text:
# 1 The WDVV prepotential

## 1 The WDVV prepotential

In terms of the so-called flat coordinates $`x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n`$ a solution to the Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde (WDVV) equations ,  is given by a prepotential $`F(x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ which satisfies the associativity relations:

$$\underset{\delta ,\gamma =1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^3F(x)}{x^\alpha x^\beta x^\delta }\eta ^{\delta \gamma }\frac{^3F(x)}{x^\gamma x^\omega x^\rho }=\underset{\delta ,\gamma =1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^3F(x)}{x^\alpha x^\omega x^\delta }\eta ^{\delta \gamma }\frac{^3F(x)}{x^\gamma x^\beta x^\rho }$$
(1)
together with a quasi-homogeneity condition :

$$\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(1+\mu _1\mu _\alpha \right)x^\alpha \frac{F}{x^\alpha }=(3d)F+\mathrm{quadratic}\mathrm{terms}.$$
(2)
where $`\mu _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`d`$ are constants .

Furthermore, expression

$$\frac{^3F(x)}{x^\alpha x^\beta x^1}=\eta _{\alpha \beta }$$
(3)
defines a constant non-degenerate metric: $`g=_{\alpha ,\beta =1}^n\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta `$.

As shown by Dubrovin (e.g. in reference ) there is an alternative description of the metric in terms of a special class of orthogonal curvilinear coordinates $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$

$$g=\underset{\alpha \beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}h_i^2(u)(du_i)^2$$
(4)
called canonical coordinates. These coordinates allow to reformulate the problem in terms of the Darboux-Egoroff metric systems and corresponding Darboux-Egoroff equations and their solutions. In the Darboux-Egoroff metric the Lamé coefficients $`h_i^2(u)`$ are gradients of some potential and this ensures that the so-called “rotation coefficients”

$$\beta _{ij}=\frac{1}{h_j}\frac{h_i}{u_j},ij,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}i,jn,$$
(5)
are symmetric $`\beta _{ij}=\beta _{ji}`$. The Darboux-Egoroff equations for the rotation coefficients are:

$$\frac{}{u_k}\beta _{ij}=\beta _{ik}\beta _{kj},\text{distinct}i,j,k$$
(6)
$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{}{u_k}\beta _{ij}=0,ij.$$
(7)
In addition to these equations one also assumes the conformal condition :

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_k\frac{}{u_k}\beta _{ij}=\beta _{ij}.$$
(8)
The Darboux-Egoroff equations (6)-(7) appear as compatibility equations of a linear system :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(u,z)}{u_k}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{ik}(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_{kj}(u,z)ik`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(u,z)}{u_k}}`$ $`=`$ $`z\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(u,z)`$ (10)
Define the $`n\times n`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij})_{1i,jn}`$, $`B=(\beta _{ij})_{1i,jn}`$ and $`V_i=[B,E_{ii}]`$, where $`(E_{ij})_k\mathrm{}=\delta _{ik}\delta _j\mathrm{}`$. Then the linear system (9)-(10) acquires the following form :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)}{u_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(zE_{ii}+V_i(u)\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z),i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)}{u_k}}`$ $`=`$ $`z\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z).`$ (12)
Let, furthemore $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)`$ have a power series expansion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^j\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}(u)+z\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(u)+z^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(u)+\mathrm{}$$
(13)
and satisfy the “twisting” condition ;

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)\eta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }^T(u,z)=I$$
(14)
Equation (11) implies $`_{k=1}^nu_k\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)/u_k=(zU+[B,U])\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)`$, with $`U=_{k=1}^nu_kE_{kk}`$. For a matrix $`[B,U]`$ which is diagonalizable the conformal condition (8) leads to

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_k\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)}{u_k}=z\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)}{z}+\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)\mu ,\mu =\mathrm{diag}(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n)$$
(15)
where $`\mu `$ is a constant diagonal matrix obtained by a similarity transformation from the matrix $`[B,U]`$. The constant diagonal elements $`\mu _i`$ entered the quasi-homogeneity condition (2).

Define

$$\varphi _\alpha (u,z)\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta 1}^{(0)}(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta \alpha }(u,z)=\varphi _\alpha ^{(0)}(u)+z\varphi _\alpha ^{(1)}(u)+z^2\varphi _\alpha ^{(2)}(u)+z^3\varphi _\alpha ^{(3)}(u)+\mathrm{}$$
(16)
then, in terms of the flat coordinates $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$

$$\varphi _\alpha ^{(1)}(u)=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _{\alpha \beta }x^\beta (u)$$
(17)
and the prepotential is given by a closed expression (see e.g.  or ):

$$F=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _1^{(3)}(u)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\delta =1}{\overset{n}{}}x^\delta (u)\varphi _\delta ^{(2)}(u).$$
(18)
## 2 The CKP hierarchy

The CKP hierarchy  can be obtained as a reduction of the KP hierarchy,

$$\frac{}{t_n}L=[(L^n)_+,L],\text{for }L=L(t,)=_x+\mathrm{}^{(1)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\mathrm{}^{(2)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{},$$
(19)
where $`x=t_1`$, by assuming the extra condition

$$L^{}=L.$$
(20)
By taking the adjoint, i.e.,$`^{}`$ of (19), one sees that $`\frac{L}{t_n}=0`$ for $`n`$ even. Date, Jimbo, Kashiwara and Miwa ,  construct such $`L`$’s from certain special KP wave functions $`\psi (t,z)=P(t,z)e^{_it_iz^i}`$ (recall $`L(t,)=P(t,)P(t,)^1`$), where one then puts all even times $`t_n`$ equal to 0. Recall that a KP wave function satisfies

$$L\psi (t,z)=z\psi (t,z),\frac{\psi (t,z)}{t_n}=(L^n)_+\psi (t,z),$$
(21)
and

$$Res\psi (t,z)\psi ^{}(s,z)=0.$$
(22)
The special wave functions which lead to an $`L`$ that satisfies (20) satisfy

$$\psi ^{}(t,z)=\psi (\stackrel{~}{t},z),\text{where }\stackrel{~}{t}_i=()^{i+1}t_i.$$
(23)
We call such a $`\psi `$ a CKP wave function. Note that this implies that $`L(t,)^{}=L(\stackrel{~}{t},)`$ and that

$$Res\psi (t,z)\psi (\stackrel{~}{s},z)=0.$$

One can put all even times equal to 0, but we will not do that here.

The CKP wave functions correspond to very special points in the Sato Grassmannian, which consists of all linear spaces

$$WH_+H_{}=[z]z^1[[z^1]],$$

such that the projection on $`H_+`$ has finite index. Namely, $`W`$ corresponds to a CKP wave function if for any $`f(z),g(z)W`$ one has $`Resf(z)g(z)=0`$. The corresponding CKP tau functions satisfy $`\tau (\stackrel{~}{t})=\tau (t)`$.

We will now generalize this to the multi-component case and show that a CKP reduction of the multi-component KP hierarchy gives the Darboux-Egoroff system. The $`n`$ component KP hierarchy ,  consists of the equations in $`t_j^{(i)}`$, $`1in`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{}{t_j^{(i)}}L=[(L^jC_i)_+,L],\frac{}{t_j^{(i)}}C_k=[(L^jC_i)_+,C_k],$$
(24)
for the $`n\times n`$-matrix pseudo-differential operators

$$L=_x+L^{(1)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+L^{(2)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{},C_i=E_{ii}+C_i^{(1)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+C_i^{(2)}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{},$$
(25)
$`1in`$, where $`x=t_1^{(1)}+t_1^{(2)}+\mathrm{}+t_1^{(n)}`$. The corresponding wave function has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)=P(t,z)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_j^{(i)}z^jE_{ii}\right),\text{where }P(t,z)=I+P^{(1)}(t)z^1+\mathrm{},$$

and satisfies

$$L\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)=z\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z),C_i\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)E_{ii},\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{t_j^{(i)}}=(L^jC_i)_+\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)$$
(26)
and

$$Res\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(s,z)^T=0.$$

From this we deduce that $`L=P(t,_x)_xP(t,_x)^1`$ and $`C_i=P(t,_x)E_{ii}P(t,_x)^1`$. Using this, the simplest equations in (26) are

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{t_1^{(i)}}=(zE_{ii}+V_i(t))\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z),$$
(27)
where $`V_i(t)=[B(t),E_{ii}]`$ with $`B(t)=P^{(1)}(t)`$. In terms of the matrix coefficients $`\beta _{ij}`$ of $`B`$ we obtain (6) for $`u_i=t_1^{(i)}`$.

The Sato Grassmannian becomes vector valued, i.e.,

$$H_+H_{}=([z])^nz^1([[z^1]])^n.$$

The same restriction as in the 1-component case (23), viz.,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\stackrel{~}{t},z),\text{where }\stackrel{~}{t}_n^{(i)}=()^{n+1}t_n^{(i)}.$$

leads to $`L^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})=L(t)`$, $`C_i^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})=C_i(t)`$ and

$$Res\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{s},z)^T=0,$$
(28)
which we call the multi-component CKP hierarchy. But more importantly, it also gives the restriction

$$\beta _{ij}(t)=\beta _{ji}(\stackrel{~}{t}).$$
(29)
Such CKP wave functions correspond to points $`W`$ in the Grassmannian for which

$$Resf(z)^Tg(z)=Res\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_i(z)g_i(z)=0$$

for any $`f(z)=(f_1(z),f_2(z),\mathrm{},f_n(z))^T,g(z)=(g_1(z),g_2(z),\mathrm{},g_n(z))^TW`$.

If we finally assume that $`L=_x`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`W`$ also satisfy

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{x}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{t_1^{(i)}}=z\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z),zWW$$
(30)
and thus $`\beta _{ij}`$ satisfies (7) for $`u_i=t_1^{(i)}`$. Now differentiating (28) $`n`$ times to $`x`$ for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and applying (30) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{t},z)^T=I.$$

These special points in the Grassmannian can all be constructed as follows . Let $`G(z)`$ be an element in $`GL_n([z,z^1])`$ that satisfies

$$G(z)G(z)^T=1,$$
(31)
then $`W=G(z)H_+`$. Clearly, any two $`f(z),g(z)W`$ can be written as $`f(z)=G(z)a(z),g(z)=G(z)b(z)`$ with $`a(z),b(z)H_+`$, then $`zf(z)=zG(z)a(z)=G(z)za(z)W`$, since $`za(z)H_+`$. Moreover,

$$Resf(z)^Tg(z)=Resa(z)^TG(z)^TG(z)b(z)=Resa(z)^Tb(z)=0.$$

If we define $`M(t,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)G(z)`$, then one can prove ,  that

$$M(t,z)=M^{(0)}(t)+M^{(1)}(t)z+M^{(2)}(t)z^2+\mathrm{}$$

We want to change $`M(t,z)`$ a bit more. However, we only want to do that for very special elements in this twisted loop group, i.e., to certain points of the Grassmannian that have a basis of homogeneous elements in $`z`$. Let $`n=2m`$ or $`n=2m+1`$, choose non-negative integers $`\mu _i`$ for $`1im`$ and define $`\mu _{n+1j}=\mu _j`$ and let $`\mu _{m+1}=0`$ if $`n`$ is odd. Then take $`G(z)`$ of the form

$$G(z)=N(z)S^1=Nz^\mu S^1,\text{where}\mu =\text{diag}(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _n)$$

and $`N=(n_{ij})_{1i,jn}`$ a constant matrix that satisfies

$$N^TN=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{\mu _j}E_{j,n+1j}$$
(32)
and

$$S=\delta _{n,2m+1}E_{m+1,m+1}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(E_{jj}+iE_{n+1j,j}+E_{j,n+1j}iE_{n+1j,n+1j}\right).$$

Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}jt_j^{(i)}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{t_j^{(i)}}=z\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)}{z},$$

from which one deduces that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}jt_j^{(i)}\frac{\beta _{ij}}{t_j^{(i)}}=\beta _{ij}.$$
(33)
Define $`\eta =(\eta _{ij})_{1i,jn}=S^TS=_{i=1}^nE_{i,n+1i}`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)=M(t,z)S=\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)G(z)S=\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)N(z)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)`$ satisfies the following relations:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}(t)+\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(t)z+\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(t)z^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)\eta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)^T=`$ $`I`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)}{t_1^{(i)}}}=`$ $`(zE_{ii}+V_i(t))\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)}{t_1^{(i)}}}=`$ $`z\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}jt_j^{(i)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)}{t_j^{(i)}}}=`$ $`z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)}{z}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)\mu .`$
We next put $`t_j^{(i)}=0`$ for all $`i`$ and all $`j>1`$ and $`u_i=t_1^{(i)}`$, then we obtain the situation of Section 1. Define $`\varphi _\alpha (u,z)`$ as in (16), then $`\varphi _\alpha ^{(1)}(u)=_{\gamma =1}^n\eta _{\alpha \gamma }x^\gamma (u)`$ and the function $`F(u)`$ given by (18) satisfies the WDVV equations.

## 3 An example

We will now give an example of this construction, viz., the case that $`n=3`$ (for simplicity) and $`\mu _1=\mu _3=2`$ and $`\mu _2=0`$. Hence, the point of the Grassmannian is given by

$$N(z)H_+=N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}z^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& z^2\end{array}\right)H_+.$$

More precise, let $`n_i=(n_{1i},n_{2i},n_{3i})^T`$ and $`e_1=(1,0,0)^T`$, $`e_2=(0,1,0)^T`$ and $`e_3=(0,0,1)^T`$, then this point of the Grassmannian has as basis

$$n_1z^2,n_1z^1,n_1,n_2,n_1z,n_2z,e_1z^2,e_2z^2,e_3z^2,e_1z^3,e_2z^3,\mathrm{}.$$

Using this one can calculate in a similar way as in  (using the boson-fermion correspondence or vertex operator constructions) the wave function:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,z)=`$ $`P(t,z)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}t_j^{(i)}z^jE_{ii}\right),\text{where}`$
$`P_{jj}(t,z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\tau }(t_{\mathrm{}}^{(k)}\delta _{kj}(\mathrm{}z^{\mathrm{}})^1)}{\widehat{\tau }(t)}},`$
$`P_{ij}(t,z)=`$ $`z^1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\tau }_{ij}(t_{\mathrm{}}^{(k)}\delta _{kj}(\mathrm{}z^{\mathrm{}})^1)}{\widehat{\tau }(t)}}`$
and where

$$\widehat{\tau }(t)=det\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}n_{11}S_2(t^{(1)})& n_{11}S_1(t^{(1)})& n_{11}& 0& n_{12}& 0\\ n_{21}S_2(t^{(2)})& n_{21}S_1(t^{(2)})& n_{21}& 0& n_{22}& 0\\ n_{31}S_2(t^{(3)})& n_{31}S_1(t^{(3)})& n_{31}& 0& n_{32}& 0\\ n_{11}S_3(t^{(1)})& n_{11}S_2(t^{(1)})& n_{11}S_1(t^{(1)})& n_{11}& n_{12}S_1(t^{(1)})& n_{12}\\ n_{21}S_3(t^{(2)})& n_{21}S_2(t^{(2)})& n_{21}S_1(t^{(2)})& n_{21}& n_{22}S_1(t^{(2)})& n_{22}\\ n_{31}S_3(t^{(3)})& n_{31}S_2(t^{(3)})& n_{31}S_1(t^{(3)})& n_{31}& n_{32}S_1(t^{(3)})& n_{32}\end{array}\right).$$

The functions $`S_i(x)`$ are the elementary Schur polynomials:

$$S_1(x)=x_1,S_2(x)=\frac{x_1^2}{2}+x_2,S_3(x)=\frac{x_1^3}{6}+x_2x_1+x_3.$$

The tau function $`\widehat{\tau }_{ij}(t)`$ is up to the sign sign$`(ij)`$ equal to the above determinant where we replace the $`j`$-th row by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}n_{i1}S_1(t^{(i)})& n_{i1}& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Next we put all higher times $`t_j^{(i)}`$ for $`j>1`$ equal to 0 and write $`u_i`$ for $`t_1^{(i)}`$. Then using the orthogonality-like condition (32) of the matrix $`N`$ to reduce long expressions, the wave function becomes:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(u,z)=`$ $`(I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau (u)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[(w_1^{(3)}+w_1^{(2)}(u_i+u_j)w_1^{(1)}u_iu_j)z^1`$
$`+(w_1^{(1)}u_iw_1^{(2)})z^2]n_{i1}n_{j1}E_{ij})e^{zU},`$
where, for convenience of notation, we have introduced some new ”variables”

$$w_i^{(k)}=\frac{1}{k}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{3}{}}u_{\mathrm{}}^kn_\mathrm{}in_\mathrm{}1,$$

and where

$$\tau (u)=w_1^{(3)}w_1^{(1)}w_1^{(2)}w_1^{(2)}.$$

Note that in this way we also have determined the rotation coefficients

$$\beta _{ij}=\frac{1}{\tau (u)}\left(w_1^{(3)}+w_1^{(2)}(u_i+u_j)w_1^{(1)}u_iu_j\right)n_{i1}n_{j1},$$

which is a new solution of order $`3`$ of the the Darboux–Egoroff equations.

Recall that $`\eta =_{i=1}^3E_{i,4i}`$. It is now straightforward but tedious to determine the flat coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ and the $`\varphi _\alpha ^{(j)}`$ for $`j>1`$. One finds that for $`\mathrm{}>0`$ and $`p=1,2,3`$:

$$\varphi _p^{(\mathrm{}\mu _p)}=\frac{\tau w_p^{(\mathrm{}+2)}+\tau _1w_p^{(\mathrm{}+1)}+\tau _2w_p^{(\mathrm{})}}{2(\mathrm{}1)!\tau }$$
(34)
and

$$\varphi _p^{(2\mu _p)}=\delta _{p3},\varphi _p^{(1\mu _p)}=\delta _{p3}\frac{\tau _1}{2\tau },\varphi _p^{(\mu _p)}=\delta _{p3}\frac{\tau _2}{2\tau },$$
(35)
where

$`\tau _1=`$ $`w_1^{(2)}w_1^{(3)}w_1^{(1)}w_1^{(4)}`$
$`\tau _2=`$ $`w_1^{(2)}w_1^{(4)}(w_1^{(3)})^2.`$
Note that (34) also holds for $`p=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$, it is easy to verify that $`\varphi _1^{(1)}=\varphi _1^{(0)}=0`$. Using (17), one has the following flat coordinates:

$`x^1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _1}{2\tau }},`$ (36)
$`x^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau }}\left(\tau w_2^{(3)}+\tau _1w_2^{(2)}+\tau _2w_2^{(1)}\right),`$
$`x^3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\tau }}\left(\tau w_1^{(5)}+\tau _1w_1^{(4)}+\tau _2w_1^{(3)}\right),`$
From all this it is straightforward to determine $`F(u)`$, given by (18):

$`F`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2}{16\tau ^2}}\left(\tau w_1^{(5)}+\tau _1w_1^{(4)}+\tau _2w_1^{(3)}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _1}{48\tau ^2}}\left(\tau w_1^{(6)}+\tau _1w_1^{(5)}+\tau _2w_1^{(4)}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{96\tau ^2}}\left(\tau w_1^{(7)}+\tau _1w_1^{(6)}+\tau _2w_1^{(5)}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\tau ^2}}\left(\tau w_2^{(3)}+\tau _1w_2^{(2)}+\tau _2w_2^{(1)}\right)\left(\tau w_2^{(4)}+\tau _1w_2^{(3)}+\tau _2w_2^{(2)}\right).`$
We shall not determine the explicit form of this prepotential in terms of the canonical coordinates here, because it is quite long. However, there is a problem even in this ”simple” example. We do not know how to express the cannonical coordinates $`u_i`$ in terms of the flat ones, the $`x^\alpha `$’s and thus cannot express $`F`$ in terms of the flat coordinates. Hence we cannot determine the desired form of $`F`$. This can be solved in the simplest example, see , viz. the case that $`\mu _1=\mu _n=1`$ and all other $`\mu _i=0`$. This gives a rational prepotential $`F`$ (in terms of the flat coordinates). Acknowledgements
H.A. was partially supported by NSF (PHY-9820663).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The objective of the present work is to illustrate the property of the Shrödinger equation which is called here the dyon–oscillator duality. The property is in the following. The Schödinger equation for an oscillator possesses two parameters – the energy $`E`$ and the cyclic frequency $`\omega `$. The quantization leads to the constraint $`E=\mathrm{}\omega (N+D/2)`$, where $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`D`$ is the dimension of the configuration space of the oscillator. If $`\omega `$ is fixed then $`E`$ is quantized, and that is the standard situation. Imagine for a moment that now $`E`$ is fixed. Whence, necessarily $`\omega `$ is quantized, and we are in nonstandard situation. The question is whether the nonstandard situation corresponds to any physics, i.e. is it possible to find such a transformation that converts the oscillator to some physical system with coupling constant $`\alpha `$, being a function of $`E`$, and energy $`\epsilon `$, depending on $`\omega `$? If there exists such a transformation, we can confirm that the ”nonstandard oscillator” is identical to that physical system. Below will be shown the validity of the described picture for dimensions $`D=1,2,4,8`$, and that the final system is bound system of charge–particle (remind, that dyon is the hypothetical particle introduced by Schwinger , which is unlike the Dirac monopole endowed with not just magnetic but electric charge as well). As the ”standard” and ”nonstandard” regimes are mutually exclusive, the initial oscillator and the final ”charge–dyon” system are dual to each other, and that explains the relevancy of the term ”dyon–oscillator duality”. Note also, that in the initial system the spectrum is discrete only, i.e. the particle has just a finite motion (for such cases it is used to say that we have a model with confinement). Generally speaking, the spectrum of the final system includes the discrete spectrum as well as the continuous one, i.e. in that model there is no confinement. However, unlike the first model, in the second model we have monopoles. There is some analogy between the dyon–oscillator and the Seiberg–Witten duality , according to which the gauge theories with strong interactions are equivalent to the theories having weak interaction on one hand and topological nontrivial objects, such as monopoles and dyons are, on the other hand.

## 2 Coulomb-Oscillator Duality

Let us consider the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2R}{du^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{du}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(L+D2)}{u^2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega ^2u^2}{2}}\right)R=0.`$ (1)
Here $`R`$ is the radial part of the wave function for $`D`$-dimensional oscillator ($`D>2`$), $`L=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are the eigenvalues of the global angular momentum.

After substitution $`r=u^2`$ the equation (1) transforms to the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2R}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+d2)}{r^2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}}\right)R=0,`$ (2)
where $`d=D/2+1`$, $`l=L/2`$,

$`ϵ=m\omega ^2/8,e^2=E/4.`$ (3)
This is quite an unexpected result. If $`D=4,6,8,\mathrm{}`$, then $`d=3,4,5,\mathrm{}`$, and the equation (2) is formally identical to the radial equation for $`d`$-dimensional Coulomb problem (for odd $`D>2`$ the value of $`d`$ is half-integer and so cannot have the meaning of the dimension of the space in the usual sense). Then, $`l`$ takes not only integer but half-integer values as well, hence it has a meaning of general momentum and a question arise about the origin of the fermion degree of freedom. The answer to the question will be given later. Finally, as was mentioned in first section, the equations (1) and (2) are dual to each other and the duality transformation is $`r=u^2`$.

Up to now, just the radial part of the wave function of the oscillator has been considered. For the Schrödinger equation we must take into account the angular part as well. Thus, the duality transformation must also include the transformation of angular variables. If we interpret the change of variables $`r=u^2`$ as the mechanism of generation of electric charge, (as will be shown later) the transformation of some angular variables is responsible for the generation of magnetic charges.

Therefore, we return to the condition $`r=u^2`$. In the Cartesian coordinates this condition has the form

$`x_0^2+x_1^2+\mathrm{}+x_{d1}^2=\left(u_0^2+u_1^2+\mathrm{}+u_{D1}^2\right)^2,`$
which is called the Euler’s identity. According to Hurwitz theorem  this equation has a solution bilinear in $`u_\mu `$ only for the following pairs of numbers

$`(D,d)=(1,1);(2,2);(4,3);(8,5).`$
Three remarkable circumstances are connected with the last relation:

* (D, d) = (2, 2) – is the Levi-Civita transformation .
(D, d) = (4, 3) – is the Kustaanheimo-Stiefel transformation .
(D, d) = (8, 5) – is the Hurwitz transformation .
* The transformation (4) establishes the connection between two fundamental problems of mechanics, the oscillator and Kepler problems.
* The ”magic” numbers $`D=1,2,4,8`$ have the direct relation to the existence fact of four basic algebraic structures: real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octanions.

Later on we consider only the case $`(D,d)=(8,5)`$.

## 3 Hurwitz Transformation

We can write the solution of the Euler’s indentity as

$`x=H(u;D)u,`$ (4)
which can be interpreted as a bilinear transformation that maps one Euclidean space into another. Here $`D`$ is the dimension of the space, $`H`$ is the matrix $`D\times D`$ with the elements $`u_\mu `$, and $`x,u`$ are $`D`$-dimensional columns composed from $`x_j,u_\mu `$ and, possibly, zeroes. So, for the Levi–Civita and Kustaanheimo–Stiefel transformations we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ x_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_1& u_2\\ u_2& u_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1\\ u_2\end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u_3& u_4& u_1& u_2\\ u_4& u_3& u_2& u_1\\ u_1& u_2& u_3& u_4\\ u_2& u_1& u_4& u_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1\\ u_2\\ u_3\\ u_4\end{array}\right).`$
The matrixes $`H(u;2)`$ and $`H(u;4)`$ have the property

$`H(u;2)H^T(u;2)=u^2E(2),H(u;4)H^T(u;2)=u^2E(4),`$
where $`\mathrm{"}T\mathrm{"}`$ means the sign of the transposition, $`E(2)`$ and $`E(4)`$ are the unit matrixes. Due to these properties the Euler identities are fulfilled. Now it is easily deduced, that the transformation $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^8(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{u}})\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{x}})`$ must take the form

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}x_0\\ x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ x_4\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}u_0& u_1& u_2& u_3& u_4& u_5& u_6& u_7\\ u_4& u_5& u_6& u_7& u_0& u_1& u_2& u_3\\ u_5& u_4& u_7& u_6& u_1& u_0& u_3& u_2\\ u_6& u_7& u_4& u_5& u_2& u_3& u_0& u_1\\ u_7& u_6& u_5& u_4& u_3& u_2& u_1& u_0\\ u_1& u_0& u_3& u_2& u_5& u_4& u_7& u_6\\ u_2& u_3& u_0& u_1& u_6& u_7& u_4& u_5\\ u_3& u_2& u_1& u_0& u_7& u_6& u_5& u_4\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_0\\ u_1\\ u_2\\ u_3\\ u_4\\ u_5\\ u_6\\ u_7\end{array}\right).`$
Hence it follows that

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`u_0^2+u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2u_4^2u_5^2u_6^2u_7^2,`$
$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`2(u_0u_4u_1u_5u_2u_6u_3u_7),`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`2(u_0u_5+u_1u_4u_2u_7+u_3u_6),`$ (8)
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`2(u_0u_6+u_1u_7+u_2u_4u_3u_5),`$
$`x_4`$ $`=`$ $`2(u_0u_7u_1u_6+u_2u_5+u_3u_4).`$
It is easy to prove that for the matrix $`H(u;8)`$ there is a condition

$`H(u;8)H^T(u;8)=u^2E(8)`$
that guarantee the validity of Euler identity.

Adding to (5) the transformations

$`\alpha _T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0+iu_1)(u_2iu_3)}{(u_0iu_1)(u_2+iu_3)}}[0,2\pi ),`$
$`\beta _T`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2+u_1^2}{u_2^2+u_3^2}}\right)^{1/2}[0,\pi ],`$ (9)
$`\gamma _T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0iu_1)(u_2iu_3)}{(u_0+iu_1)(u_2+iu_3)}}[0,4\pi ),`$
we obtain a transformation converting $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^8`$ to the direct product $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of the space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{x}})`$ and a three-dimensional sphere $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}(\alpha _T,\beta _T,\gamma _T)`$.

## 4 Dyon-Oscillator Duality

In the coordinates (5), (6) we can transform the Schödinger equation for the eight-dimensional isotropic oscillator

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi }{u_\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega ^2u^2}{2}}\right)\psi =0,u_\mu R^8`$
into the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\mathrm{}A_j^a\widehat{T}_a\right)^2\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}}\widehat{T}^2\psi {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}}\psi =ϵ\psi `$ (10)
where $`ϵ`$ and $`e^2`$ are defined by the relation (3). The operators $`\widehat{T}_a`$ are the generators of the $`SU(2)`$ group. In coordinates $`(\alpha _T,\beta _T,\gamma _T)`$ they are parametrized as follows

$`\widehat{T}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha _T\mathrm{cos}\beta _T{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _T}}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _T{\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta _T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _T}{\mathrm{sin}\beta _T}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma _T}}\right),`$
$`\widehat{T}_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{sin}\alpha _T\mathrm{cot}\beta _T{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _T}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _T{\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta _T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _T}{\mathrm{sin}\beta _T}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma _T}}\right),`$
$`\widehat{T}_3`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _T}}.`$
Recall that the operators $`\widehat{T}_a`$ satisfy the following commutation relations

$`[\widehat{T}_a,\widehat{T}_b]=i\epsilon _{abc}\widehat{T}_c.`$
The five-dimensional vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ are given by the expressions

$`\stackrel{}{A}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(r+x_0)}}(0,x_4,x_3,x_2,x_1),`$
$`\stackrel{}{A}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(r+x_0)}}(0,x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2),`$
$`\stackrel{}{A}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(r+x_0)}}(0,x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3),`$
The vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ are orthogonal to each other,

$`A_j^aA_j^b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{rx_0}{r+x_0}}\delta _{ab}`$
and to the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ as well.

The equation (7) is identical to the Pauli equation and therefore we can give to the triplet of five-dimensional vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ the meaning of the vector potentials with the line of singularity along the nonpositive $`x_0`$ semiaxis.

The five-dimensional vector potentials $`\stackrel{}{B}^a`$

$`\stackrel{}{B}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(rx_0)}}(0,x_4,x_3,x_2,x_1),`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(rx_0)}}(0,x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2),`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(rx_0)}}(0,x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3)`$
with the singularity axis, directed along the nonnegative $`x_0`$ semiaxis, are obtained from the vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ by the following gauge transformation

$`B_j=\widehat{S}A_j\widehat{S}^1+i\widehat{S}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\widehat{S}^1.`$
Here $`A_j=A_j^a\widehat{T}_a`$, $`B_j=B_j^a\widehat{T}_a`$, and

$`\widehat{S}=e^{i\gamma \widehat{T}_3}e^{i\beta \widehat{T}_2}e^{i\alpha \widehat{T}_3}.`$
The hyperspherical angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are defined as

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_2ix_1)(x_4ix_3)}{(x_2+ix_1)(x_4+ix_3)}}[0,2\pi )`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{x_3^2+x_4^2}}\right)^{1/2}[0,\pi ]`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_2+ix_1)(x_4ix_3)}{(x_2ix_1)(x_4+ix_3)}}[0,4\pi ).`$
Now, it is necessery to explain what the physical system the equation (7) describes.

## 5 Field Tensor

For the first step we rewrite the five-dimensional vector potentials $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ in the following form

$`A_i^a={\displaystyle \frac{2ig}{r(r+x_0)}}\tau _{ij}^ax_j.`$ (11)
Here $`\tau _{ij}^a`$ are the $`5\times 5`$ matrices having the following explicit form

$`\tau ^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\sigma ^1\\ 0& i\sigma ^1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\sigma ^3\\ 0& i\sigma ^3& 0\end{array}\right),\tau ^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& \sigma ^2\end{array}\right),`$
where $`\sigma ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices and the $`\tau ^a`$ matrices satisfying $`[\tau ^a,\tau ^b]=iϵ_{abc}\tau ^c`$. It is obvious that $`\tau _{ij}^a=\tau _{ji}^a`$ and, therefore, the vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}^a`$ are orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. Moreover, for the $`\tau ^a`$ matrices the following relations occur

$`4\tau _{ij}^a\tau _{jk}^b=\delta _{ab}\left(\delta _{ik}\delta _{i0}\delta _{k0}\right)+2iϵ_{abc}\tau _{ik}^c,`$ (13)
$`ϵ_{abc}\tau _{ij}^b\tau _{km}^c={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[(\delta _{i0}\delta _{k0}\delta _{ik})\tau _{jm}^a(\delta _{i0}\delta _{m0}\delta _{im})\tau _{jk}^a+`$
$`+(\delta _{j0}\delta _{m0}\delta _{jm})\tau _{ik}^a(\delta _{j0}\delta _{k0}\delta _{jk})\tau _{im}^a].`$ (14)
Now, using the definition of the Yang-Mills field tensor

$`F_{ij}^a={\displaystyle \frac{A_j^a}{x_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_i^a}{x_j}}+ϵ_{abc}A_i^{b(+)}A_k^{c(+)}`$
and the expressions (8) and (10) we can write the field tensor $`F_{ij}^a`$ in a more explicit form

$`F_{ij}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[\left(x_j+r\delta _{j0}\right)A_i^a\left(x_i+r\delta _{i0}\right)A_j^a2i\tau _{ij}^a\right].`$
The straightforward computation gives

$`F_{ij}^aF_{jk}^b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^6}}\left(x_ix_kr^2\delta _{ik}\right)\delta _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}ϵ_{abc}F_{ik}^c.`$
or

$`F_{ij}^aF_{ij}^b={\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^4}}\delta _{ab}.`$ (15)
## 6 Topological Charge

It is convenient to perform the computation of the topological charge in the five-dimensional hyperspherical coordinates, which we define as

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`x_2+ix_1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}},`$
$`x_4+ix_3`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}},`$
where $`r[0,\mathrm{})`$, $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$, $`\alpha [0,2\pi )`$, $`\beta [0,\pi ]`$, $`\gamma [0,4\pi )`$.

It is known that the components of the second rank tensor in the different coordinate systems are interrelated by the formula

$`\overline{f}_{ik}={\displaystyle \frac{x_m}{\overline{x}_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{\overline{x}_k}}f_{mn}`$
in our case $`\overline{x}_0=r`$, $`\overline{x}_1=\theta `$, $`\overline{x}_2=\beta `$, $`\overline{x}_3=\alpha `$, $`\overline{x}_1=\gamma `$. The direct computation gives that $`F_{rk}^a0`$, where $`k=r,\theta ,\beta ,\alpha ,\gamma `$ (the other components see in the Appendix).

Using the explicit forms of the hyperspherical components $`F_{ij}^a`$ it is possible to verify that the field tensor $`F_{ij}^a`$ is a self-duality

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{a(+)\mu \nu }=F^{a(+)\mu \nu },\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4.`$ (16)
Further, using the definition of the topological charge

$`q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{a(+)\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{a(+)}𝑑S}`$
where $`dS=\frac{r^4}{8}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta d\theta d\beta d\alpha d\gamma `$, and taking into account equations of the self-duality (12) and orthogonality conditions (11) we obtain that in our case $`q=+1`$.

So, we see that the equation (7) describe the charge-dyon system with $`SU(2)`$ Yang monopole , and Schrödinger equation for the eight-dimensional isotropic oscillator and equation (7) are dual to each other.

It is important to note the following fact

$`q^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{a(+)\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{a(+)}𝑑S}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$
i.e. $`1/3`$ topololigical charge correspond to each $`a`$-th component of the gauge field $`F_{ij}^a`$.

## 7 Hidden Symmetry

Since, our obtained system is a non-Abelian extension of the five-dimensional Coulomb problem, it is natural to try to construct an analog of the Runge-Lenz vector for Yang-Coulomb monopole by passing from $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{x}})`$ to $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{x}})`$ and taking account of the gauge field . The first step was made many years ago

$`\widehat{M}_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu }_0}}\left(\widehat{p}_i\widehat{l}_{ik}+\widehat{l}_{ik}\widehat{p}_i+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _0e^2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_k}{r}}\right),`$
where $`\widehat{p}_i=i\mathrm{}/partialx_i`$, $`\widehat{l}_{ij}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(x_i\widehat{p}_jx_j\widehat{p}_i\right)`$. The second step can be realized by the substitution :

$`\widehat{p}_i`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\pi }_i=\widehat{p}_i\mathrm{}A_i^a\widehat{T}_a,`$
$`\widehat{l}_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{L}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(x_i\widehat{\pi }_jx_j\widehat{\pi }_i\right)r^2F_{ij}^a\widehat{T}_a.`$
The following fundamental commutation relations are valid

$`[\widehat{\pi }_i,x_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij},[\widehat{\pi }_i,\widehat{\pi }_j]=i\mathrm{}^2F_{ij}^a\widehat{T}_a.`$
It is possible to verify that

$`[\widehat{L}_{ik},x_j]=i\delta _{ij}x_ki\delta _{kj}x_i,[\widehat{L}_{ik},\widehat{\pi }_j]=i\delta _{ij}\widehat{\pi }_ki\delta _{kj}\widehat{\pi }_i,`$
$`[\widehat{L}_{ij},\widehat{L}_{mn}]=i\delta _{im}\widehat{L}_{jn}i\delta _{jm}\widehat{L}_{in}i\delta _{in}\widehat{L}_{jm}+i\delta _{jn}\widehat{L}_{im},`$
i.e. $`\widehat{L}_{ij}`$ are indeed the generators of the group $`SO(5)`$ and $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{L}_{ij}]=0`$.

After some calculations, we have $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{M}_i]=0`$ which means that $`\widehat{M}_i`$ is the fact analog of the Runge-Lenz vector for Yang-Coulomb monopole. It can also be shown that

$`[\widehat{L}_{ij},\widehat{M}_k]=i\delta _{ik}\widehat{M}_ji\delta _{jk}\widehat{M}_i,[\widehat{M}_i,\widehat{M}_k]=2i\widehat{H}\widehat{L}_{ik}.`$
These commutation rules generalize relations known from the theory of the Coulomb problem .

Finally, let us introduce the $`6\times 6`$ matrix

$`\widehat{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{L}_{ij}& \widehat{M}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\\ \widehat{M}_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$
where $`\widehat{M}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}=\left(2\widehat{H}\right)^{1/2}\widehat{M}_i`$. The components $`\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }`$ (where $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3,4,5`$) satisfy the commutation relations

$`[\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu },\widehat{D}_{\lambda \rho }]=i\delta _{\mu \lambda }\widehat{D}_{\nu \rho }i\delta _{\nu \lambda }\widehat{D}_{\mu \rho }i\delta _{\mu \rho }\widehat{D}_{\nu \lambda }+i\delta _{\nu \rho }\widehat{D}_{\mu \lambda },`$
i.e. $`\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }`$ are the generators of the group $`SO(6)`$. Since $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }]=0`$, one concludes that Yang-Coulomb monopole is provided by the $`SO(6)`$ group of hidden symmetry.

For the continuous spectrum ($`ϵ>0`$) we have

$`[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{M}}_i,\widehat{\stackrel{~}{M}}_k]=i\widehat{L}_{ik},`$
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{M}}_i=\left(2\widehat{H}\right)^{1/2}\widehat{M}_i`$, and the group of the hidden symmetry is $`SO(5,1)`$.

## 8 Energy Levels

The Casimir operators for $`SO(6)`$ are

$`\widehat{C}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu },`$
$`\widehat{C}_3`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \lambda }\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{D}_{\rho \sigma }\widehat{D}_{\tau \lambda },`$
$`\widehat{C}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{D}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{D}_{\nu \rho }\widehat{D}_{\rho \tau }\widehat{D}_{\tau \mu }.`$
According , the eigenvalues of these operators can be taken as

$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1(\mu _1+4)+\mu _2(\mu _2+2)+\mu _3^2,`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`48(\mu _1+2)(\mu _2+1)\mu _3,`$
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1^2(\mu _1+4)^2+6\mu _1(\mu _1+4)+\mu _2^2(\mu _2+2)^2+\mu _3^42\mu _3^2,`$
where $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ are positive integers or half-integers and $`\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3`$.

Direct calculation lead to the representation

$`\widehat{C}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^4\mu _0}{2\mathrm{}^2\widehat{H}}}+2\widehat{T}^24,`$
$`\widehat{C}_3`$ $`=`$ $`48\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0e^4}{2\mathrm{}^2\widehat{H}}}\right)^{1/2}\widehat{T}^2,`$ (18)
$`\widehat{C}_4`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{C}_2^2+6\widehat{C}_24\widehat{C}_2\widehat{T}^212\widehat{T}^2+6\widehat{T}^4.`$
From the equation we can obtain another expression for the eigenvalue $`C_4`$

$`C_4=\left[C_22T(T+1)\right]^2+6\left[C_22T(T+1)\right]+2T^2(T+1)^2`$
and calculate that

$`C_22T(T+1)=\mu _1(\mu _1+4),`$ (19)
$`\mu _2^2\left(\mu _2+2\right)^2+\mu _3^42\mu _3^2=2T^2(T+1)^2.`$ (20)
The energy levels of the Yang-Coulomb monopole can be derived from (13) and (14)

$`ϵ_N^T={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0e^4}{2\mathrm{}^2(\frac{N}{2}+2)^2}},`$ (21)
where $`\mu _1=N/2`$ and $`N`$–nonnegative integer number. The substitution of the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{T}^2`$ in the equation for $`\widehat{C}_3`$ gives one more formula for $`C_3`$

$`C_3=48(\mu _1+2)T(T+1).`$
Now, we have two expressions for $`C_3`$ and the comparison leads the relation

$`T(T+1)=(\mu _2+1)\mu _3.`$ (22)
Comparing (17) with (14) we will get the equation

$`\left(\mu _2^2\mu _3^2\right)\left[(\mu _2+2)^2\mu _3^2\right]=0.`$
Since $`\mu _3\mu _2`$, one concludes that $`\mu _3=\mu _2`$. Then, from (17) it follows that $`\mu _2=T`$. Therefore, $`N`$ in the formula (16) takes only values $`\frac{N}{2}=T,T+1,T+2,\mathrm{}`$, – the result known from our paper .

## 9 Conclusions

Formulae (5) and (6) together with the ansatz (3) form the duality transformation mapping of the eight-dimensional quantum oscillator into the charge-dyon system with the $`SU(2)`$ Yang monopole. This type of duality is valid not only for the 8D, 4D and 2D oscillators, but also for the oscillator-like systems with the potentials

$`V\left(u^2\right)=c_0+c_1u^2+W\left(u^2\right),`$
where $`W\left(u^2\right)`$ has a polynomial form

$`W\left(u^2\right)={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_nu^{2n}.`$
For such modified potentials, the ansatz (3) can be rewritten as

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{4}},e^2={\displaystyle \frac{Ec_0}{4}}.`$
The hidden symmetry of the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Coulomb monopole makes possible to solve the equation (7) in the five-dimensional hyperspherical, parabolic and elliptic coordinates by the separation of variables method .

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to organizers who have invited me to this very interesting Workshop. This work was partially supported by the NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant No. 978431 and ANSEF Grant No. PS81.

## 10 Appendix

1. The Cartesian components of the gauge field tensor $`F_{ij}^a`$:

$`F_{01}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{r^3}},F_{02}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{r^3}},F_{03}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{r^3}},F_{04}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{r^3}},`$
$`F_{12}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_4x_1x_3}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{13}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2+x_3x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{14}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2+x_4^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right],`$
$`F_{23}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2+x_3^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right],F_{24}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2+x_3x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{34}^1={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2+x_3x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}}.`$
$`F_{01}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{r^3}},F_{02}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{r^3}},F_{03}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{r^3}},F_{04}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{r^3}},`$
$`F_{12}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_4+x_2x_3}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{13}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2+x_3^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right],F_{14}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2x_3x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},`$
$`F_{23}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_3x_4x_1x_2}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{24}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2+x_4^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right],F_{34}^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_4+x_2x_3}{r^3(r+x_0)}}.`$
$`F_{01}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{r^3}},F_{02}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{r^3}},F_{03}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{r^3}},F_{04}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{r^3}},`$
$`F_{12}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right],F_{13}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_3x_1x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{14}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_3+x_2x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},`$
$`F_{23}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_3+x_2x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{24}^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_3x_1x_4}{r^3(r+x_0)}},F_{34}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_3^2+x_4^2}{r(r+x_0)}}1\right].`$
2. The hyperspherical components of the gauge field tensor $`F_{ij}^a`$:

$`F_{\theta \beta }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,F_{\theta \alpha }^1=0,F_{\theta \gamma }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,`$
$`F_{\beta \alpha }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,F_{\beta \gamma }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,F_{\alpha \gamma }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha .`$
$`F_{\theta \beta }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,F_{\theta \alpha }^2=0,F_{\theta \gamma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,`$
$`F_{\beta \alpha }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,F_{\beta \gamma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,F_{\alpha \gamma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha .`$
$`F_{\theta \beta }^3=0,F_{\theta \alpha }^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,F_{\theta \gamma }^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\beta ,`$
$`F_{\beta \alpha }^3=0,F_{\beta \gamma }^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta ,F_{\alpha \gamma }^3=0.`$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Precision tests continue to play an essential role in elucidating the structure of the electroweak (EW) interaction \[??\]. Such tests include the completed high energy program on top of the $`Z`$ resonance at the $`e^+e^{}`$ accelerators, LEP 1 and SLC; precision measurements at LEP 2 and the $`p\overline{p}`$ collider Tevatron; and deep inelastic scattering (DIS) at the $`ep`$ collider HERA. Recent precision measurements at lower energies, such as a determination of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, $`a_\mu `$ , and of cross sections for neutrino-nucleus DIS , have shown deviations from the SM expectations and generated some excitement about possible signatures of new physics, although theoretical uncertainties from the strong interaction presently cloud the interpretation of the results \[??\].

In this paper we focus on the prospective impact of a precision low energy measurement of the weak charge of the proton, $`Q_W(p)`$, using parity violating (PV) elastic $`ep`$ scattering. Such an experiment has recently been proposed  and approved at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) using the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF). Historically, semileptonic neutral current experiments have contributed substantially to our understanding of the EW interaction. In particular, the deep inelastic $`eD`$ asymmetry measurement at SLAC  in the late 1970’s played a crucial role in singling out the SM over its alternatives at that time, and provided first measurements of the effective PV electron-quark couplings, $`2C_{1u}C_{1d}`$, and, $`2C_{2u}C_{2d}`$ (defined in Section 4). Subsequently, the latter combination was determined more precisely in DIS of muons from carbon at CERN . Quasielastic and elastic electron scattering, respectively, from 9Be at Mainz  and 12C at MIT-Bates , constrained the remaining linear combinations. More recently, measurements of the elastic $`ep`$ and $`eD`$ asymmetries at MIT-Bates  and JLab  have been used to derive information on the neutral weak magnetic, electric, and axial vector form factors of the proton at $`q^20`$, and yielded a value for $`C_{2u}C_{2d}`$ . Experiments probing atomic parity violation (APV) provided further precise information on various linear combinations of the $`C_{1i}`$ \[??\]. On the other hand, the neutral weak charge of the proton, proportional to $`2C_{1u}+C_{1d}`$, has never been measured.

In its own right, $`Q_W(p)`$ is a fundamental property of the proton, being the neutral current analog of the vector coupling, $`G_V`$, which enters neutron and nuclear $`\beta `$ decay. While measurements of $`G_V`$ provide the most precise determination of the CKM matrix element, $`V_{ud}`$, a precise determination of $`Q_W(p)`$ may provide insight into the SM and its possible extensions. Because the value of the weak mixing angle, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, is numerically close to 1/4,

$$Q_W(p)=14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,$$
(1)
is suppressed in the SM (see Section 3). This suppression is characteristic for protons (and electrons) but not neutrons, and therefore it is absent in any other nucleus. As a consequence, $`Q_W(p)`$ is unusually sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and offers a unique place to extract it at low momentum transfer. Doing so will provide a test of the renormalization group evolution (RGE) of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

To put this statement in context, we note that the strong coupling, $`\alpha _s`$, is routinely subjected to analogous RGE tests, whose results provide crucial evidence that QCD is the correct theory of the strong interaction. As we discuss in Section 3, a precise measurement of $`Q_W(p)`$ — along with the analogous measurement of the weak charge of the electron, $`Q_W(e)`$, currently measured by the E-158 Collaboration at SLAC  — will provide this important test for the EW sector of the theory. An observed deviation of the running of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ from the SM prediction could signal the presence of new physics, whereas agreement would place new constraints on possible SM extensions. This test has taken on added interest recently in light of the $`\nu `$-nucleus DIS results obtained by the NuTeV Collaboration  which show a 3 $`\sigma `$ deviation from the SM prediction. In contrast, the most recent determination of the weak charge of cesium, $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, obtained in an APV experiment at Boulder , agrees with the SM value for this quantity and confirms the predicted SM running. However, the interpretation of both the cesium and NuTeV results has been subject to debate. For example, the extraction of $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ from the experimental PV amplitude relies on intricate atomic structure computations \[??\], and the level of agreement with the SM has varied significantly as additional atomic structure effects have been incorporated in the calculations (see Section 2 for a discussion). Similarly, the NuTeV discrepancy may result from previously unaccounted for effects in parton distribution functions . At present, there are no other determinations of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ off the $`Z`$ peak which have comparable precision.

Our discussion of the physics of $`Q_W(p)`$ is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review some general considerations of the PV $`ep`$ asymmetry and how $`Q_W(p)`$ is extracted from it. We argue that this will be a theoretically cleaner procedure than the current extraction of $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ from APV. Section 3 gives details of the SM prediction for $`Q_W(p)`$, which provides the baseline for comparison with experiment. Section 4 is devoted to the prospective model independent constraints the new $`Q_W(p)`$ experiment would generate. In Sections 5 and 6 we analyze the sensitivity of $`Q_W(p)`$ to extra neutral gauge bosons, supersymmetry (SUSY), and leptoquarks (LQs). We summarize our conclusions in Section 7.

## 2 Parity violating $`ep`$ scattering and $`Q_W(p)`$

The PV $`ep`$ asymmetry has the simple form ,

$$A_{LR}=\frac{\sigma _L\sigma _R}{\sigma _L+\sigma _R}=\frac{G_FQ^2}{4\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }\left[Q_W(p)+F^p(Q^2,\theta )\right],$$
(2)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`Q^2`$ is the momentum transfer, and $`F^p`$ is a form factor. At forward angles, one has $`F^p=Q^2B(Q^2)`$, where $`B(Q^2)`$ depends on the nucleon, electromagnetic (EM), and strangeness form factors. The present program of PV $`ep`$ scattering experiments — which involve measurements  of $`A_{LR}`$ over a wide kinematic range — is designed to determine $`F^p`$ for forward angles at $`Q^2`$ values as low as $`0.1\text{ GeV}^2`$. The determination of $`Q_W(p)`$ involves an additional $`A_{LR}`$ measurement at $`Q^20.03\text{ GeV}^2`$. Such a value of $`Q^2`$ is optimal for separating $`Q_W(p)`$ from $`F^p`$ with sufficient precision, while retaining sufficient statistics (note that $`A_{LR}`$ is itself proportional to $`Q^2`$). The E-158 experiment is being carried out at almost the same value of $`Q^2`$.

An important feature of the asymmetry in Eq. (2) is its interpretability. Current conservation implies that $`Q_W(p)`$ is protected from large strong interaction corrections involving the low energy structure of the proton. As we note in Section 3, residual strong interaction corrections involving, e.g., two boson exchange box diagrams, are suppressed at $`Q^2=0`$. Effects that depend on $`Q^2`$ are included in $`F^p`$ and will be constrained by the aforementioned program of experiments, thereby eliminating the need for a first principles nucleon structure calculation. Based on present and future measurements, the extrapolation of $`F^p`$ to $`Q^2=0`$ is expected to induce a 2% uncertainty and will thus be considered part of the experimental error budget111In practice, this extrapolation can be implemented using chiral perturbation theory. Present and future measurements will determine all the relevant low energy constants..

In this respect, the extraction of $`Q_W(p)`$ from $`A_{LR}`$ is complementary to the recent determination of $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ in APV. The latter relies on an advanced atomic theory calculation of the small PV $`6s7s`$ transition amplitude. Experimentally, the transition amplitude has been measured  to a relative precision of 0.35%. Subsequently, by measuring the ratio of the off-diagonal hyperfine amplitude (which is known precisely ) to the tensor transition polarizability , it was possible to determine $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ with a combined experimental and theoretical uncertainty of 0.6%. The result differed by 2.3 $`\sigma `$ from the SM prediction  for $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$. However, updating the corrections from the Breit interaction \[??\] and to a lesser degree from the neutron distribution  reduced the difference to only 1.0 $`\sigma `$, seemingly removing the discrepancy. Subsequent calculations included other large and previously underestimated contributions (e.g., from QED radiative corrections), some increasing \[??\], others decreasing  the deviation. The atomic theory community now appears to agree on a 0.5% atomic structure uncertainty for $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, and in what follows we adopt the value,

$$Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})=72.69\pm 0.48.$$
(3)
There is also a noteworthy but less precise determination in Tl , $`Q_W(\mathrm{Tl})=116.6\pm 3.7`$.

A possible strategy for circumventing atomic theory uncertainties is to measure APV for different atoms along an isotope chain. Isotope ratios, $``$, are relatively insensitive to details of atomic structure and the attendant theoretical uncertainties, making them attractive alternatives to the weak charge of a single isotope as a new physics probe. As shown in Ref. , any shift in $``$ from its SM value due to new physics would be dominated by the change in $`Q_W(p)`$, as the effects on $``$ of new physics corrections to the weak charge of the neutron, $`Q_W(n)`$, are suppressed. Moreover, $``$ receives important contributions from changes in the neutron distribution along the isotope chain \[??\]. At present, the corresponding nuclear structure uncertainties seem larger than needed to make $``$ a useful probe of new physics effects on $`Q_W(p)`$. In contrast, $`ep`$ scattering will yield $`Q_W(p)`$ without nuclear structure complications.

Given the suppression of $`Q_W(p)`$ in the SM tree level expression (1), a 4% measurement would provide a theoretically clean probe of new physics with a sensitivity comparable to that achieved by a 0.5% total error in $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, but with entirely different systematical and theoretical uncertainties. Note, however, that measurements of $`A_{LR}`$ and single isotope APV are complementary as they probe different combinations of the $`C_{1i}`$. For example, in contrast to the weak charges of heavy elements, $`Q_W(p)`$ depends significantly on the oblique parameter $`T`$, introduced in Ref. .

## 3 $`Q_W(p)`$ in the Standard Model

At tree level in the SM, $`Q_W(p)`$ is given by Eq. (1). Including radiative corrections one can write,

$$Q_W(p)=[\rho _{NC}+\mathrm{\Delta }_e][14\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)+\mathrm{\Delta }_e^{}]+\mathrm{}_{WW}+\mathrm{}_{ZZ}+\mathrm{}_{\gamma Z}.$$
(4)
The parameter, $`\rho _{NC}=1+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ , renormalizes the ratio of neutral to charged current interaction strengths at low energies, and is evaluated including higher order QCD \[??\] and EW \[??\] corrections. We also include relatively small electron vertex and external leg corrections, which are corrections to the axial-vector $`Zee`$ and $`\gamma ee`$ couplings, respectively ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi },\mathrm{\Delta }_e^{}=\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }(14\widehat{s}^2)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{m_e^2}\right)+\frac{1}{6}\right].$$
(5)
The latter, which corresponds to the anapole moment of the electron, depends on the choice of EW gauge and is not by itself a physical observable . The purely weak box contributions are given by ,

$$\mathrm{}_{WW}=\frac{7\widehat{\alpha }}{4\pi \widehat{s}^2},\mathrm{}_{ZZ}=\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{4\pi \widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2}\left(\frac{9}{4}5\widehat{s}^2\right)(14\widehat{s}^2+8\widehat{s}^4),$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\alpha }(M_Z)`$ and $`\widehat{s}^21\widehat{c}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(M_Z)`$ are the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalized QED coupling and weak mixing angle at the $`Z`$ scale, respectively. Numerically, the $`WW`$ box amplitude generates an important 26% correction to $`Q_W(p)`$, while the $`ZZ`$ box effect is about $`3\%`$.

These diagrams are dominated by intermediate states having $`p^2𝒪(M_{W,Z}^2)`$. The corresponding QCD corrections are, thus, perturbative and can be evaluated by relying on the operator product expansion (OPE). At short distances, the product of weak currents entering the hadronic side of the box graphs is equivalent to a series of local operators whose Wilson coefficients can be evaluated by matching with a free field theory calculation. Because the weak (axial) vector current is (partially) conserved, the resulting operators have no anomalous dimensions. Consequently, the perturbative QCD (pQCD) contributions introduce no large logarithms.

In order to evaluate the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to these graphs, we follow Ref.  where analogous corrections for neutron $`\beta `$ decay are computed. For the $`WW`$ box graphs, we have the amplitude,

$$i_{WW}=i\left(\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}\right)^4\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{e}(K^{})\gamma ^\nu (1\gamma _5)\mathit{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)e(K)T_{\mu \nu }(k)\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{1}{(k^2M_W^2)^2},$$
(7)
where,

$$T_{\mu \nu }(k)=d^4x\mathrm{e}^{ikx}p^{}|T\left(J_\mu ^+(0)J_\nu ^{}(x)\right)|p,$$
(8)
with $`J_\mu ^\pm (x)`$ being the charge changing weak currents. Since the loop integral is infrared finite and is dominated by intermediate states having $`kM_W`$, we have dropped all dependence on $`m_e`$ and the electron momenta $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$. The error introduced by this approximation is of order $`(E_e/M_W)^20.02\%`$ for the kinematics of the planned experiment, and is negligible for our purposes. A little algebra allows us to rewrite Eq. (7) as,

$`i_{WW}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}}\right)^4{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\overline{e}(K^{})[k^\nu \gamma ^\mu +k^\mu \gamma ^\nu g^{\mu \nu }\mathit{}`$
$`+iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \lambda }\gamma _\lambda \gamma _5k_\alpha ](1\gamma _5)e(K)T_{\mu \nu }(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2M_W^2)^2}}.`$
The terms proportional to $`k^\mu T_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`k^\nu T_{\mu \nu }`$ are protected from large pQCD corrections by symmetry considerations. This feature may be seen by observing,

$$\begin{array}{c}k^\nu T_{\mu \nu }=d^4x(i^\nu \mathrm{e}^{ikx})p^{}|T\left(J_\mu ^+(0)J_\nu ^{}(x)\right)|p\\ =id^4x\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\delta (x_0)p^{}|[J_\mu ^+(0),J_0^{}(x)]|pid^4x\mathrm{e}^{ikx}p^{}|T\left(J_\mu ^+(0)^\nu J_\nu ^{}(x)\right)|p,\end{array}$$
(10)
after integration by parts. The divergence $`^\nu J_\nu ^{}(x)`$ vanishes in the chiral limit, and in keeping with the high-momentum dominance of the integral, may be safely neglected. On the other hand, the equal time commutator gives $`4ip^{}|J_\mu ^3(0)|p`$, where $`J_\mu ^3=\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu \tau _3q_L`$ and $`q=(u,d)`$. Note that the commutator term results from the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry of the theory, so it is not affected by QCD corrections.

In contrast, terms involving $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \lambda }T_{\mu \nu }`$ cannot be related to equal time commutators and, thus, involve bona fide short distance operator products. In the OPE, the leading local operator appearing in $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ is just $`J_\mu ^3`$, whereas for the antisymmetric part, one has the isoscalar current, $`J_\mu ^{I=0}=\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu q_L`$. The leading pQCD contributions to the corresponding Wilson coefficients have been worked out in Refs. \[??\]. For both, $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \lambda }T_{\mu \nu }`$, the correction factor is $`1\alpha _s(k^2)/\pi `$. Since the loop integrals are dominated by $`k^2M_W^2`$, one may approximate the impact on $`i_{WW}`$ by factoring $`1\alpha _s(M_W^2)/\pi `$ out of the corresponding parts of the integral in Eq. (3). The error associated with this approximation is of order $`\alpha _s^2`$ and is devoid of any large logarithms. The resulting expression for the $`WW`$ box contribution to $`Q_W(p)`$ is,

$$\mathrm{}_{WW}=\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{4\pi \widehat{s}^2}\left[2+5\left(1\frac{\alpha _s(M_W^2)}{\pi }\right)\right],$$
(11)
where the first term inside the square brackets arises from the equal time commutator. Numerically, the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ term yields an $`3\%`$ correction to $`\mathrm{}_{WW}`$, for an $`0.7\%`$ correction to $`Q_W(p)`$. Higher order pQCD corrections should be an order of magnitude smaller, so the error in $`Q_W(p)`$ associated with truncating at $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ is well below the expected experimental uncertainty.

The calculation of pQCD corrections to $`\mathrm{}_{ZZ}`$ follows along similar lines. In this case, however, all equal time commutators vanish, so that the entire integral carries a $`1\alpha _s(M_Z^2)/\pi `$ correction factor. The resulting shift in $`Q_W(p)`$ is $`0.1\%`$, and higher order pQCD effects are negligible. For both $`\mathrm{}_{WW}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{ZZ}`$ contributions from lower loop momenta ($`k^2M_W^2`$) are associated with non-perturbative QCD effects. Such contributions, however, carry explicit $`(p/M_{W,Z})^2`$ suppression factors, where $`p`$ is an external momentum or mass. Taking, $`pE_e1`$ GeV implies that these non-perturbative contributions are suppressed by at least a few $`\times 10^4`$, so we may safely neglect them here. A similar conclusion applies to matrix elements of higher order operators in the OPE analysis of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ given above.

As a corollary, we have also computed the analogous correction to $`Q_W(n)`$. Again, the $`ZZ`$ box contribution receives an overall factor, $`1\alpha _s(M_Z^2)/\pi `$, while for the $`WW`$ box we obtain,

$$\mathrm{}_{WW}^{(n)}=\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{4\pi \widehat{s}^2}\left[2+4\left(1\frac{\alpha _s(M_W^2)}{\pi }\right)\right].$$
(12)
Notice that the sum of Eqs. (11) and (12) is also corrected by an overall factor, $`1\alpha _s(M_W^2)/\pi `$, as is expected from an isoscalar combination where no equal time commutator should be involved. The resulting shifts in the SM predictions for $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ and $`Q_W(\mathrm{Tl})`$ are $`0.07`$ and $`0.11`$, respectively, or +0.1%.

In contrast, the $`\gamma Z`$ box contribution,

$$\mathrm{}_{\gamma Z}=\frac{5\widehat{\alpha }}{2\pi }(14\widehat{s}^2)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+C_{\gamma Z}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\right],$$
(13)
contains some sensitivity to the low momentum regime. The scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪(1\text{ GeV})`$, appearing here denotes a hadronic cut-off associated with the transition between short and long distance contributions to the loop integral. The former are calculable and are dominated by the large logarithm, $`\mathrm{ln}M_Z^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. At present, however, one cannot compute long distance contributions from first principles in QCD. Consequently, we parameterize them by the constant $`C_{\gamma Z}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, whose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence must cancel that associated with the short distance logarithm. We note that a similar situation arises in radiative corrections to $`G_V`$ in neutron and nuclear $`\beta `$ decay, where the $`\gamma W`$ box diagram contains a short distance logarithm and a presently uncalculable long distance term, $`C_{\gamma W}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

In the case of $`Q_W(p)`$, the uncertainty associated with $`C_{\gamma Z}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is suppressed by the $`(14\widehat{s}^2)`$ prefactor222Additional contributions arise that are not suppressed by this factor, but are negligible as they go as $`(E_e/M_Z)^2`$. in Eq. (13). This factor arises from the sum of box and crossed-box diagrams, leading to an antisymmetric product of the lepton EM and weak neutral currents . Since the resulting leptonic part of the box amplitude must be axial vector in character, only the vector part of the weak neutral current of the electron enters which is proportional to $`14\widehat{s}^2`$. This result is quite general and independent of the hadronic part of the diagram. To estimate this uncertainty numerically, we follow Ref.  setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_\rho `$ and $`C_{\gamma Z}(m_\rho )=3/2\pm 1`$, which translates into a $`\pm 0.65\%`$ uncertainty in $`Q_W(p)`$. The central value for $`C_{\gamma Z}(m_\rho )`$ is from a free quark calculation. A more detailed analysis, taking into account contributions from intermediate excited states of the proton, is likely to shift $`C_{\gamma Z}`$, but we do not expect the change to be considerably larger than the estimated uncertainty. In any case, increasing the error bar on $`C_{\gamma Z}`$ by a factor of five would still imply an uncertainty in $`Q_W(p)`$ below the expected experimental error. For comparison, we note that a change in the value of $`C_{\gamma W}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of similar magnitude would substantially affect the extraction of $`|V_{ud}|^2`$ from light quark $`\beta `$ decays, causing the first row of the CKM matrix to deviate from unitarity by several standard deviations. Since the dynamics entering $`C_{\gamma Z}`$ and $`C_{\gamma W}`$ are similar, it appears unlikely that the uncertainty in $`C_{\gamma Z}`$ could differ significantly from $`\pm 1`$.

The remaining hadronic contribution to $`Q_W(p)`$ arises from the low energy weak mixing angle, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)`$, which is the EW analog of the EM coupling, $`\widehat{\alpha }`$. The latter is measured very precisely in the Thomson limit ($`q^2=0`$), but hadronic contributions induce a sizable uncertainty for large $`q^2`$, and most importantly for $`q^2=M_Z^2`$ . Conversely, $`\widehat{s}^2`$ is measured precisely at the $`Z`$ pole, but hadronic loops induce an uncertainty for $`q^2=0`$, which is correlated but not identical to the one in $`\widehat{\alpha }`$. Note that effects due to $`q^20`$ are already taken into account experimentally via the $`Q^2`$ expansion and extrapolation of $`F^p`$ (see Section 2). One can then define,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)=\widehat{s}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\{\frac{(14\widehat{s}^2)}{12}[\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}\right)(1+\frac{3\alpha }{4\pi })+\frac{135\alpha }{32\pi }]$$

$$[\frac{7\widehat{c}^2}{4}+\frac{1}{24}]\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{M_W^2}\right)+\frac{\widehat{s}^2}{6}\frac{7}{18}\},$$
(14)
where the sum is over the charged leptons, and we find for the hadronic contribution,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}=(7.90\pm 0.05\pm 0.06)\times 10^3,$$
(15)
inducing a 0.4% uncertainty in $`Q_W(p)`$. The first error in Eq. (15) is correlated with the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }_{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)`$ . The second error is from the conversion to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ which induces an uncertainty from the flavor separation of the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decay data. This updates the value in Ref. , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}=(7.96\pm 0.58)\times 10^3`$. Note that the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ is also related to the vacuum polarization uncertainty  in $`a_\mu `$. These correlations should be properly treated in global analyzes of precision data. With $`\widehat{s}^2=0.23112\pm 0.00015`$ from a SM fit to all current data, Eqs. (4) and (14) yield,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)=0.23807\pm 0.00017,Q_W(p)=0.0716\pm 0.0006,$$
(16)
where the uncertainty in the prediction for $`Q_W(p)`$ is from the input parameters and dominated by the error in $`\widehat{s}^2`$. The latter will decrease significantly in the future . Taken together, the hadronic effects arising from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ and the box graphs combine to give a theoretical uncertainty of 0.8%.

The QWEAK experiment  seeks to perform the most precise determination of the weak mixing angle off the $`Z`$ pole. For example, a 4% determination, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W(p)=\pm 0.0029`$ , (assuming a 2.8% statistical plus 2.8% systematic plus 0.8% theoretical error) would yield an uncertainty,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)=\pm 7.2\times 10^4.$$
(17)
While the precise definition of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)`$ is scheme dependent, this quantity is nonetheless useful for comparing different low energy experiments. Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the $`q^2`$ evolution from the $`Z`$ pole as predicted by the SM,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)\widehat{s}^2=0.00694\pm 0.00074,$$
(18)
could be established with more than 9 standard deviations. For comparison, the cleanest test of pQCD can be obtained by contrasting the $`\tau `$ lepton lifetime with the hadronic $`Z`$ decay width: when interpreted as the RGE evolution of $`\alpha _s`$ from $`m_\tau `$ to $`M_Z`$, the result of the latest analysis  corresponds to an 11 $`\sigma `$ effect.

Before proceeding, we comment on one additional possible source of hadronic effects in $`Q_W(p)`$: isospin admixtures in the proton wavefunction. The SM value quoted above implicitly assumes that the proton is an exact eigenstate of isospin. The EM and weak neutral vector currents for light quarks can then be decomposed according to their isospin content,

$`J_\mu ^{EM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d}{}}Q_q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu q=J_\mu ^{I=1}+J_\mu ^{I=0},`$ (19)
$`J_\mu ^{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d}{}}C_{1q}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu q=2(C_{1u}C_{1d})J_\mu ^{I=1}6(C_{1u}+C_{1d})J_\mu ^{I=0},`$ (20)
where the $`C_{1q}`$ are defined in Eq. (26). For the purpose of this discussion, we neglect contributions from strange quarks, which are effectively contained in $`F^p`$ term in Eq. (2). To the extent to which the nucleon is a pure $`I=1/2`$ isospin eigenstate, one has $`F_1^p(0)^{I=1}=F_1^p(0)^{I=0}=1/2`$, where the $`F_1^p(0)^I`$ are the Dirac form factors associated with the proton matrix elements of the $`J_\mu ^I`$. In principle, these form factor relations receive small corrections due to isospin breaking light quark mass differences ($`m_um_d`$) and EM effects. However, conservation of EM charge implies that such corrections vanish. To see this, assume that the proton state contains a small, $`𝒪(ϵ)`$, admixture of an $`I^{}1/2`$ state,

$$|p=\sqrt{1ϵ^2}|1/2,1/2+ϵ|I^{},I_3^{},$$
(21)
where, for the purpose of this illustration, we drop explicit $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ terms involving the $`|I^{},I_3^{}`$ state. At $`q^2=0`$, the charges, $`J_0^I`$, are equivalent to the operators, $`\widehat{I}_3`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\widehat{1}`$. Since these operators cannot connect states of different total isospin, one has,

$`F_1^p(0)^{I=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1ϵ^2)+ϵ^2I_3^{},`$ (22)
$`F_1^p(0)^{I=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (23)
Since the proton charge is $`1=F_1^p(0)^{I=1}+F_1^p(0)^{I=0}`$, one must have $`I_3^{}=1/2`$, so that there are no corrections to $`F_1^p(0)^I`$ through $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$. Thus, one has to this order for the neutral current Dirac form factor,

$$Q_W(p)F_1^p(0)^{NC}=2\left(2C_{1u}+C_{1d}\right),$$
(24)
which is the same result obtained in the absence of any isospin impurities. Similar arguments prevent the appearance of any higher order terms in $`ϵ`$.

## 4 Four-Fermi operators and model independent analysis

Before considering the consequences for particular models of new physics, it is instructive to consider the model independent implications of a 4% $`Q_W(p)`$ measurement. The low energy effective electron-quark Lagrangian of the form $`A(e)\times V(q)`$ is given by,

$$=_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{PV}}+_{\mathrm{NEW}}^{\mathrm{PV}},$$
(25)
where,

$`_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{PV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{e}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5e{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}C_{1q}\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q,`$ (26)
$`_{NEW}^{\mathrm{PV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\overline{e}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5e{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}h_V^q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q,`$ (27)
and where $`g`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the $`h_V^q`$ are, respectively, the coupling constant, the mass scale, and effective coefficients associated with the new physics. The latter are in general of order unity; the explicit factor of 4 arises from the projection operators on left and right (or vector and axial-vector) chiral fermions. In the same normalization, the SM coefficients take the values, $`C_{1u}/2=0.09429\pm 0.00011`$ and $`C_{1d}/2=+0.17070\pm 0.00007`$, for up and down quarks, respectively, where we included the QCD corrections obtained in Eqs. (11) and (12), and where the uncertainties are from the SM inputs. We find,

$$Q_W^p(\mathrm{SM})=2(2C_{1u}+C_{1d})=0.0716\pm 0.0006.$$
(28)
A 4% measurement of $`Q_W(p)`$ would thus test new physics scales up to,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{g}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2}G_F|\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W^p|}}4.6\text{TeV}.$$
(29)
The sensitivity to non-perturbative theories (such as technicolor, models of composite fermions, or other strong coupling dynamics) with $`g2\pi `$ could even reach $`\mathrm{\Lambda }29\text{TeV}`$. As another example, for extra $`Z^{}`$ bosons from simple models based on Grand Unified Theories (GUT) one expects $`g0.45`$, so that one can study such bosons (with unit charges) up to masses $`M_Z^{}2.1\text{TeV}`$. $`Z^{}`$ bosons are predicted in very many extensions of the SM ranging from the more classical GUT and technicolor models to SUSY and string theories. We discuss the sensitivity of $`Q_W(p)`$ to $`Z^{}`$ bosons, as well as other scenarios, in the subsequent Sections.

In Fig. 2 we plot the present constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1u}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1d}`$, the shifts in the $`C_{1q}`$ caused by new physics. They are derived from $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ , as well as the MIT-Bates 12 and SLAC deuterium  parity violation measurements. As long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1u}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1d}`$ are almost perfectly correlated, the result is an elongated ellipse. The impact of the proposed $`Q_W(p)`$ measurement is indicated by the smaller ellipse. The dramatic reduction in the allowed parameter space will be possible because $`Q_W(p)`$ probes a very different linear combination than the existing data.

In the next two Sections we turn to specific extensions of the SM, of which there are many, and focus on three particularly well motivated types: gauge bosons, SUSY, and LQs. In doing so, we emphasize the complementarity of the PV Møller asymmetry measured by the SLAC-E-158 experiment  which has comparable anticipated precision and (as a purely leptonic observable) has a clean theoretical interpretation. Some new physics scenarios appear more strongly in the semileptonic channel than in the purely leptonic channel and vice versa. The complementarity of the two measurements is advantageous in attempting to distinguish among various new physics scenarios and is summarized in Fig. 3.

## 5 Extra neutral gauge interactions

The introduction of neutral gauge symmetries beyond those associated with the photon and the $`Z`$ boson have long been considered as one of the best motivated extensions of the SM. Such $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetries are predicted in most GUTs and appear copiously in superstring theories. In the context of SUSY, they do not spoil the approximate gauge coupling unification predicted by the simplest and most economic scenarios. Moreover, in many SUSY models (though not the simplest $`SO(10)`$ ones), the enhanced $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry forbids an elementary bilinear Higgs $`\mu `$-term, while allowing an effective $`\mu `$ to be generated at the scale of $`U(1)^{}`$ breaking without introducing cosmological problems . In various string motivated models of radiative breaking, this scale is comparable to the EW scale (i.e., $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$ TeV) , thereby providing a solution  to the $`\mu `$-problem  and enhancing the prospects that a $`Z^{}`$ could be in reach in collider experiments or seen indirectly in the precision EW data. An extra $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry could also explain proton stability, which is not automatic in supersymmetric models, or it could solve both the proton lifetime puzzle and the $`\mu `$-problem simultaneously .

From a phenomenological standpoint, direct searches at the Tevatron  have as yet yielded no evidence333See, however, Ref.  which reports a 2 $`\sigma `$ deficit in the highest mass bin of the leptonic forward-backward asymmetry seen by the CDF Collaboration. for the existence of an extra neutral $`Z^{}`$ boson associated with the $`U(1)^{}`$, providing instead only lower bounds of about 600 GeV (depending on the precise nature of the $`Z^{}`$). This implies a hierarchy of an order of magnitude between the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ masses. Recently, using approximately flat directions in moduli space, it was shown that such a hierarchy can arise naturally in SUSY models .

On the other hand, several indirect effects could be attributed to a $`Z^{}`$. The $`Z`$ lineshape fit at LEP  yields a significantly larger value for the hadronic peak cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{had}}^0`$, than is predicted in the SM. This implies, for example, that the effective number of massless neutrinos, $`N_\nu `$, is $`2.986\pm 0.007`$, which is 2 $`\sigma `$ lower than the SM prediction, $`N_\nu =3`$. As a consequence, the $`Z`$ pole data currently favors $`Z^{}`$ scenarios with a small amount of $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$-mixing ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta 0`$ which mimics a negative contribution to the invisible $`Z`$ decay width. The result by the NuTeV Collaboration  can be brought into better agreement when one allows a $`Z^{}`$, especially when family non-universal couplings are assumed .

To analyze the impact of a $`Z^{}`$ on $`Q_W(p)`$, we employ Eq. (27) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_Z^{}`$ and $`g=g_Z^{}=\sqrt{5/3}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\sqrt{\lambda }g_Z`$ , where $`\lambda =1`$ in the simplest models. $`g_Z^2=\sqrt{32}G_FM_Z^2`$ is the SM coupling constant for the ordinary $`Z`$. Consider the Abelian subgroups of the $`E_6`$ GUT group,

$$E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi \times U(1)_\psi SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_\chi \times U(1)_\psi .$$

The most general $`Z^{}`$ boson from $`E_6`$ can be written as the linear combination ,

$$Z^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta Z_\chi +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta Z_Y\mathrm{sin}\beta Z_\psi .$$
(30)
Considerations of gauge anomaly cancellation as well as the proton lifetime and $`\mu `$-problems in SUSY models mentioned earlier, also favor a $`Z^{}`$ of that type . The assignment of SM fermions to representations of $`SO(10)`$ implies that the $`Z_\psi `$ has only axial-vector couplings and can generate no PV $`ef`$ interactions of the type in Eq. (27), whereas the $`Z_\chi `$ generates only PV $`ed`$ and $`ee`$ interactions of this type. Moreover, unlike in most other classes of models, the contributions to the weak charges of the proton and the electron would have equal magnitude. Thus, should $`Q_W(p)`$ show a deviation from the SM prediction, a comparison with $`Q_W(e)`$ would be a powerful tool to discriminate between a $`Z^{}`$ and other SM extensions. This statement is illustrated in Fig. 3 where the sensitivities of $`Q_W(p)`$ and $`Q_W(e)`$ are contrasted.

If a $`Z^{}`$ were detected at the Tevatron or the LHC, it would be important to constrain its properties. Its mass would be measured in course of the discovery, while $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ is mainly constrained by LEP 1. The $`U(1)^{}`$ charges and the couplings to quarks and leptons, however, are best determined by low energy precision measurements. Currently, the best fit values are, $`\alpha =0.8_{1.2}^{+1.4}`$, $`\beta =1.0_{0.8}^{+0.4}`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0.0010_{0.0006}^{+0.0012}`$, obtained for $`\lambda =1`$ and $`M_Z^{}=1`$ TeV. In this case, $`Q_W(p)=0.0747`$ is predicted, i.e. a 1.1 $`\sigma `$ effect. The impact of the QWEAK measurement would be to reduce the allowed region of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ by $`30\%`$.

## 6 Supersymmetry and leptoquarks

As in the case of extended gauge symmetry, the theoretical motivation for supersymmetric extensions of the SM is strong. SUSY is a prediction of superstring theories; and if the SUSY breaking scale is at the EW scale, it stabilizes the latter and is consistent with coupling unification. Conversely, minimal SUSY introduces a new set of issues, including the scale of the $`\mu `$ parameter mentioned above and the presence of 105 parameters  in the soft SUSY breaking Lagrangian. In order to be predictive, additional theoretical constraints must be invoked, such as those provided by gauge, gravity, or anomaly mediated SUSY breaking models. The phenomenological evidence for SUSY thus far is sparse, though hints exist. For example, the neutralino is a natural candidate for cold dark matter, and the possible deviation of $`a_\mu `$ points suggestively toward SUSY. Since, in the end, experiment will determine what form of SUSY (if any) is applicable to EW phenomena, it is of interest to discuss the prospective implications of a $`Q_W(p)`$ measurement for this scenario.

While baryon number, $`B`$, and lepton number, $`L`$, are exact symmetries of the SM, they are not automatically conserved in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). In order to avoid proton decay, $`B`$ and $`L`$ conservation — in the guise of $`R`$ parity conservation — is often imposed by hand. In this case, every MSSM vertex contains an even number of superpartners, and the effects of SUSY appear in $`Q_W(p)`$ only via loops, such as those shown in Fig. 4. Recently, such loop corrections to a variety of low and medium energy precision observables were computed in Refs. \[??\]. These analyzes were completed without invoking any assumptions about the mechanism for soft SUSY breaking. The implications of charged current data for the SUSY spectrum appear to conflict with those derived from typical models for SUSY breaking mediation. This conflict may be alleviated by allowing for $`R`$ parity violation (RPV) , though doing so would eliminate the lightest neutralino as a dark matter candidate. From this perspective, independent low energy probes of the MSSM spectrum take on added importance.

A measurement of $`Q_W(p)`$, when considered in tandem with $`Q_W(e)`$ and $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, could provide such a probe. The MSSM loop corrections to the weak charges can be analyzed efficiently by modifying Eq. (4),

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_W(p)=[\rho _{NC}+\mathrm{\Delta }_e+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{SUSY}}][14\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)+\mathrm{\Delta }_e^{}]+\mathrm{}_{WW}+\mathrm{}_{ZZ}+\mathrm{}_{\gamma Z}+\lambda _{\mathrm{SUSY}},\\ \mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)=\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SM}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SUSY}},\end{array}$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is the SM prediction given in Eq. (14) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is the correction induced by SUSY loops444In the notation of Ref. , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=4\widehat{s}^2\delta \kappa _{PV}^{\mathrm{susy}}`$.. All SUSY box graph contributions, as well as non-universal vertex and external leg corrections, are contained in $`\lambda _{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Flavor-independent corrections are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$.

The effects of SUSY loops on $`Q_W(p)`$ and $`Q_W(e)`$ are dominated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(0)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, because present bounds on the $`T`$ parameter from precision data  limit the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Moreover, box graph contributions are numerically small, while cancellations reduce the impact of vertex and external leg corrections. Consequently, the shifts in the proton and electron weak charges are similar over nearly all allowed SUSY parameter space. This is in contrast to $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ due to canceling corrections to the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark weak charges. Thus, should the QWEAK and SLAC-E-158 experiments observe a correlated deviation, and should $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ remain in agreement with the SM, the MSSM would be a favored explanation compared to many other scenarios.

The situation changes considerably in the presence of RPV effects. The most general gauge invariant, renormalizable RPV extension of the MSSM is generated by the superpotential ,

$$W_{RPV}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ijk}L^iL^j\overline{e}^k+\lambda _{ijk}^{}L^iQ^j\overline{d}^k+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\overline{u}^i\overline{d}^j\overline{d}^k+\mu _i^{}L^iH_u,$$
(32)
where $`L^i`$ and $`Q^i`$ denote the left-handed lepton and quark doublet superfields, respectively; the barred quantities denote the right-handed singlet superfields; $`H_u`$ is the hypercharge $`Y=1`$ Higgs superfield; and the indices indicate generations. The bulk of studies of $`W_{RPV}`$ have been phenomenological . The strongest constraint comes from the proton lifetime, which generally forbids the $`B`$ violating $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ terms unless all other ($`L`$ violating) terms in $`W_{RPV}`$ vanish. Consequently, we restrict our attention to $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }=0`$, and for simplicity, we also set $`\mu _i^{}=0`$. When inserted into the amplitudes of Fig. 5, the remaining interactions in Eq. (32) generate corrections in terms of the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijk}(\stackrel{~}{f})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijk}^{}(\stackrel{~}{f})`$, where for example,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{12k}(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^k)=\frac{|\lambda _{12k}|^2}{4\sqrt{2}G_FM_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R^k}^2},$$
(33)
with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^k`$ being the exchanged slepton, and where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijk}^{}(\stackrel{~}{f})`$ are defined similarly by replacing $`\lambda _{ijk}\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$. One obtains tree level contributions to $`Q_W(p)`$ such as those shown in Fig. 5. Similar corrections affect other EW observables, such as $`Q_W(e)`$, $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, and $`G_V`$. Specifically ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W(p)/Q_W(p)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right)[2\lambda _x\mathrm{\Delta }_{12k}(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^k)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{11k}^{}(\stackrel{~}{d}_R^k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{1j1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{q}_L^j)],`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W(e)/Q_W(e)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right)\lambda _x\mathrm{\Delta }_{12k}(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^k),`$ (35)
where $`\lambda _x=\widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2/(12\widehat{s}^2)0.33`$. In contrast to MSSM loop effects, $`Q_W(p)`$ and $`Q_W(e)`$ display complementary sensitivities to RPV effects. To illustrate, we consider a multi-parameter fit to precision data, allowing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12k}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11k}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1j1}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{21k}^{}`$ to be non-zero. The results imply that the possible shifts in $`Q_W(p)`$ and $`Q_W(e)`$ have opposite relative signs over nearly all the presently allowed parameter space. We find that shifts of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W(p)/Q_W(p)10\%`$ are allowed at the 95% CL. Thus, a comparison of $`Q_W(p)`$ and $`Q_W(e)`$ could help distinguish between versions of SUSY with and without RPV.

The effects of $`\lambda ^{}0`$ are similar to those generated by scalar LQs. While RPV SUSY provides a natural context in which to discuss the latter, vector LQs arise naturally in various GUT models . Assuming $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ invariance one obtains the Lagrangian ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill & =\hfill & h_2^L\overline{u}\mathrm{}R_2^L+h_2^R\overline{q}i\tau _2eR_2^R+\stackrel{~}{h}_2\overline{d}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{R}_2^L\hfill \\ & +\hfill & g_1^L\overline{q}^ci\tau _2\mathrm{}S_1^L+g_1^R\overline{u}^ceS_1^R+\stackrel{~}{g}_1\overline{d}^ce\stackrel{~}{S}_1^R+g_3\overline{q}^ci\tau _2\stackrel{}{\tau }\mathrm{}S_3\hfill \\ & +\hfill & h_1^L\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}U_{1\mu }^L+h_1^R\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu eU_{1\mu }^R+\stackrel{~}{h}_1\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu e\stackrel{~}{U}_{1\mu }^R+h_3\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\mathrm{}U_{3\mu }\hfill \\ & +\hfill & g_2^L\overline{d}^c\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}V_{2\mu }^L+g_2^R\overline{q}^c\gamma ^\mu eV_{2\mu }^R+\stackrel{~}{g}_2\overline{u}^c\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{2\mu }^L+h.c.,\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where $`q`$ and $`l`$ and the left-handed quark and lepton doublets and $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`e`$ are the right-handed singlets. Since we are interested in the implications for $`Q_W(p)`$, we only consider first generation LQs. The first two rows in Eq. (36) involve scalar LQs while the others involve vector types. The LQs in the first and third row have fermion number, $`F=3B+L=0`$, while the others have $`F=2`$. The indices refer to their isospin representation.

A recent global analysis of scalar LQ constraints from EW data is given in Ref. . Here, we extend this analysis to include vector LQ interactions. We also update it by including the new $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ in Eq. (3), hadronic production cross sections at LEP 2 up to 207 GeV , and the analysis of nuclear $`\beta `$ decay given in Ref. . We only consider one LQ species at a time. We fit the data and determine the consistency (shown in Table 1) of the result with the sign predicted by a given LQ model. The latter is the probability, conditional on the data, that the coefficient has the same sign as implied by the model. For example, the data favor the presence of $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{1\mu }^R`$, while $`S_1^R`$ is virtually excluded. Assuming a given LQ model, we then determine the 95% CL upper limit on $`Q_W(p)`$. Note that this involves a renormalization to the physical parameter space of the model. We observe that the LQ model most favored by the data is $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{1\mu }^R`$ for which shifts in $`Q_W(p)`$ as large as 25% are allowed. Since the impact of LQs on $`Q_W(e)`$ is loop suppressed, one would not expect it to deviate significantly from the SM prediction. Thus, if one observes a large effect in $`Q_W(p)`$, $`Q_W(e)`$ would serve as a diagnostic tool to distinguish LQ effects from SUSY.

## 7 Conclusions

Precise measurements of relatively low energy EW observables continue to play an important part in the search for physics beyond the SM. When taken in the proper context, such studies can provide unique clues about the nature of EW symmetry breaking, grand unification, etc.. We have shown that the weak charge of the proton constitutes a theoretically clean probe of new physics. Presently uncalculable, non-perturbative QCD effects are either sufficiently small or can be constrained by the current program of parity violation measurements so as to render $`Q_W(p)`$ free from potentially worrisome nucleon structure uncertainties. Within the SM, a 4% determination of $`Q_W(p)`$ — as planned at JLab — would yield a 9 $`\sigma `$ determination of the running of the weak mixing angle. Looking beyond the SM, a measurement at this level would provide an effective diagnostic tool for new physics, particularly when considered in tandem with complementary precision low energy studies, such as the SLAC PV Møller scattering experiment, cesium APV, $`a_\mu `$, $`\beta `$ decay, and others. Should future experimental developments make an even more precise $`Q_W(p)`$ measurement possible, the physics impact would be correspondingly more powerful. Given its theoretical interpretability, pursuing such experimental developments appear to be well worth the effort.

## Acknowledgement:

We thank K. Cheung, A. Derevianko, V. Flambaum, P. Herczeg, P. Langacker, W. Marciano, S. Su, and O. P. Sushkov for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy contracts DE–FG02–00ER41146, DE–FG03–02ER41215, DE–FG03–00ER4112, by NSF award PHY00–71856, by CONACYT (México) contract 42026–F, and by DGAPA–UNAM contract PAPIIT IN112902.