format: text

text:
# Manifestation of the Nuclear Anapole Moment in M1 Transitions in Thallium

(27 April 2002)

## Abstract

We calculate nuclear spin-dependent parity non-conserving $`E1`$-amplitudes for optical transition $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{3/2,F^{}}`$ and for hyperfine transition $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{1/2,F^{}}`$ in 205Tl. Experimental limit on the former amplitude placed by Vetter et al. \[PRL,74,2658 (1995)\] corresponds to the anapole moment constant $`\kappa _a=0.26\pm 0.27`$.

In 1980 Flambaum and Khriplovich FK80  pointed out that the nuclear spin-dependent (NSD) part of the parity non-conserving (PNC) interaction in heavy atoms is dominated by the contribution of the anapole moment (AM) of the nucleus Zel57t . After that AM was observed in the PNC experiment with 133Cs WBC97 , where the measured value of the AM constant $`\kappa _a`$ appeared to be even larger than theoretical prediction for the “best values” of the constants of the nuclear PNC interaction (see DK02  and references therein). On the other hand, in the most accurate measurement of the PNC amplitudes $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{3/2,F^{}}`$ in 205Tl VMM95 , the NSD amplitude was found to be consistent with zero and smaller than theoretical predictions DK02 ; Khr95 .

In Ref. Khr95  the ratio between NSD amplitude and the dominant nuclear spin-independent (NSI) PNC amplitude was calculated in the one-particle approximation. Here we recalculate this ratio using CI+MBPT method DFK96a ; DFK96b ; DKPF98 , which allows to account for both core-valence and valence-valence correlations. We found that correlation corrections are relatively large, but do not explain the discrepancy between the measurement VMM95  and the theory DK02 . A more accurate measurement of NSD amplitude in the optical transition $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{3/2,F^{}}`$ is hampered by the much larger NSI amplitude and by the smallness of the hyperfine structure of the upper state. Consequently, it may be easier to measure PNC amplitude for the hyperfine transition $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{1/2,F^{}}`$, where NSI amplitude turns to zero, while NSD amplitude is not suppressed NK75t . Here we find correlation corrections to this amplitude to be 20%.

In the PNC experiments on the $`6p_{1/2}6p_{3/2}`$ transition in Tl, the ratio:

$$\mathrm{Im}(E1_{\mathrm{PNC}}/M1)$$
(1)
of the PNC amplitude to the magnetic amplitude was measured with 1% accuracy in Ref. VMM95  and with 3% accuracy in Ref. EPBN95 . In those experiments the hyperfine structure of the lower level $`6p_{1/2}`$ was resolved. That allowed to determine $`(F)`$ for two hyperfine levels $`F=0`$ and $`F=1`$ of the ground state. For the level $`F=0`$ the only transition to $`F^{}=1`$ of the level $`6p_{3/2}`$ is allowed, while for the level $`F=1`$ transitions to both upper hyperfine levels $`F^{}=1,2`$ are allowed. Accordingly, $`(1)`$ is some average for two transitions:

$`(0)`$ $``$ $`(0,1),`$ (2a)
$`(1)`$ $``$ $`x^2(1,1)+(1x^2)(1,2),`$ (2b)
where coefficient $`x^2`$ depends on the intensity of the transitions and on experimental conditions, such as line width and optical depth.

Observation of the $`F`$-dependence of the PNC amplitude is important as it can give information about NSD part of the PNC interaction:

$`H_{\mathrm{PNC}}=H_{\mathrm{NSI}}+H_{\mathrm{NSD}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_W}{2}}\gamma _5+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{I}}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{I}\right)\rho (\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (3)
where $`G_F=2.2225\times 10^{14}`$ a.u. is the Fermi constant of the weak interaction, $`Q_W`$ is the nuclear weak charge, $`\kappa `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant, $`\gamma _5`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ are the Dirac matrices, $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ is the nuclear spin ($`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ for both stable isotopes 205Tl and 203Tl), and $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the nuclear density distribution.

There are three main contributions to the coupling constant $`\kappa `$ in NSD part of the PNC interaction (3):

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\kappa _a+\kappa _2+\kappa _{Q_W},`$ (4)
where AM contribution is given by the constant $`\kappa _a`$ FK80 , the constant $`\kappa _2=\frac{\lambda }{2}(4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W1)0.06`$ corresponds to the NSD weak neutral currents 111Note, that radiative corrections can change $`\kappa _2`$ quite noticeably.. The term $`\kappa _{Q_W}`$ is induced by the interference of the NSI interaction with the hyperfine interaction. For heavy nuclei this constant is proportional to $`A^{2/3}`$ FK85a ; BP91b , and for Tl $`\kappa _{Q_W}0.02`$. Substituting these numbers in (4), we get:

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\kappa _a0.06\right).`$ (5)
Theoretical predictions for AM constant depend on nuclear model and vary within the range $`0.1\kappa _a0.4`$ (see DK02  and references therein). On the other hand, for a given nuclear model, one can use measured values of $`\kappa _a`$ to get information on the coupling constants of the nuclear $`P`$-odd interaction FM97 ; HLR01 ; HW01 .

In this article we calculate the NSD amplitudes $`6p_{1/2,F}6p_{3/2,F^{}}`$ and use Eq. (5) and experimental results from VMM95  to place a limit on the AM constant $`\kappa _a`$. Following VMM95 ; Khr95  we use parametrization:

$$(F,F^{})=C(Z)[Q_W6\kappa \xi (F,F^{})],$$
(6)
that links NSD amplitude to NSI one via the function $`\xi (F,F^{})`$. According to (2), one can define a function $`\xi (F)`$ as follows:

$`\xi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (0,1),`$ (7a)
$`\xi (1)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2\xi (1,1)+(1x^2)\xi (1,2).`$ (7b)
An important property of the one-particle approximation is the equality $`\xi (1,1)=\xi (1,2)`$ Khr95 , which means that $`\xi (1)`$ does not depend on the coefficient $`x^2`$ in (2b) and (7b). Numerical values, obtained in Khr95 , are:

$$\xi _{\mathrm{op}}(0)=0.87;\xi _{\mathrm{op}}(1)=0.29.$$
(8)
In general, when electron correlations are taken into account, $`\xi (1,1)\xi (1,2)`$. Then, one has to use Eq. (6) for $`(F,F^{})`$ and calculate function $`\xi (F^{},F)`$. After that, experimental function $`\xi (F)`$ is given by (7). Consequently, the separation of NSI and NSD amplitudes depends on the factor $`x^2`$.

NSI amplitude was studied many times, the most advanced and accurate calculations being DFSS87a ; KPJ01  (for earlier references see Khr91 ). It was shown there that many-body corrections to PNC amplitudes in Tl can be important. That stimulated us to recalculate function $`\xi (F,F^{})`$. We follow here the same procedure, which was used in KPJ01 . It is based on the combination of the many-body perturbation theory for core-valence correlations and the configuration interaction for three valence electrons (CI+MBPT method) DFK96a ; DFK96b ; DKPF98 .

Most of the technical details of this calculation, such as basis sets, configuration sets, etc., are the same as in Ref. KPJ01 , where a number of test calculations were made for the spectrum, hyperfine constants, $`E1`$-amplitudes, and polarizabilities. All these parameters were shown to be in good agreement with the experiment. That allowed to estimate the accuracy of the calculation of NSI amplitude to be better than 3%. Here we use the same wave functions for the states $`6p_j`$, but neglect several smaller corrections, such as structural radiation, to the effective operators for valence electrons. The normalization correction is the same for NDI and NSD amplitudes and does not affect the function $`\xi (F,F^{})`$.

In order to find PNC amplitude we solve inhomogeneous equations:

$`(E_{6p_{3/2}}H^{\mathrm{eff}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{a,m}^{(D)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{1/2},m},`$ (9)
$`(E_{6p_{1/2}}H^{\mathrm{eff}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{b,m}^{(D)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{3/2},m},`$ (10)
where $`H^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective Hamiltonian for valence electrons, which accounts for core-valence correlations within the second order many-body perturbation theory DFK96a ; DFK96b , $`D_z^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is $`z`$-component of the effective $`E1`$-amplitude in the length-gauge PRK99b , and $`m`$ is magnetic quantum number. Solutions of these equations can be decomposed in terms with definite angular quantum number $`J`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i,m}^{(D)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{i,J,m}^{(D)};i=a,b.`$ (11)
NSI amplitude can be found by calculating the following matrix elements:

$`E1_{\mathrm{NSI}}=(1)^{\frac{3}{2}m}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{3}{2}& 1& \frac{1}{2}\\ m& 0& m\end{array}\right)^1`$ (14)
$`\times \left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{3/2}}|H_{\mathrm{NSI}}^{\mathrm{eff}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a,3/2}^{(D)}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{b,1/2}^{(D)}|H_{\mathrm{NSI}}^{\mathrm{eff}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{1/2}}\right),`$
where we skip index $`m`$ in matrix elements and take advantage of the fact that $`H_{\mathrm{NSI}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is diagonal in quantum number $`J`$. NSD part of the PNC interaction (3) can change this quantum number, and corresponding amplitudes have more complicated form:

$`E1_{\mathrm{NSD}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J=1/2}{\overset{5/2}{}}}C(J,F,F^{})(\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{3/2}}|H_{\mathrm{NSD}}^{\mathrm{eff}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a,J}^{(D)}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{b,J}^{(D)}|H_{\mathrm{NSD}}^{\mathrm{eff}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{6p_{1/2}}),`$
where constants $`C(J,F,F^{})`$ are some combinations of the $`6j`$-coefficients (see PK01  for details).

All wave functions in Eqs. (14), (15) are many-electron ones. In the one-particle approximation, these expressions are simplified, and both NSI and NSD parts of the PNC amplitude have the form:

$`E1_{\mathrm{PNC}}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{6p_{3/2}Dns_{1/2}ns_{1/2}|H_{\mathrm{PNC}}|6p_{1/2}}{\epsilon _{6p_{1/2}}\epsilon _{ns_{1/2}}}}.`$ (16)
The sum here runs over occupied ($`n=1,\mathrm{},6`$) and vacant ($`n>6`$) states. Contribution of the occupied states with $`n5`$ is very small, while $`n=6`$ contributes almost as much as the whole sum over vacant states. The term $`n=6`$ corresponds to amplitudes with the index $`b`$ in (14) and (15). It is seen, that all intermediate states in (16) have $`J=1/2`$. This leads to the equality $`\xi (1,1)=\xi (1,2)`$, which is not correct for a more general case of Eq. (15). The many-body corrections are strongest for the weak amplitude $`F=1F^{}=1`$, which affects the value of $`\xi (1,1)`$.

Our results for the function $`\xi (F,F^{})`$ are given in Table 1. We find them from the calculated amplitudes (14) and (15) in two approximations. At first, we use configuration interaction method for three valence electrons with conventional operators. Then, we use second order many-body perturbation theory to construct effective Hamiltonian $`H^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and random phase approximation for the effective operators $`D_z^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{PNC}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

It follows from the comparison of Table 1 with the one-particle approximation (8), that correlation effects enhance NSD amplitudes. For the weakest amplitude $`F=1F^{}=1`$ the correlation correction exceeds 50%. For two other amplitudes correlations are less important, but still account for 20% – 25% enhancement. Valence correlations are larger for the amplitudes $`b`$. The dominant contribution to these amplitudes corresponds to the intermediate states from the configuration $`6s6p^2`$, where correlations between two $`p`$-electrons are very strong. In contrast to that, the main contributions to amplitudes $`a`$ correspond to configurations $`6s^2np`$, where correlations are much weaker.

We showed above, that correlation corrections to NSD amplitudes are rather large. Moreover, our values of $`\xi (1,1)`$ and $`\xi (1,2)`$ noticeably differ from each other. That leads to the dependence of the experimentally observed amplitude (2b) on $`x^2`$. The value of this parameter depends on the experimental conditions. In the linear regime, $`x^2`$ and $`1x^2`$ are proportional to the intensities of the corresponding lines. That gives $`x^2=\frac{1}{6}`$ Khr91 . Actual experiment VMM95  was done in the nonlinear regime, when in the center of the line the light was completely absorbed, and PNC signal was detected only on the wings. In these conditions, one can expect that $`\frac{1}{6}x^2\frac{1}{2}`$. Below, we will perform analysis for each of the limiting cases.

If we substitute values from Table 1 to Eq. (7b), we get:

$`\xi (0)=1.10;\xi (1)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0.367,\hfill & & x^2=1/6,\\ 0.405,\hfill & & x^2=1/2.\end{array}`$ (19)
NSI amplitude can be found as weighted average:

$`_{\mathrm{NSI}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (0)(1)\xi (1)(0)}{\xi (0)\xi (1)}}.`$ (20)
Experimental difference between $`(1)`$ and $`(0)`$ is only about 1%. Because of that, both values of $`\xi (1)`$ from (19) lead to the same value of $`_{\mathrm{NSI}}=14.68\times 10^8`$ in agreement with the result from VMM95 .

The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)(0)`$ can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`6\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\xi (0)\xi (1)}{Q_W}}_{\mathrm{NSI}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`4(\kappa _a+0.06){\displaystyle \frac{\xi (0)\xi (1)}{Q_W}}_{\mathrm{NSI}},`$ (22)
where we use relation (5) between $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa _a`$. Table 1 and Eq. (19) give $`\xi (0)\xi (1)=1.49\pm 0.02`$, and substituting the standard model value $`Q_W=116.7`$ Gro00 , we get:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(0.051\pm 0.001)(\kappa _a+0.06)_{\mathrm{NSI}},`$ (23)
where the error bar corresponds to two values of $`x^2`$ in (19) and does not account for the theoretical error, caused by the neglect of the higher orders of the many-body perturbation theory. The latter was estimated in KPJ01  for NSI amplitude to be close to 3%. Here we neglect the structural radiation corrections and few other corrections, which can contribute on the percent level, so we estimate the actual accuracy of Eq. (23) to be about 5%. On this level, the uncertainty in experimental conditions described by the parameter $`x^2`$ is negligible.

Using experimental values from VMM95 :

$`_{\mathrm{NSI}}`$ $`=`$ $`(14.68\pm 0.06\pm 0.16)\times 10^8,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(0.15\pm 0.13\pm 0.15)\times 10^8,`$ (25)
we get the following result for the AM constant:

$`\kappa _a`$ $`=`$ $`0.26\pm 0.27.`$ (26)
In an independent measurement EPBN95  of PNC effects in Tl a very close central value for the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was obtained, though with a three times larger uncertainty. If we use (8) instead of (19), we get $`\kappa _a=0.32\pm 0.35`$. It means, that correlations account for 30% corrections and lead to a smaller absolute value of the AM constant. Note, that in Ref. VMM95  the approximate values $`\xi (0)=1`$ and $`\xi (1)=\frac{1}{3}`$ were used instead of the more accurate one-particle values (8), and the relation $`\kappa =\frac{2}{3}\kappa _a`$ was used instead of Eq. (5).

It was first recognized by Novikov and Khriplovich NK75t , that NSD operator also leads to the $`E1`$-amplitude between hyperfine sublevels of the same electronic state. The most interesting in this respect is the hyperfine transition in the ground state. Such amplitudes were calculated in the one-particle approximation for Cs and Tl NK75t  and for K GEKM88 . The only many-body calculation was done recently for Fr PK01 . It is straitforward to rewrite Eq. (15) for this case, and all calculations are similar to those for optical transition. The result in a.u. is:

$`6p_{1/2},1E1_{\mathrm{NSD}}6p_{1/2},0=2.11\times 10^{11}\mathrm{i}\kappa ,`$ (27)
where we use the same level of approximation, as above and add normalization correction KPJ01 . In the one-particle approximation the $`M1`$-amplitude for this transition is equal to $`\frac{\alpha }{2\sqrt{3}}`$. Correlations change this value only at sub-percent level, and we can safely use it to calculate $``$:

$`_{\mathrm{hf}}(6p_{1/2})`$ $`=`$ $`1.00\times 10^8\kappa `$
$`=`$ $`0.67\times 10^8(\kappa _a+0.06).`$
Comparison of this value with the one obtained in NK75t  shows that correlations increase the answer by approximately 20%. Result (Manifestation of the Nuclear Anapole Moment in M1 Transitions in Thallium) can be compared also to the $`F=4F^{}=5`$ transition in the ground state $`7s`$ of 211Fr, where $`=3.0\times 10^9\kappa `$ PK01 . Though the $`M1`$-amplitude for the hyperfine transition in Tl is significantly weaker than in Fr, it should be much easier to do the experiment with stable Tl, than with radioactive Fr. Note, that for lighter Cs, $``$ is an order of magnitude smaller.

We see that electron correlations account for substantial corrections to AM amplitudes, but do not explain the difference between the experiment VMM95  and the nuclear theory prediction that $`\kappa _a=0.25\pm 0.15`$ DK02 . The experimental accuracy for NSD amplitude for $`6p_{1/2}6p_{3/2}`$ transition is not high, because this amplitude is much weaker, than NSI one. Therefore, it may be very interesting to measure the hyperfine amplitude (27), where PNC effects are completely determined by the NSD part of the weak interaction. Note also, that the frequencies of the hyperfine transitions for two natural isotopes 203Tl and 205Tl differ by 1% and should be easily resolved. That gives the possibility to measure AM constants for each of the isotopes.

The author is grateful to V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Khriplovich, and S. G. Porsev for valuable discussions. This work was supported by RFBR, grant No 02 - 02 - 16387.


text:
# GUT GENEALOGIES FOR SUSY SEESAW HIGGS 11footnote 1Talk presented at SUSY01, Dubna, Russia , June 2001

## Abstract

We discuss the embedding of R-Parity preserving Minimal Left Right Supersymmetric models into Pati-Salam and SO(10) GUTs.

Super-Kamiokande observations strongly suggest $`|m_{\nu _\mu }m_{\nu _\tau }|.05eV`$ and so, barring fine tunings, we expect $`m_\nu <10^1eV`$. Then if the neutrino is a Dirac particle (i.e $`\nu _R`$ is light) the relevant yukawa $`y_{\nu _\tau }10^{13}`$. Else superheavy $`\nu _R`$ deouple from the low energy dynamics leaving a light majorana $`\nu _L`$. Then the leading ($`d=5`$) operator for neutrino mass ($`(H^{}L)^2`$) occurs with coefficient $`M^1`$ with $`M10^{15}GeV`$. Within the seesaw scenario $`M_{\nu _R}M`$.

New Physics at large scales motivates Supersymmetry to maintain the structural stability of the theory against radiative disruption. $`M_{\nu _R}M_{GUT}`$ raises hopes of a window into GUT physics via neutrino masses and vice versa. Spontaneous, renormalizable $`M_{\nu _R}`$ implies a Higgs with $`L=2`$ is needed. The $`\nu _R`$ field makes $`BL`$ anomaly free and thus gaugeable. The MSSM loses the B,L symmetries of the SM due to the sfermions which allow B,L violating yukawas which imply catastrophic nucleon decay. Imposing matter parity ($`P_M=()^{3(BL)}`$) or equivalently R parity ($`R_p=P_M()^{2S}`$) is the nearly unique cure. It restores B,L at least at the renormalizable level. Protection against gravitational violation then strongly motivates gauging of $`BL`$. If only $`BL`$ even fields get vevs $`R_p`$ is preserved. In fact one can provethat Supersymmetric theories with a renormalizable seesaw mechanism imply that $`R_p`$ will be exact in the effective MSSM (with neutrino masses) after heavy $`\nu _R`$s are integrated out : susy-seesaw based on B-L even vevs leaves the low energy theory with an Lepton number symmetry violated only by the neutrino mass operator. So sneutrino vevs lead to a unnaceptably light ($`<<M_Z/2`$) would be Majoron which is emphatically ruled out by the Z width.

Left-Right symmetric theories with gauge group $`G_{LR}SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ naturally gauge B-L\[rabimarsh\]. Parity is only spontaneously broken. The Higgs doublets of the MSSM are in a $`(1,2,2,0)`$ while the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking is via $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(1,3,1,2),\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(1,3,1,2),\mathrm{\Delta }_c=(1,1,3,2),\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c=(1,1,3,2)`$. These pairings ensure anomaly cancellation and also permit susy preserving breaking to the SM gauge group.

Important variants contain a parity odd singlet(POS) field $`\sigma `$ which couples to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fields as $`W=\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c)+M\sigma ^2`$. Its vev introduces spectrum asymmetry and so also (via running of couplings ) coupling asymmetry. The POS based LR Susy model initially introduced  broke charge for generic high $`M_R`$ . Minimal Left Right Symmetric models (MSLRMs) cure this by introducing B-L neutral triplets $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1,3,1,0),\mathrm{\Omega }_c(1,1,3,0)`$ or using. superpotentials $`W=\mathrm{\Delta }^4/M+\mathrm{}.`$. The $`<\mathrm{\Omega }^c>`$ breaks $`SU(2)_RU(1)_R`$ followed by $`U(1)_R\times U(1)_{BL}U(1)_Y`$ breaking via the right handed $`\mathrm{\Delta }^c`$s. This permits a heirarchy $`M_R>>M_{BL}>>M_{BL}^2/M_R>>M_W`$ , where the importance of the geometric scale is that entire left handed triplets have mass at that scale. The non-renormalizable case is even more dramatic. $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^c>\sqrt{m_\mathrm{\Delta }M}M_R`$ leads to masses $`M_R^2/M`$ for the fields $`(\delta _c^0+\overline{\delta }_c^0),\delta _c^{++},\overline{\delta }_c^{++},\mathrm{\Delta },\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }},H^{},\overline{H}^{}`$. Such light or intermediate mass scale multiplets are generic and provide important constraints on LR models. The low energy effective theory of such models is the MSSM with exact R-parity and seesaw neutrino masses .

How may we embed MSLRMs into SUSY GUTs so that they may inherit exact R-parity for the low energy theory even after $`BL`$ is broken and neutrino masses arise ? An $`SO(10)`$ GUT based on the Higgs multiplets $`45,54,126,\overline{126}`$ which has MSSM with R-parity as its low energy limit was given but the relationship between the MSLRMs introduced above (and their variants which include the POS) is quite rich..

MSLRMs embed easily in the Pati-Salam model with gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$ $`\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_C`$. The fermions embed into $`(2,1,4)(1,2,\overline{4})`$ multiplets while the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$s with $`BL=\pm 2`$ extend to SU(4) 10-plets. The breaking $`SU(4)SU(3)\times U(1)_{BL}`$ is via $`(1,1,15)`$ . Since the LR symmetry is external to the Gauge group the POS is an additional singlet (i.e not in (1,1,15) as in SO(10)) (see below). The basic MSLRM’s (no POS) embed using $`SU(4)`$ singlet $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$s or else allowing $`W\mathrm{\Delta }^4/M`$ . As before one gets intermediate mass multiplets in both cases . POS variants are also easy to write down.

Embedding MSLRMs in the SO(10) GUTs is more subtle. PS $`(2,1,4)(1,2,\overline{4})`$ matter fermions of each generation embed into $`16`$ plets of SO(10), $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^c`$ pairs embed into $`126,\overline{126}`$ . A renormalizable superpotential that breaks SO(10) to the Pati-Salam group and then to the LR symmetric group (Chain a)) or $`G_{214}`$ (Chain b)) and finally to the MSSM via 126 vevs was constructed. Chain a) proceeds via $`<(1,1,15)>45`$ and Chain b) via $`<(1,3,1)>`$. LR symmetry embeds in SO(10) as $`D_{LR}\sigma _{23}\sigma _{67}`$. Then $`<(1,1,1,0)><(1,1,15)>`$ is Parity odd  and so the theory below the PS breaking scale is not left-right symmetric though $`G_{LR}`$ is . The light Higgs below $`M_{PS}`$ descend from decuplets or (1,1,15) and include no $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$s but have POS (1,1,1,0) and a colored companion (1,1,8,0). This case thus has non-renormalizable terms (induced by integrating out the heavy superfields) and a POS i.e it embeds the POS variant of the second MSLRM. One loop RG anaysis of gauge running shows $`M_{PS},M_R,M_{BL}10^1M_X`$ which is lowered with them and hence the $`d=6`$ contribution to nucleon decay re-emerges even in the SUSY case. Typically $`M_R,M_C,M_{BL}10^{13.5}10^{14.5}GeV`$ while $`M_X10^{15.5}GeV`$ (from requirements of nucleon stability).

Chain b) utilizes the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c(1,3,1)45`$ to break $`SU(2)_RU(1)_R`$. It embeds the PS version of the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$s into SO(10). Thus the POS and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ variants are mutually exclusive in GUTs based on the 45 of SO(10).

To decouple parity and $`SU(4)`$ breaking needs SO(10) models based upon 210 which has a parity odd (1,1,1) submultiplet and a Parity even (1,1,1,0) multiplet. The parity even $`(1,1,1,0)(1,1,15)210`$ will break to $`G_{LR}`$ group maintaining $`D_{LR}`$ symmetry while the parity odd $`<(1,1,1)>`$ violates $`D_{LR}`$.

As in MSLRM’s with higher dimensional terms , one may also construct models based on the 45 and 126 alone (i.e no 54) using $`d>4`$ terms, details will appear.

To conclude : MSLRMs with exact $`R_P`$ embed non trivially into various SO(10) and PS GUTs if the POS models are kept in mind. The one loop RG analysis of the gauge couplings shows that the the intermediate scales lie close to the unification scale so that a kind of “SU(5) conspiracy” holds. This is due to the fact that violations of the survival principle in SUSY GUTs keep certain colored and charged multiplets lighter than one would expect and their contributions significantly constrain the possibility of intermediate scales.

Acknowledgments This talk is largely a report of work done in collaboration with B.Bajc, A.Melfo, A.Rasin and G.Senjanovic.

References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

In the recent past, the condensation of closed string tachyons has been the subject of active research. In a paper by Adams, Polchinski and Silverstein (APS) , the authors considered closed string tachyons which are localized at the fixed points of noncompact nonsupersymmetric orbifolds of string theory . They studied the fate of the condensation of the tachyon and argued that the condensation smoothens out the the tip of the orbifold singularity, leading to flat space or ALE space. Thus closed string tachyon condensation is seen to be associated with the decay of spactime itself. In a paper by Harvey, Kutasov, Martinec and Moore (HKMM)  the problem of closed string tachyon condensation was analyzed further. They used world sheet renormalization group techniques to study the condensation of tachyons. In particular, they considered a class of theories with (2,2) worldsheet superconformal invariance and studied RG flows which preserve this invariance. They defined a quantity called “$`g_{cl}`$”, and they conjectured that it should decrease monotonically along RG flows. They computed $`g_{cl}`$ for the theories they had considered and showed that $`g_{cl}`$ is indeed a monotonically decreasing function along RG flows from the UV to the IR. Their analysis also reaches the same conclusion as the APS analysis, namely, that tachyon condensation smoothens out the tip of the singularity. However, some of the flows which are expected to occur according to the APS analysis are forbidden to occur by the HKMM analysis, as $`g_{cl}`$ does not decrease along these flows.
In this paper, we will test the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture put forward by HKMM for noncompact orbifolds of heterotic string theory  and $`𝒵_N`$ orbifold of $`AdS_3`$ . We will see that the conjecture holds and that $`g_{cl}`$ is monotonically decreasing along RG flows. We shall also see that the results for RG flows, where they exist, are similar to those obtained for type 0 and type II theories by HKMM. In particular, in such cases the gauge degrees of freedom in heterotic string theory do not play a significant role in tachyon condensation, apart from the level-matching constraints. Because of the similarity of the results with the HKMM analysis, we will be brief and quote the results without giving much details, for which one can look at the HKMM paper.
In section 2, we construct the constraints from modular invariance in heterotic string theories. In section 3, we analyse $`𝒞/𝒵_N`$ flows in heterotic string theories and in section 4 we analyse $`𝒞^2/𝒵_N`$ flows. In section 5, we consider RG flows for the $`𝒵_N`$ orbifold of $`AdS_3`$. Finally, in section 6 we present the conclusions.

## 2 Constraints from Modular invariance

We shall be considering three heterotic string theories in this paper- the nonsupersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ heterotic string theory , and the supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ and $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theories. We shall be studying $`𝒞/𝒵_N`$ and $`𝒞^2/𝒵_N`$ orbifolds of these theories. As is well known there are nontrivial constraints on the action of the orbifold group arising from modular invariance in the heterotic string theories . The constraints arising in the various theories are as follows:

### 2.1 $`E_8\times E_8`$

We shall be working in the fermionic formulation of the heterotic string theory. We choose a complex basis $`Z_j`$ where $`Z_j=X_{2j}+iX_{2j+1}`$ for $`j`$=1,2,3,4 for the world sheet bosons and similarly for $`\overline{\psi }_j`$, the right-moving world sheet fermions. Similarly we choose a complex basis $`\lambda _a`$ for $`a`$=1,…,16 corresponding to the 32 Majorana-Weyl fermions in the left-moving CFT. We diagonalize the action of the orbifold group G on these degrees of freedom. The orbifold action is

$$G:(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4)(e^{\frac{2\pi ir_1}{N}}Z_1,e^{\frac{2\pi ir_2}{N}}Z_2,e^{\frac{2\pi ir_3}{N}}Z_3,e^{\frac{2\pi ir_4}{N}}Z_4)$$
(1)
and similarly for the right moving fermions. Also the action of G on the gauge degrees of freedom is given by

$$G:(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _8)(e^{\frac{2\pi ip_1}{N}}\lambda _1,e^{\frac{2\pi ip_2}{N}}\lambda _2,\mathrm{},e^{\frac{2\pi ip_8}{N}}\lambda _8)$$
(2)
$$G:(\lambda _9,\mathrm{},\lambda _{16})(e^{\frac{2\pi iq_1}{N}}\lambda _9,e^{\frac{2\pi iq_2}{N}}\lambda _{10},\mathrm{},e^{\frac{2\pi iq_8}{N}}\lambda _{16})$$
(3)
Because we have fermions in the theory, we have to define the theory on the eight fold cover of $`SO(9,1)\times SO(16)\times SO(16)`$, i.e. Spin$`(9,1)\times `$ Spin$`(16)\times `$ Spin$`(16)`$, and hence on demanding that we have an orbifold of order $`N`$, we get the constraint that for $`N`$ even

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}r_i=\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}p_a=\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}q_a=0\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}$$
(4)
For $`N`$ odd, this does not lead to an independent constraint. The constraints from modular invariance are

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}r_i^2\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}p_a^2\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}q_a^2=0\mathrm{mod}N\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{odd}$$
(5)
$$=0\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}N\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{even}.$$
(6)
### 2.2 Non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ and supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$

The action of $`G`$ on the $`Z_i`$’s and the right moving fermions remain as before while the action on the left moving gauge degrees of freedom is

$$G:(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{16})(e^{\frac{2\pi ip_1}{N}}\lambda _1,\mathrm{},e^{\frac{2\pi ip_{16}}{N}}\lambda _{16})$$
(7)
The constraints that follow from demanding an orbifold of order $`N`$ and modular invariance are

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}r_i=\underset{a=1}{\overset{16}{}}p_a=0\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{even}$$
(8)
and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}r_i^2\underset{a=1}{\overset{16}{}}p_a^2=0\mathrm{mod}N\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{odd}$$
(9)
$$=0\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N\mathrm{for}N\mathrm{even}.$$
(10)
We shall use these constraints in constructing modular invariant partition functions for the non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory in the later sections.

## 3 $`𝒞/𝒵_N`$ flows

In this section we will consider heterotic string theory on $`^{7,1}\times 𝒞/𝒵_N`$ . We shall start with the diagonal modular invariant non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory. We shall construct various modular invariant partition functions and compute $`g_{cl}`$. Then we shall consider RG flows in these conformal field theories.
From the constraints stated above, we see that only odd integral $`N`$ is allowed. This is because if $`N`$ is even then $`r_1`$ has to be even too ($`r_2`$=$`r_3`$=$`r_4`$=0) and so $`r_1`$ and $`N`$ are not relatively prime and we get an orbifold of order lower then $`N`$. Hence in the following discussion $`N`$ is always odd.
Now we construct various modular invariant partition functions for the non supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory. We shall see that $`g_{cl}`$ is uniquely determined by the order of the orbifold and does not depend on the action of the orbifold group on the gauge degrees of freedom.
First we consider the action of the orbifold group where $`r_1=p_1=1`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all $`0`$. This gives rise to a (2,2) worldsheet superconformal field theory with the standard embedding of the orbifold group action into the $`SO(32)`$ gauge group. The modular invariant partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l}{N}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{15}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$
(11)
where $`\zeta _{00}=1,\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=1`$

Next we consider the action of the orbifold group where $`r_1=5,p_1=3,p_2=4`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all $`0`$. This corresponds to a (0,2) SCFT with a non-standard embedding of the orbifold action in the $`SO(32)`$ gauge group. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{5k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{5l}{N}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{5k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{5l}{N}}\right]$$
(12)
$$\times \overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{3k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{3l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{4k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{4l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{14}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=1,\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{2\pi i\frac{k}{N}}`$

We consider one more case where $`r_1=13,p_1=12,p_2=3,p_3=4`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. This too corresponds to a (0,2) theory with a nonstandard embedding of the orbifold action in the $`SO(32)`$ gauge group. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{13k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{13l}{N}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{13k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{13l}{N}}\right]$$
(13)
$$\times \overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{12k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{12l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{3k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{3l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{4k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{4l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{13}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=1,\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{6\pi i\frac{k}{N}}`$

The partition functions we have considered so far all satisfy $`r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}_{a=1}^{16}p_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$. Next we consider partition functions for specific choices of $`N`$ for the (0,2) theories where $`r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}_{a=1}^{16}p_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=N^2`$ . We shall see their importance later when we discuss RG flows. First we consider the case where $`r_1=1,p_1=p_2=5,N=7`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{14}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{6}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{7}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l}{7}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{7}}{\beta +\frac{l}{7}}\right]$$
(14)
$$\times \overline{\theta }^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{5k}{7}}{\beta +\frac{5l}{7}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{14}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=1,\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=e^{\pi il^2},\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi ik^2+9\pi i\frac{k}{7}},\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi i(k^2+l^2)+9\pi i\frac{k}{7}}`$

Next we consider the case where $`r_1=3,p_1=4,p_2=p_3=3,N=5`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{10}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{4}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3k}{5}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3l}{5}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{3k}{5}}{\beta +\frac{3l}{5}}\right]$$
(15)
$$\times \overline{\theta }^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{3k}{5}}{\beta +\frac{3l}{5}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{4k}{5}}{\beta +\frac{4l}{5}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{13}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=1,\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=e^{\pi il^2},\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi ik^2+7\pi i\frac{k}{5}},\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi i(k^2+l^2)+7\pi i\frac{k}{5}}`$

Finally we consider the case where $`r_1=p_4,p_1=3,p_2=4,p_3=12,N=13`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{26}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^3}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{12}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{r_1k}{13}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{r_1l}{13}}\right]|^2\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^{15}}\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{r_1k}{13}}{\beta +\frac{r_1l}{13}}\right]$$
(16)
$$\times \overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{r_1k}{13}}{\beta +\frac{r_1l}{13}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{3k}{13}}{\beta +\frac{3l}{13}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{4k}{13}}{\beta +\frac{4l}{13}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{12k}{13}}{\beta +\frac{12l}{13}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{12}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=1,\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=e^{\pi il^2},\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi ik^2+19\pi i\frac{k}{13}},\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{\pi i(k^2+l^2)+19\pi i\frac{k}{13}}`$

We note that there are non-trivial phases associated with the various spin structures which can be obtained by demanding modular invariance of the partition function. Following HKMM, we define $`g_{cl}`$ keeping only the bosonic states . The formula for $`g_{cl}`$ is

$$Z_{\mathrm{tw}}(\mathrm{Im}\tau 0)g_{cl}e^{\pi (c+\stackrel{~}{c})/(12\mathrm{Im}\tau )}$$
(17)
where ‘tw’ means that we do not include the $`k=l=0`$ contribution. Here, $`c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ refer to the effective central charges for the left and right-moving CFT respectively, and so $`c=24`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}=12`$ for the heterotic string. Using (17) and absorbing an overall factor of (Im$`\tau )^3`$ in the definition of $`g_{cl}`$, we get that

$$g_{cl}=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\frac{\pi k}{N})^2}=\frac{1}{24}(N\frac{1}{N})$$
(18)
We see that the gauge degrees of freedom do not contribute to the calculation of $`g_{cl}`$ which is a measure of the fixed point degeneracy of the orbifold. This happens because keeping only the bosonic states in the definition of $`g_{cl}`$, the only contributions are from the untwisted ($`\alpha =\beta =0`$) and twisted ($`\alpha =0,\beta =\frac{1}{2}`$) NS sectors from the right moving CFT. In the limit Im$`\tau 0`$ , only the untwisted sector contributes and the twisted sector contribution is exponentially damped. Also $`g_{cl}`$ is the same for the various cases considered which is easy to see as the terms in the various summations are just permutations of each other. Note that the value of $`g_{cl}`$ is half of that obtained by HKMM for the type 0 theory. This is because in the HKMM analysis for the type 0 theory the contributions came from the $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2},\beta =0`$ sectors as they are both bosonic states. However in our case the contribution comes only from the $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ sector and the $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2},\beta =0`$ sector is excluded by definition of $`g_{cl}`$ as that is a spacetime fermionic state. It is obvious that for any other orbifold group action consistent with modular invariance, the same value of $`g_{cl}`$ is obtained and we obtain the general result

$$g_{cl}(\mathrm{nonsusy}\mathrm{𝑆𝑂}(32))=\frac{1}{24}(N\frac{1}{N})$$
(19)
In the HKMM paper, they had started with type 0 theory on $`^{7,1}\times 𝒞/𝒵_N`$. Unlike the heterotic case, there were no restrictions on $`N`$. Now let us study the RG flows associated with these $`𝒞/𝒵_N`$ orbifolds. We first consider flows in theories with (2,2) superconformal invariance. Working in the RNS formalism, we construct the chiral superfield

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=Z_1+\overline{\theta }\overline{\psi }_1+\theta \lambda _1$$
(20)
The orbifold action on the worldsheet fields is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\omega ^j\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(21)
where $`\omega =e^{\frac{2\pi ir_1}{N}}`$ and $`j`$=1,…,$`N`$-1 corresponding to the various twisted sectors of the theory. We shall refer to $`r_1`$ as $`r`$ from now on. For convenience we bosonize the fermions

$$\overline{\psi }_i=e^{i\overline{H}_i},\lambda _a=e^{iH_a}$$
(22)
There are localized tachyons in each of the ($`N`$-1) twisted (NS-,A-) sectors. The corresponding vertex operator in the (0,-1) picture in the j-th twisted sector is

$$𝒱_j=e^{\overline{\varphi }}\sigma _{\frac{j}{N}}e^{\frac{ij}{N}(H_1\overline{H}_1)}\lambda _a$$
(23)
where $`\sigma _{\frac{j}{N}}`$ is the bosonic twist operator. Here $`a`$=2,…,16 and $`a`$=1 is ruled out as that does not satisfy the level matching constraint $`L_0=\overline{L}_0`$. Hence, these vertex operators correspond to states in the physical Hilbert space. They give rise to tachyonic states with masses

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}M_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{j}{N})$$
(24)
The R-charge generator corresponding to the (2,2) superconformal theory is given by $`J=\lambda _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _1=iH_1`$, and similarly for the right moving CFT. We consider the operators corresponding to the twists in the orbifold theory

$$X_j=\sigma _{\frac{j}{N}}e^{\frac{ij}{N}(H_1\overline{H}_1)}$$
(25)
They have conformal dimension $`\frac{j}{2N}`$ which is half their R-charge. Hence, they are elements of the (2,2) chiral ring . The unperturbed chiral ring has generators

$$XX_1=\sigma _{\frac{1}{N}}e^{\frac{i}{N}(H_1\overline{H}_1)}$$
(26)
and

$$Y=\frac{1}{V}e^{i(H_1\overline{H}_1)}$$
(27)
satisfying the chiral ring constraint $`X^N=Y`$. Both sides of the equation have R charge 1. Here $`V`$ is the volume of the noncompact orbifold, used as a regulator. We now add relevent tachyonic perturbations to the theory that preserve $`𝒩`$=2 superconformal invariance

$$\delta =\lambda _jd^2\theta X^j\lambda _a+c.c.$$
(28)
for $`j`$=1,…,$`N1`$ and $`a`$=2,…,16 and find that the chiral ring constraint is undeformed! This is because the only contribution to the $`X^N=Y`$ constraint is the $`O(\lambda _j)`$ contribution by R charge conservation ($`\lambda _jX^j\lambda _a`$ has R charge 1) which vanishes as it involves the one point function of $`\lambda _a`$. Hence the chiral ring constraint is the same in the UV and the IR and suggests that there is no RG flow. Physically this happens because the (NS-,A-) tachyon is not a gauge singlet. It would be interesting to check this conclusion by other means.
So let us construct gauge singlet tachyonic states to study non trivial RG flows. There are such states in the (0,2) theories. In the case of the (0,2) theories the chiral superfield is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=Z_1+\overline{\theta }\overline{\psi _1}`$

The elements of the chiral ring corresponding to the various twisted sector excitations are given by

$$X_j=\sigma _{\frac{j}{N}}e^{\frac{ij}{N}\overline{H}_1}$$
(29)
The unperturbed chiral ring has generators

$$XX_1=\sigma _{\frac{1}{N}}e^{\frac{i}{N}\overline{H}_1}$$
(30)
and

$$Y=\frac{1}{V}e^{i\overline{H}_1}$$
(31)
satisfying the chiral ring constraint $`X^N=Y`$. We want to perturb the UV theory by tachyonic operators that correspond to various twisted vacuua for the right and left moving CFT. The vertex operators are

$$𝒱_j=e^{\overline{\varphi }}X^je^{\frac{i}{N}_{a=1}^{16}p_aH_a}$$
(32)
These are tachyonic states with masses as in (24). We now impose the GSO projection constraint for the non supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory. The action of $`()^{F_R}`$ is given by $`\overline{H}_1\overline{H}_1+N\pi `$ and $`\overline{H}_i\overline{H}_i+\pi `$ for $`i=2,3,4`$. Here, $`F_R`$ is the worldsheet fermion number for the right moving CFT. The action of $`()^{F_L}`$ is given by $`H_aH_a+N\pi `$, $`H_bH_b+\pi `$ where $`a(b)=1,\mathrm{},16`$ refers to the gauge degrees of freedom on which the orbifold group has nontrivial (trivial) action. Here, $`F_L`$ is the worldsheet fermion number for the left moving CFT. Thus projecting onto the space of states satisfying $`()^{F_R+F_L}=1`$, we get the constraint from GSO projection

$`j_{a=1}^{16}p_a=`$ odd integer

Level matching constraint gives

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{16}{}}p_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=N^2+j^2$$
(33)
We note that the level matching constraint automatically satisfies the constraint from modular invariance in (9). We now study various cases where we perturb by these tachyonic excitations and construct RG flows. Note that $`p_10,p_2=\mathrm{}=p_{16}=0`$ is not allowed by level matching which yields $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>N^2`$ whereas we have $`0<|p_1|<N`$.

Next consider the case where only $`(p_1,p_2)0`$. As a specific example, consider the case where $`p_1=p_2=5,j=1,N=7`$ for which the partition function has been constructed in (14). The tachyonic vertex operator is

$$𝒱_1=e^{\overline{\varphi }}Xe^{\frac{5i}{7}(H_1+H_2)}$$
(34)
and we perturb by

$$\delta =\lambda _1𝑑\overline{\theta }Xe^{\frac{5i}{7}(H_1+H_2)}+c.c.$$
(35)
in presence of which the undeformed chiral ring constraint $`X^7=Y`$ gets deformed to $`X^7+\lambda _1X=Y`$ which in the extreme IR yields $`\lambda _1X=Y`$. Hence this tachyonic perturbation resolves the orbifold singularity completely and results in flat spacetime in the IR. The twisted left moving incoming vacuum gets projected onto the oppositely twisted left moving outgoing vacuum so that the total twists cancel in computing the $`O(\lambda )`$ correlation function.

Next we consider an example where only $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)0`$. We take $`p_1=4,p_2=p_3=3,j=3,N=5`$ for which the partition function has been constructed in (15). In this case the undeformed chiral ring constraint $`X^5=Y`$ in presence of the perturbation gets deformed to $`X^5+\lambda _3X^3=Y`$ hence resulting in a partial resolution of the singularity.

Finally we consider the case where only $`(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)0`$. Consider the case where $`N=13`$ corresponding to the undeformed ring relation $`X^{13}=Y`$ and we perturb by

$$\delta =a\lambda _5𝑑\theta X^5e^{\frac{i}{13}(3H_1+4H_2+12H_3+5H_4)}+b\lambda _7𝑑\theta X^7e^{\frac{i}{13}(3H_1+4H_2+12H_3+7H_4)}+c.c.$$
(36)
which leads to the deformed ring relation $`X^{13}+a\lambda _5X^5+b\lambda _7X^7=Y`$. The partition function for this orbifold action has been constructed in (16). Thus generically in the presence of relevent perturbations the chiral ring gets deformed to

$$(Xx_1)^{N_1}(Xx_2)^{N_2}\mathrm{}(Xx_k)^{N_k}=Y$$
(37)
leading to the RG flows

$$𝒞/𝒵_N𝒞/𝒵_{N_1}+\mathrm{}+𝒞/𝒵_{N_k}$$
(38)
where $`N=_{i=1}^kN_i`$ along which $`g_{cl}`$ decreases monotonically. Here all $`N_i`$ are odd integers to have a consistent interpretation of the extreme IR theory as the orbifold CFT of the heterotic string theory.

Next we would like to study the RG flow in supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ and $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theories. We start with the non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory and perform a twist by $`()^{F_R}`$ to get the supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory and a further twist by $`()^{F_1}`$ to get the $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory. Here, $`F_1`$ is the world sheet fermion number which anticommutes with $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8`$ in the left-moving CFT.
First let us consider the supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory in detail. We start with nonsupersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ and gauge the $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`()^{F_R}`$. The action of $`()^{F_R}`$ on $`\overline{H}_1`$ is $`\overline{H}_1\overline{H}_1+N\pi `$ as stated before. Consequently, states where $`j`$ is an odd integer survive the GSO projection. This leads to a deformed chiral ring relation in the IR

$$X^N^{}(Xx_1)^{N_1}(X+x_1)^{N_1}\mathrm{}(Xx_k)^{N_k}(X+x_k)^{N_k}=Y$$
(39)
where $`N=N^{}+2_{i=1}^kN_i`$ and $`N,N^{},N_i`$ are all odd integers. So the vacuum at $`X=0`$ is a supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ vacuum while in the remaining vacuua at $`X=x_i`$, the chiral GSO is spontaneously broken and one has nonsupersymmetric SO(32) theories in these vacuua. So the RG flow leads to the following decay of spacetime

$$\mathrm{susy}\mathrm{𝑆𝑂}(32)\mathrm{susy}\mathrm{𝑆𝑂}(32)+\mathrm{nonsusy}\mathrm{𝑆𝑂}(32)\mathrm{s}$$
(40)
This is again analogous to the HKMM RG flow, where one starts with type II theory in the UV and ends with a type II vacuum and many type 0 vacuua in the extreme IR. To check the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture, following HKMM we would like to define $`g_{cl}`$ in the supersymmetric theory keeping only spacetime bosonic states. Consequently the contributions to $`g_{cl}`$ in the limit Im$`\tau 0`$ in (17) for the diagonal modular invariant non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory comes from the $`\alpha =0,\beta =0`$ sector only as explained after (18). The GSO projection contributes a factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the partition function to give an overall factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$. For the supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory there is a further twist by $`()^{F_R}`$ and so the partition function has a factor of $`\frac{1}{4}`$. However in this case there are two contributions to $`g_{cl}`$: (i) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\delta =0`$ and (ii) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\frac{1}{2},\delta =0`$ where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ $`(\gamma ,\delta )`$ refer to the spin structures corresponding to the right (left) moving CFT and $`\alpha ,\gamma `$ refer to the upper index in the theta function and $`\beta ,\delta `$ refer to the lower index. So the total factor is again $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and we find that $`g_{cl}`$ for non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ is equal to $`g_{cl}`$ for supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$. In this case

$$g_{cl}^{UV}=\frac{1}{24}(N\frac{1}{N})$$
(41)
$$g_{cl}^{IR}=\frac{1}{24}(N^{}\frac{1}{N^{}})+\frac{1}{24}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(N_i\frac{1}{N_i})$$
(42)
In the calculation of $`g_{cl}`$, we consider the vacuum either at $`X=x_i`$ or at $`X=x_i`$ but not both, as they are related by the broken chiral GSO. Again we see that $`g_{cl}`$ decreases along the flow and hence the conjecture is satisfied.

Finally let us consider RG flows in the $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory. This is obtained by gauging the $`Z_2`$ action $`()^{F_1}`$ in the supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory. The action of the $`()^{F_1}`$ GSO on $`\lambda _a`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},8)`$ is

$$H_bH_b+N\pi ,H_cH_c+\pi $$
(43)
where $`b(c)=1,\mathrm{},8`$ refer to the gauge degrees of freedom on which the orbifold group has nontrivial (trivial) action. Under the action of $`()^{F_1}`$, by looking at the vertex operator (32) corresponding to the tachyonic states we see that only states with $`_{a=1}^8p_a=`$ even integer survive the GSO projection. Also we have seen that under the $`()^{F_R}`$ GSO only states with $`j=`$ odd integer survive. So in the $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory, only states where $`j`$ is an odd integer and $`_{a=1}^8p_a`$ is an even integer survive the GSO projection while the remaining states are projected out of the spectrum. Hence, the RG flow proceeds as before leading to

$$E_8\times E_8E_8\times E_8+\mathrm{nonsusy}\mathrm{𝑆𝑂}(32)\mathrm{s}$$
(44)
Again we define $`g_{cl}`$ for the $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory keeping only spacetime bosonic states in the spectrum. In this case, there is a further twist by $`()^{F_1}`$ and so the partition function has a factor of $`\frac{1}{8}`$. However there are now 4 contributions to $`g_{cl}`$ in the limit Im$`\tau 0`$: (i) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\delta =0;\omega =\rho =0,`$ (ii) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\delta =0;\omega =\frac{1}{2};\rho =0,`$ (iii) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\frac{1}{2};\delta =0;\omega =\rho =0,`$ and (iv) $`\alpha =\beta =0;\gamma =\frac{1}{2};\delta =0;\omega =\frac{1}{2};\rho =0`$ where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ refer to the spin structures corresponding to the right moving CFT and $`\gamma ,\delta `$ $`(\omega ,\rho )`$ refer to the spin structures corresponding to the left moving CFT involving $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8`$ $`(\lambda _9,\mathrm{},\lambda _{16})`$ and $`\alpha ,\gamma ,\omega `$ refer to the upper index in the theta function and $`\beta ,\delta ,\rho `$ refer to the lower index. So the total factor is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`g_{cl}`$ for the $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory is equal to $`g_{cl}`$ for the non-supersymmetric $`SO(32)`$ theory. This leads to

$$g_{cl}^{UV}=\frac{1}{24}(N\frac{1}{N})$$
(45)
$$g_{cl}^{IR}=\frac{1}{24}(N^{}\frac{1}{N^{}})+\frac{1}{24}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(N_i\frac{1}{N_i})$$
(46)
where $`N=N^{}+2_{i=1}^kN_i`$. Again the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture is satisfied.

## 4 $`𝒞^2/𝒵_N`$ flows

In this section we consider $`𝒞^2/𝒵_N`$ orbifolds of heterotic string theory and study the RG flows. A computation of $`g_{cl}`$ again shows that it decreases monotonically along RG flows. We consider actions of the orbifold group where $`r_1=1`$ in order to use the Hirzebruch Jung theory of singularity resolutions . Demanding that we have an orbifold of order $`N`$ , we find that $`r_2`$ has to be an odd integer. We shall refer to $`r_2`$ as $`r`$ from now on and denote the orbifold as $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(r)}`$ as in . We note that for these theories $`N`$ can be either even or odd. Specifically once again we are interested in (2,2) and (0,2) theories.
We consider modular invariant partition functions for the non-supersymmetric $`SO`$(32) theory. We consider the case where $`r_1=p_1=1,r_2=p_2=\pm 1`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. This corresponds to a (2,2) theory with the standard embedding of the orbifold action in the $`SO`$(32) gauge group. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^2}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^{14}|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l}{N}}\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{l}{N}}\right]|^2}\theta ^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha \pm \frac{k}{N}}{\beta \pm \frac{l}{N}}\right]$$
(47)
$$\times \overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha \pm \frac{k}{N}}{\beta \pm \frac{l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{14}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=1`$.

Keeping only the bosonic states and absorbing an overall factor of (Im$`\tau )^2`$ in the definiton of $`g_{cl}`$ in (14), we get that

$$g_{cl}(N,\pm 1)=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{(4\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}^2\frac{\pi k}{N})^2}=\frac{(N^2+11)(N^21)}{4532N}$$
(48)
Again the value of $`g_{cl}`$ is half of that obtained by HKMM for the type 0 theory for reasons explained after (18) and we note that $`g_{cl}`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`N`$. Next we consider the case where $`r_1=1,r_2=\pm 3,p_1=p_2=1,p_3=p_4=2`$ and the other $`r_i`$ and $`p_a`$ are all 0. This corresponds to a (0,2) theory with a non-standard embedding of the orbifold action in the $`SO`$(32) gauge group. The partition function is

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^2\mathrm{Im}\tau |^2}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(k,l)}{\eta ^2\overline{\eta }^{14}|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l}{N}}\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{3k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{3l}{N}}\right]|^2}\theta ^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha \pm \frac{3k}{N}}{\beta \pm \frac{3l}{N}}\right]$$
(49)
$$\times \overline{\theta }^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^2\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{2k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{2l}{N}}\right]\overline{\theta }^{12}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]$$

where $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=1,\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{2\pi i\frac{k}{N}}`$ if $`r_2=3`$

and $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}0}=1,\zeta _{0\frac{1}{2}}=\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=e^{8\pi i\frac{k}{N}}`$ if $`r_2=3`$

We get the following expression for $`g_{cl}`$

$$g_{cl}(N,\pm 3)=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{(4\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\frac{\pi k}{N}\mathrm{sin}\frac{3\pi k}{N})^2}$$
(50)
This sum can be exactly evaluated  to give

$$g_{cl}(N,\pm 3)=\frac{(N^4+210N^280N291)}{40532N}\mathrm{for}N=2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}$$
(51)
$$=\frac{(N^4+210N^2+80N291)}{40532N}\mathrm{for}N=1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}$$
(52)
Again the value of $`g_{cl}`$ is half of that obtained by HKMM for the type 0 theory for reasons explained after (18). Also we note that $`g_{cl}`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`N`$.
We now construct RG flows corresponding to the various heterotic string theories. Again the results are similar to the HKMM analysis and we shall be brief.
Corresponding to the $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(r)}`$ orbifold, the elements of the $`𝒩`$=2 chiral ring corresponding to the various twisted sectors are given by

$$X_j=X_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}X_{N\{\frac{rj}{N}\}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}$$
(53)
where 1 and 2 refer to $`Z^1`$ and $`Z^2`$ and for the (2,2) theories $`a=3,\mathrm{},16`$ as explained below (55). The chiral GSO $`()^{F_R}`$ has the action

$$\overline{H}_1\overline{H}_1+r\pi ,\overline{H}_2\overline{H}_2\pi $$
(54)
Hence states where \[$`\frac{rj}{N}`$\] is an even integer are projected out while states where \[$`\frac{rj}{N}`$\] is an odd integer are kept in the spectrum. We consider $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(\pm 1)}`$ orbifolds and construct RG flows to check the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture. We consider the (2,2) non-supersymmetric $`SO`$(32) theory on $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(1)}`$ orbifold. In the (0,-1) picture the tachyonic vertex operator in the $`j`$-th twisted (NS-,A-) sector is given by

$$𝒱_j=e^{\overline{\varphi }}X_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}X_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}\lambda _a$$
(55)
Here $`a`$=3,…,16 ($`a`$=1,2 does not satisfy level matching) and the unperturbed chiral ring satisfies the relation

$$X^N=Y^{(1)}Y^{(2)}$$
(56)
where where $`XX_1`$. $`X_j`$ has R charge $`\frac{2j}{N}`$ and conformal dimension $`\frac{j}{N}`$. Hence perturbations where $`j<\frac{N}{2}`$ are relevent and those with $`j=\frac{N}{2}`$ (for $`N`$ even) are marginal. They lead to the deformed chiral ring relation

$$X^N+\underset{j+k<N}{}c_{jk}\lambda _j\lambda _kX^{j+k}=Y^{(1)}Y^{(2)}$$
(57)
The $`O(\lambda _j)`$ corrections vanish by R-charge conservation as all the terms have R-charge 2. The $`O(\lambda _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ contribution is nonvanishing as it involves the gauge singlet two point function of $`\lambda _a`$ and $`\lambda _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. Hence in the presence of relevent perturbations, the UV theory flows to a $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{M(1)}`$ theory in the IR where $`M<N`$. Hence the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture is satisfied. For marginal perturbations there is no flow. Under the chiral GSO $`()^{F_R}`$ the entire chiral ring is projected out and so there are no RG flows in the supersymmetric $`SO`$(32) and $`E_8\times E_8`$ string theories. For the (0,2) theories, the RG flows remain the same and the level matching constraint restricts the choice of $`p_a`$s.
For the $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(1)}`$ flows again we start with the non-supersymmetric $`SO`$(32) theory. There are no tachyons in the twisted (NS-,A-) sectors as they are massles and all the perturbations are marginal. However, perturbing the theory by marginal operators and sending the moduli corresponding to the various twisted sectors to infinity, the orbifold theory can be decoupled to two orbifold theories

$$𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(1)}𝒞^2/𝒵_{j(1)}+𝒞^2/𝒵_{Nj(1)}$$
(58)
along which $`g_{cl}`$ decreases. In this case the modulus corresponding to the $`j`$-th twisted sector has been sent to infinity. We now consider the (2,2) theories. Under the chiral GSO, the entire chiral ring survives and the flow proceeds as above in the supersymmetric $`SO`$(32) theory. Further twisting by $`()^{F_1}`$ to get the $`E_8\times E_8`$ theory, $`()^{F_1}`$ has the action

$$H_1H_1+r\pi ,H_2H_2\pi $$
(59)
Considering the (NS-,A-) sector twisted vertex operators, we see that states where $`a`$=3,…,8 ($`a`$=1,2 does not satisfy level matching) survive the GSO projection while states where $`a`$=9,…,16 are projected out. In the (0,2) case the RG flows remains the same and the choices of $`p_a`$s are restricted by the level matching constraint.

For the $`𝒞^2/𝒵_{N(\pm 3)}`$ orbifolds, the analysis is similar to the HKMM analysis with constraints on the gauge degrees of freedom as mentioned above. Also $`g_{cl}`$ decreases along RG flows.

## 5 $`AdS_3/𝒵_N`$ flows

We shall consider type 0 string theory propagating on $`AdS_3/𝒵_N\times `$ , where $``$ is a seven dimensional manifold. It is known that a $`𝒵_𝒩`$ orbifold of $`AdS_3`$  breaks spacetime supersymmetry completely and there are twisted sector tachyons in the NS sector which are localized at the orbifold fixed point. The vertex operators corresponding to the tachyonic excitations have been constructed . The vertex operator corresponding to the tachyon in the $`q`$-th twisted sector ($`q`$=1,…,$`N`$-1) is given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{j_q,j_q,j_q}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{j_q,j_q,j_q}e^{i\frac{q}{N}(H+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}Y)i\frac{q}{N}(\overline{H}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}\overline{Y})}$$
(60)
where $`j_q=\frac{kq}{2N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}=k+2`$. $`H`$ is given by

$$H=\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}𝒴\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}}{2}}Y$$
(61)
where

$$j^3=i\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}}{2}}Y$$
(62)
and

$$J^3=i\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}𝒴$$
(63)
Here $`j^a(J^a)`$ are the bosonic (total) currents associated with the $`\widehat{SL}`$(2,$`R`$) current algebra. Also $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is the level of the supersymmetric WZW model and $`k`$ is the level of the bosonic WZW model. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{j_q,j_q,j_q}`$ is a parafermion corresponding to the $`q`$th twisted sector having conformal dimension $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}}{2(\stackrel{~}{k}2)}\frac{q}{N}(1\frac{q}{N})`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{j_q,j_q,j_q}`$ has conformal dimension $`\frac{q}{2N}`$ and is the vertex operator corresponding to tachyonic excitations with mass

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}M_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{q}{N})$$
(64)
The worldsheet theory has (2,2) superconformal invariance generated by

$$T=\frac{1}{k}g_{ab}(j^aj^b\psi ^a\psi ^b)$$
(65)
$$G=\frac{2}{k}(g_{ab}\psi ^aj^b\frac{i}{3k}ϵ_{abc}\psi ^a\psi ^b\psi ^c)$$
(66)
and

$$J=\frac{1}{k}(i\stackrel{~}{k}H+2j^3)$$
(67)
where $`\psi ^a`$ is the bottom component of the WZW supercurrent. The metric is $`g^{ab}`$=diag(1,1,-1) and $`ϵ^{123}`$=1. We see that the conformal dimension of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{j_q,j_q,j_q}`$ is half the R-charge and so they are elements of the $`𝒩`$=2 chiral ring. Hence one can compute $`g_{cl}`$ and study RG flows that preserve $`𝒩`$=2 superconformal invariance. The details will mimic the HKMM analysis and we shall not repeat it here.
The partition function for type 0 string theory on $`AdS_3/𝒵_N\times `$ can be computed  and is given by

$$Z=\frac{1}{2N}\frac{1}{|\eta |^2\sqrt{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =0,\frac{1}{2}}{}\frac{Z_{}}{\eta ^3\overline{\eta }^3|\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{N}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l}{N}}\right]|^2}|\theta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]\theta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\frac{k}{N}}{\beta +\frac{l}{N}}\right]|^2$$
(68)
Here $`Z_{}`$ is the partition function involving the bosonic CFT on $``$. We can compute $`g_{cl}`$ for $`AdS_3/𝒵_N`$ using (17) and absorbing an overall factor of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{Im}\tau }`$ in the definiton of $`g_{cl}`$ to get

$$g_{cl}=\frac{1}{12}(N\frac{1}{N})$$
(69)
Let us briefly study the deformation theory of the chiral ring to see how the decay of spacetime occurs. As mentioned earlier, the vertex operators corresponding to the various twisted sector tachyonic excitations have been constructed in  to which we refer the reader for details. Hence the undeformed chiral ring has two generators

$$X\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{j_1,j_1,j_1}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{j_1,j_1,j_1}e^{\frac{i}{N}(H+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}Y)\frac{i}{N}(\overline{H}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}\overline{Y})}$$
(70)
and

$$Y=\frac{1}{V}e^{i(H+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}Y)i(\overline{H}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{k}}}\overline{Y})}$$
(71)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{j_1,j_1,j_1}=\sigma _1`$ is the parafermionic unit twist operator and the underformed ring relation is $`X^N=Y`$ which in the presence of relevent perturbations get deformed to

$$(Xx_1)^{N_1}(Xx_2)^{N_2}\mathrm{}(Xx_k)^{N_k}=Y$$
(72)
leading to the RG flows

$$𝒞/𝒵_N𝒞/𝒵_{N_1}+\mathrm{}+𝒞/𝒵_{N_k}$$
(73)
where $`N=_{i=1}^kN_i`$ along which $`g_{cl}`$ decreases monotonically and so the $`g_{cl}`$ conjecture is satisfied. We note that $`g_{cl}`$ is exactly the same as that for type 0 theory on flat space as calculated in . This is because the bosonic determinant in the denominator of the partition function which enters the computation of $`g_{cl}`$ is the same as that in the flat space theory. The free fermionic determinants are the same as well. Following the lines in the HKMM analysis, the same conclusion follows for the type II theory as well.

## 6 Conclusion

Following the conjecture made by HKMM, we have constructed RG flows in heterotic string theories and $`𝒵_𝒩`$ orbifold of $`AdS_3`$. We have considered a class of theories having $`𝒩`$=2 worldsheet superconformal invariance and calculated $`g_{cl}`$, which is a monotonically decreasing function along RG flows- in accordance with the conjecture made by HKMM. In the case of the heterotic string theories, the gauge degrees of freedom do not contribute to the computation of $`g_{cl}`$. This is evident from the structure of the modular invariant partition functions that have been constructed. The bosonic determinants in the denominator contribute non-trivially to the computation of $`g_{cl}`$ while the world sheet fermionic determinants in the numerator merely contribute a numerical factor as Im$`\tau 0`$. Hence the gauge degrees of freedom which contribute as fermionic determinants in the partition function do not play a non-trivial role in the computation of $`g_{cl}`$.

## Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Prof. Jeffrey A. Harvey for suggesting the problem and for many enlightening discussions in the course of the project.


text:
# Hamiltonians and Green’s functions which interpolate between two and three dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Two dimensions played a prominent role in the development of physics in the last twenty years.

On the experimental side this was driven e.g. by the needs of very large scale integration, by applications of semiconducting layer structures, by exploitations of surface catalytic effects, and by the development of atomic-scale surface analysis and manufacturing tools like scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy, to mention only a few developments in this area.

On the theoretical side interest in two-dimensional field theories was largely driven by string theory , where fundamental excitations are described by covariant two-dimensional field theories, and by the realization that in two-dimensional critical systems with a rotational symmetry scaling symmetry may be elevated to full conformal invariance .

The purpose of the present paper is to point out that recent developments in the mathematical formulation of brane world models may also inspire new developments in the physics of low-dimensional systems, and help us to acquire a better understanding of the transition between three-dimensional and two-dimensional behavior in these systems.

The present work was specifically motivated by the brane world model of Dvali, Gabadadze and Porrati, who recently proposed and analyzed a model which combined gravity on a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional manifold (a ”3-brane”) with gravity in an ambient $`(4+1)`$-dimensional bulk . They observed that the combination of gravity in different dimensions yields a gravitational potential which interpolates continuously between the three-dimensional $`1/r`$ potential at small distances and the four-dimensional $`1/r^2`$ potential at large distances, with a transition scale $`\mathrm{}_{DGP}m_3^2/m_4^3`$ set by the ratios of the reduced Planck masses on the brane and in the bulk. Since we are not concerned with gravity in the present paper I will not explicitly write down the model in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic curvature terms, see , but instead refer to the related model of Dvali, Gabadadze and Shifman , which combines a Maxwell term in Minkowski space (coordinates $`x^\mu =\{t,\text{r}\}`$) with a Maxwell term in an ambient $`(4+1)`$-dimensional bulk (coordinates $`x^M=\{t,\text{r},x^{}\}`$):

$$S=\frac{1}{4q_3^2}𝑑td^3\text{r}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }|_{x^{}=0}\frac{1}{4q_4^2}𝑑td^3\text{r}𝑑x^{}F_{MN}F^{MN}.$$
(1)
The resulting Coulomb potential on the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space111See Ref.  for a discussion of dynamical potentials on the brane and in the bulk. is

$$A^0(\text{r})=\frac{q_3}{4\pi r}\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2q_3^2}{q_4^2}r\right)\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2q_3^2}{q_4^2}r\right)\text{Si}\left(\frac{2q_3^2}{q_4^2}r\right)+\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2q_3^2}{q_4^2}r\right)\text{ci}\left(\frac{2q_3^2}{q_4^2}r\right)\right],$$
(2)
with the sine and cosine integrals

$$\text{Si}(x)=_0^x𝑑\xi \frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi }{\xi },\text{ci}(x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \frac{\mathrm{cos}\xi }{\xi }.$$

The ratio of gauge couplings defines a length scale

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{q_4^2}{2q_3^2},$$
(3)
and $`A^0`$ interpolates between a three-dimensional distance law at short distances and a four-dimensional distance law at large distances:

$$r\mathrm{}:A^0(\text{r})=\frac{q_3}{4\pi r}[1+\frac{2r}{\pi \mathrm{}}(\gamma 1+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}\right))+𝒪\left(\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)],$$

$$r\mathrm{}:A^0(\text{r})=\frac{q_3\mathrm{}}{2\pi ^2r^2}[12\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^4}{r^4}\right)].$$

Action principles of the kind (1) were denoted as dimensionally hybrid action principles in .

Of course, this does not simply carry over to low-dimensional systems in condensed matter or statistical physics: Dimensionally hybrid action principles would not be a suitable tool for model building in theoretical investigations of these systems because time derivatives generically will appear only as bulk terms in the Lagrangian of a particle interacting with a low-dimensional structure.

Therefore the main proposal of the present work is to use dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians in model building for low-dimensional systems: A combination of two-dimensional and three-dimensional terms and the ensuing interpolating correlation functions may help to narrow the gap between the powerful methods of two-dimensional field theory and realistic thin layers or surface structures in physics and technology.

In the sequel I will use this idea to discuss non-relativistic particles interacting with a thin layer. The system becomes a dimensionally hybrid system with a specifically two-dimensional component through the assumption that particles in the layer have a kinetic energy different from particles outside of the layer, e.g. as a consequence of mass renormalization $`Mm`$ due to the interaction of the particles with the components of the layer. This yields some straightforward but interesting results.

In the next section I will show in a simple model that transmission probabilities through thin layers in this class of models depend also on the momentum parallel to the layer if $`\mu =m(L)/L|_{L0}`$ remains finite. The discussion of Green’s functions in these models will be the subject of Secs. 3 and 4. Sec. 3 contains in particular a potential which interpolates between two-dimensional and three-dimensional distance laws.

## 2 Dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians and Green’s functions

To investigate implications of dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians for the description of the interaction of particles with a thin layer we assume in the present section that the layer is planar and homogeneous and therefore generates a potential $`U(z)`$, where $`z`$ is transverse to the layer.

In realistic two-dimensional systems particles are not strictly bound to the layer, and the effective particle mass in the layer may be changed due to interactions. This motivates the following Hamiltonian for particles of mass $`M`$ in the presence of the layer

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle d^2\text{x}\psi ^+\psi }|_{z=0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\text{x}𝑑z\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left(\psi ^+\psi +_z\psi ^+_z\psi \right)+\psi ^+U\psi \right)}.`$
Here and in the sequel all vectors are 2-dimensional vectors in the layer.

The assumption behind the Hamiltonian (2) is that the same field $`\psi `$ may describe e.g. free electrons in the bulk and large polarons222See e.g.  for introductions to polarons in solids. or other collective excitations involving conduction electrons in the layer. The parameter $`\mu `$ has dimensions of mass per length, and in a limiting procedure from layers of finite thickness $`L`$ would correspond to

$`\mu =\underset{L0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{m(L)}{L}},`$ (5)
where $`m(L)`$ would be the mass of the modes in the layer.

The corresponding equation of motion for stationary single-(quasi)particle wavefunctions is

$$E\psi (\text{x},z)=\delta (z)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (\text{x},0)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+_z^2\right)\psi (\text{x},z)+U(z)\psi (\text{x},z).$$
(6)
The Fourier ansatz

$$\psi (\text{x},z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\text{k}\psi (\text{k},z)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{k}\text{x})$$
(7)
yields the separated equation

$$\left(E\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2M}\right)\psi (\text{k},z)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}_z^2\psi (\text{k},z)+U(z)\psi (\text{k},z)+\delta (z)\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2\mu }\psi (\text{k},0).$$
(8)
Every solvable model of one-dimensional quantum mechanics gives a solution to this class of layer models, with the kinetic term of the layer modes only generating a cusp proportional to $`(M/\mu )k^2`$ in $`\mathrm{ln}\psi (\text{k},z)`$.

Obviously, the large longitudinal momentum modes are strongly affected by the existence of layer modes, but we will see in a moment that the two-dimensional kinetic term can also have a strong impact on modes with small longitudinal momentum.

Fig. 1: Contribution of a virtual planar mode to a particle penetrating a thin homogeneous layer.

It is a trivial exercise to adapt solutions of one-dimensional quantum mechanics to the cusp imposed by the layer modes, but it may be worthwhile to write down the modifications of the transmission coefficient due to the layer modes when the layer potential represents a work function: $`U(z)=w\delta (z)`$. The transmission coefficient for an infalling particle of momentum $`\{\text{k},k_{}\}`$ is

$$T(\text{k},k_{})=\left[1+\frac{M^2}{k_{}^2}\left(\frac{w}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{k^2}{2\mu }\right)^2\right]^1,$$
(9)
i.e. the layer modes increase the transmission probability for low longitudinal momentum modes $`0<\mathrm{}^2k^2<4\mu w`$, and decrease the transmission probabilities for the modes of higher longitudinal momentum.

This model also predicts a resonance in transmission for a certain value $`\mathrm{}^2k^2=2\mu w`$ of the longitudinal momentum. This is as a genuine consequence of the two-dimensional kinetic term in (2) and may be the simplest way to test the viability of the idea of dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians in low-dimensional systems.

Obviously, the prediction of dependence of transmission probabilities on longitudinal momenta requires finiteness of the parameter $`\mu `$ (5), i.e. a derivation of the ”phenomenological” Hamiltonian (2) from a limiting procedure of purely three-dimensional models will require a thorough study of finite size effects on mass renormalization in solids.

## 3 Correlations on a layer

A model similar to (2) allows for a neat discussion of the impact of combinations of kinetic terms from different dimensions on the ”two-dimensional” correlation functions on the layer.

For this we assume that the layer is not necessarily homogeneous, but generates a strongly localized potential

$$V(\text{x},z)=u(\text{x})\delta (z)$$

along the layer:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle d^2\text{x}𝑑z\left(\psi ^+\psi +_z\psi ^+_z\psi \right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\text{x}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\psi ^+\psi +\psi ^+u\psi \right)}|_{z=0}.`$
The generating functional for correlation functions on the layer is333As usual $`\delta /\delta j`$ acts from the right if $`\psi `$ is fermionic.

$$Z[j,j^+]=𝑑\psi 𝑑\psi ^+\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H[\psi ,\psi ^+]d^2\text{x}[\psi ^+(\text{x},0)j(\text{x})+j^+(\text{x})\psi (\text{x},0)]\right)$$
(11)
$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta d^2\text{x}\frac{\delta }{\delta j(\text{x})}u(\text{x})\frac{\delta }{\delta j^+(\text{x})}\right)Z_0[j,j^+]$$

with

$$Z_0[j,j^+]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2\beta }d^2\text{x}d^2\text{x}^{}j^+(\text{x})G(\text{x}\text{x}^{},0)j(\text{x}^{})\right).$$
(12)
Since (3) is a free theory from a field theory point of view, the ”two-dimensional” correlations in it can be calculated from tree-level diagrams, which involve only the restriction of the free Green’s function $`G(\text{x}\text{x}^{},z)`$ to the layer and insertions of the layer potential.

The free Green’s function used in (12) satisfies

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+_z^2\right)G(\text{x},z)+2\mathrm{}\delta (z)\mathrm{\Delta }G(\text{x},0)=\delta (\text{x})\delta (z)$$
(13)
where

$$2\mathrm{}=\frac{M}{\mu }.$$
(14)
The ansatz

$$G(\text{x},z)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}d^2\text{k}𝑑k_{}G(\text{k},k_{})\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}(\text{k}\text{x}+k_{}z)]$$
(15)
yields

$$\left(k^2+k_{}^2\right)G(\text{k},k_{})+\frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }k^2𝑑k_{}^{}G(\text{k},k_{}^{})=1.$$
(16)
This determines the $`k_{}`$-dependence of the propagator

$$G(\text{k},k_{})=\frac{f(k)}{k^2+k_{}^2}.$$
(17)
With

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}^{}\frac{1}{k^2+k_{}^2}=\frac{1}{k}$$

we find the Green’s function

$$G(\text{k},k_{})=\frac{1}{(1+k\mathrm{})(k^2+k_{}^2)}$$
(18)
or

$$G(\text{k},z)=\frac{1}{2k(1+\mathrm{}k)}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|).$$
(19)
The solution444I follow the conventions of  for Bessel and Struve functions.

$$G(\text{x},z)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi \frac{\mathrm{exp}[k(\mathrm{i}r\mathrm{cos}\phi |z|)]}{1+k\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)}{1+k\mathrm{}}J_0(kr)$$
(20)
of (13) can be thought of as the electrostatic potential of a unit charge on the layer, if the fields which are continuous across the layer make a special contribution to the Hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field555In the spirit of the philosophy advocated in this paper the electromagnetic fields in (21) would simultaneously describe photons in the bulk and polaritons in the layer.:

$$H[F]=\mathrm{}d^2\text{x}\left(\text{E}^2+B_{}^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}d^2\text{x}𝑑z\left(\text{E}^2+E_{}^2+\text{B}^2+B_{}^2\right),$$
(21)
e.g. as a consequence of a non-vanishing limit of

$$2\mathrm{}=\underset{L0}{lim}(ϵ_rL).$$

Here $`ϵ_r`$ is the relative permittivity of the layer and $`L`$ its transverse extension.

The perturbation series (11,12) requires the Green’s function on the layer, which can be expressed as a linear combination of a Struve function and a Bessel function of the second kind:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x})=G(\text{x},z)|_{z=0}=\frac{1}{8\mathrm{}}\left[𝐇_0\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}\right)Y_0\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right].$$
(22)
This interpolates between two-dimensional and three-dimensional distance laws

$$r\mathrm{}:\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x})=\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}}[\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{2\mathrm{}}\right)+\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}+𝒪\left(\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)],$$

$$r\mathrm{}:\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x})=\frac{1}{4\pi r}[1\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^4}{r^4}\right)].$$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x})`$ along with the limiting cases is plotted in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The solid line is the Green’s function (22) on the layer as a function of $`x=r/\mathrm{}`$, in units of $`\mathrm{}^1`$. The upper dashed line is the three-dimensional $`1/4\pi r`$ potential, and the lower dashed line is the two-dimensional logarithmic potential.

Polaron masses in semiconductors are of the order of effective band masses. Due to strong band curvature the ratios of polaron masses to the mass of free electrons can be of order $`m/M10^2`$, so one may hope that in thin semiconducting layers of thickness $`L`$ the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is of order $`\mathrm{}10^2L`$. Two-dimensional distance laws for correlation functions might then be realized up to distances of order $`10L`$, and intermittent behavior for distances between $`10L`$ and $`200L`$. For a possible realization of (22) as an electromagnetic potential in thin layers, semiconducting compounds involving Pb might be the best bet due to their high relative permittivities of order $`ϵ_r10^210^3`$ . The corresponding field strength on the layer is

$$_r\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x})=\frac{1}{8\mathrm{}^2}\left[𝐇_1\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}\right)Y_1\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}\right)\frac{2}{\pi }\right].$$
(23)
Fig. 3: The solid line is the field strength per charge (23) on the layer as a function of $`x=r/\mathrm{}`$, in units of $`\mathrm{}^2`$. The dashed line approaching the solid line for $`x<1`$ is the two-dimensional $`1/4\pi \mathrm{}r`$ field, and the other dashed line is the three-dimensional $`1/4\pi r^2`$ field.

This reduction of the force between charges in a thin dielectric layer with finite $`2\mathrm{}=lim_{L0}(ϵ_rL)`$ can pictorially be understood as a consequence of the fact that field lines are refracted away from the layer when they leave the layer. This reduces the field lines e.g. between two opposite charges at short distances, since the field lines cannot re-enter the layer on short scales, whereas for large separation of the two charges along the layer re-entry renders the refraction effect negligible.

## 4 The Green’s function for scattering from two-dimensional potentials on the layer

The stationary wave equation from (3) is

$$E\psi (\text{x},z)=\delta (z)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }+u(\text{x})\right)\psi (\text{x},0)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+_z^2\right)\psi (\text{x},z).$$
(24)
We have already noticed that this can be solved exactly for $`u(\text{x})`$=constant.

In discussing scattering of bulk particles from the layer in the model (3) we could proceed using the ordinary three-dimensional Green’s function for scattering of waves of energy $`E=\mathrm{}^2K^2/2M`$ and treat the full two-dimensional contribution to Eq. (24) as a perturbation. However, here I rather would like to treat only the layer potential $`u(\text{x})`$ as a perturbation. This has the virtue of reducing the perturbation for large longitudinal momenta.

The relevant unperturbed wave is then

$`\psi _0(\text{x},z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }^3}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{K}_{}\text{x})[\mathrm{\Theta }(z)(\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}K_{}z\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{K_{}^2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}K_{}K_{}^2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}K_{}z))`$ (25)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(z){\displaystyle \frac{K_{}}{K_{}+\mathrm{i}K_{}^2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}K_{}z\right)]`$
where again the definition (14) was used.

The relevant Green’s function $`G_K`$ for propagation of bulk plane waves of energy

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{}^2K^2}{2M}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left(\text{K}_{}^2+K_{}^2\right)$$

has to satisfy

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+_z^2+K^2\right)G_K(\text{x},z)+2\mathrm{}\delta (z)\mathrm{\Delta }G_K(\text{x},0)=\delta (\text{x})\delta (z),$$
(26)
and the solution proceeds similarly to the solution of (13). The Fourier ansatz (15) yields

$$\left(k^2+k_{}^2K^2\right)G_K(\text{k},k_{})+\frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }k^2𝑑k_{}^{}G_K(\text{k},k_{}^{})=1,$$
(27)
which determines the $`k_{}`$-dependence of the propagator

$$G_K(\text{k},k_{})=\frac{f(k)}{k^2+k_{}^2K^2}.$$
(28)
At this stage the possibility of poles complicates the calculation slightly: In evaluating the integral in (27) with (28) for $`k<K`$ we have to make a judicious choice on how to shift the poles or the integration path at $`k_{}=\pm \sqrt{K^2k^2}`$, corresponding to correct physical boundary conditions on $`G_K(\text{k},z)`$. The correct choice turns out to be $`k_{}=\pm (\sqrt{K^2k^2}+\mathrm{i}ϵ)`$ since $`G_K(\text{k},z)`$ is supposed to describe outgoing scattered waves from the layer if $`k<K`$, i.e. we have

$`G_K(\text{k},k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(k)}{k^2+k_{}^2K^2\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$
$`=`$ $`f(k)\left(𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+k_{}^2K^2}}+\mathrm{i}\pi \delta (k^2+k_{}^2K^2)\right).`$
With

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}^{}\frac{1}{k^2+k_{}^2K^2\mathrm{i}ϵ}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(k^2K^2)}{\sqrt{k^2K^2}}+\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(K^2k^2)}{\sqrt{K^2k^2}}$$

we find the Green’s function at large longitudinal wavelength $`k<K`$

$$G_K(\text{k},k_{})=\frac{\sqrt{K^2k^2}}{(\sqrt{K^2k^2}+\mathrm{i}k^2\mathrm{})(k^2+k_{}^2K^2\mathrm{i}ϵ)},$$
(30)
$$G_K(\text{k},z)=\frac{1}{2k^2\mathrm{}2\mathrm{i}\sqrt{K^2k^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{K^2k^2}|z|\right),$$
(31)
while the short longitudinal wavelength part is

$$G_K(\text{k},k_{})=\frac{\sqrt{k^2K^2}}{(\sqrt{k^2K^2}+k^2\mathrm{})(k^2+k_{}^2K^2\mathrm{i}ϵ)},$$
(32)
$$G_K(\text{k},z)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k^2K^2}+2k^2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{k^2K^2}|z|\right).$$
(33)
Of course, the Green’s function again reduces to the usual three-dimensional result for $`\mathrm{}0`$, i.e. if the modes in the layer become so heavy that they decouple.

With an incoming plane wave the integral equation following from (24,26) is

$$\psi (\text{x},z)=\psi _0(\text{x},z)\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}d^2\text{x}^{}G_K(\text{x}\text{x}^{},z)u(\text{x}^{})\psi (\text{x}^{},0).$$
(34)
In a Born approximation this yields with (25)

$$\psi (\text{x},z)=\psi _0(\text{x},z)\frac{2M}{\sqrt{2\pi }^7\mathrm{}^2}\frac{K_{}}{K_{}+\mathrm{i}K_{}^2\mathrm{}}d^2\text{k}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{k}\text{x})G_K(\text{k},z)u(\text{k}\text{K}_{}),$$
(35)
where the normalization of the Fourier transformed layer potential is

$$u(\text{q})=d^2\text{x}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{q}\text{x})u(\text{x}).$$

Eq. (35) together with (33) implies that no particular scattering wave is generated by the short wavelength components at $`|\text{q}|<K_{}+\sqrt{K_{}^2+K_{}^2}`$ of the layer potential, which is simply a statement of the limited resolving power of the external wave. However, beyond that the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependence of (31) and (35) implies that the two-dimensional kinetic term in (3) reduces potential scattering at large $`K_{}`$.

## 5 Summary

Two-dimensional field theory is a very appealing subject with many powerful results. One reason for this is because every tensor and spinor field on a 2-manifold decomposes into covariant primary fields which provide 1-dimensional representations of the corresponding symmetry groups666This is true beyond the realm of conformal transformations if the Beltrami parameters on the 2-manifold are used to decompose tensors and spinors into covariant primary fields, see Secs. 1 and 2 in  for tensors and  for spinors..

However, the assumption of strict two-dimensionality seems too restrictive when it comes to comparisons with actual layers or surface structures in physics. Conservative theoretical approaches to low-dimensional structures in physics and technology therefore rely on genuine three-dimensional Hamiltonians and only restrict the locations and momenta of particles to a surface or a layer (see e.g. Sec. 9.2 in ). In these approaches two-dimensionality is only taken into account at a kinematical level, at the expense of sacrificing the powerful methods and results of two-dimensional field theory.

On the other hand, recent results in brane theory taught us that straightforward combinations of four-dimensional terms and five-dimensional terms in action principles yield interpolating Green’s functions on the brane, and it is apparent from the functional integral representation that this property must also hold for higher order correlation functions on the brane.

As mentioned above this cannot carry over directly to low-dimensional systems in condensed matter and statistical physics, but it initiated the present proposal to use dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians $`H=\mathrm{}h_2+H_3`$ for theoretical investigations of low-dimensional structures in physics.

Such an approach has the prospect to provide more realistic results than strictly two-dimensional field theory, while at the same time utilizing the power of two-dimensional field theory for the determination e.g. of equilibrium correlation functions in the limiting cases $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ or $`k\mathrm{}1`$.

Further virtues of this approach are predictions on the transition behavior between two-dimensional and three-dimensional distance laws in layers and surface structures, and a better understanding on how two-dimensional structures might be approached in the more conservative purely three-dimensional framework, through studies of finite size effects on effective masses and permittivities in three-dimensional models.

To illustrate the use and some straightforward consequences of dimensionally hybrid Hamiltonians a homogeneous layer and layers with strongly localized potentials were studied. In these settings the field $`\psi `$ describes simultaneously bulk particles of mass $`M`$ and excitations of mass $`\mu `$ per transverse length in the layers. These models might serve as an approximation to thin layers of semiconductors or polar solids, where the planar modes would correspond to large polarons. The model predicts a strong dependence of transmission probabilities on longitudinal momentum.

The Green’s function in the model also yields a static potential which interpolates between the logarithmic two-dimensional distance law at distances $`\mathrm{}`$ and the three-dimensional Coulomb law at distances $`\mathrm{}`$.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by NSERC.