text:
# 1 Overview

## 1 Overview

It was known for some time that there is a certain limit, the so-called Penrose limit, in which any spacetime which solves the Einstein’s field equation is reduced to a plane-wave background . Roughly speaking, the plane-wave background refers to spacetime close to a null geodesic. This assertion was extended to supergravity backgrounds , involving, in addition to the metric, dilaton, p-form gauge fields, and fermionic superpartners. It was also realized  that maximally supersymmetric pp-wave backgrounds  are obtainable as the Penrose limits of the $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ backgrounds in ten-dimensional IIB supergravity and eleven-dimensional supergravity. Remarkably, the first-quantized superstring is exactly solvable in the pp-wave background , as the Green-Schwarz string action is quadratic in the worldsheet variables.

Recently, Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN)  argued that IIB string theory on such a pp-wave background with eight transverse directions is dual to the large R-charge sector of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory in the large N limit. They identified a certain class of long supermultiplet operators in the gauge theory with various string states. By summing over a class of Feynman diagrams, they claimed that anomalous contributions to the scaling dimension of these operators indeed reproduce the dispersion relations predicted by the light-cone quantization. More significantly, they proposed a concrete construction of the ten-dimensional string in terms of the four-dimensional gauge theory variables. If correct, the construction marks a significant progress beyond the AdS/CFT correspondence , as it provides a dictionary for associating the gauge theory operators for not just supergravity modes, but for higher string modes as well. The BMN proposal has been also extended to backgrounds with less supersymmetry .

In this paper, we substantiate aspects of the BMN proposal. Specifically, we clarify holographic relations between the bulk string states and the boundary gauge theory operators. In doing so, we emphasize the crucial role played by the choice of the gauge theory vacuum, on which both the superconformal symmetry and the R-symmetry are spontaneously broken. In section 2, we contrast the bulk-boundary relations displayed in the AdS/CFT correspondence and those in the pp-wave / gauge theory correspondence. In section 3, we illustrate this by working out the profile of the supergravity modes in the pp-wave background. In section 4, we elaborate the pattern of the aforementioned spontaneous breaking of conformal and R-symmetries. We emphasize that the dual gauge theory can be thought to be defined on a Euclidean four-dimensional space. We argue that holography relates the light-cone time in the pp-wave background to the renormalization group scale in the dual gauge theory. We show that this newly identified holography facilitates the nature of the string in terms of the dual gauge theory. In section 5, we discuss aspects of the enhanced supersymmetry in the dual gauge theory. We conclude with remarks in section 6.

## 2 AdS/CFT versus PP-Wave/Yang-Mills

In the AdS/CFT correspondence, the dual conformal field theory resides on the boundary of the AdS-space , and the radial direction of the AdS-space plays the role of scale of the boundary theory . Consider the global coordinates in $`AdS_{d+1}\times S^{\overline{d}+1}`$ space with metric

$`ds^2`$ $`=R^2\left[\left(1+\overline{r}^2\right)d\overline{t}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{r}^2}{\left(1+\overline{r}^2\right)}}+\overline{r}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2+\left(1\overline{\rho }^2\right)d\overline{\theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\rho }^2}{\left(1\overline{\rho }^2\right)}}+\overline{\rho }^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{d}1}^2\right],`$ (1)
where the first and the second parts express the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ and the $`S^{\overline{d}+1}`$ subspace, respectively. A bulk single particle state of a given mass and spin, satisfying the classical field equation, is specified by several “momenta”: angular momentum quantum numbers $`(\mathrm{},m_1,\mathrm{}m_{d2})`$ for the $`S^{d1}`$ part in $`AdS_{d+1}`$ space and $`(\overline{\mathrm{}},\overline{m}_1\mathrm{}\overline{m}_{\overline{d}})`$ for the $`S^{\overline{d}+1}`$, respectively, and a principal quantum number $`n`$ for the remaining radial coordinate $`\overline{r}`$ in $`AdS_{d+1}`$ space. The bulk energy $`\omega `$ is then given in terms of these quantum numbers by a dispersion relation. In the dual conformal field theory, we have composite operators $`𝒪_{\{\overline{\mathrm{}},\overline{m}\}}(\overline{t},\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _{d1})`$, where $`(\overline{t},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _{d1})`$ denote coordinates of $`𝐑\times S^{d1}`$. These operators are decomposable into Fourier modes with a given energy $`\omega `$ and $`S^{d1}`$ spherical harmonics $`(l,m_1,\mathrm{},m_{d2})`$. The remaining quantum numbers $`(\overline{\mathrm{}},\overline{m}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{m}_{\overline{d}})`$ are encoded in the structure of the operators. For instance, in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, the $`S^5`$ quantum numbers are encoded in the manner the six Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^6`$ of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory appear in the operator. As a concrete example, a bulk dilaton mode in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with $`S^5`$ angular momentum $`(\overline{\mathrm{}},\overline{m}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{m}_{\overline{d}})`$ is described by a set of chiral primary operators whose bosonic component is given by

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}F^{mn}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_\overline{\mathrm{}})}\right](\overline{t},\varphi _i,\mathrm{},\varphi _{d1}),$$
(2)
in which the indices $`i_1\mathrm{}i_\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ are decomposed into irreducible representations of SO($`\overline{d}`$). $`F_{mn}`$ denotes the gauge field strength. Likewise, chiral primary operators

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_\overline{\mathrm{}})}\right](\overline{t},\varphi _i,\mathrm{},\varphi _{d1})$$
(3)
describe modes of a linear combination of the four-form self-dual potential and the trace of the longitudinal graviton in ten-dimensions.

One can obtain the Penrose limit of Eq.(1) along a generic null geodesic as follows. Boost along the two isometry directions:

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \overline{t}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha \overline{\theta }`$
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}\alpha \overline{t}+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \overline{\theta },`$ (4)
and rescale two ‘radial’ and light-cone coordinates:

$`r=R\overline{r},\rho =R\overline{\rho }\mathrm{and}x^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\sqrt{2}}}(\theta \pm t).`$ (5)
Then, take the limit

$`R\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\alpha \mathrm{},`$ (6)
while holding

$`x^\pm ,r,\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{fixed}\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\alpha }{\sqrt{2}R}}\mu =\mathrm{fixed}.`$ (7)
The resulting spacetime is then reduced to

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(r^2+\rho ^2)(dx^+)^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2+d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{d}1}^2`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(𝐱^2+𝐲^2)(dx^+)^2+d𝐱d𝐱+d𝐲d𝐲,`$
where we have defined transverse coordinates $`𝐱`$, $`𝐲`$ which describe the $`𝐑^d`$ made out of $`r`$ and $`S^{d1}`$, and $`𝐑^{\overline{d}}`$ made out of $`\rho `$ and $`S^{\overline{d}1}`$, respectively. Even though the metric exhibits SO($`d+\overline{d}`$) isometry, it turns out the RR five-form field strengths break it to SO(d)$`\times `$SO($`\overline{d}`$).

A novel feature of the pp-wave background is that the single particle bulk states are now given in terms of certain harmonic oscillator quantum numbers $`(n_1\mathrm{}n_d)`$ and $`(m_1\mathrm{}m_{\overline{d}})`$ for a given value of the momentum conjugate to $`x^{}`$, which we call $`p_{}2p^+`$. The light-cone energy $`p_+2p^{}`$ is then given by a dispersion relation. We will illustate this later in this section. According to the BMN proposal, with these harmonic oscillator quantum numbers, the chiral primary operators dual to a single-particle bulk state with the lowest light-cone energy, which turns out to be a linear combination of the self-dual RR four-form potential and trace of the graviton, take the form of ‘$`Z`$-string’:

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}\left[Z\mathrm{}ZZ(D_{i_1}Z)ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\mathrm{\Phi }^{a_1}ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ(D_{i_2}Z)ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\mathrm{\Phi }^{a_2}ZZ\mathrm{}\right]}.`$ (9)
Here, along a string of $`J`$ factors of $`Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^5+i\mathrm{\Phi }^6)`$, one distributes $`n_i`$ insertions of $`(D_iZ)`$ and $`m_a`$ insertions of ‘transverse’ Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a(a=7,\mathrm{}10)`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^6`$ are the two remaining, ‘longitudinal’ Higgs fields in the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory. The sum is over all distinct (up to cyclic permutation) locations of the operators $`D_iZ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ in the string of $`Z`$’s. The light cone momentum $`p_{}=i\frac{}{x^{}}`$ and the light cone energy $`p_+=i\frac{}{x^+}`$ are related to the dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`J`$ of the operator Eq.(9) by the relations

$`p_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu R^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu R^2}}\left(2J+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\overline{d}}{}}}m_a\right)`$
$`p_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }J)=\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\overline{d}}{}}}m_a\right).`$ (10)
On the other hand, the coordinate transformations, Eqs.(4-7), imply

$`p_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu R^2}}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{t}}}i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}}\right)`$
$`p_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{t}}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}}\right).`$ (11)
As $`J=i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}`$, Eq.(11) is consistent with Eq.(10) since $`\mathrm{\Delta }=i\frac{}{\overline{t}}`$ 222Here we assume that (9) means that the operator is evaluated at the origin of a $`𝐑^4`$.

For other single-particle supergravity states such as the dilaton, one needs to insert an operator $`F_{mn}F^{mn}`$ inside the $`Z`$-string. For higher string-mode states, each term in the sum of Eq.(9) should be weighted by a phase-factor, which depends on the locations of various operators in the $`Z`$-string.

Note that all the bulk quantum numbers appear in the structure of the dual gauge theory operators, Eq.(9). This is in sharp contrast to the AdS/CFT correspondence, where only half of the quantum numbers reside in the operator structure. There, the remaining half were encoded as dependence of the operator on coordinates of the four-dimensional spacetime, the boundary of $`AdS_5`$, on which the dual gauge theory resides. Evidently, the operators in Eq.(9) cannot be regarded as functions of the coordinates of the four-dimensional spacetime, as that would result in more quantum numbers than needed for specifying a given single particle supergravity/string state in the bulk.

In subsequent sections, we will argue that the gauge theory dual to the pp-wave background Eq.(9) can be thought of as “living” in a Euclidean four-dimensional space $`𝐑^4`$ spanned by the $`𝐱`$ coordinates. The precise form of the dual gauge theory operators are then given in terms of the Hermite transformation of local operators defined on $`𝐑^4`$. The fact that this space has to be Euclidean, rather than Minkowski spanned by light-cone coordinates and part of $`𝐑^4`$, follows from the correspondence between the operators Eq.(9) and the one-particle states of the bulk supergravity/string theory. The latter states are described in terms of $`(d+\overline{d})`$ set of simple harmonic oscillator operators with indices in a Euclidean space. For a string theory defined in the bulk, these oscillators also carry a label for the level number . As we will see, this observation leads naturally to an interpretation of $`x^+`$ as the holographic bulk coordinate in the Penrose limit, so that evolution in $`x^+`$ in the bulk generates scale transformation in the dual gauge theory.

We will argue that in the gauge theory selecting a sector with fixed SO(2) charge $`J`$ is tantamount to a spontaneous breaking of the conformal group SO(4,2) to SO(4) and the R-symmetry group to SO(4) as well. The low-energy fluctuations are then the Goldstone modes of the broken symmetries. The representation of these operators in terms of Hermite transforms then follows automatically.

## 3 Supergravity Modes in pp-Wave Backgrounds

Consider a minimally coupled, massless scalar field $`D`$ whose field equation is given in the global coordinates Eq.(8) as

$$\left[2_+_++\mu ^2(𝐱^2+𝐲^2)_{}^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_{𝐱^i}^2+\underset{a=1}{\overset{\overline{d}}{}}_{𝐲^a}^2\right]D(x^+,x^{},𝐱,𝐲)=0.$$
(12)
The normal-modes with $`p_{}>0`$ are given by

$`D_{p_+,p_{},𝐧,𝐦}(x^+,x^{},𝐱,𝐲)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}\mu p_{}(𝐱^2+𝐲^2}){\displaystyle }_{i=1}^dH_{n_i}(\sqrt{\mu p_{}}𝐱^i\left){\displaystyle }_{a=1}^{\overline{d}}H_{m_a}\right(\sqrt{\mu p_{}}𝐲^a)`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(ip_{}x^{}+p_+x^+\right),`$
where $`H_𝐧(𝐱),H_𝐦(𝐲)`$ denote the Hermite polynomials 333Note that, due to the harmonic potential provided by the second term in Eq.(12), there is no real distinction between normalizable and non-normalizable modes for $`p_{}>0`$. The modes with $`p_{}=0`$ are not $`_2`$ normalizable, but are $`\delta `$-function normalizable. . The states of this scalar field theory are therefore created from the bulk Fock-space vacuum by creation operators $`𝐚^{}(𝐧_i,𝐦_a,p^+)`$ in the light-cone quantization. In a first-quantized theory of particles in this background, states are created by creation operators $`𝐜^i,𝐜^a`$:

$`𝐜^i=(𝐩_i+i𝐱^i)/\sqrt{2}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`𝐜^i=(𝐩_ii𝐱^i)/\sqrt{2},`$
$`𝐜^a=(𝐩_a+i𝐲^a)/\sqrt{2}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`𝐜^a=(𝐩_ai𝐲^a)/\sqrt{2},`$ (14)
where the indices $`i,a`$ refer to the transverse directions along $`𝐑^d\times 𝐑^{\overline{d}}`$, spanning a $`(d+\overline{d})`$-dimensional transverse space. The bulk dispersion relation is then given by

$$2p^{}=p_+=\mu \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}n_i+\underset{a=1}{\overset{\overline{d}}{}}m_a+\frac{1}{2}(d+\overline{d})\right).$$
(15)
Note that the value of $`p_+`$ is independent of the value of $`p_{}`$. This is because the supergravity modes are massless. For massive, string oscillation fields, the dispersion relation depends explicitly on $`p_{}`$. The sum over zero-point energies is standard. We will see that, for the explicit example of ten-dimensional pp-wave background, this zero-point energy is precisely what is required for precise correspondence with appropriate operators in the dual gauge theory. We note, for future reference, that the dispersion relation for the mode which is a linear combination of the four form RR potential and the trace of the longitudinal graviton does not contain this zero-point fluctuation.

As we will elaborate more, the dual gauge theory has operators which are Hermite transforms of local operators defined on the $`𝐑^4`$ spanned by $`𝐱`$.

$`𝒪[𝐧]=𝙷.𝚃.\left[𝒪\right],`$ (16)
where the Hermite transform of a generic operator $`𝒪(𝐱)`$ on $`𝐑^d`$ is defined as

$`𝙷.𝚃.\left[𝒪\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu [𝐱]\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}H_{n_i}\left(\sqrt{\mu p_{}}x^i\right)𝒪(𝐱)},`$
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization factor, and the measure is given by

$`d\mu [𝐱]:=d^d𝐱e^{\frac{1}{2}\mu p_{}𝐱^2}.`$
Using the standard recursion relation for Hermite polynomials, the Hermite transform can be reduced to expressions involving derivatives acting on $`𝒪`$ and no factors of the Hermite polynomials.

It may be useful to formally define operators on a $`𝐑^d\times 𝐑^{\overline{d}}`$ by introducing a set of fiducial coordinates $`𝐲`$ for the $`𝐑^{\overline{d}}`$. Performing the Hermite transform on this eight-dimensional space,

$`𝙷.𝚃.\left[𝒪\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu [𝐱]𝑑\mu [𝐲]\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}H_{n_i}\left(\sqrt{\mu p_{}}x^i\right)\underset{a=1}{\overset{\overline{d}}{}}H_{m_a}\left(\sqrt{\mu p_{}}y^a\right)𝒪(𝐱,𝐲)}.`$
Using recursion relations obeyed by the Hermite polynomials, one can then express the Hermite transform in terms of derivatives with respect to $`𝐲`$, which in turn become commutators with Higgs fields inside the operator.

### 3.1 Dilaton

In the ten-dimensional pp-wave background, the dilaton field equation take the same form as Eq.(12). Thus, the light-cone energy spectrum of the dilaton state is given by

$`E_{\mathrm{dilaton}}=\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(4+4)\right).`$ (17)
According to the BMN proposal, the light-cone energy (measured in unit of $`\mu `$) ought to match with $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ of a gauge theory operator dual to the dilaton. A single insertion of $`F_{mn}F^{mn}`$, which carries $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ and $`J=0`$, inside the $`Z`$-string in Eq.(16) is precisely what we need to match the zero-point light-cone energy. Interestingly, in providing the requisite zero-point energy $`(4+4)/2=4`$, four-dimensionality of the internal space $`𝐑^{\overline{4}}`$ has played a crucial role.

The single particle dilaton ground-state corresponds to $`𝐧=𝐦=0`$. For the states with higher energy, using the recursion relation of Hermite polynomials, we deduce that the corresponding operators are precisely insertions of the ‘transverse’ Higgs fields and covariant derivatives, viz. a set of operators of the form

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}F^{mn}ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\mathrm{\Phi }^{a_1}ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ(D_iZ)ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\mathrm{\Phi }^{a_2}ZZ\mathrm{}\right].`$
### 3.2 Longitudinal Graviton and Four-Form Potential

The pp-wave background is supported by a homogeneous RR 5-form field strength

$`F_{+1234}=+F_{+5678}=\mu ,`$
giving rise to Eq.(1) through the Einstein’s field equation. As such, degrees of freedom of the graviton and the four-form RR potentials would mix each other. More precisely, expanding Type IIB supergravity field equations of the metric and the RR four-form potential to linear order fluctuations, $`h_{\mu \nu },c_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$, and taking the light-cone gauge $`h_\mu =0,c_{\mu \nu \alpha }=0`$, we find that the mixing takes place between the traces of the graviton and the scalars of the RR four-form potential. We thus denote these modes as

$`h:=h_{ij}\delta ^{ij}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`c:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ^{ijkl}c_{ijkl}`$
$`\overline{h}:=h_{mn}\delta ^{mn}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`\overline{c}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ^{mnpq}c_{mnpq}.`$
These fields are singlets of the two SO(4)’s on $`𝐑^4\times 𝐑^{\overline{4}}`$, respectively.

Then, the linearized field equations exhibiting the mode mixing are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}h16\mu _{}c`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`^2c2\mu _{}h`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}`$ stands for the Lichnerowitz operator for the spin-2 graviton. Utilizing the fact that $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{L}h\right)_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}^2h_{ij}`$ and diagonalizing the two coupled equations, we obtain scalar-mode field equations

$`\left[^28i\mu _{}\right]\left(h+4ic\right)=0`$ (18)
and its complex conjugated equation for $`(h4ic)`$. Exactly the same set of equations hold for $`\overline{h}`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ as well.

The field equation Eq.(18) is soluble exactly as in the dilaton case. We find that the light-cone spectrum of the $`(h+4ic)`$ ‘complex scalar’ field is given by

$`E_{Z\mathrm{scalar}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(4+4)\right)4\mu `$
$`=`$ $`\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_a\right)0.`$
On the right-hand side of the first expression, the first and the second terms are contributions from $`^2`$ and $`8i\mu _{}`$, respectively. Evidently, the zero-point energy arising from fluctuations along the eight transverse directions is cancelled precisely by the classical contribution $`4\mu `$ to the light-cone energy. Hence, along with the second set of complex ‘scalar’ field $`(\overline{h}+4i\overline{c})`$, we conclude that there are two bulk ‘scalar’ modes yielding the minimum of the light-cone energy to be zero. These bulk ‘scalar’ fields are then identified with the dual gauge theory operators

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\mathrm{}ZZ\right],`$
viz. the Z-string, first introduced by BMN.

In contrast, the complex-conjugate ‘scalar’ fields $`(h4ic)`$ and $`(\overline{h}4i\overline{c})`$ are subject to the classical contribution $`+2\mu `$ to the light-cone energy. It implies that the minimum of the light-cone energy is $`+8\mu `$, instead of 0, rendering the corresponding dual gauge theory operator involving eight powers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$’s distributed along the $`Z`$-string.

## 4 Penrose Contraction, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking & Euclidean Dual Gauge Theory

We now turn to the dual $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. This theory is invariant under SO(4,2) $``$ SO(6), where SO(6) refers to the internal R-symmetry. Denote the generators of SO(4,2) as $`J_{AB}`$ with $`A,B=1,\mathrm{},6`$, where $`5,6`$ are the directions with negative signature, and those of SO(6) as $`J_{UV}`$ with $`U,V=7,\mathrm{},12`$. In terms of $`J_{AB}`$, the generators of the conformal group are

$$J_{ij},P_i=J_{5i}+J_{6i},K_i=J_{5i}J_{6i},D_1=J_{56}$$
(19)
with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4`$. The same can be done for the generators of SO(6), and we define $`J_{ab},P_a,K_a,D_2`$ accordingly, where $`a,b=7,\mathrm{},10`$ and $`D_2=J_{11,12}`$.

Let us now assume that there exists a vacuum state, on which the SO(4,2)$``$ SO(6) is broken spontaneously to SO(3,1) $``$ SO(4), viz. standard symmetry breaking pattern preserving Lorentz plus ‘transverse’ internal symmetries. The number of generators of broken symmetries is eighteen, viz. nine nonlinearly realized symmetries for each product group. The generators of the broken symmetries are $`P_i,K_i,P_a,K_a,D_1,D_2`$ and the generators of the unbroken symmetries are the $`J_{ij}`$ for the Lorentz group SO(3,1) and the $`J_{ab}`$ for the internal symmetry group SO(4). One easily finds that generators of the broken symmetries satisfy the following commutation relations

$`[P_i,K_i]=D_1\mathrm{and}[P_a,K_a]=D_2.`$
These commutation relations are very suggestive. If one were to put aside the fact that $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ do not commute with the $`P`$’s and $`K`$’s, one may try to interpret the previous commutation relations as defining two Heisenberg algebras h(4)$``$ h(4), each one with eight generators, for which the $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ as the two central extensions. This interpretation, as it stands, is not viable if one just considers the standard symmetry breaking pattern SO(4,2) $``$ SO(6) to SO(3,1) $``$ SO(4) : $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are not central terms and we can not organize the generators of the broken symmetries in terms of two Heisenberg algebras. It is precisely at this point where the existence of supergravity/string duals and concept of the Penrose contraction can help us to define a different pattern of the symmetry breaking.

### 4.1 Penrose Contraction

As is well known, the symmetry algebra SO(4,2) $``$ SO(6) of $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory are realizable as isometries of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ spacetime. The Penrose limit recapitulated in secton 2 preserves the total number of Killing vectors but can change their algebraic relations. In particular, if we perform the Penrose limit on a generic light geodesic in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ the Killing vectors define the algebra \[h(4)$``$h(4)\]$``$so(4)$``$so(4), where the bracket is to emphasize the fact that two Heisenberg algebras share the same central extension. The extra Killing vector defines an outer-automorphism of the Heisenberg algebras. We interpret the Penrose limit as defining a sort of spontaneous symmetry breaking from SO(4,2)$``$SO(6) to SO(4)$``$SO(4) with the eighteen generators of the broken symmetries defining the two Heisenberg algebras h(4)’s and the outer-automorphism.

As the simplest illustration, consider $`AdS_2\times S^2`$, relevant for the near-horizon geometry of four-dimensional BPS black holes. In this case, the symmetry group is SO(1,2)$``$ SO(3) with six generators that we will denote $`P_1,K_1,P_2,K_2,D_1,D_2`$. They satisfy, in particular, $`[P_1,K_1]=D_1`$ and $`[P_2,K_2]=D_2`$ 444 In  the generators $`P_iK_i,D_i`$ correspond respectively to the Killing vectors $`E_i,E_i^{},ϵ_i`$.. In the Penrose limit, $`P_i,K_i`$ become the generators of two Heisenberg algebras and the $`D_i`$’s produce the common central term and the outer automorphism. In fact, denoting the Penrose scaling by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we get $`D_i(\mathrm{\Omega })=d^{i,0}\mathrm{\Omega }^2+d^{i,1}+d^{i,2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{}`$ with $`d^{1,0}=d^{2,0}`$. The central term is defined by $`d^{i,0}`$ and the outer-automorphism by $`\left(d^{i,1}d^{i,2}\right)`$. Expansion of $`D^i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is then interpretable as a perturbative expansion in powers of the Penrose scaling parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

An important aspect of the Penrose limit in the case of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ considered by BMN is that the unbroken symmetry is SO(4)$``$SO(4). In other words, if we want to use the Penrose contraction as a pattern of the symmetry breaking for the dual $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory, we should assume that the vacuum is invariant not under the Lorentz group but under a rotation group in a four-dimensional Euclidean space. Insight to this possiblity can be gained by recalling aspects of spontaneous conformal symmetry breaking, studied thoroughly some time ago . The idea was to assume an underlying theory invariant under the conformal group and, after spontaneous conformal symmetry breaking, to study the low-energy physics of the corresponding Goldstone bosons. The first peculiar aspect of the spontaneous conformal symmetry breaking, SO(4,2) to SO(1,3), is that the generators of translations are part of the broken symmetries. Being so, only the generators of special conformal transformations and dilatations were considered  as real Goldstone bosons. A consequence of this is that these Goldstone bosons, contrary to the standard case, are not massless as the broken symmetries do not commute with the Hamiltonian, viz. with translations in time. In the Penrose contraction, we are facing a similar problem. If we consider $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory and the standard spontaneous breaking pattern to SO(3,1) $``$ SO(4), we are including among the broken symmetry generators, the translation generators in physical time as well as the spatial translation generators. If we try to understand this breaking in the old-fashioned approach , we need to organize the eighteen broken symmetries into a set of nine massless Goldstone bosons, corresponding to the spontaneous breakdown of the internal symmetry SO(6), five massive Goldstone bosons corresponding to the special conformal transformations and dilatations that do not commute with the Hamiltonian and four translations. This is certainly not the picture we get if we use Penrose contraction. In the Penrose contraction, we organize the eighteen broken symmetries into a Heisenberg algebra tt h(8) and an outer-automorphism. What now remains is a concrete interpretation of the Heisenberg algebra h(8) and the outer-automorphism entirely within the dual gauge theory formulation.

### 4.2 Dual Gauge Theory is Euclidean

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $`i=5\mathrm{}10`$ be the Higgs fields of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang Mills theory. Following BMN, define the field $`Z=(\mathrm{\Phi }_5+i\mathrm{\Phi }_6)`$, and denote by $`J`$ the SO(2) R-charge corresponding to rotations in the internal (5,6)-plane. Consider decomposing the gauge theory Hilbert space into infinite towers of Hilbert subspaces of definite $`J`$ quantum number. Evidently, on each subspace, Fock-space “ground state” breaks the internal SO(6) spontaneously to SO(4). We denote the Fock-space vacuum with R-charge equal to $`J`$ as $`|0>_J`$. We will be interested in the Hilbert space of quantum fluctuations around this vacua. The first thing to be done is characterizing the state $`|0>_J`$. The simplest way to define this state is, in radial quantization,

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^J\right)(𝐱=0)|0>_{\mathrm{YM}},`$
where $`|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ refers to the perturbative vacuum of the dual $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory. The operators should be considered as functions of the coordinates of a four dimensional Euclidean space, $`𝐑^4`$, and is not related a priori to Euclideanized $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory defined on $`𝐑^3\times 𝐑_{\overline{t}}`$ after the Wick rotation. On $`𝐑^4`$, a local operator Tr$`\left(Z^J\right)(𝐱)`$ is expandable in a complete basis of the Hermite polynomials

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^J\right)(𝐱)=\underset{\{𝐧\}}{}c_𝐧\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2x_i^2}H_{n_i}(\mathrm{\Lambda }x_i)\right),$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a scale defined within the dual gauge theory, which will be determined later. Thus, we can write

$$|0>_J=c_{𝐧=0}|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}.$$
(21)
The Hilbert space of quantum fluctuations is generated by states $`|𝐧>_J=c_𝐧|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}`$. For instance, we get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)(0)|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}=|𝐧_i=1>_J.`$
One can define creation and annhilation operators $`b_0^i`$ and $`b_0^i`$ obeying the canonical commutation relation $`[b_0^i,b_0^j]=\delta ^{i,j}`$ such that

$`b_0^i|0>_J=|𝐧_i=1>_J.`$ (22)
These operators generate the Heisenberg algebra h(4). As we are working in $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory, we can also consider fluctuations with respect to the internal directions, namely,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZZ^J\mathrm{}\right)(0)|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ (23)
with $`a=7,\mathrm{},10`$. In the large-$`J`$ limit, one can represent these states in terms of the same type of creation and annhilation operators as before, viz. $`|𝐧_a=1>_J=b_0^a|0>_J`$. Both $`b_0^i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ and $`b_0^a`$ with $`a=7,\mathrm{},10`$ transform as vectors under the two SO(4)’s respectively. ¿From now on, we will denote them collectively as $`b_0^i,b_0^i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},4,7,\mathrm{},10`$. These operators generate the Heisenberg algebra h(8). Note that this is true only in the large-$`J`$ limit and for Euclidean gauge theory. In view of the BMN proposal, it is quite natural to identify this Heisenberg algebra h(8) with the similar Heisenberg algebra encountered in the Penrose contraction of SO(4,2)$``$SO(6).

The next step would be to identify, within the dual gauge theory, the physical meaning of both the central extension and the outer-automorphism. In the original theory invariant under SO(4,2)$``$ SO(6), there are two generators of the symmetry algebra that are of special importance, viz. the generator of dilatations of the space-time coordinates and the generator $`J`$ of the SO(2) R-symmetry. Inferring from the discussion on the Penrose contraction in section 2, we should expect that both the central extension and the outer-automorphism are associated with these two generators. In the dual gauge theory, these generators have a clear physical meaning: generator of the space-time dilatations defines scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the operators, and the generator $`J`$ defines the corresponding R-charge. Note that in the $`AdS_5`$ realization of $`SO(4,2)`$ the embedding coordinates $`X^A(A=1,\mathrm{}6)`$ with $`(X^1)^2+(X^2)^2(X^3)^2\mathrm{}(X^6)^2=R^2`$ are given in terms of the global coordinates $`(\overline{t},\overline{r},\varphi _i)`$ as

$`X^1`$ $`=`$ $`R\sqrt{1+\overline{r}^2}\mathrm{cos}\overline{t}`$
$`X^2`$ $`=`$ $`R\sqrt{1+\overline{r}^2}\mathrm{sin}\overline{t}`$
$`X^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`R\overline{r}\omega ^\alpha .(\alpha =3,\mathrm{},6)`$ (24)
Here, $`\omega ^\alpha `$ denote the embedding coordinates of a unit $`S^3`$. The standard ”dilatation” generator of the SO(4,2) group, which is $`J_{12}`$, generates translation in global time $`\overline{t}`$. In the Penrose limit, $`\overline{r}0`$, while $`r=R\overline{r}`$ held fixed. Thus, $`X^\alpha (\alpha =3,\mathrm{},6)`$ are $`𝒪(1)`$ and become unconstrained, while $`X^1,X^2`$ are of $`𝒪(R)`$. The dual gauge theory is now defined on the Euclidean plane $`X^3,\mathrm{},X^6`$ and $`J_{12}`$ generates the scale transformations on this $`𝐑^4`$-subspace as in the standard realization of the SO(4,2) group. Let us denote the eigenvalues of these generators, for a given operator, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`J`$, respectively. For the state $`|0>_J`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }|0>_J=J|0>_J\mathrm{and}J|0>_J=J|0>_J,`$
while, for states of type $`b_0^i\mathrm{}b_0^i|0>_J`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(J+n)`$, where $`n`$ refers to the number of $`b^{}`$-oscillators and $`J=J`$. Thus, on these states, we have $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)=2J+n`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)=n`$. If we work in the large-$`J`$, large-N, and small-$`n`$ limits with

$`4\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N:=R^2\mathrm{},J^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{J^2}}:=g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\mathrm{finite},`$ (25)
we observe that, in appropriate units, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)/R^2`$ becomes the true central extension commuting with the $`b_0^i`$ and $`b_0^i`$ operators 555 Note that once we identify this term with the central extension of the Heisenberg algebra, we need to normalize the $`b_0^i`$ and $`b_0^i`$ so that they obey the canonical commutation relations., and that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ is simply the number operator for the $`b_0^i,b_0^i`$ oscillators and therefore is a true outer-automorphism of the Heisenberg algebra.

In summary, built only upon Euclidean gauge theory residing on $`𝐑^4`$ subspace, we succeeded in finding a SO(4)$``$SO(4) invariant vacuum and a representation of the Heisenberg group H(8) in terms of creation and annhilation operators acting on the Hilbert space of small quantum fluctuations. The corresponding outer-automorphism is just the number operator. Note that the vacuum state $`|0>_J`$ is not only invariant under SO(4)$``$ SO(4) but also with respect to the one-parameter group generated by the outer-automorphism.

So far, we have considered only the modes which are chiral primaries. The scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the corresponding operator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(J+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}n_i+\underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_a\right),$$
(26)
where there are $`n_i`$ insertions of $`D_iZ`$, and $`m_j`$ insertions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$. Supersymmetry descendants of these would contain factors involving the gauge field, as discussed in section 3. Consider, for example, the dilaton. The operator dual to this should be the integral of

$`\mathrm{Tr}[F_{mn}F^{mn}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_\overline{\mathrm{}})}](t,\varphi _i\mathrm{}\varphi _{d1}).`$
For such operators, the scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=J+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}n_i+\underset{m=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_a+4.$$
(27)
These relations are consistent with our interpretation of the holographic coordinate.

The scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the dual operator is, however, the eigenvalue of the operator $`i_{\overline{t}}`$ in the bulk theory. The R-charge is of course the eigenvalue of $`i_{\overline{\theta }}`$. These relations are in accord with the solutions of the bulk wave equations. Take the dilaton as an example. From Eq.(15) with $`d=4`$ and $`\overline{d}=4`$, we have

$`2p^{}=\mu \left(\mathrm{\Delta }J\right)=\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}n_i+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_a+4\right)`$ (28)
and find precise agreement with Eq.(27). From the bulk point of view, the additive factor 4 appears as a zero point energy. From the gauge theory viewpoint, this reflects the presence of $`F_{mn}F^{mn}`$ in the operator. For the bulk mode which is a fluctuation of the four-form RR potential, this zero point energy is absent, which is consistent with the absence of any factor of the gauge field strength in the dual operator. In the $`J\mathrm{}`$ limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$ as well. However, $`p_+=\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ remains finite. This is the reason why, though it appears natural to consider $`t`$ as a holographic direction from the bulk point of view, it is actually more natural to consider $`x^+`$ as the holographic direction from the gauge theory point of view.

Finally, it should be clear from the definition of the operators that one needs to introduce a cutoff mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Inferring from the expressions for the normal modes of the bulk fields, it is natural to choose the scale to be given, up to $`𝒪(1)`$ numerical factor, by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu p_{}.$$
(29)
At first sight, this identification appears strange. It would mean that one needs a priori a different scale for each operator as $`p_{}`$ is defined by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)/2\mu R^2`$. However, in the approximation adopted in Eq.(25), $`n_i,m_aJ`$. As such, $`p_{}J/R^2𝒪(1)`$. This implies that all the operators involved are governed universally by a common renormalization scale.

### 4.3 Where does the dual gauge theory “live” ?

For the ten-dimensional pp-wave, the states created by the $`c_𝐧`$ defined in Eq.(20) are to be identified with the states in the light-cone gauge quantized Type IIB string in the bulk created by transverse oscillators. It is thus natural to identify one of the transverse $`𝐑^4`$’s of the pp-wave with the space on which the Euclidean gauge theory “resides”. Furthermore, as the gauge theory operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(Z^J)`$ does not contain any of the Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^7\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{10}`$, the transverse $`𝐑^4`$ in question would be identifiable with the $`𝐑^4`$ formed by the $`X^\alpha ,\alpha =3\mathrm{}6`$ in Eq.(24).

To understand the meaning of this interpretation, let us trace back the process of taking the Penrose limit. The starting bulk theory, the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ supergravity theory, is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, which is defined on Lorentzian manifold, $`S^3\times 𝐑_{\overline{t}}`$, where the $`S^3`$ and $`𝐑_{\overline{t}}`$ denotes a foliation leaf at $`\overline{r}=\overline{r}_0`$, with large $`\overline{r}_0`$, and the global time $`\overline{t}`$ in $`AdS_5`$. One possible way to obtain a gauge theory on a $`𝐑^4`$ is by Wick-rotating the global time $`\overline{t}i\tau `$, and then performing the standard conformal transformation of the resulting Euclidean $`S^3\times 𝐑_\tau `$. We will refer the euclidean space obtained in this way by $`\widehat{𝐑}^4`$ and its coordinates by $`𝐳^i`$. One may then try to interpret the derivatives $`D_i`$ appearing in the operator in Eq.(9) as derivatives with respect to the $`𝐳^i`$. However, this cannot be right if the insertion of a $`D_iZ`$ corresponds in the bulk to a state obtained (in a first quantized description of particles) by applying an operator $`𝐜^i`$ defined in Eq.(14). First, the description of string or supergravity states in the light-cone gauge does not, of course, involve any analytic continuation. We should not perform any analytic continuation in the gauge theory as well. Secondly, the index $`i`$ in $`𝐜^i`$ clearly refers to a direction transverse to the pp-wave : in this case the transverse $`𝐑^4`$ is formed by $`(\overline{r},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3)`$. In other words, the symmetry of the set of states created by $`𝐜^i`$ includes a SO(4) and this SO(4) does not involve the global time, Wick rotated or not.

In concrete terms, our statement that the dual theory can be thought of as living on the transverse $`𝐑^4=(\overline{r},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3)`$ means that the derivatives which appear in Eq.(9) should be derivatives with respect to this transverse $`𝐑^4`$. This provides a manifest linear realization of the symmetries SO(4)$`\times `$SO(4) and the associated Heisenberg algebra $`𝚑(8)`$.

However, the Penrose limit is supposed to be a sector of the original Yang-Mills theory defined on the $`S^3\times 𝐑=(\overline{t},\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _3)`$. How can we then regard the operators of this theory to depend on $`(\overline{r},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3)`$ ? The answer is provided by the IR-UV connection in $`AdS`$ holography. In the gauge theory composite operators are functions on the space on which the theory is defined, $`𝒪(𝐳)=𝒪(\overline{t},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3)`$. At the quantum level, however, these local operators also depend on the (position space) ultraviolet cutoff $`a`$ , or equivalently a renormalization scale. So, these local operators should really be expressed as $`𝒪(𝐳;a)=𝒪(\overline{t},\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _3;a)`$. The AdS/CFT correspondence identifies this operator with a bulk operator (e.g. for one of the supergravity fields) $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{t},\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3,\overline{r})`$ evaluated at large $`\overline{r}=\overline{r}_0=1/a`$. We can thus think of the transverse $`𝐑^4=\{\stackrel{}{𝐱}\}`$ above as being formed by combining the spatial coordinates $`\varphi _i`$ with the scale $`a`$. In terms of the original Yang-Mills theory living on $`S^3\times 𝐑_{\overline{t}}`$ derivatives which appear in Eq.(9) therefore involve derivatives with respect to the scale.

Before considering any Penrose limit, it is natural to arrange ‘twist’ expansion of operators as in $`𝒪(𝐳=0;a)`$ and $`D_𝐳\mathrm{}D+𝐳𝒪(𝐳=0;a)`$, while, after the Penrose limit, the more convenient ‘twist’ expansion is with respect to $`𝐱^i`$, viz. $`D_𝐱\mathrm{}D_𝐱𝒪(𝐱=0,\overline{t})`$. Upon swapping $`\overline{r}`$ with the light-cone time, we are also led to do so for the ‘holography’ direction. In this sense, the light-cone time plays the role of the ‘holography’ direction, while $`\overline{r}`$ is now part of the Euclidean base space $`𝐑^4`$.

Evidently, the above two choices of ‘twist’ expansions are intimately related. Schematically, the renormalization group equation of the operator $`𝒪`$ takes the form

$`a{\displaystyle \frac{d}{da}}𝒪(a)=\gamma 𝒪(a).`$
By virtue of the AdS/CFT correspondence the renormalization group equations of the gauge theory are related to the (suitably formulated) bulk equations of motion. Replacing $`1/a`$ with the radial coordinates $`\overline{r}`$, the renormalization group can then be recasted as a first-order light-cone time evolution obeyed by a data specified on $`𝐑^4`$ formed out of $`\overline{r}`$ and $`(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _3)`$. An implicit assumption in the two alternative ‘twist’ expansions is that the locality, which was automatically built in the Minkowski gauge theory on $`S^3\times 𝐑_{\overline{t}}`$, is maintained in the Euclidean gauge theory on $`𝐑^4`$. This is highly nontrivial, as, in the standard $`AdS_5`$ holography, map between the gauge theory scale and the $`AdS_5`$ radial position is given in a complicated and nonlocal manner. Apparently, in the Penrose limit, the map becomes simplified dramatically and becomes local, as inferred from the precise matching between the light-cone string dynamics and the Euclidean gauge theory dynamics.

Summarizing, we emphasize that the question regarding where the gauge theory dual to a pp-wave light-cone string lives is intimately connected with the way we identify the string transverse oscillators into the Hilbert space of quantum fluctuations of a fixed R-charge ground-state in the gauge theory. Because we are focusing on each Hilbert subspace of fixed R-chrage, the question is also intimately tied with the realization of the pp-wave isometries in the gauge theory. The normal subgroup of the latter is SO(4)$``$SO(4), where one SO(4) originating from the kinematical conformal group in four dimensions and the other from the internal R-symmetry. These symmetries are manifest once operators and states in the dual gauge theory are formulated on the transverse $`𝐑^4`$. In doing so, we interchange the role between the light-cone time $`\overline{t}`$ and the bulk radial coordinate $`\overline{r}`$, and now view the former as the ‘holography’ coordinates of the dual, Euclidean gauge theory.

### 4.4 Light-Cone Holography

Once we have defined the outer-automorphism, call it $`H`$, we can trivially use it to define a one parameter family of operators. In fact, we can introduce a formal parameter $`x^+`$ as a conjugate variable to $`H`$ and define

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)(0,x^+)|0>=e^{ix^+H}b_0^i|0>_J.`$
This is the prescription for introducing an extra holographic light-cone time coordinate in the Euclidean gauge theory. In fact, what we get is simply

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)(0,x^+)|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}=e^{ix^+(\mathrm{\Delta }J)}\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)(0)|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}$$
(30)
and the outer-automorphism $`H=i_{x^+}`$. If we wish, we can also introduce an another holographic coordinate, say, $`x^{}`$ conjugate to the central extension $`C=(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)/\lambda `$ by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)(0,x^+,x^{})|0>_{\mathrm{YM}}=e^{ix^{}C}e^{ix^+H}b_0^i|0>_J.`$
This dependence on $`x^{}`$ is trivial, as it is the same for all operators. It depends only on the particular finite value we choose for $`R^2/J^2`$ in the double large-$`J`$ and large-$`N`$ limit. Once we introduce the coordinate $`x^{}`$, the central extension $`C`$ can be represented as $`i_x^{}`$.

We can readily make a contact with the spacetime Killing vectors in the Penrose limit. To illustrate this, consider the case of $`\mathrm{AdS}_3\times S^3`$. In the Penrose limit, the isometry group SO(2,2)$``$SO(4) is contracted to \[H(2)$``$H(2)\]$``$SO(2)$``$SO(2). We are interested in the generators of the Heisenberg groups H(2)’s:

$`P_i\left(x^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\mu x^+\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}+\mu x^i\mathrm{sin}\left(\mu x^+\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}},`$
$`K_i\left(x^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\left(\mu x^+\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\mu x^i\mathrm{cos}\left(\mu x^+\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}.`$
These are the generators that we should put in correspondence with the operators $`b_0^i`$ and $`b_0^i`$ in the dual gauge theory. As discussed above, the operator $`i_x^{}`$ plays the role of the central extension $`C`$ of the Heisenberg algebra. In the standard coordinate-momentum notation, we can write

$`P_i\left(x^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`p_i\mathrm{cos}\left(\mu x^+\right)+\mu Cx^i\mathrm{sin}\left(\mu x^+\right)`$
$`K_i\left(x^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`p_i\mathrm{sin}\left(\mu x^+\right)\mu Cx^i\mathrm{cos}\left(\mu x^+\right),`$
where the parameter $`C`$ represents the central extension term, and

$`[p_i,x^j]=i\delta _i^j.`$
Evidently, we can write

$$P_i(x^+)=e^{ix^+H}P_i(0)e^{+ix^+H}$$
(31)
for $`H`$ the light-cone Hamiltonian defined by $`H=i_{x^+}`$. This shows that the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is an outer-automorphism of the Heisenberg algebra.

We close this section with comments. Quantum mechanically, the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the scaling dimension is corrected by the contribution of anomalous dimensions, whereas the value $`J`$ of the R-symmetry charge remains unchanged. As such, one ought to expect quantum corrections to the outer-automorphism $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$. How is it corrected? The interaction part of $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory contains a term of the type $`\frac{1}{2\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\mathrm{Tr}[Z,\mathrm{\Phi }_a][Z,\mathrm{\Phi }_a]`$. This term induces a non-vanishing transitions of the type:

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)(x)\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_bZ^{J(\mathrm{}+1)}\right)(0)=\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^{2J2}}}`$ (32)
and

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)(x)\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_bZ^{J\mathrm{})}\right)(0)=\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^{2J2}}}.`$
The function $`(x)`$ is given by

$`(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{finite},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines the ultraviolet cutoff. Both contributions cancel each other, meaning that, for operators of the type $`_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)`$ or $`_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)`$, the value of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ is not corrected at least at first-order in the weak coupling perturbation theory. As pointed out by BMN already, the situation is different for operators of the type

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i\frac{2\pi n\mathrm{}}{J}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}(D_iZ)Z^J\mathrm{}\right)`$
or

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i\frac{2\pi n\mathrm{}}{J}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_iZ^J\mathrm{}\right),`$ (33)
modulated by the ‘separation-dependent’ phase-factors. We will discuss aspects of these corrections in the next subsection.

### 4.5 Strings out of Dual Gauge Theory

Let us first recapitulate what we have done so far. We have considered Euclidean $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory around a vacuum state invariant under SO(4) $``$ SO(4) and under the outer-automorphism $`H`$. The Hilbert space of small fluctuations around this vacua define a representation of the Heisenberg algebra h(8). The outer-automorphism $`H`$ is simply the number operator associated with the creation and annihilation operators generating h(8). In addition, using the gravity dual of the Minkowskian $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory, we can define a precise map between the creation anhilation operators and the outer-automorphism $`H`$ on the dual gauge theory side and the Killing vectors in the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ on the gravity side. The formal conjugate variables of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ and the central extension $`C`$ become the coordinates $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ of the Penrose limit of the bulk spacetime.

Probably the most surprising result of all this is the connection between the Penrose limit of Minkowskian $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory and the Euclidean $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory around a particular vacua. The main reason for this strange connection has to do with the peculiarities of spontaneous breakdown of conformal invariance. In fact, one can in principle think this as a spontaneous breakdown of SO(4,2) to the Euclidean subgroup SO(4). In this case, the Lorentz invariance of the original Minkowskian theory should be hidden somehow in the dynamics of the Goldstone bosons around the vacua used to break the conformal symmetry spontaneously.

How then is the Lorentz invariance realized in the Hilbert space of small fluctuations around the chosen vacua $`|0>_J`$? The answer descending from the BMN proposal is quite surprising and in fact extremely interesting. It asserts that the Hilbert space of small fluctuations of the Euclidean $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory around the vacua $`|0>_J`$ in the large-N and large-$`J`$ limit is the Hilbert space of a ten-dimensional string theory in a suitable Minkowskian background.

To understand this, we begin with recalling some salient features of string dynamics in the light-cone gauge. In flat ten-dimensional space-time and for the bosonic sector, the light-cone gauge-fixed string is defined by: i) string oscillators: infinite tower of Heisenberg algebras

$`[a_n^i,a_m^j]=\delta _{n,m}\delta _{i,j}`$
with $`i,j=1\mathrm{}8`$ the transversal coordinates, ii) light-cone Hamiltonian:

$`H_{\mathrm{LC}}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}a_n^{}a_n+(\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
iii) string parameter space: total length of the light-cone string is given by $`p^+`$, iv) Virasoro constraint: infinite tower of constraints satisfying the Virasoro algebra. The way string dynamics emerges out of the Euclidean $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory around the vacuum $`|0>_J`$ relies crucially on the existence of the Heisenberg algebra h(8) and of the outer-automorphism $`H`$. In order to establish a connection between the two structures, the first thing we should do is to extend the Heisenberg algebra h(8) to an infinite family of Heisenberg algebras of the type displayed in (i). Remarkably, this is achieved by the phase-factor-modulated operators, Eq.(33). Introduce creation and annihilation operators $`b_n,b_n^{}`$ via:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i\frac{2\pi n\mathrm{}}{J}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)(0)|0_{\mathrm{YM}}:=b_n^i|0>_J.`$
One can show readily that the newly introduced creation and annihilation operators obey the requisite infinite towers of Heisenberg algebras:

$`[b_n^i,b_m^j]=\delta _{n,m}\delta _{i,j}(m,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}).`$
Compared to the light-cone string in flat spacetime, the main difference is the existence of the Heisenberg algebra for the $`b_0^i,b_0^i`$ harmonic oscillator operators. In fact, in flat spacetime, one only has the Heisenberg algebra for the center-of-mass part

$`[x_0^{},p^+]=i.`$
Let us now see how the outer-automorphism $`H`$ is modified by quantum effects. As computed by BMN, the scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the state $`b_n^i|0>_J`$ is given in first-order in weak-coupling perturbation theory by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=J+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N\left(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{J}}\right)1\right).`$
Thus, the outer-automorphism at the quantum level is given by

$`H=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }J\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N\left(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{J}}\right)1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{J^2}}n^2+\mathrm{},`$
where, in obtaining the second expression, we have taken the large-$`J`$ and large-$`N`$ limit.

The light-cone Hamiltonian in the bulk may be therefore written as

$`p_+=\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{J^2}}n^2}b_n^{}b_n`$
However, from Eq.(10), we have

$`p_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu R^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+J){\displaystyle \frac{J}{\mu R^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{\mu \sqrt{4\pi g^2N}}}`$
where we have used $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ units throughout. Thus,

$`p_+=\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\mu ^2p_{}^2}}}b_n^{}b_n,`$
yielding exactly the light-cone Hamiltonian of the string theory in this background.

An issue we have not elaborated in detail is the string Virasoro constraints. We end this section with brief remarks on it. By inserting phases into the dual gauge theory operators, the Heisenberg algebra h(8) is extended to the family of Heisenberg algebras Eq.(4.5). It is also natural to extend the outer-automorphism to this collection of Heisenberg algebras by introducing operators $`H_n,(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`[H_n,b_m]=b_{n+m}`$ and $`H_0=H`$ for the light-cone Hamiltonian $`H`$. These outer-automorphisms then generate the string Virasoro algebra. A very interesting question left for the future would be to uncover meaning of these Virasoro constraints entirely within the dual gauge theory viewpoint.

### 4.6 Light-Cone Hamiltonian and Renormalization Group Flow

The renormalization group equation for the correlators $`<𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)>`$ is

$`\left[a_a+2\gamma (𝒪)\right]<𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)>=0.`$
where $`a`$ refers to the renormalization scale. If we consider the phase-modulated operator $`𝒪=_ne^{2\pi n\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)`$, in the large-$`J`$ and large-$`N`$ limit, we get

$`2\gamma \left(𝒪\right)=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }J\right)[𝒪]1,`$ (34)
where $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)[𝒪]`$ is the value of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ for the operator $`𝒪`$. This equation is re-expressible in a more suggestive form

$`2\gamma (𝒪)𝒪=[H,𝒪]𝒪,`$
where $`H`$ is, as usual, the string light-cone Hamiltonian $`(L_0+\overline{L}_0)`$.

Note that the anomalous dimension $`\gamma (𝒪)`$ appearing in Eq.(34) is, for the operator $`𝒪=_ne^{2\pi in\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Z^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_aZ^J\mathrm{}\right)`$, given by

$`\gamma (𝒪)=J\gamma (Z)+\gamma (\mathrm{\Phi }_a),`$
where $`\gamma (Z)`$ represents the anomalous dimension of the operator $`Z`$. Generically, the anomalous dimension $`\gamma (Z)`$ is affected by radiative effects through the self-energy corrections 666These are so-called zero-momentum effects in the nomenclature of BMN.. If not protected by supersymmetry, these contributions would grow as $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N`$ and the connection with the string light-cone Hamiltonian would be lost. Moreover, the scaling dimension of the operators $`𝒪`$, in that case, would grow with t’Hooft’s coupling constant and eventualy disappear out of the physical spectrum. In the supersymmetric case we are considering, supersymmetry renders $`\gamma (Z)=0`$. This is the reason behind regarding $`\gamma (𝒪)`$ as the anomalous dimension of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$’s. From the previous discussion, it should be evident that changes in the holographic coordinate $`x^+`$ are equivalent to changes of the renormalization scale $`a`$ if we interpret $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ as the anomalous dimension 777 Definition of the renormalization group $`\gamma (𝒪)`$ as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)`$ or as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)1`$ depends on whether one adpots the canonical dimensions for the fields and masses or not. For a lucid discussion on this point, see .

## 5 Symmetry Enhancement as “Post Mortem” Effect

In recent papers , the results of BMN have been generalized to gauge theories with less supersymmetry, in particular, to the gravity duals of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$. The fact that the Penrose limit of this space is the same as the one of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ raises the question regarding reason behind supersymmetry enhancement from $`𝒩=1`$ to $`𝒩=4`$. The point of this seemingly mysterious result goes back to the fact that, in the strict Penrose limit, there always appear extra isometries. In , these extra isometries are referred to as a post mortem effect. These isometries define always a Heisenberg algebra. In the case of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$, the isometries are SO(4,2)$``$ (SU(2) $``$ SU(2) $``$ U(1)), and are in correspondence, respectively, with the conformal invariance and the R-symmetry of the dual gauge theory. Following our approach, we can think in terms of a spontaneous breakdown of this symmetry to SO(4)$``$SO(4). The difference with the case of $`𝒩`$=4 supersymmetric gauge theory is that we now have a smaller number of Goldstone bosons associated with the broken symmetries, viz. ten instead of eighteen in the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric case. The deficit eight Goldstone bosons are precisely the ones associated with the Higgs fields in the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. These are the fields that would render the theory $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric. In the Penrose limit of any ten-dimensional background, we have always a Heisenberg algebra h(8) of the isometries. In the $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ case, the Heisenberg algebra is composed of two Heisenberg subalgebras h(4) with a common central extension. The eight generators of one of the two algebras are the ones we are going to use as the eight missing broken symmetries. These “post mortem” Goldstone bosons are simply states that, in the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory, are degenerate in the light-cone mass (the eigenvalue of the outer-automorphism or the light-cone Hamiltonian ) with the real Goldstone bosons. As the enhancement of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry is true only in the strict Penrose limit, viz. for the Penrose scaling factor $`R\mathrm{}`$, we expect this enhancement to be violated by $`𝒪(1/N)`$-corrections.

## 6 Conclusions

Our main conclusion is that the supersymmetric gauge theory dual to the IIB string theory in a ten dimensional pp-wave background may be thought to “live” on a Euclidean four dimensional space. The indications has come from several corners. The most direct reason is that the dual operators are in one to one correspondence with the states of the string theory which are created by transverse oscillators in the light-cone gauge. This is in fact apparent in the zero-mode sector of the string relevant for the supergravity modes and follows from field equations in this background. Furthermore, understanding of the low-energy Nambu-Goldstone modes resulting from symmetry breaking of the original symmetry group SO(4,2)$`\times `$SO(6) to SO(4)$`\times `$SO(4)$`\times `$H(4)$`\times `$H(4) also indicates that the dual theory lives in a Euclidean space.

One may think of this Euclidean space as the space spanned by four of the transverse directions. In this case, the light-cone time has a natural explanation as the holographic coordinate representing the scale of the dual gauge theory. Details of the proposed holographic correspondence remain to be understood better. The fact that a Euclidean theory can give rise to strings living in a space-time with Lorentzian signature is intruiging and deserves a better understanding. We expect that this would enhance our understanding of holography in general.

Extending the results of this work, one can abstract the main ingredients needed in order to generalize the BMN proposal to generic situations. The minimal starting point would be a four-dimensional gauge theory invariant under the conformal group and with a nonanomalous global U(1) symmetry. The spontaneous breakdown of SO(4,2)$``$U(1) to SO(4) provides ten broken generators that we can try to organize, taking Euclidean signature dual theory, into a Heisenberg algebra h(4) and an outer-automorphism $`H`$. This is the structure that we can try to map into the Hilbert space of a non-critical six-dimensional string theory in the light-cone gauge with the SO(4) rotational invariance acting on the transversal coordinates. Of course, we also need controllable, finite contributions- in the large ’t Hooft coupling limit - to the anomalous dimensions of the fields representing the small quantum fluctuations around the selected vacuum or, equivalently, finite light-cone mass (defined by the outer-automorphism ) for the Goldstone bosons. Taking the real-world QCD, one now has ab initio two related problems: anomaly for the conformal invariance (viz. a non vanishing beta function) and anomaly for the axial U(1) symmetry, which would serve as a natural candidate for the global U(1) symmetry. We can try to solve these problems by introducing two extra scalar fields, namely the dilaton $`D`$ and the axion $`A`$. We then find an indication that the field $`(D+iA)`$ is a natural candidate to play the role of the $`Z`$-field in the BMN proposal.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University and organizers of ‘M-theory’ workshop for hospitality. The work of S.R.D. is partially supported by U.S. DOE contract DE-FG01-00ER45832. The work of C.G is partially supported by grant AEN2000-1584.

### Note Added:

After this paper was submitted in the preprint archive, two preprints ,  investigating related issues have appeared. The paper  argues that the hologram is eight dimensional, based on the classical Cauchy problem - rather than four dimensional. In  the holographic screen is argued to be four-dimensional Minkowski space, but the realization of the SO(4) symmetry from this viewpoint was not addressed.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the highlights of discrete mathematics is the classification of the positive-definite, even, unimodular lattices $`L`$ of rank at most $`24`$, due originally to Minkowski, Witt and Niemeier (cf. \[CS\] for more information and an extensive list of references). One knows (loc. cit.) that such a lattice has rank divisible by $`8`$; that the $`E_8`$ root lattice is (up to isometry) the unique example of rank $`8`$; that the two lattices of type $`E_8+E_8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{16}`$ are the unique examples of rank $`16`$; and that there are $`24`$ inequivalent such lattices of rank $`24`$. In each case, the lattice may be characterized by the nature of the semi-simple root system naturally carried by the set of minimal vectors (i.e. those of squared length $`2`$).

The theory of vertex operator algebras is a newer subject which enjoys several parallels with lattice theory. Already in \[B\], Borcherds pointed out that one can naturally associate a vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$ to any positive-definite, even lattice $`L`$ (cf. \[FLM\] for a complete discussion). It is known that $`V_L`$ is rational and that it is holomorphic precisely when $`L`$ is self-dual (\[D\], \[DLM1\]) (we defer the formal introduction of technical definitions concerning vertex operator algebras until Section 2). Since the central charge $`c`$ of the vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$ is precisely the rank of $`L`$, the classification of holomorphic vertex operator algebras of central charge at most $`24`$ may be construed as a generalization of the corresponding problem for even, unimodular lattices. We will say that a holomorphic vertex operator algebra has small central charge in case it satisfies $`c24.`$

Schellekens was the first to consider the problem of classifying holomorphic vertex operator algebras $`V`$ of small central charge \[Sch\]. Based on extensive computation, Schellekens wrote down a list of $`71`$ integral $`q`$-expansions $`q^1+constant+196884q+\mathrm{}`$ and, among other things, conjectured that the graded character of a $`V`$ satisfying $`c=24`$ is necessarily equal to one of these $`71`$ $`q`$-expansions. As is well-known, it is only the constant term that distinguishes the $`q`$-expansions from each other, the constant in question being the dimension of the Lie algebra naturally defined on the weight one subspace $`V_1`$ of $`V`$ (see below for more details). Schellekens in fact wrote down a list of $`71`$ Lie algebras (including levels) which are the candidates for $`V_1`$. (It turns out that if $`V`$ has central charge strictly less that $`24`$ then the graded character of $`V`$ is uniquely determined, so at least as far as the dimension of the weight one subspace is concerned, the case $`c=24`$ carries the most interest.)

The purpose of the present paper is to put the Schellekens program on a firm mathematical foundation within the general context of rational conformal field theory, and to make a start towards the classification (up to isomorphism) of the holomorphic vertex operator algebras of small central charge. In addition to unitarity, there are other (unstated) assumptions in \[Sch\]. This circumstance means that we cannot assume the results of (loc. cit.) and need to find new approaches. In some ways we will go much further than \[Sch\] in that we will be able to give an adequate characterization of the holomorphic lattice theories among all holomorphic theories of small central charge. On the other hand, although we are able to establish numerical restrictions on the nature of the Lie algebra on $`V_1`$ which show that there are only a finite number of possibilities, we are at present unable to show, assuming $`c=24,`$ that it is necessarily one of the $`71`$ on Schellekens’ list. The remaining obstacle is essentially that of establishing that the levels of the associated Kac-Moody Lie algebras are positive integers (which is immediate if unitarity is assumed).

We now state some of our main results, and for this purpose we will take $`V`$ to be a holomorphic vertex operator algebra of CFT type (see Section 2) which is $`C_2`$-cofinite. (In the language of \[DM\], $`V`$ is strongly rational and holomorphic.). By results of Zhu \[Z\], this implies that $`c`$ is a positive integer divisible by $`8`$.

###### Theorem 1

Suppose that $`c=8`$. Then $`V`$ is isomorphic to the lattice theory $`V_{E_8}`$ associated to the $`E_8`$ root lattice.

###### Theorem 2

Suppose that $`c=16`$. Then $`V`$ is isomorphic to a lattice theory $`V_L`$ where $`L`$ is one of the two unimodular rank $`16`$ lattices.

Thus for the cases $`c=8`$ and $`16`$, the classification of the holomorphic vertex operator algebras completely mirrors that of the corresponding lattices. These two theorems are commonly assumed in the physics literature, and are related to the uniqueness of the heterotic string (\[Sch\], \[GSW\]).

###### Theorem 3

Suppose that $`c=24`$. Then the Lie algebra on $`V_1`$ is reductive, and exactly one of the following holds:

(a) $`V_1=0`$.

(b) $`V_1`$ is abelian of rank $`24`$. In this case $`V`$ is isomorphic to the lattice theory $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Leech lattice.

(c) $`V_1`$ is a semi-simple Lie algebra of rank $`24`$. In this case $`V`$ is isomorphic to the lattice theory $`V_L`$ where $`L`$ is the even, unimodular rank $`24`$ lattice whose root system is the same as the root system associated to $`V_1`$.

(d) $`V_1`$ is a semi-simple Lie algebra of rank less than $`24`$.

We actually establish more than is stated here. It is a well-known conjecture \[FLM\] that the Moonshine module is characterized among all $`c=24`$ holomorphic theories by the condition $`V_1=0`$. Our methods are less effective when there is no Lie algebra, however we will show that in this case $`V_2`$ carries the structure of a simple, commutative algebra (of dimension 196,884). The commutativity and dimension formula are well-known; it is the simplicity that is novel here. (The inherent difficulty in dealing with $`V_2`$ is that it is not an associative algebra, indeed it is not even power associative, and there seem to be no useful identities which are satisfied.) In case (d) we show that the simple components $`g_i`$ of $`V_1`$ have levels $`k_i`$ and dual Coxeter numbers $`h_i^{}`$ such that the identity

$$\frac{h_i^{}}{k_i}=\frac{dimV_124}{24}$$
(1.1)
holds for each $`g_i`$. This implies that there are only finitely many choices for the family of pairs $`(g_i,k_i)`$ determined by $`V_1`$. Note that the condition (1.1) was already identified by Schellekens \[Sch\]. We are in fact able to extract some further numerical restrictions on the levels $`k_i`$, but these fall well short of the expectation that they are all positive integers, and we forgo any discussion of this beyond (1.1). We also establish that if $`V_1`$ is semisimple in Theorem 3, then the Virasoro element in $`V`$ coincides with the usual Virasoro element associated with an affine Lie algebra defined by the Sugawara construction. We expect the result to be useful in further analysis of the situation.

The main inspiration for the proof of our results originates from our recent paper \[DM\]. There, we introduced methods based on the theory of modular forms used in tandem with techniques from vertex operator algebra theory. In particular we obtained a simple numerical characterization of the lattice vertex operator algebras among all rational vertex operator algebras. The present paper is in many ways a continuation and elaboration of \[loc.cit.\]. When the central charge is small, the theory of modular forms gives very precise numerical information about the vertex operator algebra which allows us to show, under certain circumstances, that the numerical characterizations of \[DM\] are applicable. This leads to Theorems 1-3. Modular-invariance also underlies the other results that we obtain.

In addition to the Schellekens program that we have already discussed, another potential application of Theorem 3 is to the FLM conjecture regarding the Moonshine module alluded to above. Namely, Theorem 3 shows that the Leech lattice theory $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the only $`c=24`$ holomorphic theory for which the Lie algebra $`V_1`$ is both non-zero and not semi-simple. On the other hand, the Moonshine module is closely related to $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, being built from it by a $`Z_2`$-orbifold construction \[FLM\].

The paper is organized as follows: we gather together some preliminaries in Section 2, and prove Theorems 1 \- 3 together with the supplementary result in case(a) of Theorem 3 in Section 3. In section 4 we identify the Virasoro element with the Sugawara construction.

## 2 Preliminary results

For general background on the theory of vertex operator algebras, we refer the reader to \[FLM\], \[FHL\]. As usual, for a state $`v`$ in a vertex operator algebra $`V`$, we denote the corresponding vertex operator by

$$Y(v,z)=\underset{nZ}{}v_nz^{n1},$$

while the vertex operator corresponding to the conformal (Virasoro) vector is

$$Y(\omega ,z)=\underset{nZ}{}L(n)z^{n2}.$$

$`V`$ is called rational if all admissible $`V`$-modules are completely reducible (cf. \[DLM1\] for the definition of admissible module). It was shown in \[DLM2\] that this implies that $`V`$ has only finitely many inequivalent simple modules. A rational vertex operator algebra is called holomorphic if it has a unique simple module, namely the adjoint module $`V`$. $`V`$ is said to be $`C_2`$-cofinite in case the subspace spanned by elements $`u_2v`$ for $`u,vV`$ is of finite codimension. Finally, we say that $`V`$ is of CFT-type in case the natural $`Z`$-grading on $`V`$ takes the form

$$V=V_0V_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{with}V_0=C\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(2.1)
Throughout the rest of this paper, we assume that $`V`$ is a $`C_2`$-cofinite, holomorphic vertex operator algebra of CFT-type of small central charge $`c24`$. In order to avoid the case of the trivial vertex operator algebra $`V=C`$, we also assume that $`V`$ has dimension greater than one.

Next we discuss some consequences of these assumptions for the structure of $`V`$. Many of them are well-known. First, the weight $`1`$ subspace $`V_1`$ of $`V`$ carries a natural structure of Lie algebra given by

$$[u,v]=u_0v$$
(2.2)
for $`u,vV_1`$. Because the adjoint module is the unique simple $`V`$-module, then the contragredient module $`V^{}`$ is necessarily isomorphic to $`V`$. This is equivalent to the existence of a non-degenerate, invariant bilinear pairing

$$,:V\times VC$$

which is necessarily symmetric. (For the theory of contragredient modules, cf. Section 3 of \[FHL\].) Because of (2.1), Li’s theory of invariant bilinear forms \[L1\] shows that we have $`L(1)V_1=0`$ and that $`,`$ is uniquely determined up to an overall scalar. It is convenient to fix the normalization so that

$$\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}=1.$$
(2.3)
In particular, the restriction of $`,`$ to $`V_1`$ is given by

$$u,v\mathrm{𝟏}=u_1v$$
(2.4)
for $`u,vV_1.`$

In the language of \[DM\], it follows from what we have said that $`V`$ is strongly rational, so that the results of (loc. cit.) apply. They tell us that the following hold:

(I) $`V_1`$ is a reductive Lie algebra of Lie rank $`lc.`$

(II) $`l=c`$ if, and only if, $`V`$ is isomorphic to a lattice theory $`V_L`$ for some positive-definite, even, unimodular lattice $`L`$.

We also note that by results of Zhu \[Z\] (cf. \[DLM3\]), $`c`$ is necessarily a positive integer divisible by $`8`$. So in fact $`c=8,16`$, or $`24.`$

We refer the reader to \[Z\] and \[DM\] for an extended discussion of the role of modular-invariance in the theory of rational vertex operator algebras. We need to recall the genus one vertex operator algebra $`(V,Y[],\mathrm{𝟏},\omega c/24)`$ from \[Z\]. The new vertex operator associated to a homogeneous element $`a`$ is given by

$$Y[a,z]=\underset{nZ}{}a[n]z^{n1}=Y(a,e^z1)e^{z\mathrm{wt}a}$$

while the Virasoro element is $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega c/24`$. Thus

$$a[m]=\mathrm{Res}_z\left(Y(a,z)(\mathrm{ln}(1+z))^m(1+z)^{\mathrm{wt}a1}\right)$$

and

$$a[m]=\underset{i=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c(\mathrm{wt}a,i,m)a(i)$$

for some scalars $`c(\mathrm{wt}a,i,m)`$ such that $`c(\mathrm{wt}a,m,m)=1.`$ In particular,

$$a[0]=\underset{i0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{wt}a1}{i}\right)a(i).$$

We also write

$$L[z]=Y[\omega c/24,z]=\underset{nZ}{}L[n]z^{n2}.$$

Then the $`L[n]`$ again generate a copy of the Virasoro algebra with the same central charge $`c.`$ Now $`V`$ is graded by the $`L[0]`$-eigenvalues, that is

$$V=V_{[0]}V_{[1]}\mathrm{}$$

where $`V_{[n]}=\{vV|L[0]v=nv\}.`$

We will need the following facts: Let $`vV`$ satisfy $`L[0]v=kv.`$ Then the graded trace

$$Z(v,\tau )=\mathrm{Tr}_Vo(v)q^{L(0)c/24}=q^{c/24}\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{V_n}o(v)q^n$$
(2.5)
is a modular form on $`SL(2,Z)`$ (possibly with character), holomorphic in the complex upper half-plane $`H`$ and of weight $`k`$. Here, we have set $`o(v)`$ to be the zero mode of $`v`$, defined via $`o(v)=v_{\mathrm{wt}v1}`$ if $`v`$ is homogeneous, and extended by linearity to the whole of $`V`$. Moreover, $`\tau `$ will denote an element in $`H`$ and $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$. In particular, if we take $`v`$ to be the vacuum element then (2.5) is just the graded trace

$$\mathrm{ch}_qV=q^{c/24}\underset{n0}{}(dimV_n)q^n$$
(2.6)
and is a modular function of weight zero on $`SL(2,Z)`$. Because of the holomorphy of $`\mathrm{ch}_q(V)`$ in $`H`$ and our assumption that $`c24`$, one knows (\[K\], \[Sch\]) that (2.6) is uniquely determined up to an additive constant, and indeed is determined uniquely if $`c16`$. The upshot is this:

###### Lemma 2.1

One of the following holds:

(a) $`c=8`$ and $`\mathrm{ch}_q(V)=\mathrm{\Theta }_{E_8}(q)/\eta (q)^8=q^{1/3}(1+248q+\mathrm{})`$

(b) $`c=16`$ and $`\mathrm{ch}_q(V)=(\mathrm{\Theta }_{E_8}(q))^2/\eta (q)^{16}=q^{2/3}(1+496q+\mathrm{})`$

(c) $`c=24`$ and $`\mathrm{ch}_q(V)=J(q)+const=q^1+const+196884q+\mathrm{}.`$

Here, we have introduced the theta function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{E_8}(q)`$ of the $`E_8`$ root lattice

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{E_8}(q)=\underset{\alpha E_8}{}q^{(\alpha ,\alpha )/2}$$

(where $`E_8`$ denotes the root lattice of type $`E_8`$ normalized so that the squared length of a root is $`2`$) as well as the eta function

$$\eta (q)=q^{1/24}\underset{n1}{}(1q^n);$$

$$J(q)=q^1+0+196884q+\mathrm{}$$

is the absolute modular invariant normalized to have constant term zero (alias the graded character of the Moonshine Module \[FLM\]). We also need the ’unmodular’ Eisenstein series of weight two, namely

$$E_2(q)=124\underset{n1}{}\sigma _1(n)q^n$$

where $`\sigma _1(n)`$ is the sum of the divisors of $`n.`$

###### Lemma 2.2

For states $`u,v`$ in $`V_1`$ we have

$$Tr_Vo(u)o(v)q^{L(0)c/24}=\frac{u,v}{24}(\frac{24}{c}D_q(ch_qV)+E_2(q)ch_qV)$$

where $`D_q=q\frac{d}{dq}`$.

Proof: First recall the important identity, Proposition 4.3.5 in \[Z\]. If we pick a pair of states $`u,vV_1`$ this result yields the following:

$$\mathrm{Tr}_Vo(u)o(v)q^{L(0)c/24}=Z(u[1]v,\tau )+1/12E_2(\tau )Z(u[1]v,\tau ).$$
(2.7)
The term $`Z(u[1]v,\tau )`$ is a modular form of weight 2, and we shall be able to write it down explicitly. Indeed, the l.h.s. of (2.7) has leading term $`\kappa (u,v)q^{1c/24}`$ where $`\kappa (u,v)`$ denotes the usual Killing form on $`V_1`$, whereas the leading term of the second summand on the r.h.s. of (2.7) is equal to $`\frac{1}{12}u,vq^{c/24}`$. From this discussion we conclude that the leading term of $`Z(u[1]v,\tau )`$ is equal to $`\frac{1}{12}u,vq^{c/24}`$. But up to scalars, the unique form of weight $`2`$ on $`SL(2,Z)`$ which is holomorphic in $`H`$ and has a pole of order $`c/24`$ at infinity is $`D_q(ch_q(V))`$. As a result, we see that the first term on the r.h.s. of (2.7) is equal to $`\frac{2u,v}{c}D_q(ch_q(V)).`$ The lemma follows from this, (2.7), and (2.4).  $`\mathrm{}`$

Identifying coefficients of $`q^{1c/24}`$ in the formula of Lemma 2.2 yields

###### Corollary 2.3

$`\kappa (u,v)=2u,v(\frac{dimV_1}{c}1)`$.

## 3 Proof of the Theorems

We consider the three possibilities $`c=8,16,24`$ in turn. In the first two cases the idea is to show that (II) always applies, while in the third case we study when it applies.

Case 1: $`c=8`$. In this case dim $`V_1=248`$ by Lemma 2.1 (a), so that $`\kappa (u,v)=60u,v`$ by Corollary 2.3. Since $`,`$ is non-degenerate then so too is the Killing form. We conclude that in fact $`V_1`$ is semi-simple of dimension $`248`$, and by (I) the Lie rank is no greater than $`8`$. By the classification of semi-simple Lie algebras, we conclude that in fact $`V_1`$ is the Lie algebra of type $`E_8`$ and Lie rank $`8`$. Now (II) and the fact that there is a unique positive-definite, even, unimodular lattice of rank $`8`$, namely the $`E_8`$ root lattice, completes the proof of Theorem 1.

Case 2: $`c=16`$. This is very similar to case 1. Namely, we have dim $`V_1=496`$ by Lemma 2.1 (b), whence $`\kappa (u,v)=60u,v`$ once more. So again $`V_1`$ is semi-simple, and we proceed as in case 1, now using the fact that there are just the two positive-definite, even, unimodular lattices. Theorem 2 follows.

Case 3: $`c=24`$. Set $`dimV_1=d`$. From Corollary 2.3 we see in this case that

$$\kappa (u,v)=u,v(d24)/12.$$
(3.1)
If $`d=24`$ then the Killing form is identically zero. Then $`V_1`$ is solvable by Cartan’s criterion and therefore abelian since $`V_1`$ is in any case reductive by (I). So if $`d=24`$ then we have shown that $`V_1`$ has rank $`24`$ and is therefore a lattice theory $`V_L`$ for suitable $`L`$ by (II). The fact that $`(V_L)_1`$ is abelian tells us that $`L`$ has no roots i.e., no vectors of squared length two, and that $`L`$ is therefore the Leech lattice (cf. \[CS\]). This deals with case (b) of Theorem 3.

Let us assume from now on that $`d0,24`$. Together with (3.1), this tells us that the Killing form on $`V_1`$ is again non-degenerate, so that $`V_1`$ is a semi-simple Lie algebra of Lie rank $`l`$ no greater than $`24`$ by (I). Moreover, if $`l=24`$ then $`V`$ is a lattice theory by (II) once more. This confirms part (c) of Theorem 3.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Next we consider the levels of the affine Lie algebras spanned by the vertex operators $`Y(u,z)`$, $`u`$ in $`V_1`$. For states $`u,vV_1`$ and integers $`m,n`$ we have

$$[u_m,v_n]=(u_0v)_{m+n}+mu_1v\delta _{m,n},$$
(3.2)
whereas the usual relations for a Kac-Moody Lie algebra of level $`k`$ associated to a simple Lie algebra $`g`$ take the form

$$[a_m,b_n]=[a,b]_{m+n}+k(a,b)m\delta _{m,n}$$
(3.3)
where $`(a,b)`$ is the non-degenerate form on $`g`$ normalized so that $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=2`$ for a long root $`\alpha `$.

Let $`V_1`$ be a direct sum

$$V_1=g_{1,k_1}g_{2,k_2}\mathrm{}g_{n,k_n}$$
(3.4)
of simple Lie algebras $`g_i`$ whose corresponding affine Lie algebra has level $`k_i.`$ By comparing (3.2) and (3.3), using Corollary 2.3 we obtain for $`u,vg_i`$ that

$$\kappa _{g_i}(u,v)=(d24)k_i(u,v)/12$$
(3.5)
where $`\kappa _{g_i}`$ denotes the restriction of the Killing form to $`g_i.`$ Now $`\kappa _{g_i}(h_\alpha ,h_\alpha )=4h_i^{}`$ for a long root $`\alpha `$, where $`h_i^{}`$ is the dual Coxeter number of the root system associated to $`g_i`$. Therefore, (3.5) tells us that for each simple component $`g_i`$ of $`V_1`$, of level $`k_i`$ and dual Coxeter number $`h_i^{}`$, the ratio

$$h_i^{}/k_i=(d24)/24$$
(3.6)
is independent of $`g_i`$.

###### Proposition 3.1

Assume that case (a) of Theorem 3 holds. Then $`B=V_2`$ carries the structure of a (non-associative) simple, commutative algebra with respect to the product $`a.b=a_1b`$.

Proof: We take for granted the well-known facts that $`B`$ is indeed a non-associative, commutative algebra with respect to the indicated product, and that the pairing $`,:B\times BC`$ defined by

$$a_3b=a,b\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(3.7)
endows $`B`$ with a non-degenerate, invariant trace form. That is, $`,`$ is symmetric and satisfies $`ab,c=a,bc`$. Moreover $`B`$ has an identity element $`1/2\omega `$. Set $`d=dimB=196884`$.

Next we state two more results that we will need. Each can be established using modular-invariance arguments along the same lines as before. Alternatively, we may use results of Section 4 of \[M\]:

$$\mathrm{Tr}_Bo(ab)=(d/3)a,b.$$
(3.8)
If $`e^2=e`$ is in $`B`$ then

$$\mathrm{Tr}_Bo(e)^2=4620e,e+20336e,e^2.$$
(3.9)
Turning to the proof of the Proposition, we first show that $`B`$ is semisimple. Indeed, (3.8) guarantees that the form $`\mathrm{Tr}_Bo(ab)`$ is non-degenerate, and this is sufficient to establish that $`B`$ is semi-simple. To see this, recall a well-known result of Dieudonne (cf. \[S, Theorem 2.6\]) that an arbitrary algebra $`B`$ is semisimple if it has a non-degenerate trace form and contains no non-zero nilpotent ideals. We will show that indeed there are no non-zero nilpotent ideals in $`B`$. If not, we may choose a minimal non-zero nilpotent ideal $`M`$ in $`B`$. Note that $`M^2=0`$. Let $`m`$ be a non-zero element in $`M`$, and let $`b`$ in $`B`$ be arbitrary. Then $`mb`$ lies in $`M`$, so that $`(mb)BM`$ and $`(mb)M=0`$. This shows that each element $`mb`$ is nilpotent as a multiplication operator on $`B`$, and hence $`\mathrm{Tr}_Bmb=0`$ for all $`b`$. This contradicts the non-degeneracy of $`,`$.

From the last paragraph we know that $`B`$ can be written as an (orthogonal) direct sum of simple ideals

$$B=B_1+B_2+\mathrm{}+B_t.$$

We must show that $`t=1`$. Write $`1/2\omega =e_1+e_2+\mathrm{}+e_t`$ where $`e_i`$ is the identity element of $`B_i`$. In particular, $`e_i`$ is a central idempotent of $`B`$. By (3.8) and (3.9) we obtain

$$(d/3)e,e=4620e,e+20336e,e^2$$
(3.10)
where $`e`$ is any of the idempotents $`e_i`$. Notice that (3.10) yields that

$$e,e=3.$$
(3.11)
It is well-known that (3.11) implies that the components of the vertex operator $`Y(2e,z)`$ generate a Virasoro algebra of central charge $`24`$, so that the total central charge must be $`24t`$. Hence, $`t=1`$ as required.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Some Virasoro elements

Throughout this section we assume that $`V`$ is a strongly rational, holomorphic vertex operator algebra of central charge $`24`$ as before, and we assume in addition that $`V_1`$ is a (non-zero) semisimple Lie algebra of Lie rank $`l.`$ Let $`V_1`$ have decomposition (3.4) into simple Lie algebras. Set $`d_i=dimg_{i,k_i}.`$ Let $`(,)`$ denote the normalized invariant bilinear form on $`g_{i,k_i}`$ with the property that $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=2`$ for a long root $`\alpha `$ in $`g_{i,k_i}.`$ It is known (cf. \[DL\], \[FZ\], \[K\], \[L2\]) that the element

$$\omega _i=\frac{1}{2(k_i+h_i^{})}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_i}{}}u_1^ju_1^j\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(4.1)
is a Virasoro element of central charge $`c_i=\frac{k_idimg_i}{k_i+h_i^{}},`$ where $`u^1,u^2,\mathrm{}u^{d_i}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`g_i`$ with respect to $`(,)`$.

There are three Virasoro elements in $`V`$ that are relevant to a further analysis of the situation. Namely, in addition to the original Virasoro element $`\omega `$ in $`V`$, we have

$$\omega _{aff}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _i$$
(4.2)
and

$$\omega _H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(h_1^i)^2\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(4.3)
where $`h^1,\mathrm{},h^l`$ is an orthonormal basis of a maximal abelian subalgebra $`H`$ of $`V_1`$ with respect to the inner product $`,.`$ Note that as a consequence of equation (3.6), $`\omega _{aff}`$ has central charge $`c_i=24`$. We omit further discussion of $`\omega _H`$, but will prove:

###### Proposition 4.1

$`\omega _{aff}=\omega `$.

Proof: Consequences of modular-invariance again underlie the proof of the Proposition, notably the absence of cusp-forms of small weight on $`SL(2,Z)`$. We introduce some notation for Virasoro operators: in addition to the usual operators $`L(n)`$ associated to $`\omega `$ , we use $`L^{aff}(n)`$ for the corresponding operators associated to $`\omega _{aff}.`$ We also set $`\omega ^{}=\omega \omega ^{aff}`$. We will soon see that $`\omega ^{}`$ is itself a Virasoro element, and define its component operators to be $`L^{}(n)`$. We eventually want to prove of course that $`\omega ^{}=0`$. We proceed in a series of steps.

Step 1: $`\omega ^{}`$ is a highest weight vector of weight 2 for the Virasoro algebra generated by $`L(n)`$.

The definition of $`\omega ^{}`$ shows that it lies in $`V_2`$, so it suffices to show that $`\omega ^{}`$ is annihilated by the operators $`L(1)`$ and $`L(2)`$. First calculate that if $`u`$ is an element of $`V_1`$ then $`[L(1),u_1]=u_0`$. Then from the definitions it follows easily that $`L(1)`$ annihilates both $`\omega _{aff}`$ and $`\omega _H`$, whence it also annihilates $`\omega ^{}`$. To establish that $`L(2)`$ annihilates $`\omega ^{}`$ we must show that

$$L(2)\omega _{aff}=L(2)\omega _H=12.$$
(4.4)
Now for $`u`$ in $`V_1`$ we have $`[L(2),u_1]=u_1`$. Then

$$L(2)u_1^ju_1^j\mathrm{𝟏}=u^j,u^j=k_i,$$

and (4.4) follows.

Step 2: $`\omega ^{}`$ is a Virasoro vector of central charge $`0`$.

Use step 1, in particular that $`L(1)`$ annihilates $`\omega _{aff}`$, to see that

$$[L(m),L^{aff}(n)]=(mn)L^{aff}(m+n)2(m^3m)\delta _{m,n}.$$

The result follows easily from this.

Step 3: $`Z_V(\omega ^{},\tau )=0`$.

Since $`\omega ^{}`$ is a highest weight vector of weight 2 for the Virasoro operators corresponding to $`\omega `$ then from our earlier discussion of (2.5) we see that $`Z_V(\omega ^{},\tau )`$ is a modular form on $`SL(2,Z)`$ of weight 2 and is holomorphic in the upper half-plane. Moreover there is no pole in the q-expansion of $`Z_V(\omega ^{},\tau )`$, so $`Z_V(\omega ^{},\tau )`$ is in fact a holomorphic modular form of weight 2 on $`SL(2,Z)`$, hence must be zero.

Step 4: $`\mathrm{Tr}_VL^{}(0)^2q^{L(0)1}=0.`$

By Proposition 4.3.5 in \[Z\] we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}_VL^{}(0)^2q^{L(0)1}=Z_V(L^{}[2]\omega ^{},\tau )\underset{k1}{}E_{2k}(\tau )Z_V(L^{}[2k2]\omega ^{},\tau )$$

where $`Y[\omega ^{},z]=_{mZ}L^{}[m]z^{m2}`$ and the functions $`E_{2k}(\tau )`$ are Eisenstein series of weight $`2k,`$ normalized as in \[DLM3\]. $`E_{2k}(\tau )`$ is a holomorphic modular form on $`SL(2,Z)`$ if $`k>1`$. Since $`L^{}[2k2]\omega ^{}=0`$ if $`k2,`$ $`L^{}[0]\omega ^{}=2\omega ^{},`$ and $`L[0]L^{}[2]\omega ^{}=4L^{}[2]\omega ^{},`$ we see that

$$\mathrm{Tr}_VL^{}(0)^2q^{L(0)1}=Z_V(L^{}[2]\omega ^{},\tau )$$

is a modular form of weight 4 for $`SL(2,Z).`$ Since $`L^{}(0)V_1=0,`$ it is in fact a cusp form, hence equal to zero.

Step 5. All the eigenvalues of $`L^{aff}(0)`$ on $`V`$ are real.

In order to see this recall the decomposition (3.4) and set $`g=V_1.`$ Consider the affine Lie algebra

$$\widehat{g}=gC[t,t^1]C$$

with bracket

$$[xt^p,yt^q]=[x,y]t^{p+q}+p\delta _{p+q,0}x,y$$

for $`x,yg`$ and $`p,qZ.`$ Since each $`V_m`$ is finite dimensional we see that $`V`$ has a composition series as a module for $`\widehat{g}`$ such that each factor is an irreducible highest weight $`\widehat{g}`$-module. So it is enough to show that $`L^{aff}(0)`$ has only real eigenvalues on any irreducible highest weight $`\widehat{g}`$-module. Note that such an irreducible highest weight $`\widehat{g}`$-module is a tensor product of irreducible highest weight $`\widehat{g}_i`$-modules $`L(k_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ of level $`k_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$) for some dominant weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ in the weight lattice of $`g_i`$ as $`V`$ is a completely reducible $`g_i`$-module. Here $`L(k_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ is the unique irreducible quotient of the generalized Verma module $`U(\widehat{g}_i)_{U(g_iC[t]+C)}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ where $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ is the highest weight module for $`g_i`$ with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`xt^m`$ acts as zero if $`m>0`$ and $`xt^0`$ acts as $`x.`$ So it is enough to show that $`L_i(0)`$ has only real eigenvalues on $`L(k_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ where $`Y(\omega _i,z)=_{mZ}L_i(m)z^{m2}.`$

It is well-known that the eigenvalues of $`L_i(0)`$ on $`L(k_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ are the numbers $`\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+2\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{2(k_i+h_i^{})}+m`$ (cf. \[DL\], \[K\]) for nonnegative integers $`m`$ where $`\rho _i`$ is the half-sum of the positive roots of $`g_i.`$ Since $`k_i`$ is rational, it is clear that $`\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+2\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{2(k_i+h_i^{})}+m`$ is real, as required.

Step 6. $`\omega ^{}=0.`$

By Step 5, all eigenvalues of $`L^{}(0)`$ are real on $`V.`$ This implies that $`L^{}(0)^2`$ has only nonnegative eigenvalues. By Step 4 we conclude that all the eigenvalues of $`L^{}(0)`$ are zero. Since $`L^{}(0)\omega ^{}=2\omega ^{},`$ we must have $`\omega ^{}=0,`$ as desired.  $`\mathrm{}`$