text:
# Unification of Non-Abelian 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) Gauge Theory and Gravitational Gauge Theory

## 1 Introduction

It is known that there are four kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature, which are strong interactions, electromagnetic interactions, weak interactions and gravitational interactions. All these fundamental interactions can be described by gauge field theories, which can be regarded as the common nature of all these fundamental interactions. It provides us the possibility to unify different kinds of fundamental interactions in the framework of gauge theory. The first unification of fundamental interactions in human history is the unification of electric interactions and magnetic interactions, which is made by Maxwell in 1864. Now, we know that electromagnetic theory is a $`U(1)`$ Abelian gauge theory. In 1921, H.Weyl tried to unify electromagnetic interactions and gravitational interactions in a theory which has local scale invariance. Weyl’s original work is not successful, however in his great attempt, he introduced one of the most important concept in modern physics: gauge transformation and gauge symmetry. After the foundation of quantum mechanics, V.Fock, H.Weyl and W.Pauli found that quantum electrodynamics is a $`U(1)`$ gauge invariant theory.

In 1954, Yang and Mills proposed non-Abelian gauge field theory. Soon after, non-Abelian gauge field theory is applied to elementary particle theory. In about 1967 and 1968, using the spontaneously symmetry breaking and Higgs mechanism, S.Weinberg and A.Salam proposed the unified electroweak theory, which is a $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge theory. The predictions of unified electroweak theory have been confirmed in a large number of experiments, and the intermediate gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ which are predicted by unified electroweak model are also found in experiments. From nineteen seventies, physicist begin studying Grand Unified theories which try to unify strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions in a simple group. At that time, $`SU(5)`$ model, $`SO(10)`$ model, $`E_6`$ model and other models are proposed. In these attempts, gravitational interactions are not considerdd.

Gauge treatment of gravity was suggested immediately after the gauge theory birth itself. In the traditional gauge treatment of gravity, Lorentz group is localized, and the gravitational field is not represented by gauge potential. It is represented by metric field. The theory has beautiful mathematical forms, but up to now, its renormalizability is not proved. In other words, it is conventionally considered to be perturbatively non-renormalizable. Recently, some new attempts were proposed to use Yang-Mills theory to reformulate quantum gravity. In these new approaches, the importance of gauge fields is emphasized. Some physicists also try to use gauge potential to represent gravitational field, some suggest that we should pay more attention on translation group. Recently, Wu proposed a new quantum gauge theory of gravity which is a renormalizable quantum gravity. Based on gauge principle, space-time translation group is selected to be the gravitational gauge group. After localization of gravitational gauge group, the gravitational field appears as the corresponding gauge potential. In this paper, we will discuss unification of fundamental interactions which is based on gravitational gauge theory. In literature , Wu proposed a model in which $`U(1)`$ gauge theory is consistently unified with gravitational gauge theory in a semi-direct product group. In this paper, we will generalize the unification from $`U(1)`$ gauge group to $`SU(N)`$ gauge group, i.e., the unification of general non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge interactions and gravitational gauge interactions is studied. If $`N=3`$, this theory is just the unified theory of strong and gravitational interactions.

## 2 Lagrangian

The generators of $`SU(N)`$ group is denoted as $`T_a`$, they satisfies

$$[T_a,T_b]=if_{abc}T_c,$$
(2.1)
$$Tr(T_aT_b)=K\delta _{ab}.$$
(2.2)
The $`SU(N)`$ non-Abelian gauge field is denoted as $`A_\mu `$, which is an element of $`SU(N)`$ Lie algebra,

$$A_\mu (x)=A_\mu ^a(x)T_a,$$
(2.3)
where $`A_\mu ^a(x)`$ are component fields.

Because an arbitrary element $`U(x)`$ of $`SU(N)`$ group does not commute with an arbitrary element $`\widehat{U}_ϵ`$ of gravitational gauge group,

$$[U(x),\widehat{U}_ϵ]0.$$
(2.4)
The product group of $`SU(N)`$ group and gravitational group is not direct product group, but semi-direct product group, which we will denoted as $`GSU(N)`$

$$GSU(N)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}SU(N)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup.$$
(2.5)
An arbitrary element of $`GSU(N)`$ is denoted as $`g(x)`$, which is defined by

$$g(x)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\widehat{U}_ϵU(x).$$
(2.6)
The gauge covariant derivative of $`GSU(N)`$ group is

$$𝐃_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}_\mu igC_\mu ig_sA_\mu =D_\mu ig_sA_\mu ,$$
(2.7)
where $`g_s`$ is the coupling constant of non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge interactions, $`C_\mu `$ is the gravitational gauge field and $`D_\mu `$ is the gravitational gauge covariant derivative

$$D_\mu =_\mu igC_\mu (x).$$
(2.8)
Gravitational gauge field which is a vector in gauge group space,

$$C_\mu (x)=C_\mu ^\alpha (x)\widehat{P}_\alpha ,$$
(2.9)
where $`\widehat{P}_\alpha =i\frac{}{x^\alpha }`$ is the generator of gravitational gauge group.

The field strength of non-Abelian gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is

$$A_{\mu \nu }=(D_\mu A_\nu )(D_\nu A_\mu )ig_s[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].$$
(2.10)
$`A_{\mu \nu }`$ is also an element of $`SU(N)`$ Lie algebra,

$$A_{\mu \nu }(x)=A_{\mu \nu }^a(x)T_a,$$
(2.11)
where

$$A_{\mu \nu }^a=(D_\mu A_\nu ^a)(D_\nu A_\mu ^a)+g_sf_{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.$$
(2.12)
$`A_{\mu \nu }`$ is not a $`SU(N)`$ gauge covariant field strength. In order to define $`SU(N)`$ gauge covariant field strength, we need a matrix $`G`$ which is given by

$$G=(G_\mu ^\alpha )=(\delta _\mu ^\alpha gC_\mu ^\alpha )=IgC.$$
(2.13)
Its inverse matrix is denoted as $`G^1`$,

$$G^1=\frac{1}{IgC}=(G_\alpha ^{1\mu }).$$
(2.14)
They satisfy the following relations,

$$G_\mu ^\alpha G_\alpha ^{1\nu }=\delta _\mu ^\nu ,$$
(2.15)
$$G_\beta ^{1\mu }G_\mu ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha .$$
(2.16)
It can be proved that

$$D_\mu =G_\mu ^\alpha _\alpha .$$
(2.17)
The field strength of gravitational gauge field is defined by

$$F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{1}{ig}[D_\mu ,D_\nu ].$$
(2.18)
Its explicit expression is

$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)=_\mu C_\nu (x)_\nu C_\mu (x)igC_\mu (x)C_\nu (x)+igC_\nu (x)C_\mu (x).$$
(2.19)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is also a vector in gauge group space,

$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)=F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (x)\widehat{P}_\alpha ,$$
(2.20)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =_\mu C_\nu ^\alpha _\nu C_\mu ^\alpha gC_\mu ^\beta (_\beta C_\nu ^\alpha )+gC_\nu ^\beta (_\beta C_\mu ^\alpha ).$$
(2.21)
$`SU(N)`$ Gauge covariant field strength is defined by

$$𝐀_{\mu \nu }=A_{\mu \nu }+gG_\sigma ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =𝐀_{\mu \nu }^aT_a,$$
(2.22)
where

$$𝐀_{\mu \nu }^a=A_{\mu \nu }^a+gG_\sigma ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^aF_{\mu \nu }^\sigma .$$
(2.23)
The lagrangian density $`_0`$ is given by,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _0& =& \overline{\psi }[\gamma ^\mu (D_\mu ig_sA_\mu )+m]\psi \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝐀_{\mu \nu }^a𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.24)
where

$$g_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\eta _{\mu \nu }(G^1)_\alpha ^\mu (G^1)_\beta ^\nu .$$
(2.25)
The full lagrangian density $``$ is defined by

$$=J(C)_0,$$
(2.26)
where

$$J(C)=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g_{\alpha \beta }}$$
(2.27)
is a special factor to resume gravitational gauge symmetry of the system. The action is

$$S=\mathrm{d}^4x=\mathrm{d}^4xJ(C)_0.$$
(2.28)
## 3 Gauge Symmetry

Now, we discus symmetry of the system. Under $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations, gravitational gauge field $`C_\mu (x)`$ is kept unchanged. Therefore, $`F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$, $`G_\mu ^\alpha `$, $`G_\alpha ^{1\mu }`$ , $`D_\mu `$ and $`J(C)`$ are not changed under local $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations. Other fields and operators transform as

$$\psi \psi ^{}=(U(x)\psi ),$$
(3.1)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=U(x)A_\mu U^1(x)\frac{1}{ig_s}U(x)(D_\mu U^1(x)),$$
(3.2)
$$A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{}=U(x)A_{\mu \nu }U^1(x)+\frac{g}{ig_s}F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma U(x)(_\sigma U^1(x)),$$
(3.3)
$$𝐀_{\mu \nu }𝐀_{\mu \nu }^{}=U(x)𝐀_{\mu \nu }U^1(x).$$
(3.4)
Using all these relations, we can prove that the lagrangian density $`_0`$ does not change under local $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations

$$_0_0^{}=_0.$$
(3.5)
Because both integration measure $`\mathrm{d}^4x`$ and $`J(C)`$ are not changed under non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformation, the action is invariant under $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformation. Therefore, the system has local $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry.

Under local gravitational gauge transformation, the transformations of various fields and operators are

$$\psi \psi ^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ\psi ),$$
(3.6)
$$\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ\overline{\psi }),$$
(3.7)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵA_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.8)
$$C_\mu C_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵC_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1\frac{1}{ig}\widehat{U}_ϵ(_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1),$$
(3.9)
$$g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^{\beta _1}(\widehat{U}_ϵg_{\alpha _1\beta _1}),$$
(3.10)
$$𝐃_\mu 𝐃_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵ𝐃_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.11)
$$A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵA_{\mu \nu }\widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.12)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\sigma \widehat{U}_ϵF_{\mu \nu }^\rho \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.13)
$$G_\mu ^\alpha G_\mu ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha \widehat{U}_ϵG_\mu ^\beta \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.14)
$$G_\alpha ^{1\mu }G_\alpha ^{1\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\beta \widehat{U}_ϵG_\beta ^{1\mu }\widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.15)
$$𝐀_{\mu \nu }𝐀_{\mu \nu }^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵ𝐀_{\mu \nu }\widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.16)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J\widehat{U}_ϵJ(C)\widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(3.17)
where $`J`$ is the Jacobian of the corresponding transformation which is given by

$$J=det\left(\frac{(xϵ)^\mu }{x^\nu }\right),$$
(3.18)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\beta `$ are the transformation matrices which are given by :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{x^\alpha }{(xϵ(x))^\beta },$$
(3.19)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\beta =\frac{(xϵ(x))^\beta }{x^\alpha }.$$
(3.20)
Using all these relations and the following relation

$$\mathrm{d}^4xJ(\widehat{U}_ϵf(x))=\mathrm{d}^4xf(x),$$
(3.21)
where $`f(x)`$ is an arbitrary function, we can prove that

$$_0_0^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ_0),$$
(3.22)
$$^{}=J(\widehat{U}_ϵ),$$
(3.23)
$$SS^{}=S.$$
(3.24)
Therefore, the system has local gravitational gauge symmetry.

Combining above results on local $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations and local gravitational gauge transformations, we know that under general $`GSU(N)`$ gauge transformation $`g(x)`$, transformations of various fields and operators are

$$\psi \psi ^{}=(g(x)\psi ),$$
(3.25)
$$\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ(\overline{\psi }U^{}(x))),$$
(3.26)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=g(x)\left[A_\mu \frac{1}{ig_s}(D_\mu U^1(x))U(x)\right]g^1(x),$$
(3.27)
$$C_\mu C_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵC_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1\frac{1}{ig}\widehat{U}_ϵ(_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1),$$
(3.28)
$$𝐃_\mu 𝐃_\mu ^{}=g(x)𝐃_\mu g^1(x),$$
(3.29)
$$A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{}=g(x)\left[A_{\mu \nu }+\frac{g}{ig_s}F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma (_\sigma U^1(x))U(x)\right]g^1(x),$$
(3.30)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\sigma g(x)F_{\mu \nu }^\rho g^1(x),$$
(3.31)
$$G_\mu ^\alpha G_\mu ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha g(x)G_\mu ^\beta g^1(x),$$
(3.32)
$$G_\alpha ^{1\mu }G_\alpha ^{1\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\beta g(x)G_\beta ^{1\mu }g^1(x),$$
(3.33)
$$g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^{\beta _1}g(x)g_{\alpha _1\beta _1}g^1(x),$$
(3.34)
$$𝐀_{\mu \nu }𝐀_{\mu \nu }^{}=g(x)𝐀_{\mu \nu }g^1(x),$$
(3.35)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=Jg(x)J(C)g^1(x).$$
(3.36)
Action $`S`$ is invariant local $`GSU(N)`$ gauge transformation.

## 4 Interactions

The lagrangian density $``$ can also be separated into two parts: the free lagrangian density $`_F`$ and interaction lagrangian density $`_I`$

$$=_F+_I,$$
(4.1)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _F& =& \overline{\psi }(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m)\psi \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }\eta _{\alpha \beta }F_{0\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{0\rho \sigma }^\beta \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }A_{0\mu \nu }^aA_{0\rho \sigma }^a,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _I& =& (J(C)1)\overline{\psi }(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m)\psi \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }(J(C)g_{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\alpha \beta })F_{0\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{0\rho \sigma }^\beta \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }(J(C)1)A_{0\mu \nu }^aA_{0\rho \sigma }^a\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +gJ(C)\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (_\alpha \psi )C_\mu ^\alpha +ig_sJ(C)\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu T_a\psi A_\mu ^a\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +g\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)(_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a)C_\rho ^\alpha (_\alpha A_\sigma ^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g_s}{2}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)f_{abc}A_\rho ^bA_\sigma ^c(_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +g\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }J(C)(_\mu C_\nu ^\alpha _\nu C_\mu ^\alpha )C_\rho ^\gamma (_\gamma C_\sigma ^\beta )\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g}{2}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)G_\alpha ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^aA_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^\alpha \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g_s^2}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)f_{abc}f_{ab_1c_1}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\rho ^{b_1}A_\sigma ^{c_1}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +gg_s\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)f_{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cC_\rho ^\alpha (_\alpha A_\sigma ^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g^2}{2}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)(C_\mu ^\alpha _\alpha A_\nu ^aC_\nu ^\alpha _\alpha A_\mu ^a)C_\rho ^\beta (_\beta A_\sigma ^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g^2}{2}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }J(C)(C_\mu ^\gamma _\gamma C_\nu ^\alpha C_\nu ^\gamma _\gamma C_\mu ^\alpha )C_\rho ^\delta (_\delta C_\sigma ^\beta )\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g^2}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }J(C)G_\alpha ^{1\lambda }G_\beta ^{1\kappa }A_\lambda ^aA_\kappa ^aF_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
In above relations, $`A_{0\mu \nu }^a`$ and $`F_{0\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ are defined by

$$A_{0\mu \nu }^a=(_\mu A_\nu ^a)(_\nu A_\mu ^a).$$
(4.4)
$$F_{0\mu \nu }^\alpha =(_\mu C_\nu ^\alpha )(_\nu C_\mu ^\alpha ).$$
(4.5)
The explicite expression for $`J(C)`$ is

$$J(C)=1+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{g^n}{n}\mathrm{tr}(C^n)\right)^m$$
(4.6)
From eq.(4.2), we can write out propagators of Dirac field, $`SU(N)`$ non-Abelian gauge field and gravitational gauge field. From eq.(4.3), we can write out Feynman rules for various interaction vertexes and calculate Feynman diagrams for various interaction precesses. We can also see that, because of the influence of the factor $`J(C)`$, matter fields can directly couple to arbitrary number of gravitational gauge field, which is important for the renormalization of the theory.

## 5 Equations of Motion and Energy-Momentum Tensor

The equation of motion of Dirac field is

$$(\gamma ^\mu 𝐃_\mu +m)\psi =0.$$
(5.1)
The equation of motion of $`SU(N)`$ gauge field is

$$^\mu 𝐀_{\mu \nu }^a=g_s\eta _{\nu \sigma }J_a^\sigma ,$$
(5.2)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_a^\nu & =& i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu T_a\psi +\eta ^{\nu \rho }\eta ^{\nu _1\sigma }f_{abc}A_{\nu _1}^c𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^b\frac{g}{g_s}\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }_\mu (C_{\mu _1}^\mu 𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g}{2g_s}\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu _1\sigma }G_{\sigma _1}^{1\nu }F_{\mu _1\nu _1}^{\sigma _1}𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a+\frac{g}{g_s}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }G_\tau ^{1\lambda }(D_\mu C_\lambda ^\tau )𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.3)
$`J_a^\nu `$ is a conserved current,

$$_\nu J_a^\nu =0.$$
(5.4)
When gravitational gauge field vanishes, the above current $`J_a^\nu `$ returns to the conventional current in traditional non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge field theory, which is

$$J_a^\nu =i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu T_a\psi +\eta ^{\nu \rho }\eta ^{\mu \sigma }f_{abc}A_\mu ^cA_{\rho \sigma }^b.$$
(5.5)
But if gravitational gauge field does not vanish, because of the influence from gravitational gauge field, the conventional current eq.(5.5) is no longer a conserved current.

The equation of motion of gravitational gauge field is

$$^\mu (\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \sigma }^\beta )=gT_{g\alpha }^\nu ,$$
(5.6)
where $`T_{g\beta }^\sigma `$ is the gravitational energy-momentum tensor

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_{g\alpha }^\nu & =& \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu _\alpha \psi \eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha _1\beta }F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta (_\alpha C_{\mu _1}^{\alpha _1})\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a(_\alpha A_{\mu _1}^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +G_\alpha ^{1\nu }_0\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\lambda \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }G_\gamma ^{1\nu }F_{\mu \lambda }^\beta F_{\rho \sigma }^\gamma \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }_\mu (g_{\alpha \beta }C_{\mu _1}^\mu F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta )+\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }_\mu (G_\alpha ^{1\lambda }G_{\mu _1}^\mu A_\lambda ^a𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }G_\tau ^{1\lambda }(D_\mu C_\lambda ^\tau )F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta +g\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }G_\tau ^{1\lambda _1}(D_\mu C_{\lambda _1}^\tau )G_\alpha ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^a𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g}{2}\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu _1\sigma }G_{\sigma _1}^{1\nu }G_\alpha ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^a𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^aF_{\mu _1\nu _1}^{\sigma _1}g\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }G_{\sigma _1}^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^a(_\alpha C_{\mu _1}^{\sigma _1})𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.7)
The global gravitational gauge symmetry of the system gives out another energy-momentum tensor which is called inertial energy-momentum tensor,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_{i\alpha }^\mu & =& J(C)(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu G_\nu ^\mu (_\alpha \psi )+\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }G_{\mu _1}^\mu 𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a(_\alpha A_\nu ^a)+\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\beta \gamma }F_{\rho \sigma }^\gamma (_\alpha C_\nu ^\beta )+\delta _\alpha ^\mu _0\hfill \\ & & \\ & & g\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\beta \gamma }C_{\mu _1}^\mu F_{\rho \sigma }^\gamma (_\alpha C_\nu ^\beta )+g\eta ^{\mu _1\rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }G_\beta ^{1\lambda }G_{\mu _1}^\mu A_\lambda ^a𝐀_{\rho \sigma }^a(_\alpha C_\nu ^\beta )).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.8)
Compare eq.(5.7) with eq.(5.8), we can see that the inertial energy-momentum tensor is not equivalent to the gravitational energy-momentum tensor. In this case, they are not equivalent even when gravitational field vanishes. When gravitational field vanishes, the gravitational energy-momentum tensor becomes $`T_{0g\alpha }^\nu `$,

$$T_{0g\alpha }^\nu =\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu _\alpha \psi \eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }A_{\rho \sigma }^a(_\alpha A_\mu ^a)+\eta _{1\alpha }^\nu _0+\eta ^{\nu \sigma }^\mu (A_\alpha ^aA_{\mu \sigma }^a),$$
(5.9)
while inertial energy-momentum tensor becomes $`T_{0i\alpha }^\nu `$

$$T_{0i\alpha }^\nu =\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\nu _\alpha \psi \eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }A_{\rho \sigma }^a(_\alpha A_\mu ^a)+\delta _\alpha ^\nu _0.$$
(5.10)
Therefore, we have

$$T_{0g\alpha }^\nu =T_{0i\alpha }^\nu +\eta ^{\nu \sigma }^\mu (A_\alpha ^aA_{\mu \sigma }^a).$$
(5.11)
But this difference has no contribution on energy-momentum. The spatial integration of time component of energy-momentum tensor gives out energy-momentum of the system. The inertial energy-momentum $`P_{0i\alpha }`$ is

$$P_{0i\alpha }=\mathrm{d}^3xT_{0i\alpha }^0,$$
(5.12)
and the gravitational energy-momentum $`P_{0g\alpha }`$ is

$$P_{0g\alpha }=\mathrm{d}^3xT_{0g\alpha }^0.$$
(5.13)
So, their difference is

$$P_{0g\alpha }P_{0i\alpha }=\mathrm{d}^3x_i(A_\alpha ^aA_{i0}^a)=0.$$
(5.14)
It means that, when gravitational gauge field vanishes, equivalence principle holds.

## 6 Summary

In this paper, we have studied unifications of ordinary $`SU(N)`$ gauge interactions with gravitational gauge interactions, which is unified in the semi-direct product group $`GSU(N)`$. Because generators of ordinary $`SU(N)`$ group and generators of gravitational gauge group have different dimensions, that is, generators of $`SU(N)`$ group are dimensionless while generators of gravitational gauge group have length dimension, it is hard to unify $`SU(N)`$ gauge interactions and gravitational gauge interactions in a simple group. Because of the difference of dimensions of generators, we need at least two independent parameters for coupling constant in any kind of unified theory. Because when we unify $`SU(N)`$ gauge interactions and gravitational gauge interactions in $`GSU(N)`$ group, we only need two independent parameters for coupling constant, this unified theory can be regarded as a minimal theory of unification. It is impossible to unify four kinds of fundamental interactions in a simple group in which only one independent coupling constant is used.

Because $`SU(N)`$ gauge group and gravitational gauge group are unified in a semi-direct product group, not in a direct product group, field strength of gravitational gauge field joins into the definition of gauge covariant field strength of $`SU(N)`$ gauge field. This will cause additional interactions between $`SU(N)`$ gauge fields and gravitational gauge field, which even cause that gravitational energy-momentum tensor is not equivalent to inertial energy-momentum tensor when gravitational field vanishes, but this difference does not affect the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass when gravitational field vanishes.


format: text

text:
# On Computational Power of Quantum Branching Programs

## 1 Introduction

Richard Feynman observed in 1982 () that certain quantum mechanical effects cannot be simulated effectively on a classical computer. This observation led to a general idea that perhaps computation based on quantum effects could be much more efficient than the classic one. During the last decade the area of research of quantum computation was an intensively growing area. Shor’s quantum algorithm for factoring integers  that runs in polynomial time is well known now.

As mentioned in  quantum computers may consist of two parts: a quantum part and a classical part with communication between them. In such a case, a quantum part could be considerably more expensive than the classical part. Therefore, it might be useful to construct a quantum part as simple as possible. This motivates a study of restricted models of quantum computation.

During the last decade many different restricted quantum computation models have been investigated. In particular the quantum analogs of Boolean circuits$`NC`$ and $`ACC`$  has been introduced. Another model — quantum finite automata has been introduced and first studied by Kondacs and Watrous , see  for more information on the subject. It has been shown that uniform one-way quantum finite automata with bounded error probability cannot accept all regular languages . But Ambainis and Freivalds  presented a regular language which can be computed by a quantum finite automaton with bounded error probability of exponentially smaller size than the corresponding classical randomized finite automaton. One of the more recent papers comparing classical and restricted quantum computation models is .

A classical branching program ($`\mathrm{BP}`$)(see, e.g., ) is a convenient nonuniform model for studying various restricted variants of computational models. Leveled oblivious permutation $`\mathrm{BPs}`$ are well known in the complexity theory, their computational power is remarkable (deterministic leveled oblivious permutation $`\mathrm{BPs}`$ with constant width have the same power as $`\mathrm{log}n`$ depth circuits ). It seems also that the branching programs are well suited for comparing restricted quantum models with their classical counterparts.

Nakanishi, Hamaguchi, and Kashiwabara introduced also in  a variant of quantum model of $`\mathrm{BPs}`$ as an extension of probabilistic $`\mathrm{BPs}`$. In this paper we introduce a model of quantum $`\mathrm{BPs}`$ different from that of . Without loss of generality we consider leveled $`\mathrm{BPs}`$. For a leveled $`\mathrm{BP}`$ $`P`$, all the paths in a $`\mathrm{BP}`$ are of the same length, and one can move only from the nodes of the $`i`$-th level to the nodes of the $`i+1`$-th level. We denote by $`w(P)`$ a width of $`P`$. That is, $`w(P)`$ is a maximum number of nodes on various levels of $`P`$. In our case a superposition of $`P`$ is any element $`|\psi =_{i=1}^{w(P)}z_i|q_i`$. We notice that we may need much less quantum bits than in a model of .

In ths paper we investigate a restricted computational variant of a quantum branching program— a quantum read-once $`\mathrm{BP}`$. First we show that a read-once (exact) quantum $`\mathrm{BPs}`$ (noting that the obliviousness is inherent in a quantum nature of such programs) can compute an arbitrary Boolean function. Next we display a certain symmetric Boolean function which is computable by a read-once $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ with $`O(\mathrm{log}n)`$ width, which requires a width $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ on any deterministic read-once $`\mathrm{BP}`$ and on any (classical) randomized read-once $`\mathrm{BP}`$ with permanent transitions at each level. We present a general lower bound for the width of read-once $`\mathrm{QBPs}`$, showing that the upper bound for a considered symmetric function is almost tight.

## 2 Preliminaries and Definitions

We consider a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert complex space $`^d`$ with a norm $`||.||`$. That is, for $`z^d`$, $`z=\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_d\}`$, $`z=\sqrt{_{i=1}^d|z_i|^2}`$.

Recall some basic notations from the quantum mechanics. A pure quantum state (or superposition) of a quantum system QS with $`d`$ stable states $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ ($`d`$-state QS) can be expressed by associating an amplitude $`z_i`$ (a complex number) to each state $`i`$ of a QS. Quantum mechanics uses for that the following notations. Consider the quantum basis states $`\{|1,\mathrm{},|d\}`$ where $`\{|i\}`$ is the set of $`d`$-dimensional orthogonal basis vectors of $`^d`$ where $`|i`$ denotes the unit vector with the value 1 at $`i`$ and 0 elsewhere. A pure quantum state or a configuration of a QS can be written as

$$|\psi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}z_i|i$$

or just $`|\psi =(z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$ where $`|\psi ^d`$. The specific notation $`|\psi `$ corresponds to the Dirac ’ket’-notation for a column-vector $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$. An element $`z_i`$ of $`|\psi `$ is called an amplitude of the basis state $`|i`$ of a QS, and $`|z_i|^2`$ is the probability of finding a QS in the state $`i`$ when QS is beeing measured.

A time evolution of configurations of a QS in discrete steps is reversible and conveniently expressed using Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. That is, if in a current step a configuration of a QS is $`|\psi `$, then in the next step a configuration of a QS would be $`|\psi ^{}`$ where $`|\psi ^{}=U|\psi `$ and $`U`$ is a $`d\times d`$ unitary matrix.

We are going to define now a quantum transformation as follows. Let $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ be a set of Boolean variables. Define quantum transformation ($`d`$-dimensional quantum transformation) on $`|\psi ^d`$ as a triple $`j,U(0),U(1)`$ where $`j`$ is the index of a variable $`x_jX`$, and $`U(0),U(1)`$ are reversible transformations of $`^d`$ presented by unitary $`d\times d`$ matrices. A quantum transformation $`j,U(0),U(1)`$ of $`|\psi `$ acts as follows: $`U|\psi =|\psi ^{}`$. If $`x_j=1`$ then $`U=U(1)`$ else $`U=U(0)`$.

### 2.1 Definition of a $`\mathrm{QBP}`$

A Quantum Branching Program of width $`d`$ and length $`l`$ ($`(d,l)`$-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$) based on a QS is defined by a triple

$$P=T,|\psi _0,F$$

where $`T`$ is a sequence (of length $`l`$) of $`d`$-dimensional quantum transformations of a $`d`$-state QS:

$$T=(j_i,U_i(0),U_i(1))_{i=1}^l,$$

with $`|\psi (0)`$ an initial configuration of $`P`$, and $`F\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ a set of accepting states.

We define a computation of $`P`$ over an input $`\sigma =\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n\{0,1\}^n`$ as follows:

1. Computation of $`P`$ starts from the superposition $`|\psi _0`$. On the $`i`$-th step, $`1il`$, $`P`$ transforms a superposition $`|\psi `$ to a superposition $`|\psi ^{}=U_i(\sigma _{j_i})|\psi `$.
2. After the $`l`$-th (last) step of a quantum transformation, $`P`$ measures its configuration $`|\psi _\sigma `$ where $`|\psi _\sigma =U_l(\sigma _{i_l})U_{l1}(\sigma _{i_{l1}})\mathrm{}U_1(\sigma _{i_1})|\psi _0`$. The measurement is presented by a diagonal zero-one projection matrix $`M`$ where $`M_{ii}=1`$ if $`iF`$ and $`M_{ii}=0`$ if $`iF`$. The probability $`p_{accept}(\sigma )`$ of $`P`$ accepting an input $`\sigma `$ is defined by

$$p_{accept}(\sigma )=M|\psi _\sigma ^2.$$

We call a $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ read-once, if each variable $`x\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ occurs in a sequence $`T`$ of quantum transformations of $`P`$ at most once.

### 2.2 Computation of a Boolean Function

* A $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ is said to compute (with an unbounded error) a Boolean function $`f_n:\{0,1\}^n\{0,1\}`$ if for all $`\sigma f^1(1)`$ the probability of $`P`$ accepting $`\sigma `$ is greater than 1/2 and for all $`\sigma f^1(0)`$ the probability of $`P`$ accepting $`\sigma `$ is at most 1/2.
* A $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ computes a Boolean function $`f_n`$ with a bounded error if there exists an $`\epsilon >0`$ such that for all $`\sigma f^1(1)`$ the probability of $`P`$ accepting $`\sigma `$ is at least $`1/2+\epsilon `$ and for all $`\sigma f^1(0)`$ the probability of $`P`$ accepting $`\sigma `$ is at most $`1/2\epsilon `$. We call $`\epsilon `$ a margin, and say that $`P`$ $`(1/2+\epsilon )`$-computes $`f_n`$.
* We say that a $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ exactly computes $`f_n`$ if $`P`$ computes $`f_n`$ with the margin 1/2 (with the zero error probability).

## 3 Computational Properties

The following property of a simulation of $`\mathrm{QBPs}`$ with complex valued amplitudes by $`\mathrm{QBPs}`$ with real valued amplitudes is similar to simulations by quantum Turing machines cf. .

###### Property 1

Let a $`(d,l)`$-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ with complex valued amplitudes computes (with an unbouded error, with a bounded error, exactly) a function $`f_n`$. Then, there exists a $`(2d,l)`$-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P^{}`$ with real amplitudes within the interval $`[1,+1]`$ that computes (with an unbouded error, with a bounded error, exactly, respectively) the same function $`f_n`$.

Proof: Let us consider a product $`U|\psi `$ of a complex valued $`d\times d`$ matrix $`U`$

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}z_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& z_{1,d}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ z_{d,1}& \mathrm{}& z_{d,d}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`z_{i,j}=a_{i,j}+\sqrt{1}b_{i,j}`$,
with a $`d`$-dimensional complex valued vector $`|\psi `$

$$|\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}z_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ z_d\end{array}\right)$$

where $`z_i=a+\sqrt{1}b_i`$.
The above product can be simulated by a product of a $`A|v`$ of $`2d\times 2d`$ real valued matrix $`A`$

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Z_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& Z_{1,d}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ Z_{d,1}& \mathrm{}& Z_{d,d}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`Z_{i,j}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_{i,j}& b_{i,j}\\ b_{i,j}& a_{i,j}\end{array}\right)`$ is matrix presentation of the complex number $`z_{i,j}`$, and
$`|v`$ is a $`2d`$-dimensional real valued vector

$$|v=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ b_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_d\\ b_d\end{array}\right)$$

We notice that all amplitudes $`z`$ in superpositions $`|\psi `$ of $`P`$ are such that the real $`a`$ and imaginary $`b`$ part of $`z=a+\sqrt{1}b`$ are from intervals $`[1,+1]`$. From the above it is easy to conclude that a $`d`$-dimensional $`l`$-length complex valued quantum transformations of a $`d`$-state QS

$$(j_i,U_i(0),U_i(1))_{i=1}^l,$$

can be simulated by the corresponding $`2d`$-dimensional $`l`$-length real valued quantum transformations of a $`2d`$-state QS

$$(j_i,A_i(0),A_i(1))_{i=1}^l.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Below we show that a bounded error read-once $`\mathrm{QBP}`$s are powerful enough to compute an arbitrary Boolean function. By contrast, we notice thati the uniform one-way quantum finite automata when accepting with a bounded error probability can compute only a proper subset of regular sets . See also  for more recent results on the complexity properties of quantum finite automata.

###### Property 2

For arbitrary Boolean function $`f_n`$, there exists a read-once $`(2^n,n)`$-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ that exactly computes $`f_n`$.

Proof: The proof is evident. The following read-once $`(2^n,n)\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ satisfies our proposition. All possible configurations of $`P`$ are trivial. That is, a configuration $`|\psi `$ of $`P`$ contains exactly one 1, and all the rest components of $`|\psi `$ are 0. The initial configuration of $`P`$ is $`|\psi _0=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. $`P`$ reads input variables in order $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ .

In each step $`i,1in`$ , $`P`$ reads input $`\sigma _i`$ and transforms its current configuration $`|\psi `$ as follows. If $`\sigma _i=0`$ then $`|\psi `$ does not change. If $`\sigma _i=1`$, then the 1 of the configuration $`|\psi `$ is “moved” to $`2^{ni}`$ positions to the right in the next configuration $`|\psi ^{}`$.

For an input sequence $`\sigma =\sigma _1,\mathrm{}.\sigma _n`$, denote by $`l_\sigma `$ the number of position of 1 in the final (after reading $`\sigma `$) configuration of $`P`$. Clearly we have that $`l_\sigma l_\sigma ^{}`$ iff $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$.

Now determine the set of accepting states $`F`$ of $`P`$ as follows: if $`f(\sigma )=1`$, then $`q_{l_\sigma }F`$. If $`f(\sigma )=0`$, then $`q_{l_\sigma }F`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote by EP-$`\mathrm{QBP}_{const}`$ the class of all Boolean functions exactly computed by the constant width and polynomial length (in the number of function variables) $`\mathrm{QBP}`$s.

###### Property 3

For the complexity class $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}^\mathrm{𝟏}`$ it holds that

$$\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}^\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐄𝐏}\text{-}\mathrm{QBP}_{const}.$$

Proof: Proof is evident by a known result of Barrington . Having a permutation deterministic branching program $`P`$ of width 5 computing a Boolean function $`f_n`$ it is easy to construct a $`(const,poly)`$-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P^{}`$ which exactly computes $`f_n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider now the following symmetric Boolean function $`MOD_{p_n}`$: For an input $`\sigma =\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n\{0,1\}^n`$ we have $`MOD_{p_n}(\sigma )=1`$ iff a number of ones in $`\sigma `$ is divisible by $`p_n`$, where $`p_n`$ is a prime and $`p_nn/2`$.

###### Theorem 1

The function $`MOD_{p_n}`$ can be computed by a read-once ($`O(\mathrm{log}p_n),n`$)-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ with a one-sided error probability.

The proof of this theorem will be presented in the section below. We have clearly that any deterministic OBDD for $`MOD_{p_n}`$ has $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p_n)`$ width.

### 3.1 Proof of Theorem 1

The proof is similar to that of .  introduces the following regular set $`L_P`$. For a prime $`p`$, a language $`L_p`$ over a single letter alphabet is defined by $`L_p=\{u:|u|\text{ is divisible by }p\}`$. It is proved that for any $`\epsilon >0`$, there is a QFA with $`O(\mathrm{log}p)`$ states recognizing $`L_p`$ with probability $`1\epsilon `$.

We construct a $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ accepting the inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(1)`$ with the probability 1 and rejecting the inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ with the probability at least 1/8. Consider a $`(2,n)`$-1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P^k`$ for $`k\{1,\mathrm{},p_n1\}`$. A quantum program $`P^k=T^k,|\psi _0^k,F^k`$ is based on the following 2-state quantum system, $`T^k=(i,U^k(0),U^k(1))_{i=1}^n`$ where

$$U^k(0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),U^k(1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi k/p_n)& \mathrm{sin}(2\pi k/p_n)\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\pi k/p_n)& \mathrm{cos}(2\pi k/p_n)\end{array}\right),|\psi _0^k=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),F^k=\{1\}.$$

Denote by $`l(\sigma )`$ a number of 1-s in the sequence $`\sigma `$, $`l(\sigma )=_{i=1}^n\sigma _i`$.

###### Lemma 1 ()

After reading an input $`\sigma =\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$, the superposition of $`P^k`$ is

$$|\psi =\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi l(\sigma )k}{p_n}\right)|1+\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi l(\sigma )k}{p_n}\right)|2.$$

Proof: The proof follows from the description of a $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P^k`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

If the number of ones in an input $`\sigma `$ is divisible by $`p_n`$, then $`2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n`$ is a multiple of $`2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)=0`$ . Therefore all $`\mathrm{QBP}`$s $`P^k`$ accept inputs $`\sigma f_{n,p_n}^1(1)`$ with probability 1.

Following , we call $`P^k`$ ”good” for input $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ if $`P^k`$ rejects $`\sigma `$ with probability at least $`1/2`$.

###### Lemma 2

For any $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$, at least $`(p_n1)/2`$ of all $`P^k`$ are “good”.

Proof: According to Lemma 1, after reading an input $`\sigma =\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$ the superposition of $`P^k`$ is

$$|\psi =\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi l(\sigma )k}{p_n}\right)|1+\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi l(\sigma )k}{p_n}\right)|2.$$

Therefore, the probability of accepting the input $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ is $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)`$. $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)1/2`$ iff $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)\right|1/\sqrt{2}`$. This happens if and only if $`\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)`$ is in $`[\pi /4+2\pi j,3\pi /4+2\pi j]`$ or in $`[5\pi /4+2\pi j,7\pi /4+2\pi j]`$ for some $`jN`$. $`\left(2\pi l(\sigma )k/p_n\right)[\pi /4+2\pi j,3\pi /4+2\pi j]`$ iff $`\left(2\pi (l(\sigma )kmodp_n)/p_n\right)[\pi /4,3\pi /4]`$. $`p_n`$ is prime, and $`l(\sigma )`$ is relatively prime with $`p_n`$. Therefore, $`l(\sigma )modp_n`$, $`2l(\sigma )modp_n,\mathrm{},`$ $`(p_n1)l(\sigma )modp_n`$ is $`1,2,\mathrm{},p_n1`$ in different order. Consequently, it is enough to find the power of a set $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_l\}\{1,\mathrm{},p_n1\}`$ such that $`2\pi i_j/p_n[\pi /4,3\pi /4]`$ or $`2\pi i_j/p_n[5\pi /4,7\pi /4]`$. Since $`p_n`$ points $`2\pi /p_n,\mathrm{},2\pi (p_n1)/p_n,2\pi `$ are regularly distributed on a circumference, and sectors $`[\pi /4,3\pi /4]`$ and $`[5\pi /4,7\pi /4]`$ are exactly a half of the circumference, we have $`|I|p_n/2(p_n1)/2.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Following , we call a set of quantum programs $`S=\{P^{i_1},\mathrm{},P^{i_t}\}`$ “good” for $`\sigma f_{n,p_n}^1(0)`$ if at least $`1/4`$ of all its elements are “good” for this $`\sigma `$.

###### Lemma 3

There is a set $`S`$ of 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$s with $`|S|=t=16\mathrm{ln}p_n`$ which is “good” for all inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0).`$

Proof: We consider the following procedure $`𝒜`$ for a construction of a set $`S`$.

> For a fixed input $`\sigma `$ with $`l(\sigma )p_n1,`$ $`𝒜`$ selects a quantum branching program uniformly at random from $`\{P^1,\mathrm{},P^{p_n1}\}.`$

The probability of selecting a “good” $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ at each step is at least 1/2. Using Chernoff inequality, we have that the probability that less than 1/4 fraction of all $`\mathrm{QBP}`$s from the set $`S`$ are “good”, for any fixed $`\sigma `$ with $`l(\sigma )p_n1`$, is at most

$$\mathrm{exp}((16\mathrm{ln}p_n)/2(1/2)^2/2=1/p_n.$$

Hence the probability that a constructed set is not “good” for at least one input $`\sigma `$ with $`l(\sigma )p_n1`$, is at most $`(p_n1)/p_n>0`$. Therefore there exists a set which is “good” for all inputs $`\sigma `$ with $`l(\sigma )p_n1.`$ This set is “good” for the inputs $`\sigma `$ with $`l(\sigma )>p_n`$ as well, since any $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P^k`$ returns a current superposition of a starting superposition after reading all $`p_n`$ ones, and hence it works the same way on inputs $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}`$ with $`l(\sigma )=l(\sigma ^{})modp_n.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

We construct a 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ accepting inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(1)`$ with probability 1 and rejecting inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ with probability at least 1/8 as follows. A 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ consists of $`\mathrm{QBP}`$s from “good” set $`S=\{P^{i_1},\mathrm{},P^{i_t}\}`$, which work in parallel. In the starting superposition of $`P`$ all these programs have equal amplitudes.

The inputs $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(1)`$ are always accepted with the probability 1 because all the $`P^k`$s accept them. For any input $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ at least 1/4 of all $`P^kS`$ reject it with probability at least 1/2, and the total probability of rejecting any $`\sigma MOD_{p_n}^1(0)`$ is at least 1/8.

We can make the error as small as possible using a standard technique for reducing an error probability for a one-sided error computation. That is, we take $`d=d(\epsilon )`$ copies of such a 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`P`$ and run them uniformly at random. In this case the width of 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ will be $`O(\mathrm{log}p_n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

* We call a branching program $`P`$ stable if its transformations do not depend on the level of $`P`$.

From the proof of our theorem we have that the constructed $`\mathrm{QBP}`$ for $`MOD_{p_n}`$ is a stable branching program.

###### Corollary 1

The function $`MOD_{p_n}`$ can be computed by a stable read-once ($`O(\mathrm{log}p_n),n`$)-$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ with a one-sided error.

Below we show that $`MOD_{p_n}`$ function is hard, in fact, for the randomized OBDDs.

### 3.2 Lower Bound for Randomized OBDDs for $`MOD`$

Randomized OBDDs were introduced and firstly investigated in , see also .

###### Theorem 2

Any stable probabilistic OBDD computing $`MOD_{p_n}`$ has width at least $`p_n`$.

Proof: Assume that there is a stable probabilistic OBDD $`P`$ of width $`q<p_n`$ computing $`MOD_{p_n}`$ with probability $`1/2+\epsilon `$ for a fixed $`\epsilon (0,1/2]`$. We can assume without loss of generality that each level of $`P`$ has exactly $`q`$ nodes. Let $`\mu ^j=(\mu _1^j,\mathrm{},\mu _q^j)`$ be a probability distribution of states of $`P`$ on the $`j`$-th level, where $`\mu _i^j`$ is the probability of being in the $`i`$-th node of the $`j`$-th level. We can describe a computation of $`P`$ on an input $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$ as follows:

* A computation of $`P`$ starts from the initial probability distributions vector $`\mu ^0`$.
* At the $`j`$-th step, $`1jn`$, $`P`$ reads an input $`\sigma _{i_j}`$ and transforms a vector $`\mu ^{j1}`$ to $`\mu ^j=\mu ^{j1}A`$, where $`A`$ is a $`q\times q`$ stochastic matrix, $`A=A(0)`$ if $`\sigma _{i_j}=0`$ and $`A=A(1)`$ if $`\sigma _{j_k}=1`$.
* After the last ($`n`$-th) step of the computation, $`P`$ accepts the input $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ with probability $`P_{acc}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })=_{iF}\mu _i`$. If $`f(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })=1`$, then we have $`P_{acc}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })1/2+\epsilon `$, else we have $`P_{acc}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma })1/2\epsilon `$.

We assume without loss of generality that $`P`$ reads inputs in the natural order $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. We consider all inputs $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_n,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^1,`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^0=\underset{ni}{\underset{}{0\mathrm{}0}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^1=\underset{i}{\underset{}{1\mathrm{}1}}.`$

For $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we denote by $`\mu ^i`$ a probability distribution after reading the part $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^0`$. That is, $`\mu ^i=\mu ^0A(0)\mathrm{}A(0)=\mu ^0A^{ni}(0)`$. There are only ones in the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^1`$, hence a computation after reading $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i^0`$ can be described by a Markov chain. In this case $`\mu ^i`$ is the initial probability distribution for a Markov process, $`A(1)`$ is the transition probability matrix. The states of this Markov chain are either ergodic or transient cf., e.g., . An ergodic set of states is a set which a process cannot leave if it once entered. A transient set of states is a set which a process can leave, but cannot return if it once left. An ergodic state is an element of an ergodic set. A transient state is an element of transient set.

An arbitrary Markov chain $`C`$ has at least one ergodic set. $`C`$ can be a Markov chain without any transient set. If a Markov chain $`C`$ has more than one ergodic set, then there is no interaction between these sets. Hence we have two or more unrelated Markov chains lumped together. Those chains can be studied separately. If a Markov chain consist of a single ergodic set, then the chain is called an ergodic chain. According to the usual classification, every ergodic chain is either regular or cyclic.

If an ergodic chain is regular, then a sufficiently high power of a state transition matrix $`A`$ has only positive elements. Thus no matter where the process starts, after a sufficient number of steps it can be in any state. Moreover, there is a limiting vector of probabilities of being in the states of the chain which do not dependent on the initial state.

If a Markov chain is cyclic, then a chain has a period $`t`$ and all its states are subdivided into $`t`$ cyclic subsets $`(t>1)`$. For a given starting state a process moves through the cyclic subsets in a definite order, returning to the subset with the starting state after every $`t`$ steps. It is known that after the sufficient time elapsed, the process can be in any state of a cyclic subset appropriate at the given moment. Hence for each of $`t`$ cyclic subsets, the $`t`$-th power of a state transition matrix $`A^t`$ describes a regular Markov chain. Moreover, if an ergodic chain is a cyclic chain with a period $`t`$, it has at least $`t`$ states.

From the assumption $`q<p_n`$ in the proof, we get that $`t<p_n`$ for every cyclic chain. We denote by $`D`$ the least common multiply of all such $`t`$. Because $`p_n`$ is prime, $`t`$ is relatively prime to $`p_n`$, $`D`$ is relatively prime to $`p_n`$, and so is any positive power $`D^m`$ of $`D`$.

Let $`\alpha ^k`$ be a probability distribution after reading the part $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k.`$ That is, $`\alpha ^k=\mu ^kA^k(1).`$ We can assume that there is a single accepting state, without loss of generality. Let $`\alpha _{acc}^k`$ be the probability of being in accepting state after reading the input $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^1.`$ Since after every $`D`$ steps a process can be in any state comprising an accepting state, $`D`$-th power of matrix $`A`$ describes a regular Markov chain for that set. From the theory of Markov chains we have that there exists $`\alpha _{acc}`$ that $`lim_k\mathrm{}\alpha _{acc}^{kD}=\alpha _{acc}`$. Hence for any $`\epsilon >0`$ it holds that

$$|\alpha _{acc}^{D^m}\alpha _{acc}^{D^mp_n}|<2ϵ$$

for $`m`$ large enough. As $`P`$ ($`1/2+\epsilon `$)-computes $`MOD_{p_n}`$, we have that $`\alpha _{acc}^{D^mp_n}1/2+\epsilon `$ and $`\alpha _{acc}^{D^m}1/2\epsilon `$, a contradiction with the inequality above.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Lower Bounds

Below we present a general lower bound on the width of 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$s and compare it with the width of deterministic OBDDs computing the same function.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\epsilon (0,1/2)`$. Let $`f_n`$ be a Boolean function which is $`(1/2+\epsilon )`$-computed (computed with a margin $`\epsilon `$) by a 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`Q`$. Then it holds that

$$width(Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}width(P)}{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}width(P)}\right)$$

where $`P`$ is a deterministic OBDD of minimal width which computes $`f_n`$.

The next theorem presents a more precise lower bound for a particular margin $`\epsilon `$ of computation.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`\epsilon (3/8,1/2)`$. Let $`f_n`$ be a Boolean function which is $`(1/2+\epsilon )`$-computed (computed with a margin $`\epsilon `$) by a 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$ $`Q`$. Then it holds that

$$width(Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}width(P)}{2\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )}\right)$$

where $`P`$ is a deterministic OBDD of minimal width computing $`f_n`$ and
$`\tau =\sqrt{1+2\epsilon 4\sqrt{1/2\epsilon }}.`$

Proofs of the above theorems are presented in the section below.

### 4.1 Proofs of Theorems 3 and 4

Proofs of Theorems 3, and 4 use a similar idea. We construct a deterministic OBDD $`P`$ that computes the same function $`f_n`$ and

$$width(P)\left(1+\frac{2}{\theta }\right)^{2width(Q)}.$$
(1)
Proofs of Theorems 3, 4 differ only in an estimation of a parameter $`\theta >0`$ depending on $`\epsilon `$.

#### 4.1.1 A Deterministic OBDD-Presentation of a 1$`\mathrm{QBP}`$

Let $`d=width(Q)`$. Let $`\pi =\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n\}`$ be an ordering of testing variables of $`Q`$. From now on we assume that the input sequences $`\sigma \{0,1\}^n`$ are ordered by an order $`\pi `$ determined by $`Q`$. We define a deterministic OBDD $`LQ`$ based on $`Q`$ as follows. $`LQ`$ use the ordering $`\pi `$ of testing variables represented by the following labeled complete binary tree.

* The initial node of $`LQ`$ is marked by an initial configuration $`|\psi _0`$ of $`Q`$. Two outgoing vertices of the initial node are marked by $`x_{i_1}=1`$ and $`x_{i_1}=0`$.
* Two nodes of $`LQ`$ on the level 1 are marked by the configurations $`|\psi _1(0)`$ and $`|\psi _1(1)`$ of $`Q`$ where $`|\psi _1(\sigma _1)`$ is the configuration after the first step of computation after reading $`x_{i_1}=\sigma _1`$ for $`\sigma _1\{0,1\}`$.

A vertex $`x_{i_1}=\sigma _1`$ leads from the node $`|\psi _0`$ to the node $`|\psi _1(\sigma _1)`$ iff $`|\psi _1(\sigma _1)=U_1(\sigma _1)|\psi _0`$.
* Consider a level $`j`$ of $`LQ`$. $`2^j`$ nodes of $`LQ`$ of the level $`j`$ are marked by the configurations $`\{|\psi _j(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j)\mathrm{\Psi }:\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j\{0,1\}^j\}`$ where $`|\psi _j(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j)`$ is a configuration of $`Q`$ after reading the first part $`\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j`$ of the input $`\sigma \{0,1\}^n`$.

A vertex (marked by $`x_{i_{j+1}}=\sigma _{j+1}`$) from the node $`|\psi _j(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j)`$ leads to the node $`|\psi _{j+1}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1})`$ iff $`|\psi _{j+1}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1})=U_{j+1}(\sigma _{j+1})|\psi _j(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _j)`$.
* Consider the last level $`n`$ of $`LQ`$. We mark $`2^n`$ nodes of $`LQ`$ on the level $`n`$ by the configurations $`|\psi _n(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)\mathrm{\Psi }:(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)\{0,1\}^n`$ and in addition we mark them by 0 and 1 as follows. We mark node $`|\psi _n(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)`$ by 1 if for configuration $`|\psi _n(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)`$ it holds that $`p_{accept}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)1/2+\epsilon `$. We mark a node $`|\psi _n(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)`$ by 0 if for configuration $`|\psi _n(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)`$ it holds that $`p_{accept}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)1/2\epsilon `$.

###### Property 4

A deterministic OBDD $`LQ`$ computes the same Boolean function $`f_n`$ as $`Q`$.

Proof: Evident and follows from the construction of $`LQ`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 4.1.2 A Metric Automaton Characterization of $`LQ`$

We view now an OBDD $`LQ`$ with an ordering $`\pi `$ of testing variables as the following metric time-variant automaton that reads its input sequences $`\sigma \{0,1\}^n`$ in an order $`\pi `$:

$$LQ=\{0,1\},\mathrm{\Psi },\{\delta _j\}_{j=1}^n,|\psi _0,_\epsilon $$

where $`\{0,1\}`$ is the input alphabet, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{|\psi \}`$ is a set of states (set of all possible configurations of $`Q`$ during its computations on inputs from $`\{0,1\}^n`$). That is, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_{j=0}^n\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ is a set of states of $`LQ`$ on the level $`j`$. An automaton transition function $`\delta _j:\mathrm{\Psi }_{j1}\times \{0,1\}\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ determines transitions in the step $`j`$, $`1jn`$, ($`\delta _j`$ is defined according to the transitions of $`LQ`$ in the level $`j1`$). Finally $`|\psi _0`$ is the initial state and $`_\epsilon =\{|\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_n:M|\psi ^21/2+\epsilon \}`$ is the accepting set of states of $`LQ`$.

For $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j:\mathrm{\Psi }_{j1}\times \{0,1\}^{nj+1}\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ the automaton transitive closure of the sequence $`\delta _j,\mathrm{},\delta _n`$ of the transition functions. That is,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_j(|\psi ,\sigma _j\mathrm{}\sigma _n)=\delta _n(\mathrm{}(\delta _j(|\psi ,\sigma _j),\mathrm{},\sigma _n).$$

###### Lemma 4

Let $`f_n`$ be a Boolean function ($`1/2+\epsilon `$)-computed by a $`LQ`$. Let $`\theta >0`$, and for arbitrary $`|\psi _\epsilon `$ and arbitrary $`|\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n\backslash _\epsilon `$ it holds that

$$|\psi |\psi ^{}\theta .$$

Then, there exists a deterministic OBDD $`B`$ which computes $`f_n`$ and

$$width(B)\left(1+\frac{2}{\theta }\right)^{2d}.$$

Proof: We recall first some known notions concerning metric spaces (see ). A Hilbert space $`_d`$ is a metric space with a metric defined by the norm $`||||`$. The points $`\mu ,\mu ^{}`$ from $`_d`$ are connected through a $`\theta `$-chain if there exists a finite set of points $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _m`$ from $`_d`$ such that $`\mu _1=\mu ,\mu _m=\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu _i\mu _{i+1}\theta `$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m1\}`$. A subset $`C`$ of $`_d`$ is called a $`\theta `$-component if arbitrary two points $`\mu ,\mu ^{}𝒞`$ are connected through a $`\theta `$-chain. It is known  that if $`𝒟`$ is a finite diameter subset of a subspace of $`_d`$ (a diameter of $`𝒟`$ is defined as $`sup_{\mu ,\mu ^{}𝒟}\{\mu \mu ^{}\}`$ then for $`\theta >0`$ $`𝒟`$ is partitioned to a finite number $`t`$ of its $`\theta `$-components.

A set $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of states of $`LQ`$ belongs to the sphere of radius 1 which has center $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ in $`_d`$ because for all $`|\psi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ it holds that $`|\psi =1`$. For each $`j\{0,\mathrm{},n\}`$, denote by $`[\mathrm{\Psi }_j]=\{C_1,\mathrm{},C_{t_j}\}`$ the set of $`\theta `$-components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j_d`$.

From the condition of our Lemma it follows that a subset $`_\epsilon `$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ is a union of some $`\theta `$-components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$. The transition functions $`\delta _j`$, $`1jn`$, preserve the distance. That is, for arbitrary $`|\psi `$ and $`|\xi `$ from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ and arbitrary $`\gamma \{0,1\}`$, it holds that

$$|\psi |\xi =\delta _j(|\psi ,\gamma )\delta _j(|\xi ,\gamma ).$$
(2)
From (2) we have that for $`C[\mathrm{\Psi }_j]`$ and for $`\gamma \{0,1\}`$ there exists $`C^{}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{j+1}]`$ such that $`\delta _j(C,\gamma )=C^{}`$. Here $`\delta _j(C,\gamma )`$ is defined as $`\delta _j(C,\gamma )=_{|\psi C}\delta _j(|\psi ,\gamma )`$.

Now we describe a deterministic OBDD $`B`$ in terms of a time-variant finite automaton that computes $`f_n`$.

$$B=\{0,1\},[\mathrm{\Psi }],\{\delta _j\}_{j=1}^n,C_0,F$$

where $`[\mathrm{\Psi }]=_{j=0}^n[\mathrm{\Psi }_j]`$ is a set of states of $`B`$ ($`[\mathrm{\Psi }_j]`$ is a set of states on the step $`j`$ of a computation of $`B`$);
$`\delta _j:[\mathrm{\Psi }_{j1}]\times \{0,1\}[\mathrm{\Psi }_j]`$ is a transition function of $`B`$ in the step $`j`$;
an initial state $`C_0=\{|\psi _0\}`$ is a one-element $`\theta `$-component of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$; we define $`F`$ by $`F=\{C_i[\mathrm{\Psi }_n]:C_i_\epsilon \}`$.

From our construction we have that $`B`$ and $`LQ`$ compute the same function $`f_n`$. The width of $`B`$ is $`t=\mathrm{max}\{t_0,\mathrm{},t_n\}`$.

Let $`t=t_j`$ We estimate a number $`t`$ of $`\theta `$-components (number of states of $`B`$) of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ as follows. For each $`\theta `$-component $`C`$, we select one point $`|\psi C`$. If we draw a sphere of the radius $`\theta /2`$ with the center $`|\psi C`$ then all such spheres do not intersect pairwise. All these spheres (t many) are in a larger sphere of radius $`1+\theta /2`$ which has center $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. The volume of a sphere of radius $`r`$ in $`_d`$ is $`cr^{2d}`$, where the constant $`c`$ depends on a metric of $`_d`$. Note that for estimating the volume of the sphere we should take into account that $`_d`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional complex space and each complex point is a 2-dimensional point. So it holds that

$$width(B)\frac{c\left(1+\theta /2\right)^{2d}}{c\left(\theta /2\right)^{2d}}=\left(1+\frac{2}{\theta }\right)^{2d}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Below we formulate a technical lemma that estimates a number of components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for different $`\epsilon `$.

###### Lemma 5

Let an $`LQ`$ ($`1/2+\epsilon `$)-computes a function $`f_n`$. Then for arbitrary $`|\psi _\epsilon `$ and arbitrary $`|\psi ^{}_\epsilon `$ it holds that

1. $`|\psi |\psi ^{}\theta _1=\epsilon /\sqrt{d}`$

and
2. $`|\psi |\psi ^{}\theta _2=\sqrt{1+2\epsilon 4\sqrt{1/2\epsilon }}`$.

Proof: For the sake of simplification we denote a configuration $`|\psi =z_1|1+\mathrm{}+z_d|d`$ just by $`\psi =(z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$. Let $`\psi =(z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$ and $`\psi ^{}=(z_1^{},\mathrm{}z_d^{})`$. Consider a norm $`||.||_1`$ defined as $`\psi _1=_{i=1}^d|z_i|`$.

1. From the definition of $`LQ`$ it holds that

$$2\epsilon \underset{s_iF}{}(|z_i|^2|z_i^{}|^2)=\underset{s_iF}{}(|z_i||z_i^{}|)(|z_i|+|z_i^{}|)$$

$$2\underset{s_iF}{}(|z_i||z_i^{}|)2\underset{s_iF}{}|z_iz_i^{}|2\psi \psi ^{}_1$$

Using an inequality

$$a_1b_1+a_2b_2+\mathrm{}+a_db_d\sqrt{a_1^2+a_2^2+\mathrm{}+a_d^2}\sqrt{b_1^2+b_2^2+\mathrm{}+b_d^2},$$
(3)
for $`b_1=b_2=\mathrm{}=b_d=1`$ we get that $`\psi _1\sqrt{d}\psi `$. Therefore,

$$2\epsilon 2\psi \psi ^{}_12\sqrt{d}\psi \psi ^{}$$

Finally, we have

$$\psi \psi ^{}\epsilon /\sqrt{d}.$$

2. Consider now the next variant of a lower bound for $`\psi \psi ^{}`$.

$`\psi \psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|z_iz_i^{}|^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}(|z_i||z_i^{}|)^2}=`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|z_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|z_i^{}|^22{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|z_i||z_i^{}|}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{s_iF}{}}|z_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{s_iF}{}}|z_i^{}|^22{\displaystyle \underset{s_iF}{}}|z_i||z_i^{}|2{\displaystyle \underset{s_iF}{}}|z_i||z_i^{}|}.`$
From the definition of an $`LQ`$ we have that $`_{s_iF}|z_i|^21/2+\epsilon `$, $`_{s_iF}|z_i^{}|^21/2+\epsilon `$. Now, from the above we get that

$$\psi \psi ^{}\sqrt{1/2+\epsilon +1/2+\epsilon 2\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i||z_i^{}|2\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i||z_i^{}|}.$$

Using inequality (3) we get

$$\psi \psi ^{}\sqrt{1+2\epsilon 2\sqrt{\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i|^2}\sqrt{\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i^{}|^2}2\sqrt{\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i|^2}\sqrt{\underset{s_iF}{}|z_i^{}|^2}}.$$

Using the property $`_{s_iF}|z_i|^21/2\epsilon `$, $`_{s_iF}|z_i^{}|^21/2\epsilon `$, $`_{s_i}|z_i|^21`$, and $`_{s_i}|z_i^{}|^21`$, we finally get that

$$\psi \psi ^{}\sqrt{1+2\epsilon 4\sqrt{1/2\epsilon }}=\theta _2.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the lower bound above for $`\psi \psi ^{}`$ is nontrivial (positive) if $`\epsilon (\alpha ,1/2)`$ where $`\alpha `$ is about 3/8. For $`\epsilon (0,\alpha ]`$ it holds that $`1+2\epsilon 4\sqrt{1/2\epsilon }0`$. In that case the lower bound $`\psi \psi ^{}\epsilon /\sqrt{d}`$ is more precise.

Now we turn to the formal estimations of the lower bounds of Theorems 3 and 4.

Proof of Theorem 3: From Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, it follows that

$$t\left(1+\frac{2\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon }\right)^{2d}$$

or $`\mathrm{log}t=O(d\mathrm{log}d)`$. From that we get that

$$d=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}t}\right).$$

Proof of Theorem 4: From Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, it follows that

$$t\left(1+\frac{2}{\theta _2}\right)^{2d}$$

or $`2d\mathrm{log}t/\mathrm{log}(1+2/\theta _2)`$. From this we have that

$$d\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{2\mathrm{log}(1+1/\theta _2)}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Particle Spectrum of the Supersymmetric Standard Model from the Massless Excitations of a Four Dimensional Superstring

## Abstract

A superstring action is quantised with Neveu Schwarz(NS) and Ramond(R) boundary conditions. The zero mass states of the NS sector are classified as the vector gluons, W-mesons, $`B_\mu `$-mesons and scalars containing Higgs. The fifteen zero mass fermions are obtained from the Ramond sector. A space time supersymmetric Hamiltonian of the Standard Model is presented without any conventional SUSY particles.

There is an exciting possibility that the observed spectrum of elementary particles of the standard model is obtainable from a suitable N=1, D=4 superstring massless modes of excitations. If the supersymmetric group is $`SO(6)SO(5)`$, it can descend to $`Z_3SU_C(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ as a very special case deo . Because the group $`Z_3`$ is enough to consider one of the three generations. $`Z_3`$ groups takes care of the other two generations. The number of fermionic modes as observed today in one generation is thirty due to the fifteen fermions. Similarly, including Higgs, the number of bosonic modes is twenty eight. If we include two noninteracting scalar modes, the bosonic degrees of freedom will match with those of the fermions. Therefore there could be a distinct supersymmetry scenario. With this aim in mind, we examine the case of a recently proposed new type of superstring in four dimensions deo  where this is realised.

A world sheet $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ supersymmetric action is written as deo

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \left[_\alpha X^\mu ^\alpha X_\mu i\overline{\psi }^{\mu ,j}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \psi _{\mu ,j}+i\overline{\varphi }^{\mu ,k}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \varphi _{\mu ,k}\right].$$
(1)
$`X^\mu `$ are the bosonic coordinates. $`\psi ^{\mu ,j}`$, j=1,.,6 and $`\varphi ^{\mu ,k}`$, k=7,.,11 are the Lorentz Majorana spinors in the bosonic representation of SO(3,1), with

$`\rho ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (4)
and

$`\rho ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
The upper index in the action refers to a row and lower index to a column. By counting the contributions of the fermions and bosons, the central charge of the action in equation (1) is 26 like Nambu-Goto string but unlike a normal superstring. This is, because, the action also contains the light cone ghosts

$$S_{l.c.}=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \underset{\mu =0,3}{}\left(\overline{\psi }^{\mu j}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \psi _{\mu j}\overline{\varphi }^{\mu k}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \varphi _{\mu k}\right),$$
(8)
whose central charge adds up to eleven, like $`\beta \gamma `$ superconformal ghost action. The action in equation (1) is invariant under the supersymmetric transformations,

$`\delta X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}(e^j\psi _j^\mu e^k\varphi _k^\mu ),`$ (9)
$`\delta \psi ^{\mu ,j}`$ $`=`$ $`ie^j\rho ^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ϵand`$ (10)
$`\delta \varphi ^{\mu ,k}`$ $`=`$ $`ie^k\rho ^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ϵ,`$ (11)
with $`ϵ`$ as the constant anticommutating spinor. $`e^j`$ and $`e^k`$ are the two unit component c-number row vectors with the property that $`e^je_j^{}=\delta _j^{}^j`$ and $`e^ke_k^{}=\delta _k^{}^k`$ and it follows that $`e^je_j`$=6 and $`e^ke_k`$=5. The commutator of two such transformations is a translation with coefficient $`a^\alpha =2i\overline{ϵ}_1\rho ^\alpha ϵ_2`$ provided $`\psi ^{\mu ,j}=e^j\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ and $`\varphi ^{\mu ,k}=e^k\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =e^j\psi _j^\mu e^k\varphi _k^\mu .$$
(12)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ is the superpartner of $`X^\mu `$ as can be checked. Writing out the 2-d local supersymmetric action of Brink, Di Vecchia, Howe,Deser and Zumino br , we can write down the Noether current in the gravitinoless gauge,

$$J_\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2e}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \overline{\chi }^\alpha }=\rho ^\beta \rho _\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu _\beta X_\mu =0$$
(13)
and in the simpler light cone co-ordinates

$$J_\pm =_\pm X_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =0,$$
(14)
and the energy momentum tensor

$$T_{\pm \pm }=_\pm X^\mu _\pm X_\mu +\frac{i}{2}\psi _\pm ^{\mu j}_\pm \psi _{\pm \mu ,j}\frac{i}{2}\varphi _\pm ^{\mu k}_\pm \varphi _{\pm \mu ,k}.$$
(15)
From action in equation (1), commutation and anticommutation of the fields can be found and the string is quantised using Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond deo  boundary conditions. The co-ordinate quanta, $`\alpha _m^\mu `$, satisfy

$$[\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=m\delta _{m,n}\eta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(16)
In the NS sector, the quanta of $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are respectively $`b_r^\mu `$ and $`b_r^{}_{}{}^{}\mu `$, with r half integral and obey

$$\{b_r^{\mu ,j},b_s^{\nu ,j^{}}\}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{j,j^{}}\delta _{r,s}and\{b_r^{{}_{}{}^{}\mu ,k},b_s^{{}_{}{}^{}\nu ,k^{}}\}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{k,k^{}}\delta _{r,s}.$$
(17)
Similarly the quanta d and d of R sector satisfy (m, n integers), the nonvanishing anticommutations

$$\{d_m^{\mu ,j},d_n^{\nu ,j^{}}\}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{j,j^{}}\delta _{m,n}and\{d_m^{\mu ,k},d_n^{\nu ,k^{}}\}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{k,k^{}}\delta _{m,n}.$$
(18)
The unusual negative signs are taken care of, by the phase factors,

$$b_{r,j}^\mu =b_{r,j}^\mu andd_{m,j}^\mu =d_{m,j}^\mu .$$
(19)
It will be useful to note $`b_r^{\mu ,j}=e^jC_r^\mu ,b_r^{\mu ,k}=e^kC_r^\mu andC_r^\mu =e^jb_{r,j}^\mu e^kb_{r,k}^\mu `$. Similarly for the d, $`d^{}`$;
$`D_m^\mu =e^jd_{m,j}^\mu e^kd_{m,k}^\mu `$.

Virasoro generators v  (dot implies summation of all qualifying indices and : : for normal ordering)

$`NSL_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}:\alpha _n\alpha _{m+n}:+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{rz+\frac{1}{2}}{}}(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m):(b_rb_{m+r}b_r^{}b_{m+r}^{}):`$
$`G_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\sigma e^{ir\sigma }J_+={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _nC_{n+r},`$ (20)
$`RL_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}:\alpha _n\alpha _{m+n}:+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m):(d_nd_{m+n}d_n^{}d_{m+n}^{}):,`$ (21)
$`F_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _nD_{n+r}.`$ (22)
By direct calculation, it is easily checked that the generators satisfy super Virasoro algebra with anomaly term typical of central charge 26. To cancel these anomalies, we can use the known way of introducing the conformal ghosts b and c.

The BRST charge operator should also include 11 pairs of commuting $`(\beta ^{(j,k)},\gamma ^{(j,k)})`$ superconformal ghost system. Defining

$$\beta _{r(m)}^{(j,k)}=e^{(j,k)}\beta _{r(m)}and\gamma _{r(m)}^{(j,k)}=e^{(j,k)}\gamma _{r(m)},$$

such that $`\gamma _{r(m)}=e^j\gamma _{r(m),j}e^k\gamma _{r(m),k}`$ and $`\beta _{r(m)}=e^j\beta _{r(m),j}e^k\beta _{r(m),k}`$ with $`[\beta _{r(m)},\gamma _{s(n)}]=\delta _{r+s,m+n}`$. Since the conformal dimension of $`\beta `$ is $`\frac{3}{2}`$ and of $`\gamma `$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$,

$$[L_m,\gamma _{s(n)}]=\left(\frac{3}{2}ms(n)\right)\gamma _{m+s(n)}and[L_m,\beta _{r(n)}]=\left(\frac{1}{2}mr(n)\right)\beta _{m+r(n)}.$$

In NS sector, the BRST charge is

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle L_mc_m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle (mn)}:c_mc_nb_{m+n}:c_0a+Q^{},`$ (23)
$`Q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle G_r\gamma _r}{\displaystyle \gamma _r\gamma _sb_{r+s}}`$ (24)
and $`Q^2`$=0 if a=1 is proved directly. The nilpotency proves the unitarity. Details can be found in reference deo . As can be shortly shown, the physical state conditions remove all the ghosts from the Fock space,

$`(L_o1)|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
$`(L_o1)|\varphi >_R`$ $`=`$ $`(F_o^21)|\varphi >_R=(F_o+1)|\varphi >_R=(F_o1)|\varphi >_R=0`$ (26)
$`L_m|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`0,form>0,`$ (27)
$`G_r|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`0forr>0,and`$ (28)
$`F_m|\varphi >_R`$ $`=`$ $`0form>0.`$ (29)
We shall assume the Gupta- Bleuler condition $`\alpha _1^0|\varphi >=0`$. Since $`[\alpha _1^0,L_{m+1}]|\varphi >=0`$, we get $`\alpha _m^0|\varphi >=0`$. Further $`[\alpha _1^0,G_{r+1}]|\varphi >=0`$ leads to $`C_r^0|\varphi >=0`$ and $`b_{r,j}^0|\varphi >=e_jC_r^0|\varphi >=0`$$`b_{r,k}^0|\varphi >=e_kC_r^0|\varphi >=0`$. Similar analysis yields $`d_{r,k}^{}_{}{}^{}0|\varphi >=d_{m,j}^0|\varphi >=d_{m,k}^0|\varphi >=0`$. There is no Lorentz metric longitudinal ghost in the Fock space.
The half integral values of mass spectrum (NS), $`\alpha ^{}M^2=1,0,1/2,1,3/2`$ are projected by G.S.O method. To show that the tachyons should not contribute to the Hamiltonian, we construct the world sheet supersymmetric charge

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \rho ^\alpha \rho ^0_\alpha X_\mu `$ (30)
$`Q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \rho ^\alpha \rho ^0_\alpha X_\mu `$ (31)
We that

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\{Q^{},Q_\alpha \}=2H$$
(32)
Thus

$$\underset{\alpha }{}|Q_\alpha |\varphi _0>|^2=2<\varphi _0|H|\varphi _o>0$$
(33)
Obtaining a ghost free, anomaly free and unitary string, we calculate the zero mode string excitations leading to the Standard Model. This is easily understood as $`<0|(L_o1)^1|0>`$, the self energy is cancelled by
$`<0|(F_01)^1(F_0+1)^1|0>_R`$ of the fermion sector.The negative sign is due to the fermion loop. The $`B_\mu `$, the hypercharge vector, is simply given from the state

$$|\varphi (p)>=\alpha _1^\mu |0,p>B_\mu .$$
(34)
$`L_0`$ condition (25) tells that $`B_\mu (p)`$ is massless and $`L_1`$ condition gives the Lorentz condition $`p^\mu B_\mu =0`$.

In NS sector, the objects like $`b_{\frac{1}{2},i}^\mu b_{\frac{1}{2},j}^\mu `$ are massless due to (25). Dropping the suffix $`\frac{1}{2}`$, we construct the traceless tensor, (i,j = 1,2,3), expressable in terms of vector fields $`A_{ij}^\mu `$,

$`G_{ij}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b_i^\mu b_j^\nu b_i^\nu b_j^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}b_l^\mu b_l^\nu \right)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`^\nu A_{ij}^\mu ^\mu A_{ij}^\nu +\left(A_{il}^\mu A_{jl}^\nu A_{il}^\nu A_{jl}^\mu \right).`$ (36)
The eight gluons are obtained by using the eight Gell-Mann $`\lambda _l`$ matrices.

$$V_l^\mu =(\lambda _l)_{ij}A_{ij}^\mu .$$
(37)
Similarly for (i,j = 7,8), we get the $`W^\mu `$-mesons

$`W_{ij}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`b_i^{}_{}{}^{}\mu b_j^{}_{}{}^{}\nu b_i^{}_{}{}^{}\nu b_j^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \delta _{ij}b_l^{}_{}{}^{}\nu b_l^{}_{}{}^{}\mu `$ (38)
$`=`$ $`^\nu W_{ij}^\mu ^\mu W_{ij}^\nu +\left(W_{il}^\mu W_{jl}^\nu W_{il}^\nu W_{jl}^\mu \right),`$ (39)
with

$$W_l^\mu =(\tau _l)_{ij}W_{ij}^\mu ,$$
(40)
where $`\tau _l`$, $`l`$=1,2,3 are the $`2\times 2`$ isospin matrices. Of the remaining $`b_j^\mu `$, j=4,5,6 and $`b_k^\mu `$, k=9,10,11, we can form six Lorentz scalars $`ϵ_{ijl}b_j^\lambda b_l^\lambda `$ and $`ϵ_{ikm}b_k^{}_{}{}^{}\lambda b_m^{}_{}{}^{}\lambda `$. Let us call them $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _6`$. The Higgs bosons are

$`\varphi _H=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1+i\varphi _2\\ \varphi _3+i\varphi _4\end{array}\right),`$ (43)
leaving behind a scalar

$$\phi _s=\varphi _5+i\varphi _6.$$
(44)
Let us consider the fermion sector. With $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ as Dirac matrices and u(p) being the fermion wave function, the states (37), (40) ,(43) and (44) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu d_{1,j,\mu }|0,p>u(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu d_{1,k,\mu }^{}|0,p>u(p)`$ are all massless states. Broadly j=1,..,6 are the colour sector and k=7,..,11 are the electroweak sector. The current generator condition gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu p_\mu u(p)=0`$, the Dirac equation for each of them.

Recently one of us(BBD) has shown deo  that using Wilson loop technique, $`SO(6)SO(5)`$ can directly descend to the standard model reducing the rank by one and without breaking supersymmetry. In fact, it was proven that $`SO(6)SO(5)Z_3SU_C(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ but we have only eleven Ramond Fermionic zero mass modes $`d_{1,j}^\mu ,d_{1,k}^{}_{}{}^{}\mu `$. We have to find a wayto put these fermions into electroweak and colour groups of one generation.

Let us drop the Dirac indices, the suffix -1, and prefix primes and supply a factor 2 such that

$$\{d_i,d_j\}=2\delta _{ij}$$
(45)
Since SO(4) can come from either SO(6) or SO(5) li . We can choose any four of them and define new operators b’s as follows

$$b_1=\frac{1}{2}(d_1+id_2),b_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}(d_1id_2),b_2=\frac{1}{2}(d_3+id_4),andb_2^{}=\frac{1}{2}(d_3id_4).$$
(46)
They satisfy the algebra (i,j=1,2),

$$\{b_i,b_j\}=0,\{b_i^{},b_j^{}\}=0and\{b_i,b_j^{}\}=2\delta _{ij}$$
(47)
This is the U(2) group, identified here as the isospin group. We now construct a table giving the assignment of all fermions(Table.1).

Once the weak isospins are fixed, the hypercharge can be calculated from the charge also. There are fifteen fermions with 30 degrees of freedom matching the 30 bosonic degrees of freedom from above equations. We now proceed to construct the Hamiltonian which is supersymmetric and $`SU_C(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ invariant following the ideas presented by one of us deo1 . The vector fields denoted by $`V_\mu ^l`$, l=1,..,8, are gluon fields. l=9 is the $`U_Y(1)`$ field and l=10,11,12 stand for W-mesons fields. We shall use the temporal gauge c , where $`V_0^l`$ =0. For each $`V_i^l`$, there are electric field strength $`E_i^l`$ and magnetic field strength $`B_i^l`$. Following Nambu n , the combination

$$F_i^l=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[E_i^l+B_i^l\right],$$
(48)
satisfies the only nonvanishing equal time commutation relation

$$[F_i^l(x),F_j^m(y)]=i\delta ^{lm}ϵ_{ijk}^k(xy).$$
(49)
We then construct Wilson’s loop line integrals to convert the ordinary derivatives acting on fermion fields to respective gauge covariant derivatives. The phase function for the colour is

$$U_C(x)=exp\left(ig_0^x\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^lV_i^ldy_i\right).$$
(50)
Denoting

$$Y(x)=g^{}_0^xB_i𝑑y_i,$$
(51)
the isospin phase functions are

$`U_Q(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^x}\tau 𝐖_i𝑑y_i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}Y(x)\right),`$ (52)
$`U(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^x}\tau 𝐖_i𝑑y_i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Y(x)\right),`$ (53)
$`U_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}Y(x)\right),`$ (54)
$`U_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}Y(x)\right),`$ (55)
$`and`$
$`U_R(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left(iY(x)\right)`$ (56)
The $`\psi ^l`$ will denote the fermions, $`l`$=1,..,6 refer to the coloured quark doublets. The sum of the products

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{6}{}}}F_i^l\psi ^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(F_i^l,F_i^{l+3})\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^l\\ \psi ^{l+3}\end{array}\right)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(F_i^l,F_i^{l+3})U_QU_C\left(\begin{array}{c}u_L^l\\ d_L^{l+3}\end{array}\right)`$ (62)
The singlet phased colour quarks are

$`\psi ^l`$ $`=`$ $`U_1U_Cu_R^l,l=7,8,9and`$ (63)
$`\psi ^l`$ $`=`$ $`U_2U_Cd_R^l,l=10,11,12.`$ (64)
The Q=1, singlet $`\phi _s`$ and the $`e_R`$ are phased as

$$\varphi _s=U_R\phi _s,\psi _R=U_Re_R.$$
(65)
The Higgs doublets $`\varphi `$ and the lepton doublet $`\psi ^l`$ are phased like

$$\varphi =U\varphi _H\psi _L=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(66)
In writing down the supersymmetric charge Q, we shall use $`2\times 2`$ matrices, $`\sigma ^\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3;\sigma ^0=I`$ and $`\sigma `$’s are the three Pauli spin matrices,

$$Q=d^3x\left[\underset{l=1}{\overset{12}{}}\left(\sigma 𝐅^l\psi ^l(x)\right)+\sigma ^\mu _\mu \varphi ^{}(x)\psi _L(x)+\sigma ^\mu _\mu \varphi _s^{}(x)\psi _L(x)+𝒲\psi ^1\right].$$
(67)
where $`𝒲=\sqrt{\lambda }[\varphi ^{}\varphi \upsilon ^2]`$ is the electroweak symmetry breaking term with $`\sigma =\sqrt{2}\upsilon =246GeV`$. We use the usual commutators and anticommutators at equal times and the $`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\delta _{ij}+iϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k`$ and obtain

$$\{Q_\alpha ^{},Q_\beta \}=\left(\sigma ^\mu P_\mu \right)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(68)
$`P_0`$ is the Hamiltonian H and P is the total momentum. We get the $`SU_C(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ invariant Hamiltonian as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x[{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{12}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐄^{l2}+𝐁^{l2}+i\psi ^l(x)\sigma \psi ^l(x))`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`\pi _H^{}(x)\pi _H(x)+(\varphi ^{})\varphi +i\psi _L^{}(x)\sigma \psi _L(x)+i\psi _R^{}(x)\sigma \psi _R(x)+𝒲^2]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\pi _s^{}(x)\pi _s(x)+(\varphi _s^{})\varphi _s\right]}`$
and similarly lengthy expression for P (see reference ). The last two terms involving Y=2 meson is absent in the standard model. But the Hamilton’s equation of motion for the extra meson, obtained from the total Hamiltonian, is

$$\left(\frac{^2}{t^2}^2\right)\varphi _s=0.$$
(70)
and decouples from other standard model particles.

Supersymmetric transformations exhibiting the superpartners are

$`\delta \psi ^l`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma 𝐅^lϵ+\delta _{l1}𝒲ϵ,`$ (71)
$`\delta 𝐅_i^l`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}(\sigma \times )_i\psi ^l,`$ (72)
$`\delta \psi _L^l`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^\mu _\mu \varphi ϵ,`$ (73)
$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\psi _L,`$ (74)
$`\delta \psi _R`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^\mu _\mu \varphi _sϵ,`$ (75)
$`\delta \varphi _s`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\psi _L.`$ (76)
The only particle, not in the standard model, $`\varphi _s`$, is noninteracting and decoupled.

In summary, we wish to emphasise that the proposed superstring excitations of zero mass fall into the standard model particles in a very natural way. The bosons are themselves, the superpartners of the fermions and vice versa. It is not surprising that the exotic SUSYs are not observed in the electroweak scale and the present formulation provides a justification for their absence.