text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The two-brane Randall-Sundrum scenario  provides an appealing way to generate the electroweak gauge hierarchy as a consequence of spacetime geometry. The basic idea is to start with five dimensional anti de Sitter (AdS) space, take the region between two slices parallel to the AdS horizon, and add a 3-brane along each slice. By tuning the brane tensions, the resulting configuration can be made stable against gravitational collapse.

In this model, the ratio of the weak to the Planck scale is determined by the distance between the two branes. The distance is fixed by the expectation value of a modulus field, called the radion. The usual hierarchy problem now appears in a new guise: What fixes the radion vev, and what protects the vev against large radiative corrections?

In a recent paper, Goldberger and Wise  proposed a way to stabilize the radion using five dimensional bulk matter. Supersymmetry provides another possibility. In this paper we will take some first steps in that direction, and show how to supersymmetrize the minimal Randall-Sundrum scenario.

In what follows we will use coordinates in which the five dimensional background metric takes the following form,

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}\eta _{mn}dx^mdx^n+r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(1)
The coordinate $`x^5=r\varphi `$ parametrizes an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$, where the circle $`S^1`$ has radius $`r`$ and the orbifold identification is $`\varphi \varphi `$. For fixed $`\varphi `$, the coordinates $`x^m`$ ($`m=0,1,2,3`$) span flat Minkowski space, with metric $`\eta _{mn}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. We choose to work on the orbifold covering space, so we take $`\pi <\varphi \pi `$.

For the gravitational part of our action, we follow Randall and Sundrum and take the action to be the sum of bulk plus brane pieces,

$$S=S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_{\mathrm{brane}}.$$
(2)
The bulk action is that of pure five dimensional AdS gravity, while $`S_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ arises from the presence of two opposite tension branes.

The gravitational bulk action is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{bulk}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa ^2}d^5xe\left[\frac{1}{2}R+6\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right],$$
(3)
where $`\kappa `$ is related to the four dimensional Planck constant, $`e=dete_M^A`$, and $`e_M^A`$ is the five dimensional fünfbein.111We adopt the convention that capital letters run over the set $`\{0,1,2,3,5\}`$ and lower-case letters run from 0 to 3. Tangent space indices are taken from the beginning of the alphabet; coordinate indices are from the middle. We follow the conventions of . In this expression, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk cosmological constant and $`R`$ is the five dimensional Ricci scalar,

$$R=e_A{}_{}{}^{M}e_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{N}R_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}.$$
(4)
The Riemann curvature $`R_{MN}^{AB}`$ is built from the spin connection according to the following conventions,

$$R_{MN}{}_{}{}^{AB}=_M\omega _N{}_{}{}^{AB}_N\omega _M{}_{}{}^{AB}\omega _M{}_{}{}^{AC}\omega _{NC}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}+\omega _N{}_{}{}^{AC}\omega _{MC}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}.$$
(5)
The brane action serves as a source for the bulk gravitational fields. It arises from the 3-branes located at the orbifold points $`\varphi =0,\pi `$. For the case at hand, the brane action is simply

$$S_{\mathrm{brane}}=6\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{r\kappa ^2}d^5x\widehat{e}\left[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )\right],$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{e}=dete_m^a`$, and the $`e_m^a`$ are the components of the five dimensional fünfbein, restricted to the appropriate brane.

From this action it is not hard to show that the metric (1), with

$$\sigma (\varphi )=r\mathrm{\Lambda }|\varphi |,$$
(7)
is a solution to the five dimensional Einstein equations,

$$R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}R=6g_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+6g_{mn}\delta _M^m\delta _N^n\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r}\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{e}}{e}\right)[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )].$$
(8)
Away from the branes, the bulk metric is just that of five dimensional AdS space, with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. On the branes, the four dimensional metric is flat. As shown in , the effective theory of the gravitational zero modes is just ordinary four dimensional Einstein gravity, with a vanishing cosmological constant. The effective four dimensional squared Planck mass is $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\kappa ^2(1e^{2\pi r\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$.

## 2 Supersymmetric Bulk

In what follows we will supersymmetrize the action (2). We start with the bulk action (3). Its supersymmetric extension can be found from the five dimensional supersymmetric AdS action ,

$`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle }d^5xe[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}R+\mathrm{i}ϵ^{MNOPQ}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NO}D_P\mathrm{\Psi }_Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}F^{MN}`$ (9)
$`3\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Sigma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N+6{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\kappa ^2}}\mathrm{i}\kappa \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{MN}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^M\mathrm{\Psi }^N`$
$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{6}}}ϵ^{MNOPQ}F_{MN}F_{OP}B_Q+\mathrm{i}\kappa \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{MNOPQ}F_{MN}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_O\mathrm{\Gamma }_P\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$
$`\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}ϵ^{MNOPQ}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NO}\mathrm{\Psi }_PB_Q+\text{ four-Fermi terms }],`$
where the $`ϵ`$ tensor is defined to have tangent-space indices, and $`ϵ^{01235}=1`$. This action contains the physical fields associated with the supergravity multiplet in five dimensions: the fünfbein $`e_M^A`$, the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$, and a vector field $`B_M`$. The covariant derivative $`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N=_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}\omega _{MAB}\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ and the matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^B\mathrm{\Gamma }^B\mathrm{\Gamma }^A)`$.

This action is invariant under the following supersymmetry transformations,

$`\delta e_M^A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\kappa (\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\mathrm{\Psi }_M\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\eta )`$
$`\delta B_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(\overline{\eta }\psi _M\overline{\psi }_M\eta )`$
$`\delta \psi _M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}D_M\eta +\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\eta \mathrm{i}\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }B_M\eta `$ (10)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^NF_{NM}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{MNOPQ}F^{NO}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PQ})\eta `$
$`+\text{ three-Fermi terms.}`$
Since we work in the orbifold covering space, the spacetime manifold has no boundary, and we can freely integrate by parts. We use the 1.5 order formalism, so the spin connection obeys its own equation of motion and does not need to be varied.

For the case at hand, we must define the action of the orbifold symmetry on the AdS fields. We start by writing the five dimensional spinors in a four dimensional language, where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{M\alpha }^1\\ \\ \overline{\psi }_{2M}^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^a\\ \\ \overline{\sigma }^{a\dot{\alpha }\alpha }& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^5\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}& 0\\ \\ 0& \mathrm{i}\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The fields $`\psi _M^i`$ (for $`i=1,2`$) are two-component Weyl spinors, in the notation of . We then define $`\psi _M^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi _M^1\pm \psi _M^2)`$, and likewise for $`\eta ^\pm `$.

In terms of these fields, the bulk supersymmetry transformations can be written in the following form,

$`\delta e_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\kappa (\eta ^+\sigma ^a\overline{\psi }_M^++\eta ^{}\sigma ^a\overline{\psi }_M^{})+h.c.`$
$`\delta e_M^{\widehat{5}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (\eta ^+\psi _M^{}\eta ^{}\psi _M^+)+h.c.`$
$`\delta B_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(\eta ^+\psi _M^{}\eta ^{}\psi _M^+)+h.c.`$
$`\delta \psi _m^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}D_m\eta ^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\kappa }}\omega _{ma\widehat{5}}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^{}\pm \mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}e_m{}_{}{}^{a}\sigma _{a}^{}\overline{\eta }^\pm +e_{m\widehat{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\eta ^{}`$
$`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }B_m\eta ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(e_a{}_{}{}^{N}F_{Nm}^{}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^{}\mathrm{i}e_{\widehat{5}}{}_{}{}^{N}F_{Nm}^{}\eta ^\pm `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{ABCde}e_m{}_{}{}^{A}e_{}^{BN}e^{CO}F_{NO}\sigma ^{de}\eta ^\pm \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}}ϵ_{abcd}e_m{}_{}{}^{a}e_{}^{bN}e^{cO}F_{NO}\sigma ^d\overline{\eta }^{})`$
$`\delta \psi _5^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}D_5\eta ^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\kappa }}\omega _{5a\widehat{5}}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^{}+e_{5\widehat{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\eta ^{}\pm \mathrm{i}e_5{}_{}{}^{a}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\sigma _a\overline{\eta }^\pm `$ (13)
$`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }B_5\eta ^{}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(e_a{}_{}{}^{n}F_{5n}^{}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^{}\mathrm{i}e_{\widehat{5}}{}_{}{}^{n}F_{5n}^{}\eta ^\pm `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{ABCde}e_5{}_{}{}^{A}e_{}^{BN}e^{CO}F_{NO}\sigma ^{de}\eta ^\pm \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}}ϵ_{abcd}e_5{}_{}{}^{a}e_{}^{bN}e^{cO}F_{NO}\sigma ^d\overline{\eta }^{}).`$
In these expressions, all fields depend on the five dimensional coordinates. The symbol $`\widehat{5}`$ denotes the fifth tangent space index, and all covariant derivatives contain the spin connection $`\omega _{Mab}`$. Here and hereafter, we ignore all three- and four-Fermi terms.

From these transformations it is not hard to find a consistent set of $`Z_2`$ parity assignments under the orbifold transformation $`\varphi \varphi `$. The assignments must leave the action and transformation laws invariant under the $`Z_2`$ symmetry. We assign even parity to

$$e_m{}_{}{}^{a},e_{5\widehat{5}},B_5,\psi _m^+,\psi _5^{},\eta ^+$$

and odd parity to

$$e_5{}_{}{}^{a},e_m{}_{}{}^{\widehat{5}},B_m,\psi _m^{},\psi _5^+,\eta ^{}.$$

The bulk supergravity action is invariant under $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in five dimensions. The branes break all but one one four dimensional supersymmetry. To find its form, we shall study the supersymmetry transformations in the orbifold background, where $`e_{5\widehat{5}}=1`$, $`e_m{}_{}{}^{a}=e^{\sigma (\varphi )}\delta _m^a`$, and all other fields equal zero. This configuration satisfies the gravitational equations of motion when $`\sigma (\varphi )=r\mathrm{\Lambda }|\varphi |`$. Note that this background is consistent with the orbifold symmetry.

In the orbifold background, the supersymmetry variations of the bosonic fields are obviously zero. The variations of the fermions are a little trickier. In this background, the spin connection evaluates to

$$\omega _{mAM}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AM}=\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{5}},$$
(14)
with all other components zero. The supersymmetry variations of the fermions reduce to the following form,

$`\delta \psi _m^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}_m\eta ^\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\sigma _m\overline{\eta }^{}\pm \mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\sigma _m\overline{\eta }^\pm `$
$`\delta \psi _5^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}_5\eta ^\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\eta ^{}.`$ (15)
The unbroken supersymmetries are found by setting these variations to zero. The resulting Killing equations can then be solved for the Killing spinors $`\eta ^\pm `$. The solution that reduces to a flat-space supersymmetry in four dimensions is simply

$$\eta ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{\sigma (\varphi )/2}\eta (x),\eta ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{\sigma (\varphi )/2}\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\eta (x),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )`$ is the step function,222The distribution $`\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )`$ obeys the following properties:
$$_ϵ^ϵ𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )=0,_ϵ^ϵ𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi )=2ϵ,$$
when integrated against smooth functions, and
$$_ϵ^ϵ𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\delta (\varphi )=0,_ϵ^ϵ𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi )\delta (\varphi )=\frac{1}{3},$$
when integrated against $`\delta (\varphi )`$. The last relation ensures that
$$_ϵ^ϵ𝑑\varphi \frac{d}{d\varphi }\mathrm{sgn}^3(\varphi )=2.$$
We thank Jan Conrad for a discussion on this point. which evaluates to $`(1,0,1)`$, depending on the sign of $`\varphi `$. In this expression, the spinor $`\eta `$ contains four Grassmann components and is a function of $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3`$, but not $`x^5`$. We shall see that it describes the one unbroken supersymmetry of the Randall-Sundrum scenario.

It is not hard to check that the spinors (16) are a solution to the Killing equations, for constant $`\eta `$, except for delta-function singularities at the orbifold points $`\varphi =0,\pi `$. These singularities are very important. They motivate us to change the $`\psi _5^{}`$ supersymmetry transformation so that the spinors (16) are Killing spinors everywhere. We take

$`\delta \psi _5^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}D_5\eta ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\kappa }}\omega _{5a\widehat{5}}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^++e_{5\widehat{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\eta ^+\mathrm{i}e_5{}_{}{}^{a}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\sigma _a\overline{\eta }^{}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }B_5\eta ^++\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(e_a{}_{}{}^{n}F_{5n}^{}\sigma ^a\overline{\eta }^+\mathrm{i}e_{\widehat{5}}{}_{}{}^{n}F_{5n}^{}\eta ^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{ABCde}e_5{}_{}{}^{A}e_{}^{BN}e^{CO}F_{NO}\sigma ^{de}\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}}ϵ_{abcd}e_5{}_{}{}^{a}e_{}^{bN}e^{cO}F_{NO}\sigma ^d\overline{\eta }^+)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r\kappa }}[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )]\eta ^+.`$
In the orbifold background, this reduces to

$$\delta \psi _5^{}=\frac{2}{\kappa }_5\eta ^{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }\eta ^+\frac{4}{r\kappa }[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )]\eta ^+.$$
(18)
The spinors (16) satisfy the modified Killing equations, for constant $`\eta `$, even at the orbifold points $`\varphi =0,\pi `$. Furthermore, the supersymmetry transformations still close into the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry algebra.

## 3 Supersymmetric Brane

In the previous section, we changed the gravitino supersymmetry transformations so that the Killing spinors satisfy the Killing equations at every point in $`\varphi `$. Because of this, the bulk action is no longer invariant under the supersymmetry transformations (17). In this section we will find a brane action whose variation precisely cancels that of the bulk.

We first compute the variation of the bulk action. Comparing (13) with (17), we see that the bulk variation vanishes except on the branes. Therefore, to compute the variation, we need to project the bulk fields onto the branes. For even fields, this is easy: The brane fields are just the bulk fields evaluated at the appropriate value of $`\varphi `$. For odd fields, the situation is more subtle: The brane fields must obey jump conditions across the delta function singularities and these conditions are determined by the brane action.

In what follows we will present the brane action and verify that it restores the supersymmetry of the bulk-plus-brane system. We assert that the brane action is simply

$$S_{\mathrm{brane}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r\kappa ^2}d^5x\widehat{e}(3\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa ^2\psi _m^+\sigma ^{mn}\psi _n^+)\left[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )\right]+h.c.$$
(19)
where the fields $`e_m^a`$ and $`\psi _m^+`$ are projections of the corresponding five dimensional fields.

Given this brane action, it is easy to compute the jump conditions. From the equations of motion for $`e_m^a`$ and $`\psi _m^+`$, we find

$$[\omega _{ma5}]=\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e_{ma},[\psi _m^{}]=\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\psi _m^+,$$
(20)
where the square brackets denote the discontinuity across the singularity, and the $`\pm `$ applies to the brane at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$, respectively. A consistent solution is given by

$$\omega _{ma5}=\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }e_{ma},\psi _m^{}=\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\psi _m^+,$$
(21)
in the neighborhood of the branes. All other odd fields vanish on the branes.

Now that we have the solutions to the jump conditions, we are free to compute the variation of the bulk action. A small calculation gives

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r\kappa }}{\displaystyle }d^5xee^{\widehat{5}5}[(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\eta ^+\sigma ^{mn}D_m\psi _n^+\mathrm{i}\kappa \sqrt{6}F^{\widehat{5}m}\eta ^+\psi _m^+`$ (22)
$`+6\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi ))\eta ^+\sigma ^m\overline{\psi }_m^+)[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )]]+h.c.`$
where $`\eta ^+`$ is the spinor (16). In what follows we will show that the variation of the brane action precisely cancels this term.

The supersymmetry variation of the brane action is not hard to find. The supersymmetry transformations are those of the bulk fields, as projected on the branes, subject to the jump conditions (20). From (13) and (21), we compute

$`\delta e_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\kappa (1+\mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi ))\eta ^+\sigma ^a\overline{\psi }_m^++h.c.`$
$`\delta \psi _m^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}D_m\eta ^++\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}(1\mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi ))e_m{}_{}{}^{a}\sigma _{a}^{}\overline{\eta }^+`$ (23)
$`+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}F_{\widehat{5}m}\eta ^++\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}F^{\widehat{5}n}\sigma _{mn}\eta ^+.`$
As above, $`\eta ^+`$ is given by (16). In all fields, the coordinate $`\varphi `$ is evaluated at $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\pi `$, depending on the location of the brane. Substituting (23) into (19), we find

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r\kappa }}{\displaystyle }d^5x\widehat{e}[(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\eta ^+\sigma ^{mn}D_m\psi _n^+\mathrm{i}\kappa \sqrt{6}F^{\widehat{5}m}\eta ^+\psi _m^+`$ (24)
$`+12\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi )\eta ^+\sigma ^m\overline{\psi }_m^+)[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )]]+h.c.`$
The variation of the brane action, (24), cancels the variation of the bulk action, (22), because $`e=e_{5\widehat{5}}\widehat{e}`$ and $`\mathrm{sgn}^2(\varphi )=1/3`$ when integrated against a delta function. This proves that the full bulk-plus-brane Randall-Sundrum action is invariant under the four dimensional supersymmetry parametrized by the Killing spinor $`\eta `$ in Eq. (16).

## 4 Minimal Effective Action

We will now derive the effective four dimensional action for the supergravity zero modes. We will see that it is nothing but the usual on-shell four dimensional flat-space supergravity action.

The zero modes of the four dimensional theory must satisfy the massless equations of motion in four dimensions. For the vierbein, the zero mode was given by Randall and Sundrum :

$$e_M{}_{}{}^{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{\sigma (\varphi )}\overline{e}_m{}_{}{}^{a}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where $`\sigma (\varphi )=r\mathrm{\Lambda }|\varphi |`$ and the vierbein $`\overline{e}_m^a`$ is a function of $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3`$, but not $`x^5`$. The five dimensional Einstein equations, with brane sources, reduce to the usual four dimensional source-free Einstein equations for the vierbein $`\overline{e}_m^a`$.

The gravitino zero modes can be found in a similar way. One starts with the five dimensional gravitino equations of motion,

$`_5\psi _m^++{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _m^{}\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _m^+`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`_5\psi _m^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _m^+\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\left[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )\right]\psi _m^+,`$ (26)
and assumes the following ansatz,

$$\psi _m^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\kappa }\right)e^{\sigma (\varphi )/2}\psi _m(x),\psi _m^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\kappa }\right)e^{\sigma (\varphi )/2}\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\psi _m(x).$$
(27)
Substituting (27) into (26), one recovers the usual four dimensional equations of motion for the gravitino field $`\psi _m`$.

In what follows, we will derive the effective four dimensional action for the supergravity zero mode fields. We start by setting all other fields to zero. This truncation is consistent with the supersymmetry transformations (10). We then substitute the zero-mode expressions into the supersymmetric bulk-plus-brane action and integrate over the coordinate $`x^5`$. We use the fact that

$$R=e^{2\sigma }\overline{R}+20\mathrm{\Lambda }^216\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r}[\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi )]$$
(28)
and

$$\omega _{mAB}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}=\mathrm{sgn}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{5}}+\overline{\omega }_{mab}\sigma ^{ab}$$
(29)
to find

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=d^4x\overline{e}\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\overline{R}+ϵ^{mnpq}\overline{\psi }_m\overline{\sigma }_nD_p\psi _q\right],$$
(30)
up to four-Fermi terms. This is nothing but the on-shell action for flat-space $`N=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions.

The supersymmetry transformation laws can be found in a similar way. We start with the supersymmetry transformation parameters $`\eta ^+`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ as above, in (16). We then substitute the zero mode expressions into the supersymmetry transformations (10). All $`x^5`$ dependent terms cancel, leaving

$`\delta e_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}\eta \sigma ^a\overline{\psi }_m+h.c.`$
$`\delta \psi _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}}D_m\eta .`$ (31)
These are nothing but the transformations of $`N=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions (up to three-Fermi terms), with an effective four dimensional squared Planck mass, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\kappa ^2(1e^{2\pi r\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$.

## 5 Summary and Outlook

In this paper we supersymmetrized the minimal Randall-Sundrum scenario. We found the supersymmetric bulk-plus-brane action in five dimensions, as well as the corresponding supersymmetry transformations. We solved for the Killing spinor that describes the unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry of the four dimensional effective theory. We derived the supergravitational zero modes, and showed that the low energy effective theory reduces to ordinary $`N=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions.

This work represents a first step towards a deeper understanding of supersymmetry in the context of warped compactifications. To study stability, one would like, of course, to include the radion multiplet, which reduces to $`N=1`$ matter in four dimensions. For phenomenology, one would also like to add supersymmetric matter on the branes and in the bulk. Work along all these lines is in progress.

We are pleased to acknowledge helpful conversations with Jan Conrad, Dan Freedman, Erich Poppitz, Raman Sundrum and Max Zucker. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant NSF-PHY-9404057, and the Department of Energy, contract DE-FG03-84ER40168.

Note added: On the same day this paper was submitted to the archive, a similar paper was posted by Gherghetta and Pomarol . This paper used an $`x^5`$-dependent bulk gravitino mass to supersymmetrize the two-brane Randall-Sundrum scenario. The resulting construction can be interpreted as a truncation of a more fundamental theory with matter in the bulk. We did not take this approach because our goal was to supersymmetrize the purely gravitational case. For more on the difficulties of constructing brane-like solutions in matter-coupled five dimensional supergravity, see  and .


format: text

text:
# I. Territory covered by 𝑁 random walkers on deterministic fractals. The Sierpinski gasket

## I INTRODUCTION

Random walk theory is a branch of statistical physics with many applications . Problems related to a single random walker have traditionally been the subject of thorough study, but their generalizations to $`N>1`$ random walkers have attracted much less attention, although there are some, generally very recent, exceptions . These multiparticle diffusion problems are characterized by the impossibility of being analyzed in terms of the single random walker theory, i.e., they can not be solved through simple averaging over the properties of a single random walker, even in the noninteracting case. The recent development of experimental techniques allowing the observation of events caused by single particles of an ensemble  should give additional encouragement to the study of these of multiparticle diffusion problems.

The problem that is the subject of this paper, namely, the evaluation of the average number $`S_N(t)`$ of distinct sites visited (or territory covered) by $`N`$ random walkers up to time $`t`$, all moving from the same starting site, is a clear example of a diffusion problem that can not be solved, or even approximated, from the solution for $`N=1`$, $`S_1(t)`$. Even for independent random walkers, the overlap of the regions explored by different walkers prohibits a decomposition of $`S_N(t)`$ into single-particle contributions. The origin of the problem of evaluating $`S_N(t)`$ is usually traced back to the Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability where the case $`N=1`$ was posed by Dvoretzky and Erdös . Since then, the quantity $`S_1(t)`$ has been studied in detail and is discussed in general references . For fractal substrates (in particular, for the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket and the two-dimensional percolation cluster at criticality) this problem was first studied by Rammal et al. . More recently, Larralde et al.  and Havlin et al.  studied the problem of evaluating $`S_N(t)`$ when $`N1`$ noninteracting random walkers diffuse in Euclidean and fractal media, respectively. For fractal lattices with spectral dimension $`d_s=2d_f/d_w<2`$, it was argued  that $`S_N(t)t^d_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`t<tt_\times \mathrm{ln}N`$ and $`S_N(t)t^{d_s/2}\mathrm{ln}^{d_f/u}\left(N\right)`$ for $`t_\times t`$, where $`d_{\mathrm{}}=d_f/d_{\text{min}}`$ is the chemical dimension (or topological distance dimension), $`d_f`$ is the fractal dimension, $`d_{\text{min}}`$ is the fractal dimension of the shortest path on the fractal, $`u=d_w/(d_w1)`$ and $`d_w`$ is the diffusion exponent (or fractal dimension of the random walk) . However, Dräger and Klafter  using scaling arguments have recently proposed that

$$S_N(t)t^{d_s/2}(\mathrm{ln}N)^{d_{\mathrm{}}/v}$$
(1)
for $`t_\times t`$, where $`v=d_w^{\mathrm{}}/(d_w^{\mathrm{}}1)`$ and $`d_w^{\mathrm{}}=d_w/d_{\text{min}}`$ is the chemical-diffusion exponent . Of course, the two predictions agree for the media considered, such as Sierpinski gaskets, in the present paper for which $`d_{\text{min}}=1`$. Therefore, in what follows, we will write $`d_f`$, $`u`$ and $`d_w`$ instead of $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`v`$ and $`d_w^{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. Fractals with $`d_{\text{min}}1`$ will be discussed in the following paper .

As stated above, two time regimes are observed in $`S_N(t)`$: an extremely short-time regime or regime I and a long-time regime or regime II separated by the crossover time $`t_\times \mathrm{ln}N`$. A further long-time regime, or regime III, is observed in Euclidean lattices when the movement of the independent walkers are very far from each other so that their trails (almost) never overlap and $`S_N(t)NS_1(t)`$ . In the one-dimensional lattice and fractal lattices with $`d_s2`$, the trails of the random walkers partially overlap at all times and regime III is never reached. Such is the case in this paper where we are concerned only with fractals in which $`d_s<2`$. The transition from regime I to regime II is easy to understand. In regime I, we have so many particles at every site that all nearest neighbors of the already visited sites are necessarily reached by some walker at the next time step. The minimum path length between two sites on a fractal is the chemical distance, $`\mathrm{}`$, and it is clear that after a time $`t`$ the visited zone is an hypersphere of chemical radius $`\mathrm{}=t`$ and, consequently, $`S_N(t)t^d_{\mathrm{}}`$ according to the definition of the chemical exponent . This behavior lasts until the average number of particles per site is of the order of unity, then overlapping is only partial and a new regime is established. If $`z`$ is the coordination number of the lattice (or the average coordination number in the case of stochastic fractals), the number of random walkers at every site decreases as $`N/z^t`$ in the very short-time regime because the particles are distributed between $`z`$ sites at every step. The breaking of the overlapping regime thus takes place when $`N/z^t1`$ or, equivalently, $`t_\times \mathrm{ln}N`$.

Regime II is far more interesting and difficult to analyze than regime I due to the nontrivial interplay of the walkers in their exploration of the lattice, which leads to a more complex dependence of $`S_N(t)`$ on time $`t`$ and number of particles $`N`$. In some recent work , we have shown that for independent random walks on Euclidean lattices there exist important asymptotic corrections to the main term that can not be ignored even for very large number of particles as these corrections decay only logarithmically. We will see that this also holds for the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket.

It should be noticed that, except for the Sierpinski gasket in two dimensions when $`N=1`$ , there has never been any discussion about $`S_N(t)`$ focused on deterministic fractals, whether theoretically or numerically. Certainly, a dependence on $`t`$ and $`N`$ of the main asymptotic term of $`S_N(t)`$ for large $`N`$ has been proposed \[see Eq. (1)\], but nothing is known about the value of its amplitude or prefactor and on the relevance (if any) of the other (corrective) asymptotic terms. In this paper we present a procedure for obtaining, for a certain class of fractals, the complete asymptotic series expansion of $`S_N(t)`$ when $`N1`$. The procedure gives the main asymptotic term in full, and determines the functional form of the corrective terms, which we calculate explicitly up to second order. The fractals that we consider in this paper have to satisfy two conditions. First, the number of sites (or volume) $`V(r)`$ of the fractal inside a hypersphere of radius $`r`$ should be given by

$$V(r)=V_0r^{d_f}$$
(2)
where $`V_0`$ is a constant characteristic of the fractal substrate; and, second, the probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$ that a site $`𝐫`$ has not been visited by a single random walker by time $`t`$ should decay for $`\xi =|𝐫|/Rr/R1`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)1A\xi ^{\mu u}\mathrm{exp}(c\xi ^u)\left(1+h_1\xi ^u+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(3)
where $`R^2=2Dt^{2/d_w}`$ is the mean-square displacement of a single random walker and $`D`$ is the diffusion constant. It should be clear at this point that the above two conditions can only be satisfied approximately: first, because $`V_0`$ is not strictly constant (it exhibits log-periodic oscillations of small amplitude, see Sec. III); second, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$ does not solely depend on the distance $`r`$ but also (in general) on the actual location $`𝐫`$ on the lattice; and, third, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$ is not continuos (this fact can be clearly seen in figure 1 of Ref. ) so that Eq. (3) can only be an approximation to the true distribution. The fluctuations in $`S_N(t)`$ associated to these effects are thus not included in our theoretical discussion. However, their importance can be gauged by resorting to simulation. For the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket, we found that these fluctuations are indeed relevant and that they can be explained to a large extent as a consequence of the log-periodic oscillations of $`V_0`$. Finally, there is another difficulty regarding the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$: while its dominant term $`\mathrm{exp}(c\xi ^u)`$ is reasonably well established, the value (and even the form) of its subdominant factors $`A\xi ^{\mu u}`$, $`h_1\xi ^u`$, etc. is unknown (although an educated guess can be made; see Sec. II). This means that we can be fairly sure of the value of the main term of $`S_N(t)`$ because, as we will show, it depends only on the dominant term of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$. However, the true value of the corrective terms of $`S_N(t)`$ is more uncertain as they also depend on the subdominant factors of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$. Nevertheless, we will see that reasonable choices of values for these subdominant factors lead to significant improvements in the estimate of $`S_N(t)`$.

The simulation results for the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket will reveal the great importance of the corrective terms (for example, they account for some thirty per cent of the total value of $`S_N(t)`$ even for $`N`$ as large as $`10^6`$). This is not strange because, as we will show in Sec. II, they decay only logarithmically with $`N`$. An important consequence that we will address in the following paper  is that the corrective terms must be taken into account in the analyses based on “collapsing” the numerical data  to determine the exponents in the main term of $`S_N(t)`$.

The paper is organized as follows. The asymptotic evaluation of $`S_N(t)`$ on fractal lattices is presented in Sec. II. The mathematical techniques involved in the calculation are very similar to those corresponding to the Euclidean case and we will only outline the main steps. Details may be found in Ref. . In Sec. III, we compare the asymptotic expansion of $`S_N(t)`$ with simulation results obtained on the Sierpinski gasket. We end in Sec. IV with some remarks on the quality of the asymptotic approximation.

## II TERRITORY COVERED BY $`N`$ RANDOM WALKERS ON A DETERMINISTIC FRACTAL SUBSTRATE

We will define the multiparticle survival probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(t,𝐫)`$ as the probability that site $`𝐫`$ has not been visited by time $`t`$ by any of the $`N`$ random walkers that start from the origin site $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at time $`t=0`$. From this definition, the following relationship between the average number of distinct sites visited, $`S_N(t)`$, and the survival probability can be established :

$$S_N(t)=\underset{𝐫}{}\left\{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(t,𝐫)\right\},$$
(4)
where the sum is over all the sites in the fractal lattice. For independent random walkers, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(t,𝐫)=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)\right]^N`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(t,𝐫)`$ is the one-particle survival probability. Since we are interested in the behavior of $`S_N(t)`$ after a large number of steps (thus beyond of the very-short-time regime I), we replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$ and $`S_N(t)`$ by their continuum approximations:

$`S_N(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^N(r)\right]𝑑V(r)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`V_0(2D)^{d_f/2}t^{d_f/d_w}J_N(d_f),`$ (6)
where we have assumed that the fractal volume $`V(r)`$ (i.e., the number of lattice sites) of the hypersphere with radius $`r`$ is given by Eq. (2) and that, essentially, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(𝐫)`$ only depends on the distance $`r`$. In Eq. (5), $`J_N(d_f)`$ is

$$J_N(d_f)=N_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(\xi )\right]^{N1}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(\xi )}{d\xi }\xi ^{d_f}𝑑\xi .$$
(7)
In order to evaluate this integral for $`N1`$ it suffices to know $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$ for large $`\xi `$. For Euclidean lattices

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )1A\xi ^{\mu u}\mathrm{exp}(c\xi ^u)\left(1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_n\xi ^{nu}\right)$$
(8)
when $`\xi 1`$ . In this paper we shall consider only those fractals, such as the Sierpinski gaskets, for which this equation approximately \[see discussion below Eq.(3)\] holds. Indeed, we can show that Eq. (8) is reasonable for those lattices ($`d`$-dimensional Sierpinski fractals, Given-Mandelbrot curve, one-dimensional lattice, hierarchical diamond lattice,…) where the renormalization procedure implemented in Refs.  can be set up. The argument is as follows. Let $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},z`$, with $`r^{(i)}=|𝐫_n^{(i)}|`$, be the position of the $`z`$ nearest neighbors of the site at $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the fractal lattice decimated $`i`$ times (see Fig. 1), and let $`h(t,r^{(i)})`$ be the probability that, in the time interval \[0,t\], a single diffusing particle that starts at $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is absorbed by any of the traps located at its $`z`$ nearest neighbors placed at the sites $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$. For large values of $`\xi r^{(i)}/R`$, i.e., for relatively short times, the event “the random walker arrives for the first time at site $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$” and the event “the random walker arrives for the first time at site $`𝐫_m^{(i)}`$” are (almost) independent so that $`h(t,r^{(i)})`$ is (almost) the sum of the probability \[given by $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r^{(i)})`$\] of each of the $`z`$ individual events, i.e., $`h(t,r^{(i)})z\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r^{(i)})\right]`$. Of course, the two events are not fully independent because the random walker could first arrive at site $`𝐫_m^{(i)}`$ after passing by the site $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$. However, this is very unlikely because $`𝐫_m^{(i)}`$ and $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$ are separated by distances of order of $`r^{(i)}`$ so that the fraction of random walkers that, after arriving at $`𝐫_n^{(i)}`$, travel to $`𝐫_m^{(i)}`$ in the short time interval \[0,t\] is of the order $`\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^u)`$, with $`\xi r^{(i)}/R1`$, because the propagator or Green’s function is of this order for large values of $`\xi `$ . Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r^{(i)})=h(t,r^{(i)})/z\{1+𝒪(\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^u)]\}`$ for large $`\xi `$. But $`1h(t,r^{(i)})`$ has the form of the right-hand side of Eq. (8) with $`u=d_w/(d_w1)`$, at least for the fractals that we are considering , so that Eq. (8) for $`𝐫=𝐫^{(i)}`$ follows. In this discussion we have assumed, in order for the renormalization analysis that leads to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\left(r^{(i)}\right)`$ to work, that the traps were placed at those sites (such as $`A_g`$,$`B_g`$,…in Fig. 1) that become the nearest neighbors of the starting site after several decimations. But, in the calculation of $`S_N(t)`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$ is required for every pair of origin and destination sites in the lattice. At this point, we shall assume that the survival probability for $`𝐫𝐫^{(i)}`$ and $`𝐫=𝐫^{(i)}`$ are very similar, i.e., we assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r^{(i)})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau (r)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau (\xi )`$ when $`r/\tau ^{1/d_w}=r^{(i)}/t^{1/d_w}=(2D)^{1/2}\xi `$ for large $`\xi `$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(\xi )`$ given by Eq. (8). To the best of our knowledge this problem has not been studied and will require a specific and detailed simulation analysis that is not the object of the present work. Nevertheless, previous simulations on the Sierpinski gasket of other statistical quantities closely related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$, such as the propagator (or Green’s function) , enable us to affirm with confidence that the parameters $`c`$ and $`u`$ remain unchanged over the whole Sierpinski lattice whereas the subdominant ones, $`A`$, $`\mu `$, $`h_1`$,…, do not. In the following, we use $`c=0.981`$  and $`u=d_w/(d_w1)1.756`$ for the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket (values of $`c`$ for other fractals can be found in Ref. ) but we must bear in mind that the actual values of $`A`$, $`\mu `$ and $`h_n`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ will likely differ from those obtained by renormalization techniques (namely, $`A=0.61`$, $`\mu =1/2`$, $`h_1=0.56`$) as these latter correspond to the special placing of the traps and origins. We must also point out that, as shown below, since the parameters $`h_n`$, $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$, only contribute to the second and higher order series terms of $`S_N(t)`$ and since the real value of even the first-order asymptotic term is uncertain, the values of these parameters will not be considered here.

The evaluation of $`J_N(d_f)`$ now proceeds in analogy with the analysis for the Euclidean lattices  and we shall only quote the final result for $`S_N(t)`$ in the fractal case:

$$S_N(t)\widehat{S}_N(t)(1\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(9)
with

$`\widehat{S}_N(t)`$ $`=`$ $`V_0\left(2D\right)^{d_f/2}t^{d_s/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}N}{c}}\right)^{d_f/u}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}^nN{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}s_m^{(n)}\mathrm{ln}^m\mathrm{ln}N,`$ (11)
and where, up to second order ($`n=2`$),

$`s_0^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega `$ (12)
$`s_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu `$ (13)
$`s_0^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\beta 1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}\right)(ch_1\mu \omega )`$ (14)
$`s_1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+(\beta 1)\mu \omega `$ (15)
$`s_2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta 1)\mu ^2`$ (16)
and $`\omega =\gamma +\mathrm{ln}A+\mu \mathrm{ln}c`$, $`\gamma 0.577215`$ is the Euler constant, and $`\beta =d_f/u=d_f(11/d_w)`$.

## III NUMERICAL RESULTS FOR THE SIERPINSKI GASKET

To check the reliability of the analysis presented in the previous section we carried out simulations of the number of distinct sites visited by $`N`$ random walkers on a two-dimensional Sierpinski lattice with $`g=11`$ generations. This means that if we take the length of any side of the smallest triangles (the zeroth decimated triangles) as the unit length, then the length of the sides of the triangle that inscribes the lattice (the $`g`$th decimated triangle) is $`2^g`$. Two different cases are analyzed: (I) random walkers are initially placed upon the center of the base of the main triangle which inscribes the lattice (point O in Fig. 1), and (II) the common starting site is randomly selected. Qualitatively and quantitatively, the results are different in case I and case II. The structure of the lattice gives rise to oscillations superimposed on the general trend of $`S_N(t)`$ in case I. This structure is smeared out in case II by the double average over experiments and over starting sites, so that $`S_N(t)`$ is now a smooth function.

We shall use the top vertex of the main triangle as the origin of the lattice and the orthogonal basis $`\{𝐞_v,𝐞_h\}`$ shown in Fig. 2, because it is convenient to divide the lattice into horizontal sets of sites with a fixed $`v`$ coordinate. The positions of the random walkers are updated at every time step by a random selection of the destination sites among the neighbors of the site occupied by the walker. In order to do that we have to take into account that the sites of the Sierpinski lattice may be classified into three types according to the relative positions of their neighbors: type $`R`$, $`L`$ and $`C`$ as shown in Fig. 2. Since the Sierpinski lattice has many holes on every scale, it is not efficient to identify the lattice sites and the random walkers positions by two coordinates $`\{v,h\}`$ because there are many coordinate pairs corresponding to no actual lattice site. Much memory can be saved if the sites are numbered from top to bottom and from left to right, so that the top vertex of the main triangle is site number $`1`$ and the right vertex is site number $`3(3^g+1)/2`$.

### A Case I

First, we will discuss the simulation results for the territory covered by $`N`$ random walkers placed initially at site O in Fig. 1. In order to compare with the zeroth- and first-order asymptotic expression, cf. Eq. (9), we must know the values of $`V_0`$, $`D`$, $`c`$, $`u`$, $`A`$ and $`\mu `$. In Fig. 3(a) we have plotted the fractal volume of a circle of radius $`r`$, $`V(r)`$, centered upon the privileged site O. The observed log-periodic structure is a consequence of the empty and filled triangular areas that repeat periodically as $`r`$ is increased, but the general trend is well represented by a term of the form $`V_0r^{d_f}`$ with $`V_03.0\pm 0.1`$. In Fig. 3(b), in which the quotient $`V(r)/r^{d_f}`$ is plotted versus $`\mathrm{log}_2r`$, one clearly sees the log-periodic oscillations of $`V_0`$. As our theory assumes a constant value for $`V_0`$, we take the average value over the last period (from maximum to maximum), $`V_0=2.93`$, as a reasonable criterion for comparison with the simulation results. In order to find the diffusion coefficient $`D`$ of a random walker starting at O, we performed $`10^6`$ simulations up to $`t=400`$. The linear numerical fit between $`t=50`$ and $`t=400`$ gives $`d_w2.32`$ (the exact value is $`d_w=\mathrm{ln}5/\mathrm{ln}22.322`$) and $`2D1.05`$. Numerical fits using other time intervals (excluding short times, of course) lead to similar values, and we take $`2D1.05\pm 0.02`$ as a reliable estimate. For the parameters $`c`$ and $`u`$ we take the values (see Sec. II) $`0.981`$ and $`d_w/(d_w1)=1.756`$, respectively. As discussed in Sec. II, the values of $`\mu `$ and $`A`$ are much less certain and we will use here two pairs of values: those obtained by renormalization, i.e., $`\mu =1/2`$ and $`A=0.61`$, and these same values increased by one, i.e., $`\mu =3/2`$ and $`A=1.61`$. Of course, this last pair of parameters are arbitrary (other values could also be used) and are mainly given to show the relevance of the corrective terms.

Simulation results for $`S_N(t)`$ until $`t=1000`$ are shown in Fig. 4 for $`N=10^3`$ and $`N=10^6`$. Overall good agreement is obtained in the comparison with the theoretical prediction of Eq. (9), especially when the values $`\mu =3/2`$ and $`A=1.61`$ are used. This last finding should only be taken as the manifestation of the importance of the corrective terms which can lead to such dramatic changes and improvements in $`S_N(t)`$ after modifying some of the subdominant factors of the survival probability. Of course, additional independent study will be necessary to check the form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$ given by Eq. (8) and to find out whether the values for $`\mu `$ and $`A`$ considered here are good estimates of the real values . Nevertheless, it should be noted that the decrease in $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$ when averaging over the whole lattice with respect to its renormalization value, as is implied by the corresponding increment of $`\mu `$ ($`\mu =1/2\mu =3/2`$), is analogous to the decrease of the propagator when this same averaging is performed. Given that the two statistical quantities (propagator and survival probability) are closely related, one is inclined to accept that, at least, the proposed increment in the value of $`\mu `$ captures the right tendency. The subsequent improvement in the prediction of $`S_N(t)`$ supports this supposition.

The theoretical expression was not able to give a perfect account of the log-periodic oscillations superimposed on the general trend of $`S_N(t)`$ shown in Fig. 4. Notice the self-affinity of the numerical $`S_N(t)`$ plot (the analytical lines are obviously self-affine): if the segment of horizontal axis of Fig. 4 between $`t=0`$ and $`t=200`$ is expanded by a factor $`5`$ and the corresponding segment of the vertical axis is expanded by a factor $`3=5^H`$ ($`H=d_f/d_w=d_s/2`$), we get a figure indistinguishable from Fig. 4. The origin of these scaling factors is clear: the enlargement of the sides of the Sierpinski gasket by a factor $`2`$ implies that its fractal volume increases by a factor $`3`$ and the time that a random walker takes to traverse it increases by $`5`$ .

The structure of $`S_N(t)`$ is more clearly perceived in Fig. 5 where the quotient between the theoretical prediction and the simulation results is plotted. It is remarkable how relatively poor is the performance of the zeroth-order approximation (or main asymptotic term) in predicting the value of $`S_N(t)`$: it accounts for hardly eighty per cent of $`S_N(t)`$ for values of $`N`$ as large as $`10^6`$. However, the inclusion of the first corrective asymptotic term (especially for some suitable selections of the subdominant parameters $`A`$ and $`\mu `$) leads to a noticeable improvement. The log-periodic structure is observed both for $`N=10^3`$ and $`N=10^6`$ but in the latter case this structure is richer and strikingly similar to that of $`V(r)`$ as shown in Fig. 3(b). We attribute this fact to a better mapping of the lattice structure as more and more random walkers are involved in the exploration. We have plotted the solid line in Fig. 4 with the aim of showing to what extent the oscillatory behavior of $`S_N(t)`$ as shown in Fig. 5 can be interpreted as a consequence of the oscillatory behavior of $`V_0`$ shown in Fig. 3(b). The line is generated in the same way as the dotted line, i.e., by means of the first-order approximation of Eq. (9) with $`A=1.61`$ and $`\mu =3/2`$, but, instead of using the averaged value $`V_0=2.93`$ (as in the dotted line), we use the actual oscillatory value of $`V_0`$ taken from the last oscillation (from maximum to maximum) shown in Fig. 3(b). The way in which the solid line runs alongside the simulation results supports the view that the log-oscillatory behavior of $`S_N(t)`$ mainly comes from the log-oscillatory behavior of $`V_0`$.

### B Case II

We also study the effect on $`S_N(t)`$ of choosing other lattice sites, besides the point O, as starting sites for the random walkers. To this end we performed simulations where all the $`N`$ random walkers start on a site randomly selected within the shaded area of Fig. 1 in order to avoid the finite size effects. As expected, the fractal volume $`V(r)`$ and the average number of distinct sites visited $`S_N(t)`$ are smooth functions in this case. An estimate of $`V_0`$ by numerical fitting gives $`V_03.6`$. The analysis of the simulation results ($`10^4`$ runs for $`10^3`$ randomly selected starting sites) for the mean-square displacement of a single random walker is compatible with $`2D0.8`$ when the fit is carried out inside the time interval ($`t=50,t=400`$). Simulation results for $`S_N(t)`$ (five runs for $`10^3`$ randomly selected starting sites) until $`t=200`$ for $`N=1024`$ are shown in Fig. 6. They are compared with the theoretical prediction of the zeroth- and first-order approximations of Eq. (9) for $`\mu =3/2`$ and $`A=1.61`$, and with the corresponding simulation results when the origin is at O (case II). Again, we find a relatively poor performance of the zeroth-order approximation, as well as substantial improvement when the fisrt-order approximation is used, although there is still room for further enhancement. It should be noted that the performance of the two asymptotic approximations is completely analogous to that obtained for Euclidean lattices . In these Euclidean media we found that the second-order asymptotic approximation gives rise to a significant improvement in the estimate of $`S_N(t)`$ even for relatively small values of $`N`$. It thus seems natural to conjecture that the same will occur for the Sierpinski gasket, although definitive confirmation of this guess must wait until reliable values for $`A`$, $`\mu `$ and $`h_1`$ are calculated.

Finally, in Fig. 7 we show the dependence on $`N`$ of $`S_N(t)`$ for case II. We have plotted two first-order asymptotic curves: for the first curve we take the usual values $`\mu =3/2`$ and $`A=1.61`$, and the new values $`\mu =1.75`$ and $`A=1.75`$ are used for the second curve. Again, one sees the great importance of the asymptotic corrective terms as they substantially improve the zeroth-order (main term) asymptotic prediction. We have used the new pair of parameters simply as another example to illustrate the gross effect of the subdominant factors of the survival probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$ on the theoretical prediction of $`S_N(t)`$. The excellent agreement reached with $`\mu =1.75`$ and $`A=1.75`$ should not, however, be considered as an indication that they are the correct subdominant parameters of the survival probability .

Notice that the simulation results and theoretical predictions for $`S_N(t)`$ differ very little from case I to case II despite $`V_0`$ and $`D`$ being clearly different in the two situations. The reason for this coincidence is that the quantity $`V_0(2D)^{d_f/2}`$ that appears in the amplitude of the main asymptotic term of $`S_N(t)`$ is almost invariant with respect to translations of the origin site: its value was approximately $`3.05`$ when the origin is placed at O, and $`3.02`$ when the origin sites were randomly selected.

## IV SUMMMARY

We addressed the problem of calculating the average number $`S_N(t)`$ of distinct sites visited (or territory covered) by $`N`$ independent random walkers that diffuse on deterministic fractal lattices. The validity of the main result of this paper, Eq. (9), is based upon two conditions: (a) the volume (number of sites) of the fractal substrate grows as $`V(r)=V_0r^{d_f}`$ and (b) the asymptotic form of the survival probability, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$, for large $`r`$ and small $`t`$ has essentially the same form as that corresponding to the Euclidean lattice case. The mathematical method used to derive such a result had already been successfully applied to Euclidean lattices  and the fractal case is a fairly straightforward generalization when the previous conditions are fulfilled. In order to check the goodness of the approximation, we carried out numerical simulations on a standard deterministic substrate (the two-dimensional Sierpinski gasket) obtaining reasonable agreement with the theoretical results, especially when theoretical first-order asymptotic corrective terms are considered. The performance of the theoretical expressions discussed closely resembles that attained for Euclidean lattices. However, a more definitive check of the theoretical expressions for $`S_N(t)`$ that include corrective terms is hindered by the uncertainty in the value of the subdominant parameters $`A`$, $`\mu `$, $`h_1`$, …that appear in the survival probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(r)`$. Unfortunately, this function cannot be completely determined by the rigorous renormalization scheme mentioned in Sec. II, so that the definitive determination of its subdominant terms by numerical (or other analytical procedures) is a problem for future work which will surely be beset by with the technical difficulties associated with the identification of these faint subdominant terms .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the DGICYT (Spain) through Grant No. PB97-1501 and by the Junta de Extremadura-Fondo Social Europeo through Grant No. IPR99C031.


text:
# Irreducibility and Compositeness in q-Deformed Harmonic Oscillator Algebras

## I Introduction

In the last decades $`q`$-deformed algebras have been object of interest in the literature and a great effort has been devoted to its understanding and development. In particular, the interest in q-deformed algebras resides in the fact that they are deformed versions of the standard Lie algebras, and give them back as the deformation parameter $`q`$ goes to unity. Furthermore, since it is known that the deformed algebras encompass a set of symmetries that is richer than that of the Lie algebras, one is tempted to recognize that quantum algebras can be the appropriate tool to be dealt with in describing symmetries of physical systems which cannot be properly treated within the Lie algebras, although the direct interpretation of the deformation in these cases is sometimes incomplete or even completely lacking. For instance, in some cases like the XXZ-model, where the ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic nature of a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain of length $`N`$ can be simulated through the introduction of a $`q`$-deformed algebra, or the rotational bands in deformed nuclei and molecules which can be fitted via a $`q`$-rotor Hamiltonian, instead of using the variable moment of inertia (VMI model), the physical meaning of the deformation parameter is established. Notwithstanding this interpretation difficulty, from the original studies which appeared in connection with problems related to solvable statistical mechanics models and quantum inverse scattering theory, a solid development has emerged which encompass nowadays various branches of mathematical problems related to physical applications, such as deformed superalgebras, knot theories, noncommutative geometries and so on. The introduction of a $`q`$-deformed bosonic harmonic oscillator is a subject of great interest in this context and, as a tool for providing a boson realisation of the quantum algebra $`su_q(2)`$, brought to light new commutation relations which have been extensively discussed in the literature.

On the other hand, some concepts directly related to the arithmetical foundations of deformed algebras were well known to mathematicians since the last century. For instance, the Gauss polynomials appearing in restricted partition theory can be directly interpreted as a $`q`$-generalization of the standard binomials; as such, the Gauss polynomials, or the $`q`$-binomials, as they are sometimes known, also generalize the concept of number as well. In that form, the Gauss extension of the number concept, sometimes known as $`Q`$-number, is also related to the usual $`q`$-bracket of extensive use in deformed algebras. In this connection, if, in general, the surprising effectiveness of number theory seems not to be completely realized, the success of recent examples pervading several areas can be credited to the use of that branch of science: solvable models in statistical mechanics benefited from Rogers-Ramanujan-Baxter relations, computation and cryptography, the fourth test on general relativity, dynamical systems, and primitive-roots-of-unity-based reflecting gratings in concert halls have their very foundations on basic number theory and algorithms .

In this paper we want to address the question whether the extension of the number concept proposed by Gauss, namely the $`Q`$-numbers, can farther help us in the study of the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator. To this aim we are directly guided by the central role played by the number concept in this context. Based on this, we introduce the $`Q`$-numbers as our starting point to define the action of the creation/annihilation operators on the Fock space states. From this we show how we obtain a version of the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator algebra already discussed in the literature , the $`A_q`$ algebra. We also discuss how a second set of operators obeying the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator algebra can be introduced, the $`\overline{A_q}`$ algebra, such that they satisfy the conjugate relations with respect to the $`A_q`$ algebra, and discuss some possible reductions of the algebra when we choose the allowed values of the deformation parameter $`q`$. The cases for real and roots-of-unity values of $`q`$ are analysed. Furthermore, we also show how the reducibility of the algebra space representation appears for the different values of $`q.`$

Using the algebras $`A_q`$ and $`\overline{A_q}`$ we introduce a self-adjoint $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian, akin to that proposed by Floratos and Tomaras and related to a system of two anyons, which allows us to test the reducibility criteria discussed before. This allows us to separate the physical systems according to the different algebras obtained for the different values of the deformation parameter $`q`$. In this form, we show how it is possible to distinguish different subsystems within the original oscillator Hamiltonian when $`q`$ assume nonprimitive roots of unity values. In this sense, we discuss the possibility of uncovering the compositeness character of the so-called $`k`$-fermions when discussing the reducibility of the representation space for $`q`$-deformed oscillator algebra at the roots of unity.

This paper is organized as follows: Section II is devoted to a brief review of the Gauss polynomials ($`Q`$-numbers) and their basic properties. In section III we derive and discuss the $`q`$-oscillator algebras from the extended number concept and in section IV we present the conditions for the reducibility of the Fock space representation. $`q`$-Deformed oscillator Hamiltonians are discussed in Section V, where examples of how the reducibility conditions sieve the space representation into subspaces are also exhibited. Finally the conclusions are presented in Section VI.

## II Gauss Polynomials: $`Q`$-Numbers

The generating function of restricted partitions of a positive integer $`N`$ into at most $`m`$ parts, each $`n,`$ is written as

$$G(n,m;q)=\frac{\left(1q^{n+m}\right)\left(1q^{n+m1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(1q^{m+1}\right)}{\left(1q\right)\left(1q^2\right)\mathrm{}\left(1q^n\right)},$$
(1)
$`q1`$, and the Gauss polynomials are defined through the relation

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right]=G(nm,m;q),$$
(2)
which is valid for $`0mn,`$ and zero otherwise. The Gauss polynomial is a polynomial of degree $`m(nm)`$ in $`q`$ that presents a very important property, namely

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)`$ is the standard binomial. Thus, we conclude that the Gauss polynomials generalize the concept of binomials and, furthermore, as a special and important case, with $`m=1`$, the Gauss polynomial, that is now denoted $`Q`$-number, extends the concept of number since

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ 1\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)=n.$$
(4)
On the other hand, this polynomial also allows us to establish inner contact with some aspects of number theory, since when $`q`$ is a $`n`$th root of unity, we have

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ 1\hfill \end{array}\right]=1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{n1}=\frac{1q^n}{1q}=0.$$
(5)
This is the fundamental equation whose $`n`$ solutions are roots of unity; furthermore, for $`n`$ prime, $`n1`$ of these are primitive roots .

Besides those important properties, the Gauss polynomials also satisfy the additional following relations

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ 0\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ n\hfill \end{array}\right]=1,$$
(6)
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ nm\hfill \end{array}\right],$$
(7)
[nm]=[n1m]+qnm[
-n1-m1],delimited-[]𝑛𝑚delimited-[]fragmentsn1𝑚superscript𝑞𝑛𝑚delimited-[]
-n1-m1\left[\begin{tabular}[]{l}$n$\\
$m$\end{tabular}\right]=\left[\begin{tabular}[]{l}$n-1$\\
$m$\end{tabular}\right]+q^{n-m}\left[\begin{tabular}[]{l}$n-1$\\
$m-1$\end{tabular}\right], (8)
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}n1\hfill \\ m1\hfill \end{array}\right]+q^m\left[\begin{array}{c}n1\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(9)
## III $`q`$-Oscillator Algebras

Let us consider, as our starting point, the standard Fock space generated by $`\left\{|n\right\},`$

$$a0=0,$$
(10)
$$a^{}n=\sqrt{n+1}n+1,an=\sqrt{n}n1,$$
(11)
and

$$\widehat{N}n=nn,$$
(12)
where the creation and annihilation operators obey the following commutation relations

$$aa^{}a^{}a=1;[\widehat{N},a^{}]=a^{};[\widehat{N},a]=a,$$
(13)
from which it follows that

$$\widehat{N}=a^{}a.$$
(14)
Since the number concept is inherent to the Fock description, we are strongly motivated by the results of the previous section to construct a new pair of creation and annihilation operators in such a form to deal with that generalized number concept. To this aim we introduce new operators, whose matrix elements in the Fock space involve the Gauss polynomials

$$a_{}0=0$$
(15)
$$a_+n=\sqrt{\left\{n+1\right\}_q}n+1$$
(16)
$$a_{}n=\sqrt{\left\{n\right\}_q}n1$$
(17)
$$\widehat{N}n=nn$$
(18)
$$[\widehat{N},a_+]=a_+$$
(19)
$$[\widehat{N},a_{}]=a_{},$$
(20)
although $`\widehat{N}`$ $``$ $`a_+a_{}`$. Here we have adopted the notation

$$\left\{n\right\}_q\left[\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ 1\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(21)
We can pose now the question: what is the algebra satisfied by $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$? Since

$$a_{}a_+n=\left\{n+1\right\}_qn,$$
(22)
$$a_+a_{}n=\left\{n\right\}_qn,$$
(23)
and considering relation (9), we conclude that

$$a_{}a_+qa_+a_{}=1,$$
(24)
that is a q-deformed commutation relation as already exhibited in the literature. Let us denote relations (19, 20, 24) by $`A_q`$ algebra. We can construct an $`\overline{A}_q`$ algebra out of the relations conjugated to those defining the $`A_q`$ algebra (19, 20, 24):

$$[\widehat{N},a_+^{}]=a_+^{},$$
(25)
$$[\widehat{N},a_{}^{}]=+a_{}^{},$$
(26)
$$a_+^{}a_{}^{}q^{}a_{}^{}a_+^{}=1.$$
(27)
In principle, these operators act on the dual space (bra space) to the considered Fock (ket) space. However, we can infer the action of these operators onto the ket space just by using the orthonormality of the states $`|n`$. It yields

$$a_{}^{}n=\left(\sqrt{\left\{n+1\right\}_q}\right)^{}n+1,$$
(28)
and

$$a_+^{}n=\left(\sqrt{\left\{n\right\}_q}\right)^{}n1.$$
(29)
With the above results, it is possible to examine if there is an algebra relating the creation/anihilation operators of the $`A_q`$ algebra and their respective Hermitian conjugates, constituents of the $`\overline{A}_q`$ algebra. Using the action of these operators over the ket space, it is possible to obtain the following relations:

$$a_{}a_{}^{}=\left|\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q\right|,$$
(30)
$$a_{}^{}a_{}=\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|,$$
(31)
and similarly

$$a_+^{}a_+=\left|\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q\right|,$$
(32)
$$a_+a_+^{}=\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|.$$
(33)
Here we shall only consider cases when $`q`$ is real valued or a root of unity, which are the most commonly found cases in the literature.

For real $`q`$ it is possible to verify that

$$\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|=\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q,$$
(34)
which together with Eqs. (32) and (33), and the recurrence relation of the Gauss polynomials, Eq. (9), yields:

$$a_{}a_{}^{}qa_{}^{}a_{}=1.$$
(35)
Similarly

$$a_+^{}a_+qa_+a_+^{}=1.$$
(36)
In this case (real $`q`$), through Eqs. (16, 29), it is possible to identify $`a_{}^{}a_+`$.

When $`q`$ is the fundamental root of unity it can be, by its turn, verified that

$$\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|=\left[\widehat{N}\right]_{q^{1/2}},$$
(37)
where

$$\left[X\right]_q=\frac{q^Xq^X}{qq^1}$$
(38)
defines the $`q`$-bracket of $`X`$. Equation (37), together with Eqs. (32) and (33) yields

$$a_{}a_{}^{}q^{\frac{1}{2}}a_{}^{}a_{}=q^{\frac{\widehat{N}}{2}}.$$
(39)
Similarly

$$a_+^{}a_+q^{\frac{1}{2}}a_+a_+^{}=q^{\frac{\widehat{N}}{2}}.$$
(40)
The last two equations characterize the $`q`$-oscillator algebra introduced by Biedenharn and McFarlane .

On the other hand, when $`q`$ is a root of unity, except the fundamental one, Eq. (37) is no longer valid, instead

$$\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|=\left|\left[\widehat{N}\right]_{q^{1/2}}\right|.$$
(41)
Using the definition of the $`q`$-bracket, Eq. (38), when $`q`$ is a general root of unity, $`q_j=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2\pi i}{m}j)`$, a relation between $`\left[k\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ and its $`m`$complementar $`\left[mk\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$, can be directly obtained

$`\left[mk\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j(mk)}e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j(mk)}}{e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j}e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j}}}=\left(1\right)^{j1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}jk}e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}jk}}{e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j}e^{i\frac{\pi }{m}j}}}`$

$$\left[mk\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left(1\right)^{j1}\left[k\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(42)
When $`q`$ is the fundamental root of unity then $`j=1`$, and we have

$$\left[mk\right]_{q_1^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left[k\right]_{q_1^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(43)
Furthermore, for the case of the inverse of such root of unity, $`q_j^1=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{m}j\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{m}(mj)\right]`$, we can verify in exactly the same way that

$$\left[k\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left(1\right)^{k1}\left[k\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(44)
Now, using Eqs. (42-44) we obtain the following additional relation

$$\left[mk\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left(1\right)^{mk1}\left[mk\right]_{q_j^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(45)
These relations will be shown to be useful when we deal with $`q`$-oscillator Hamiltonians in finite-dimensional spaces.

## IV Reducibility of the Fock Representation

Now, considering the actions of $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ on the Fock representation, Eqs. (16) and (17), we will analyse its reducibility properties. The various possibilities are studied below.

### A First case: $`\left\{n\right\}_q0,n>0`$

All states of the $`\{|n\}`$ representation can be obtained through successive applications of $`a_+`$ over the vacuum. In that case, $`\{|n\}`$ is irreducible with respect to the algebra $`\{a_{},a_+,\widehat{N},I\}.`$

### B Second case: $`\left\{m\right\}_q=0,\left\{n\right\}_q0n,0<n<m`$

In that case

$$a_+|m1=0,$$
(46)
and also

$$a_{}|m=0.$$
(47)
From these results it follows that the subspace generated by $`\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|m1\}`$ is invariant under the action of the set $`\{a_{},a_+,\widehat{N},I\}`$, and it is then an irrep of dimension $`m`$ of the deformed algebra. For all $`q1`$, i.e., deformed cases, the hypothesis $`\left\{m\right\}_q=0,`$ $`\left\{n\right\}_q0,n,0<n<m`$ can be written as

$$\frac{q^m1}{q1}=0,\frac{q^n1}{q1}0,n,0<n<m$$
(48)
$$q^m=1,q^n1,n,0<n<m,$$
(49)
which is the definition of the primitive $`m`$th roots of unity. Therefore there will always be irreps of dimension $`m`$ whenever $`q`$ is a primitive $`m`$th root of unity.

### C Third case: $`l,0<l<m\mathrm{}\left\{m\right\}_q=0,\left\{l\right\}_q=0`$

This is the equivalent to state that $`q`$ is a non-primitive root of unity. Let us also suppose that $`l`$ is the smallest integer satisfying the hypothesis above, i.e., it is the smallest number for which $`q^l=1.`$ Then

$$q^k1,k,0<k<l,$$
(50)
and therefore the subspace generated by $`\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|m1\}`$ is reducible in irreps of dimension $`l.`$

Labelling the $`m1`$ roots of unity as

$$q_j=e^{2\pi i\frac{j}{m}},j=1,2,\mathrm{},m1,$$
(51)
and for $`r`$ the greatest common divisor (GCD) of $`m`$ and $`j`$, i.e.,

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`rs`$ (52)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`rl,`$ (53)
where $`s/l`$ is an irreducible fraction, then

$$q_j=e^{2\pi i\frac{s}{l}}.$$
(54)
In this way, the subspace generated by $`\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|m1\}`$ is reducible, as we saw, in irreps of dimension $`l`$, which is the smallest value for which $`q_j^l=1`$.

Then, for each $`m`$th root of unity labelled by $`j`$, the dimension of the irreps will be $`l=m/r`$, where $`r`$ is the GCD of $`j`$ and $`m`$, and the $`m`$dimensional representation breaks into $`r`$ irreps of dimension $`l=m/r`$.

## V $`q`$-Deformed Oscillator Hamiltonian

We can obtain a $`q`$-deformed Hermitian oscillator Hamiltonian from the deformed operator algebra presented above through the direct construction

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(a_{}a_{}^{}+a_{}^{}a_{}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(a_+a_+^{}+a_+^{}a_+\right),$$
(55)
that can be written, in general, as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\sqrt{\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q^{}}+\sqrt{\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q^{}}\right),$$
(56)
which is equivalent to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\left|\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q\right|+\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|\right).$$
(57)
As was discussed in the preceding sections

$$\left|\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right|=\{\begin{array}{c}\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q,\text{for }q\text{ a real number}\hfill \\ \left|\right[\widehat{N}\left]_{q^{1/2}}\right|,\text{for }q\text{ a root of unity.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
So, for real $`q`$, the Hamiltonian, Eq. (55), is written as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q+\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q\right),$$
(59)
and, for $`q`$ being a root of unity, it can be easily seen to reduce to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\left|\left[\widehat{N}+1\right]_{q_j^{1/2}}\right|+\left|\left[\widehat{N}\right]_{q_j^{1/2}}\right|\right).$$
(60)
However, when $`q`$ is furthermore singled out as the fundamental primitive root of unity, the above expression, according to Eq. (37), reduces to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\left[\widehat{N}+1\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}+\left[\widehat{N}\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}\right),$$
(61)
which is the usual proposal for the $`q`$-deformed oscillator . This last expression has the symmetry $`qq^1`$, since this is a symmetry of the bracket itself.

Since the deformed oscillator Hamiltonian is written directly in terms of the brackets of the operator $`\widehat{N}`$, the reducibility properties of the Fock representation space will appear in the spectrum of that operator as well. In this sense, the spectrum will be broken into blocks associated to subspaces of prime dimension whenever the initial space dimension is a composite integer number and we work with the non-primitive roots of unity.

As an application of what has been presented above we will discuss some simple cases. In this connection, we need not to work with all the roots of unity due to the properties presented for the brackets in the previous sections. In fact, using relations (42-45), we need not calculate the matrices representing the Hamiltonian for some primitive roots.

First, let us consider $`m=2`$. In this case, the matrix representing the $`q`$-deformed oscillator Hamiltonian is directly written since we only have to work with the fundamental primitive root of unity, $`q_1^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$. Using the fact that $`\left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}=0`$, we get

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[1\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& 0\\ 0& \left[1\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(62)
For $`m=3`$, which is the next prime number, and also using Eq. (43), we get for the fundamental primitive root of unity, $`q_1^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{3}\right),`$

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left[1\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \left[1\right]_{_{q_1^{1/2}}}+\left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& \left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(63)
If we now consider the case $`m=6`$, we can verify how the matrix representing the Hamiltonian breaks into blocks, each with a prime dimension, as occurs in the representation space of the $`q`$-deformed algebra. To this end, let us first of all consider the Hamiltonian associated to the fundamental primitive root of unity, $`q_1^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{6}\right)`$. In this case, using Eq. (42), we see that the matrix is also symmetric and has the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& & & & & \\ & 1+\left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& & & \text{0}& \\ & & \left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}+\left[3\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& & & \\ & & & \left[3\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}+\left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}& & \\ & \text{0}& & & \left[2\right]_{q_1^{1/2}}+1& \\ & & & & & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(64)
Now, if we consider the non-primitive roots of $`m=6`$, we see that there are three of them, namely, $`q_2^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{6}2\right)`$, $`q_3^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{6}3\right)`$ and $`q_4^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{6}4\right)`$ respectively. In fact, $`q_2`$ is the inverse of $`q_4`$ and $`q_3`$ is its own inverse. For the first root the Hamiltonian matrix will be

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& & & & & \\ & 2& & & \text{0}& \\ & & 1& & & \\ & & & 1& & \\ & \text{0}& & & 2& \\ & & & & & 1\end{array}\right),$$
(65)
which breaks into two blocks, each one being the matrix associated to a $`m=3`$ $`q`$-deformed oscillator. On the other hand, for the second non-primitive root of unity, $`q_3^{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{6}3\right)`$, we get

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& & & & & \\ & 1& & & \text{0}& \\ & & 1& & & \\ & & & 1& & \\ & \text{0}& & & 1& \\ & & & & & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(66)
The three blocks associated to the $`m=2q`$-deformed oscillator are readily seen in this case. Since the Hamiltonian is given by (60), and using Eq. (44), we can conclude that the same matrices would be obtained if the inverse roots of unity were used. Therefore, for prime dimension spaces the matrices representing the deformed oscillator Hamiltonian are irreducible for any primitive root of unity. For nonprime integer space dimension and deformations at the non-primitive roots of unity, the $`q`$-deformed oscillator represents in fact a composite system with as many irreducible constituents (diagonal blocks) as are the number of prime factors of the starting space dimension.

## VI Conclusions

In the present paper, starting from the Gauss extension of the number concept, we have reobtained the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator algebra discussed in  for general deformation parameter $`q`$. For the particular case of $`q`$ being a fundamental root of unity, we recover the deformed harmonic oscillator algebra satisfied by $`a_{(+)}`$ and $`a_{(+)}^{}`$ as introduced by Biedenharn and MacFarlane. On the other hand, some useful relations between the Gauss polynomials and the standard $`q`$-bracket have also been discussed for $`q`$ a root of unity.

A discussion on the dimensions of the Fock state space representation for $`q`$ real or a root of unity shows that they can be infinite as well as finite-dimensional depending on $`q`$ being real or a root of unity, as it has been already pointed out. However, as a further conclusion, it is also shown that, for the particular case of $`q`$ being selected as a non-primitive root of unity, the representation space, besides being finite-dimensional, also breaks into subspaces, the dimension of each block being clearly defined by the prime decomposition of the number characterizing the original space dimension. In this form, it is shown that the use of non-primitive roots of unity allows one to verify the reducibility character of the Fock space representation, which, by its turn, shows that the subspaces characterized by prime dimensions play the role of fundamental blocks within the full space.

A $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian was presented which allowed us to fully exploit the Fock space reducibility discussed previously. For the cases when $`q`$ was a primitive root of unity, the Hamiltonian matrix only exhibited the usual symmetries of the Q-numbers, while for $`q`$ being a non-primitive root of unity (which will occur only when the space dimension is a composite number) the matrices reduced to submatrices along the diagonal, thus indicating that the original $`q`$-deformed oscillator is in fact made up of irreducible subsystems, each one of them of a prime dimension. This result strongly suggests the conclusion that the so called k-fermions, or quons, discussed in the context of roots of unity deformation, are not necessarily fundamental entities, but they may be, in some cases, composite systems made up of entities of more fundamental character. This characterization can be directly verified by studying the degree of reducibility of the space representation through the prime decomposition of the space dimension from which we started.

Acknowledgement: D.G. and B.M.P are partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq; J.T.L. is partially supported by PICDT/CAPES, and M.R. has a fellowship from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP.

## A Polychronakos Realization

We start from the fundamental relation (24) which clearly reduces to the classical oscillator algebra when $`q1`$. We recall the Polychronakos realization :

$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{}(q,\widehat{N})a`$ (A1)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`U_+(q,\widehat{N})a^{},`$ (A2)
where $`\widehat{N}`$ is the usual nondeformed number operator. Using Eq. (A2) in Eq. (24) we obtain:

$$F(q,\widehat{N}+1)qF(q,\widehat{N})=1,$$
(A3)
where

$$F(q,\widehat{N})=U_+(q,\widehat{N})U_{}(q,\widehat{N}1)\widehat{N}.$$
(A4)
Representing Eq. (A4) on the Fock space $`\{|n\}`$ we get:

$$F(q,n+1)qF(q,n)=1,$$
(A5)
which is the recurrence relation (9) for the Gauss polynomials. We then may infer

$`a_+a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`g(q,\widehat{N})`$ (A6)
$`a_{}a_+`$ $`=`$ $`g(q,\widehat{N}+1),`$ (A7)
or in terms of $`F`$

$$F(q,\widehat{N})=g(q,\widehat{N}).$$
(A8)
In order to fulfil the deformed algebra, it is enough that

$$U_+(q,\widehat{N})U_{}(q,\widehat{N}1)\widehat{N}=g(q,\widehat{N}).$$
(A9)
Choosing

$$U_{}(q,\widehat{N}1)=\sqrt{\frac{\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q}{\widehat{N}}},U_{}(q,\widehat{N})=\sqrt{\frac{\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q}{\widehat{N}+1}},$$
(A10)
we obtain

$$U_+(q,\widehat{N})=\sqrt{\frac{\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q}{\widehat{N}}}.$$
(A11)
Therefore

$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`a\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\widehat{N}\right\}_q}{\widehat{N}}}}`$ (A13)
$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\widehat{N}+1\right\}_q}{\widehat{N}+1}}.}`$ (A14)
This choice guarantees the unitarity $`(a_+=a_{}^{})`$ when $`q`$ is a real parameter. Otherwise, the representation turns out to be non-unitary.