads (conformed to our notation)

$`V_0(K,z)=:2(iK\overline{z}i\overline{K}z2\pi \overline{K}\psi K\overline{\psi })e^{i(K\overline{z}+\overline{K}z)}:.`$ (46)
Further analysis shows that only the three–point function does not vanish at tree level. In the zero–instanton sector one finds777 The three–point functions in the other instanton sectors are proportional to this one.

$`A_{right}^{tree}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`V_1(K_1,\mathrm{})V_0(K_2,1)V_1(K_3,0)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`K_2\overline{K}_3\overline{K}_2K_3`$
$`=`$ $`2i(k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\kappa _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\kappa _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{+})2i(k_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\kappa _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+k_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\kappa _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}).`$
Due to the relation between open- and closed–string amplitudes , one might expect that Eq. (47) is the only contribution to the full S-matrix coming from the right sector. However, the story is not so simple because, upon a more careful inspection, one observes that Eq. (46) is not invariant under the global $`U(1,1)`$ group installed by the left–movers. In other words, disregarding the full set of $`N=4`$ superconformal currents and constructing the interactions by taking into account only the $`N=2`$ subset breaks the manifest $`U(1,1)`$ covariance of the full formalism. We will return to this issue in Sect. 7.

6. Quantized left–movers

As we have seen in Sect. 3, the constraints intrinsic to the left–movers are (infinitely) reducible. This entails a serious complication for the BRST procedure (for a similar point see e.g. ). For this reason we employ the conventional operator method for the covariant quantization.

Because bosonic fields are common for both right and left sectors, it suffices to discuss the “spinors”. The zero-mode algebra888 From now on, $`[,]`$ and $`\{,\}`$ denote commutators and anticommutators, respectively.

$$\{d_0,\mathrm{}_0\}=1,d_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0=\mathrm{}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(48)
enforces a two–fold degeneracy of the vacuum. The fields $`\theta ^{()}`$ and $`p_{()}`$ are handled in precisely the same manner, so the full vacuum is four–fold degenerate. In what follows, we discuss in detail a representation for $`\theta ^{(+)},p_{(+)}`$ only and for brevity omit the $`(+)`$ index:

$`\mathrm{}_0|=0,\mathrm{}_0|=|,d_0|=|,d_0|=0,`$
$`\mathrm{}_n|=\mathrm{}_n|=d_n|=d_n|=0\text{for}n1.`$ (49)
Since we are interested in a unitary representation and $`d_0^{}=d_0`$, $`\mathrm{}_0^{}=\mathrm{}_0`$, the scalar products are

$`|=0,|=0,|=|\theta |=1.`$ (50)
These relations, as well as the value of the conformal spin carried by the “spinors”, identify $`(\theta ,p)`$ as a fermionic $`c=2`$ system. The latter arises as R symmetry ghosts in the conventional $`N=2`$ string  and as auxiliary fermions in the bosonization of the superconformal ghosts of the $`N=1`$ NSR string .

As for the right–movers, the normal–ordering constants add to zero. The quantum version of the algebra (S0.Ex29),

$`[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m},`$
$`[L_n,G_m]=(nm)G_{n+m},`$
$`[L_n,H_m]=(nm)H_{n+m},`$
$`[L_n,J_m]=(nm)J_{n+m},`$ (51)
implies that physical states in the complete Hilbert space are defined by

$$L_n|\text{phys}=G_n|\text{phys}=H_n|\text{phys}=J_n|\text{phys}=0\text{for}n0.$$
(52)
Because, by the very construction, there are no excited physical states in the right sector, it suffices to concentrate on the left–sector ground state. As we have seen above this is four–fold degenerate,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k,\kappa )|\times |,\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)}(k,\kappa )|\times |,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}(k,\kappa )|\times |,\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\kappa )|\times |.$$
(53)
Recall that the operators $`d_0^{(\pm )}`$, which raise $`||`$, carry weights of $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to the $`SO(1,1)`$ subgroup of the full $`U(1,1)`$ group and, hence, assign those to the excited states $`|^{(\pm )}`$. For brevity we omit indices carried by the states throughout the text.

On the ground states (53), the conditions (52) reduce to their zero–mode part, with

$$L_02(p^{}p^++p_y^{}p_y^+),G_0p^{}\mathrm{}_{0()},H_0p_y^{}\mathrm{}_{0()},J_0\mathrm{}_{0(+)}\mathrm{}_{0()}.$$
(54)
As usual, $`L_0`$ forces the states to lie on the mass shell

$$k^+k^{}+\kappa ^+\kappa ^{}=0.$$
(55)
The other three operators are nilpotent. The $`J_0`$ condition eliminates $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The remaining constraints $`G_0`$ and $`H_0`$ imply

$$k^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}=\kappa ^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}=0$$
(56)
which, for generic kinematics (normalizability of states), renders $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}`$ unphysical as well.

Hence, we are left with the pair $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)})`$ for the time being. A relevant point to check is whether these two remaining massless states are indeed connected by supersymmetry. Taking the Laurent expansion of the supersymmetry current $`q_{(+)}`$ (32) in the form

$$q_{(+)}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi ^2}}\underset{nZ}{}\frac{q_n}{\overline{z}^{n+1}}$$
(57)
and evaluating the operator products with the superconformal currents (S0.Ex26), one easily finds the commutation relations

$`[L_n,q_m]=mq_{n+m},\{G_n,q_m\}=0,`$
$`\{H_n,q_m\}=0,[J_n,q_m]=\frac{i\sqrt{2}}{\pi }G_{n+m}.`$ (58)
One sees from here that only the zero mode of $`q_{(+)}`$, namely

$$q_{0(+)}=i\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}_{0(+)}\frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{nZ}{}d_n^{(+)}a_n^{},$$
(59)
(weakly) commutes with the super Virasoro generators and, hence, maps physical states to physical states. For the ground states at hand this yields

$$\delta _{\text{susy}}\mathrm{\Phi }=i\sqrt{\pi }ϵ^{(+)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)},\delta _{\text{susy}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi }}ϵ^{(+)}p^{}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(60)
and the corresponding fields do fall into a supermultiplet.

Let us finally discuss the way the $`U(1,1)`$ symmetry acts on the physical states or, equivalently, on the vertex operators. Since the analysis reduces to the zero-mode sector, one can readily deduce from (S0.Ex36) a quantum representation for the $`u(1,1)`$ algebra (the ordering of the operators involved is fixed as given below)

$`L_1=2x^+p^{}2x^{}p^++2y^+p_y^{}2y^{}p_y^++id_0^{(+)}\mathrm{}_{0(+)}id_0^{()}\mathrm{}_{0()},`$
$`L_2=2x^+p^{}2x^{}p^+2y^+p_y^{}+2y^{}p_y^+,`$
$`L_3=2y^{}p^+2x^+p_y^{}+2y^+p^{}2x^{}p_y^+,`$
$`L_4=2y^{}p^+2x^+p_y^{}2y^+p^{}+2x^{}p_y^+,`$ (61)
were $`\{d_0,\mathrm{}_0\}=1`$, $`[x^\pm ,p^{}]=\frac{i}{2}`$, and $`[y^\pm ,p_y^{}]=\frac{i}{2}`$. Notice that the operators generating the algebra are hermitian. One sees from the relations above that the generators $`L_2`$, $`L_3`$, $`L_4`$ forming the $`su(1,1)`$ subalgebra (see Table 3 for the commutation relations) do not involve any spin part. This means that the physical states are singlets with respect to the $`SU(1,1)`$ subgroup of the full $`U(1,1)`$. The generator $`L_1`$ of the abelian subalgebra $`u(1)`$, however, contains a nontrivial “spin” part $`d_0^{(+)}\mathrm{}_{0(+)}`$ which measures the helicity of our massless states $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)}`$ as $`0`$ and $`1/2`$, respectively, and thus distinguishes between them. In contrast to the ordinary $`N=2`$ string, where states of different helicity are physically equivalent due to the action of picture-raising and spectral flow, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(+)}`$ represent inequivalent states because of their left-moving structure.

7. Discussion

To summarize, in the present paper we examined a novel possibility for including space–time fermions into the $`N=2`$ string. In contrast to previous approaches we chose to maintain the $`U(1,1)`$ covariance intrinsic to the original $`N=2`$ string and supersymmetrized only one direction of the configuration space. Supersymmetry has been realized explicitly on the left–movers. Interestingly enough, application of the $`U(1,1)`$ transformations to the standard set of $`N=2`$ superconformal currents, which was our starting point in the right–moving sector, automatically generates the $`N=4`$ currents of the topological reformulation by Berkovits and Vafa. It seems that the space–time supersymmetry distinguishes the latter from the former. Quantization has been accomplished, yielding two physical states in the spectrum, one boson and one fermion, which form a multiplet of the global $`(1,0)`$ supersymmetry.

We turn to discuss some points which have not been covered in the paper and may constitute further developments. Firstly, since from the outset Lorentz covariance has been sacrificed, the question of spin carried by the quantum states in the spectrum can be answered only after an explicit evaluation of tree–level scattering amplitudes. However, this immediately reveals a difficulty because the (right–sector) vertex operator (46) does not respect the $`U(1,1)`$ covariance of the full formalism which is kept by the left–movers (see Sect. 4). Secondly, the computation of scattering amplitudes requires a determination of the $`(\theta ,p_\theta )`$ zero–mode measure in the vertex operator correlation functions. As is familiar from ghost systems, such zero–mode insertions can be subsumed in a modification of the scalar product (50) plus a change of the conjugation rules. Also, the full vertex operators $`V_0`$ are yet to be constructed. These questions require a further investigation and we hope to report on them elsewhere. Thirdly, throughout the paper we worked in the superconformal gauge. A Lagrangian formulation is missing and suggests another interesting problem. Yet, from the structure of the constraints one may already suspect that a Lagrangian formulation is likely to possess both kappa symmetry (acting on the left–moving fields) as well as an $`N=2`$ world–sheet local supersymmetry (acting on the right–movers). This could provide an interesting combination of Green–Schwarz and Neveu–Schwarz–Ramond formalisms.

Acknowledgments

The work of two of us (S.B. and A.G.) has been supported by the Iniziativa Specifica MI12 of the Commissione IV of INFN and by INTAS grant No 00 OPEN 254. A.G. thanks the ITP at Hannover University for the hospitality extended to him. The third author (O.L.) is partially supported by DFG under grant Le 838/7-1. He also acknowledges hospitality of the Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati.


text:
# Lines on contact manifolds II

## 1. Introduction

Complex contact manifolds have recently received considerable attention. Many of the newer publications, e.g. \[Hwa97\], \[KPSW00\], \[Keb00b\] or \[Hon01\], approach contact manifolds via the covering family of minimal rational curves, or via geometric structures which are associated with the tangent vectors to these curves. This short note furtheres the study of these curves.

We fix a family $`H`$ of minimal rational curves on a contact manifold $`X`$. It is known that for any point $`xX`$, the subvariety $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)X`$, which is covered by those curves which contain $`x`$, is Legendrian. We will now study the deformations of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ which are generated by moving the base point.

As an application, we give a positive answer to a question of J.M. Hwang \[Hwa00\] in the case of contact manifolds: for a general point $`xX`$, the tangent map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \tau _x:& H_x& & (T_X^{}|_x)\\ & \mathrm{}& & (T_{\mathrm{}}^{}|_x)\end{array}$$

which maps a curve through $`x`$ to its tangent direction at $`x`$ is a birational immersion. In other words, we show that a general choice of a point $`xX`$ and a tangent direction $`\stackrel{}{v}T_X|_x`$ defines at most a single minimal rational curve. The author believes that this is a necessary step towards a full classification of contact manifolds.

We give a second application by showing that the normalization of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is isomorphic to a projective cone.

### Acknowledgement

This paper was written up while the author enjoyed the hospitality of the University of Washington at Seattle, the University of British Columbia at Vancouver and Princeton University. The author would like to thank K. Behrend, J. Kollár and S. Kovács for the invitation.

## 2. Setup

Throughout the present paper, we maintain the assumptions and notational conventions of the first part \[Keb00b\] of this article. In particular, we refer to \[Keb00b\], and the references therein, for an introduction to contact manifolds and to the parameter spaces which we will use freely thorughout.

For the reader’s convenience, we will briefly recall the most important conventions here. We assume that $`X`$ is a complex projective manifold of dimension $`dimX=2n+1`$ which carries a contact structure. This structure is given by a vector bundle sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & F& & T_X& \stackrel{\theta }{}& L& & 0\end{array}$$

where $`F`$ is a subbundle of corank 1 and where the skew-symmetric O’Neill-Tensor

$$N:FFL$$

which is associated with the Lie-Bracket is non-degenerate at every point of $`X`$.

We will assume throughout that $`X`$ is not isomorphic to the projective space $`_{2n+1}`$. It has been shown in \[Keb00b, sect. 2.3\] that this assumption implies that we can find a component $`H\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ such that the intersection of $`L`$ with the curves associated with $`H`$ is one. The space $`H`$ is therefore compact, and for any point $`xX`$ we have a diagram

where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ is the normalization the subfamily $`H_xH`$ of curves containing $`x`$ and $`U_x`$ is the pull-back of the universal family $`\mathrm{Univ}^{rc}(X)`$.

Throughout the paper we will constantly use the facts that that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ is smooth (\[Kol96, II.3.11.5\]), that the subvariety $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ which is covered by curves through $`X`$ is a Legendrian subvariety of $`X`$ (\[Keb00b, prop. 4.1\]) and that for a general point $`xX`$ all curves $`\mathrm{}H_x`$ are smooth (\[Keb00b, prop. 3.3\]).

## 3. Deformations of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$

In order to study deformations of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$, it is useful to consider sections $`\sigma `$ in the restriction of the tangent bundle $`T_X|_{\mathrm{}}`$ to a minimal rational curve $`\mathrm{}`$. The following proposition, which is a simple generalization of \[Keb00b, prop. 3.1\], gives a convenient criterion which can be used to show that $`\sigma `$ is contained in the restriction of $`F`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`xX`$ be a general point, $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X,[0:1]x)`$ a morphism and let $`\sigma H^0(_1,f^{}(T_X))`$ be a section such that $`\sigma ([0:1])f^{}(F)|_{[0:1]}`$.

Then $`\sigma `$ is contained in $`H^0(_1,f^{}(F))`$ if and only if $`T__1`$ and $`\sigma ([0:1])`$ are orthogonal with respect to the pull-back $`f^{}(N)`$ of the O’Neill-tensor.

###### Proof.

We know from \[Kol96, thms. II.3.11.5 and II.2.8\] that the space $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)`$ is smooth at $`f`$. Consequence: we can find an embedded unit disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)`$, centered about $`f`$ such that $`\sigma T_\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|_f`$ holds. In this situation we can apply \[Keb00b, prop. 3.1\] to the family $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, and the claim is shown. ∎

We will now employ this criterion in order to construct sections of $`L`$ on the universal family over $`H_x`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $`xX`$ is a general point, then there exists a natural vector space morphism

$$s:T_X|_xH^0(U_x,\iota _x^{}(L))$$

such that the equality

(3.1)
$$s(\stackrel{}{v})|_\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\iota _x^{}(\theta (\stackrel{}{v}))$$

holds.

Note that the equation (3.1) makes sense because the restricted line bundle $`\iota _x^{}(L)|_\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is trivial.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{}H_x`$ is any line, then it follows immediately from proposition 3.1 that the kernel of the evaluation map

$$e:H^0(\mathrm{},T_X|_{\mathrm{}})T_X|_x$$

is contained in $`H^0(\mathrm{},F|_{\mathrm{}})`$ —for this, note that the the vector $`0T_X|_x`$ is contained in $`F`$ and is perpendicular to any other vector. Recall from \[Keb00b, lem. 3.5\] that the vector bundle $`T_X|_{\mathrm{}}`$ is globally generated. The evaluation map $`e`$ is therefore surjective, and we obtain a vector space morphism

$$s_{\mathrm{}}:T_X|_xH^0(\mathrm{},L|_{\mathrm{}}).$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ is smooth, it is elementary to see that for any tangent vector $`\stackrel{}{v}T_X|_x`$, the union of the sections $`(s_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{}{v}))_{\mathrm{}H_x}`$ gives a section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})H^0(U_x,\iota _x^{}(L))`$. ∎

For those tangent vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ which are contained in $`F|_x`$, we are able to describe the section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})`$ in greater detail.

###### Lemma 3.3.

If $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}U_x`$ is the section which is contracted by $`\iota _x`$, and if $`\stackrel{}{v}F|_x\{0\}`$, then the support of the divisor $`\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v}))`$ which is associated with $`s(\stackrel{}{v})`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{Supp}(\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v})))=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(\tau _x\pi _x)^1(D),$$

where $`D|𝒪_{(F|_x^{})}(1)|`$ is the union of those tangent directions which are perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$.

###### Proof.

Since the pull-back $`\iota _x^{}(L)`$ intersects $`\pi _x`$-fibers with multiplicity one, and since the section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})`$ will always vanish on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, it is clear that the support $`\mathrm{Supp}(\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v})))`$ must be of the form

$$\mathrm{Supp}(\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v})))=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\pi _x^1(D^{}).$$

The proof is finished if we show that any section $`\sigma H^0(\mathrm{},T_X|_{\mathrm{}})`$ with $`\sigma (x)=\stackrel{}{v}`$ is contained in $`H^0(\mathrm{},F|_{\mathrm{}})`$ if and only if the orthogonality holds. That, however, is exactly the statement of proposition 3.1. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

The morphism $`s:T_X|_xH^0(U_x,\iota _x^{}(L))`$ is injective and the linear system $`|\iota _x^{}(L)|`$ is basepoint-free.

###### Proof.

By lemma 3.3, the restriction $`s|_{F_x}`$ is injective and the base locus of the linear sub-system $`(s(\stackrel{}{v}))_{\stackrel{}{v}F|_x}`$ is exactly the contracted section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. The claim is therefore shown if we note that for every tangent vector $`\stackrel{}{v}T_X|_x`$, which is not contained in $`F|_x`$, the section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})`$ does not vanish on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. For this, we refer to equation (3.1) of lemma 3.2 above. ∎

## 4. Birationality of the tangent map

We apply the results of the previous section to show that the tangent map $`\tau _x`$ is generically injective. Together with the results of \[Keb00a, thm. 3.4\] and \[Keb00b, cor. 3.6\], this implies that $`\tau _x`$ is a finite birational immersion.

We start the proof by studying curves which intersect $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ tangentially. For the formulation of the proposition, recall the fact \[Keb00a, thm. 3.5\] that for a general point $`y\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ there exists a unique curve in $`\mathrm{}_{x,y}H_x`$ which contains both $`x`$ and $`y`$. The evaluation morphism $`\iota _x`$ is therefore birational.

###### Proposition 4.1.

If $`y\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is a general point, and if $`\mathrm{}_yH`$ is a curve which intersects $`\mathrm{}_{x,y}`$ tangentially in $`y`$, then $`\mathrm{}_y=\mathrm{}_{x,y}`$.

The proof will involve the infinitesimal description of the $`\mathrm{Hom}`$-scheme and of the universal morphism $`\mu :\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)\times _1X`$. The reader might want to consider \[Keb00b, sect. 2.2\] or \[Keb01\] for a brief statement of the basic facts and the associated notation.

###### Proof.

As a first step, we claim that the curve $`\mathrm{}_y`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$.

### Proof of the claim

As $`y`$ was chosen generally, we can find a birational morphism $`f_y:_1\mathrm{}_y`$ with $`f_y([0:1])=y`$ such that the reduced scheme $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)_{\mathrm{red}}`$ is smooth at $`f_y`$ and such that tangent map of the restricted universal morphism $`\mu |_{\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)_{\mathrm{red}}\times \{[0:1]\}}`$ has maximal rank at $`f`$. This enables us to find an analytic open subset $`U_x\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ and a lifting $`U_{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{bir}}(_1,X)`$ with curves which are tangent to $`\mathrm{}_{z,x}`$ for points $`zU_x`$. More precisely, we can find an embedded polycylinder $`U_{}`$ such that

1. The restricted universal morphism

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \mu |_{U_{}\times \{[0:1]\}}:& U_{}& & X\\ & f_z& & f_z([0:1])\end{array}$$

induces a morphism $`U_{}U`$.
2. For every morphism $`f_zU_{}`$, the curve $`\mathrm{}_z:=f_z(_1)`$ meets $`\mathrm{}_{x,z}`$ tangentially in $`z`$.

We will now apply proposition 3.1 to sections $`\sigma H^0(\mathrm{}_z,T_X|_\mathrm{}_z)`$ which come from the deformation family $`U_{}`$. It is clear from the construction that if

$$\sigma T_U_{}|_{f_z}H^0(\mathrm{}_z,T_X|_\mathrm{}_z)$$

is any tangent vector, then

$$\sigma ([0:1])T_{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}|_z.$$

Since $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is known to be Legendrian, the tangent space $`T_{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}|_z`$ will be isotropic with respect to the O’Neill-tensor $`N`$; the restriction $`N|_{T_{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}|_z}`$ is identically zero:

$$T_\mathrm{}_z|_zT_{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}|_z.$$

In particular, the tangent vector $`\sigma ([0:1])`$ is perpendicular to $`T_\mathrm{}_z|_z`$. Applying proposition 3.1, we see that the tangent space $`T_U_{}|_{f_z}`$ is associated with sections in $`H^0(\mathrm{}_z,F|_\mathrm{}_z)`$. This implies that the image $`\mu (U_{}\times _1)`$ must be $`F`$-integral —see \[Kol96, prop. II.3.4\]. Since, on the other hand, $`\mu (U_{}\times _1)`$ already contains the Legendrian submanifold $`U`$, it turns out that $`\mu (U_{}\times _1)`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ so that the claim $`\mathrm{}_y\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ follows.

### Application of the claim

As a next step we consider the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$ of $`\mathrm{}_y`$ in the universal family $`U_x`$. We will now argue by contradiction, assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$ is not a fiber of the map $`\pi _x:U_x\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$, and derive a contradiction. For this, note that the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$ intersects the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{x,y}`$ of $`\mathrm{}_{x,y}`$, which is a $`\pi _x`$-fiber, transversally in the preimage of $`y`$. We claim that this is impossible; a contradiction is thus reached.

In order to see this contradiction, observe that $`\iota _x^{}(L)`$ intersects the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$ with multiplicity one; this is because $`y`$ is general and the morphism $`\iota _x:U_x\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is birational. On the other hand, by lemma 3.3 we can always find a vector $`\stackrel{}{v}T_X|_x`$ such that the associated section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})H^0(U_x,\iota _x^{}(L))`$ vanishes on the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{x,y}`$, but not on the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$. Thus, the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_y`$ intersects the divisor $`\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v}))`$ tangentially, and the intersection number cannot be one. This ends the proof of proposition 4.1. ∎

###### Corollary 4.2.

The tangential map $`\tau _x`$ is generically injective, that is, $`\tau _x`$ is birational onto its image.

###### Proof.

Using the notation of above, if $`\mathrm{}_{xy}H`$ is the unique curve containing both $`x`$ and $`y`$, and if $`\mathrm{}_yH`$ is a curve which contains $`y`$, then proposition 4.1 shows that $`\mathrm{}_{x,y}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_y`$ intersect transversally. Since $`y`$ was generically chosen, the claim follows. ∎

## 5. The normalization of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$

We will now show that the normalization of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is isomorphic to a cone.

###### Proposition 5.1.

If $`x`$ is a general point, then the normalization $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}`$ of $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is a cone.

###### Proof.

Since all curves which are associated with points in $`H_x`$ are smooth, and since $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ is smooth, the preimage $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}:=\iota _x^1(x)U_x`$ is a section over $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ which can be contracted to a point. By definition, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}`$ is a cone if we can show that

1. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{locus}(H_x)}`$ is isomorphic to the image of $`U_x`$ under the contraction of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$.
2. There exists another section $`\sigma _0U_x`$ which is disjoint from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$.

See the introductory remarks in the paper \[Wah83\] for more information on this.

In order to show property (1), recall Mori’s Bend-and-Break argument \[Kol96, II.5\] which asserts that $`\iota _x|_{U_x\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}`$ is finite. Likewise, recall from \[Keb00a, thm. 3.6\] that $`\iota _x`$ is birational. Consequence: the Stein factorization of $`\iota _x`$ yields a decomposition as follows:

In order to construct the divisor $`\sigma _0`$, choose a tangent vector $`\stackrel{}{v}T_X|_x`$ which is not contained in $`F|_x`$. By lemma 3.3, this gives a section $`s(\stackrel{}{v})H^0(U_x,\iota _x^{}(L))`$. Since $`\iota _x^{}(L)`$ intersects the fibers of $`\pi _x`$ with mulitplicity one, and since $`\iota _x^{}(L)|_\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is trivial, it follows that the associated divisor $`\mathrm{Div}(s(\stackrel{}{v}))\mathrm{Div}(U_x)`$ is a section $`\sigma _0U_x`$ which is disjoint to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. ∎