text:
# Diff-invariant Kinetic Terms in Arbitrary Dimensions

## I Introduction

In recent years an interesting program devoted to the systematic study of deformations of gauge theories has been developed Barnich et al. (1994). The purpose of this line of research is to study quantum field theories “continuously connected” to other, usually simpler, ones. In a typical situation one considers a free theory, such as Maxwell electromagnetism, takes one or more copies of the Lagrangian describing it, and studies the consistent introduction of interaction terms Barnich et al. (1994). By doing this it has been shown Henneaux (1997) that Yang-Mills theories are the only consistent way to introduce interactions in the Maxwell Lagrangian. However, this does not prove that these are the only consistent interacting theories for 1-form fields because for this to be true one must first know for sure that the only possible starting point is the Maxwell action Fernando Barbero G and Villaseñor (2001).

This example suggests the problem of classifying all the free theories with the scope of using them as a way to obtain interesting interacting models. With this idea in mind, and with the purpose of studying the possibility of finding suitable diff-invariant kinetic terms that could be used to build perturbative treatable gravitational actions we studied in Barbero and Villaseñor (2000) all the possible diff-invariant kinetic terms in four space-time dimensions. We found out that these theories do not describe any local degrees of freedom and, hence, their consistent deformations cannot describe any gravitational theory with local degrees of freedom. Anyway, having a full classification of these kinetic terms one can consider to study all their possible deformations as a means to classify the topological theories in four dimensions of Schwarz type (see Schwarz (2000) and references therein)111Topological theories of the Witten type involve background structures, such as metrics, and are outside the scope of this paper. (or, at least, a big subset of them). Here we extend the analysis of Barbero and Villaseñor (2000) to arbitrary dimensions. Even and odd dimensional spacetimes show some diferences worth of study; in particular in odd dimensions the kinetic term can have “diagonal” parts (as those appearing in the Chern-Simons Lagrangian) that are not present in the even dimensional situation; we discuss this, and related issues here. The paper is organized as follows. After this introduction we study in section II the physical content of purely quadratic, diff-invariant Lagrangians in even dimensions completing the results of Barbero and Villaseñor (2000). We will do it by resorting to covariant symplectic methods as in the quoted paper. Section III will discuss the odd dimensional case with special emphasis on the differences with the even dimensional one. We end the paper in section IV with our conclusions and directions for future work.

## II  Diff-invariant kinetic terms: The even dimensional case

We start by writing the most general diff-invariant local quadratic action in an even-dimensional differentiable manifold. Diff invariance demands the absence of background structures in the Lagrangian, i.e. all the objects that appear must be taken as dynamical. This precludes the appearance of background metrics or connections (other than the ones defined directly by the differential structure). The condition that the action be quadratic also constraints its form in a twofold way because the only derivative operator that we can use is the exterior differential and the only fields that can appear are differential forms, acted upon by the exterior differential. If one considers the inclussion of other types of tensor fields222One can trivially add terms quadratic in tensor densities *without any derivatives* that do not describe any physical degrees of freedom. one would be forced to use covariant derivatives that would give rise to non-quadratic terms in addition to the quadratic ones (or include these terms as total divergencies that would drop in the absence of boundaries).

Let us consider a $`D+1`$-dimensional differentiable manifold $`=\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ is a compact, orientable, $`D`$-dimensional manifold without boundary ($`D=2N1`$, $`N`$). As we stated before we will work with differential forms $`\{A_n\}_{n=0}^{D+1}`$, $`A_n\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{\text{range}_n}()`$. Here $`A_n`$ denotes a set of $`n`$-forms labelled by an internal index (taking values from 1 to $`\text{range}_n`$) that we do not make explicit; in practice we will take $`A_n`$ as a column vector with transpose denoted as $`A_n^\mathrm{t}`$. The most general action under the conditions expressed above is

$$S_{2N}[A]=_{}\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}d\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\text{}_{2Nn1}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}A_n^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Theta }_nA_{2Nn}+\frac{1}{2}A_N^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Theta }_NA_N+\theta ^\mathrm{t}A_{2N}\right\}.$$
(1)
We discuss here the meaning and structure of the different terms in (1). The first term is the only one that involves derivatives. In the following we will make a distinction between two types of fields that we denote and ; are those acted upon by derivatives (either directly or after integration by parts) whereas no derivatives act on the fields. Notice that as we have the freedom to integrate by parts we can extend the sum in the first term only to $`N1`$. Another interesting feature of this first term is that, as $`n2Nn1`$ for all values of $`n,N`$, the two fields that appear in it must be necessarily different so, as shown in appendix A, it is actually possible to avoid the introduction of a “coupling matrix” and take $`\text{}_n`$ and $`\text{}_{2Nn1}`$ with the same number of internal components. This allows us to write it in the following convenient form

$$d\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\text{}_{2Nn1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}d\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\hfill & d\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\hfill \end{array}\right]\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\left[\begin{array}{c}\text{}_{2Nn1}\\ \\ \text{}_{2Nn1}\end{array}\right]$$

with $`\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝕀_n\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]`$ ($`𝕀_n`$ is the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix). The second term involves both type 1 and type 2 fields and it does not contain any derivatives. We have used the following compact notation

$$A_n^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Theta }_nA_{2Nn}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\hfill & \text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{11}\hfill & \mathrm{\Theta }_n^{12}\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_n^{21}\hfill & \mathrm{\Theta }_n^{22}\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\text{}_{2Nn}\\ \\ \text{}_{2Nn}\end{array}\right].$$

Here we must allow the appearance of arbitrary, real, coupling matrices $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{11}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{21}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{22}`$. These matrices are not square, in general, because the dimensions of $`A_n`$ and $`A_{2Nn}`$ do not necessarily match. We are also writing type-1 and type-2 fields in a single object

$$A_n=\left[\begin{array}{c}\text{}_n\\ \\ \text{}_n\end{array}\right].$$

The third term in (1) involves only the $`A_N`$ field so the matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N`$ is symmetric or antisymmetric for even and odd values of $`N`$ respectively; for convenience we introduce a 1/2 factor in front of it. Finally the last, linear term, involves a 2N-form $`A_{2N}`$ and a constant vector $`\theta `$.

The field equations obtained from (1) are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }_0^\mathrm{t}A_0+\theta =0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2b)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_n+\mathrm{\Theta }_{n+1}^\mathrm{t}A_{n+1}=0,0n<N1\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2d)
$`\begin{array}{cc}(1)^N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_{N1}+\mathrm{\Theta }_NA_N=0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2f)
$`\begin{array}{cc}(1)^n\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_n+\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn1}A_{n+1}=0,Nn<2N.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2h)
Equation (2f) will be referred to as the “central equation” because it plays a special role in the resolution of the equations (2).

The process of solving these equations is tedious but straightforward. At every step, i.e. for every equation, we get a certain consistency condition, a partial solution for one of the fields, and a complete solution for another. The only obvious exceptions are the first and last equations. For (2b) we do not get a complete solution for any of the $`A_n`$ whereas for (2h) the solution process terminates and we get no partial solutions.

### II.1  Equation (2b)

Let us take a set of linearly independent elements of the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$, $`\rho _{c_o}^{|0|}`$ labelled by $`c_0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_0\rho _{c_o}^{|0|}=0`$). We immediately see that the constant vector $`\theta `$ must satisfy the consistency condition

$$\rho _{c_o}^{|0|\mathrm{t}}\theta =0.$$
(3)
When this condition holds we can solve the linear set of equations (2b) to get

$$A_0(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta +\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}A_0^{\alpha _0}(x)$$
(4)
where $`A_0^{\alpha _0}(x)`$ are *arbitrary* 0-forms at this stage, $`\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}`$, labelled by $`\alpha _0`$, belong to the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^\mathrm{t}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^\mathrm{t}\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}=0`$), and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta `$ denotes a particular solution to the inhomogeneous equations (2b)333Upper and lower indices appearing in pairs are summed over. In order to avoid confusion we use vertical bars in the labels of $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ that indicate to which of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ matrices they refer to; this indices are *never* summed over. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^1`$ can be thought of as a pseudoinverse of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$.. At this point we have a consistency condition (3) and a partial solution for $`A_0(x)`$ that we use in the next step.

### II.2  Equations (2d)

If $`N>1`$ Eqs. (2d) are a set of $`N1`$ equations that are all solved by following essentially the same procedure as before though there are some minor differences depending on the type of differential forms involved. Let us consider first the equation for $`n=0`$,

$$\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_0+\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mathrm{t}A_1=0.$$

Taking a set of linearly independent elements of the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$, $`\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}`$ labelled by $`c_1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_1\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}=0`$) we obtain the consistency condition

$$\rho _{c_1}^{|1|\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}dA_0^{\alpha _0}(x):=_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}dA_0^{\alpha _0}(x)=0$$
(5)
where we have defined a new matrix $`_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}`$. Notice that the presence of $`\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ in its definition means that (5) is a condition on type-1 fields only. This condition can be solved in the following way. We expand

$$A_0^{\alpha _0}(x)=[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}A_0^{p_0}(x)+[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}A_0^{q_0}(x)$$

where $`_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}=0`$ and the $`[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}`$ together with $`[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}`$ define a basis of the real vector space on which $`_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}`$ is defined. Here $`p_0`$, $`q_0`$ are supposed to take different sets of values (so that $`A^{p_0}(x)`$ and $`A^{q_0}(x)`$ are independent objects) and label the vectors in the basis; $`\alpha _0`$ is an explicit vector index. Plugging the previous decomposition in (5) gives

$$_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}dA_0^{q_0}(x)=0,$$
(6)
and taking into account that $`_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}`$ is a basis of the image of $`_{c_1\alpha _0}^{|0|}`$ we conclude that $`dA_0^{q_0}(x)=0`$ and, hence

$$A_0^{q_0}(x)=𝐚_{|0|}^{q_0i_0}A_{i_0}^{|0|}(x),$$
(7)
where $`\{A_{i_0}^{|0|}(x)\}_{i_0=0}^{dimH^0()}`$ is a basis of the $`0^{\text{th}}`$-de Rham cohomology group444For a short review on the de-Rham cohomology groups in this context we refer the reader to Barbero and Villaseñor (2000). of $``$ and $`𝐚_{|0|}^{q_0i_0}`$. With this information we can complete now the partial solution for $`A_0(x)`$ that we obtained in the previous step

$`A_0(x)=`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta +\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}\left\{[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}A_0^{p_0}(x)+[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}𝐚_{|0|}^{q_0i_0}A_{i_0}^{|0|}(x)\right\}.`$
We can also get in this step, by using (8), a partial solution for $`A_1`$ in the form

$$A_1(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}dA_0^{p_0}(x)+\lambda _{\alpha _1}^{|1|}A_1^{\alpha _1}(x).$$
(9)
The remaining equations in (2d) are solved in exactly the same way. The only difference with the case just discussed appears in the solutions of conditions analogous to (6) for $`p`$-forms with $`p>0`$. If we have, for example,

$$_{c_2\alpha _1}^{|1|}[v_{q_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}dA_1^{q_1}(x)=0$$

with $`_{c_2\alpha _1}^{|1|}:=\rho _{c_2}^{|2|\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _1}^{|1|}`$ we expand

$$A_1^{\alpha _1}(x)=[r_{p_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}A_1^{p_1}(x)+[v_{q_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}A_1^{q_1}(x)$$

where $`_{c_2\alpha _1}^{|1|}[r_{p_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}=0`$ and the $`[v_{q_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}`$ are introduced to complete a basis of the real vector space on which $`_{c_2\alpha _1}^{|1|}`$ is defined. By doing this we get the equation $`dA_1^{q_1}(x)=0`$ with solutions given by

$$A_1^{q_1}(x)=𝐚_{|1|}^{q_1i_1}A_{i_1}^{|1|}(x)+d\varpi _0^{q_1}(x).$$
(10)
Here $`\{A_{i_1}^{|1|}(x)\}_{i_1=0}^{dimH^1()}`$ is a basis of the $`1^{\text{st}}`$-de Rham cohomology group of $``$, $`𝐚_{|1|}^{q_1i_1}`$, and $`\varpi _0^{q_1}(x)`$ are arbitrary 0-forms. The only difference with the case discussed above is the appearance of $`\varpi _0^{q_1}(x)`$. Similar objects appear for the remaining equations. We end this subsection by giving the solutions obtained from a generic equation (labelled by n) in this set: the complete solution for $`A_n`$, $`(0<n<N1)`$

$`A_n(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{n1}}^{|n1|}[r_{p_{n1}}^{|n1|}]^{\alpha _{n1}}dA_{n1}^{p_{n1}}(x)+`$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _n}^{|n|}\{[r_{p_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}A_n^{p_n}(x)+`$ (11)
$`+[v_{q_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}[𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}A_{i_n}^{|n|}(x)+d\varpi _{n1}^{q_n}(x)]\}`$
and a partial solution for $`A_{n+1}`$ $`(0n<N1)`$

$`A_{n+1}(x)=`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{n+1}^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _n}^{|n|}[r_{p_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}dA_n^{p_n}(x)+\lambda _{\alpha _{n+1}}^{|n+1|}A_{n+1}^{\alpha _{n+1}}(x).`$
### II.3  Central equation (2f)

The matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N`$ that appears in this equation is either symmetric or antisymmetric and hence the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N^\mathrm{t}`$ coincide. Here we get the complete solution for $`A_{N1}(x)`$

$`A_{N1}(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1}^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{N2}}^{|N2|}[r_{p_{N2}}^{|N2|}]^{\alpha _{N2}}dA_{N2}^{p_{N2}}(x)`$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|}\{[r_{p_{N1}}^{|N1|}]^{\alpha _{N1}}A_{N1}^{p_{N1}}(x)`$ (13)
$`+[v_{q_{N1}}^{|N1|}]^{\alpha _{N1}}[𝐚_{|N1|}^{q_{N1}i_{N1}}A_{i_{N1}}^{|N1|}(x)+d\varpi _{N2}^{q_{N1}}(x)]\}`$
and a partial solution for $`A_N(x)`$

$`A_N(x)=(1)^{N+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_N^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|}[r_{p_{N1}}^{|N1|}]^{\alpha _{N1}}dA_{N1}^{p_{N1}}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}A_N^{c_N}(x).`$ (14)
### II.4  Equations (2h)

At this point the procedure that we use to solve the equations must be clear and, in fact, the rationale to give some details in this and the following sections is that of introducing in a systematic way the notation that we are using. Let us consider first the equation ($`n=N`$)

$$(1)^N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_N+\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1}A_{N+1}=0.$$

We have now the consistency condition given by

$$\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}dA_N^{c_N}(x):=𝒩_{\alpha _{N1}c_N}^{|N|}dA_N^{c_N}(x)=0.$$

where $`𝒩_{\alpha _{k1}c_k}^{|k|}`$ satisfies $`𝒩_{\alpha _{k1}c_k}^{|k|}=_{c_k\alpha _{k1}}^{|k1|}`$ for every $`k`$. Expanding

$$A_N^{c_N}(x)=[l_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_N^{p_N}(x)+[w_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_N^{q_N}(x)$$

with $`𝒩_{\alpha _{N1}c_N}^{|N|}[l_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}=0`$ and $`[w_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}`$ introduced to complete a basis of the vector space where $`𝒩_{\alpha _{N1}c_N}^{|N|}`$ is defined. The complete solution for $`A_N(x)`$ is

$`A_N(x)=(1)^{N+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_N^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|}[r_{p_{N1}}^{|N1|}]^{\alpha _{N1}}dA_{N1}^{p_{N1}}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}\{[l_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_N^{p_N}(x)`$ (15)
$`+[w_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}[𝐚_{|N|}^{q_Ni_N}A_{i_N}^{|N|}(x)+d\varpi _{N1}^{q_N}(x)]\}`$
and we get the folowing partial solution for $`A_{N+1}(x)`$

$`A_{N+1}(x)=(1)^{N+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}[l_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{c_N}dA_N^{p_N}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{N1}}^{|N1|}A_{N+1}^{c_{N1}}(x).`$ (16)
From a generic equation in this set ($`N<n<2N1`$) we get a complete solution for $`A_n(x)`$

$`A_n(x)=`$
$`(1)^n\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_{2Nn+1}}^{|2Nn+1|}[l_{p_{n1}}^{|2Nn+1|}]^{c_{2Nn+1}}dA_{n1}^{p_{n1}}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{2Nn}}^{|2Nn|}\{[l_{p_n}^{|2Nn|}]^{c_{2Nn}}A_n^{p_n}(x)`$ (17)
$`+[w_{q_n}^{|2Nn|}]^{c_{2Nn}}[𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}A_{i_n}^{|n|}(x)+d\varpi _{n1}^{q_n}(x)]\}`$
and a partial solution for $`A_{n+1}(x)`$

$`A_{n+1}(x)=`$
$`(1)^{n+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn1}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_{2Nn}}^{|2Nn|}[l_{p_n}^{|2Nn|}]^{c_{2Nn}}dA_n^{p_n}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{2Nn1}}^{|2Nn1|}A_{n+1}^{c_{2Nn1}}(x),`$ (18)
where the objects appearing in these equations are defined in analogy with the ones introduced at the beginning of this subsection. The solutions for all the equations (2h), are given by (17) except the first one ($`n=N`$) which is given by (15) and the last one that is given by

$`A_{2N}(x)=`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}[l_{p_{2N1}}^{|1|}]^{c_1}dA_{2N1}^{p_{2N1}}(x)+\rho _{c_0}^{|0|}A_{2N}^{c_0}(x).`$
As we see the solutions are parametrized by three different types of objects: Arbitrary $`n`$-forms $`A_n^{p_n}(x)`$, $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N1)`$, and $`A_{2N}^{c_0}(x)`$; arbitrary $`n`$-forms $`\varpi _n^{q_{n+1}}(x)`$, $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N2)`$, and a set of real numbers $`𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}`$ $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N1)`$.

If $`N=1`$ the solutions are given by (8), (15), and (19) with $`N=1`$ in these last two equations.

### II.5  Symplectic structure

Once we have obtained the solutions to the field equations we must compute the symplectic structure on the solution space. This will allow us to identify the physical degrees of freedom and the gauge symmetries of the lagrangians introduced above. To this end we must substitute the solutions to the field equations into the symplectic structure obtained from the action

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\text{dI}\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\text{dI}\text{}_{2Nn1}$$
(20)
After a series of cancellations between the different terms we find the following expression for the symplectic structure in the space of fields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}[[v_{q_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}𝒩_{\alpha _nc_{n+1}}^{|n+1|}[w_{q_{2Nn1}}^{|n+1|}]^{c_{n+1}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }A_{i_n}^{|n|}A_{i_{2Nn1}}^{|2Nn1|}]\text{dI}\text{a}_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}\text{dI}\text{a}_{|2Nn1|}^{q_{2Nn1}i_{2Nn1}}$$
(21)
As we can see the only degrees of freedom are described by $`\text{a}_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}`$; all the remaining objects in the solutions obtained above represent gauge transformations. This means that all these models (in even dimensional spacetimes) are topological theories of the Schwarz type because they do not depend on any metric but only on the topology of the manifold $``$ (or, equivalently $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Some comments on the structure of (21) are in order now. First it is straightforward to prove that the factors in front of $`\text{dI}𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}\text{dI}𝐚_{|2Nn1|}^{q_{2Nn1}i_{2Nn1}}`$ are, in fact, non singular. This is so because $`𝒩_{\alpha _nc_{n+1}}^{|n+1|}`$ is non singular in the vector spaces spanned by $`[w_{q_{2Nn1}}^{|n+1|}]^{c_{n+1}}`$ and $`[v_{q_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}`$ and the integral is non-singular as a consequence of Poincaré duality. Second it is possible to prove, by Poincaré’s lemma that the de-Rham cohomology groups of $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coincide ($`H^k()=H^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$). Finally we want to point out an interesting feature of (21) wich is the fact that every term in the sum depends on two consecutive matrices $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{n+1}`$ and there are no “diagonal terms” (involving $`𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}`$’s with the same index $`|n|`$).

## III  Diff-invariant kinetic terms: The odd dimensional case.

Let us consider now the following action in $`2N+1`$ dimensions

$$S_{2N+1}[A]=_{}\left\{\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}d\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\text{}_{2Nn}+\frac{1}{2}d\text{}_N\mathrm{\Xi }_N\text{}_N+\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}A_n^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Theta }_nA_{2Nn+1}+\theta ^\mathrm{t}A_{2N+1}\right\}$$
(22)
where the notation that we use is analogous to the one introduced in the previous section; in particular we work now with sets of differential forms $`A_n`$ (with an internal index that we do not make explicit) of order $`n=0,\mathrm{},2N+1`$. We see that we have now the possibility of having a diagonal derivative term (that we will refer to as the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-term) $`\frac{1}{2}d\text{}_N\mathrm{\Xi }_N\text{}_N`$. At variance with the previous case we cannot eliminate the coupling matrix $`\mathrm{\Xi }_N`$ by non-singular field redefinitions. With the conventions that we are using we can take $`\mathrm{\Xi }_N`$ as a non-singular matrix; if $`N`$ is odd we can choose it to be symmetric whereas for even $`N`$ it is antisymmetric. If $`\mathrm{\Xi }_N`$ is symmetric and non-singular we can diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Xi }_N`$ and write it as a diagonal matrix of 1 and $``$1 entries. If it is antisymmetric it is always possible to write it as the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 𝕀\\ \hfill 𝕀& \hfill 0\end{array}\right].$$

This structure will determine, in part, the types of internal symmetries of the actions derived from (22) by means of consistent deformations. The structure of the remaining terms of this action is analogous to the ones considered in the previous section. The field equations derived from (22) are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }_0^\mathrm{t}A_0+\theta =0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23b)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_n+\mathrm{\Theta }_{n+1}^\mathrm{t}A_{n+1}=0,0nN1\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23d)
$`\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{N+1}\mathrm{\Xi }_N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_N+\mathrm{\Theta }_NA_{N+1}=0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23f)
$`\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{n+1}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_n+\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn}A_{n+1}=0,N+1n2N.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23h)
The structure of equations (23b-23d) is exactly the same as in the previous case; we write their solutions here for completeness. From (23b) we get the partial solution

$$A_0(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta +\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}A_0^{\alpha _0}(x)$$
(24)
with $`\rho _{c_o}^{|0|\mathrm{t}}\theta =0`$; and proceeding as before we finally get

$`A_0(x)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta +\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}\left\{[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}A_0^{p_0}(x)+[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}𝐚_{|0|}^{q_0i_0}A_{i_0}^{|0|}(x)\right\}.`$
Equations (23d) give the complete solution for $`A_n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$)

$`A_n(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{n1}}^{|n1|}[r_{p_{n1}}^{|n1|}]^{\alpha _{n1}}dA_{n1}^{p_{n1}}(x)+`$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _n}^{|n|}\{[r_{p_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}A_n^{p_n}(x)+`$ (25)
$`+[v_{q_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}[𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}A_{i_n}^{|n|}(x)+d\varpi _{n1}^{q_n}(x)]\}`$
and a partial solution for $`A_{n+1}`$ ($`n=0,\mathrm{},N1`$)

$`A_{n+1}(x)=`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{n+1}^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _n}^{|n|}[r_{p_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}dA_n^{p_n}(x)+\lambda _{\alpha _{n+1}}^{|n+1|}A_{n+1}^{\alpha _{n+1}}(x)`$
with all the algebraic objects appearing in these expressions defined as in the even case.

### III.1  Central equation (23f)

The first consistency condition that we get from the central equation is

$$\lambda _{\alpha _N}^{|N|\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{\Xi }_N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _N^{}}^{|N|}dA_N^{\alpha _N^{}}(x):=𝕄_{\alpha _N\alpha _N^{}}dA_N^{\alpha _N^{}}(x)=0.$$
(27)
Expanding

$$A_n^{\alpha _N}(x)=[r_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}A_N^{p_N}(x)+[v_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}A_N^{q_N}(x)$$

where $`𝕄_{\alpha _N\alpha _N^{}}[r_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N^{}}=0`$ and $`[v_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}`$ are introduced, as in previous instances, to complete a basis of the relevant vector space. The complete solution for $`A_N(x)`$ is

$`A_N(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|}[r_{p_{N1}}^{|N1|}]^{\alpha _{N1}}dA_{N1}^{p_{N1}}(x)+`$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _N}^{|N|}\{[r_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}A_N^{p_N}(x)+`$ (28)
$`+[v_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}[𝐚_{|N|}^{q_Ni_N}A_{i_N}^{|N|}(x)+d\varpi _{N1}^{q_N}(x)]\}`$
and we get the following partial solution for $`A_{N+1}(x)`$

$`A_{N+1}(x)=`$ (29)
$`(1)^N\mathrm{\Theta }_N^1\mathrm{\Xi }_N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _N}^{|N|}[r_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}dA_N^{p_N}(x)+\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}A_{N+1}^{c_N}(x).`$
### III.2  Equations (23h)

Let us consider the equation corresponding to $`n=N+1`$

$$(1)^N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}dA_{N+1}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1}A_{N+2}=0.$$

As before we get the consistency condition

$$\lambda _{\alpha _{N1}}^{|N1|}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}dA_{N+1}^{c_N}(x):=𝒩_{\alpha _{N1}c_N}^{|N|}dA_{N+1}^{c_N}(x)=0.$$

Expanding

$$A_{N+1}^{c_N}(x)=[l_{p_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_{N+1}^{p_{N+1}}(x)+[w_{q_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_{N+1}^{q_{N+1}}(x)$$

with $`𝒩_{\alpha _{N1}c_N}^{|N|}[l_{p_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}=0`$ and $`[w_{q_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}`$ introduced to complete a basis of the relevant vector space. The complete solution for $`A_{N+1}`$ is

$`A_{N+1}(x)=(1)^N\mathrm{\Theta }_N^1\mathrm{\Xi }_N\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _N}^{|N|}[r_{p_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}dA_N^{p_N}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}\{[l_{p_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}A_{N+1}^{p_{N+1}}(x)`$ (30)
$`+[w_{q_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}[𝐚_{|N+1|}^{q_{N+1}i_{N+1}}A_{i_{N+1}}^{|N+1|}(x)+d\varpi _N^{q_{N+1}}(x)]\}`$
and we get the following partial solution for $`A_{N+2}`$

$`A_{N+2}(x)=(1)^{N+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_N}^{|N|}[l_{p_{N+1}}^{|N|}]^{c_N}dA_{N+1}^{p_{N+1}}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{N1}}^{|N1|}A_{N+2}^{c_{N1}}(x).`$ (31)
For a generic equation in this set ($`N+1<n<2N`$) we get a complete solution for $`A_n(x)`$

$`A_n(x)=`$
$`(1)^{n+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn+1}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_{2Nn+2}}^{|2Nn+2|}[l_{p_{n1}}^{|2Nn+2|}]^{c_{2Nn+1}}dA_{n1}^{p_{n1}}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{2Nn+1}}^{|2Nn+1|}\{[l_{p_n}^{|2Nn+1|}]^{c_{2Nn+1}}A_n^{p_n}(x)`$ (32)
$`+[w_{q_n}^{|2Nn+1|}]^{c_{2Nn+1}}[𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}A_{i_n}^{|n|}(x)+d\varpi _{n1}^{q_n}(x)]\}`$
and a partial solution for $`A_{n+1}(x)`$

$`A_{n+1}(x)=`$
$`(1)^n\mathrm{\Theta }_{2Nn}^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_{2Nn+1}}^{|2Nn+1|}[l_{p_n}^{|2Nn+1|}]^{c_{2Nn+1}}dA_n^{p_n}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_{2Nn}}^{|2Nn|}A_{n+1}^{c_{2Nn}}(x),`$ (33)
where the objects appearing in these equations are defined in analogy with the ones previously introduced in the paper. The solutions for all the equations (23), are given by (32) except the first one ($`n=N+1`$) which is given by (30) and the last one that is given by

$`A_{2N+1}(x)=`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}[l_{p_{2N}}^{|1|}]^{c_1}dA_{2N}^{p_{2N}}(x)+\rho _{c_0}^{|0|}A_{2N+1}^{c_0}(x).`$
The solutions are parametrized by three different types of objects: Arbitrary $`n`$-forms $`A_n^{p_n}(x)`$, $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N)`$, and $`A_{2N+1}^{c_0}(x)`$; arbitrary $`n`$-forms $`\varpi _n^{q_{n+1}}(x)`$, $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N1)`$, and a set of real numbers $`𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}`$ $`(n=0,\mathrm{},2N)`$. If $`N=1`$ the solutions are

$`A_0(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{1\mathrm{t}}\theta `$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}\left\{[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}A_0^{p_0}(x)+[v_{q_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}𝐚_{|0|}^{q_0i_0}A_{i_0}^{|0|}(x)\right\}`$
$`A_1(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{1\mathrm{t}}\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _0}^{|0|}[r_{p_0}^{|0|}]^{\alpha _0}dA_0^{p_0}(x)`$
$`+\lambda _{\alpha _1}^{|1|}\left\{[r_{p_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}A_1^{p_1}(x)+[v_{q_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}\left[𝐚_{|1|}^{q_1i_1}A_{i_1}^{|1|}(x)+d\varpi _0^{q_1}(x)\right]\right\}`$
$`A_2(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{1\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{\Xi }_1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\lambda _{\alpha _1}^{|1|}[r_{p_1}^{|1|}]^{\alpha _1}dA_1^{p_1}(x)`$
$`+\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}\left\{[l_{p_2}^{|1|}]^{c_1}A_2^{p_2}(x)+[w_{q_2}^{|1|}]^{c_1}\left[𝐚_{|2|}^{q_2i_2}A_{i_2}^{|2|}(x)+d\varpi _1^{q_2}(x)\right]\right\}`$
$`A_3(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^1\stackrel{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\rho _{c_1}^{|1|}[l_{p_2}^{|1|}]^{c_1}dA_2^{p_2}(x)+\rho _{c_0}^{|0|}A_3^{c_0}(x).`$
### III.3  Symplectic structure

The symplectic structure in this case is obtained by substituting the solutions to the field equations in

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }[\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\text{dI}\text{}_n^\mathrm{t}\text{dI}\text{}_{2Nn}+\text{dI}\text{}_N^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Xi }_N\text{dI}\text{}_N]$$
(35)
to get

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}[[v_{q_n}^{|n|}]^{\alpha _n}𝒩_{\alpha _nc_{n+1}}^{|n+1|}[w_{q_{2Nn}}^{|n+1|}]^{c_{n+1}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}A_{i_n}^{|n|}A_{i_{2Nn}}^{|2Nn|}]\text{dI}𝐚_{|n|}^{q_ni_n}\text{dI}𝐚_{|2Nn|}^{q_{2Nn}i_{2Nn}}`$ (36)
$`+[[v_{q_N}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N}𝕄_{\alpha _N\alpha _N^{}}[v_{q_N^{}}^{|N|}]^{\alpha _N^{}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}A_{i_N}^{|N|}A_{i_N^{}}^{|N|}]\text{dI}𝐚_{|N|}^{q_Ni_N}\text{dI}𝐚_{|N|}^{q_N^{}i_N^{}}.`$
The most interesting feature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the appearence of diagonal $`\text{dI}𝐚\text{dI}𝐚`$ terms that depend on both $`\mathrm{\Xi }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N`$ (through $`\lambda _N`$).

## IV Concluding remarks

We have studied in this paper the most general quadratic diff-invariant theories in arbitrary dimensions; in particular we have found that they always describe topological (non-local) degrees of freedom. This result is easy to understand in the covariant symplectic framework that we are using here to study the dynamical content and the symmetries of the actions (1) and (22) because the symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the solution space given by eqs. (21) and (36) is *independent* of the choice of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As the functions that appear in the solutions to the field equations are completely arbitrary the only way to avoid a hypersurface dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is if they do not appear in the symplectic structure. This can be checked by the explicit computation of the restriction of (20) and (35) to the corresponding solution spaces.

In the actions that we have considered the fields that appear (or rather, some combinations of them determined by the coupling matrices that we introduce) can be thought of as Lagrange multipliers imposing constraints on the exterior differentials of other fields. The fact that the coupling matrices that we introduce are completely general makes it difficult to disentangle this complicated set of constraints. In fact, if instead of the covariant symplectic techniques that we use here one resorts to the more familiar Dirac constraint analysis, the problem becomes very hard to solve. By finding out the most general solutions of the field equations and the symplectic structure we can write down the gauge symmetries of all these actions and identify their degrees of freedom in a straightforward way.

As we can see by looking at the symplectic 2-forms that we find in the paper the matrices that multiply the $`\text{dI}𝐚\text{dI}𝐚`$ terms depend on pairs of consecutive $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ matrices and for odd dimensions also on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_N`$.

An interesting and open problem is to study the consistent deformations of the actions given in this paper (some work in this direction has been carried out for the abelian Chern-Simons Lagrangian in Barnich and Henneaux (1993)). They would provide coupled topological theories of the BF type in even dimensions or coupled Chern-Simons and BF theories in odd dimensions. One would expect that some modes that are decoupled in the free models that we consider here are actually coupled in their deformations as it happens, in a slightly different context, in the BFYM Lagrangians discussed in Cattaneo et al. (1998). For every Lagrangian of the type that we are considering in this paper it is easy to find another one involving only derivative terms with the same dynamical content (changing, if necessary the internal dimensions of some of the fields involved); however, we do not know if the consistent deformations of Lagrangians equivalent in this sense will be equivalent.

## Appendix A Structure of the derivative term in even dimensions

We show here that, with the exception of the Chern-Simons-like terms that appear in the odd-dimensional case (coupling $`A_N`$ with $`dA_N`$) it is always possible to avoid introducing coupling matrices in the derivative terms by using linear field redefinitions.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{M\times N}}()`$ and we have $`dA_m^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }A_n`$, we can introduce bases for $`^N`$ and $`^M`$ as $`_n=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_r,\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _{Nr}\}`$, $`_m=\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_r,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{Mr}\}`$ where $`r=\mathrm{rank}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _k=0`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},Nr`$, $`\lambda _j^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},Mr`$. We have now

$`dA_m^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }A_n=dA_m^\mathrm{t}(_m^1)^\mathrm{t}_m^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }_n_n^1A_n,`$
where $`_m^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ has the following block form

$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}w_a^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }v_b& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (39)
$`w_a^\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Delta }v_b_{r\times r}()`$ and is regular so that by independent linear redefinitions in $`A_m`$ and $`A_n`$ it can be taken to be the identity. By using the convention that fields that do no couple to derivatives are “type 2” we see that the derivative terms can be taken as in (1) with all generality and in particular, that the number of internal components in $`\text{}_n`$ and $`\text{}_{2Nn+1}`$ (in the even case) and in $`\text{}_n`$ and $`\text{}_{2Nn}`$ (in the odd one) are the same.


format: text

text:
# Mass Transfer Mechanism in Real Crystals by Pulsing Laser Irradiation

## 1. Introduction

It was appeared experimentally in the works - that the Q-switched laser pulses with power density $`q_i=10^6÷10^7W/cm^2,`$ pulse duration of $`\tau =10÷50ns`$ stimulate anomalous deep atom penetration from irradiated metal surface to the depth value of which is considerably more than thermal influence depth. To interpret this phenomenon of high atomic mobility, a mechanism of interstitial atom migration under the conditions of high-rate strain was presented in . This mechanism cannot interpret observed experimentally long-range mass transfer, because the interstitial atoms are short-live defects, which quickly eliminated on sinks. To escape this problem the authors of the work  supposed interstitial atom dragging by the dislocations, which were moving by the thermal stresses. In this case lifetime of the complex ”dislocation+interstitial atom” was sufficient for right estimations of the penetration depth. Thermal stresses were calculated using the exact solution  of the thermal conductivity problem in the laser-influenced metal. The calculations show a possibility of generation of the dislocations during a relaxation of the deformations in the metal. The deformation processes during the laser actions were confirmed by the presence of topographical curving structure and formation of polygonal grids in crystalline $`Mo`$ , and cellular dislocation structures in $`ArmcoFe`$ . Dislocation structure analysis, which was performed with the data presented in the work , has evidenced the possibility of generating large amount of point defects of interstitial type under these conditions. Model calculations, which were performed in the work , show the dynamical state of the laser-influenced metal. This state is stipulated by the moving of the gradients of thermal rapid-changed stresses from the skin layer into the bulk of the metal. These stresses cause the compressing waves, even under special conditions shock wave forming, and penetration in considerable depth of laser-influenced metals. The formation of polygonal grids in $`Mo`$ , and cellular dislocation structures in $`ArmcoFe`$  demonstrate the interaction between dynamic stresses and dislocations, which are transferred in dynamically deformed lattice.

In the present work we discuss the problem of the creation, annihilation, and lifetime of the ”dislocation+interstitial atom” complex in the frame of the dislocation-interstitial mechanism in the metals, which are influenced by pulsing laser irradiation. The results permit correct interpretation of anomalous deep atom penetration from the laser-affected surface to the bulk of the metal on distances of tens of micrometers.

## 2. Basic relations

Pulsing laser heating of the near-to-surface layers of metals stipulates the rapid thermal expansion of these layers. Heat velocity is connected with the velocity of the temperature change with the time $`t:`$

$$_tT10^6÷10^{10}K/s$$

which, in turn, depends on the duration of the laser pulse. It was shown in the work , that in the case of duration of laser pulse $`\tau 10^{10}s`$ the stress fields in the influenced metal one can describe to solve the dynamic thermal-elasticity equations  in the quasi-stationary approach .

The temperature $`T(r,\varphi ,z,t)`$ in bulk of the metal ($`z>0`$), which is irradiated by the laser beam with the width $`\beta ,`$ intensity $`I_0,`$ duration $`\tau ,`$ and skin layer $`\kappa ,`$ is described by the equation :

(3) $`_tTa\mathrm{\Delta }T=I_0e^{\beta r^2\kappa z}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& \mathrm{if}t\tau ,\\ 0,& \mathrm{if}t>\tau ,\end{array}`$
with boundary conditions:

$$(_zT)_{z=0}=hT(r,0,t).$$

Here $`a`$ is thermal conductivity coefficient; $`I_0`$ is defined as

$$\frac{q_0}{k}a\eta ,$$

where $`q_0`$ is the power of irradiation, $`\eta `$ is the absorption coefficient, $`k`$ is thermal capacity coefficient; $`h`$ describes the heat flow absorbing; $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplasian. We omit below coordinate $`\varphi `$ due to the cylindrical symmetry of the considered problem.

Exact solution of this problem is:

(6) $`T(r,z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi J_0(\xi r)e^{\frac{\xi ^2}{4\beta }}\{F(\xi ,t)`$
$``$ $`\left\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& \mathrm{if}t\tau \\ F(\xi ,t\tau ),& \mathrm{if}t>\tau \end{array}\right\}d\xi .`$
where

(7) $`F(\xi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(\kappa ^2\xi ^2)}}\{e^{\kappa z}(e^{a(\kappa ^2\xi ^2)t}1)+`$
$`+`$ $`(h+\kappa )[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\xi z}}{2(h+\xi )}}\mathrm{erfc}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2\sqrt{at}}}\xi \sqrt{at})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\xi z}}{2(\xi h)}}\mathrm{erfc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2\sqrt{at}}}+\xi \sqrt{at}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{a(\kappa ^2\xi ^2)t}({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\kappa z}}{\kappa +h}}\mathrm{erfc}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2\sqrt{at}}}\kappa \sqrt{at})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\kappa z}}{\kappa h}}\mathrm{erfc}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2\sqrt{at}}}+\kappa \sqrt{at}))+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h(\kappa ^2\xi ^2)}{(\xi ^2h^2)(\kappa ^2h^2)}}e^{zh+a(h^2\xi ^2)t}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{erfc}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2\sqrt{at}}}+h\sqrt{at})]\}.`$
The solution (6) of this problem reveal the maximum of the axis component of thermal-elastic stresses $`\sigma _{zz}(0,z,t)`$ . This maximum is formed at the depth of the metal to the end of laser pulse. The value of the maximum, and the value $`z_0`$ depends on the parameters of laser irradiation, and the physical properties of irradiated metal. The value of the maximum reach the extremum and it position approach to the surface when the exposure time is decreased . On the surface $`z=0`$ axis component $`\sigma _{zz}(0,0,t)=0.`$ It appears because replacement of the surface in $`z`$up-direction results in a relaxation of axis stresses. In-plane replacements cause at the irradiated surface $`z=0`$ radial-symmetric stresses $`\sigma _{rr},\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }`$ , which are maximal at the surface  and depend on the depth $`z`$ as :

$$\sigma _{rr}=\frac{E}{1\nu }\alpha T(r,z,t),$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the thermal expansion coefficient; $`E`$ is the Young’s module; $`\nu `$ is the Poisson’s coefficient.

As it was shown in , stresses, which appeared in laser-irradiated metal, cause a deformation of a lattice. A process of the creation of the dislocations will begin in the volume, which deformation value is more than critical one, exactly, the yield stress. These areas of deformed bulk of a metal are determined by the temperature inhomogeneity Eq.(6) . The processes of the creation of the dislocations are developed due to an action of the different nature sources, usually in combination.

Stretched area will appear near the center $`(r=0)`$ of the laser spot on the surface $`(z=0)`$ of the irradiated metal, and the compressed area will form at some distance from the center of laser spot. Calculated stresses , which correspond this influence, are shown on the Fig.1.

New generated, and existent in a bulk of the metal, dislocations are influenced by the inhomogeneous thermal-elastic stresses. As a result, effective forces, which appears due to the action of the inhomogeneous thermal-elastic stresses, cause the displacements of the part of dislocation or whole piled up dislocation group, which, in turn cause the plastic deformation of the near-to-surface areas of the laser-influenced metal. The transmission electronic microscopy data show , that the formation of the cellular structure is the result of the creation, accumulation, redistribution, of the dislocations, on which the number of the kinks is considerably increased. This formation depends on the number of the laser shots. Observed experimentally increasing of the dislocation loops is connected with the generation of the point defects under described influences.

A motion of the dislocations and its interactions also cause the generation of point defects . A type of generated defect, namely, a vacancy or an interstitial atom, depends on as the dislocation interaction mechanism , , as the deformation velocity . Generated vacancies and interstitial atoms are considerably non-equilibrium defects. These defects tend to annihilate and disappear in different sorts of the sinks, such, for example, as the dislocations, a surface, grain boundaries .

## 3. Calculations and estimations

As it was admitted above, appeared in pulse laser influenced near-to-surface layers of a metal thermal gradient cause the thermal stresses. A relaxation of these stresses is realized by the generation of moving dislocations during the time when the value of these stresses is more than value of a yield stress . Therefore one has taken into account an increasing of the number of dislocations during as the thermal stresses relaxation time, as a many-fold action. The analysis in  shows, that the deformation due to the pulse laser irradiation of a metal is local deformation. A half-width of deformation curve is greater than a half-width of the laser beam in the case of large values of $`\tau ,`$ and difference between these half-widths tends to zero when $`\tau `$ is decreased. It is clear, that the defect distribution will correlate with these tendencies. As it follows from the results of the works , , $`z`$axis component of the density of the dislocations in a metal after laser irradiation is:

(8)
$$\rho _{i+1}=\rho _i\frac{2\alpha }{(1\nu )b}\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}T(0,z,\lambda t)𝑑\lambda ,$$

where $`i`$ is the number of laser shots ($`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$); $`b`$ is the value of Bürger’s vector of a dislocation; $`\rho _0`$ is the initial density of dislocations; by the factor $`n`$ we take into account the processes, which delay a creation of dislocations by thermal stresses. Calculation of the dislocation density Eq.(8) was carried out for the case of $`ArmcoFe`$ influenced by Q-switched laser pulse with $`q_o=10^7W/cm^2;\tau =50ns;r{}_{f}{}^{}=0.2cm.`$ Results of these calculations at $`h=0`$ are shown on the Fig.2 (continuous line). Experimental data are shown on the Fig.2 also. Experimental points were obtained in  by a measuring of the density of dislocations by the method of electron microscopy in $`ArmcoFe`$ sample, which was laser irradiated. Calculations were made in supposition of gathering of the dislocations during relaxation processes. Best correlation of the calculation and experimental data was achieved at the relaxation time of order $`1.6\mu s.`$ Therefore we took this time as a time of dissipation of the energy, which was pumped by a laser irradiation into the metal. During this time a generation and motion of the dislocations are ended.

Small discrepancy between exact solution Eq.(6) and real experimental data one can see in a decreasing part of the curve Fig.2. This discrepancy occurs due to the volume stresses $`\sigma _{rr}`$ and $`\sigma _{\varphi \varphi },`$ values of which may be large enough to create additional notable append to the dislocation density. We have taken into account also a result of non-linear depth dependence of a dislocation creation process, which is facilitated in the less-defective bulk metal region. Interstitial atoms and vacancies are created during a plastic deformation of the metal. The difference of its creation energies in a deformed crystal is not determining factor for concentration ratio of these point defects . You have taken into account a dynamics of a dislocation interaction, i.e. it velocity $`V`$, stresses $`\sigma `$ parameters (deformation value $`\epsilon `$, velocity $`\dot{\epsilon }.`$) Moving skew dislocations create interstitial atoms. The velocities of these dislocations are greater than critical velocity when the stresses exceed its critical value . It appears on the early stages of crystal deforming, when the density of the dislocations is low, and number of the steps, which create interstitial atoms, exceeds not the number of the steps, which create vacancies . Point defects in crystals are less movable than the dislocations . Transfer of the dislocations under influence of the internal or external forces may results in mass transfer. Authors of the work  supposed, that this mass transfer is a result of interaction of moving dislocations and interstitial atoms. Temperature dependence of a preference parameter for dislocations was calculated in the work . It was shown, that in the temperature interval $`400900K`$ interstitial atoms appear in the dislocation core, and vacancies are in its atmosphere. It is clear, that in the case of the edge dislocation, the space under the dislocation line is preferable for interstitial atom position. When this dislocation will move in the stresses field along it glide line, the interstitial atom will move with dislocation in the place of energy minimum. This atom transfer will take place until the realization of another, more energetically preferable situation will realized.

First, atom annihilate on the sink. This case is trivial and we will not consider it here.

Second, in the case, when the value of the stresses exceeds the value of Pierl’s stress, the non-activated motion of the dislocations is possible. The velocities of this motion may be near the sound velocity . At the some critical velocity value $`V_c`$ dislocation may loose the atom. Let us estimate this velocity. We suppose, that a complex ”dislocation + interstitial atom” will be exist until it kinetic energy is less than the link energy of the interstitial atom with the dislocation. We can write:

(9)
$$\frac{1}{2}MV_c^2W,$$

where M = m\* + m, m is the atom mass; m\* is the dislocation effective mass, which is determined as :

(10)
$$m=m\frac{2d}{l},$$

where $`d`$ is the distance between glide planes; $`l`$ is the half-width of a dislocation:

$$l=\frac{d(32\nu )}{4(1\nu )}.$$

Hence we get:

(11)
$$V_c=\sqrt{\frac{2W(32\nu )}{m(1110\nu )}}.$$

In the case of the $`ArmcoFe`$: $`W=0.2÷0.5eV`$ ; $`\nu =0.28;m=1.66\times 10^{24}M_{Fe}=9.27\times 10^{23}g,`$ and

$$V_c=(450÷716)\times 10^2cm/s$$

Now it is easy to see, that in the case of free motion with the velocity $`V_c`$ during the time $`t_M=1.6\times 10^6s`$ (relaxation time) complex ”dislocation + interstitial atom” will be on the distance of $`720÷1146\mu m.`$ Experimentally measured depth of the atom penetration from initial layer of $`1\mu m`$ is in order of $`10\mu m`$ ,  (at Q-switched laser pulse duration $`\tau =3\times 10^8s`$), which is considerably less than the above mentioned distance. This difference is caused by an interaction of the dislocations with different defects during a motion through the real crystal. A dissipation of the complex energy results in a decreasing of the velocity of the complex. The defects, which cause energy dissipation in real crystals, are other dislocations, point defects, disperse constituents of other phase, etc. . To estimate these losses let us consider the motion of the complex ”dislocation + interstitial atom”, which mass is $`M,`$ under the influence of the stresses forces $`F=f(\sigma ),`$ in the media with the damping coefficient $`\gamma .`$

During a laser pulse ($`t\tau `$) motion equation

(12)
$$d_tV_1=\frac{F}{M}\frac{\gamma }{M}V_1$$

solution is:

(13)
$$V_1=\frac{F}{\gamma }(1\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\gamma t}{M}\}),$$

which presents maximum velocity

(14)
$$V_{max}=\frac{F}{\gamma }(1\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\gamma \tau }{M}\}).$$

When the stresses are not influence the motion under consideration, in other words, when the laser pulse is ended, a complex ”dislocation + interstitial atom” reaches the maximal value of the velocity, which is described by the equation

(15)
$$d_tV_2=\frac{\gamma }{M}V_2,$$

which solution is

(16)
$$V_2=V_{max}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\gamma }{M}(\tau t)\}.$$

Averaging of the given solutions over the relaxation time $`t_M`$

$$<V>=\frac{1}{t_M}V(t)𝑑t$$

gives

(17)
$$<V>=\frac{F}{\gamma t_M}\{\tau +\frac{M}{\gamma }[1\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\gamma \tau }{M}\}]\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\gamma t_M}{M}\}\}$$

In the case of large values of $`\gamma `$

$$<V>\frac{F\tau }{\gamma t_M},$$

and a ratio

(18)
$$\frac{<V>}{V_{max}^{(0)}}\frac{\tau }{t_M}0.02.$$

Here

$$V_{max}^{(0)}\frac{F}{\gamma }.$$

Taking into account given ratio, and putting $`V_{max}^{(0)}=V_c,`$ we can get for a real depth of surface atoms mass transfer the value

$$z=<V>t_MV_c\tau 14÷22\mu m.$$

”Dislocation + interstitial” complex will accelerate to the velocity of the order $`V_c`$ at the initial period of a laser influence, i.e. at the times $`\tau /2`$ (if the Q-switched laser pulse form is near to triangle). It gives complex decomposition depth $`7÷11\mu m,`$ which is in a good agreement with the experimental data. Better correlation is achieved by taking into account the possibility of the annihilation of the dislocations. The dislocation annihilation takes place when the opposite sign dislocations collide in the process of the motion in parallel glide planes . Simplest annihilation realized for the dislocations with a free core. In the case of the ”dislocation+interstitial atom” complex annihilation is low-possible because interstitial atoms in the core of dislocation enable this effect. For an edge dislocation another velocity decreasing factors may be the delay of the kinks on the steps of a dislocation, and on the vacancies, which are situated on the edge of the extra plane.

We have admit, that the tagged atoms (radioactive isotopes of $`Fe`$) are concentrated in smooth near-to surface layer of experimentally investigated samples. Therefore the ratio of penetration depth of tagged atoms to whole depth of high dislocation concentration is proportional to initial ratio of value of tagged atoms layer and value of influenced thickness of a sample.

We can estimate the depth of vacancy atmosphere loosing by a dislocation, using the Eqs. (11), and (18). These events will be realized on the depth $`3\mu m`$ if we put the ”vacancy+edge dislocation” binding energy value equal to $`0.04eV`$ . It is clear, that binding energy ”dislocation + interstitial atom” exceeds the binding energy ”dislocation + vacancy”, therefore during the motion of complexes with the velocities, values of which are more than the critical value, the dislocations loose first of all the vacancy atmosphere and then the interstitial atoms, which are bounded to the core of the dislocations. This difference in the behavior of the vacancies and interstitials is thermal activated and realizes in the considered temperature interval. Calculated in  temperatures in the metal, which was influenced by pulsing laser irradiation, are in good agreement with this idea. Calculations in  and experimental data in  show that temperature influence of the laser beam during nano-second reaches the depths in order of $`\mu m.`$ As a result the concentration of the vacancies in the near-to-surface layers are much than the concentration of the interstitials and vise versa in deepest layers  .

## 4. Discussion

Non monotonous dependencies of the distribution of tagged atoms under surface of pulse laser irradiated metal are in good agreement with the calculations, which were carried out on the base of a concept of the presented above mechanism of capturing and transport of the point defects by the dislocations, which are generated and moving by the thermal fields, which appeared in surface layer of irradiated metal.

The kinetic of a gathering of the tagged atoms $`{}_{}{}^{55}Fe`$+$`{}_{}{}^{59}Fe,`$ which were penetrated from the surface to bulk of a metal, which was influenced by many-fold pulse laser irradiation ($`\tau 10^8s,W0.02J,`$) was investigated in $`ArmcoFe`$ , . A maximum of the concentration of radioactive atoms $`{}_{}{}^{55}Fe+^{59}Fe`$ began to be formed after the first three cycles of an irradiation. It correlates with $`X`$-ray and electron microscopy data, which shows maximal increase of defects in a metal after the first cycles of pulse laser influence. A displacement of the defect concentration maximum to the depth of the irradiated sample was observed simultaneously with the forming of the maximum. These processes saturation are observed at the number of laser shots $`10.`$ At this time an increasing of the dislocation density in $`ArmcoFe`$ was ended, and new dislocations were gathered into cellular structure, as it was shown by the electron microscopy experimental data  .

Effective diffusion coefficients $`D_i^{}`$ were obtained from the analysis of the tagged atoms concentration experimental data, which were measured in the influenced by pulsing many-fold laser irradiation areas of $`ArmcoFe.`$ The value of $`D_i^{}`$ is monotony decreased with the number of laser shot $`i`$ . This effect is caused by an increasing of the number of the defects, which are created by laser influence. It results in the effective slowing of the motion of the complexes dislocation + interstitial atom. A value of $`D_i^{}`$ is decreased not so fast after $`5÷8`$ shots. This slowing is connected with a beginning of the process of effective redistribution of the radioactive isotope  .

We can describe the experimental data of the works ,  from the positions of the presented above dislocation + interstitial mechanism taking into account the data of the work . Compression wave appears in the metal during the time of influence of pulsing laser irradiation. Stresses wave slope is increased during this laser influence on a metal. A number of defects of crystalline lattice is increased due to appearance of the inhomogeneous stresses as a result of laser influence. New defects may be the sinks for migrating from the surface interstitials. Tagged atoms concentration is maximal on the depth $`z_0\sqrt{a\tau },`$ which coincides with the depth of maximum of thermal stresses at the moment of the end of laser pulse. The number of sinks is decreased with the depth because the distance to the source of the stresses increased, and amplitude of the stresses is decreased. Each next laser pulse pumps radioactive isotopes from the near-to-surface layers to the bulk of the metal, and increases the number of sinks for interstitials. It is reflected on the slopes decreasing of the exponential parts of tagged atom concentration curves as a function of $`i`$ . Hence a decrease of the value of $`D^{}`$ is slowing.

Presented above phenomenological description of the laser-stimulated dislocation + interstitial mass transfer process in $`ArmcoFe`$ is confirmed by the experimental data of the investigation of self atom transport in $`Ni`$ . It appeared, that increasing of the vacancy number slowing mass transfer. This phenomenon is not possible to explain in the frame of the vacancy mechanism because an increasing of the number of the vacancies facilitates a diffusion of the atoms in a crystalline lattice. Observed phenomenon is explained easy by the dislocation + interstitial mechanism of a pulse influenced mass transfer. At the beginning of a mass transfer migrating interstitials are high movable and interact not practically with the vacancies, which are traps for its. Loosing of a kinetic energy by the interstitials makes its more suitable for vacancy trapping, by the other words a recombination probability increase. This recombination reflects a mass transfer last stadium, which is characterized by exponential dropping parts of the concentration curves.

Presented above estimations and analysis show the nature of pulsing laser stimulated mass transfer in metals. This mass transfer is carried out by the near-to surface layers interstitials, which interact with the moving dislocations during the laser influence and relaxation of stressed state of a crystalline lattice. Taking into account that the stressed state relaxation processes are common for the all pulsing influences , which not destroy the structure of an influenced metal, we can state an universality of the presented mass transfer mechanism.


text:
# N=2-Supersymmetric Dynamics of a Spin-1/2 Particle in an Extended External Field

## I Introduction

Supersymmetric quantum field theory at low energies (non-relativistic limit) raises special interest for a great deal of reasons, , , , . If Supersymmetry is a symmetry of Nature, what we see today must be its low-energy remnant through the breaking realised by means of some mechanism , , . In this limit, the underlying field theory should approach a Galilean invariant supersymmetric field theory and, by the Bargmann superselection rule , such a field theory should be equivalent to a supersymmetric Schrödinger equation in each particle number sector of the theory.

In this paper, we shall consider a particle of mass m and spin-1/2 in an external field, , , ,. We build up a superspace action for this model, read off the supersymmetry. transformations of the component coordinates and then obtain the supersymmetric charge operators . We analyse their algebra and pursue the investigation of the possible existence of a central charge in the system.

We set our discussion by first considering the case of (1+2) dimensions. The Dirac action in such a space-time may be written as

$`L=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)\mathrm{\Psi },`$

where $`\eta =(1,1,1)`$ and $`\gamma ^0=\sigma _3`$, $`\gamma ^1=i\sigma _2`$, $`\gamma ^3=\sigma _1`$, $`\gamma _3=i\gamma _0\gamma _1`$, $`D_\mu _\mu +ieA_\mu `$. From the equation of motion,

$`(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right),`$

and with the approximation

$`E+me\varphi 2m,`$

$`\psi _2{\displaystyle \frac{(D_3+iD_1)}{2m}}\psi _1,`$

the Pauli Hamiltonian in 1+2  takes over the form:

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\stackrel{}{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2m}}\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{A}{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{m}}\stackrel{}{A}.\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2m}}\left|\stackrel{}{A}\right|^2e\varphi .`$

The minimal coupling does not generate here any coupling term of the type spin-magnetic field as it is the case for the Pauli Hamiltonian in D=1+3. We can also show that this coupling term cannot appear from a non-minimal coupling of the type:

$`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu +ig\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ,`$

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}F^{jk}.`$

In (1+3)D, we see that the bosonic degree of freedom, $`x^i(t)`$ (position), matches with the fermionic degree of freedom, $`S^i(t)`$ (spin). This makes possible the construction of superfields and then of a manifestally supersymmetric Lagrangian with linearly realised supersymmetry . However, in (1+2)D, the same does not occur; angular momentum is not a vector any longer, the number of degrees of freedom of $`x^i`$ and the spin do not match anymore and then we cannot in this way build up superfields nor a supersymmetric Lagrangian in superspace. We can try to work in (1+3)D, starting from Dirac, taking the non-relativistic limit and making a dimensional reduction to (1+2)D. But, we see that it is not possible to drag into (1+2)D the analogue of the coupling of spin-magnetic field that exists in (1+3)D . We will try to study this model in (1+3)D with N=1 and N=2 supersymmetry; we shall however start from (1+4)D, where we may propose a matching between coordinates and 5D spin and then carry out the dimmensional reduction to 4D, getting to an extended eletromagnetic-like field.

## II N=1-D=5 Reduced to N=1-D=4

We consider the following action in D=4+1,

$$L=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{^\mu }D_{\widehat{\mu }}m)\mathrm{\Psi };$$
(1)
where we define:

$$\widehat{\mu }\{0,1,2,3,4\},\eta =(+,,,,),$$
(2)
$`x\widehat{^\mu }=(t,x,y,z,w),F_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}=_{\widehat{\mu }}A_{\widehat{\nu }}_{\widehat{\nu }}A_{\widehat{\mu }},`$

$`D_{_{\widehat{\mu }}}=_{\widehat{\mu }}+ieA_{\widehat{\mu }},A_\mu =(A_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }),\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{\mu }},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{\nu }}\}=2\eta ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }},`$

$`^i\stackrel{}{},_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}},E^i\stackrel{}{E},B^i\stackrel{}{B},`$

$`F_{04}=,F_{4i}=_i,F_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}B_k,F_{0i}=E_i,`$

where $`i,j,k\{1,2,3\}`$. Notice that the scalar, $``$, and the vector, $`\stackrel{}{}`$, accompany the vectors $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, later on to be identified with the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Our explicit representation for the gamma-matrices is given in the Appendix. We set:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\\ \psi _3\\ \psi _4\end{array}\right),\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$

We now take the equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the Euler-Lagrange equations (1). We suppose a stationary solution,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=\mathrm{exp}(iϵt)\chi (x);`$

here, we are considering that the external field does not depend on t, and $`A_0=0`$. Then, proposing the reduction prescription:

$`_4(A_\mu )=0,`$

we obtain

$$\stackrel{}{E}F_{0i}_0A_i_iA_0=0;$$
(3)
$`F_{04}_0A_4_4A_0=0;`$

$`F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_iϵ_{ijk}B_k;`$

$`F_{i4}=_iA_4_4A_i_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i.`$

Then, considering the non-relativistic limit of the reduced theory, the equations of motions read:

$$(ϵ+m)I__2\chi _1+(i\sigma ^i(_i+ieA_i)+iI__2eA_4)\chi _2=0.$$
(4)
$`(i\sigma ^i(_i+ieA_i)+iI__2eA_4)\chi _1+(ϵ+m)I__2)\chi _2=0.`$

therefore, we see that $`\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)`$ looses two degrees of fredom, described by the ”weak” spinor, $`\chi _2`$. So the Pauli-like Hamiltonian we get to reads as below:

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}[(\stackrel{}{}ie\stackrel{}{A})^2+e\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A})$$
(5)
$`e\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}(A_4)e^2(A_4)^2],`$

where we used (2).

If we define, $`P^i=i\stackrel{}{}^i`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$), then the Hamiltonian (5) will become

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left[\left(p_iieA_i\right)^2eB_iS_i+e_iS_i{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right];`$

the corresponding Lagrangian is given by:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}_i)^2+\frac{i}{2}\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i+eA_i\dot{x}_i+$$
(6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}B_iϵ_{ijk}\psi _j\psi _k{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}_iϵ_{ijk}\psi _j\psi _k{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}},`$

where the dot is a derivative with respect to t. We can also write

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}_i)^2+\frac{i}{2}\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i+eA_i\dot{x}_i,$$
(7)
$`eB_iS_i+e_iS_i{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}},`$

where we define the spin by the product below:

$`S_i={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\psi _j\psi _k.`$

## III N=1-Supersymmetric action

To render more systematic our discussion, we think it is advisable to set up a superfield approach. We can define the N=1-supersymmetric model in analogy with the model presented above, eq.(7). We start defining the superfelds by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(t,\theta )=x_i(t)+i\theta \psi _i(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }(t,\theta )=\xi (t)+\theta R(t),$$
(8)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=A_4(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi }_s)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+i(_j\mathrm{\Lambda }(x))\theta \psi _j.`$

The supercharge operators and the covariant derivatives are given by:

$$Q=_\theta +i\theta _tD=_\theta i\theta _tH=i_t.$$
(9)
Then, the N=1-supersymmetric Lagrangian that generates, Lagrangian (6) can be written in superfields as:

$$=\frac{i}{2}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_iD\mathrm{\Phi }_i+ie(D\mathrm{\Phi }_i)A_i(\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }D\mathrm{\Sigma }+$$
(10)
$`e\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }_jD\mathrm{\Phi }_k,`$

where we have set $`m=1`$.

The commutators and anticommutators for the superfield components are

$$\left[\psi _{i,}\psi _j\right]_+=\delta _{ij},[\xi ,\xi ]_+=2i,\left[x_{i,}p_j\right]=i\delta _{ij},$$
(11)
$`\left[\psi _{i,}\xi \right]_+=0;`$

the other commutators vanish.

The component field R does not have dynamics; then, we use the equation of motion to remove it from the Lagrangian:

$$R=e\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(12)
The supersymmetric action is then

$`𝒮={\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑\theta }`$

We have written the supersymmetric Lagrangian in components, , under the form,

$`=K+\theta L`$

where we define $`K`$ and $`L`$ as follows:

$`K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{x}_i\psi _ie\psi _iA^i+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi R}{2}}e\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}_ix_j\psi _k`$

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i\frac{1}{2}i\dot{\psi }_i\psi _i+e\dot{x}_iA_i\frac{ie}{2}F_{ij}\psi _i\psi _j+$$
(13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\xi \dot{\xi }+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2}}eR\mathrm{\Lambda }+ie\xi \psi _j_j+`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}_ix_j\dot{x}_k{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}_i\psi _j\psi _k{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\psi _r_i_rx_j\psi _k`$

Also from $`L`$ in (13), we can read the Hamiltonian:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(p^ieA^i)^2+\frac{ie}{2}ϵ_{ijk}B_k\psi _i\psi _j+$$
(14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}_i\psi _j\psi _k{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}ϵ_{rji}(_r_k)x_j\psi _k\psi _i+ie_i\xi \psi _i+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}ϵ_{jki}_jx_k(p_ieA^i)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8}}ϵ_{jki}ϵ_{rni}_j_rx_kx_n+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}};`$

in this equation, we have eliminated the component-field without dynamical character.

### A The supersymmetric charge

Acting with the supercharge operator (9) on the superfields (8), we can obtain the supersymmetry transformations of components fields; they are:

$$\delta \psi ^i=ϵ\dot{x}^i,\delta \xi =iϵR,\delta R=ϵ\dot{\xi },\delta x^i=iϵ\psi ^i.$$
(15)
From the supersymmetric transformations and the Lagrangian (13), we can analytically calculate the supercharge, through the Noether’s theorem. The charge operator comes out to be

$$Q=\psi _i\dot{x}_i+\frac{1}{2}(1i)\xi Re\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(16)
The supercharge algebra reads

$`[Q,Q]_+=2H`$or$`Q^2=H,`$

where H is the Hamiltonian of eq. (14).

### B Equations of motion for the extended Electromagnetism in D=4+1

We start by considering the equations of motion

$`ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}_{\widehat{\sigma }}F_{\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}=0`$ and $`_{\widehat{\sigma }}F^{\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\gamma }}=\rho ^{\widehat{\gamma }}`$; where $`F_{\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}`$ is the field strength defined in (2) and $`ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}`$ is the Levi-Civita tensor in 5 dimensions. Then, we have:

$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}=J^5,`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}=0,`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}=0,`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}},`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}=J^0,`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{}{}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{t}},`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}+J^i.`$ (23)
The Lorentz force, calculated using the fact that the Hamiltonian in D=4+1 is

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\stackrel{}{p}+e\stackrel{}{A}\right)^2+eA^0,$$
(24)
reads as below:

$$m\frac{^2x^5}{t^2}=e\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}+e,$$
(25)
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{}{x}}{t^2}}=e\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}+e\stackrel{}{}\dot{x}_5+e\stackrel{}{E}.`$

## IV A toy Model with N=2-su.sy.

The superspace coordinates are $`(t,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ with $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ real, or $`(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ with $`\theta =\theta _1+i\theta _2`$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ is it complex conjugate. $`\theta `$, $`\overline{\theta }`$ are complex Grasmannian variables.

The translations

$`\delta t=iϵ^{}\theta ^{}+iϵ\theta ,\delta \theta ^{}=iϵ^{}and\delta \theta =iϵ,`$

define a susy. transformation in superspace, where $`ϵ`$ is a complex Grasmannian parameter. The differential representation for the supercharge operators is given below:

$$Q_{\overline{\theta }}=_\theta +i\overline{\theta }_t,Q_\theta =_{\overline{\theta }}+i\theta _t,$$
(26)
and the covariant derivatives are

$$D_{\overline{\theta }}=_\theta i\overline{\theta }_t,D_\theta =_{\overline{\theta }}i\theta _t.$$
(27)
We have the following algebra,

$$[Q_{\overline{\theta }},Q_{\overline{\theta }}]_+=0,[Q_\theta ,Q_\theta ]_+=0,$$
(28)
$`[Q_\theta ,Q_{\overline{\theta }}]_+=2i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}=2H,`$

where $`H`$ will be identified with the Hamiltonian.

If we are able to define an invariant action, S, for a translation in superspace $`(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ ,, where the transformations parameter is a Grassmmanian parameter, we say that this action has an N=2-supersymmetry. In this way, we can define N=2-superfields  as we discuss in the sequel.

The complex chiral superfield ($`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=0`$) admits the following $`\theta `$-expansion:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i=x_i(t)+\theta \psi _i(t)+i\overline{\theta }\theta \dot{x}_i(t).$$
(29)
$`\psi _i`$ is a Grasmannian variable and $`x_i`$ is a commutative complex variable.

We have also a real superfield ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\xi (t)+i\theta \overline{\chi }(t)+i\overline{\theta }\chi (t)+\overline{\theta }\theta R(t),$$
(30)
where $`\xi `$, $`R`$ are real component fields; $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$ are complex components fields; $`\chi `$ is a Grasmannian variable and $`R`$ is a commutative variable. From the susy. transformations of these superfields, the component coordinates  can be shown to transform as follows:

$$\delta x_i=iϵ\psi _i\delta \psi _i=2ϵ^{}\dot{x}_i\delta \xi =ϵ^{}\chi +ϵ\chi ^{}$$
(31)
$`\delta \dot{x}_i=iϵ\dot{\psi }_i\delta \chi ^{}=ϵ^{}(R+i\dot{\xi })\delta \chi =ϵ(R+i\dot{\chi })`$

$`\delta R=iϵ^{}\dot{\chi }+iϵ\dot{\chi }^{}.`$

With these superfields, we define the N=2-action for a model similar to the previous one by means of the expression,

$$S=𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta },$$
(32)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{dt}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{4}}A_i(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i(A_i(\mathrm{\Phi }))^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(D_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma })(D_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma })^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{e\sqrt{2}}{4}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)+{\displaystyle \frac{e\sqrt{2}}{4}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi }))^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$

$$+\frac{ie}{4}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\frac{ie}{4}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(\mathrm{\Phi })^{},$$
(33)
where

$`A_i(\mathrm{\Phi })=A_i(x)+\theta \psi _j_jA_i(x)+i\theta ^{}\theta \dot{x}_j_jA_i(x),`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+\theta \psi _j_j\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+i\theta ^{}\theta \dot{x}_j_j\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),`$

$`_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}{x_i}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}{_kx_i}}A_{ji}{\displaystyle \frac{A_j(x)}{x_i}}.`$

To work out the supersymmetric Lagrangian in terms of components, we start off from:

$`=K+\theta V_{\overline{\theta }}+\overline{\theta }V_\theta +\overline{\theta }\theta \stackrel{~}{L}.`$

Integrating eq. (32) on $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\theta `$, we get

$$S=𝑑tL,$$
(34)
where we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=L+\frac{dY}{dt},$$
(35)
the term $`Y`$ is a surface term, $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is a total derivative of surface term added to $`L`$, and

$`V_{\overline{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\dot{x}_i\psi _i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eA_i\psi _i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}ex_i(_jA_i)^{}\psi _j^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(R\chi +i\dot{\xi }\chi )+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e\sqrt{2}(_i\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}\xi \psi _i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{ijk}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }x_j\psi _k^{}`$

$$+\frac{i}{4}eϵ_{ijk}x_kx_j^{}(_i_p\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}\psi _p^{}+\frac{i}{4}eϵ_{ijk}x_k(_i\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}\psi _j^{}$$
(36)
$`V_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}x_i^{}\dot{\psi }_i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eA_i^{}\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}ex_i^{}_jA_i\psi _j+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(R\chi ^{}i\dot{\xi }\chi ^{})`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\chi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{ijk}(_i\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}x_j^{}\psi _k+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e\sqrt{2}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi \psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{ijk}x_k^{}x_j_i_p\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _p+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{ijk}x_k^{}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _j.`$

The Lagrangian in terms of the physical coordinates reads as below:

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\dot{\psi }_i\psi _i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eA_i\dot{x}_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_jA_i\psi _j\psi _i^{}`$

$$\frac{1}{2}e\dot{x}_iA_i^{}+\frac{1}{4}ie(_iA_j)^{}\psi _j\psi _i^{}+\frac{1}{4}i\dot{\chi }\chi ^{}\frac{1}{4}i\chi \dot{\chi }^{}$$
(37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\dot{\xi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\left(i\xi \dot{x}_i_i+i_i\psi _i\chi +R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e\sqrt{2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}R+i(_i)^{}\psi _i^{}\chi ^{}i(_i)^{}\dot{x}_i^{}\xi \right)`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}eϵ_{kji}\left(2_kx_j\dot{x}_i^{}i_k\psi _j\psi _i^{}i_r_kx_j\psi _r\psi _i^{}\right)`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}eϵ_{kji}\left(2\dot{x}_i(_k)^{}x_j^{}+i(_k)^{}\psi _i\psi _j^{}+i(_r_k)^{}x_j^{}\psi _i\psi _r^{}\right);`$

also, the surface terms collected in $`Y`$ are as follows:

$$Y=\frac{1}{8}x_i\dot{x}_i^{}\frac{1}{8}\dot{x}_ix_i^{}\frac{e}{4}A_ix_i^{}\frac{e}{4}x_iA_i^{}$$
(38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_ix_jx_k^{}ϵ_{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}x_kx_j^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}ϵ_{ijk}`$

### A Supersymmetric charges from the Lagrangian

The Hamiltonian reads:

$`H=\dot{x}_i\mathrm{\Pi }_{x^i}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{x^i}\dot{x}_i^{}+\dot{\psi }_i\mathrm{\Pi }_{\psi _i}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\psi _i^{}}\dot{\psi }_i^{}+`$

$`+\dot{\chi }\mathrm{\Pi }_\chi \mathrm{\Pi }_\chi ^{}\dot{\chi }^{}+\dot{\xi }\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi L;`$

so,

$`H=\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{eA_i}{2}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i}{\displaystyle \frac{eA_i^{}}{2}}\right)+`$

$$+\frac{1}{8}ie\left(_jA_i(_iA_j)^{}\right)\psi _j\psi _i^{}+$$
(39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{kji}_k\psi _j\psi _i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{kji}(_r_k)^{}x_j^{}\psi _r^{}\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}eϵ_{kji}_i\chi \psi _i`$

$`eϵ_{kji}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{eA_i}{2}}\right)_k^{}x_j^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4}}ϵ_{kji}ϵ_{npi}_k_i^{}x_jx_p^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2}e\xi _i^{}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i}{\displaystyle \frac{eA_i^{}}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8}}\xi ^2_i^{}_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{8}}+C.C.,`$

where we take from the Lagrangian (37) canonical moments $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$.

Using Noether’s theorem for the supersymmetry transformations, we read the charges and we neglect the surface terms, which shall be considered in the next section. The idea is that here we are not interested in topological solutions.

$`Q_{\overline{\theta }}=({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}i\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}ieA_i{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}iex_jA_{ij}`$

$$\frac{1}{8}ieϵ_{kij}x_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{}+\frac{1}{8}ieϵ_{kri}x_jx_r\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kj}^{}+\frac{1}{8}ieA_{ji}^{}x_j$$
(40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ieϵ_{jki}x_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ieϵ_{jrk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ji}^{}x_r^{}x_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ieϵ_{jrk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^{}x_r^{}x_k)\psi _i^{}`$

$`+(2\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e\sqrt{2}x_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)\chi `$

$`Q_\theta =({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}i\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}ieA_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}iex_j^{}A_{ij}^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ieϵ_{kij}x_j^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ieϵ_{kri}x_j^{}x_r^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ieA_{ji}x_j^{}+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ieϵ_{jki}x_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ieϵ_{jrk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ji}x_rx_k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ieϵ_{jrk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}x_rx_k^{})\psi _i`$

$`+(2\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e\sqrt{2}x_i^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{})\chi ^{}.`$

We check that

$$[Q_{\overline{\theta }},Q_\theta ]_+=2H_1$$
(41)
$`[Q_\theta ,Q_\theta ]_+={\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}iex_k^{}A_{k[j,i]}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\right)^2e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}ie\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,k]}x_n^{}ϵ_{kjn}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}ie\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[k,j]}x_n^{}ϵ_{kin}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}iex_k^{}x_rϵ_{nrk}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nji}2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jni}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nij}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{inj})\psi _i\psi _j`$

$`[Q_{\overline{\theta }},Q_{\overline{\theta }}]_+=({\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}iex_kA_{k[i,j]}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}})^2e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{[j,i]}^{}`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}ie\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[j,k]}^{}x_nϵ_{kin}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}ie\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[k,i]}^{}x_nϵ_{kjn}+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}iex_kx_r^{}ϵ_{nrk}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nij}^{}2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{inj}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nji}^{}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jni}^{})\psi _j^{}\psi _i^{},`$

where the subscript $`[i,j]`$ stands for anti-symmetrisation over the indices i,j. If we impose that the algebra of charges are the ones in (28), we need that

$$A_{k[j,i]}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[j,i]}0$$
(42)
$`A_{k[j,i]}^{}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}^{}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[j,i]}^{}0,`$

which means that the funtions have continuous second derivatives. We then see that central charges in the N=2 - su.sy. algebra might appear only if we have potential configurations with non-continuous second derivatives, like what happens in the presence of Dirac-string monopoles.

### B Supersymmetric charges from the Lagrangian with the surface terms

If we now consider the surface terms coming from $`Y`$, We get to the Lagrangian

$`\stackrel{~}{L}=L+{\displaystyle \frac{dY}{dt}}.`$

We now consider the contributions arising from the surface terms, since they might lead to topological configurations that could induce the appearance of central charges in the N=2-susy. algebra.

$`Q_{\overline{\theta }}=({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}i\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieA_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}iex_jA_{ji}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{jik}x_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{rjk}x_kx_j^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ri}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{jki}x_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_j)\psi _i^{}`$

$$+(2\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi +\frac{i}{2}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}+\frac{i}{2}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda })\chi $$
(43)
$`Q_\theta =({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}i\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieA_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}iex_j^{}A_{ji}^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{jik}x_k^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{rjk}x_k^{}x_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ri}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ieϵ_{jki}x_k^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^{})\psi _i`$

$`(2\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\chi ^{}`$

following that the charges algebra are,

$`[Q_{\overline{\theta }},Q_\theta ]_+=2\stackrel{~}{H}`$

$`[Q_\theta ,Q_\theta ]_+=({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}eix_k^{}A_{k[j,i]}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}`$

$$+\frac{4}{9}eix_nx_k^{}ϵ_{rnk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[j,i]})\psi _i\psi _j$$
(44)
$`[Q_{\overline{\theta }},Q_{\overline{\theta }}]_+=({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}eix_kA_{k[i,j]}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}e\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{[j,i]}^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}eix_n^{}x_kϵ_{rnk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[i,j]}^{})\psi _j^{}\psi _i^{},`$

where the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is the same obtained from lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ by Legendre transformation.

If we impose that the algebra of charges is the same as the one in (28), we need that

$$A_{k[j,i]}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[j,i]}0$$
(45)
$`A_{k[j,i]}^{}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{[i,j]}^{}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r[j,i]}^{}0;`$

the algebra of commutation relations for the component coordinates are given as:

$`[x_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_k}]_{}=i\delta _{ik}[x_i^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{x_k^{}}]_{}=i\delta _{ik}[\xi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi ]_{}=i`$

$$[\psi _i,\psi _k^{}]_+=8\delta _{ik}[\chi ,\chi ^{}]_+=4,$$
(46)
$`[\psi _i,\mathrm{\Pi }_{\psi _k}]_+=i[\psi _i^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{\psi _k^{}}]_+=i[\chi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\chi ]_+=i`$

$`[\chi ^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_\chi ^{}]_+=i;`$

all other relations vanish. We can obtain the same algebra for the components of superfields, proceeding to the canonical quantization , where the momenta $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_j`$, follow now from the Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$.

## V Conclusions

We propose a supersymmetric quantum-mechanical system given by a non-relativistic particle in an external field. We formulate the problem in 5D, where the particle presents 4 fermionics degrees of freedom. and 4 bosonics degrees of freedom (N=1 - D=4 $`=>`$ N=2 - D=4). In dimensions smaller than 3+1, we do not have suficient degrees of freedom in the fermionic sector. Then, we cannot write the model in terms of superfields.

Starting from 4+1, the consequence is that we drag another object from there, $`_i`$. The interpretation of this object is not clear, but it follows from the extended Electromagnetism we have discussed. We obtain a simple and also extended (N=2) su.sy..

We observe that, although the charge in N=2-su.sy. changes with the surface terms in the Lagrangian, we do not have change the charges algebra of supersymmetry. In other words, surface terms do not give rise to a central charge in this model, except in the case the derivatives do not commute when applied on $`A^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or, in other words, when Dirac-like strings are present.

Here, we have set an extended eletromagnetic model to see how central charges may show up. Next, we wish to reset the turbulent system, decribed by a BRS-symmetry, as studied in  in terms of an N=2-D=2-supersymmetry. The instanton solution present in the system may be the source of a central charge in the N=2-algebra. Also, the realisation of an N=2-su.sy. for the turbulent system may ensure the topological stability of dual solutions that saturate the Bogomol’nyi bound ,.

## Appendix

We quote below the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices representing the Clifford algebra of (1+4)D:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_2\\ 1_2& 0\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^i\\ \sigma ^i& 0\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2& 0\\ 0& 1_2\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=i\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i_2\\ i_2& 0\end{array}\right).`$

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to A. L. M. A. Nogueira and W.A. Moura-Melo for pleasant and clarifying discussion. M. Plyushchay is also acknowledged for the interest in pointing out a number of relevant references. The authors express their gratitude to CNPq for the financial support