text:
# MERGER SITES OF DOUBLE NEUTRON STARS AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Thirty years after the discovery of GRBs, their distance scale has been firmly established with the measurement of redshifts (Metzger et al. 1997). Cosmological GRB scenarios require an energy release of about $`10^{51}`$ ergs, pointing at violent events in the stellar evolution scenarios. Coalescences of double neutron star (NS-NS) binaries have been considered as possible GRB source (Paczynski 1986; Eichler et al. 1989). On theoretical grounds the timescale of such a merger is expected to be short (e.g., Ruffert & Janka 1999), of the order of a few milliseconds, however numerical simulations show that they might last up to $`0.5`$ s (e.g. Lee & Kluzniak 1998). The discovery and observations of GRB afterglows and the identification of host galaxies have allowed comparisons of theoretical distributions of merger sites with the observed distribution of afterglow positions relative to GRB host galaxies. Such calculations (Bloom, Sigurdsson, & Pols 1999; Bulik, Belczynski, & Zbijewski 1999; Fryer, Woosley, & Hartmann 1999; Bloom, Kulkarni, & Djorgovski 2002) have found that NS-NS systems acquire rather high velocities and have long enough lifetimes that a large fraction of the coalescence events takes place outside the host galaxies. Black-hole neutron-star (BH-NS) mergers have also been found to take place outside host galaxies, yet with the tighter distribution of their merger sites.

In this paper we present a thorough investigation of the formation paths and merger sites of binaries containing two neutron stars using the StarTrack population synthesis code. In particular, we explore the implications of allowing for CE episodes involving helium stars.

## 2 MODEL DESCRIPTION

In our calculations we use the StarTrack population synthesis code described in detail in Belczynski , Kalogera & Bulik (2002a). Dynamical evolution of binaries, in particular effects of kicks and mass loss due to supernovae (SN) explosions, in diffrent galactic potentials is presented in Belczynski, Bulik & Rudak (2002b).

In order to investigate the systematic inaccuracies of binary population synthesis methods, we vary many of the parameters describing the stellar evolution. We define standard model with: Cordes & Chernoff (1998) kick velocity distribution; maximum NS mass $`M_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{NS}}=3.0`$ M; $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}\times \lambda =1`$, where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ – CE efficiency (Webbink 1984), $`\lambda `$ – numerical factor describing stellar density distribution (de Kool 1990); f$`{}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{}=0.5`$, $`j_\mathrm{a}=1.0`$, in non-conservative stable MT, fa denotes the part of the mass lost by donor and accreted by the companion and the rest is lost from a system with angular momentum equal to $`2\pi j_\mathrm{a}A^2/P`$, where $`A`$ and $`P`$ are the orbital separation and period, respectively; $`M_{\mathrm{conv}}=4.5`$$`M_{}`$, evolved helium stars of mass below $`M_{\mathrm{conv}}`$ are assumed to develop deep convective envelopes; continuous star formation rate (SFR); initial mass function (IMF) $`M_1^{2.7}`$; $`f_{\mathrm{bi}}=50\%`$, binary fraction; $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q)=1`$, initial mass ratio distribution, $`qM_2/M_1`$, where $`M_1`$ is mass of primary, and $`M_2`$ is mass of secondary; partial fall back (FB) allowed for stars with $`5.0<M_{\mathrm{CO}}<7.6M_{}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ is final stellar CO core mass; in CEs hyper-critical accretion (HCA) onto NS/BH allowed. All the other models, presented in Table 1, differ only by the value of one parameter from the standard model (A) and are described in detail in Belczynski et al. (2002b).

## 3 RESULTS

Our results depend crucially on the treatment of immediate progenitors of neutron stars (NS): low-mass helium stars, and in particular their radial expansion as well as their behavior during mass transfer (MT) episodes in close binaries. Although the radial expansion has been acknowledged in the literature, it has not been widely used in population synthesis studies. In our earlier work (Belczynski & Kalogera 2001) we argued that the two evolved low-mass helium stars (and thus with at least partially convective envelopes) may drive dynamically unstable MT, leading to CE evolution. In the present study we allow low-mass helium stars to expand during their evolution, and possibly initiate MT in close binaries. If an evolved low-mass helium star is more massive than its companion, we assume that the MT will be dynamically unstable and will lead to CE phase. We treat such CE phases with the standard “alpha” prescription (Webbink 1984), to check whether systems survive the episode or result in mergers. The standard description of CE phase has been used successfully for H-rich giants, however without detailed hydrodynamical simulations, we cannot address the question whether it also works in the case of low-mass He-rich giants. Since hydrodynamical simulations are beyond the scope of this study, we also present calculations in which we assume that all MT episodes of low-mass helium stars lead to mergers, and in which the helium stars are not allowed to expand radially.

### 3.1 Formation Channels

We find that coalescing NS-NS binaries are formed in various ways, including more than 14 different evolutionary channels (Belczynski et al. 2002a). However, the entire population may be divided into three groups. Group I consists of non-recycled NS-NS systems identified by Belczynski & Kalogera (2001). Progenitors of these systems end their evolution in a double CE of two evolved helium stars. If a merger is avoided and the CE is ejected, a tight binary consisting of two bare carbon-oxygen (CO) cores is formed. The CO cores form neutron stars in two consecutive Type Ic SN explosions. Provided, that the system is not disrupted by SN kicks and mass loss, two neutron stars form an eccentric and tight binary with the unique characteristic that none of the neutron stars had a chance to be recycled. Progenitors of Group II NS-NS binaries end their evolution in a CE episode involving an evolved low-mass helium star donor and a neutron star companion. Despite of the short timescale of the CE phase, the NS may increase its mass due to hyper-critical accretion (e.g., Brown 1995; Bethe & Brown 1998). If system avoids merger in the CE phase and if NS does not collapse into a black hole (BH), a system consisting of recycled pulsar and bare CO core is formed. After a Type Ic SN explosion, a very tight and eccentric NS-NS binary is formed. These systems (see also Belczynski et al. 2002a) are characterized by very short lifetimes. Systems of Group III, consisting of all other NS-NS, are formed along more or less classical channels (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel 1991).

In Figure 1 we show an example of the formation of a tight NS-NS binary of Group II. The evolution begins with two massive stars in a rather wide and eccentric orbit (stage I). The primary evolves off the main sequence, expands to giant dimensions circularizing the initially eccentric orbit. Once the primary reaches its Roche lobe, nonconservative but dynamically stable MT begins (stage II). The donor envelope is in part accreted onto the main sequence (MS) companion and in part lost from the binary. The post-MT binary (stage III) consists of the exposed helium core of the primary and the MS secondary, which increased its mass and was rejuvenated. The low-mass helium star evolves through core and shell helium burning, and radially expands significantly, although it never fills its Roche lobe. Its evolution ends with a Type Ib SN explosion forming the first NS in the system. Due to the asymmetric SN explosion and the associated mass loss, the post-SN system is eccentric and the orbit widens (stage IV). Next the secondary ends core hydrogen burning and evolves toward the giant branch. The associated radial expansion leads to Roche lobe overflow, and the orbit is again tidally circularized. Since in this case the donor is much more massive than its NS companion, the issuing MT is dynamically unstable, and a CE event ensues. Once the NS is engulfed in the expanding envelope of the original secondary, it experiences hyper-critical accretion (e.g., Bethe & Brown 1998). The spiral in of the NS toward the helium core of the secondary ends, when the CE is expelled from the binary, at the expense of orbital energy. The orbital separation is greatly reduced, and a close binary with a NS and a low-mass helium star is formed (stage VI). The helium star evolves through subsequent burning of elements and eventually acquires a “giant-like” structure, with a developed CO core and a partially convective envelope. When it fills its Roche lobe another CE phase begins (stage VII). However, this time, the envelope is of much lower mass, and the binary orbit is not as greatly reduced and the first NS does not accrete as much mass. At the end of this phase the CO core of helium star is exposed (stage VIII), and it eventually explodes as a Type Ic SN. Due to the very tight pre-SN binary orbit, the probability of survival through the SN is very high, and a very tight and highly eccentric NS-NS binary is formed with a merger time of $`0.7`$ Myr.

Group II strongly dominates the population of coalescing NS-NS systems (87.4%, for the standard model calculation) over group III (4.2%) and I (8.4%). The formation of Group I and II systems depends crucially on the radial evolution (expansion) of low-mass helium stars and their response to mass loss. In model N we do not allow for any helium-star expansion, and in model H2 we assume that all Roche-lobe overflow events from helium-stars lead to mergers (independent of their mass). In these models we find that NS-NS systems are formed via classical channels (group III). The merger times of the group III systems are typically of the order of a Gyr. The systems in group I and II systems are initially much tighter and thus short lived: their merger times are typically of the order of a Myr or even shorter (see Belczynski et al. 2002a).

### 3.2 Coalescence rates

In Table 1 we present the coalescence rates of NS-NS binaries for all the models we investigate. The rates have been calibrated for the Galactic Type II SN rates obtained by Capellaro, Evans & Turatto (1999). Our standard model rate corresponds to about 50 coalescence events of NS-NS per Galaxy per Myr. However, due to the model uncertainties, this rate varies in a wide range of 1-300 events per Galaxy per Myr, depending which parameter values we choose to adopt.

As shown in earlier studies (e.g., Lipunov, Postnov & Prokhorov 1997; Belczynski & Bulik 1999), the coalescence rates depend strongly on the assumed kick velocity distribution (see models B1-13). Since we assume a rather high value for the maximum NS mass ($`M_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{NS}}=3.0M_{}`$) for the standard model, we also calculate rates for models (D1 and D2) with lower $`M_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{NS}}`$. The least affected subgroup is that of the non-recycled NS-NS binaries, as they consist of low-mass NS. However, the rates for group II and III are reduced significantly. This is due to the specific formation channels of these two groups, in which many compact objects are formed with masses over 1.5 and 2.0 $`M_{}`$. In models H2 and N, NS-NS are formed only in group III. In model H2, with the lowest predicted coalescence rate of NS-NS systems, none of helium stars are allowed to develop convective envelopes, therefore we assume that any MT phase initiated by a helium star lead to a binary component merger. In model N, helium stars are not allowed to expand, and therefore they never interact, which suppresses formation of NS-NS systems in the new channels.

All models (except C) include hyper-critical accretion onto compact objects in CE episodes. We find, in contrast to Bethe & Brown (1998), that in most cases NS do not accrete enough material to become BH, and thus the channels with phases of CE are still open for the formation of coalescing NS-NS binaries. This discrepancy is due to two facts. First, their assumption of $`M_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{NS}}=1.5M_{}`$, which we find very low in view of the high NS mass estimates in Cyg X-2: $`1.78\pm 0.23M_{}`$ (Orosz & Kuulkers 1999) and in Vela X-1: $`1.9_{0.5}^{+0.7}M_{}`$ (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995). Second, their approximate111Bethe & Brown (1998) have assumed that the NS mass during CE is much smaller than the companion mass and they have neglected it in their eq. 5.5. However, we find this is not always true, e.g., see stage (VII) in our Fig. 1: with accreting NS of $`1.8M_{}`$ and helium giant donor of only $`3.1M_{}`$. treatment of accretion onto NS results in higher final compact object masses than in our exact numerical solution. Both, our detailed treatment of the hyper-critical accretion and the variation of coalescence rates of compact object binaries for all our models is given in Belczynski et al. (2002a).

### 3.3 Distribution of merger sites

We first consider the distributions of merger sites for each Group identified above. In the left panel of Figure 2 we present the case of a massive Milky Way like galaxy. The distribution of merger sites of groups I and II follows closely the initial stellar distribution in this galaxy. This is expected since these systems are very tight, and therefore their lifetimes as NS-NS systems are typically a few Myr. Even with a velocity of a $`1000`$km s-1 a NS-NS system will move only out to $`1`$ kpc before it merges. This is also seen in the right panel of Figure 2 where we show the distributions around a small mass host. The binaries of group I and II merge within such galaxies, and the distribution of the merger sites follows closely the initial distribution of stars. The classical systems, (Group III) have much longer merger times and therefore some of them manage to escape even from high mass hosts, see Figure 2. In the case of small galaxy the distribution of merger sites of group III binaries contains a large fraction that merges far outside the host. One must bear in mind that our simulations show that the entire population of NS-NS systems is dominated by group II systems, and group III systems are the smallest subgroup.

We present the distributions of NS-NS merger sites around the two model galaxies for all our evolutionary models listed in Table 1 in Figure 3. In the case of a massive host galaxy, all distributions except for models H2 and N nearly overlap. The escaping fraction, defined as numbers of systems merging further than 20 kpc from the host is always smaller than five percent. In models H2 and N formation of group I and group II systems is suppressed and the escaping fraction is much larger. In the case of a dwarf host (right panel of Figure 3) the escaping fraction varies between 5 and 15%. For models E3 ad F2 the distributions clearly stand out, yet even in these cases nearly 80% of the mergers take place within the host galaxies. The E3 systems are formed assuming a very high CE efficiency, and therefore are still wide after the CE phase. Thus they are relatively long lived and this broadens the distribution of merger sites. In model F2 every MT event (except a CE phase) is treated conservatively, i.e., all material lost from the donor is accreted by the companion. Therefore the separation following MT events is wider, as no material and thus no angular momentum is lost from the binary. Wider systems live longer and therefore may merge further from the host. Models H2 and N, roughly represent distributions of NS-NS binaries formed only through classical channels with long merger times, that merge far from their birth places (for small hosts the escaping fraction is $``$ 70%).

## 4 Conclusions

Previous calculations of distribution of merger sites of NS-NS binaries showed that NS-NS binaries merge predominantly outside of host galaxies. This result was used as an argument against the NS-NS systems as GRB progenitors. With the calculations presented here we show that the NS-NS population may consist primarily of systems with small orbital separations and consequently short merger times, which merge close to the place where they had been formed. Such systems are formed along the newly identified formation channels, opened in our calculations for the two following reasons. The first is our treatment of the evolution of low-mass helium stars, which are allowed to form partially or fully convective envelopes. The second is that we have considered double common envelope episodes of two giant stars (H- and He-rich) leading to ejection of their combined envelopes. These are the two major features of our calculations that allow the formation of the two new subpopulations of NS-NS binaries. Evolution of helium stars in CE phases has been considered qualitatively in earlier studies (van den Heuvel 1992; Taam 1996). MT interactions involving helium stars (although not CE phases) have been included in population synthesis study of Tutukov & Yungelson (1993).

If NS-NS mergers are the progenitors of short bursts then we find that they should lie within galaxies just as the long bursts do. We note that the BH-NS mergers take place preferentially outside galaxies (for details see Belczynski et al. 2002b). Current and future space missions will hopefully measure precise positions of short bursts and settle the issue of their progenitors.

We would like to thank the referee D. Chernoff and also C. Fryer, R. Taam, F. Rasio, W. Bednarek, and J. Ziołkowski for comments on this work. Partial support is acknowledged from NSF Grant PHY-0121420 (VK), from KBN Grant 5P03D01120 (TB; KB) and the Aspen Center for Physics (TB; VK).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is generally expected that the Standard Model will break down at energies above LEP, and signals of new physics will occur for energies $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 100 GeV - 1 TeV. The nature of this new physics is one of the crucial question of particle physics. Simultaneously, astronomical data has determined with good accuracy the amount of dark matter in the universe, though the nature of that dark matter remains one of the crucial questions of astronomy. Supersymmetric theories with R parity invariance offer an explanation to both puzzles as well as a window on the cosmology of the very early universe at times $`t10^7`$ sec.

Unfortunately, supersymmetric models depend upon a large number of parameters, and even the simplest model, mSUGRA, depends on four parameters and one sign. But fortunately, supersymmetry applies to a wide number of phenomena, and it is now becoming possible to significantly restrict the parameter space. The general MSSM, with over 100 free parameters (63 real parameters) is not very predictive. We consider here therefore, models, based on supergravity grand unification at $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV (which have both theoretical and experimental motivation). We examine first the current status of the simplest model, mSUGRA , and what might be obtained from future measurements of the muon magnetic moment, $`g_\mu 2`$, the Higgs mass, and the B decay $`B_s\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$. We will then look at non-universal models with non-universality in the Higgs or third generation of squarks and sleptons. For all these cases, the lightest neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, is the dark matter candidate, and this will also strongly constrain the SUGRA parameter space.

## 2 mSUGRA Model

We briefly review the mSUGRA model which depends on four parameters and one sign, and thus is the most predictive of the SUSY models. We take these parameters to be the following: $`m_0`$ (the universal scalar soft breaking mass at $`M_G`$); $`m_{1/2}`$ (the universal gaugino mass at $`M_G`$); $`A_0`$ (the universal cubic soft breaking mass at $`M_G`$); and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =<H_2>/<H_1>`$ (the ratio of the two Higgs VEVs at the electroweak scale). The sign of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ (appearing in the superpotential as $`\mu H_1H_2`$ ) is the remaining parameter. (We note at the electroweak scale that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and lightest chargino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, masses are related to $`m_{1/2}`$ by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{}{=}0.4m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\stackrel{}{=}0.8m_{1/2}`$.) We examine this model with the following parameter ranges: $`m_01`$ TeV; $`m_1/21`$ TeV; $`2\mathrm{tan}\beta 55`$; and $`A_04m_{1/2}`$. The above bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ corresponds to a gluino mass range of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2.5`$ TeV, which is also the upper mass reach for the LHC.

In the early universe, the neutralino can annihilate via s-channel $`Z`$, and $`h`$, $`H`$, and $`A`$ neutral Higgs bosons ($`h`$ is the light Higgs, and $`H(A)`$ are the heavy CP even (odd) Higgs), and also through t-channel sfermion diagrams. However, if a second particle becomes nearly degenerate with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, one must include it in the early universe annihilation processes. This leads to the co-annihilation phenomena. In SUGRA models with gaugino grand unification, this accidental near degeneracy occurs naturally for the light stau, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. One can see this analytically for low and intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where the renormalization group equations (RGE) can be solved analytically. One finds for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, the right selectron and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ at the electroweak scale the results:

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+0.15m_{1/2}^2sin^2\theta _WM_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (1)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`=`$ $`0.16m_{1/2}^2`$
where the last term of Eq(1) is approximately (37GeV)2. Thus for $`m_0=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ becomes degenrerate with $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$370 GeV, and co-annihilation thus begins at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$(350GeV - 400GeV). As $`m_{1/2}`$ increases, $`m_0`$ must be raised in lock step (to keep $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}>m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$). More precisely, it is the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ which is the lightest slepton and this particle dominates the co-annihilation phenomena. In general, co-annihilation implies that one ends up with relatively narrow allowed corridors in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane with $`m_0`$ closely correlated with $`m_{1/2}`$, increasing as $`m_{1/2}`$ increases.

Dark matter detection of Milky Way neutralinos incident on the Earth depends upon the neutralino - proton cross section. For detectors with nuclear targets containing heavy nuclei, this is dominated by the spin independent cross section. The basic quark diagrams involve s-channel squarks, and $`t`$-channel $`h`$ and $`H`$ diagrams. Thus $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ decreases with increasing $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ (which as we have seen above increase together), and also increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (due to the Higgs couplings to the $`d`$ quark). Thus the maximum cross section will occur at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and low $`m_{1/2}`$, $`m_0`$.

In order to carry out calculations in SUGRA models accurately, it is necessary to take into account a number of corrections, and we list the important ones here:

We use two loop gauge and one loop Yukawa RGE from $`M_G`$ to the electroweak scale (which we take as $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_2)^{1/2})`$, and QCD RGE below for the light quark contributions. Two loop and pole mass corrections are included in calculation of $`m_h`$. One loop corrections to $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$  are included, which are important for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ NLO SUSY corrections to $`bs\gamma `$  are included. All stau-neutralino co-annihilation channels are included in the relic density calculation with analysis valid for the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime .

Note that we do not include Yukawa unification or proton decay constraints in the analysis as these depend sensitively on post-GUT physics, about which little is known. In fact in string or M-theory analyses with grand unification, while the unification of the coupling constants occur as in SUGRA models, the Yukawa unification or proton decay constraints do not generally hold .

## 3 Current Experimental Constraints

In order to see what the currently allowed parameter space is, one must impose all the present experimental constraints. However, three of these acting together produce significant limitations, and we mention these here:

(1) Higgs mass. The current LEP bound on the light Higgs is $`m_h>`$ 113.5 GeV . However, the theoretical calculation of $`m_h`$  may have a 2 -3 GeV error, and so we will conservatively interpret this bound to mean $`m_h`$(theory) $`>111`$ GeV.

(2) $`bs\gamma `$ decay. There is some model dependence in extracting the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio from the CLEO data, and so we will take a relatively broad range around the current CLEO central value :

$$1.8\times 10^4<Br(BX_s\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4$$
(2)
(3) $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ relic density. The relic density is measured in terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$ where $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`\rho _c=3H^2/8\pi G_N`$ and $`H=(100km/sMpc)h`$ is the Hubble constant. Analyses of the cosmic microwave background now gives a fairly accurate measurement of the amount of CDM, i. e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.139\pm 0.026`$ . We take a $`2\sigma `$ range around the central value:

$$0.07<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.21$$
(3)
These three constraints now combine to greatly restrict the mSUGRA parameter space. Thus the $`m_h`$ bound for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint for higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ produce a lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ over the entire parameter space of

$$m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}(300400)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(4)
and consequently $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{>}{}(120160)`$ GeV. This means that most of the parameter space is in the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ co-annihilation domain in the relic density calculation, and thus to satisfy the relic density bound , $`m_0`$ is approximately determined by $`m_{1/2}`$ (for fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_0`$). This implies that as $`m_{1/2}`$ increases, so does $`m_0`$, and so generally on has that $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is a deceasing function of $`m_{1/2}`$.

We consider first $`\mu >0`$. Figs. 1 and 2 exhibit the effects discussed above. Thus in Fig. 1 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`A_0=0`$, one sees that the Higgs mass bound requires $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}300`$ GeV, and one sees the narrow $`m_0`$ band allowed by the co-annihilation effects. The short vertical lines show the expected dark matter detection cross sections of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}=5^9`$ pb (left) and $`1\times 10^9`$ pb (right). Thus $`m_0`$ is determined by $`m_{1/2}`$ to within $`40`$GeV. Fig. 2 shows the corresponding situation for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$50. Here the $`bs\gamma `$ produces the low energy cut off of $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}350`$ GeV. There is also a bulge in the dark matter allowed domain at low $`m_{1/2}`$ where co-annihilation has not yet set in. The cross sections are (left to right) $`5\times 10^8`$ pb, $`1\times 10^8`$ pb and $`2\times 10^9`$ pb. These cross sections are within range of future planned detector experiments.

For $`\mu <0`$ an accidental cancellation in $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ occurs over a wide range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$  giving large regions where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<10^{10}`$ pb and hence probably inaccessible to future detectors. This is exhibited in Fig. 3 , where the minimum cross sections are plotted as one scans the allowed parameter space, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$6 (dashed), 8 (dotted), 10 (solid), 25 (large dash). In this case the spin independent cross section can fall below the very small spin dependent cross section where such cancellations do not occur.

There exist now two other experiments that might restrict the parameter space even more: The BNL E821  $`g_\mu 2`$ experiment measuring the muon magnetic moment, and the decay $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ which may be observable at the Tevatron RunIIB (or possibly in B-factories), and we turn to consider these next.

## 4  Muon magnetic Moment Anomaly

The BNL E821 experiment has measured the muon magnetic moment with exceedingly high accuracy. When compared with the calculations of $`a_\mu `$ expected from the Standard Model (with corrected sign of the hadronic scattering of light by light contribution ) there remains a small discrepancy:

$$\delta a_\mu =27(16)\times 10^{10}$$
(5)
which is a 1.6 $`\sigma `$ effect. While this is not enough to presume that a real effect has been discovered, it is still interesting to examine the effects such an anomaly would have for two reasons: first the errors will shortly be significantly reduced, and second SUGRA models imply the existence of such an anomaly of just this size.

Much of the uncertainty in the calculation of $`a_\mu `$ comes from the hadronic part, $`a_\mu `$(had). However, it is possible to express this by a dispersion relation in terms of integrals over the experimental cross section $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}}had`$. Recent experiments from from CMD-2, VEPP-2M and Beijing  have re-measured these cross sections with greatly improved accuracy. Further, the BNL E821 experiment has about six times more data which they are currently analyzing which should greatly reduce the statistical part of the error. Thus one may expect the error in Eq.(5) to be reduced by a factor of two or more in the near future. If the central value of the anomaly were to remain unchanged, the effect would become more statistically significant.

From the theoretical side, it has been known for some time that mSUGRA predicts an important contribution to $`a_\mu `$ . This is illustrated in Fig. 4 which shows the allowed regions in the $`m_0`$ \- $`m_{1/2}`$ plane and assumes that the entire $`a_\mu `$ anomaly is due to SUSY. The upper right (blue) region corresponds to $`a_\mu `$ less than $`1\sigma `$ below the current central value, while the diagonal line corresponds to the central value, which falls at the lower edge of the allowed part of the parameter space. The current central value thus corresponds to a relatively low mass SUSY spectra, easily accessible to the LHC. In fact, too big a value of delta $`a_\mu `$ (i. e. delta $`a_\mu \stackrel{>}{}40\times 10^{10})`$ would be sufficient to exclude mSUGRA . On the other hand, an $`a_\mu `$ less than $`1\sigma `$ below the current central value would imply a heavy SUSY mass spectrum. Further, if $`\delta a_\mu `$ is positive, then $`\mu >0`$ , and this would eliminate the very low dark matter detection cross sections shown in Fig.3. Thus the final value of $`\delta a_\mu `$ will play an important role in deciphering the SUSY parameter space.

## 5 $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$

The $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay offers an additional window for investigating the mSUGRA parameter space. This process has been examined within the MSSM framework  and more recently using mSUGRA . We consider here predictions for this decay for mSUGRA, but include all the current experimental constraints listed in Sec. 3 (which are necessary to see what predictions occur). The $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay is of interest since the Standard Model prediction for the branching ratio is quite small ($`Br[B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}]=(3.1\pm 1.4)\times 10^9`$), while the SUSY contribution can become quite large for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This is because the leading diagrams grow as $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta )^3`$ and hence the branching ratio as $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta )^6`$. What further makes this decay interesting is that it is possible to find a set of cuts so that CDF (and probably also DO) may be able to observe it in Run2B (with 15 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data). Fig. 5 shows the CDF limit on the branching fraction as a function of the luminosity. (The solid curve is a conservative estimate, and the dotted curve a more optimistic possibility.) One sees that CDF will be sensitive to a branching ratio of $`Br>1.2\times 10^8`$ (and the combined CDF and D0 data to $`Br>6.5\times 10^9`$). mSUGRA analysis then shows that CDF would be sensitive to this decay for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}30`$.

We can now examine the effects of the combination of all data. Figs. 6 and 7 \[show the parameter space for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ respectively for $`A_0`$ = 0 and $`\mu >0`$. One sees that there is an upper bound on the $`Br[B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}]`$ to be consistent with mSUGRA, and a branching ratio $`>7(14)\times 10^8`$ would be able to exclude mSUGRA for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <50(55)`$. As can be seen from Fig. 5, such a branching ratio could be seen with only 2 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. More generally, Fig. 6 shows that the entire parameter space can be covered for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`A_0=0`$ if $`a_\mu >11\times 10^{10}`$, and from Fig. 7 also for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ using the combined CDF and D0 data. The effect of varying $`A_0`$ is shown in Fig. 8 where $`A_0=2m_{1/2}`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. Here again the full parameter space can be covered.

One sees from the above graphs that future measurements should be able to determine the basic parameters of the mSUGRA model. Thus when the lines for $`\delta a_\mu `$, $`Br[B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}]`$ and $`m_h`$ intersect the allowed dark matter band at a single “point” for a given $`A_0`$, this will determine $`m_0`$ (approximately), $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. (It may be better to use the gluino mass in place of $`m_h`$ since the parameter space is very sensitive to $`m_h`$.) Predictions of the SUSY spectrum and dark matter detection rates would then follow.

## 6 Non-Universal Models

One can generalize mSUGRA by allowing non-universal soft breaking at $`M_G`$ in the third generation of squarks and sleptons and also in the Higgs sector. If universality of the gaugino masses is maintained, then stau-neutralino co-annihilation will still play an important role. However, new effects can occur, since the non-universality effects the size of the $`\mu `$ parameter. The $`\mu `$ parameter governs the Higgsino content of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and as $`\mu ^2`$ decreases (increases), the Higgsino content increases (decreases). Since $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ depends on the interference between the Higgsino and gaugino parts of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ will correspondingly increase (decrease). A second effect also occurs. As the Higgsino content of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ increases, then the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ \- $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ \- $`Z`$ coupling is strengthened, allowing a new annihilation channel to become important (in addition to the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ co-annihilation channel). As a simple example we consider the case where at $`M_G`$ one chooses $`m_{H_2}^2=m_0^2(1+\delta _2)`$, and all other soft breaking masses universal. Fig. 9 shows the allowed region in the $`m_0`$ \- $`m_{1/2}`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`\delta _2=1`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$. One sees the usual narrow stau-neutralino co-annihilation band a relatively low $`m_0`$, but in addition there is a higher $`m_0`$ (and low $`m_{1/2}`$) region satisfying all constraints due to the new $`Z`$-channel annihilation process. Fig. 10 shows $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`A_0=m_{1/2}`$, $`\mu >0`$. The Z-channel corridor now reaches up to the DAMA data region  for low $`m_{1/2}`$ ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}0.4m_{1/2}`$), and so if the DAMA results are confirmed, it would point to a non-universality of this type.

## 7 Conclusions

We have considered here SUGRA models with R parity invariance and grand unification at $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. Current data has begun to constraint these models significantly. For mSUGRA (and many non-universal models), accelerator data ($`m_h`$ and $`bs\gamma `$) place lower bounds on $`m_{1/2}`$ such that $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}300`$GeV (or $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{>}{}120`$GeV), while astronomical data on the amount of dark matter narrowly determines m0 in terms of $`m_{1/2}`$ (for each $`A_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$).

Thus additional new data could begin to fix the parameters of mSUGRA parameters, and so determine the mass spectrum expected at the LHC, dark matter detection rates, etc. In particular, the muon magnetic moment anomaly $`a_\mu `$ and the branching ratio $`Br[B_s\mu \mu ]`$ could combine with $`m_h`$ or a measurement of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ to fix the parameters completely. A more accurate determination of $`a_\mu `$ should be available shortly, and we have seen that the Tevatron RunII should be sensitive to the $`B_s`$ decay for $`Br>1.2(0.65)\times 10^8`$ for the CDF (or combined CDF and D0) data, and this would cover a large part of the parameter space for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >30`$. Non-universal models in the Higgs and third generation soft breaking masses offer the possibility of a new $`Z`$ boson s-channel annihilation in the early universe. Such possibilities can significantly increase the neutralino-proton detection cross section up the DAMA region of $`10^6`$ pb.

## 8 Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant PHY-0101015.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea that symplectic superalgebras $`osp(1,2^p)`$ and their subalgebras and contractions are important for understanding dualities and $`M`$-theory is attractive as these algebras contain supergravity algebras in diverse dimensions in a natural way . On the other hand, symplectic superalgebras were argued  to play a key role in the theory of massless higher spin fields. In particular, Fronsdal emphasized  that the set of $`4d`$ massless fields of all spins should exhibit $`sp(8)`$ symmetry and argued that some formulation of their dynamics in the generalized spacetime with matrix coordinates $`X^{\alpha \beta }=X^{\beta \alpha }`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},4`$) must exist.

Spacetimes with symmetric real matrix coordinates provide a natural realization of the symplectic algebras . Relevant constructions of extended spacetimes were discussed by many authors in different contexts . From $`M`$-theory perspective, relevance of generalized spacetimes with matrix coordinates $`X^{\alpha \beta }=X^{\beta \alpha }`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},2^p`$) is due to observation that once $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}`$ are interpreted as spacetime spinor indices the matrix coordinates $`X^{\alpha \beta }`$ provide a set of antisymmetric tensor “central charge coordinates” $`x^{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}`$ dual to “central charges” $`Z^{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}`$ and spacetime momenta resulting from the decomposition of the anticommutator of supercharges $`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}`$ into irreducible Lorentz tensors

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=\underset{kS}{}\gamma _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}Z_{}^{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}.$$
(1.1)
Here summation is over those values $`kS`$ that totally antisymmetrized products of $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}_{\alpha \beta }`$ are symmetric in the spinor indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$. Since “central charges” $`Z^{n_1\mathrm{}n_p}`$ characterize branes in superstring theory, a unified treatment of brane dualities requires uniform description of all “central charges”. This is achieved by introducing “central charge coordinates”  which together with the usual coordinates are equivalent to the coordinates $`X^{\alpha \beta }`$. A remarkable observation that supergravity models may result from spontaneous breakdown of symplectic symmetries was made recently in  where it was shown that the equations of motion of $`11d`$ supergravity imply conservation conditions for some $`osp(1,64)`$ currents while the theory as a whole provides a nonlinear realization of $`osp(1,64)`$.

The difference between the role of $`sp(2^p)`$ and its superextensions in the $`M`$-theory setup and in higher spin gauge theory (see  for a review and more references on higher spin gauge theories) is that $`M`$-symmetries $`sp(2^p)`$ are broken (nonlinearly realized) while in the higher spin gauge theory they act linearly and locally on fields as was recently shown in . Higher symplectic symmetries in higher spin gauge theories (e.g., $`sp(8)`$ is $`4d`$ higher spin theory) mix massless fields of all spins. As all massless higher spin fields are gauge fields this implies that a linearly realized higher symplectic symmetry is only possible in an invariant phase exhibiting infinite-dimensional higher spin symmetry that forms an infinite-dimensional extension of the symplectic symmetry. Since higher spin modes in superstring are massive, this explains why higher symplectic symmetries can only show up via nonlinear realization in the low-energy supergravity models.

The idea that higher spin gauge theory is a natural candidate for a most symmetric phase of the theory of fundamental interactions presently identified with superstring theory and $`M`$-theory provided originally the main motivation for its investigation . A peculiar feature of the higher spin gauge theory is that gauge invariant higher spin interactions require nonzero cosmological constant . This most symmetric phase differs from the phases of superstring with known spectra like in the flat space  or pp wave background . The (so far) explicitly solvable phases of superstring therefore require higher spin symmetries to be broken. It is tempting to speculate that $`M`$theory and superstring theory may result from a higher spin gauge theory via spontaneous breakdown of a higher spin symmetry that contains symplectic symmetry linking together higher spin and lower spin fields. Some ideas on a possible connection between higher spin theory and string theory in the context of $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence were recently discussed in . Once a nonlinear symplectic supersymmetry in $`M`$-theory is indeed a manifestation of a higher spin symmetric phase in which it is unbroken, this implies that branes are built of (vev’s of) higher spin gauge fields . In other words, higher spin gauge theories are expected to provide a microscopic description of branes.

For geometric realization of symplectic symmetries, dynamics has to be reformulated in terms of the generalized $`\frac{1}{2}M(M+1)`$dimensional spacetime $`_M`$ with real symmetric matrix coordinates $`X^{\alpha \beta }=X^{\beta \alpha }`$ $`(\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}M`$) , in which infinitesimal $`Sp(2M)`$ transformations are realized by the vector fields

$$P_{\alpha \beta }=i\frac{}{X^{\alpha \beta }},$$
(1.2)
$$L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=2iX^{\beta \gamma }\frac{}{X^{\alpha \gamma }},$$
(1.3)
$`K^{\alpha \beta }=iX^{\alpha \gamma }X^{\beta \eta }{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^{\gamma \eta }}}.`$ (1.4)
The (nonzero) $`sp(2M)`$ commutation relations are

$$[L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },L_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\delta }]=i(\delta _\alpha ^\delta L_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta _\gamma ^\beta L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\delta }),$$
(1.5)
$$[L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },P_{\gamma \delta }]=i(\delta _\gamma ^\beta P_{\alpha \delta }+\delta _\delta ^\beta P_{\alpha \gamma }),[L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },K^{\gamma \delta }]=i(\delta _\alpha ^\gamma K^{\beta \delta }+\delta _\alpha ^\delta K^{\beta \gamma }),$$
(1.6)
$$[P_{\alpha \beta },K^{\gamma \delta }]=\frac{i}{4}(\delta _\beta ^\gamma L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\delta }+\delta _\alpha ^\gamma L_\beta {}_{}{}^{\delta }+\delta _\alpha ^\delta L_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma }+\delta _\beta ^\delta L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }).$$
(1.7)
Here $`P_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`K^{\alpha \beta }`$ are generators of the generalized translations and special conformal transformations. The $`gl_M`$ algebra spanned by $`L_\alpha ^\beta `$ decomposes into the central subalgebra associated with the generalized dilatation generator

$$D=L_\alpha ^\alpha $$

and the $`sl_M`$ generalized Lorentz generators

$$l_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=L_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\frac{1}{M}\delta _\alpha ^\beta D.$$

A priori, it is not obvious how to formulate consistent $`sp(2M)`$ invariant dynamical equations compatible with the standard principles of quantum field theory such as unitarity and causality. Some proposals were made, e.g, in . An obvious problem is that it is hard to write down an analog of the Klein-Gordon equation free from the ghost problem because each“central charge momentum” $`Z_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}`$ induces both positive an negative contributions to any Lorentz invariant norm.

On the other hand, the “unfolded formulation” of the free conformal higher spin fields in $`d=3`$  and $`d=4`$  allowed us to derive a form of $`sp(2M)`$ invariant equations in $`_M`$  equivalent to the usual higher spin equations compatible with unitarity. As a result of this reformulation, massless fields of all integer spins in four dimensions are described by a single scalar field $`c(X)`$ in $`_M`$. All half-integer spins are described by a single svector field $`c_\beta (X)`$. (We use the name “svector” (symplectic vector) to distinguish $`c_\beta (X)`$ from vectors of the usual Lorentz algebra $`o(d1,1)`$. Note that svector fields obey the Fermi statistics ). The $`sp(2M)`$ invariant equations of motion found in  which encode $`4d`$ massless equations for all spins read

$$\left(\frac{^2}{X^{\alpha \beta }X^{\gamma \delta }}\frac{^2}{X^{\alpha \gamma }X^{\beta \delta }}\right)c(X)=0$$
(1.8)
for a scalar field $`b(X)`$ and

$$\frac{}{X^{\alpha \beta }}c_\gamma (X)\frac{}{X^{\alpha \gamma }}c_\beta (X)=0$$
(1.9)
for a svector field $`c_\beta (X)`$. Note that the same equations were argued in  to make sense for any even number $`M`$ of values taken by svector indices $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}M`$. For $`M=2`$, because antisymmetrization of any two-component indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is equivalent to their contraction with the $`2\times 2`$ symplectic form $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, (1.8) and (1.9) coincide with the $`3d`$ massless Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations, respectively.

Properties of the equations (1.8) and (1.9) were analyzed in detail in  where the dynamics in $`_M`$ described by the equations (1.8) and (1.9) was shown to be consistent with the principles of relativistic quantum field theory including unitarity and microcausality. The most important difference as compared to the usual picture is that, because the system of equations (1.8) and (1.9) is overdetermined, true local phenomena occur in a smaller space $`\sigma `$ called local Cauchy surface in  and identified with the space slice of Minkowski spacetime. The dependence along all “time-like” directions turns out to be fixed at once in terms of appropriate initial data. The full set of “initial data” that fixes a solution of the field equations (1.8) and (1.9) is provided by two functions on a $`M`$-dimensional “local Cauchy bundle” $`E`$ having local Cauchy surface $`\sigma `$ as its base manifold. From the point of view of usual Minkowski geometry the fiber space of $`E`$ parametrizes spin degrees of freedom of the fields living in the Minkowski spacetime $`\sigma \times R`$. Note that it is appropriate to describe local phenomena in the Minkowski spacetime $`\sigma \times R`$ in terms of the local Cauchy bundle $`E`$ rather than in terms of some $`M`$-dimensional surface in $`_M`$. The difference is that $`E`$ is a limit of some surface $`\sigma \times \tau `$ with the size of $`\tau `$ tending to zero. The resulting limiting description in terms of $`E`$ becomes local in terms of $`\sigma `$ .

The formulations of $`Sp(2M)`$ invariant systems in terms of the generalized space-time $`_M`$ and usual spacetime are equivalent and complementary. The description in terms of $`_M`$ provides clear geometric origin for the $`Sp(2M)`$ generalized conformal symmetry. In particular it provides geometric interpretation of the electromagnetic duality transformations as particular generalized Lorentz transformations . The description in terms of the Minkowski spacetime admits standard Cauchy problem but makes some of the symmetries not manifest, namely those which do not leave $`E`$ invariant. The description in terms of different local Cauchy surfaces $`\sigma `$ and associated local Cauchy bundles $`E`$ are equivalent being related by some $`Sp(2M)`$ transform. One can say that although the dynamics is formulated in $`_M`$ in explicitly $`sp(2M)`$ invariant manner, the generalized spacetime $`_M`$ is visualized by virtue of local phenomena as some $`d1M`$ dimensional space $`\sigma `$ times a $`Md+1`$ dimensional fiber associated with spin degrees of freedom. This picture has striking similarities with the brane picture. To work out a full-scale correspondence it is necessary to develop full nonlinear theory of higher spin gauge fields in $`_M`$.

In this paper we make a modest step in this direction by constructing conserved charges built of the fields $`c(X)`$ and $`c_\alpha (X)`$ in $`_M`$. The constructed currents are in the one-to-one correspondence with the set of generalized higher spin conformal symmetries found in  which contain $`OSp(L,2M)`$ symmetries as a subgroup. Due to specificity of the Cauchy problem in $`_M`$, the corresponding integrals of motion have a form of integrals of certain on-mass-shell closed $`M`$forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Being independent of a choice of a $`M`$dimensional integration surface they provide “integrals of motion” that characterize a particular solution of the field equations. In view of the results of  the conservation conditions of the currents associated with the symplectic superalgebras may be related to the equations of motion in $`M`$-theory in a higher spin Higgs phase.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 a set of integrals of motions is built provided that a generalized stress tensor satisfying appropriate conservation conditions exists. In section 3 the generalized stress tensor is built in terms of bilinears of the dynamical fields in $`_M`$. In section 4 the expressions for the conserved charges are evaluated in terms of Fourier transformed field variables and it is shown that they reproduce the expressions for the generators of higher spin transformations derived previously in . Section 5 contains brief conclusions.

## 2 General Structure of Currents

The fact  that dynamical degrees of freedom associated with the equations (1.8) and (1.9) live on a $`M`$-dimensional subsurface $`S_M`$ or its limiting $`M`$-dimensional local Cauchy bundle $`E`$ suggests that integrals of motion associated with these equations have to be built in terms of some $`M`$-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )`$ which are closed

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )=0,d=dX^{\alpha \beta }\frac{}{X^{\alpha \beta }}$$
(2.1)
as a consequence of the field equations (1.8) and (1.9). Here $`\eta `$ are some parameters associated with different closed $`M`$-forms and charges

$$Q(\eta )=_S\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta ).$$
(2.2)
The charges $`Q(\eta )`$ are independent of local variations of $`S`$ and, therefore, provide a set of integrals of motion associated with a particular solution of the field equations. In other words, the charges $`Q`$ are conserved. They generate symmetries by Poisson brackets or commutators upon quantization. (For the quantization rules for the fields $`c(X)`$ and $`c_\alpha (X)`$ see  and section 4). The modules $`\eta `$ are then interpreted as the symmetry parameters associated with the generators $`Q(\eta )`$. Note that addition to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )`$ an exact form does not affect charges. This ambiguity characterizes possible “improvements”.

Note that the dimension of a Cauchy surface in the $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is $`d1`$. The closed forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ associated with integrals of motion are of degree $`d1`$. The conserved currents $`J`$ are vector fields dual to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the generalized spacetime $`_M`$ it is natural to formulate the problem in terms of closed $`M`$forms rather than conserved dual polyvectors of rank $`\frac{1}{2}M(M1)`$. In the sequel on-mass-shell closed forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are called conserved.

We proceed in two steps by analogy with the case of usual conformal higher spin currents considered in . Firstly, we observe that, once there is a totally symmetric multisvector $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$, $`nM`$ satisfying certain generalized conservation conditions, the $`M`$-form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )=ϵ_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _M}dX^{\gamma _1\alpha _1}\mathrm{}dX^{\gamma _M\alpha _M}\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _{M+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{M+s}}X_{}^{\alpha _{M+s+1}\beta _1}\mathrm{}X^{\alpha _{M+s+t}\beta _t}T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{M+s+t}}$$
(2.3)
is closed. Here $`ϵ_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _M}`$ is the totally antisymmetric symbol. It is introduced to get rid of the set of totally antisymmetric indices from the parameter $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}`$ being an arbitrary totally symmetric $`X`$independent multisvector in lower and upper indices. At the second stage we will explicitly construct the generalized stress tensors in terms of bilinears in $`c(X)`$ and $`c_\alpha (X)`$.

The generalized conservation condition can be written in the following three equivalent forms

$$\frac{}{X^{\gamma \eta }}T_{\alpha \beta \alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _n}\frac{}{X^{\gamma \alpha }}T_{\eta \beta \alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _n}\frac{}{X^{\beta \eta }}T_{\alpha \gamma \alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _n}+\frac{}{X^{\beta \alpha }}T_{\gamma \eta \alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=0,$$
(2.4)
or

$$\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}\frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=0$$
(2.5)
for any $`\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}`$ having the symmetry properties of two-row Young scheme with two cells in the second row (i.e., $`\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}`$ is separately symmetric in the indices $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _j`$ and symmetrization of any $`n+1`$ indices gives zero), or

$$\frac{}{X^{\gamma \eta }}T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=U_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n\gamma ,\eta }+U_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n\eta ,\gamma },$$
(2.6)
where $`U_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{n+1},\eta }`$ is some multisvector totally symmetric in the $`n+1`$ indices $`\alpha `$. The conditions (2.4)-(2.6) are equivalent to each other because the derivative $`\frac{}{X^{\gamma \eta }}T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ decomposes into three irreducible parts associated with two-row Young schemes with zero, one and two cells in the second row

(2.7)
Each of the conditions (2.4), (2.5) and (2.6) implies that the part described by the Young scheme with two cells in the second row vanishes.

To prove that the $`M`$form (2.3) is closed one observes that, by virtue of (2.6), the part of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ due to differentiation of $`T`$ vanishes because it is proportional to $`dX^{\gamma _1\alpha _1}\mathrm{}dX^{\gamma _{M+1}\alpha _{M+1}}U_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{M+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{n+1},\eta }`$ which expression contains total antisymmetrization over $`M+1`$ svector indices $`\gamma _i`$ taking only $`M`$ values. The part due to differentiation of the factors of $`X^{\alpha \beta }`$ gives rise to the product of $`M+1`$ differentials $`dX^{\alpha \gamma }`$, each having one index contracted with the totally symmetric multisvector $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{M+s+t}}`$. It therefore also vanishes because of total antisymmetrization of the rest $`M+1`$ svector indices in the anticommuting differentials.

The multisvector $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ is a generalization of the spin 1 current, spin 3/2 supercurrent, spin 2 stress tensor and their higher spin extensions  in the conformal field theory in Minkowski spacetime. It is notable that the set of the symmetry parameters $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}`$ is in the one-to-one correspondence with the set of parameters of the generalized higher spin conformal symmetries found in  in the form

$$\eta (a,b)=\underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}{}_{}{}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}a_{\alpha _1}^{}\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _s}b^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}b^{\beta _t},$$
(2.8)
where $`a_\alpha `$ and $`b^\beta `$ are auxiliary oscillators

$$[a_\alpha ,a_\beta ]=0,[a_\alpha ,b^\beta ]=\delta _\alpha ^\beta ,[b^\alpha ,b^\beta ]=0$$
(2.9)
being generating elements of the star product algebra realization of the generalized conformal higher spin symmetry. Note that the expressions for the full set of generalized higher spin conformal currents (2.3) are much simpler than those for the conformal higher spin currents in Minkowski spacetime .

## 3 Generalized Stress Tensors

To present expression for $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ in terms of the dynamical fields it is useful to introduce a set of chains of totally symmetric multisvector fields $`c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k`$ of all ranks $`n`$ which satisfy the conditions

$$\frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k(X)=c_{\beta _1\beta _2\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k(X).$$
(3.1)
The Chan-Paton index $`k`$ enumerates different chains and can take an arbitrary number of values. Let us set

$$T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^{kl}(X)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}a((1)^m,n)\frac{i^mn!}{m!(nm)!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^k(X)c_{\alpha _{m+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^l(X)$$
(3.2)
with totally symmetrized indices $`\alpha `$ on the right hand side and arbitrary normalization coefficients $`a((1)^m,n)`$. The key fact is that the multisvector $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^{kl}`$ defined this way satisfies the generalized conservation condition. To see this it is most convenient to use its form (2.5). It follows

$`\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}}\left(c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\right)c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{nm}}=\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm},\alpha _{m+1}\alpha _{m+2}}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m+2}}c_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(nm)(nm1)}{(m+2)(m+1)}}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m+2}\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm2},\gamma _{nm1}\gamma _{nm}}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m+2}}c_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(nm)(nm1)}{(m+2)(m+1)}}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m+2}\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm2},\beta _1\beta _2}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}}c_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{nm2}},`$ (3.3)
where the property that symmetrization over any $`n+1`$ indices in $`\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}`$ gives zero was used. As a result, because of a sign factor produced by the factor of $`i^m`$ in (3.2) all terms in (2.5) cancel pairwise.

The set of quantities $`c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k`$ satisfying (3.1) is provided by the higher derivatives of the dynamical scalar and svector fields

$$c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2p}}^k=\frac{}{X^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\frac{}{X^{\alpha _3\alpha _4}}\mathrm{}\frac{}{X^{\alpha _{2p1}\alpha _{2p}}}c^k(X),$$
(3.4)
$$c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2p+1}}^k=\frac{}{X^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\frac{}{X^{\alpha _3\alpha _4}}\mathrm{}\frac{}{X^{\alpha _{2p1}\alpha _{2p}}}c_{\alpha _{2p+1}}^k(X).$$
(3.5)
Such defined quantities $`c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k`$ are totally symmetric in $`\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n`$ as a result of the equations of motion (1.8) and (1.9) which imply that any antisymmetrization of svector indices in higher derivatives of the dynamical fields gives zero (note that every solution of (1.9) satisfies (1.8) ).

In fact, the equation (3.1) is just the unfolded form of the equations (1.8) and (1.9) from which they were derived in . In terms of the generating function

$$C^k(b|X)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^k(X)b^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}b^{\alpha _n}$$
(3.6)
the equation (3.1) reads

$$\frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}C^k(b|X)=\frac{^2}{b^{\beta _1}b^{\beta _2}}C^k(b|X).$$
(3.7)
The generating function $`C^k(b|X)`$ was interpreted in  as a set of Fock modules

$$|C^k(b|X)=C^k(b|X)|00|$$
(3.8)
$`(k=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$) generated by the creation operators $`b^\alpha `$ from the vacuum state $`|00|`$ satisfying

$$a_\alpha |00|=0,|00|b^\alpha =0.$$
(3.9)
In terms of the analogous generating function for $`T`$

$$T^{kl}(b|X)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^{kl}(X)b^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}b^{\alpha _n}$$
(3.10)
the formula (3.2) with $`a((1)^m,n)=1`$ gets remarkably simple form

$$T^{kl}(b|X)=C^k(ib|X)C^l(b|X).$$
(3.11)
A proof of the conservation condition (2.5) is now obvious because, in terms of the generating function

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}a_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _n},$$
(3.12)
the Young property of $`\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}`$ is equivalent to

$$\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _1\beta _2}a_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _n}a_{\beta _1}=0.$$
(3.13)
The generalized conservation property (2.5) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)|\frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}|T^{kl}(b|X)=0,$$
(3.14)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)|=|00|\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)`$ and $`|T^{kl}(b|X)=T^{kl}(b|X)|00|`$. One gets

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)|{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^{\beta _1\beta _2}}}|T^{kl}(b|X)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _1\beta _2}(a)|(C^k(ib|X){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{b^{\beta _1}b^{\beta _2}}}(C^l(b|X))`$ (3.15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{b^{\beta _1}b^{\beta _2}}}(C^k(ib|X))C^l(b|X))|00|.`$
The property (3.13) implies that a total derivative with respect to $`\frac{}{b^{\beta _{1,2}}}`$ does not contribute, thus allowing to “integrate by parts”, that immediately proves (3.14).

The formula (3.2) describes several different cases. If $`n`$ is even (odd), the charges (2.2) have commuting (anticommuting) parameters $`\eta `$. Let us define generalized spin $`s=\frac{n}{2}`$. Then $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^{kl}`$ generate symmetries and supersymmetries for $`s`$ integer and half-integer, respectively.

Using the ambiguity in the coefficients $`a((1)^m,n)`$ in (3.2) one can fix statistics of the fields in $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^{kl}`$, arriving at the following different cases

$$T_{BB}^{kl}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}=\underset{q=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{(1)^q(2s)!}{(2q)!(2s2q)!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2q}}^kc_{\alpha _{2q+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^ls\text{integer},$$
(3.16)
$$T_{FF}^{kl}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}=\underset{q=0}{\overset{s1}{}}\frac{i(1)^q(2s)!}{(2q+1)!(2s2q1)!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2q+1}}^kc_{\alpha _{2q+2}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^ls\text{integer},$$
(3.17)
$$T_{BF}^{kl}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}=\underset{q=0}{\overset{s\frac{1}{2}}{}}\frac{(1)^q(2s)!}{(2q)!(2s2q)!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2q}}^kc_{\alpha _{2q+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^ls\text{half-integer},$$
(3.18)
$$T_{FB}^{kl}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}=\underset{q=0}{\overset{s\frac{1}{2}}{}}\frac{i(1)^q(2s)!}{(2q+1)!(2s2q1)!}c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2q+1}}^kc_{\alpha _{2q+2}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^ls\text{half-integer}.$$
(3.19)
One observes that, for $`s`$ integer, $`T`$ is symmetric in the inner indices for even spins and antisymmetric for odd spins

$$T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^{kl}=(1)^sT_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}^{lk}.$$
(3.20)
This formula holds both for the bosonic case of $`T_{BB}`$ and for the fermionic case of $`T_{FF}`$ provided that bosonic and fermionic fields are, respectively, commuting and anticommuting as required by microcausality . These properties are in agreement with the standard symmetry properties of usual spin 1 current, spin 2 stress tensor and their higher spin generalizations. For the fermionic case one gets

$$T_{BF}^{kl}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}=i(1)^{s+\frac{1}{2}}T_{FB}^{lk}{}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{2s}}{}^{}.$$
(3.21)
The following comment is now in order. According to (3.1) the components $`c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ themselves satisfy the conservation property (2.5) and, therefore, can be used as $`T_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ in the construction of currents. By virtue of antisymmetrization over $`M+1`$ indices, taking into account the field equations (3.1), one can see that all forms containing parameters $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}`$ with $`s>0`$ are equivalent modulo exact forms to the analogous forms containing traces of $`\eta `$. This allows one to consider only the case with $`s=0`$, i.e. only the forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )`$ with the parameters $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}`$ with $`t=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ parametrize the cohomology class associated with nontrivial integrals of motion of this type. This result is expected because such parameters are associated with the shifts

$$\delta c(X)=\eta +\eta _{\alpha \beta }X^{\alpha \beta }+\eta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \eta }X^{\alpha \beta }X^{\gamma \eta }\mathrm{},\delta c_\alpha (X)=\eta _\alpha +\eta _{\alpha \beta \gamma }X^{\gamma \beta }\mathrm{},$$
(3.22)
which are obvious symmetries of the equations (1.8) and (1.9).

## 4 Fourier Transform and Invariant Norm

The equations (1.8) and (1.9) were analyzed in  by means of Fourier transform. For a scalar field

$$c(X)=c_0\mathrm{exp}ik_{\alpha \beta }X^{\alpha \beta }$$
(4.1)
(1.8) requires

$$k_{\alpha \beta }=\pm \xi _\alpha \xi _\beta $$
(4.2)
with an arbitrary commuting real svector $`\xi _\alpha `$. The equation for a svector field $`c_\alpha (X)`$ fixes in addition a polarization factor so that the generic solution of the equations (1.8) and (1.9) has the form

$$c(X)=c^+(X)+c^{}(X),c^\pm (X)=\frac{1}{\pi ^{\frac{M}{2}}}d^M\xi b^\pm (\xi )\mathrm{exp}\pm i\xi _\alpha \xi _\beta X^{\alpha \beta },$$
(4.3)
$$c_\gamma (X)=c_\gamma ^+(X)+c_\gamma ^{}(X),c_\gamma ^\pm (X)=\frac{1}{\pi ^{\frac{M}{2}}}d^M\xi \xi _\gamma f^\pm (\xi )\mathrm{exp}\pm i\xi _\alpha \xi _\beta X^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(4.4)
The space of solutions is parametrized by two functions of $`M`$ variables $`\xi _\alpha `$ both for the scalar $`c(X)`$ and for the svector $`c_\alpha (X)`$. Scalar and svector therefore have equal numbers of on-mass-shell degrees of freedom. Because odd functions $`b^\pm (\xi )`$ and even functions $`f^\pm (\xi )`$ do not contribute to (4.3) and (4.4), respectively, we demand

$$b^\pm (\xi )=b^\pm (\xi ),f^\pm (\xi )=f^\pm (\xi ).$$
(4.5)
In  it was shown that charges generating $`osp(1,2M)`$ symmetry and its higher spin extension admit simple realization in terms of Fourier components $`b^\pm (\xi )`$ and $`f^\pm (\xi )`$

$$Q^{B,F}(\eta )=d^M\xi \left(b^+(\xi )\eta ^{B,F}(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi })b^{}(\xi )+f^+(\xi )\eta ^{B,F}(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi })f^{}(\xi )\right).$$
(4.6)
Depending on the oddness properties, the parameters

$$\eta (\xi ,\frac{}{\xi })=\underset{kl}{}\eta ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}{}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _l}{}^{}\xi _{\alpha _1}^{}\mathrm{}\xi _{\alpha _k}\frac{}{\xi _{\beta _1}}\mathrm{}\frac{}{\xi _{\beta _l}}$$
(4.7)
are bosonic or fermionic

$$\eta ^B(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi })=\eta ^B(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi }),\eta ^F(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi })=\eta ^F(\xi ,\frac{}{\xi }).$$
(4.8)
Taking into account the commutation relations introduced in

$$[b^\pm (\xi _1),b^\pm (\xi _2)]=0,[b^{}(\xi _1),b^+(\xi _2)]=\frac{1}{2}(\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)+\delta (\xi _1+\xi _2)),$$
(4.9)
$$[f^\pm (\xi _1),f^\pm (\xi _2)]_+=0,[f^{}(\xi _1),f^+(\xi _2)]_+=\frac{1}{2}(\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\delta (\xi _1+\xi _2)),$$
(4.10)
where $`[,]_+`$ denotes anticommutator, it is easy to see that the charges (4.6) generate all generalized higher spin transformations.

The analogy between the symmetry parameters (4.7) and the parameters (2.8) in the closed form (2.3) suggests that the expression for the generators (4.6) must result from the charges (2.2). Let us show that this is indeed true. Inserting (4.3) and (4.4) into (3.4) and (3.5) we get

$$c_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _q}^{\pm k}=(\pm i)^{[q/2]}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\frac{M}{2}}}d^M\xi c^\pm (\xi )\xi _{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi _{\alpha _q}\mathrm{exp}\pm i\xi _\gamma \xi _\beta X^{\gamma \beta },$$
(4.11)
where $`c^\pm (\xi )=b^\pm (\xi )`$ for $`q`$ even and $`c^\pm (\xi )=f^\pm (\xi )`$ for $`q`$ odd ($`[r]`$ denotes the integer part of $`r`$). Inserting this into (2.3), (3.2) with

$$a((1)^m,n)=i^{[\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1+(1)^m}{4}]},$$
(4.12)
we find for $`\eta =1`$

$`Q(c^+,c^{})`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _M}{\displaystyle _S}𝑑X^{\gamma _1\alpha _1}\mathrm{}dX^{\gamma _M\alpha _M}{\displaystyle d^M\xi d^M\xi ^{}c^+(\xi )c^{}(\xi ^{})}`$ (4.13)
$`(\xi +\xi ^{})_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}(\xi +\xi ^{})_{\alpha _M}\mathrm{exp}iX^{\gamma \beta }(\xi _\gamma ^{}\xi _\beta ^{}\xi _\gamma \xi _\beta ).`$
Let an integration surface be a hyperplane parametrized by some coordinates $`y^i`$ with $`i=1\mathrm{}M`$, i.e. $`X^{\alpha \beta }=U_i^{\alpha \beta }y^i`$ where the matrix $`U_i^{\alpha \beta }`$ has rank $`M`$. It follows

$$Q(c^+,c^{})=d^Myd^M\xi d^M\xi ^{}𝑑et\left|V_n^\alpha (\xi +\xi ^{})\right|\delta ^M\left((\xi _\alpha \xi _\alpha ^{})V_n^\alpha (\xi +\xi ^{})\right)c^+(\xi )c^{}(\xi ^{}),$$
(4.14)
where

$$V_n^\alpha (\xi +\xi ^{})=(\xi _\beta +\xi _\beta ^{})U_n^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(4.15)
The factor of $`det\left|V_n^\alpha (\xi +\xi ^{})\right|`$ guarantees that, generically, the zeros of the delta function in (4.14) at $`\xi _\beta +\xi _\beta ^{}0`$ do not contribute. As a result, only the zeros $`\xi _\beta \xi _\beta ^{}0`$ have to be taken into account. The integration measure in (4.14) therefore amounts to $`\delta ^M(\xi \xi ^{})`$. As a result one is left with the expected expression

$`Q(c^+,c^{})={\displaystyle d^M\xi c^+(\xi )c^{}(\xi )}.`$ (4.16)
It remains to note that, $`Q(c^\pm ,c^\pm )=0`$ because the bilinear form in $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ in the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}\pm iX^{\gamma \beta }(\xi _\gamma ^{}\xi _\beta ^{}+\xi _\gamma \xi _\beta )`$ is semi-definite and, therefore, the argument of the delta-function resulting from the integration over $`y_n`$ has no nontrivial zeros.

The integral of motion (4.16) produces an invariant norm on the space of solutions. It gives rise to a positive-definite invariant norm

$$A(𝐛^+,𝐟^+;𝐛^{},𝐟^{})=𝑑\xi ^M\left(𝐛^+(\xi )𝐛^{}(\xi )+𝐟^+(\xi )𝐟^{}(\xi )\right)$$
(4.17)
on the one-particle quantum states

$$d^M\xi \left(𝐛^{}(\xi )b^+(\xi )+𝐟^{}(\xi )f^+(\xi )\right)|00|,$$
(4.18)
parametrized by the functions $`𝐛^{}`$ and $`𝐟^{}`$.

The charges with multispinor parameters $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}`$ give rise to the higher spin charges (4.6) because every factor of $`X^{\alpha \beta }`$ in (2.3) is equivalent to the second derivative over $`\xi `$.

## 5 Conclusion

It is shown that $`sp(2M)`$ invariant equations of motion in the generalized spacetime $`_M`$ with matrix coordinates suggested in  admit conserved (super)charges associated with the infinite-dimensional higher spin superextension of $`osp(1,2M)`$. The (super)charges are integrals of on-mass-shell closed $`M`$-forms bilinear in the dynamical fields. This provides one more manifestation of the fact that nontrivial independent degrees of freedom of the $`sp(2M)`$ invariant dynamics live on $`M`$-dimensional surfaces . The scalar charge gives rise to an invariant norm on the space of solutions of the field equations which turns out to be equivalent to the positive-definite norm on the Fock space of one-particle states. The proposed construction has a good chance to admit a generalization to less trivial (not necessarily flat) geometries.

It is straightforward to write down conformally invariant Noether current interactions as

$$S^{Noether}=_{ST}\mathrm{\Omega }(A),$$
(5.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ is the $`M+1`$ form obtained from the $`M`$-form (2.3) via replacement of the parameter $`\eta _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _m}`$ by the higher spin conformal gauge 1-form $`A_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}^{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _m}`$. The integration in (5.1) is performed over a $`M+1`$dimensional surface to be interpreted as spacetime .

The dynamics described by (1.8) and (1.9) is equivalent  to the conformal dynamics in Minkowski spacetime for specific (infinite for $`M>2`$) sets of usual relativistic fields contained in scalar and svector fields in $`_M`$. Conserved charges built in this paper amount to certain sets of conserved charges in the associated Minkowski spacetime. In fact they give rise to infinite towers of different higher spin charges built of various conformal fields in the usual Minkowski spacetime. (Recall that infinite towers of fields in Minkowski space result from “Kaluza-Klein” modes on the fiber of the local Cauchy fiber bundle.) An interesting problem is to analyze the content of the conserved higher spin currents associated with the set of symmetry parameters $`\eta _{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _t}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}`$ from the perspective of Minkowski spacetime. It should be taken into account that the conformal Minkowski fields hidden in $`c(X)`$ and $`c_\alpha (X)`$ contain higher derivatives when expressed in terms of gauge potentials. For example, $`c(X)`$ describes scalar field in the spin 0 sector, Maxwell field strength in the spin 1 sector, Weyl tensor in the spin 2 sector etc. Generically, a spin $`s`$ field contains order $`[s]`$ derivatives of the respective conformal gauge potential. This is in agreement with the fact that, for example, the generalized conformal stress tensor in the spin two sector is built from the Weyl tensor, thus corresponding to the stress tensor of the $`C^2`$ conformal (Weyl) gravity.

Technically, to derive explicit form of all conformal higher spin currents built from various pairs of Minkowskian conformal fields is going to be a hard problem which requires a knowledge of a content of the decomposition of a totally symmetric tensor product of an arbitrary number of spinor representations into irreducible representations of the Lorentz algebra. To the best of our knowledge a solution of this problem is yet unknown for generic $`M`$. This problem can be avoided however in case one manages to operate in totally $`sp(2^p)`$ invariant terms of $`sp(2^p)`$ multiplets or rather $`osp(N,2^p)`$ supermultiplets.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by INTAS, Grant No.00-1-254, the RFBR Grant No.02-02-17067 and the RFBR Grant No.01-02-30024.