text:
# Electron-drift driven ion-acoustic mode in a dusty plasma with collisional effects

## I Introduction

Dusty plasmas have acquired considerable importance  because of their applications to astrophysics and planetary physics , problems of plasma processing, and physics of strongly coupled systems . Experimentally, one of the important areas of investigation is the study of low frequency ($`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_i`$) fluctuations in a plasma with dust grains. In a recent experiment by Barkan et al. , it is shown that the phase velocity of ion-acoustic wave increases with the density of negatively charged dust grains and thus ion Landau damping becomes less severe in a plasma with charged dust grains  or with negative ions .

The ion-acoustic wave is a typical compressional mode in which ions provide the inertia and electrons bring in the pressure effects through their shielding cloud. In a magnetized plasma, it propagates with acoustic phase speed along the magnetic field lines. Earlier, the kinetic theory of the current-driven ion-acoustic instability, in a fully ionized, collisional  and collisionless  two-component plasma, has been investigated by various authors. In the limit of strong collisions (i.e. mean free path smaller than the wavelength), Coppi et al.  and Rognlien et al.  have used the two-fluid equations for an investigation of the current-driven ion-acoustic instability. Kulsrud and Shen  have investigated the effect of weak collisions on ion-acoustic wave using a Fokker-Plank model, while Stéfant  used kinetic theory and a collision integral of Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook type to show that ion-viscosity leads to a damping of the ion-acoustic instability, whereas, the electron-ion collisions tend to increase the growth rate. Recently, Rosenberg  has carried out the investigation of current-driven ion wave instability in a fully ionized collisionless dusty plasma using kinetic theory to predict the critical electron-drift velocity relative to the ions, required to drive the instability.

Interpretations of ion-acoustic wave excitation in a dusty plasma experiment have typically relied on the theories based on collisionless inverse electron Landau damping . A realistic analysis of the experimental situation shows that in a typical experimental setup, the plasma density may be quite high $`10^9`$-$`10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ when the plasma temperature is quite low. As an example, when plasma density $`10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, with electrons and ions having approximately equal temperatures $`T_eT_i0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, the electron-ion collision mean free path ($`\lambda _e`$) may be comparable or even smaller than the plasma scale length ($`L`$) along the magnetic field, i.e. $`\lambda _e\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }L`$. Under these conditions, the electrons no longer follow the Boltzmann relation and a collisionless theory of the electron-drift driven ion-acoustic instability is not justified. It is therefore important to re-examine this ion wave instability in a collisional dusty plasma. In these experiments cited above, however, ion-acoustic waves are launched by applying a sinusoidal voltage to a grid immersed in plasma rather than by drawing an electric current. Nevertheless, the effect of Coulomb collisions in presence of current driven ion-acoustic waves in such a plasma, as is considered in this work, remains to be seen in a laboratory experiment. In another experiment by Barkan et al., current driven ion-acoustic waves in a dusty plasma are studied. But, this experiment was conducted at a relatively low plasma densities $`10^6`$-$`10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

In this paper, we investigate an electron-drift (or electron current) driven ion-acoustic mode in the presence of negatively charged dust grains. The dust charged grains are considered to be massive particles in a multicomponent plasma. This is valid when $`ad\lambda _D`$, where $`a`$ is the average dust radius, $`d`$ is the average distance between the dust particles, and $`\lambda _D`$ is the plasma Debye length.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II, the regimes of interest, where the theory is applicable are discussed. Sec.III deals with the linear instability theory. Sec.IV contains the conclusions.

## II Regimes of interest

At first, we refer to regimes of interest where the present calculations are relevant. We consider a typical experimental situation such as considered in experiments by Barkan et al. and Song et al.. In such conditions, the typical parameters in these experiments are : potassium plasma ($`\mathrm{K}^+`$) with $`m_i/m_p40`$, $`m_i`$ and $`m_p`$ being the ion and proton masses respectively, dust mass $`m_d10^{12}\mathrm{gm}`$, gas pressure $`\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }10^5\mathrm{Torr}`$, the corresponding neutral ($`n`$) density $`n_n2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, equal electron ($`e`$) and ion ($`i`$) temperatures $`T_eT_i0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, and dust grain temperature $`T_d0.03\mathrm{eV}`$ (assumed to be at room temperature). The plasma is confined radially by a magnetic field $`B0.4\mathrm{T}`$ and the plasma length along the magnetic field $`L40`$ cm with a radius $`r_p2\mathrm{cm}`$ for the plasma column. The characteristic frequency of the waves $`f`$ 20-80 kHz which corresponds to $`\omega =2\pi f`$ 1-5$`\times 10^5\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{s}`$. The other plasma parameters are : electron-thermal velocity $`c_e=(T_e/m_e)^{1/2}1.3\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$, ion-thermal velocity $`c_i=(T_i/m_i)^{1/2}5\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$, the ion-acoustic speed $`c_s=(T_e/m_i)^{1/2}5\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$, the dust-thermal velocity $`c_d=(T_d/m_d)^{1/2}2\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$, the ion gyrofrequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=eB/m_ic10^6\mathrm{s}^1`$, the ion Larmor radius $`a_i=c_i/\mathrm{\Omega }_i7\times 10^2\mathrm{cm}`$, the collision frequency of electrons and ions with the neutrals $`\nu _{en}=n_n\sigma _{en}c_e1.3\times 10^4\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\nu _{in}=n_n\sigma _{in}c_i50\mathrm{s}^1`$ (where $`\sigma _{in}\sigma _{en}5\times 10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), with the corresponding mean free paths $`\lambda _{en}\lambda _{in}10^3\mathrm{cm}`$. The $`e`$-$`i`$ collision frequency ($`\nu _{ei}`$) and $`i`$-$`i`$ collision frequency ($`\nu _{ii}`$) in the form presented by Braginskii  are calculated for the present parameters and are found to be as $`\nu _{ei}=1/\tau _e8.4\times 10^6\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`\nu _{ii}=1/\tau _i2.8\times 10^4\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the mean free paths are $`\lambda _e=c_e/\nu _{ei}1\mathrm{cm}`$ and $`\lambda _i=c_i/\nu _{ii}1\mathrm{cm}`$, where $`\tau _e=3.5\times 10^4T_{e0}^{3/2}/n\lambda `$, $`\tau _i=3.0\times 10^6(m_i/2m_p)^{1/2}T_{i0}^{3/2}/n\lambda `$, and $`\lambda =23.41.15\mathrm{log}n+3.45\mathrm{log}T9.5`$ (for $`T<50\mathrm{eV}`$) is the Coulomb logarithm.

From these calculations the following assumptions can now be made

the collision mean free paths of electrons and ions are comparable to or even smaller than the plasma scale length along the magnetic field i.e. $`\lambda _{e,i}<L`$, so that we can make use of Braginskii’s fluid equations,

since $`\omega <\nu _{ei}`$, we can neglect the electron inertia,

since $`a_i<r_p`$ and assuming a homogeneous plasma, the ion motion transverse to the magnetic field can be neglected (the polarization drift),

since $`\nu _{ei}\nu _{en},\nu _{ed}`$ and $`\nu _{ii}\nu _{in},\nu _{id}`$, so the momentum and energy losses of electrons and ions to the neutrals and dust grains can also be neglected in the fluid equations,

since the phase velocity of the observed ion-acoustic wave is much larger than the dust-thermal speed i.e. $`v_pc_d`$, we can neglect the dust dynamics in the analysis. However, we shall incorporate the self-consistent fluctuation of charge on dust grains, which is shown to cause a damping effect on the ion-acoustic wave . The charge fluctuation on the surface of the dust grains, which depends crucially on the dust size and the plasma density, is important when charging rate is comparable to the growth of the mode.

we consider negatively charged grains as an additional charged plasma species of uniform massive particles similar to a multicomponent plasma. This remains valid as long as $`ad\lambda _D`$.

## III Instability analysis

We write down the basic equations in order to derive the linear dispersion relation of electron-drift driven ion-acoustic wave instability including the effects of dust charge fluctuations, electron and ion temperature perturbations, ion-viscosity etc. We consider a one-dimensional, plane, homogeneous plasma with low $`\beta `$ ($`\beta =4\pi nT_e/B^21`$ is the ratio of kinetic energy to magnetic energy). The resultant governing equations for electrons and ions are the Braginskii’s fluid equations viz., equations of continuity, momentum, and energy.

We write down the equilibrium equations that define this specific regime of interest and confine ourselves to the parallel motions only. They are the ion and electron continuity equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{t}}+_{}(n_i𝒖_i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_e}{t}}+_{}(n_e𝒖_e)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2)
parallel electron and ion momentum equations

$`m_in_i{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒖_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{}p_i+en_i𝑬+\mu _{}_{}^2𝒖_i,`$ (3)
$`m_en_e{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒖_e}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{}p_een_e𝑬+𝑹,`$ (4)
where $`𝑹`$ represents the momentum gained by the electrons through collision with the ions,

$`𝑹`$ $`=`$ $`𝑹_u+𝑹_T,`$ (5)
$`𝑹_u`$ $``$ $`m_en_e\nu _{ei}(0.51𝒖_{}),`$ (6)
$`𝑹_T`$ $``$ $`0.71n_e_{}T_e,`$ (7)
$`𝒖_{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒖_e𝒖_i.`$ (8)
In the above equations, $`𝑬`$ is the electric field driving the instability and $`\mu _{}=0.96n_{i0}T_{i0}/\nu _{ii}`$ is the parallel ion-viscosity coefficient. In the ion momentum equation, however, we have neglected the collision term in the limit $`𝒖_i>(m_e/m_i)(\nu _{ei}/\omega )𝒖_{}`$. We have further neglected the electron viscosity term in Eq.(4). The remaining equations are the energy equations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n_i{\displaystyle \frac{dT_i}{dt}}+p_i(_{}𝒖_i)`$ $`=`$ $`_{}(\chi _{}^i_{}T_i),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n_e{\displaystyle \frac{dT_e}{dt}}+p_e(_{}𝒖_e)`$ $`=`$ $`_{}(\chi _{}^e_{}T_e)`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.71}_{}(n_eT_e𝒖_{}),`$
where $`\chi _i=3.9n_{i0}T_{i0}/m_i\nu _{ii}`$ and $`\chi _e=3.2n_{e0}T_{e0}/m_e\nu _{ei}`$ are the parallel ion and electron-thermal conductivities, respectively. In the above equations, the terms $`\omega _{ce,i}^1`$ have neglecetd owing to the fact that $`\omega <\omega _{ce,i}`$.

We consider a small electrostatic perturbation and linearize the above equations. The linearized equations are,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i1}}{t}}+_{}(n_{i0}u_{i1})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e1}}{t}}+_{}(n_{e0}u_{e1}+n_{e1}u_{e0})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
where equilibrium and perturbed quantities are defined by the subscripts 0 and 1, respectively and $`u_{e0}`$ is the zeroth order electron-drift velocity with respect to the ions and dust grains. The electrons drift with respect to the ions and dust particles, so that $`𝒖_{i0}=𝒖_{d0}=0`$. The ion motion along the magnetic field $`B`$ is given by the linearized parallel momentum equation

$`m_in_{i0}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{i1}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{}(en_{i0}\phi _1+n_{i0}T_{i1}+n_{i1}T_{i0})`$ (15)
$`+\mu _{}_{}^2u_{i1},`$
where $`\phi _1`$ is the perturbed electrostatic potential. For $`\omega <\nu _{ei}`$, the parallel electron momentum equation becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_{}(en_{e0}\phi _1n_{e1}T_{e0}n_{e0}T_{e1})0.71n_{e0}_{}T_{e1}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.51}m_e\nu _{ei0}(n_{e0}u_{e1}n_{e0}u_{i1})`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.51}m_en_{e0}u_{e0}\nu _{e1},`$
where $`\nu _{e1}=\nu _{ei0}(n_{e1}/n_{e0}3T_{e1}/2T_{e0})`$ and the equilibrium drift velocity $`u_{e0}=eE_0/m_e\nu _{ei}`$. The perturbed electron and ion temperature equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n_{i0}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i1}}{t}}+n_{i0}T_{i0}_{}u_{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _i_{}^2T_{i1},`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n_{e0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+u_{e0}_{}\right)T_{e1}+n_{e0}T_{e0}_{}u_{e1}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _e_{}^2T_{e1}0.71n_{e0}T_{e0}_{}(u_{e1}u_{i1})`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.71}u_{e0}_{}(n_{e0}T_{e1}+n_{e1}T_{e0}),`$
Finally, we write the equations for dust charge fluctuations as given by Jana et al. and the quasineutrality condition as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\eta \right)Q_{d1}`$ $`=`$ $`|I_e|\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{i1}}{n_{i0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e1}}{n_{e0}}}\right),`$ (22)
$`e(n_{e1}n_{i1})+n_{d0}Q_{d1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
where $`Q_{d0}=eZ_{d0}`$, $`Z_{d0}`$ is the equilibrium charge number on the surface of the dust grains, $`Q_{d1}=eZ_{d1}`$, $`Z_{d1}`$ is the charge fluctuation, $`\eta =e|I_e|(T_{e0}^1W_0^1)/C`$ with $`W_0=T_{i0}e\varphi _{f0}`$, $`\varphi _{f0}`$ is the potential at the dust surface, $`|I_e|I_ien_{i0}\pi a^2c_s`$ is the equilibrium electron (or ion) current at the dust surface, and $`Ca`$ being the grain capacitance. In writing Eq.(23), we have neglected the dust density fluctuations as the ion transit time ($`L/c_s`$) is much shorter than the dust transit time  \[$`L/c_d`$, $`c_d(Z_{d0}^2n_{d0}T_{i0}/n_{i0}m_d)^{1/2}`$\] along the magnetic field.

It should, however, be noted that in writing the above equations, we have assumed a stationary background equilibrium. On the other hand, a non-stationary background equilibrium may lead to stabilization of the ion-acoustic instability in a low temperature collisional plasma .

We now take perturbations of the form

$$f(z,t)f_1e^{i(\omega tk_{}z)}$$
(24)
and write Eqs.(12-23) as

$`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}u_{i1}}{\omega }},`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{n}_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}u_{e1}}{(\omega \omega _0)}},`$ (26)
$`k_{}u_{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_s^2}{(\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{n}_i}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_i}{\tau }}\right),`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{n}_e+\left(1.71+i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\widehat{\chi }_e}}\right)\stackrel{~}{T}_e\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}}{\widehat{\chi }_e}}(u_{e1}+u_{e0}\stackrel{~}{n}_eu_{i1}),`$ (28)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\omega +i\widehat{\chi }_i\right)\stackrel{~}{T}_i`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}u_{i1},`$ (29)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\omega 2.21\omega _0+i\widehat{\chi }_e\right)\stackrel{~}{T}_e`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}(1.71u_{e1}0.71u_{i1})+0.71\omega _0\stackrel{~}{n}_e,`$ (30)
where $`\tau =T_{e0}/T_{i0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}_e=n_{e1}/n_{e0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i=n_{i1}/n_{i0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_i=T_{i1}/T_{i0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_e=T_{e1}/T_{e0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=e\phi _1/T_{e0}`$ are the normalized variables with $`\widehat{\chi }_ek_{}^2c_e^2/0.51\nu _{ei}`$, $`\widehat{\mu }_{}=0.96k_{}^2c_i^2/\nu _{ii}`$, $`\omega _0=k_{}u_{e0}`$, $`\widehat{\chi }_e=3.2k_{}^2c_e^2/\nu _{ei}`$, and $`\widehat{\chi }_i=3.9k_{}^2c_i^2/\nu _{ii}`$. We can now combine Eqs.(22) and (23) as

$$\left(1+i\frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{e0}}\frac{\widehat{I}_0}{(\omega +i\eta )}\right)\stackrel{~}{n}_e=\left(\frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}+i\frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{e0}}\frac{\widehat{I}_0}{(\omega +i\eta )}\right)\stackrel{~}{n}_i,$$
(31)
where $`\widehat{I}_0=|I_e|/eZ_{d0}`$ and $`\lambda _D=(T_{e0}/4\pi n_{e0}e^2)^{1/2}`$ is the plasma Debye length.

In the limit $`\omega \omega _0<\widehat{\chi }_e`$ i.e. $`3.2(k_{}\lambda _e)^2\nu _{ei}/\omega >1`$, Eq.(30) can be re-written, using Eq.(26), as

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_e=i\frac{(1.71\omega \omega _0)}{\widehat{\chi }_e}\stackrel{~}{n}_e+i0.71\frac{\omega }{\widehat{\chi }_e}\stackrel{~}{n}_i.$$
(32)
From Eqs.(25) and (29), we get

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_i=\frac{\omega }{\left(\frac{3}{2}\omega +i\widehat{\chi }_i\right)}\stackrel{~}{n}_i.$$
(33)
Substituting Eqs.(27) and (33) into Eq.(25), we obtain

$$\left[1\frac{k_{}^2c_i^2}{\omega (\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})}\frac{k_{}^2c_i^2}{(\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})\left(\frac{3}{2}\omega +i\widehat{\chi }_i\right)}\right]\stackrel{~}{n}_i=\frac{k_{}^2c_s^2}{\omega (\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})}\stackrel{~}{\phi }.$$
(34)
Using Eqs.(25), (26), and (32), Eq.(28) can be written as

$$\left[1i\frac{\omega }{\widehat{\chi }_e}i1.71\frac{(1.71\omega \omega _0)}{\widehat{\chi }_e}\right]\stackrel{~}{n}_e\stackrel{~}{\phi }=i1.75\frac{\omega }{\widehat{\chi }_e}\stackrel{~}{n}_i.$$
(35)
In the limit of $`\omega >\eta `$, Eqs.(31), (34), and (35) can be combined to obtain the following dispersion relation,

$`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_i^2}{\omega (\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_i^2}{(\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})\left(\frac{3}{2}\omega +i\widehat{\chi }_i\right)}}\right]\left[1+i{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{I}_0}{\omega }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e0}}{n_{i0}}}\right)\right]`$ (36)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_s^2}{\omega (\omega +i\widehat{\mu }_{})}}[1i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\widehat{\chi }_e}}i1.71{\displaystyle \frac{(1.71\omega \omega _0)}{\widehat{\chi }_e}}`$ (37)
$`+i1.75{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\widehat{\chi }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e0}}{n_{i0}}}\{1+i{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{I}_0}{\omega }}(1{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e0}}{n_{i0}}})\}].`$ (38)
For $`T_{i0}T_{e0}`$ and $`k_{}^2c_e^2/\omega \nu _{ei}>1`$, it is obvious that $`\omega >\widehat{\mu }_{},\widehat{\chi }_i`$ (i.e. $`k_{}^2c_i^2/\omega \nu _{ii}<1`$). We now write Eq.(38) as $`ϵ(k_{},\omega )=0`$ and $`\omega =\omega _r+i\gamma `$ with $`\omega _r>\gamma `$. Taking $`\epsilon =\widehat{\mu }_{}/\omega _r^{(0)}`$ as an expansion parameter, the real part of $`\omega `$, to the first order, can be written as,

$$\omega _r^2(\omega _r^{(0)})^2+1.71k_{}^2c_s^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\mu }_{}}{\omega _r^{(0)}}\frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}\frac{\omega _0}{\widehat{\chi }_e}\right),$$
(39)
where $`\omega _r^{(0)}`$ is given by

$$\omega _r^{(0)}=k_{}c_s\left(\frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}+\frac{5}{3}\frac{T_{i0}}{T_{e0}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(40)
The growth rate can now be written as

$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }_{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_i^2}{\omega _r^2}}\widehat{\chi }_i{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{2n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_s^2}{\omega _r^2}}\widehat{I}_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e0}}{n_{i0}}}\right)`$ (42)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.71}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2c_s^2}{2\widehat{\chi }_e}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}}1{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{i0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\chi }_e}{\widehat{\chi }_e}}\right).`$
We note that, at the zeroth order, the phase velocity of the ion-acoustic wave is modified with a factor of $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i0}}{T_{e0}}}\right)^{1/2}`$. The presence of dust (decreasing ratio of $`n_{e0}/n_{i0}`$) leads to an increase in the phase velocity of the ion-acoustic wave.

In the expression for growth rate of the ion-acoustic wave Eq.(42), the collisional damping is represented by the first two factors, the parallel ion-viscosity and parallel ion-thermal conductivity. The third term causes damping due to charge fluctuation on the surface of the dust grains, which is proportional to the electron/ion current ($`\widehat{I}_0`$) on the dust surface. We note that in absence of dust charge fluctuation (i.e. $`\widehat{I}_0=0`$), increasing negatively charged dust density with respect to electron and ion density, results in an increase of the growth rate of the ion-acoustic instability. This can be seen from Fig.1, where we have plotted the normalized growth rate $`\widehat{\gamma }=\gamma L/c_s`$ against normalized wave number $`\widehat{k}=k_{}L`$, as obtained from the solution of the full dispersion relation Eq.(38), at different negatively charged dust concentration $`\delta =n_{e0}/n_{i0}`$. Note that $`\delta =0.3`$ means 70% of the electronic charges is now carried by the massive dust particles and $`\delta =1`$ means no negatively charged dust grains. The other parameters in Fig.1 are $`\widehat{u}=u_{e0}/c_s=6`$, $`\widehat{\lambda }=\lambda _{i,e}/L=0.01`$, and $`\widehat{I}=\widehat{I}_0L/c_s=0`$. As in ion-acoustic instability without dust particles, the positive growth rate, here also, appears only when the drifting electron velocity $`u_{e0}`$, exceeds several times the phase velocity. Therefore, the necessary condition for required electron-drift relative to ions and negatively charged dust grains to excite the ion wave instability is

$`u_{e0}`$ $`>`$ $`c_s({\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i0}}{T_{e0}}})^{1/2}\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{i0}}})`$ (45)
$`+(k_{}\lambda _e)^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_{e0}}{n_{i0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i0}}{T_{e0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{ei}}{\nu _{ii}}}\left[1.8+\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}T_{e0}}{n_{e0}T_{i0}}}\right)^1\right]`$
$`+1.87\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d0}n_{d0}}{n_{i0}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}({\displaystyle \frac{n_{i0}}{n_{e0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i0}}{T_{e0}}})^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi a^2\lambda _en_{i0}}{Z_{d0}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_i}{m_e}}\right)^{1/2}\},`$
where we have used, only the zeroth order expression for $`\omega _r`$. Note that the ion-viscosity and ion-thermal conductivity raise the critical electron current for the ion-acoustic wave to be unstable \[the term in the square bracket in Eq.(45)\], whereas the electron-thermal conductivity tends to increase the growth rate, as seen from Eq.(42).

The effect of increasing negatively charged dust density on growth rate of the ion-acoustic instability may be compensated by the presence of charge fluctuation on dust surface, which has a damping effect, as shown in Fig.2. In Fig.2 we have taken the dust density parameter $`\delta =0.3`$. The other parameters are same as in Fig.1. We show in Fig.3, the behavior of $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ versus $`\delta `$ for different values of dust current $`\widehat{I}=0`$, 0.05, 0.1, and 1.0. Other parameters chosen are $`\widehat{u}=6`$, $`\widehat{\lambda }=0.01`$, and $`\widehat{k}=5.0`$. The overall behavior is consistent with Fig.1 and Fig.2.

However, it is important to note that, although a decreasing $`\delta `$ causes peaking up of the growth rate, at any given wave number, a rapid dust charge fluctuation rate (larger $`\widehat{I}_0`$) causes the wave to damp at higher dust concentration, which is opposite in behavior to the case of absence of dust charge fluctuation (Fig.1 and 2), as can be seen from all the curves in Fig.3.

For typical experimental parameters $`n_{e0}/n_{i0}0.3`$, $`Z_{d0}n_{d0}/n_{i0}0.7`$, $`T_{e0}T_{i0}`$, and $`\nu _{ei}/\nu _{ii}(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}`$, the necessary threshold condition for instability reduces to

$`u_{e0}`$ $`>`$ $`2.24c_s[1.7+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_i}{m_e}}\right)^{1/2}(0.7k_{}^2\lambda _e^2`$ (47)
$`+0.6{\displaystyle \frac{\pi a^2\lambda _en_{i0}}{Z_{d0}}})].`$
It is to be noted that the effects of charge fluctuation at the dust surface will tend to play an important role when the mean free paths are comparable to the plasma length along the magnetic field and the term

$$\frac{\pi a^2\lambda _en_{i0}}{Z_{d0}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }3\left(\frac{m_e}{m_i}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(48)
Also notice that in high density and low temperature plasma limits, the effects ion-viscosity and thermal conductivity will be important, typically at wavelengths such that

$$k_{}\lambda _e1.5\left(\frac{m_e}{m_i}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(49)
The condition (47) can be realized in typical laboratory situations. For example, with an average size of dust grains to be few microns ($`a10^4\mathrm{cm}`$) and a corresponding $`Z_{d0}10^4`$, the condition (47) yields

$$u_{e0}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }4c_s,$$
(50)
for the excitation of the ion-acoustic instability, where we have taken the collisional parameters as $`\lambda _{e,i}/L0.01`$ and $`\widehat{k}=k_{}L2`$. The typical parallel electric field required for the corresponding threshold electron current is $`0.1\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{m}`$.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied the ion-acoustic instability in a collisional dusty plasma with fluid equations, where dust grains are treated as massive and negatively charged component in a multicomponent plasma. The regimes are clearly marked out where the theory is applicable, especially in a relatively high density ($`10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$) and low temperature plasma where the effect of collisions cannot be neglected. While treating the negatively charged dust particles, we take into account the effect of charge fluctuation on the dust surface. We have shown that in such a plasma, which are routinely produced in laboratory, there is a significant impact of electron-ion collisions, even at large mean free paths (i.e. $`\lambda _f\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }L`$). We have derived the threshold electron-drift velocity required to drive the ion-acoustic instability. It is shown that the electron-thermal conductivity and the dust charge concentrations reduce the threshold value of electron current for driving the ion-acoustic mode. In particular, the ion-viscosity and ion-thermal conductivity raise the threshold current. And a similar effect due to dust charge fluctuations is also found when the mean free paths are of the order of the plasma length.

## Acknowledgment

It is pleasure to thank A. Sen for fruitful discussions. One of the authors, MPB, would also like to thank A. Sen for kind hospitality at IPR.


format: text

text:
# References

NEGATIVE FRICTION OF DARBOUX COSMOLOGICAL FLUIDS

H.C. ROSU

Instituto de Física, Universidad de Guanajuato, Apdo Postal E-143, 37150 León, Gto, Mexico

Atmospheric free fall with quadratic resistance when considered from the point of view of the strictly isospectral construction of supersymmetric quantum mechanics is a powerful analogy for the class of Darboux cosmological fluids that I introduced in a previous work. Here, using this analogy, it is shown that the possible accelerating cosmological effects are due to the quadratic negative friction properties with which the Darboux fluids are endowed through the mathematical construction.

1 \- It has recently been realized by Faraoni,? that the equations describing barotropic FRW cosmologies can be combined in a simple Riccati equation leading in a much easier way to the textbook solutions for the FRW scale factors. In a previous work, using mathematical schemes belonging to supersymmetric quantum mechanics, I have employed the FRW Riccati equation to introduce a so-called Darboux class of cosmological fluids with time-dependent adiabatic indices $`\gamma (\eta ;\lambda )`$.? This type of fluids could provide an explanation for the recent data from high-redshift Type Ia (hydrogen-deficient) supernovae indicating that the universe has now an accelerating large scale expansion.? In this note, I would like to clarify the nature of the effects produced by the mathematical scheme through the close analogy with the atmospheric resistive free fall.

2 \- Faraoni obtained the following cosmological Riccati equation

$$\frac{du}{d\eta }+cu^2+\kappa c=0$$
$`(1)`$
for the log derivative of the FRW scale factor $`u=\frac{da/d\eta }{a}`$. The independent variable is the conformal time $`\eta `$, $`c=\frac{3}{2}\gamma 1`$ is assumed positive, and $`\kappa =0,\pm 1`$ is the curvature index of the flat, closed, open FRW universe, respectively.

From the mathematical point of view, the FRW Riccati equation is of constant coefficients and therefore is directly integrable. In general, for a Riccati equation of the type

$$\frac{dy}{dx}=\alpha y^2+\beta ,$$
$`(2)`$
the solutions can be written as follows

(i) $`\mathrm{for}\frac{\alpha }{\beta }>0`$

$$y=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\mathrm{tan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\beta x+\varphi _1\right),\mathrm{or}y=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\mathrm{cot}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\beta x+\varphi _2\right)$$
$`(3)`$
(ii) $`\mathrm{for}\frac{\alpha }{\beta }<0`$

$$y=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\beta x+\phi _1\right),\mathrm{or}y=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\mathrm{coth}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\beta x+\phi _2\right).$$
$`(4)`$
One can see that the cosmological cases correspond to

$$\alpha =c,\beta =\kappa c\frac{\alpha }{\beta }=\frac{1}{\kappa },$$
$`(5)`$
and therefore the two mathematical cases are directly connected to the type of FRW universe. The case $`\kappa =0`$ is presented in \[?\].

The time-dependent barotropic indices $`\gamma _\kappa (\eta ;\lambda )`$ have been introduced through the so-called strictly isospectral Darboux technique (SIDT). The latter can be interpreted as a three-step procedure in which one goes from a physical Riccati problem to an unphysical one by changing the free term and the sign of the derivative term and then comes back to another physical problem similar to the original one by the same type of changes. However, in the third-step problem, unphysical effects of the intermediate problem are maintained as a consequence of the applied scheme, essentially because the general Riccati solution of the intermediate problem is used in the last step as well. The very illustrative example of the classical Newton motion with quadratic resistance is presented below since it both helps understanding the three-step character of SIDT and provides further insight in the nature of Darboux cosmological fluids.

3 \- Newton’s law of force for classical motions with quadratic resistance, such as gravitational free fall in terrestrial atmosphere and similar motion of electric charges in constant electric fields, is Riccati’s equation without linear term. About 40 years ago, the free fall in quadratic resistive atmosphere has been studied in some detail by Davies in his book.? The equation of motion is of the following type

$$m\frac{d^2s}{dt^2}=mgK\left(\frac{ds}{dt}\right)^2,$$
$`(6)`$
which can be written

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=gϵv^2,$$
$`(7)`$
where $`ϵ=\frac{K}{m}`$ is the friction coefficient per mass unit. Again, comparing this Newtonian case with Eq. (2) one gets

$$\alpha =ϵ,\beta =g\frac{\alpha }{\beta }=\frac{ϵ}{g}<0,$$
$`(8)`$
and therefore the solution is given by

$$v(t)=\sqrt{\frac{g}{ϵ}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\sqrt{ϵg}t+\phi _1\right),$$
$`(9)`$
which is Davis’ result. The falling velocity $`v(t)`$ presents a substantial time dependence - acceleration stage - only for a short period and rapidly turns into the limiting constant velocity $`V=\sqrt{\frac{g}{ϵ}}`$. The phase $`\phi _1`$ is related to the initial velocity. It is not important for the general discussion here and therefore we take $`\phi _1=0`$.

Let us sketch now shortly, the three steps of SIDT for the resistive atmospheric free fall:

(i) The initial equation is $`\frac{dv}{dt}=gϵv^2`$ representing the normal resistive falling motion.

(ii) One shifts to the supersymmetric ‘unphysical’ partner motion of the form

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=g_2(t)ϵv^2,$$
$`(10)`$
where

$$g_2(t)=g[1+2\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{ϵg}t)].$$
$`(11)`$
The negative sign in Eq. (10) shows that the motion is upwards and through a fluid medium endowed with friction of negative friction coefficient (i.e., antifriction) as the driving force, plus another force $`g_2(t)`$ of driving character for $`t<T=\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵg}}\mathrm{Arctanh}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and turning friction-like afterwards.

The first two steps are connected to each other through the particular solution of the initial normal motion as given by Eq. (9).

(iii) The third step is the return back to an equation similar to the initial one, namely

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=g_3(t;\lambda )ϵv^2,$$
$`(12)`$
where the time-dependent forces $`g_3(t;\lambda )`$ are given by

$$g_3(t;\lambda )=g\left[12\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\mathrm{ln}(I_b(t)+\lambda )\right],$$
$`(13)`$
where $`I_b(t)=_0^t\mathrm{cosh}^2x𝑑x`$.

The second and the third steps are also connected to each other through the general solution of the ‘unphysical’ problem. Thus, although the motion given by Eq. (12) looks normal, its solution $`v(t)`$ corresponds to a rising on the vertical rather than a fall. Exactly as in the falling case, the rising has a short accelerating stage followed by a uniform rising with constant limiting velocity. Indeed, for sufficiently large times, the driving antifriction force is at its maximum value $`ϵV^2`$, whereas $`g_2(t\mathrm{})=+g`$ is a constant friction force and one gets the value of $`V`$ from the balance of the two forces.

4 \- Eqs. (5) and (8) give the translation rules for the analogy between the cosmological case and the atmospheric friction case. From Eq. (1) one sees that the normal cosmological friction force is $`cu^2`$. The equivalent of the upward velocity is $`u_\kappa =\frac{1}{a_\kappa (\eta ;\lambda )}\frac{da_\kappa (\eta ;\lambda )}{d\eta }`$, whereas the ones for $`g_3(t;\lambda )`$ are the time-dependent indices $`\gamma _\kappa (\eta ;\lambda )`$. The analogy also predicts that the accelerating period is limited in time. In this ‘quadratic friction’ picture, the cosmological SIDT as worked out in our main paper \[?\] is of unphysical nature as far as the ‘antifriction’ properties of the Darboux fluids should be invoked through the second step of SIDT. However, cosmology is perhaps the only branch of science where unphysical effects are manifest. The aforementioned SIDT atmospheric rising looks completely unphysical but the expansion of the universe is a reality.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. M. Nowakowski and F. Aceves de la Cruz for discussions.

References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The compactification of $`d=11`$ and $`d=10`$ supergravities to lower dimensions is an old subject that recently has acquired new interest, due to the important rôle that dualities have reached in modern string theories and in M-theory. Even the simplest compactifications of $`d=11`$ supergravity  on flat tori have received new interest. They give rise to lower dimensional supergravities with maximal supersymmetry and maximal duality groups (U-duality). The presence of these hidden symmetries was recognized from the beginning  and they are by now completely classified  and widely investigated \- . These maximal supergravity models are useful at least as a first step to study more elaborate (and more interesting) models derived from them. An example are the massive and gauged supergravities in different dimensions . Another related example is given by compactifications on spheres , now so popular after the advent of the AdS/CFT duality. A characteristic feature of U-duality is that, in general, the bosonic multiplets of the duality group in $`d`$ dimensions contain both, let say, $`p`$-forms and the duals of $`(dp2)`$-forms. This happens because U-duality contains transformations which correspond to electromagnetic duality and are conjectured to arise at a non-perturbative level in string models. In particular, the duality group of the maximal $`d=6`$ supergravity coming from the compactification of $`d=11`$ supergravity on a five-torus is $`SO(5,5)`$, and one must consider the five 2-form potentials which arise from the reduction of the 3-form potential in $`d=11`$, together with their duals potentials, to fill the ten-dimensional vector multiplet of $`SO(5,5)`$. The maximal $`d=6`$ supergravity is well known and its action has been obtained long time ago in a beautiful paper by Tanii . This action has been derived from its field content and not as an explicit dimensional reduction from $`d=11`$ supergravity. Moreover, the $`SO(5,5)`$ duality in the sector of the 2-form potentials is manifest in the action of  only at the level of field equations. Recently a formulation of covariant actions with manifest duality has been available . In  \-  this approach has been applied to $`d=6`$ supergravity models. In the present paper we obtain an action for the maximal $`d=6`$ supergravity by performing an explicit toroidal compactification from $`d=11`$ and, by using this approach, we present this action in a form that is covariant and manifestly invariant under the $`SO(5,5)`$ duality group. Our initial motivation to consider this case, was just our wish to use the approach of ref. at work in a simple case, as a first step to study more interesting situations. However, in this program we met some technical subtleties that convinced us to write this paper. For instance, the one-form potentials in $`d=6`$ belong to a Weyl-Majorana spinor of $`SO(5,5)`$, and in order to write the action terms involving their field strengths in a form with manifest $`SO(5,5)`$ invariance, one needs a vielbein-like matrix which belongs to the coset $`SO(5,5)/(SO(5)\times SO(5))`$. However, the construction of this matrix in terms of the scalars that arise from the reduction is not straightforward.

In the short section 2 we review briefly the $`d=11`$ supergravity , writing its action and supersymmetry transformations, in order to set our notations. In section 3 we perform the reduction on $`M_6\times T_5`$ of the bosonic sector of this action and express the reduced action in a covariant form which is manifestly invariant under $`SO(5,5)`$ duality. In particular we give the explicit form of vielbein-like matrix $`V`$ in terms of the scalars coming from the reduction. In section 4 we describe the reduction of the fermions in order to complete the action and write the supersymmetry transformations of the $`N=4`$ , $`d=6`$ supergravity (however, the four-fermion terms have not been worked out explicitly).

## 2 11-dimensional Supergravity

In this section we set our notations and briefly review some elements of the eleven dimensional supergravity. We use mostly plus signature for the spacetime metric. The latin alphabet is employed for vector indices while greek letters are used to describe spinor indices, but the last will be often suppressed. In our convention, a $`p`$-form and its Hodge-dual in $`d`$-dimesional space of signature $`t`$ are defined by

$`V_{(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}e^{a_1}\mathrm{}e^{a_p}V_{a_p\mathrm{}a_1}`$ (1)
$`{}_{}{}^{}V_{(p)}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(dp)!p!}}e^{a_1}\mathrm{}e^{a_{dp}}ϵ_{a_{dp}\mathrm{}a_1}^{b_1\mathrm{}b_p}V_{b_p\mathrm{}b_1}`$ (2)
so that $`{}_{}{}^{}V_{(p)}^{}=()^{t+d(d1)/2}V_{(p)}`$. Here, $`e^a`$ are one-form vielbeins, $`\gamma ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ denotes the antisymmetric product of $`p`$ Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^a`$, normalized to $`1`$,

$$\gamma ^{(p)}=\frac{e^{a_1}\mathrm{}e^{a_p}}{p!}\gamma _{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}$$

and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(p)}=C_{(d)}\gamma ^{(p)}`$ , where $`C_{(d)}`$ is the charge conjugation in $`d`$ dimension. Of course, $`V_{(p)}V_{(q)}=(1)^{pq}V_{(q)}V_{(p)}`$ is the wedge product of differential forms. Objects in eleven dimension will be marked by a hat.

The standard supergravity  action in eleven dimensions is (for $`\kappa =1`$)

$`S_{(11)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{e}\widehat{R}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{G}_{(4)}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}_{(4)}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{G}_{(4)}\widehat{G}_{(4)}\widehat{C}_{(3)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(8)}\widehat{D}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (3)
$`(\widehat{Q}_{(7)}+^{}\widehat{Q}_{(4)})\widehat{G}_{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{Q}_{(7)}+^{}\widehat{Q}_{(4)})\widehat{Q}_{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(8)}\widehat{Q}_{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}]`$
where $`\widehat{e}=det(\widehat{e}_{\widehat{m}}^{\widehat{a}})`$, $`\widehat{R}`$ is the scalar curvature, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\widehat{e}^{\widehat{a}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\widehat{a}}`$ is a one-form Majorana spinor that represents the gravitino and $`\widehat{C}_{(3)}`$ is a 3-form gauge potential with curvature $`\widehat{G}_{(4)}=d\widehat{C}_{(3)}`$. Moreover

$`\widehat{D}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=d\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\widehat{\gamma }^{\widehat{b}\widehat{a}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (4)
$`\widehat{Q}_{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (5)
$`\widehat{Q}_{(7)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(5)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (6)
$`\widehat{Q}_{(1)\widehat{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{c}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\widehat{f}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\widehat{c}\widehat{b}\widehat{a}\widehat{f}\widehat{g}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\widehat{g}})(\widehat{\gamma }_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}})_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}.`$ (7)
and the supersymmetry transformations are

$`\delta \widehat{e}^{\widehat{a}}=\widehat{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{a}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (8)
$`\delta \widehat{C}_{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (9)
$`\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\widehat{D}\widehat{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{Q}_{(1)}\widehat{ϵ}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!4!}}\left(\widehat{G}_{\widehat{b}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_4}\widehat{Q}_{\widehat{b}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_4}\right)\left(\widehat{e}^{\widehat{a}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}^{\widehat{b}_4\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_1\widehat{a}}+8\widehat{e}^{\widehat{b}_4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{b}_3\widehat{b}_2\widehat{b}_1}\right)\widehat{ϵ}.`$ (11)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ are the local supersymmetry parameters (a real spinor in $`d=11`$).

## 3 Reduction on $`_6\times T^5`$

Let us consider the reduction of the $`d=11`$ spacetime to a six dimensional manifold $`_6`$ and a $`5`$-torus $`T_5`$. The spacetime coordinates $`\widehat{x}^{\widehat{m}}`$ split up into two sets. For the ones of $`_6`$ we shall use $`x^m,(m,n,\mathrm{})`$, without hat, and for those of the five-torus we shall use $`y^u,(u,v,\mathrm{})`$. The corresponding tangent space indices are $`(a,b,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(i,j,\mathrm{})`$ respectively. The ansatz for the vielbeins is

$$\widehat{e}^{\widehat{a}}=(\omega ^{1/6}e^a,\omega ^{1/3}\eta ^ue_u^i)$$
(12)
where $`\omega ^1=det(e_u^i)`$ and the metric on the internal space is $`g_{uv}=e_u^i\delta _{ij}e_v^j`$. The one-form $`\eta ^u`$ is $`\eta ^u=dy^u+A^u`$ where $`A^u`$ are the Kaluza-Klein gauge fields.

It is now straightforward to work out the reduction of the Einstein term in the action (3). One finds that

$$\frac{1}{4}\widehat{e}\widehat{R}=\frac{1}{4}\left(eR+\frac{1}{4}dg^{uv}{}_{}{}^{}dg_{uv}+\frac{1}{2}\omega F^u{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{v}g_{uv}\right)$$
(13)
where $`F^u=dA^u`$. One must note that the Einstein term on the right hand side of eq.(13) is independent of $`\omega `$ which is due to judicious choice of scaling factors in the ansatz (12).

Reduction of $`\widehat{G}_{(4)}`$

The 3-form potential reduces as follows :

$$\widehat{C}_{(3)}=C_{(3)}^{}+dy^uB_{(2)u}^{}+\frac{1}{2}dy^udy^vA_{(1)vu}^{}+\frac{1}{6}dy^udy^vdy^w\varphi _{(0)wvu},$$

The forms on the r.h.s. of the above equation do not depend upon the coordinates $`y^u`$ of the torus. The reduction of corresponding 4-form field strength can be written as

$$\widehat{G}_{(4)}=G_{(4)}\eta ^uH_{(3)u}+\frac{1}{2}\eta ^u\eta ^v(F_{(2)vu}+\varphi _{(0)vuw}F_{(2)}^w)\frac{1}{6}\eta ^u\eta ^v\eta ^wS_{(1)wvu}$$
(14)
where (dropping the suffixes $`(p)`$ that mark the form degree)

$`S_{uvw}=d\varphi _{uvw},F_{uv}=dA_{uv},`$
$`H_u=dB_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{uv}F^v+F_{uv}A^v),`$
$`G=dC+B_uF^u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{uv}A^vF^u,`$ (15)
and

$`A_{uv}=A_{uv}^{}\varphi _{uvw}A^w`$
$`B_u=B_u^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{uv}A^v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _{uvw}A^wA^v,`$
$`C=C^{}B_uA^u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi _{uvw}A^wA^vA^u.`$ (16)
Then the kinetic term for the 3-form potential $`\widehat{C}`$ will reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \widehat{G}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }[\omega G{}_{}{}^{}GH_u{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{u}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^1}{2}}(F_{uv}+\varphi _{uvw}F^w){}_{}{}^{}(F^{vu}+\varphi ^{vuw}F_w)`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{6}}S_{uvw}{}_{}{}^{}S_{}^{wvu}]`$
and the Chern-Simon term becomes

$$\frac{1}{3}\widehat{C}\widehat{G}\widehat{G}=\left(GF_{vu}\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}GF^z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_z+H_vH_u\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}\right)+\frac{ϵ^{uvwxy}}{4}F_{yx}F_{wv}(B_u+\frac{1}{2}A_{uz}A^z)$$
(18)
where we have defined

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}=\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{uvwxy}\varphi _{yxw},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_v=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{vxy}\mathrm{\Phi }^{yx}.$$
(19)
Also let us write the interaction term between fermions and $`\widehat{G}`$ as

$$(\widehat{Q}_{(7)}+^{}\widehat{Q}_{(4)})\widehat{G}=\left(G{}_{}{}^{}Q_{(g)}^{}+H_uQ_{(h)}^u+(F_{uv}+\varphi _{uvw}F^w)Q_{(f)}^{vu}+S_{uvw}Q_{(s)}^{wvu}\right)$$
(20)
where $`Q_{(g)},Q_{(h)}^u`$ etc. are forms bilinear in the fermions whose specific form will be determined later.

Since the reduced action is at most quadratic in $`G`$, one can dualize $`C`$ in standard way: one lets G to be generic, adds the term $`(G(B_u\frac{1}{2}A_{uv}A^v)F^u)dA^{}`$ (where $`A^{}`$ is a Lagrange multiplier 1-form) and integrates over $`G`$. Then the part of the action involving $`G`$ can be replaced by the dual action

$`S_{dual}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^1(F^{}+F_{vu}\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}F^z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_z+{}_{}{}^{}Q_{(g)}^{}){}_{}{}^{}(F^{}+F_{vu}\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}F^z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_z+{}_{}{}^{}Q_{(g)}^{})`$ (21)
$`(B_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{uv}A^v)F^uF^{}]`$
where $`F^{}=dA^{}`$ is the field strength of the one-form $`A^{}`$. One can note that the equation of motion for $`A^{}`$ exactly reproduces the Bianchi identity $`dG=H_uF^u`$ for its dual 3-form $`C`$.

The gauge transformations of the potentials $`A^u`$,$`A_{uv}`$,$`A^{}`$ are

$`\delta A^u=d\lambda ^u`$
$`\delta A_{uv}=d\lambda _{uv}`$
$`\delta A^{}=d\lambda ^{}`$ (22)
and since $`H_u`$ must be gauge invariant it follows from eq.(15) that also $`B_u`$ transforms under (22) as

$$\delta B_u=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _{uv}F^v+F_{uv}\lambda ^v).$$
(23)
Moreover $`B_u`$ transforms under its own gauge transformation: $`\delta B_u=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_u`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_u`$ is a one-form.

Let us count the total number of 1-form potentials after reduction. All 1-form gauge fields $`A^u`$, $`A_{uv}`$, $`A^{}`$ add up to sixteen, which can be arranged into a Majorana-Weyl representation of the duality group $`SO(5,5)`$. Before dealing with it, we must explain our notations for $`SO(5,5)`$ in next subsection.

Action for 1-form gauge fields

The spinorial representation for $`SO(5,5)`$ is 32-dimensional. We denote vector indices of $`SO(5,5)`$ by capital letters $`R,S,\mathrm{}`$ and a vector $`v^R`$ is composed of two five-dimensional parts $`v^R=(v^{(1)r},v_r^{(2)});r=1,\mathrm{},5`$. The metric is off-diagonal $`\eta _{RS}v^Rv^S=(v^{(1)r}v_r^{(2)}+v_s^{(2)}v^{(1)s})`$. The $`\gamma `$-matrices can be conveniently constructed as a tensor product of two $`SO(5)`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices and Pauli matrices:

$$\gamma ^r\times I_4\times \sigma _1,I_4\times \gamma ^r\times (i\sigma _2)$$

and in the chosen metric they are

$$\gamma ^R=(\gamma ^{(1)r},\gamma _r^{(2)})$$
(24)
where

$`\gamma ^{(1)r}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\gamma _r\times I_4\times \sigma _1+I_4\times \gamma _r\times i\sigma _2\right)`$
$`\gamma _r^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\gamma _r\times I_4\times \sigma _1I_4\times \gamma _r\times i\sigma _2\right).`$ (25)
In $`SO(5,5)`$ there exist Majorana-Weyl spinors with 16 components $`\psi _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}\psi _\mu ^{\dot{\mu }}`$;$`\underset{¯}{\mu }=1,\mathrm{}16`$, $`\mu ,\dot{\mu }=1,\mathrm{}4`$ that satisfy the charge conjugation condition 444More precisely $`\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ .

$$\psi _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}^c=(C^1)_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}\overline{\psi }_{\underset{¯}{\nu }}^{}=\psi _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}.$$
(26)
Now let us come to the reduced action. Keeping from eqs.(13), (17), (21) the terms quadratic in the $`F`$’s one gets the kinetic action:

$`S_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^1(F^{}+F_{vu}\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}F^z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_z){}_{}{}^{}(F^{}+F_{vu}\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}F^z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_z)`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^1}{4}}(F_{uv}+\varphi _{uvw}F^w)^{}(F^{vu}+\varphi ^{vuw}F_w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{8}}F^u{}_{}{}^{}F_{u}^{}]`$
As already noted, the sixteen 1-form potentials ($`A^{},A^u,A_{uv}`$) can be arranged into a Weyl-Majorana $`SO(5,5)`$ spinor of, say, positive chirality; this spinor is

$$𝒜_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}=A^{}\delta _\mu {}_{}{}^{\dot{\mu }}+\frac{1}{2}A^u(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}})_\mu {}_{}{}^{\dot{\mu }}+\frac{1}{2}A_{uv}(\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}})_\mu ^{\dot{\mu }}$$
(28)
where $`\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ with underlined vector indices are constant $`SO(5)`$ matrices, so that

$$_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}=d𝒜_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}$$
(29)
is also a Majorana-Weyl(W-M) spinor. To write an action invariant under $`SO(5,5)`$ one needs a veilbein-like matrix $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ that acts as a bridge between $`SO(5,5)`$ and its maximal subgroup $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$. The index $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ is $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }(\alpha \dot{\alpha })`$. $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ transforms as a W-M spinor of negative chirality under $`SO(5,5)`$ from the right and as spinors of the two $`SO(5)`$ from the left. The spinor indices of the two $`SO(5),\alpha `$ and $`\dot{\alpha }`$, can be raised and lowered with the metric given by the $`SO(5)`$ charge conjugation. Then the action (27) should be rewritten as

$$S_A=\frac{1}{2(16)}_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}$$
(30)
$$_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}^{}$$

which is manifestly invariant under global $`SO(5,5)`$ transformations as well as local $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$ rotations. A suitable gauge choice of these local transformations should allow us to express $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ in terms of 25 scalar fields $`g^{uv}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}`$, and to make eq.(27) to exactly reproduce (30). A convenient gauge fixed choice for $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ is

$`V=\mathrm{exp}X\mathrm{exp}Y`$ (31)
$`X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}[\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}I_4I_2I_4\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}I_22\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}}\gamma _{\underset{¯}{v}}\sigma _3]`$ (32)
$`Y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}[\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}I_4I_2+I_4\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}I_2]+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}}{2}}(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}}\gamma _{\underset{¯}{v}}\sigma _3)`$ (33)
where $`X,Y`$ belong to $`SO(5,5)`$ Lie algebra and $`h^{\underset{¯}{uv}},f^{\underset{¯}{uv}}`$ are related to the scalars $`g^{uv},\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}`$.Given the “vielbeins”

$$e_u^{\underset{¯}{u}}=\{exp(h+f)\}_u^{\underset{¯}{u}}$$

and its inverse

$$e_{\underset{¯}{u}}^u=\{exp(h+f)\}_{\underset{¯}{u}}^u,$$

one has

$$e_{\underset{¯}{u}}^u\eta ^{\underset{¯}{uv}}e_{\underset{¯}{v}}^v=g^{uv}$$
(34)
and

$$e_{\underset{¯}{u}}^uf^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}e_{\underset{¯}{v}}^v=\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}.$$
(35)
Here, $`\gamma _u=e_u^{\underset{¯}{u}}\gamma _{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ and so on. That the gauge fixed matrix $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ defined in (31) allows eq.(27) to coincide with eq.(30) can be easily verified by noting that $`exp[Y]`$ applied to $``$ dresses the constant $`\gamma `$ matrices in $``$ as

$$\left((expY)\right)_{\underset{¯}{\sigma }}=F^{}\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta _\sigma ^{\dot{\sigma }}+\frac{1}{2}F^u\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _u)_\sigma ^{\dot{\sigma }}+\frac{1}{2}F_{uv}\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma ^{uv})_\sigma ^{\dot{\sigma }}_{\underset{¯}{\sigma }}^{(d)}$$
(36)
and

$`\left((expX)^{(d)}\right)_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ $`=\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(F^{}+F_{uv}\mathrm{\Phi }^{vu}F^u\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_u\right)\delta _\alpha ^{\dot{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}F^u(\gamma _u)_\alpha ^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(F_{uv}+F^w\varphi _{uvw}\right)(\gamma ^{uv})_\alpha ^{\dot{\alpha }}.`$
The matrix $`V`$ given above belongs to the coset $`SO(5,5)/SO(5)\times SO(5)`$ and transforms as

$$V=h(g)Vg$$
(38)
where $`g`$ is a spinorial transformation matrix of $`SO(5,5)`$ and $`h(g)`$ is the compensating $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$ transformation. The transformation (38) implies the nonlinear transformation of the scalars under $`SO(5,5)`$. One can realize a partial gauge-fixing by allowing the coefficients $`f^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}`$ in eqs. (32) and (33) to be different and maintaining eq.(35) only for the coefficients $`f^{\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{v}}`$ in $`Y`$ (that is in eq.(33)). In that case the action (30) remains invariant under local transformations of the diagonal $`SO(5)`$ which corresponds to the Lorentz group for the compactified space.

Action for B-fields

Let us collect from eqs. (17), (18), (21) the terms involving the 2-form potentials together with those quartic in the gauge potentials. The action for the 2-form potentials is

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_u{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{u}+H_uH_v\mathrm{\Phi }^{vu}+H_uQ_{(h)}^u+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{uvwxy}}{4}}F_{yx}F_{wv}(B_u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{uv}A^v)`$ (39)
$`F^uF^{}(B_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{uv}A^v)].`$
The terms quartic in the gauge potentials are present in order to make eq.(39) invariant under the gauge transformations (22) and (23). Let us rewrite $`Q_{(h)}^u`$ as 555For the moment this splitting is quite arbitrary, but see below.

$$Q_{(h)}^u=Q^{(1)u}+^{}Q^{(2)u}2\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}Q_v^{(2)}$$
(40)
and rename $`B_u`$ to $`B_u^{(2)}`$ to conform with our notation for vectors of $`SO(5,5)`$. Moreover, let us define its field strength as

$$H_u^{(2)}=H_u+Q_u^{(2)}=dB_u^{(2)}+J_u^{(2)}+Q_u^{(2)}.$$
(41)
where

$$J_u^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(F^wA_{wu}+A^wF_{wv}).$$
(42)
Then eq.(39) yields the equation of motion

$$d\left[{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{(2)u}2\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}H_v^{(2)}\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{uvwxy}F_{yx}A_{wv}+\frac{1}{2}(F^uA^{}+A^uF^{})Q^{(1)u}\right]=0$$
(43)
while the Bianchi identity for $`B_u^{(2)}`$ is

$$d(H_u^{(2)}J_u^{(2)}Q_u^{(2)})=0.$$
(44)
If we define

$$H^{(1)u}={}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{(2)u}2\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}H_v^{(2)}$$
(45)
and

$$J^{(1)u}=\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{uvwxy}A_{yx}F_{wv}\frac{1}{2}(A^uF^{}+F^uA^{})$$
(46)
eq. (43) becomes

$$d(H^{(1)u}J^{(1)u}Q^{(1)u})=0.$$
(47)
The closure of this 3-form allows us to define locally a 2-form $`B^{(1)u}`$, dual to $`B^{(2)u}`$, such that

$$H^{(1)u}=dB^{(1)u}+J^{(1)u}+Q^{(1)u}.$$
(48)
In the notations introduced in eqs. (24), (3), (28), (29), equations (42), (46) become

$$J^R=\frac{1}{16}𝒜_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^R)^{\underset{¯}{\mu \nu }}_{\underset{¯}{\nu }}$$
(49)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R=C\gamma ^R`$, $`J^R=\left(\begin{array}{c}J^{(1)u}\\ J_u^{(2)}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`C`$ is the $`SO(5,5)`$ charge conjugation. Eq. (49) shows that $`J^R`$ is an $`SO(5,5)`$ vector. We shall also write

$$B^R=\left(\begin{array}{c}B^{(1)u}\\ B_u^{(2)}\end{array}\right),H^R=\left(\begin{array}{c}H^{(1)u}\\ H_u^{(2)}\end{array}\right),Q^R=\left(\begin{array}{c}Q^{(1)u}\\ Q_u^{(2)}\end{array}\right)$$

so that

$$H^R=dB^R+J^R+Q^R$$
(50)
We postulate that $`B^R`$ transforms as a vector of $`SO(5,5)`$, and therefore $`H^R`$ also transforms as an $`SO(5,5)`$ vector, since, as we shall show below, $`Q^R`$ is an $`SO(5,5)`$ vector, if the splitting in eq.(40) is chosen appropriately.

The field equation and Bianchi identity (43), (44) are equivalently described by the definitions (41), (48), (50) together with the duality condition (45). Let us rewrite eq. (45) and its Hodge-dual as

$`H^{(1)u}+2\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}H_v^{(2)}={}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{(2)u},`$ (51)
$`g^{uv}H_v^{(2)}={}_{}{}^{}(H^{(1)u}+2\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}H_v^{(2)}).`$ (52)
Now let us introduce the matrix

$$L_R^I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}L_u^i& L^{iu}\\ \stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\stackrel{~}{i}}& \stackrel{~}{L}^{\stackrel{~}{i}u}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_u^i& e_v^i(g^{vu}+2\mathrm{\Phi }^{vu})\\ e_u^{\stackrel{~}{i}}& e_v^{\stackrel{~}{i}}(g^{vu}2\mathrm{\Phi }^{vu})\end{array}\right)$$
(53)
$`I=(i,\stackrel{~}{i}),i,\stackrel{~}{i}=1,\mathrm{}5`$, which can be written in more compact form as

$$L_R^I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E& E^{1T}+2E\mathrm{\Phi }\\ E& E^{1T}+2E\mathrm{\Phi }\end{array}\right).$$

The transposed matrix is

$$L_R^I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E^T& E^T\\ E^12\mathrm{\Phi }E^T& E^12\mathrm{\Phi }E^T\end{array}\right),$$

indices $`I,J`$ are raised (and lowered) with the metric $`\tau ^{IJ}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_5& 0\\ 0& I_5\end{array}\right)`$ (and its inverse). $`I_p`$ stands for $`p`$-dimensional identity matrix, $`E`$ is the matrix with elements $`e_r^i`$. Some useful formulas are:

$$(L\eta L^T)^{IJ}\tau ^{IJ}$$

and

$$(L^T\tau L)_{RS}=\eta _{RS},$$

where

$$\eta _{RS}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_5\\ I_5& 0\end{array}\right)_{RS}$$

is the $`SO(5,5)`$ metric. If , instead of $`\tau `$ , we use the metric $`I_{10}`$

$$M(L^TI_{10}L)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G& 2G\mathrm{\Phi }\\ 2\mathrm{\Phi }G& G^14\mathrm{\Phi }G\mathrm{\Phi }\end{array}\right).$$
(54)
$`G`$ is the matrix with elements $`g_{uv}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the matrix with elements $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}`$.

One can easily verify that

$$L_R^I=\frac{1}{32}Tr\left(\gamma ^IV\gamma _RV^1\right)$$
(55)
where, in terms of $`SO(5)`$ Dirac matrices, and in obvious notation, $`\gamma ^I=(\gamma ^i\times I_4\times \sigma _1,I_4\times \gamma ^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\times i\sigma _2`$) , while $`\gamma ^R`$ is defined in (24). Eq.(55) implies that $`L_R^i(\stackrel{~}{L}_R^{\stackrel{~}{i}})`$ transforms as a vector of $`SO(5,5)`$ from the right and as a vector of the first (the second) $`SO(5)`$ from the left. To be more precise eq.(55) leads to eq.(53) if one uses in it the partially gauge fixed $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ that preserves local invariance under the diagonal $`SO(5)`$ (the internal Lorentz group). To get full local $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$ invariance one must introduce in eq.(55) the full ungauged $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ . In that case eq. (55) still reproduces eq. (53) but now the vielbeins $`e_u^i`$ and $`e_u^{\stackrel{~}{i}}`$, even if constrained to give the same metric $`g_{uv}`$, are different.

If we define

$$H^I=L_R^IH^R$$
(56)
that is $`H^i=L_R^iH^R,\stackrel{~}{H}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}=\stackrel{~}{L}_R^{\stackrel{~}{i}}H^R`$, the sum and difference of eqs.(51) yield

$$H^i=^{}H^i,\stackrel{~}{H}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}={}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}.$$
(57)
Now it is straightforward to write down the action for the $`B`$ tensors using the formalism in , . First we need to define

$`H_{}^i=H^i{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{i}(\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_+^i=\stackrel{~}{H}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}+{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}(\mathrm{antiself}\mathrm{dual})`$ (58)
and then we introduce an auxiliary 1-form $`u`$

$$u=da,v=\frac{1}{\sqrt{u^2}}u$$
(59)
such that $`v_mv^m=1`$, where $`a(x)`$ is an auxiliary scalar field. Using the vector $`v^m`$ we can define the 2-forms 666$`i_vV_{(p)}`$denotes the contraction of the $`p`$-form $`V_{(p)}`$ with the vector $`v=v^m_m`$ .

$$h_{}^i=i_vH_{}^i,\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}=i_v\stackrel{~}{H}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}$$
(60)
One can also write

$`h^R`$ $`=`$ $`i_v\left(L_i^RH_{}^i+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^R\stackrel{~}{H}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\right)`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`L_i^Rh_{}^i+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^R\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}.`$
In a similar way we shall also write

$$J^R=L_i^RJ^i+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^RJ^{\stackrel{~}{i}}$$
(62)
and

$$Q^R=L_i^RQ^i+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^RQ^{\stackrel{~}{i}}.$$
(63)
Then , the action for chiral fields is

$`S_B`$ $`={\displaystyle \eta _{RS}\left(vh^RH^S+\frac{1}{2}dB^R(J^S+Q^S)+\frac{1}{2}J^RQ^S\right)}`$ (64)
$`={\displaystyle \left(vh_{}^iH_i+\frac{1}{2}H^i(J_i+Q_i)+\frac{1}{2}J^iQ_i\right)}\left(v\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{H}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}(\stackrel{~}{J}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{i}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{J}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{i}}\right).`$
One can see that the action $`S_B`$ is invariant under the following transformations

$`i)\delta B^R=d\mathrm{\Lambda }^R,\delta a=0`$ (65)
$`ii)\delta B^R={\displaystyle \frac{2h^R\xi }{\sqrt{u^2}}},\delta a=\xi `$ (66)
$`iii)\delta B^R=\zeta ^Rda,\delta a=0`$ (67)
where the two-form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^R`$, the one-form $`\zeta ^R`$ and $`\xi `$ are local parameters. The transformation $`i)`$ is the usual $`B`$-gauge transformation, invariance under $`ii)`$ implies the auxiliary status of the scalar field $`a(x)`$ while the symmetry $`iii)`$ allows to eliminate half of the propagating degrees of freedom carried by $`B`$. Indeed the field equations coming from the action (64) are

$`d(vh_{}^i)=0`$
$`d(v\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}})=0`$ (68)
and a suitable gauge fixing of the symmetry $`iii)`$ together with the equations (3) leads to the chirality conditions in (57)

$$H_{}^i=0=\stackrel{~}{H}_+^{\stackrel{~}{i}}.$$

Eq.(64) is also invariant under the $`A`$-gauge transformations eqs.(22) which can be written as

$$\delta A_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}=d\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}.$$
(69)
It follows from (69) and the transformation of $`H^R`$ that

$`\delta J^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}d(\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^R)^{\underset{¯}{\mu \nu }}_{\underset{¯}{\nu }})`$
$`\delta B^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\mu }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^R)^{\underset{¯}{\mu \nu }}_{\underset{¯}{\nu }}.`$ (70)
The invariance of $`S_B`$ under (69) and (3) is manifest except for the term $`\frac{1}{2}\eta _{RS}𝑑B^RJ^S`$. For this term it follows from (3) and the cyclic identity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices in $`10`$ dimensions. Finally $`S_B`$ is manifestly invariant under $`SO(5,5)`$ and, trivially, under $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$.

Action for scalar fields

If we collect the bosonic terms involving scalars not yet considered, we get

$$S_{scalar}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{4}dg^{uv}{}_{}{}^{}dg_{vu}+g_{uy}g_{vx}d\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}{}_{}{}^{}d\mathrm{\Phi }^{xy}\right)$$
(71)
Now it is straightforward to check that it can be written in a manifestly $`SO(5,5)`$ invariant form

$$S_{scalar}=\frac{1}{2(16)}𝑑M_{RS}{}_{}{}^{}dM^{RS}$$
(72)
where $`M`$ is given in (54). This action can also be presented in different equivalent forms. For instance, let us define , in terms of the matrix $`L`$ (53),

$$P_{i\stackrel{~}{i}}=L_R^id\stackrel{~}{L}_S^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\eta ^{RS}dL_R^i\stackrel{~}{L}_S^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\eta ^{RS}$$
(73)
then it is straightforward to see that $`S_{scalar}`$ can also be rewritten as

$$S_{scalar}=\frac{1}{16}P_{i\stackrel{~}{i}}{}_{}{}^{}P_{}^{i\stackrel{~}{i}}.$$
(74)
## 4 Reduction of Fermions

In the reduction of the eleven dimensional manifold to $`M_6\times T^5`$, the $`\gamma `$-matrices in $`d=11`$ reduce as follows

$$\gamma ^{\widehat{a}}=(\gamma ^a,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i\overline{\gamma })$$

where $`\gamma ^a(a=0,1,\mathrm{}5)`$ are Dirac matrices in $`d=6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i(i=1,\mathrm{}5)`$ are Dirac matrices in $`d=5`$; $`\overline{\gamma }=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^5`$ is the chiral matrix in $`d=6`$. A Majorana spinor in eleven dimensions is a spinor (32 complex components) that satisfies the Majorana condition

$$\chi ^c=C_{(11)}\overline{\chi }=\chi .$$

Its reduction to six dimensions gives us four symplectic W-M spinors with positive chirality $`\chi _+^\alpha `$ and four W-M spinors with negative chirality $`\chi _{}^\alpha `$, the symplectic condition being

$$\chi _{\pm \alpha }^c=(C_{(6)}\overline{\chi }_\pm )_\alpha =(C_{(5)})_{\alpha \beta }\chi _\pm ^\beta .$$

The fermions in $`d=11`$ are described by a 1-form Majorana spinor $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ which represents the gravitino. Its reduction to $`d=6`$ consists of four 1-form symplectic Majorana spinors $`\psi ^\alpha =e^a\psi _a^\alpha `$ (the gravitinos) of both chirality and twenty symplectic Majorana spinors of both chirality $`\lambda _i^\alpha (i=1,\mathrm{}5)`$. To be more specific

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\omega ^{\frac{1}{12}}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\sqrt{\omega }\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(75)
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }e^a\mathrm{\Psi }_a=e^a\psi _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^a\gamma _a\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i\overline{\gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=e^a\psi _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^a\gamma _a\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i\overline{\gamma }\lambda _i`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }e^i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=e^i(\lambda _i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\lambda _j)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}e^i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\lambda _j`$ (76)
The $`\omega `$-dependent coefficients in (75) are fixed by the requirement that the reduced kinetic action will be $`\omega `$-independent and the coefficients in (4) are chosen to get the reduced kinetic action in the standard diagonal form, that is to have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(8)}D\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}\overline{\gamma }D\psi +\lambda ^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^aD_a\lambda _i.$$
(77)
The spinors $`\psi _a,\lambda _i`$ must be split in their chiral and antichiral components $`\psi _{\pm a},\lambda _{\pm i}`$. All these spinors are invariant under $`SO(5,5)`$. Inserting eqs.(75),(4) in eq.(3) one can compute the coupling between bosons and fermions and the four-fermion interaction terms. In particular the interaction terms of the fermions with the scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{uv}`$, the gauge fields $`A^{}`$ and $`A_{uv}`$ and the 2-form potential can be obtained from eq.(20). In this respect it is useful to notice that the Hodge dual of the current $`Q_7+^{}Q_4`$ of eq.(20) has the simple expression

$${}_{}{}^{}Q_{7}^{}+Q_4=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\widehat{b_1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[\widehat{b_1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(4)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\widehat{b_2}]}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\widehat{b_2}}.$$
(78)
As before the resulting action terms turn out to be invariant under global transformations of $`SO(5,5)`$ but only local transformations of the diagonal $`SO(5)`$ which corresponds to the Lorentz group of the internal space. However, invariance under both $`SO(5)`$ can be recovered if one assumes that the components of positive and negative chirality of $`\lambda _i`$ are vectors of the first and the second $`SO(5)`$ respectively and that $`\psi _{+a}^\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}^\alpha `$ are spinors of the first $`SO(5)`$, whereas $`\psi _a^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\lambda _{+i}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ are spinors of the second $`SO(5)`$ (and of course one uses the non gauge-fixed forms of $`V_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$ and $`L_R^I`$).

After a long calculation we find that the action that describes the interaction between fermions and gauge fields and scalars can be written as

$$S_{(I)}=\frac{1}{16}(Q^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}V_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}+Q^{i\stackrel{~}{i}}P_{i\stackrel{~}{i}})$$
(79)
where

$`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{+c}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{[c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d]}\psi _d^{\dot{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi _{+d}^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\lambda _{+i}^{\dot{\alpha }}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)_\beta ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi _d^{\dot{\beta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})_{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\lambda _{+i}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)^\alpha `$
$`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{i\stackrel{~}{i}}=\psi _{+a}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i\lambda _{}^{\stackrel{~}{i}})_\alpha +\psi _a^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\lambda _+^i)_{\dot{\alpha }}.`$ (80)
Action (79) is manifestly invariant under global $`SO(5,5)`$ and local $`SO(5)\times SO(5)`$ transformations. Moreover, we find that the splitting in eq.(40) can be performed so that fermionic 3-forms $`Q^I`$ which appear in eq.(63) are

$`Q^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi _+^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)_\alpha ^\beta \psi _{+\beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\lambda _{+\dot{\alpha }}^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\lambda _{}^{\stackrel{~}{i}\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)_\alpha ^\beta \lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}\beta }`$
$`Q^{\stackrel{~}{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi _{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\psi _{\dot{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _+^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\lambda _\alpha ^{\stackrel{~}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\lambda _+^{i\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\lambda _{+i\dot{\beta }}`$ (81)
where $`Q^i=L_R^iQ^R`$ and $`Q^{\stackrel{~}{i}}=L_R^{\stackrel{~}{i}}Q^R`$. Then $`Q^i`$, $`Q^{\stackrel{~}{i}}`$ are vectors of the two $`SO(5)`$s. It follows that $`Q^R`$, defined in eq.(63) is an $`SO(5,5)`$ vector, as anticipated in the previous section.

In conclusion the $`d=6,N=4`$ supergravity action is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}eR{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(16)}}_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+\eta _{RS}(vh^RH^S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dB^R(J^S+Q^S)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^RQ^S)`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(16)}}P_{i\stackrel{~}{i}}{}_{}{}^{}P_{}^{i\stackrel{~}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi _+^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}\overline{\gamma }D\psi _{+\alpha }+\psi _{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}\overline{\gamma }D\psi _{\dot{\alpha }})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _+^{i\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^aD_a\lambda _{+i\dot{\alpha }}+\lambda _{}^{\stackrel{~}{i}\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }^aD_a\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}\alpha })]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(Q^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}V_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}+Q^{i\stackrel{~}{i}}P_{i\stackrel{~}{i}})+𝒮_4`$
The last term $`𝒮_4`$ represents the four fermion interactions. It can be obtained straightforwardly from the reduction of the four fermion terms in (3), but we have not computed it explicitly here. In addition to be manifestly invariant under $`SO(5,5)`$ duality the action (82) is also invariant under local supersymmetry. The supersymmetry transformations can be obtained easily from the reduction of eqs.(8) to (11) and using invariance under duality. However, a remark is in order: the field equations for the 2-form potentials from the action (64) coincide with the standard ones only after a (suitable) gauge fixing of the symmetry $`ii)`$ in eq. (65). Therefore, as discussed in  \-  the standard supersymmetric transformations of the fermions that involve the field strength $`H_u`$ must be modified. The correct recipe is to replace in them the 3-forms $`H^R`$ with the 3-forms

$$K^R=H^R+h^Rv.$$

Concluding supersymmetry transformations are

$`\delta e^a=\psi _+^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^ac_{\beta \alpha }ϵ_+^\alpha +\psi _{}^{\dot{\beta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^ac_{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }}ϵ_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$
$`\delta V_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{\beta \dot{\beta }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)_\alpha ^\beta (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\left[(\lambda _{+i}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{i}})^{\dot{\delta }}ϵ_{\dot{\delta }}+(\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i)^\delta ϵ_\delta \right]`$
$`\delta 𝒜_{(1)}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}=V_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}\left(\psi _{}^{\dot{\alpha }}ϵ_+^\alpha +ϵ_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\psi _+^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{+i}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(ϵ_+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i)^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}})^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}^\alpha \right)`$
$`\delta B_{(2)}^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L_R^i\left(\psi _+^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_iϵ_+)_\alpha +\lambda _{+i}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{L}_R^{\stackrel{~}{i}}\left(\psi _{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{i}}ϵ_{})_{\dot{\alpha }}+\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}ϵ_{+\alpha }\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta A^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)_{\underset{¯}{\mu }\underset{¯}{\nu }}A^{\underset{¯}{\nu }}`$
$`\delta \psi _{+\alpha }=Dϵ_{+\alpha }+e^aV_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\gamma _a^{bc}_{bc\underset{¯}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\gamma ^b_{ab\underset{¯}{\mu }}\right)ϵ_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^aK_{abc}^i\gamma ^{bc}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i)_\alpha ^\beta ϵ_{+\beta }`$
$`\delta \lambda _{+i\dot{\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P_{ai\stackrel{~}{i}}\gamma ^a(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{i}}ϵ_{})_{\dot{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V_{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }^{\underset{¯}{\mu }}_{ab\underset{¯}{\mu }}\gamma ^{ab}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_iϵ_+)^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}K_{iabc}\gamma ^{abc}ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }},`$ (83)
Transformations for the $`\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{i}\alpha }`$ can be obtained from the above by exchanging $`+,i\stackrel{~}{i},\alpha \dot{\alpha }`$ in the positive chirality fields respectively.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission TMR programme
ERBFMRX-CT96-0045. H.S. was also supported in part by INFN fellowship.