text:
# I INTRODUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

Since the idea of supersymmetry was applied to quantum mechanical systems  to discover dynamical supersymmetry in ordinary quantum mechanics in order to explain the degeneracies of energy spectra extensively studies have been undertaken over the last twenty years in many aspects such as atomic physics,  nuclear physics,  many-body systems,  and so on. According to Witten,  a supersymmetric quantum mechanical system is characterized by the existence of $`N`$ Hermitian supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$ which, together with the supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`H`$ of this system, satisfy the following superalgebraic structure

$`\begin{array}{cc}\{Q^\alpha ,Q^\beta \}=2\delta _{\alpha \beta }H,\hfill & \alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}N,\hfill \\ (Q^\alpha )^{}=Q^\alpha ,\hfill & [H,Q^\alpha ]=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
where $`\{,\}`$ and $`[,]`$ denote an anticommutator and a commutator respectively. We call Eq. (3) a supersymmetric quantum mechanical algebra, denoted by SS($`N`$). When $`N=2`$, the simplest non-trivial realization of SS(2) was first given by Witten

$`\begin{array}{c}Q^1=\frac{1}{2}\{p\sigma _1+U(x)\sigma _2\},\hfill \\ Q^2=\frac{1}{2}\{p\sigma _2U(x)\sigma _1\},\hfill \\ H^\text{w}=\frac{1}{2}\{p^2+[U(x)]^2+U^{}(x)\sigma _3\},\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
where $`p=i\frac{d}{dx}`$, $`U^{}(x)\frac{d}{dx}U(x)`$, $`U(x)`$ is generally called a superpotential, and $`\sigma _i`$ ($`i`$ $`=`$ $`1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$) are the usual Pauli matrices.  This supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`H^\text{w}`$ describes a quantum mechanical system of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle moving on a line ($`x`$-axis).

While $`N=2`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SSQM) has drawn much attention  due to its simpler mathematical structure, however, there were only a few attempts at studying $`N=4`$ SSQM,  which possesses the higher degeneracies than the $`N=2`$ SSQM. For example, in one dimension, four-fold degeneracies of energy spectrum may typically occur in the $`N=4`$ SSQM, whereas double degeneracies in the $`N=2`$ SSQM. All the supercharges considered in Refs.  have the following form

$$Q^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}A_j^\alpha C_j,\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N=4,$$
(8)
where $`A_j^\alpha `$ are first-order differential operators with respect to, ‘bosonic’ degrees of freedoms, the Cartesian coordinates {$`x_n|n=1`$, 2,…, $`d`$} and the corresponding momentum operators {$`p_n=i\frac{}{x_n}i_n|n=1`$, 2,…, $`d`$} in $`d`$-dimensional space, and $`C_j`$, ‘fermionic’ degrees of freedoms, are generators of the Clifford algebra C$`(r,0)`$ with positive metric in $`r`$-dimensional flat carrier space.  They satisfy

$`\begin{array}{c}[x_n,p_m]=i\delta _{nm},n,m=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},d;\hfill \\ \{C_j,C_l\}=2\delta _{jl},C_j^{}=C_j,j,l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},r;\hfill \\ [x_n,C_j]=[p_n,C_j]=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
Obviously, for arbitrary $`N`$, the supercharges (8), being linear combinations of the fermionic operators $`C_j`$ multiplied by the bosonic operators $`A_j^\alpha `$, are natural generalizations of the supercharges in Witten’s realization (7) of $`N=2`$ SSQM.

In fact, when $`r4`$, the Clifford algebra C$`(r,0)`$, after a graded structure introduced, may yield a superalgebra.  The generators $`C_j`$ of C$`(r,0)`$, together with operators of odd orders in $`C_j`$, span the ‘odd’ space of this superalgebra, in which anticommuting operations among all these ‘odd’ elements are allowed. For example, the odd space of the superalgebra associated with C(4,0) is spanned by the odd elements $`C_j`$ ($`j=1`$, 2, 3, 4) and $`C_jC_kC_l`$ ($`1j<k<l4`$). The purpose of this paper is to realize the general form of $`N=4`$ SSQM in arbitrary dimension starting from the general supercharges in which the fermionic degrees of freedoms include all the odd elements of the superalgebra associated with C(4,0). As we shall see below, this realization brings out the richer structures.

This paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. II, the general form of $`N=4`$ SSQM is studied in detail by means of the Clifford algebras C(4,0) and C(0,3). In Sec. III, an one-dimensional physical realization and a new multi-dimensional physical realization for the $`N=4`$ SSQM are respectively obtained by solving the constraint conditions. In Sec. IV, as applications, $`N=4`$ superconformal quantum mechanics in one dimension, which is expanded from the one-dimensional realization of $`N=4`$ SSQM obtained in Sec. III, is discussed in detail by considering two simple superpotentials $`k/x`$ and $`\omega x`$, and their corresponding superalgebraic structures are established. A simple summary is given in the final section.

Throughout this paper we shall adopt units wherein $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$, the symbol $`[x]`$ means taking an integer part of the real number $`x`$, and T in the expression $`A^\text{T}`$ is referred to as transpose of the matrix $`A`$.

## II GENERAL FORM OF $`N=4`$ SSQM

For $`N=4`$, the four supercharges take the following general form

$`\begin{array}{c}Q^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\underset{j}{}A_j^\alpha C_j+\frac{i}{3!}\underset{jklm}{}ϵ_{jklm}D_j^\alpha C_kC_lC_m\right),\hfill \\ \alpha ,j,k,l,m=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
where $`ϵ_{jklm}`$ is a four-dimensional Levi-Civita symbol, $`C_j`$ are the generators of the Clifford algebra C(4,0), $`A_j^\alpha `$ and $`D_j^\alpha `$ are the Hermitian first-order differential operators of the $`d`$-dimensional coordinates {$`x_n`$} and momentum operators {$`p_n`$}. Clearly, the supercharges (8) are the special cases of those given by Eq. (15) with setting $`D_j^\alpha =0`$.

Substituting Eq. (15) into the first equation of Eq. (3), we may obtain the corresponding supersymmetric Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(U+VC_1C_2C_3C_4)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{l}{\overset{q}{}}\underset{jk}{}\mathrm{}_{jk}^lB_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk},$$
(16)
where

$`\begin{array}{cc}1.\hfill & U=\underset{j}{}[(A_j^\alpha )^2+(D_j^\alpha )^2],\text{for any}\alpha ;\hfill \\ 2.\hfill & V=i\underset{j}{}[A_j^\alpha ,D_j^\alpha ],\text{for any}\alpha ;\hfill \\ 3.\hfill & i[A_j^\alpha ,A_k^\alpha ]+i[D_j^\alpha ,D_k^\alpha ]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{mn}{}ϵ_{jkmn}(\{A_m^\alpha ,D_n^\alpha \}\hfill \\ & \{A_n^\alpha ,D_m^\alpha \})=_{l=1}^q\mathrm{}_{jk}^lB_l,\text{for any}\alpha ;\hfill \\ 4.\hfill & \underset{j}{}(\{A_j^\alpha ,A_j^\beta \}+\{D_j^\alpha ,D_j^\beta \})=0,\alpha \beta ;\hfill \\ 5.\hfill & [A_j^\alpha ,A_k^\beta ][A_k^\alpha ,A_j^\beta ]+[D_j^\alpha ,D_k^\beta ][D_k^\alpha ,D_j^\beta ]\hfill \\ & =i\underset{mn}{}ϵ_{jkmn}(\{A_n^\alpha ,D_m^\beta \}+\{A_n^\beta ,D_m^\alpha \}),\alpha \beta ;\hfill \\ 6.\hfill & \underset{j}{}([A_j^\alpha ,D_j^\beta ]+[A_j^\beta ,D_j^\alpha ])=0,\alpha \beta ;\hfill \\ 7.\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}\frac{i}{4}[C_j,C_k].\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)
In Eq. (16), $`q`$ antisymmetric matrices $`\mathrm{}^l`$ ($`\mathrm{}_{jk}^l`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}_{kj}^l`$) and Hermitian operators $`B_l`$ have to be determined by the third equation in Eq. (26).

Now introduce the following linear transformations

$`\begin{array}{ccc}A_i^{\overline{\alpha }}=\mathrm{\Xi }_{ij}^{\overline{\alpha }}A_j^4,\hfill & A_j^4A_j,\hfill & \overline{\alpha }=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3};\hfill \\ D_i^{\overline{\alpha }}=\mathrm{\Xi }_{ij}^{\overline{\alpha }}D_j^4,\hfill & D_j^4D_j,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (29)
In order to satisfy the first, second, fourth and sixth equations in Eq. (26), $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ should be real antisymmetric,

$$(\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }})^\text{T}=(\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }})^1=\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }},$$
(30)
and satisfy

$$\{\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }},\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\beta }}\}=2\delta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }},$$
(31)
that is, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ constitute the Clifford algebra C(0,3) with negative metric. The third and fifth equations in Eq. (26) require further that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^l`$ satisfy

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{jk}^{\overline{\alpha }}ϵ_{jkmn}=2\mathrm{\Xi }_{mn}^{\overline{\alpha }},`$ (32)
$`[\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }},\mathrm{}^l]=0.`$ (33)
Eq. (33) shows that the number of antisymmetric matrices $`\mathrm{}^l`$ is three, i.e., $`l=1`$, 2, 3. It follows that matrix representations of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^l`$ that satisfy Eqs. (30), (31) and (33) may be taken as

$`\mathrm{\Xi }^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\sigma _2& 0\\ 0& i\sigma _2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Xi }^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _3\\ \sigma _3& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Xi }^3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _1\\ \sigma _1& 0\end{array}\right);`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma _2\\ i\sigma _2& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{}^3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\sigma _2& 0\\ 0& i\sigma _2\end{array}\right).`$ (47)
With the help of Eqs. (29) and (40), the four supercharges (15), in which the differential operators $`A_j`$ and $`D_j`$ now are independent of the index $`\alpha `$, read

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q^1=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[A_2C_1A_1C_2+A_4C_3A_3C_4\hfill \\ & +i(D_2C_2C_3C_4+D_1C_3C_4C_1+D_4C_1C_2C_4+D_3C_1C_2C_3)],\hfill \\ \hfill Q^2=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[A_3C_1A_4C_2A_1C_3+A_2C_4\hfill \\ & +i(D_3C_2C_3C_4+D_4C_3C_4C_1D_1C_1C_2C_4D_2C_1C_2C_3)],\hfill \\ \hfill Q^3=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[A_4C_1+A_3C_2A_2C_3A_1C_4\hfill \\ & +i(D_4C_2C_3C_4D_3C_3C_4C_1D_2C_1C_2C_4+D_1C_1C_2C_3)],\hfill \\ \hfill Q^4=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[A_1C_1+A_2C_2+A_3C_3+A_4C_4\hfill \\ & +i(D_1C_2C_3C_4D_2C_3C_4C_1+D_3C_1C_2C_4D_4C_1C_2C_3)].\hfill \end{array}`$ (56)
By making use of Eqs. (29), (40) and (47), we can obtain from the third equation in Eq. (26) constraint conditions that $`A_j`$ and $`D_j`$ need satisfying

$`\begin{array}{cc}B_1\hfill & =i[A_1,A_4]i[D_1,D_4]\{A_2,D_3\}+\{A_3,D_2\}\hfill \\ & =+i[A_2,A_3]+i[D_2,D_3]+\{A_1,D_4\}\{A_4,D_1\},\hfill \\ B_2\hfill & =i[A_2,A_4]i[D_2,D_4]+\{A_1,D_3\}\{A_3,D_1\}\hfill \\ & =i[A_1,A_3]i[D_1,D_3]+\{A_2,D_4\}\{A_4,D_2\},\hfill \\ B_3\hfill & =i[A_3,A_4]i[D_3,D_4]\{A_1,D_2\}+\{A_2,D_1\}\hfill \\ & =+i[A_1,A_2]+i[D_1,D_2]+\{A_3,D_4\}\{A_4,D_3\}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (63)
Correspondingly, the supersymmetric Hamiltonian (16) becomes

$`\begin{array}{cc}H=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}[A_j^2+D_j^2]+[B_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{14}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32})+B_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13})\hfill \\ & +B_3(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21})]+\frac{i}{2}_{j=1}^4[A_j,D_j]C_1C_2C_3C_4.\hfill \end{array}`$ (66)
Similar to $`N=2`$ SSQM,  we may further rewrite the four supercharges (56) in the raising/lowering form, which are closely related to the factorization method,

$`\begin{array}{c}Q_1^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Q_4iQ_1),Q_2^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Q_2iQ_3),\hfill \end{array}`$ (68)
and satisfy $`Q_\mu ^{}=(Q_\mu ^\pm )^{}`$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2), after redefining the four generators $`C_j`$ ($`j=1`$, 2, 3, 4) of C(4,0) as

$`C_1^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C_1\pm iC_2),C_2^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C_3\pm iC_4).`$ (69)
Thus, the four supercharges (56) and the supersymmetric Hamiltonian (66) can be written respectively in the forms

$`\begin{array}{cc}Q_1^+=\hfill & (A_1iA_2)C_1^++(A_3iA_4)C_2^+i(D_1iD_2)[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^+\hfill \\ & +i(D_3iD_4)[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^+,\hfill \\ Q_1^{}=\hfill & (A_1+iA_2)C_1^{}+(A_3+iA_4)C_2^{}+i(D_1+iD_2)[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^{}\hfill \\ & i(D_3+iD_4)[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^{},\hfill \\ Q_2^+=\hfill & (A_3iA_4)C_1^{}(A_1iA_2)C_2^{}i(D_3iD_4)[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^{}\hfill \\ & +i(D_1iD_2)[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^{},\hfill \\ Q_2^{}=\hfill & (A_3+iA_4)C_1^+(A_1+iA_2)C_2^++i(D_3+iD_4)[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^+\hfill \\ & i(D_1+iD_2)[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^+,\hfill \end{array}`$ (78)
and

$`\begin{array}{cc}H=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}[A_j^2+D_j^2]+\{B_1(C_1^+C_2^{}C_1^{}C_2^+)+iB_2(C_1^+C_2^{}+C_1^{}C_2^+)\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}B_3([C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}])\}\frac{i}{2}_{j=1}^4[A_j,D_j][C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}].\hfill \end{array}`$ (81)
It is easy to check that Eqs. (78) and (81) satisfy SS(4) \[see Eq. (3)\], which now becomes

$`\begin{array}{cc}\{Q_\mu ^+,Q_\nu ^{}\}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }H,\hfill & \mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\hfill \\ \{Q_\mu ^\pm ,Q_\nu ^\pm \}=0,\hfill & [H,Q_\mu ^\pm ]=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (84)
## III PHYSICAL REALIZATIONS OF $`N=4`$ SSQM

By virtue of the results obtained in Sec. II, we shall discuss in this section two physical realizations of $`N=4`$ SSQM through choosing the concrete forms for $`A_j`$ and $`D_j`$ in Eqs. (78) and (81) to ensure the kinetic energy and potential energy terms appear in the corresponding $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian.

### III.1 ONE-DIMENSIONAL REALIZATION

Take

$$A_4=p=i\frac{d}{dx};D_{\overline{n}}=0,\overline{n}=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},$$
(85)
and the other components $`A_{\overline{n}}`$ and $`D_4`$ are real functions of $`x`$. Substituting them into the constraint conditions (63) gives rise to

$$D_4=\frac{A_1^{}}{2A_1}=\frac{A_2^{}}{2A_2}=\frac{A_3^{}}{2A_3},$$
(86)
where the symbol “$``$” means derivation with respect to $`x`$. In order to satisfy Eq. (86), we may choose for simplicity

$$A_{\overline{n}}=k_{\overline{n}}W,$$
(87)
where $`k_{\overline{n}}`$ are constants, and $`W`$, here referred to as a superpotential, is an ‘arbitrary’ real function of $`x`$. Accordingly, we have

$$D_4=\frac{W^{}}{2W}.$$
(88)
It follows by inserting Eqs. (87) and (88) into Eqs. (78) and (81) that the four supercharges and $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian in one dimension have respectively the following forms

$`\begin{array}{c}Q_1^+=(ip+k_3W)C_2^++k^{}WC_1^++\frac{W^{}}{2W}[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^+,\hfill \\ Q_1^{}=(+ip+k_3W)C_2^{}+k^+WC_1^{}+\frac{W^{}}{2W}[C_1^+,C_1^{}]C_2^{},\hfill \\ Q_2^+=(ip+k_3W)C_1^{}k^{}WC_2^{}\frac{W^{}}{2W}[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^{},\hfill \\ Q_2^{}=(+ip+k_3W)C_1^+k^+WC_2^+\frac{W^{}}{2W}[C_2^+,C_2^{}]C_1^+,\hfill \end{array}`$ (93)
where $`k^\pm k_1\pm ik_2`$, and

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H=& \frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2}k^2W^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^2+\{k_1W^{}(C_1^+C_2^{}C_1^{}C_2^+)\hfill \\ & +ik_2W^{}(C_1^+C_2^{}+C_1^{}C_2^+)+\frac{1}{2}k_3W^{}([C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}])\}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}[C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}]\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{},\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{1}{2}p^2+V(x;C_j),\hfill \end{array}`$ (98)
with $`k^2=k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2`$. Obviously, the Hamiltonian (98) possesses a usual kinetic energy term $`\frac{1}{2}p^2`$ and a potential function $`V(x;C_j)`$, so this resulting realization, Eqs. (93) and (98), may be applied to the real quantum mechanical systems provided that $`W`$ and $`C_j`$ are appropriately taken.

For the sake of convenient applications, let us further discuss the explicit matrix form for the one-dimensional $`N=4`$ SSQM given by Eqs. (93) and (98). In fact the Clifford algebra C(4,0) is isomorphic to the well-known Dirac algebra in the relativistic quantum mechanics,  here we may take the following matrix representation for $`C_j`$

$`C_{\overline{m}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma _{\overline{m}}\\ i\sigma _{\overline{m}}& 0\end{array}\right),\overline{m}=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},C_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_{2\times 2}\\ I_{2\times 2}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (103)
where $`I_{2\times 2}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix, then the four supercharges (93) and the supersymmetric Hamiltonian (98) read respectively

$`Q_1^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \eta ^+& \epsilon ^{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \epsilon ^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& \zeta ^+& 0& 0\end{array}\right),Q_2^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \eta ^+& \epsilon ^{}\\ \epsilon ^{}& 0& 0& 0\\ \zeta ^+& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (112)
where $`\eta ^\pm p\pm i(k_3W+\frac{W^{}}{2W})`$, $`\zeta ^\pm p\pm i(k_3W\frac{W^{}}{2W})`$, $`\epsilon ^\pm ik^\pm W`$, and

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H=& \frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2}k^2W^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}& & & \\ & \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}& & \\ & & \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}+2k_3W^{}& 2k^{}W^{}\\ & & 2k^+W^{}& \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}2k_3W^{}\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (119)
A comparison between Eq. (119) and the third equation in Eq. (7) shows that in one dimension the matrix form of $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian is quasi-diagonal, whereas the one of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian is completely diagonal \[The quasi-diagonal form of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian appear in multi-dimension only, for example, see Ref. .\]

Especially, when $`k^\pm =0`$, it follows from Eq. (119) that we may obtain a completely diagonal $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \ddot{H}=& \frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2}k_3^2W^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}& & & \\ & \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}& & \\ & & \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}+2k_3W^{}& \\ & & & \left(\frac{W^{}}{2W}\right)^{}2k_3W^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill & \text{diag}[\ddot{H}_1,\ddot{H}_2,\ddot{H}_3,\ddot{H}_4].\hfill \end{array}`$ (127)
Note that in Eq. (127) the first and second diagonal component Hamiltonians $`\ddot{H}_1`$ and $`\ddot{H}_2`$ are identical, but neither of them can be abandoned because of requirement of SS(4). The corresponding supercharges $`\ddot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) may be directly obtained by setting $`k^\pm =0`$ in Eq. (112). Since $`\ddot{H}`$ commutes with $`\ddot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$, the energy spectra of $`\ddot{H}_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) are identical except for the ground state, which is also an elementary property of SSQM. Consequently, $`\ddot{H}_i`$ are called superpartner Hamiltonians

Let four-component spinor eigenfunction of $`\ddot{H}`$ be $`\ddot{\psi }=[\ddot{\psi }_1,\ddot{\psi }_2,\ddot{\psi }_3,\ddot{\psi }_4]^\text{T}`$, in which $`\ddot{\psi }_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) are respectively eigenfunctions of $`\ddot{H}_i`$ belonging to energy eigenvalues $`\ddot{E}_i`$. In terms of the third equation in Eq. (84), the four eigenfunctions $`\ddot{\psi }_1`$, $`\ddot{\psi }_2`$, $`\ddot{\psi }_3`$, $`\ddot{\psi }_4`$ may be related by the four supercharges $`\ddot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$, or, more concretely, by the four first-order differential operators $`\eta ^\pm `$ and $`\zeta ^\pm `$ given in Eq. (112)

$$\ddot{\psi }_3\stackrel{\eta ^+}{}\ddot{\psi }_1=\ddot{\psi }_2\stackrel{\zeta ^+}{}\ddot{\psi }_4\text{and}\ddot{\psi }_3\stackrel{\eta ^{}}{}\ddot{\psi }_1=\ddot{\psi }_2\stackrel{\zeta ^{}}{}\ddot{\psi }_4.$$
(128)
Similar to $`N=2`$ case,  the $`N=4`$ supersymmtery of some $`N=4`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanical system is broken if this system has no zero-energy ground state, and is unbroken if this system has a zero-energy ground state. A typical structure of the four-fold degenerate energy spectrum of $`\ddot{H}`$ is illustratively depicted in Fig. 1, which $`N=4`$ supersymmetry is broken.

Furthermore, introduce

$`X_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}[C_\mu ^+,C_\mu ^{}],X^\pm =C_1^\pm C_2^\pm ,`$ (129)
which satisfy

$$[X_3,X^\pm ]=\pm 2X^\pm ,[X^+,X^{}]=X_3,$$
(130)
that is, $`X_3`$ and $`X^\pm `$ span an internal SO(3) algebra. Due to the fact $`[\ddot{H},X_3]=0`$, we may use the values of $`X_3`$ to label the energy spectra of $`\ddot{H}_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4). With the help of Eq. (103), the matrix representation of $`X_3`$ is

$`X_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & & & \\ & 1\hfill & & \\ & & 0\hfill & \\ & & & 0\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (135)
Denoting the values of $`X_3`$ by $`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1`$, $`1`$, $`0`$ and $`0`$, then the energy spectrum of $`\ddot{H}_1`$ belongs to the $`\beta =1`$ sector, that of $`\ddot{H}_2`$ to the $`\beta =1`$ sector and so on. Hence, though the first and second superpartner Hamiltonians $`\ddot{H}_1`$ and $`\ddot{H}_2`$ are identical, their energy spectra belong to the different sectors respectively; though the third and forth superpartner Hamiltonians $`\ddot{H}_3`$ and $`\ddot{H}_4`$ are different, their energy spectra belong to the same $`\beta =0`$ sector.

### III.2 NEW MULTI-DIMENSIONAL REALIZATION

The $`N=4`$ SSQM obtained in Sec. II itself is valid for the arbitrary dimensions. In this subsection we shall put forward a new multi-dimensional physical realization of $`N=4`$ SSQM by taking the following matrix forms for the Hermitian operators $`A_4`$ and $`D_4`$ in Eq. (78)

$`A_4={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}(p_j+L_j)\tau _j,D_4={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}F_j\tau _j,`$ (136)
and the other components, $`D_{\overline{n}}=0`$ ($`\overline{n}=1`$, 2, 3), $`A_{\overline{n}}`$, together with $`L_j`$ and $`F_j`$ in Eq. (136), are the real functions of the coordinates {$`x_n`$} in $`d`$-dimensional space. Here, $`\tau _j`$ are a set of Hermitian matrices which we assume to commute with $`p_j`$, $`L_j`$, $`F_j`$ and $`C_j`$. The fact that $`\tau _j`$ commute with $`C_j`$ implies that they should be respectively considered as

$`\tau _jI_{4\times 4}\tau _j,C_jC_jI_{t\times t},`$ (137)
where the subscript $`4`$ is the dimension of the matrix representation of C(4,0), and the subscript $`t`$ stands for the order of the matrices $`\tau _j`$. Note that in the present realization the number of matrices $`\tau _j`$ is equal to the dimensions of space. In order to produce the usual kinetic energy term, we may, after substituting Eq. (136) into Eq. (81), take $`\tau _j`$ ($`j=1`$, 2, …, $`d`$) so that

$`\{\tau _j,\tau _l\}=2\delta _{jl},`$ (138)
that is, $`\tau _j`$ constitute the Clifford algebra C$`(d,0)`$ as well.

The constraint conditions (63) require that

$`2A_{\overline{n}}F_j=_jA_{\overline{n}},\overline{n}=1,2,3,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d.`$ (139)
Similar to the one-dimensional case \[see Eq. (87)\], a simple choice for Eq. (139) is

$`A_{\overline{n}}=k_{\overline{n}}W,`$ (140)
where $`k_{\overline{n}}`$ are constants, the superpotential $`W`$ is a real function of {$`x_n`$}. In consequence, we have

$`F_j={\displaystyle \frac{_jW}{2W}}.`$ (141)
It follows by substituting Eqs. (136), (140) and (141) into Eq. (81) that we have the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian in $`d`$-dimensional space

$`\begin{array}{cc}H=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{\overset{d}{}}(i_j+L_j)^2+\frac{1}{2}k^2W^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{\overset{d}{}}\left(\frac{_jW}{2W}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{k<l}{\overset{d}{}}_{kl}\tau _{kl}\hfill \\ & +\underset{j}{\overset{d}{}}\tau _j(_jW)\{k_1(C_1^+C_2^{}C_1^{}C_2^+)+ik_2(C_1^+C_2^{}+C_1^{}C_2^+)\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}k_3([C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}])\}\frac{1}{2}[C_1^+,C_1^{}][C_2^+,C_2^{}]\{\underset{j}{\overset{d}{}}\left(_j\frac{_jW}{2W}\right)\hfill \\ & +\underset{k<l}{\overset{d}{}}(\{i_k,\frac{_lW}{2W}\}+2L_k\frac{_lW}{2W})\tau _{kl}\},\hfill \end{array}`$ (146)
where $`\tau _{kl}\frac{i}{2}[\tau _k,\tau _l]`$, and $`_{kl}_kL_l_lL_k`$. The vector potential $`L_i`$ naturally generates a gauge field interaction structure in $`d`$-dimensional space so that $`_{kl}`$ may be seen as the strength of vector field. The terms $`_{kl}\tau _{kl}`$ and $`\{i_k,\frac{_lW}{2W}\}\tau _{kl}`$ generalize the Pauli coupling and the orbit-spin coupling interactions respectively. For the simple three-dimensional case, these interpretations are more distinct. We take conveniently $`\tau _j`$ as the Pauli matrices

$`\tau _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (153)
then the supersymmetric Hamiltonian (146) becomes

$`\begin{array}{cc}H=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{L})^2+\frac{1}{2}k^2W^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{2W}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{2W}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{4\times 4}& 0\\ 0& I_{4\times 4}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\tau }\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{2W}\right)\times (i+\stackrel{}{L})\stackrel{}{\tau },\hfill \end{array}`$ (158)
where $``$ is a three-dimensional gradient operator, $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\tau }\times \stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ and $`\frac{W}{2W}\times (i)\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ are the usual Pauli coupling term and the orbit-spin coupling interaction respectively.  It can be seen that in three dimension the new realized $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Hamiltonian (158) is an eight-by-eight matrix, whereas the original one (66) or (81), in which $`A_j`$ and $`D_j`$ are taken as some appropriate first-order differential operator functions of the three-dimensional coordinates and momentum operators, is a four-by-four matrix.

Of course, in Eq. (136), we may also take $`A_4=_j(ip_j+\stackrel{~}{L}_j)\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j`$, $`D_4=_j\stackrel{~}{F}_j\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j`$, and $`A_{\overline{n}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_j`$ are the functions of {$`x_n`$} as well. Thus, the Hermiticities of the supercharges $`Q_\alpha ^\pm `$ require that $`\stackrel{~}{L}_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_j`$ should be pure imaginary, and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$ should be anti-Hermitian. The convenient choices $`\stackrel{~}{L}_i=iL_j`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_j=iF_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j=i\tau _j`$ \[i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j`$ constitute the Clifford algebra C(0,$`d`$) with negative metric\] will lead to the same results as Eq. (146).

## IV APPLICATIONS

In this section, using the diagonal matrix realization (127) of $`N=4`$ SSQM in one dimension, we shall study in detail $`N=4`$ SCQM, which, discussed first by Fubini et al.,  is a generalization of $`N=4`$ SSQM, by considering two simple superpotentials $`k/x`$ and $`\omega x`$. Here the main task is to find a set of special exactly solvable potentials which can be brought into the framework of $`N=4`$ SCQM and the corresponding superalgebraic structures.

1. The first example is a one-dimensional superpotential

$$W(x)=\frac{k}{x},$$
(159)
where $`k`$ is a real constant, and $`x(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. Substituting Eq. (159) into Eq. (112) combined with $`k^\pm =0`$ and $`k_3=1`$ and Eq. (127), we may obtain respectively the supercharges

$`\overline{Q}_1^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \overline{\eta }^+& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \overline{\zeta }^+& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\overline{Q}_2^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \overline{\eta }^+& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \overline{\zeta }^+& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (168)
where $`\overline{\eta }^\pm =p\pm i(k\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{x}`$, $`\overline{\zeta }^\pm =p\pm i(k+\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{x}`$, and the supersymmetric Hamiltonian

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H^{\text{sc}}& =\frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2x^2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}k^2\frac{1}{4}\hfill & & & \\ & k^2\frac{1}{4}\hfill & & \\ & & k^22k+\frac{3}{4}\hfill & \\ & & & k^2+2k+\frac{3}{4}\hfill \end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \text{diag}[H_1^\text{c},H_2^\text{c},H_3^\text{c},H_4^\text{c}].\hfill \end{array}`$ (175)
It may be further verified that $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, together with the dilatation generator $`D`$ and the conformal generator $`K`$, which are given explicitly by

$`D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{p,x\},K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2`$ (176)
fulfills the same commutation relations of the conformal algebra SO(2,1)

$`[D,H^{\text{sc}}]=iH^{\text{sc}},[D,K]=iK,[H^{\text{sc}},K]=2iD,`$ (177)
as its four superpartner Hamiltonians $`H_i^\text{c}`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4). Hence, $`H^{\text{sc}}`$ given by Eq. (175) is the so-called superconformal Hamiltonian,  which possesses not only the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry but also the dynamical conformal symmetry. Different from the results of Fubini et al.,  here we realize successfully a $`N=4`$ superconformal quantum mechanics (SCQM) in one dimension. However, the realization of $`N=4`$ SCQM obtained in Ref. , holding uniquely in two dimension, can not be reduced to the one-dimensional or extended to more than two-dimensional cases. Furthermore, in the quartet structure of $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, three superpartner Hamiltonians $`H_1^\text{c}(=H_2^\text{c})`$, $`H_3^\text{c}`$, $`H_4^\text{c}`$ are different, whereas in the quartet structure in Ref.  only two different superpartner Hamiltonians, $`H_1^\text{c}(=H_2^\text{c})`$ and $`H_3^\text{c}(=H_4^\text{c})`$, appear.

Let the four-component spinor eigenfunction of $`H^{\text{sc}}`$ be $`\psi ^{\text{sc}}=[\psi _1^\text{c},\psi _2^\text{c},\psi _3^\text{c},\psi _4^\text{c}]^\text{T}`$, where $`\psi _i^\text{c}`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) are respectively the eigenfunctions of $`H_i^\text{c}`$ belonging to the energy eigenvalues $`E_i^\text{c}`$. According to the transformation property (128), $`\psi _i^\text{c}`$ are related by $`\overline{\eta }^\pm `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }^\pm `$ given in Eq. (168). In order to look for the eigenfunctions and energy eigenvalues of $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, we check first whether or not a zero-energy ground state exists by solving the following four first-order differential equations

$`\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm \psi _0^{\text{sc}}=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},`$ (178)
where $`\psi _0^{\text{sc}}[\psi _{0,1}^\text{c},\psi _{0,2}^\text{c},\psi _{0,3}^\text{c},\psi _{0,4}^\text{c}]^\text{T}`$ stands for a zero-energy eigenfunction. It is clear that neither of four solutions to Eq. (178)

$`\begin{array}{c}\psi _{0,1}^\text{c}x^{(2k1)/2},\hfill \\ \psi _{0,2}^\text{c}x^{+(2k+1)/2},\hfill \\ \psi _{0,3}^\text{c}x^{+(2k1)/2},\hfill \\ \psi _{0,4}^\text{c}x^{(2k+1)/2}\hfill \end{array}`$ (183)
is normalizable on ($`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$) so that neither of $`H_i^\text{c}`$ has zero-energy level. Hence, the supersymmetry of the $`N=4`$ superconformal quantum mechanical system described by $`H^{\text{sc}}`$ is broken. From the SSQM point of view, we know that either of $`H_i^\text{c}`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) has the same energy spectrum as the other three superpartner Hamiltonians, with $`E_i^\text{c}`$ being larger than zero. Consider the special case of $`k=1/2`$, it follows immediately from Eq. (175) that the conformal Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{˘}{H}_4^\text{c}=\frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{x^2}`$ is the superpartner of the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{˘}{H}_1=\frac{1}{2}p^2`$ ($`=\stackrel{˘}{H}_2=\stackrel{˘}{H}_3`$) of a free particle. Therefore, the normalizable eigenfunctions of $`H_i^\text{c}`$ in Eq. (175) corresponding to some positive definite energy $`E_i^\text{c}>0`$ are the normalizable wave plane eigenfunctions,  i.e., the Bessel functions, $`\psi _i^\text{c}=\sqrt{x}J_{\lambda _i}(x\sqrt{2E_i})`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4), with $`\lambda _i=k+()^i\left[\frac{i}{3}\right]`$.

Now let us establish a superalgebra that governs the above $`N=4`$ superconformal quantum mechanical system described by $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, in which both SS(4) and SO(2,1) should be contained. Direct calculations show that the five generators of SS(4) and three generators of SO(2,1) are not closed under the anticommutation and commutation relations, for example, commuting the generators $`\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ of SS(4) and the generator $`K`$ of SO(2,1) yields new operators

$$S_\mu ^\pm =xC_\mu ^\pm ,\mu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}.$$
(184)
Thus, we obtain the following closed superalgebraic structure

$`\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}1.\hfill & \{\overline{Q}_\mu ^+,\overline{Q}_\nu ^{}\}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }H^{\text{sc}},\hfill & \{\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\overline{Q}_\nu ^\pm \}=0,\hfill & \mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2};\hfill \\ 2.\hfill & \{S_\mu ^+,S_\nu ^{}\}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }K,\hfill & \{S_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^\pm \}=0;\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cc}3.\hfill & \{\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^{}\}=\delta _{\mu \nu }(k+()^\mu X_3\pm 2iD)+2(\delta _{\mu \nu }1)(\delta _{\mu 1}X^\pm +\delta _{\mu 2}X^{}),\hfill \\ & \{\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^\pm \}=0;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccc}4.\hfill & [D,H^{\text{sc}}]=iH^{\text{sc}},\hfill & [D,K]=iK,\hfill & [H^{\text{sc}},K]=2iD;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{ccc}5.\hfill & [X_3,X^\pm ]=\pm 2X^\pm ,\hfill & [X^+,X^{}]=X_3;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccc}6.\hfill & [H^{\text{sc}},\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [D,\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}i\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [K,\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm 2S_\mu ^\pm ;\hfill \\ & [H^{\text{sc}},S_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm 2\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [D,S_\mu ^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}iS_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [K,S_\mu ^\pm ]=0;\hfill \\ 7.\hfill & [H^{\text{sc}},X_3]=0,\hfill & [D,X_3]=0,\hfill & [K,X_3]=0;\hfill \\ & [H^{\text{sc}},X^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [D,X^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [K,X^\pm ]=0;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{ccc}8.\hfill & [X_3,\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm ()^{\mu +1}\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [X^\pm ,\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm (1\delta _{\mu 1})\overline{Q}_1^\pm ,\hfill \\ & [X^\pm ,\overline{Q}_\mu ^{}]=(1\delta _{\mu 2})\overline{Q}_2^{};\hfill & [X_3,S_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm ()^{\mu +1}S_\mu ^\pm \hfill \\ & [X^\pm ,S_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm (1\delta _{\mu 1})\overline{S}_1^\pm ,\hfill & [X^\pm ,S_\mu ^{}]=(1\delta _{\mu 2})\overline{S}_2^{}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ (204)
We denote the above superalgebra by SC(4)<sub>1</sub>, which is spanned by eight fermionic generators $`S_\mu ^\pm `$, $`\overline{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) and six bosonic generators $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`X_3`$ and $`X^\pm `$. The first equation in the second set of equations in Eq. (204) indicates that the fermionic generators $`S_\mu ^\pm `$ may be seen as square roots of the conformal generator $`K`$, which is similar as the supercharges are the square roots of the supersymmetric Hamiltonian. Similar to SO(2,1), the superconformal symmetry described by SC(4)<sub>1</sub> is dynamical since $`H^{\text{sc}}`$ does not commute with $`S_\mu ^\pm `$, $`D`$ and $`K`$. It is obvious that besides SS(4), SO(2,1), and SO(3) \[see the fifth set of equations in Eq. (204)\], SC(4)<sub>1</sub> contains a Lie superalgebra OSp(2,1) as its subalgebra,  which, spanned by either {$`S_1^\pm `$, $`\overline{Q}_1^\pm `$, $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`X_3`$} or {$`S_2^\pm `$, $`\overline{Q}_2^\pm `$, $`H^{\text{sc}}`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`X_3`$}, has been used to study $`N=2`$ SCQM.  Since the generators of SO(2,1) commute with those of SO(3) \[see the seventh set of equations in Eq. (204)\], SC(4)<sub>1</sub> contains a maximum Lie subalgebra SO(3)$`\times `$SO(2,1). Consequently, we have the following two canonical group chains

$`\text{SC}(4)_1\left\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{OSp}(2,1)\text{SO}(2)\times \text{SO}(2,1)\\ \hfill \text{SO}(3)\times \text{SO}(2,1)\end{array}\right\}\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \text{SO}(2)& \times & \text{SO}(2).\\ X_3& & H^{\text{sc}}\end{array}`$ (210)
2. The second example is a linear superpotential on the half line,

$$W(x)=\omega x,$$
(211)
where $`\omega `$ is a real constant, and $`x(0,\mathrm{})`$. Substitution into Eq. (112) combined with $`k^\pm =0`$ and $`k_3=1`$ and Eq. (127) gives respectively the supercharges

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \stackrel{~}{\eta }^+& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{\eta }^+& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (220)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }^\pm p\pm i(\omega x+\frac{1}{2x})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm p\pm i(\omega x\frac{1}{2x})`$, and the corresponding supersymmetric Hamiltonian

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{H}& =\frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x^2+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{3}{8x^2}& & & \\ & \frac{3}{8x^2}& & \\ & & \frac{1}{8x^2}+\omega & \\ & & & \frac{1}{8x^2}\omega \end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \text{diag}[\stackrel{~}{H}_1,\stackrel{~}{H}_2,\stackrel{~}{H}_3,\stackrel{~}{H}_4].\hfill \end{array}`$ (227)
Note that the set of potential functions $`\stackrel{~}{V}_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) corresponding to the four superpartner Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ is different from the well-known radial harmonic oscillator potential $`V_{\text{ho}}(l)=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x^2+\frac{l(l+1)}{2x^2}`$,  in which the angular momentum quantum number $`l`$ must be positive integer, though, from the point of view of mathematics, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_i`$ in Eq. (227) are the special cases of $`V_{\text{ho}}(l)`$ for $`l`$ taking some special values: $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1=\stackrel{~}{V}_2=V_{\text{ho}}(l=\frac{1}{2})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_3=V_{\text{ho}}(l=\frac{1}{2})+\omega `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4=V_{\text{ho}}(l=\frac{1}{2})\omega `$. It may be easily inferred by using Theorem X.7 in Ref.  that all $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ are hermitian on the half line (0, $`\mathrm{}`$) since either of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_i`$ is in the limit point case in both zero and infinity. Let the four-component spinor eigenfunction of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ be $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=[\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_3,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_4]^\text{T}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) are respectively the eigenfunctions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ belonging to the energy eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, and are related by the four first-order differential operators $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }^\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm `$ given in Eq. (220)

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_3\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\eta }^+}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_4\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_3\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\eta }^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_4.$$
(228)
We notice that the quantum mechanical system described by $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ has no additional symmetry that can be, together with the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, embedded in a larger supersymmetry (for example the superconformal symmetry). If we rewrite $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}+\omega ^2K+\omega Y_3,$$
(229)
where $`\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}`$ is the supersymmetric Hamiltonian given by Eq. (119) combined with $`k_3=k^\pm =0`$ and $`W(x)=\omega x`$, and $`Y_3`$ is a constant matrix,

$`\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{3}{8x^2}& & & \\ & \frac{3}{8x^2}& & \\ & & \frac{1}{8x^2}& \\ & & & \frac{1}{8x^2}\end{array}\right),Y_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & & & \\ & 0\hfill & & \\ & & 1\hfill & \\ & & & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (238)
then using the same analysis employed in the last example, it is easy to find that $`\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}`$ is a superconformal Hamiltonian since it satisfies not only SO(2,1), with the dilatation generator $`D=\frac{1}{4}\{p,x\}`$ and the conformal generator $`K=\frac{1}{2}x^2`$, but also SS(4), with the four supercharges $`\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2)

$`\dot{Q}_1^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& p+\frac{i}{2x}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& p\frac{i}{2x}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\dot{Q}_2^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p+\frac{i}{2x}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ p+\frac{i}{2x}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (247)
Introducing extra three operators

$`Y_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(1)^{\mu +1}[C_\mu ^+,C_\mu ^{}],Y^\pm =\pm C_2^{}C_1^\pm ,`$ (248)
which constitute SO(3) as well \[see the fifth set of equations in Eq. (265)\], it follows that $`\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$, $`S_\mu ^\pm `$, $`\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`Y_3`$ and $`Y^\pm `$ satisfy the following closed superalgebraic structure

$`\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}1.\hfill & \{\dot{Q}_\mu ^+,\dot{Q}_\nu ^{}\}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},\hfill & \{\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\dot{Q}_\nu ^\pm \}=0,\hfill & \mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2};\hfill \\ 2.\hfill & \{S_\mu ^+,S_\nu ^{}\}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }K,\hfill & \{S_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^\pm \}=0;\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{ccc}3.\hfill & \{\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^{}\}=\delta _{\mu \nu }(\pm 2iD+Y_3),\hfill & \{\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,S_\nu ^\pm \}=()^\mu (1\delta _{\mu \nu })2Y^{};\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccc}4.\hfill & [D,\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}]=i\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},\hfill & [D,K]=iK,\hfill & [\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},K]=2iD;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{ccc}5.\hfill & [Y_3,Y^\pm ]=\pm 2Y^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^+,Y^{}]=Y_3;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccc}6.\hfill & [\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=0;\hfill & [D,\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}i\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [K,\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm S_\mu ^\pm ;\hfill \\ & [\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},S_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm \dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [D,S_\mu ^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}iS_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [K,S_\mu ^\pm ]=0;\hfill \\ 7.\hfill & [\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},Y_3]=0,\hfill & [D,Y_3]=0,\hfill & [K,Y_3]=0;\hfill \\ & [\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}},Y^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [D,Y^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [K,Y^\pm ]=0;\hfill \\ 8.\hfill & [Y_3,\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm ()^{\mu +1}\dot{Q}_\nu ^{},\hfill & [Y^\pm ,\dot{Q}_\mu ^{}]=0;\hfill \\ & [Y_3,S_\mu ^\pm ]=S_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,S_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm ()^\mu S_\nu ^{},\hfill & [Y^\pm ,S_\mu ^{}]=0,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ (265)
where $`S_\mu ^\pm `$ has been given by Eq. (184). We denote the above superalgebra by SC(4)<sub>2</sub>, which, different from SC(4)<sub>1</sub> defined by Eq. (204), has the same subgroup structure as SC(4)<sub>1</sub>, i.e.,

$`\text{SC}(4)_2\left\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{OSp}(2,1)\text{SO}(2)\times \text{SO}(2,1)\\ \hfill \text{SO}(3)\times \text{SO}(2,1)\end{array}\right\}\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \text{SO}(2)& \times & \text{SO}(2).\\ Y_3& & \dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}\end{array}`$ (271)
To determine the eigenfunctions and energy eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ by algebraic method, it is convenient to regroup the previous operators $`\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ and $`S_\mu ^\pm `$ as

$`\begin{array}{cc}T_3=\frac{1}{2\omega }\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}+\frac{\omega }{2}K,\hfill & T^\pm =\frac{1}{2\omega }\dot{H}_0^{\text{sc}}\frac{\omega }{2}KiD,\hfill \\ L_\mu ^\pm =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega }}\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm \frac{\sqrt{\omega }}{2}S_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & R_\mu ^\pm =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega }}\dot{Q}_\mu ^\pm +\frac{\sqrt{\omega }}{2}S_\mu ^\pm .\hfill \end{array}`$ (274)
Note that $`R_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) are up to normalization constants the supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ associated with $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, i.e., $`R_\mu ^\pm =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega }}\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$. Owing to the fact $`\stackrel{~}{H}=2\omega (T_3+\frac{1}{2}Y_3)`$, there exists a simple relation between the energy eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ and the energy eigenvalues $`e_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) of $`T_{i,3}`$, the $`i`$th diagonal component of $`T_3`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_i=e_i+\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_i=()^{i+1}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{i}{3}\right],$$
(275)
and their corresponding eigenfunctions are identical. Therefore, the eigenfunctions and energy eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ may be directly obtained provided that those of $`T_3`$ are known. With the help of Eq. (265), the closed anticommutation and commutation relations satisfied by the six bosonic operators $`T_3`$, $`T^\pm `$, $`Y_3`$, $`Y^\pm `$ and eight fermionic operators $`L_\mu ^\pm `$, $`R_\mu ^\pm `$, read

$`\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}1.\hfill & [T_3,T^\pm ]=\pm T^\pm ,\hfill & [T^+,T^{}]=2T_3;\hfill \\ 2.\hfill & [Y_3,Y^\pm ]=\pm 2Y^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^+,Y^{}]=Y_3;\hfill \\ 3.\hfill & \{L_\mu ^+,L_\mu ^{}\}=T_3\frac{1}{2}Y_3,\hfill & \{L_\mu ^\pm ,L_\nu ^\pm \}=\{L_\mu ^\pm ,L_\nu ^{}\}=0;\hfill \\ 4.\hfill & \{R_\mu ^+,R_\mu ^{}\}=T_3+\frac{1}{2}Y_3,\hfill & \{R_\mu ^\pm ,R_\nu ^\pm \}=\{R_\mu ^\pm ,R_\nu ^{}\}=0;\hfill \\ 5.\hfill & \{L_\mu ^\pm ,R_\nu ^{}\}=\delta _{\mu \nu }T^{},\hfill & \{L_\mu ^\pm ,R_\nu ^\pm \}=(1)^\nu (1\delta _{\mu \nu })Y^{};\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{cccc}6.\hfill & [T_3,Y^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [T_3,Y_3]=0,\hfill & [T^\pm ,Y^\pm ]=0,\hfill \\ & [T^\pm ,Y_3]=0,\hfill & [T^\pm ,Y^{}]=0;\hfill & \\ 7.\hfill & [T_3,L_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm \frac{1}{2}L_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [T^\pm ,L_\mu ^{}]=0,\hfill & [T^\pm ,L_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm L_\mu ^{};\hfill \\ & [T_3,R_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm \frac{1}{2}R_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [T^\pm ,R_\mu ^\pm ]=0,\hfill & [T^\pm ,R_\mu ^{}]=L_\mu ^{};\hfill \\ 8.\hfill & [Y_3,L_\mu ^\pm ]=L_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,L_\mu ^{}]=0,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,L_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm (1)^{\mu +1}L_\nu ^{};\hfill \\ & [Y_3,R_\mu ^\pm ]=R_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,R_\mu ^{}]=0,\hfill & [Y^\pm ,R_\mu ^\pm ]=\pm (1)^{\mu +1}L_\nu ^{},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ (289)
where $`\mu ,\nu =1`$, 2. We observe from Eq. (289) that (1) the first set of equations indicates that $`T_3`$, $`T^\pm `$ constitute SO(2,1) also, where $`T_3`$ is a compact operator with a discrete spectrum, and $`T^+`$ ($`T^{}`$) raises (lowers) the energy eigenvalues of $`T_3`$ by 1 unit. (2) Similar to SC(4)<sub>1</sub>, the superalgebra determined by Eq. (289) contains SO(2,1)$`\times `$SO(3) as its maximum Lie subalgebra as well, moreover, the values of $`Y_3`$ \[see Eq. (238)\] may be used to label the energy eigenvalues $`e`$ of $`T_3`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. (3) $`T_3`$ and $`R_\mu ^\pm `$ (or $`T_3`$ and $`L_\mu ^\pm `$, $`\mu =1`$, 2) do not form SS(4), therefore, the energy spectrum of $`T_3`$ is not four-fold degenerate. (4) The first column of equations in the seventh and eighth sets of equations show that $`R_\mu ^+`$ and $`L_\mu ^+`$ raise the energy eigenvalues of $`T_3`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ unit meanwhile lower the values of $`Y_3`$ by $`1`$ unit, whereas $`R_\mu ^{}`$ and $`L_\mu ^{}`$ lower the energy eigenvalues of $`T_3`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ unit meanwhile raise the values of $`Y_3`$ by $`1`$ unit.

Now turn to the eigenfunctions and energy eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ by means of the similar approach as used in the last example. Solving the following four equations

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\psi }_0=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},`$ (290)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0[\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,1},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,2},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,3},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}]^\text{T}`$ stands for the zero-energy eigenfunction, gives rise to

$`\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2),\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\mathrm{exp}(+\omega x^2/2),\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,3}\sqrt{x}\mathrm{exp}(+\omega x^2/2),\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}\sqrt{x}\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2).\end{array}`$ (295)
It is not difficult to find by simple calculations that of the four eigenfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,i}`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4), only $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}`$ is square-integrable on the interval (0, $`\mathrm{}`$), whose normalized form is

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}=\sqrt{\omega x}\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2),`$ (296)
that is, only $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$ has a normalizable zero-energy ground state, whereas the other three superpartner Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3`$ do not have. Of course, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}`$ is also the normalizable ground state eigenfunction of the fourth diagonal component $`T_{4,3}`$ of $`T_3`$, with its corresponding energy being larger than zero. With the help of the superalgebraic relations (289), the eigenfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n^{},i}`$ ($`n^{}=1`$, 2, …; $`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) for arbitrary excited states may be obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}`$ through two steps: first applying $`n`$ times the raising operator $`T^+`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{0,4}`$ produces all the excited states $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n^{},4}`$ ($`n^{}=1`$, 2, …) of $`T_{4,3}`$, and then acting respectively once and twice on $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n^{},4}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^{}`$ or $`R_\mu ^{}`$ or $`L_\mu ^{}`$ gives the other excited states $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,i^{}}`$ ($`n=0`$, 1, …; $`i^{}=1`$, 2, 3), i.e., all the eigenfunctions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i^{}`$ or $`T_{i^{},3}`$. With the help of Rodrigus’ formula for the generalized Laguerre polynomial $`L_n^a(x)`$ of positive integer $`n`$ and real parameter $`a`$ in argument $`x`$, we can finally obtain by induction

$`\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,1}=\sqrt{2\omega x}\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2)L_n^0(\omega x^2),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,2}=\sqrt{2\omega x}\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2)L_n^0(\omega x^2),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,3}=\sqrt{\frac{2x}{n+1}}(\omega x)\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2)L_n^1(\omega x^2),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,4}=\sqrt{\frac{2x}{n+1}}(\omega x)\mathrm{exp}(\omega x^2/2)L_n^1(\omega x^2),\hfill \\ n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (302)
Thus, the energy eigenvalues, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ and $`e_i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3, 4) related by Eq. (275), that correspond to the same normalized eigenfunctions (302), of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ and $`T_{i,3}`$ are respectively

$`\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{E}_1=2\omega (e_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_1)=2\omega (n+1),\hfill & e_1=n+1,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{E}_2=2\omega (e_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_2)=2\omega (n+1),\hfill & e_2=n+1,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{E}_3=2\omega (e_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_3)=2\omega (n+1),\hfill & e_3=n+1/2,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{E}_4=2\omega (e_4+\mathrm{\Delta }_4)=2\omega n,\hfill & e_4=n+1/2,\hfill \\ n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (308)
Eq. (308) shows clearly that the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry of the quantum mechanical system described by $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is unbroken since its ground state energy is zero, and the four-fold degeneracies may be observed above the second level. However, the quartet energy spectrum structure of $`T_3`$, which is not four-fold degenerate, involves two sets of double degenerate spectra, moreover, the corresponding supersymmetry is broken since its ground state energy is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The energy spectrum structures of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`T_3`$ are depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. The solutions to the Schrödinger equations with the potentials $`ax^2+\frac{b}{x^2}`$ for different $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s may be obtained by different approaches, see Refs. .

## V SUMMARY

In this paper, we obtained the general form of $`N=4`$ SSQM in arbitrary dimension, starting from the general form of four supercharges, in which the fermionic degrees of freedoms include all the odd elements, $`C_j`$ and $`C_jC_kC_l`$, of the superalgebra associated with the Clifford algebra C(4,0). Then, from them, we gave the one-dimensional physical realization and the new multi-dimensional physical realization for the $`N=4`$ SSQM by solving their respective constraint conditions. As applications, we studied in detail, on the base of the one-dimensional realization, two superconformal quantum mechanical systems with their superpotentials being $`k/x`$ and $`\omega x`$, which possess both the $`N=4`$ supersymmetries and the dynamical conformal symmetries, and established their corresponding superalgebraic structures, which are spanned by the eight fermionic generators and six bosonic generators. Our next work is to apply the general realizations of $`N=4`$ SSQM obtained in this paper to the other possible (quasi-) exactly solvable potentials, for example, listed in Refs. , and to discussing the $`N=4`$ supersymmetries in the relativistic quantum mechanical systems such as Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation and so on. From the point of view of mathematics, it is also of very interest to investigate the representations of SC(4)<sub>1</sub> and SC(4)<sub>2</sub> and their relations to the classical Lie superalgebras . This work is now under way.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (19905005), Major State Basic Research Development Programs (G2000077400 and G2000077604) and Tsinghua Natural Science Foundation.

Captions

Fig. 1. Typical structure of the four-fold degenerate energy spectrum of $`\ddot{H}`$ given by Eq. (127). The energy spectra of $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$ correspond to the $`\beta =1`$, $`1`$, $`0`$, $`0`$ sectors, respectively. The eigenstate belonging to some energy level (dot) may be connected with its left or right eigenstate by the supercharges $`\ddot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2), or, concretely, by the first-order differential operators $`\eta ^\pm `$ and $`\zeta ^\pm `$ along the horizontal line.
Fig. 2. Four-fold degenerate energy spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ given by Eq. (308), which $`N=4`$ supersymmetry is unbroken since its ground state energy is zero. Each eigenstate (dot) is connected with its surrounding eigenstates (dots) by the supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) along the horizontal line, and by the raising/lowering operators $`T^\pm `$ along the vertical line.
Fig. 3. Quartet structure of the energy spectrum of $`T_3`$ related tightly to $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ \[see Eq. (308)\]. Different from that of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ exhibited in Fig. 2, $`T_3`$ possesses two sets of double degenerate spectra with the corresponding supersymmetry being broken. Each eigenstate (dot) is connected with its surrounding eigenstates (dots) by the fermionic operators $`R_\mu ^\pm `$, $`L_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) along the slanting line, and by the raising/lowering operators $`T^\pm `$ along the vertical line.

Fig. 1. Typical structure of the four-fold degenerate energy spectrum of $`\ddot{H}`$ given by Eq. (127). The energy spectra of $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$ correspond to the $`\beta =1`$, $`1`$, $`0`$, $`0`$ sectors, respectively. Each eigenstate (dot) may be connected with its left or right eigenstate by the supercharges $`\ddot{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2), or, concretely, by the first-order differential operators $`\eta ^\pm `$ and $`\zeta ^\pm `$ along the horizontal line.

Fig. 2. Four-fold degenerate energy spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ given by Eq. (308), which $`N=4`$ supersymmetry is unbroken since its ground state energy is zero. Each eigenstate (dot) is connected with its surrounding eigenstates (dots) by the supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) along the horizontal line, and by the raising/lowering operators $`T^\pm `$ along the vertical line.

Fig. 3. Quartet structure of the energy spectrum of $`T_3`$ related tightly to $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ \[see Eq. (308)\]. Different from that of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ exhibited in Fig. 2, $`T_3`$ possesses two sets of double degenerate spectra with the corresponding supersymmetry being broken. Each eigenstate (dot) is connected with its surrounding eigenstates (dots) by the fermionic operators $`R_\mu ^\pm `$, $`L_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\mu =1`$, 2) along the slanting line, and by the raising/lowering operators $`T^\pm `$ along the vertical line.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on the 𝑓₀(400–1200) scalar meson as the dynamically generated chiral partner of the pion

## 1 Introduction

The question as to whether the pion has a scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ partner remains highly topical, now that the $`f_0`$(400–1200) (or $`\sigma `$) meson has become a firmly established resonance . For the latter reason, the bone of contention has shifted from the cavilling at the “existence” of the $`\sigma `$ towards a somewhat more sensible discussion whether the $`\sigma `$ is a “fundamental” or a “dynamically generated” particle. Now while there is little dispute about what “fundamental” (or “intrinsic”) means in a mesonic context, namely a totally colorless state composed of normally one but possibly more $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, the term “dynamically generated” (or “dynamical” only) has been used by several authors to express rather different physical mechanisms.

For instance, in a Comment  on a paper by Törnqvist and Roos (TR) , Isgur and Speth (IS) argued that the $`\sigma `$ meson, at least in their approach, is a broad “dynamical pole” due to $`t`$-channel forces only, arising from degrees of freedom already present in the meson-meson continuum, in contrast to an “intrinsic pole” resulting from a new $`q\overline{q}`$ degree of freedom in the dynamics. Moreover, IS criticized and drew into question the conclusions of TR because of the omission of $`t`$-channel forces in their work. However, in another Comment  on TR’s paper, Harada, Sannino, and Schechter demonstrated in a concrete model calculation that this omission appears to be not very crucial and only mildly affects the $`\sigma `$-meson mass and width. Also in the unitarized meson model of two of us , the $`\sigma `$ resonance is a consequence of the inclusion of $`p`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ states, but strongly coupled to the meson-meson continuum via the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ mechanism. This gives rise to a doubling of the number of poles originally present in the ground-state confinement spectra, the lower poles corresponding to the light scalar mesons like the $`\sigma `$. In this formalism, it makes little sense to talk about “intrinsic” versus “dynamical” poles, since the whole unitarization scheme is highly dynamical, producing large effects that strongly influence all poles. A similar conclusion has been reached very recently by Boglione and Pennington .

In chiral-symmetric approaches like the quark-level Linear $`\sigma `$ Model (L$`\sigma `$M)  and the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model , the $`\sigma `$ meson naturally appears as the chiral scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ partner of the pion. Moreover, in the L$`\sigma `$M the $`\sigma `$, which is introduced as an elementary degree of freedom in the Lagrangian, is also self-consistently generated in loop order through a quark loop and tadpole . So the $`\sigma `$ meson is both “fundamental” and “dynamically generated”. On the other hand, in the confining NJL model of Shakin and Wang (SW) , no light scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ state shows up, in contrast to the traditional NJL approach. However, SW do predict a light scalar resonance, which could be interpreted as the $`f_0`$(400–1200), merely through $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel $`\rho `$ exchange in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering , in much the same way as IS  (see above). Such states SW call “dynamically generated” resonances, as opposed to “pre-existing” ones. These model results have led them to conclude that  “the $`\sigma `$ obtained from the study of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering is not the chiral partner of the pion” and “the non-linear sigma model is the model of choice”. In Ref. , SW also arrive at several other conclusions on the nature of different scalar mesons, which we have shown  to be not supported by experiment (see also Ref. ). In Ref. , we also argued against the strict distinction between “intrinsic” and “dynamically generated” scalar-meson states made by SW.

In the present paper, we readdress the issue of the pion’s chiral $`q\overline{q}`$ partner, and reach the following conclusions:

1. indeed an $`f_0`$(630) is dynamically generated from the chiral field theory constituted by the quark-level linear $`\sigma `$ model (L$`\sigma `$M) , which is based on the original chiral Gell-Mann–Lévy nucleon L$`\sigma `$M , but also predicts the famous NJL  result $`m_\sigma =2m_q`$;
2. the above SW conclusion on the nature of the $`\sigma `$ meson is incorrect. Instead, this $`\sigma `$(630) is indeed the scalar $`n\overline{n}`$ chiral partner of the pion.

Rather than just repeating the analysis of Ref. , in Sec. 2 we demonstrate the chiral structure of these L$`\sigma `$M states for strong, electromagnetic (e.m.), and weak interactions. In Sec. 3, we verify our use of chiral L$`\sigma `$M couplings by showing that corresponding P$`\gamma \gamma `$, VP$`\gamma `$ plus PV$`\gamma `$, VPP e.m., and strong L$`\sigma `$M quark loop-order graphs are always compatible with observed  $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ sum-rule data. We draw our conclusions in Sec. 4 and, in passing, note that both the $`SU(3)`$-symmetry and infinite-momentum-frame approaches of Ref. , and also the dynamical unitarized nonet scheme of Ref., arrive at different $`q\overline{q}`$ patterns for the isoscalar scalar mesons than SW in Refs. .

## 2 Why the $`f_0`$(630) scalar $`\sigma `$ meson is the chiral partner of the $`\pi `$

### 2.1 Brief summary of the L$`\sigma `$M field theory

The chiral-symmetric $`SU(2)`$ linear $`\sigma `$ model (L$`\sigma `$M) was first formulated in 1960 , while the $`SU(3)`$ version dates from 1967, 1969 and 1971, respectively . The L$`\sigma `$M pseudoscalar and scalar nonet $`U(3)`$ states \[$`\pi `$(140), $`K`$(492), $`\eta `$(549), $`\eta ^{}`$(958), and $`\sigma `$(650), $`\kappa `$(800–900), $`f_0`$(980), $`a_0`$(980)\] were later dynamically generated . A L$`\sigma `$M is manifestly renomalizable and much easier to handle than the non-linear NJL scheme , yet chiral symmetry in fact blends together these two pictures , as the dynamically generated theory  shows. Specifically, the $`SU(2)`$ L$`\sigma `$M interaction Lagrangian — due to dynamical symmetry breaking  or spontaneous symmetry breaking  — reads, after the shift of the $`\sigma `$ field,

$$_{\text{L}\sigma \text{M}}^{\text{int}}=g\overline{\psi }(\sigma +i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi })\psi +g^{}\sigma (\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)\frac{\lambda }{4}(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)^2.$$
(2.1)
Here, the fermion fields refer to quarks  and not to nucleons, with constituent quark mass $`m_q=\frac{1}{2}(m_u+m_d)`$ generated via the chiral Goldberger–Treiman relation (GTR) $`f_\pi g=m_q`$, with $`f_\pi `$ 93 MeV (and 90 MeV in the chiral limit (CL) ), resulting in a value near $`m_qm_N/3`$ 315 MeV. In fact, it is dynamically generated in the CL as $`m_q325`$ MeV , and the Gell-Mann–Lévy chiral relations at tree level are

$$g=\frac{m_q}{f_\pi },g^{}=\frac{m_\sigma ^2}{2f_\pi }=\lambda f_\pi .$$
(2.2)
Moreover, at one-loop level Eqs. (2.2) are recovered, together with two new equations  in the CL:

$$m_\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m_q,g_{\pi qq}=g=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{N_c}},$$
(2.3)
for $`N_c=3`$, also dynamically generated. Then, $`g=2\pi /\sqrt{3}=3.6276`$, and

$$m_q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \frac{f_\pi ^{\text{CL}}}{\sqrt{3}}325\text{MeV},m_\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m_q\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}650}\text{MeV}$$
(2.4)
are dynamically generated, from the chiral GTR . Finally, all three L$`\sigma `$M couplings in Eq. (2.1) are dynamically generated as

$$g=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.6},g^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}gm_q\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.3}\text{GeV},\lambda =\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}26.3}.$$
(2.5)
Furthermore, this L$`\sigma `$M then also recovers the vector-meson-dominance (VMD) prediction $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=g_\rho `$ from quark loops alone. When the $`\pi `$-$`\sigma `$-$`\pi `$ L$`\sigma `$M meson loop is added, this VMD prediction is extended to

$$\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{g_\rho }=\frac{6}{5}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.2}.$$
(2.6)
Underlying Eqs. (2.3)–(2.6) is the CL log-divergent gap equation (LDGE)

$$1=i4N_cg^2\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}(p^2m_q^2)^2,$$
(2.7)
corresponding to the $`V\pi \pi `$ quark-loop form factors, automatically normalized to  $`F_\pi (q^2=0)=1`$. Further invoking the LDGE (2.7) in turn requires

$$g_{\rho \pi \pi }=\sqrt{3}g_{\pi qq}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ,$$
(2.8)
close to the value $`6.04`$ needed to obtain the observed $`\rho `$ width $`150.2`$ MeV.

### 2.2 Chiral cancellations for strong-interaction $`s`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi N`$ scattering lengths

Consider the low-energy $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi N`$ L$`\sigma `$M graphs of Figs. 1 and 2. Away from the CL, the $`\pi \pi `$ contact graph with coupling $`\lambda `$ (Fig. 1a) is related to the cubic meson coupling (Fig. 1b) as

$$g_{\sigma \pi \pi }(=g^{})=\frac{m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi }=\lambda f_\pi .$$
(2.9)
Then, at the soft-pion point $`s=m_\pi ^2`$, the net $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude (Figs. 1a+1b) “miraculously” vanishes :

$$_{\pi \pi }=_{\pi \pi }^{\text{contact}}+_{\pi \pi }^{\sigma \text{-pole}}\lambda +\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2(m_\pi ^2m_\sigma ^2)^1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(2.10)
In other words, the contact term $`\lambda `$ “chirally eats” the $`\sigma `$ pole at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$, due to Eq. (2.9). Crossing symmetry then extends Eq. (2.10) to the Weinberg PCAC form , but generalized to the L$`\sigma `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\pi \pi }^{abcd}=A\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}+B\delta ^{ac}\delta ^{bd}+C\delta ^{ad}\delta ^{bc},\hfill \\ A^{\text{L}\sigma \text{M}}=2\lambda \left[1\frac{2\lambda f_\pi ^2}{m_\sigma ^2s}\right]=\frac{m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}{m_\sigma ^2s}\frac{sm_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
Thus, for $`m_\sigma =`$ 650 MeV (as dynamically generated in Ref.  via the GTR), the $`I=0`$ $`s`$-channel amplitude $`3A+B+C`$ predicts a 23% enhancement of the Weinberg $`s`$-wave scattering length at $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$, $`t=u=0`$, $`\epsilon =m_\pi ^2/m_\sigma ^2=0.045`$:

$$a_{\pi \pi }^{(0)}|_{\text{L}\sigma \text{M}}=\frac{7+\epsilon }{14\epsilon }\frac{m_\pi }{32\pi f_\pi ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.23}\frac{7m_\pi }{32\pi f_\pi ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.20}m_\pi ^1.$$
(2.12)
If instead we use $`m_\sigma =`$ 550 MeV, a value which is closer to what is found in unitarized meson models , we get $`\epsilon =`$ 0.063, so that Eq. (2.12) yields an increased scattering length $`a_{\pi \pi }^{(0)}|_{\text{L}\sigma \text{M}}`$ 0.22 $`m_\pi ^1`$. The latter result is also obtained in a 2-loop chiral-perturbation-theory (ChPT) calculation involving about 100 arbitrary LECs! So we prefer working with the simple parameter-free L$`\sigma `$M form (2.12), since the Weinberg PCAC scattering length  is based on the PCAC equation itself, first derived via the L$`\sigma `$M Lagrangian , our Eq. (2.1).

Proceeding on to the $`s`$-wave $`\pi N`$ scattering length, the $`\pi N`$ background amplitude with pseudoscalar (PS) coupling and “Adler consistency condition” (ACC) is , for $`q0`$,

$$_{\pi N}^{ij}(\text{PS})=\frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{m_N}\delta ^{ij}.$$
(2.13)
Then the isospin-zero scattering length corresponding to the “large” PS $`\pi N`$ pole term, reading

$$a_{\pi N}^{(+)}(\text{PS})=\frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{4\pi }\frac{1}{m_N+m_\pi }1.8m_\pi ^1,$$
(2.14)
is reduced to near zero by adding to it the term of Eq. (2.13):

$$a_{\pi N}^{(+)}(\text{Adler})=\frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{4\pi }\frac{m_\pi ^2/4m_N^2}{m_N+m_\pi }0.01m_\pi ^1,$$
(2.15)
due to the ACC soft-pion theorem. Stated in L$`\sigma `$M language, when the $`\sigma `$ pole in Fig. 2b is added to Fig. 2a (Eq. (2.14)), the net $`\pi N`$ scattering length (due to the L$`\sigma `$M coupling (2.9)) combined with the GTR again leads to the small scattering length (2.15)  .

These “miraculous”  chiral cancellations, Eqs. (2.10) and (2.15), both due to the L$`\sigma `$M coupling (2.9), appear to follow the experimental data, suggesting $`a_{\pi N}^{(+)}0.005m_\pi ^1`$ back in 1979 , and now finding  $`a_{\pi N}^{(+)}=(0.0001\stackrel{+0.0009}{0.0021})m_\pi ^1`$ and $`a_{\pi N}^{(+)}=(0.22\pm 0.43)m_\pi ^1`$, respectively. However, ChPT advocates prefer to work with a (seemingly non-renormalizable and obviously non-local) pseudovector theory, derived from a non-linear $`\sigma `$ model, from which the $`\sigma `$ meson has been eliminated as a fundamental degree of freedom. In our opinion, this is one of the reasons why in ChPT the above results require such a tremendous effort, while they are almost trivially obtained in the quark-level L$`\sigma `$M. At this point, we can also not ignore the mounting experimental evidence for the existence of the $`\sigma `$ .

### 2.3 Pion charge radius and the chiral pion

Now we comment on the chiral structure of the pion charge radius

$$r_\pi ^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\frac{dF_\pi (q^2)}{d(q^2)}|_{q^2=0}=\frac{3}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}=(0.60\text{fm})^2$$
(2.16)
for the chiral-limiting value $`f_\pi =90`$ MeV, which result is close to the measured  $`0.63\pm 0.01`$ fm. Invoking the L$`\sigma `$M relation  $`f_\pi ^{\text{CL}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }m_q`$ from Eq. (2.4) above, then Eq. (2.16) requires, from the quark-loop pion form factor at $`q^2=0`$ ,

$$r_\pi =\frac{1}{m_q}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.61}\text{fm}.$$
(2.17)
This tightly bound (fused) pion charge radius, as observed experimentally, certainly suggests the chiral pion’s wave function is $`q\overline{q}`$. Note that ChPT requires $`r_\pi `$ to be proportional to the parameter “$`L_9`$. We prefer the parameter-free forms, Eqs. (2.16) and (2.17) above.

### 2.4 Chiral couplings for $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ and $`\sigma 2\gamma `$ e.m. decays

One knows that PVV L$`\sigma `$M coupling  or AVV coupling  gives the gauge-invariant chiral quark-loop $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ amplitude

$$|F_{\pi ^02\gamma }|=\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.025}\text{GeV}^1,$$
(2.18)
for $`N_c=3`$. This is in perfect agreement with the data  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }=m_\pi ^3|F_{\pi ^02\gamma }|^2/64\pi `$ or $`|F_{\pi ^02\gamma }|=0.025\pm 0.001`$ GeV-1, for $`N_c=3`$. Likewise, the chiral partner to the $`\pi `$, the $`\sigma `$(630), predicts the gauge-invariant quark-loop-plus-$`\pi ^+`$-loop amplitude

$$|F_{\sigma \gamma \gamma }|=\frac{5}{3}\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.5}\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.2}\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.055}\text{GeV}^1,$$
(2.19)
corresponding to the decay rate (for $`m_\sigma =`$ 630 MeV)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \gamma \gamma }=\frac{m_\sigma ^3|F_{\sigma \gamma \gamma }|^2}{64\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.76}\text{keV}.$$
(2.20)
This prediction is reasonably compatible with the extracted $`\sigma 2\gamma `$ rates  $`(3.8\pm 1.5)`$ keV and $`(5.4\pm 2.8)`$ keV, respectively, provided that these rates indeed refer to the $`\sigma `$, as advocated by the authors , and not to the $`f_0`$(1370).

### 2.5 Chiral transitions for weak $`K_S2\pi `$ decays

The $`s`$-channel $`\sigma `$-pole graph of Fig. 3 dominates parity-violating (PV) $`K_S2\pi `$ decays, with PV weak amplitude magnitude

$$\left|<2\pi |H_w^{\text{PV}}|K_S>\right|=|2<2\pi |\sigma >|\frac{\left|<\sigma |H_w^{\text{PV}}|K_S>\right|}{m_{K_S}^2m_\sigma ^2+im_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }\frac{1}{f_\pi }\left|<\sigma |H_w^{\text{PV}}|K_S>\right|,$$
(2.21)
since $`<2\pi |\sigma >_{\text{L}\sigma \text{M}}=m_\sigma ^2/2f_\pi `$, $`m_Km_\sigma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma m_\sigma `$ for the broad $`\sigma `$ meson . However, pion PCAC consistency requires

$$\left|<2\pi |H_w^{\text{PV}}|K_S>\right|\frac{1}{f_\pi }\left|<\pi |[Q_5^\pi ,H_w^{\text{PV}}]|K_S>\right|=\frac{1}{f_\pi }\left|<\pi |H_w^{\text{PC}}|K_L>\right|,$$
(2.22)
for $`H_w`$ built up from $`VA`$ chiral currents (PC = parity conserving). Equating (2.21) to (2.22) gives a definition of chiral $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ partners :

$$\left|<\sigma |H_w^{\text{PV}}|K_S>\right|=\left|<\pi ^0|H_w^{\text{PC}}|K_L>\right|.$$
(2.23)
The charge algebra $`[Q+Q_5,H_w]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, PCAC, and Eq. (2.23) clearly suggest that the $`\pi `$(140) and $`\sigma `$(630) are chiral partners.

## 3 Quark-loop L$`\sigma `$M strong and e.m. decays

Rather than proceeding on with more detailed weak-interaction predictions, from Sec. 2 we test the L$`\sigma `$M quark-loop predictions directly against the data for strong and e.m. decays. First consider the $`udu`$ plus $`dud`$ quark loops for $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay with the LDGE (2.7), leading to $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=2\pi `$, Eq. (2.8). The latter L$`\sigma `$M VMD coupling predicts the rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^02\pi }=\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2}{m_\rho ^2}\frac{|𝐩|^3}{6\pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}162.6}\text{MeV}\text{for}|𝐩|=358\text{MeV},$$
(3.1)
close to data at  $`(150.2\pm 0.8)`$ MeV. For the small $`\rho ^0e^+e^{}`$ and $`\omega e^+e^{}`$ decays, we use single-photon exchange to extract the $`g_\rho `$ and $`g_\omega `$ couplings from data :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0e^+e^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3}}m_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_\rho ^2}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6.77}\pm 0.32\text{keV},`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega e^+e^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3}}m_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_\omega ^2}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.60}\pm 0.02\text{keV},`$ (3.3)
leading to

$$g_\rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5.03},g_\omega 17.05.$$
(3.4)
The latter couplings are near the $`U(3)`$ value $`g_\omega =3g_\rho `$, assuming the $`\omega `$ is purely non-strange. But one knows  that there is a slight $`\omega `$-$`\varphi `$ mixing angle $`\varphi _V3.7^{^{}}`$, from the small $`\varphi \pi \gamma `$ decay. Note that the L$`\sigma `$M coupling $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ is relatively near $`g_\rho 5.03`$ found in Eq. (3.4). However, when one adds the $`\pi `$-$`\sigma `$-$`\pi `$ meson loop to the quark loop, one knows from the L$`\sigma `$M Eq. (2.6) that actually $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }/g_\rho =6/5`$, whereas Eq. (3.4) predicts the nearby ratio

$$\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{g_\rho }\frac{2\pi }{5.03}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.25}.$$
(3.5)
Next consider the e.m. decays $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi \gamma `$. Our only use of $`SU(3)`$ symmetry is $`\lambda _\gamma =\lambda _3+\lambda _8/\sqrt{3}`$. This predicts the quark-loop decays, using the $`g_\rho `$ and $`g_\omega `$ couplings from data in Eq. (3.4),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \gamma }=\frac{|𝐩|^3}{12\pi }|_{\rho \pi \gamma }|^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}59}\text{keV}\text{for}|𝐩|=372\text{MeV},$$
(3.6)
with $`|_{\rho \pi \gamma }|=eg_\rho /8\pi ^2f_\pi =0.207`$ GeV-1, which comes out close to the data  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma }=(68\pm 7)`$ keV. Likewise, the L$`\sigma `$M predicts

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma }=\frac{|𝐩|^3}{12\pi }|_{\omega \pi \gamma }|^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}711}\text{keV}\text{for}|𝐩|=379\text{MeV},$$
(3.7)
with $`|_{\omega \pi \gamma }|=eg_\omega \mathrm{cos}\varphi _V/8\pi ^2f_\pi =0.7017`$ GeV-1, very close to the data  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma }=(717\pm 43)`$ keV.

Finally, the e.m. decay $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ is predicted via $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark loops, together with the gauge-invariant amplitude (2.18) and $`N_c=3`$, to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=\frac{|𝐩|^3}{8\pi }|_{\pi ^02\gamma }|^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7.64}\text{eV}\text{for}|𝐩|=67.49\text{MeV},$$
(3.8)
again close to the data  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=(7.74\pm 0.55)`$ eV.

When considering $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ initial states, we circumvent explicit $`\eta `$-$`\eta ^{}`$ mixing by only computing the sum of their squared matrix elements, thereby using $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{PS}+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{PS}=1`$. Then, Table I of Ref.  shows the PVV quark-loop matrix elements for $`\pi ^02\gamma `$, $`\eta 2\gamma `$, $`\eta ^{}2\gamma `$ are, respectively, $`A`$, $`A(5\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{PS}\sqrt{2}r_s\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{PS})/3`$, $`A(5\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{PS}+\sqrt{2}r_s\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{PS})/3`$, for $`A=\alpha /\pi f_\pi 0.025`$ GeV-1, and where $`r_s=\widehat{m}/m_s1/1.44`$ is the constituent-quark-mass ratio, with $`m_s/\widehat{m}=2f_K/f_\pi 1`$ and $`f_K/f_\pi =1.22`$. Therefore, the matrix-element squares satisfy $`|_{\eta 2\gamma }|^2+|_{\eta ^{}2\gamma }|^2=A^2(25+2/1.44^2)/9`$, corresponding to the L$`\sigma `$M decay-rate $`SU(3)`$ sum rule, implied from Ref. ,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta 2\gamma }}{m_\eta ^3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}2\gamma }}{m_\eta ^{}^3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.885}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }}{m_{\pi ^0}^3}.$$
(3.9)
Given the measured central-value rates and masses  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta 2\gamma }=464`$ eV, $`m_\eta =0.5473`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}2\gamma }=4282`$ eV, $`m_\eta ^{}=0.9578`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=7.74`$ eV, $`m_{\pi ^0}=0.1349766`$ GeV, the l.h.s. of Eq. (3.9) sums to $`7704\times 10^9`$ GeV-2, while the r.h.s. is $`9081\times 10^9`$ GeV-2. A one-standard-deviation reduction of the r.h.s. gives $`8435\times 10^9`$ GeV-2, only 9% greater than the l.h.s. of Eq. (3.9).

Likewise, we can construct an $`SU(3)`$ sum rule again by invoking $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi =1`$ for any angle, and referring to Ref.  for $`\eta ^{}\rho \gamma `$, $`\rho \eta \gamma `$, $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ decays. The squares of the L$`\sigma `$M quark-loop matrix elements are $`|_{\eta ^{}\rho \gamma }|^2+|_{\rho \eta \gamma }|^2=9B^2`$ and $`|_{\rho \pi \gamma }|^2=B^2`$, corresponding to the L$`\sigma `$M decay-rate $`SU(3)`$ sum rule

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\rho \gamma }}{|𝐩_1|^3}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \eta \gamma }}{|𝐩_2|^3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}27}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{|𝐩_3|^3}.$$
(3.10)
For the measured central-value rates and CM momenta  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\rho \gamma }=59.6`$ keV, $`|𝐩_1|=169`$ MeV; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \eta \gamma }=36.05`$ keV, $`|𝐩_2|=189`$ MeV; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \gamma }=67.6`$ keV, $`|𝐩_3|=372`$ MeV, the l.h.s. of the sum rule Eq. (3.10) sums up to $`1.2348\times 10^2`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1.6019}\times 10^2`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}=2.8367\times 10^2`$ GeV-2, while the r.h.s. is $`3.5455\times 10^2`$ GeV-2. Considering we have combined the PS $`\eta ^{}`$ decay rate and two vector $`\rho `$ decay rates, we suggest that the L$`\sigma `$$`SU(3)`$ sum rule (3.10) is reasonably well satisfied.

By analogy with Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10), another $`SU(3)`$ sum rule implied in Ref.  reads

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\omega \gamma }}{|𝐩_a|^3}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \eta \gamma }}{|𝐩_b|^3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.336}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{|𝐩_c|^3}.$$
(3.11)
From Ref. , the measured central-value rates and CM momenta are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\omega \gamma }=6.12`$ keV, $`|𝐩_a|=160`$ MeV; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \eta \gamma }=5.486`$ keV, $`|𝐩_b|=199`$ MeV; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma }=717`$ keV, $`|𝐩_c|=379`$ MeV. Then the l.h.s. of Eq. (3.11) sums to $`1.4941\times 10^3`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2.0884}\times 10^3`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}=3.5825\times 10^3`$ GeV-2, while the r.h.s. is nearby at $`4.4253\times 10^3`$ GeV-2. If one increases the $`\omega \eta \gamma `$ rate by one standard deviation, the l.h.s. of Eq. (3.11) becomes $`3.940\times 10^3`$ GeV-2 — again only 9% below the r.h.s. .

## 4 Conclusions

In the preceding we have shown, by straightforward computation, that the quark-level L$`\sigma `$M of Refs.  easily reproduces the small $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi N`$ $`s`$-wave scattering lengths, the pion charge radius, and a variety of e.m., weak, and strong decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons. Crucial for most of these processes is the inclusion of the $`f_0`$(400–1200), alias $`\sigma `$ meson, as a fundamental $`q\overline{q}`$ degree of freedom. This occurs very naturally in the L$`\sigma `$M, where the $`\sigma `$ can then also be dynamically and self-consistently generated , as well as in the unitarized quark/meson model of Ref. . Moreover, a finite-temperature (recall Ref. ) chiral-phase-transition approach , which independently “melts” the quark mass, the $`\sigma `$ mass, and the quark condensate in QCD, suggests that the above L$`\sigma `$M can be identified as the infrared limit of QCD .

In contrast, non-linear approaches where the $`\sigma `$ does not show up as a $`q\overline{q}`$ state or has even been designedly eliminated as a fundamental degree of freedom, like the confining NJL-type model of SW  and ChPT, appear to have difficulties in reproducing several low-energy data, besides having strained relations with the now firmly established $`\sigma `$ itself . We therefore argue that the conclusion of SW  according to which the $`\sigma `$ is not the chiral partner of the pion is not based on “major chiral-symmetry violations”, but rather on the complications and possible approximations in their non-linear NJL scheme. In this respect, we should point out the following apparent contradiction in SW’s line of reasoning. In Ref.  they conclude that confinement is quite a small effect for the $`\pi `$(138) and $`K`$(495) mesons, which may even be best to neglect altogether. However, in Sec. 2.3 we showed that the observed pion charge radius suggests in fact a $`q\overline{q}`$ (fused) $`\pi `$ meson composed of tightly bound quarks, corresponding to an almost massless Nambu-Goldstone pion. Moreover, the well-understood NJL model without confinement does predict a bound-state $`\sigma `$ meson as the chiral $`q\overline{q}`$ partner of the pion. We believe to have demonstrated, in the framework of the quark-level L$`\sigma `$M, that this is indeed the scenario favored by experiment.
Acknowledgements.
The authors wish to thank D. V. Bugg for very useful discussions on processes involving scalar mesons. This work was partly supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) of the Ministério da Ciência e da Tecnologia of Portugal, under Grant no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/20186/99 and under contract numbers POCTI/35304/FIS/2000 and CERN/P/FIS/40119/2000.