text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

The unification program aiming at a unified description of the known interactions as well as a consistent quantum formulation for gravity, nowadays mostly points towards higher-dimensional supersymmetric theories. At present the most promising, however still conjectural, candidate should live in eleven dimensions and goes under the name of $`M`$-theory . The theoretical (and phenomenological) consistency requirements put on any possible candidate for unification necessarily lead to a systematic investigation of the properties of Clifford algebras and spinors in space-times of arbitrary dimension and signature. Exploring in full generality the existence of specific algebraic relations (such as the identities necessary to prove the $`k`$-symmetry invariance in the GS formulation of the superstring, see ), which are technically relevant in the model construction, is a necessary preliminary mathematical step before any attempt to model building.

From a mathematical point of view, Clifford algebras have been classified in the sixties (see ). Some twenty years later the relation between supersymmetry and division algebras was analyzed in . A systematic and very convenient presentation in physicists’ notation of the classification for Clifford algebras and spinors, based on the three associative division algebras of the real, complex and quaternionic numbers ($`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$ and $`𝐇`$), can be found in . This relatively old subject has been revived recently in a series of work (). The aim in this case was the classification (once again based on the $`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐇`$ division algebras) of the generalized supersymmetries admitting the presence of tensorial bosonic central charges and going therefore beyond the standard HŁS scheme . The real-valued $`M`$-algebra underlining the $`M`$-theory is the most celebrated and possibly the most physically relevant example in this class of generalized supersymmetries. In the last few months it was pointed out in  and  that the $`M`$-algebra admits a consistent octonionic restriction with surprising properties, which will be discussed in the following.

The first attempt of introducing octonions in physics goes back to the works of Jordan . More recently, and in connection with the specific program of unification through supersymmetry, we can cite a series of works  devoted to the octonionic description of the superstring. Already in  some mathematical results concerning the relations of the octonions with the Lorentz and Jordan algebras are mentioned, while a more developed investigation of this topic is presented in . Moreover, in several different works (see e.g. ) the octonionic characterization of the seven sphere $`S^7`$ (regarded as a compactification space for the eleven-dimensional maximal supergravity) and the analysis of its properties were investigated.

Octonions are non-associative and can not be represented through matrices with the standard matrix product. Octonionic realizations of Clifford algebras have peculiar properties, the most noticeable perhaps is the fact that they do not generate the corresponding Lorentz group, but only its coset over $`G_2`$, the group of automorphisms of the octonions .

This work is devoted to a systematic investigation of the properties of the quaternionic and the octonionic realizations of the Clifford algebras. More specifically, in the first part we classify such realizations, also furnishing recursive algorithms to explicitly construct them. Later, quaternionic and octonionic spinors are introduced. The notion of Weyl projection, whenever applicable, for these two classes of spinors is defined. The consistency conditions for the existence of a free dynamics for quaternionic and octonionic spinors are fully investigated and classified. We produce a whole set of tables expressing the allowed space-times admitting kinetic or pseudokinetic, as well as massive or pseudomassive, terms in the free-spinors lagrangian. These results can be considered as quaternionic and octonionic extensions of previous classification schemes available for real-valued spinors, see . Since quaternionic Clifford algebras and spinors can always be represented through real-valued matrices and column vectors, the tables presented in the quaternionic case can be recovered from suitably constraining the real-valued case in order to admit a quaternionic structure. The situation however is entirely different, for the motivations that we already recalled, in the octonionic case. Furthermore, we elucidate the connection of the octonionic realizations of Clifford algebras with the $`G_2`$ cosets of the Lorentz groups. We also produce highly non-trivial tables expressing identities for higher rank antisymmetric octonionic tensors. Some of these identities already found application in the investigations concerning the octonionic generalized supersymmetries. As a particular example we can mention that, in the already recalled octonionic $`M`$-theory, the octonionic $`5`$-brane sector is identified with the octonionic $`M1`$ and $`M2`$ sectors.

The classification of the consistency conditions for the free octonionic dynamics should be regarded as a first preliminary step towards the investigation of octonionic supersymmetric dynamical systems associated to the generalized octonionic supersymmetries. It is worth stressing the fact that, for what concerns the latter, for the time being just examples of such superalgebras, the ones seemingly more attractive on physical grounds, have been analyzed so far. A classification scheme is still in progress.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review  the classification of Clifford algebras and spinors in terms of the associative division algebras. In section 3 we present a systematic construction of the irreducible representations for real-valued Clifford algebras. This paves us the way to introduce in section 4 the explicit construction of the associative quaternionic and the non-associative octonionic realizations of the Clifford algebras. In section 5 we introduce the necessary conventions to introduce the dynamics for real, quaternionic and octonionic spinors. In section 6 the results of  concerning the classification of the most general free dynamics for real spinors in arbitrary signature space-times are reviewed. In section 7 and 8 these results are extended to, respectively, quaternionic and octonionic spinors. Section 9 is devoted to present a list of identities, due to the non-associativity of the octonions, involving higher-rank antisymmetric octonionic tensors. In the next section (10) some applications of these last results to octonionic generalized supersymmetries and $`M`$-theory are mentioned. Finally, in the Conclusions, we point out possible future developments of the line of investigation here presented.

## 2 On Clifford algebras and division algebras.

For later convenience we review in this section, following , the classification of the Clifford algebras associated to the $`𝐑,`$C, $`𝐇`$ associative division algebras.

The most general irreducible real matrix representations of the Clifford algebra

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
with $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ being a diagonal matrix of $`(p,q)`$ signature (i.e. $`p`$ positive, $`+1`$, and $`q`$ negative, $`1`$, diagonal entries), can be classified according to the property of the most general $`S`$ matrix commuting with all the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s ($`[S,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ]=0`$ for all $`\mu `$). If the most general $`S`$ is a multiple of the identity, we get the normal ($`𝐑`$) case. Otherwise, $`S`$ can be the sum of two matrices, the second one multiple of the square root of $`1`$ (this is the almost complex, $`𝐂`$ case) or the linear combination of $`4`$ matrices closing the quaternionic algebra (this is the $`𝐇`$ case). According to  the real irreducible representations are of $`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐇`$ type, according to the following table, whose entries represent the values $`pqmod8`$

(5)
The real irreducible representation is always unique unless $`pqmod8=1,5`$. In these signatures two inequivalent real representations are present, the second one recovered by flipping the sign of all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$).

Furthermore, in the given signatures $`pqmod8=0,4,6,7`$, without loss of generality, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ matrices can be chosen block-antidiagonal (Weyl-type matrices), i.e. of the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^\mu \\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mu & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
In these signatures it is therefore possible to introduce the Weyl-projected spinors, whose number of components is half of the size of the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices.

The division algebra characteristic for spinors (of $`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐇`$ type) can be found in .

It is useful to illustrate our discussion presenting a table with the division algebra characteristic and number of real components for both Clifford algebras ($`𝚪`$) and fundamental spinors ($`𝚿`$), at least in the specific case of the Minkowskian spacetimes up to $`11`$ dimensions. We obtain the following table

(21)
It should be noticed that, as far as Clifford algebras are concerned, the above table is not symmetric under the exchange $`(p,q)(q,p)`$ (the simplest example is the one-dimensional Clifford algebra with negative eigenvalue, represented by a $`2\times 2`$ real matrix). On the other hand, the properties of spinors are invariant (in some of the cases, for the signatures allowing it, the Weyl projection is required). As a consequence, the theories under consideration can be equivalently described either working with the $`(p,q)`$ or with the $`(q,p)`$ signatures.

For what concerns the generalized supersymmetry algebras, it should be pointed out that the notion of spin algebra, generalizing the standard notion of spin covering and based on the division algebra structure of spinors alone, has been introduced in . On the other hand, a different prescription for constructing generalized supersymmetries is also possible and has been advocated in . It requires matching the division algebra structures of both spinors and Clifford algebras. According to the above table, e.g., in the $`5`$-dimensional case a quaternionic structure can be imposed on the supersymmetry since both spinors and Clifford algebras arequaternionic. On the other hand in, let’s say, the Minkowskian $`7`$-dimensional case, at most a complex structure can be imposed, because this is the minimal structure shared both by spinors and Gamma matrices (see  for details). We will come back later on this issue. For the time being, let us just present another table concerning the constraint generated by division-algebra structures on generalized supersymmetries. For the sake of clarity we will discuss fundamental spinors admitting $`32`$ real components (as in the maximal supergravity or the $`11`$-dimensional $`M`$-theory). Let us suppose that they admit a real, complex, quaternionic111as this is the case, e.g. for the $`64`$-component Euclidean $`D=11`$ spinors. Quaternionic $`32`$-component spinors exist for instance in the $`(3,7)`$ signature. or even an octonionic (as discussed later) division algebra structure. Accordingly, the supersymmetry generators $`Q_a`$ can be represented, respectively, as $`32`$-dimensional real column vectors, $`16`$-dimensional complex, $`8`$-dimensional quaternionic or $`4`$-dimensional octonionic spinors. The generalized supersymmetry algebra

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒵_{ab},`$ (22)
where $`Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ denotes the principal conjugation in the given division algebra, admits a hermitian r.h.s. ($`𝒵_{ab}=𝒵_{ba}^{}`$), given by a hermitian matrix $`𝒵_{ab}`$ of, respectively, $`32\times 32`$ real, $`16\times 16`$ complex, $`8\times 8`$ quaternionic or $`4\times 4`$ octonionic-valued entries. Due to the hermiticity condition, in the different cases, the maximal number $`\mathrm{}`$ of independent components for $`𝒵_{ab}`$ is given by

(28)
It should be noticed that $`528`$ is the number of saturated independent bosonic components in the $`M`$-algebra, deriving from the real structure of $`11`$-dimensional Minkowskian spinors. As it will be apparent in the following, an octonionic structure can be imposed on Minkowskian $`11`$-dimensional spinors, leading to an alternative, octonionic version of the $`M`$-algebra with only $`52`$ independent bosonic components.

## 3 Clifford algebras revisited. Classification and explicit constructions.

For our purposes it is convenient to review the classification of the irreducible representations of Clifford algebras from another point of view, making explicit an algorithm allowing to single out, in arbitrary signature space-times, a representative in each irreducible class of representations of Clifford’s gamma matrices. As recalled in the previous section, the class of irreducible representations is unique apart special signatures, where two inequivalent irreducible representations are linked by sign flipping ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$). The explicit construction presented here is the right tool allowing us to introduce, in the next section, the quaternionic and octonionic realizations for Clifford algebras and spinors.

Our construction goes as follows. At first we prove that starting from a given $`D`$ spacetime-dimensional representation of Clifford’s Gamma matrices, we can recursively construct $`D+2`$ spacetime dimensional Clifford Gamma matrices with the help of two recursive algorithms. Indeed, it is a simple exercise to verify that if $`\gamma _i`$’s denotes the $`d`$-dimensional Gamma matrices of a $`D=p+q`$ spacetime with $`(p,q)`$ signature (namely, providing a representation for the $`C(p,q)`$ Clifford algebra) then $`2d`$-dimensional $`D+2`$ Gamma matrices (denoted as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$) of a $`D+2`$ spacetime are produced according to either

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _i\\ \gamma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ (35)
$`(p,q)`$ $``$ $`(p+1,q+1).`$ (36)
or

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _i\\ \gamma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
$`(p,q)`$ $``$ $`(q+2,p).`$ (44)
It is immediate to notice, e.g., that the two-dimensional real-valued Pauli matrices $`\tau _A`$, $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ which realize the Clifford algebra $`C(2,1)`$ are obtained by applying either (36) or (44) to the number $`1`$, i.e. the one-dimensional realization of $`C(1,0)`$. We have indeed

$`\tau _A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
All Clifford algebras are obtained by recursively applying the algorithms (36) and (44) to the Clifford algebra $`C(1,0)`$ ($`1`$) and the Clifford algebras of the series $`C(0,3+4m)`$ (with $`m`$ non-negative integer), which must be previously known. This is in accordance with the scheme illustrated in the table below.

Table with the maximal Clifford algebras (up to $`d=256`$).

(87)
Concerning the previous table, some remarks are in order. The columns are labeled by the matrix size $`d`$ of the maximal Clifford algebras. Their signature is denoted by the $`(p,q)`$ pairs. Furthermore, the underlined Clifford algebras in the table can be named as “primitive maximal Clifford algebras”. The remaining maximal Clifford algebras appearing in the table are the “maximal descendant Clifford algebras”. They are obtained from the primitive maximal Clifford algebras by iteratively applying the two recursive algorithms (36) and (44). Moreover, any non-maximal Clifford algebra is obtained from a given maximal Clifford algebra by deleting a certain number of Gamma matrices (as an example, Clifford algebras in even-dimensional spacetimes are always non-maximal).

It is immediately clear from the above construction that the maximal Clifford algebras are encountered if and only if the condition

$`pq`$ $`=`$ $`1,5mod8`$ (89)
is matched.

The notion of Clifford’s algebra of Weyl type, namely satisfying the (8) condition, has already been introduced. All maximal Clifford’s algebras, both primitive and descendant, are not of Weyl type. The non-maximal Clifford algebras are of Weyl type if and only if they are produced from a maximal Clifford algebra by deleting at least one temporal Gamma matrix which, without loss of generality, can always be chosen the one with diagonal entries. Explicitly, non-maximal Clifford algebras are produced from the corresponding maximal Clifford algebras according to the following table, which specifies the number of time-like or space-like Gamma matrices that should be deleted, as well as the Weyl ($`W`$) character or not ($`NW`$) of the given non-maximal Clifford algebra. We get

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ & \text{W}& & & \text{NW}& \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (0mod8)& & (1mod8)& (2mod8)& & (1mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+1,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+1)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (4mod8)& & (5mod8)& (3mod8)& & (1mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+1,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+2)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (6mod8)& & (1mod8)& & & \\ (p,q)& & (p+3,q)& & & \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (7mod8)& & (1mod8)& & & \\ (p,q)& & (p+2,q)& & & \end{array}`$ (99)
To complete our discussion what is left is specifying the construction of the primitive maximal Clifford algebras for both the $`C(0,3+8n)`$ (which can be named as “quaternionic series”, due to its connection with this division algebra, as we will see in the next section), as well as the “octonionic” series $`C(0,7+8n)`$. The answer can be provided with the help of the three Pauli matrices (51). We construct at first the $`4\times 4`$ matrices realizing the Clifford algebra $`C(0,3)`$ and the $`8\times 8`$ matrices realizing the Clifford algebra $`C(0,7)`$. They are given, respectively, by

$`C(0,3)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{c}\tau _A\tau _1,\\ \tau _A\tau _2,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A.\end{array}`$ (103)
and

$`C(0,7)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{c}\tau _A\tau _1\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\\ \tau _A\tau _2\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A\tau _1,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A\tau _2,\\ \tau _1\mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A,\\ \tau _2\mathrm{𝟏}_2\tau _A,\\ \tau _A\tau _A\tau _A.\end{array}`$ (111)
The three matrices of $`C(0,3)`$ will be denoted as $`\overline{\tau }_i`$, $`=1,2,3`$. The seven matrices of $`C(0,7)`$ will be denoted as $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},7`$.

In order to construct the remaining Clifford algebras of the two series we need at first to apply the (36) algorithm to $`C(0,7)`$ and construct the $`16\times 16`$ matrices realizing $`C(1,8)`$ (the matrix with positive signature is denoted as $`\gamma _9`$, $`\gamma _{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, while the eight matrices with negative signatures are denoted as $`\gamma _j`$, $`j=1,2\mathrm{},8`$, with $`\gamma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$). We are now in the position to explicitly construct the whole series of primitive maximal Clifford algebras $`C(0,3+8n)`$, $`C(0,7+8n)`$ through the formulas

$`C(0,3+8n)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\tau }_i\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\gamma _9,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_4\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \gamma _9\gamma _j,\end{array}`$ (118)
and similarly

$`C(0,7+8n)`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\gamma _9,\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\gamma _9\gamma _j\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{},\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_8\gamma _9\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \gamma _9\gamma _j,\end{array}`$ (125)
Please notice that the tensor product of the $`16`$-dimensional representation is taken $`n`$ times. The total size of the (118) matrix representations is then $`4\times 16^n`$, while the total size of (125) is $`8\times 16^n`$.

With the help of the formulas presented in this section we are able to systematically construct a set of representatives of the real irreducible representations of Clifford algebras in arbitrary space-times and signatures.

## 4 Quaternionic and octonionic realizations of Clifford algebras.

In this section we discuss the relations of Clifford algebras with the division algebras of the quaternions (and of the octonions), from a slightly different point of view w.r.t. the one expressed in Section 2.

The relation can be understood as follows. At first we notice that the three matrices appearing in $`C(0,3)`$ can also be expressed in terms of the imaginary quaternions $`\tau _i`$ satisfying

$`\tau _i\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+ϵ_{ijk}\tau _k.`$ (126)
As a consequence, the whole set of maximal primitive Clifford algebras $`C(0,3+8n)`$, as well as their maximal descendants, can be represented with quaternionic-valued matrices. In its turn the spinors have to be interpreted now as quaternionic-valued column vectors.

Similarly, there exists an alternative realization for the Clifford algebra $`C(0,7)`$, obtained by identifying its seven generators with the seven imaginary octonions satisfying the algebraic relation

$`\tau _i\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+C_{ijk}\tau _k,`$ (127)
for $`i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`C_{ijk}`$ the totally antisymmetric octonionic structure constants given by

$`C_{123}=C_{147}=C_{165}=C_{246}=C_{257}=C_{354}=C_{367}=1`$ (128)
and vanishing otherwise. This octonionic realization of the seven-dimensional Euclidean Clifford algebra will be denoted as $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$. Due to the non-associative character of the (127) octonionic product (the weaker condition of alternativity is satisfied, see ), the octonionic realization cannot be represented as an ordinary matrix product and is therefore a distinct and inequivalent realization of this Euclidean Clifford algebra with respect to the one previously considered (111). Please notice that, by iteratively applying the two lifting algorithms to $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$, we obtain matrix realizations (with octonionic-valued entries) for the maximal Clifford algebras of the series $`C(n,7+n)`$ and $`C(8+n,n1)`$, for positive integral values of $`n`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$). The dimensionality of the corresponding octonionic-valued matrices is $`2^n\times 2^n`$. For completeness we should point out that the construction (125) leading to the primitive maximal Clifford algebras $`C(0,7+8n)`$, can be carried on with the help of an octonionic-valued realization of the $`\gamma _9`$ matrix. As a consequence, realizations of $`C(0,7+8n)`$ and their descendants can be produced acting on column spinors, whose entries are tensor products of octonions. In any case, in the following, we will focus on the single octonionic realizations $`C_𝐎(n,7+n)`$ and $`C_𝐎(9+n,n)`$ (here $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) which are of relevance in the context of the $`M`$-theory.

One should be aware of the properties of the non-associative realizations of Clifford algebras. In the octonionic case the commutators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ]`$ are no longer the generators of the Lorentz group. They correspond instead to the generators of the coset $`SO(p,q)/G_2`$, being $`G_2`$ the $`14`$-dimensional exceptional Lie algebra of automorphisms of the octonions. As an example, in the Euclidean $`7`$-dimensional case, these commutators give rise to $`7=2114`$ generators, isomorphic to the imaginary octonions. Indeed

$`[\tau _i,\tau _j]`$ $`=`$ $`2C_{ijk}\tau _k.`$ (129)
The alternativity property satisfied by the octonions implies that the seven-dimensional commutator algebra among imaginary octonions is not a Lie algebra, the Jacobi identity being replaced by a weaker condition that endorses (129) with the structure of a Malcev algebra (see ).

Such an algebra admits a nice geometrical interpretation . Indeed, the normed $`1`$ unitary octonions $`X=x_0+x_i\tau _i`$ (with $`x_0`$ and $`x_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$, real and the summation over repeated indices understood), i.e. restricted by the condition

$`X^{}X`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (130)
describe the seven-sphere $`S^7`$. The latter is a parallelizable manifold with a quasi (due to the lack of associativity) group structure. Here $`X^{}`$ denotes the principal conjugation for the octonions, namely

$`X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x_0x_i\tau _i.`$ (131)
On the seven sphere, infinitesimal homogeneous transformations which play the role of the Lorentz algebra can be introduced through

$`\delta X`$ $`=`$ $`aX,`$ (132)
with $`a`$ an infinitesimal constant octonion. The requirement of preserving the unitary norm (130) implies the vanishing of the $`a_0`$ component, so that $`aa_i\tau _i`$. Therefore, the above commutator algebra (129), generated by the seven $`\tau _i`$, can be interpreted as the algebra of “quasi” Lorentz transformations acting on the seven sphere $`S^7`$. At least in this specific example we discovered a nice geometrical setting underlining the use of the octonionic realization of the $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$ Clifford algebra. While the associative (111) representation of the seven dimensional Clifford algebra is required for describing the Euclidean $`7`$-dimensional flat space, the non-associative realization describes the geometry of $`S^7`$.

## 5 On real, quaternionic and octonionic spinors.

In this section we introduce (following , where real and complex spinors were treated), the necessary ingredients and conventions to introduce the spinorial dynamics. Quaternionic and octonionic spinors are considered as well.

In  three matrices (only two of them independent) $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, associated to the three conjugations (hermitian, complex and transposition) acting on Gamma matrices, were introduced. In the case of the restriction to real-valued Gamma matrices, only one matrix (conventionally denoted as $`A`$, see ) needs to be introduced. $`A`$ plays the role of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ in the Minkowskian case and serves to introduce barred spinors. In a $`(t,s)`$ spacetime $`A`$ is, up to a sign, the product of the time-like Gamma matrices and satisfies the relations

$`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu A^T`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{T},`$
$`A^T`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha A,`$ (133)
with

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t1},`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$ (134)
as it can be easily checked.

In both the quaternionic and octonionic case, two real-valued matrices, conventionally denoted as $`A`$ and $`C`$, can be introduced. As before, $`A`$ plays the role of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ and is used to define barred spinors ($`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}A`$). $`A`$ and $`C`$ satisfy the set of relations

$`A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{},`$
$`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu C^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T,`$
$`C^T`$ $`=`$ $`\rho C,`$
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha A,`$
$`A^T`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma CAC^{},`$ (135)
where “$``$” denotes the combination of matrix transposition and principal conjugation in the division algebra (see (131)). The signs $`\alpha `$, $`\xi `$, $`\delta `$, $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$ will be specified below.

The matrix $`A`$ is always given by the product of the temporal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s (regardless of the order), while up to two inequivalent $`C`$ matrices can be found, given by the product (again, regardless of the order) of respectively all symmetric ($`C_S`$) or all antisymmetric ($`C_A`$) Gamma matrices (in special cases $`C_S`$, $`C_A`$ collapse to the single matrix $`C`$).

For maximal Clifford algebras (in the sense specified in Section 3) of a $`(t,s)`$ space-time, the set of signs is given by

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t1},`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^t`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{|ts|\pi }{2}})(1)^{\frac{t(t+1)}{2}+1},`$ (136)
as it can be checked with straightforward computations. Please notice that the matrix $`C`$ is unique in this case.

The maximal quaternionic Clifford algebras are those satisfying the

$`ts`$ $`=`$ $`5mod8`$ (137)
condition, while the maximal octonionic Clifford algebras are the subclass of

$`ts`$ $`=`$ $`1mod8`$ (138)
maximal Clifford algebras, obtained after erasing the series corresponding to the first row in table (LABEL:bigtable) (i.e. $`t=s+1`$).

Just like the real case, non-maximal Clifford algebras are obtained after erasing a certain number of Gamma matrices. The quaternionic equivalent of table (99) is given, in the quaternionic case, by

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ & \text{W}& & & \text{NW}& \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (4mod8)& & (5mod8)& (6mod8)& & (5mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+1,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+1)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (3mod8)& & (5mod8)& (7mod8)& & (5mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+2,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+2)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (2mod8)& & (5mod8)& (0mod8)& & (5mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+3,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+3)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (1mod8)& & (5mod8)& & & \\ (p,q)& & (p+4,q)& & & \end{array}`$ (148)
while, in the octonionic case, we have the table

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ & \text{W}& & & \text{NW}& \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (0mod8)& & (1mod8)& (2mod8)& & (1mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+1,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+1)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (7mod8)& & (1mod8)& (3mod8)& & (1mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+2,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+2)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (6mod8)& & (1mod8)& (4mod8)& & (1mod8)\\ (p,q)& & (p+3,q)& (p,q)& & (p,q+3)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (5mod8)& & (1mod8)& & & \\ (p,q)& & (p+4,q)& & & \end{array}`$ (158)
We should mention that, to be consistent, in, let’s say, the octonionic realization of a non-maximal Clifford algebra, all the seven matrices proportional to the imaginary octonions must be present. Stated otherwise, the deleted matrices from the corresponding maximal Clifford algebra are all real-valued.

For completeness, let us right down the values of the signs entering (135) for the quaternionic and octonionic non-maximal Clifford algebra cases obtained by deleting a single Gamma matrix. In all four cases below two inequivalent $`C`$ matrices are present and the suffix ($`S`$ or$`A`$) specifies whether $`C_S`$ or $`C_A`$ is involved, while the signs $`\alpha `$, $`\xi `$ are given by (134). Furthermore, in all four cases below we get

$`\delta _S`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^t,`$
$`\delta _A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t+1}.`$ (159)
The remaining signs are given by

i) in the quaternionic $`4mod8`$ (W) case,

$`\rho _S`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
$`\sigma _S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}((ts){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8}})(1)^{\frac{t(t+1)}{2}},`$
$`\sigma _A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}((ts){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8}})(1)^{\frac{t(t1)}{2}},`$
ii) in the quaternionic $`6mod8`$ (NW) case,

$`\rho _S`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
$`\sigma _S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(|ts|3\pi /4)(1)^{t(t+1)/2+1},`$
$`\sigma _A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(|ts|3\pi /4)(1)^{t(t1)/2+1},`$
iii) in the octonionic $`0mod8`$ (W) case,

$`\rho _S`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
$`\sigma _S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}((ts){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}})(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\sigma _A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}((ts){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}})(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
iv) and finally in the octonionic $`2mod8`$ (NW) case,

$`\rho _S`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t+1)/2},`$
$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{t(t1)/2},`$
$`\sigma _S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(|ts|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}})(1)^{\frac{t(t+1)}{2}+1},`$
$`\sigma _A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(|ts|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}})(1)^{\frac{t(t1)}{2}+1}.`$
We remind that in the Weyl ($`W`$) case, the projectors $`P_\pm `$ can be introduced through

$`P_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{2d}\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_d& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_d\end{array}\right)`$ (162)
and chiral (antichiral) spinors can be defined through

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`P_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (163)
It is worth ending this section writing down, symbolically, the most general spinorial terms in a free lagrangian which can possibly (depending on the signature and dimensionality of the space-time) be encountered in our theories. It is sufficient to list such terms in the octonionic case. One trivially realizes how to employ the same symbols in the quaternionic and real cases as well.

Different massive terms can be found in the Weyl ($`W`$) case, i.e.222here “$`tr`$” denotes the projection onto the octonionic identity, $`tr(x_0+x_i\tau _i)=x_0`$. It coincides with the standard trace when we are restricting to the quaternionic subcase.

$`M_{//}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_{}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_{//T,S}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_{T,S}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_{//J}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}AJ\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_J`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}AJ\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}AJ\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_{//F}`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}AF\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$
$`M_F`$ $`=`$ $`tr(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}AF\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}AF\mathrm{\Psi }_+),`$ (164)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ denote, in a non-maximal Clifford algebra case, the presence of an external (deleted from the set of maximal Gamma’s) Gamma matrix of time, or respectively, space-like type. Similarly, $`J`$ denotes the product of two such matrices, either time-like or space-like, while $`F`$ denotes the product of three external matrices. No other massive symbols need to be introduced, as it will appear from the tables given in the following. In a $`NW`$-case, similar symbols can be introduced. However, since in this case no chiral (antichiral) spinors are defined, full spinors are present in the r.h.s. and the “$`//`$” and “$``$” suffices must be dropped.

In full analogy, the set of symbols in a Weyl ($`W`$) kinetic case are given by333as before, analogous symbols are employed in the $`NW`$-case, by dropping the suffices “$`//`$” and “$``$”.

$`K_{//}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{})]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_{//T,S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S})_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_{T,S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S})_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{})]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S})_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,S}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)]`$
$`K_{//J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{})]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu J_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_{//F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)],`$
$`K_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{})]+`$ (165)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F)_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu F_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+)].`$
Please notice that, due to the non-associativity of the octonions, in the kinetic case we have to correctly specify the order in which the operations are taken. There is no such problem in the massive case since the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, $`J`$ and $`F`$ can always be chosen, without loss of generality, real. Therefore in (164) at most bilinear octonionic terms are present and the non-associativity of the octonions plays no role.

## 6 The real case revisited.

In reference  the Majorana condition for complex spinors was analyzed and the list of different signature spacetimes allowing for kinetic, pseudokinetic, massive and/or pseudomassive terms in the free-Majorana spinors lagrangians were presented. A slight generalization of these results can be produced in this section, based of the classification of real spinors that we have previously discussed (we notice,en passant, that the spinors we are dealing with here are, by construction, real, so that no Majorana condition, referring to a previous complex structure, needs to be imposed).

It is just a matter of lengthy, but straightforward computations, to produce a set of tables of the allowed, non-vanishing, free kinetic and massive terms in each given signature space-times. In the following tables, the columns are labeled by $`tmod4`$, while the rows by $`tsmod8`$. The entries represent, simbolically, the allowed kinetic and/or massive terms (the precise meaning of the symbols is discussed at the end of the previous section). An empty space means that, neither a kinetic, nor a massive term is allowed for the corresponding space-time.

The first table is produced for the real $`NW`$ case. We get

(171)
The second table is for the real $`W`$ (Weyl) case. We have in this case

(178)
## 7 Quaternionic spinors and their free dynamics. A classification.

In this section we present the tables of allowed free kinetic and massive terms for quaternionic spinors. As in the previous section, the columns are labeled by $`tmod4`$ and the rows by $`tsmod8`$, while the symbols used in the entries are explained at the end of section 5.

In the $`NW`$ case we have

In the $`W`$ (Weyl) case we have

Please notice that in the two tables above the suffix “$`j`$” denotes the existence of three inequivalent choices for the corresponding matrices (e.g., the three distinct space-like matrices $`S_j`$), while the suffix “$`i`$” denotes the existence of two inequivalent choices. As previously discussed, this is in accordance with the signature of the given space-time. Therefore, the let’s say, $`ts=0mod8`$, $`t=2mod4`$ spacetime admits, besides the $`K`$ kinetic term, three extra kinetic terms $`K_{S_j}`$ associated to the three external space-like Gamma matrices $`S_j`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, existing in this case.

## 8 Octonionic spinors and their free dynamics. A classification.

Here we present the tables of allowed free kinetic and massive terms for octonionic spinors. As in the two previous sections, the columns are labeled by $`tmod4`$ and the rows by $`tsmod8`$, while the symbols used in the entries are explained at the end of section 5.

In the $`NW`$ case we have

In the $`W`$ (Weyl) case we have

As in the previous section, the suffices “$`i`$” and “$`j`$” takes two and respectively three distinct values. With these last tables we completed the classification of the allowed free lagrangians for spinors in different space-times.

## 9 Identities for higher rank antisymmetric octonionic tensors.

As we have seen in the previous sections, octonionic spinors are associated with octonionic Clifford algebras. In their turn, these ones are given by the maximal octonionic Clifford algebras, specified by the two sets of octonionic realizations for the signatures

$`C_𝐎(m,7+8n+m)`$ , $`C_𝐎(9+8n+m,m),`$ (263)
with $`n,m0`$, together with the class of octonionic non-maximal Clifford algebras obtained from (263) by deleting a certain number of real-valued Gamma matrices. The reality restriction on these extra Gamma matrices (which cannot therefore contain imaginary octonions) puts a constraint on the space-time signatures admitting an octonionic description. For later convenience, it is useful to present the list of the whole class of octonionic space-times recovered from the maximal Clifford algebras of space-time dimension $`D=t+s`$ up to $`D=13`$. The following table can be produced, with the columns labeled by $`D`$, the dimensionality of the spacetime. The maximal Clifford algebras are underlined. In each entry the octonionic dimensionality $`𝐝_𝚿`$ of the fundamental spinors is also reported. The signatures admitting, for each given spacetime dimension $`D`$, spinors of minimal octonionic dimensionality are denoted with a “$``$”. Finally, the chain of reductions from a given maximal Clifford algebra is sketchily reported (please notice that the chain of reductions is not necessarily unique, for instance the $`(10,1)`$ signature can be produced by erasing a single Gamma matrix either from $`(11,1)`$ or from $`(10,2)`$). We get

We have already recalled in section 4 that for the $`(t,s)`$ space-times allowing an octonionic description, due to octonionic non-associative identities, the algebra generated by the commutators between Gamma matrices is not the $`SO(t,s)`$ Lorentz algebra, but its $`G_2`$ coset $`SO(t,s)/G_2`$ . We present here a generalization of this result consisting of a list of higher-rank antisymmetric octonionic tensorial identities. It is worth mentioning that these identities have striking applications which we shall discuss in the next section.

The identities under consideration are applicable to the space-time signatures which, for a given total dimension $`D`$, admit spinors of minimal octonionic dimensionality (up to $`D=13`$, these are the signatures denoted with a “” in the table above). The generalization of this construction to dimensions $`D>14`$ is straightforward. Here however, both for simplicity and for physical relevance, we limit ourselves to discuss such identities up to $`D=13`$, namely for the following spacetimes

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \\ D=7& (0,7),(7,0)\\ & \\ D=8& (0,8),(8,0)\\ & \\ D=9& (0,9),(9,0),(1,8),(8,1)\\ & \\ D=10& (1,9),(9,1)\\ & \\ D=11& (1,10),(10,1),(2,9),(9,2)\\ & \\ D=12& (2,10),(10,2)\\ & \\ D=13& (3,10),(10,3),(2,11),(11,2)\end{array}`$ (305)
Please notice that in $`D=8,10,12`$ dimensions we are dealing with fundamental Weyl spinors.

It is worth mentioning that the above table has been complemented, for $`D=13`$, with the non-maximal octonionic Clifford algebras $`(10,3)`$, $`(2,11)`$, arising from the maximal ones at the level $`D=15`$.

In the above cases for $`D=7,8`$ the fundamental spinors are $`1`$ (octonionic)-dimensional, $`2`$-dimensional for $`D=9,10`$, four-dimensional for $`D=11,12`$ and finally $`8`$-dimensional for $`D=13`$. The total number of octonionic hermitian $``$ (antihermitian $`𝒜`$) components in a squared matrix of $`𝐝_𝚿`$ size is therefore given by

The antisymmetric product of $`k>2`$ octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices must be consistently specified to take into account the non-associativity of the octonions. As we soon motivate, the correct prescription is taking the antisymmetrized product of $`k`$ octonionic matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$) to be given by

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{perm.}{}}(1)^{ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_k}),`$ (313)
where $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$ denotes the symmetric product

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(.((\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_3\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)).).`$ (314)
The usefulness of this prescription is due to the fact that the product

$`A[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k],`$ (315)
with $`A`$ the matrix (product of the time-like Gamma matrices) introduced in section 5 has a definite (anti)-hermiticity property. The different (315) tensors, for different choices of the Gamma’s, are all hermitian or antihermitian, depending only on the value of $`k`$ (not of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s themselves).

In the presence of the Weyl spinors, the above (315) tensors can be bracketed with the $`P_+`$ projection operator, see (162), to give

$`P_+A[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k]P_+.`$ (316)
Once taken into account, from the algorithmic table (LABEL:bigtable) applied to the octonionic Clifford algebras, that out of the $`D`$ Gamma matrices, $`7`$ are proportional to the imaginary octonions, while the remaining $`D7`$ are purely real, it is a matter of straightforward computations to check the number of independent octonionic components both for (315) (in the $`NW`$ spacetimes) and for (316) (in the Weyl spacetimes).

In odd-dimensions $`D`$ we get the table, whose columns are labeled by the antisymmetric tensors rank $`k`$,

The hermitian components are underlined.

Similarly, in the even-dimensional Weyl case, we have

The above tables show the existence of identities relating higher-rank antisymmetric octonionic tensors. Let us discuss a specific example, which is perhaps the most physically relevant. In $`D=11`$ dimensions the $`52`$ independent components of an octonionic hermitian $`(4\times 4)`$ matrix can be expressed either as a rank-$`5`$ antisymmetric tensors (simbolically denoted as “$`M5`$”), or as the combination of the $`11`$ rank-$`1`$ ($`M1`$) and the $`41`$ rank-$`2`$ ($`M2`$) tensors. The relation between $`M1+M2`$ and $`M5`$ can be made explicit as follows. The $`11`$ vectorial indices $`\mu `$ are split into $`4`$ real indices, labeled by $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$ and $`7`$ octonionic indices labeled by $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$. We get, on one side,

(335)
while, on the other side,

(341)
which shows the equivalence of the two sectors, as far as the tensorial properties are concerned. Please notice that the correct total number of $`52`$ independent components is recovered

$`52`$ $`=`$ $`2\times 7+28+6+4.`$ (342)
The octonionic equivalence of different antisymmetric tensors can be symbolically expressed, in odd space-time dimensions, through

(348)
We end up this section by commenting that, for non-minimal spinors, the dependance on the rank $`k`$ alone of the hermitian or antihermitian character of (315) and (316) is not mantained. To be explicit, in $`D=8`$ space-time dimension, the spinors associated to the $`(1,7)`$ signature are non-minimal (the number of their components is twice the number of components for fundamental $`(8,0)`$ and $`(0,8)`$ spinors). The $`(1,7)`$ Clifford algebra is obtained from the $`(1,8)`$ Clifford algebra after deleting a spacelike matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$. For what concerns tensors, e.g. two sets of vectors are found, the ones obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ ($`\mu `$ a vector index in $`(1,7)`$) are hermitian, while the ones obtained from the commutators $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_s]`$ are antihermitian.

## 10 An application of the octonionic spinors. The octonionic $`M`$-algebra and the generalized supersymmetries.

We shortly review here what is perhaps the most promising application of the octonionic spinors, i.e. their connection with the octonionic $`M`$-algebra (and superconformal $`M`$ algebra, see ), a specific example of a generalized octonionic supersymmetry. The identities for antisymmetric octonionic tensors play in this case a special role.

The generalized space-time supersymmetries are the ones going beyond the standard HŁS scheme . This implies that the bosonic sector of the Poincaré or conformal superalgebra no longer can be expressed as the tensor product structure $`B_{geom}B_{int}`$, where $`B_{geom}`$ describes space-time Poincaré or conformal algebras and the remaining generators spanning $`B_{int}`$ are Lorentz-scalars.

In the particular case of the Minkowskian $`D=11`$ dimensions, where the $`M`$-theory should be found, the following construction is allowed. The spinors are real and have $`32`$ components.

As recalled in section 2, by taking the anticommutator of two such spinors the most general expected result consists of a $`32\times 32`$ symmetric matrix with $`32+\frac{3231}{2}=528`$ components. On the other hand, the standard supertranslation algebra underlining the maximal supergravity contains only the $`11`$ bosonic Poincaré generators and by no means the r.h.s. saturates the total number of $`528`$. The extra generators that should be expected in the right hand side are obtained by taking the totally antisymmetrized product of $`k`$ Gamma matrices (the total number of such objects is given by the Newton binomial $`\left(\begin{array}{c}D\\ k\end{array}\right)`$). Imposing on the most general $`32\times 32`$ matrix the further requirement of being symmetric, the total number of $`528`$ is obtained by summing the $`k=1`$, $`k=2`$ and $`k=5`$ sectors, so that $`528=11+55+462`$. The most general supersymmetry algebra in $`D=11`$ can therefore be presented as

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}=(A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{ab}P^\mu +(A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]})_{ab}Z^{[\mu \nu ]}+(A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]})_{ab}Z^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}$$
(349)
(where $`A`$ is the real matrix introduced in section 5).

$`Z^{[\mu \nu ]}`$ and $`Z^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}`$ are tensorial central charges, of rank $`2`$ and $`5`$ respectively. These two extra central terms on the right hand side correspond to extended objects , the $`p`$-branes. The algebra (349) is called the $`M`$-algebra. It provides the generalization of the ordinary supersymmetry algebra recovered by setting $`Z^{[\mu \nu ]}Z^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}0`$.

On the other hand, in the same $`11`$-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime, we can impose, as we have seen, an octonionic structure, with fundamental spinors assumed to be $`4`$-component octonionic valued. The generalized supersymmetry algebra (22) admits on the r.h.s. a hermitian $`4\times 4`$ octonionic-valued matrix with up to $`52`$ independent components. They can be expressed, from the previous section results, either as the $`11+41`$ bosonic generators entering

$$𝒵_{ab}=P^\mu (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{ab}+Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu }(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu })_{ab},$$
(350)
or as the $`52`$ bosonic generators entering

$$𝒵_{ab}=Z_𝐎^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5})_{ab}.$$
(351)
Differently from the real case, the sectors specified by (350) and (351) are not independent, leading to an unexpected and far from trivial new structure in the octonionic $`M`$-algebra.

The octonionic results contained in the present paper should be regarded as the necessary background towards a classification of the octonionic generalized supersymmetries which is at present still missing. For what concerns the $`1D`$ octonionic supersymmetries  applied to octonionic quantum mechanics, a classification is now available .

## 11 Conclusions.

In this paper we made a systematic investigation of real, quaternionic and octonionic-valued Clifford algebras and spinors, presenting their classification, as well as constructive formulas to iteratively produce them. Tables have been given with the most general free dynamics satisfied by real, quaternionic and octonionic spinors in each space-time which supports them. All kinetic and massive terms have been listed.

For what concerns the octonionic case, by far the most intriguing due to the non-associativity, we further presented the systematic construction and derived a series of tables expressing the identities among higher rank antisymmetric octonionic tensors. We motivated this line of research with the attempt at classifying the generalized octonionic supersymmetries. A first example, hopefully physically relevant, consists of the octonionic $`M`$-algebra, with its striking properties induced by the mentioned identities.

For what concerns the quaternionic spinors, they also can appear in connection with generalized supersymmetries. One can read, e.g., from the results here presented, that in the Euclidean $`D=11`$ dimensions quaternionic-valued spinors are allowed. It looks promising to employ them to construct a quaternionic Euclidean version of the $`M`$ algebra (we are in fact planning to address this problem in the future).

Coming back to the octonionic spinors, we mention a further list of topics where they can possibly find application. At the end of section 3 we pointed out that the octonionic realization of the $`7`$-dimensional Euclidean Clifford algebra is related with the geometry of the seven sphere $`S^7`$. A question, which deserves being investigated, can be raised. Is the octonionic description of the $`M`$-theory somehow related to the particular compactification of the $`11`$-dimensional $`M`$-theory down to $`AdS_4\times S^7`$? This compactification corresponds to a natural solution for the $`11`$-dimensional supergravity . It would be interesting to check whether the tensorial identities found in the octonionic construction find a counterpart also in the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ special compactification geometry. On the other hand, one should try to understand the physical implications of the octonionic $`M`$-algebra also from a purely algebraic point of view. Being expressed by a $`4`$-dimensional octonionic matrix, it is outside a Jordan algebra scheme . This raises the question of its quantum-mechanical consistency, which implies understanding whether, and to which extent, is it possible to adapt the prescription of  to the present situation.

It is worth mentioning a different dynamical system , which can be called a “Jordan Matrix Chern-Simon theory”, proposed as a unique model, being associated with the exceptional Jordan algebra $`J_3(𝐎)`$ of $`3\times 3`$ hermitian octonionic matrices. In this context it seems relevant addressing, for octonionic fields, the status of the spin-statistic theorem, in order to carefully revise it. Throughout this paper we have assumed the octonionic spinors being Grassmann, anticommuting fields. However, it cannot be a priori excluded that in the octonionic case this assumption could be relaxed.

We finally mention that the octonions can be held responsible for the existence of a bunch of exceptional structures in Mathematics. As an example the $`5`$ exceptional Lie algebras can all be produced from the octonions via the Tits’ construction . A lot of activity is currently devoted to explore the relevance for Physics of these exceptional structures , see also . The octonions seem the right tool to investigate such connections, see e.g. . The recognized importance of this line of research strongly motivated us to systematically present here the fundamental properties of octonionic fields and spinors, as well as their non-trivial relations, as the ones discussed in section 9.

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge very useful discussions with J. Lukierski.


format: text

text:
# Single-electron tunneling in InP nanowires

## Abstract

We report on the fabrication and electrical characterization of field-effect devices based on wire-shaped InP crystals grown from Au catalyst particles by a vapor-liquid-solid process. Our InP wires are n-type doped with diameters in the 40$``$55 nm range and lengths of several $`\mu `$m. After being deposited on an oxidized Si substrate, wires are contacted individually via e-beam fabricated Ti/Al electrodes. We obtain contact resistances as low as $``$10 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with minor temperature dependence. The distance between the electrodes varies between 0.2 and 2 $`\mu `$m. The electron density in the wires is changed with a back gate. Low-temperature transport measurements show Coulomb-blockade behavior with single-electron charging energies of $``$1 meV. We also demonstrate energy quantization resulting from the confinement in the wire.

Chemically synthesized semiconductor nanowires (or nanowhiskers) attract increasing interest as building blocks for a bottom-up approach to the fabrication of nanoscale devices and sensors. A key property of these material systems is the unique versatility in terms of geometrical dimensions and composition. Nanowires have already been grown from several semiconductor materials (group-IV elements Cui ; Wu , III-V Hiruma ; Duan ; Bjork1 ; Huang2  and II-VI compounds Solanki ), including structures with variable doping and composition, such as n-type/p-type InP Gudiksen , InAs/InP Bjork1 , GaAs/GaP Gudiksen , and Si/SiGe Wu . The growth technique is based on the vapor-liquid-solid (VLS) process Wagner  occurring at metallic catalysts, such as nanometer-sized Au particles. The nanowire diameter is set by the catalyst dimension, typically 10$``$100 nm. The nanowire length is proportional to the growth time and can exceed hundreds of microns. The semiconductor is provided either by metalorganic vapor-phase sources Hiruma ; Bjork1 , or by laser ablation Morales . Many room-temperature applications have already been shown, such as single-nanowire field-effect transistors (FETs) Duan , diodes Gudiksen , and logic gates Huang  combining both n-type and p-type nanowires. Very recently, nanowire heterostructures have been operated as resonant tunneling diodes at 4.2 K Bjork2 . Yet the low-temperature properties of nanowires and their potential for novel quantum devices are still widely unexplored.

In this Letter we describe the realization of FET devices from individual n-type InP nanowires. We discuss their transport properties down to 0.35 K, where single-electron tunneling and quantum effects can play a dominant role. We also provide details on the fabrication of the electrical contacts to the nanowires, a crucial aspect of the present work.

Our InP nanowires are grown via the laser-assisted VLS method. A pulsed laser (193-nm ArF laser, 10 Hz, 100 mJ/pulse) is used to ablate from a pressed InP powder enriched with 1 mol% of Se, which acts as a donor impurity in InP. Nanowires grow from Au seeds formed after annealing a 2 Å-equivalent Au film deposited on a Si substrate with a superficial native oxide. During growth time ($``$30 min) the substrate temperature is kept at 475 C. The resulting nanowires are 5$``$10 $`\mu `$m long with a diameter of 40$``$55 nm.

Immediately after growth, the nanowires are dispersed in Chlorobenzene. A few droplets of this dispersion are deposited on a p+ Si substrate with a 250-nm-thick SiO2 overlayer. To favor the adhesion of the nanowires, the surface is functionalized with a self-assembled monolayer of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES) Liu . Optical imaging is used to locate the nanowires with respect to a reference pattern of predefined Pt markers. The nanowires are then individually contacted with a pair of metal electrodes (source and drain leads) defined by electron-beam lithography (see upper inset to Fig. 1). The distance, $`L`$, between the source and drain electrodes is varied between 0.2 and 2 $`\mu `$m.

The contact electrodes consist of thermally evaporated Ti(100 nm)/Al(20 nm). Before metal deposition, samples are treated with BHF for 20 s in order to etch the oxide layer around the nanowires footnote2 . As-deposited contacts show high resistance, typically in excess of 10 G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The contact resistance improves drastically after forming-gas rapid-thermal annealing at 475 C for 60 s (for a discussion of the interface reaction between Ti and InP we refer to Ref. 15).

We have characterized over ten devices at different temperatures, $`T`$. At room temperature, current-voltage ($`IV`$) characteristics are linear (see dashed lines in Fig. 1) with resistances, $`R`$, as low as 30 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Despite sample-to-sample fluctuations, $`R`$ appears to increase with $`L`$, as shown in the lower inset to Fig. 1. A linear fit yields $`R=40`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }+45`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mu `$m$`\times L`$, where the constant term and the slope coefficient can be taken as rough estimates of the total contact resistance and the wire resistivity, respectively.

Below a few Kelvin, the $`IV`$ characteristics develop a non-linearity around zero bias. This behavior, common to all measured devices, is shown in Fig. 1 for device $`A`$ ($`L=0.20`$ $`\mu `$m), and $`B`$ ($`L=1.95`$ $`\mu `$m), respectively the shortest and longest devices measured. The zero-bias suppression of the conductance has a pronounced dependence on the voltage, $`V_g`$, applied to the p+ Si substrate. This is a characteristic fingerprint of Coulomb-blockaded transport which becomes dominant at low temperatures. In fact, an electronic island, formed inside the nanowire segment between source and drain electrodes, leads to Coulomb blockade of transport when $`k_BT<e^2/C`$, where $`C`$ is the total capacitance of the island CB . At source-drain voltages, $`V_{sd}`$, larger than $`e/C`$, the slope of the low-$`T`$ trace is close to the corresponding room-$`T`$ value, indicating little $`T`$-dependence of the contact resistance.

Figure 2a shows conductance, $`G`$, versus $`V_g`$ for device C ($`L=0.65`$ $`\mu `$m) and D ($`L=1.6`$ $`\mu `$m, inset). Both traces exhibit sharp peaks corresponding to Coulomb-blockade oscillations. This clearly demonstrates that we have achieved single-electron control over the electronic charge and the transport properties of the nanowire. The Coulomb peaks have irregularly distributed sizes, and their $`V_g`$-spacing varies considerably, suggesting the formation of more than one electronic island along the nanowire. This interpretation is supported by the measurement shown in Fig. 2b where the differential conductance, $`dI/dV_{sd}`$, of device C is plotted on gray scale as a function of ($`V_g`$, $`V_{sd}`$). In this plot, Coulomb blockade takes place within dark regions with the characteristic diamond shape. In some cases, such as for $`V_g`$ between $``$40 and $``$90 mV, Coulomb diamonds are clearly separated from each other and have all their edges fully defined. This is characteristic of Coulomb-blockaded transport through a single electronic island. In other $`V_g`$-regions, however, diamonds overlap with each other, as we would expect for a nanowire containing more than one (most likely two) islands in series. The $`V_g`$-dependent alternation of single- and double-island regimes, shown in Fig. 2b, is representative of the general behavior in our devices. We would like to stress that such charge reconfigurations are found to be very stable and reproducible.

Each Coulomb diamond is associated with a well-defined number of confined electrons, $`N`$. From the half-height (along $`V_{sd}`$) of the diamonds we estimate a charging energy $`e^2/C1`$ meV. The $`V_g`$-width of the diamonds is around 10$``$20 mV, from which we deduce $`C_g/C1/7`$, where $`C_g`$ is the capacitance to the back gate footnote3 . This implies that $`N`$ decreases by $``$100 when moving from right to left in Fig. 2a. Based on separate studies footnote1 , we believe this is still only a small fraction of the total amount of conduction electrons in the nanowire.

We now focus on a small $`V_g`$-range where device C exhibits single-island behavior. Figure 3 shows several $`dI/dV_{sd}`$$``$vs$``$$`V_g`$ traces taken at different values of $`V_{sd}`$ between 0 and $``$0.6 mV. The lowest trace ($`V_{sd}=0`$) shows two Coulomb peaks denoting transitions between successive charge states: say from $`N1`$ to $`N`$ (left peak), and from $`N`$ to $`N+1`$ (right peak). At finite bias, each peak in $`dI/dV_{sd}`$ splits proportionally to $`V_{sd}`$, as expected from ordinary Coulomb-blockade theory. The left-moving (right-moving) split-peak corresponds to the onset of tunneling from (to) the source (drain) lead. Interestingly, at larger $`V_{sd}`$ extra resonances appear between the split-peaks. Increasing $`V_{sd}`$, the $`V_g`$-positions of such resonances evolve parallel to one of the split-peaks, as emphasized by dashed lines. We recognize this behavior as characteristic of transport through a quantum-dot system with a discrete energy spectrum Johnson . The two extra resonances can be readily explained as the result of tunneling processes involving excited states of the quantum dot. The resonance on the right side of Fig. 3 denotes the onset of tunneling from the source lead to the first excited state with $`N+1`$ electrons (see top-right inset). The one on the left can be ascribed to the tunneling of an electron from the dot to the drain which leaves the dot in an excited state with $`N1`$ electrons (see top-left inset). The bias voltage for which the resonance associated to an $`N`$-electron excited-state begins to emerge is a direct measurement of the corresponding excitation energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(N)`$. We find $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(N1)0.36`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(N+1)0.30`$ meV.

Another sign of energy quantization is based on the $`T`$-dependence of the conductance peaks at $`V_{sd}=0`$. As expected for single-electron tunneling in quantum dots, lowering $`T`$ gives an increased peak height as a result of resonant tunneling CB . This is in fact observed in the low-$`T`$ limit (data not shown). The full-width at half maximum increases linearly with $`T`$, but with two different slopes, associated with the quantum ($`k_BT<\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) and the classical ($`k_BT>\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) regime Foxman . In our case, the transition between the two regimes occurs at about 1.2 K, (see Fig. 3b) corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.1`$ meV, in agreement with the previous findings. Our observation of a discrete energy spectrum represents an important premise for a deeper investigation of quantum phenomena and the development of controllable quantum devices based on semiconductor nanowires.

We thank T. Nolst Trenité and S. Tarucha for help and discussions. We acknowledge financial support from the Specially Promoted Research, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in Japan, and from the Dutch Organisation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM).