text:
# Renormalisability of non-homogeneous T-dualised sigma-models

## 1 Introduction

The subject of target space duality, or T-duality, in String Theory and in Conformal Field Theory has generated much interest in recent years and extensive reviews covering abelian, non-abelian dualities and their applications to string theory and statistical physics are available in the literature . The geometrical aspects of this duality can be found in . T-duality provides a method for relating inequivalent string theories. First discovered for the case of $`\sigma `$-models with some abelian isometry, the concept of T-duality has been recently enlarged to theories with non-abelian isometries . A very important and interesting property of T-duality applied on non-abelian isometry is that it can map a geometry with such isometries to another which has none. Therefore, non-abelian T-duality can not be inverted as in the abelian case.

By showing that T-duality is a canonical transformation , it was proved that theories in such way related where classically equivalent. Furthermore, this equivalence was still remaining at the one-loop level, in a strict renormalisability sense, in all the many example that have been tested up to now to this duality, with an emphasis put on $`SU(2)`$ . For example, this one-loop equivalence still remains for principal $`\sigma `$-models whatever strongly broken the right isometries may be . The non-abelian dualisation of non-homogeneous metrics such as the Schwarzschild black hole or Taub-NUT was performed in , and in . We propose here the dualisation of the general $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ metrics.

Problems arise when one addresses the question of the renormalisability of dualised theories beyond the one-loop order. It had been proved that even for the simplest $`(SU(2)\times SU(2))/SU(2)`$ principal $`\sigma `$-model, the dualised theory is not two-loop renormalisable, in the minimal dimensional scheme . However, as shown in , a *finite* deformation at the $`\mathrm{}`$ order of the dualised metric is sufficient for recovering a two-loop renormalisability for this particular model. As it will be shown, the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ $`\sigma `$models are not in general two-loop renormalisable, even though the one-loop renormalisability remains for their dual partners !

The content of this article is the following : in section 2, we recall the general expression of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ metrics and set the notations. In section 3, we make a review of such metrics which give rise to one-loop renormalisable $`\sigma `$models, as for example the celebrated Taub-NUT and Eguchi-Hanson metrics. In section 4, we show that only the particular metrics where homogeneity is recovered by some enhancement of the isometries are two-loop renormalisable. In section 5, we dualise the original theory and show in section 6 that the one-loop renormalisability survives during the dualisation process. When the original metric is Kähler, we investigate in section 7 if such a property is still present for the dual partner. Some concluding remarks are offered in section 8.

## 2 The $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ metric

We consider the four dimensions metrics with cohomogeneity one under a $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ isometry. In the more general way, these can write

$$𝒈\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$

where the $`𝝈_𝒊`$ are 1-forms such that

$$𝒅𝝈_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝜺\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathit{ϵ}_{𝒊𝒋𝒌}𝝈_𝒋\mathbf{}𝝈_𝒋\mathbf{,}𝜺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}$$

One can always writes $`𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ under the well known specific shape

$$𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}𝒅𝜽^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽𝒅𝝋^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝒅𝝍\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽𝒅𝝋\mathbf{.}$$

If $`𝜺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, the triplet of 1-forms $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}`$ is changed under infinitesimal transformations of $`𝒔𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{}𝒔𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ as

$$𝜹\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathit{ϵ}}_𝑹\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\mathbf{.}$$

Therefore $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}`$ is a $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳`$ singlet and a $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ triplet. If $`𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ isometries will be broken down to a $`𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and the total isometry group of the metric will then be $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Indeed, in order to keep the metric invariant, one then must have $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathit{ϵ}}_𝑹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{\}}`$. If $`𝜺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}`$ is changed under infinitesimal transformations of $`𝒔𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{}𝒔𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ as

$$𝜹\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathit{ϵ}}_𝑳\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\mathbf{,}$$

and therefore the isometry group of the metric will be $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. The choice of $`𝜺`$ switches also the autodual components of the Weyl tensor ($`𝑾_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑾_{\mathbf{}}`$). In all cases, when $`𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, the metric has for isometry group $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ and is conformally flat.

It is then possible to define the $`𝝈`$-model corresponding to these metrics

$$𝑺\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑻}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼^{𝝁𝝂}𝒈_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{}_𝝁\mathit{\varphi }^𝒊\mathbf{}_𝝂\mathit{\varphi }^𝒋\mathbf{,}$$
(1)
with $`\mathbf{\{}\mathit{\varphi }^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒕\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }^\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝜽\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝝋\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝝍\mathbf{\}}`$, and address the question of its one-loop and two-loop renormalisability.

In order to derive the Ricci tensor, we define the vierbein $`\mathbf{\{}𝒆_𝒂\mathbf{|}𝒂\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{\}}`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒆_\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{,}\hfill & \hfill 𝒆_\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒆_\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\hfill & \hfill 𝒆_\mathrm{𝟑}& \mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the absence of torsion, the condition for giving one-loop renormalisability is the quasi-Einstein property of the metric :

$$𝑹𝒊𝒄_{𝒂𝒃}\mathbf{=}𝝀𝒈_{𝒂𝒃}\mathbf{+}𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒂}𝒗_{𝒃\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
where the Einstein constant $`𝝀`$ will renormalise the coupling while the vector $`𝒗`$ will renormalise the field.

## 3 One-loop renormalisation

We will only consider metrics satisfying condition (2) so that the corresponding $`𝝈`$-models are one-loop renormalisable. Of course, as we want to keep the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry while renormalising, we will only consider here vectors $`𝒗`$ that depends only on the $`𝒕`$ coordinate : $`𝒗\mathbf{=}𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$. As the expression of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ metric (3) we chose does not mix $`𝒅𝒕`$, $`𝝈_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝝈_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, both the metric $`𝒈`$ and the Ricci tensor $`𝑹𝒊𝒄`$ will be diagonal in the $`\mathbf{\{}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{,}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\}}`$ basis and this will hold in the vierbein. As a consequence, $`𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒂}𝒗_{𝒃\mathbf{)}}`$ must be also diagonal ; this is true only for vectors of the form $`𝒗\mathbf{=}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝝆\sqrt{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The constant $`𝝆`$ is arbitrary as $`\sqrt{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is in fact the form dual to the Killing $`\mathbf{}_𝝍`$. We will take $`𝝆\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

In order to simplify matters, from now on, we will choose the coordinate $`𝒕`$ so that $`𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒕`$. The metric now writes

$$𝒈\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕\mathbf{(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(3)
All this being settled, the quasi-Einstein character of the metric (2) can now be expressed as a set of three non-linear differential equations which are :

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒕}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}\frac{𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟐}𝝀𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝒕}\mathbf{\right)}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟒}𝝀𝒕𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒕}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟒}𝝀\frac{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
This system is difficult to solve, even though it can still be done for some limited cases as the Einstein one ($`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and the quasi-Einstein Kähler one. It is possible to eliminate $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ in the system (4), leading to a single, deeply non-linear, differential equation of the fourth order in $`𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$. The general $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ quasi-Einstein metric should therefore depend on four parameters.

In order to convince the reader of the large class of models that will be dualised, we will now give a short review of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ Einstein and quasi-Einstein Kähler metrics.

Einstein metrics :

The metric $`𝒈`$ will be Einstein if $`𝑹𝒊𝒄\mathbf{=}𝝀𝒈`$. It is possible to integrate the differential system (4) imposing $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and one gets

$$𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨𝒕}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒕}{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨𝒕}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝀𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨𝒕}}{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨𝒕}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝑩}{𝒕}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨𝒕}\mathbf{,}$$
(5)
$`𝑨`$ and $`𝑩`$ being the integration constants. This family contains many metrics of interest which we recall briefly.

If $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we recover the Kähler-Einstein extension of Eguchi-Hanson . If $`𝑨\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ then $`𝒈`$ identifies with the large class of Einstein metrics derived by Carter . By making the change of coordinates,

$$𝒕\mathbf{}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\text{with}𝑨\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}}\text{ and }𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝒏\mathbf{)}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$

one can have for $`𝒈`$ a more simple expression :

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒈& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \frac{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴𝒕\mathbf{+}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{}𝒏\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒏\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Notice that as $`𝑨`$ and $`𝑩`$ are real constants, $`𝑴`$ and $`𝒏`$ can be both reals or pure imaginaries. Defining $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏𝒅𝝍\mathbf{=}𝒅𝚿`$ and taking the limit $`𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ gives the Schwarzschild metric with cosmological constant :

$$𝒈\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝜽^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽𝒅𝝋^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}𝒅𝚿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
Other limits of (6) lead to the Page metric on $`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\#}\overline{𝑷_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}}`$ and to the Taub-NUT metric.

Quasi-Einstein Kähler metrics :

These are the only $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ quasi-Einstein metrics known up to now . We suppose here that there is a choice of holomorphic coordinates on which the isometries $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ act linearly. It happens that this hypothesis implies the integrability of the complex structure. A necessary condition of the Kähler property is the closing of the Kähler form :

$$𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝜺𝒆_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{\left(}\sqrt{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{}𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝜷\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$

It is clear that this relation will hold iff $`𝜷^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, i.e. $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}}`$. It is then possible to solve system (4) and one gets for the metric and for the vector $`𝒗`$ :

$$𝒈\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕\mathbf{\left(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}𝒗\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑪\sqrt{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒆_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑪𝒅𝒕\mathbf{,}$$
(8)
with

$$𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑫𝒆^{𝑪𝒕}}{𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝒕\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀}{𝑪}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}𝒆^{𝑪𝒕}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑪𝒕\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$

where $`𝑪`$ and $`𝑫`$ are the integration constants.

In the limit $`𝑪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we have $`𝒗\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and thus we are back to the Kähler-Einstein metrics, *i.e.* the Kähler-Einstein extension of Eguchi-Hanson (the correspondence between the parameters is then $`𝑫\mathbf{=}𝑩`$)111This shows that the four parameters of the general solution of (4) can not be $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$ as these are not independent..

## 4 Two-loop renormalisation

The two-loop divergences, first computed by Friedan , are

$$𝑫𝒊𝒗_{𝒊𝒋}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑻}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}}𝑹_{𝒊𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒕𝒖}𝑹_{𝒋}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒕𝒖}\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{.}$$

In order to re-absorb these divergences, the counter-terms may come from the renormalisation of the coupling $`𝑻`$ and the fields $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathit{\varphi }}`$, but also from the renormalisation of the parameters that were let in the metric at one-loop. For example, if one starts with the Einstein metric (6), one should allow for counter-terms renormalising the parameters $`𝑴`$, $`𝒏`$. In general, if we define such parameters as $`𝝆_𝒄`$, the theory will be renormalisable at two loops iff one can find some vector $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and some constants $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}`$ and $`𝝌_𝒄`$ such that

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑹_{𝒊𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒕𝒖}𝑹_{𝒋}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒕𝒖}\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}𝒈_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝝌_𝒄\mathbf{}_{𝝆_𝒄}𝒈_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒊}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}_{𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(9)
We will show that, except for the few particular cases where the metric is homogeneous222It was proven in  that homogeneous metrics are always renormalisable to all loop order., the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ Einstein and Kähler metrics do not give in a direct way two-loop renormalisable $`𝝈`$-models.

Einstein metrics :

In the vierbein basis, one can compute the two-loop divergences for the metric given in (6) and find :

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑹_{𝒂𝒎\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒑}𝑹_{𝒃𝒎\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒑}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathbf{\left(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝒏\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{\left(}𝒏\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathbf{\left(}𝑴\mathbf{+}𝒏\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟑}𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{\left(}𝒏\mathbf{+}𝒕\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}\mathbf{\right)}𝜹_{𝒂𝒃}\mathbf{.}$$

Quite surprisingly, the two-loop divergences are conformal to the original metric.

Relation (9) in the vierbein basis becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑹_{𝒂𝒎\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒑}𝑹_{𝒃𝒎\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒑}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}𝜹_{𝒂𝒃}\mathbf{+}𝑬_{𝒂}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒋}\mathbf{(}𝝌_𝑴\mathbf{}_𝑴\mathbf{+}𝝌_𝒏\mathbf{}_𝒏\mathbf{)}𝑬_{𝒃𝒋}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑫_𝒂\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}_𝒃\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{}𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$

were $`𝑬_{𝒂𝒊}`$ is defined by $`𝒆_𝒂\mathbf{=}𝑬_{𝒂𝒊}𝒅\mathit{\varphi }^𝒊`$. As for the one-loop renormalisation conditions (4), this last relation gives us three equations. These can easily be reduced to two by eliminating $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}`$. The remaining equations will only depend on the variable $`𝒕`$ and on the constants $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}`$, $`𝝌_𝒏`$ and $`𝝌_𝑴`$. As these must vanish irrespectively of the values taken by $`𝒕`$, one can show that they will be verified in only two particular cases where $`𝑴`$ and $`𝒏`$ are fixed such that

$$𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝀}\text{or}𝑴\mathbf{=}𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$

In both cases, (9) will be satisfied with $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$ and $`𝝌_𝑴\mathbf{=}𝝌_𝒏\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, but it is not surprising as these choice for $`𝑴`$ and $`𝒏`$ are the one which enlarge the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ isometries to $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$, making the metric homogeneous (de Sitter metric).

Kähler metrics :

Proceeding as for the Einstein metrics, one can compute the two-loop divergence using the metric (8). Once again, the parameters $`𝑪`$ and $`𝑫`$ must have special values for the action to be two-loop renormalisable. Indeed, one must have $`\mathbf{(}𝑪\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ or $`\mathbf{(}𝑪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. In the first case, we recover flat space. In the second case, we get the Fubiny-Study metric on $`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}`$ and its non compact partner which are also two-loop renormalisable with $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝀}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒗}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

The Einstein and Kähler metrics with no more isometries than $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ are therefore not renormalisable in the minimal scheme at two loops. This could of course be cured by adding some infinite deformation of the metric itself as in D. Friedan’s approach to $`𝝈`$ models quantisation, but it is the author belief that a finite deformation keeping the isometries, as explained in , would be sufficient333Here, one should start with the *general metric*, solution of (4), if no new parameters is a required condition for the renormalisation process..

## 5 The dual metric

We dualise the initial metric (3) over the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isometries, keeping aside the $`𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Practically, it consists in dualising the three dimensional metric

$$𝒈_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝒕\mathbf{(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$

leaving the term $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ unchanged. If we define the new fields of the dual metric $`𝝀^𝒊`$, $`𝒊\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\}}`$, the dual theory of $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ will writes, in light-cone coordinates :

$$\widehat{𝑺}_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑻}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝑮_\mathrm{𝟑}}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}𝝀^𝒊\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}𝝀^𝒋\mathbf{,}$$

where

$$\widehat{𝑮_\mathrm{𝟑}}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{ccc}𝒕& 𝝀_\mathrm{𝟑}& \mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\\ \mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟑}& 𝒕& 𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}& 𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}_{}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}{}_{𝒊𝒋}{}^{}\mathbf{.}$$

After the following change in coordinates :

$$𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒚\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒚\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝒓\mathbf{,}$$

one has for the total dual metric $`\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\widehat{𝑮_\mathrm{𝟑}}_{\mathbf{(}𝒊𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝝀^𝒊𝒅𝝀^𝒋`$ :

$$\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚫}\mathbf{\left(}𝒅𝒓\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒓𝒚}{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒚\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒕}{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒕𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝚫}𝒅𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(10)
where

$$𝚫\mathbf{=}𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$

The torsion is defined by $`𝑻\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝑯`$ where $`𝑯\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\widehat{𝑮_\mathrm{𝟑}}_{\mathbf{[}𝒊𝒋\mathbf{]}}𝒅𝝀^𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅𝝀^𝒋`$ is the torsion potential 2-form :

$$𝑯\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{\left(}𝒛𝒅𝒓\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathbf{\left(}𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝚫}𝒅𝒓\mathbf{}𝒅𝒛\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒓𝒚𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝚫}𝒅𝒚\mathbf{}𝒅𝒛\mathbf{.}$$
(11)
We define $`\widehat{𝒈}_{𝒊𝒋}`$ as the tensor associated to the metric (10) and $`\widehat{𝒉}_{𝒊𝒋}`$ as the torsion potential. Let $`\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\widehat{𝒈}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}\widehat{𝒉}_{𝒊𝒋}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑹}𝒊𝒄`$ be the new Ricci tensor which is not symmetric anymore because of the presence of torsion in the dualised model. Eventually, the dualised action of our $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ theory is, in light-cone coordinates :

$$\widehat{𝑺}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑻}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^𝒊\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^𝒋\mathbf{,}$$
(12)
where the coordinates are $`\mathbf{\{}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒕\mathbf{,}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒓\mathbf{,}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒚\mathbf{,}\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝒛\mathbf{\}}`$. It could be useful to notice that

$$𝐝𝐞𝐭\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$

It was proved in  that the dualised Eguchi-Hanson model is conformally flat. We have checked that, in the class studied here, this is the *only* case where the Weyl tensor vanishes.

The $`SO\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ dual of Schwarzschild :

Among all the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ metrics, the Schwarzschild one has an interesting peculiarity as its dual can be obtained in two ways. Indeed, in the original metric (7), due to the split of $`𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isometries appear only in the $`\mathbf{(}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{)}`$ term. One can therefore first dualise the “sub-metric” corresponding to this last term and then add the $`𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝒅𝚿^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms in order to obtain the dualised Schwarzschild metric. Doing this, only two Lagrange multipliers $`𝝀^𝒊`$ will appear during the dualisation procedure . But it is still possible to obtain it by first dualising the metric (6) and *then* taking the appropriate limit ($`𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$). As $`𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, one has first to make the change of coordinates $`𝒅𝒛\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒅𝚿}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}`$ before taking the limit. Doing this, one gets for $`\widehat{𝒈}`$ :

$$\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟒}}{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝒅𝒓\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒓𝒚}{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒅𝒚\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒅𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}𝒅𝚿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$

Finally, by making the coordinate change $`𝒚\mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, we get :

$$\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴}{𝒕}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}𝒅𝚿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}\mathbf{\left(}𝒕^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒅𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(13)
In the special case $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we recover the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ dual of Schwarzschild which was one of the first examples for non-abelian duality . While making $`𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the torsion potential 2-form $`𝑯`$ (11) writes as $`𝒅\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚿𝒅𝒓}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{)}`$, and therefore, as $`𝑯`$ is only defined up to a total derivative, the torsion vanishes, which is consistent with the result found in .

We will now address the question of the one loop renormalisability of the dual theory $`\widehat{𝑺}`$.

## 6 One-loop renormalisation of the dual metric

We want to prove that the one-loop renormalisation property does survive to the dualisation process. In other words, if the torsionless action (1) is quasi-Einstein, then so is the action (12). In the presence of torsion, this now means that one can find some constant $`\widehat{𝝀}`$ and some vectors $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ such that

$$\widehat{𝑹}𝒊𝒄_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\widehat{𝝀}\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_𝒋\widehat{𝒗}_𝒊\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{[}𝒊}\widehat{𝒘}_{𝒋\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{.}$$
(14)
This equality gives a system of equations much more complicated than (4), but what is important is that now $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ are not considered as unknown functions. Furthermore, as we suppose the original metric to be quasi-Einstein, the system (4) is assumed to be verified and one can easily derive from it, in an algebraic way, the three functions $`𝑨`$, $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑪`$ such that :

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
The procedure is the following : we choose some ansatz for $`\widehat{𝝀}`$, $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ and express relation (14). Then, in this last expression, we replace each occurrence of $`𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ by its expression in (15) and check if (14) holds.

We have checked that (14) is verified taking

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{𝝀}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝝀\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{𝒗}_𝒊& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀\widehat{𝒈}_{𝒊𝒋}𝑿^𝒋\mathbf{+}𝑫_𝒊\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝚫\mathbf{+}𝒗_𝒊\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{𝒘}_𝒋& \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀𝑿^𝒋\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒋𝒊}\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`𝑿`$ is defined by $`𝑿\mathbf{=}𝒓\mathbf{}_𝒓\mathbf{+}𝒚\mathbf{}_𝒚`$.

Conversely, let us now suppose that $`\widehat{𝝀}`$, $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ are defined by (16) where $`𝝀`$ and $`𝒗`$ are supposed to be arbitrary. It is possible to show that if (14) holds, then the original metric is quasi-Einstein with $`𝑹𝒊𝒄_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}𝝀𝒈_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒊}𝒗_{𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$. In order to demonstate this, we first define the three functions $`𝒇_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ such that :

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}& \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
Assuming that (14) holds, and after having replaced each occurence of $`𝜶^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝜸^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜸^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ by its value in (17), we get some equation system where the unknowns are the functions $`𝒇_𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$. As this last system must hold irrespectively of the values taken by $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒚`$ which are free variables, one can then prove that $`𝒇_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This shows that (15) holds and therefore the quasi-Einstein property of the original metric.

We have proven, for arbitrary functions $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, the equivalence

$$𝑹𝒊𝒄_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}𝝀𝒈_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒊}𝒗_{𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\widehat{𝑹}𝒊𝒄_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\widehat{𝝀}\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_𝒋\widehat{𝒗}_𝒊\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{[}𝒊}\widehat{𝒘}_{𝒋\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{,}$$
(18)
where $`𝝀`$, $`\widehat{𝝀}`$, $`𝒗`$ and $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ are related by (16).

Remarks :

* The cosmological constant does not change through the dualisation process as it was already proved for T-dualised homogeneous metrics . That means that the coupling will renormalise in exactly the same way that in the initial theory : the one-loop Callan-Symanzik $`𝜷`$ function is the same for the initial and dualised $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ theories.
* As one could expect, the coordinate $`𝒕`$ which was a spectator coordinate during the dualisation process plays a special role : $`\widehat{𝒘}_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and, up to the $`𝑫_𝒕\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝚫`$ term, $`\widehat{𝒗}_𝒕`$ and $`𝒗_𝒕`$ are equal.
* The $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetries where lost during the dualisation process, so at the end, there is just a $`𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry left and therefore the Killing $`\mathbf{}_𝒛`$ is unique. Indeed, $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ are defined up to this Killing vector, which dual 1-form is $`𝑲\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒚^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝚫}𝒅𝒛`$. One then has $`𝑫_{\mathbf{(}𝒊}𝑲_{𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑫_{\mathbf{[}𝒋}𝑲_{𝒊\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{[}𝒊}𝑲^𝒔\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒔𝒋\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$.
* One can adress the question of the unicity of $`\widehat{𝝀}`$, $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ which satisfy (14). There will be multiple solutions if one can find some $`𝚲`$, $`𝑽`$ and $`𝑾`$ such that

$$𝚲\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{+}𝑫_𝒋𝑽_𝒊\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{[}𝒊}𝑾_{𝒋\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$

On the one hand, $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ alone is obviously defined up to a gradient while $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$ together are defined up to the Killing vector $`𝑲`$ ; on the other hand, equivalence (18) shows that if multiple solutions exist for $`\widehat{𝝀}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ in the dualised metric, then such ambiguity will appear for the original metric. We have checked that, in our case of $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ metrics, only flat metric leads to such possibilities444For flat space ($`\beta (t)=\gamma (t)=1/\alpha (t)=t`$), we have $`\lambda g_{ij}+D_{(i}v_{j)}=0`$ with $`v=2\lambda dt,\lambda `$. . Therefore, except for this trivial original metric and up to the already noticed freedom in $`\widehat{𝒗}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒘}`$, (16) is the unique solution of (14).
* The $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ dual of the Schwarzschild metric (13) gives us a nice example of a torsionless quasi-Einstein metric with a $`𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ as minimal isometry.

## 7 Conservation of the Kähler property

Bakas and Sfetsos decribed, for SUSY applications, how the complex structures were changed when hyper-Kähler metrics were T-dualised . We propose here to show that when one starts with the original metric (8), the dual partner is still Kähler.

If we define

$$\widehat{𝝈}_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\widehat{𝑮}_{𝒔𝒊}𝒅\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^𝒔\mathbf{,}$$

it is possible to write the dual metric of (8) under the specific shape

$$\widehat{𝒈}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒕\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝝈_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\widehat{𝝈_\mathrm{𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\widehat{𝝈_\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$

One can then check that the 2-form

$$\widehat{𝝆}\mathbf{=}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{}\widehat{𝝈}_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝒕\widehat{𝝈}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\widehat{𝝈}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\widehat{𝓙}_{𝒊𝒋}𝒅\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}^𝒋$$

is a Kähler form with torsion for the dual metric. Indeed, for the almost complex structure $`\widehat{𝓙}`$, we have

$$\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝓙}_{𝒊𝒔}\widehat{𝓙}^{𝒔𝒋}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝜹_{𝒊}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒋}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \widehat{𝓙}_{\mathbf{(}𝒊𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ 𝑫_𝒊\widehat{𝓙}_{𝒋𝒌}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝑫`$ is the covariant derivative with torsion. One should notice here that, in the presence of torsion, the closing condition on the Kähler form is replaced by

$$𝒅\widehat{𝝆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝒅𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\widehat{𝝆}\mathbf{.}$$

The torsion potential 2-form $`𝑯`$ is given by the equation (11).

## 8 Concluding remarks

We have considered all of the four dimensional non homogeneous metrics with an isometry group $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. We have shown that the dual partners are quasi-Einstein (with torsion) iff the original metrics are quasi-Einstein (without torsion). Let us emphasize that this was possible despite the fact that the explicit form of these metrics are not all known yet.

In , it was proven that, in the minimal dimensional scheme, the dualised $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ principal $`𝝈\mathbf{}`$model is not two-loop renormalisable although this property holds for its original model. Here, the one-loop renormalisability remains although the starting models are not in general two-loop renormalisable. This is another suggestion that the renormalisability beyond one loop for the original and dualised models are not linked. Indeed, it is our ansatz that for the dualised models investigated here, one could still define a proper theory up to two loops. This could be achieved by adding some *finite* deformation to the dualised metric, as it was done in  for the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ principal $`𝝈\mathbf{}`$model, irrespectively of the two-loop renormalisability of the original theory.

Acknowledgments : I am indebted to G. Valent for suggesting this work and to G. Bonneau for enlightening discussions and remarks.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Gravity with Minimal Assumptions

## 1 Introduction

I first thank you for giving me the chance to overview in section 2 a thesis titled ‘Quantum Gravity with Minimal Assumptions’. This is mainly the review of quantum gravity from particle point of view. The purpose is to construct the quantum field theory including gravity, based on physical assumptions as few as possible. This consists of 5 subjects, the last of which is an original consideration on the relation between essential singularity and renormalization. This subject is summarized in section 3-5, but please read a preprint for more details.

## 2 Overview

The first subject, and probably suits this purpose the most is the work by Steven Weinberg, in which he derived the Einstein equation from the Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix. According to his old paper, gravity is derived without assuming a curved space-time. Therefore, the general covariance and the geometric property of gravity are possibly subsidiary or mere approximations.

The second subject is that, according to an effective field theory, we can make a prediction without knowing the underlying fundamental theory. For example, John F. Donoghue calculated one loop quantum corrections to the Newtonian potential explicitly, by assuming the Einstein-Hilbert action and fluctuations around the flat metric, and by making use of the result of ’t Hooft and Veltman. The potential naturally contains the classical corrections by general relativity.

As the third subject, we review what will happen if we loosen the assumption on coordinates in the standard model that all physical coordinates are transformed to the Minkowski space-time by a Poincaré transformation. And we review the troubles and the measures in treating gravitational field under classical approximations assuming a curved space-time. It is known that for the standard model of elementary particles, the anomaly cancellation condition in a curved space-time with torsion is the same as in a flat space-time.

As the fourth subject, we clarify the inevitable ambiguities of a theory. The following works are reviewed. For example, the vacuum state in a curved space-time is not unique and there exist several theories those can not be distinguished by finite times of measurements. This is a theorem on the ambiguity related to the problem of divergence. For another example, a higher-derivative theory includes non-physical solutions those can not be Taylor expanded. This can be the origin of the gauge ambiguity. If we exclude superfluous solutions by imposing the perturbative constraint conditions, it means a gauge fixing and the theory is reduced to local and lower-derivative. This treatment is known to be equivalent to the treatment of a constraint system by Dirac brackets.

As the last subject, we consider the following problem. In usual dimensional counting, momentum has dimension one. But a function $`f(x)`$, when differentiated $`n`$ times, does not always behave like one with its power smaller by $`n`$. This inevitable uncertainty may be essential in general theory of renormalization, including quantum gravity. As an example, we classify possible singularities of a potential for the Schrödinger equation, assuming that a potential $`V`$ has at least one $`C^2`$ class eigen function. The result crucially depends on the analytic property of the eigen function near its 0 points.

Notice that neither super-symmetric, higher dimensional, nor grand unification theory is referred to.

## 3 Renormalization and Essential Singularity

For the rest of this article we are going to focus on the preprint titled Renormalization and Essential Singularity. We consider the relativistic Schrödinger equation assuming a time independent and spherical symmetric $`U(1)`$ potential $`A^\mu :=(\varphi (r),0,0,0)`$. Then, the spherical part of an eigen function satisfies

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}})+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}]y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Ee\varphi )^2m^2c^4}{(h/2\pi )^2c^2}}y`$ (1)
$`=:`$ $`V(r)y`$
From now on, $`V(r)`$ defined in the R. H. S. is called a potential if and only if there exists a $`C^2`$ class eigen function $`y(r)`$ satisfying (1). The problem is, how singular $`V(r)`$ can be.

For simplicity we first treat 1 dimensional case with the angular momentum $`l=0`$. Then

$$(\text{1})\frac{y\mathrm{"}}{y}=V(r),$$
(2)
so not $`y(r)`$ itself but the ratio is important. For example, if $`y(r)`$ is Taylor expanded, the second derivative of the constant and the linear term vanish. That is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{"}}{y}}={\displaystyle \frac{0+0+2cr+\mathrm{}}{a+br+cr^2+\mathrm{}}}.`$
Therefore, the singularity of a potential depends on whether or not $`a,b=0`$. In fact there are various kinds of singularities. For example, we can replace the power of any term of a Taylor series with an arbitrary real number $`n`$, or $`\mathrm{log}r`$. An infinite power is called an essential singularity, and we can make more and more complex singularities by finite times of operations including summations, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, and compositions.

The most general shape of a singularity that is closed in these operations is like

$`f(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`(1)_i+(2)_j+\mathrm{}+(m)_k,`$
$`(1)_i`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{(}{\displaystyle \underset{n\{n\}_i}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1,\mathrm{},m_{d_i}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{m_{i1},\mathrm{},m_{id_i}}{}}}a_{inm_1\mathrm{}m_{d_i}}z^n(\mathrm{log}z)^{m_1}(\mathrm{log}(z/\mathrm{log}z))^{m_2}`$
$`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}(z/(\mathrm{log}(z/\mathrm{log}\mathrm{}z))))^{m_{d_i}}\text{)}_i,`$
$`(2)_{\pm j}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i\{i\}_j}{}}(\pm )e^{\pm (1)_i},`$
$`(3)_{\pm k}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j\{j\}_k}{}}(\pm )e^{\pm (2)_j},`$
$`\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
More precise construction and the meaning of this expansion are in . Notice that this has several number of infinite series in one expansion and all the terms are partially ordered in the ascending powers of $`r`$. In this case, the domain of the power of $`V(r)`$ in the limit $`r+0`$ is

$$V(r)r^\nu ,2+ϵ\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\nu ;1\nu ,$$
(4)
where $`ϵ`$ means an infinitesimal positive power like $`(logr)^1`$.

Thus we can restrict the shape (i.e. power and sign) of a potential $`V(r)`$. This is the short distance limit case, but we can also treat the long distance limit case by the change of variables and in dimension N there are 10 possible cases. Although precise version is in , we can see a shortcut version of the derivation of this main result in the next section.

## 4 Main Results

Here is the summary of the calculation. If we assume that the eigen function $`y(r)`$ is a $`N`$-dimensional spherical symmetric function $`R(r)`$ (i.e. orbital angular momentum $`l=0`$), and that $`R(r)`$ is $`C^2`$ class, then (3) can be expanded as 222 The coefficients are all real and $`b_i,c_j,d_k,\mathrm{}`$ are positive if exist.

$`R=a+br`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nr^n+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<0}{}}(\pm )e^{b_ir^i\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<0}{}}(\pm )e^{e^{c_jr^j\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \underset{k<0}{}}(\pm )e^{e^{e^{d_kr^k\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}.`$
For $`a=0`$ and $`N1`$, the behavior of $`V(r)`$ in the limit $`r+0`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R(r)}{R(r)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\prime \prime }}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}+(N1)r^2(b0)\hfill \\ +n(n+N2)r^2(b=0\text{and}^{}a_n0)\hfill \\ +(ib_i)^2r^{2i\pm 2ϵ2}(b=^{}a_n=0\text{and}^{}b_i>0)\hfill \\ +\mathrm{}(b=^{}a_n=^{}b_i=0\text{and}^{}c_j\text{or}d_k\text{or}\mathrm{}>0)\hfill \end{array}.`$
We can extend the results to $`r+\mathrm{}`$ case as follows. If we change the variable $`r`$ to $`z:=\frac{1}{r}`$ and assume that $`R(z)`$ is $`C^2`$ class (expanded like above) (10) is clearly replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R(r)}{R(r)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R(z)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{dR(z)}{dz}}\right)+(N1)z{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{dR(z)}{dz}}\right\}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`z^4{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\prime \prime }(z)}{R(z)}}z^3(N3){\displaystyle \frac{R^{}(z)}{R(z)}}`$
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}(3N)\frac{b}{a}z^3(a0\text{and}b0\text{and}N3)\hfill \\ (nN+2)n\frac{a_n}{a}z^{n+2}(a0\text{and}b=0\text{and}^{}a_n0\text{and}N3)\hfill \\ (n1)n\frac{a_n}{a}z^{n+2}(a0\text{and}^{}a_n0\text{and}N=3)\hfill \\ (\pm )\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}(a0\text{and}b=^{}a_n=0\text{and}^{}b_i\text{or}c_j\text{or}d_k\text{or}\mathrm{}>0)\hfill \\ (3N)z^2(a=0\text{and}b0\text{and}N3)\hfill \\ (n1)n\frac{a_n}{b}z^{n+1}(a=0\text{and}b0\text{and}^{}a_n0\text{and}N=3)\hfill \\ (\pm )\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}(a=0\text{and}b0\text{and}^{}a_n=0\text{and}^{}b_i\text{or}c_j\text{or}d_k\text{or}\mathrm{}>0\text{and}N=3)\hfill \\ (nN+2)nz^2(a=b=0\text{and}^{}a_n0)\hfill \\ +(ib_i)^2z^{2i\pm 2ϵ+2}(a=b=^{}a_n=0\text{and}^{}b_i>0)\hfill \\ +\mathrm{}(a=b=^{}a_n=^{}b_i=0\text{and}^{}c_j\text{or}d_k\text{or}\mathrm{}>0)\hfill \end{array}.`$
Noting that $`2n`$ and $`i<0`$, we conclude that the power of potential $`V(r)r^\nu `$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ is $`\nu 3;2ϵ\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\nu `$. There is no reason to assume that $`R(z)`$ is $`C^2`$ class, but more natural normalizability condition that $`R(r)`$ is a $`L^2`$ function leads to small modification $`a=b=0`$ and $`N<2n`$ (instead of $`2n`$) in (5) and (21). Notice that (10) for more general case of $`N,a`$ can be obtained from (21) by the trivial replacement $`N4N`$ and $`zr`$ with its power smaller by $`4`$. Furthermore, above results show that for a physical dimension $`N=1,2,3`$, the sign of a potential $`V`$ must be positive for $`\nu \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2+ϵ(r0)`$ and $`2ϵ\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\nu (r\mathrm{})`$, but can be negative for other cases.

We considered here an example of the real scalar field, and the fermion field equation is of course another story. As a future work, I’d like to apply the result to the general theory of renormalization, and renormalons appearing in the perturbative QCD.

## 5 Discussions

A potential with $`C^2`$ class eigen function is only an assumption. The definition of a potential here is local, and valid only in this paper. But my conjecture is that the analyticity of an eigen function is such a property that cannot be distinguished by finite times of measurements. Therefore we assumed that a physical eigen function is $`C^2`$ class. This is also only a local constraint and very weak self consistent condition. Therefore it is not a sufficient condition and normalizability is another problem, particularly, in the long distance limit case.

The motivations to introduce such a condition are as follows. The first is that we want to clarify the inevitable ambiguity of a theory. The second is that there are subtle physical problems: which is the more fundamental, a matter field or a potential? Can a potential be measured in the absence of a matter field? It is a future work to clarify the relation between all the different facts that a quantity is realistic, physically measurable, reduced inevitably from other properties, and calculable.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Izumi Tsutsui and Toyohiro Tsurumaru for useful discussions. This article is partially based on some implications given by Tsutomu Kambe and Kazuo Fujikawa. I also appreciate Tsutomu Yanagida and Ken-ichi Izawa, and all related people.


text:
# References

Exact form factors for the Josephson tunneling current

and relative particle number fluctuations in a model

of two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates

J. Links and H.-Q. Zhou

Centre for Mathematical Physics,

School of Physical Sciences

The University of Queensland, 4072,

Australia

## Abstract

Form factors are derived for a model describing the coherent Josephson tunneling between two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates. This is achieved by studying the exact solution of the model in the framework of the algebraic Bethe ansatz. In this approach the form factors are expressed through determinant representations which are functions of the roots of the Bethe ansatz equations.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). 82B23, 82C24.

Key words. Bose-Einstein condensation, Josephson effect, form factors, algebraic Bethe ansatz.

The experimental realisation of Bose-Einstein condensates in atomic alkali gases is generating a great deal of theoretical activity in order to understand the nature of coherent Josephson tunneling between coupled systems. A simple two-mode Hamiltonian which has been widely studied (see  for a review) takes the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K\widehat{n}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{2}}\widehat{n}{\displaystyle \frac{_𝒥}{2}}(a_1^{}a_2+a_2^{}a_1).`$ (1)
where $`a_1^{},a_2^{}`$ denote the single-particle boson creation operators, $`\widehat{N}_1=a_1^{}a_1`$, $`\widehat{N}_2=a_2^{}a_2`$ are number operators and $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2`$ is the relative particle number operator. Note that the total number operator $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{N}_1+\widehat{N}_2`$ provides a good quantum number since $`[H,\widehat{N}]=0.`$

While this model has been studied using a variety of techniques such as Gross-Pitaevskii states , mean-field theory , quantum phase model  and an exact quantum phase model , it also admits an exact solution in the framework of the algebraic Bethe ansatz, given in  in the guise of the “discrete self-trapping dimer” model, which has been largely unexplored. In , we have used the exact solution to determine the asymptotic behaviour of the energy spectrum in the Fock ($`N<<K/_J`$) and Rabi ($`N^1>>K/_𝒥`$) regions. It was also shown that asymptotic thermodynamic properties can be deduced for the Fock region at low temperature and the Rabi region for all temperatures. Here, we will limit ourselves to the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$ and continue our analysis of the Bethe ansatz solution to yield explicit exact form factors for the Josephson tunneling current

$$𝒥=i(a_1^{}a_2a_2^{}a_1),$$
(2)
as well as the relative particle number $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{n}^2`$, which are applicable for all couplings. This opens an avenue to explore the behaviour of the Hamiltonian in the cross over between the Fock, Rabi and Josephson ($`N^1<<K/_J<<N`$) regions. Recall that in Josephson’s original work on macroscopic superconductors , the tunneling current is a manifestation of the relative phase of the wave functions of two superconductors separated by an insulating barrier. As phase and particle number are canonically conjugate quantum variables, the quantum fluctuations of the relative particle number are of primary importance in understanding the physics in the present model, given that there are technical difficulties which prevent a simple definition for the phase variable . Our results for the form factors provide an initial step towards the calculation of these fluctuations. The method that we will adopt follows that proposed for the form factors of the Bose gas with delta-function interactions and the one-dimensional Heisenberg model . This yields determinant representations for the form factors which are functions of the roots of the Bethe ansatz equations that arise from the exact solution. Furthermore, it is straightforward to express these results in a time-dependent form.

First we will review the basic features of the exact solution of (1) via the algebraic Bethe ansatz, as discussed in . The theory of exactly solvable quantum systems in this setting relies on the existence of a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation

$$R_{12}(uv)R_{13}(u)R_{23}(v)=R_{23}(v)R_{13}(u)R_{12}(uv).$$
(3)
Here $`R_{jk}(u)`$ denotes the matrix on $`VVV`$ acting on the $`j`$-th and $`k`$-th spaces and as the identity on the remaining space. The $`R`$-matrix solution may be viewed as the structural constants for the Yang-Baxter algebra generated by the monodromy matrix $`T(u)`$

$$R_{12}(uv)T_1(u)T_2(v)=T_2(v)T_1(u)R_{12}(uv).$$
(4)
For a given $`R`$-matrix, there are a variety of realisations of the Yang-Baxter algebra. For the $`su(2)`$ invariant $`R`$-matrix,

$$R(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b(u)& c(u)& 0\\ 0& c(u)& b(u)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
with the rational functions $`b(u)=u/(u+\eta )`$ and $`c(u)=\eta /(u+\eta )`$, there is a realisation of the Yang-Baxter algebra in terms of canonical boson operators which reads

$$L(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u+\eta \widehat{N}& a\\ a^{}& \eta ^1\end{array}\right),$$

such that

$$R_{12}(uv)L_1(u)L_2(v)=L_2(v)L_1(u)R_{12}(uv).$$

The co-multiplication behind the Yang-Baxter algebra allows us to choose the monodromy matrix

$`T(u)`$ $`=`$ $`L_1(u+\omega )L_2(u\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(u+\omega +\eta \widehat{N}_1)(u\omega +\eta \widehat{N}_2)+a_2^{}a_1& (u+\omega +\eta \widehat{N}_1)a_2+\eta ^1a_1\\ (u\omega +\eta \widehat{N}_2)a_1^{}+\eta ^1a_2^{}& a_1^{}a_2+\eta ^2\end{array}\right)`$
Defining the transfer matrix through $`t(u)=\mathrm{tr}(T(u))`$, it follows from (3) that the transfer matrices commute for different values of the spectral parameter; viz.

$$[t(u),t(v)]=0u,v.$$

In the present case, we have explicitly

$`t(u)`$ $`=`$ $`u^2+u\eta \widehat{N}+\eta ^2\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2+\eta \omega \widehat{n}+a_2^{}a_1+a_1^{}a_2+\eta ^2\omega ^2.`$
Then

$$t^{}(0)=\frac{dt}{du}|_{u=0}=\eta \widehat{N}$$

and it is easy to verify that the Hamiltonian is related with the transfer matrix $`t(u)`$ by

$$H=\kappa \left(t(u)\frac{1}{4}(t^{}(0))^2ut^{}(0)\eta ^2+\omega ^2u^2\right),$$

where the following identification has been made for the coupling constants

$`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \eta ^2}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \eta \omega ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_𝒥}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa .`$
The solution of (1) via the algebraic Bethe ansatz is obtained by utilizing the commutation relations of the Yang-Baxter algebra. Setting

$$T(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(u)& B(u)\\ C(u)& D(u)\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
we have from the defining relations (4) that

$`[A(u),A(v)]=[D(u),D(v)]=0,`$
$`[B(u),B(v)]=[C(u),C(v)]=0,`$
$`A(u)C(v)={\displaystyle \frac{uv+\eta }{uv}}C(v)A(u){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{uv}}C(u)A(v),`$
$`D(u)C(v)={\displaystyle \frac{uv\eta }{uv}}C(v)D(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{uv}}C(u)D(v).`$ (8)
An explicit representation of (7) is obtained from (LABEL:real) with the identification

$`A(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(u+\omega +\eta N_1)(u\omega +\eta N_2)+a_2^{}a_1`$
$`B(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(u+\omega +\eta N_1)a_2+\eta ^1a_1`$
$`C(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(u\omega +\eta N_2)a_1^{}+\eta ^1a_2^{}`$
$`D(u)`$ $`=`$ $`a_1^{}a_2+\eta ^2.`$
Choosing the state $`|0=|0_1|0_2`$ as the pseudovacuum, the eigenvalues $`a(u)`$ and $`d(u)`$ of $`A(u)`$ and $`D(u)`$ on $`|0`$ are

$`a(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(u+\omega )(u\omega ),`$
$`d(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2.`$
Next choose the Bethe state

$$|\stackrel{}{v}|v_1,\mathrm{},v_N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}C(v_i)|0.$$
(9)
Note that because $`[C(u),C(v)]=0`$, the ordering is not important in (9). It is also clear that these states are eigenstates of $`\widehat{N}`$ with eigenvalue $`N`$. The approach of the algebraic Bethe ansatz is to use the relations (8) to determine the action of $`t(u)`$ on $`|\stackrel{}{v}`$. The result is

$`t(u)|\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(u,\stackrel{}{v})|\stackrel{}{v}`$ (10)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta a(v_i)}{uv_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_iv_j+\eta }{v_iv_j}}\right)|v_1,\mathrm{}v_{i1},u,v_{i+1},\mathrm{},v_N`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta d(v_i)}{uv_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_iv_j\eta }{v_iv_j}}\right)|v_1,\mathrm{}v_{i1},u,v_{i+1},\mathrm{},v_N`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(u,\stackrel{}{v})=a(u)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{uv_i+\eta }{uv_i}+d(u)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{uv_i\eta }{uv_i}.$$
(11)
The above shows that $`|\stackrel{}{v}`$ becomes an eigenstate of the transfer matrix with eigenvalue (11) whenever the Bethe ansatz equations (BAE)

$$\eta ^2(v_i^2\omega ^2)=\underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{v_iv_j\eta }{v_iv_j+\eta }$$
(12)
are satisfied. As $`N`$ is the total number of bosons, we expect $`N+1`$ solutions of the BAE. Note that in the derivation of the BAE it is required that $`v_iv_ji,j.`$ For example, the solution

$$v_j=\pm (i)^{(N+1)}\sqrt{\eta ^2+\omega ^2},j$$

of (12) is invalid, except when $`N=1`$. This is a result of the Pauli Principle for Bethe ansatz solvable models as developed in  for the Bose gas. We will not reproduce the proof for the present case, as it follows essentially the same lines as . For a given valid solution of the BAE, the energy of the Hamiltonian is obtained from the transfer matrix eigenvalues (11) and reads

$$E(\stackrel{}{v})=\kappa \left(\eta ^2\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}\eta ^2(v_j\omega +\eta )(v_j+\omega )\frac{\eta ^2N^2}{4}\eta \omega N\eta ^2\right).$$
(13)
A consequence of the above construction is that form factors, and consequently correlation functions, can be computed for this model. The method we employ follows that used for the Bose gas and one-dimenisonal Heisenberg chain . The reason we can adopt this approach is because the solution of these models and (1) are based on the same $`R`$-matrix (5). Below we will restrict our attention to $`\omega =0`$ (for reasons which will become clear) and give explicit results for $`\widehat{n},\widehat{n}^2`$ and $`𝒥`$.

A curiosity of this model is that the representation of the Yang-Baxter algebra is non-unitary; viz.

$$C^{}(u)B(u).$$

In the case when $`\omega =0`$ it is, however, equivalent to a unitary representation since in this instance we have

$$C^{}(u)=P.B(u).P$$

where $`P`$ is the permutation operator. The permutation operator is defined by the action on the Fock basis

$$P.(a_1^{})^j(a_2^{})^k|0=(a_1^{})^k(a_2^{})^j|0.$$

Note that for $`\omega =0`$ (which will be assumed hereafter), we have

$$[P,H]=0$$

which means that the energy eigenstates are also eigenstates of $`P`$. Moreover, $`P^2=I`$ shows that $`P`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$.

There exists a formula due to Slavnov  for the scalar product of states obtained via the algebraic Bethe ansatz for the $`R`$-matrix (5), which when applied to this model is

$`S(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{u})`$ $`=`$ $`0\left|B(v_1)\mathrm{}B(v_N)C(u_1)\mathrm{}C(u_N)\right|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}F(\stackrel{}{u}:\stackrel{}{v})}{_{j>k}(u_ku_j)_{\alpha <\beta }(v_\beta v_\alpha )}}`$
where

$$F_{ab}=\frac{\eta ^1}{u_bv_a}\left(u_b^2\underset{ma}{\overset{N}{}}(v_mu_b\eta )\eta ^2\underset{ma}{\overset{N}{}}(v_mu_b+\eta )\right),$$

the parameters $`\{v_\alpha \}`$ satisfy the Bethe ansatz equations (12) and $`\{u_j\}`$ are arbitrary. Note that when $`|\stackrel{}{u}=|\stackrel{}{v}`$ we need to take a limit for the diagonal entries which gives

$`F_{aa}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^2v_a{\displaystyle \underset{l}{\overset{N}{}}}(v_lv_a\eta )\eta ^4{\displaystyle \underset{l}{\overset{N}{}}}(v_lv_a+\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{ma}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_mv_a+\eta }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{\overset{N}{}}}(v_lv_a\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{ma}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2v_a^2}{v_mv_a\eta }}.`$
Consider

$`S(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{v})`$ $`=`$ $`0|B(v_1)\mathrm{}B(v_N)C(v_1)\mathrm{}C(v_N)|0`$
$`=`$ $`0|PC^{}(v_1)\mathrm{}C^{}(v_N)PC(v_1)\mathrm{}C(v_N)|0`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})\stackrel{}{v}|\stackrel{}{v}`$
where $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})=\pm 1`$ is the eigenvalue of $`P`$; viz.

$$P|\stackrel{}{v}=ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})|\stackrel{}{v}.$$

This quantity can be determined to be given by

$$ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})=\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}\eta v_j.$$

Hence, from the Slavnov formula, the norms of the eigenstates

$`\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{v}|\stackrel{}{v}^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`|S(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{v})|^{1/2}`$
are obtained directly.

Let us define

$$\chi =A(0)D(0)=\eta ^2N_1N_2+i𝒥\eta ^2$$

where $`𝒥`$ is defined by (2). In analogy with (10) we find

$`\chi |\stackrel{}{u}`$
$`=\theta (\stackrel{}{u})|\stackrel{}{u}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta a(u_i)}{u_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_iu_j+\eta }{u_iu_j}}|u_1,\mathrm{}u_{i1},0,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_N`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta d(u_i)}{u_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_iu_j\eta }{u_iu_j}}|u_1,\mathrm{}u_{i1},0,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_N`$
where

$`\theta (\stackrel{}{u})`$ $`=`$ $`a(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_i\eta }{u_i}}d(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_i+\eta }{u_i}}`$
$`=`$ $`\eta ^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_i+\eta }{u_i}}.`$
Using the Slavnov formula we can calculate the form factors for $`\chi `$. Suppose that $`|\stackrel{}{v}`$ is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Then

$`\stackrel{}{v}|\chi |\stackrel{}{u}`$
$`=\theta (\stackrel{}{u})ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})S(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{u})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta a(u_i)}{u_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_iu_j+\eta }{u_iu_j}}ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})S(\stackrel{}{v}:u_1,\mathrm{}u_{i1},0,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_N)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta d(u_i)}{u_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_iu_j\eta }{u_iu_j}}ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})S(\stackrel{}{v}:u_1,\mathrm{}u_{i1},0,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_N).`$
Now we let $`|\stackrel{}{u}`$ be an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian (1). The above formula can be simplified considerably (cf. )

$`\stackrel{}{v}|\chi |\stackrel{}{u}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{N2}_\alpha (v_\alpha +\eta )}{_{j>k}(u_ku_j)_{\alpha <\beta }(v_\beta v_\alpha )}}\mathrm{det}(F(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{u})2\eta ^3ϵ(\stackrel{}{u})ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})Q(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{u}))`$
(14)
where $`Q(\stackrel{}{v}:\stackrel{}{u})`$ is a rank one matrix with entries

$$Q_{ab}=\frac{_j(u_ju_b+\eta )}{v_a(v_a+\eta )}.$$

This is our main result. We remark that because the basis states are also Hamiltonian eigenstates, it is straightforward to write down the time-dependent form factors

$$\stackrel{}{v}|\chi (t)|\stackrel{}{u}=\mathrm{exp}(it\left(E(\stackrel{}{v})E(\stackrel{}{u})\right))\stackrel{}{v}|\chi |\stackrel{}{u}$$
(15)
where the energies $`E(\stackrel{}{v})`$ are given by (13). Remarkably, from eqs. (14, 15) all the time-dependent form factors for $`\widehat{n},\widehat{n}^2`$ and $`𝒥`$ can be obtained. This is achieved by exploiting the symmetry of the Hamiltonian under $`P`$, which we will now explain.

The following corollary is easily proved. If $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})ϵ(\stackrel{}{u})`$ then

$$\stackrel{}{v}|\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2|\stackrel{}{u}=0.$$

If $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})=ϵ(\stackrel{}{u})`$ then

$$\stackrel{}{v}|𝒥|\stackrel{}{u}=0.$$

The result follows from the observation

$`P\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2P,`$
$`P𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥P.`$
We now find that

$$\stackrel{}{v}|\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2|\stackrel{}{u}=\eta ^2\stackrel{}{v}|\chi (t)|\stackrel{}{u}+\eta ^4\stackrel{}{v}|\stackrel{}{u}$$

if $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})=ϵ(\stackrel{}{u})`$, and is zero otherwise. Also

$$\stackrel{}{v}|𝒥|\stackrel{}{u}=i\stackrel{}{v}|\chi (t)|\stackrel{}{u}$$

if $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{v})ϵ(\stackrel{}{u})`$, and is zero otherwise.

The above shows that the form factors for $`𝒥`$ are obtained directly from those of $`\chi (t)`$. Those for $`\widehat{n}^2`$ also follow, since we have $`\widehat{n}^2=\widehat{N}^24\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2`$ and the states (9) are automatically eigenstates of $`\widehat{N}`$ with eigenvalue $`N`$. Thus

$$\stackrel{}{v}|\widehat{n}^2|\stackrel{}{u}=N^2\stackrel{}{v}|\stackrel{}{u}4\stackrel{}{v}|\widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2|\stackrel{}{u}.$$

To obtain the form factors for $`\widehat{n}`$, we use the fact that $`𝒥`$ is the time derivative of $`\widehat{n}`$, so

$$𝒥=\frac{i}{\kappa }[\widehat{n},H]$$

which gives

$$\stackrel{}{v}|\widehat{n}|\stackrel{}{u}=\frac{i\kappa }{E(\stackrel{}{v})E(\stackrel{}{u})}\stackrel{}{v}|𝒥|\stackrel{}{u}.$$

In principle, the correlation functions

$$\theta _\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

where $`\theta =\widehat{n},\widehat{n}^2`$ or $`𝒥`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an arbitrary state, can be expressed in terms of the form factors through completeness relations. In particular, for a given $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the quantum fluctuations of the relative number operator

$$\delta (\mathrm{\Psi };\widehat{n})=\widehat{n}^2_\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{n}^{}_\mathrm{\Psi }^2$$

can be computed from these results.

In conclusion, we have shown that the algebraic Bethe ansatz solution of (1) provides a means to calculate form factors, and in turn correlation functions, for the model. We have yielded explicit results for the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$. An outstanding task is to extend these results to the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu 0`$, which presents a challenging problem because of the non-unitary representation of the Yang-Baxter algebra in this instance, and the breaking of symmetry under $`P`$.

We thank R.H. McKenzie for stimulating discussions and the Australian Research Council for financial support.


text:
# Supersymmetry and discrete transformations of the Dirac operators in Taub-NUT geometry

## 1 Introduction

The theory of the usual or hidden symmetries of the Lagrangian quantum field theory on curved spacetimes, give rise to interesting mathematical problems concerning the properties of the physical observables. It is known that one of the largest algebras of conserved operators is produced by the Euclidean Taub-NUT geometry since beside usual isometries this has a hidden symmetry of the Kepler type . When discussing the geodesic equations in the Taub-NUT metric the existence of extra conserved quantities was noticed. These reflect a symmetry of the phase space of the system and enable the Schrödinger  and Dirac equations  to be separated in a special coordinate system. This is related to the existence of a Stäckel-Killing tensor of rank $`2`$ in Taub-NUT space.

The theory of the Dirac equation in the Kaluza-Klein monopole field was studied in the mid eighties . An attempt to take into account the Runge-Lenz vector of this problem was done in . We have continued this study showing that the Dirac equation is analytically solvable  and determining the energy eigenspinors of the central modes. Moreover, we derived all the conserved observables of this theory, including those associated with the hidden symmetries of the Taub-NUT geometry. Thus we obtained the Runge-Lenz vector-operator of the Dirac theory, pointing out its specific properties . The consequences of the existence of this operator were studied in  showing that the dynamical algebras of the Dirac theory corresponding to different spectral domains are the same as in the scalar case  but involving other irreducible representations.

The Taub-NUT space is also of mathematical interest, the main features of the Taub-NUT metric relevant here are the fact that it is a $`4`$ dimensional hyper-Kähler metric and possesses special tensors - Stäckel-Killing and Killing-Yano tensors . A hyper-Kähler manifold is a Riemannian manifold modeled on a quaternion inner-product space. In fact a hyper-Kähler manifold is a manifold whose Riemannian metric is Kähler with respect to three different complex structures. In the $`4`$ dimensional case the holonomy group $`Sp(1)SO(4)`$ is the same as $`SU(2)SO(4)`$.

In the Taub-NUT geometry four Killing-Yano tensors are known to exist. Three of these are special because they are covariantly constant and define the complex structures of the manifold. Using these covariantly constant Killing-Yano tensors it is possible to construct new Dirac-type operators  which anticommute with the standard Dirac operator. The aim of this paper is to prove explicitly that these operators and the standard Dirac one are equivalent among themselves.

We show that the representation of the whole theory can be changed using the $`U(2)`$ transformations among them the $`SU(2)`$ ones are generated just by the spin-like operators constructed using the above mentioned three Killing-Yano tensors . Based on these results, we define the parity transformation and a discrete group with eight elements formed by the transformations which relate to each other the four Dirac operators and their parity transformed as well. We show that this discrete group is a realization of the quaternion group which is isomorphic with the dicyclic group of order eight.

The Taub-NUT space also possesses a Killing-Yano tensor which is not covariantly constant. The corresponding non-standard operator, constructed with the general rule  anticommutes with the standard Dirac operator but is not equivalent to it. This non-standard Dirac operator is connected with the hidden symmetries of the space allowing the construction of a conserved vector operator analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler problem . The final objective here is to discuss the behavior of this operator under discrete transformations pointing out that the hidden symmetries are in some sense decoupled from the discrete symmetries studied here. The explanation of this distinction is that the standard $`N=4`$ supersymmetry are linked to the hyper-Kähler structure of the Taub-NUT space. The corresponding supercharges close on the Hamiltonian of the theory. The quantal anticommutator of the Dirac-type operators closes on the square of the Hamiltonian operator. On the other hand, the non-standard supercharge involving the non-covariant Killing-Yano tensor does not close on the Hamiltonian. The appearance of the non-covariant Killing-Yano tensor in this context is not surprising since it also plays an essential role in the existence of hidden symmetries. Its existence requires the Weyl tensor to be of Petrov type $`D`$. The quantal anticommutator of the non-standard Dirac operator does not close on the square of the Hamiltonian, as would Dirac-type operators, rather on a combination of different conserved operators of the theory.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next two sections we introduce the first four Dirac operator which constitute the $`N=4`$ superalgebra and we define the transformations leading to equivalent representations of the whole theory. These allow us to extract in section 4 the discrete transformations which show that these Dirac operators are equivalent among themselves. The role of the fifth Dirac operator is briefly discussed in section 5. Section 6 contains some discussion.

## 2 Dirac operators of the Taub-NUT space

Let us consider the Taub-NUT space and the chart with Cartesian coordinates $`x^\mu `$ ($`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=1,2,3,4`$) having the line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\frac{1}{V}dl^2+V(dx^4+A_idx^i)^2,$$
(1)
where $`dl^2=(d\stackrel{}{x})^2=(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2`$ is the Euclidean three-dimensional line element and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the gauge field of a monopole. Another chart suitable for applications is that of spherical coordinates, $`(r,\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )`$, among them the first three are the spherical coordinates commonly associated with the Cartesian space ones, $`x^i`$ ($`i,j,\mathrm{}=1,2,3`$), while $`\chi +\varphi =x^4/\mu `$. The real number $`\mu `$ is the parameter of the theory which enters in the form of the function $`1/V(r)=1+\mu /r`$. The unique non-vanishing component of the vector potential in spherical coordinates is $`A_\varphi =\mu (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. This space has the isometry group $`G_s=SO(3)U(1)_4`$ formed by the rotations of the Cartesian space coordinates and $`x^4`$ translations. The $`U(1)_4`$ symmetry is important since this eliminates the so called NUT singularity if $`x^4`$ has the period $`4\pi \mu `$.

For the theory of the Dirac operators in Cartesian charts of the Taub-NUT space, it is convenient to consider the local frames given by tetrad fields $`e(x)`$ and $`\widehat{e}(x)`$ as defined in  while the four Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, that satisfy $`\{\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }},\gamma ^{\widehat{\beta }}\}=2\delta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}`$, have to be written in the following representation

$$\gamma ^i=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where all of them are self-adjoint. In addition we consider the matrix

$$\gamma ^5=\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
which is denoted by $`\gamma ^0`$ in Kaluza-Klein theory explicitly involving the time .

The standard Dirac operator of the theory without explicit mass term is defined as $`D_s=\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$  where the spin covariant derivatives with local indices, $`\widehat{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, depend on the momentum operators, $`P_i=i(_iA_i_4)`$ and $`P_4=i_4`$, and spin connection , such that the Hamiltonian operator ,

$$H=\gamma ^5D_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \alpha ^{}\\ \alpha & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
can be expressed in terms of Pauli operators,

$`\alpha `$ $`=\sqrt{V}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{P}{\displaystyle \frac{iP_4}{V}}\right),`$ (5)
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=V\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{P}+{\displaystyle \frac{iP_4}{V}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}},`$ (6)
involving the Pauli matrices, $`\sigma _i`$. These operators give the (scalar) Klein-Gordon operator of the Taub-NUT space , $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_\mu g^{\mu \nu }_\nu =\alpha ^{}\alpha `$. We specify that here the star superscript is a mere notation that does not represent the Hermitian conjugation because we are using a non-unitary representation of the algebra of Dirac operators. Of course, this is equivalent to the unitary representation where all of these operators are self-adjoint .

The first three Killing-Yano tensors of the Taub-NUT space ,

$$f^i=f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^i\widehat{e}^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{\beta }}=2\widehat{e}^4\widehat{e}^i+\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{e}^j\widehat{e}^k$$
(7)
are rather special since they are covariantly constant. The $`f^i`$ define three anticommuting complex structures of the Taub-NUT manifold, their components realizing the quaternion algebra

$$f^if^j+f^jf^i=2\delta _{ij},f^if^jf^jf^i=2\epsilon _{ijk}f^k.$$
(8)
The existence of these Killing-Yano tensors is linked to the hyper-Kähler geometry of the manifold and shows directly the relation between the geometry and the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric extension of the theory . Moreover we can give a physical interpretation of these Killing-Yano tensors defining the spin-like operators,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=\frac{i}{4}f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^i\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\gamma ^{\widehat{\beta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _i& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
that have similar properties to those of the Pauli matrices. In the pseudo-classical description of a Dirac particle , the covariantly constant Killing-Yano tensors correspond to components of the spin which are separately conserved.

Here, since the Pauli matrices commute with the Klein-Gordon operator, the spin-like operators (9) commute with $`H^2`$. Remarkable the existence of the Killing-Yano tensors allows one to construct Dirac-type operators

$$Q_i=if_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^i\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{}^{\widehat{\beta }}=\{H,\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\alpha ^{}\\ \alpha \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
which anticommute with $`D_s`$ and $`\gamma ^5`$ and commute with $`H`$ . Another Dirac operator can be defined using the fourth Killing-Yano tensor but this will be discussed separately in Sec. 5.

## 3 Equivalent representations

In  we have shown that in the massless case the operators $`Q_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and the new supercharge $`Q_0=iD_s=i\gamma ^5H`$ form the basis of a $`N=4`$ superalgebra obeying the anticommutation relations

$$\{Q_A,Q_B\}=2\delta _{AB}H^2,A,B,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3$$
(11)
linked to the hyper-Kähler geometric structure of the Taub-NUT space. In addition, we associate to each Dirac operator $`Q_A`$ its own Hamiltonian operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_A=i\gamma ^5Q_A`$ obtaining thus another set of supercharges,

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=H,\stackrel{~}{Q}_i=i[H,\mathrm{\Sigma }_i],$$
(12)
which obey the same anticommutation relations as (11). Thus we find that there are two similar superalgebras of operators with precise physical meaning. Obviously, since all of these operators must be self-adjoint we have to work only with unitary representations of these superalgebras, up to an equivalence.

The concrete form of these supercharges depends on the representation of the Dirac matrices which can be changed at any time with the help of a non singular operator $`T`$ such that all of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix operators of the Dirac theory transform as $`XX^{}=TXT^1`$. In this way one obtains an equivalent representation which preserves the commutation and the anticommutation relations. In  we have used such transformations for pointing out that the convenient representations where we work are equivalent to an unitary one. We note that some properties of the transformations changing representations in theories with two Dirac operators and their possible new applications are discussed in .

In order to produce explicit operators $`T`$ which connect different Dirac operators in what follows we shall consider constant non-singular matrices $`T`$ commuting with $`H^2=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha \alpha ^{})`$ giving transformations $`Q_AQ_A^{}=TQ_AT^1`$ that lead to equivalent representations of our superalgebra, $`\{Q_A^{},Q_B^{}\}=2\delta _{AB}H^2`$, with the same $`H^2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a scalar differential operator while $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ has complicated spin terms, it is suitable to choose matrices of the form $`T=\mathrm{diag}(\widehat{T},\mathrm{𝟏}_2)`$ where $`\widehat{T}`$ can be any non singular $`2\times 2`$ constant matrix. In general, these transformations lead to new supercharges $`Q_A^{}`$ which are linear combinations of the original ones with mixing coefficients that can be complex numbers. The basic principles of quantum mechanics require the Dirac-type operators to be self-adjoint (up to an equivalence) as the standard Dirac operator . Therefore, if one starts with a suitable representation then it is recommendable to use only unitary transformations of the form

$$U(\beta ,\stackrel{}{\xi })=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{U}(\beta ,\stackrel{}{\xi })& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{U}(\beta ,\stackrel{}{\xi })=e^{i\beta }\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\xi })U(2)=U(1)SU(2)`$ with $`\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\xi })SU(2)`$. This is because among these transformations one could find those linking equivalent Dirac operators.

It is interesting to observe that the $`SU(2)`$ transformations are generated just by the above defined spin-like operators as

$$U(\stackrel{}{\xi })=U(0,\stackrel{}{\xi })=e^{i\stackrel{}{\xi }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\xi })& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
If we take now $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=2\phi \stackrel{}{n}`$ with $`|\stackrel{}{n}|=1`$ and $`\phi [0,\pi ]`$, we find that

$$\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\xi })=e^{i\stackrel{}{\xi }\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2}=\mathrm{𝟏}_2\mathrm{cos}\phi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{sin}\phi $$
(15)
and after a little calculation we can write the concrete action of (14) as

$`Q_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U(\stackrel{}{\xi })Q_0U^+(\stackrel{}{\xi })=Q_0\mathrm{cos}\phi +n_iQ_i\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ (16)
$`Q_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U(\stackrel{}{\xi })Q_iU^+(\stackrel{}{\xi })=Q_i\mathrm{cos}\phi \left(n_iQ_0+\epsilon _{ijk}n_jQ_k\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$ (17)
Hereby we see that the supercharges are mixed among themselves in linear combinations involving only real coefficients. In addition, we observe that these transformations correspond to an irreducible representation since the supercharges transform like the real components of a Pauli spinor. In other words, the usual $`SU(2)`$ transformations $`\psi _Q\psi _Q^{}=\widehat{U}^+(\stackrel{}{\xi })\psi _Q`$ of the spinor-operator

$$\psi _Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_0iQ_3\\ Q_2iQ_1\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
give just the transformations (16) and (17).

## 4 Discrete transformations

Let us focus now only on the transformations which transform the supercharges $`Q_A`$ among themselves without to affect their form. From (16) and (17) we see that there exists particular transformations,

$$Q_k=U_kQ_0U_k^+,k=1,2,3,$$
(19)
where the matrix $`U_k=\mathrm{diag}(i\sigma _k,\mathrm{𝟏}_2)`$ is given by $`i\sigma _kSU(2)`$. In addition, we consider the parity operator $`P=P^1=\gamma ^5`$ which changes the sign of supercharges,

$$PQ_AP=Q_A,A=0,1,2,3.$$
(20)
Then it is not hard to verify that the identity $`I=\mathrm{𝟏}_4`$, $`P`$ and the sets of matrices $`U_k`$ and $`PU_k`$ ($`k=1,2,3`$) form a discrete group of order eight the multiplication table of which is determined by the following rules

$`P^2=I,PU_k=U_kP,`$
$`U_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=U_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=U_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=P,`$ (21)
$`U_1U_2=U_3,U_2U_1=PU_3,\mathrm{}\mathrm{etc}.`$
We denote this group by $`𝒢_Q`$ since it is a realization of the quaternion group $`𝐐`$ which is isomorphic with the dicyclic group $`2,2,2`$  (see the Appendix). In the representation (2) of the $`\gamma `$-matrices, its operators are defined by proper unitary matrices (which satisfy $`G^1=G^+`$ and $`\mathrm{det}G=1,G𝒢_Q)`$ constructed using the elements $`\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_2,\pm i\sigma _1,\pm i\sigma _2,\pm i\sigma _3`$ of the natural realization of $`𝐐`$ as a discrete subgroup of $`SU(2)`$.

The group $`𝒢_Q`$ is interesting because it brings together the parity that produces the transformations (20) and the operators $`U_k`$ giving sequences of the form

$$Q_1=U_3^+Q_2U_3=U_2Q_3U_2^+=U_1Q_0U_1^+,\mathrm{}\mathrm{etc}.$$
(22)
which lead to the conclusion that the Dirac operators and their parity transformed, $`\pm Q_A`$ $`(A=0,1,2,3`$), are equivalent among themselves. All these operators constitute the orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=\{Q|Q=GQ_0G^+,G𝒢_Q\}`$ of the group $`𝒢_Q`$ in the algebra of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix operators. A similar orbit, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q`$, can be constructed for the associated Hamiltonian operators, $`\pm \stackrel{~}{Q}_A`$ defined by (12), if we start with $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ instead of $`Q_0`$. It is remarkable that each of these two orbits includes only operators representing (up to sign) supercharges obeying superalgebras of the form (11).

In the Kaluza-Klein theory with the time trivially added , the time dependent term of the whole massless Dirac operator commutes with all the operators of $`𝒢_Q`$ such that it remains unchanged when one replaces the space parts using the discrete transformations of this group. In these conditions all the Dirac operators of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ lead to equivalent Dirac equations from the physical point of view. These can be written in Hamiltonian form as $`i_t\psi _A^{(\pm )}=\pm \stackrel{~}{Q}_A\psi _A^{(\pm )}`$ ($`A=0,1,2,3`$) and produce the same energy spectrum which coincides to that of the Klein-Gordon equation as it results from the superalgebra (11) .

The existence of this discrete symmetry among the four supercharges of the superalgebra of the Dirac and Dirac-type operators (or the corresponding Hamiltonian operators) must be understood as a consequence of the fact that the Taub-NUT space has a hyper-Kähler structure modeled on a quaternion inner-product space . In other words, the Dirac theory in this space picks up the basic quaternion character of the tangent space showing it off as the discrete symmetry due to the group $`𝒢_Q𝐐`$, naturally related to the specific supersymmetries of this geometry.

## 5 Hidden symmetries and the fifth Dirac <br>operator

In the Taub-NUT space, in addition to the above discussed covariantly constant Killing-Yano tensors, there exists a fourth Killing-Yano tensor,

$$f^Y=\frac{x^i}{r}f^i+\frac{2x^i}{\mu V}\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{e}^j\widehat{e}^k,$$
(23)
which is not covariantly constant. The presence of $`f^Y`$ is due to the existence of the hidden symmetries of the Taub-NUT geometry which are encapsulated in three non-trivial Stäckel-Killing tensors. These are interpreted as the components of the so-called Runge-Lenz vector of the Taub-NUT problem and are expressed as symmetrized products of the Killing-Yano tensors $`f^Y`$ and $`f^i,(i=1,2,3)`$.

As in the case of the Dirac operators (10), one can use $`f^Y`$ for defining the fifth Dirac operator

$$Q_0^Y=i\gamma ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\left(f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^Y\widehat{}^{\widehat{\beta }}\frac{1}{6}\gamma ^{\widehat{\beta }}\gamma ^{\widehat{\delta }}f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta };\widehat{\delta }}^Y\right),$$
(24)
called here the non-standard or hidden Dirac operator to emphasize the connection with the hidden symmetry of the Taub-NUT problem. It is denoted by $`Q_0^Y`$ instead of $`Q^Y`$ as in  to point out its relation to the standard Dirac operator since it can be put in the form

$$Q_0^Y=i\frac{r}{\mu }[Q_0,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _r& 0\\ 0& \sigma _rV^1\end{array}\right)],$$
(25)
where $`\sigma _r=\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/r`$. We showed that $`Q_0^Y`$ commutes with $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=H`$ and anticommutes with $`Q_0`$ and $`\gamma ^5`$ . This operator is important because it allowed us to derive the explicit form of the Runge-Lenz operator, $`\stackrel{}{K}`$, of the Dirac field in Taub-NUT background establishing its properties . We recall that the components of the conserved total angular momentum, $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, and the operators $`R_i=F^1K_i`$ with $`F^2=P_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}H^2`$ are just the generators of the dynamical algebra of the Dirac theory in Taub-NUT background .

Starting with $`Q_0^Y`$ we can construct a new orbit, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^Y`$, of $`𝒢_Q`$ defining

$$Q_k^Y=U_kQ_0^YU_k^+=i\frac{r}{\mu }[Q_k,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _k\sigma _r\sigma _k& 0\\ 0& \sigma _rV^1\end{array}\right)]$$
(26)
(for $`k=1,2,3`$) and observing that

$$PQ_A^YP=Q_A^Y,A=0,1,2,3.$$
(27)
From the explicit form (26) we deduce that, in contrast with the operators of the orbits $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q`$, those of the orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }^Y`$ have more involved algebraic properties. We can convince that calculating, for example, the identity

$$H^2(Q_0^Y)^2=H^4+\frac{4}{\mu ^2}H^2\left(\stackrel{}{J}^2+\frac{1}{4}\right)+4F^2P_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(28)
and it is worth comparing it with equation (11). The Dirac-type operators $`Q_A`$ are characterized by the fact that their quantal anticommutator close on the square of the Hamiltonian of the theory. No such expectation applies to the non-standard, hidden Dirac operators $`Q_A^Y`$ which close on a combination of different conserved operators. Also from equation(28) it results that $`(Q_A^Y)^2(Q_B^Y)^2`$ if $`AB`$ (because $`\stackrel{}{J}^2`$ does not commute with $`U_k`$). Moreover, one can show that the commutators $`[Q_A^Y,Q_B^Y]`$ have complicated forms which can not be expressed in terms of operators $`Q_A^Y`$. Therefore, neither the commutator nor the anticommutator of the pairs of operators of this orbit do not lead to significant algebraic results as the anticommutation relations (11) of the operators $`Q_A,(A=0,1,2,3)`$.

Thus we conclude that the operators of the orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }^Y`$ do not form a closed algebraic structure. The unique virtue of the equivalent operators $`\pm Q_A^Y`$ is that they commute with the corresponding Hamiltonian operators $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_A,(A=0,1,2,3)`$. In this way we see that the discrete symmetry given by $`𝒢_Q`$ is decoupled from the hidden symmetries which have a different geometric origin. Its existence requires the Weyl tensor to be of Petrov type D. For this reason it is pointless to use the whole orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }^Y`$, the operator $`Q_0^Y`$ being enough for deriving the components of the Runge-Lenz operator.

## 6 Discussion

In this article we pointed out the existence the discrete symmetry group $`𝒢_Q𝐐`$ of the Dirac theory in Taub-NUT space which plays here the same role as the simpler discrete group $`𝐙_2𝐐`$ of the usual theory of the Dirac field in Minkowski background (formed only by the identity and parity operators). The operator $`P𝒢_Q`$ is interpreted as the parity operator in the massless case of the Kaluza-Klein theories with the time trivially added because it is a proper transformation which changes the sign of the space part of the Dirac operator (or of the Hamiltonian one). In other theoretical conjectures the interpretation of $`P`$ can be different. One of the first examples given of a gravitational instanton was the self-dual Taub-NUT solution . The gravitational instantons are complete non-singular Einstein metrics, usually taken to have $`(++++)`$ signature. For this reason in these theories the operator $`P`$ is interpreted as the TP reversal, changing the sign of all the coordinates $`x^\mu `$.

As it is expected the parity operator $`P`$ is involved in the relation between the indices of the Dirac-type operators. Taking into account relations (11) and (20) we observe that any pair of operators $`(Q_A,PQ_B)`$ with $`AB`$ can always be diagonalized simultaneously. Hereby it results that the kernels of all four Dirac-type operators coincide. In even-dimensional spaces the index of a Dirac operator can be defined as the difference in the number of linearly independent zero modes with eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$ under $`\gamma ^5`$. It is quite simple to get the remarkable result that the index of all Dirac operators is the same . An immediate consequence is that the operators $`Q_A`$ have the same zero-modes. However the zero-modes of the fifth non-standard Dirac operator $`Q^Y`$ coincide with those of the other Dirac-type operators only in some peculiar cases  even though the index of the operator $`Q^Y`$ is equal to the index of the Dirac-type operators $`Q^A`$ .

In conclusion we can say that the Taub-NUT space has a special geometry where the covariantly constant Killing-Yano tensors exist by virtue of the metric being self-dual and the Dirac-type operators generated by them are equivalent with the standard one. All of these operators which form the orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ of $`𝒢_Q`$ accomplish the anticommutation relation (11). The fourth Killing-Yano tensor $`f^Y`$ which is not covariantly constant exists by virtue of the metric being of type $`D`$. The corresponding non-standard or hidden Dirac operator does not close on $`H`$ as it can be seen from equation (28) and is not equivalent to the Dirac-type operators. As it was mentioned, it is associated with the hidden symmetries of the space allowing the construction of the conserved vector-operator analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler problem. Here we have shown how the discrete symmetry given by $`𝒢_Q`$ is naturally related only to the supersymmetries, being decoupled from the hidden symmetries which have another geometric source.

### Acknowledgments

One of us (M.V.) would like to thank Institute for Theoretical Physics, Bern, Switzerland for the hospitality extended to him while part of this work was performed. Useful discussions with J. Gasser, P. Hajicek and P. Minkowski are also acknowledged.

## Appendix: The quaternion group

The dicyclic group $`2,2,m`$ of order $`4m`$ is defined as the discrete group generated by two elements, $`x`$ and $`y`$, obeying

$$x^4=e,x^2=y^m,yx=xy^1$$
(A.1)
where $`e`$ is the unit element .

For $`m=2`$ we denote $`u_1=x`$, $`u_2=y`$ and $`u_3=xy`$ finding that the new element $`p=u_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=u_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=u_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ satisfies $`p^2=e`$. If, in addition, we consider the elements $`pu_1`$, $`pu_2`$ and $`pu_3`$, we recover similar multiplication rules as (4). On the other hand, taking $`e=1`$, $`p=1`$ and $`u_1,u_2,u_3`$ the quaternion complex constants one generates the quaternion group $`𝐐2,2,2`$. We recall that the pair $`(e,p)(1,1)`$ forms the cyclic group $`𝐙_2𝐐`$.