text:
# CLASSICAL AND QUANTIZED ASPECTS OF DYNAMICS IN FIVE-DIMENSIONAL RELATIVITY

## 1 Introduction

Recently there have been two related results in dynamics from five-dimensional relativity which are remarkable. (a) When a theory like general relativity is extended from 4D to 5D a fifth force appears, and this can manifest itself in spacetime \[1-16\]. In 4D it is well known that the force (per unit inertial mass) and velocity are constrained by the orthogonality condition $`f_\alpha u^\alpha =0\left(\alpha =0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123}\right)`$. In 5D the corresponding condition is $`f_Au^A=0\left(A=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123},4\right),`$ but then $`f_\alpha u^\alpha =f_4u^40`$ . The fifth force does not manifest itself for a certain class of metrics based on pure canonical coordinates , for metrics where the coordinates can be chosen so as to make the velocity in the extra dimension comoving , and for metrics parametized in such a way as to make it disappear . In general, however, the fifth force exists for 5D metrics which depend on the extra coordinate $`x^4=l`$, and is therefore present in both induced-matter theory \[2-8, 12, 13, 16\] and brane theory \[9-11, 14, 15\]. The fifth force is different from others in 4D dynamics in that it acts parallel to the 4-velocity $`u^\alpha `$, so it is natural to express its effects in terms of the momenta or the (inertial) rest mass $`m`$ of the particle that feels it . This is why $`m`$ can be related to $`l`$ or its rate of change, depending on the coordinates, as will be discussed below. (b) When a manifold is extended from 4D to 5D the spacetime line element $`ds`$ is embedded in a larger line element $`dS`$, and particles which are massive and move on timelike paths in 4D with $`ds^2>0`$ can move on null paths in 5D with $`dS^2=0`$ \[16-20\]. Conventional causality is defined by $`ds^20`$, but this is compatible with $`ds^20`$ or $`ds^20`$ . Photons move on 5D geodesics with $`ds^2=0=dS^2`$, but massive particles can also move on geodesics with $`dS^2=0`$ provided 4D paths are allowed with $`m=m\left(s\right)`$. This will in general be the case if the fifth force acts, as outlined above. The mass variation does not manifest itself if the parameter along the path is specially chosen to make it disappear ; but to make contact with standard 4D dynamics it is logical to use $`s`$ as the parameter, so in general $`m=m\left(s\right)`$ in both induced-matter theory and brane theory. The null condition $`dS^2=0`$ is compatible with the conventional relation between the energy, momentum and mass of a particle in 4D but means that its “energy” is zero in 5D. This agrees with the fact that Campbell’s theorem guarantees the local embedding of any 4D Riemannian space which is curved and contains matter in a 5D Riemannian space which is Ricci-flat and empty \[21-24\]. The precise form for the energy of a particle in 4D depends on the 5D metric or the coordinates, as will be discussed below.

The results summarized in (a), (b) above are startling but classical in nature. We wish to compliment them below by deriving some results related to the quantized aspects of particle dynamics. It is already apparent that 5D physics is enriched by the addition of an extra dimension but perforce encumbered by the need to make a choice of 5D coordinates (or gauge) which gives back recognizeable 4D physics. Obviously the group of 5D coordinate transformations $`x^A\overline{x}^A\left(x^B\right)`$ is wider than the group of 4D coordinate transformations $`x^\alpha \overline{x}^\alpha \left(x^\beta \right)`$, and wider than the restricted group of transformations (diffeomorphisms) $`x^\alpha \overline{x}^\alpha \left(x^\beta \right)`$, $`x^4\overline{x}^4\left(x^4\right)`$ sometimes used. In the next section, we will therefore start without apology from a metric which is chosen (with hindsight) to give back recognizeable 4D physics. This metric does not look like the canonical metric of induced-matter theory (which is basically a factor in $`l^2`$ multiplied onto an Einstein metric plus an extra flat part) or the warp metric of brane theory (which is basically an exponential factor in $`l`$ multiplied onto an Einstein metric plus an extra flat part). After deriving some results from the new metric we will, however, reinterpret it and put it into context. Our results will support the conjecture  that classical 5D physics can lead to quantized 4D physics.

## 2 The 5D Planck and Einstein Gauges

The 5D line element given by $`dS^2=g_{AB}dx^Adx^B\left(A=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\right)`$ contains the 4D one $`ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta \left(\alpha =0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123}\right)`$. We can use 4 of the available 5 degrees of coordinate freedom to set $`g_{4\alpha }=0`$, which in the old Kaluza-Klein theory were identified with the electromagnetic potentials. We could use the remaining degree of freedom to set $`\left|g_{44}\right|=1`$ and thereby supress the scalar potential, but in some newer versions of Kaluza-Klein theory this is related to the Higgs potential , and it proves more instructive to restrict this only via $`g_{44}=g_{44}\left(x^4\right)`$ without at the outset carrying out the coordinate transformation that would make it constant. (We will do this later; the 5D geodesic equation for unrestricted $`g_{AB}`$ is considered in reference 3.) The problem is so far general in a mathematical sense if we allow the spacetime metric to be $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,x^4)`$. Exact solutions of the field equations are known that have this property, including cosmological ones which reduce on the hypersurfaces $`x^4=`$ constants to Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models and agree with observations . However, the focus here is on particle dynamics, and since observations indicate that there is no explicit incursion of the fifth dimension into local spacetime, we put $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }\left(x^\gamma \right)`$, which means that the Weak Equivalence Principle is a symmetry of the 4D part of the 5D metric. We label the time, space and extra coordinates by $`x^0=ct,x^{123}`$ and $`x^4=l`$, taking them all to have physical dimensions of length. To distinguish physically between our starting gauge and a later one, it is useful to retain conventional dimensions for the speed of light $`c`$, Planck’s constant $`h`$ and the gravitational constant $`G`$. We refrain at the outset from physically identifying $`x^4=l`$, though it is apparent from the comments in Section 1 that we expect it to be related to the (inertial) rest mass of a test particle. We also expect $`m=m\left(s\right)`$. It should be noted that this does not violate the usual condition $`g_{\alpha \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta =1`$ for the 4-velocities $`u^\alpha dx^\alpha \mathrm{}ds`$. This is a normalization condition on the velocities, not a coordinate condition on the metric, so we can adopt it. Multiplying this condition by $`m^2`$ gives $`p^\alpha p_\alpha =m^2`$ where $`p^\alpha mu^\alpha `$ with no restriction on $`m=m\left(s\right)`$. In other words, the (squares of the) energy $`E^2=m^2c^4u^0u_0`$ and 3-momentum $`p^2=m^2c^2\left(u^1u_1+u^2u_2+u^3u_3\right)`$ satisfy $`E^2p^2c^2m^2c^4=0`$ even if the mass varies in spacetime. The last-noted relation is closely obeyed by real particles; but while the opposite sign for $`g_{44}`$ has been taken in so-called two-time metric \[25-30 and below\], the implication is that our 5D metric should have \[+(- - -)-\] for its signature.

Based on the preceding, consider a line element given by

$$dS^2=\frac{L^2}{l^2}g_{\alpha \beta }\left(x^\gamma \right)dx^\alpha dx^\beta \frac{L^4}{l^4}dl^2.$$
(1)
Here $`L`$ is a constant length introduced for dimensional consistency whose physical meaning we will return to below. The Lagragian density $`=\left(dS\mathrm{}ds\right)^2`$  has associated with it 5-momenta given by

$`P_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\left(dx^\alpha \mathrm{}ds\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{2L^2}{l^2}}g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\beta }{ds}}`$ (2a)
$`P_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\left(dl\mathrm{}ds\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{2L^4}{l^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl}{ds}}.`$ (2b)
These define a 5D scalar which is the analog of the one used in 4D quantum mechanics:
$`{\displaystyle P_A𝑑x^A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(P_\alpha dx^\alpha +P_ldl\right)}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L^2}{l^2}\left[1\left(\frac{L}{l}\frac{dl}{ds}\right)^2\right]𝑑s}.`$
This is zero for $`dS^2=0`$, since then (1) gives

$$l=l_0e^{\pm s/L},\frac{dl}{ds}=\pm \frac{l}{L},$$
(4)
where $`l_0`$ is a constant. The second member of this shows why some workers have related the (inertial) rest mass of a particle to $`l`$  and some to its rate of change  with consistent results: the two parametizations are essentially equivalent. In both cases, the variation is slow if $`s\mathrm{}L1`$ (see below). We prefer to proceed with the former, because it is simpler. Also, this makes the first part of the 5D line element in (1) essentially the element of the usual 4D action $`mcds`$. It should be noted in passing that in forming the total action from the latter quantity, the $`m`$ should go inside the integral, even in 4D theory . The appropriate parametization with the problem as set up here is $`l=h/mc`$, the Compton wavelength of the particle. The latter has finite energy in 4D, but zero “energy” in 5D because $`P_A𝑑x^A=0`$.

The corresponding quantity in 4D is $`p_\alpha 𝑑x^\alpha `$ and for a massive particle is nonzero. Using relations from the preceding paragraph, it is

$$p_\alpha 𝑑x^\alpha =mu_\alpha 𝑑x^\alpha =\frac{hds}{cl}=\pm \frac{h}{c}\frac{L}{l}.$$
(5)
The fact that this can be positive or negative goes back to (4), but since the motion is reversible we will suppress the sign in what follows for convenience. We will also put $`L/l=n`$, anticipating a physical interpretation which indicates that it is not only dimensionless but may be a rational number. Then (5) says

$$mc𝑑s=nh.$$
(6)
Thus the conventional action of particle physics in 4D follows from a null line element (1) in 5D.

The other scalar quantity that is of interest in this approach is $`dp_\alpha dx^\alpha `$. (It should be recalled that $`dx^\alpha `$ transforms as a tensor but $`x^\alpha `$ does not.) Following the same procedure as above there comes

$$dp_\alpha dx^\alpha =\frac{h}{c}\left(\frac{du_\alpha }{ds}\frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}\frac{1}{l}\frac{dl}{ds}\right)\frac{ds^2}{l}.$$
(7)
The first term inside the parenthesis here is zero if the acceleration is zero or if the scalar product with the velocity is zero as in conventional 4D dynamics (see Section 1). But even so, there is a contribution from the second term inside the parenthesis which is due to the change in mass of the particle. This anomalous contribution has magnitude

$$\left|dp_\alpha dx^\alpha \right|=\frac{h}{c}\left|\frac{dl}{ds}\right|\frac{ds^2}{l^2}=\frac{h}{c}\frac{ds^2}{Ll}=n\frac{h}{c}\left(\frac{dl}{l}\right)^2,$$
(8)
where we have used (4) and $`n=L\mathrm{}l`$. The latter implies $`dn\mathrm{}n=dl\mathrm{}l=dK_l\mathrm{}K_l`$ where $`K_l1\mathrm{}l`$ is the wavenumber for the extra dimension. Clearly (8) is a Heisenberg-type relation, and can be written

$$\left|dp_\alpha dx^\alpha \right|=\frac{h}{c}\frac{dn^2}{n}.$$
(9)
This requires some interpretation, however. Looking back at the 5D line element (1), it is apparent that $`L`$ is a length scale not only for the extra dimension but also for the 4D part of the manifold. (There may be other scales associated with the sources for the potentials that figure in $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, and these may define a scale via the 4D Ricci scalar $`R`$, but we expect that the 5D field equations will relate $`R`$ to $`L`$, as will be illustrated below.) As the particle moves in spacetime, it therefore “feels” $`L`$, and this is reflected in the behaviour of its mass and momentum. Relations (6) and (9) quantify this. If the particle is viewed as a wave, its 4-momenta are defined by the de Broglie wavelengths and its mass is defined by the Compton wavelength. The relation $`dS^2=0`$ for (1) is equivalent to $`P_AP^A=0`$ or $`K_AK^A=0.`$ The question then arises of whether the waves concerned are propagating in an open topology or trapped in a closed topology. In the former case, the wavelength is not constrained by the geometry, and low-mass particles can have large Compton wavelengths $`l=h\mathrm{}mc`$ with $`l>L`$ and $`n`$ $`=L\mathrm{}l<1`$. In the latter case, the wavelength cannot exceed the confining size of the geometry, and high-mass particles have small Compton wavelengths with $`lL`$ and $`n1`$. By (9), the former case obeys the conventional Uncertainty Principle while the latter case violates it. This subject clearly needs an in-depth study, but with the approach adopted here we tentatively identify the former case as applying to real particles and the latter case as applying to virtual particles.

The fundamental mode $`\left(n=1\right)`$ deserves special comment. This can be studied using (6)-(9), or directly from (1) by using $`l=h\mathrm{}mc`$ with $`dS^2=0`$. The latter procedure gives $`\left|dm\right|=mds\mathrm{}L`$ which with (6) yields $`m=\left(mc𝑑s\right)\mathrm{}cL=nh\mathrm{}cL`$. This defines for $`n=1`$ a fundamental unit mass, $`m_0=h\mathrm{}cL`$. In general $`L`$ is a scale set by the problem, analogous to the “box” size in old wave mechanics. In cosmology, we expect $`L`$ to be related to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This inference is backed by detailed analysis of the field equations and an examination of certain exact solutions thereof \[2, 5, 8, 9 and below\]. These give $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\mathrm{}L^2`$. The cosmological value of $`L=\left(3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/2}`$ is a maximum for this parameter, defining a minimum for $`m_0`$ that applies even to particle physics. Astrophysical data indicate a positive value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of approximately $`3\times 10^{56}`$cm-2, though in view of observational uncertainties this should be taken as a constraint rather than a determination \[32-36\]. The noted value corresponds to a density for the vacuum in general relativity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2\mathrm{}8\pi G2\times 10^{29}g`$ cm-3, close to that required for closure. The unit mass involved is

$$m_0=\frac{h}{cL}=\frac{h}{c}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 10^{65}g.$$
(10)
This is too small to be detected using current techniques and explains why mass does not appear to be quantized.

The mass unit (10) is tiny even by the standards of particle physics, and before proceeding to a presentation of more technical results a few comments on concepts may be useful. The mass (10) of order 10-65 g follows from the length scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$ of order 1028cm, or equivalently the time scale of order 1018s which is the age of the universe. A more detailed analysis might alter the numbers somewhat (such an analysis might, for example, involve the size of the particle horizon at the current epoch or the current size of the cosmological “constant” in models where this parameter varies). But the magnitude of (10) is based on astrophysical data \[32-36\], and is expected to be correct to order of magnitude. However, the interaction of a particle with mass $`m_o`$ of order (10) with a vacuum of energy density of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^4\mathrm{}8\pi G`$ involves poorly-understood physics. Preliminary discussions of this and related issues have been given recently . Our view, based on (1) and the more general line element (13) below, is that a “particle” is just a localized concentration of energy in a medium where the distinction between ordinary matter and the vacuum is convenient but artificial. Energy, defined as the quantity which curves 4D space, consists in general of contributions of both types . Indeed, energy is a 4D concept that can be derived from 5D geometry, with Campbell’s theorem providing the link \[21-24\]. The small mass (10) simply reflects the small (4D) curvature of the universe. In other problems, the parameter $`L`$ in relations (1)-(10) can have different sizes. Consider the hydrogen atom. (A detailed analysis of this problem is beyond the scope of the present work, but would involve an exact solution of the 5D field equations with electromagnetic potentials and orbital structure of the shell kind discussed in reference 8, pp. 117-125.) The length scale is of order 10-8 cm, or equivalently the time scale is of order 10-18 s, so the unit mass would be many orders different from that given by (10). Nevertheless, (10) defines the irreducible unit mass set by the energy density of the background universe as measured by the cosmological constant.

The metric (1) which leads to (10) and the other results noted above involve an algebraic choice for how $`x^4=l`$ enters that is suited to the physical identification $`l=h\mathrm{}mc.`$ Those results also depend on the assumption that the 5D path is null. It is appropriate to call (1) the Plank gauge. To put this gauge into the context of other work on 5D dynamics \[1-20\], let us consider briefly how (1) may be altered in form and generalized.

Transforming (1) via $`lL^2\mathrm{}l`$ gives

$$dS^2=\frac{l^2}{L^2}g_{\alpha \beta }\left(x^\gamma \right)dx^\alpha dx^\beta dl^2,$$
(11)
which is pure canonical in form . It is known that for (11) the 5D field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ contain the 4D Einstein equations in the form $`G_{\alpha \beta }=3g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}L^2`$, which describes a vacuum spacetime with $`G=R=12\mathrm{}L^2=4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\mathrm{}L^2`$. (Here $`R_{AB}`$ is the 5D Ricci tensor, $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the 4D Einstein tensor and $`R`$ is the 4D Ricci scalar. The last relation was noted above.) While it is a special case of Campbell’s theorem, we see that any solution of the 4D vacuum Einstein equations can be embedded in a solution of the 5D vacuum field equations, including that of Schwarzschild . This implies that (11) is relevant to gravitational problems, and for this and other reasons discussed below we will henceforth refer to (11) as the Einstein gauge. It has been studied by several workers in the general case where $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)`$ and $`dS^20`$ \[2-8\]. As mentioned before, we expect that this will lead to violations of the Weak Equivalence Principle, since in general the 4-accelerations of test particles will depend on $`l`$, which whatever its physical meaning may not be the same for all of them. This is born out by the 5D geodesic equation, whose components yield equations of motion in spacetime and the extra dimension which can be written thus:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du^\mu }{ds}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\mu u^\beta u^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`f^\mu `$ (12a)
$`f^\mu `$ $``$ $`\left(g^{\mu \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx^\beta }{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{l}}`$ (12b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2l}{ds^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dl}{ds}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{L^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dl}{ds}}\right)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\beta }{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{l}}.`$ (12c)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\mu `$ are the usual 4D Christoffel symbols, and $`f^\mu `$ is the fifth force (per unit inertial mass) which was first found explicitly in the context of induced-matter theory  but also figures in brane theory . Equation (12c) is second order, and is identically satisfied with no constraint on $`g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}l`$ by $`l=l_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\pm \left(ss_0\right)\mathrm{}L\right]`$, where $`l_0`$ and $`s_0`$ are arbitrary constants. This is essentially (4) again, and by (11) means $`dS^2=0`$. \[It can be verified also that the reverse transformation $`lL^2\mathrm{}l`$ which converts (11) to (1) leaves the forms of (12a) and (12b) unchanged, while (12c) retains its form for the r.h.s. and becomes $`\left(d^2l\mathrm{}ds^2l\mathrm{}L^2\right)`$ for the l.h.s.\] We see that the Einstein gauge (11) and the Planck gauge (1) describe essentially the same thing from a mathematical perspective.
There is, however, an important difference from the physical perspective. For the Planck gauge (1), we have argued that massive particles move on null 5D paths where the extra coordinate is $`l_P=h\mathrm{}mc`$, a view which is consistent with induced-matter theory  and equivalent by (4) with the relation between the mass and the extra component of the momentum in brane theory . For the Einstein gauge (11), however, the relevant physical identification is obviously $`l_E=Gm\mathrm{}c^2`$. This parametization goes back to at least 1990 , continues to the used , and is consistent with the widely-held view that the essential role of fundamental constants is to transpose physical dimensions . But it is important to realize that it is only in the Planck and Einstein gauges that such simple parametizations of the mass hold. To appreciate why this is so, reconsider (1) and (11). In the former, the proper distance in the fifth dimension, defined in analogy with the proper time in general relativity, is $`\left|\left(L^2\mathrm{}l^2\right)𝑑l\right|=L^2\mathrm{}lm`$. In the latter, the proper distance is just $`lm`$. But in the general case the appropriate quantity to consider is $`\left|ϵg_{44}^{1/2}\right|𝑑l=\left|ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }\right|𝑑l`$ where $`g_{44}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(x^A\right)`$ is the scalar potential . This is suppressed in (1), (11) but is generally present in 5D metrics which have spacelike $`\left(ϵ=1\right)`$ or timelike $`\left(ϵ=+1\right)`$ extra dimensions. The appropriate line element to replace (1), (11) is

$$dS^2=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x^\gamma ,l)dl^2.$$
(13)
This is general insofar as it lacks $`g_{4\alpha }`$ but retains $`g_{44}`$ and does not $`l`$factorize $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. The components of the 5D Ricci tensor $`R_{AB}`$ for (13) can be worked out using tedious algebra (see ref. 8, p. 58). These can be applied to both induced-matter theory and brane theory. For $`R_{AB}=0`$, the implied 15 relations yield naturally a set of 10 equations involving the 4D Einstein tensor, a set of 4 conservation equations and 1 wave equation. The last is

$$ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{g_{,4}^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,4}}{4}\frac{g^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,44}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{,4}g^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,4}}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(14)
Here $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu ;\nu }`$ where a comma denotes the partial derivative and a semicolon denotes the 4D covariant derivative. Relation (14) has no analog in 4D since it comes from $`R_{44}=0,`$ and has been suggested in certain versions of 5D theory as being the equation for the Higgs field which determines the masses of particles . Another relation which follows from (13) for $`R_{AB}=0`$ and deserves attention is that for the 4D Ricci scalar. This may be shown to be given by

$$R=\frac{ϵ}{4\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\left[g_{,4}^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}+\left(g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}\right)^2\right].$$
(15)
This alters the status of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as determined by vacuum spacetimes (see above). Relations (14) and (15) require detailed study in regard to the hierarchy problem and the cosmological-constant problem encountered by old Kaluza-Klein theory.

As a last comment on how (1) may be altered in form and generalized, we remark that the signature may be changed. This results in a two-time metric of the type we have mentioned but ignored \[25-30\]. However, they have interesting properties. For example, the first such found represents an exact solution of the 5D field equations which describes a wave propagating through a 4D de Sitter vacuum . It is germane to point out that wave-like behaviour cannot in general be obtained simply by applying a Wick rotation to the fifth dimension as done in the Euclidean approach to 4D quantum gravity . Thus $`lil`$ in (1) or (2) with $`dS^2=0`$ just gives back $`l=l_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm s\mathrm{}L\right)`$ as in (4), which is a growing or shrinking mode. \[The change is slow for $`s\mathrm{}L1`$, as pointed out above; and by (12) is dynamically undetectable anyway in the pure Planck and Einstein gauges with $`g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}l=0`$, since $`f^\mu =0`$ and the motion is geodesic in 4D.\] Neither are (1) and (2) altered by the so-called $`𝐙_2`$ transformation $`ll`$ of brane theory . But if we take (1) or (2) with the opposite sign for the last part of the metric and $`dS^2=0`$, there results $`l=l_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm is\mathrm{}L\right)`$. This is an oscillating mode, and such deserve further study to see if they are related to the wave nature of particles.

It is clear from the comments above that the Planck gauge (1) and the Einstein gauge (11) are mathematically equivalent and physically special. So why are they efficacious? The answer is that both have 4D parts which are effectively momentum manifolds rather than coordinate manifolds. This is achieved respectively through the mass parametizations

$$l_P=\frac{h}{mc},l_E=\frac{Gm}{c^2}.$$
(16)
These choices in old 4D theories of the scalar-tensor and scale-invariant types were referred to as reflecting the use of atomic and gravitational units ; but in the present approach they refer to the use of coordinates in an underlying theory which is 5D covariant. In the present approach, the Planck mass $`\left(hc\mathrm{}G\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ as so defined lacks physical meaning, because it is a combination of constants from both gauges (16) whose only purpose in either is to transpose dimensions . Put another way, the ratio $`l_E\mathrm{}l_P=Gm^2\mathrm{}ch`$ can be formed and set equal to unity to produce $`m=\left(ch\mathrm{}G\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, but this involves mixing coordinates and is therefore badly defined.

## 3 Conclusion

There have been two recent results in five-dimensional relativity which are remarkable. One is the existence in general of a fifth force which acts parallel to the velocity in spacetime and can be related to a change in the (inertial) rest mass of a particle. The other is the realization that a null path in five dimensions can correspond to a timelike path in spacetime for a massive particle. Both of these results require for their evaluation a choice of coordinates or gauge. The Planck gauge (1) is so called because it leads to the usual rule of quantization (6) and an uncertainty-type relation (9). If the scale of the 5D geometry is related to the 4D cosmological constant, there is a quantum of mass (10). The Einstein gauge (1) is so called because it embeds the Schwarzschild solution, recognizes the Weak Equivalence Principle as a symmetry of the metric and gives back 4D geodesic motion. Both gauges are mathematically special but physically convenient because their 4D parts effectively describe momentum manifolds rather than coordinate manifolds. Both can be generalized, notably to (13) which applies to all problems which do not involve explicit electromagnetic-type potentials. This leads to a wave equation (14) for the scalar or Higgs potential which has implications for the masses of particles, and an embedding equation (15) for the scalar curvature of spacetime which has implications for the size of the cosmological constant. While the Planck and Einstein gauges (16) are well defined and the underlying theory is covariant, a mixture of the two that produces the Planck mass is ill defined, suggesting that if this parameter has meaning it does so in the context of an $`N(>5)D`$ theory.

The current versions of 5D relativity that attract most attention are induced-matter theory and membrane theory. However, it is worth recalling that any 5D theory of the Kaluza-Klein type describes a spin-2 graviton, a spin-1 photon and a spin-0 scalaron. While many topics for future work are suggested by the outline given above, an obvious question concerns the status of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles like the electron. Logically, an extension of the present approach would give a geometrical account not only of bosons but also of fermions. The usual approach to this, following Dirac, is of course to factorize the 4D metric. But it is well known that in relativity the product of the classical spin and path vectors of a particle can be made to vanish. Preliminary work on this condition in 5D shows that it leads to a relation that resembles the Dirac equation in 4D, with the mass entering as a coordinate. A related question concerns how to relate the geometrical approach to mass outlined above to the one in quantum field theory, where it arises as the eigenvalue of the mass operator in the irreducible representation of the appropriate symmetry group. If mass is geometrical in nature and described by an $`N(5)D`$ field theory, the latter will in general require the introduction of symmetry groups to explain the masses and other properties of the observed elementary particles. We hope that this and other problems will provide interesting exercises for the reader.

Acknowledgements

Thanks for comments go to H. Liu and S.S. Seahra. This work was supported by N.S.E.R.C.

References

1. Y.M Cho, D.H. Park, Gen. Rel. Grav. 23 (1991) 741.
2. B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, P.S. Wesson, Phys. Lett. B 331 (1994) 305.
3. P.S. Wesson, J. Ponce de Leon, Astron. Astrophys. 294 (1995) 1.
4. H. Liu, B. Mashhoon, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 4 (1995) 565.
5. P.S. Wesson, B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2309.
6. B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, P.S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 30 (1998) 555.
7. P.S. Wesson, B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, W.N. Sajko, Phys. Lett. B 456 (1999) 34.
8. P.S. Wesson, Space-Time-Matter, World Scientific, Singapore (1999).
9. D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 084002.
10. R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 084023.
11. A. Chamblin, Class. Quant. Grav. 18 (2001) L17.
12. H. Liu, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 272 (2000) 26.
13. A. Billiard, W.N. Sajko, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33 (2001) 1929.
14. W.B. Belayev, gr-qc/0110099 (2001).
15. J. Ponce de Leon, Phys. Lett. B 523 (2001) 311.
16. P.S. Wesson, J. Math. Phys. in press (2002) (gr-gc/0105059).
17. V. Fock, Zeit. Phys. (Leipzig) 39 (1926) 226.
18. A. Davidson, D.A. Owen, Phys. Lett. B 177 (1986) 77.
19. S.S. Seahra, P.S. Wesson, Gen Rel. Grav. 33 (2001) 1731.
20. D. Youm, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 2371.
21. J.E. Campbell, A Course of Differential Geometry, Clarendon, Oxford (1926).
22. S. Rippl, C. Romero, R. Tavakol, Class. Quant. Grav. 12 (1995) 2411.
23. C. Romero, R. Tavakol, R. Zalaletdinov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28 (1996) 365.
24. J.E. Lidsey, C. Romero, R. Tavakol, S. Rippl, Class. Quant. Grav. 14 (1997) 865.
25. A. Billyard, P.S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28 (1996) 129.
26. A. Billyard, P.S. Wesson, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 731.
27. I. Bars, C. Kounnas, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 3664.
28. I. Bars, C. Deliduman, O. Andreev, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 066004.
29. I. Bars, C. Deliduman, D. Minic, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 125004.
30. J. Kocinski, M. Wierzbicki, gr-qc/0110075 (2001).
31. J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1458.
32. C.H. Lineweaver, Astrophys. J. 505 (1998) L69.
33. J.M. Overduin, F.I. Cooperstock, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 043506.
34. J.M. Overduin, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) L1.
35. M. Chiba, Y. Yoshii, Astrophys. J. 510 (1999) 42.
36. J.M. Eppley, R.B. Partridge, Astrophys. J. 538 (2000) 489.
37. P.S. Wesson, H. Liu, Int. J. Mod. Phys D 10 (2001) 905.
38. F. Mansouri, hep-th/0203150 (2002).
39. P.S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 22 (1990) 707.
40. P.S. Wesson, Space Science Rev. 59 (1992) 365.
41. J.W.G. Wignall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 5.
42. G.W. Ma, Phys. Lett. A 143 (1990) 183
43. G.W. Ma, Phys. Lett. A 146 (1990) 375.
44. G.W. Gibbons, S.W. Hawking (eds.), Euclidean Quantum Gravity, World Scientific, Singapore (1993).
45. P.S. Wesson, Cosmology and Geophysics, Hilger/Oxford U. Press, New York (1978).


format: text

text:
# 𝐵→{𝜋⁺𝜋⁻,𝐾𝜋,𝐾𝜂'} decays and new physics effects in the general two-Higgs-doublet model: an update

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

K.T. Chao and C.S. Li acknowledge the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the State Commission of Science and technology of China. Z.J. Xiao acknowledges the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.10075013, and by the Research Foundation of Nanjing Normal University under Grant No.2001WLXXGQA916.


text:
# Realizing Connected Lie Groups As Automorphism Groups Of Complex Manifolds

## 1. Introduction

Saerens and Zame, and independently Bedford and Dadok proved that, given a compact real Lie group $`K`$ there always exists a strictly pseudoconvex bounded domain $`D^n`$ such that $`Aut(D)K`$. By the theorem of Wong-Rosay (which states that every strictly pseudoconvex bounded domain with non-compact automorphism group is isomorphic to the ball) it is clear that an arbitrary non-compact real Lie group can not be realized as the automorphism of a strictly pseudoconvex bounded domain in $`^n`$. However, as we proved in an earlier paper , for any connected real Lie group $`G`$ there does exist a complex manifold $`X`$ on which $`G`$ acts effectively. Moreover, $`X`$ can be chosen in such a way that it enjoys several of the key properties of strictly pseudoconvex bounded domains. Namely, $`X`$ can be chosen such that it is both Stein and hyperbolic in the sense of Kobayashi.

The purpose of the present note is to prove that it is possible to rule out additional automorphisms, i.e. it is possible to achieve $`Aut(X)G`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`G`$ be a connected real Lie group. Then there exists a Stein, complete hyperbolic complex manifold $`X`$ on which $`G`$ acts effectively, freely, properly and with totally real orbits such that $`Aut(X)G`$.

The idea is to follow the strategy of Saerens and Zame: Construct the desired manifold as an open subset of a larger Stein manifold in such a way that the given group acts on this open subset. Ensure that every automorphism of this open subset can be extended to the boundary, then modify the boundary in such a way that this $`CR`$-hypersurface simply has no automorphisms other than those from the given group. The latter can be done using the fact that a $`CR`$-hypersurface (unlike a complex manifold) does have local invariants. A principal difficulty in this approach is to obtain an extension of automorphisms of the open subset to the boundary. If one is concerned only with compact Lie groups, then one can work with a strictly pseudoconvex bounded domain $`D`$. For such a domain it is evident that for every automorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`D`$ there exists a sequence $`x_nD`$ such that both $`x_n`$ and $`\varphi (x_n)`$ converge to a strictly pseudoconvex point in the boundary. This is the starting point for the extension of the automorphism $`\varphi `$ to the boundary $`D`$.

Now, our goal is to obtain a result for arbitrary connected Lie groups, which are not necessarily compact.

This lack of compactness assumption creates some difficulties.

There are two main problems: First, an arbitrary non-compact Lie group is not necessarily linear. For instance, the universal cover of $`SL_2()`$ cannot be embedded into a linear group. Second, as already mentioned, the theorem of Wong-Rosay implies that in general a non-compact Lie group can not be realized as the full automorphism group of a strictly pseudoconvex bounded domain with smooth boundary. Thus we have to work with domains which are not bounded or where the boundary is not everywhere smooth. The trouble is that it is therefore no longer clear that for every automorphism $`\varphi `$ there exists a sequence $`x_n`$ in the domain such that both $`x_n`$ and $`\varphi (x_n)`$ converge to a nice point in the boundary.

In  a result similar to ours is claimed for certain Lie groups with a rather sketchy outline of a possible proof.

The first of the aforementioned two problems is dealt with by assuming the group $`G`$ to be linear while the second problem is simply ignored. Since the second problem is in fact a serious obstacle, the proof sketched in  can not be regarded as complete.

We proceed in the following way: To deal with the first problem, we note that every Lie algebra is linear by the theorem of Ado. Therefore, in a certain sense, every Lie group is linear up to coverings and the first problem can be attacked by working carefully with coverings.

For the second problem, we use bounded domains whose boundaries are smooth outside an exceptional set $`E`$ which is small in a certain sense. Exploiting this smallness we prove that for every automorphism $`\varphi `$ there must exist a sequence $`x_n`$ such that both $`x_n`$ and $`\varphi (x_n)`$ converge to a boundary point outside the “bad set” $`E`$.

Once this has been verified, we can prove (using arguments similar to those used in, ) that $`\varphi `$ extends as holomorphic map near $`lim(x_n)`$, and use the theory of Chern-Moser-invariants to deduce that $`\varphi `$ was in fact given by left multiplication with an element of $`G`$.

### 1.1. Disconnected Lie Groups

The result of Bedford and Dadok resp. Saerens and Zame is valid for all compact groups, not only connected ones. However, compactness implies that in this case there are no more than finitely many connected components.

We conjecture that our main theorem is valid for arbitrary real Lie groups, including those with finitely or countably infinitely many connected components.

As a first step regarding disconnected Lie groups, we proved in  that the statement of our main theorem does hold for countable discrete groups.

## 2. Linearization

Given a real Lie group $`G`$, we look for a bounded domain on which this group acts. For this purpose we use the theory of hermitian symmetric spaces.

We will need the following:

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ be a simply-connected real Lie group.

Then there exists a natural number $`n`$ and a Lie group homomorphism $`\xi :\stackrel{~}{G}Sp(2n,)`$ such that the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. $`\xi `$ has discrete fibers.
2. The image $`\xi (\stackrel{~}{G})`$ is closed in $`Sp(2n,)`$.

###### Proof.

By Ado’s theorem there is an injective Lie algebra homomorphism $`Lie(\stackrel{~}{G})LieGL(m,)`$ for some $`m`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is simply-connected, this induces a Lie group homomorphism $`\xi _0:\stackrel{~}{G}GL(m,)`$ with discrete fibers. Let $`V=^m`$ and $`W=VV^{}`$ where $`V^{}`$ is the vector space dual of $`V`$. Then $`W`$ carries a natural symplectic structure given by

$$(v,\lambda )(v^{},\lambda ^{})=\lambda (v^{})\lambda ^{}(v)$$

which is evidently preserved by the natural diagonal action of $`GL(V)`$ on $`W`$. Hence there is an embedding $`i:GL(m,)Sp(2m,)`$.

Let $`\xi _1=i\xi _0:\stackrel{~}{G}Sp(2m,)`$, $`H=\xi _1(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ and $`H^{}`$ its commutator group. Then $`H^{}`$ is already closed in $`Sp(2m,)`$. The quotient group $`H/H^{}`$ is a connected commutative real Lie group, hence $`H/H^{}(S^1)^k\times ()^l`$ for some $`k,l\{0\}`$. It is easy to see that there is a closed embedding $`j:H/H^{}Sp(2m^{},)`$ for some $`m^{}`$ . Furthermore there is an embedding $`\zeta :Sp(2m,)\times Sp(2m^{},)Sp(2n,)`$ with $`n=m+m^{}`$. Now let $`\tau :HH/H^{}`$ denote the natural projection and define $`\xi :\stackrel{~}{G}Sp(2n,)`$ by

$$\xi (g)=\zeta (\xi _1(g),j(\tau (\xi _1(g)))).$$

## 3. Hermitian symmetric domains

For basic facts on symmetric spaces, see e.g. .

Let $`S=Sp(2n,)`$ and let $`K`$ denote a maximal compact subgroup. Then the quotient manifold $`D_0=S/K`$ can be endowed with the structure of a hermitian symmetric domain. Furthermore there exist open embeddings (“Cayley transform”)

$$D_0^NQ$$

such that

1. $`D_0`$ is relatively compact in $`^N`$,
2. $`Q`$ is a projective manifold (the “compact dual of D”) and
3. the $`Sp(2n,)`$-action on $`D_0`$ extends to an $`Sp(2n,)`$-action on $`Q`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`Q`$ be a complex manifold on which a complex Lie group $`S_{}`$ acts holomorphically and $`D_0Q`$ a non-empty open subset.

Then there exists a natural number $`m`$ and points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_mD_0`$ such that

$$_{i=1}^m\{gS_{}:g(p_i)=p_i\}=\{e\}$$

###### Proof.

We choose a sequence of points $`p_iD_0`$ recursively. First $`p_1`$ is chosen arbitrarily. When $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ are already chosen, we define $`I_k=\{gS_{}:g(p_i)=p_i,1ik\}`$. Then we proceed as follows: If $`dim(I_k)>0`$, we choose $`p_{k+1}`$ such that there is an element $`a_{k+1}`$ in the connected component $`I_k^0`$ such that $`a_{k+1}(p_{k+1})p_{k+1}`$. This ensures $`dimI_{k+1}<dimI_k`$. If $`dimI_k=0`$, then $`I_k`$ is countable. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{gI_k\{e\}}\{xQ:g(x)=x\}$$

is a countable union of nowhere dense analytic subsets of $`Q`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a set of measure zero for any Lebesgue class measure on $`Q`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }D_0D_0`$ and we can choose $`p_{k+1}D_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. By the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ this choice enforces $`I_{k+1}=\{e\}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ be a simply-connected real Lie group. Then there exists a discrete central subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that for $`G=\stackrel{~}{G}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the following properties hold:

There exists a natural number $`N`$, a bounded domain $`D^N`$, complex analytic subsets $`E^N`$, $`ZD`$ and a $`G`$-action on $`Z`$ such that

1. There is a $`G`$-invariant non-empty open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`Z`$ such that $`G`$ acts freely, properly, and with totally real orbits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
2. The topological closure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`^N`$ is contained inside $`ZE`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }E=\{\}`$.
4. $`dim_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })3`$.

###### Proof.

By prop. 1, there is a discrete central subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that $`G=\stackrel{~}{G}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be embedded into some $`Sp(2n,)`$ as closed Lie subgroup. Let $`D_0=Sp(2n,)/K`$ be the associated hermitian symmetric space and $`Q`$ and $`S_{}=Sp(2n,)`$ as described in the beginning of this section.

By lemma 1 there is a natural number $`m`$ and a point $`pD=D_0^m`$ such that the diagonal $`S_{}`$-orbit in $`Q^m`$ through $`p`$ is free. Now let $`\overline{E}=\{xQ^m:dimS_{}(x)<dimS_{}\}`$, $`Z^{}=S_{}(p)`$ and $`Z=Z^{}D`$. Because the $`S_{}`$-action on $`Q^m`$ is algebraic, the $`S_{}`$-action on $`Q^m`$ is algebraic as well. In particular every $`S_{}`$-orbit in $`Q^m`$ is Zariski open in its closure. This implies in particular that $`\overline{Z^{}}Z^{}E`$.

Now $`G`$ is closed in $`Sp(2n,)`$ and $`Sp(2n,)`$ is closed in $`Sp(2n,)=S_{}`$. We obtain a fiber bundle $`\tau :S_{}G\backslash S_{}`$, where $`G\backslash S_{}`$ denotes the quotient of $`S_{}`$ by the left action of $`G`$. Let $`UG\backslash S_{}`$ be a relatively compact open contractible subset and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{gp:g\tau ^1(U)\}`$.

Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the desired properties. (Concerning property $`(4)`$, observe that $`dim_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })=dim_{}(S_{})3`$ by our construction.) ∎

## 4. Chern-Moser-invariants

### 4.1. Chern-Moser-invariants

For every real-analytic strictly pseudoconvex $`CR`$-hypersurface $`M`$ in a complex manifold $`X`$ and every point $`pM`$ there is a system of local coordinates

$$(w;z)=(w;z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)$$

($`w,z_i`$, $`n+1=dim_{}(X)`$) such that $`M`$ can be written as $`M=\{\rho <0\}`$ where $`\rho `$ is a real-analytic function whose power series development is given as

$$\rho (w;z)=\mathrm{}(w)+z^2+\underset{k,l2}{}F_{k,l,r}(\mathrm{}(w),z,\overline{z})$$

where $`F_{k,l,r}`$ is a polynomial of bidegree $`(k,l)`$ in $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ and degree $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{}(w)`$.

A point $`pM`$ is called umbilical if $`F_{2,2,0}=0`$. For non-umbilical points we define scalar invariants $`K_{k,l,r}`$ (for $`k,l2,r`$) given by $`K_{k,l,r}=F_{k,l,r}^2`$ where $`||||`$ denotes the euclidean norm, i.e., the norm induced by the scalar product for which the monomials in the coordinates $`\mathrm{}(w),z_i,\overline{z}_i`$ constitute an orthonormal basis.

If $`x,y`$ are non-umbilical points on $`M`$ such that the $`CR`$-hypersurface germs $`(M,x)`$ and $`(M,y)`$ are isomorphic, then all these invariant $`K_{k,l,r}`$ must assume the same values at $`x`$ and $`y`$.

For convenient application later on, we define $`K_d=_{k+l=d}K_{k,l,0}`$ for $`d4`$.

### 4.2. Jet bundles

We recall the notion of jets (see ): For manifolds $`X`$ and $`Y`$ and points $`xX`$, $`yY`$, the set of $`k`$-jets $`J^k(X,Y)_{x,y}`$ is the set of equivalence classes of map germs where two real-analytic map germs are equivalent iff their respective Taylor series developments agrees up to order $`k`$. $`J^k(X,Y)`$ is the disjoint union of all $`J^k(X,Y)_{x,y}`$ (with $`xX`$ and $`yY`$). There is a natural manifold structure on $`J^k(X,Y)`$ for which we obtain a fiber bundle (“source map”) $`\alpha :J^k(X,Y)X`$.

### 4.3. Transversality

We will need the multijet transversality theorem (, thm. 4.13). Let $`X^{(s)}`$ denote the space of those $`s`$-tuples $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_s)X^s`$ where the $`x_i`$ are all distinct elements in $`X`$. Let

$$\begin{array}{c}J_s^k(X,Y)=\{(f_1,\mathrm{},f_s)\left(J^k(X,Y)\right)^s:\alpha (f_1),\mathrm{},\alpha (f_s)X^{(s)}\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then each $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(X,Y)`$ induces a map $`j_s^k(f):X^{(s)}J_s^k(X,Y)`$ in a natural way.

Let $`W`$ be a submanifold of codimension $`c`$ in $`J_s^k(X,Y)`$.

Then the multijet transversality theorem implies that the function space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(X,Y)`$ contains a residual subset $`A`$ such that $`\left(j_s^k(f)\right)^1(W)`$ is of codimension at least $`c`$ in $`X^{(s)}`$.

###### Remark.

1. In the statement on the codimension, the codimension of the empty set is to be understood as $`+\mathrm{}`$.
2. A subset of a topological space $`V`$ is called residual if it is the intersection of countably many open dense subsets. If $`V`$ has the Baire property, then every residual subset of $`V`$ is dense. The function spaces $`C^{\mathrm{}}(X,Y)`$ and $`C^\omega (X,Y)`$ have the Baire property (for any pair of manifolds $`(X,Y)`$.)
3. Similar results hold for the function spaces of type $`C^\omega `$, i.e. real-analytic mappings, which in fact can be deduced from the transversality results for $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-maps, using the fact that $`C^\omega `$-maps are dense in $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.
4. In the real-analytic category, $`W`$ does not need to be smooth, it suffices if $`W`$ is a (possibly singular) real-analytic subset. As explained in , this can be verified using the fact that a real analytic subset $`W`$ admits a stratification $`W=W_0W_1W_2\mathrm{}`$ such that each $`W_kW_{k+1}`$ is smooth.

### 4.4. A proposition

Let us now assume that there is a real Lie group $`G`$ acting holomorphically on $`X`$ with totally real orbits. Let us furthermore assume that the action in proper. Then orbits can be separated by invariant functions. Around any given point $`pX`$, we may choose local holomorphic coordinates $`x_i`$ in such a way that $`x_i(p)=0i`$ and

$$T_p\left(Gp\right)T_p\left(\{x:\mathrm{}(x_i)=0i\}\right)$$

It follows that for a every real homogeneous polynomial $`P`$ of degree $`k`$ there is a $`G`$-invariant real-analytic function $`f`$ defined on some open neighbourhood of $`p`$ in $`X`$ such that $`P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=f(x)+O(x^{k+1})`$. As a consequence, we obtain the statement below:

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`G`$ be a real Lie group acting holomorphically and properly on a complex manifold $`X`$ with totally real orbits. Assume $`dim_{}(X)2`$.

For $`xX`$, $`t`$ let $`J_+^k(X,)_{x,t}^G`$ denote the set of all $`k`$-jets induced by germs of $`G`$-invariant functions $`f`$ for which the $`CR`$-hypersurface germ defined by $`f=t`$ is strictly pseudoconvex around $`x`$. Let $`J_+^k(X,)^G=_{xX,t}J_+^k(X,)_{x,t}^G`$.

Then $`K_4=\mathrm{}=K_k=0`$ defines a real-analytic subspace of codimension at least $`k3`$ in $`J_+^k(X,)^G`$.

Now we can prove the proposition given below.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`G`$ be a real Lie group acting holomorphically and properly on a complex manifold $`X`$ with totally real orbits. Assume $`dim_{}(X)2`$. Let $`pX`$.

Then $`Gp`$ admits an open $`G`$-invariant neighbourhood $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that:

1. The inclusion map $`Gp\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a homotopy equivalence.
2. The boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is everywhere smooth, real-analytic and strictly pseudoconvex.
3. There exists a nowhere dense real-analytic subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that for every $`x,y\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the $`CR`$-hypersurface germs $`(\mathrm{\Omega },x)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },y)`$ are isomorphic if and only if $`x=gy`$ for some $`gG`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`r=dim_{}(X)dim_{}(G)`$, $`B`$ the open unit ball in $`^r`$ and $`i:BX`$ a real-analytic embedding with $`i(0)=p`$ which is everywhere transversal to the $`G`$-orbits. Then $`W=Gi(B)`$ is an open $`G`$-invariant neighbourhood of the $`G`$-orbit $`Gp`$. Since the $`G`$-action on $`X`$ is free and proper, we may and do assume that the map $`G\times BW`$ given by $`(g,x)gi(x)`$ is bijective.

We define $`\rho _0C^\omega (W)`$ via $`\rho _0(gi(v))=v^2`$ for $`gG`$, $`vB`$.

An easy calculation in local coordinates shows that

$$W_ϵ=\{xW:\rho _0(x)<ϵ\}$$

is strictly pseudoconvex for all sufficiently small $`ϵ>0`$. We fix now a number $`1>\delta >0`$ such that $`W_\delta `$ is strictly pseudoconvex.

Then $`W_\delta `$ is a $`G`$-invariant open neighbourhood of $`Gp`$ fulfilling conditions $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ of the proposition. To achieve condition $`(3)`$, we have to modify the defining function $`\rho _0\delta `$ of the open domain $`W_\delta `$ using the theory of Chern-Moser invariants.

Every function on $`Bi(B)`$ extends uniquely to a $`G`$-invariant function on $`W`$; this yields a bijective map

$$\zeta :C^\omega (B)C^\omega (W)^G.$$

Now let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be an open neighborhood of $`(\zeta ^1(\rho _0),\delta )`$ in $`C^\omega (B)\times `$ such that the following properties hold for all $`(f,t)\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

1. $`\{vB:f(v)<t\}`$ is a contractible relatively compact open subset with smooth boundary in $`B`$;
2. The domain

$$\{xW:\zeta (ft)(x)<0\}=\{gi(v):f(v)<t,vB,gG\}$$

is everywhere strictly pseudoconvex.

Let $`J_+^k(B,)=_{vB,t}J_+^k(B,)_{v,t}`$ where $`J_+^k(B,)_{v,t}`$ denotes the set of all $`k`$-jets induced by germs of functions $`f:(B,v)(,t)`$ for which the $`CR`$-hypersurface germ

$$\{gi(x):gG,xB,f(x)=t\}$$

is strictly pseudoconvex around $`i(v)`$. For $`k`$, $`4dk`$ we define functions $`\stackrel{~}{K}_d`$ on $`J_+^k(B,)`$ as follows: If $`j`$ is the $`k`$-jet at $`vB`$ for some map germ $`f:(B,v)(,t)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{K}_d(j)`$ is defined as the scalar invariant $`K_d`$ for the $`CR`$-hypersurface $`\{yW:(\zeta (f))(y)=t\}`$ at $`i(v)`$.

We define the “umbilical locus”:

$$U_k=\{jJ_+^k(B,):\stackrel{~}{K}_4(j)=0\}$$

and the “locus of coinciding scalar invariants”:

$$E_k=\{(j_1,j_2)J_+^k(B,)^2:\stackrel{~}{K}_d(j_1)=\stackrel{~}{K}_d(j_2)4dk\}$$

Since $`J_+^d(B,)`$ is an open subset in $`J^d(B,)`$, $`U_k`$ and $`E_k`$ can be regarded as locally closed real-analytic subset in $`J^d(B,)`$ resp. $`J_2^d(B,)`$.

Fix $`k`$ such that $`k3>2dim_{}(B)`$. Then lemma 2 implies that the codimension of $`E_k`$ exceeds the dimension of $`B\times B`$.

The multijet transversality theorem implies that there is a residual set $`AC^\omega (B,)`$ such that every $`fA`$ is transversal to both $`U_k`$ and $`E_k`$.

Since $`A`$ is residual, it is dense in $`C^\omega (B,)`$. Therefore $`A\times `$ intersects the open set $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Let $`(\rho _1,t_0)(A\times )\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0W`$ be the set of all points $`xW`$ such that the $`CR`$-hypersurface $`\{yW:\zeta (\rho _1)(y)=\zeta (\rho _1)(x)\}`$ is umbilical at $`x`$. Then transversality of $`\rho _1`$ with respect to $`U_k`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is a nowhere dense, locally closed real-analytic subset of $`W`$. As a consequence, we can find a real number $`t`$ close to $`t_0`$ such that $`(\rho _1,t)\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{yW:\zeta (\rho _1)(y)<t\}`$ has the following property:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nowhere dense in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.”

Now $`(\rho _1,t)\mathrm{\Theta }`$ implies that conditions $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ are fulfilled for our choise of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Furthermore transversality of $`\rho _1`$ with respect to $`E_k`$ (in combination with $`codim_{}(E_k)>dim_{}(B)`$) implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ fulfills condition $`(3)`$ of the proposition. This completes the proof. ∎

## 5. Privalov’s theorem

We are now in position to use the classical theorem of Privalov in order to show that for every automorphism $`\varphi `$ there is a sequence $`x_n`$ such that both $`x_n`$ and $`\varphi (x_n)`$ converge to a point in the good part of the boundary.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`D`$ be a bounded domain in $`^N`$, $`E^N`$, $`ZD`$ closed analytic subsets, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ an open subset of $`Z`$, $`M`$ its boundary in $`Z`$. Assume $`E\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\}`$. Assume that $`M`$ is everywhere smooth and that the closure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }ME`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ be the closure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`Z`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }M`$.

Furthermore let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ denote the universal covering of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ the corresponding coverings.

Then for every holomorphic automorphism $`\varphi Aut(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ there is a sequence $`x_n`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and points $`q,\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ such that $`limx_n=q`$ and $`lim\varphi (x_n)=\overline{q}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`\varphi Aut(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the unit disk in $``$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ its closure in $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ its boundary.

We choose a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\zeta :\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}`$ such that

1. $`\zeta |_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ holomorphically into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.
2. $`\zeta ^1(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is a subset of positive Lebesgue measure in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^1`$.

Now we consider $`\eta :\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ given by $`\eta =\pi \varphi \zeta `$. Then $`\eta `$ is a $`N`$-tuple of bounded holomorphic functions. It follows (,) that the non-tangential limit exists almost everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`lim_{nt}\eta (t)`$ denote this non-tangential limit. Evidently $`lim_{nt}\eta (t)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}E`$ whereever defined. We claim that $`A=\{t:lim_{nt}\eta (t)E\}`$ is a set of measure zero. Indeed $`tA`$ implies that for every holomorphic function $`f`$ on $`^N`$ which vanishes on $`E`$, we obtain

$$\underset{nt}{lim}(f\eta )(t)=0$$

If $`A`$ is not a set of measure zero, it would follow from Privalov’s theorem () that $`f\eta `$ would vanish for every such $`f`$. But this would imply $`\eta (\mathrm{\Delta })E`$, contradicting $`\eta (\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus $`A`$ must be a set of measure zero. It follows that there exists a point $`q\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta ^1(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ such that the non-tangential limit for $`\eta `$ exists at $`q`$ and is not in $`E`$.

Now fix a triangle $`T\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with its three edges on $`D`$ one of which is $`q`$ ($`T`$ denotes the triangle with interior, i.e., the convex hull spanned by the three edges.) By the definition of the notion “non-tangential limit” we have a limit

$$\underset{xT,xq}{lim}\eta (x)=v\mathrm{\Omega }^{}^N$$

and thus a continuous map $`\overline{\eta }:T\{q\}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ with $`\overline{\eta }|_T=\eta `$. Let $`W`$ be a simply-connected open neighbourhood of $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, and $`V`$ an open connected neighbourhood of $`q`$ in $`\overline{\eta }^1(W)`$. Observe that $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is an unramified covering. Since $`W`$ is simply-connected, it follows that $`\pi ^1(W)`$ is a disjoint union of connected components each of which is isomorphic to $`W`$. Connectedness of $`V`$ implies that $`\varphi (\zeta (V))`$ is contained in one connected component of $`\pi ^1(W)`$. Together with $`lim_{xT,xq}\eta (x)=v`$ this implies that there is a point $`\stackrel{~}{v}\pi ^1(v)`$ such that

$$\underset{xT,xq}{lim}\varphi (\zeta (x))=\stackrel{~}{v}=\overline{q}$$

For any sequence $`t_n`$ in $`int(T)`$ converging to $`t`$ we now obtain a sequence $`x_n=\zeta (t_n)`$ with convergent limits $`limx_n=q\stackrel{~}{M}`$, $`lim\varphi (x_n)=\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}`$.

Finally we note that $`\overline{q}`$ cannot be in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$: $`\varphi `$ is an automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and therefore $`limx_n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ implies that $`\varphi (x_n)`$ cannot converge inside of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ . Hence $`\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. ∎

## 6. Extension through the boundary

We need the following well-known extension result.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open subset in a Stein manifold $`Z`$. Assume that there are points $`q,\overline{q}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an automorphism $`\varphi Aut(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and a sequence of points $`x_n\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`limx_n=q`$ and $`lim\varphi (x_n)=\overline{q}`$. Assume in addition that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is real-analytic and strictly pseudoconvex near $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$.

Then there exists an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`q`$ in $`Z`$ and a holomorphic map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:VZ`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\mathrm{\Omega }V}=\varphi |_{\mathrm{\Omega }V}`$.

###### Proof.

First,  implies that $`\varphi `$ can be extended to a continuous map $`\overline{\varphi }`$ on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ near $`q`$. Since $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is continuous and $`\overline{\varphi }|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is holomorphic, it is clear that $`\overline{\varphi }|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a continuous $`CR`$-map. (For a not necessarily differentiable function the notion “$`CR`$-map” is defined via regarding derivatives in the sense of distributions. Then the condition “$`CR`$” translations into the vanishing of certain integrals involving test functions – a closed condition; hence holomorphy of $`\overline{\varphi }|_\mathrm{\Omega }=\varphi `$ implies that $`\overline{\varphi }|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`CR`$-map.)

Thus  implies that this extension is already $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and finally  or  yield that there is a holomorphic extension into some open neighbourhood. ∎

## 7. Rigidity

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a strictly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold $`V`$. Let $`f`$ be a holomorphic function on $`V`$ such that $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Then $`f`$ is constant.

###### Proof.

By the assumption of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being strictly pseudoconvex it follows that for every point $`p\mathrm{\Omega }`$ close enough to the boundary there exists a continuous map $`\zeta :\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}V`$ such that

1. $`\zeta `$ is holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,
2. $`\zeta (0)=p`$,
3. $`\zeta (\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Omega }`$

Now the maximum principle applied to the plurisubharmonic function $`g(x)=\left(\mathrm{}f(x)\right)^2`$ implies that $`\mathrm{}f(p)=0`$. Thus the real-analytic function $`\mathrm{}f`$ vanishes in some open subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and therefore (by identity principle) it vanishes everywhere. Hence $`f`$ is both holomorphic and everywhere real-valued and therefore constant. ∎

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open $`G`$-invariant subset of a complex manifold $`Z`$ on which $`G`$ acts freely with totally real orbits. Assume that the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a smooth $`CR`$-hypersurface.

Let $`\varphi `$ be an automorphism of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`V`$ an open neighbourhood of $`q`$ in $`Z`$ such that $`\varphi |_{V\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ extends to a holomorphic map $`\overline{\varphi }:VZ`$.

Assume that for every $`xV\mathrm{\Omega }`$ both $`x`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }(x)`$ are contained in the same $`G`$-orbit.

Assume furthermore that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly pseudoconvex near $`q`$.

Then there exists an element $`gG`$ such that $`gx=\varphi (x)`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`g_0G`$ be such that $`\overline{\varphi }(q)=g_0q`$. We may now replace $`\varphi `$ by the automorphism $`xg_0^1\varphi (x)`$ and thereby assume that $`\overline{\varphi }(q)=q`$. Now we have to show that $`\varphi =id_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Let $`n=dim_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`d=dim_{}(G)`$. Let $`i:B_{nd}=\{v^{nd}:v<1\}Z`$ be an embedding such that $`i(0)=q`$ and that $`i(B_{nd})`$ is everywhere transversal to the $`G`$-orbits. The $`G`$-action induces a real-analytic map $`\psi :Lie(G)\times ZZ`$ given by $`\psi (v,x)=\mathrm{exp}(v)x`$. This extends to a holomorphic map $`\psi _{}:UZ`$ where $`U`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`(0,q)`$ in $`(Lie(G))\times Z`$. By appropriately shrinking $`V`$ and $`U`$ we may assume that $`U=N\times V`$ where $`N`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`Lie(G)`$. Now we obtain a holomorphic map $`\zeta :B_{nd}\times NZ`$ via $`\zeta (w,v)=\psi _{}(v,i(w))`$. Since $`B_{nd}\times N`$ is an open domain in

$$^{nd}\times Lie(G)^{nd}\times ^d^n$$

this map $`\zeta `$ yields local holomorphic coordinates near $`q`$. In these local coordinates

$$x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\overline{\varphi }(x)x$$

is a holomorphic map all of whose components are real-valued on $`V\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly pseudoconvex near $`q`$, it follows that this map is constant (lemma 3). Since $`\overline{\varphi }(q)=q`$, constancy means that it is constant zero. Thus $`\overline{\varphi }id_V`$. Finally, by identity principle it follows that $`\varphi (x)=x`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as desired. ∎

## 8. Reduction to the simply-connected case

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`G`$ be a connected real Lie group, $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ its universal covering and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi ^1(\{e\})`$ where $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ is the natural projection map.

Assume that there exists a simply-connected complex manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ with $`Aut(\stackrel{~}{X})\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is free and properly discontinuous.

Let $`X=\stackrel{~}{X}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`Aut(X)G`$,

###### Proof.

Every automorphism of $`X`$ lifts to an automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, because $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a universal covering space for $`X`$. Therefore the automorphism group of $`X`$ is isomorphic to $`N/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`N`$ denotes the group of all elements of $`Aut(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ which normalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the kernel of a group homomorphism, hence normal. Thus $`N=\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and consequently $`Aut(X)N/\mathrm{\Gamma }=\stackrel{~}{G}/\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$. ∎

It remains to be shown that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ can be constructed in such a way that $`X=\stackrel{~}{X}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be Stein and completely hyperbolic. Complete hyperbolicity is easy, since $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ being completely hyperbolic implies that $`X`$ is completely hyperbolic, too.

The Stein property is more involved, since for an arbitrary unramified covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$, Steinness of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ does not imply that $`X`$ is Stein, too.

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`G`$ be a real Lie group, $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ its universal covering, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi ^1(e)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ a complex manifold on which $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ acts properly and freely with totally real orbits.

Let $`p\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

Then there exists an open $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant neighbourhood $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}p`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ such that for every $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant locally Stein open submanifold $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ the complex quotient manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Stein.

(As usual, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is called locally Stein iff every point $`x\stackrel{~}{U}`$ admits an open neighbourhood $`V`$ in $`U`$ such that $`V\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is Stein.)

###### Proof.

Essentially, we follow the argumentation in .

Let $`Z`$ denote the center of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Then there exists a discrete cocompact subgroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`Z`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (, lemma 1). Let $`G_1=\stackrel{~}{G}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`X_1=\stackrel{~}{X}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Let $`G_{}`$ be the simply-connected complex Lie group corresponding to the complex Lie algebra $`Lie(G)`$ and $`j:\stackrel{~}{G}G_{}`$ the natural Lie group homomorphism induced by the Lie algebra embedding $`Lie(G)Lie(G)`$.

Let $`\psi _0:Lie(\stackrel{~}{G})\times \stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ be the map induced by the group action via $`\psi _0(v,x)=\mathrm{exp}(v)x`$. Then $`\psi _0`$ extends to a holomorphic map $`\psi `$ defined on some open neighbourhood of $`Lie\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{X}`$ in $`LieG_{}\times \stackrel{~}{X}`$. This open neighbourhood can be chosen as product $`N\times \stackrel{~}{W}`$ where $`N`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`Lie\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in $`LieG_{}`$ and $`W`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`p`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

Let $`n=dim_{}(X)`$ and $`d=dim_{}(G)=dim_{}(G_{})`$. Let $`i:B_{nd}=\{v^{nd}:v<1\}W`$ be a holomorphic embedding such that $`i(0)=p`$ and that $`i(B_{nd})`$ is everywhere transversal to the $`G`$-orbits.

We choose a small open neighbourhood $`N_1N`$ of $`0`$ in $`LieG_{}`$ such that the map $`\zeta :\stackrel{~}{G}\times N_1\times B\stackrel{~}{X}`$ given by $`\zeta :(g,n,x)g\psi (n,z)`$ has the property that $`\zeta (g,n,z)=\zeta (g^{},n^{},z^{})`$ only if there is an element $`vLie\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that $`g^{}=g\mathrm{exp}(v)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(v)\mathrm{exp}(n)=\mathrm{exp}(n^{})`$. This is possible, because $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ acts freely with totally real orbits.

For $`x\zeta (\stackrel{~}{G}\times N_1\times B)`$ we define $`\xi (x)Ad(G_{})`$ by $`Ad(g\mathrm{exp}(n))`$ if $`x=\zeta (g,n,z)`$. Then $`\xi `$ is a well-defined, holomorphic and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant map from an $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant open neighbourhood $`W_0`$ of $`p`$ to $`Ad(G_{})`$. Moreover $`\xi `$ is constant along the orbits of the center $`Z`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Therefore it induces a holomorphic map $`\xi _1:W_1Ad(G_{})`$ where $`W_1`$ is the image of $`W_0`$ under the projection $`\stackrel{~}{X}X_1`$.

Observe that $`Ad(G_{})`$ is a linear complex Lie group. It follows that $`Ad(G_{})`$ is Stein () and hence admits a strictly plurisubharmonic exhaustion function $`\rho _1:Ad(G_{})^+`$.

Next we consider the real quotient map $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{G}=Y`$. Let $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_r`$ be real-analytic local coordinates on $`Y`$ with $`y_i(\tau (p))=0`$. Then $`x_iy_i(\tau (x))^2`$ defines a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant real-analytic function $`\rho _0`$ on a neighbourhood of $`\stackrel{~}{G}p`$, which is easily verified to be strictly plurisubharmonic near $`\stackrel{~}{G}p`$.

By appropriately shrinking $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ we may assume that there is an $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`W_0=\{x:\rho _0(x)<ϵ\}`$.

We reparametrize this function via

$$\rho _0^{}(x)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi }{2ϵ}\rho _0(\tau (x))\right)$$

Now $`\rho _0^{}+\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`\rho _0ϵ`$. Thus $`\rho _0^{}`$ is an “exhaustion function modulo $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$”, i.e. it is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant function which induces a proper continuous map from $`W_0/\stackrel{~}{G}`$ to $`^+`$.

Moreover, $`\rho _0^{}`$ is strictly plurisubharmonic, because $`\mathrm{tan}`$ is convex and $`\rho _0`$ is strictly plurisubharmonic.

Next we recall that by lemma 2 in  the natural map $`W_1Y_1W_1/G\times Ad(G_{})`$ is proper.

Therefore $`\rho _1+\rho _0^{}`$ is a continuous exhaustion function on $`W_1`$. On the other hand, this function is also strictly plurisubharmonic. Thus $`W_1`$ is Stein.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}=W_0`$ and $`U=\stackrel{~}{U}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`U`$ is Stein, because $`W_1`$ is Stein and we have an unramified covering $`UW_1`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant open locally Stein submanifold of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`G`$-invariant open submanifold of $`U=\stackrel{~}{U}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is evidently locally Stein. But locally Stein open submanifolds of Stein manifolds are Stein. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Stein. ∎

## 9. Proof of the Main theorem

Here we prove our main theorem.

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ denote the universal covering of $`G`$, $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ the natural projection and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi ^1\{e\}`$. By prop. 2 there is a quotient $`G_1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ by a central discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and a $`G_1`$-action on a complex manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ which is free, proper and with totally real orbits. Moreover, there is a number $`N`$, a bounded domain $`D^N`$ and closed complex analytic subsets $`ZD`$, $`E^N`$ and an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ as open submanifold in $`Z`$ such that the closure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in $`^N`$ is contained in $`ZE`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1E=\{\}`$.

Fix $`p\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. We may replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ by some appropriately choosen invariant open neighbourhood of $`G_1p`$. Therefore we may and do from now on assume that $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)\pi _1(G_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. (And we keep this assumption throughout all further replacements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ by invariant open subsets of itself.) Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ denote the universal covering of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

From prop. 7 we deduce that, after replacing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ with some $`G_1`$-invariant open subset, we may assume that $`U/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Stein for every open $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-invariant locally Stein submanifold $`U`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

Next we apply prop. 3, again replacing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ by an appropriate smaller $`G_1`$-invariant open submanifold. Now $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ has a smooth, real-analytic and strictly pseudoconvex boundary $`B`$ in $`Z`$, and there is a nowhere dense real-analytic subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }B`$ such that for every $`x,yB\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the $`CR`$-hypersurface germs $`(B,x)`$, $`(B,y)`$ are isomorphic if and only if $`x=gy`$ for some $`gG_1`$.

Let $`\varphi Aut(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Let $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ be the covering map. We may assume that there is a $`G_1`$-invariant open subset $`XZ`$ such that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1ZX`$. Furthermore we may assume that the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1X`$ induces an isomorphism of the fundamental groups. Then $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ extends to a covering $`\tau ^{}:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ denote the preimages of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ resp. $`B`$ under $`\tau ^{}`$. By prop. 4 there is a sequence of points $`x_n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and points $`q,\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ such that $`limx_n=q`$ and $`lim\varphi (x_n)=\overline{q}`$. By prop. 5 it follows that $`\varphi `$ extends to a holomorphic map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in an open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`q`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Because $`\varphi ^1`$ extends to a holomorphic map near $`\overline{q}`$ by the same arguments and $`\varphi \varphi ^1=id`$, this extension $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is locally biholomorphic and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{B}U)\stackrel{~}{B}`$.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is nowhere dense in $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Hence there is an element $`q^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}U)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})\right)`$. Upon replacing $`q`$ by $`q^{}`$ and $`U`$ by $`U\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})\right)`$, we may from now on assume that $`U\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(U)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are both empty.

For every $`z\stackrel{~}{B}U`$ the $`CR`$ hypersurface germs $`(\stackrel{~}{B},z)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{B},\mathrm{\Phi }(z))`$ are isomorphic and consequently there is an element $`g_z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that $`g_zz=\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$.

By prop. 6 it follows that there is one element $`g\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that $`\varphi (z)=gz`$ for all $`z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Thus $`\varphi \stackrel{~}{G}`$. Since $`\varphi `$ was an arbitrary automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, it follows that $`Aut(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})=\stackrel{~}{G}`$. By lemma 4 this implies that $`Aut(\mathrm{\Omega })=G`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Finally let us discuss the Stein condition and hyperbolicity. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ injects into a bounded domain $`D^N`$, it is hyperbolic. Because $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are both unramified coverings, this implies the hyperbolicity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Moreover, by the same arguments as in , we may conclude that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is even complete hyperbolic.

Concerning the Stein property, let us recall application of prop. 7 further above. Our choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ at that time had the property that $`U/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was Stein for every locally Stein open subset $`U`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Subsequently we shrank $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, replacing it by some open subset with strictly pseudoconvex boundary. Clearly an open subset with strictly pseudoconvex boundary is locally Stein. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Stein for our final choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. ∎


text:
# References

1. N=2 and N=4 strings in superconformal gauge.  String theories with more than one world-sheet supersymmetry ‘suffer’ from the absence of higher dimensions . Indeed, covariant quantization and naive BRST ghost-counting for the $`N=2`$ and $`N=4`$ superconformal algebras of constraints yield critical dimensions of four and minus eight(!), respectively. However, as was realized by Siegel , the $`N=4`$ constraints are reducible, and the $`N=4`$ string turns out to be the same as the $`N=2`$ string. Yet, in contrast to the $`N=2`$ formulation, the $`N=4`$ description is manifestly Lorentz covariant. Since the required signature of the four-dimensional target is $`(++)`$, by ‘Lorentz group’ we mean $`SO(2,2)SL(2,)SL(2,)^{}`$. These global symmetries are not to be confused with the local R symmetry of $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, denoted by $`SL(2,)^{\prime \prime }`$.

In this letter we shall employ (Majorana) spinor notation for all Lorentz and internal indices. We distinguish the different groups by using

$$\alpha SL(2,),\dot{\alpha }SL(2,)^{},\ddot{\alpha }SL(2,)^{\prime \prime },\text{where}\alpha \{0,1\}.$$
(1)
In particular, fundamental spinors are taken to be real.111 Hence, $`v^\alpha `$ and $`v^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ are not related by complex conjugation, as in $`3+1`$ dimensions. In the NSR formulation, both $`N=2`$ and $`N=4`$ strings are parametrized by the four coordinates $`X^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ plus four anticommuting NSR fields $`\psi ^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }}`$. From the world-sheet point of view, the former are scalars while the latter form two-component Majorana spinors, $`\psi ^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }}=(\psi _+^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }},\psi _{}^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }})`$ in a Weyl basis. With ‘$`\pm `$’ we generally indicate light-cone components of world-sheet tensors, i.e. $`_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \pm _\sigma )`$. Sharing a world-sheet supersymmetry multiplet with $`X^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, the anticommuting coordinates $`\psi ^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }}`$ should also carry an undotted $`SL(2,)`$ index. However, its value is coupled to that of the $`SL(2,)^{\prime \prime }`$ index and we suppress it. The action defines a (target-space) light-cone pairing,

$$(X^{0\dot{0}},X^{1\dot{1}}),(\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}},\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}})\text{and}(X^{0\dot{1}},X^{1\dot{0}}),(\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}},\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}),$$
(2)
which decomposes the variables into two $`N=1`$ light-cone sets.

Starting from the formulation with auxiliary world-sheet $`N=2`$ or $`N=4`$ supergravity , we advance to the superconformal gauge. In the critical dimension, all supergravity remnants then disappear thanks to super Weyl invariance. The residual (superconformal) freedom in this gauge does not prevent quantization but implies that physical states are subject to constraints and gauge identifications. The $`N=2`$ constraints $`(T,G^{\ddot{0}1},G^{\ddot{1}0},J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}})`$ represent a non-degenerate subset of the (reducible) $`N=4`$ constraints $`(T,G^{\ddot{\alpha }\alpha },J^{(\ddot{\alpha }\ddot{\beta })})`$, which entails the selection of a one-parameter subgroup of the $`SL(2,)^{\prime \prime }`$ R-symmetry group generated by the spin-one constraints $`J^{(\ddot{\alpha }\ddot{\beta })}`$. Because we work with real spinors it is preferable to choose a noncompact subgroup $`GL(1,)SL(2,)^{\prime \prime }`$. As the R-symmetry index of $`\psi ^{\ddot{\alpha }\alpha }`$ is tied to the space-time $`SL(2,)`$ index, the choice of $`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}`$ incidentally also breaks the Lorentz group,

$$SO(2,2)SL(2,)SL(2,)^{}GL(1,)SL(2,)^{}.$$
(3)
Being non-degenerate, each (commuting or anticommuting) $`N=2`$ constraint essentially removes one timelike and one spacelike degree of freedom (of matching statistics). Hence, we expect $`(T,G^{\ddot{0}1},G^{\ddot{1}0},J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}})`$ to eliminate all string coordinates $`X^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ and their partners $`\psi ^{\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\alpha }}`$ in the $`2+2`$ dimensional space-time. Indeed, this expectation is confirmed by direct analysis  as well as by amplitude computations which reveal that the $`N=2`$ string is just a point particle encoding the dynamics of self-dual Yang-Mills and gravity , at least at tree-level.222 For a review see . Quantization is detailed in . The loop structure is subject of .

Yet, it is unclear how to reproduce this result by further gauge-fixing to a light-cone gauge. As in other string theories, conformal reparametrizations can trivialize one light-cone coordinate, e.g. $`X^{0\dot{0}}=p^{0\dot{0}}`$, and solving $`T=0`$ fixes a second one, e.g. $`X^{1\dot{1}}`$. The remaining commuting gauge transformations, $`GL(1,)`$ generated by $`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}`$, only affect $`\psi `$ but not $`X`$, and so cannot eliminate the pair $`(X^{0\dot{1}},X^{1\dot{0}})`$. It seems that one is still left with $`1+1`$ dimensional ‘transverse’ string excitations. In the following, we resolve this contradiction by showing that the light-cone gauge can still be used to get rid of all string excitations, provided we permit commuting transformations to gauge-fix anticommuting degrees of freedom and vice versa.

2. Residual N=2 superconformal symmetry.  As is well known, the superconformal gauge possesses residual gauge freedom in the form of $`N=2`$ superconformal transformations. In light-cone world-sheet coordinates, these read

$`\delta X^{0\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=(\xi ^+_++\xi ^{}_{})X^{0\dot{\alpha }}\text{i}ϵ_1^+\psi _+^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}\text{i}ϵ_1^{}\psi _{}^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (4)
$`\delta X^{1\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=(\xi ^+_++\xi ^{}_{})X^{1\dot{\alpha }}+\text{i}ϵ_0^+\psi _+^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}+\text{i}ϵ_0^{}\psi _{}^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (5)
$`\delta \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi ^\pm _\pm \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}ϵ_0^\pm _\pm X^{0\dot{\alpha }}\lambda ^\pm \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (6)
$`\delta \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi ^\pm _\pm \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}+ϵ_1^\pm _\pm X^{1\dot{\alpha }}+\lambda ^\pm \psi _\pm ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (7)
where the commuting parameter functions $`(\xi ^+,\lambda ^+)`$ and $`(\xi ^{},\lambda ^{})`$ depend only on $`\tau +\sigma `$ and $`\tau \sigma `$, respectively, while the anticommuting parameter functions $`(ϵ_0^+,ϵ_1^+)`$ and $`(ϵ_0^{},ϵ_1^{})`$ do likewise.

The transformations parametrized by $`(\xi ^+,ϵ_0^+,ϵ_1^+,\lambda ^+)`$ are generated by the left-moving $`N=2`$ currents $`(T,G^{\ddot{1}0},G^{\ddot{0}1},J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}})`$, in that order. The other half (carrying a ‘$``$’ superscript) goes with a right-moving copy of those currents. We shall focus on the left-movers and drop all world-sheet indices. Then the $`N=2`$ generators read

$`T`$ $`=X^{0\dot{0}}X^{1\dot{1}}X^{0\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}}+\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}+\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}},`$ (8)
$`G^{\ddot{0}1}`$ $`=\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}X^{1\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}},`$ (9)
$`G^{\ddot{1}0}`$ $`=\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}X^{0\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}X^{0\dot{0}},`$ (10)
$`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}`$ $`=\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}.`$ (11)
As usual, $`T`$ is associated with conformal coordinate transformations while $`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}`$ holomorphically rescales the NSR fields only. Note that the $`GL(1,)`$ current is antihermitian. More interesting is the action of the anticommuting generators, depicted in full detail as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}X^{0\dot{0}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{0}1}}{}& \psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{1}0}}{}& X^{0\dot{0}}\\ & & & & & & \\ X^{1\dot{1}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{1}0}}{}& \psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{0}1}}{}& X^{1\dot{1}}\end{array}\text{and}\begin{array}{ccccc}X^{0\dot{1}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{0}1}}{}& \psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{1}0}}{}& X^{0\dot{1}}\\ & & & & & & \\ X^{1\dot{0}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{1}0}}{}& \psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}& \stackrel{G^{\ddot{0}1}}{}& X^{1\dot{0}}\end{array}$$
(12)
where the vertical arrows relate (target-space) light-cone conjugate333 Two variables are light-cone conjugate when their part of the (target-space) metric is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. It implies that the momentum and annihilation parts of one variable are canonically conjugate to the position and creation parts of the other. variables.

3. Gauge fixing part one – the conventional part.  As is well-known, the residual-invariance generators play a double role because their vanishing has to be imposed as a constraint on the theory. In the bosonic string, for example, one employs $`T`$ first to gauge-fix a light-cone coordinate, say $`X^+=p^+`$, and then a second time to solve $`T=0`$ for the light-cone conjugate coordinate $`X^{}`$, in effect getting rid of $`1+1`$ dimensions. This mechanism generalizes to the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric case, where an anticommuting generator $`G`$ allows one to transform $`\psi ^+`$ to zero and obtain $`\psi ^{}`$ as a function of the transversal coordinates by solving $`G=0`$.

Let us do the same for the light-cone pair $`(X^{0\dot{0}},X^{1\dot{1}})`$ plus $`(\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}},\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}})`$ by making use of the generators $`T`$ and $`G^{\ddot{1}0}`$. By additional dots in the left part of (12) we indicate the function of the anticommuting generator. In this way we arrive at

$`X^{0\dot{0}}`$ $`=p^{0\dot{0}},X^{1\dot{1}}=\frac{1}{p^{0\dot{0}}}(X^{0\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}}+\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}+\text{i}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}})`$ (13)
$`\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}`$ $`=0,\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}=\frac{1}{p^{0\dot{0}}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}X^{0\dot{1}},`$ (14)
and the remaining $`N=2`$ generators simplify to

$$G^{\ddot{0}1}=\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}}\text{and}J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}=\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}.$$
(15)
Although this reasoning is purely classical, it can be incorporated in the quantum theory by reading (13)–(15) as operator statements and replacing $`p^{0\dot{0}}`$ by the c-number $`k^{0\dot{0}}`$.

4. Chiral bosonization.  In order to get rid of the remaining pair $`(X^{0\dot{1}},X^{1\dot{0}})`$ plus $`(\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}},\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}})`$ we must attempt to employ the commuting generator $`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}`$ to eliminate the anticommuting $`\psi `$’s and then kill the $`X`$’s with $`G^{\ddot{0}1}`$. On the classical level this makes no sense because ordinary and Grassmann numbers are not related in any way. Upon quantization, however, this distinction blurs: fermionic creation and annihilation operators may be represented by finite matrices (with commuting entries), simply leading to multi-component wave functions. In two dimensions, one even has a direct relation between commuting and anticommuting fields by means of bosonization. Following this idea, we describe the $`(\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}},\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}})`$ system by a chiral boson $`\varphi `$ (normal-ordering implied),

$$\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}=\text{e}^\varphi \text{and}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}=\text{e}^{+\varphi },\text{so that}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}=\text{i}\varphi .$$
(16)
Note that $`\varphi `$ is not an angle but a scale; there are no winding modes. Let us remark on the statistics. For more than one pair of anticommuting fields the above equations have to be supplemented by suitable cocycle (a.k.a. Jordan-Wigner or Klein) factors which ensure that the different pairs mutually anticommute. Since in the present case, however, only a single pair of NSR fields is left, its statistics is irrelevant and we can fully describe it by the chiral commuting $`\varphi `$.

Invoking the decomposition

$$\varphi =\varphi _<+q+(\tau +\sigma )p+\varphi _>$$
(17)
into negative-, zero-, and positive-frequency parts,444 Positive frequency means positive Fourier modes, i.e. the annihilation part. Zero modes obey $`[q,p]=\text{i}`$. the exponential operators read

$$\text{e}^{n\varphi }=\text{e}^{n\varphi _<}\text{e}^{nq+n(\tau +\sigma )p}\text{e}^{n\varphi _>}=\text{e}^{n\varphi _<}\text{e}^{\frac{n}{2}q}\text{e}^{n(\tau +\sigma )p}\text{e}^{\frac{n}{2}q}\text{e}^{n\varphi _>}.$$
(18)
The $`\varphi `$ Fock space is generated by $`\varphi `$ creation operators (contained in $`\varphi _<`$) acting on a momentum eigenstate $`|a`$, defined by

$$p|a=a|a$$
(19)
and created from the vacuum state via

$$|a=\text{e}^{\text{i}aq}|0=\text{e}^{\text{i}a\varphi }(\tau \mathrm{})|0.$$
(20)
On such a state, exponential operators act as

$$\text{e}^{n\varphi }|a=\text{e}^{n(a\text{i}\frac{n}{2})(\tau +\sigma )}\text{e}^{n\varphi _<}|an\text{i}.$$
(21)
From this we learn two things. First, $`\text{i}p`$ is nothing but fermion number because the NSR fields $`\text{e}^{\pm \varphi }`$ shift the eigenvalue by $`\pm 1`$ unit. 555 Due to the indefinite target-space metric there is no conflict with the anti-hermiticity of $`\text{i}p`$. Second, $`a`$ is tied to the monodromy for the NSR fields,

$$\text{e}^{\pm \varphi }(\sigma +2\pi )|a=\text{e}^{\pm 2\pi a}\text{e}^{\pm \varphi }(\sigma )|a.$$
(22)
It should be noted that, due to the reality of the NSR fields, the monodromy group is $`_+`$ and not $`U(1)`$. The Fourier modes are

$$\psi _{m+\frac{1}{2}+\text{i}a}^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}\text{and}\psi _{m+\frac{1}{2}\text{i}a}^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}$$
(23)
with $`m`$, so all monodromy sectors are NS-like. Due to the spectral flow isometry, which acts as

$$\psi \text{e}^{\text{i}aq}\psi \text{e}^{\text{i}aq}=\text{e}^{\pm (\tau +\sigma )a}\psi ,$$
(24)
all monodromy sectors are equivalent. In the following, we choose $`a=0`$.

5. Gauge fixing part two – the unconventional part.  How is the gauge-fixing accomplished in this framework? As for example in the Gupta-Bleuler method, we shall impose the remaining constraints

$$G^{\ddot{0}1}=\text{e}^\varphi X^{1\dot{0}}\text{and}J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}=\text{i}\varphi $$
(25)
not as operator equations but rather demand that their positive- and zero-frequency parts annihilate the physical states,666 except for the zero mode $`J_0^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}=\text{i}p`$ as seen above. $`G^{\ddot{0}1}`$ has no zero modes.

$$G_{}^{\ddot{0}1}(\sigma )|\text{phys}=0\text{and}J_{}^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}(\sigma )|\text{phys}=\text{i}a|\text{phys}.$$
(26)
If a constraint is not self-conjugate its conjugate will create a gauge invariance which allows us to further restrict the physical states. Our state space consists of the zero modes and excitations of the free fields $`\varphi `$, $`X^{0\dot{1}}`$, and $`X^{1\dot{0}}`$. In other words, its basis is generated by acting with their creation operators on the momentum eigenstates $`|a,k^{0\dot{1}},k^{1\dot{0}}`$.

We first attend to the commuting generator, $`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}=\text{i}\varphi `$. Classically, it effects local translations of $`\varphi `$. On quantum states, we demand

$$\varphi _>|\text{phys}=0,$$
(27)
which removes all $`\varphi `$ creation operators from $`|\text{phys}`$. The $`\varphi `$ content of $`|\text{phys}`$ is thus reduced to its zero mode, whose value we chose to be $`a=0`$.

Finally, we expose the action of the anticommuting generator, $`G^{\ddot{0}1}=\text{e}^\varphi X^{1\dot{0}}`$. Since

$$\text{e}^\varphi |0=\text{e}^{\frac{\text{i}}{2}(\tau +\sigma )}\text{e}^{\varphi _<}|\text{i}$$
(28)
the r.h.s. contains only negative-frequency (and no zero-mode) parts. Therefore, $`G_{}^{\ddot{0}1}`$ on physical states will involve all positive modes of $`X^{1\dot{0}}`$ but no others. Consequently, the requirement

$$\left(X^{1\dot{0}}\text{e}^\varphi \right)_{}|\text{phys}=0$$
(29)
eliminates all $`X^{0\dot{1}}`$ creation operators from $`|\text{phys}`$. By conjugation, the associated gauge symmetry allows us to gauge away all $`X^{1\dot{0}}`$ creation operators as well. We are now left with

$$|\text{phys}=|0,k^{0\dot{1}},k^{1\dot{0}}.$$
(30)
Finally, we may include the momenta $`k^{0\dot{0}}`$ and $`k^{1\dot{1}}`$ back into the parametrization of the physical states. Then, the ‘$`11`$’ coordinates from (13) and (14) may be expressed as777 The classical constraint $`T=0`$ gets modified to $`T=a^2`$. This cancels the contribution of the NSR momenta to $`L_0`$.

$$X^{1\dot{1}}=\frac{1}{k^{0\dot{0}}}(X^{0\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}}+a^2\varphi \varphi )\text{and}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}=\frac{1}{k^{0\dot{0}}}X^{0\dot{1}}\text{e}^{+\varphi }.$$
(31)
On the states (30) only the non-positive modes contribute. The zero mode of $`X^{1\dot{1}}`$ yields the mass-shell condition $`k^{0\dot{0}}k^{1\dot{1}}k^{0\dot{1}}k^{1\dot{0}}=0`$.

Summarizing, the ‘double’ light-cone gauge reduces the $`N=2`$ string degrees of freedom to the zero modes of its bosonic coordinates and puts them on mass-shell. As in the covariant treatment, a massless free boson makes up the entire spectrum of states.

We finally remark that the elimination mechanism works differently for bosons and fermions. It is crucial that the bosons come in light-cone pairs, i.e. they support an indefinite space-time metric, while each (light-cone conjugate) fermion pair gives rise (via bosonization) to a single self-conjugate boson, so that these chiral bosons support only a Euclidean metric. For this reason it is impossible888 It is possible only for the zero modes. to employ a commuting gauge invariance to gauge-fix only half of a fermionic pair and eliminate the other half through the constraint, as is done for the $`X`$’s. After both gauge-fixing and imposing the constraints, however, the counting for bosons and fermions again coincides.

6. The N=4 case.  To streamline the equations for the $`N=4`$ string, we only display the left-moving degrees of freedom and drop the world-sheet $`(\pm )`$ indices. The right-moving part behaves completely analogously. The $`N=4`$ superconformal transformations

$`\delta X^{0\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi X^{0\dot{\alpha }}+\text{i}ϵ_1^{\ddot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}\text{i}ϵ_1^{\ddot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (32)
$`\delta X^{1\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi X^{1\dot{\alpha }}+\text{i}ϵ_0^{\ddot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}\text{i}ϵ_0^{\ddot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (33)
$`\delta \psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi \psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}+ϵ_0^{\ddot{0}}X^{0\dot{\alpha }}+ϵ_1^{\ddot{0}}X^{1\dot{\alpha }}+\lambda ^{\ddot{0}\ddot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}\lambda ^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }},`$ (34)
$`\delta \psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\xi \psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}+ϵ_0^{\ddot{1}}X^{0\dot{\alpha }}+ϵ_1^{\ddot{1}}X^{1\dot{\alpha }}+\lambda ^{\ddot{1}\ddot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{\alpha }}\lambda ^{\ddot{1}\ddot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{\alpha }}`$ (35)
involve the four commuting left-moving parameters $`(\xi ,\lambda ^{(\ddot{\alpha }\ddot{\beta })})`$ and four anticommuting left-moving parameters $`(ϵ_\alpha ^{\ddot{\alpha }})`$. Clearly, the relation with the $`N=2`$ parameters is

$$\xi =\xi ,\lambda =\lambda ^{\ddot{0}\ddot{1}}=\lambda ^{\ddot{1}\ddot{0}},ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{\ddot{0}},ϵ_1=ϵ_1^{\ddot{1}}.$$
(36)
The $`N=4`$ constraints which generate the above transformations consist of the $`N=2`$ set (8)–(11) enlarged by

$`ϵ_0^{\ddot{1}}:G^{\ddot{0}0}`$ $`=\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}X^{0\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}}X^{0\dot{0}},`$ (37)
$`ϵ_1^{\ddot{0}}:G^{\ddot{1}1}`$ $`=\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}X^{1\dot{1}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}X^{1\dot{0}},`$ (38)
$`\lambda ^{\ddot{1}\ddot{1}}:J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{0}}`$ $`=2\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{0}\dot{1}},`$ (39)
$`\lambda ^{\ddot{0}\ddot{0}}:J^{\ddot{1}\ddot{1}}`$ $`=2\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{0}}\psi ^{\ddot{1}\dot{1}}.`$ (40)
Let us investigate if the non-negative-frequency parts of the additional four constraints imply any further restrictions on the physical states of the $`N=2`$ string. On the gauge slice (13) and (14) the above generators reduce to

$`G^{\ddot{0}0}`$ $`=\text{e}^\varphi k^{0\dot{0}},`$ (41)
$`G^{\ddot{1}1}`$ $`=\text{e}^{+\varphi }(\varphi \varphi a^2)/k^{0\dot{0}},`$ (42)
$`J^{\ddot{0}\ddot{0}}`$ $`=0,`$ (43)
$`J^{\ddot{1}\ddot{1}}`$ $`=2:\text{e}^{+\varphi }\text{e}^{+\varphi }:X^{0\dot{1}}/k^{0\dot{0}}=0.`$ (44)
On the physical states $`|0,k^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, only negative-frequency modes will be created, and $`G^{\ddot{\alpha }\beta }`$ do not contain zero modes. Therefore, indeed

$$G_{}^{\ddot{0}0}|0,k^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=0=G_{}^{\ddot{1}1}|0,k^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.$$
(45)
Hence, the additional $`N=4`$ constraints are obsolete on the physical states of the $`N=2`$ string, as expected.

Acknowledgements.  O.L. thanks Gordon Chalmers for collaboration at an early stage. This work is partially supported by DFG grant Le 838/7-1, by a sabbatical research grant of the Volkswagen-Stiftung, and by NSF grant PHY-0098527.