arxiv:hep-th/ v2 15 Aug 2001

Transcription

1 CSULB PA 01 2 hep-th/ (Revised Version) Teleparallel Superspae in Eleven Dimensions Coupled to Supermembranes 1 arxiv:hep-th/ v2 15 Aug 2001 S James GATES, Jr, Hitoshi NISHINO and Subhash RAJPOOT # Dept of Phys, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD gatess@wamumdedu Dept of Phys & Astr, California State Univ, Long Beah, CA hnishino@sulbedu # Dept of Phys & Astr, California State Univ, Long Beah, CA rajpoot@sulbedu Abstrat We present a superspae formulation of N = 1 eleven-dimensional supergravity with no manifest loal Lorentz ovariane, whih we all teleparallel superspae This formulation will be of great importane, when we deal with other supergravity theories in dimensions higher than eleven dimensions, or a possible formulation of nonommutative supergravity As an illustrative example, we apply our teleparallel superspae formulation to the ase of N = 1 supergravity in twelve-dimensions We also show the advantage of teleparallel superspae as bakgrounds for supermembrane ation PACS: 0465, 0240H, 0240K, 0240M Key Words: Superspae, Supergravity, Teleparallelism, Lorentz Invariane 1 This work is supported in part by NSF grant # PHY

2 1 Introdution Loal Lorentz ovariane is usually taken for granted in the onventional supergravity theories [1][2], starting with the N = 1 supergravity in four dimensions (4D) 2 [3], up to the N = 1 supergravity in 11D [4][5] However, the reent developments in higher dimensional supergravity in D 12 [6], or of an N = 2 supergravity theory [7][8] motivate formulations in whih the loal Lorentz symmetry is not manifest As a matter of fat, in the onsideration of generalized algebra alled M-algebra [9] for M-theory [10], the manifest Lorentz ovariane is not ruial, but is realized only as hidden symmetry in terms of omposite onnetions We all suh superspae, in whih no loal Lorentz symmetry is manifest, teleparallel superspae 3 In onventional supergravity theories, there has been no strong motivation of teleparallelism formulation This is beause in omponent formulation of onventional supergravity, the loal Lorentz ovariane is manifest from the outset anyway, and moreover, there is no strong reason to onsider its expliit breakings 4, beause of the need of loal Lorentz ovariane for removing unwanted ghosts in the system This situation in omponent turns out to be similar in superspae formulations [11] 5 As suh, there has been so far no spetaular development for teleparallel supergravity, until the reent onstrution of higher-dimensional supergravity in D 12 with no manifest Lorentz ovariane [6][7][8] Even though these higher-dimensional supergravity theories have no built-in loal Lorentz ovariane, they have beome important nowadays, motivated also by M-theory [10] and F-theory [12], or S-theory [13], and so forth Another important motivation of onsidering the lak of manifest Lorentz ovariane is assoiated with the reent development of nonommutative geometry, in whih the introdution of onstant tensor θ µν expliitly breaks Lorentz ovariane [14] For example, in a reent paper [15] we have shown that teleparallel gravity an be the foundation of nonommutative gravity, in order to delete the undesirable negative energy ghosts in the antisymmetri omponent B µν in the omplex metri g µν in the Lorentz ovariant formulation [16] From the viewpoint that the existene of the onstant tensor θ µν already breaks the Lorentz symmetry, it is even imperative to onsider the supersymmetri extension, ie, teleparallel supergravity In this paper we present a teleparallel superspae formulation with a onsistent set of 2 We also use the notation D = 4 suh as in D = 4, N = 1 supergravity 3 We adopt this terminology for superspae, in whih loal Lorentz ovariane is not manifest, even if it is not expliitly broken In this sense, our terminology overs a wider set of formulations in superspae This formulation is also similar to the superspae for D = 4, N = 1 supergravity in [11] 4 See, eg, subsetion 15 of ref [1] 5 Some superspae formulation in 4D in this diretion was presented in [11], using only the torsion superfield with no urvature superfields, in order to redue possible ounter-terms for renormalizability of supergravity 2

3 superspae onstraints for Bianhi identities, together with the physial superfield equations We also ouple this bakground to supermembrane ation, and onfirm its fermioni κ-symmetry Interestingly, we find that the fermioni κ-symmetry beomes even simpler and more natural in the teleparallel superspae formulation Suh a formulation will be of great importane when we deal with higher dimensional supergravity [6][7][8] in whih the loal Lorentz symmetry is not manifest As an illustrative example, we desribe how to reformulate N = 1 superspae supergravity in 12D [6][8] in teleparallel superspae 2 Notational Preliminaries Before giving our onstraints, we first set up our notations, whih are oneptually different from the onventional supergravity Our superspae ovariant derivative E A is simply defined by E A E A M M, (21) with no term for Lorentz onnetion φ A b C AB C are defined by [2] Relevantly, the anholonomy oeffiients C AB C (E A E B) M )E M C, (22) with no expliit Lorentz onnetion here, either Similarly, the superfield strength F ABCD is defined by F ABCD 1 6 E AA BCD) 1 4 C AB E A E CD) (23) with no Lorentz onnetion Aordingly, the superspae Bianhi identities are only C - and F -types: E A C BC) D C AB E C E C) D 0, (24) 1 24 E AF BCDE) 1 12 C AB F F F CDE) 0 (25) We sometimes refer them respetively as (ABC, D)- and (ABCDE)-type Bianhi identities Even though we do not give a detailed omputation, the lhs of both (24) and (25) are ovariant under the following loal Lorentz transformation with the parameter Λ ab [2], despite the absene of Lorentz onnetion φ A b : δ L E A M = 1 2 Λb (M b ) A B E B M, (26a) δ L C AB C = Λb (M b ) A D C D B) C ( 1)(A+B)(C+D) Λ b (M b ) CD C ABD (E A Λ b )(M b ) B) C, (26b) δ L F ABCD = 1 12 Λab (M ab ) A E F E BCD), (26) 3

4 where (26b) follows from (26a) The loal Lorentz ovariane of the lhs of (24) and (25) is onfirmed by the mutual anellations of terms generated by the loal Lorentz transformation (26) To put it differently, the loal Lorentz symmetry is a hidden symmetry in this formulation Aordingly, the Rii tensor omponent R ab (φ) in the onventional superspae an be re-expressed in terms of the anholonomy oeffiients by R ab (φ) = E a C b 1 2 E C ab 1 2 E C (ab) C a γ C γb C a d C bd C a d C bd C ab C C (ab)c 1 4 C dac d b, (27) b Here C a C ab is the vetorial omponent of C ab Note that (27) is an equality only to understand the total loal Lorentz ovariane, beause the lhs makes sense only in the onventional superspae with the expliit Lorentz onnetion, while the rhs in terms of the anholonomy oeffiients is useful only in our teleparallel superspae In other words, we should not use suh expressions as the lhs of (27) in our teleparallelism Interestingly, the antisymmetri omponent R ab is shown to vanish identially due to the (ab, )-type Bianhi identity: R ab = E a C b E C ab + C ab C C a γ C γ b 0, (28) therefore (26) has effetively only the symmetri omponent in R (ab) 3 Constraints and Superfield Equations There are basially two methods to fix superspae onstraints for our teleparallel superspae The first method is to use the relationships between the torsion superfields in the onventional superspae and the teleparallel superspae, and another way is the diret way, writing down all the possible term with unknown oeffiients to be fixed by the satisfations of all the Bianhi identities (21) and (22) Both of these methods give the following onsistent set of onstraints: C α = +i(γ ) α, (31a) F αd = (γ d) α, (31b) C α γ = (γ de) (α γ C ) de, C α b = C α b, (31) C αb γ = + i 144 (γ b 4 F 4 + 8γ 3 F b 3 ) α γ 1 8 (γd ) α γ (2C bd C db ), (31d) E α C d = (γ d 4 ) α F (γ 2 ) α F d 2 i 4 (γe ) α C de + i 4 (γe ) α C e d (γab ) α γ C ab C γd + C α e C ed, (31e) 4

5 E α C bd = +E b C α d + C α b ǫ C ǫ d + C α b e C e d i(γ d C b ) α + C b e C eαd, (31f) E α F bde = 1 8 (γ bc de ) α C α b f F f de, (31g) E γ C ab δ = +E a C γ b δ + C ab e C eγ δ + C ab ǫ C ǫγ δ + C γ a e C e b δ + C γ a ǫ C ǫ b δ (31h) We sometimes use the symbol F 4 for quantities with totally antisymmetri bosoni indies to save spae, namely F 4 is equivalent to F abd Eq (31a) through (31e) satisfy the Bianhi identities of the engineering dimensions d = 0, 1/2 and d = 2, while (31f) through (31h) are from d = 3/2 and d = 2 Let now us give some remarks about these onstraints Note first that even though the partiular omponent C αb remains in many of these onstraints, it is reombined to form a loally Lorentz ovariant expression in the physial superfield equations to be seen later As was mentioned, even though there is the seond diret method to obtain these onstraints, it is easier to use the first method using the relationships between the onventional superspae and our teleparallel superspae For example, a set of superspae onstraints for torsion superfields in the former [5][17] are expressed in terms of anholonomy oeffiients as T α = C α, (32a) T ab = C ab φ ab = 0 φ ab = 1 2 (C ab C ab C ba ), (32b) T αb = C αb φ αb = 0 = C αb = φ αb, φ α(b) = C α(b) = 0, (32) T γ α = C γ α + 1(γ ) γ 4 de (α φ de ) = 0 = C γ α = 1(γ )(α γ de φ 4 de ), (32d) T αb γ = C αb γ φ bα γ = C αb γ (γd ) α γ φ bd, (32e) T ab γ = C ab γ (32f) For example, from (311) we see that we an impose the ondition that the symmetri omponent in C d α is zero as in (31) Therefore if we adopt essentially the same onstraints for the onventional superspae as in [5][17], we see that C α is exatly the same as T α as in (31) from (32), φ ab is ompletely expressed in terms of C ab as in (310) as usual, γ γ C αb is expressed in terms of F 4 and C ab as in (31e) via (32f), C α is expressed in terms of C αb, while C γ ab an be regarded as the superfield strength in our superspae, γ equivalent to T ab in the onventional superspae One we omprehend these orrespondenes, the satisfation of all the Bianhi identities (24) and (25) is lear However, we an also onfirm all the Bianhi identities by the usual diret omputation Prepared with these onstraints, we an also get the superfield equations from the d = 3/2 and d = 2 Bianhi identities, as i(γ b ) α C ab = 0, (33a) 5

6 E a C b E C ab + E d C d (ab) 1 2 C a d C bd 1 2 C adc b d 1 2 C ab C 1 2 C (ab)c C dac d b + C a γ C γb F a 3 F b η abf 4 2 = 0, (33b) E d F ab d 1 4 C de af b de 1 2 Cd F abd ǫ ab 4 4 F 4 F 4 = 0 (33) Eqs (33a), (33b) and (33) are respetively the gravitino, gravitational and F -superfield equations The EC, C 2, and C γ a C γb -terms 6 in the first two lines in (33b) are all arranged themselves to be equivalent to the Rii tensor (27) in the onventional superspae, and therefore the total expression (33b) is loal Lorentz ovariant This explains also why the C γ a C γb -term is needed in there As usual in any 11D superspae formulation, the gravitino superfield equation (315) is obtained by the (aγ, δ)-bianhi identity at d = 3/2, while the gravitational superfield equation (33b) is obtained by the spinorial derivative (γ ) γα E γ [i(γ a ) α C ab ] = 0, and similarly the F -field equation (33) is from (γ ab ) α E [ i(γ d ) α γc γ d ] = 0 The last two are also based on the onstraints (31g) and (31h) Reall that all the terms antisymmetri in ab in (33b) vanish identially due to (28) 4 Couplings to Supermembranes One our superspae has been established, our next natural step is to onsider its ouplings to supermembrane, in partiular with fermioni symmetries Our total ation for supermembrane theory is the same as that in the onventional one: I I σ + I A, (41) I σ d 3 σ ( gg ij η ab Π a i Π b ) j 1 2 g, (42) I A d 3 σ ( ) 1 3 ǫijk Π A i Π B j Π C k A CBA (43) As usual, we have Π A i ( i Z M )E A M, and the indies i, j, = 0, 1, 2 world-volume for supermembrane are for the 3D In the onventional formulation, we need to vary Π i A under the general transformations δe A (δz M )E M A In our teleparallel superspae, this variation is given by δπ i A = i (δe A ) Π i B (δe C )C CB A (44) Note that there is no Lorentz onnetion φ Ab expliitly involved in here, as is usually the ase with our teleparallel superspae On the other hand, in the onventional superspae 6 The C s in EC and C 2 are for C ab with purely bosoni indies 6

7 [18][17] we have δπ i A = i (δe A ) Π i B (δe C )(T CB A + φ CB A ), (45) where i (δe A ) i (δe A )+(1/2)Π i B φ B d (M d ) AD (δe D ), with the expliit Lorentz onnetion φ Ab The expliit Lorentz onnetion term in (45), whih looks in a sense unnatural, automatially deouples from the variation of the total ation, due to δ κ E a = 0 for the fermioni κ-transformation [18] In our teleparallel superspae, on the other hand, the Lorentz onnetion term is absent from the outset, and there is no need for suh a rearrangement One this subtlety is larified, the onfirmation of fermioni κ-invariane [18] of our ation: δ κ I = 0 under the transformation δ κ E α = (I + Γ) α κ, (46) δ κ E a = 0, (47) Γ i 6 g ǫijk Π a i Π b j Π k (γ ab ), (48) beomes straightforward Here Γ satisfies the following usual relationships under the embedding ondition g ij = Π a i Π ja equivalent to the g ij -field equation: Γ 2 = I, ǫ i jk Π j a Π k b γ ab Γ = 2i g Π i a γ a, (49) To summarize our supermembrane ouplings, the fermioni κ-transformation beomes simpler and more natural in our teleparallel superspae, where there is no need of expliit Lorentz onnetion terms We regard this feature as one of the advantages of onsidering teleparallelism in superspae formulation, as well as the first signal of the naturalness of teleparallel superspae for the ouplings to supermembrane 5 Supergravity in 12D as an Example One we have established the teleparallel formulation of superspae, the next natural step is to apply it to supergravity theories, in partiular, to higher-dimensional supergravity in whih Lorentz ovariane is not built-in [6][7][8] In this paper, we give the ase of N = 1 supergravity in 12D [6][8] as an illustrative example We review first the non-teleparallel formulation of N = 1 supergravity in 12D [6][8] with important relationships The most ruial ones is the definitions of the null-vetors m a and n a : (n a ) = ( (0) (1) (9) (11) (12) 0, 0,, 0, + 1 2, 1 2 ), (na ) = ( (0) (1) (9) (11) (12) 0, 0,, 0, + 1 2, ), 7

8 (m a ) = ( (0) (1) (9) (11) (12) ) 0, 0,, 0, + 1 2, + 1, (ma ) = ( (0) (1) (9) (11) (12) ) 2 0, 0,, 0, + 1 2, 1 2 (51) As in [6][8], we use the indies a, b, = (0), (1),, (9), (10), (11) with parentheses for loal Lorentz indies Only in this setion, we adopt the signature (, +, +,, +, ) in order to omply with the notation in [6][8] We an also use the light-one oordinates V ± 1 2 (V (11) ±V (12) ) Relevantly, we have n a n a = m a m a = 0, m a n a = m + n + = m n = +1 7 Other important quantities are the projetion operators P, P, P defined by P n/m/ = +1 2 γ+ γ, P m/n/ = +1 2 γ γ +, (52a) P P = +P, P P = +P, P + P = +I, P P = P P = 0, (52b) P P P = γ + (52) Relevantly, we have (n/) α = (n/) α, (m/) α = (m/) α, (P ) α = (P ) α, (P ) α = +(P ) α In supergravity in 12D, we an define the Lorentz generators formally as [6][8] ( M ab ) d + δ a δ b d, (53a) ( M ab ) α (γ abp ) α, ( M ab ) α (P γ ab ) α (53b) where j δ i (for a = i, b = j), δ b a δ b a m a n b = δ + + = 1 (for a = +, b = +), 0 (otherwise) (54) The Bianhi identities in the non-teleparallel superspae in 12D are [6][8] 1 2 AT D BC) 1T 2 AB E T D E C) 1R 4 AB e f ( M e f ) D C) 0, (55) 1 6 AG BCD) 1T 4 AB E G E CD) 0, (56) 1 2 AR e BC)d 1T 2 AB E R e E C)d 0 (57) One set of solutions for onstraints at mass dimensions 0 d 1 satisfying these Bianhi identities is [6][8] T α = +(γ d ) α d ϕ + (P ) α ϕ, (58a) G α = +T α, (58b) T α γ = +(P ) (α γ (γ χ) ) ϕ (γ ab ) α (P γ a χ) γ b ϕ, α Φ = + (γ χ) α ϕ, (58) (58d) 7 For other notational details, see refs [6][8] 8

9 α χ = 1 24 (γde P ) α G de (γ P ) α Φ (γ χ) α χ ϕ, (58e) G αγ = 0, T αb = 0, T αb γ = 0, G αb = 0, (58f) T ab = G ab, (58g) where a ϕ and a ϕ respetively satisfy the properties of n a and m a in (51), under the extra onstraints α ϕ = α ϕ = 0, ( a ϕ) 2 = ( a ϕ) 2 = 0, ( a ϕ)( a ϕ) = 1, (59a) a b ϕ = a b ϕ = 0 Here the underlined spinorial indies α,, α (α, α), (, ), [6][8] (59b) represent both dotted and undotted spinors: We have also extra onstraints to delete some extra omponents of relevant superfields [6][8]: T AB ϕ = 0, G AB ϕ = 0, T ab C a ϕ = 0, (510a) R AB d d ϕ = 0, R ab d a ϕ = 0, (510b) ( a ϕ) a Φ = 0, ( a ϕ) a χ = 0, (510) (γ ) α χ ϕ = 0, T ab γ (γ d ) γ α d ϕ = 0, (510d) φ Ab ϕ = 0, φ ab a ϕ = 0 (510e) As has been stated in [6], these onstraints will not delete all the extra omponents in 12D, and this is the non-trivial part of higher-dimensional supergravity [8] We now onsider the reformulation of teleparallel superspae of this N = 1 supergravity in 12D [6][8] In the non-teleparallel ase, we had the superurvature Bianhi identity (58) due to the existene of Lorentz onnetion φ Ab Moreover, we had to onfirm the onsisteny of this R-Bianhi identity (57) with other T and G-Bianhi identities (55) and (56) [6] However, in the present teleparallel superspae, we do not have the R-Bianhi identity Instead we have only two Bianhi identities orresponding to (55) and (56): E A C BC) D C AB E C E C) D 0, (511) 1 E 6 AG BCD) 1C 4 AB F G F CD) 0 (512) The disappearane of the R-Bianhi identity is the first advantage for our teleparallel formulation for 12D supergravity, in whih Lorentz ovariane is not built-in off-shell from the outset For example, even though the null-vetors m a and n a are replaed by more Lorentz ovariant gradients of salar superfields in (59), these salar superfields satisfy all 9

10 the properties (51) only on-shell as extra onstraints, and therefore this formulation still has the drawbak of laking Lorentz ovariane at the off-shell level This gives a natural justifiation of onsidering teleparallel superspae formulation with no manifest loal Lorentz ovariane from the outset A set of onstraints at mass dimensions 0 d 1, satisfying the Bianhi identities (511) and (512) an be obtained in a way similar to (32) Namely, we first write down the relationships between the supertorsion T AB C, anholonomy oeffiients C AB C, and Lorentz onnetion φ Ab, ie, T AB C C AB C + (1/2)φ A d e ( M e d ) B) C, and next we solve this for φ Ab Afterwards, we treat the anholonomy oeffiients C ab and C αb as independent superfields The most important bridge relationships between the non-teleparallel superspae and teleparallel superspae are φ αb = C αb + φ α b d ( ϕ)( d ϕ) = C αb, (513a) φ ab = (C a b C ba + G ab ) + φ a b d ( ϕ)( d ϕ), (513b) obtained from T αb and T ab in (58f,g) Compared with onventional superspae formulations [2], the last extra terms in these equations reflet the Lorentz non-ovariane in our 12D At first glane, these extra terms seem to ause a problem, we an not get losed forms for φ αb or φ ab However, it does not matter in pratie, beause the extra terms in (513a,b) do not enter the ombination φ e Ad ( M d e ) C B effetively, as an be easily onfirmed under the definition of M in (53) After all of these, we get the set of onstraints from (58) as C α = +(γ d ) α E d ϕ + (P ) α E ϕ, G α = +C α, (514a) (514b) C α γ = +(P ) (α γ (γ χ) ) E ϕ (γ ab ) α (P γ a χ) γ E b ϕ (γde P ) (α γ C )de, (514) E α Φ = + (γ χ) α E ϕ, (514d) E α χ = 1 24 (γde P ) α G de (γ P ) α E Φ (γ χ) α χ E ϕ C α d (γ d χ), (514e) G αγ = 0, G αb = 0, (514f) C αb γ = 1 8 (γd P ) α γ (2C bd C db + G bd ), (514g) E α C d = C α ǫ C ǫ d C (α e C e ) d (γab ) α (G a d C a d + C d a + C d a)e b ϕ (514h) To be onsistent within our teleparallel superspae, we use E a ϕ, E a ϕ instead of a ϕ, a ϕ However, they are atually the same, so that (59) is replaed by E α ϕ = E α ϕ = 0, (E a ϕ) 2 = (E a ϕ) 2 = 0, (E a ϕ)(e a ϕ) = 1, (515a) E a (E b ϕ) = E a (E b ϕ) = 0 10 (515b)

11 Compared with the non-teleparallel ase (58), the last terms in (514) and (514e) are new ones, oming from the substitutions of (513a) for the Lorentz onnetion in the nonteleparallel equations Eq (514g) is also new here, beause T γ αb = 0 in (58f), but generated by the substitution of (513b) Eq (514h) is another new one needed to satisfy the (α, d) and (αγ, δ)-type Bianhi identities at d = 1 This is also beause the superfield C αb is treated as an independent superfield in our teleparallel superspae, similarly to the 11D ase in (31e) The extra onstraints in our teleparallel superspae, orresponding to (510) are C AB E ϕ = 0, G AB E ϕ = 0, C ab C E a ϕ = 0, (516a) (E a ϕ)e a Φ = 0, (E a ϕ)e a χ = 0, (516b) (γ ) α χ E ϕ = 0, C ab γ (γ d ) γ α E d ϕ = 0 (516) Needless to say, there is no onstraints involving the urvature tensor or the Lorentz onnetion, suh as (510b) or (510e) Our onstraints above an be derived from the non-teleparallel system [6][8], but we an independently onfirm the satisfation of Bianhi identities (511) and (512) at 0 d 1 In this onnetion, useful relationships are C αb E ϕ = 0, (517a) (C ab C ab C ba + G ab )E ϕ = 0, (517b) whih are needed for onfirming the (abα) and (α, d)-type Bianhi identities at d = 1 Note that E a ϕ is used here instead of E a ϕ These onstraints are not additional ones, but are just neessary onditions of (513) We an mimi this proedure in other supergravity formulations in higher-dimensions in D 12 [6][7][8], but we skip their details in this paper 6 Conluding Remarks In this paper we have presented a new formulation of superspae in whih loal Lorentz ovariane is not manifest We have set up all the neessary superspae onstraints, and derived all the superfield equations as a result of satisfation of all the Bianhi identities There seems to be no fundamental obstrution for suh a formulation in superspae The possibility of supergravity formulations in omponent that lak manifest loal Lorentz ovariane has been already known for some time For example, in subsetion 15 in [1], a omponent formulation using only torsions with no use of urvature tensors 11

12 is mentioned as flat supergravity with torsion In this Letter, we have onfirmed similar formulation is also possible in superspae for D = 11, N = 1 supergravity The important ingredients we have found in our work are summarized as follows: First, we have found that all the superspae onstraints and superfield equations are re-formulated ompletely in terms of anholonomy oeffiients C C AB with no expliit usage of the Lorentz onnetion, as a parallel result to omponent formulation [1] Seond, we have found that the partiular anholonomy oeffiient omponent C αb is to be treated as an independent superfield, beause all the Bianhi identities are satisfied for any arbitrary form of C αb Third, this partiular omponent is eventually ombined with C ab to form loally Lorentz ovariant terms, suh as the Rii tensor ombination (27), in our superfield equations Fourth, we have found that this teleparallel superspae has no problem with the fermioni κ-symmetry of supermembranes, or it has even simpler and more natural results Fifth, the teleparallel formulation is possible not only in 11D, but also in other dimensions As an expliit example, we have applied this formulation to D = 12, N = 1 supergravity [6][8] Our teleparallel superspae formulation will be of great importane, when onsidering supergravities in higher-dimensions given in [6][7][8], in whih Lorentz ovariane is not built-in from the outset As an illustrative example, we have re-formulated D = 12, N = 1 superspae supergravity [6][8] in terms of teleparallel superspae We have found there are bridge relationships (513), that give important links between the original non-teleparallel superspae [6][8] and our present teleparallel superspae It is also important that the seond terms in (512) will not enter the ombination φ Ad e ( M e d ) B C Therefore the lak of losed forms for φ ab or φ αb will not matter in pratie to derive the set of onstraints for teleparallel superspae We expet that this basi struture is ommon to other higherdimensional supergravities in D 12 [7][8] The fat that the fermioni κ-symmetry of supermembrane in the Green-Shwarz formulation is simplified in teleparallel superspae indiates something deeper in general supergravity bakgrounds for extended objets It seems that the loal Lorentz symmetry is not ruial even in onventional supergravity, not to mention higher-dimensional ones in 12D [6][7] related to F-theory [12] or 13D [8] related to S-theory [13] In other words, when we need to study non-perturbative nature of M-theory [10], F-theory [12], S-theory [13], or higher-dimensional theories, loal Lorentz symmetry is not the dominating symmetry, like the ase of the original superstring theory formulated in the light-one gauge [18] As a matter of fat, there are other examples of this kind for superstring physis, eg, in ref [19], null-vetors for onstraints in superspae for Green-Shwarz σ-model -funtions were introdued It seems that the loss of Lorentz symmetry in the Green-Shwarz formulation is inherent in superstring theories, whih were originally formulated in the light-one gauge It is not surprising that this feature of superstring theories pops up in M-theory [10], F-theory 12

13 [12], S-theory [13], or other higher-dimensional and more fundamental theories As some readers have already notied, another important supporting fat is the reent development of nonommutative geometry [14] assoiated with D-branes, in whih the onstant tensor θ µν breaks the Lorentz ovariane These reent developments give more than enough motivation to onsider teleparallel supergravity formulation in superspae Our result of teleparallel superspae in this paper is diretly appliable to other onventional supergravity theories in other dimensions Now that we have at hand the expliit example of teleparallel superspae applied to non-teleparallel D = 12, N = 1 superspae [6][8] an appliation, it is muh easier to repeat similar analyses in other supergravity theories in higher-dimensions in D 12 [6][7][8] as well as lower-dimensions D 10 We are grateful to W Siegel for helpful disussions 13

14 Referenes [1] P van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys Rep 68C (1981) 189 [2] SJ Gates, Jr, MT Grisaru, M Roček and W Siegel, Superspae, Benjamin/Cummings, Reading, MA (1983) [3] DZ Freedman, P van Nieuwenhuizen and S Ferrara, Phys Rev D13 (1976) 3214; S Deser and B Zumino, Phys Lett 62B (1976) 335 [4] E Cremmer, B Julia and N Sherk, Phys Lett 76B (1978) 409; E Cremmer and B Julia, Phys Lett 80B (1978) 48; Nul Phys B159 (19790) 141 [5] E Cremmer and S Ferrara, Phys Lett 91B (1980) 61; L Brink and P Howe, Phys Lett 91B (1980) 384 [6] H Nishino, Phys Lett 428B (1998) 85 [7] H Nishino, hep-th/ , Phys Lett 437B (1998) 303 [8] H Nishino, hep-th/ , Nul Phys B542 (1999) 217 [9] E Sezgin, hep-th/ , Phys Lett 392B (1997) 323 [10] For reviews, see eg, PK Townsend, M-Theory from its Superalgebra, hep-th/ and referenes therein; For reviews of M(atrix)-theory, see, eg, A Bilal, Fort für Phys 47 (1999) 5; T Banks, TASI Leture Note on Matrix Theory, hep-th/ ; W Taylor IV, The M(atrix) Model of M-Theory, Letures for NATO shool Quantum Geometry (Ieland 1999), hep-th/ ; and referenes therein [11] JG Taylor, Phys Lett 78B (1978) 577 [12] C Vafa, Nul Phys B469 (1996) 403 [13] I Bars, Phys Rev D55 (1997) 2373 [14] A Connes, MR Douglas and A Shwarz, JHEP 9802 (1998) 003; YKE Cheung and M Krogh, Nul Phys B528 (1998) 185; C-SChu and P-M Ho, Nul Phys B528 (1999) 151; V Shomerus, JHEP 9906 (1999) 030; F Ardalan, H Arfaei and MM Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 9902 (1999) 016; J Hoppe, Phys Lett B250 (1990) 44; DB Fairlie, P Flether and CK Zahos, Phys Lett B218 (1989) 203; N Seiberg and E Witten, JHEP 9909 (1999) 032, hep-th/ [15] H Nishino and S Rajpoot, Complex Teleparallel Gravity as Foundation for Nonommutative Gravity, CSULB PA 01 1, hep-th/ [16] A Chamseddine, hep-th/ , Commun Math Phys 218 (2001) 283; hep-th/ , Int Jour of Mod Phys A16 (2001) 759 [17] H Nishino and SJ Gates, Jr, Phys Lett 388B (1996) 504 [18] M Green, JH Shwarz and E Witten, Superstring Theory, Vols I and II, Cambridge University Press (1987) [19] MT Grisaru, H Nishino and D Zanon, Phys Lett 306B (1988) 625; Nul Phys B314 (1989)