text:
# Finslerian 𝑁-spinors: Algebra

## 1. Introduction

Spinors as geometrical objects were discovered by É. Cartan in 1913 (Cartan, 1913). One decade later, W. Pauli (Pauli, 1927) and P. A. M. Dirac (Dirac, 1928) rediscovered spinors in connection with the problem of describing the spin of an electron. From that time, spinors are intensively used in mathematics and physics.

In the classical works (Brauer and Weyl, 1935; Cartan, 1938), a concept of the Cartan’s 2-spinor was generalized and the theory of spinors in an arbitrary $`n`$-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space was constructed. In this article, another generalization of 2-spinors is proposed which leads to the Finslerian geometry. Originally, such a generalization appeared within the so-called relational theory of space-time (Vladimirov, 1996; Solov’yov, 1996). However, the corresponding mathematical scheme has also an independent meaning and will be presented below.

In the next section, we shall develop a general algebraic formalism of Finslerian $`N`$-spinors. The subsequent sections deal with the theory of the simplest Finslerian 2- and 3-spinors. Conclusion contains some remarks concerning the obtained results.

## 2. General formalism

Let $`𝔽𝕊^N`$ be a vector space of $`N>1`$ dimensions over $``$ and

$$[,,\mathrm{},]:\underset{N\text{ multiplicands}}{\underset{}{𝔽𝕊^N\times 𝔽𝕊^N\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔽𝕊^N}}$$
$`(1)`$
be a nonzero antisymmetric $`N`$-linear functional on $`𝔽𝕊^N`$. The latter means:
ii(i) there exist $`𝝃_0`$, $`𝜼_0`$, …, $`𝝀_0𝔽𝕊^N`$ such that

$$[𝝃_0,𝜼_0,\mathrm{},𝝀_0]=z_00;$$
$`(2)`$
i(ii) for any $`𝝃_1`$, $`𝝃_2`$, …, $`𝝃_N𝔽𝕊^N`$,

$$[𝝃_a,𝝃_b,\mathrm{},𝝃_c]=\epsilon _{ab\mathrm{}c}[𝝃_1,𝝃_2,\mathrm{},𝝃_N],$$

where $`a`$, $`b`$, …, $`c=1`$, 2, …, $`N`$ and $`\epsilon _{ab\mathrm{}c}`$ is the $`N`$-dimensional Levi-Civita symbol with the ordinary normalization $`\epsilon _{12\mathrm{}N}=1`$;
(iii) for any $`𝝃_1`$, $`𝜼_1`$, $`𝝃_2`$, $`𝜼_2`$, …, $`𝝃_N`$, $`𝜼_N𝔽𝕊^N`$ and $`z`$,

$`[𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_a+𝜼_a,\mathrm{},𝝃_N]`$ $`=[𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_a,\mathrm{},𝝃_N]+[𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝜼_a,\mathrm{},𝝃_N],`$
$`[𝝃_1,\mathrm{},z𝝃_a,\mathrm{},𝝃_N]`$ $`=z[𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_a,\mathrm{},𝝃_N],`$
where $`a`$ takes the values 1, 2, …, $`N`$.

We shall use the following terminology. The space $`𝔽𝕊^N`$ equipped with the functional (1) having the properties (i), (ii), and (iii) is called the space of Finslerian $`N`$-spinors. The complex number $`[𝝃,𝜼,\mathrm{},𝝀]`$ is respectively called the scalar $`N`$-product of the Finslerian $`N`$-spinors $`𝝃`$, $`𝜼`$, …, $`𝝀𝔽𝕊^N`$.

It should be noted that $`𝝃_0`$, $`𝜼_0`$, …, $`𝝀_0`$ are linearly independent. Indeed, if those were linearly dependent, one of the Finslerian $`N`$-spinors $`𝝃_0`$, $`𝜼_0`$, …, $`𝝀_0`$ would be a linear combination of the others and, in accordance with (ii)–(iii), the scalar $`N`$-product $`[𝝃_0,𝜼_0,\mathrm{},𝝀_0]`$ would be equal to zero. However, this is in contradiction with (2). Thus, $`𝝃_0`$, $`𝜼_0`$, …, $`𝝀_0`$ are linearly independent, i.e., form a basis in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$.

Let us introduce the notation $`\mathit{ϵ}_1=𝝃_0`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_2=𝜼_0`$, …, $`\mathit{ϵ}_N=𝝀_0/z_0`$. It is evident that the set $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ is a basis in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$. Due to (2) and (iii), its elements satisfy the condition

$$[\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N]=1.$$
$`(3)`$
We shall call such a basis canonical.

Let $`\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$, …, $`\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}`$ be arbitrary Finslerian $`N`$-spinors and

$$\mathit{ϵ}_a^{}=c_a^b\mathit{ϵ}_b$$
$`(4)`$
be their expansions into the canonical basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$; here $`a`$, $`b=1`$, 2, …, $`N`$, $`c_a^b`$, and the summation is taken over the repeating index $`b`$. With the help of (ii), (iii), (3), and (4), we find

$$[\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}]=det\text{C}_N,$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\text{C}_N=c_a^b`$. Since linear (in)dependence of $`\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$, …, $`\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}`$ is equivalent to that of columns of the complex $`N\times N`$ matrix $`\text{C}_N`$, the set $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}`$ is a basis in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$ if and only if $`det\text{C}_N0`$. Moreover, it follows from (5) that $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}`$ is a canonical one when $`det\text{C}_N=1`$. Thus, if $`\text{C}_N`$ runs the group $`\text{SL}(N,)`$ of unimodular complex $`N\times N`$ matrices, then $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}`$ runs the set $`𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$ of canonical bases in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$.

Let us express the scalar $`N`$-product of Finslerian $`N`$-spinors in terms of their components with respect to any canonical basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$. By using (ii), (iii), (3), and the expansions $`𝝃=\xi ^a\mathit{ϵ}_a`$, $`𝜼=\eta ^b\mathit{ϵ}_b`$, …, $`𝝀=\lambda ^c\mathit{ϵ}_c`$, it is possible to show that

$$[𝝃,𝜼,\mathrm{},𝝀]=\epsilon _{ab\mathrm{}c}\xi ^a\eta ^b\mathrm{}\lambda ^c,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`𝝃`$, $`𝜼`$, …, $`𝝀𝔽𝕊^N`$, $`\xi ^a`$, $`\eta ^b`$, …, $`\lambda ^c`$, $`a`$, $`b`$, …, $`c=1`$, 2, …, $`N`$. In (6) as well as in the following formulas of this article, the summation is taken over all the repeating indices. It is clear that the scalar $`N`$-product (6) is zero if and only if $`𝝃`$, $`𝜼`$, …, $`𝝀`$ are linearly dependent Finslerian $`N`$-spinors.

Let us consider a mapping

$`𝑺:𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$ $`^{N^{k+l+m+n}},`$
$`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ $`𝑺\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=\left(S_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}\right)`$ (7)
such that

$`S_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}`$ $`=c_{a_1}^{e_1}\mathrm{}c_{a_m}^{e_m}\overline{c_{\dot{d}_1}^{\dot{h}_1}}\mathrm{}\overline{c_{\dot{d}_n}^{\dot{h}_n}}d_{f_1}^{b_1}\mathrm{}d_{f_k}^{b_k}\overline{d_{\dot{g}_1}^{\dot{c}_1}}\mathrm{}\overline{d_{\dot{g}_l}^{\dot{c}_l}}`$
$`\times S_{e_1\mathrm{}e_m\dot{h}_1\mathrm{}\dot{h}_n}^{f_1\mathrm{}f_k\dot{g}_1\mathrm{}\dot{g}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ (8)
for any two canonical bases $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$, $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$ whose elements are connected by the relations (4). Here all the indices (both ordinary and dotted) run independently from 1 to $`N`$, the over-lines denote complex conjugating, $`d_b^a`$ are the complex numbers satisfying the conditions $`c_a^bd_c^a=\delta _c^b`$ ($`\delta _c^b`$ is the Kronecker symbol), $`detc_b^a=detd_b^a=1`$, and $`k`$, $`l`$, $`m`$, $`n`$ are nonnegative integers.

Every mapping (7), which possesses the property (8), is called a Finslerian $`N`$-spintensor of a valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{k}{m}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{l}{n}]`$. The addition and multiplication of such $`N`$-spintensors are defined in the standard way: if $`𝑺`$ and $`𝑻`$ have the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{k}{m}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{l}{n}]`$ while $`𝑼`$ has the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{p}{r}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{q}{s}]`$, then

$`(S+T)_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ $`=S_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$
$`+T_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$
are the components of the sum $`𝑺+𝑻`$ while

$`(SU)_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{m+r}\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_{n+s}}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_{k+p}\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_{l+q}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ $`=S_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m\dot{d}_1\mathrm{}\dot{d}_n}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_k\dot{c}_1\mathrm{}\dot{c}_l}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$
$`\times U_{a_{m+1}\mathrm{}a_{m+r}\dot{d}_{n+1}\mathrm{}\dot{d}_{n+s}}^{b_{k+1}\mathrm{}b_{k+p}\dot{c}_{l+1}\mathrm{}\dot{c}_{l+q}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$
are those of the product $`𝑺𝑼`$ with respect to an arbitrary canonical basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$. Notice that all Finslerian $`N`$-spintensors of the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{k}{m}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{l}{n}]`$ form an $`N^{k+l+m+n}`$-dimensional vector space over $``$.

Let $`\text{Herm}(N)`$ be an $`N^2`$-dimensional vector space over $``$ consisting of Finslerian $`N`$-spintensors $`𝑿`$ of the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{1}{0}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{1}{0}]`$ whose components satisfy the Hermitian symmetry conditions

$$X^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=\overline{X^{c\dot{b}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}}$$
$`(9)`$
for any $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$. Besides, let $`\{𝑬_0,𝑬_1,\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}\}`$ be a basis in $`\text{Herm}(N)`$ and $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ be a canonical one in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$. With each $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$, we associate a basis $`\{𝑬_0^{},𝑬_1^{},\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}^{}\}`$ in $`\text{Herm}(N)`$ such that

$$E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}=E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}},$$
$`(10)`$
where $`E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}}=E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ and $`\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{},N^21`$. In other words, (10) defines the mapping $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}\{𝑬_0^{},𝑬_1^{},\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}^{}\}`$ of $`𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$ into the set of all bases in $`\text{Herm}(N)`$. However,

$$E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=c_f^b\overline{c_{\dot{g}}^{\dot{c}}}E_\alpha ^{f\dot{g}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}$$
$`(11)`$
(compare it with (8)). Due to (10) and (11), we obtain

$$E_\alpha ^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=c_f^b\overline{c_{\dot{g}}^{\dot{c}}}E_\alpha ^{f\dot{g}}.$$
$`(12)`$
Let us consider the following expansions

$$𝑬_\alpha ^{}=L(\text{C}_N)_\alpha ^\beta 𝑬_\beta ,$$
$`(13)`$
where $`L(\text{C}_N)_\alpha ^\beta `$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,\mathrm{},N^21`$. In order to find $`L(\text{C}_N)_\alpha ^\beta `$ as the functions of $`c_b^a`$, it is useful to introduce $`N^2`$ Finslerian $`N`$-spintensors $`𝑬^\alpha `$ of the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{0}{1}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{0}{1}]`$ such that

$$\text{contraction}(𝑬^\alpha 𝑬_\beta )=\delta _\beta ^\alpha .$$
$`(14)`$
It is easy to show that $`𝑬^\alpha `$ exist, are unique, and $`E_{b\dot{c}}^\alpha =\overline{E_{c\dot{b}}^\alpha }`$ with the notation $`E_{b\dot{c}}^\alpha =E_{b\dot{c}}^\alpha \{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$. Using (13) and (14), we can write

$$L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\alpha =\text{contraction}(𝑬^\alpha 𝑬_\beta ^{}).$$
$`(15)`$
On the other hand, (12) implies

$$\text{contraction}(𝑬^\alpha 𝑬_\beta ^{})=E_{b\dot{c}}^\alpha c_f^b\overline{c_{\dot{g}}^{\dot{c}}}E_\beta ^{f\dot{g}}.$$
$`(16)`$
Thus, according to (15) and (16),

$$L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\alpha =E_{b\dot{c}}^\alpha c_f^b\overline{c_{\dot{g}}^{\dot{c}}}E_\beta ^{f\dot{g}}.$$
$`(17)`$
Let $`\text{E}^\alpha =E_{\dot{c}b}^\alpha `$, $`\text{E}_\beta =E_\beta ^{f\dot{g}}`$, and $`\text{E}_\beta ^{}=E_\beta ^{f\dot{g}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$. Then, it is possible to rewrite (12) and (17) in the matrix form respectively as

$$\text{E}_\beta ^{}=\text{C}_N\text{E}_\beta \text{C}_N^+$$
$`(18)`$
and

$$L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\alpha =\text{trace}(\text{E}^\alpha \text{C}_N\text{E}_\beta \text{C}_N^+),$$
$`(19)`$
where the cross denotes Hermitian conjugating. However, it follows from (13) that $`\text{E}_\beta ^{}=L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\gamma \text{E}_\gamma `$. Therefore,

$$\text{C}_N\text{E}_\beta \text{C}_N^+=L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\gamma \text{E}_\gamma .$$
$`(20)`$
Taking into account (19) and (20), we immediately obtain

$$L(\text{B}_N\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\alpha =\text{trace}(\text{E}^\alpha \text{B}_N\text{C}_N\text{E}_\beta \text{C}_N^+\text{B}_N^+)=L(\text{B}_N)_\gamma ^\alpha L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\gamma $$
$`(21)`$
for any $`\text{B}_N,\text{C}_N\text{SL}(N,)`$.

Let $`L(\text{C}_N)=L(\text{C}_N)_\beta ^\alpha `$ and $`\text{FL}(N^2,)=\{L(\text{C}_N)\text{C}_N\text{SL}(N,)\}`$. In these terms, (21) means that $`\text{FL}(N^2,)`$ is a group with respect to the matrix multiplication and the mapping

$$L:\text{SL}(N,)\text{FL}(N^2,),\text{C}_NL(\text{C}_N)$$
$`(22)`$
is a group epimorphism so that, in particular, $`L(1_N)=1_{N^2}`$ ($`1_N`$, $`1_{N^2}`$ are the identity matrices of the corresponding orders) and $`L(\text{C}_N^1)=L(\text{C}_N)^1`$. It is easy to prove that the kernel of the epimorphism (22) has the form

$$\mathrm{ker}L=\{e^{i\frac{2\pi k}{N}}1_Nk=0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}.$$
$`(23)`$
Let us return to the relations (13). Since both $`\{𝑬_0,\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}\}`$ and $`\{𝑬_0^{},\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}^{}\}`$ are bases in $`\text{Herm}(N)`$, any vector $`𝑿\text{Herm}(N)`$ can be expanded in the two ways

$$𝑿=X^\alpha 𝑬_\alpha =X^\beta 𝑬_\beta ^{},$$
$`(24)`$
where $`X^\alpha `$, $`X^\beta `$. It is obvious that $`X^\beta =L(\text{C}_N^1)_\alpha ^\beta X^\alpha `$. On the other hand, $`X^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=c_f^b\overline{c_{\dot{g}}^{\dot{c}}}X^{f\dot{g}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}`$ or, what is the same,

$$X^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=\text{C}_NX^{f\dot{g}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}\text{C}_N^+.$$
$`(25)`$
Remembering that $`det\text{C}_N=1`$ and calculating the determinant of (25), we see that

$$detX^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}=detX^{f\dot{g}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}$$
$`(26)`$
for any $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$. Hence, (26) gives an invariant numerical characteristic of the vector $`𝑿`$, which is naturally denoted by $`det𝑿`$. Notice that $`det𝑿=detX^{b\dot{c}}\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}`$ as it follows from (9).

Thus, without loss of generality, it is possible to calculate $`det𝑿`$ with respect to the basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathrm{},\mathit{ϵ}_N\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^N)`$. According to (24) and (26), $`det𝑿=det(X^\alpha \text{E}_\alpha )=det(X^\beta \text{E}_\beta ^{})`$. However, (18) implies $`det(X^\beta \text{E}_\beta ^{})=det(\text{C}_NX^\beta \text{E}_\beta \text{C}_N^+)=det(X^\beta \text{E}_\beta )`$. Therefore,

$$det𝑿=det(X^\alpha \text{E}_\alpha )=det(X^\alpha \text{E}_\alpha ).$$
$`(27)`$
At the same time,

$$det(X^\alpha \text{E}_\alpha )=G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }\underset{N\text{ multiplicands}}{\underset{}{X^\alpha X^\beta \mathrm{}X^\gamma }},$$
$`(28)`$
where the real coefficients $`G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }`$ are completely determined by the choice of the basis $`\{𝑬_0,\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}\}`$ in $`\text{Herm}(N)`$. Because of (27) and (28),

$$det𝑿=G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }X^\alpha X^\beta \mathrm{}X^\gamma =G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }X^\alpha X^\beta \mathrm{}X^\gamma ,$$
$`(29)`$
i.e., $`det𝑿`$ is forminvariant under transformations of the group $`\text{FL}(N^2,)`$. Notice that (29) is valid for any basis $`\{𝑬_0^{},\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}^{}\}`$ whose elements are connected with those of $`\{𝑬_0,\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}\}`$ by the relations (13).

Denoting $`det𝑿`$ by $`𝑿^N`$ and using (28), we get (with respect to the basis $`\{𝑬_0,\mathrm{},𝑬_{N^21}\}`$)

$$𝑿^N=G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }X^\alpha X^\beta \mathrm{}X^\gamma ,$$
$`(30)`$
where $`G_{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}\gamma }`$ are symmetric in all the indices and do not depend on the choice of any canonical basis in $`𝔽𝕊^N`$. Thus, (30) correctly defines the structure of an $`N^2`$-dimensional flat Finslerian space on $`\text{Herm}(N)`$ so that $`𝑿^N`$ is the $`N`$-th power of the Finslerian length of the vector $`𝑿\text{Herm}(N)`$ (Finsler, 1918). It should be noted that, in general, the homogeneous algebraic form (30) is not positive definite.

In the next two sections, we shall illustrate the above formalism by the simplest examples of Finslerian 2- and 3-spinors.

## 3. Finslerian 2-spinors

Let us consider the case when $`N=2`$. In this case, the functional (1) is the usual symplectic scalar multiplication on $`𝔽𝕊^2`$. Therefore, $`𝔽𝕊^2`$ is isomorphic to the space $`𝕊^2`$ of standard 2-spinors (Penrose and Rindler, 1986) so that Finslerian 2-spinors are identical to Weyl ones. Below, we reproduce some essential information on 2-spinors which will be necessary in the next section of this article.

First of all, for any $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2\}`$, $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^2)`$ and $`𝝃=\xi ^a\mathit{ϵ}_a=\xi ^b\mathit{ϵ}_b^{}𝔽𝕊^2`$, (4) implies

$$\xi ^a=d_b^a\xi ^b,$$
$`(31)`$
where $`\xi ^a`$, $`\xi ^b`$, $`c_b^ad_c^b=\delta _c^a`$, and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c=1`$, $`2`$. Of course, $`\text{C}_2`$, $`\text{D}_2\text{SL}(2,)`$ and $`\text{D}_2=\text{C}_2^1`$ with the notation $`\text{C}_2=c_b^a`$, $`\text{D}_2=d_b^a`$. In the same way, (6) gives

$$[𝝃,𝜼]=\epsilon _{ab}\xi ^a\eta ^b=\xi ^1\eta ^2\xi ^2\eta ^1$$
$`(32)`$
for the scalar product of arbitrary 2-spinors $`𝝃`$ and $`𝜼`$ with respect to a basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^2)`$.

Let us assume

$$\text{E}^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^\alpha ,\text{E}_\beta =\sigma _\beta ,$$
$`(33)`$
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta =0`$, 1, 2, 3, $`\sigma ^\alpha =\sigma _\alpha `$, and

$$\sigma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(34)`$
are the identity and Pauli matrices. Since $`\text{trace}(\sigma ^\alpha \sigma _\beta )=2\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$, this choice guarantees correctness of (14). It follows from (13), (21), and (24) that

$$X^\alpha =L(\text{D}_2)_\beta ^\alpha X^\beta $$
$`(35)`$
for any 4-vector $`𝑿\text{Herm}(2)`$. Using (19), (33), and (34), we obtain

$$L(\text{D}_2)_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\text{trace}(\sigma ^\alpha \text{D}_2\sigma _\beta \text{D}_2^+)$$
$`(36)`$
or, in the explicit form,

$`L(\text{D}_2)_0^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_1^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_2^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_3^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_0^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_1^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_2^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_3^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_0^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_1^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_2^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_3^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_0^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_1^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_2^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}+d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}),`$
$`L(\text{D}_2)_3^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{1}}}d_2^1\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{1}}}d_1^2\overline{d_{\dot{1}}^{\dot{2}}}+d_2^2\overline{d_{\dot{2}}^{\dot{2}}}).`$ (36a)
In addition, (28), (30), (33), and (34) imply

$$𝑿^2=G_{\alpha \beta }X^\alpha X^\beta =(X^0)^2(X^1)^2(X^2)^2(X^3)^2.$$
$`(37)`$
Because of (29) and (37), $`\text{Herm}(2)`$ is isomorphic to the Minkowski space, $`\text{FL}(4,)=\text{O}_+^{}(1,3)`$, and (22) coincides with the known 2-to-1 epimorphism $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{O}_+^{}(1,3)`$ (Penrose and Rindler, 1986).

Let $`𝔽𝕊_{}^2`$ be the realification of $`𝔽𝕊^2`$ (see the book (Kostrikin and Manin, 1989) for the detailed information on the general realification procedure). Then, $`𝔽𝕊_{}^2`$ is a 4-dimensional vector space over $``$ and its elements are Majorana 4-spinors. Indeed, setting

$$\xi ^1=\xi _{}^1i\xi _{}^2,\xi ^2=\xi _{}^3i\xi _{}^4,\xi ^1=\xi _{}^1i\xi _{}^2,\xi ^2=\xi _{}^3i\xi _{}^4,$$
$`(38)`$
we obtain

$`𝝃`$ $`=\xi ^a\mathit{ϵ}_a=\xi _{}^1\mathit{ϵ}_1\xi _{}^2i\mathit{ϵ}_1+\xi _{}^3\mathit{ϵ}_2\xi _{}^4i\mathit{ϵ}_2,`$
$`𝝃`$ $`=\xi ^b\mathit{ϵ}_b^{}=\xi _{}^1\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\xi _{}^2i\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}+\xi _{}^3\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\xi _{}^4i\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$ (39)
for any $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2\}`$, $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^2)`$ and $`𝝃𝔽𝕊^2`$; here $`\xi _{}^i`$, $`\xi _{}^j`$ ($`i`$, $`j=1`$, 2, 3, 4). It follows from (39) that $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,i\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,i\mathit{ϵ}_2\}`$ and $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},i\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},i\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\}`$ are bases in $`𝔽𝕊_{}^2`$. Moreover, the substitution of (38) into (31) provides

$$\xi _{}^i=M(\text{D}_2)_j^i\xi _{}^j,$$
$`(40)`$
where $`M(\text{D}_2)_j^i`$ and have the form

$`M(\text{D}_2)_1^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{d_1^1}+d_1^1),M(\text{D}_2)_1^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{d_1^2}+d_1^2),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_2^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{d_1^1}d_1^1),M(\text{D}_2)_2^3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{d_1^2}d_1^2),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_3^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{d_2^1}+d_2^1),M(\text{D}_2)_3^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{d_2^2}+d_2^2),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_4^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{d_2^1}d_2^1),M(\text{D}_2)_4^3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{d_2^2}d_2^2),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_1^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_1^1\overline{d_1^1}),M(\text{D}_2)_1^4={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_1^2\overline{d_1^2}),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_2^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^1+\overline{d_1^1}),M(\text{D}_2)_2^4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_1^2+\overline{d_1^2}),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_3^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_2^1\overline{d_2^1}),M(\text{D}_2)_3^4={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(d_2^2\overline{d_2^2}),`$
$`M(\text{D}_2)_4^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_2^1+\overline{d_2^1}),M(\text{D}_2)_4^4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_2^2+\overline{d_2^2}).`$ (41)
It is evident that the matrix group $`\text{Maj}(4)=\{M(\text{D}_2)_j^i\text{D}_2\text{SL}(2,)\}`$ is isomorphic to $`\text{SL}(2,)`$. Finally, using $`\eta ^1=\eta _{}^1i\eta _{}^2`$, $`\eta ^2=\eta _{}^3i\eta _{}^4`$, and (38), we can rewrite (32) as $`[𝝃,𝜼]=\overline{\xi }\gamma ^5\eta i\overline{\xi }\eta `$, where $`\xi =(\xi _{}^1,\xi _{}^2,\xi _{}^3,\xi _{}^4)^{}`$ and $`\eta =(\eta _{}^1,\eta _{}^2,\eta _{}^3,\eta _{}^4)^{}`$ are column matrices, the “$``$” mark denotes the matrix transposition, $`\overline{\xi }=\xi ^{}\gamma ^0`$ is a row matrix, and

$`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\end{array}\right),\gamma ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& i& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\gamma ^3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^5=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
are Dirac matrices in a Majorana representation (Majorana, 1937) which satisfy the standard conditions $`\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta +\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\alpha =2g^{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`(g^{\alpha \beta })=\text{diag}(1,1,1,`$ $`1)`$.

## 4. Finslerian 3-spinors

In this section, we consider the nontrivial case of Finslerian $`N`$-spinors when $`N=3`$. Besides, the algebraic structure of the group $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ is also described here.

Let us begin with the following remark. For any $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathit{ϵ}_3\}`$, $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1^{},\mathit{ϵ}_2^{},\mathit{ϵ}_3^{}\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^3)`$ and $`𝝃=\xi ^a\mathit{ϵ}_a=\xi ^b\mathit{ϵ}_b^{}𝔽𝕊^3`$, (4) implies $`\xi ^a=d_b^a\xi ^b`$, where $`\xi ^a`$, $`\xi ^b`$, $`c_b^ad_c^b=\delta _c^a`$, and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c=1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$. It is clear that $`\text{C}_3`$, $`\text{D}_3\text{SL}(3,)`$ and $`\text{D}_3=\text{C}_3^1`$ with the notation $`\text{C}_3=c_b^a`$, $`\text{D}_3=d_b^a`$. In the same way, (6) gives $`[𝝃,𝜼,𝜻]=\epsilon _{abc}\xi ^a\eta ^b\zeta ^c`$ for the scalar 3-product of arbitrary Finslerian 3-spinors $`𝝃`$, $`𝜼`$, and $`𝜻`$ with respect to a basis $`\{\mathit{ϵ}_1,\mathit{ϵ}_2,\mathit{ϵ}_3\}𝐄(𝔽𝕊^3)`$.

By analogy with the previous section, we set

$$\text{E}^A=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^A,\text{E}_B=\lambda _B,$$
$`(43)`$
where $`A,B=0,1,\mathrm{},8`$, $`\lambda ^A=\lambda _A`$ ($`A8`$), $`\lambda ^8=2\lambda _8`$, and

$`\lambda _0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\lambda _3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\lambda _6=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _7=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& 0\end{array}\right),\lambda _8=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (44)
($`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _7`$ coincide with the corresponding Gell-Mann matrices). Since $`\text{trace}(\lambda ^A\lambda _B)=2\delta _B^A`$, the choice (43) guarantees correctness of (14). It follows from (13), (21), and (24) that

$$X^A=L(\text{D}_3)_B^AX^B$$
$`(45)`$
for any 9-vector $`𝑿\text{Herm}(3)`$. Using (19), (43), and (44), we obtain

$$L(\text{D}_3)_B^A=\frac{1}{2}\text{trace}(\lambda ^A\text{D}_3\lambda _B\text{D}_3^+).$$
$`(46)`$
In addition, (28), (30), (43), and (44) imply

$`𝑿^3`$ $`=G_{AB\mathrm{\Gamma }}X^AX^BX^\mathrm{\Gamma }=[(X^0)^2(X^1)^2(X^2)^2(X^3)^2]X^8`$
$`X^0[(X^4)^2+(X^5)^2+(X^6)^2+(X^7)^2]`$
$`+2X^1[X^4X^6+X^5X^7]+2X^2[X^5X^6X^4X^7]`$
$`+X^3[(X^4)^2+(X^5)^2(X^6)^2(X^7)^2].`$ (47)
Because of (29), the Finslerian “scalar cube” (47) is forminvariant under the transformations (45), (46) of the group $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

It is more or less clear that any matrix $`\widehat{\text{D}}_3\text{SL}(3,)`$ with $`\widehat{d}_3^30`$ can be represented in a form of the product

$$\widehat{\text{D}}_3=\text{D}_3^{(1)}\text{D}_3^{(2)}\text{D}_3^{(3)}\text{D}_3^{(4)},$$
$`(48)`$
where

$`\text{D}_3^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d_1^1& d_2^1& 0\\ d_1^2& d_2^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\text{D}_3^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& d_3^1\\ 0& 1& d_3^2\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`\text{D}_3^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ d_1^3& d_2^3& 1\end{array}\right),\text{D}_3^{(4)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& 0& 0\\ 0& d& 0\\ 0& 0& d^2\end{array}\right)`$ (49)
are $`\text{SL}(3,)`$ matrices too. Due to (21), (48), and (49), we obtain the decomposition

$$L(\widehat{\text{D}}_3)=L(\text{D}_3^{(1)})L(\text{D}_3^{(2)})L(\text{D}_3^{(3)})L(\text{D}_3^{(4)})$$
$`(50)`$
of the corresponding $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ matrix $`L(\widehat{\text{D}}_3)`$. Thus, (50) reduces a general $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformation $`X^A=L(\widehat{\text{D}}_3)_B^AX^B`$ to a composition of four simpler ones induced by the matrices (49). These $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformations will be explicitly described below.

Let $`\xi _{}^i=X^{3+i}`$ ($`i=1,2,3,4`$). Then, with the help of (45) and (46), the $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformation $`X^A=L(\text{D}_3^{(1)})_B^AX^B`$ is written in the following form

$`X^\alpha `$ $`=L(\text{D}_2)_\beta ^\alpha X^\beta ,`$
$`\xi _{}^i`$ $`=M(\text{D}_2)_j^i\xi _{}^j,`$
$`X^8`$ $`=X^8,`$ (51)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$ and $`i,j=1,2,3,4`$. It is easy to see that the first line of (51) coincides with the Lorentz transformation (35), (36), (36a) of a 4-vector $`X^\alpha `$, while the second line is the transformation (40), (41) of a Majorana 4-spinor $`\xi _{}^i`$. Therefore, the transformations (51) form a 6-parametric non-Abelian subgroup of $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

Let $`d_3^1=\epsilon ^1i\epsilon ^2`$, $`d_3^2=\epsilon ^3i\epsilon ^4`$ be a parametrization of the complex matrix $`\text{D}_3^{(2)}`$ from (49). Introducing the real column matrices $`\epsilon =(\epsilon ^1,\epsilon ^2,\epsilon ^3,\epsilon ^4)^{}`$, $`\xi =(X^4,X^5,X^6,X^7)^{}`$ and using (42), (45), (46), we can write the $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformation $`X^A=L(\text{D}_3^{(2)})_B^AX^B`$ as

$`X^\alpha `$ $`=X^\alpha +\overline{\epsilon }\gamma ^\alpha \xi +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\epsilon }\gamma ^\alpha \epsilon X^8,`$
$`\xi ^{}`$ $`=\xi +\epsilon X^8,`$
$`X^8`$ $`=X^8,`$ (52)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }=\epsilon ^{}\gamma ^0`$. Since $`\epsilon ^1`$, $`\epsilon ^2`$, $`\epsilon ^3`$, $`\epsilon ^4`$, the transformations (52) form a 4-parametric Abelian subgroup of $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

Let $`d_1^3=\varkappa ^3i\varkappa ^4`$, $`d_2^3=\varkappa ^1+i\varkappa ^2`$ be a parametrization of the complex matrix $`\text{D}_3^{(3)}`$ from (49). Introducing the real column matrices $`\varkappa =(\varkappa ^1`$, $`\varkappa ^2`$, $`\varkappa ^3`$, $`\varkappa ^4)^{}`$, $`\xi =(X^4,X^5,X^6,X^7)^{}`$ and using (42), (45), (46), we write the $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformation $`X^A=L(\text{D}_3^{(3)})_B^AX^B`$ as

$`X^\alpha `$ $`=X^\alpha ,`$
$`\xi ^{}`$ $`=ig_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \varkappa X^\beta +\xi ,`$
$`X^8`$ $`=g_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\varkappa }\gamma ^\alpha \varkappa X^\beta +2i\overline{\varkappa }\xi +X^8,`$ (53)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$, $`\overline{\varkappa }=\varkappa ^{}\gamma ^0`$, and $`(g_{\alpha \beta })=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. Since $`\varkappa ^1`$, $`\varkappa ^2`$, $`\varkappa ^3`$, $`\varkappa ^4`$, the transformations (53) form a 4-parametric Abelian subgroup of $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

Let $`d=|d|e^{i\phi }0`$ be a parametrization of the complex matrix $`\text{D}_3^{(4)}`$ from (49). Using (45) and (46), we represent the $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformation $`X^A=L(\text{D}_3^{(4)})_B^AX^B`$ in the following form

$`X^\alpha `$ $`=|d|^2X^\alpha ,`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}X^4\\ X^5\end{array}\right)`$ $`=|d|^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}3\phi & \mathrm{sin}3\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}3\phi & \mathrm{cos}3\phi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X^4\\ X^5\end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}X^6\\ X^7\end{array}\right)`$ $`=|d|^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}3\phi & \mathrm{sin}3\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}3\phi & \mathrm{cos}3\phi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X^6\\ X^7\end{array}\right),`$
$`X^8`$ $`=|d|^4X^8,`$ (54)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$. Since $`|d|>0`$ and $`\phi `$, the transformations (54) form a 2-parametric Abelian subgroup of $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

Thus, all of the four $`\text{FL}(9,)`$ transformations corresponding to the matrices of the decomposition (50) have been explicitly described in (51), (52), (53), and (54). Finally, with the above notation, it is possible to rewrite (47) as $`𝑿^3=g_{\alpha \beta }X^\alpha X^\beta X^8g_{\alpha \beta }X^\alpha \overline{\xi }\gamma ^\beta \xi `$.

## 5. Conclusion

In the present article, we have considered algebraic aspects of the Finslerian $`N`$-spinor theory. We formulated the general definitions of a Finslerian $`N`$-spinor and Finslerian $`N`$-spintensor of an arbitrary valency. It was shown that Finslerian $`N`$-spintensors of the valency $`[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{1}{0}..\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{1}{0}]`$ were closely associated with the $`N^2`$-dimensional flat Finslerian space $`\text{Herm}(N)`$. The metric on $`\text{Herm}(N)`$ was characterized by the homogeneous algebraic form (30) of the $`N`$-th power. We also constructed the generalization (22) of the well known epimorphism $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{O}_+^{}(1,3)`$ and found that its kernel consisted of the $`N`$ scalar matrices (23). In particular, it turned out that Finslerian 2-spinors coincided with standard Weyl spinors. In this connection, we recalled some essential information on Majorana 4-spinors as well. Finally, we considered properties of Finslerian 3-spinors and described the algebraic structure of the group $`\text{FL}(9,)`$.

When this article had already been written, we knew about the remarkable works (Finkelstein, 1986; Finkelstein et al., 1986) in which hyperspinors and some of their properties were considered. David Finkelstein’s hyperspinors actually coincide with Finslerian $`N`$-spinors for which we have developed the detailed algebraic theory above. We are grateful to Andrei Galiautdinov for attracting our attention to the works on hyperspinors.

## References

Brauer, R. and Weyl, H. (1935). American Journal of Mathematics, 57, 425–449.

Cartan, É. (1913). Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 41, 53–96.

Cartan, É. (1938). Leçons sur la théorie des spineurs. Actualités scientifiques et industrielles, Paris.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1928). Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), A117, 610–624.

Finkelstein, D. (1986). Physical Review Letters, 56, 1532–1533.

Finkelstein, D., Finkelstein, S. R., and Holm, C. (1986). International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 25, 441–463.

Finsler, P. (1918). Über Kurven und Flächen in allgemeinen Räumen. Dissertation, Göttingen.

Kostrikin, A. I. and Manin, Yu. I. (1989). Linear algebra and geometry. Gordon and Breach, New York.

Majorana, E. (1937). Nuovo Cimento, 14, 171–184.

Pauli, W. (1927). Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 601–623.

Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. (1986). Spinors and space-time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Solov’yov, A. V. (1996). $`N`$-spinor calculus in the relational theory of space-time. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Moscow (in Russian).

Vladimirov, Yu. S. (1996). The relational theory of space-time and interactions. Moscow University Press, Moscow (in Russian).


format: text

text:
# Bose-Einstein condensation of nonzero-center-of-mass-momentum Cooper pairs

## Abstract

Cooper pair (CP) binding with both zero and nonzero center-of-mass momenta (CMM) is studied with a set of renormalized equations assuming a short-ranged (attractive) pairwise interfermion interaction. Expanding the associated dispersion relation in 2D in powers of the CMM, in weak-to-moderate coupling a term linear in the CMM dominates the pair excitation energy, while the quadratic behavior usually assumed in Bose-Einstein (BE)-condensation studies prevails for any coupling only in the limit of zero Fermi velocity when the Fermi sea disappears, i.e., in vacuum. In 3D this same behavior is observed numerically. The linear term, moreover, exhibits CP breakup beyond a threshold CMM value which vanishes with coupling. This makes all the excited (nonzero-CMM) BE levels with preformed CPs collapse into a single ground level so that a BCS condensate (where only zero CMM CPs are usually allowed) appears in zero coupling to be a special case in either 2D or 3D of the BE condensate of linear-dispersion-relation CPs.

PACS: 74.20.Fg; 64.90+b; 05.30.Fk; 05.30.Jp

Keywords: Cooper pairs; Bose-Einstein condensation; cu- prate superconductivity

Abstract

1. Introduction

We consider an s-wave short-range, attractive (rank-one) separable interfermionic potential  in $`d`$-dimensional momentum space $`V_{pq}=(v_0/L^d)g_pg_q`$ where $`v_00`$ is the interaction strength, $`L`$ the size of the system, and the $`g_p`$’s are dimensionless form factors of the type $`g__p=(1+p^2/p_0^2)^{1/2}`$ in which $`p_0`$ is the inverse range of the potential. Thus, e.g., $`p_0\mathrm{}`$ implies $`g__p=1`$ which corresponds to a contact or delta potential $`v_0\delta (𝐫)`$ in configuration space. In either 2D or 3D such a potential well has an infinite number of bound states. As a result a many-fermion system with this interfermion interaction will collapse in the thermodynamic limit to infinite binding per particle and infinite density. However, the potential can be “regularized,” i.e., constructed  with $`v_0`$ infinitesimally small so that it supports a single bound state.

The CP equation  for two interacting electrons of mass $`m`$ above the Fermi surface, with momenta wavevectors $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ and finite, nonzero CMM wavevector $`𝐊𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$, and relative momentum wavevector $`𝐤\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_1𝐤_2)`$, gives the total pair energy $`E_K2E_F\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ in terms of $`v_0`$, with $`E_F\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$ the Fermi energy. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K0`$ is the CP binding energy; it should not be confused with the BCS energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One can eliminate the variable $`v_0`$ in favor, in 2D, of the vacuum bound-state energy $`B_20`$ of the potential by combining  the CP equation with the respective Lippmann-Schwinger one for the same interfermion interaction acting not in the Fermi sea but in vacuum. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ can be extracted as a function of $`B_2`$ from the resulting renormalized CP equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k^2}{B_2+\mathrm{}^2k^2/m}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,(|𝐊/2\pm 𝐤|>k_F)}{}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_k^2}{\mathrm{}^2k^2/m+\mathrm{\Delta }_K2E_F+\mathrm{}^2K^2/4m}}=0.`$ (2)
2. Cooper pair dispersion relation

After some algebra one finds the remarkable identity, but only in 2D, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=B_2`$, i.e., for an attractive delta interaction (regularized or not) the vacuum and zero-CMM CP binding energies coincide for all coupling. Using $`E_F/k_F\mathrm{}v_F/2`$ one can expand $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ in powers of $`K`$ for any coupling $`B_2`$ and get

$`\epsilon _K(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{}v_FK+`$ (3)
$`\left[1\left\{2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}\right)^2\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{E_F}{B_2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2K^2}{2(2m)}}+O(K^3),(2\text{D})`$ (4)
where a nonnegative CP excitation energy $`\epsilon _K`$ has been defined. It is this excitation energy that enters in the BE distribution function in determining the critical temperature in a picture of superconductivity as a BE condensation (BEC) of CPs. The leading term in (4) is linear in CMM, followed by a quadratic term. The latter is precisely the kinetic energy of what was originally the ordinary CP (and now is what is sometimes called a “local pair”)—namely the familiar nonrelativistic energy of the composite pair of mass $`2m`$ in vacuum. This dispersion relation has been the starting point for virtually all BEC studies of superconductivity (see, e.g., , among others). However, it is clear from (4) that the quadratic term $`\mathrm{}^2K^2/2(2m)`$ will prevail for any nonzero coupling only when $`E_F/k_F\mathrm{}v_F/20`$, i.e., in the vacuum limit when there is no Fermi sea.

Figure 1 shows exact numerical results (full curves) of (1) in 2D for different $`B_2/E_F`$ of the CP excitation energy $`\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ as function of CMM $`K/k_F`$. Note that the CPs break up at $`\epsilon _K/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K=0`$, this being marked by large dots in the figure. In addition to the exact results we also exhibit the linear approximation $`2\mathrm{}v_FK/\pi `$ (dot-dashed lines) for small $`B_2/E_F`$, as well as the quadratic approximation $`\mathrm{}^2K^2/2(2m)`$ (dashed parabolas) for large $`B_2/E_F`$.

In 3D one obtains  similar results except that the dimensionless s-wave scattering length $`k_Fa`$ in vacuum plays the role of a coupling parameter instead of the dimensionless binding energy $`B_2/E_F`$ in the 2D case. Here, the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00`$ implies $`a0^{}`$ or $`1/k_Fa\mathrm{}`$ and corresponds to weak coupling, while the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{}`$ implies $`a0^+`$ or $`1/k_Fa+\mathrm{}`$ and is strong coupling. In fact, for $`a=|a|0^{}`$ one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(8E_F/e^2)\mathrm{exp}(\pi /k_F|a|)`$, a result first obtained by Van Hove. On the other hand, $`a0^+`$ yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{}^2/ma^2`$. Repeating the expansion carried out in 2D but without explicitly determining the coefficient of the quadratic term gives

$$\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}v_FK+O(K^2),(3\text{D})$$
(5)
i.e., the same result cited in 1964 in Ref.  for the BCS model interaction. The linear terms in both Eqs. (4) and (5) are identical  for the BCS model interaction in weak coupling. In this case $`g_k=\theta (\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m\text{max}[0,(E_F\mathrm{}\omega _D)])\theta (E_F+\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m)`$ where $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside step function and $`\omega _D`$ the Debye frequency. It becomes $`g_k=1`$ as $`\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{}`$

3. Boson number

Using a statistical model  guaranteeing both thermal and chemical equilibrium in an ideal boson-fermion mixture, the number of bosons $`N_B(T)`$ formed within the $`N`$-fermion system, valid at and below the BEC transition temperature $`T_c`$, is

$`N_B(T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[NN_0(T)\right]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}[1(T/T_F)\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{\beta \{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)/2\mu (T)\}})]`$ (7)
where $`N_0(T)`$ is the number of unpaired fermions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ the appropriate finite-$`T`$ generalization  of the CP $`K=0`$ binding energy, $`\beta 1/k_BT`$, and the ideal Fermi gas chemical potential $`\mu (T)`$ in 2D is given exactly by

$$\mu (T)=\beta ^1\mathrm{ln}(e^{\beta E_F}1)\underset{T0}{}E_F.$$
(8)
Figure 2 illustrates the zero CMM CP binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ for three values of $`B_2/\mu (T)`$.

At $`T=0`$ (7) becomes

$`N_B(0)=N\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)/4E_F`$ $``$ $`NB_2/4E_F(B_22E_F)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`N/2(B_22E_F).`$ (10)
This should be compared with the BCS theory estimate (Ref. , p. 128)

$$N_B(0)(\mathrm{\Delta }/E_F)^2\frac{N}{2}=N(B_2/E_F),$$
(11)
where here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the BCS $`T=0`$ energy gap, and the exact 2D result  $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{2E_FB_2}`$ was used in the last step. Since $`N_BN/2`$, the estimate implies a breakdown for $`B_2E_F/2`$ in the BCS case.

4. Critical temperature

Neglecting the background unpaired fermions and modeling the entire system as a pure boson gas of unbreakable CPs but with temperature-dependent boson number density $`n_B(T)N_B(T)/L^2`$, the explicit BEC $`T_c`$-formula for linear dispersion bosons in 2D  becomes an implicit one by allowing $`n_B`$ to be $`T`$-dependent, namely

$$T_c=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{k_B}\sqrt{n_B(T_c)}.$$
(12)
This differs from the familiar BEC 3D formula $`T_c3.31\mathrm{}^2n_B^{2/3}/m_Bk_B`$ for quadratic-dispersion bosons. Both equations are special cases of the more general expression  of the form $`T_cn_B^{s/d}`$ for any space dimensionality $`d>0`$ and any boson dispersion relation $`\epsilon _KK^s`$ with $`s`$ $`>0`$. Solving (12) with (7) and (1) for $`K=0`$ self-consistently gives $`T_c/T_F`$ vs. $`B_2/E_F`$ as displayed in Figure 3 and compared with empirical values for cuprates that range  from $`0.010.1`$.

Also shown in the figure are the BCS theory $`T_c`$’s (see also Ref. ) obtained by solving the single implicit equation

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{x}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{T_F}{2T_c}x=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi T_c}{e^\gamma B_2}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. Note that $`k_BT_c(e^\gamma /\pi )\sqrt{2B_2E_F}`$ as coupling goes to zero, and also that $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c2\pi /e^\gamma 3.53`$.

5. BCS and BE condensates

Finally, Figure 4 depicts in either 2D or 3D both condensates, the BCS one with its single $`K=0`$ pair-correlation state and the BE condensate  with both (ground) $`K=0`$ and several (excited) $`K>0`$ CP states that form a “band” (shown in the figure as a discrete spectrum for clarity) extending up to the breakup state $`K_0`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_0}=0`$. For perfectly linear dispersion CPs, i.e., in 2D $`\epsilon _K\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K=2\mathrm{}v_FK/\pi `$, the breakup CMM wavenumber is then just $`K_0=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0/2\mathrm{}v_F`$. As this vanishes with coupling all the excited boson levels collapse downwards and merge with the ground $`K=0`$

level, i.e., the “band” shrinks to the single ground level. Thus, for zero coupling the BCS condensate appears to be a special case of the BE condensate provided that the BCS CCs are essentially CPs, as is widely believed.

6. Discussion

Besides including the background unpaired fermions in the real mixture problem with our simple initial s-wave interfermion interaction, further refinements pending are: i) realistic Fermi surfaces; ii) Van Hove singularities or other means of accounting for periodic-crystalline effects; as well as the following interactions iii) the all-important $`d`$-wave; iv) residual interbosonic ones; and v) the crucial CP-fermion interaction vertex. It is precisely the latter ingredient that enabled T.D. Lee and coworkers , and Tolmachev  more generally, to link BCS and BEC through a relation whereby the BE condensate fraction is proportional to the (BCS-like) fermionic gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ squared.

Acknowledgments. Partial support from UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT (Mexico) # IN102198, CONACyT (Mexico) # 27828 E, DGES (Spain) # PB98-0124 is gratefully acknowledged. M.deLl. thanks S.K. Adhikari and V.V. Tolmachev for extensive correspondence.


text:
# Hybrid Quarkonia with Dynamical Sea Quarks

## Abstract

We present a dynamical lattice calculation with 2 flavours for bottomonium states with an additional gluonic excitation. Using improved actions for the quarks and gauge fields at a lattice spacing of $`a0.1`$ fm, we find 10.977(61)(62) GeV for the energy of the lowest lying $`b\overline{b}g`$-hybrid, where the first error is statistical and the second denotes the systematic uncertainty due to the determination of scale. In a parallel quenched simulation we demonstrate explicitly that vacuum polarisation effects are less than 10$`\%`$ of the splitting with the ground state.

The intense experimental search for particles with exotic quantum numbers has triggered theoretical interest in hadrons which contain an excitation of the gluon flux . The lattice approach to QCD has already resulted in consistent predictions for the masses of hybrid quarkonia from first principles . The recent results suggest that the lowest lying hybrids are 400-500 MeV above the phenomenologically interesting $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold. However, for numerical simplicity, all those calculations were performed in the quenched approximation, where vacuum polarisation effects have been ignored. In this paper we present our results from a full calculation in which dynamical sea quarks are included. Dynamical results for light hybrids have been reported by the SESAM Collaboration . Here our main goal is to establish whether the dynamical treatment of the light sea quarks and the heavy valence quarks will result in large shifts of the hybrid levels.

On the lattice, hybrid mesons are particularly difficult to treat as their excitation energies are much larger than for conventional states. This makes it very difficult to resolve the exponential decay of the meson propagator on coarse lattices. It has been demonstrated that such problems can be circumvented on lattices with a finer resolution in the temporal direction , but the implementation of dynamical sea quarks on anisotropic lattices has yet to be achieved.

This work is part of a larger project to study sea quark effects in QCD on isotropic lattices . For the gluon sector we chose a renormalization-group improved action, which is written in terms of standard plaquettes, $`\mathrm{Tr}P_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`1\times 2`$ rectangles, $`\mathrm{Tr}R_{\mu \nu }`$:

$$S_\mathrm{g}=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{\mu \nu }{}\left\{c_0\mathrm{Tr}P_{\mu \nu }+c_1\mathrm{Tr}R_{\mu \nu }\right\}(c_0+8c_1=1).$$
(1)
Our prescription $`c_1=0.331`$ is motivated by an RG-analysis of the pure gauge theory . For the light sea quarks in the gauge field background we chose a lattice formulation which removes both the doublers and $`𝒪(a)`$ discretisation errors:

$$S_\mathrm{q}=\overline{q}(/\mathrm{\Delta }+m_q)q+a\overline{q}\mathrm{\Delta }^2qc_{sw}(a)a\frac{ig}{4}\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }q.$$
(2)
Further details and results for the conventional light hadron spectrum can be found in .

Here we study heavy hybrid states as they are of particular relevance for ongoing experiments at B-meson factories. To this end we implemented a non-relativistic approach (NRQCD) for the heavy $`b`$ quarks on a fine lattice with $`a0.10`$ fm. This approach is well suited, owing to the small velocity of the quarks within the flat hybrid potential. Unlike calculations for the spin structure in quarkonia we expect only small corrections for spin-averaged quantities from higher order relativistic terms. This assumption has already been tested explicitly for charmonium . To leading order we describe the forward evolution of the heavy quark as a diffusive problem

$`G(t+1)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{aH_0}{2n}}\right)^nU_t^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{aH_0}{2n}}\right)^nG(t)`$ (3)
$`H_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2m_b}},\delta H=c_7{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{16nm_b^2}}+c_8{\displaystyle \frac{a^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(4)}}{24m_b}}.`$ (4)
The parameter $`n`$ was introduced to stabilise the evolution against high-momentum modes. We chose $`n=2`$ throughout this analysis. As it is common practise, we have also included the correction terms $`c_7`$ and $`c_8`$ to render the evolution equation (4) accurate up to $`𝒪(a^4)`$, classically. Radiative corrections induce terms of $`𝒪(\alpha a^2)`$ and we applied a mean-field improvement technique to reduce such errors as first suggested by Lepage et al. . We decided to divide all gauge links by the average link in Landau gauge: $`u_0=0|(1/3)U_\mu |0_\mathrm{L}`$, which is a suitable choice to reduce the unphysical tadpole contributions in lattice perturbation theory.

Non-relativistic meson operators can be constructed using the standard gauge-invariant definitions of . For the magnetic hybrid this amounts to an insertion of the colour-magnetic field, $`B_i`$, into the bilinear of two-spinors:

$${}_{}{}^{1}H(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\psi ^{}(x)B_i\chi (x).$$
(5)
In the following we will denote as $`1B`$ and $`2B`$ the ground state and the first excitation onto which this lattice operator can project. We also employ fuzzed link variables and several different smearings for the quark fields. This results in different projections of the source operators onto the ground state and it is useful when extracting higher excitation with the same quantum number.

For our study we calculated the bottomonium spectrum on 400 dynamical configurations at $`(\beta ,\kappa )=(2.10,0.1382)`$ on a $`24^3\times 48`$ lattice. This corresponds to the lightest sea quark mass of our full data set at $`\beta =2.1`$ and we measured $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.5735(48)`$ . For the comparative quenched analysis we accumulated 192 independent configurations at $`\beta =2.528`$. This coupling was chosen so as to match the lattice spacing of the dynamical run. In both cases we find $`a0.11`$ fm from the string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV. Here we take the $`1P1S`$ splitting to set the scale. As expected, such a definition results in slightly different lattice spacings for our two data sets.

Finite size effects are known to be small for heavy quarkonia and they have been explicitly checked for $`1S,1P`$ and $`1B`$ in charmonium . Since here we study the bottomonium system on even larger lattices ($`L2.5`$ fm), we do not expect any volume dependence for the ground state masses in our analysis. The simulation parameters for our two data sets are collected in Table I.

The results for hadron masses are obtained from correlated multi-exponential fits to different smearings, $`\alpha `$, and timeslices, $`t`$:

$$C(\alpha ,t)=M_\alpha ^{}(t)M_\alpha (0)=\underset{i=2}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{fit}}}{}}a_i(\alpha )e^{m_it}.$$
(6)
In Table II we present the results from multi-exponential fits ($`n_{\mathrm{fit}}4`$).

As it is standard in lattice calculations with heavy quarkonia, we have tuned the bare quark mass in Equation 4, so as to reproduce the experimental value of $`M_{\mathrm{kin}}/(1P1S)=21.5`$, where $`aM_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ is determined for the non-relativistic dispersion relation of the S-state on the lattice. In Figure 1 we demonstrate the mass independence of the spin-independent ground states at $`(\beta =2.528,N_f=0)`$, along with their higher excitations. This independence is important as it allows us to extract predictions at a slightly non-physical point. It also means that our result is stable against possible radiative corrections to the quark mass. Since in NRQCD calculations all energies are measured with respect to the ground state, $`1S`$, we introduced the ratio $`R_X=(X1S)/(1P1S)`$ to quote the normalised splitting with respect to the $`1P1S`$.

Here we focus on the ratio $`R_{1B}=(1B1S)/(1P1S)`$ which determines the mass of the lowest lying hybrid. The velocity expansion of NRQCD works very well for the hybrid states, owing to the slow quarks in a flat hybrid potential. Therefore we do not expect significant changes for mass of the spin-averaged hybrid state due to higher order relativistic corrections. To leading order in the NRQCD Hamiltonian, the singlet state of Equation 5 is degenerate with the corresponding spin-triplet states ($`0^+,1^+,2^+`$). These are all the states with zero orbital angular momentum and they include the exotic combination $`1^+`$, due to the coupling of the spin to the gluon angular momentum. A near degeneracy was also reported for hybrid states with additional orbital angular momentum . Such states give rise to more exotic states, such as $`2^+`$. The above-mentioned degeneracies will be lifted once higher order relativistic corrections are re-introduced into the NRQCD Hamiltonian .

The main uncertainty in lattice calculations of hybrid excitations so far is the absence of dynamical sea quarks. Previous estimates of quenching errors frequently referred to the uncertainty in the determination of the lattice spacing as a limiting factor of quenched simulations. However, it is not clear a priori, whether the high gluon content of the hybrid itself would cause large shifts in its mass once dynamical sea quarks are introduced. Comparing the results in Table II, we find, perhaps surprisingly, that this is not the case. Indeed, our quenched estimate for $`R_{1B}=3.43(45)`$ is in excellent agreement with the dynamical simulation, $`R_{1B}=3.59(14)`$. This means that quenching errors are smaller than our statistical errors of about 10% for this quantity. This is a pleasing feature for lattice calculations and it is also confirmed by another dynamical calculation  which could not resolve any change of the static hybrid potential. In this picture one can also understand why relativistic corrections and discretisation errors are so small - in the flat potential the quarks move very slowly and are widely separated, hence they are not very sensitive to the details of the lattice cutoff. This is in contrast to the S-state splittings, where dynamical effects are to be expected because of their sensitivity to the physics at short distance scales. Here we observe a 5% shift of $`R_{2S}`$, in line with an earlier calculation at similar lattice spacing . It is important to realize that this accounts for only part of the dynamical effects in the real world. As it has been argued before , our sea quark mass is sufficiently small for the purpose of bottomonium calculations, but it is apparent that large gluon momenta can also excite strange quarks from the vacuum - a full description ought to include three dynamical flavours.

For a short-range quantity like $`R_{2S}`$ it is equally important to study scaling violations. Our previous work  shows that discretisation errors may also account for a fraction of the remaining $`10\%`$ deviation from experiment. We leave a more precise determination of those two different sources of systematic errors to future studies. For $`R_{1B}`$ we have convincing evidence from previous simulations  that at $`a0.1`$ fm scaling violations are negligible for spatially large hybrid states. In the following we take the deviation of $`R_{2S}`$ from its experimental value as a conservative estimate for residual systematic errors in our 2-flavour simulation.

In Figure 2 we plot our results against $`N_f`$, along with previous quenched estimates from different lattice spacings and a variety of isotropic/anisotropic lattice actions. The stability of all these results and the good agreement with our value for 2-flavour full QCD provides support to the arguments above. Converting our dynamical result into dimensionful units we quote 10.977(61)(62) GeV for the lowest lying hybrid, where the first error is statistical and the second denotes the systematic uncertainty in the determination of the lattice spacing.

Taking the conservative average of all points in Figure 2, we find 11.02(18) GeV as the lattice prediction for the mass of the lowest spin-averaged bottomonium hybrid. We want to stress the importance of this result, as it shows that even after introduction of two dynamical flavours the lowest lying hybrid will be above the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold (10.56 GeV), where a number of experiments are currently running. In fact our prediction is intriguingly close to the $`B\overline{B}^{}`$ threshold ($`11.0`$ GeV), below which hybrid states are thought to be very narrow.

Our results show that the error from the quenched approximation is small within the statistical error of isotropic lattice calculations ($`1\%`$ of the bound state energy). To study systematic errors for hybrid states at an even higher level of accuracy is possible on anisotropic lattices, but it remains to be seen how dynamical quarks can be implemented in such a framework.

The calculations were done using the supercomputing facilities at the Center for Computational Physics at the University of Tsukuba. This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of Ministry of Education (No. 09304029). TM, HPS and AAK are supported by the JSPS Research for Future Program, and SE and KN are JSPS Research Fellows.


text:
# References

EDO-EP-39

March, 2001

Kaluza-Klein Reduction in a Warp Geometry Revisited

Ichiro Oda 111 E-mail address: ioda@edogawa-u.ac.jp

Edogawa University, 474 Komaki, Nagareyama City, Chiba 270-0198, JAPAN

## Abstract

We study the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction of zero-modes of bulk antisymmetric tensor fields on a non-compact extra dimension in the Randall-Sundrum model. It is shown that in the Kaluza-Klein reduction on a non-compact extra dimension we have in general a zero-mode depending on a fifth dimension in addition to a conventional constant zero-mode in the Kaluza-Klein reduction on a circle. We examine the localization property of these zero-modes on a flat Minkowski 3-brane. In particular, it is shown that a 2-form and a 3-form on the brane can be respectively obtained from a 3-form and 4-form in the bulk by taking the zero-mode dependent on the fifth dimension.

The gravity-localized models in a brane world have the intriguing feature that even if there is a non-compact extra dimension, the graviton is sharply localized on a flat Minkowski brane, thereby reproducing the four-dimensional Newton’s law with negligible corrections on the brane . (For multi-brane models, see .) It is then natural to ask whether matter and gauge fields in addition to the graviton are also localized on the brane by a gravitational interaction. If the entire local fields are trapped on the brane, we could regard such a 3-brane as a candidate of our real world. Indeed, in superstring theory, matter and gauge fields are naturally confined to D3 branes due to open strings ending on the branes while the gravity is free to propagate in a bulk space-time due to closed strings living in the bulk . On the other hand, in local field theory, it has been well known that except a 1-form gauge field all the local fields are also localized on a brane by a gravitational interaction . (For a review see .)

Recently, we have proposed a completely new mechanism for trapping a 1-form bulk gauge field on a flat brane in the gravity-localized model . The key idea is to consider a topological term and a 3-form action in addition to the $`U(1)`$ gauge field action in order to give the mass term with a ’kink’ profile to the bulk gauge field. (This mass generation mechanism is called ’topological mass generation’ or ’topological Higgs mechanism’ .) This new localization mechanism is very similar to that of fermions  in the sense that in both the cases the zero-modes share the same exponentially damping form and then some inequality between the bulk mass and the constant in the warp factor is needed to insure the localization and massless condition of brane gauge field at the same time.

Accordingly, it has been now shown that the entire bulk fields ranging from a spin-0 scalar to a spin-2 graviton are localized on a flat brane only by a gravitational interaction in the Randall-Sundrum model . The fields we have left aside in the above study are the antisymmetric tensor fields. Since many antisymmetric fields appear in the low energy effective action of superstring theory, we should also study the localization property of these fields on a flat 3-brane. Recently, it has been shown that a 2-form potential is also confined to a flat brane in the Randall-Sundrum model . (See also closely related papers .) The important observation there is that a 3-form in a bulk yields a 2-form on a brane by the nontrivial Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction, which has been found through the Hodge duality relation between a massless 0-form and a massless 3-form in the five-dimensional space-time. Recall that such a nontrivial zero mode depending on a fifth dimension has also been utilized in the study of the localization of bulk fields in the locally-localized gravity models .

The modest aim of the present paper is to clarify the Kaluza-Klein reduction of antisymmetric tensor fields on a non-compact extra dimension in the Randall-Sundrum model. We shall make use of a more general approach rather than an approach on the basis of the Hodge duality  since the latter approach relies heavily relies on the Hodge duality, which holds only on-shell. Because of it, for instance, provided that there are mass terms and topological terms such as Chern-Simons and BF terms, only the former approach provides us with a useful method. Actually, such a situation has been already appeared in Ref. . For completeness, in this paper, we shall consider the entire antisymmetric tensor fields ranging from a 0-form scalar field to a 4-form potential in the five-dimensional Randall-Sundrum model. Incidentally the generalization to the non-abelian gauge fields and higher dimensions would be straightforward.

We shall start by fixing our model setup. The metric ansatz we take is of the Randall-Sundrum form :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,`$
where $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are five-dimensional space-time indices and $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$ are four-dimensional brane indices. The metric on the brane $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the four-dimensional flat Minkowski metric with signature $`(,+,+,+)`$. Moreover, $`A(r)=2k|r|`$ where $`k`$ is a positive constant and the fifth dimension $`r`$ runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. We have a model setup in mind where a single flat 3-brane sits at the origin $`r=0`$ of the fifth dimension and various antisymmetric tensor fields reside in a bulk. We will assume that the background metric is not modified by the presence of the bulk fields, that is, we will neglect the back-reaction on the metric from the bulk fields. Under such a model setup, we look for zero-modes of the bulk fields in a simple Kaluza-Klein ansatz such that the zero-modes are not only normalizable but also localized sharply near the brane. Here it is worthwhile to stress one important point that the normalizable condition, which is equivalent to the convergence of the integral over the fifth dimension $`r`$ in front of the kinetic terms, is usually thought to be a necessary and sufficient condition for the localization of the bulk fields on a brane . However, as shown in Refs. , we sometimes meet the situation where the zero-modes are normalizable but spread rather widely in a bulk. Perhaps such the widely spread zero-modes would be in contradiction with experimental results such as the charge conservation law. Thus, in order to show a complete localization of bulk fields on a brane, we have to check that the normalized zero-modes in a flat space take an exponentially damping form in addition to the normalizable condition.

We shall start with a massless 0-form real scalar field . The action of a 0-form potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Phi }_N\mathrm{\Phi }}.`$ (2)
Then the equation of motion becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_M\left(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_N\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0.`$ (3)
As mentioned before, we shall look for a zero-mode solution with the following simple Kaluza-Klein ansatz

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^M)=\varphi (x^\mu )u(r),`$ (4)
where we assume the equation of motion for the brane scalar field, $`\mathrm{}\varphi =0`$ with being $`\mathrm{}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$.

With the ansatz (4), Eq. (3) reduces to a single differential equation for $`u(r)`$:

$`_r\left(\text{e}^{2A(r)}_ru\right)=0.`$ (5)
The general solution to this equation is easily found to be

$`u(r)={\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{4k}}\text{e}^{2A(r)}+u_0,`$ (6)
where $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ are integration constants. To derive this solution, we have assumed that $`_ru(0)=0`$, which would stem from the fact that if we impose $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry on the fifth dimension, the self-adjointness of the differential operator requires the Neumann boundary condition at $`r=0`$. Henceforth we will also assume $`_ru(0)=0`$.

Here we wish to emphasize an important fact associated with the Kaluza-Klein reduction on a non-compact dimension in a warp geometry, which will indeed play a critical role in deriving zero-modes bound to a brane from fields in a bulk. In the ordinary Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction scenario on a compact circle, a zero-mode is just a constant since there is a cyclic symmetry $`rr+2\pi `$ and usually a zero-mode respecting this symmetry is only a constant. (Of course, the excited modes have a factor $`\text{e}^{inr}`$ with $`n`$ being integers, which obviously respects the cyclic symmetry.) On the other hand, in a non-compact case at hand, we have no room to impose such a symmetry once the position of a brane is fixed, so that a zero-mode with the nontrivial dependence on an extra dimension is allowed.

Plugging the ansatz (4) into the starting action (2), the action can be cast to the form

$`S_0^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{2}^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi \text{e}^{A(r)}u^2(r)\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2\text{e}^{2A(r)}(_ru)^2\right]}.`$ (7)
Here we take a special solution $`u(r)=u_0`$, which is a constant zero-mode, since the solution has a more convergent character than the solution with the nonzero $`u_1`$. Then, the integral over $`r`$ in front of the kinetic term in Eq. (7) is found to be finite as follows:

$`I{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r\text{e}^{A(r)}u^2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2}{k}}.`$ (8)
This convergence of the $`r`$-integral implies the normalizability of the zero mode $`u(r)=u_0`$ of a bulk scalar field. In order to show a sharp localization, it is necessary to check that the normalized zero-mode has an exponentially damping form . Actually, the normalized zero-mode in a flat space has the form

$`\widehat{u}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{I}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}u(r)=\sqrt{k}\text{e}^{k|r|},`$ (9)
which obviously indicates that the brane scalar field is sharply localized near the brane sitting at $`r=0`$ as long as $`k1`$.

Next, we shall turn to a massless 1-form potential, that is, a $`U(1)`$ gauge field. The path of arguments is very similar to the case of a 0-form potential. The action is

$`S_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}F_{NS}},`$ (10)
where $`F_{MN}=2_{[M}A_{N]}=_MA_N_NA_M`$. The equations of motion read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_M\left(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{NS}\right)=0.`$ (11)
We search for a zero-mode solution of the form

$`A_\mu (x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_\mu (x^\lambda )u(r),`$
$`A_r(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a(x^\lambda )v(r),`$ (12)
where we assume the equations of motion on a brane, $`^\nu f_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{}a=0`$ with the definition of $`f_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$. (Here we have not fixed the gauge symmetries in five dimensions.)

With this ansatz, Eq. (11) reduces to two differential equations for $`u(r)`$ and $`v(r)`$:

$`_r\left(\text{e}^{A(r)}_ru\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_r\left(\text{e}^{A(r)}v\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
whose general solution is given by

$`u(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{2k}}\text{e}^{A(r)}+u_0,`$
$`v(r)`$ $`=`$ $`v_0\text{e}^{A(r)}.`$ (14)
where $`u_0`$, $`u_1`$ and $`v_0`$ are integration constants. From the better convergent property, we shall choose the solution with $`u_1=0`$ in what follows.

Plugging this solution into the classical action (10), the action takes the form

$`S_1^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }^2u_0^2\frac{1}{2}_\mu a^\mu a\text{e}^Av_0^2\right]}.`$ (15)
Note that the two $`r`$-integrals in front of the vector and scalar kinetic terms, those are, $`I_1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ru_0^2`$ and $`I_2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\text{e}^Av_0^2`$ diverge, thereby implying that a 1-form $`a_\mu `$ and a 0-form $`a`$ are not localized on a brane, which is the well-known fact. This problem has been recently circumvented by coupling the bulk gauge field to a 3-form potential through a topological term .

We are now ready to consider a 2-form potential, in other words, the Kalb-Ramond second-rank antisymmetric tensor field. In five dimensions, a 2-form is dual to a 1-form, so it is expected that a 2-form is also trapped on a brane as in a 1-form. However, it is impossible to derive the 2-form confined to the brane from the conventional action of a 2-form. We are now familiar with the fact that such a trapped 2-form can be obtained from the action of a 3-form through the Kaluza-Klein reduction on a non-compact extra dimension .

The classical action of a massless 2-form is given by

$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}F_{M_1M_2M_3}F_{N_1N_2N_3}},`$ (16)
where $`F_{MNP}=3_{[M}A_{NP]}=_MA_{NP}+_NA_{PM}+_PA_{MN}`$. The equations of motion are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_{M_3}\left(\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}F_{N_1N_2N_3}\right)=0.`$ (17)
The natural Kaluza-Klein ansatz for a zero-mode solution is

$`A_{\mu \nu }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )u(r),`$
$`A_{r\mu }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_\mu (x^\lambda )v(r),`$ (18)
where the following equations on a brane are imposed: $`^\rho f_{\mu \nu \rho }=^\nu f_{\mu \nu }=0`$ with the definition being $`f_{\mu \nu \rho }=3_{[\mu }a_{\nu \rho ]}`$.

With this ansatz, Eq. (17) reduces to differential equations:

$`_r^2u`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_rv`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (19)
whose general solution is simply given by

$`u(r)`$ $`=`$ $`u_1r+u_0,`$
$`v(r)`$ $`=`$ $`v_0.`$ (20)
Let us select a solution with $`u_1=0`$ because of the better convergent property.

Substituting this solution into the action (16), the action reduces to the form

$`S_2^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{12}f_{\mu \nu \rho }^2\text{e}^Au_0^2\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }^2v_0^2\right]}.`$ (21)
Note that the two integrals over $`r`$, those are, $`I_1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\text{e}^Au_0^2`$ and $`I_2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}v_0^2`$ diverge, so that neither a 2-form $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ nor a 1-form $`a_\mu `$ are localized on a brane. Therefore, starting with the action of a 2-form in a bulk we cannot obtain a 2-form bound to a brane.

Here let us comment on the possibility of generalizing a new mechanism for trapping of a 1-form to the case of a 2-form . Perhaps, the most plausible possibility would be to consider the following action:

$`S_2={\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_2B_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_2C_2+mB_2dC_2],`$ (22)
where $`B_2`$ and $`C_2`$ are two 2-form fields, and we have used the form notations for convenience. With the gauge conditions $`B_{rM}=C_{rM}=0`$, we have analyzed the localization property of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`C_{\mu \nu }`$. Unfortunately, it turns out that these two 2-forms have normalizable zero-modes but are not localized sharply on a flat 3-brane, as in the locally-localized gravity models .

Let us turn our attention to a 3-form potential. We will see that a 3-form in a bulk yields a 2-form trapped on a brane via the Kaluza-Klein reduction. The classical action of a massless 3-form potential reads

$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}g^{M_4N_4}F_{M_1M_2M_3M_4}F_{N_1N_2N_3N_4}},`$ (23)
where $`F_{MNPQ}=4_{[M}A_{NPQ]}=_MA_{NPQ}_NA_{MPQ}+_PA_{MNQ}_QA_{MNP}`$. The equations of motion are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_{M_4}\left(\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}g^{M_4N_4}F_{N_1N_2N_3N_4}\right)=0.`$ (24)
We shall make the Kaluza-Klein ansatz

$`A_{\mu \nu \rho }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }(x^\lambda )u(r),`$
$`A_{r\mu \nu }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )v(r),`$ (25)
where we assume that $`^\sigma f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=^\rho f_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$ with the definition being $`f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=4_{[\mu }a_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$.

Then Eq. (24) becomes

$`_r\left(\text{e}^A_ru\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_r\left(\text{e}^Av\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (26)
The general solution is given by

$`u(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{2k}}\text{e}^A+u_0,`$
$`v(r)`$ $`=`$ $`v_0\text{e}^A.`$ (27)
Inserting the ansatz (25) to the starting action (23), we have

$`S_3^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{48}f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\text{e}^{2A}u^2\frac{1}{12}(a_{\mu \nu \rho }_ruf_{\mu \nu \rho }v)^2\text{e}^A\right]}.`$ (28)
We shall discuss the two cases separately, one of which is $`u_1=0`$ and the other is $`u_10`$.

In the case of $`u(r)=u_0`$ (i. e., $`u_1=0`$), the above action takes the form

$`S_3^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{48}f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\text{e}^{2A}u_0^2\frac{1}{12}f_{\mu \nu \rho }^2\text{e}^Av^2\right]}.`$ (29)
The integral over $`r`$ in front of the kinetic term for a 3-form $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }`$, $`I_1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\text{e}^{2A}u_0^2`$ diverges, so the 3-form is not localized on a brane. On the other hand, the integral in front of the kinetic term for a 2-form $`a_{\mu \nu }`$, $`I_2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^Av^2`$ takes the finite value of $`\frac{v_0^2}{k}`$. This fact suggests that the 2-form might be localized near the brane. Indeed, the normalized zero-mode for the 2-form in a flat space is given by

$`\widehat{v}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_2}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}v(r)=\sqrt{k}\text{e}^{k|r|},`$ (30)
which shows that the 2-form $`a_{\mu \nu }`$, which has been obtained from a bulk 3-form via the Kaluza-Klein reduction, is sharply localized on a brane as long as $`k1`$. Incidentally, the zero-mode for the 3-form has a behavior like $`\widehat{u}(r)\text{e}^Au_0=\text{e}^{2k|r|}u_0`$, so the 3-form resides in a bulk away from a brane. Hence, effectively on a brane, we have an action

$`S_3^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle d^4xf_{\mu \nu \rho }^2},`$ (31)
where we have redefined as $`\frac{v_0}{\sqrt{k}}a_{\mu \nu }a_{\mu \nu }`$.

Next, let us consider the case $`u(r)=\frac{u_1}{2k}\text{e}^A+u_0`$ (i. e., $`u_10`$). We shall note first that in the case of $`u(r)=\frac{u_1}{2k}\text{e}^A+u_0`$, we can rewrite a term in (28) as follows:

$`a_{\mu \nu \rho }_ruf_{\mu \nu \rho }v=(a_{\mu \nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{u_1}}f_{\mu \nu \rho })u_1\text{e}^A.`$ (32)
With the field redefinition (or equivalently, the gauge transformation)

$`a_{\mu \nu \rho }a_{\mu \nu \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{u_1}}f_{\mu \nu \rho },`$ (33)
the action transforms as

$`S_3^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{48}f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\text{e}^{2A}u^2\frac{1}{12}a_{\mu \nu \rho }^2\text{e}^A(_ru)^2\right]}.`$ (34)
In this action, the integral over $`r`$ in front of the kinetic term obviously diverges, so that a 3-form $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is not localized on a brane, but resides in a bulk. The real problem here is that this time we have no a 2-form $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane, which should be in contrast to the previous $`u(r)=u_0`$ case, where a 2-form stemming from a 3-form is bound to the brane. To avoid this difficulty, Duff and Liu have chosen $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$ from the beginning although their reasoning is completely different from ours and is based on the Hodge duality . It is then natural to ask why the results between ours and Duff et al. appear to be so different. The answer lies in the gauge symmetries in the starting action (23). The action (23) has the gauge symmetries as well as off-shell reducible symmetries :

$`\delta A_{MNP}`$ $`=`$ $`_{[M}\epsilon _{NP]},`$
$`\delta \epsilon _{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`_{[M}\epsilon _{N]},`$
$`\delta \epsilon _M`$ $`=`$ $`_M\epsilon ,`$ (35)
whose number of degrees of freedom is $`\frac{5\times 2}{2}5+1=6`$, which exactly coincides with the number of dynamical degrees of freedom involved in $`A_{r\mu \nu }`$. Accordingly, $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ can be gauge-fixed to be zero, which yields our result (34), in other words, no 2-form on a brane. From this viewpoint, the result by Duff et al. is interpreted as follows: They have picked up the gauge conditions $`A_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$ from the outset, so $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ cannot be gauged away any more and consequently appears in the final action (31).

Finally, we would like to consider a massless 4-form field. This field is non-dynamical but it is of theoretical interest to check if the approach at hand also applies to this case. It is expected that such a non-dynamical field might play an important role in the cosmological constant problem, so there would be also of some physical importance. The classical action of a massless 4-form reads

$`S_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{240}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}g^{M_4N_4}g^{M_5N_5}F_{M_1M_2M_3M_4M_5}F_{N_1N_2N_3N_4N_5}},`$ (36)
where $`F_{MNPQR}=5_{[M}A_{NPQR]}`$. The equations of motion then take the form

$`_{M_5}\left(\sqrt{g}g^{M_1N_1}g^{M_2N_2}g^{M_3N_3}g^{M_4N_4}g^{M_5N_5}F_{N_1N_2N_3N_4N_5}\right)=0.`$ (37)
Making the Kaluza-Klein ansatz

$`A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x^\lambda )u(r),`$
$`A_{r\mu \nu \rho }(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }(x^\lambda )v(r),`$ (38)
with the assumption that $`^\sigma f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=^\sigma a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0`$, the action reads

$`S_4^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r(a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_ruf_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }v)^2\text{e}^{2A}}.`$ (39)
Moreover, Eq. (37) becomes

$`_r\left(\text{e}^{2A}_ru\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_r\left(\text{e}^{2A}v\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (40)
The general solution is given by

$`u(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{4k}}\text{e}^{2A}+u_0,`$
$`v(r)`$ $`=`$ $`v_0\text{e}^{2A}.`$ (41)
Again, we shall first consider the case of $`u(r)=u_0`$, that is, $`u_1=0`$. Then, the action (39) reduces to

$`S_4^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑rf_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\text{e}^{2A}v^2}.`$ (42)
Since $`I_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\text{e}^{2A}v^2=\frac{v_0^2}{2k}`$, this zero-mode is a normalizable one. In fact, the normalized zero-mode is given by $`\widehat{v}(r)=\sqrt{2k}\text{e}^{2k|r|}`$, so a 3-form $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is localized on a brane.

Next, let us consider the case of $`u(r)=\frac{u_1}{4k}\text{e}^{2A}+u_0`$. This time, the field redefinition

$`a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{u_1}}f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },`$ (43)
leads to

$`S_4^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑ra_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\text{e}^{2A}(_ru)^2}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{u_1^2}{2k}a_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2}.`$
Hence, as in a 3-form potential, in order to reproduce a 3-form on a brane, we need to fix the gauge symmetries by $`A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0`$.

In conclusion, we have examined the Kaluza-Klein reduction on a non-compact dimension of bulk antisymmetric tensor fields from a 0-form to a 4-form in the Randall-Sundrum model. Compared with the ordinary Kaluza-Klein reduction on a compact circle, we can find zero-modes which are manifestly dependent on the extra dimension. We have seen that such nontrivial zero-modes provide us with a 2-form and a 3-form bound to a brane from a 3-form and a 4-form in a bulk, respectively, through the Kaluza-Klein reduction. This observation has also been used in showing the localization of various bulk fields in the locally-localized gravity models .