format: text

text:
# The Howe duality and Lie superalgebras

## §1. Introduction

In his famous preprint  R. Howe gave an inspiring explanation of what can be “dug out” from H. Weyl’s “wonderful and terrible” book , at least as far as invariant theory is concerned, from a certain unifying viewpoint. According to Howe, much is based on a remarkable correspondence between certain irreducible representations of Lie subalgebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔬(V)`$ or $`𝔰𝔭(V)`$ provided $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are each other’s “commutants”, i.e., centralizers. This correspondence is known ever since as Howe’s correspondence or Howe’s duality. In  and subsequent papers Howe gave several examples of such a correspondence previously known, mostly, inadvertently. Let us remind some of them (omitting important Jacquet-Langlands-Shimizu correspondence, S. Gelbart’s contributions, etc.) :

1) decomposition of $`𝔬(V)`$-module $`S^\text{.}(V)`$ into spherical harmonics;

2) Lefschetz decomposition of $`𝔰𝔭(V)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\text{.}(V)`$ into primitive forms (sometimes this is called Hodge–Lépage decomposition);

3) a striking resemblance between spinor representation of $`𝔬(n)`$ and oscillator (Shale–Segal–Weil–metaplectic–… ) representation of $`𝔰𝔭(2n)`$.

As an aside Howe gives the “shortest possible” proof of the Poincaré lemma. (Recall that this lemma states that in any sufficiently small open star-shaped neighborhood of any point on any manifold any closed differential form is exact.) In this proof, Lie superalgebras, that lingered somewhere in the background in the previous discussion but were treated rather as a nuisance than help, are instrumental to reach the goal. This example shows also that the requirement of reductivity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ to form a “dual pair” is extra. Elsewhere we will investigate what are the actual minimal restrictions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ needed to reach one of the other problems usually solved by means of Howe duality: decompose the symmetric or exterior algebra of a module over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Howe’s manuscript was written at the time when supersymmetry theory was being conceived. By the time  was typed, the definition of what is nowadays called superschemes () was not yet rewritten in terms to match physical papers (language of points was needed; now we can recommend ) nor translated into English and, therefore, was unknown; the classification of simple finite dimensional Lie superalgebras over $``$ had just been announced. This was, perhaps, the reason for a cautious tone with which Howe used Lie superalgebras, although he made transparent how important they might be for a lucid presentation of his ideas and explicitly stated so.

Since , the published version of , though put aside to stew for 12 years, underwent only censorial changes, we believe it is of interest to explore what do we gain by using Lie superalgebras from the very beginning (an elaboration of other aspects of this idea  are not published yet). Here we briefly elucidate some of Howe’s results and notions and give several new examples of Howe’s dual pairs. In the lectures we will review the known examples 1) – 3) mentioned above but consider them in an appropriate “super” setting, and add to them:

4) a refinement of the Lefschetz decomposition — J. Bernstein’s decomposition () of the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^\text{.}`$ of “twisted” differential forms on a symplectic manifold with values in a line bundle with connection whose curvature form differs by a factor $`\mathrm{}`$ from the canonical symplectic form;

5) a decomposition of the space of differential forms on a hyper-Kählerian manifold similar to the Lefschetz one () but with $`𝔰𝔭(4)`$ instead of $`𝔰𝔭(2)=𝔰𝔩(2)`$ and its refinement associated with the $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|4)`$.

6) Apart from general clarification of the scenery and new examples even in the old setting, i.e., on manifolds, the superalgebras introduced ab ovo make it manifest that there are at least two types of Howe’s correspondence: the conventional one and several “ghost” ones associated with quantization of the antibracket .

7) Obviously, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a maximal subalgebra of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ is an example of Howe dual pair. Section 6 gives some further examples, partly borrowed from , where more examples can be found.

We consider here only finite dimensional Lie superalgebras with the invariant theory in view. In another lecture (§§3,4) we consider spinor-oscillator representations in more detail. In these elementary talks we do not touch other interesting applications such as Capelli identities (,), or prime characteristic (). Of dozens of papers with examples of Howe’s duality in infinite dimensional cases and still other examples, we draw attention of the reader to the following selected ones: , and various instances of bose-fermi correspondence, cf.  and . Observe also that the Howe duality often manifests itself for $`q`$-deformed algebras, e.g., in Klimyk’s talk at our conference, or . To treat this $`q`$-Howe duality in a similar way, we first have to explicitly $`q`$-quantize Poisson superalgebras $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ (for $`mn=0`$ this is straightforward replacement of (super)commutators from  with $`q`$-(super)commutators.

## §2. The Poisson superalgebra $`𝔤=𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$

2.1. Certain $``$-gradings of $`𝔤`$. Recall that $`𝔤`$ is the Lie superalgebra whose superspace is $`[q,p,\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ and the bracket is the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_{P.b.}`$ is given by the formula

$`(2.1)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}\{f,g\}_{P.b.}=\underset{in}{}\left(\frac{f}{p_i}\frac{g}{q_i}\frac{f}{q_i}\frac{g}{p_i}\right)\hfill \\ (1)^{p(f)}\underset{jm}{}\frac{f}{\theta _j}\frac{g}{\theta _j}\mathrm{for}f,g[p,q,\mathrm{\Theta }].\hfill \end{array}$$

Sometimes it is more convenient to redenote the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$’s and set

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi _j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{\Theta }_ji\mathrm{\Theta }_{r+j});\eta _j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{\Theta }_j+i\mathrm{\Theta }_{r+j})\hfill \\ \mathrm{for}jr=[m/2](\mathrm{here}i^2=1),\theta =\mathrm{\Theta }_{2r+1}\hfill \end{array}$$

and accordingly modify the bracket (if $`m=2r`$, there is no term with $`\theta `$):

$$\begin{array}{c}\{f,g\}_{P.b.}=\underset{in}{}\left(\frac{f}{p_i}\frac{g}{q_i}\frac{f}{q_i}\frac{g}{p_i}\right)\hfill \\ (1)^{p(f)}\left[\underset{jm}{}(\frac{f}{\xi _j}\frac{g}{\eta _j}+\frac{f}{\eta _j}\frac{g}{\xi _j})+\frac{f}{\theta }\frac{g}{\theta }\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Setting $`\mathrm{deg}_{Lie}f=\mathrm{deg}f2`$ for any monomial $`f[p,q,\mathrm{\Theta }]`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}p_i=\mathrm{deg}q_i=\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Theta }_j=1`$ for all $`i,j`$, we obtain the standard $``$-grading of $`𝔤`$:

| degree of $`f`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`f`$ | $`1`$ | $`p,q,\theta `$ | $`f:\mathrm{deg}f=2`$ | $`f:\mathrm{deg}f=3`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |

Clearly, $`𝔤=\underset{i2}{}𝔤_i`$ with $`𝔤_0𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$. Consider now another, “rough”, grading of $`𝔤`$. To this end, introduce: $`Q=(q,\xi )`$, $`P=(p,\eta )`$ and set

$`()`$
$$\mathrm{deg}Q_i=0,\mathrm{deg}\theta =1,\mathrm{deg}P_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{if}m=2k\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \mathrm{if}m=2k+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Remark. Physicists prefer to use half-integer values of $`\mathrm{deg}`$ for $`m=2k+1`$ by setting $`\mathrm{deg}\theta =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}P_i=1`$ at all times.

The above grading $`()`$ of the polynomial algebra induces the following rough grading of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔤`$. For $`m=2k`$ just delete the columns of odd degrees and delete the degrees by 2:

$`m=2k+1`$:    degree $`\mathrm{}`$ $`2`$ $`1`$ $`0`$ $`1`$ $`2`$  elements $`\mathrm{}`$ $`[Q]P^2`$ $`[Q]P\theta `$ $`[Q]P`$ $`[Q]\theta `$ $`[Q]`$

2.2. Quantization. We call the nontrivial deformation $`𝒬`$ of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ quantization (for details see ). There are many ways to quantize $`𝔤`$, but all of them are equivalent. Recall that we only consider $`𝔤`$ whose elements are represented by polynomials; for functions of other types (say, Laurent polynomials) the uniqueness of quantization may be violated.

Consider the following quantization, so-called $`QP`$-quantization, given on linear terms by the formulas:

$`()`$
$$𝒬:Q\widehat{Q},P\mathrm{}\frac{}{Q},$$

where $`\widehat{Q}`$ is the operator of left multiplication by $`Q`$; an arbitrary monomial should be first rearranged so that the $`Q`$’s stand first (normal form) and then apply $`()`$ term-wise.

The deformed Lie superalgebra $`𝒬(𝔭𝔬(2n|2k))`$ is the Lie superalgebra of differential operators with polynomial coefficients on $`^{n|k}`$. Actually, it is an analog of $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$. This is most clearly seen for $`n=0`$. Indeed,

$$𝒬(𝔭𝔬(0|2k))=𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\text{.}(\xi ))=𝔤𝔩(2^{k1}|2^{k1}).$$

In general, for $`n0`$, we have

$$𝒬(𝔭𝔬(2n|2k))=\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝔤𝔩\mathrm{"}((Q))=𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k}).$$

For $`m=2k1`$ we consider $`𝔭𝔬(0|2k1)`$ as a subalgebra of $`𝔭𝔬(0|2k)`$; the quantization sends $`𝔭𝔬(0|2k1)`$ into $`𝔮(2^{k1})`$. For $`n0`$ the image of $`𝒬`$ is an infinite dimensional analog of $`𝔮`$, indeed (for $`J=i(\theta +\frac{}{\theta })`$ with $`i^2=1`$):

$$𝒬(𝔭𝔬(2n|2k1))=𝔮𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})=\{D𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k}):[d,J]=0\}.$$

2.3. Fock spaces and spinor-oscillator representations. The Lie superalgebras $`𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})`$ and $`𝔮𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})`$ have indescribably many irreducible representations even for $`n=0`$. But one of the representations, the identity one, in the superspace of functions on $`^{n|k}`$, is the “smallest” one. Moreover, if we consider the superspace of $`𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})`$ or $`𝔮𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})`$ as the associative superalgebra (denoted $`\mathrm{Diff}(^{n|k})`$ or $`\mathrm{QDiff}(^{n|k})`$), this associative superalgebra has only one irreducible representation — the same identity one. This representation is called the Fock space.

As is known, the Lie superalgebras $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ are rigid for $`(m|2n)(4|2)`$. Therefore, the through map

$$𝔥𝔤_0=𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)𝔤=𝔭𝔬(2n|m)\stackrel{𝒬}{}𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})$$

sends any subsuperalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ (for $`(m|2n)(4|2)`$) into its isomorphic image. (One can also embed $`𝔥`$ into $`𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(^{n|k})`$ directly.) The irreducible subspace of the Fock space which contains the constants is called the spinor-oscillator representation of $`𝔥`$. In particular cases, for $`m=0`$ or $`n=0`$ this subspace turns into the usual spinor or oscillator representation, respectively. We have just given a unified description of them. (A more detailed description follows.)

2.4. Primitive alias harmonic elements. The elements of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ (or its subalgebra $`𝔥`$) act in the space of the spinor-oscillator representation by inhomogeneous differential operators of order $`2`$ (order is just the filtration associated with the “rough” grading):

| $`m=2k`$: |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{degree}`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\mathrm{elements}`$ | $`\widehat{P}^2`$ | $`\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}`$ | $`\widehat{Q}^2`$ |

| $`m=2k+1`$: |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{degree}`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ |
| $`\mathrm{elements}`$ | $`\widehat{P}^2`$ | $`\widehat{P}\widehat{\theta }`$ | $`\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}`$ | $`\widehat{Q}\widehat{\theta }`$ | $`\widehat{Q}^2`$ |

The elements from $`([Q])^{\widehat{P}^2}`$ for $`m=2k`$ or $`([Q,\theta ])^{\widehat{P}\widehat{\theta }}`$ for $`m=2k+1`$ are called primitive or harmonic ones. More generally, let $`𝔥𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ be a $``$-graded Lie superalgebra embedded consistently with the rough grading of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$. Then the elements from $`([Q])^{𝔥_1}`$ for $`m=2k`$ or $`([Q,\theta ])^{𝔥_1}`$ for $`m=2k+1`$ will be called $`𝔥`$-primitive or $`𝔥`$-harmonic.

2.4.1. Nonstandard $``$-gradings of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$. It is well known that one simple Lie superalgebra can have several nonequivalent Cartan matrices and systems of Chevalley generators, cf. . Accordingly, the corresponding divisions into positive and negative root vectors are distinct. The following problem arises: How the passage to nonstandard gradings affects the highest weight of the spinor-oscillator representation defined in sec. 3? (Cf. )

2.5. Examples of dual pairs. Two subalgebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`𝔤_0=𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ will be called a dual pair if one of them is the centralizer of the other in $`𝔤_0`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a maximal subalgebra in $`𝔤_0`$, then, clearly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a dual pair. A generalization: consider a pair of mutual centralizers $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$ and embed $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$ into $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(VV^{})`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a dual pair (in $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(VV^{})`$). For a number of such examples see . Let us consider several of these examples in detail.

2.5.1. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔰𝔭(2n)=𝔰𝔭(W)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=𝔰𝔭(2)=𝔰𝔩(2)=𝔰𝔭(VV^{})`$. Clearly, $`𝔥=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a maximal subalgebra in $`𝔬(W(VV^{}))`$. The Fock space is just $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\text{.}(W)`$.

The following classical theorem and its analog 5.2 illustrate the importance of the above notions and constructions.

Theorem. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$-primitive elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\text{.}(W)`$ of each degree $`i`$ constitute an irreducible $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module $`P_{𝔰𝔭}^i`$, $`0in`$.

This action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in the superspace of differential forms on any symplectic manifold is well known: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is generated (as a Lie algebra) by operators $`X_+`$ of left multiplication by the symplectic form $`\omega `$ and $`X_{}`$, application of the bivector dual to $`\omega `$.

2.5.2. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔬(2n)=𝔬(W)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=𝔰𝔭(2)=𝔰𝔩(2)=𝔰𝔭(VV^{})`$. Clearly, $`𝔥=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a maximal subalgebra in $`𝔰𝔭(W(VV^{}))`$. The Fock space is just $`S^\text{.}(W)`$.

Theorem. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$-primitive elements of $`S^\text{.}(W)`$ of each degree $`i`$ constitute an irreducible $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module $`P_𝔬^i`$, $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$.

This action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in the space of polynomial functions on any Riemann manifold is also well known: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is generated (as a Lie algebra) by operators $`X_+`$ of left multiplication by the quadratic polynomial representing the metric $`g`$ and $`X_{}`$ is the corresponding Laplace operator.

Clearly, a mixture of Examples 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 corresponding to symmetric or skew-symmetric forms on a supermanifold is also possible: the space of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$-primitive elements of $`S^\text{.}(W)`$ of each degree $`i`$ is an irreducible $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module, cf.  and Sergeev’s papers , .

In ,  the dual pairs had to satisfy one more condition: the through action of both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ on the identity $`𝔤_0`$-module should be completely reducible. Even for the needs of the First Theorem of Invariant Theory this is too strong a requirement, cf. examples with complete irreducibility in  with our last example, in which the complete reducibility of $`𝔭𝔢(n)`$ is violated. Investigation of the requiremets on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ needed for the First Theorem of Invariant Theory will be given elsewhere.

2.5.3. Bernstein’s square root of the Lefschetz decomposition. Let $`L`$ be the space of a (complex) line bundle over a connected symplectic manifold $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ with connection $``$ such that the curvature form of $``$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ for some $`\mathrm{}`$. This $`\mathrm{}`$ will be called a twist; the space of tensor fields of type $`\rho `$ (here $`\rho :𝔰𝔭(2n)𝔤𝔩(U)`$ is a representation which defines the space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,U)`$ of tensor fields with values in $`U`$), and twist $`\mathrm{}`$ will be denoted by $`T_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )`$. Let us naturally extend the action of $`X_+`$, $`X_{}`$ from the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of differential forms on $`M`$ onto the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of twisted differential forms using the isomorphism of spaces $`T_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )T(\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is the space of sections of the line bundle $`L`$, i.e., the space of twisted functions.

Namely, set $`X_+X_+1`$, etc. Let $`D_+=d+\alpha `$ be the connection $``$ itself and $`D_{}=[X_{},D_+]`$. On $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$, introduce a superspace structure setting $`p(\phi s)=\mathrm{deg}\phi (mod2)`$, for $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`s\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^0`$.

Theorem. () On $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$, the operators $`D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ generate an action of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$ commuting with the action of the group $`\widehat{G}`$ of $``$-preserving automorphisms of the bundle $`L`$.

Bernstein studied the $`\widehat{G}`$-action, more exactly, the action of the Lie algebra $`𝔭𝔬(2n|0)`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{G}`$; we are interested in the part of this action only: in $`𝔰𝔭(2n)=𝔭𝔬(2n|0)_0`$-action.

In Example 2.5.1 the space $`P^i`$ consisted of differential forms with constant coefficients. Denote by $`𝒫^i=P^iS^\text{.}(V)`$ the space of primitive forms with polynomial coefficients. The elements of the space $`\sqrt{𝒫}_{\mathrm{}}^i=\mathrm{ker}D_{}𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^i`$ will be called $``$-primitive forms of degree $`i`$ (and twist $`\mathrm{}`$).

Bernstein showed that $`\sqrt{𝒫}_{\mathrm{}}^i`$ is an irreducible $`𝔤=𝔭𝔬(2n|0)`$-module. It could be that over subalgebra $`𝔤_0`$ the module $`\sqrt{𝒫}_{\mathrm{}}^i`$ becomes reducible but the general theorem of Howe (which is true for $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2n)`$) states that this is not the case, it remains irreducible. Shapovalov and Shmelev literally generalized Bernstein’s result for $`(2n|m)`$-dimensional supermanifolds, see review . In particular, Shapovalov, who considered $`n=0`$, “took a square root of Laplacian and the metric”.

2.5.4. Inspired by Bernstein’s construction, let us similarly define a “square root” of the hyper-Kähler structure. Namely, on a hyper-Kählerean manifold $`(M,\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ consider a line bundle $`L`$ with two connections: $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, whose curvature forms are equal to $`\mathrm{}_1\omega _1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2\omega _2`$ for some $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$. The pair $`\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ will be called a twist; the space of tensor fields of type $`\rho `$ and twist $`\mathrm{}`$ will be denoted by $`T_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )`$. Verbitsky  defined the action of $`𝔰𝔭(4)`$ in the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of differential forms on $`M`$. Let us naturally extend the action of the generators $`X_j^\pm `$ for $`j=1,2`$ of of $`𝔰𝔭(4)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of twisted differential forms using the isomorphism $`T_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )T(\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is the space of sections of the line bundle $`L`$; here $`X_j^+`$ is the operator of multiplication by $`\omega _j`$ and $`X_j^{}`$ is the operator of convolution with the dual bivector.

Define the space of primitive $`i`$-forms (with constant coefficients) on the hyper-Kählerean manifold $`(M,\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ by setting

$`(HK)`$
$$P^i=\mathrm{ker}X_1^{}\mathrm{ker}X_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^i.$$

According to the general theorem  this space is an irreducible $`𝔰𝔭(2n;)`$-module.

Set $`D_i^{}=[X_i^{},D_i^+]`$. The promised square root of the decomposition (HK) is the space

$`(\sqrt{\mathrm{HK}})`$
$$𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^i=\mathrm{ker}D_1^{}\mathrm{ker}D_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^i.$$

The operators $`D_i^\pm `$, where $`D_i^+=_i`$, generate $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|4)`$.

2.6. Further examples of dual pairs. The following subalgebras $`𝔤_1(V_1)𝔤_2(V_2)`$ are maximal in $`𝔤(V_1V_2)`$, hence, are dual pairs:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 𝔤_1& 𝔤_2& 𝔤\\ & & \\ 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_1|2m_1)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_2|2m_2)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_1n_2+4m_1m_2|2n_1m_2+2n_2m_1)\\ 𝔬(n)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_2|2m_2)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(nn_2|2nm_2),n2,4\\ 𝔰𝔭(2n)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_2|2m_2)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(2mn_2|4nm_2)\\ 𝔭𝔢(n_1)& 𝔭𝔢(n_2)& 𝔬𝔰𝔭(2n_1n_2|2n_1n_2),n_1,n_2>2\\ & & \\ 𝔬𝔰𝔭(n_1|2m_1)& 𝔭𝔢(n_2)& 𝔭𝔢(n_1n_2+2m_1n_2)\mathrm{if}n_12m_1\\ & & 𝔰𝔭𝔢(n_1n_2+2m_1n_2)\mathrm{if}n_1=2m_1\\ 𝔬(n)& 𝔭𝔢(m)& 𝔭𝔢(nm)\\ 𝔰𝔭(2n)& 𝔭𝔢(m)& 𝔭𝔢(2nm)\end{array}$$

In particular, on the superspace of polyvector fields, there is a natural $`𝔭𝔢(n)`$-module structure, and $`𝔭𝔢(1)`$, its dual partner in $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2n|2n)`$, is spanned by the divergence operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (“odd Laplacian”), called the BRST operator (), the even operator of $`𝔭𝔢(1)`$ being $`\mathrm{deg}_x\mathrm{deg}_\theta `$, where $`\theta _i=\pi (\frac{}{x_i})`$, $`\pi `$ being the shift of parity operator.

For further examples of maximal subalgebras in $`𝔤𝔩`$ and $`𝔮`$ see . These subalgebras give rise to other new examples of Howe dual pairs. For the decomposition of the tensor algebra corresponding to some of these examples see , some of the latter are further elucidated in . Some further examples of Howe’s duality, considered in a detailed version of our lectures, are: (1) over reals; (2) dual pairs in simple subalgebras of $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ distinct from $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$; in particular, (3) embeddings into $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m;r)`$, the nonstandard regradings of the Poisson superalgebra, cf. ; (4) a “projective” version of the Howe duality associated with embeddings into the Lie superalgebra of Hamiltonian vector fields, the quotient of the Poisson superalgebra, in particular, the exceptional cases in dimension $`(2|2)`$, cf. . It is also interesting to consider the prime characteristic and an “odd” Howe’s duality obtained from quantization of the antibracket (the main objective of ), to say nothing of $`q`$-quantized versions of the above.

## §3. Generalities on spinor and spinor-like representations

3.1. The spinor and oscillator representations of Lie algebras. The importance of the spinor representation became clear very early. One of the reasons is the following. As is known from any textbook on representation theory, the fundamental representations $`R(\phi _1)=W`$, $`R(\phi _2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W)`$,…, $`R(\phi _{n1})=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}(W)`$ of $`𝔰𝔩(W)`$, where $`dimW=n`$ and $`\phi _i`$ is the highest weight of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(W)`$, are irreducible. Any finite dimensional irreducible $`𝔰𝔩(n)`$-module $`L^\lambda `$ is completely determined by its highest weight $`\lambda =\lambda _i\phi _i`$ with $`\lambda _i_+`$. The module $`L^\lambda `$ can be realized as a submodule (or quotient) of $`\left(R(\phi _i)^{\lambda _i}\right)`$.

Similarly, every irreducible $`𝔤𝔩(n)`$-module $`L^\lambda `$, where $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _{n1};c)`$ and $`c`$ is the eigenvalue of the unit matrix, is realized in the space of tensors, perhaps, twisted with the help of $`c`$-densities, namely in the space $`\underset{i}{}\left(R(\phi _i)^{\lambda _i}\right)\mathrm{tr}^c`$, where $`\mathrm{tr}^c`$ is the Lie algebraic version of the $`c`$th power of the determinant, i.e., infinitesimally, trace, given for any $`c`$ by the formula $`Xc\mathrm{tr}(X)`$ for any matrix $`X𝔤𝔩(W)`$. Thus, all the irreducible finite dimensional representations of $`𝔰𝔩(W)`$ are naturally realized in the space of tensors, i.e., in the subspaces or quotient spaces of the space $`T_q^p=\underset{p}{\underset{}{W\mathrm{}W}}\underset{q}{\underset{}{W^{}\mathrm{}W^{}}}`$, where $`W`$ is the space of the identity representation. For $`𝔤𝔩(W)`$, we have to consider the space $`T_q^p\mathrm{tr}^c`$.

For $`𝔰𝔭(W)`$, the construction is similar, except the fundamental module $`R(\phi _i)`$ is now a part of the module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(\mathrm{id})`$ consisting of the primitive forms.

For $`𝔬(W)`$, the situation is totally different: not all fundamental representations can be realised as (parts of) the modules $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(\mathrm{id})`$. The exceptional one (or two, for $`𝔬(2n)`$) of them is called the spinor representation; for $`𝔬(W)`$, where $`dimW=2n`$, it is realized in the Grassmann algebra $`E^\text{.}(V)`$ of a “half” of $`W`$, where $`W=VV^{}`$ is a decomposition into the direct sum of subspaces isotropic with respect to the form preserved by $`𝔬(W)`$. For $`dimW=2n+1`$, it is realized in the Grassmann algebra $`E^\text{.}(VW_0)`$, where $`W=VV^{}W_0`$ and $`W_0`$ is the 1-dimensional space on which the orthogonal form is nondegenerate.

The quantization of the harmonic oscillator leads to an infinite dimensional analog of the spinor representation which after Howe we call oscillator representation of $`𝔰𝔭(W)`$. It is realized in $`S^\text{.}(V)`$, where as above, $`V`$ is a maximal isotropic subspace of $`W`$ (with respect to the skew form preserved by $`𝔰𝔭(W)`$). The remarkable likeness of the spinor and oscillator representations was underlined in a theory of dual Howe’s pairs, .

The importance of spinor-oscillator representations is different for distinct classes of Lie algebras and their representations. In the description of irreducible finite dimensional representations of classical matrix Lie algebras $`𝔤𝔩(n)`$, $`𝔰𝔩(n)`$ and $`𝔰𝔭(2n)`$ we can do without either spinor or oscillator representations. We can not do without spinor representation for $`𝔬(n)`$, but a pessimist might say that spinor representation constitutes only $`\frac{1}{n}`$th of the building bricks. Our, optimistic, point of view identifies the spinor representations as one of the two possible types of the building bricks.

For the Witt algebra $`𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔱`$ and its central extension, the Virasoro algebra $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$, every irreducible highest weight module is realized as a quotient of a spinor or, equivalently, oscillator representation, see , . This miraculous equivalence is known in physics under the name of bose-fermi correspondence, see , .

For the list of generalizations of $`𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔱`$ and $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$, i.e., simple (or close to simple) stringy Lie superalgebras or Lie superalgebras of vector fields on $`N`$-extended supercircles, often called by an unfortunate (as explained in ) name “superconformal algebras”, see . The importance of spinor-oscillator representations diminishes as $`N`$ grows, but for the most interesting — distinguished () — stringy superalgebras it is high, cf. , .

3.2. Semi-infinite cohomology. An example of applications of spinor-oscillator representations: semi-infinite (or BRST) cohomology of Lie superalgebras. These cohomology were introduced by Feigin first for Lie algebras (); then he extended the definition to Lie superalgebras via another construction, equivalent to the first one for Lie algebras (). For an elucidation of Feigin’s construction see ,  and . Feigin rewrote in mathematical terms and generalized the constructions physicists used to determine the critical dimensions of string theories, i.e., the dimensions in which the quantization of the superstring is possible, see , . These critical dimensions are the values of the central element (central charges) on the spinor-oscillator representation constructed from the adjoint representation; to this day not for every central element of all distinguished simple stringy superalgebras their values are computed on every spinor-oscillator representation, not even on the ones constructed from the adjoint representations.

## §4. The spinor-oscillator representations and Lie superalgebras

4.1. Spinor (Clifford–Weil–wedge–…) and oscillator representations. As we saw in , $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)_0𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$, the superspace of elements of degree 0 in the standard $``$-grading of $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ or, which is the same, the superspace of quadratic elements in the representation by generating functions. At our first lecture we defined the spinor-oscillator representation as the through map (here $`k=[\frac{m}{2}]`$ and $`𝒬`$ is the quantization)

$$𝔤𝔭𝔬(2n|m)\stackrel{𝒬}{}\{\begin{array}{c}𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(n|k)\mathrm{if}m=2k\hfill \\ 𝔮𝔡𝔦𝔣𝔣(n|k)\mathrm{if}m=2k1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{Im}(𝔤)𝔭𝔬(2n|m)_0=𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$. Actually, such requirement is too restrictive, we only need that the image of $`𝔤`$ under embedding into $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ remains rigid under quantization. So various simple subalgebras of $`𝔭𝔬(2n|m)`$ will do as ambients of $`𝔤`$.

This spinor-oscillator representation is called the spinor representation of $`𝔤`$ if $`n=0`$, or the oscillator representation if $`m=0`$. We will denote this representation $`\mathrm{Spin}(V)`$ and set $`\mathrm{Osc}(V)=\mathrm{Spin}(\mathrm{\Pi }(V))`$, where $`V`$ is the standard representation of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$. In other words, if $`\mathrm{Spin}(V)`$ is a representation of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$, then $`\mathrm{Osc}(V)`$ is a representation of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2n|m)`$, so $`\mathrm{Osc}(V)`$ only exists for $`m`$ even.

If $`V`$ is a $`𝔤`$-module without any bilinear form, but we still want to construct a spinor-oscillator representation of $`𝔤`$, consider the module $`W=VV^{}`$ (where in the infinite dimensional case we replace $`V^{}`$ with the restricted dual of $`V`$; roughly speaking, if $`V=[x]`$, then $`V^{}=[[\frac{}{x}]]`$, whereas the restricted dual is $`[\frac{}{x}]`$) endowed with the form (for $`v_1,w_1V`$, $`v_2,w_2V^{}`$) symmetric for the plus sign and skew-symmetric otherwise:

$$B((v_1,v_2),(w_1,w_2))=v_2(w_1)\pm (1)^{p(v_1)p(w_2)}w_2(v_1).$$

Now, in $`W`$, select a maximal isotropic subspace $`U`$ (not necessarily $`V`$ or $`V^{}`$) and realize the spinor-oscillator representation of $`𝔤`$ in the exterior algebra of $`U`$.

Observe that the classical descriptions of spinor representations differ from ours, see, e.g., , where the embedding of $`𝔤`$ (in their case $`𝔤=𝔬(n)`$) into the quantized algebra (namely into $`𝒬(𝔭𝔬(0|n1))`$) is considered, not into $`𝔭𝔬(0|m)`$. The existence of this embedding is not so easy to see unless told, whereas our constructions are manifest and bring about the same result.

To illustrate our definitions and constructions, we realize the orthogonal Lie algebra $`𝔬(n)`$ as the subalgebra in the Lie superalgebra $`𝔭𝔬(0|n)`$.

Case $`𝔬(2k)`$. Basis:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}X_1^+=\xi _2\eta _1,& \mathrm{},& X_{k1}^+=\xi _k\eta _{k1},& X_k^+=\eta _k\eta _{k1};\\ X_1^{}=\xi _1\eta _2,& \mathrm{},& X_{k1}^{}=\xi _{k1}\eta _k,& X_k^{}=\xi _{k1}\xi _k;\\ H_1=\xi _1\eta _1\xi _2\eta _2,& \mathrm{},& H_{k1}=\xi _{k1}\eta _{k1}\xi _k\eta _k,& H_k=\xi _{k1}\eta _{k1}+\xi _k\eta _k.\end{array}$$

For $`R(\phi _k)`$ take the subspacespace functions $`[\xi ]_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ which contains the constants $`\widehat{1}`$, where $`\widehat{1}`$ is just the constant function $`1`$; clearly, $`\widehat{1}`$ is the vacuum vector.

Quantization (see above) sends: $`\xi _i`$ into $`\widehat{\xi }_i`$, and $`\eta _i`$ into $`\mathrm{}\frac{}{\xi _i}`$, so $`X_i^\pm \widehat{1}=0`$ for $`i<k`$, hence, $`H_i\widehat{1}=[X_i^+,X_i^{}]\widehat{1}=0`$ for $`i<k`$. Contrariwise,

$$H_k\widehat{1}=[X_k^+,X_k^{}]\widehat{1}=[_k_{k1},\widehat{\xi }_{k1}\widehat{\xi }_k]\widehat{1}=_k(\widehat{\xi }_{k1}_{k1}+1)\widehat{\xi }_k\widehat{1}=\widehat{1}.$$

So we see that the spinor representation is indeed a fundamental one.

Case $`𝔬(2k+1)`$. Basis:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}X_1^+=\xi _2\eta _1,& \mathrm{},& X_{k1}^+=\xi _k\eta _{k1},& X_k^+=\sqrt{2}\eta _k\theta ;\\ X_1^{}=\xi _1\eta _2,& \mathrm{},& X_{k1}^{}=\xi _{k1}\eta _k,& X_k^{}=\sqrt{2}\theta \xi _k;\\ H_1=\xi _1\eta _1\xi _2\eta _2,& \mathrm{},& H_{k1}=\xi _{k1}\eta _{k1}\xi _k\eta _k,& H_k=2\xi _k\eta _k.\end{array}$$

For $`R(\phi _k)`$ consider the space of even functions $`[\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _k,\theta ]_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ and realize $`𝔬(2k+1)`$ so that $`\xi _i\widehat{\xi }_i`$, $`\eta _i\mathrm{}\frac{}{\xi _i}`$, $`\theta \mathrm{}(\widehat{\theta }+\frac{}{\theta })`$. As above for $`𝔬(2k)`$, set $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

Then, as above, $`H_iv=[X_i^+,X_i^{}]\widehat{1}=0`$ for $`i<k`$, whereas

$$H_k\widehat{1}=[X_k^+,X_k^{}]\widehat{1}=\frac{2}{2}\left(_k(\widehat{\theta }+\frac{}{\theta })^2\widehat{\xi }_k+\widehat{\xi }_k(\widehat{\theta }+\frac{}{\theta })^2_k\right)\widehat{1}=\widehat{1}.$$

So $`\widehat{1}`$ is indeed the highest weight vector of the $`k`$th fundamental representation.

4.2. Stringy superalgebras. Case $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$. For the basis of $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$ take $`e_i=t^{i+1}\frac{d}{dt}`$, $`i`$, and the central element $`z`$; let the bracket be

$`()`$
$$[e_i,e_j]=(ji)e_{i+j}\frac{1}{12}\delta _{ij}(i^3i)z.$$

We advise the reader to refresh definitions of stringy superalgebras and various modules over them, see , where we also try to convince physicists not to use the term “superconformal algebra” (except, perhaps, for $`𝔨^L(1|1)`$ and $`𝔨^M(1|1)`$). In particular, recall that $`_{\lambda ,\mu }=\mathrm{Span}(\phi _i=t^{\mu +i}(dt)^\lambda i)`$.

Statement. The only instances when $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ possesses an invariant symmetric nondegenerate bilinear form are the space of half-densities, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{Vol}}=_{1/2,0}`$, and its twisted version, $`_{1/2,1/2}`$ and in both cases the form is:

$$(f\sqrt{dt},g\sqrt{dt})=fg𝑑t;$$

the only instances when $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ possesses an invariant skew-symmetric forms are the quotient space of functions modulo constants, $`d=_{0,0}/1`$, and $`\frac{1}{2}`$-twisted functions, $`\sqrt{t}=_{0,1/2}`$ and in both cases the form is:

$$(f,g)=f𝑑g.$$

Let $`_i=\frac{}{\phi _i}`$ (where $`\phi _i=t^{\mu +i}(dt)^\lambda `$). Let $`\mathrm{osc}(\sqrt{\mathrm{Vol}})`$ be the $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$-submodule of the exterior algebra on $`\phi _i`$ for $`i<0`$ containing the constant $`\widehat{1}`$. Since the generators $`e_i`$ of $`𝔳𝔦𝔯`$ acts on $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ as (sums over $`i`$)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_1=& (\mu +i+2\lambda )\phi _{i+1}_i=i\phi _{i+1}_i,\hfill \\ \hfill e_1=& (\mu +i+1)\phi _i_{i+1}=(i+1)\phi _i_{i+1};\hfill \\ \hfill e_2=& (\mu +i\lambda )\phi _{i+1}_i=i\phi _{i+1}_i,\hfill \\ \hfill e_2=& (\mu +i+3\lambda )\phi _i_{i+1}=(i+1)\phi _i_{i+1},\hfill \end{array}$$

and representing $`e_0`$ and $`z`$ as brackets of $`e_{\pm 1}`$ and $`e_{\pm 2}`$ from $`()`$ we immediately deduce that the highest weights $`(c,h)`$ of $`\mathrm{osc}(\sqrt{\mathrm{Vol}})`$ is $`(\frac{1}{3},0)`$.

For the spinor representations $`\mathrm{spin}(\sqrt{t})`$ and $`\mathrm{spin}(d)`$ (realized on the symmetric algebra of $`\phi _i`$ for $`i<0`$) we similarly obtain that the highest weights $`(c,h)`$ are $`(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{2})`$ for $`\mathrm{spin}(\sqrt{t})`$ and $`(\frac{1}{6},0)`$ for $`\mathrm{spin}(d)`$.

Observe that the representations $`\mathrm{spin}(\sqrt{t})`$, $`\mathrm{spin}(d)`$ and $`\mathrm{osc}(\sqrt{\mathrm{Vol}})`$ are constructed on a half of the generators used to construct $`\mathrm{Spin}(_{\lambda ;\mu })`$.

4.3. The highest weights of the spinor representations of $`𝔨^L(1|n)`$ and $`𝔨^M(1|n)`$. In the following theorem we give the coordinates $`(c,h;H_1,\mathrm{})`$ of the highest weight of the spinor representations $`\mathrm{Spin}(_{\lambda ;\mu })`$ of the contact superalgebra $`𝔨^L(1|n)`$ with respect to $`z`$ (the central element), $`K_t`$, and, after semicolon, on the elements of Cartan subalgebra, respectively. For $`𝔨^M(1|n)`$ we write $`\stackrel{~}{h};\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$. (Observe that for $`n>4`$ the Cartan subalgebra has more generators than just $`H_1=K_{\xi _1\eta _1}`$, …, $`H_k=K_{\xi _k\eta _k}`$ which generate the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔨(1|2k)`$, the algebra of contact vector fields with polynomial coefficients.)

| $`n`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ | $`3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`c`$ | $`12\lambda ^212\lambda +2`$ | $`12\lambda +3`$ | $`6`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`h`$ | $`(\mu +2\lambda )(\mu +1)`$ | $`\mu +2\lambda `$ | $`2\mu +2\lambda +\nu `$ | $`2^{n1}(\mu +\lambda )+2^{n3}`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ |  | $`2\mu +3\lambda \frac{1}{4}`$ | $`2\mu +2\lambda \frac{1}{2}`$ | $`2^{n1}(\mu +\lambda )`$ |

Theorem. Let $`(c,h;H_1,\mathrm{})`$ be the highest weight of the spinor representation $`\mathrm{Spin}(_{\lambda ;\mu })`$ of $`𝔨^L(1|n)`$. The highest weight of the oscillator representation $`\mathrm{Osc}(_{\lambda ;\mu })=\mathrm{Spin}(\mathrm{\Pi }(_{\lambda ;\mu }))`$ is $`(c,h;H_1,\mathrm{})`$ and similarly for $`𝔨^M(1|n)`$.

For $`n2`$, all the coordinates of the highest weight other than $`c`$, $`h`$ vanish. For $`n=2`$ the value of $`H`$ on the highest weight vector from $`\mathrm{Spin}(_{\lambda ,\nu ;\mu })`$ is equal to $`\nu `$.

The values of $`c`$ and $`h`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$) on modules $`\mathrm{Spin}(_{\lambda ;\mu })`$ are given in the above table.

Up to rescaling, these results are known for small $`n`$, see ,  and refs. therein.

Remark. For the contact superalgebras $`𝔤`$ on the $`1|n`$-dimensional supercircle our choice of $`𝔤`$-modules $`V=_{\lambda ;\mu }`$ from which we constructed $`\mathrm{Spin}(VV^{})`$ is natural for small $`n`$: there are no other modules! For larger $`n`$ it is only justified if we are interested in semi-infinite cohomology of $`𝔤`$ and not in representation theory per se. For the superalgebras $`𝔤`$ of series $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱`$ and $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱`$ the adjoint module $`𝔤`$ is of the form $`𝒯(\mathrm{id}^{})`$, i.e, it is either coinduced from multidimensional representation ($`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱`$), or is a submodule of such a coinduced module ($`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱`$). Spinor-oscillator representations of this type were not studied yet, cf. sec. 5.

4.4. Other spinor representations. 1) Among various Lie superalgebras for which it is interesting to study spinor-oscillator representations, the simple (or close to them) maximal subsuperalgebras of $`𝔭𝔬`$ are most interesting. The list of such maximal subalgebras is being completed; various maximal subalgebras listed in  distinct from the sums of mutual centralizers also provide with spinor representations.

As an interesting example consider A. Sergeev’s Lie superalgebra $`𝔞𝔰`$, the nontrivial central extension of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)`$ preserving the odd bilinear form and the volume on the $`(4|4)`$-dimensional superspace, see . Namely, consider $`𝔭𝔬(0|6)`$, the Lie superalgebra whose superspace is the Grassmann superalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\eta )`$ generated by $`\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3`$ and the bracket is the Poisson bracket. Recall also that the quotient of $`𝔭𝔬(0|6)`$ modulo center is $`𝔥(0|6)=\mathrm{Span}(H_ff\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\eta ))`$, where

$$H_f=(1)^{p(f)}(\frac{f}{\xi _j}\frac{}{\eta _j}+\frac{f}{\eta _j}\frac{}{\xi _j}).$$

Now, observe that $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)`$ can be embedded into $`𝔥(0|6)`$. Indeed, setting $`\mathrm{deg}\xi _i=\mathrm{deg}\eta _i=1`$ for all $`i`$ we introduce a $``$-grading on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\eta )`$ which, in turn, induces a $``$-grading on $`𝔥(0|6)`$ of the form $`𝔥(0|6)=\underset{i1}{}𝔥(0|6)_i`$. Since $`𝔰𝔩(4)𝔬(6)`$, we can identify $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)_0`$ with $`𝔥(0|6)_0`$.

It is not difficult to see that the elements of degree $`1`$ in the standard gradings of $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)`$ and $`𝔥(0|6)`$ constitute isomorphic $`𝔰𝔩(4)𝔬(6)`$-modules. It is subject to a direct verification that it is really possible to embed $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)_1`$ into $`𝔥(0|6)_1`$.

A. Sergeev’s extension $`𝔞𝔰`$ is the result of the restriction onto $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(4)𝔥(0|6)`$ of the cocycle that turns $`𝔥(0|6)`$ into $`𝔭𝔬(0|6)`$. The quantization (with parameter $`\lambda `$) deforms $`𝔭𝔬(0|6)`$ into $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ))`$; the through maps $`T_\lambda :𝔞𝔰𝔭𝔬(0|6)𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ))`$ are representations of $`𝔞𝔰`$ in the $`4|4`$-dimensional modules $`\mathrm{Spin}_\lambda `$. The explicit form of $`T_\lambda `$ is as follows:

$$T_\lambda :\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & b\hfill \\ c\hfill & a^t\hfill \end{array}\right)+dz\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & b\lambda \stackrel{~}{c}\hfill \\ c\hfill & a^t\hfill \end{array}\right)+\lambda d1_{4|4},$$

where $`1_{4|4}`$ is the unit matrix and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is extended via linearity from matrices $`c_{ij}=E_{ij}E_{ji}`$ on which $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}=c_{kl}`$ for any even permutation $`(1234)(ijkl)`$. Clearly, $`T_\lambda `$ is an irreducible representation for any $`\lambda `$ and $`T_\lambda \simeq ̸T_\mu `$ for $`\lambda \mu `$.

2) Maximal subalgebras (for further examples see ) and a conjecture. Let $`V_1`$ be a linear superspace of dimension $`(r|s)`$; let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ be the Grassmann superalgebra with $`n`$ odd generators $`\xi _1`$, …, $`\xi _n`$ and $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)=𝔡𝔢𝔯\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ the Lie superalgebra of vector fields on the $`(0|n)`$-dimensional supermanifold.

Let $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(V_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ be the semidirect sum (the ideal at the closed part of $`\text{+}\text{ }`$) with the natural action of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ on the ideal $`𝔤𝔩(V_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$. The Lie superalgebra $`𝔤`$ has a natural faithful representation $`\rho `$ in the space $`V=V_1\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ defined by the formulas

$$\begin{array}{cc}\rho (X\phi )(v\psi )=(1)^{p(\phi )p(\psi )}Xv\phi \psi ,\hfill & \\ \rho (D)(v\psi )=(1)^{p(D)p(v)}vD\psi \hfill & \end{array}$$

for any $`X𝔤𝔩(V_1)`$, $`\phi ,\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$, $`vV_1`$, $`D𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$. Let us identify the elements from $`𝔤`$ with their images under $`\rho `$, so we consider $`𝔤`$ embedded into $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$.

Theorem () $`1)`$ The Lie superalgebra $`𝔤𝔩(V_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ is maximal irreducible in $`𝔰𝔩(V_1\mathrm{\Lambda }(n))`$ unless a) $`dimV_1=(1,1)`$ or b) $`n=1`$ and $`dimV_1=(1,0)`$ or $`(0,1)`$ or $`(r|s)`$ for $`rs`$.

$`2)`$ If $`dimV_1=(1,1)`$, then $`𝔤𝔩(1|1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(1)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|1)`$, so

$$𝔤𝔩(V_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n+1)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n+1)$$

and it is the bigger superalgebra which is maximal irreducible in $`𝔰𝔩(V)`$.

$`3)`$ If $`n=1`$ and $`dimV_1=(r|s)`$ for $`r>s>0`$, then $`𝔤`$ is maximal irreducible in $`𝔤𝔩(V)`$.

Conjecture. Suppose $`r+s=2^N`$. Then, $`dimV`$ coincides with $`dim\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$ for some space $`W`$. We suspect that this coincidence is not accidental but is occasioned by the spinor representations of the maximal subalgebras described above. The same applies to $`𝔮(V_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$, a maximal irreducible subalgebra in $`𝔮(V_1\mathrm{\Lambda }(n))`$.

4.5. Selected problems. 1) The spinor and oscillator representations are realized in the symmetric (perhaps, supersymmetric) algebra of the maximal isotropic (at least for $`𝔤=𝔰𝔭(2k)`$ and $`𝔬(2k)`$) subspace $`V`$ of the identity $`𝔤`$-module $`\mathrm{id}=VV^{}`$. But one could have equally well started from another $`𝔤`$-module. For an interesting study of spinor representations constructed from $`W\mathrm{id}`$, see .

To consider in a way similar to sec. 2 contact stringy superalgebras $`𝔤=𝔨^L(1|n)`$ and $`𝔨^M(1|n)`$, as well as other stringy superalgebras from the list , we have to replace $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ with modules $`𝒯_\mu (W)`$ of (twisted) tensor fields on the supercircle and investigate how does the highest weight of $`\widehat{1}\mathrm{Osc}(𝒯_\mu (W))`$ or $`\widehat{1}\mathrm{Spin}(𝒯_\mu (W))`$ constructed from an arbitrary irreducible $`𝔠𝔬(n)`$-module $`W=VV^{}`$ depend on the highest weight of $`W`$. (It seems that the new and absolutely remarkable spinor-like representation Poletaeva recently constructed  is obtained in this way.)

To give the reader a feel of calculations, we consider here the simplest nontrivial case $`𝔬(3)=𝔰𝔩(2)`$. The results may (and will) be used in calculations of $`\mathrm{Spin}(𝒯_\mu (W))`$ for $`𝔤=𝔨^L(1|n)`$ and $`𝔨^M(1|n)`$ for $`n=3,4`$. As is known, for every $`N_+`$ there exists an irreducible $`(N+1)`$-dimensional $`𝔤`$-module with highest weight $`N`$. This module possesses a natural nondegenerate $`𝔤`$-invariant bilinear form which is skew-symmetric for $`N=2k+1`$ and symmetric for $`N=2k`$. The corresponding embeddings $`𝔤𝔬(2k+1)`$ and $`𝔤𝔰𝔭(2k)`$ are called principal, see  and references therein. Explicitly, the images of the Chevalley generators $`X^\pm `$ of $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ are as follows: $`X^{}X_i^{}`$,

$$X^+\{\begin{array}{cc}N(N+1)X_N^++\underset{1iN1}{}i(N+1i)X_i^+\hfill & \mathrm{for}N=2k+1\hfill \\ N^2X_N^++\underset{1iN1}{}i(2Ni)X_i^+\hfill & \mathrm{for}N=2k.\hfill \end{array}$$

From the commutation relations between $`X^+`$ and $`X^{}`$ we derive that only $`X_N^\pm `$ give a nontrivial contribution to the highest weight $`\mathrm{HW}`$ of the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$-module $`\mathrm{Spin}(L^N)`$; we have:

$$\mathrm{HW}=\{\begin{array}{cc}N(N+1)\hfill & \mathrm{if}N=2k+1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}N^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}N=2k.\hfill \end{array}$$

2) Observe, that the notion of spinor-oscillator representation can be broadened to embrace the subalgebras of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔥`$ of Hamiltonian vector fields and their images under quantization; we call the through map the projective spinor-oscillator representation. Since the Lie superalgebra $`𝔥`$ has more deformations than $`𝔭𝔬`$ (), and since the sets of maximal simple subalgebras of $`𝔭𝔬`$ and $`𝔥`$ are distinct, the set of examples of projective spinor-oscillator representations differs from that of spinor-oscillator representations.


text:
# Direct comparison between potential landscape and local density of states in a disordered two-dimensional electron system

## Abstract

The local density of states (LDOS) of the adsorbate induced two-dimensional electron system (2DES) on n-InAs(110) is studied by low-temperature scanning tunneling spectroscopy. The LDOS exhibits irregular structures with fluctuation lengths decreasing with increasing energy. Fourier transformation reveals that the $`k`$-values of the unperturbed 2DES dominate the LDOS, but additional lower $`k`$-values contribute significantly. To clarify the origin of the additional $`k`$-space intensity, we measure the potential landscape of the same 2DES area with the help of the tip induced quantum dot. This allows to calculate the expected LDOS from the single particle Schrödinger equation and to directly compare it with the measured one. Reasonable correspondance between calculated and measured LDOS is found.

Two-dimensional electron systems (2DES) are intensively studied as a paradigmatic case for many-particle systems in disordered potentials . They exhibit unique properties with respect to their three-dimensional counterparts such as weak localization or the quantum Hall effect . Although many experiments probed their macroscopic properties, little is known about the underlying local density of states (LDOS). In fact, only one study deals with the spatial distribution of the 2DES LDOS, which, however, reveals little quantitative information, because neither the exact subband energies nor the disorder potential were known . Here, we investigate the LDOS of the adsorbate induced 2DES on InAs(110)  by scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS). Subband energies are determined by angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ARUPS) and the 2DES potential landscape is measured using the lowest state of the tip induced quantum dot (QD) . This, for the first time, allows a direct comparison between disorder potential and LDOS.

The UHV-low temperature STM working at $`T=6`$ K with spectral resolution in STS down to 0.5 mV is described elsewhere . Degenerate n-InAs ($`N_\mathrm{D}=1.1\times 10^{16}/`$cm3) is cleaved in-situ at a base pressure of $`10^8`$ Pa, which leads to a nearly defect free InAs(110) surface with a Fermi level $`E_F=5`$ meV above the conduction band minimum. To induce the 2DES, Fe is deposited on the surface from an e-beam evaporator. The Fe coverage is determined by counting the Fe-atoms and given with respect to the unit cell of InAs(110). The cleanliness of the Fe is checked by Auger electron spectroscopy. Topographic STM-images are recorded in constant current mode with voltage $`V`$ applied to the sample. The $`dI/dV`$-curves are measured by lock-in technique ($`f=`$ 1.5 kHz, $`V_{mod}=`$1.8 mV) with fixed tip-surface distance stabilized at current $`I_{stab}`$ and voltage $`V_{stab}`$. The $`dI/dV(V)`$-images are measured point by point, each moving the voltage to $`V`$ after stabilizing the tip at $`V_{stab}`$ and $`I_{stab}`$. The influence of the spatially changing tip-surface distance is checked to be of minor importance and thus neglected . ARUPS experiments are performed on identically prepared samples using the HONORMI beamline at HASYLAB with photon energy h$`\nu =10`$ eV and an ASPHERE analyzer. The total energy resolution was 20 meV and the angular resolution 0.25 in one and 0.45 in the other direction . The Fermi level is determined on a clean Ta-foil with an accuracy of 5 meV. For the ARUPS measurements the Fe flux is calibrated by a quartz balance.

Since a perturbing influence of the STM tip on the LDOS data cannot be excluded in STS on semiconductors , we determine the subband energies of the 2DES independently by ARUPS. Previous ARUPS measurements revealed the coverage dependence of the adsorbate induced band shift and a rough estimate of the 2DES subband energies $`E_n`$ . With the high resolution of the ASPHERE analyzer, individual subband peaks are resolved (Fig. 1a, points). A straightforward fit of the data with the $`E_n`$’s as the only fitting parameters  leads to $`E_1=105\pm 5`$ meV and $`E_2=40\pm 5`$ meV (see lines in Fig. 1a). The resulting $`E_n`$’s are additionally validated by measuring the angular dependence of the 2DES peak and fitting the data with the same procedure (not shown).
Next, we compare the ARUPS data with STS. Fig. 1b and d show spatially averaged $`dI/dV`$-curves representing the macroscopic average of the LDOS: the DOS . The curves in Fig. 1b are measured with the same microtip before and after Fe-deposition. Without Fe, two peaks caused by the tip induced quantum dot (QD) appear . With Fe, the lower peak shifts to lower energies while the other disappears. The shift of the lower peak is caused by the adsorbate induced band bending. Indeed, the surface band shift of 300 meV measured by ARUPS requires a peak shift of 80 meV as evidenced by solving an equivalent of the Poisson-Schrödinger equation . The disappearance of the second peak is caused by the reduction of the QD size due to the screening by the 2DES.
Between the QD peak and $`E_F`$, a rather flat $`dI/dV`$-intensity with two step-like features at $`108`$ mV and $`43`$ mV is found, which has to be attributed to the 2DES. Since the features are located close to the $`E_n`$’s determined by ARUPS, we identify them with $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$. Additional evidence comes from Fig. 1c, a grey scale plot of $`dI/dV(V)`$ along a substrate line. The 2DES region exhibits intensity fluctuations with a fluctuation length decreasing abruptly at $`E_2`$. This result is straightforwardly explained by the fact that the DOS doubles abruptly at $`E_2`$. The number of states contributing to the image doubles, and since each state has a different spatial phase, the fluctuation length decreases.
Fig. 1d shows another spatially averaged $`dI/dV`$-curve recorded with a different tip at slightly lower Fe coverage and $`E_n`$’s marked again. The QD states are absent and clear step like structures as expected from a 2DES DOS are visible at the $`E_n`$’s. We conclude that the presence of the QD does not change the energies in the step like DOS, but slightly influences the intensity distribution.
The presence of the QD provides a unique advantage. As described elsewhere, the energy of the lowest QD state follows the electrostatic potential in the center of the QD . Since the extension of the QD state perpendicular to the surface is the same as the extension of the 2DES, the QD state directly monitors the local 2DES potential. Indeed, the QD energy fluctuates with position as visible in Fig. 1c (curved line along y-axis at QD). A plot of the QD energy as a function of position is shown in Fig. 2a. Four troughs about 20 meV in depth are visible. This is exactly the number of substrate donors on average located in such a 2DES area. Moreover, 20 meV is exactly the attractive potential of a single donor averaged over the extension of the 2DES. We take both as strong evidence that the QD state indeed maps the 2DES potential.
What is the influence of the Fe atoms? An STM-image of a small area of Fig. 2a (black square) is given in Fig. 2b. It shows several Fe atoms (dark dots), but no correspondence between the Fe positions and the measured potential. This might be surprising, since the adsorbate layer donates electrons to the 2DES and is thus charged . Anyway, in the area of Fig. 2a only 700 electrons are donated, but 7000 Fe atoms are deposited. Assuming that each Fe atom provides one electron at $`E_F`$, an electron density of $`1.5\times 10^{13}`$cm-2 remains in the Fe layer sufficient to screen the positive charge on small length scales.
Fig. 2c shows a more irregular potential obtained at 0.8 % coverage. It exhibits more troughs than expected from the 16 bulk donors. Here, the remaining electron density in the Fe layer of $`2\times 10^{12}`$/cm-2 is not sufficient to screen the positive charge of $`8\times 10^{11}`$ e/cm-2 completely.
The measured potential can be used to estimate the mobility of the 2DES . For Fig. 2a it turns out to be $`\mu 5\times 10^6`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}/`$Vs indicating a mean free path in the large $`\mu `$m range. For Fig. 2c it is slightly lower. Notice, that the mobility as well as the potential landscape itself is rather similar to high-mobility 2DES’s , stressing the relevance of the STS results for transport measurements.
Next, we discuss the LDOS. Fig. 3a$``$g show some of the LDOS images recorded at 2.7 % coverage in the absence of a QD. The spatial resolution is 5 nm well below the Fermi wave length of 23 nm. The total intensity in each image would correspond to 30 electronic states, if these states are completely localized in the image area. But since the scattering length and thus the localization length is probably larger, more states contribute to the LDOS with part of its intensity distribution. The LDOS images exhibit corrugations decreasing in length scale with increasing voltage. The corrugation patterns are rather complicated and do not exhibit the circular structures found in the InAs 3DES . The corrugation strength defined as the ratio between spatially fluctuating and total $`dI/dV`$-intensity is $`60\pm 5`$ %, i.e. much larger than the corrugation strength in the 3DES ($`4\pm 0.5`$ %) . Both results reflect the tendency of the 2DES to weakly localize . Many different scattering paths containing each many scattering events contribute to the LDOS leading to more intricate patterns and the tendency for localization leads to an increased corrugation.
Fourier transforms (FT’s) of the LDOS (insets) reveal the distribution of contributing $`k`$-values. At low voltage a circle is visible in the FT, which at higher voltage is confined by a ring. At even higher voltages ($`V>40`$ mV) a second smaller circle appears indicating the occupation of the second subband. A plot of the $`k`$-values corresponding to the rings is shown in Fig. 3h. At low voltages, where the ring is not apparent, the outer diameter of the circle is taken. For comparison, the $`E(k)`$-dispersion of unperturbed InAs  is drawn. The correspondence of the dispersion curve with the data is excellent for the lower subband and slightly worse for the second subband demonstrating that the unperturbed $`k`$-values still dominate the spectrum. However, additional $`k`$-space intensity not compatible with the unperturbed dispersion exists in the FT’s. It is strongest within the rings .
For 0.8 % coverage (Fig. 3i$``$l), we find the same tendencies as for 2.7 % coverage. Here, only one subband is occupied ($`E_1=60`$ meV) and the tip exhibits a QD state. From the QD state, the potential in Fig. 2c results and potential and LDOS can be directly compared. This is a crucial result, since effective mass, potential landscape and electron density completely determine the LDOS, thus all parameters are known. In particular, it allows to show that the additional $`k`$-values contributing to the LDOS are largely caused by the interaction of the electrons with the potential disorder. We solve the Schrödinger equation for noninteracting particles numerically using periodic boundary conditions and the measured disorder potential . There is no adjustable fitting parameter in the calculation. To construct the LDOS, the resulting squared wave functions are weighted corresponding to the energy resolution of the experiment. The resulting LDOS for a particular energy is shown in Fig. 4a in comparison with the measured LDOS in Fig. 4b. The correspondence is reasonable, i.e. several features as the central ring structure or other smaller structures marked by arrows appear in both images. The FT’s (insets) and the intensity distributions of the LDOS (Fig. 4c) even show nearly perfect agreement. We found similar results at the other energies and conclude that the potential landscape indeed largely determines the LDOS by mixing different $`k`$-states . Remaining discrepancies between measurement and calculation may be either caused by scattering centers outside the measured region or by electron-electron interactions. However, a study of these effects is behind the scope of this paper.

In summary, we presented an experimental method to determine the potential landscape and the LDOS of the same disordered 2DES area. This is a decisive prerequisite for detailed studies of the 2DES LDOS under different conditions. The results obtained here are successfully interpreted in terms of mixing of different $`k`$-states by the inhomogeneous potential landscape as evidenced by comparing the expected LDOS calculated from the potential landscape and the measured one.

We thank O. Seifarth and D. Haude for assistance with the measurements. Financial support from Wi 1277/15-1 and Graduiertenkollegs “Physik nanostrukturierter Festkörper”, “Spektroskopie lokalisierter, atomarer Systeme” of the DFG and the BMBF project 05 KS1FKB is gratefully acknowledged.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4


text:
# Metric-Field Approach to Gravitation and the Problem of the Universe Acceleration

## 1 Introduction

The geometrical properties of space-time can be described only by means of measuring instruments. At the same time, the description of the properties of measuring instruments, strictly speaking, requires the knowledge of space-time geometry. One of the implications of it is that geometrical properties of space and time have no experimentally verifiable significance by themselves but only within the aggregate ”geometry + measuring instruments”. We got aware of it owing to Poincaré . It is a development of the Berkley - Leibnitz - Mach idea about relativity of space-time properties, which is an alternative to the well known Newtonian approach.

If we proceed from the conception of relativity of space-time, we assume that there is no way of quantitative description of physical phenomena other than attributing them to a certain frame of reference which, in itself, is a physical device for space and time measurements. But then the relativity of the geometrical properties of space and time mentioned above is nothing else but relativity of space-time geometry with respect to the frame of reference being used.111There is an important difference between a frame of reference (as a physical device) and a coordinate system (as the way to parameterize points of space-time) . Thus, it should be assumed that the concept of the reference frame as a physical object, whose properties are given and are independent of the properties of space and time, is approximate, and only the aggregate ”frame of reference + space-time geometry” has a sense. The Einstein theory of gravitation demonstrates relativity of space-time with respect to distribution of matter. However, space-time relativity with respect to measurement instruments hitherto has not been realized in physical theory. An attempt to show that there is also space-time relativity to the used reference frames has been undertaken for the first time in , .

## 2 Fundamental Metric Form in NIFRs.

At present we do not know how the space-time geometry in inertial frames of reference (IFRs) is connected with the frames properties. Under the circumstances, we simply postulate (according to special relativity) that space - time in IFRs is pseudo-Euclidean. Next, we find a space-time metric differential form in noninertial frames of reference (NIFRs) from the viewpoint of an observer in the NIFR who proceeds from the relativity of space and time in the Berkley - Leibnitz - Mach - Poincaré (BLMP) sense.

By a noninertial frame of reference we mean the frame, whose body of reference is formed by the point masses moving in the IFR under the effect of a given force field. It would be a mistake to identify ”a priori” a transition from the IFR to the NIFR with the transformation of coordinates related to the frames. If we act in such a way, we already assume that the properties of space-time in both frames are identical. However, for an observer in the NIFR, who proceeds from the relativity of space and time in the BLMP sense, space-time geometry is not given ”a priori” and must be ascertained from the analysis of experimental data. We shall suppose that the reference body (RB) of the IFR or NIFR is formed by the identical point masses $`m_p`$. If the observer is at rest in one of the frames, his world line will coincide with the world line of some point of the reference body. It is obvious to the observer in the IFR that the accelerations of the point masses forming the reference body are equal to zero. Of course, this fact occurs in relativistic sense too. Let $`d\eta `$ and $`ds`$ be denote the differential metric forms in the IFR and NIFR. Then, if $`\nu ^\alpha =dx^\alpha /d\eta `$ is the 4- velocity vector of the point masses forming the reference body of the IFR, the absolute derivative of the vector $`\nu ^\alpha `$ is equal to zero,i.e.

$$D\nu ^\alpha /d\eta =0.$$
(1)
From the viewpoint of an observer in a NIFR who proceeds from the relativity of space-time in the BLM sense the points of his body reference are the points of his physical space, they are not exposed any forces. Consequently, their accelerations are equal to zero both in nonrelativistic and relativistic sense. This means that 4-velocity $`\zeta ^\alpha =dx^\alpha /ds`$ of the point masses forming the reference body of the NIFR obeys equality

$$D\zeta ^\alpha /ds=0$$
(2)
In other words, since for the observer in the IFR according to eq. (1) world lines of the IFR points are geodesic lines, then for the observer in the NIFR world lines of the NIFR points of the reference body are also geodesic lines in his space-time, which can be expressed by eq. (2).

This fact leads to important consequences. The differential equations of these world lines at the same time are the Lagrange equations of motion of the NIFR RB points. The Lagrange equations, describing the motion of the identical RB point masses in the IFR, can be obtained from the Lagrange action $`S`$ by the principle of least action. Therefore, the equations of the geodesic lines can be obtained from the differential metric form $`ds=kdS(x,dx)`$, where $`k`$ is the constant, $`dSdt=L(x,\stackrel{.}{x})dt`$ and $`L`$ is the Lagrange function. The constant $`k=(m_pc)^1`$, as it follows from the analysis of the case when the frame of reference is inertial. Thus, if we proceed from relativity of space and time in the BLMP sense, the differential metric form of space-time in the NIFR can be expected to have the following form , .

$$ds=(m_pc)^1dS(x,dx).$$
(3)
So, the properties of space-time in the NIFR are entirely determined by the properties of the used frame in accordance with the idea of relativity of space and time in the BLMP sense.

Consider two examples of the NIFR.

1.The reference body is formed by noninteracting electric charges moving in a constant homogeneous electric field $``$. The motion of the charges is described in Cartesian coordinates by the Lagrangian

$$L=m_pc^2(1V^2/c^2)^{1/2}+ex,$$
(4)
where $`V`$ is the speed of the charges. According to eq. (4) the space - time metric differential form in this frame is given by

$$ds=d\eta (wx/c^2)dx^0,$$
(5)
where $`d\eta =(c^2dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2)^{1/2}`$, is the metric differential form of the pseudo - Euclidean space - time in the IFR and $`w=e/m`$ is the acceleration of the charges.

2. The reference body consists of noninteracting electric charges in a constant homogeneous magnetic field $``$ directed along the axis $`z`$. The Lagrangian describing the motion of the particles can be written as follows

$$L=m_pc^2(1V^2/c^2)^{1/2}(m_p\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2)(\stackrel{}{x}yx\stackrel{}{y}),$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}=dx/dt`$, $`\stackrel{}{y}=dx/dt`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=e/2mc`$. The points of such a system rotate in the plane $`xy`$ around the axis $`z`$ with the angular frequency $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_0[1+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0r/c)^2]^{1/2}`$ , where $`r=(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}`$. The linear velocities of the BR points tend to $`c`$ when $`r\mathrm{}`$. For the given NIFR

$$ds=d\eta +(\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2c)(ydxxdy).$$
(7)
In the above NIFR $`ds`$ is of the form $`ds=(x,dx)`$ where $`(x,dx)=d\eta +f_\alpha (x)dx^\alpha ,`$ $`f_\alpha `$ is a vector field. The function $``$ is a homogeneous of the first degree in $`dx^\alpha `$. Therefore, generally speaking, the space-time in NIFR is Finslerian  with the sign - indefinite differential metric form.

One of the consequences of the above result is a natural explanation of the Sagnac effect and the fact of the existance of the inertial forces in NIFRs , .

## 3 Experimental Verification

A clock, which is in a NIFR at rest, is unaffected by acceleration in space - time of the frame. The change in rate of the ideal clock is a real consequence of the difference between the space - time metrics in the IFR and NIFR. It is given by the factor $`\sigma =ds/d\eta `$ from the equation $`ds=\sigma d\eta `$. For the rotating with the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ disk of the radius $`R`$ the factor $`\sigma =1\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^2/2c^2`$ which gives rise to the observed red shift in the well known Pound - Rebka - Snider experiments.

Another experimentally verifiable consequence of the above theory is some difference between the inertial mass $`m_p^{eq}`$ of a body on the Earth’s equator and the mass $`m_p^{pol}`$ of the same body on the pole. It is given by

$$(m_p^{eq}m_p^{pol})/m_p^{pol}=1.210^{12}$$
(8)
The dependence of the inertial mass of particles on the Earth’s longitude can be observed by the M$`\stackrel{..}{\text{o}}`$ssbauer effect. Indeed, the change $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ in the wave length $`\lambda `$ at the Compton scattering on particles of the masses $`m_p`$ is proportional to $`m_p^1`$. If this value is measured for gamma - quantums with the help of the M$`\stackrel{..}{\text{o}}`$ssbauer effect at a fixed scattering angle, then after transporting the measuring device from the longitude $`\phi _1`$ to the longitude $`\phi _2`$ we have

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )_{\phi _1}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )_{\phi _2}^1}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )_{\phi _1}^1}=\mathrm{\Theta }[cos^2(\phi _1)cos^2(\phi _2)],$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=1.210^{12}`$.

## 4 Gravitation in Inertial and Proper Reference Frames

Consider a frame of reference whose reference body is formed by identical material points $`m_p`$ moving under the effect of the field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. These frames will be called the proper frames of reference (PRFs) of the given field. Any observer, located in the PFR at rest, moves in space-time of this frame along the geodesic line of his space-time. This implies that the space-time metric differential form in the NIFR is given by eq. (3) where $`S`$ is the action describing in a IFR the motion of particles forming the reference body of the NIFR. Now suppose, following Thirring , that in pseudo- Euclidean space-time gravitation can be described as a tensor field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }(x)`$, and the Lagrangian describing motion of a test particle with the mass $`m_p`$ is of the form

$$L=m_pc[g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )\stackrel{}{x}^\alpha x^\beta ]^{1/2},$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}^\alpha =dx^\alpha /dt`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the symmetric tensor whose components are the function of $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. Then, according to (3) the space-time metric differential form in the PFR is given by

$$ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )dx^\alpha dx^\beta $$
(11)
Thus, the space-time in the PFR is a Riemannian with the curvature other than zero. Viewed by an observer in the IFR, the motion of the test particle forming the reference body of the PFR is affected by the force field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. But the observer located in the PRF will not observe the force properties of the field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ since he moves in space-time of the PRF along the geodesic line. For him the presence of the field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ will be displayed in another way — as space-time curvature differing from zero in these frames, e.g. as a deviation of the world lines of the neighbouring points of the reference body. For example, when studying the Earth’s gravity, a frame of reference fixed to the Earth can be considered as an inertial frame if the forces of inertia are ignored. An observer located in this frame can consider motion of the particles forming the PRF reference body in flat space-time on the basis of eq. (10) without running into contradiction with experiments. However, the observer in the PFR (in a comoving frame for free falling particles) does not find the Earth’s gravity as some force field. If he proceeds from the relativity of space-time, he believes that point particles, forming the reference body of his reference frame, are the point of his physical space. They are not affected by a force field and, therefore, their accelerations in his space-time are equal to zero. In spite of that, he observes a change in the relative distances of these particles. Such an experimental fact has apparently the only explanation as non-relativistic display of the deviations of the geodesic lines caused by space-time curvature. So, we observe an important fact that only in proper frames of reference we have an evidence for gravitation identification with space-time curvature.

Thus, we arrive at the following hypothesis. In inertial frames of reference, where space-time is pseudo-Euclidean, gravitation is a field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. In the proper frames of reference of the field $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$, where space-time is Riemannian, gravitation manifests itself as curvature of space-time and must be described completely by the geometrical properties of the latter.

Of course, eq. (3) refers to any classical field. For instance, space-time in the PRF of an electromagnetic field is Finslerian. However, since $`ds`$ depends on the mass $`m_p`$ and charge $`e`$ of the point masses forming the reference body, this fact is not of great significance.

## 5 Geodesic-invariant equations of gravitation

Gravitational equations should be some kind of differential equations for the function $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$, which are invariant under a certain kind of gauge transformations of the potentials $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. Since $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$, the Einstein equations are the equations both for $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and for $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$. Under the transformation $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ the quantities $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$ undergo some transformations too and, as a consequence, the equations of the test particle motion resulting from eq. (10) and the Einstein’s equations do not remain invariant. The equations of motion resulting from eq. (10) are at the same time the equations of a geodesic line of the Riemannian space-time $`V_n`$ of the dimensionality $`n`$ with the metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$. That is why if the given gauge transformation $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ leaves the equations of motion invariant, then the corresponding transformation $`g_{\alpha \beta }\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a mapping $`V\overline{V}`$ of the Riemannian spaces leaving geodesic lines invariant, i.e. it is a geodesic, (projective) mapping. Let us assume that not only eq. (10) but also the field equations contain $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ only in the form $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$, then it becomes clear that the gauge-invariance of the equations of motion will be ensured if the field equations are invariant with respect to geodesic mappings of the Riemannian space $`V_n`$. Thus, if we start from eq. (10), then the gravitational field equations as well as the physical field characteristics must be invariant with respect to geodesic (projective) mappings of the Riemannian space-time $`V_n`$ with the metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi )`$.

The simplest equations of gravitation that can be considered as a realization of the above idea were proposed in paper . (From another wiewpoint). They are given by

$$B_{\beta \gamma ;\alpha }^\alpha B_{\beta \mu }^\nu B_{\gamma \nu }^\mu =0,$$
(12)
In these equations

$$B_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\alpha \beta ^\gamma },$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are the Thomas symbols for $`V_n`$ and $`E_n`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma (n+1)^1\left[\delta _\alpha ^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\mu +\delta _\beta ^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \mu }^\mu \right],$$
(14)
$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma (n+1)^1\left[\delta _\alpha ^\gamma \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ϵ\beta }^ϵ+\delta _\beta ^\gamma \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ϵ\alpha }^ϵ\right],$$
(15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are the Christoffel symbols in $`V_n`$ and $`E_n,`$ respectively.

They are bimetric geodesic invariant equations. Each solution $`g_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ of (12) reffers to some coordinate system and is dtermined up to arbitrary geodesic mappings, which play the role gauge transformation in the theory under consideration. The physical meaning may have only geodesic invariant magnitudes, for example, the tensor $`B_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma .`$ At the covariant gauge conditions $`Q_\alpha =`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \alpha }^\beta \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \alpha }^\beta =0`$ eqs. 12 are equivalent to the system

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=0$$
(16)
and

$$Q_\alpha =0,$$
(17)
where $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Ricci tensor.

The equations do not contain the functions $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ explicitly. The simplest way of obtaining equations for such a kind of the functions $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ is to set

$$B_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =^\alpha \psi _{\beta \gamma }(n+1)^1\left(\delta _\beta ^\alpha ^\sigma \psi _{\sigma \gamma }+\delta _\gamma ^\alpha ^\sigma \psi _{\beta \sigma }\right),$$
(18)
where $`^\alpha `$ is the covariant derivative in flat space-time. Then, at the gauge condition $`^\sigma \psi _{\sigma \gamma }=0`$ eq. (12) are given by

$$\mathrm{}\psi _{\alpha \beta }^\sigma \psi _{\alpha \gamma }^\gamma \psi _{\sigma \beta }=0;^\sigma \psi _{\sigma \gamma }=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the covariant Dalamber operator in pseudo-Euclidean space-time. It is natural to suppose that with the presence of matter these equations are given by

$$\mathrm{}\psi _{\alpha \beta }=\varkappa (T_{\alpha \beta }+t_{\alpha \beta });^\sigma \psi _{\sigma \gamma }=0,$$
(19)
where $`\varkappa =8\pi G/c^4,`$ $`t_{\alpha \beta }=\varkappa ^1^\sigma \psi _{\alpha \gamma }^\gamma \psi _{\sigma \beta }`$ and $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the matter tensor of the energy-momentum. Obviously, the equality

$$^\beta (T_{\alpha \beta }+t_{\alpha \beta })=0$$
(20)
is valid. Therefore, the magnitude $`t_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be interpreted as the energy-momentum tensor of a gravitational field. 222It should be noted that, when we introduce it in some way, we cannot be sure aprori that the equation for $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ yields all solutions of the equations for $`B_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$. We may introduce a potential $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$ also in another way. . At the conditions $`^\sigma \psi _{\sigma \gamma }=0`$

$$t_{\alpha \beta }=\chi ^1B_{\alpha \sigma }^\gamma B_{\beta \gamma }^\sigma $$
(21)
## 6
Gravitational Energy of a Point Mass

If the Lagrangian of test particles is invariant under the mapping $`tt`$, the fundamental metric form of space-time $`V_4`$ in the spherically-symmetric case can be written as

$$ds^2=Adr^2B[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2]+Cdx^0{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(22)
where $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are the functions of the radial coordinate $`r`$. The general solution of the system (16) – (17) at the conditions

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}A=1,\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}(B/r^2)=1,\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}C=1.$$
(23)
is of the form

$$A=(f^{})^2(1𝒬/f)^1,B=f^2,C=1𝒬/f$$
(24)
where

$$f=(r^3+𝒦^3)^{1/3}$$

$`f^{}=df/dr`$, $`𝒬`$ and $`𝒦`$ are constants.

The equations of the motion of a test particle resulting from Lagrangian (10) is given by

$$\stackrel{..}{x}^\alpha +(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha c^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^0\stackrel{.}{x}^\alpha )\stackrel{.}{x}^\beta \stackrel{.}{x}^\gamma =0.$$
(25)
In the nonrelativistic limit $`\stackrel{..}{x}^r=c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^r,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^r=C^{}/2A=r^4C^{}/f^4C.`$ Therefore, to obtain the Newton gravity law it should be supposed that at large $`r`$ the function $`fr`$ and $`𝒬=r_g=2GM/c^2`$ is the classical Schwarzshild radius.

We can also argue that the constant $`𝒦=r_g.`$ Indeed, consider the 00-component of the first of eq. (19). Let us set $`T_{\alpha \beta }=\rho c^2u_\alpha u_\beta ,`$ where $`\rho `$ is the matter density and $`u_\alpha `$ is the 4-velocity of matter points. At the small macroscopic velocities of the matter we can set $`u_0=1`$ and $`u_i=0`$. Therefore, the equation is of the form

$$\mathrm{}\psi _{\alpha \beta }=\chi (\rho c^2+t_{00})$$
(26)
where $`\chi =4\pi G/c^4`$ and $`t_{00}`$ is the 00-component of the tensor (21). Let us find the energy of a gravitational field of the point mass $`M`$ as the following integral in the pseudo-Euclidean space-time

$$=t_{00}𝑑V,$$
(27)
resulting from the above solution, where $`dV`$ is the volume element. In the Newtonian theory this integral is divergent. In our case we have:

$$=\frac{𝒬}{𝒦}Mc^2$$
(28)
We arrive at the conclusion that at $`𝒦0`$ the energy of the point mass is finite and at $`𝒦=𝒬`$ the rest energy of the point particle in full is caused by its gravitational field: $`=Mc^2`$

The spacial components of the vector $`P_\alpha =t_{0\alpha }`$ are equal to zero. Due to these facts we assume in the present paper that $`𝒦=𝒬=r_g`$ and consider the solution (24) in the spherical coordinate system at the used gauge condition as a basis for the subsequent analysis.

## 7 Acceleration of the Universe as a Consequence of Gravitation Properties

The analysis of the recent observations data gives evidence that the deceleration parameter $`q_o=\stackrel{..}{a}(t)`$ $`a(t)/\stackrel{.}{a}(t)`$ ( $`a`$ is the scale factor) is negative at the moment ( , ) . It means that $`\stackrel{..}{a}>0`$ i.e. the expansion is accompanied with acceleration, while according to classical insights the gravity force must retard the expansion.

Equations (12) were succesfuly testified by the classical tests and binary pulsar PSR1913+16 , . The motion of test particles in the spherically - symmetric gravitational field differs very little from that in general relativity at distances from the center $`rr_g.`$ However, they are completely different at $`rr_g.`$ The solution of (12) has no the event horizon and physical singularity in the center. The gravitational force (as the mass multiplied by the acceleration) affecting escape particles is repulsive from $`r=0`$ up to distances of the order of $`r_g`$. The observed radius $`R_U`$ of the Universe is about $`10^{27}cm.`$ and the observed mass $`M_U`$ is $`10^{56}÷10^{57}g`$ , so the magnitude $`2GM_U/c^2`$ is of the order of $`R_U`$ . For this reason, we can expect some manifastation of the repulsive force for distant objects.

Consider in flat space-time a simle model of an expanding selfgraviting homogeneous dust - ball with the sizes of the observed Universe. Acording to , the equation of the motion of a test particle in the spherically-symmetric field are given by

$$\stackrel{}{r}^2=(c^2C/A)[1(C/\overline{E})(1+r_g^2\overline{J}^2/B)],$$
(29)
$$\stackrel{}{\phi }=cC\overline{J}r_g/(B\overline{E})$$
(30)
where $`(r,\phi ,\theta )`$ are the spherical coordinates ($`\theta `$ is supposed to be equal to $`\pi /2`$), $`\stackrel{}{r}=dr/dt`$, $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=d\phi /dt`$ , $`\overline{E}=E/(mc^2)`$, $`\overline{J}=J/(amc)`$, $`E`$ is the particle energy, $`J`$ is the angular momentum.

Consequently, the radial velocity of the specks of dust of the ball surface as a function of its radius $`R`$ is given by

$$V^2=\frac{c^2C}{A}\left[1\frac{C}{\overline{E}^2}\right],$$
(31)
where , $`V=\dot{R}=dR/dt`$,

$$C=1\frac{1}{\stackrel{\_}{f}};A=\frac{\stackrel{\_}{r}^4}{\stackrel{\_}{f}^4}C^1;,\stackrel{\_}{f}=(1+\stackrel{\_}{r}^3)^{1/3}$$
(32)
and the dependence of the acceleration $`\stackrel{}{V}=dV/dt`$ on the radius $`R`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{V}=VV^{}$$
(33)
Figs.1 and 2 show the plot of the velocity and the acceleration (arbitrary units) as the function of the radius at $`\overline{E}^2=0.60<1`$ and $`\overline{E}^2=1.20>1`$ .

It follows from the figures that the acceleration is negative at f $`R/r_g1`$, and is positive if $`R/r_g`$ is of the order of $`r_g`$ or less than that. For example, if the radius $`R=R_U`$ and the matter density $`\rho =210^{=28}g/cm^3`$ , the value of $`R_U/r_g=0.9<1`$ and the acceleration is equal to $`110^8cm/s^2`$ which is half as large as this magnitude resulting from the value of $`q_0=1`$ that was found in .

In paper  the Riess et al. results were studied in detail in view of the model above. A good compliance was found.

## 8 Conclusion

The key reason preventing a correct inclusion of the Einstein theory of gravitation in the interactions unification is that gravity is identified with space-time curvature. It is also a cause of such unsolved problems of the theory as an operational definition of the observables, the energy - momentum tensor problem and gravity quantization. So, if the analysed above possibility really takes place in nature, then it will remove an isolation of the geometrical gravitational theories from the theories of other fields.