text:
# SO(2,1) conformal anomaly: Beyond contact interactions

## I Introduction

The relevance of conformal quantum mechanics has been recognized for decades alfaro\_fubini\_forlan:76  in the context of the scale-invariant Hamiltonian dynamics jackiw:72  of the inverse square potential, which is characterized by an SO(2,1) commutator algebra. A formally identical symmetry algebra was discovered for the magnetic monopole jackiw:80 , the magnetic vortex jackiw:90 , and the two-dimensional contact interaction jackiw:91-beg . Remarkably, this algebra has also been identified within the maximal “Schrödinger group” of symmetries of nonrelativistic field theories nr-SO(21)  and related applications jackiw:90b ; bergman .

Most importantly, the central role played by conformal quantum mechanics in theoretical physics has been highlighted in recent years in a wide variety of problems. First, insights into the physics of black holes have been directly gleaned from the concept of near-horizon SO(2,1) conformal invariance strominger:98 ; carlip:near\_horizon ; solodukhin:99 , as well as from its supersymmetric extensions claus:98 ; deAz:99 ; michelson\_strominger ; papadopoulos:00 ; bellucci:02 . This is in large part due to the remarkable connections provided by the AdS/CFT correspondence AdS/CFT . In addition, the ubiquity of the Calogero model calogero , from black holes calogero\_black\_holes  to applications in condensed-matter physics quantum\_Hall ; Haldane , has led to alternative applications of a formally identical algebra of conformal generators. Finally, the use of field-theory renormalization techniques has promoted novel methods for the treatment of singular interactions, including those within the conformal quantum mechanics class, by means of Hamiltonian jackiw:91-beg ; cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; gup:93 ; isp\_letter ; beane:00  as well as path-integral techniques pi\_singular ; green ; pi\_delta .

The underlying property common to all the problems mentioned above is the presence of a particular conformal symmetry after an appropriate reduction framework is applied. As such, this is a particular realization of conformal invariance for an effective $`(0+1)`$-dimensional field. It is the corresponding reduced problem that is described within the conformal quantum mechanics class, typically with an effective Hamiltonian $`Hp^2/2M+V(𝐫)`$, or with many-body generalizations thereof. In particular, in its reduced form, a conformally invariant interaction is characterized by an interaction potential $`V(𝐫)`$ that is a homogeneous function of degree $`2`$. This property alone implies that these interactions satisfy a set of classical symmetries under time reparametrizations cam:dtI ; camblong:anom\_delta . The associated quantum-mechanical generators are the Hamiltonian $`H`$, the dilation operator $`DtH\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(𝐩𝐫+𝐫𝐩\right)/2`$, and the special conformal operator $`K2tDt^2H+Mr^2/2`$; these generators yield an SO(2,1) Lie algebra wyb:74  at the “classical” level

$$[D,H]_{\mathrm{regular}}=i\mathrm{}H,[K,H]_{\mathrm{regular}}=2i\mathrm{}D,[D,K]_{\mathrm{regular}}=i\mathrm{}K.$$
(1)
Appropriate anomalous modifications of this “regular” algebra will be discussed below, when the theory is quantized.

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the quantum symmetry breaking of the algebra (1) for the inverse square potential. The existence of this conformal anomaly was first recognized for the two-dimensional contact interaction by indirect methods in the seminal work of Ref. jackiw:91-beg  and was recently confirmed by a direct calculation at the level of the commutator algebra in Refs. camblong:anom\_delta ; esteve:anom\_delta . Even though a draft of the more general theory was developed in camblong:anom\_delta , the proof of its actual realization for the all-important inverse square potential is still lacking. This is the problem to which we now turn our attention, for the particular case of spatial dimensionality $`d=2`$.

## II Ultraviolet Origin of the Anomaly for the Two-Dimensional Inverse Square Potential

The inverse square potential is of fundamental importance because of its applications to black holes strominger:98 ; carlip:near\_horizon ; solodukhin:99 ; claus:98 ; deAz:99 ; michelson\_strominger ; papadopoulos:00 ; bellucci:02 , nuclear physics beane:00 ; bedaque:99-three\_body , and molecular physics molecular\_dipole\_anomaly . Even though the existence of this conformal anomaly had been anticipated by other indirect arguments molecular\_dipole\_anomaly , in this work we present the first conclusive direct computation at the level of the commutator algebra (1). More precisely, as the next step towards establishing a more general framework, we show that the two-dimensional case of the inverse square potential confirms the conclusions drawn in Ref. camblong:anom\_delta . The advantage of this particular dimensionality lies in the remarkable similarities that the inverse square potential and the $`\delta `$-function interaction exhibit for $`d=2`$. Not only is the dimensionality the same, but both interactions are characterized by a vanishing critical coupling, and the corresponding expressions for the anomalous terms can be considerably simplified.

The fundamental quantity encoding the nature of the anomaly is camblong:anom\_delta

$$𝒜(𝐫)\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[D,H]+H=\left[𝟙+\frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}_𝐫\right]V(𝐫),$$
(2)
where $`𝟙`$ is the identity operator and $`_𝐫=𝐫`$ stands for the Eulerian derivative. In particular, the two-dimensional form of Eq. (2) simplifies to

$$𝒜(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{𝐫V(𝐫)\right\}.$$
(3)
For the case of the two-dimensional inverse square potential, the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2M}\frac{g}{r^2}$$
(4)
is conformally invariant, with $`\lambda =2Mg/\mathrm{}^2`$ being the dimensionless form of the coupling constant. Then, the formal two-dimensional identity

$$\left[\frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r}\right]=2\pi \delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)$$
(5)
implies that

$$𝒜(𝐫)=g\pi \delta ^{(2)}(𝐫),$$
(6)
whose expectation value for a normalized state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜(𝐫)_\mathrm{\Psi }=g\pi d^2𝐫\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right|^2.$$
(7)
Equation (7) can be used to shed light on the nature of the possible conformal symmetry breaking. Specifically, two important features are immediately apparent:

(i) The correct evaluation of Eq. (7) requires an appropriate regularization procedure, because of the well-known vanishing or asymptotically free value of $`g`$. This behavior competes against the logarithmic singularity of the renormalized ground-state wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ at the origin cam:dtI ; cam:dtII ; isp\_letter ,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\mathrm{gs})}(𝐫)=\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}K_0(\kappa r),$$
(8)
where $`\kappa =\sqrt{2M|E_{(\mathrm{gs})}}|/\mathrm{}`$. Consequently, Eq. (7) has to be regularized concurrently with other observables in the theory.

(ii) The existence of an anomaly \[nonvanishing value of Eq. (7)\] arises from the “singularity” at the origin, which is encoded in the $`\delta `$ function. The presence of this generalized function can be physically interpreted as representing the “core” of the interaction near the singular point, according to Eq. (5). In short, the origin of this conformal anomaly can be conclusively traced to the apparent singularity at the origin, which lies within the ultraviolet sector of the theory.

In the following sections, we will regularize the theory using an ultraviolet real-space regulator.

## III Real-Space Regularization of the Inverse Square Potential

Real-space regularization of the ultraviolet physics is implemented by an appropriate modification of the interaction for $`ra`$. This procedure amounts to the introduction of a regular potential $`V^{(<)}(𝐫)`$ for $`ra`$, where it succinctly describes the short-distance physics. Moreover, in order to maintain the intrinsic physics of the inverse square potential, the core interaction $`V^{(<)}(𝐫)`$ should implement a continuous transition from the long- to the short-distance physics landau:77 ; i.e., it should satisfy the continuity requirement $`V^{(<)}(r=a)=g/a^2`$. The simplest and most convenient choice is afforded by a finite square well $`V^{(<)}(𝐫)=g\theta (ar)/a^2`$, so that the unregularized Hamiltonian (4) undergoes the replacement

$$HH_a=\frac{p^2}{2M}\frac{g}{r^2}\theta (ra)\frac{g}{a^2}\theta (ar),$$
(9)
in which $`\theta (z)`$ stands for the Heaviside function. Then, for a wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=e^{im\varphi }u_{|m|}(r)/\sqrt{r}`$, the corresponding reduced radial Schrödinger equation is given by

$$\left\{\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\left[\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E+\lambda \frac{\theta (ar)}{a^2}\right]\frac{l^2\lambda \theta (ra)1/4}{r^2}\right\}u_l(r)=0,$$
(10)
in which $`l=|m|`$, with $`m`$ being the usual quantum number. A bound-state solution ($`E<0`$) to Eq. (10) can be written in terms of Bessel functions abr:72 ,

$$R_l(r)\frac{u_l(r)}{\sqrt{r}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{\{}\text{ }J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\text{,}\text{ }N_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\mathbf{\}}\text{ }\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ \mathbf{\{}\text{ }I_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa r)\text{,}\text{ }K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa r)\mathbf{\}}\text{ }\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(11)
where the effective coupling becomes

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }_l=\sqrt{\lambda l^2},$$
(12)
the energy parameters are

$$\stackrel{~}{k}^2=\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E+\frac{\lambda }{a^2}$$
(13)
and

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2}E,$$
(14)
and the symbol $`\mathbf{\{}`$ , $`\mathbf{\}}`$  stands for linear combination. In Eq. (11) the regular boundary conditions at the origin and at infinity lead to the particular selection

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=e^{im\varphi }\times \{\begin{array}{cc}B_lJ_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r<a,\\ A_lK_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa r)\hfill & \hfill \text{for}r>a,\end{array}$$
(15)
where the relative values of $`A_l`$ and $`B_l`$ can be determined from the continuity condition

$$B_lJ_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)=A_lK_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a).$$
(16)
In addition, the continuity of the logarithmic derivative at $`r=a`$ provides the equation for the energy eigenvalues

$$\stackrel{~}{k}\frac{J_l^{}(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}{J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}=\kappa \frac{K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(\kappa a)}{K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(ka)}.$$
(17)
Furthermore, the values of $`A_l`$ and $`B_l`$ can be fixed from the normalization condition

$$1=d^2𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2=A_l^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \kappa ^2\left\{𝒦_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)+\left(\frac{\kappa }{\stackrel{~}{k}}\right)^2\left[\frac{K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)}{J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}\right]^2𝒥_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)\right\},$$
(18)
where the functions

$$𝒦_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)=_{\kappa a}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\left[K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(z)\right]^2$$
(19)
and

$$𝒥_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)=_0^{\stackrel{~}{k}a}𝑑zz\left[J_l(z)\right]^2$$
(20)
are conveniently defined. Equations (18), (19), and (20) will be further simplified when the theory is renormalized in Sec. V.

## IV Calculation of the Conformal Anomaly

We are now ready to start the computation of the regularized anomaly. First, from Eqs. (3), (5), and (9), the conformal anomaly manifests as the failure of the dilation operator to yield a zero time derivative; explicitly, the regularized counterpart of Eq. (7) is obtained with the replacement

$$𝒜(𝐫)𝒜_a(𝐫)=g\pi \delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)\theta (ra)\frac{g}{a^2}\theta (ar).$$
(21)
Therefore, the corresponding expectation value for a renormalized and normalized state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a0}{lim}\left[𝒜_a(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_a}^{(<)}+𝒜_a(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_a}^{(>)}\right].$$
(22)
In Eq. (22), $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ is the regularized counterpart of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, as given in Eq. (15). Furthermore, $`𝒜_a(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_a}^{(j)}`$ stands for the contribution to the expectation value from the ultraviolet region ($`r<a`$), for $`j=<`$; and from the region $`r>a`$, for $`j=>`$. Remarkably, Eq. (21) shows that

$$𝒜_a(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_a}^{(>)}=0,$$
(23)
which confirms that only the singularity at the origin can be the source of the conformal anomaly. As a consequence,

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a0}{lim}𝒜_a(𝐫)_{\mathrm{\Psi }_a}^{(<)}=2\pi \underset{a0}{lim}\frac{g}{a^2}B_l^2_0^a𝑑rr\left[J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}r)\right]^2.$$
(24)
This expression for the anomaly can be most easily interpreted by rewriting it in the form

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=E\underset{a0}{lim}\left(\left\{\frac{\lambda (a)}{(\stackrel{~}{k}a)^2}\right\}\left\{\frac{\pi A_l^2}{\kappa ^2}\right\}\left\{\frac{2𝒥_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}{\left[J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)\right]^2}\left[K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)\right]^2\right\}\right),$$
(25)
as follows from Eqs. (14), (16), and (24). In Eq. (25), $`E`$ is the finite renormalized value of the energy associated with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and $`\lambda (a)`$ is the running coupling constant. Correspondingly, the anomalous time derivative of Eq. (25) is scaled with the bound-state energy $`E`$ of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Moreover, as we will show below, upon renormalization, each one of the three additional factors enclosed in braces is asymptotically equal to one (with respect to the limit $`a0`$). As a result,

$$\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=E,$$
(26)
which agrees with the expected answer: the right-hand side of Eq. (26) becomes the energy of the stationary normalized state camblong:anom\_delta .

Finally, once the value of the anomalous commutator $`[D,H]`$ has been identified, the corresponding value of the commutator $`[K,H]`$ is determined camblong:anom\_delta , with

$$\frac{d}{dt}K_\mathrm{\Psi }=2t\frac{d}{dt}D_\mathrm{\Psi }=2tE.$$
(27)
## V Renormalization

The final required step is the renormalization of the system. This is implemented by finding the behavior of the running coupling constant from the consistency requirement that Eq. (17) admit a finite bound-state energy, when $`a0`$. From the small-argument expansion of the Macdonald function

$$K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(z)\stackrel{(z0)}{=}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi \mathrm{\Theta }\right)}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\right)\left[1+O\left(z^2\right)\right],$$
(28)
Eq. (17) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cot}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\right)\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\stackrel{~}{k}a\frac{J_l^{}(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}{J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}\left[1+O\left([\kappa a]^2\right)\right].$$
(29)
The renormalization condition consists in taking the limit $`a0`$, with a running coupling $`\mathrm{\Theta }(a)`$ to be determined self-consistently so that $`\kappa `$ remains fixed, thus guaranteeing a finite energy. As argued in Refs. gup:93  and isp\_letter , Eq. (29) is ill defined unless $`\mathrm{\Theta }(a)`$ has the appropriate logarithmic running

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(a)[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa a)]^1\stackrel{(a0)}{}0.$$
(30)
In other words, this behavior drives the coupling $`\lambda `$ towards its critical value, which is exactly zero for $`d=2`$; in particular, when $`l=0`$, $`\lambda (a)=\mathrm{\Theta }^2(a)\stackrel{(a0)}{}0`$. Once this running behavior sets in, the only bound state that survives the renormalization process will occur for $`l=0`$, because the other channels ($`l0`$) will be automatically placed in the weak-coupling regime, for which binding is suppressed cam:dtII ; isp\_letter . In addition, this analysis shows that binding will always occur for $`d=2`$, when the critical coupling is zero; this fact alone places the two-dimensional case in a unique position. Moreover, the condition (29) for the energy eigenvalues becomes

$$\mathrm{cot}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)+\gamma \right]\right)\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\left[1+O(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)\right],$$
(31)
which logically enforces the limits $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha \stackrel{(a0)}{}0`$ and $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha |\stackrel{(a0)}{}1`$, where $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}(z/2)+\gamma \right]`$.

We are now ready to prove the fact that the three additional factors in Eq. (25) are asymptotically equal to one. First, Eq. (13) implies that $`(\stackrel{~}{k}a)^2=\lambda +O([\kappa a]^2)`$, in which $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ is the leading logarithmic term with respect to $`a`$, according to Eq. (30); thus,

$$\frac{\lambda (a)}{(\stackrel{~}{k}a)^2}\stackrel{(a0)}{}1,$$
(32)
for a finite energy level $`E`$. The second additional factor in Eq. (25) has a limiting value of one because

$$A_0\stackrel{(a0)}{=}\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\pi }}\left\{1+o(\kappa a)\right\}.$$
(33)
This can be deduced from Eqs. (18), (19), and (20), for $`l=0`$, $`\kappa a1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{k}a1`$, which collectively imply that $`2𝒦_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)=1+O(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)`$ and $`2𝒥_{l=0}(\stackrel{~}{k}a)=\mathrm{\Theta }^2\left[1+O(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)\right]`$. Finally, the third additional factor in Eq. (25) becomes

$$2\frac{𝒥_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)}{\left[J_l(\stackrel{~}{k}a)\right]^2}\left[K_{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(\kappa a)\right]^2\stackrel{(a0)}{=}2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}{2}\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right]^2\left[1+O(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)\right]\stackrel{(a0)}{=}1+O(\mathrm{\Theta }^2).$$
(34)
In closing, this renormalization procedure, based on the modification of the ultraviolet behavior, shows that the ground state wave function reduces to Eq. (8) in the limit $`a0`$. However, as discussed in Sec. II, for the computation of the anomaly, this limit can only be taken as the last step, after all expressions have been properly regularized. In this paper we have shown that the ensuing procedure is implemented at the level of Eq. (25) and yields the anticipated answer, Eq. (26).

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown the existence of a conformal anomaly of the SO(2,1) algebra associated with the dynamics of the two-dimensional inverse square potential. The corresponding violations of the conservation laws of the dilation and special conformal charges follow patterns very similar to those encountered earlier for contact interactions. In particular, this work is closely related to the conformal interactions of maximal physical relevance, involved in applications from molecular physics to the physics of black holes. Consequently, this analysis leads to new insights into the emergence of anomalies within the framework of conformal quantum mechanics. Finally, these ideas can be generalized beyond the two-dimensional case and for a more general modification of the ultraviolet physics; additional details are in progress and will be reported elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by an Advanced Research Grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and by the University of San Francisco Faculty Development Fund. One of us (G.N.J.A.) gratefully acknowledges the generous support from the World Laboratory.


format: text

text:
# Causality and charged spin-2 fields in an electromagnetic background

## I Introduction

The interaction of fields with spin greater than 1 (particularly $`s=2`$ fields) with a fixed gravitational or electromagnetic background has attracted a lot of attention in the last three decades. There are at least two reasons for this interest. First, on the theoretical side, interacting particles with $`s>1`$ present features that are absent in Electromagnetism. In this regard, two items are specially important: the consistency of the equations of motion (EOM), and the causality of the propagation. A consistent set of EOM (and of the constraints derived from them) has been obtained quite a long time ago for free fields (see for instance sh ), but the consistency of the system is usually broken when interactions are introduced. Interactions can also excite new degrees of freedom, absent in the free-field case. This may lead to violation of causality. In fact, it has been stated that causality can be violated even when the higher spin fields have the correct number of degrees of freedom, and that in order to ensure consistency, some restrictions must be made on the kind of interaction r1 .

Second, on a more phenomenological vein, particles with spin 2 are known to exist as resonances, and it is desirable to have a theory to describe their interaction with background fields. Yet another reason is furnished by string theory, in which a tower of massive states of Kaluza-Klein type with various spins interact with each other. A particular instance of this scenario is furnished by the so-called bigravity models damour1 ; damour2 , from which a theory with a massless and a very light graviton can be obtained. It would be very interesting then to have a consistent theory of fields with $`s>1`$ (and specifically of $`s=2`$ fields) interacting with given backgrounds.

A lot of work has been devoted to the case of a gravitational background. The properties of an $`s=2`$ field in this kind of background were studied for instance in aragones71 ; r1 ; r2 ; d2 . Several interesting new results in this area were obtained in nn . We shall analyze here instead a spin 2 field in an electromagnetic (EM) background cou . It is common lore in this situation that massive spin 2 particles propagate acausally. This result was obtained by Kobayashi and Shamaly in the late 70’s ks , and a more recent demonstration has been given by Deser and Waldron ds , both proofs being based on the method of characteristics. The main result we shall present here is that, contrary to the aforementioned claims, a more careful application of the method of characteristics reveals that the propagation of $`s=2`$ fields in an EM background is actually causal.

Let us remind the reader that a spin-2 field can be described in two equivalent ways, which we shall call the Einstein representation (ER) and the Fierz representation (FR). The former is a second order representation that uses a symmetric second-order tensor $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ to represent the field. In the FR fp , this role is played by a third order tensor $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu },`$ which is antisymmetric in the first pair of indices, and obeys the cyclic identity and a further condition (which will be given in Sect.II) in order to represent a single spin-2 field. The FR is first order. In flat spacetime and in the absence of interactions both representations are equivalent. Nevertheless, in the case an EM background (or in curved spacetime) this is no longer true. As we shall see, in the ER there is an ambiguity which originates in the ordering of the non-commuting covariant derivatives. We shall show that the use of the FR yields instead a non-ambiguous description with the minimal coupling procedure.

Our proof of the causal propagation will be given in the FR. We shall begin by giving in Sect.II a review of the Fierz variables to describe a spin-2 field in Minkowski spacetime (some properties of these variables are discussed in Appendix 1). In Sect.III it will be shown how the minimal coupling in the FR avoids the ambiguity present in the ER. The causality of the propagation will be discussed in Sect.IV. We close with a discussion of the results.

## II Spin-2 field description in the Fierz representation

In this section we present a short review of the FR in a Minkowskian background and in the absence of interactions 111Throughout this article we will use the signature $`(+)`$, and the notation $`A_{(\alpha }B_{\beta )}=A_\alpha B_\beta +A_\beta B_\alpha `$, $`A_{[\alpha }B_{\beta ]}=A_\alpha B_\beta A_\beta B_\alpha `$.. Let us start by defining a three-index tensor $`F_{\alpha \beta \mu }`$ which is anti-symmetric in the first pair of indices and obeys the cyclic identity:

$$F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+F_{\mu \alpha \nu }=0,$$
(1)
$$F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu \alpha }+F_{\nu \alpha \mu }=0.$$
(2)
The former expression implies that the dual of $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ is trace-free:

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \mu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}=0,$$
(3)
where the asterisk represents the dual operator, defined in terms of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ by

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \mu }{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\alpha \mu }{}_{\nu \sigma }{}^{}F_{}^{\nu \sigma }{}_{\lambda }{}^{}.$$

The tensor $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ has 20 independent components. The necessary and sufficient condition for $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ to represent an unique spin-2 field (described by 10 components) is 222Note that this condition is analogous to that necessary for the existence of a potential $`A_\mu `$ for the EM field, given by $`\stackrel{}{A}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \mu }{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}=0.`$

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\alpha (\mu \nu )}{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}=0,$$
(4)
which can be rewritten as

$`F_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\mu }{}^{}+F_{\beta \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}+F_{\mu \alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\beta }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\alpha ^\lambda (F_{\mu ,\beta }F_{\beta ,\mu })+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\mu ^\lambda (F_{\beta ,\alpha }F_{\alpha ,\beta }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\beta ^\lambda (F_{\alpha ,\mu }F_{\mu ,\alpha })=0.`$ (5)
A direct consequence of the above equation is the identity:

$$F^{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{,\mu }{}^{}=0.$$
(6)
We will call a tensor that satisfies the conditions given in the Eqns.(1), (2) and (4) a Fierz tensor.

If $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ is a Fierz tensor, it represents a unique spin-2 field. Condition (4) yields a connection between the ER and the FR: it implies that there exists a symmetric second-order tensor $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ such that

$`2F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\nu [\alpha ,\mu ]}+(\phi _{,\alpha }\phi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{})\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ (7)
$``$ $`(\phi _{,\mu }\phi _\mu {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{})\eta _{\alpha \nu }.`$
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the flat spacetime metric tensor, and the factor $`2`$ in the l.h.s. is introduced for convenience.

Taking the trace of equation (7) we find that

$$F_\alpha =\phi _{,\alpha }\phi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$

where $`F_\alpha F_{\alpha \mu \nu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Thus we can write

$$2F_{\alpha \mu \nu }=\phi _{\nu [\alpha ,\mu ]}+F_{[\alpha }\eta _{\mu ]\nu }.$$
(8)
The following identity can proved using the properties of the Fierz tensor:

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu ),\alpha }{}^{}G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(9)
where $`G^{(L)}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the linearized Einstein tensor, defined in terms of the symmetric tensor $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ by

$$G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{}\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi ^ϵ{}_{(\mu ,\nu ),ϵ}{}^{}+\phi _{,\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{}\phi \phi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{,\alpha \beta }{}^{}).$$
(10)
The divergence of $`F^\alpha _{(\mu \nu ),\alpha }`$ yields the identity:

$$F^{\alpha (\mu \nu )}{}_{,\alpha \mu }{}^{}0.$$
(11)
Indeed,

$$F^{\alpha \mu \nu }{}_{,\alpha \mu }{}^{}+F^{\alpha \nu \mu }{}_{,\mu \alpha }{}^{}=0.$$
(12)
The first term vanishes identically due to the symmetry properties of the field and the second term vanishes due to equation (6). Using Eqn.(9) the identity which states that the linearized Einstein tensor $`G^{(L)}_{\mu \nu }`$ is divergence-free is recovered.

We shall build now dynamical equations for the free Fierz tensor in flat spacetime. Our considerations will be restricted here to linear dynamics mio . The most general theory can be constructed from a combination of the three invariants involving the field. These are represented by $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`W`$:

$$AF_{\alpha \mu \nu }F^{\alpha \mu \nu },BF_\mu F^\mu ,$$

$$WF_{\alpha \beta \lambda }\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta \lambda }=\frac{1}{2}F_{\alpha \beta \lambda }F^{\mu \nu \lambda }\eta ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}.$$

$`W`$ is a topological invariant in the linear regime, so we shall use in what follows only the invariants $`A`$ and $`B`$.

The EOM for the massless spin-2 field in the ER is given by

$$G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=0.$$
(13)
As we have seen above, in terms of the field $`F^{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ this equation can be written as

$$F^{\lambda (\mu \nu )}{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}=0.$$
(14)
The corresponding action takes the form

$$S=\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{d}^4x(AB).$$
(15)
Note that the Fierz tensor has dimensionality (length)-1, which is compatible with the fact that Einstein constant $`k`$ has dimensionality (energy)-1 (length)-1. From now on we set $`k=1.`$ Then,

$$\delta S=2F^{\alpha \mu \nu }{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}\delta \phi _{\mu \nu }d^4x.$$
(16)
Using the identity

$$F^\alpha {}_{\mu \nu ,\alpha }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu ),\alpha }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(17)
we obtain

$$\delta S=G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\delta \phi ^{\mu \nu }d^4x,$$
(18)
where $`G^{(L)}_{\mu \nu }`$ is given in Eqn.(10). Thus, the action in Eqn.(15) when written in the ER reads

$$S=G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\phi _{}^{\mu \nu }d^4x.$$
(19)
Let us consider now the massive case. If we include a mass for the spin 2 field in the FR, the Lagrangian takes the form

$$=AB\frac{m^2}{2}\left(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi ^{\mu \nu }\phi ^2\right),$$
(20)
and the EOM that follow are

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu ),\alpha }{}^{}m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \eta _{\mu \nu })=0,$$
(21)
or equivalently,

$$G^{(L)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \eta _{\mu \nu })=0.$$

The trace of this equation gives

$$F^\alpha {}_{,\alpha }{}^{}+\frac{3}{2}m^2\phi =0,$$
(22)
while the divergence of Eqn.(21) yields

$$F_\mu =0.$$
(23)
This result together with the trace equation gives $`\phi =0.`$

In terms of the potential, Eqn.(23) is equivalent to

$$\phi _{,\mu }\phi ^ϵ{}_{\mu ,ϵ}{}^{}=0.$$
(24)
It follows that we must have

$$\phi ^{\mu \nu }{}_{,\nu }{}^{}=0.$$

Thus we have shown that the original ten degrees of freedom (DOF) of $`F_{\alpha \beta \mu }`$ have been reduced to five (which is the correct number for a massive spin-2 field) by means of the five constraints

$$\phi ^{\mu \nu }{}_{,\nu }{}^{}=0,\phi =0.$$
(25)
## III Interaction of the spin-2 field with an electromagnetic field

As discussed for instance in ds , the minimal coupling prescription $`_\mu _\mu ieA_\mu `$ is ambiguous in the case of a spin 2 field interacting with an EM field. The origin of this ambiguity is rooted, as in the case of a curved background aragones71 , in the non-commutativity of the derivative operator, which is manifest from

$$\phi _{\alpha \beta ;\mu \nu }\phi _{\alpha \beta ;\nu \mu }=ieA_{\nu \mu },$$
(26)
where $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ is the EM field, and the semicolon is the covariant derivative $`_\mu ieA_\mu `$. Let us review the argument in ds , which starts from the free Lagrangian for a charged spin 2 field in the ER:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^{(L)}+\frac{1}{2}m^2(\phi ^{\mu \nu }\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi ^{}\phi ).$$

The EOM that follow from this Lagrangian are

$`\mathrm{}(\phi _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi )+\phi _{,\mu \nu }+\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }\phi _{(\nu ,\mu )\alpha }^\alpha `$
$`+m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi )`$ $`=0.`$ (27)
It is the term before the mass term of this equation that leads to an ambiguity when minimal coupling is adopted. In ds , a one-parameter family of couplings was introduced, such that

$$\phi _{(\nu ,\mu )\alpha }^\alpha g\phi _{(\nu ;\mu )\alpha }^\alpha +(1g)\phi _{(\mu ;\alpha \mu )}^\alpha .$$

By studying the constraints of the one-parameter theory, it was shown in ds  that the only value of the gyromagnetic factor $`g`$ that maintains the correct number of DOF is $`g=1/2`$. The resulting EOM is

$`\mathrm{}(\phi _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi )+\phi _{;(\mu \nu )}+\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi _{;\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{(\nu ;\mu )\alpha }^\alpha `$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{(\nu ;\alpha \mu )}^\alpha +m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi )`$ $`=0.`$
Let us see how the minimal coupling procedure affects the equations for the free field in the FR, given in Sect.II. First, in the presence of an EM field Eqn.(4) transforms to

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{;\alpha }{}^{\alpha (\beta \lambda )}=\frac{1}{2}ie\stackrel{}{A}{}_{}{}^{\nu (\beta }\phi _{\nu }^{\lambda )}.$$
(29)
From this equation, the tensor $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ can be written as

$$2F_{\alpha \mu \nu }=\phi _{\nu [\alpha ;\mu ]}+F_{[\alpha }\eta _{\mu ]\nu },$$
(30)
with

$$F_\alpha =\phi _{;\alpha }\phi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{;\lambda }{}^{}.$$
(31)
If we start with the EOM for the charged spin-2 field in the absence of interactions in the FR (Eqn.(21)), and apply the minimal coupling procedure, we get

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu );\alpha }{}^{}m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \eta _{\mu \nu })=0.$$
(32)
There is no ambiguity then in the minimal substitution. In fact, using Eqns.(30) and (31) in Eqn.(32), we get the equation derived in ds  with $`g=1/2`$ (i.e. Eqn.(28)). In other words, the Fierz representation automatically gives a theory with the correct number of degrees of freedom when the minimal coupling scheme is used.

Let us now give two constraints that follow from Eqn.(32). If we take the divergence on the index $`\mu `$ in Eqn.(32), we get

$$\frac{3}{2}ieA^{\alpha \mu }F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}ieA_{\nu ,\alpha }^\mu \phi _\mu ^\alpha +m^2F_\nu =0,$$
(33)
for a sourceless EM field $`A_{\mu \nu }`$. Notice that in this constraint only first derivatives of $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ appear (in $`F_\mu `$). Taking the divergence of Eqn.(33) we obtain

$$ieA_{,\beta }^{\alpha \mu }F_{\alpha \mu }^\beta \frac{3}{2}\left(m^4\frac{1}{2}e^2A^2\right)\phi +\frac{3}{2}e^2A_\mu ^\alpha A^{\mu \beta }\phi _{\alpha \beta }=0,$$
(34)
where $`A^2=A_{\alpha \beta }A^{\alpha \beta }`$. Eqns.(33) and (34) correspond to the free-case equations (25). They reduce the number of DOF to five, and are necessary for the compatibility of the system. Note that a remarkable cancellation has happened: no second derivatives of $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ are present in this second constraint. It is precisely the absence in the constraints of second derivatives w.r.t time that guarantees that only physical degrees of freedom propagate. Armed with the EOM (32), we shall study in the next section the causal properties of massive spin 2 particles in an EM background.

## IV Causality in spin 2 fields interacting with an EM background

In this section it will be shown, using the FR, that the propagation of a massive spin 2 field in an EM background is causal. We shall recourse to the well-known method of the characteristics, which is in fact equivalent to the infinite-momentum limit of the eikonal approximation hada . To set the stage for the calculation, let us put together the equations we shall use. They are the EOM,

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu );\alpha }{}^{}m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \eta _{\mu \nu })=0,$$
(35)
its trace,

$$F^\alpha {}_{;\alpha }{}^{}\frac{3}{2}m^2\phi =0,$$
(36)
and the two constraints

$$\frac{3}{2}ieA^{\alpha \mu }F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}ieA_{\nu ,\alpha }^\mu \phi _\mu ^\alpha +m^2F_\nu =0,$$
(37)
and

$$ieA_{,\beta }^{\alpha \mu }F_{\alpha \mu }^\beta \frac{3}{2}\left(m^4\frac{1}{2}e^2A^2\right)+\frac{3}{2}e^2A_\mu ^\alpha A^{\mu \beta }\phi _{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(38)
To these, we must add some properties of the Fierz tensor:

$$F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+F_{\mu \alpha \nu }=0,$$
(39)
$$F_{\alpha \mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu \alpha }+F_{\nu \alpha \mu }=0,$$
(40)
and

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{;\alpha }{}^{\alpha (\beta \lambda )}=\frac{1}{2}ie\stackrel{}{A}{}_{}{}^{\nu (\beta }\phi _{\nu }^{\lambda )}.$$
(41)
Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the surface of discontinuity defined by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x^\mu )=\mathrm{constant}.$$

The discontinuity of a function $`J`$ through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be represented by $`[J]_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and its definition is

$$[J]_\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{\delta 0^+}{lim}\left(J|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }+\delta }J|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta }\right).$$

We shall assume that $`F_{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ is continuous through the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ but its first derivative is not:

$$[F_{\alpha \mu \nu }]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,[F_{\alpha \mu \nu ;\lambda }]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=f_{\alpha \mu \nu }k_\lambda .$$
(42)
From the discontinuity of the EOM (35) we learn that

$$f^{\mu (\alpha \beta )}k_\mu =0.$$
(43)
Taking the derivative of Eqn.(40) results in

$$k^\alpha f_{\alpha \mu \nu }+k^\alpha f_{\nu \alpha \mu }+k^\alpha f_{\mu \nu \alpha }=0.$$
(44)
This equation, together with Eqns.(42) and (43) tells us that the contraction of $`k`$ with $`f`$ is zero on any index of $`f`$. The trace equation (36) gives

$$f^\mu k_\mu =0.$$
(45)
Eqn.(29) can be written as

$`F_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\mu }{}^{}+F_{\beta \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}+F_{\mu \alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\beta }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\alpha ^\lambda F_{[\mu ,\beta ]}+`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\mu ^\lambda F_{[\beta ,\alpha ]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\beta ^\lambda F_{[\alpha ,\mu ]}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ie\stackrel{}{A}{}_{}{}^{\nu (\rho }\phi _{\nu }^{\lambda )}.`$
Notice that the r.h.s. is continuous. Taking the discontinuity of this equation, multiplying by $`k^\mu `$ and $`f_\lambda `$, and using Eqn.(43), we get that

$$f_{\alpha \beta \lambda }f^\lambda k^2=0.$$
(47)
We shall assume for the time being that $`k^20`$. The discontinuity of the derivatives of the constraints Eqns.(37) and (38) give

$$A_{\alpha \beta ,\mu }f^{\alpha \beta \mu }=0,$$
(48)
$$\frac{3}{2}ieA^{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta \mu }m^2f_\mu =0.$$
(49)
From Eqns.(47) and (49) we deduce that

$$f_\mu f^\mu =0.$$
(50)
Note that all the equations that resulted from taking the discontinuity (i.e. Eqns.(43)-(45) and (47)-(49)) depend only on $`f_{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ and its trace. Taking the discontinuity of the derivative of $`F_{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ we get that

$$[F_{\alpha \mu \nu ,\lambda }]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=f_{\alpha \mu \nu }k_\lambda $$

where

$$2f_{\alpha \mu \nu }=ϵ_{\nu \alpha }k_\mu ϵ_{\nu \mu }k_\alpha +f_\alpha \eta _{\mu \nu }f_\mu \eta _{\alpha \nu },$$
(51)
and

$$f_\alpha =ϵk_\alpha ϵ_\alpha ^\beta k_\beta .$$

Consequently the equations that follow from taking the discontinuity are invariant under the transformation

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}=ϵ_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_\mu k_\nu ,$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an arbitrary function of the coordinates 333Notice that this, as a direct calculation shows, is not a symmetry of the massless theory in the presence of a nonzero background.. This equation implies that

$$ϵ^{}=ϵ+\mathrm{\Lambda }k^2.$$
(53)
Now, this symmetry implies that observable quantities depend on the gauge choice unless $`k^2=0`$. Let us take for instance $`X_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu `$. From Eqn.(45),

$$X_\mu ^{}k^\mu =X_\mu k^\mu +(k^2)^2.$$
(54)
It follows that the projection of the polarization in the direction of $`k_\mu `$ is not a gauge-invariant quantity. Another quantity that is not gauge invariant is the norm $`X_\mu X^\mu `$, which transforms as

$$X^2=X^2+(2ϵ+\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }(k^2)^2.$$
(55)
We see that a spacelike (actually, a non-null) $`k_\mu `$ entails an unacceptable dependence of observable quantities with the gauge choice. This dependence disappears only when $`k^2=0`$. Summing up, the propagation of spin two fields in an EM background is causal, with the characteristics governed by the equation $`k^2=0`$.

## V Conclusion

We have given a summary of the Fierz representation for a spin 2 field, both in the free case and for the interaction with an electromagnetic background. This representation has some advantages over the Einstein representation. In particular, it was shown that, while the ER of a spin-2 field in an electromagnetic background has an inherent ambiguity related to the order of the derivatives when the minimal coupling procedure is applied, the Fierz representation is free from this difficulty. Another advantage of this representation is that it is similar to that used in Electromagnetism, and then we can profit from work already done in this area for instance in construction nonlinear theories for the spin 2 field mio . More importantly, the use of the Fierz representation has paved the way to a clean proof of the causality in the propagation of spin 2 fields in the presence of an electromagnetic field, thus showing that previous claims about noncausal propagation were mistaken.

To close, we would like to point out that in the issue of causality, the use of the Fierz representation is not mandatory. A closer look to the relevant equations in the Einstein representation (for instance Eqns. (64) and (66) in ds , without choosing a timelike $`k_\mu `$) shows that the gauge invariance given by Eqn.(52) is present there too. However, it is important to remark that the gauge invariance of the equations for the discontinuity (which went unnoticed before) is clearly displayed in the Fierz representation.

## Appendix 1

We shall be concerned here with the gauge invariance of Eqn.(13) under the map

$$\phi _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{\mu \nu }=\phi _{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu ,\nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu ,\mu }.$$
(56)
Although the field $`F_{\alpha \beta \mu }`$ is invariant under this map only if the vector $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ is a gradient, it is important to realize that the dynamics is invariant even when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a gradient. Indeed, we have

$$\delta F_{\alpha \beta \mu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta \mu }F_{\alpha \beta \mu }=\frac{1}{2}X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$
(57)
where

$`X_{\alpha \beta \mu }^\lambda `$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta ,\alpha })\delta _\mu ^\lambda +[\mathrm{\Lambda }^\sigma {}_{,\sigma }{}^{}\delta _{\alpha }^{\lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{,\lambda }]\eta _{\beta \mu }`$ (58)
$``$ $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }^\sigma {}_{,\sigma }{}^{}\delta _{\beta }^{\lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta {}_{}{}^{,\lambda }]\eta _{\alpha \mu }.`$
Then it follows that

$$2\delta F_\alpha =X_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$
(59)
with

$$X_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }X_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\beta \lambda }.$$

As a consequence of this transformation, the invariants $`A`$ and $`B`$ change in the following way:

$$\delta A=F^{\alpha \beta \mu }X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},\delta B=F^\alpha X_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}.$$

Note that $`X_{\alpha \beta \mu }^\lambda `$ is not cyclic in the indices $`(\alpha \beta \mu )`$, but the quantity $`X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }_{,\lambda }`$ has such cyclic property:

$$X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}+X_{\beta \mu \alpha }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}+X_{\mu \alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}=0.$$
(60)
It is straightforward to show the associated identities:

$$X^{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }{}_{,\lambda \alpha }{}^{}=0$$
(61)
$$X^{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }{}_{,\lambda \mu }{}^{}=0$$
(62)
$$X^{\alpha \lambda }{}_{,\alpha \lambda }{}^{}=0.$$
(63)
Thus,

$$\delta A=[\phi ^{\mu \alpha ,\beta }+F^\alpha \eta ^{\mu \beta }]X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$

or, equivalently,

$$\delta A=\phi ^{\mu \alpha ,\beta }X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}+F^\alpha X_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}.$$
(64)
Then,

$$\delta (AB)=\phi _{\mu \alpha ,\beta }X^{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$
(65)
and

$$\phi _{\mu \alpha ,\beta }X^{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{}=div\phi _{\mu \alpha }X^{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }{}_{,\lambda \beta }{}^{},$$
(66)
so that, because of (61),

$$\delta (AB)=0.$$
(67)
This shows that the transformation

$$F_{\alpha \beta \mu }F_{\alpha \beta \mu }+X_{\alpha \beta \mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{,\lambda }{}^{},$$

for $`X_{\alpha \beta \mu }^\lambda `$ given in equation (58), leaves the dynamics invariant.

## VI Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Brazilian agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and by FAPERJ.


text:
# Fermion Doubling and Berenstein–Maldacena–Nastase Correspondence

## 1 Introduction

Large $`N`$ physics  plays an important role in the correspondence between Yang–Mills theory and strings (see  for a review). Recently, Berenstein–Maldacena–Nastase (BMN) advocated in  that IIB superstring theory on pp-wave background can be described in terms of a particular set of operators (BMN operators) having large $`R`$-charge $`J`$ in super–Yang–Mills theory. The pp-wave background , appears as a Penrose limit of anti-de Sitter (AdS) space. Therefore, the BMN correspondence can be seen as a limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence . The peculiarity of this background is that string theory can be solved there .

The BMN correspondence was conjectured to hold in the limit of large (infinite) $`J`$ and $`N`$, the quantity $`g_{BMN}=J^2/N`$ being the effective coupling of the string interaction. For finite values of $`J`$ and $`N`$, however, the dynamics of BMN operators was shown to be equivalent to the string bit model . The string bit model was introduced by Thorn , as a supersymmetric mechanical model describing fragmented superstring. For earlier works dealing with the discretization of one dimensional superspace, see .

On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that the above string fragmentation corresponds to the lattice discretization of the string. In the Green–Schwarz approach, IIB superstring contains, besides the bosonic fields, also fermionic ones in target space representation.111For a useful parametrization of the scalar superfields involved, see . It is well known, however, that the lattice formulation of systems that include fermions possesses a strong drawback, related to a fermion doubling problem (see e.g. ). In particular, the lattice formulation of *supersymmetric theories* faces the problem of fermion doubling (see  and references therein for a review of the problem and subsequent developments). Thus, one may expect that the string bit model is spoiled by fermion doubling too. Below, we show that this is indeed the case.

Having in mind the abovementioned fact, together with the assumption that the string bit model describes *exactly* the BMN operator dynamics, we can conjecture that there are wrong fermionic modes in the BMN sector of super–Yang–Mills theory, which survive in the large $`N`$ (or large $`J`$) limit. This conjecture is supported also by the fact that computations in the BMN approach are essentially the same as in matrix theory, while at the same time in the latter one can find traces of the fermionic doubling .

The plan of the paper is as follows. Firstly, we briefly review the string bit model in both Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches. In the third section we analyze the fermionic spectrum and discover the low energy fermionic states corresponding to large lattice momenta (the edge of the Brillouin zone). Next, we solve the equations of motion for the bits, which allows one to quantize the model the same way, as it was done in the case of the continuous string. In section four we discuss the fate of supersymmetry in the case of the fermionic doubling. Using a simplified version of sting bits as a toy-model, we show that the contribution of the fermionic mirror states leads to a strong violation of supersymmetry, in the continuum limit. After that, we show how doubling states can appear in the BMN correspondence and, finally, we discuss the results.

## 2 Bit String Model

Let us shortly review the pp-wave IIB superstring bit model . The superstring consisting of $`J`$ bits is described in terms of phase space coordinates of its bits and their superpartners: $`\{p_n^i,x_n^i,\theta _n^a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a\}`$, where $`n=0,\mathrm{},J1`$. The phase space variables satisfy the following (classical) commutation relations:

$$[p_n^i,x_n^i]=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{mn},\{\theta _n^\alpha ,\theta _m^\beta \}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\delta ^{ab}\delta _{mn},\{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_m^b\}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\delta ^{ab}\delta _{mn}.$$
(1)
The reparametrization invariance of the string becomes, in the bit language, the invariance with respect to the symmetry group $`S_J`$ of permutations of the labels $`n`$. The whole permutation group $`S_J`$ is split into equivalence classes $`[\gamma ]`$ of permutations having the same number of cycles with fixed lengths $`J_1,J_2,\mathrm{},J_s`$, $`J_k=J`$. Then, the Hilbert space of the quantized model can be split, according to this, into a direct sum of *twisted sectors* $`_\gamma `$, associated with each conjugacy class $`[\gamma ]`$. The transformations inside a conjugacy class reduces to relabelling of bits in the cycles. Therefore, the twisted sector corresponding to the conjugacy class $`[\gamma _s]`$ with $`s`$ cycles, can be identified with the $`s`$-string Hilbert space. In particular, one string sector corresponds to cyclic subgroups of $`S_J`$, and up to relabelling of $`n`$ is given by

$$\gamma _1(n)=n+1modJ.$$
(2)
In the case of the $`s`$-string sector, one can introduce the following standard $`\gamma _s`$ transformation by fixing the representant of the conjugacy class $`[\gamma _1]`$. For this, let us relabel $`0nJ1`$ by sets of bits $`\{n_k;`$ $`0n_kJ_k1`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},s\}`$ and define

$$\gamma _s=\gamma _1^{(1)}\gamma _1^{(2)}\mathrm{}\gamma _1^{(s)},\gamma _1^{(k)}(n_k)=n_k+1modJ_k.$$
(3)
Since the conjugation transformations preserve the cyclic structure of $`\gamma _s`$ (including the lengths of the cycles), just changing the labels , in order to get the arbitrary representative $`\gamma _s^{}`$ of the conjugacy class, it suffices to replace each bit label by a permutation: $`n\sigma (n)`$. Among the permutations, however, there are some which do not change the cycles, thus leaving us with the same $`\gamma _s`$.

The Hamiltonian and supercharges describing the model read as follows: ,

$`H=H_B+H_F,`$ (4a)
$`Q={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}[a(p_n^i\gamma _i\theta _nx_n^i\gamma _i\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n)+(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)\gamma _i\theta _n],`$ (4b)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}[a(p_n^i\gamma _i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_nx_n^i\gamma _i\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n)(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)\gamma _i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n],`$ (4c)
where

$`H_B={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}(p_{in}^2+x_{in}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)^2],`$ (5)
$`H_F=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}[(\theta _n\theta _{\gamma (n)}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\gamma (n)})2a\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n].`$ (6)
In the Lagrangian form the action compatible with the Hamiltonian (4a) and the commutation relations (1) are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{J1}{}}[\frac{a}{2}\dot{x}_{in}^2\frac{1}{2a}(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)^2\frac{a}{2}x_{in}^2\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{i}a(\theta _n\dot{\theta }_n+\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}_n)+\mathrm{i}(\theta _n\theta _{\gamma (n)}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\gamma (n)})+2\mathrm{i}a\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n].\end{array}$$
(7)
The expressions (4) correspond to a discrete version of IIB superstring in pp-wave background , obtained by the most straightforward (naive) discretization. Since this naively discretized model contains fermions, one should expect problems typical of lattice fermions.

## 3 Fermion doubling

Let us analyze the fermionic spectrum in the free string bit model. In order to do this, let us consider the fermionic part (6) of the Hamiltonian and “diagonalize” it. For this, let us perform the bit (lattice) Fourier transform of the fields

$`\theta _n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{J}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=J/2}{\overset{J/2}{}}}\theta _p\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}ln/J},`$ (8a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{J}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=J/2}{\overset{J/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_p\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}pn/J},`$ (8b)
where, by abuse of notations, we kept the same character for both the field and its Fourier transform, distinguishing them only by the labels

$`l,m,n,\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},J1;`$ $`\text{(}x\text{-representation)},`$ (9)
$`p,q,r,\mathrm{}=J/2,J/2+1,\mathrm{},J/2;`$ $`\text{(}p\text{-representation)}.`$ (10)
From (10) one can notice that for odd $`J`$ the “momenta” $`p,q,r,\mathrm{}`$ run through integer numbers, while for an even $`J`$ value, they should be half-integer. This has no particular meaning and is a result of the choice for the origin of the momentum space, which in the present case was taken to be symmetric with respect to the inversion of momenta $`pp`$.

Let us consider, for definiteness, the one string sector and fix the standard choice (2) for the “moduli” of $`\gamma `$ permutation. As we discussed above, all other situations in the same class $`[\gamma ]`$ are obtained from the standard one by all possible relabelling of bits $`n^{}=n^{}(n)`$. (The other multi-string sectors can be analyzed in a similar way, by fixing the “standard” $`\gamma `$-permutations to (3), and then “shuffling” the labels, in order to generalize the result to arbitrary $`\gamma _s`$.)

Plugging the transformations (8) in the fermionic Hamiltonian (6), yields the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}H_F=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi p}{J}\right)(\theta _p\theta _p\stackrel{~}{\theta }_p\stackrel{~}{\theta }_p)+2a\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_p\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _p=\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\begin{array}{cc}\theta _p& \stackrel{~}{\theta }_p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi p}{J}& \mathrm{i}a\mathrm{\Pi }\\ \mathrm{i}a\mathrm{\Pi }& \mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi p}{J}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta _p\\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }_p\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(11)
It is not difficult to see that the spectrum of the Hamiltonian (11) reads

$$E_p^{(J)}=\pm \sqrt{J^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{2\pi p}{J}+1}.$$
(12)
As expected, in the limit of large $`J`$, one can expand the sin function under the square root, in order to get the continuum energy levels of the fermions222Notice the difference in notations with the paper .

$$\omega _n=E_{p=nJ}^{(J)}\pm \sqrt{(2\pi n)^2+1},$$
(13)
obtained by Metsaev in .

Eq. (13) yields a correct, although incomplete, energy spectrum for the continuous superstring. Due to the other zero of the sin function when its argument approaches $`\pm \pi `$, there are other low energy levels which survive in the continuum limit $`J\mathrm{}`$. They appear when the momentum $`p`$ is in the vicinity of the edge of the *Brillouin zone*, $`p\pm J/2`$. This will appear as a 2-fold degeneracy of each energy level in (13), $`E_p=E_{J/2p}`$. This phenomenon has been is known for long time in lattice theories with fermions, where it is called fermion spectrum *doubling* (for more details see the textbook ).

The doubling can be related to a symmetry of the discrete system of string bits which relates fermionic modes of different chiralities

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta _n\\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\end{array}\right)(1)^n\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\\ \mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
Thus, in the continuum limit, we obtained not just pp-wave IIB superstring but something more, i.e. the Green–Schwarz superstring with two fermionic sectors!

In this context one may ask, what happens to supersymmetry? The short answer is that the lattice theory in fact is not supersymmetric owing to the effects of discreetness. Also due to the doubling, the symmetry has few chances to be restored in the continuum limit!

## 4 A note on Supersymmetry and Doubling

In order to illustrate the behavior of supersymmetry on the lattice let us consider a simpler toy model example, which catches however the most important features generic for all supersymmetric models on the lattice.

Let us consider the model of “one dimensional superstring” described by the continuum action

$$S=\mathrm{d}^2\sigma \left(\frac{1}{2}_aX_aX+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\psi \widehat{}\psi \right),$$
(15)
where $`X`$ and $`\psi `$ are, respectively, a bosonic field and a Majorana-Weyl fermion on a two dimensional cylinder. The action (15) is invariant with respect to the supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta X=\mathrm{i}ϵ\psi ,`$ (16)
$`\delta \psi =\widehat{}Xϵ,`$ (17)
where $`\widehat{}`$ is the two dimensional Dirac operator, $`\widehat{}=\gamma _a_a`$, and $`ϵ`$ is the supersymmetry transformation parameter, which is a Majorana-Weyl spinor. In the canonical formalism the system is represented by the canonical variables $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\sigma )=(L/\dot{X})`$, $`X(\sigma )`$ and $`\psi `$, satisfying

$$[\mathrm{\Pi }(\sigma ),X(\sigma ^{})]_{PB}=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),\{\psi _\alpha (\sigma ),\psi _\beta (\sigma ^{})\}_{PB}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^0\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$
(18)
and the Hamiltonian

$$H=d\sigma \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2+\frac{1}{2}(X^{})^2+\mathrm{i}\psi \gamma _1\psi ^{}\right).$$
(19)
Supersymmetry is generated by the supercharge

$$Q=d\sigma [\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Pi }\psi +\mathrm{i}X^{}\gamma _1\gamma _0\psi ],$$
(20)
which satisfies the (classical) algebra,

$$\{Q,Q\}=2H\gamma _0+2P\gamma _1,$$
(21)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian (19) and $`P=\mathrm{\Pi }X^{}`$ denotes the shift generator. Just like the action, the Hamiltonian (19) is invariant with respect to the supersymmetry transformation

$$\delta H=ϵ[Q,H]=0.$$
(22)
Let us consider now a version of the above model in the case of a discrete spatial extension $`\sigma \sigma _1`$.333This model suffers from doubling, in the same way as the string bit model in the previous section. In order to do this, let us start with the supercharge444We consider the following discretization of $`\sigma `$: $`\sigma =an`$, $`n=0,\mathrm{},J`$, and $`a=2\pi L/J`$.

$$Q=a\underset{n=0}{\overset{J}{}}\left(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Pi }_n\psi _n+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{a}(X_{n+1}X_n)\gamma _1\gamma _0\psi _n\right).$$
(23)
This expression is analogous to the supercharge (4b) and is a straightforward discretization of (20). The discrete Hamiltonian and the shift operator can be defined through the lattice version of Eq. (21). Indeed, for the Hamiltonian one has

$$H=a\underset{n}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_n^2+\frac{1}{2a^2}(X_{n+1}X_n)^2+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2a}\psi _n\gamma _1\psi _{n+1}\right),$$
(24)
while $`P`$ appears to be the operator of the forward lattice shift, i.e. $`P=_n\mathrm{\Pi }_n(X_{n+1}X_n)`$.

The above results agree perfectly with what can be expected from a naive discretization of the Hamiltonian (19). However, an unpleasant surprise comes next. The discrete Hamiltonian (24) fails to be exactly supersymmetric! Indeed, a straightforward computation yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta H/\delta ϵ=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{n}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_n\gamma _0+\frac{1}{a}(X_{n+1}X_n)\gamma _1\right)\gamma _1(\psi _{n+1}2\psi _n+\psi _{n1})\right].\end{array}$$
(25)
For slowly varying fields (which correspond to smooth functions in the continuum limit), this part of the supersymmetry variation is of order $`1/J`$ and thus it vanishes, as $`J`$ approaches infinity. This occurs because the terms in (25) correspond to lattice analogs of second derivatives, multiplied by factors of order $`a=2\pi /J`$. In the continuum limit they are supposed to give Lorentz noninvariant terms vanishing like

$$\frac{\mathrm{i}a}{2}\mathrm{d}\sigma [(\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma _0X^{}\gamma _1)\gamma _1\psi ^{\prime \prime }O(1/J).$$
(26)
This is what would happen, if the doubler states would not come into the game. For the doubler states the fermionic factor in the r.h.s of (25) is of the order of unity, while the summation adds a factor of order $`J`$ making the non-invariant contribution divergent. This is in contrast with the situation of the “genuine” non-doubled part, where the fermionic factor is of order $`1/J^2`$, while the summation just reduces the decay by one power in $`J`$. In conclusion, the supersymmetry algebra on the lattice does not close, to ensure the supersymmetry of the Hamiltonian. Moreover, due to the contribution of doubler states, the non-invariant terms do not just fail to vanish in the continuum limit but, on the contrary, they even diverge!

We have considered a simplified toy model related to the bit string. However, this model catches, besides technical details, the crucial properties of the string bit model under study. The result, also, is not an unexpected one. Firstly, because the Poincaré algebra which is important part of the supersymmetry algebra is gravely affected by the discretization. (In our case it is, in fact, reduced to continuous shifts in time and discrete one in the spatial direction, while rotations are completely lost). It would be at least strange if it were otherwise, because the string bit model can be (consistently if there was no doubling) formulated in any dimension and any background what comes in contradiction with the fact that consistent superstring theories can exist only in very special spaces and backgrounds.555Strictly speaking, this is related not only to the fermion doubling problem but also to violations of conformal symmetry on the lattice.

## 5 Bit string quantization (à la Metsaev)

Let us solve the equations of motion, following . This will allow us to quantize the bit string and understand the phenomenon of doubling.

The equations of motion arising from the action (7) read

$$\ddot{x}_n^i+\frac{1}{2a^2}(x_{\gamma (n)}2x_n+x_{\gamma ^1(n)})x_n^i=0,$$
(27)
for the bosonic part, and

$`\dot{\theta }_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}(\theta _{\gamma (n)}\theta _{\gamma ^1(n)})+\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0,`$ (28a)
$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}_n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\gamma (n)}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\gamma ^1(n)})\mathrm{\Pi }\theta =0,`$ (28b)
for fermions. Once again, let us limit ourselves to the one-string sector and fix the class $`[\gamma _1]`$ by the standard choice: $`\gamma (n)=n+1modJ`$. As we discussed earlier, the solution corresponding to an arbitrary element of the class is obtained by permutation of labels in the “standard” solution.

The solution to the equations of motion is obtained in a way analogous to that of , except the discrete Fourier transform (8) is used. In particular, the bosonic part of the solution looks as follows:

$$x_n^i(\tau )=X^i\mathrm{cos}\tau +P^i\mathrm{sin}\tau +\underset{l=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm [J/2]}{}\frac{1}{\omega _l}(\alpha _l^{1i}\widehat{\phi }_{l;n}^1(\tau )+\alpha _l^{2i}\widehat{\phi }_{l;n}^2(\tau )),$$
(29)
where $`\alpha _l^{ai}`$ are string mode operators while $`\phi _{l;n}^a(\tau )`$ are respective modes of the string

$`\widehat{\phi }_{l;n}^1(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}(\widehat{\omega }_l\tau 2\pi ln/J))`$ (30a)
$`\widehat{\phi }_{l;n}^2(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}(\widehat{\omega }_l\tau +2\pi ln/J)),`$ (30b)
and

$$\widehat{\omega }_l=sgnl\sqrt{\widehat{k}_l^2+1},\widehat{k}_l^2=\frac{2}{a^2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi l}{J}\right).$$
(31)
Once again, it is not difficult to see that, as $`J\mathrm{}`$, $`a=1/J0`$, one recovers the solution of .

Let us turn now to the fermionic sector. The solution in this sector reads

$`\theta _n(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}\tau \mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{sin}\tau \mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l(\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }_{n;l}^1(\tau )\theta _l^1+\mathrm{i}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_l\stackrel{ˇ}{k}_l)\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }_{n;l}^2(\tau )\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _l^2)`$ (32a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\mathrm{sin}\tau \mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l(\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }_{n;l}^2(\tau )\theta _l^2\mathrm{i}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_l\stackrel{ˇ}{k}_l)\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }_{n;l}^1(\tau )\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _l^1),`$ (32b)
where, as in the bosonic case, the sum is performed over $`l=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm [J/2]`$, and the fermionic modes $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }_{n;l}^a(\tau )`$ are given by the same expressions (30), except that the hatted $`\widehat{\omega }_l`$ and $`\widehat{k}_l`$ are replaced by the “checked” ones $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_l`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{k}_l`$, given by

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_l=sgnl\sqrt{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}_l^2+1},\stackrel{ˇ}{k}_l=\frac{2}{a}\left(\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi l}{J}\right).$$
(33)
The peculiarity of the fermionic solution (32) is that, owing to the presence of a sin2 factor (instead of cos, as in the bosonic case), very high fermionic modes $`lJ/2`$ possess the same energy as the modes in the region $`lJ`$. In fact, the modes of the same energy come in pairs $`(l,J/2l)`$, in total accord with the discussion of the previous section. The canonically quantized model is obtained by replacing the Poisson brackets of the oscillator modes generators $`\alpha _l^a`$ and $`\theta _l^a`$ (where $`a=1,2`$) with the commutation relations

$$[P^i,X^j]=\mathrm{i}\delta ^{ij},[\alpha _l^{ai},\alpha _m^{bj}]=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\omega }\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{ij}\delta _{m+n,0},$$
(34)
for bosonic modes, and

$$\{\theta _l^{a\alpha },\theta _m^{b\beta }\}=\frac{1}{4}\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{m+n,0},$$
(35)
for fermionic ones.

A note is in order. The solution we found in this section corresponds to a particular choice of the cyclic permutation $`\gamma (n)`$. As proposed in , the physical states of the string bit model are those symmetrized with respect to conjugations of $`\gamma `$, $`h^1\gamma h`$, or averaged over the conjugacy class of $`\gamma `$. As we noted earlier, going to a different $`\gamma `$, in the same conjugacy class, is equivalent to a permutation of the labels $`nh(n)`$ . Therefore, a solution with a different $`\gamma ^{}=h^1\gamma h`$ is still given by Eqs. (29) and (32), where now the functions $`\phi _{n;l}`$ are replaced by $`\phi _{h(n);l}`$. Then, a physical state with $`B`$ bosonic and $`F`$ fermionic modes symmetrized over the permutations generically looks as follows:

$$\frac{1}{J!}\underset{hS_J}{}\alpha _{l_1}^{h^1\gamma h}\mathrm{}\alpha _{l_B}^{h^1\gamma h}\theta _{l_1}^{h^1\gamma h}\mathrm{}\theta _{l_F}^{h^1\gamma h}|0,$$
(36)
where the labels correspond to raising operators. The ground state is unique and invariant with respect to the permutation group $`S_J`$, so we do not have to twist the vacuum.

## 6 BMN correspondence

So far, we observed that the bit string model contains a number of problems like fermion doubling and supersymmetry violation. On the other hand, the bit string model is equivalent to BMN sector of the super–Yang–Mills model at any finite $`J`$. This equivalence would imply that the fermionic subsector of the BMN operators is badly defined, at finite $`J`$. (Since there is no definition for the BMN correspondence at $`J=\mathrm{}`$, this would signal a self-consistency problem in the BMN correspondence.) Hence, in this section we proceed to the analysis of the implications of fermion doubling at the level of the BMN operators.

The BMN correspondence  relates a class of operators in $`N=4`$ super–Yang–Mills model, which have a large $`R`$-charge ($`J\mathrm{}`$), to states in the closed superstring on the pp-wave background. The string “semantics” of the BMN language is as follows. The light-cone superstring vacuum in the BMN language is given by the operator

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{J}N^{J/2}}tr[Z^J]|0,p_+,$$
(37)
where $`Z`$ is the complex scalar component, $`Z=(\varphi ^5+\mathrm{i}\varphi ^6)/\sqrt{2}`$.

The excited string states correspond to the insertion of “impurities” under the trace (37), according to the following rule:

$`D_\mu Z\alpha ^\mu ,`$ $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},4`$ (38)
$`\varphi ^{j4}\alpha ^i,`$ $`i=5,\mathrm{},8`$ (39)
$`\chi _{J=\frac{1}{2}}^a\theta ^\alpha ,`$ $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},8,`$ (40)
where $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ are, respectively, bosonic and fermionic standard oscillator raising operators. Also, in order to get nonzero string modes, the insertions should be accompanied by a factor $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{i}kn}{J}}`$, where $`k`$ is the position of the insertion in the row of $`Z`$’s. Hence, e.g. a double fermionic insertion corresponds to

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{J}N^{J/2+1}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}tr[\chi _{J=\frac{1}{2}}^\alpha Z^k\chi _{J=\frac{1}{2}}^\beta Z^{Jl}]\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{i}kl}{J}}\theta _l^\alpha \theta _l^\beta |0,p_+.$$
(41)
Thus, the BMN correspondence (*language*) is formulated in terms of *words* or strings of products of $`Z`$’s, with insertions of impurities and operators on the space of allowed words. The main operators acting on words are the position $`X`$ and the shift $`P`$. $`X`$ gives the position $`j`$ (up to a cyclic permutation) of an insertion in the chain of $`Z`$’s, while $`P`$ performs a permutation of the impurity in the $`j`$-th position to the $`(j+1)`$-th one.

One can define the scalar product of words $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}Z\varphi Z\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{}`$, which is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{})=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{N,J\mathrm{}}.$$
(42)
(The necessary properties required for this to be a scalar product follow from the planar properties of the correlator in the large $`N`$ limit, .) As it can be seen, the shift operator $`P`$ is not self-adjoint, with respect to the BMN scalar product, and there is an adjoint operator $`P^+`$, which corresponds to the backward shift

$$P^+:jj1.$$
(43)
Since the bosonic interaction comes through the term $`g_{YM}^2tr[Z,\varphi ][\overline{Z},\varphi ]`$, this produces in the bosonic part of the effective Hamiltonian a term proportional to $`P^+P`$ (due to the cyclic property of the trace this is the same as $`PP^+`$). On the other hand, the fermionic interactions in super–Yang–Mills theory are linear in the shifts

$$(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_Z[Z,\chi ]+\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{Z}}[\overline{Z},\chi ]).$$
(44)
This leads to a contribution proportional to the symmetric part of the shift operator $`1/2(P+P^+)`$ in the fermionic part of the effective Hamiltonian. As we observed above, when analyzing the bit string model, this leads to the fermionic spectrum doubling. In terms of the shift operators, this is explained by the existence of such zero modes of $`1/2(P+P^+)`$, which correspond to highly oscillating modes on the lattice string.

## 7 Discussion

In this paper we addressed the problem of finite $`N`$ effects in the BMN correspondence. For finite $`N`$ and $`J`$, the set of BMN operators maps into the Hilbert space of $`J`$ string bits. As we have shown above, the fermionic spectrum of the string bit model is doubled. An immediate effect of doubling is the failure to get a supersymmetric limit, as $`J\mathrm{}`$.

We considered a free theory and, on this level, one can explicitly separate the contribution of the doubler states, in order to get the correct spectrum of IIB string, as $`J`$ and $`N`$ go to infinity. We *believe* that this can also be done on the tree level of interacting closed superstrings. However, as the experience of the lattice shows, in the case of bit loops the doubling states mix with the correct modes.

In spite of above problems, the study of supersymmetric models on the lattice have achieved, during the last several years, a considerable progress (see  for a review).666While this work was in progress a paper  studying topological models on the lattice appeared. One can hope to apply the technique developed in this approach to string bits too. This is accompanied, however, by the fact that, beyond the typical lattice problem with fermion doubling, there are specifical string problems, related to conformal invariance violation by the string discretization. One can also expect the duality symmetries to be violated too.

Returning to the BMN correspondence, one can see that there is a class of unwanted fermionic states, given by the fermionic doublers, which survive in the (formal) BMN limit. In fact, the BMN sector is known to contain some “extra” states which are conjectured to decouple because of large masses acquired due to the interactions . On the other hand, the above arguments about decoupling, used in  would hardly apply to fermion doublers, since they propagate and interact exactly in the same way, as the genuine fermionic modes.

The above fact can also signal the presence of the same problem in the fermionic spectrum of the AdS/CFT correspondence, when one tries to obtain such correspondence starting from large but finite values of $`N`$. In order to be able to say something more precise, one has to study this topic too. We hope to do this in the future. Perhaps one can avoid the problems, working directly in the model with $`N=\mathrm{}`$, which is the super–Yang–Mills model in noncommutative space. However, in this case, a procedure allowing to get rid of non-planar contributions must be devised and implemented.

### Acknowledgements

Useful discussions with Francisco Morales, Jan Plefka and Fabrizio Palumbo are acknowledged.

This work was partially supported by a RBRF grant, the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under the contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime, the INTAS-00-0254 & INTAS-00-0262 grants, the NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant PST.CLG.979389 and the Iniziativa Specifica MI12 of the INFN Commissione Nazionale IV.