arxiv:hep-th/ v2 30 May 2001

Transcription

1 hep-th/ UMDEPP (Revised Version) A Note on Embedding of M-Theory Corretions into Eleven-Dimensional Superspae Hitoshi NISHINO 2 arxiv:hep-th/003224v2 30 May 200 Department of Physis University of Maryland College Park, MD and Subhash RAJPOOT 3 Department of Physis & Astronomy California State University Long Beah, CA Abstrat By analyzing eleven-dimensional superspae fourth-rank superfield strength F- Bianhi identities, we show that M-theory orretions to eleven-dimensional supergravity an not be embedded into the mass dimension zero onstraints, suh as the (γ ab ) αβ X ab or i(γ a a 5 ) αβ X a a 5 -terms in the supertorsion onstraint T αβ. The only possible modifiation of superspae onstraint at dimension zero is found to be the saling of F αβd like F αβd = (/2)(γ d ) αβ e Φ for some real salar superfield Φ, whih alone is further shown not enough to embed general M-theory orretions. This onlusion is based on the dimension zero F-Bianhi identity under the two assumptions: (i) There are no negative dimensional onstraints on the F-superfield strength: F αβγδ = F αβγd = 0; (ii) The supertorsion T-Bianhi identities and F-Bianhi identities are not modified by Chern-Simons terms. Our result an serve as a powerful tool for future exploration of M-theory orretions embedded into eleven-dimensional superspae supergravity. PACS: h, e,.30.Pb Key Words: M-Theory, Supergravity, Superspae, Eleven-Dimensions This work is supported in part by NSF grant # PHY nishino@nspmail.physis.umd.edu 3 rajpoot@sulb.edu

2 . Introdution If M-theory ] unifies superstring theories 2], suh as type-i, heteroti and type-iia superstring theories, and its low energy limit is desribed by eleven-dimensional (D) supergravity 3], it is natural to expet that there must be high energy orretions to D supergravity ompatible with supergravity formulation itself, just as superstring orretions an be embedded into 0D supergravity 2]4]. Based on this priniple, there have been attempts to embed suh M-theory orretions into D supergravity, suh as in omponent formulation 5], as well as in superspae formulation 6]7]8]9]. In superspae formulation 7]8], it is so far ommonly believed or expeted that suh M- theory orretions are most likely embedded into the generalized symmetri matrix omponents of the mass dimension zero (d = 0) supertorsion omponent T αβ, suh as (γ ab ) αβ X ab or i(γ a a 5 ) αβ X a a 5 with some appropriate superfields X ab or X a a 5 7]8]0]. However, it is not lear whether we need only the orretions of T αβ or F αβd at d = 0 alone for embedding M-theory orretions, or we also need any negative dimensional (d < 0) onstraints, suh as F αβγd or F αβγδ for suh modifiations for F-Bianhi identities (BIs). In this Letter, we will present a no-go theorem for embedding M-theory orretions into onstraints for superspae BIs with modified onstraints only at d = 0. We will show that the d = 0 orretions of onstraints are not enough for embedding M-theory orretions into D superspae supergravity. Our onlusion is based on two assumptions: (i) All the F-superfield strength onstraints at d < 0 vanish; (ii) The supertorsion T-BIs and F-BIs are not modified by Chern-Simons terms. In addition to these assumptions, our onlusion also relies on the so-alled onventional onstraints that relate various superfields in the most general expansions of the superspae derivatives: E α and E a 9]. These onventional onstraints are restritive, e.g., the one-gamma term in T αβ is only the standard one: i (γ ) αβ, while the two-gamma term (γ de ) αβ X de and the five-gamma term (γ d d 5 ) αβ X d d 5 orretions are of a general form. Furthermore, the X s themselves are restrited e.g., X ab b = 0, et., as will be shown later. A statement for the neessity of the F -onstraints at d < 0 has been given in 8], but without any proof. In the present paper, we provide expliit evidene for that laim. By studying the F-BI at d = 0, we show that, as long as the F-onstraints at d < 0 are absent, there an be no suh orretions as (γ de ) αβ X de or (γ d d 5 ) αβ X d d 5 possible in T αβ other than the standard one-gamma term that an embed M-theory orretions. 2. Solving F-BI at d = 0 We first give the most important part of our results here, namely we analyze whether the d = 0 F-BI of the type (αβγδe): 6 (αf βγδ)e + e F αβγδ 6 T e(α f F f βγδ) 6 T e(α η F η βγδ) 4 T (αβ f F f γδ)e 4 T (αβ η F η γδ)e 0 (2.) allows any non-trivial solution possible for embedding M-theory orretions 8]. For simpliity (as the assumption of our no-go theorem ), we put the d < 0 F-onstraints to be zero: F αβγδ = 0, F αβγd = 0. (2.2)

3 Aordingly, there remains only one term in (2.) at d = 0: T (αβ f F f γδ)e 0. (2.3) It is now a purely algebrai question whether there an be any non-trivial solution to (2.3), when we postulate T αβ = i(γ ) αβ + 2 (γab ) αβ X ab + i 20 (γa a 5 ) αβ X a a 5, (2.4) for the d = 0 supertorsion onstraint for T αβ 8]. Here we have no orretions for the first one-gamma term, due to the onventional onstraints relating E α and E a as in eqs. (24) and (25) in 9]. On the other hand, X ab and X a a 5 are some appropriate superfields that an possibly embed M-theory orretions 7]8]. Aordingly, we need to put the most general orretions also into the d = 0 F-onstraint 4 F αβd = i(γ e ) αβ U ed + 2 (γef ) αβ U efd + i 20 (γ 5 ) αβ U 5 d. (2.5) In partiular, the lowest order on-shell physial superfield onstraint in ] orresponds to the speial ase of F αβd = + 2 (γ d) αβ, U abd = + 4 η a η d b, (2.6) with U ab = U a a 5 b = 0. Sine we are onsidering M-theory orretions, these X and U-superfields an be dealt as perturbation, namely we an first onsider the satisfation of the BI (2.3) at the linear order, temporarily ignoring the bilinear order (ross terms). For this reason, we onentrate on the analysis at the linear order in terms of X s and U s. Based on the flutuation analysis 9], we an impose on the X s the following onventional onstraints X ab b = 0, X ab = 0, X a...a 4 b b = 0, X a...a 5 b = 0. (2.7) Under these onstraints, X ab has only 429 degrees of freedom, while X 5 has 4,290 degrees of freedom. These onstraints are analogousto the familiar torsion onstraint T ab = 0 ommonly used in superspae, whih does not delete any degrees of freedom. To be more speifi, we saw in the flutuation analysis in 9] that some omponents of superfield α β 9] entering in E α E α M M an be expressed in terms of H α b under (2.7): E α = Ψ /2 {exp( 2 )} αβ (D β +H β m m ), (2.8a) β α iψ a γ a + 2 Ψab γ ab + i 6 Ψ 3 γ Ψ 4 γ 4 + i 20 Ψ 5 γ 5 (2.8b) ]α X ab = (γab ) γδ D 6 γ H δ +6δ a Ψ b 6Ψ ] ab, (2.8) X a a 5 = 6 i(γa a 5 ) γδ D γ H δ δ a Ψ a2 a ǫ a a 5 5 Ψ 5 ]. (2.8d) As seen from (2.8) and (2.8d), the onstraints (2.7) are just equivalent to determining Ψ, Ψ 3, Ψ 4 and Ψ 5 in terms only of H α b 9]. This situation is similar to the 4 In this paper, the symbol n ( ) in general denotes the total antisymmetrization of n indies, e.g., γ 5] αβ( γ 5 )γδ ( ) ( ) γ a a5 γa a 5 αβ γδ. 2 β,

4 onstraint T ab = 0 in order to express the Lorentz onnetion φ ma b in terms of the vielbein e a m. Therefore we stress that there is no loss of degrees of freedom under the ovariant onstraints (2.7). The original tensor superfields X s or U s are redued into more fundamental irreduible omponents. For example, the original U ab has 605 omponents onsidering their symmetries, whih an be deomposed into U ab = A {429} ab + A {65} ab + η a b A {}, where A {65} ab is totally antisymmetri, while the 429-part is traeless: A {429} a a = 0, as the remainder degrees of freedom are out of the original 55 = 605 omponents. In a similar fashion, we an deompose the rest of U s as U ab = +A {429} ab +A {65} ab +η a b A {}, U d ab = +A {2,574} ab d +A {330} ab d +δ a A {65} d b +δ a A {55} d b +δ a δ d b A {}, U a a 5 b = +A {7,60} a a 5 b + ǫ d d 5 A {4,290} 20 a a 5 b d d 5 +η b a A{3,003} a 2 a 5 +η b a A{462} a 2 a 5 + ǫ 4 24 a a 5 B {330} b 4 +η η b a a 2 B{65} a 3 a 4 a 5. (2.9) Substituting eah irreduible omponent bak into (2.3), we get the set of algebrai onditions to be satisfied for eah irreduible omponents: i(γ d ) (αβ (γ de ) γδ) A {} = 0, (γ d ) (αβ (γ d ) γδ) A {} e = 0, i(γ a ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) ηa b A {55} e η e b A{55} a i(γ a ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) ηa b A {65} e η e b A{65} a (2.0a) (2.0b) ] = 0, (2.0) ] = 0, (2.0d) (γ d ) (αβ (γ de 3 ) γδ) B {65} 3 = 0, (2.0e) i 2 (γd ) (αβ (γ ab ) γδ) A {330} abde (γd ) (αβ (γ 5 ) γδ) ǫ 4 5 de B {330} 4 = 0, (2.0f) (γ a ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) A {429} abe + 4 (γab ) (αβ (γ de ) γδ) X ab d = 0, (2.0g) (γ d ) (αβ (γ b 4 ) γδ) η d b A {462} 4 e = 0, (2.0h) i(γ d ) (αβ (γ ab ) γδ) A {2,574} abde = 0, (2.0i) (γ d ) (αβ (γ b 4 ) γδ) η d b A {3,003} 4 e = 0, (2.0j) 20 (γd ) (αβ (γ 5 5 ) γδ) ǫ 5 d A {4,290} 5 e + i 2 (γ 5 ) (αβ (γ de ) γδ) X d 5 = 0, (2.0k) (γ d ) (αβ (γ 5 ) γδ) A {7,60} 5 de = 0. (2.0l) The oneptually important ingredient here is that different irreduible omponents in(2.0), suh as 65 vs. 2,574 will not interfere with eah other. Moreover, A {330} abd and B {330} abd in (2.0f), A {429} ab and X ab in (2.0g), or A {4,290} 5 a and X 5 in (2.0k) are proportional to eah other. 3

5 From now on, we use heavily the Fierz-type identities (5.) - (5.4) and Lemmas (5.5) - (5.8) that will be given separately in setion 6. We start with eq. (2.0a). This ondition is identially satisfied for arbitrary A {} due to the well-known Fierz identity in D Next, due to Lemma 2 in (5.5), eq. (2.0b) implies that (γ ab ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) 0. (2.) A {} a = 0. (2.2) Eqs. (2.0) and (2.0d) satisfy the assumption of Lemma 2, when B a,b is identified with B a,b η a A {n} be η ab A {n} e η e A {n} ba +η eb A{n} a (2.3) both for n = 55 and n = 66. Here we use the arrow symbol instead of equality, due to the free index e, while B a,b on the l.h.s. an be arbitrary inluding any suh free index. Therefore orresponding to (5.6a), we get the ondition η a b A {n} e 8η e b A{n} a +η ea A{n} b η e b (A{n} a +A{n} a ) = 0, (2.4) both for n = 55 and n = 66. Now the ae- and e-ontrations respetively yield A {55} b = 0, A {66} b = 0. (2.5) Eqs. (2.0e), (2.0h), (2.0j) and (2.0l) are solved based on Lemma 3 in (5.8), namely they imply nothing other than the vanishing of B {65} 3 = 0, A {462} 4 a = 0, A{3,003} 4 a = 0, A {7,60} 5 ab = 0. (2.6) Eq. (2.0f) is understood as a sum of (5.2) + (5.4), when B a,b and B a, 5 are identified with B a,b 24A {330} bae, B a, 5 ǫ 5 ae 4 B {330} 4. (2.7) The like terms of the types (γ a ) αβ (γ 5 ) γδ and (γ 2 ) αβ (γ 2 ) γδ in the sum (5.2) + (5.4) yield respetively the onditions 9B a,b 4 24 η a b B d, d B b,a 4 = 0, (2.8a) B a, a 4 = 0, (2.8b) both of whih have ontributions only from B a, 5. Eq. (2.8b) deletes the middle term in (2.8a). Other non-trivial like terms are of the type (γ 2 ) αβ (γ 6 ) γδ, whih have ontributions both from the B a,b and B a, 4 terms, yielding the ondition 5 (δ 2 a δ d b δ b δ d a )B f,gh ǫ 30 b de 4 fghb a,e 4 = 0. (2.9) Nowifwelookintoonlythe abd -omponentofthisequation, andmultiplyitby ǫ d abghk k 5, we get the ondition B f,k k 5 = 0, (2.20) 4

6 up to terms that vanish upon using eq. (2.8b). This implies onsistently with (2.8) that B a,b b 5 = 0 = B {330} 4 = 0. (2.2) Now one B {330} s does not ontribute, then only the first term in (2.0f) remains, whih in turn implies via (5.7) in Lemma 2 that A {330} abd = 0, (2.22) beause A {330} a a d = 0 manifestly, upon the identifiation B a,b A {330} bad. Eq. (2.0i) has the γ-matrix struture of (5.2) with B a,b identified with B a,b A {2,574} bea, B a, a A {2,574} ae a = 0, (2.23) so that the assumption of (5.7) in Lemma 2 is satisfied, and therefore B a,b = 0, i.e., A {2,574} bea = 0. (2.24) At this stage, eqs. (2.0g) and (2.0k) are the only remaining onditions to be solved. Eq. (2.0g) is regarded as the sum (5.) + (5.3), when A a,b for the former, and A ab,d for the latter are respetively identified with A a,b 24A {429} abe, A ab, d 6η e a X d b 6δ e X ab d. (2.25) Aordingly, it is onvenient to rewrite this (5.) + (5.3) in terms of A a,b and A ab,d instead of A s: 24 (γa ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) A a,b + 96 (γab ) (αβ (γ d ) γδ) A ab,d = + 48 (γa ) αβ (γ b ) γδ (8A a,b η ab A, +2A a,b ) + 96 (γab ) αβ (γ d ) γδ +δ a A b d 2 δ a δ b d A f, f +9A ab, d + 2 A a, b d δ a A b f, d f ] + 5,760 (γ 3 ab ) αβ (γ 3 d ) γδ δ a A b, d 2 δ a δ b d A f, f 0A ab, d 5A a, b d δ a A b f, d f ] = 0. (2.26) Sine eah of the different γ-matrix struture is independent, we have the following three onditions 8A a,b η ab A, +2A a,b = 0, δ a A b d 2 δ a δ b d A f, f +9A ab,d + 2 A a, b d δ a A b f, d f = 0, (2.27a) (2.27b) 5 δ 2 a A d b, δ 2 a δ d b A f f, 0A ab,d 5A d a, b + 5δ 2 a A d f b f, = 0. (2.27) Obviously, (2.27a) implies that A a, a = 0, already satisfied by the traelessness of A {429} ab. Using this bak in (2.27a) implies that 9A a,b +A a,b = 0. (2.28) 5

7 On the other hand, by ontrating the bd-indies in (2.27b), we get 9A a, 7A ab, b = 0. (2.29) Obviously, (2.29) and (2.28) lead to A ab = 0, A ab b = 0, whih via (2.27b) and (2.27) implies also that A abd = 0. Therefore we get A a,b = 0 = A {429} ab = 0, (2.30a) A ab,d = 0 = X ab = 0. (2.30b) We are now left with the ondition (2.0k). As mentioned before, we an regard A {4,290} 5 a and X 5 as proportional to eah other: A {4,290} 5 a = onst. X 5 a. Then finding a non-trivial solution for (2.0k) is equivalent to deduing a non-trivial solution for the unknown parameters a and b other than a = b = 0 in the equality ia(γ d ) (αβ (γ d 5 ) γδ) X 5 e +ib(γ 5 ) (αβ (γ de ) γδ) X 5 d = 0, (2.3) for an arbitrary X 5 0. The simplest way to get more expliit onditions from (2.3) is to multiply it by (γ ab ) αβ, and ontrat the indies αβ: (γ ab ) αβ LHS of (2.3) αβγδ ] = +20i(3a+b)(γ a 4 ) γδ X 4 b e 8i(a+5b)δ e a (γ 5 ) γδ X 5 b +40i(a b)(γ e 4 ) γδ X 4 ab +40ib(γ 4 a ) γδ X 4 e b = 0. (2.32) We next multiply (2.32) by (γ b ) ǫ γ, to get the only solutions a = b = 0 as (60a+28b)(γ a 5 ) ǫδ X 5 e +(40a+8b)(γ e 5 ) ǫδ X 5 a +(320a+60b)(γ 4 ) ǫδ X 4 ae = 0 = a = b = 0. (2.33) This is beause the γ 4 -term yields 2a+b = 0, while the multipliation of the γ 6 -terms by iγ a yields 25a+b = 0. Therefore the only solutions to the ondition (2.0k) are A {4,290} 5 a = 0, X 5 = 0. (2.34) Colleting all the results above, i.e., (2.2), (2.5), (2.6), (2.2), (2.22), (2.24), (2.30), and (2.34), we reah the onlusion that among all the omponents of U s entering (2.5), exept for the singlet omponent A {} in (2.9), as well as all the X s in (2.4), should be zero, in order to satisfy the F-BI (2.) at d = 0 under the onditions (2.2). Therefore, the only possible form for F αβd is F αβd = +2(γ d ) αβ A {} +i(γ b ) αβ A {65} bd. (2.35) The remaining omponent A {65} ab here is due to the fat that this omponent does not enter any of the onditions in (2.0). In other words, we an still have a term proportional to A {65} ab in (2.35). 6

8 However, we point out some degrees of freedom of superfield redefinition of the potential superfield A ABC. This is assoiated with the definition of the superfield strength F ABCD. In fat, onsider the shift 5 A ab A ab +A {65} ab, (2.36) keeping other omponents among A ABC intat. This an absorb the A {65} -term in (2.35), while any of the onstraints at d < 0 in (2.2) are maintained. For example for F αβγδ, we have F αβγδ 6 (αa βγδ) 4 T (αβ ǫ A ǫ γδ) 4 T (αβ e A e γδ), (2.37) whih is intat under the shift (2.36). The same is also true for F αβγd, whih we skip here. Based on these results and onsiderations, we onlude that the only degree of freedom possibly embedding M-theory orretions for the superspae onstraints at d = 0 is the singlet omponent A {} in (2.35), whih implies that F αβd an be only of the form F αβd = 2 (γ d) αβ e Φ (2.38) proportional to the on-shell physial superfield onstraint ], saled by some real salar superfield Φ. We mention here the importane of the onventional onstraints(2.7). If these onstraints were not imposed, we would have suh orretions as T αβ = i(γ ) αβ +i(mγ ) (αβ), F αβd = 2 (γ d) αβ + 2 (Mγ d) (αβ), (2.39) for an arbitrary matrix M α β satisfying (2.3) at the linear order in M. However, these orretions an not embed M-theory orretions, beause they ontribute as redundant degrees of freedom. We an also show that the gravitational superfield equation will not be modified at the linear order in M, beause the (αβ,δ)-type BI is not modified by M. Therefore, suh a matrix M is not enough for embedding M-theory orretions. We skip the details here, leaving them for a future publiation. Ouranalysissofarisonernedonlywiththelinearordertermsin(2.3)intheflutuations in F αβd and T αβ for M-theory orretions. However, even if we inlude the bilinearorder terms in (2.3), our onlusion above remains intat. In other words, the linear-order satisfation of the F-BI at d = 0 only by the limited form (2.38) will not be affeted by the inlusion of next bilinear order terms. To put it differently, one the most general orretion of the F αβd has determined as in (2.3) at the linear order, in partiular with no orretions for T αβ, then it is straightforward to onfirm that (2.38) satisfies also the F-BI at d = 0 to all orders in the expansion in terms of Φ, beause the only orretion is just a saling of F αβd, while there is no derivative involved in the d = 0 BI (2.3). This no-go theorem established here is not so surprising from the viewpoint that (2.) is the only available Fierz identity of the type (γ m ) (αβ (γ n ) γδ) = 0 allowing arbitrary integers m and n. In other words, suh onditions as (2.3) has too many free indies to allow more degrees of freedom other than the singlet omponent A {} as in (2.0a). 5 Notie the ruial differene of the symbol A s from A s whih should not be onfused with the former. 7

9 3. Effet of Salar Superfield Φ We have seen that the only possible orretion of superspae onstraints at d = 0 is the saling of F αβd in (2.38) by a real salar superfield Φ. The next question is what sort of M-theory orretions an be embedded into this salar superfield Φ. The answer an be easily dedued from dimensional onsiderations. First, sine the salar superfield Φ is at d = 0, its spinorial derivative enters into the d = /2 onstraints T αβ γ, T αb and F αbd. Therefore we have again the spinorial superfield J α 6] related to Φ by 6 α Φ ξj α, (3.) with an appropriate onstant ξ like in refs. 9]6]. The most general forms for these onstraints are now T αb = α δ b J α +α 2 (γ b ) α β J β, F αbd = iηe Φ (γ bd ) α β J β, T αβ γ = β δ (α γ J β) +β 2 (γ a ) αβ (γ a ) γδ J δ +β 3 (γ 2 ) αβ (γ 2 ) γδ J δ, (3.2a) (3.2b) (3.2) with the unknown oeffiients α, α 2, η, β, β 2, β 3. The satisfation of d = /2 BIs yields the following relationships among the oeffiients β = 5 2 (α +α 2 )+ξ, β 2 = 4 (9α +5α 2 )+ 3 4 ξ, β 3 = (α +α 2 ) 8 ξ, η = +3 2 α 2 ξ. (3.3) Note the important fat that the exponential funtion e Φ is needed in F αβγd, while suh a fator is absent in T αb and T αβ γ in order to satisfy the F-BI at d = /2. For example, the (αβde)-type F-BI tells us that all the F abd -linear terms in T αb γ stay the same with no exponential funtion e Φ : T αb γ F = i 44 (γ b 4 F 4 +8γ 3 F b 3 ) α γ, (3.4) where the symbol F denotes the F abd -linear part of T γ αb. As is well-known, the γ (αbde)-type F-BI at d = 3/2 gives the expression for α F bde in terms of T ab and F αbd, where the latter ontains the linear J s as α F bde J = i 6 ηeφ (γ bd ) α β e J β, (3.5) Here the fator e Φ is involved via (3.2b). On the other hand, the (αbd)-type T-BI gives the relationship R αbd J = α η b d J α +α 2 (γ d ) α β b J β, (3.6) with no exponential fator e Φ with the J s. When (3.5) and (3.6) are used in the (aβγ,δ)-type BI, the former produes an exponential fator e Φ, while the latter does not. 6 We do not take the standpoint in 7] that there is no auxiliaryspinorial superfield in d = /2 onstraints at least temporarily, for the sake of argument here. 8

10 In order to avoid this mismath, we are fored to put η = 0, whih in turn via (3.3) implies that η = 0, α = 3 ξ, β = 5 2 α ξ, β 2 = 5 4 α 2, β 3 = α 2. (3.7) The gravitino superfield equation an be obtained from the (aβγ,δ)-type BI, by ontrating spinorial indies in several different ways, whih should be onsistent with eah other. One way is to multiply this BI by i(γ a ) α β δ δ γ to get the trae part of the gravitino superfield equation 85 8 (γab ) αβ T ab β + 23i 6 ξ(γa ) αβ a J β = 0, (3.8) while another way is to multiply the same BI by i(γ a ) δ γ to get 5 8 (γab ) αβ T ab β + i 6 ξ(γa ) αβ a J β = 0, (3.9) up to terms, suh as J 2 or the J s with fundamental physial superfields ignored as higher orders. Note that all the α 2 -dependent terms anel eah other in these equations. obviously, (3.8) and (3.9) lead to the onlusion that ξ = 0 as the only possible solution. Unfortunately, this is a trivial solution, beause this implies that J α = 0 in (3.), so that Φ = onst. Even though we did not mention, there are also other additional onditions on the independent parameters in (3.7), that will not hange the onlusion here. This is beause they provide more stronger onditions on the unknown parameters, but they never avoid the onlusion ξ = 0 above. Note also that our result here is in agreement with the argument about the absene of the off-shell J-superfield in 7]. From these onsiderations, we onlude that the salar superfield Φ embedded into F αβd as the exponent above is not enough to embed M-theory orretions, as long as the F-BIs are not modified by Chern-Simons terms. 4. Fermioni κ-symmetry and Chern-Simons Modifiation We next onsider the fermioni κ-symmetry of supermembrane ation2], whih justifies our assumption (i) about the vanishing F-onstraints at d < 0. The standard supermembrane ation is 2] I d 3 σ ] + 2 gg ij η ab Π a i Π b j 2 g 3 ǫijk Π A i Π B j Π C k A CBA. (4.) with the pull-baks Π i A ( i Z M )E M A, for the superspae oordinates Z M and the inverse vielbein E M A in the D superspae we are dealing with. The fermioni κ-symmetry is ditated by 2] δ κ E α = (I +Γ) α βκ β, δ κ E a = 0, Γ αβ i 6 ǫijk Π i a Π j b Π k (γ ab ) αβ, (4.2) where δ κ E A (δ κ Z M )E M A. The general variation formula under δ κ E a = 0 is δ κ I = gg ij (δ κ E α )Π i B T Bα d Π jd + 3 ǫijk (δ κ E α )Π i B Π j C Π k D F DCBα. (4.3) 9

11 The first term is from the variation of the kineti term, while the seond one is from the Wess-Zumino-Novikov-Witten (WZNW) term in (4.). We now study whether the non-zero F-onstraints F αβγδ 0, F αβγd 0 at d < 0 are ompatible with this fermioni symmetry (4.2). Using (4.3), we easily see that if there are suh non-trivial F-onstraints at d < 0, they will ontribute only to the variation of the WZNW-term in (4.3), that are not simply anelled by the variation of the kineti term: δ κ I = + 3 ǫijk (δ κ E α )Π i β Π j γ Π k δ F δγβα +ǫ ijk (δ κ E α )Π i β Π j γ Π k d F dγβα. (4.4) It is unlikely that new orretions due to other radial and non-onventional orretions suh as δ κ E a = 0 itself, or due to the addition of some other terms to the ation I itself an lead to the fermioni κ-invariane of the onventional supermembrane ation (4.), beause suh orretions our only at d < 0, whih do not seem to ommuniate with other d 0 onstraints Useful Algebrai Lemmas In what follows, we list up some useful algebrai lemmas and relationships that play deisive roles for our onlusions in this paper. We start with the Fierz identity 24 (γa ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) A a,b = +(γ a ) αβ (γ b ) γδ ( 3 8 A a,b 48 η ab A, ) +(γ ab ) αβ (γ d ) γδ 96 δ a A d, b 92 δ a δ d b A, ] ( +(γ 4 a ) αβ (γ b 4 ) A γδ 576 a,b η A ) 5,760 ab,, (5.) where A a,b are any arbitrary symmetri tensor superfield. In a similar fashion for an arbitrary tensor superfield B a,b with the property B a,b = B a,b, we have i 48 (γa ) (αβ (γ b ) γδ) B a,b ]( = + 96 i (γ a ) αβ (γ b ) γδ +(γ b ) αβ (γ a ) γδ 9Ba,b B b,a B,ab η B ) a b d, d ( + i 2,304 (γ 4 a ) αβ (γ b 4 ) γδ Ba,b B b,a B,ab η B ) 5 a b d, d ] +,52 i (γ 2 ) αβ (γ ab 2 ) γδ +(γ 2 ab ) αβ (γ 2 ) γδ B a,b. (5.2) Similarly, for any arbitrary tensor superfields with the properties A ab,d = +A d,ab = (/4)A ab, d, A ab,d = 0, A ab, ab = 0, we have 96 (γab ) (αβ (γ d ) γδ) A ab,d = + 24 (γa ) αβ (γ b ) γδ A a,b + 96 (γab ) αβ (γ d ) γδ 9Aab, d +A a, b d η a A b e, d e ] + 2,304 (γ 3 ab ) αβ (γ 3 d ) γδ 4Aab, d 4A a, b d +δ a A b e, d e ]. (5.3) 7 One an, of ourse, give up suh fermioni κ-symmetry of the supermembrane ation (4.) entirely, but we do not argue about the legitimay of fermioni symmetry itself in this paper. 0

12 For an arbitrary tensor superfield B a,b b 5 with the totally antisymmetri indies b b 5, we have 2,880 (γa ) (αβ (γ 5 ) γδ) B a, 5 = + 5,760 (γa ) αβ (γ b 4 ) γδ 9Ba,b 4 24 η a b B d, d B b,a 4 5,760 (γab ) αβ (γ b d d 4 ) γδ Ba,d d η a B e, e d d B,a d d (γb ) αβ (γ 2 ) γδ B a, a b 2 +(γ 5 ) αβ -terms ], (5.4) wherewehaveomittedthetermswiththestrutureof (γ 5 ) αβ, beausetheyareindependent from the terms expliitly given here, and moreover, they are too messy whose strutures are not deisive for our lemma below. Using (5.) - (5.4), we an get the following important lemmas: Lemma : If the l.h.s. of (5.) vanishes, then it follows that A a,b = 0. (5.5) Lemma 2: The vanishing of the l.h.s. of (5.2) implies that the following two onditions hold: ] ] 9B a,b B b,a B,ab η a b B d, d = 0, B a,b +B b,a +B,ab = 0. (5.6a) (5.6b) In partiular, when B a, a b = 0, it follows that B a,b = 0. (5.7) Lemma 3: The vanishing of the l.h.s. of (5.4) implies that B a,b b 5 = 0. (5.8) Some remarks are in order for these lemmas: First, Lemma is based on the fat that eah setor of different struture of γ-matries in (5.) for the two pair of indies αβ and γδ is to be independently zero. This leads to the ondition (3/8)A a,b (/48)η ab A, = 0, whose trae gives A, = 0, whih in turn yields A a,b = 0, when re-substituted into this original equation. Seond, Lemma 2 is also easy under (5.2), beause we an require eah of the two setors with the γ-matrix strutures (γ a ) αβ (γ b ) γδ and (γ 2 ) αβ (γ 2 ab ) γδ should vanish independently. Note here that a simple ontration of two indies in (5.6a) does not lead to B a, a b = 0, due to the vanishing trae omponent. We did not write the ondition of vanishing of the seond line on the r.h.s. of (5.2), beause it is just a neessary ondition of the onditions (5.6a) and (5.6b). We also mention that the well-known identity (2.) is nothing else than a speial ase of B a,b = η a b v satisfying both (5.6a) and (5.6b). Third, Lemma 3 is straightforward, beause eah setor in the r.h.s. of (5.4) is to vanish independently. The last setor with (γ 2 ) αβ (γ 2 ) γδ yields B a, a b b 4 = 0, (5.9) whih ombined with the vanishing of the first and seond lines of the r.h.s. of (5.4) implies immediately B a,b b 5 = 0. This is due to the differene in the oeffiient in the first terms in these two setors.

13 6. Conluding Remarks In this Letter, we have shown that the d = 0 F-BI an not be satisfied by any orretion of the type (γ ab ) αβ X ab or i(γ a a 5 ) αβ X a a 5 in dimension zero supertorsion onstraint T αβ, basedonthetwo assumptions: (i)m-theoryorretionstof-superfieldstrengthat d < 0 are absent; (ii) The T and F-BIs are not modified by Chern-Simons terms. Additionally, we relied upon the onventional onstraints that relate and delete unneessary freedom in the expansion of E α and E a. These onventional onstraints restrit the struture of orretions in T αβ, suh that the one-gamma term i(γ ) αβ in T αβ reeives no orretions, while the γ 2 or γ 5 terms an, satisfying the onditions in (2.7). We have seen that this result is valid for F-BI without Chern-Simons modifiations. Subsequently, we have also analyzed the BIs at d, and obtained some onditions on the onstraints of T αβ γ, T αb and F αbd, at least for thease that thef-bis arenot modified by Chern-Simons terms. In partiular, we have found that F αbd = 0 in order to satisfy the mathing exponential funtions e Φ in the (aβγ,δ)-type BI at d = 3/2. On the other hand, the onsisteny of gravitino superfield equation out of the same (aβγ,δ)-type BI leads to the ondition of vanishing of α Φ = 0, leading to the trivial solution Φ = onst. This validates our onlusion, beause this salar superfield Φ was the only possible modifiation at d = 0. In other words, the modifiation of the onstraint F αβd at d = 0 is not enough for embedding M-theory orretions. As has been mentioned, our result is not so surprising, but reasonable enough from the following viewpoints. Namely, the only Fierz identity of the form (γ m ) (αβ (γ n ) γδ) is nothing other than (2.). This is also understandable from the fat that the F-BI (2.3) at d = 0 has four spinorial indies and one vetorial index as free indies, and therefore the vanishing of (2.3) gives suh a strong ondition as all the omponents in U s and X s are zero, exept for the singlet A {} in U abd. Our main onlusion in this paper an be bypassed by avoiding at least one of the two assumptions (i) and (ii) above. The assumption (i) seems very diffiult to avoid, due to the fermioni symmetry of supermembrane ation that seems to prevent the introdution of any F-onstraints at d < 0. On the other hand, the assumption (ii) is also diffiult, beause there has been no other known example of suh supertorsion T-BIs modified by Chern-Simons terms. We mention also that our result here does not ontradit the works in 8], beause the F-BIs we dealt with in our paper has not been analyzed expliitly in 8]. In fat, a statement about the neessity of the F-onstraints at d < 0 was given in 8] without expliit proof. Our result in this paper provides a supporting proof with evidene for this statement, in terms of expliit omputation of the F-BI at d = 0. We believe that not only the onlusion presented in this paper, but also the tehnial ingredient of Fierz identities will be of great importane in the future, for exploring any possible M-theory orretions into D superspae supergravity. Aknowledgements We are grateful to M. Cederwall, S.J. Gates, Jr., U. Gran and B.E.W. Nilsson for onsiderable help and disussions for ruial points in this paper. 2

14 Referenes ] For reviews of M(atrix)-theory, see, e.g., A. Bilal, Fort. für Phys. 47 (999) 5; T. Banks, TASI Leture Note on Matrix Theory, hep-th/99068; W. Taylor IV, The M(atrix) Model of M-Theory, Letures for NATO shool Quantum Geometry (Ieland 999), hep-th/000206; and referenes therein. 2] M. Green, J.H. Shwarz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory, Vols. I and II, Cambridge University Press (987). 3] E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Sherk, Phys. Lett. 76B (978) ] See, e.g., S.J. Gates, Jr. and H. Nishino, Phys. Lett. 73B (986) 52; Nul. Phys. B29 (987) 205; S.J. Gates, Jr. and S.I. Vashakidze, Nul. Phys. B29 (987) 73. 5] K. Peeters, P. Vanhove and A. Westerberg, Supersymmetri R 4 Ations and Quantum orretions to Superspae Torsion Constraints, Talk at NATO Advaned Researh Workshop on Nonommutative Strutures in Math. & Phys., Kiev (Sept. 2000), hepth/00082; Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (200) 843, hep-th/ ] H. Nishino and S. J. Gates, Jr., Phys. Lett. 388B (996) 504, hep-th/ ] P. Howe, Phys. Lett. 45B (997) 49, hep-th/ ] M. Cederwall, U. Gran, M. Nielsen and B. Nilsson, Manifestly Supersymmetri M- Theory, JHEP 000 (2000) 04, hep-th/ ; Generalized -Dimensional Supergravity, hep-th/ ] S.J. Gates, Jr., and H. Nishino, Deliberations on D Superspae for the M-Theory Effetive Ation, Phys. Lett. B, in press, hep-th/ ] See, e.g., P.K. Townsend, Four Letures on M-Theory, in Proeedings of ICTP Summer Shool on High Energy Physis and Cosmology, Trieste (June 996), hep-th/9622; Phys. Lett. 42B (997) 265, hep-th/ ] E. Cremmer and S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett. 9B (980) 6; L. Brink and P. Howe, Phys. Lett. 9B (980) ] E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. 89B (987) 75; Ann. of Phys. 85 (988)