format: text

text:
# Dynamics of QCD in a strong magnetic field

## 1 Prologue

On the first day of this wonderful meeting, I decided to change the topic of my talk. Already during the first Session, I felt it necessary to present something special, something connected with Arkady. So, I decided to talk about the dynamics of QCD in a strong magnetic field. This talk, it seemed to me, was appropriate indeed. The point is that the last time when I interacted with Arkady in person was in April 1994, in the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara. At that time, we, Valery Gusynin, Igor Shovkovy, and myself, had just finished our first work \[ \] in the series of papers concerning the role of a magnetic field in dynamical symmetry breaking in 2+1 and 3+1 dimensional field theories (actually, at that time, we discussed only the 2+1 dimensional case). So, it seemed to be appropriate to “continue” that discussion at the Arkadyfest in Minneapolis 8 years later.

I was lucky with this decision. At the time of its presentation, this work had not been yet completed. During my talk, Arkady raised a question concerning the dynamics of the magnetic catalysis in QCD with a large number of colors, $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. The answer to this question, Igor Shovkovy and I got the next day, helped to finish the work \[ \].

## 2 Introduction

Since the dynamics of QCD is extremely rich and complicated, it is important to study this theory under external conditions which provide a controllable dynamics. On the one hand, this allows one to understand better the vacuum structure and Green’s functions of QCD, and, on the other hand, there can exist interesting applications of such models in themselves. The well known examples are hot QCD and QCD with a large baryon density.

Studies of QCD in external electromagnetic fields had started long ago \[ \]. A particularly interesting case is an external magnetic field. Using the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model as a low energy effective theory for QCD, it was shown that a magnetic field enhances the spontaneous chiral symmetry breakdown. The understanding of this phenomenon had remained obscure until a universal role of a magnetic field as a catalyst of chiral symmetry breaking was established in Refs. \[ \]. The general result states that a constant magnetic field leads to the generation of a fermion dynamical mass (i.e., a gap in the one-particle energy spectrum) even at the weakest attractive interaction between fermions. For this reason, this phenomenon was called the magnetic catalysis. The essence of the effect is the dimensional reduction $`DD2`$ in the dynamics of fermion pairing in a magnetic field. In the particular case of weak coupling, this dynamics is dominated by the lowest Landau level (LLL) which is essentially $`D2`$ dimensional \[ \].

The phenomenon of the magnetic catalysis was studied in gauge theories, in particular, in QED \[ \] and in QCD \[ \]. In the recent work \[ \], it has been suggested that the dynamics underlying the magnetic catalysis in QCD is weakly coupled at sufficiently large magnetic fields. Here we will consider this dynamical problem rigorously, from first principles. In fact, we show that, at sufficiently strong magnetic fields, $`|eB|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, there exists a consistent truncation of the Schwinger-Dyson (gap) equation which leads to a reliable asymptotic expression for the quark mass $`m_q`$. Its explicit form reads:

$$m_q^22C_1|e_qB|\left(c_q\alpha _s\right)^{2/3}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4N_c\pi }{\alpha _s(N_c^21)\mathrm{ln}(C_2/c_q\alpha _s)}\right],$$
(1)
where $`e_q`$ is the electric charge of the $`q`$-th quark and $`N_c`$ is the number of colors. The numerical factors $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ equal $`1`$ in the leading approximation that we use. Their value, however, can change beyond this approximation and we can only say that they are of order $`1`$. The constant $`c_q`$ is defined as follows:

$$c_q=\frac{1}{6\pi }(2N_u+N_d)\left|\frac{e}{e_q}\right|,$$
(2)
where $`N_u`$ and $`N_d`$ are the numbers of up and down quark flavors, respectively. The total number of quark flavors is $`N_f=N_u+N_d`$. The strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$ in the last equation is related to the scale $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _s}b\mathrm{ln}\frac{|eB|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2},\text{ where}b=\frac{11N_c2N_f}{12\pi }.$$
(3)
We should note that in the leading approximation the energy scale $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$ in Eq. (3) is fixed only up to a factor of order $`1`$.

The central dynamical issue underlying this dynamics is the effect of screening of the gluon interactions in a magnetic field in the region of momenta relevant for the chiral symmetry breaking dynamics, $`m_q^2|k^2||eB|`$. In this region, gluons acquire a mass $`M_g`$ of order $`\sqrt{N_f\alpha _s|e_qB|}`$. This allows to separate the dynamics of the magnetic catalysis from that of confinement.

Since the background magnetic field breaks explicitly the global chiral symmetry that interchanges the up and down quark flavors, the chiral symmetry in this problem is $`SU(N_u)_L\times SU(N_u)_R\times SU(N_d)_L\times SU(N_d)_R\times U^{()}(1)_A`$. The $`U^{()}(1)_A`$ is connected with the current which is an anomaly free linear combination of the $`U^{(d)}(1)_A`$ and $`U^{(u)}(1)_A`$ currents. The generation of quark masses breaks this symmetry spontaneously down to $`SU(N_u)_V\times SU(N_d)_V`$ and, as a result, $`N_u^2+N_d^21`$ gapless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) bosons occur. In Sec. 4, we derive the effective action for the NG bosons and calculate their decay constants and velocities.

The present analysis is heavily based on the analysis of the magnetic catalysis in QED done by Gusynin, Miransky, and Shovkovy \[ \]. A crucial difference is of course the property of asymptotic freedom and confinement in QCD. In connection with that, our second major result is the derivation of the low energy effective action for gluons in QCD in a strong magnetic field. The characteristic feature of this action is its anisotropic dynamics. In particular, the strength of static (Coulomb like) forces along the direction parallel to the magnetic field is much larger than that in the transverse directions. Also, the confinement scale in this theory is much less than that in QCD without a magnetic field. This features imply a rich and unusual spectrum of light glueballs in this theory.

A special and interesting case is QCD with a large number of colors, in particular, with $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ (the ’t Hooft limit). The question about it was raised by Arkady during my talk. This theory is considered in Sec. 6.

## 3 Magnetic catalysis in QCD

We begin by considering the Schwinger-Dyson (gap) equation for the quark propagator. It has the following form:

$`G^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`S^1(x,y)+4\pi \alpha _s\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle G(x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (z,y,u)D_{\nu \mu }(u,x)d^4zd^4u}`$ (4)
where $`S(x,y)`$ and $`G(x,y)`$ are the bare and full fermion propagators in an external magnetic field, $`D_{\nu \mu }(x,y)`$ is the full gluon propagator and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (x,y,z)`$ is the full amputated vertex function. Since the coupling $`\alpha _s`$ related to the scale $`|eB|`$ is small, one might think that the rainbow (ladder) approximation is reliable in this problem. However, this is not the case. Because of the (1+1)-dimensional form of the fermion propagator in the LLL approximation, there are relevant higher order contributions \[ \]. Fortunately one can solve this problem. First of all, an important feature of the quark-antiquark pairing dynamics in QCD in a strong magnetic field is that this dynamics is essentially abelian. This feature is provided by the form of the polarization operator of gluons in this theory. The point is that the dynamics of the quark-antiquark pairing is mainly induced in the region of momenta $`k`$ much less than $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$. This implies that the magnetic field yields a dynamical ultraviolet cutoff in this problem. On the other hand, while the contribution of (electrically neutral) gluons and ghosts in the polarization operator is proportional to $`k^2`$, the fermion contribution is proportional to $`|e_qB|`$ \[ \]. As a result, the fermion contribution dominates in the relevant region with $`k^2|eB|`$.

This observation implies that there are three, dynamically very different, scale regions in this problem. The first one is the region with the energy scale above the magnetic scale $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$. In that region, the dynamics is essentially the same as in QCD without a magnetic field. In particular, the running coupling decreases logarithmically with increasing the energy scale there. The second region is that with the energy scale below the magnetic scale but much larger than the dynamical mass $`m_q`$. In this region, the dynamics is abelian like and, therefore, the dynamics of the magnetic catalysis is similar to that in QED in a magnetic field. At last, the third region is the region with the energy scale less than the gap. In this region, quarks decouple and a confinement dynamics for gluons is realized.

Let us first consider the intermediate region relevant for the magnetic catalysis. As was indicated above, the important ingredient of this dynamics is a large contribution of fermions to the polarization operator. It is large because of an (essentially) 1+1 dimensional form of the fermion propagator in a strong magnetic field. Its explicit form can be obtained by modifying appropriately the expression for the polarization operator in QED in a magnetic field \[ \]:

$`P^{AB,\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{6\pi }}\delta ^{AB}\left(k_{}^\mu k_{}^\nu k_{}^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|e_qB|}{m_q^2}},|k_{}^2|m_q^2,`$ (5)
$`P^{AB,\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\delta ^{AB}\left(k_{}^\mu k_{}^\nu k_{}^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|e_qB|}{k_{}^2}},m_q^2|k_{}^2||eB|,`$ (6)
where $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }\text{diag}(1,0,0,1)`$ is the projector onto the longitudinal subspace, and $`k_{}^\mu g_{}^{\mu \nu }k_\nu `$ (the magnetic field is in the $`x^3`$ direction). Similarly, we introduce the orthogonal projector $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }g_{}^{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(0,1,1,0)`$ and $`k_{}^\mu g_{}^{\mu \nu }k_\nu `$ that we shall use below. Notice that quarks in a strong magnetic field do not couple to the transverse subspace spanned by $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`k_{}^\mu `$. This is because in a strong magnetic field only the quark from the LLL matter and they couple only to the longitudinal components of the gluon field. The latter property follows from the fact that spins of the LLL quarks are polarized along the magnetic field (see the second paper in \[ \]).

The expressions (5) and (6) coincide with those for the polarization operator in the $`1+1`$ dimensional massive QED (massive Schwinger model) \[ \] if the parameter $`\alpha _s|e_qB|/2`$ here is replaced by the dimensional coupling $`\alpha _1`$ of $`QED_{1+1}`$. As in the Schwinger model, Eq. (6) implies that there is a massive resonance in the $`k_{}^\mu k_{}^\nu k_{}^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ component of the gluon propagator. Its mass is

$$M_g^2=\underset{q=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }|e_qB|=(2N_u+N_d)\frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }|eB|.$$
(7)
This is reminiscent of the pseudo-Higgs effect in the (1+1)-dimensional massive QED. It is not the genuine Higgs effect because there is no complete screening of the color charge in the infrared region with $`|k_{}^2|m_q^2`$. This can be seen clearly from Eq. (5). Nevertheless, the pseudo-Higgs effect is manifested in creating a massive resonance and this resonance provides the dominant forces leading to chiral symmetry breaking.

Now, after the abelian like structure of the dynamics in this problem is established, we can use the results of the analysis in QED in a magnetic field \[ \] by introducing appropriate modifications. The main points of the analysis are: (i) the so called improved rainbow approximation is reliable in this problem provided a special non-local gauge is used in the analysis, and (ii) for a small coupling $`\alpha _s`$ ($`\alpha `$ in QED), the relevant region of momenta in this problem is $`m_q^2|k^2||eB|`$. We recall that in the improved rainbow approximation the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (x,y,z)`$ is taken to be bare and the gluon propagator is taken in the one-loop approximation. Moreover, as we argued above, in this intermediate region of momenta, only the contribution of quarks to the gluon polarization tensor (6) matters. \[It is appropriate to call this approximation the “strong-field-loop improved rainbow approximation”. It is an analog of the hard-dense-loop improved rainbow approximation in QCD with a nonzero baryon density\]. As to the modifications, they are purely kinematic: the overall coupling constant in the gap equation $`\alpha `$ and the dimensionless combination $`M_\gamma ^2/|eB|`$ in QED have to be replaced by $`\alpha _s(N_c^21)/2N_c`$ and $`M_g^2/|e_qB|`$, respectively. This leads us to the expression (1) for the dynamical gap.

After expressing the magnetic field in terms of the running coupling, the result for the dynamical mass takes the following convenient form:

$$m_q^22C_1\left|\frac{e_q}{e}\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2\left(c_q\alpha _s\right)^{2/3}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{b\alpha _s}\frac{4N_c\pi }{\alpha _s(N_c^21)\mathrm{ln}(C_2/c_q\alpha _s)}\right].$$
(8)
As is easy to check, the dynamical mass of the $`u`$-quark is considerably larger than that of the $`d`$-quark. It is also noticeable that the values of the $`u`$-quark dynamical mass becomes comparable to the vacuum value $`m_{dyn}^{(0)}300\text{ MeV}`$ only when the coupling constant gets as small as $`0.05`$.

Now, by trading the coupling constant for the magnetic field scale $`|eB|`$, we get the dependence of the dynamical mass on the value of the external field. The numerical results are presented in Fig. 1 \[we used $`C_1=C_2=1`$ in Eq. (8)\].

As one can see in Fig. 1, the value of the quark gap in a wide window of strong magnetic fields, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2|eB|(10\text{ TeV})^2`$, remains smaller than the dynamical mass of quarks $`m_{dyn}^{(0)}300\text{ MeV}`$ in QCD without a magnetic field. In other words, the chiral condensate is partially suppressed for those values of a magnetic field. The explanation of this, rather unexpected, result is actually simple. The magnetic field leads to the mass $`M_g`$ (7) for gluons. In a strong enough magnetic field, this mass becomes larger than the characteristic gap $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in QCD without a magnetic field ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, playing the role of a gluon mass, can be estimated as a few times larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$). This, along with the property of the asymptotic freedom (i.e., the fact that $`\alpha _s`$ decreases with increasing the magnetic field), leads to the suppression of the chiral condensate.

This point also explains why our result for the gap is so different from that in the NJL model in a magnetic field \[ \]. Recall that, in the NJL model, the gap logarithmically (i.e., much faster than in the present case) grows with a magnetic field. This is the related to the assumption that both the dimensional coupling constant $`G=g/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ playing a role similar to that of the gluon mass in QCD), as well as the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not dependent on the value of the magnetic field. Therefore, in that model, in a strong enough magnetic field, the value of the chiral condensate is overestimated.

The picture which emerges from this discussion is the following. For values of a magnetic field $`|eB|\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ the dynamics in QCD should be qualitatively similar to that in the NJL model. For strong values of the field, however, it is essentially different, as was described above. This in turn suggests that there should exist an intermediate region of fields where the dynamical masses of quarks decreases with increasing the background magnetic field.

## 4 Effective action of NG bosons

The presence of the background magnetic field breaks explicitly the global chiral symmetry that interchanges the up and down quark flavors. This is related to the fact that the electric charges of the two sets of quarks are different. However, the magnetic field does not break the global chiral symmetry of the action completely. In particular, in the model with the $`N_u`$ up quark flavors and the $`N_d`$ down quark flavors, the action is invariant under the chiral symmetry $`SU(N_u)_L\times SU(N_u)_R\times SU(N_d)_L\times SU(N_d)_R\times U^{()}(1)_A`$. The $`U^{()}(1)_A`$ is connected with the current which is an anomaly free linear combination of the $`U^{(d)}(1)_A`$ and $`U^{(u)}(1)_A`$ currents. \[The $`U^{()}(1)_A`$ symmetry is of course absent if either $`N_d`$ or $`N_u`$ is equal to zero\].

The global chiral symmetry of the action is broken spontaneously down to the diagonal subgroup $`SU(N_u)_V\times SU(N_d)_V`$ when dynamical masses of quarks are generated. In agreement with the Goldstone theorem, this leads to the appearance of $`N_u^2+N_d^21`$ number of the NG gapless excitations in the low-energy spectrum of QCD in a strong magnetic field. Notice that there is also a pseudo-NG boson connected with the conventional (anomalous) $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry which can be rather light in a sufficiently strong magnetic field.

Now, in the chiral limit, the general structure of the low energy action for the NG bosons could be easily established from the symmetry arguments alone. First of all, such an action should be invariant with respect to the space-time symmetry $`SO(1,1)\times SO(2)`$ which is left unbroken by the background magnetic field \[here the SO(1,1) and the SO(2) are connected with Lorentz boosts in the $`x_0x_3`$ hyperplane and rotations in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane, respectively\]. Besides that, the low-energy action should respect the original chiral symmetry $`SU(N_u)_L\times SU(N_u)_R\times SU(N_d)_L\times SU(N_d)_R\times U^{()}(1)_A`$. These requirements lead to the following general form of the action:

$`L_{NG}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_u^2}{4}}\text{tr}\left(g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_u_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{}+v_u^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_u_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{}\right)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_d^2}{4}}\text{tr}\left(g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_d_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_d^{}+v_d^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_d_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_d^{}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}^2}{4}}\left(g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}+\stackrel{~}{v}^2g_{}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\right).`$
The unitary matrix fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{A=1}^{N_u^21}\lambda ^A\pi _u^A/f_u\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{A=1}^{N_d^21}\lambda ^A\pi _d^A/f_d\right)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\pi }/\stackrel{~}{f}\right)`$ describe the NG bosons in the up, down, and $`U^{()}(1)_A`$ sectors of the original theory. The decay constants $`f_u,f_d,\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and transverse velocities $`v_u,v_d,\stackrel{~}{v}`$ can be calculated by using the standard field theory formalism. The results for the $`N_u^2+N_d^22`$ NG bosons in the up and down sectors, assigned to the adjoint representation of the $`SU(N_u)_V\times SU(N_d)_V`$ symmetry, are \[ \]

$`f_u^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}|eB|,`$ (10)
$`f_d^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2}}|eB|,v_q=0.`$ (11)
The remarkable fact is that the decay constants are nonzero even in the limit when the dynamical masses of quarks approach zero. The reason of that is the $`1+1`$ dimensional character of this dynamics. A similar situation takes place in color superconductivity: in that case the $`1+1`$ dimensional character of the dynamics is provided by the Fermi surface.

Notice that the transverse velocities of the NG bosons are equal to zero. This is also a consequence of the $`1+1`$ dimensional structure of the quark propagator in the LLL approximation. The point is that quarks can move in the transverse directions only by hopping to higher Landau levels. Taking into account higher Landau levels would lead to nonzero velocities suppressed by powers of $`|m_q|^2/|eB|`$. In fact, the explicit form of the velocities was derived in the weakly coupled NJL model in an external magnetic field \[see Eq. (65) in the second paper of Ref. \[ \]\]. It is

$$v_{u,d}^2\frac{|m_{u,d}|^2}{|eB|}\mathrm{ln}\frac{|eB|}{|m_{u,d}|^2}1.$$
(12)
A similar expression should take place also for the transverse velocities of the NG bosons in QCD.

The decay constant $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ of the singlet NG boson connected with the spontaneous breakdown of the $`U^{()}(1)_A`$ is \[ \]

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^2=\frac{(N_df_u+N_uf_d)^2}{N_f^2}=\frac{(\sqrt{2}N_d+N_u)^2N_c}{12\pi ^2N_f^2}|eB|.$$
(13)
Its transverse velocity is of course zero in the LLL approximation.

## 5 Anisotropic confinement of gluons

Let us now turn to the infrared region with $`|k|m_d`$, where all quarks decouple (notice that we take here the smaller mass of $`d`$ quarks). In that region, a pure gluodynamics realizes. However, its dynamics is quite unusual. The point is that although gluons are electrically neutral, their dynamics is strongly influenced by an external magnetic field, as one can see from expression (5) for their polarization operator. In a more formal language, while quarks decouple and do not contribute into the equations of the renormalization group in that infrared region, their dynamics strongly influence the boundary (matching) conditions for those equations at $`km_d`$. A conventional way to describe this dynamics is the method of the low energy effective action. This low effective action was derived in Ref. \[ \]. Here we will discuss its main properties.

The low energy effective action is relevant for momenta $`|k|m_d`$. Notice the following important feature of the action: its “bare” coupling constant $`g`$, related to the scale $`m_d`$, coincides with the value of the vacuum QCD coupling related to the scale $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$ (and not to the scale $`m_d`$). This is because $`g`$ is determined from the matching condition at $`|k|m_d`$, the lower border of the intermediate region $`m_d|k|\sqrt{|eB|}`$, where, because of the pseudo-Higgs effect, the running of the coupling is essentially frozen. Therefore the “bare” coupling $`g`$ indeed coincides with the value of the vacuum QCD coupling related to the scale $`\sqrt{|eB|}`$: $`g=g_s`$. Since this value is much less that that of the vacuum QCD coupling related to the scale $`m_d`$, this implies that the confinement scale $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ of the action should be much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ in QCD without a magnetic field.

Actually, this consideration somewhat simplifies the real situation. Since the LLL quarks couple to the longitudinal components of the polarization operator, only the effective coupling connected with longitudinal gluons is frozen. For transverse gluons, there should be a logarithmic running of their effective coupling. It is clear, however, that this running should be quite different from that in the vacuum QCD. The point is that the time like gluons are now massive and their contribution in the running in the intermediate region is severely reduced. On the other hand, because of their negative norm, just the time like gluons are the major players in producing the antiscreening running in QCD (at least in covariant gauges). Since now they effectively decouple, the running of the effective coupling for the transverse gluons should slow down. It is even not inconceivable that the antiscreening running can be transformed into a screening one. In any case, one should expect that the value of the transverse coupling related to the matching scale $`m_d`$ will be also essentially reduced in comparison with that in the vacuum QCD. Since the consideration in this section is rather qualitative, we adopt the simplest scenario with the value of the transverse coupling at the matching scale $`m_d`$ also coinciding with $`g_s`$.

The interaction potential between two static quarks in this theory at ”short” distances $`rm_d^1`$ reads:

$$V(x,y,z)\frac{g_s^2}{4\pi \sqrt{z^2+ϵ(x^2+y^2)}},$$
(14)
where the dielectric constant $`ϵ=1+\frac{\alpha _s}{6\pi }_{q=1}^{N_f}|e_qB|/m_q^2`$ is very large. Because of the dielectric constant, this Coulomb like interaction is anisotropic in space: it is suppressed by a factor of $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ in the transverse directions compared to the interaction in the direction of the magnetic field.

The potential (14) corresponds to the classical, tree, approximation which is good only in the region of distances much smaller than the confinement radius $`r_{QCD}\lambda _{QCD}^1`$. Deviations from this interaction are determined by loop corrections. The analysis of the loop expansion leads to the following estimate of the new confinement scale $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ in QCD in a strong magnetic field:

$$\lambda _{QCD}m_d\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{\sqrt{|eB|}}\right)^{b/b_0},$$
(15)
where $`b=(11N_c2N_f)/12\pi `$ and $`b_0=11N_c/12\pi `$. Therefore, in a strong magnetic field, $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ is much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

The hierarchy $`\lambda _{QCD}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is intimately connected with a somewhat puzzling point that the pairing dynamics decouples from the confinement dynamics despite it produces quark masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ or less \[for a magnetic field all the way up to the order of $`(10\text{ TeV})^2`$\]. The point is that these masses are heavy in units of the new confinement scale $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ and the pairing dynamics is indeed weakly coupled.

## 6 Arkady question: QCD with a large number of colors

I did not discuss the case of QCD with a large number of colors in my talk. The question about it was raised by Arkady during the talk (he actually asked not myself, the speaker, but my coauthor Igor Shovkovy who was sitting next to him). Igor and myself got the answer the next day.

Just a look at expression (7) for the gluon mass is enough to recognize that the dynamics in this limit is very different from that considered in the previous sections. Indeed, as is well known, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is proportional to $`1/N_c`$ in this limit. More precisely, it rescales as $`\alpha _s=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s}{N_c}`$, where the new coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s`$ remains finite as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ (’t Hooft limit). Then, expression (7) implies that the gluon mass goes to zero in this limit. This in turn implies that the appropriate approximation in this limit is not the improved rainbow approximation but the rainbow approximation itself, when both the vertex and the gluon propagator in the SD equation (4) are taken to be bare. This leads to the following expression for the dynamical mass of quarks \[ \]:

$$m_q^2=C|e_qB|\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi \left(\frac{\pi N_c}{(N_c^21)\alpha _s}\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(16)
where the constant $`C`$ is of order one. The confinement scale $`\lambda _{QCD}`$ is close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ in this case \[ \].

It is natural to ask how large $`N_c`$ should be before the expression (16) becomes reliable. One can show \[ \] that the threshold value $`N_c^{thr}`$ grows rapidly with the magnetic field \[$`N_c^{thr}100`$ for $`|eB|(1\text{GeV})^2`$\]. Expression (16) for the quark mass is reliable for the values of $`N_c`$ of the order of $`N_c^{thr}`$ or larger. Decreasing $`N_c`$ below $`N_c^{thr}`$, one comes to expression (1).

## 7 Conclusion

QCD in a strong magnetic field yields an example of a rich, sophisticated and (that is very important) controllable dynamics.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the organizers of this Symposium for their warm hospitality. I acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Bi-Laplacian Growth Patterns in Disordered Media

## Abstract

Experiments in quasi 2-dimensional geometry (Hele Shaw cells) in which a fluid is injected into a visco-elastic medium (foam, clay or associating- polymers) show patterns akin to fracture in brittle materials, very different from standard Laplacian growth patterns of viscous fingering. An analytic theory is lacking since a pre-requisite to describing the fracture of elastic material is the solution of the bi-Laplace rather than the Laplace equation. In this Letter we close this gap, offering a theory of bi-Laplacian growth patterns based on the method of iterated conformal maps.

Pattern formation for two-phase flow instabilities has been intensely studied, both experimentally and theoretically, for the displacement of a viscous fluid from between parallel plates or from a porous medium 86DKLST . In these cases the velocity field $`𝐯(r)`$ is well described by Darcy’s law $`𝐯(𝐫)P(𝐫)`$, where $`P(𝐫)`$ is the pressure. For incompressible fluids $`𝐯=0`$, leading to the Laplace equation for the pressure, $`^2P(𝐫)=0`$, with appropriate boundary condition on the boundary of the growing pattern and at “infinity”. The theory for such “Laplacian Growth” patterns in 2-dimensions (i.e. $`𝐫=(x,y)`$) naturally focuses on analytic functions (or their conformal inverse), simply because the Cauchy-Riemann conditions imply that the general solution of the Laplace equation is given by the real part of an analytic function, $`P=\mathrm{}\{F(z)\}`$, where $`F(z)`$ is the unique analytic function that satisfies the boundary conditions, and $`z=x+iy`$ 58ST ; 84SB .

Sporadically, over the last decade, there appeared experimental studies in which a low viscosity fluid displaces not a more viscous fluid, but rather a medium which is visco-elastic, like foam 99LRC , clay 91LLDD , or a solution of associating polymers 93ZM . Elastic media are expected to be invaded by fracture, rather than a displacement, and indeed the growth patterns reported in the experiments had features akin to fracture patterns in brittle materials, see Fig. 1.

Detailed comparisons with theory were lacking however, since an appropriate analytic theory did not exist. As is well known, (and see below for details), in fracture the relevant equation to solve is the bi-Laplace equation $`^2^2\chi =0`$ with appropriate boundary conditions 86LL . The general solution is no longer the real part of an analytic function, but rather

$$\chi (z,\overline{z})=\mathrm{}\left[\overline{z}\varphi (z)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)\right],$$
(1)
where $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)`$ are a pair of analytic functions. Thus conformal techniques are not trivially applicable, and until recently there was no appropriate theoretical method to solve such equations with boundary conditions on an arbitrary ramified boundary. Even numerical simulations were limited to lattice discretizations 93WC , even though lattice anisotropy is a relevant perturbation changing the universality class of the growing patterns. Recent progress in the context of quasi-static fracture 02BHLP ; 02BLP  allows us to offer below an appropriate model for bi-Laplacian Growth patterns.

To set up the model imagine a 2-dimensional elastic medium with a hole of an arbitrary shape, whose boundary $`z(s)`$ is parametrized by the arc-length variable $`s`$. Into this hole one pushes quasistatically a fluid of pressure $`P`$. In equilibrium with this pressure the elastic medium will suffer a displacement field $`u(𝐫)`$. The strain tensor $`ϵ_{jk}`$ which results is

$$ϵ_{jk}\frac{1}{2}\left(_ju_k+_ku_j\right).$$
(2)
In linear elasticity theory 86LL  the stress tensor is related to the strain tensor by

$$\sigma _{jk}=\frac{E}{1+\sigma }\left(u_{jk}+\delta _{jk}\frac{\sigma }{12\sigma }\underset{l}{}u_{ll}\right),$$
(3)
where $`E`$ and $`\sigma `$ are material parameters. Equilibrium inside the elastic medium requires that

$$\underset{k}{}_k\sigma _{jk}=0\text{ for all }j$$
(4)
The general solution of these equations in 2-dimensional is given by

$$\sigma _{xx}=_y^2\chi ,\sigma _{yy}=_x^2\chi ,\sigma _{xy}=_{xy}\chi ,$$
(5)
where the so called Airy potential $`\chi `$ fulfills the biharmonic equation

$$^2^2\chi =0.$$
(6)
The solution is represented, as said, by Eq. (1). In order to develop the growth pattern we need to compute the tangent component of the stress tensor at the boundary of the pattern, since cracking proceeds only if this component exceeds a threshold $`\sigma _c`$. To define this component and to state the conditions on the boundary of the growth pattern we use the local tangent and normal directions. With $`\alpha `$ being the angle between the tangent and the $`x`$-axis at $`z(s)`$, we define derivatives with respect to the tangent and normal directions according to

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )_x+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )_y`$
$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )_y\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )_x.`$ (7)
The pressure $`P`$ now must be balanced by the normal component of the stress:

$$_{tt}\chi =\sigma _{nn}=P=const.\text{ on the crack}.$$
(8)
Since in equilibrium no fluid slips along the boundary,

$$_{tn}\chi =\sigma _{tn}=\sigma _{nt}=0\text{ on the crack}.$$
(9)
The normal component $`_{nn}\chi =\sigma _{tt}`$ is not determined from the boundary conditions, but is computed by solving for $`\chi (z,\overline{z})`$. Using the fact that $`4^2\chi /z\overline{z}=\sigma _{xx}+\sigma _{yy}=\sigma _{tt}+\sigma _{nn}`$ we can immediately read from Eq. (1),

$$\sigma _{tt}(z)=P+4\mathrm{}[\varphi ^{}(z)],\text{at the boundary}.$$
(10)
Once we have computed the tangent component of the stress, we may advance the crack if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \sigma _{tt}(z)\sigma _c>0`$, at a speed which is (on the average) proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ 90Ker ; 90HR .

Thus to compute the tangent stress and advance the crack we only need to determine the function $`\varphi (z)`$. The boundary conditions (8) and (9) are expressed in terms of $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)`$ by using (7) in (8) and (9), to derive $`_t_{\overline{z}}\chi =P[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+i\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )]=P_tz(s)`$, where we identify $`_tz(s)`$ as the unit vector tangent to the boundary. Rewriting this condition as $`_t[_{\overline{z}}\chi +Pz]=0`$ we obtain the boundary condition on the interface 52Mus

$$\varphi (z(s))+z(s)\overline{\varphi ^{}(z(s))}+\overline{\psi (z(s))}=Pz(s)+K$$
(11)
where $`\psi (z)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(z)`$ and $`K`$ is a constant that can be chosen zero with impunity.

The boundary conditions at infinity are obvious, since all stress components have to vanish as $`z\mathrm{}`$:

$$_{z\overline{z}}\chi (z,\overline{z})0,_{zz}\chi (z,\overline{z})0\text{ as }z\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
In light of these conditions $`\varphi (z)`$ must have the form $`\varphi (z)=i\beta _1z+_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}u_jz^j`$ with $`\beta _1`$ real. The solution of the stress field is invariant under the transformation $`\varphi \varphi +iAz+B`$ with $`A`$ real and $`B`$ a complex constant. We can use this freedom to get rid of $`\beta _1`$ and $`u_0`$, and write $`\varphi `$ in the form

$$\varphi (z)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_jz^j.$$
(13)
Similarly from (12) it follows that $`\psi `$ has the form

$$\psi (z)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_jz^j.$$
(14)
To proceed invoke a conformal map $`z=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(\omega )`$ that maps the exterior of the unit circle in the mathematical plane $`\omega `$ to the exterior of the crack in the physical plane $`z`$, after $`n`$ growth steps. The conformal map is univalent by construction, with a Laurent expansion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(\omega )=F_1^{(n)}\omega +F_0^{(n)}+F_1^{(n)}/\omega +F_2^{(n)}/\omega ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}(\omega )=\omega `$. The arclength position $`s`$ in the physical domain is mapped by the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}`$ onto a position on the unit circle $`ϵ=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$. We will be able to compute the stress tensor on the boundary of the crack in the physical domain by performing the calculation on the unit circle. In other words we will compute $`\sigma _{tt}(\theta )`$ on the unit circle in the mathematical plane.

We perform the calculation iteratively, taking the stress as known for the crack after $`n1`$ fracture events. In order to implement the $`n`$th cracking event with average velocity proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$, we should choose potential positions on the interface more often when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\theta )`$ is larger. We construct a probability density $`P(\theta )`$ on the unit circle $`e^{i\theta }`$ which satisfies

$$P(\theta )=\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{{}_{}{}^{}(n1)}(e^{i\theta })|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\theta ))}{_0^{2\pi }|\mathrm{\Phi }^{{}_{}{}^{}(n1)}(e^{i\stackrel{~}{\theta }})|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\theta }))𝑑\stackrel{~}{\theta }},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\theta }))`$ is the Heaviside function, and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{{}_{}{}^{}(n1)}(e^{i\theta })|`$ is simply the Jacobian of the transformation from mathematical to physical plane. The next growth position, $`\theta _n`$ in the mathematical plane, is chosen randomly with respect to the probability $`P(\theta )d\theta `$. At the chosen position on the crack, i.e. $`z=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n1)}(e^{i\theta _n})`$, we want to advance the crack with a given step of fixed length $`\sqrt{\lambda _0}`$. We achieve growth with an auxiliary conformal map $`\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(\omega )`$ that maps the unit circle to a unit circle with a semi-circular bump of area $`\lambda _n`$ centered at $`e^{i\theta _n}`$ 98HL ; 99DHOPSS . To ensure a fixed size step in the physical domain we choose

$$\lambda _n=\frac{\lambda _0}{|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{(n1)}{}_{}{}^{}(e^{i\theta _n})|^2}.$$
(17)
Finally the updated conformal map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}`$ is obtained as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n1)}(\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(\omega )).$$
(18)
The recursive dynamics can be represented as iterations of the map $`\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(w)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)=\varphi _{\lambda _1,\theta _1}\varphi _{\lambda _2,\theta _2}\mathrm{}\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(\omega ).$$
(19)
Every given fracture pattern is determined completely by the random itinerary $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$.

We can now represent the boundary conditions (10) in terms of $`z(s)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ)`$:

$$\varphi (\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ))+\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)\frac{\overline{\varphi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ))}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ)}}+\overline{\psi (\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ))}=P\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ).$$
(20)
to solve this equation we introduce a power expansion for the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ)}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(ϵ)}}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_jϵ^j.`$ (21)
Note that this expansion contains both positive and negative powers of $`ϵ`$, whereas Eqs. (13) and (14) contained only negative powers. Nevertheless upon substituting all the power expansions into Eq. (20) one finds that the determination of the function $`\varphi (z)`$ only requires the negative powers of $`ϵ`$ 02BLP , with the coefficients satisfying the system of equations

$$u_l\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}j\overline{u}_jb_{(j+l+1)}=pF_l.$$
(22)
After separating real from imaginary parts one finds an infinite system of linear equations. In practice we truncate at $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=100`$ and test for convergence by increasing the order. Note that the highest resolved $`u_{j_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ requires computing the Fourier series (21) to order $`2j_{\mathrm{max}}+1`$.

Implementing this procedure with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}(\omega )=\omega `$, and choosing $`\lambda _0=1`$, we generate a typical fracture pattern as seen in Fig. 2. What is seen is the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(4500)}(ϵ)`$ which is topologically a circle.

While we can guarantee that the pattern seen is indeed an exact bi-Laplacian pattern under the growth rules adopted here, we cannot guarantee that it is identical to any of the experimental patterns reported in 99LRC ; 91LLDD ; 93ZM . This stems from a few reasons. First, in many experiments there is a mixture of viscous and elastic phenomena, to the point that there are examples of a continuum of growth patterns depending on the relative importance of the two 91LLDD ; 93ZM . In our theory we solved the bi-Laplacian equation after each growth step; this is relevant in the purely elastic limit. Secondly, and not less importantly, we advanced the pattern where allowed ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma >0`$) at a velocity that is proportional (on the average) to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$. While this is accepted by a number of authors as a reasonable guess for the rate of growth of a fracture pattern in the quasi-static limit, it is by no means derived from first principles or universally accepted. Needless to say, in our procedure we can adopt any other velocity law without much ado, simply by changing the probability distribution (16). We caution the reader that one does not expect the patterns to be independent of the velocity law 02BLP . Thus a more complete theory of bi-Laplacian patterns calls for further collaboration between experiments and theory to zero in on a plausible velocity law. Before doing so there is a limited relevance to studying carefully the geometric properties of the patterns obtained with this velocity law or another.

Notwithstanding these remarks, we stress that the present theory offers a very convenient tool for assessing the fractal dimension $`D`$ of the growing patterns. Having a univalent conformal map as in (15), one can invoke the rigorous “1/4” theorem. This theorem states that if $`R_n`$ is the radius of the minimal circle that contains the pattern after $`n`$ fracture events, then

$$F_1^{(n)}\frac{1}{4}R_n.$$
(23)
Accordingly one expects that for large $`n`$ the first Laurent coefficient satisfies

$$F_1^{(n)}\sqrt{\lambda _0}n^{1/D}.$$
(24)
One advantage of the present approach is that the first Laurent coefficient $`F_1^{(n)}`$ is known exactly as

$$F_1^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^n\sqrt{1+\lambda _k},$$
(25)
which is computable to machine precision. In Fig. 3 we present, in double logarithmic plot, $`F_1^{(n)}/\sqrt{\lambda _0}`$ vs. $`n`$. Reading the slope of the least-squares fit yields a dimension $`D=1.4\pm 0.1`$.

The method of iterated conformal maps offers convergent calculations of fractal and multifractal properties of the growth patterns. If required, one can use the formalism to obtain highly accurate values of the fractal dimension, cf. 00DLP . In addition, if the properties of the growth probabilities are of interest from the multifractal point of view, there are available methods to compute these in a convergent scheme 01DJLMP  that is not available in direct numerical simulations. However, such refinements would be justified only after future work to solidify further the relation between theory and experiment.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Jonathan Tal for his expert help with the SV1 supercomputer at the Weizmann Institute. This work has been supported in part by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany, the Petroleum Research Fund, The European Commission under the TMR program and the Naftali and Anna Backenroth-Bronicki Fund for Research in Chaos and Complexity.


text:
# Fermionic zero-modes in type II fivebrane backgrounds

## I Introduction

The study of the non-perturbative dynamics in the superstring theory is still underway. Especially, the dynamics of the fermionic sector is less known than the one in the bosonic sector. The analysis in the low-energy effective supergravity theories are mainly on the bosonic sector, and usually the fermionic sector is not considered directly. For example, although an interesting possibility of the supersymmetry breaking due to the gravitino condensation has been proposed in Refs.Witten ; KMP ; Rey , it has not been clarified yet whether this is really possible or not. This kind of dynamics, which can be a non-perturbative effect of the quantum gravity, is very interesting in view of the low-energy physics because of its less model dependence.

An concrete model of the dynamical supersymmetry breaking due to the gravitino condensation is given in Ref.KMP . In the model the gravitino pair condensate is formed by the non-trivial gravitational background (Eguchi-Hanson metric), and the condensate triggers supersymmetry breaking through the Konishi anomaly relation. Since the analysis is based on the Euclidean space-time and the meaning of the non-trivial gravitational background is unclear (whether a gravitational instanton or an Euclidean configuration in the path integral), it is natural to ask whether the similar dynamics is possible in superstring theories.

The first step was the study in the low-energy supergravity theories. In Ref.Rey  a background solution of the heterotic supergravity theory, which is very similar to the fivebrane background in Ref.CHS1 , is constructed, and the zero-mode solutions of gravitino and dilatino are found. Although these zero-modes suggests the dynamical formation of the gravitino condensation, the condensation can not trigger the supersymmetry breaking through the mechanism of Ref.KMP , since the ten-dimensional heterotic supergravity theory has no global chiral symmetry. The analysis of the fermionic zero-modes in fivebrane backgrounds of the heterotic supergravity theory has been done in Refs.Bellisai ; KK . In Ref.KK  the author concluded that the gravitino condensation is possible, but it does not trigger the supersymmetry breaking.

Very few analysis which is based on the string world-sheet theory has been achieved. In Ref.Kitazawa  the author suggests some four-fermion condensations in fivebrane backgrounds of the type IIB string theory. The fivebrane backgrounds in the type IIB supergravity theoryCHS2  can be described by the world-sheet conformal field theory as a solution of the type II superstring theory in a certain limitAFK . The existence of the four fermionic zero-modes in fivebrane backgrounds in type IIA and type IIB supergravity theories is well knownCHS2 , and this number is consistent with the suggestion in Ref.Kitazawa . Although such four-fermion condensations do not mean the dynamical supersymmetry breaking through the Konishi anomaly relation (there are no global chiral symmetry in type IIA and IIB supergravity theories), this kind of analysis is worth doing to understand the non-perturbative dynamics in the fermionic sector of superstring theories.

In this letter we present the analysis based on the low-energy type IIA and IIB supergravity theories. The aim of this analysis is to know the explicit form of four fermionic zero-modes in fivebrane backgrounds in type IIA and IIB supergravity theories. The fermion field equations in fivebrane backgrounds in each system are explicitly solved. In the next section we find four zero-modes of gravitinos and dilatinos in type IIA fivebrane backgrounds. In section III four dilatino zero-modes and no gravitino zero-modes are found in type IIB fivebrane backgrounds. In the last section a summary of the result is given.

## II Fermion zero-modes in Type IIA fivebrane backgrounds

The Lagrangian of the type IIA supergravity theory (non-chiral $`N=2`$, $`D=10`$ supergravity theory) is derived from the $`N=1`$, $`D=11`$ supergravity theory by the dimensional reductionGP ; CW ; HN .

$`=ee^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(e,\omega (e))+2^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H^{\mu \nu \rho }H_{\mu \nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \rho \nu }D_\rho \psi _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho D_\rho \lambda `$ (1)
$`\overline{\psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \psi _\nu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}}\overline{\psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\lambda _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\overline{\psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\psi _\nu +6\overline{\psi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\psi ^\gamma \sqrt{2}\overline{\psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \lambda )\}`$
$`+((\text{fermion})^4\text{terms})),`$
where we set all R-R fields, $`C_\mu `$ and $`C_{\mu \nu \rho }`$, zero. We use the convention of Ref.NdRdWvN  in this section. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dilaton scalar field, $`R(e,\omega (e))`$ is the scalar curvature composed by the zhenbein $`e^a_\mu `$ and spin connection $`\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}(e)`$ with the space-time coordinate $`\mu `$ and local Lorentz coordinates $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the field strength of the two-form potential field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are the gravitino and dilatino fields, respectively, which are Majorana spinor including both chirality components.

The fivebrane background is the solution of the field equations of this Lagrangian with vanishing R-R fields and fermion fields. The explicit from of the background is

$`H^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{abcd}_d\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (2)
$`e^a_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\delta _\mu ^a,`$ (3)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r^2}},`$ (4)
where the local Lorentz indices $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ run from $`6`$ to $`9`$ (transverse direction to the fivebrane), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is a constant, $`Q`$ is a constant which is quantized to be an integer, and $`r^2_{a=6,7,8,9}x^ax^a`$ is the squared distance from the center of the fivebrane. The dilaton background satisfies the condition $`\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$, where $`\mathrm{}\delta _{ab}_a_b`$ is the four-dimensional Laplacian. This background keeps half of the original (global) supersymmetry and breaks the other half of supersymmetry. We can check this fact by considering infinitesimal supersymmetry variations with parameter $`\eta (x)`$. Since all the fermion background fields vanish, the variation of the bosonic fields is automatically zero. The variation of the fermionic fields are non-trivial.

$`\delta _\eta \lambda _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}}_a\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\left(1\gamma _5\right)\eta _\pm ,`$ (5)
$`\delta _\eta \psi _{\pm \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \eta _\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\eta _\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _a\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\left(1\gamma _5\right)\eta _\pm ,`$ (6)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\eta _\pm =\pm \eta _\pm $$
(7)
and $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^6\mathrm{\Gamma }^7\mathrm{\Gamma }^8\mathrm{\Gamma }^9`$ is the four-dimensional chirality operator. The modified connection

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm \mu }{}_{}{}^{ab}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}\pm H_\mu ^{ab}$$
(8)
satisfies the self-dual relation:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm \mu }{}_{}{}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abcd}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm \mu cd}.$$
(9)
From Eqs.(5) and (6), we see that the global supersymmetry with $`\eta _\pm ^{(\pm )}`$ is not broken, but the one with $`\eta _\pm ^{()}`$ is broken, where $`\gamma _5\eta ^{(\pm )}=\pm \eta ^{(\pm )}`$.

It is easy to derive the fermion field equations form the Lagrangian of Eq.(1).

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(D_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda _{}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\pm _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \frac{1}{6}H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right)\psi _{\pm \mu }=0,$$
(10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \rho \nu }\left(D_\rho _\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\psi _{\pm \nu }`$ $`+^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \psi _{\pm \nu }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \psi _{\pm \nu }`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma \nu }\psi _{\pm \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^{\mu \rho \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \psi _{\pm \nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}}\left(\pm _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \lambda _{}=0.`$
In order to find the fermion zero-modes in fivebrane backgrounds, we only consider the chirality components of $`\psi _{\pm \mu }^{()}`$ and $`\lambda _{}^{(\pm )}`$ which can be induced by the broken supersymmetry variation with parameters $`\eta _\pm ^{()}`$ in Eqs.(5) and (6). Furthermore, only the four-dimensional space of $`\mu =6,7,8,9`$, where the metric is non-trivial, is considered, and all the fermion fields are considered just as four-dimensional spinor fields. The fermion fields are independent of the coordinates of the six-dimensional space-time $`\mu =0,\mathrm{},5`$, and the value of the fields vanishes when their indices take the values of the six-dimensional space-time. The relevant field equations are as follows.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \left(D_\rho _\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda _{}^{(\pm )}\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \psi _{\pm \nu }^{()}=0,$$
(12)
$$\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \rho \nu }\left(D_\rho \frac{3}{2}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\right)+^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \right\}\psi _{\pm \nu }^{()}=0,$$
(13)
where we used Eq.(2).

It is naively expected that the supersymmetry variation

$`\lambda ^{}_{}^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \eta _\pm ^{()},`$ (14)
$`\psi ^{}_{\pm \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \eta _\pm ^{()}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho }\eta _{\pm }^{()}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\eta _\pm ^{()},`$ (15)
is the zero-mode solution. In fact, it is easily shown that Eq.(12) is satisfied for any functions $`\eta _\pm ^{()}`$ by using the relation

$$^\rho _\rho \mathrm{\Phi }+2^\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(16)
which follows from the condition $`\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. However, Eq.(13) is not satisfied by Eqs.(14) and (15), and some modifications are required. In case of the constant $`\eta _\pm ^{()}`$, both Eqs.(12) and (13) can be satisfied by the modification of the gravitino expression.

$`\lambda _0_{}^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \eta _\pm ^{()},`$ (17)
$`\psi _0_{\pm \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}{}_{\pm \mu }{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(^\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }\eta _\pm ^{()}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \eta _\pm ^{()})={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\eta _\pm ^{()}.`$ (18)
This is the normalizable fermionic zero-mode solution in fivebrane background. The gravitino solution satisfies the gauge condition $`D^\mu \psi _0{}_{\pm \mu }{}^{}=0`$. This solution can be rewritten as follows by rescaling the constant parameters $`\eta _\pm ^{()}`$.

$`\lambda _0_{}^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{5}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \eta _\pm ^{()}=\lambda ^{}{}_{}{}^{(\pm )}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \eta _\pm ^{()},`$ (19)
$`\psi _0_{\pm \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\eta _\pm ^{()}=\psi ^{}{}_{\pm \mu }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho \eta _\pm ^{()}.`$ (20)
This solution could be understood as a combination of supersymmetry variations and superconformal variations.

The parameter $`\eta `$ originally has $`32`$ components as a Majorana spinor representation of the space-time symmetry SO$`(9,1)`$. It is decomposed in two parts $`16_+`$ and $`16_{}`$ by the ten-dimensional chirality. They are described as four representations of SO$`(5,1)\times `$SO$`(4)`$SO$`(9,1)`$ as follows.

$`16_+`$ $`=`$ $`(4_+,2_+)+(4_{},2_{}),`$ (21)
$`16_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(4_+,2_{})+(4_{},2_+).`$ (22)
The parameters $`\eta _+^{()}`$ and $`\eta _{}^{(+)}`$ correspond to the representations of $`(4_{},2_{})`$ and $`(4_{},2_+)`$, respectively, and each has two independent component as a SO$`(4)`$ Weyl spinor. Therefore, we find the explicit form fo the four fermionic zero-modes in type IIA fivebrane backgrounds.

## III Fermion zero-modes in Type IIB fivebrane backgrounds

Although there is no manifestly Lorentz-invariant action of the type IIB supergravity theory (chiral $`N=2`$, $`D=10`$ supergravity theory), the covariant field equations have been obtainedSchwarz . The field equations of fermion fields are

$`\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{240}}i\gamma ^{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}\lambda F_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}+((\text{fermion})^3\text{terms})),`$ (23)
$`\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }D_\rho \psi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\gamma ^\rho \gamma ^\mu \lambda ^{}P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}i\gamma ^{\nu \rho \sigma }\gamma ^\mu \lambda G_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{}+((\text{fermion})^3\text{terms})),`$ (24)
where the convention of Ref.Schwarz  is used ($`\kappa =1`$). Here, the dilatino field $`\lambda =\lambda _R+i\lambda _I`$ is the complex Weyl spinor with positive ten-dimensional chirality, the gravitino field $`\psi _\mu =\psi _{R\mu }+i\psi _{I\mu }`$ is the complex Weyl spinor with negative ten-dimensional chirality, $`F_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}`$ is the field strength of the real four-form potential field $`A_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _4}`$, $`P_\rho `$ is the “field strength” of the complex scalar field $`B`$, and $`G_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the field strength of the complex two-form field $`A_{\rho \sigma }`$. The covariant derivative includes an unusual contribution:

$`D_\mu \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \lambda {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}iQ_\mu \lambda ,`$ (25)
$`D_\rho \psi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\rho \psi _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iQ_\rho \psi _\nu ,`$ (26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ denotes the usual covariant derivative in curved space-time and

$$Q_\mu =\frac{1}{1B^{}B}\text{Im}\left(B_\mu B^{}\right).$$
(27)
The supersymmetry transformation rule of these fermion fields is

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma ^\mu ϵ^{}\widehat{P}_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}i\gamma ^{\mu \rho \sigma }ϵ\widehat{G}_{\mu \rho \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}i\text{Im}\left(B\overline{ϵ}\lambda ^{}\right)\lambda ,`$ (28)
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{480}}i\gamma ^{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}\gamma _\mu ϵ\widehat{F}_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}\left(\gamma _\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{}9\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_{\mu \rho \sigma }\right)ϵ^{}`$ (29)
$`+((\text{fermion})^2\text{terms})),`$
where the parameter $`ϵ=ϵ_R+iϵ_I`$ is the complex Weyl spinor with negative ten-dimensional chirality with

$$D_\mu ϵ=\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu ϵ\frac{1}{2}iQ_\mu ϵ,$$
(30)
and hat means the supercovariantization.

The fivebrane background is a classical configuration which preserves half of the original (global) supersymmetry. The background field configuration is as followsCHS2 . For $`P_\mu `$, $`G_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$ and $`F_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}`$ fields,

$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (31)
$`G_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_{abcd}^d\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (32)
$`F_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
where $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are the local Lorentz coordinates which run from $`6`$ to $`9`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the real scalar field satisfying Eq.(4). Eq.(31) can be understood as the background $`B=B_R+iB_I`$ field of

$`B_R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }/2,`$ (34)
$`B_I`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (35)
and this results $`Q_\mu =0`$. The background metric is

$$e^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/4}\delta _\mu ^a,& a,\mu =0,\mathrm{}5,\\ e^{3\mathrm{\Phi }/4}\delta _\mu ^a,& a,\mu =6,\mathrm{}9,\\ 0,& \text{other}a\text{and}\mu .\end{array}$$
(36)
Note that we are using the Einstein metric.

The supersymmetry variation of bosonic fields vanish, since all the fermionic background fields are zero. The supersymmetry variation of fermionic fields is non-trivial.

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}}ϵ_Ri_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}}ϵ_I,`$ (37)
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\right)ϵ_R+i\left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\right)ϵ_I`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}}ϵ_R+i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}}ϵ_I,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma ^6\gamma ^7\gamma ^8\gamma ^9`$ is the four-dimensional chirality operator. Note that all $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are imaginary. We see that the supersymmetry with $`ϵ_R^{()}`$ and $`ϵ_I^{(+)}`$ is broken, and the supersymmetry with $`ϵ_R^{(+)}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/8}\eta _R^{(+)}`$ and $`ϵ_I^{()}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/8}\eta _I^{()}`$ is preserved, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5ϵ_{R,I}^{(\pm )}=\pm ϵ_{R,I}^{(\pm )}`$ and $`\eta _R^{(+)}`$ and $`\eta _I^{()}`$ are constant spinors.

The fermion field equations in fivebrane backgrounds are simple. From Eqs.(23) and (24),

$`\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }D_\rho \psi _\nu `$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}i_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^\rho \gamma ^\mu \left(\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\lambda \right)=0.`$ (40)
In order to find the fermionic zero-modes in fivebrane backgrounds, we only consider the fermion components $`\psi _{R\mu }^{()}`$, $`\psi _{I\mu }^{(+)}`$, $`\lambda _R^{(+)}`$ and $`\lambda _I^{()}`$ which can be induced by the broken supersymmetry variation. Furthermore, we take the following ansatz: only the four-dimensional space of $`\mu =6,7,8,9`$ should be considered, and all the fermion fields are considered just as four-dimensional spinor fields. The fermion fields are independent of the coordinates of the six-dimensional space-time $`\mu =0,\mathrm{},5`$, and the value of fields vanishes when their indices take the values of the six-dimensional space-time. Then, the field equations become quite simple.

$`\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^\mu \left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda =0,`$ (41)
$`\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }D_\rho \psi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\rho \sigma }\right)\psi _\nu =0,`$ (42)
where $`\lambda `$ can be $`\lambda _R^{(+)}`$ or $`\lambda _I^{()}`$ and $`\psi _\nu `$ can be $`\psi _{R\nu }^{()}`$ or $`\psi _{I\nu }^{(+)}`$.

The candidate of the solution of Eqs.(41) and (42) is the following broken supersymmetry variation.

$`\lambda ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu ϵ_R^{()}i_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu ϵ_I^{(+)},`$ (43)
$`\psi ^{}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\right)ϵ_R^{()}+i\left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\right)ϵ_I^{(+)}.`$ (44)
Eq.(43) is the solution of Eq.(41), if $`ϵ_R^{()}=e^{\frac{13}{8}\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta _R^{()}`$ and $`ϵ_I^{(+)}=e^{\frac{13}{8}\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta _I^{(+)}`$, where $`\eta _R^{()}`$ and $`\eta _I^{(+)}`$ are constant spinors. Namely, the solution is

$$\lambda _0=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu e^{\frac{13}{8}\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta _R^{()}i_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\gamma ^\mu e^{\frac{13}{8}\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta _I^{(+)},$$
(45)
and this is a normalizable solution. Eq.(44) is not the solution of Eq.(42). The real part of Eq.(44) is a linear combinations of all three possible independent terms in the lowest order of the derivative expansion. The solution should be a linear combination of these three terms. The same is true for the imaginary part of Eq.(44). However, we can explicitly show that any linear combination can not be a solution of Eq.(42). Therefore, we conclude that there is no gravitino zero-mode in the lowest order of the derivative expansion.

The parameter of the supersymmetry transformation $`ϵ`$ originally has $`32`$ components. Each of real and imaginary part of $`ϵ`$ belongs to the $`16_{}`$ Majorana-Weyl representation of the space-time symmetry SO$`(9,1)`$. Each of them is described as two representations of SO$`(5,1)\times `$SO$`(4)`$SO$`(9,1)`$ as in Eq.(22). The spinors $`\eta _R^{()}`$ and $`\eta _I^{(+)}`$ correspond to the representations of $`(4_+,2_{})`$ and $`(4_{},2_+)`$, respectively, and each has two independent component as a SO$`(4)`$ spinor. Therefore, we find the explicit form of the four dilatino zero-modes in type IIB fivebrane backgrounds.

## IV Conclusion

We have found the explicit form of the four fermionic zero-modes in both type IIA and IIB fivebrane backgrounds. In type IIA fivebrane backgrounds both dilatinos and gravitinos have zero-modes. On the other hand, in type IIB fivebrane backgrounds only dilatinos have zero-modes and there are no gravitino zero-modes. If we believe the naive consideration based on the path integral in the low-energy supergravity theory, this result suggests four-fermion condensations in fivebrane backgrounds.

In type IIB fivebrane backgrounds four-fermion condensations have been suggested in Ref.Kitazawa  through the calculation of the D3-brane tension in type IIB fivebrane backgrounds using the world-sheet conformal field theory. To understand which four-fermion condensations forms, we need further knowledge of the higher-order terms in the low-energy supergravity theory.

The naive consideration based on the path integral also suggests that there should be no fermion pair condensates in fivebrane background, since there are four fermion zero-modes. This can be checked by calculating the fermion propagator in the string theory using the world-sheet conformal field theory. If this naive consideration is correct, there should be no massless fermion propagation. The result of this calculation will be given in future works.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank S. Saito and Y. Katagiri for useful discussions.


text:
# Star Products and Perturbative Quantum Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

Deformation quantization as a framework for quantum physics has many attractive features. After setting up a classical system as a commutative algebra of functions on phase space, the passage to the corresponding quantum stystem is completely staightforward: the quantum observables are the same phase space functions as the classical observables. The only thing that changes is the product which is used to multiply phase space functions: in the quantum case one uses a star product instead of the commutative pointwise product of classical mechanics. The use of the star product produces all the characteristic quantum effects: non-commutativity, Heisenberg uncertainty and nonlocality. For a recent review at an elementary level see Ref. .

When deformation quantization was first put forward as an autonomous program for quantum physics by Bayen et al. in 1978  a few applications to non-relativistic quantum mechanics were known, but little concerning possible uses in relativistic quantum field theory. This situation has recently changed. After Dito’s work on star products and free scalar fields , Dütsch and Fredenhagen have studied the relation between deformation quantization and the algebraic approach to perturbative quantum field theory . Deformation theory has been used to establish important results concerning the quantization of gauge field theories, including the mathematical reconstruction of the BRST procedure  and the Batalin-Vilkoviski formalism . Cattaneo and Felder  have demonstrated a direct relationship between Kontsevich’s star product on a general Poisson manifold  and the perturbative expansion of the Poisson-sigma model, which describes a two-dimensional topological field theory .

The purpose of the present paper is threefold. Firstly, we wish to demonstrate that the deformation quantization approach, besides its mathematically appealing features, provides a practical method for dealing with problems of quantum physics. Secondly, we attempt to illuminate certain basic aspects of perturbative quantum field theory, by offering new insights into the structures which underlie the calculations. Finally, although our work certainly does not render the recent more specialized applications referred to above any the less remarkable, it may make them appear less surprising.

In the present paper we give a systematic account of the passage from the quantum mechanics of systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom to field theory in the framework of deformation quantization. We then relate our results to the analogous formulae in the operator formalism. We find that star products provide a natural setting for various forms of Wick’s theorem, as well as the perturbative expansion of the time-evolution operator, which yields the Feynman rules of quantum field theory. In contrast to systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom, in field theory requirements of freedom from divergences and causality dictate the use of specific star products and quantization schemes.

## 2 Star products in quantum mechanics

In deformation quantization one starts from a classical system, that is, a Poisson manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$, where $`M`$ is a smooth manifold and $`\alpha `$ the bivector which specifies the Poisson structure. The classical observables are smooth real-valued functions on $`M`$ which form, by pointwise multiplication, the commutative algebra of observables. Quantization involves a deformation of this algebra to a noncommutative associative algebra $`𝒜`$ involving smooth complex-valued fuctions on $`M`$ which are multiplied by the use of a star product, defined as follows.

Let $`𝒜[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be the space of formal power series in $`\mathrm{}`$ with coefficients in $`𝒜`$. A star product $``$ is a bilinear map $`𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜[[\mathrm{}]]`$ defined for $`f,g𝒜`$ by

$$fg=\underset{n0}{}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)C_n(f,g),$$
(2.1)
where the $`C_n`$ are bidifferential operators null on constants, such that:
(i) $`_{r+s=t}C_r(C_s(f,g),h)=_{r+s=t}C_r(f,C_s(g,h))`$,(ii) $`C_0(f,g)=fg`$,(iii) $`C_1(f,g)C_1(g,f)=2\{f,g\}.`$By linearity $``$ has a unique extension to $`𝒜[[\mathrm{}]]\times 𝒜[[\mathrm{}]]𝒜[[\mathrm{}]]`$. Property (i) expresses the associativity of the star product. Property (ii) is the classical limit:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}(fg)(x)=f(x)g(x),$$
(2.2)
with $`xM`$. Property (iii) expresses the correspondence principle:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[f,g]_{}=\{f,g\},$$
(2.3)
with $`[f,g]_{}:=fggf`$. In physical applications one is interested in Hermitian star products: $`\overline{fg}=\overline{g}\overline{f}`$, where $`\overline{f}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`f`$.

Two star products $``$ and $`^{}`$ are said to be c-equivalent if there exists an invertible transition operator $`T`$: a formal power series

$$T=\underset{n0}{}(i\mathrm{})^nT_n,$$
(2.4)
where $`T_0=id`$, and for $`n>0`$ the $`T_n`$ are bidifferential operators which are null on constants, such that

$$f^{}g=T^1((Tf)(Tg)).$$
(2.5)
Different choices of the star product correspond to different quantization schemes.

We shall be concerned in this paper with the case $`M=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{2m}`$. In this case the coefficients of the Poisson structure $`\alpha ^{ij}`$ may be taken as constants, and a star product, the Moyal product of the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$, is given by

$$(f_Mg)(x)=e^{M_{12}}f(x_1)g(x_2)|_{x_1=x_2=x},$$
(2.6)
where

$$M_{12}=\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2m}{}}\alpha ^{ij}\frac{}{x_1^i}\frac{}{x_2^j},$$
(2.7)
and $`x_\alpha ^i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},2m)`$ is the $`i`$-th component of phase space point $`x_\alpha `$. In canonical coordinates, $`x=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_m,p_1,\mathrm{},p_m)`$, $`M_{12}`$ is proportional to the Poisson bracket operator:

$$M_{12}=\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left(\frac{}{q_1^i}\frac{}{p_2^i}\frac{}{p_1^i}\frac{}{q_2^i}\right).$$
(2.8)
For the rest of this section we will restrict our considerations for notational convenience to one-particle systems, i.e. $`m=1`$ in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{2m}`$. Furthermore, we use holomorphic coordinates:

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2}}\left(q+\frac{ip}{m\omega }\right),\overline{a}=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2}}\left(q\frac{ip}{m\omega }\right),$$
(2.9)
where $`\omega `$ is a constant which we shall later interpret as an oscillator frequency, and $`m`$ is a mass parameter. In these coordinates the Moyal product is

$$(f_Mg)(a,\overline{a})=e^{M_{12}}f(a_1,\overline{a}_1)g(a_2,\overline{a}_2)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_1=a_2=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_1=\overline{a}_2=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}},$$
(2.10)
with

$$M_{12}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(_{a_1}_{\overline{a}_2}_{\overline{a}_1}_{a_2}),$$
(2.11)
and $`_a=/a,_{\overline{a}}=/\overline{a}`$ . For $`M=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{2m}`$ all star products are c-equivalent to the Moyal product. For example, the normal product

$$(f_Ng)(a,\overline{a})=e^{N_{12}}f(a_1,\overline{a}_1)g(a_2,\overline{a}_2)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_1=a_2=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_1=\overline{a}_2=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}},$$
(2.12)
with $`N_{12}=\mathrm{}_{a_1}_{\overline{a}_2}`$, is related to the Moyal product by the transition operator

$$T=e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}_a_{\overline{a}}}.$$
(2.13)
The Moyal product of $`r`$ functions is

$$f_1_Mf_2_M\mathrm{}_Mf_r=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}M_{ij}\right)\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}f_m(a_m,\overline{a}_m)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_m=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_m=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}}.$$
(2.14)
There is a similar formula for the normal product. For functions $`f_m`$ which are linear in $`a`$ and $`\overline{a}`$,

$$f_m(a,\overline{a})=A_ma+B_m\overline{a},$$
(2.15)
the star product may be written in the form of a Wick theorem. For example, the star product of four such functions can be written by expanding the exponential:

$`f_1_Mf_2_Mf_3_Mf_4`$ $`=`$ $`f_1f_2f_3f_4+G_{12}(f_3f_4)+G_{13}(f_2f_4)+G_{14}(f_3f_3)`$ (2.16)
$`+G_{23}(f_1f_4)+G_{24}(f_1f_3)+G_{34}(f_1f_2)`$
$`+G_{12}G_{34}+G_{13}G_{24}+G_{14}G_{23},`$
where the contractions

$$G_{ij}=M_{ij}f_if_j=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(A_iB_jA_jB_i)$$
(2.17)
are constants. We then have the relation

$$M_{ij}=G_{ij}\frac{}{f_i}\frac{}{f_j},$$
(2.18)
and Eq. (2.14) may be written as

$$f_1_Mf_2_M\mathrm{}_Mf_r=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}G_{ij}\frac{}{f_i}\frac{}{f_j}\right)\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}f_m.$$
(2.19)
It should be clear from the above that not only the original form , but also the various generalized Wick theorems which have been discussed in the literature  are direct consequences of the structure of the relevant star products.

## 3 The forced harmonic oscillator

We first give a brief review of the deformation quantization treatment of the simple one-dimensional free harmonic oscillator. The Hamilton function for this system is

$$H=\omega a\overline{a}.$$
(3.1)
The time development of a quantum system is governed by the time evolution function, for a system with a time-independent Hamilton function this is given by the star exponential:

$$U(t,0)=\mathrm{Exp}_{}(Ht)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}\right)^n(H)^n,$$
(3.2)
where $`(H)^n=\underset{n\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{HH\mathrm{}H}}`$. We choose the quantization scheme characterized by the normal product. The star exponential then satisfies the differential equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}U(t,0)=H_NU(t,0)=(H+\mathrm{}\omega \overline{a}_{\overline{a}})U(t,0).$$
(3.3)
The solution is

$$U(t,0)=e^{a\overline{a}/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[e^{i\omega t}a\overline{a}/\mathrm{}\right].$$
(3.4)
Developing the last exponential leads to the Fourier-Dirichlet expansion

$$U(t,0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi _n^{(N)}e^{iE_nt/\mathrm{}},$$
(3.5)
where $`\pi _n^{(N)}`$ is the projector associated with the energy $`E_n`$. For the free harmonic oscillator we read off from Eqs. (3.4) and (3.5)

$`\pi _0^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{a\overline{a}/\mathrm{}},`$ (3.6)
$`\pi _n^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^nn!}}\pi _0^{(N)}\overline{a}^na^n,`$ (3.7)
$`E_n`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ (3.8)
where the projectors are normalized according to

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}d^2a\pi _n^{(N)}=1,$$
(3.9)
and $`d^2a=dad\overline{a}`$. Note the absence of a zero-point energy in the spectrum. If we use the Moyal quantization scheme we obtain the spectrum

$$E_n=\left(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{}\omega ,$$
(3.10)
including the usual zero-point energy .

Now consider a harmonic oscillator in interaction with a time-dependent external source $`J(t)`$. The Hamilton function is

$$H=\omega a\overline{a}J(t)\overline{a}\overline{J}(t)a.$$
(3.11)
The time evolution function $`U_J`$ is characterized by the differential equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}U_J(t,t_i)=[H+\mathrm{}(\omega \overline{a}\overline{J}(t))_{\overline{a}}]U_J(t,t_i).$$
(3.12)
The solution is

$`U_J(t_f,t_i)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{a\overline{a}/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}a\overline{a}e^{i\omega (t_ft_i)}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}ae^{i\omega t_f}{\displaystyle _{t_i}^{t_f}}dse^{i\omega s}\overline{J}(s)`$ (3.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\overline{a}e^{i\omega t_f}{\displaystyle _{t_i}^{t_f}}dse^{i\omega s}J(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{t_i}^{t_f}}ds{\displaystyle _s^{t_f}}due^{i\omega (us)}J(s)\overline{J}(u)].`$
In the scattering situation we require that the source term become negligible as $`|t|\mathrm{}`$. The asymptotic dynamics is then governed by the Hamilton function for the free system: $`H_0=H|_{J=0}`$. The scattering function relates the asymptotic in-states to the asymptotic out-states, where the source term is effective only in an at first limited time interval $`T<t<T`$:

$$S[J]=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}U(0,T)_NU_J(T,T)_NU(T,0).$$
(3.14)
The phase space variables $`a`$ and $`\overline{a}`$ develop in time under the influence of the free time evolution function as solutions of the free equations of motion, and for a general function $`f(a,\overline{a})`$ one finds

$$U(0,T)_Nf(a,\overline{a})_NU(T,0)=f(ae^{i\omega T},\overline{a}e^{i\omega T}).$$
(3.15)
For the harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent source this yields, from Eq. (3.13):

$$S[J]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}a\overline{j}(\omega )+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}j(\omega )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑s𝑑ue^{i\omega |su|}J(s)\overline{J}(u)\right],$$
(3.16)
where $`j(\omega )=𝑑sJ(s)e^{i\omega s}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`J(s)`$. Let $`\varphi (t)=ae^{i\omega t}+\overline{a}e^{i\omega t}`$, and let $`J(t)`$ be real. Then Eq. (3.16) may be written as

$$S[J]=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tJ(t)\varphi (t)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}J(t)D_F(tt^{})J(t^{})\right],$$
(3.17)
with

$$D_F(t)=\mathrm{}\left[\theta (t)e^{i\omega t}+\theta (t)e^{i\omega t}\right].$$
(3.18)
We shall see below that the scattering function $`S[J]`$ corresponds to the scattering operator of quantum field theory, and $`D_F(t)`$ corresponds to the Feynman propagator (this correpondence is the reason for the factor $`\mathrm{}`$ in the above equation). The generating functional is the vacuum expectation value of the scattering operator; in the phase space formalism this quantity is calculated as

$$Z_0[J]=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}d^2aS[J]_N\pi _0^{(N)}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}J(t)D_F(tt^{})J(t^{})\right].$$
(3.19)
We may also calculate off-diagonal matrix elements of the scattering operator by making use of the Wigner functions

$$\pi _{m,n}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^m\mathrm{}^nm!n!}}\pi _0^{(N)}\overline{a}^ma^n.$$
(3.20)
Obviously, the Wigner functions are straightforward generalizations of the projectors: $`\pi _n^{(N)}=\pi _{n,n}^{(N)}`$. The transition amplitude for the system to go from the ground state to the state with energy $`E_n`$ under the influence of the source is

$$\mathrm{Amp}(0n)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}d^2a\pi _{0,n}^{(N)}_NS[J]_N\pi _0^{(N)}=\frac{(ij(\omega ))^n}{\mathrm{}^{n/2}\sqrt{n!}}e^{|j(\omega )|^2/2\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.21)
In this equation we have used the decomposition of the propagator into its real and imaginary parts,

$$D_F(t)=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{cos}\omega tiϵ(t)\mathrm{sin}\omega t\right],$$
(3.22)
to write

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}J(t)D_F(tt^{})J(t^{})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =e^{|j(\omega )|^2/2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}J(t)D_R(tt^{})J(t^{})\right],\end{array}$$
(3.23)
where

$$D_R(t)=\mathrm{}\theta (t)(e^{i\omega t}e^{i\omega t})=2i\mathrm{}\theta (t)\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)$$
(3.24)
is the retarded propagator, and then discarded the unphysical phase represented by the second factor. The probability for the above transition is

$$P_n=|\mathrm{Amp}(0n)|^2=\frac{|j(\omega )|^{2n}}{\mathrm{}^nn!}e^{|j(\omega )|^2/\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.25)
This corresponds to the well-known Poisson distribution for the number of emitted quanta in the field theoretical context:

$$P_n=e^{\overline{n}}\frac{\overline{n}^n}{n!},$$
(3.26)
where $`\overline{n}`$ is the average number of emitted quanta:

$$\overline{n}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nP_n=|j(\omega )|^2/\mathrm{}.$$
(3.27)
Our aim in this section was to demonstrate that one can calculate quantities of physical interest working exclusively at the level of phase space, that is, within the framework of deformation quantization. These quantum mechanical results may be taken over to the field theoretical context by a formal extension to the case where the system considered has an infinite number of degrees of freedom. This will be shown in Sec. 5. The reader will probably recognize the results more easily when they are written in the conventional notation of the operator formalism. For this reason we discuss in the following section how our formulae can be transcribed into the operator language.

## 4 The operator formalism

In the operator formalism we associate a linear operator in Hilbert space to each phase space function, in a manner which depends on the chosen quantization scheme. Note that our convention for the holomorphic variables $`a,\overline{a}`$ in Eq. (2.9) implies $`[a,\overline{a}]_{}=\mathrm{}`$ and thus $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=\mathrm{}`$, in contrast to the usual Fock space normalization. When we use the Moyal product scheme we obtain the associated Weyl-ordered operator (symmetrically ordered in $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$). For the normal product scheme we obtain the normal ordered operator (all $`\widehat{a}^{}`$’s to the left of all $`\widehat{a}`$’s). We denote the mapping from a given phase space function to its associated operator by $`\widehat{f}(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})=\mathrm{\Theta }_X(f(a,\overline{a}))`$, where $`X`$ denotes the quantization scheme: $`X=M`$ for the Moyal product scheme, $`X=N`$ for the normal product scheme. We shall call this mapping the Weyl transform.

A product of operators is the Weyl transform of the star product of the corresponding phase space functions . For example, for the Moyal product scheme:

$$\widehat{f}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_r=\mathrm{\Theta }_M\{(f_1_M\mathrm{}_Mf_r)(a,\overline{a})\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_M\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}M_{ij}\right)\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}f_m(a_m,\overline{a}_m)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_m=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_m=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}}\right\}.$$
(4.1)
For a quantization scheme which is c-equivalent to the Moyal scheme we use the corresponding contraction factors $`X_{ij}`$ instead of the Moyal contraction factors $`M_{ij}`$. We may write $`X_{ij}=X_{\{ij\}}+M_{ij}`$, where $`X_{\{ij\}}=\frac{1}{2}(X_{ij}+X_{ji})`$ is the symmetric part of $`X_{ij}`$, since the antisymmetric part is fixed for all c-equivalent star products by property (iii) of the definition.

The time-ordered product of $`r`$ time-dependent operators is given by the prescription

$$𝒯\{\widehat{f}_1(t_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_r(t_r)\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_X\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}(X_{\{ij\}}+ϵ(t_it_j)M_{ij})\right)\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}f_m(a_m,\overline{a}_m,t_m)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_m=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_m=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}}\right\},$$
(4.2)
since the transposition of two operators leaves $`X_{\{ij\}}`$ invariant, while the signs of $`ϵ(t_it_j)`$ and of $`M_{ij}`$ reverse. For the case of normal ordering we may write the exponent in Eq. (4.2) as

$`T_{ij}=N_{\{ij\}}+ϵ(t_it_j)M_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left[(_{a_i}_{\overline{a}_j}+_{\overline{a}_i}_{a_j})+ϵ(t_it_j)(_{a_i}_{\overline{a}_j}_{\overline{a}_i}_{a_j})\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left[(1+ϵ(t_it_j))_{a_i}_{\overline{a}_j}+(1ϵ(t_it_j))_{\overline{a}_i}_{a_j}\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[\theta (t_it_j)_{a_i}_{\overline{a}_j}+\theta (t_jt_i)_{\overline{a}_i}_{a_j}\right].`$ (4.3)
Suppose now that the functions $`f_m`$ are linear in $`a_m`$ and $`\overline{a}_m`$, and have a periodic time dependence:

$$f_m(t)=A_ma_me^{i\omega t}+B_m\overline{a}_me^{i\omega t}.$$
(4.4)
By Eq. (2.17) the relevant contractions are

$$D_{ij}(tt^{})=T_{ij}f_i(t)f_j(t^{})=\mathrm{}\left[A_iB_j\theta (tt^{})e^{i\omega (tt^{})}+A_jB_i\theta (t^{}t)e^{i\omega (tt^{})}\right],$$
(4.5)
which is a generalization of the expression in Eq. (3.18). We write, in analogy to Eq. (2.18),

$$T_{ij}=𝑑t𝑑t^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta f_i(t)}D_{ij}(tt^{})\frac{\delta }{\delta f_j(t^{})},$$
(4.6)
where the $`\delta /\delta f(t)`$ are functional derivatives. For the operators

$$\widehat{f}_m(t)=A_m\widehat{a}e^{i\omega t}+B_m\widehat{a}^{}e^{i\omega t}$$
(4.7)
we get a quantum mechanical form of Wick’s theorem by inserting these expressions into Eq. (4.2):

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒯\{\widehat{f}_1(t_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_r(t_r)\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{\Theta }_N\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}𝑑t𝑑t^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta f_i(t)}D_{ij}(tt^{})\frac{\delta }{\delta f_j(t^{})}\right)f_1(t_1)\mathrm{}f_r(t_r)|_{\begin{array}{c}a_m=a\hfill \\ \overline{a}_m=\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}}\right\}.\end{array}$$
(4.8)
Since we have modified the star product contractions in Eq. (4.2) by the insertion of the $`ϵ(t_it_j)`$ factor, the time-ordered product is not the Weyl transform of a star product. This can be seen from the fact that the time-ordered product is symmetric in its arguments, whereas the star products have an antisymmetric part fixed by property (iii) of their definition.

## 5 Quantum field theory

The generalization of the foregoing results to the field theoretical context is formally straightforward: the free real scalar field is equivalent to an infinite collection of independent harmonic oscillators. We at first consider the system to be confined to a box of finite volume $`V`$. The representation of the free field in terms of the variables $`a(𝐤),\overline{a}(𝐤)`$ is

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _𝐤}}\left[a(𝐤)e^{ikx}+\overline{a}(𝐤)e^{ikx}\right],$$
(5.1)
where $`\mathrm{}k^0=\mathrm{}\omega _𝐤=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2|𝐤|^2+m^2}`$ is the energy of a single quantum of the field. The normalization of the field is fixed by the equal-time commutator

$$[\varphi (x),\dot{\varphi }(y)]_{}|_{x^0=y^0}=i\mathrm{}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲).$$
(5.2)
The Hamilton function is the generalization of Eq. (3.1):

$$H=\underset{𝐤}{}\omega _𝐤a(𝐤)\overline{a}(𝐤).$$
(5.3)
The vacuum state in the normal product scheme is

$$\pi _0^{(N)}=\underset{𝐤}{}\left(e^{a(𝐤)\overline{a}(𝐤)/\mathrm{}}\right)=e^{\underset{𝐤}{}a(𝐤)\overline{a}(𝐤)/\mathrm{}},$$
(5.4)
and is normalized in the usual manner:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\left(\frac{d^2a_𝐤}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\right)\pi _0^{(N)}=1.$$
(5.5)
The vacuum expectation value of $`H`$ vanishes:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\left(\frac{d^2a_𝐤}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\right)H_N\pi _0^{(N)}=0.$$
(5.6)
Had we used the Moyal product quantization scheme we would have found an infinite vacuum energy, arising from the zero-point energy in the spectrum in Eq. (3.10). This fact has been used to argue that the normal product is the only admissible star product in the context of free field theory . From now on we shall go over to the continuum normalization of the fields:

$$\varphi _m(x)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _𝐤}}\left[a_m(𝐤)e^{ikx}+\overline{a}_m(𝐤)e^{ikx}\right].$$
(5.7)
To form the Moyal product of fields we first calculate the relevant contractions by generalizing Eq. (2.17) to a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D(x_1x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k\frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _{𝐤_1}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _{𝐤_2}}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left[\frac{\delta }{\delta a_1(𝐤)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{a}_2(𝐤)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{a}_1(𝐤)}\frac{\delta }{\delta a_2(𝐤)}\right]}`$
$`\times \left(a_1(𝐤_1)e^{ik_1x_1}+\overline{a}_1(𝐤_1)e^{ik_1x_1}\right)\left(a_2(𝐤_2)e^{ik_2x_2}+\overline{a}_2(𝐤_2)e^{ik_2x_2}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[D^+(x_1x_2)+D^{}(x_1x_2)\right],`$
where

$$D^\pm (x)=\pm \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _𝐤}e^{ikx}$$
(5.9)
are the propagators for the components of positive and negative frequencies, and $`D(x)`$ is the Schwinger function. The Moyal product of the fields is then, in analogy to Eq. (2.19),

$$\varphi (x_1)_M\mathrm{}_M\varphi (x_r)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{i<j}{}d^4xd^4y\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _i(x)}D(xy)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _j(y)}\right]\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}\varphi _m(x_m)|_{\varphi _m=\varphi }.$$
(5.10)
For the quantum field operators

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _𝐤}}\left[\widehat{a}(𝐤)e^{ikx}+\widehat{a}^{}(𝐤)e^{ikx}\right]$$
(5.11)
we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_r)\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{\Theta }_M\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{i<j}{}d^4xd^4y\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _i(x)}D(xy)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _j(y)}\right]\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}\varphi _m(x_m)|_{\varphi _m=\varphi }\right\}.\end{array}$$
(5.12)
The time-ordered product of the quantum field operators is, by analogy to Eq. (4.8),

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒯\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_r)\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{\Theta }_N\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{i<j}{}d^4xd^4y\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _i(x)}D_F(xy)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _j(y)}\right]\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}\varphi _m(x_m)|_{\varphi _m=\varphi }\right\}.\end{array}$$
(5.13)
Here $`D_F`$, the Feynman propagator, is given by the infinite dimensional generalization of Eq. (4.5):

$`D_F(x_1x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k\frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _{𝐤_1}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _{𝐤_2}}}}`$ (5.14)
$`\times \mathrm{}\left[\theta (t_1t_2){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta a_1(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{a}_2(𝐤)}}+\theta (t_2t_1){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{a}_1(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta a_2(𝐤)}}\right]`$
$`\times \left(a_1(𝐤_1)e^{ik_1x_1}+\overline{a}_1(𝐤_1)e^{ik_1x_1}\right)\left(a_2(𝐤_2)e^{ik_2x_2}+\overline{a}_2(𝐤_2)e^{ik_2x_2}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\theta (t_1t_2)D^+(x_1x_2)\theta (t_2t_1)D^{}(x_1x_2)).`$
We may simplify Eq. (5.13) by using the symmetry of the Feynman propagator, $`D_F(x_1x_2)=D_F(x_2x_1)`$; it becomes:

$$𝒯\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_r)\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_N\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4y\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (x)}D_F(xy)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (y)}\right]\varphi (x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_r)\right\}.$$
(5.15)
Note that in this case it is no longer necessary to use different fields which are set equal only after the differentiation; because of the symmetry the correct combinatorics are guaranteed by the Leibnitz rule for differentiation. Eq. (5.15) is the field-theoretic version of Wick’s theorem.

The propagator for positive frequencies $`D^+(x)`$ is c-equivalent to $`\frac{1}{2}D(x)`$ by use of the transition operator

$$T=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4y\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (x)}\frac{1}{2}\left[D^+(xy)D^{}(xy)\right]\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi (y)}\right].$$
(5.16)
The time-ordered product for the field operators, Eq. (5.13), is the Weyl transform of the expression which results from the Moyal star product, Eq. (5.10), by replacing $`\frac{1}{2}D`$ by $`D^+`$, restricting the integration to positive times $`x^0>y^0`$, and symmetrizing.

For $`n=2`$ Wick’s theorem is

$$𝒯\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_1)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_2)\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_N\{\varphi (x_1)\varphi (x_2)\}+D_F(x_1x_2).$$
(5.17)
Since the vacuum expectation value of the normal product vanishes, this yields the familiar relation

$$D_F(x_1x_2)=0|𝒯\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_1)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x_2)\}|0.$$
(5.18)
Wick’s theorem may also be written in the form of a generating function:

$$𝒯\{e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xJ(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)}}\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_N\{e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xJ(x)\varphi (x)}}\}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}d^4xd^4yJ(x)D_F(xy)J(y)\right],$$
(5.19)
where $`J(x)`$ is an external source. Eq. (5.13) then results by expanding both sides of Eq. (5.19) in powers of $`J`$ and comparing coefficients. Note that

$$\widehat{S}[J]=𝒯\{e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xJ(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)}}\}=𝒯\{e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}(x)}}\}$$
(5.20)
is the scattering operator of quantum field theory, so that Eq. (5.19) is the perturbation expansion of the scattering operator for this interaction. This is just the operator form of our previous result, Eq. (3.17), which was derived completely within the phase space formalism of deformation quantization theory. The generating functional for the perturbation series is, by Eq. (5.19),

$$Z_0[J]=0|\widehat{S}[J]|0=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}d^4xd^4yJ(x)D_F(xy)J(y)\right],$$
(5.21)
in agreement with Eq. (3.19). When a self-interaction term is included in the interaction Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=J\varphi +V(\varphi )`$, the generating functional for the interacting theory becomes

$$Z[J]=\frac{1}{N}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xV\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J(x)}}\right)}}Z_0[J],$$
(5.22)
where the normalization constant is $`N=Z[J=0]`$.

## 6 Conclusions

The generating functional for the free field theory with an arbitrary source is the starting point for the derivation of the Feynman rules of the interacting theory in any functional scheme, whether it is calculated by the use of path integrals, as in Feynman and Hibbs , or by Schwinger’s source theory . In this paper we have demonstrated that it is also possible to calculate the generating functional by using exclusively the methods of deformation quantization. Hence we see that the framework of deformation quantization can encompass the whole range of quantum theory, from simple non-relativistic systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom to interacting relativistic quantum fields.

It is remarkable that when one goes beyond the formal level, and asks whether the star products and products of distributions which occur in these calculations are well-defined, one is lead to the same choices of quantization schemes and propagators which here appear on purely formal grounds: The normal star product is the only well-defined product which can be used in the free field context , and the positive frequency propagator $`D^+`$, which is c-equivalent to the Schwinger function, must be used in relativistic perturbation theory in order to avoid ill-defined products of distributions , and to eventually obtain the Feynman propagator which occurs in the time-ordered products. Physically, the necessity for the use of the Feynman propagator is related to the principle of relativistic causality .