PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 3 1, NUMBER 8 15 APRIL 1985

Super lattices and gauge theory

Michio Kaku
Physics Department, City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031
(Received 15 July 1983)
There has been a fundamental flaw in all previous attempts to put supersymmetry on the lattice.
Because supersymmetry closes on the Poincare group, and since the Wilson lattice breaks Poincare
invariance, the standard lattice must necessarily break supersymmetry. We solve this difficulty by
putting supersymmetry on a random super lattice, where each random site is a point in super space
( x i , < i ) . We construct the action out of unitary S U ( N superfields connecting two such super lattice
sites and sum the traces over simplexes. The theory is manifestly supersymmetric because there is
no preferred direction in either real or Grassmann space. This supersymmetric lattice gauge theory
on a random lattice reduces to the usual supersymmetric gauge theory in the continuum limit. We
discuss applications, such as calculating nonperturbative corrections to the vacuum energy, which
may yield a large enough supersymmetry breaking to explain the hierarchy problem. We discuss us-
ing random lattices to describe a lattice version of gravity and supergravity.

I. INTRODUCTION trary translations and rotations because the lattice points

All previous attempts to put supersymmetry on the lat-
tice have been unsatisfactory because the Wilson lattice
breaks Poincare invariance, while supersymmetry neces-
sarily closes on the Poincare group. For example, calcula-
tions of the string tension on the lattice are dependent on
which direction the string is oriented (at least in lowest or-
ders). In a truly Poincare-invariant lattice formulation,
string tension should be manifestly independent of the
direction of the string. Because of this difficulty, super-
symmetry on a Wilson lattice can only be formulated in
+
1 1 dimensions or with only the space-time coordinates
on a lattice,' which cannot yield a satisfactory description
of gauge theories.
In supersymmetric theories, the anticommutator be-
tween two supersymmetric generators closes on the
translations:
rQa7Qs1
=(yo),$a . (1.1)
As a direct result, the Wilson lattice cannot be a suit-
able formalism in which to investigate supersymmetry.
On the other hand, lattice gauge theory yields the only
formalism in which one may begin a systematic calcula-
tion of nonperturbative effects. If dynamical supersym-
metry breaking is the origin of the large mass scales in-
volved in grand unified field t h e ~ r i e s then
, ~ one must use
nonperturbative methods, such as lattice gauge theory, to
calculate these effects. Thus, the problem of constructing
a super lattice gauge theory is a physically interesting
problem.
The most natural way in which to formulate the prob-
lem of super lattices is to use random lattice^,^ where the
lattice sites are distributed randomly, and the plaquettes
reduce to triangles. In the random lattice, no preferred
direction is singled out. For a finite number of lattice
points, the theory becomes Poincare invariant only when
one integrates over all possible positions of the random
sites. Thus, the random lattice is invariant under arbi-
simply map back onto t h e m ~ e l v e s . ~
Our problem, then, is to generalize the random lattice
to include Grassmann variables. Since a supersymmetric
operation in superspace is simply a translation on the
Grassmann variables, we must construct the super lattice
so that the translation simply maps the random supersym-
metric sites back onto themselves. In this way, by assign-
ing a unitary S U ( N superfield linking two random lattice
points, we can construct the supersymmetric gauge theory
on a super lattice. We call this a random super lattice
gauge theory, or slattice gauge theory for short.
Our ultimate aim is to use the arsenal of nonperturba-
tive techniques developed in lattice gauge theory. For ex-
ample, we wish to construct a strong-coupling expansion
of the theory so that we may calculate the vacuum energy
of the theory, which may be nonzero and hence yield
dynamical supersymmetry breaking. If the scale of this
breaking is exp( - g - 2 ) , then we have a plausible mecha-
nism for explaining the gauge-hierarchy problem of large
numbers.
A second use for this supersymmetric construction is to
solve the problem of the renormalization of gravity by
calculating nonperturbative effects in supergravity5 and
supereonformal gravity.6 Since conformal gravity
theories are formally renormalizable, a strong-coupling
expansion of these theories makes sense and we may be
able to analyze the phase structure of these theories. Our
conjecture, which we have made in a series of is
that the nonphysical unitary ghosts found in conformal
gravity theories are an artifact of weak-coupling perturba-
tion theory (much like free colored states in gauge theory
are an artifact of weak-coupling theory). Free colored
states are not solutions of the Dirac constraints and are
eliminated from the true Hilbert space by infrared correc-
tions. In the same way, we argue that a truly nonpertur-
bative calculation of the states of conformal and super-
conformal gravity will show that these unitary ghosts
vanish because they are not solutions of the Dirac con-

31
- 1992 @ 1985 The American Physical Society
-
31 SUPER LATTICES AND GAUGE THEORY
straints and because of infrared divergences. In effect,
nonperturbative effects produce ghost confinement, where
the true Hilbert space may be unitary. The way in which
we hope to calculate these nonperturbative effects is to
put general covariance on a random lattice. The invari-
ance under reparametrization of a manifold is replaced by
the equivalent summation over all random lattice sites. In
this way, we put gravity and supergravity on a random
lattice which preserves reparametrization invarianceS8
11. THE SUPER LATTICE
Before we can begin a discussion of a supersymmetric
lattice, let us carefully define what we mean by a lattice
defined over a Grassmann variable. Let us assume the
simplest case of only one Grassmann variable f and try to
construct a supersymmetric theory out of a general super-
field ~ ( fconstructed
) out of this Grassmann state. In
this limited case, supersymmetry reduces to invariance
under translations of the Grassmann variable. In other
words, we wish to construct a mapping from a function
.ir(f)=a + b f to a real number such that the mapping is
invariant under g - + f + ~ , where E is a constant
Grassmann number. If ( ) represents this mapping, then
This definition of supersymmetry, of course, is closely
linked to the definition of the integral over a Grassmann
variable. Berezin's integration rules are used so frequently
that one often forgets how these rules were derived in the
first place. Berezin originally derived the definition of the
Grassmann integral by demanding that it be invariant
under a translation. In other words, he demanded that the
integral over a Grassmann variable obey
Thus, we see that A = 0 and we can normalize B = 1.
In much the same way, we can now define a
Grassmann lattice that is also invariant under transla-
tions.
W e will define a supersymmetric invariant integral as
any operation which is invariant under Grassmann transla-
tions and maps a superfield into a real number. We see
that the random lattice automatically satisfies the first
criterion of translation invariance (notice that the random
supersymmetric lattice does not single out any particular
direction in superspace), so the only difficult problem is to
construct a measure which can map or project out super
lattice sums into real numbers. In this paper, we will
adopt a particular measure and parametrization of super-
space which satisfies these criteria. The result is probably
not unique, as other measures and parametrizations of su-
perspace may exist which also satisfy these criteria, but
our choice leads simply to the known supersymmetric
gauge theory in the continuum limit. It will probably
turn out that the best choice for the measure and the
parametrization of superspace is the one which permits a
1993
strong-coupling expansion. In order to find this crucial
measure, let us review a few elementary facts about in-
tegration and lattices.
In ordinary calculus, we construct a translation-invar-
iant integral by summing a function over a set of regular-
ly spaced lattice sites
Let us use this translationallv invariant construction in
order to define a summation over regularly spaced
ci
Grassmann variables = k f + i c ( i = integer, E and f are
constant Grassmann numbers, and k is an arbitrary real
number which can be set to zero at this point). Notice
that, first of all, the following summation is invariant
under translations by a constant Grassmann number,
where we now take an infinite sequence of Grassmann
variables:
(The variable y i , which for now is equal to an integral,
will play an important role in defining the Grassmann lat-
tice.)
For now, yi is chosen to label regularly spaced sites
only for pedagogical reasons. Of course, later on we must
make yi label random sites. We will treat yi as regularly
spaced for the next few examples, keeping in mind that yi
will eventually be a covariant label for random sites on the
slattice.
This sum, although formally invariant under transla-
tions, is not well defined, so let us introduce the following
measure for convergence:
N
(Notice that this summation is not exactly translation in-
variant because of the values at the end points, but notice
that this noninvariant piece goes to zero as N goes to in-
finity.)
Notice that this result is not unique. We could equally
well have extracted out b if we had set k = N . In general,
we will usually have this option of extracting out the su-
persymmetric invariant by either summing over the E
term or by carefully choosing the coefficient k so that the
f term survives as N -+ co .
We are now in a position to introduce a translation-
invariant mapping which maps Grassmann states onto
real numbers and which is defined on a regularly spaced
lattice:
1994 MICHIO KAKU 31
-

N This lattice construction over Grassmann variables can

( T ( ~ ) ) = ( T ( ~ + E ) )lim
= 2(2/IV2)~,r(6;) be easily extended to higher dimensions. For two
N+m i,l
Grassmann variables c',c2, we can construct the most
=b . (2.6) general superfield
~ ( < ' , 6 ~ ) =+ ab a P + c c 1 ~ 2.
Because we want a map that takes a superfield into a real
number, we must use the projection operator P,, which Now let us define the Grassmann lattice by making regu-
larly spaced displacements in both variables- Each point i
simply extracts the real number coefficient of the term
in the two-dimensional lattice can be labeled by two in-
(if k =N, then we will use Po, i.e., it maps Grassmann
tegers n and m:
numbers into 1.
Notice that E does not represent the lattice spacing.
The lattice spacing between two random Grassmann
c f = ~ :=, c~1 + n ~ ' + m e 2,
states is represented by ~ ( y-yj ; 1. (2.7)
Notice that we have now introduced an alternative defi- ,$=<:,, = C ' + n ~ ~ - r n1~
nition of a supersymmetric mapping which reproduces the
integration rules of Berezin: ( 1 ) =O and ( 6 ) = 1. (E'S are constant Grassmann numbers). We will find it
Up to now, we have constructed a mapping from a convenient to parametrize the lattice as follows:
~ r a s s m a n nstate to a constant which is translationally in-
variant under a fixed Grassmann displacement. In order
to construct a mapping which is invariant under a vari-
able Grassmann displacement, we must integrate over the
set of all randomly distributed lattice sites, rather than
only sum over evenly spaced lattice sites. Thus, the vari-
able yi becomes a convenient parameter in which to con- In this way, we can now construct the following lattice
struct the randomization over Grassmann variables. In mapping, which takes an arbitrary superfield and maps it
this way, we can construct a mapping which is invariant into a real number such that translation invariance is
under arbitrary Grassmann displacements. maintained in two Grassmann directions:

A', M
= lim ~ ~ , , v +[ b( aak c a + c k 2 6 ' c 2 ) + ( b 1 - c k c 2 ) ( n c ' + m e 2 )
N,M--tm n = - ~

where

'-1
N ,M we must now integrate over the set of all random configu-
M.v3~= lim
N,M-+eo
2
=-N
(n2+m2) PElE2 . (2.10) rations of the lattice sites in order to achieve a mapping
m=-M which is invariant under arbitrary Grassmann displace-
ments, not just fixed Grassmann displacements.
Again, we could equally well have achieved this result if Our next task is to generalize the previous discussion to
we had let k 2 equal the sum over the squares of n and m, the four-dimensional case. We begin with a complex
and if we had used the projection operator P Grassmann spinor p,(ga)+ = '. We can, of course, con-
f If2'
We now have constructed an alternative formulation struct a real vector superfield with 16 components out of
which is equivalent to Berezin's integration rules. Finally, these Grassmann variables .rr(C,f ) = a +
. . . +dc2f 2. In
-
31 SUPER LATTICES AND GAUGE THEORY
order to write down a Grassmann lattice in four dimen-
sions, let us parametrize our lattice in the following way:
-
,a,aa -6 6
CYBUBo,,a
E ~ ~ = E1,~ ~ = - 1, E ~ ~ = ,
E ~
where E is a constant spinor and is a Pauli spin matrix
( a = 1, . . . , 4 ) . Notice that the vector yi takes the place
of the integers we introduced in our earlier discussion. In
y space, the vector yi connects the origin with a lattice
point i, where these lattice points are, for the moment, all
integrally spaced in a rectangular array as in the Wilson
lattice. This allows us quite generally to parametrize the
Grassmann lattice by a simple vector field, not by abstract
Grassmann variables. In much the same way, we can now
introduce a summation over lattice sites which preserves
translation invariance and maps vector fields into real
numbers:
( a ( & , E ) ) = lim CM,a(fi)=d,
lul+miEu
where i labels all points in a rectangular volume v and we
let this volume smoothly approach infinity. As before,
PE2z2extracts out the coefficient of c2z2,which is equal to
the square of the sum over yi2. Alternatively, we could
have set k equal to the square of the sum over yZ2,in
which case we would have gotten the same result if had
used the projection operator PgzE2.Notice this definition
of the mapping yields exactly the same integration formu-
las of Berezin:
It is instructive at this point to elaborate how the vector
yi parametrizes the Grassmann variables. As we men-
tioned earlier, the distribution of points yi determines the
distribution of Grassmann variables on the super lattice.
When yi sweeps out real vector space, the corresponding
ci sweeps out Grassmann space, so it is important to clari-
fy how the topology of the real vector space differs from
the complex Grassmann space. Let us assume that k = 0 ,
so we can easily calculate how ci
differs from cj
when yi
is close to yj. Notice that ei2
= 2 ( y p ) 2 ~ 2Since
. the square
of a Grassmann variable is proportional to the square of
its real vector counterpart, then ci2=cj2 if the square of
their real vectors are equal to each other (i.e., if yi and y i
lie on the same four-dimensional hypersphere). h hi$
means that when yi and yj differ by a pure rotation,
which preserves the lengths of their vectors, then their
corresponding Grassmann variables also differ by a pure
rotation (in a spinor representation). Notice also that if yi
and y j differ by a pure scale transformation, then their
corresponding Grassmann variables also differ by a pure
scale transformation. Therefore, the topology of the real
1995
vector space and the corresponding Grassmann space are
remarkably similar, with rotations and scale transforma-
tions in one space reflected as rotations and scale transfor-
mations in the other. (In the case of k#O, we must take
differences between Grassmann states in order to clarify
this topology. Rotations are to be studied when we com-
(2.11) pare yj,i with ~ k , ~If . yj,i and yk,i lie on the same hyper-
~ = ~
sphere, then their corresponding Grassmann variables will
differ by a pure rotation in spinor space.)
If yi rotates into -y, , then the vector has rotated 180
degrees. We suspect that its corresponding Grassmann
variables will have rotated a full 360 degrees in order to
pick up an overall minus sign. T o prove this, we must
now calculate precisely how ci differs from c,. If k = 0 ,
then we can calculate c in terms of 6 and therefore calcu-
late Ci in terms of cj:
We see immediately that cidiffers from Cj by a scale
transformation and a Lorentz rotation. By allowing yi to
sweep out all of real space, therefore, the Grassmann vari-
ables sweep out all possible fermionic variables that can be
reached by a scale and Lorentz transformation. As we
noticed earlier, the square of ti is equal to 2 y i 2 ~ 2SO ,
therefore any pure Lorentz transformation on the y's
translates into a pure Lorentz transformation on the e's.
Also, any pure scale transformation on the y's converts
into a pure scale transformation on the Grassmann vari-
ables. (In Euclidean space, this means for all yi and y,
which lie on the same hyperspace, fi and cj
are related by
a pure four-dimensional rotation.)
Let us now examine the case of a pure rotation. Let yja
be a vector pointing along the x l axis in Euclidean space
and now rotate this vector into yib, which has the same
length as y; but lies in the x l - x 2 plane and is rotated
from y;. Under this rotation, we want to calculate how
the corresponding Grassmann variables transform:
= (cosw/2 +2a2'sinw /2 . (2.15)
Comparing this expression to the previous one for scale
and Lorentz transformations, we see immediately that we
can write down a correspondence between rotations in y
space and rotations in Grassmann space, which are
parametrized by the angle w :
If the length of the vector yi is equal to that of yj, then
we see that the angle between these two vectors is equal to
one-half the angle w.
We see, therefore, that as the vector y (in Euclidean
space) rotates around by 180 degrees along the surface of
a sphere, the Grassmann variables rotate 360 degrees.
This means, of course, that the Grassmann variables pick
up a factor of ( - 1 ) when y rotates 180 degrees or when
1996 MICHIO KAKU 31
-

the Grassmann variable rotates 360 degrees, as expected.

When the vector y sweeps out a 360-degree rotation, then
the fermionic variables sweep out 720 degrees.
We are now in a position to generalize our previous re-
sults and define lattice integration over both Grassmann We can also define finite displacement operators D act-
and coordinate space. We start with an eight-dimensional ing on this eight-dimensional space:
space, labeled by two four-vectors xi and yi. To each
point zi in this eight-dimensional space, we can assign ei-
ther the pair (xi,yi or the Grassmann set (xi,Ci,Zi1. In
this way, we can now define a lattice integral which is
translationally invariant under both real-number and con-
stant Grassmann displacements:
In the continuum limit, we have

( n - ( x , i , S ) > = lim ZM,dzi),

'Ul j m i ~ u

where i labels the lattice points in a rectangular region v Notice that two supersymmetric displacements do not
in this eight-dimensional space with volume v 1 , while anticommute, but instead yield a net torsion. On the oth-
c, is the appropriate volume element so that we recover er hand, Q and D anticommute with each other (we let E
the integration over four-dimensional real space. PEZZ2 ex- parametrize the Q displacement and 7 parametrize the D
displacement):
tracts out the coefficient of c2g2. We could equally well
have set k equal to the square of the sum over yi2, in
which case we could also have chosen the projection
operator to extract out the coefficient of c2Z2.
Armed with the above construction in eight-dimen-
sional space, we are now in a position to begin a discus-
sion of physical models, such as the Wess-Zumino model. Now notice that successive applications of Q (or D)
We will find that there are two nontrivial complications adds Grassmann bilinears to the variable x, which is no
to our super lattice when we introduce these new models: longer strictly real. In fact, because this is a torsion term,
torsion and constraints. these bilinears do not vanish when one makes a complete
U p to now, we have not introduced torsion into the circuit in Grassmann space. Instead, we find that these
theory, which arises because the anticommutator between bilinears are proportional to the area enclosed by any such
supersymmetric translations yields a Poincare translation. closed path in Grassmann space. For example, let us take
All our summations have been invariant under separate two points zi and zj and connect them via n small succes-
translations in x and c.
When we introduce supersym- sive displacements generated by Q. We can label these
metric operators, however, we find that the variable x is discrete displacements starting from zi and ending up
no longer simply a real number, but contains bilinears in with zi+, . The new variables are represented as
the Grassmann variables. Most of these Grassmann bilin-
ears are proportional to the squares of infinitesimal dis-
placements, and hence can be dropped. Furthermore,
these bilinears will all drop out when we go to the contin-
uum limit, where they can be eliminated as total deriva-
tives. However, in the lattice we will find that we must
take into account these bilinears.
In this eight-dimensional space, let us now define a lat-
tice action which will eventually reduce to the Wess-
Zumino model in the continuum limit. We first begin Notice that, if we now take the limit of infinitesimal
with defining finite supersymmetric displacements Q in displacements in Grassmann space, our new variables can
this eight-dimensional space, which will reduce to the usu- be represented by the following integral, if we let zi and
al supersymmetric operators only in the continuum limit zf represent the initial and final points:
(any two random slattice sites can be connected by the
proper combination of supersymmetric translation opera-
tors P and Q. But the converse is not true. Arbitrary ap-
plications of the displacement operators P and Q to a slat- + ~ . c . , i ~ + n , i , E f + nJ ,.i (2.23)
tice site d o not, in general, generate another slattice site.
This will be important when we define chiral fields): Notice that, if we make a complete closed path in
-
31 SUPER LATTICES AND GAUGE THEORY
Grassmann space, then the bilinear term is proportional to
the area of that closed path.
In the old Wilson lattice, we construct string elements
out of the displacement vector xi -xj, which we notice is
invariant under translations. In the same way, for the
super lattice, we also want to construct tensors which are
invariant under supersymmetric translations. We notice
that the following tensors are invariant under both
Lorentz and supersymmetric translations:
Notice that we can now construct fully Lorentz invari-
ant and supersymmetric invariants by simply contracting
any of these tensors on each other to form scalars.
We are now in a position to define an action on this
eight-dimensional space. If we take an arbitrary super-
field .rr(x,<,g ), we notice that we have a large number of
unwanted fields. As in the continuum theory, we want to
base our action on the smallest irreducible representation
of the group, i.e., we need a constraint on the superfield
T ( Z ) which preserves supersymmetry. (We will find the
problem of constraints to be a crucial aspect of the con-
struction of supersymmetric gauge theories on the lattice.)
Because Q and D displacements anticommute with each
other, the simplest constraint is to impose
It is simple to check that this constraint on the super-
field does not change its invariance properties. If z
represents a point on our super lattice, then let
z,=z,+z, represent another point separated by a dis-
placement Q,+Q,. We now check that the above con-
straint is maintained if we displace our superfield by a su-
persymmetric translation generated by Q,
The first step is possible because D and Q anticom-
mute. The second step is possible because it is nothing
but a reexpression of (2.25) with z replaced by z,. Thus,
we see that the constraint on the superfield is maintained
even when we make a translation via Q on our coordi-
nates. [In the continuum limit, the constraint (2.25)
reduces to Bn-=0.1
Our constraint can be satisfied if we reexpress our
superfield in terms of new variables. Let z + = ( x
+irE',ga). Then d z + ) automatically satisfies the
above constraint. In other words, to every point ( z i ) on
the eight-dimensional lattice, we can assign a function
T(Z+ 1.
Now let us define our propagator by the lattice summa-
tion:
lim 2 M"?i(z-i).ir(z+i) .
lo l k m i ~ ~ At this point, because we are summing the Lagrangian
The lattice summation here is slightly different from
the summations introduced earlier. The lattice sites are
1997
generated by repeated displacements by the operators Q
and P. However, because there is a torsion defined when
making repeated operations by Q, a naive summation
based on repeated displacements by Q will not yield a
unique description of each lattice site. The ambiguity is
reflected in the choice of the vectorial index x , , which will
in general contain bilinear products of Grassmann states
in addition to the usual real numbers. Therefore, we must
modify the summation in the previous expression to in-
clude all possible summations over bilinear Grassmann
states in the variable x,. In the continuum limit, however,
this additional summation will have no effect on the final
result. This is because the modification of the variable xi
to include a bilinear Grassmann component disappears
like a total derivative.
Next, we can add interactions into our lattice version of
the Wess-Zumino model. If we simply take powers of the
chiral superfield and sum them over the lattice, we find
that the action vanishes in the continuum. In order to
find nonzero actions, we must therefore make modifica-
tions in our Lagrangian. As with the case in the continu-
um theory, there are actually several ways in which in-
teractions can be defined in superspace, depending on
which formalism we use: whether we integrate over two-
or four-dimensional Grassmann space and whether or not
we use the usual Q's or a chirally shifted version of the
Q's. Each of these various formalisms has a direct lattice
analog. For example, instead of the usual choice of the
Q's defined on the lattice, we could equally well have con-
structed the lattice points out of displacements generated
by the translation operators:
Out of the several choices one can make for a lattice
version of interactions for the Wess-Zumino model, we
will use the usual Hermitian choice. In the continuous
case, we can write down an interaction term by integrat-
ing the reduced chiral term .rr(x,()* over two Grassmann
variables, or by integrating T ( Z + , ~over
) ~ the same two
Grassmann variables and letting the integration over x
eliminate the bilinear term in z + (because this bilinear
term appears in a total derivative). In the same way, we
will adopt this latter choice in order to construct a super
lattice analog:
The projection operator P F 2 extracts out the coefficient
of c 2 . If k equals the sum over yi2, then the projection
operator P-, can be used to select out the coefficient of
E
<2, with the same result.
over a random series of supersymmetric points, it is easy
to see that the product of superfluids or chiral superfields
transforms on the super lattice in the same way as the
1998 MICHIB
superfields themselves. This is because the transforma-
tion of superfields or products of superfields is given by
the difference of these quantities at two nearby lattice
sites. Usually, in field theory we use the Leibnitz rule to
construct group generators whose action on products of
fields is derived from their action on individual fields. In
the super-lattice case, however, we see that these group
generators act identically on products of superfields as
well as on the superfields themselves. (As shown in the
first reference, the alternative to this is to define the group
generators acting on individual fields only, and then to de-
fine nonlocal products of superfields which transform ac-
cording to the Leibnitz rule. This leads to the unpleasant
necessity of defining nonlocal exponentials of superfields,
such as those found-in super-lattice gauge theory.)
This feature is perfectly acceptable and is a natural out-
growth of defining discrete space-time symmetries on lat-
tices, whether they be discrete Poincare transformations
defined on the Wilson lattice or continuous Poincare
transformations defined on the random lattice. Even in
the Wilson lattice, a lattice field a ( x i ) transforms under
discrete translations in the same way as r r ( x i 1".
This is the way in which the random lattice field theory
evades the Leibnitz problem that plagues other formula-
tions of super lattices, which are defined on regular (rath-
er than random) lattices. In these hypercubical formula-
tions, we evaluate the transformation of the fields them-
selves under supersymmetry SUSY transformations, and
thus have a Leibnitz problem. In the random-lattice ap-
proach, however, zi is treated as a dynamical variable.
We must sum over all possible orientations of slattice
sites. Therefore, the slattice gauge theory is SUSY invari-
ant because the action consists of an infinite sum over all
wossible orientations of slattice sites. A SUSY transfor-
mation simply rotates this infinite collection of terms into
itself: The action is invariant under SUSY only when we
sum over all possible orientations. This is totally different
from the usual hypercubical lattice formalism, where we
want the lattice action defined over one specific orienta-
tion to mav into itself under SUSY transformations. The
important feature is the invariance of the action, not
necessarily the fields, under SUSY. Of course, we can
still extract out the variation of the fields from the varia-
tion of the action, but this transformation does not have
to satisfy the Leibnitz rule.
Given the fact that the action (which consists of an in-
finite sum of terms each defined over a particular random
orientation of sites) maps into itself under a SUSY
transformation, we easily find that the measure of each
orientation must be unity. In our final result (3.31), we
functionally integrate over all possible zi as well as all
possible unitary string bits Ui,with a measure equal to
unity for each orientation.
We see that our action by construction is guaranteed to
preserve invariance under SUSY rotations.
We close this section by making a few clarifying state-
ments concerning our action. First, notice that the defini-
tion of a chiral field (2.25) in general may involve com-
paring the value of a scalar superfield at a fictitious point
not defined on the random lattice. This is because every
random site can be generated by repeated applications of
Q and P transformations, but the converse is not true.
This problem is remedied by noticing that we can extend
the parameter Tj until zgi approaches within the average
lattice spacing of a real'lattice site. Because supersym-
metry cannot be defined on the lattice in our approxima-
tion to less than the average lattice spacing, the point zlii
will come close enough to a real lattice site to preserve our
definition of supersymmetry, which is recovered only as
an average over all lattice configurations. Therefore,
without loss of generality or loss of invariance, we can
maintain the definition of (2.25) by comparing two real
lattice sites, not fictitious ones.
Next, notice that the measure in (2.29) and the measure
in (2.17) differ from each other. This is because the defi-
nition of a chiral integration and a normal integration,
even in the continuum limit, are quite different. In par-
ticular, notice that the measure in (2.29) does, in fact, like
the measure in (2.17) select out the largest divergent factor
in the integrand. This is because factors which are pro-
portional to cubic terms in the Grassmann variable be-
come total divergences in the continuum limit and can be
disregarded. Thus, notice that the measure in (2.17)
selects out quartic terms in the Grassmann variable and
(2.29) selects out quadratic terms in the Grassmann vari-
ables. but both of them select out the term in the in-
tegrand which has the largest number of Grassmann vari-
ables.
Lastly, one final comment must be made concerning
the measure of integration that we have used throughout
our discussion.
At first. the measure that we have chosen, which is a
function of yi2, appears to break supersymmetry because
the x and y parts have "factorized." In particular, be-
cause it is not a function symmetric in x and y , at first it
seems that the measure does not rotate properly under su-
persymmetry transformations.
Our measure, of course, is supersymmetric. Under a
supersymmetry transformation, notice that the
Grassmann variables do not rotate into x variables. Su-
persymmetry is not a symmetry which rotates the
Grassmann and x variables into each other; in fact, the
Grassmann variables simply undergo a displacement. In
y space, this means that y is simply displaced by a con-
stant amount. This is the reason why the measure does
not have to be symmetric in x and y.
Second, under a constant displacement in y, the mea-
sure does transform, but notice that the change in the
measure is infinitesimally small. The measure diverges
like yi2, while the change in the measure diverges as y i .
This means that, in the limit of infinite y space, the
change in the measure goes rapidly to zero. The measure,
therefore, is indeed supersymmetric (i.e., invariant under a
constant displacementin the Grassmann variables).
We have chosen our measure so that, in the limit of in-
finite lattice size, we recover the usual Berezin rules. Be-
cause of this, the measure is not manifestly supersym-
metric under variations in the x variables, although it is
fully supersymmetric in the limit of infinite lattice size.
Of course, it must be possible to rewrite the measure in a
form which is manifestly supersymmetric even before we
take the infinite limit. This manifestly supersymmetric
-
31 SUPER LATTICES AND GAUGE THEORY
measure can be written down as a function of supersym-
metric quantities, which are given in (2.24). Any function
constructed out of scalar products of these functions are
guaranteed to be manifestly supersymmetric. In particu-
lar, the most important function that we can construct
from the invariant tensors in (2.24) is the supervolume of
a super polygon.
The idea of a supervolume comes from the usual
Lorentz (or Euclidean) random lattice. When construct-
ing the random lattice, we must assign a unique simplexi-
fication of the lattice into closed nonoverlapping sim-
plexes for each particular randomization of points. In
Sec. 111, we will divide up the random lattice into clusters
+
of points, consisting of D 1 lattice sites connected by all
possible links in a D-dimensional lattice. In Lorentz
space, each cluster has a volume which can be written as a
function of the various Lorentz-invariant products of the
intervals xi-xi Likewise, in random superspace, it is
also possible to write down an expression entirely in terms
of the tensors given in (2.24) which describe the super-
volume of a supercluster. The measure of integration is
then manifestly supersymmetric even before taking the
limit of infinite lattice size.
Unfortunately, the formalism involved in constructing
supervolumes from supersymmetric tensors is beyond the
scope of this article. We will present the results of the
measure defined as a supervolume, which are quite
mathematical, in a later paper.
As far as this paper is concerned, the measure that we
constructed is perfectly adequate to describe supersym-
metric integration in the limit of infinite lattice size.
111. SLATTICE GAUGE THEORY
We can now begin our discussion of the gauge theory
defined on this super lattice. Let each slattice site be la-
beled by eight (or more) real numbers ( xi,yi ), where x and
y are vector fields, or equivalently, by the point
zi =(xi,Ci,Ei). We want to connect the lattice points by
links so that D-dimensional space is divided up into non-
overlapping polyhedra which completely fill up the space.
Unfortunately, there are many ways in which we may
connect these points in order to create a random lattice.
T o achieve a unique prescription, we first group sets of
points into c l ~ s t e r s . ~ +
A cluster is a set of D 1 lattice
sites such that the hypersphere that goes through all these
sites contains no other sites in the interior. If D =3. for
example, the entire space can be simplexified by dividing
it up into nonoverlapping tetrahedrons. The set of links is
defined to be the set of all lines that one can draw between
the points in a cluster.
Now let us define a unitary element of S U ( N defined
between zi and zj:
[The integral used here is defined to be a path-ordered in-
tegral, and we suppress all SU(N) indices.]
Let us parametrize our coordinates by linking arbitrary
lattice sites zi and zj by a displacement labeled by the pa-
1999
rameter where we can always reparametrize the dis-
placement by a and P translations:
We can parametrize this unitary superfield by introduc-
ing superfields which have vectorial and spinorial indices
defined over displacements on the lattice space:
Let zi,zJ,zk be three points which represent a three-
simplex in a cluster. (We will define how to calculate dis-
tances between lattice sites, and therefore how to con-
struct clusters, later.)
As a first guess, we can formally construct the action as
follows (we will modify this action later on when we in-
troduce constraints on our string elements):
I= kijkTr( Uij Ujk Uki) . (3.4)
Ar,k
We will find that the evaluation of the measure kijk
plays a key role in defining the theory on the super lattice.
Notice that the definition of the action allows a gauge
invariance on the string element U:
We notice that the above unitary transformation can be
reexpressed, in the continuum limit, as a transformation
on the gauge fields given by
It is clear from our discussion that the difference be-
tween the points zi and zj can be rewritten as displace-
ments generated by D and P (rather than by Q and P ),
with coefficients given by the 6's. The next question we
must ask is whether or not this construction is invariant
under supersymmetric displacements on the lattice. In the
old Wilson lattice, we notice that the coefficients of dis-
placement are trivially invariant under Poincare transla-
tions, because they are nothing but differences between
the two lattice sites. In our case, however, we must check
that our string element is defined in a supersymmetric
way.
First of all, the ea's are supersymmetric because they
are nothing but differences between two Grassmann sites,
which are supersymmetric. But it is not at all clear that
the vector 6' is supersymmetric. To check supersym-
metry, let us rewrite as a function of the lattice sites:
We saw earlier that the above tensor is, indeed, a super-
symmetric invariant when we were discussing (2.24). In
this way, we have shown that the form of our string ele-
2000 MICHIO KAKU
ment is not changed when we make supersymmetric Q
displacements on the lattice, in the same way that the usu-
al Wilson string element is invariant under Poincare
translations. We can define distances between sites in the
Wilson lattice because xj,: is invariant under translations
in each orthogonal direction. In the same way, we can use
the invariance of (3.7) to define*the invariant distance be-
tween two super lattice sites, which is essential in decom-
posing our super lattice into sets of clusters of sites.
Whether or not two sites are to be connected by unitary
SU(N) supermatrices depends crucially on whether or not
they are part of the same cluster.
Given any point in superspace, it is possible to associate
a real number with it. We simply decompose this point
into its various Grassmann components, and then take the
sum of the absolute value (or square) of each of the real
coefficients of each Grassmann c ~ m p o n e n t .For
~ the rec-
tangular lattice considered in Sec. 11, the invariant dis-
tance between zi and zj would simply be the sum of (yi,q)2
and (xi,q12. In our case, because we have torsion, we must
also include the real coefficients of the bilinears contained
in xi,:, which is no longer strictly a real number. Our
original eight-dimensional space, composed of (xi,yi), is
actually higher dimensional if we include the space
spanned by the real coefficients of the bilinear Grassmann
terms contained in xi. The actual dimensionality of our
space, therefore, depends crucially on how we define our
parametrization of the Grassmann space. From now on,
we will treat our superspace as if it were eight dimension-
al for convenience, but we must realize that the complete
theory must include the other terms arising from the real
coefficients of those terms generated by the torsion. The
modification introduced by these extra terms, it turns out,
is trivial.
Let us now begin a discussion of how our lattice action
can be reduced down to the usual supersymmetric gauge
theory in the continuum limit. The key to this construc-
tion, as we shall see, is the weight function kijk. We will
calculate this weight function by taking the continuum
limit and requiring that we reproduce the usual supersym-
metric gauge theory.
To begin a discussion of the continuum limit, let us
first Taylor expand the vector and spinor superfields in
order to construct the various curvatures of the theory.
We will power expand each of the three string elements
around the average point Z= (z; +zj +zk )/3. For exam-
ple, if we let cij =cj
-&, then the power expansion of A
yields
A simple power expansion of the trace yields
-
Uij Ujk Uki exp ( i [ A ; ~ R/2~ ~
( a , b ) = ( O , l , l ) for (&a,a;ct) .
-
31
A t this point, notice that the above expression for the
action does not appear to be gauge invariant because of
the piece involving the summation over the three lattice
displacements. In reality, this expression is gauge invari-
ant because we must remember that there is a torsion de-
fined with respect to the anticommutator of two super-
symmetric translations. We can rewrite the action in a
more familiar form if we realize that the summation over
the displacements is not zero, but in fact is
We can now redefine our curvatures to agree with the
ones found in continuum supersymmetric field theories:
FAB =RAE except for FaB. =R US. - 2iAab .
We are now in a position to determine the value of the
measure kijk, using the criteria that we wish to obtain the
usual supersymmetric gauge theory in the continuum lim-
it. We need to show that the summations over the lattice
sites can eventually be given in terms of 6 functions in or-
der to recover the usual gauge action. For this purpose, it
is essential that we use the parametrization of Grassmann
space given earlier in terms of the vector field y. There is
a theorem3 that we will need to reduce out this expression.
First, however, we need some preliminary definitions.
The cell corresponding to lattice site i is the space of all
points that are closer to the site i than to any other site
(see Fig. 1). Notice that the boundaries of this cell, which
is a convex polyhedra, bisect the links which connect i
with the other sites in the cluster. We see, therefore, that
we can either decompose D-dimensional space into the set
of all nonoverlapping clusters or cells. The ( D - 1)-
dimensional surface sij is the set of points which bisects
the link connecting i and j. The boundary of the cell cor-
responding to the site i are made up by all sij, where j la-
bels all sites which connect with the site i. The surface sij
in turn, has a ( D - 2)-dimensional boundary given by T ~ ~ ~ .
In three-space, rijk corresponds to a line, while in super-
symmetric space, Tijk is a six- (or higher) dimensional
volume.
It can be shown that the following summation over the
sites in the cell holds in D-dimensional space:
In this case, A,B,C,D represent the purely vectorial in-
dices in D-dimensional space, and Aijk is the area of the
ijk triangle. The term Si is a small correction which sums
to zero when we sum over all cells in the lattice. Ltiis the
D-dimensional volume of the ith cell.
Applying these results to our eight-dimensional space
( xia,yp), we can prove the following relations by inserting
(2.11) into the previous expression where we introduce a
measure on the space (the indices A,B,C,D now represent
vectorial and spinorial indices):
 SUPER LAWICES AND GAUGE THEORY
FIG. 1. In three-space, sf, is the surface which cuts the link
(ij). rijk refers to the line which forms part of the border of sij.
In D-space, sij is a D - 1 surface and rijk is a D -2 surface
which forms part of the boundary of su. The convex polygon
formed by the various su surrounding the point i is called a cell.
All other values of A ~are equal
~ to, zero.~ ~ happens in the continuum case. In the continuum limit,
Using these relations, we can now show that our action
reduces to the following expressions if we choose the ap-
propriate measure for kJJk:
I- Jd4x d 2 c d 2 j ~ a b ,~ a b
(3.15)
kc = ( ~ /2Afi
~ ~ k ) [ 2 2 (y;)' ] -2
c , P .~ ~ ~
We have now derived a supersymmetric gauge action.
However, because we have not placed any constraints on
the theory, we find that this theory contains an unaccept-
ably large number of fields. xn order to make contact
with the usual supersymmetric gauge theory, we must im-
pose constraints on the string elements.
In the usual theory, we impose the con-
straint FaB =Fdrb =Fab=O on the curvatures. From these
constraints, we can reexpress the entire theory in terms of
two complex vector fields, instead of tensor fields. Thus,
any constraint on the string elements which make these
Grassmann curvatures vanish will, in the continuum lim-
it, reduce down to the usual supersymmetric gauge theory.
Unfortunately, there are many ways in which this con-
straint may be implemented in the continuum limit. In
the weak-coupling approximation, we are unable to dif-
ferentiate which is the unique choice among the several
possibilities which will yield the best reduction to the con-
tinuum theory. Ultimately, the correct choice of con-
straints on the string elements which will yield the unique
2001
reduction to the continuum theory will be the one which
allows a strong-coupling expansion. We will find that
some of the naive choices which yield the correct weak-
coupling expansion (such as reexpressing the string ele-
ments in terms of two complex vector fields, and placing
constraints on traces over paths which make only purely
fermionic displacements) do not necessarily yield a satis-
factory strong-coupling expansion. Therefore, the final
version of the theory will be the one which yields both a
satisfactory weak-coupling as well as strong-coupling ex-
pansion. (More on the strong-coupling expansion will be
presented in a later paper.)
Notice that we can implement the first constraint
Fa8=0 by adopting a non-Hermitian representation on
the lattice. Let us define a complex vector superfield
exp[ W ( z ) ] which is defined only at a single lattice site.
Now construct the product of two such superfields taken
at two points which are separated by a pure Grassmann
displacement ca:
We can define a gauge transformation on these fields:
where X ( z , ) is a chiral superfield defined at the lattice
site, i.e., T(z, ) = z ( z j ). By splitting the matrix Uij into
two parts, each defined at the end points which are
separated by a pure Grassmann displacement, we have in-
troduced a new chiral invariance defined between the two
points zi and zj which did not exist before, which also
we find that we can express some of the gauge fields in
terms of this complex vector field and its complex conju-
gate:
Whenever a unitary string element is represented as the
product of two (one the inverse of the other) de-
fined only at the end points, then this string
represents a pure gauge, i.e., the trace around a loop of a
series of contiguous string elements cancels out identical-
ly. In our case, the theory does not reduce to the identity
because the string element is no longer unitary.
Products of these complex vector fields can be used to
generate a string elemznt defined between two points
separated by a D and D displacement. In the continuum
limit, we find
V(Z,,Z~)~(Z~,Z~)V(Z~,Z~)
- e x p ( i [ c a ~ , ( w,W )+zaK'( W, w )])
Z2 =" +DcZ1 12' z3 = z 2 Diz2 '
+ (3.19)
z4 =Z3 +D ~ 1 2Z .~
Similarly, it is possible to find a discrete version of the
string element defined between two points separated by a
2002 MICHIO KAKU

pure Poincare (not Grassmann) displacement using prod-
ucts over exp( W). However, we find that, because
Grassmann displacements generated by products of D's
cannot ever generate a pure real number Poincare dis-
placement, we find that we cannot reduce a string element
defined between two points separated by a Poincare
translation with a real-number coefficient. [Instead, we
will use a trick in order to rewrite A,,, -- in terms of
e x ~W).]
( We know from the expansion of the action that the
We can satisfy FaB =Fkb= 0 by rewriting the usual ex-
pression for Uij (where zi and zj are separated by both D
and Poincare translations) in terms of the complex vector
field exp( W). We begin by rewriting the string element
Uij into a product of separate terms, each representing a
modification of the original path from zi to zj. Between
these two points, let us define several intermediate points
and the corresponding string elements defined through
these intermediate points:
Fag=R ,g -2iAag, where Rab is given by
- -
Rair = - i D a [ e x ~ ( lD&exp(- F )I
-iD,[exp( - W)D,exp( W)]
-i { exp( - W)D,exp( W),exp( W )Daexp(- p ) ) + .
(3.23)
term Fan occurs quadratically in the action. Therefore,
we can perform the functional integral over A,&, which is
nothing more than a Gaussian functional integral. Of
course, we will find that the equation of motion for A,,
is nothing more than A,, =( - i /2)Ra&(W, W ). (Actual-
ly, there are more terms in this expansion, but all of them
are of lower order.) In this manner, we have now elim-
inated the troublesome term A,, in terms of the complex
vector field W.
The next lower-order terms in the continuum expansion
of (3.9) are F,,Faa and FabFablThese terms, now written
entirely in terms of W and W , can be further reduced.
After a certain amount of algebra, we find

where P is a Poincare displacement which translates z2 by

x, -XI.
In the continuum limit, it is easy to see that this expres-
sion reduces to the usual string element with the A, and
z& terms expressed in terms of exp( W), while the Aa,
term is still left as an independent superfield. It should be
noted that the above expression is not unique. In the
weak-coupling limit, we could have rearranged the order
of the terms (3.20) and arrived at the same result in that where V is a real vector field, W, is a chiral field, and 5
limit. The only difference between (3.20) and other is a SU(N) covariantized derivative.
choices with a different order of terms are factors propor- At this point, we are finally able to determine the exact
tional to Fa,,, which can be absorbed into the rest of the structure of kijk, the measure of the theory. Different
action in the weak-coupling limit. In the strong-coupling values of kijk will yield different supersymmetric theories.
limit, however, we expect one ordering to be preferred. For example, if we want a higher-derivative supersym-
We are now in a position to eliminate A,, in terms of metric gauge theory, then we can choose
exp( W ) . Remember that previously we were not able to
do so because any finite sequence of D and displace-
ments inevitably led to vectorial superfields with bilinear
Grassmann coefficients, not real number coefficients,
which is what we desire. In order to finally eliminate
A,,, we will use the trick of applying the equations of The first term in kijk guarantees that the orthogonality
relations (3.14) are maintained. The second term selects
motion to reduce out this vectorial superfield.
Our action is now written as out the ci2Ei2 term. The third term selects out two terms:
the first projection operator selects out the Fak2term,
while the second projects out the FabFab term, bypassing
the term completely. [We are now assuming that k,
In the continuum limit, we will find terms like the fol- the coefficient of c
in Ci, is equal to the sum of the
lowing from expanding (3.9): squares of ( yy)2.]
The result of this choice for kijk yields a higher-
derivative supersymmetric theory:

Performing the summation over simplexes, we find a

term like F,,F,,E~S~.
Notice that this term dominates over the succeeding
terms in the Taylor expansion. We remember that However, we are really interested in the usual super-
-
31 SUPER LATTICES AND GAUGE THEORY
symmetric gauge theory, which will require a different
choice of measure.
We notice from (3.24) that the term we want, F,,,', is
actually a chiral object, since Dw,=o. If the measure
contained terms proportional to the square of sums over
( yp)2, then our action would vanish, because the chiral ob-
ject is only proportional to t2,not ('5'. Thus, we actually
want to use a different measure in this case, and let our
projection operators screen out the higher-order
term. We choose
The last projection operators guarantee that we select
out the usual gauge theory, not the higher-derivative one.
Inserting this measure into our theory, we can now ex-
press the final result as a chiral integral:
Let us now summarize our results. Our final result is
that our action can be expressed as
with the choice of measure given by (3.27) and the modi-
fied string elements 6given by (3.20).
It is a simple matter to couple the gauge field to the
chiral scalar fields found in the Wess-Zumino model. We
notice that this new chiral invariance that we found ear-
lier is precisely the symmetry necessary to allow for cou-
pling to chiral scalar fields.
If the field .rr now has SU(N) indices, then we can write
down a supersymmetric and gauge-invariant coupling as
We stress that our choice solving the constraints may
not be the unique choice. For example, one solution of
the constraints is to set the trace of any path in superspace
equal to a constant if the path can be executed only by su-
persymmetric Grassmann displacements and by Poincare
translations which have coefficients which are bilinears in
the Grassmann variables. The constraints can then be
reexpressed as the statement that the area of any path in
superspace which only encloses Grassmann displacements
is set equal to zero.
Another choice of action, which would eliminate the
bothersome higher-derivative term, is to only trace over
intermediate points which have no area in superspace
which encloses purely real Poincare displacements.
The final decision as to which formalism to use will
probably be the strong-coupling expansion. All the
above-mentioned formalisms probably have the same
weak-coupling limit, but they have different strong-
coupling limits.
A detailed discussion of the strong-coupling expansion
2003
will be given in a later paper, but we will make a few re-
marks about the strong-coupling expansion in our formal-
ism. The expansion of our theory can be carried out in
powers of ( 1/ g ) in the usual way:
At first, functionally integrating over superfields may
seem a bit forbidding. Actually, the integration is rather
easy since we are actually functionally integrating over the
x-dependent fields contained within U j j ,multiplied by the
appropriate gauge-invariant measures. Uij is easily ex-
panded in terms of x and (, with the coefficients given by
x-dependent functions which serve as our integration vari-
ables.
At this point, we must carefully keep track of our spi-
nors in the expansion over n in (3.30). Remember that
our measure kijk actually contains projection operators
which select out the real coefficients of various spinor
combinations. Because we are now taking products of
kijk which include the projection operators, we must be
careful to realize that each term in the expansion of (3.30)
with respect to n contains a different set of constant spi-
nors ~ , lThus,
. integrations over two string elements
must take into account the fact that each string element is
defined with different sets of spinors. Let zi and zj be
two super lattice points defined with constant Grassmann
. Tj and Zj be two superlattice sites
spinors E , s , { , ~Let
with the same real coefficients as zi and zj except defined
with a different set of Grassmann spinors Z,f. Then we
are interested in functional integrations like the following:
The sum over n traces will then give us n different sets
of spinors ( E , [ ) . Only at the end of the calculation d o we
then operate with the projection operators, which now
consist of a product over n individual projection opera-
tors. All integrals can be performed by proceeding
methodically in this manner. The calculation depends on
our choice of gauge fixing, and details will be presented
later.
IV. BIANCHI IDENTITIES
In the continuum theory, the Bianchi identities were
useful in reformulating the curvatures in terms of a com-
plex vector field. We can easily generalize the Bianchi
identities for the super lattice, in much the same way that
the Bianchi identities can be written down for the Wilson
lattice.'' In Fig. 2, we have arrows representing various
paths around a tetrahedron linking the points of a cell la-
beled by i,j,k,l. Notice that the product of the paths
represented in the diagram yield the identity
2004
If we multiply the unitary string elements sequentially
around the combined path, then we arrive at the identity.
If, however, we are to recombine the unitary string ele-
ments in groups, we can rewrite the entire expression in
terms of curvatures. Each circuit around a triangle is not
gauge invariant, because we do not trace over individual
triangles, but each triangle does contribute a curvature
(plus extra noninvariant terms). Since each separate path
yields a curvature, then the combined expression for all
curvatures must yield derivates of curvatures. Let us first
take the case when D =4. The factor Uijk, which is cen-
tered at the point zijk =(zi +zj +zk )/3, must now be ex-
panded around the approximate center of the tetrahedron,
given by zijkl =(zi +zj +zk +zl )/4. The factor Uijk is a
function of F ~ ~ A defined
$ at point ziik, which now must
be expanded around point zijkl :
Now we are in a position to put all factors together and
power expand the expression in (4.11, which is identically
equal to one:
where
A~a kb-
cl _8 L z ( Eijcik
a b cil
c +cjlcjkcji
a b c
Pnbc
+ €&€6ki€Eki +clj
a b c
Eli Elk ) , (4.4)
where Pabcequals the sum over all cyclic permutations of
abc. (We must be careful when handling the curvatures
found in each separate path. Notice that the reduced ex-
pression for each path is not a gauge-invariant quantity,
so we must handle non-gauge-invariant factors until the
very end of the calculation.)
The tensor quantity can be further reduced. No-
tice that if it is contracted on cabcd,the resulting vector is
perpendicular to all the c's. Notice that this tensor is also
cyclic in all its indices. Thus we conclude that this tensor
must be expressed in terms of the totally antisymmetric
tensor cabcd:
where, of the six 6's that make up the tetrahedron, only
three are actually independent. Because of the identities
linking up the various c's, it is easy to arrive at a more
symmetrical-looking expression for the above tensor quan-
tities.
In the continuum limit, we see therefore that in four di-
mensions we have the following identity:
MICHIO KAKU 31
-
In this way, we have reproduced the usual Bianchi iden-
tities on the lattice. The generalization of this result to
the super lattice is also straightforward, except now we
must make manipulations in eight- (or higher) dimension-
al space. Because of the existence of torsion in this space,
we must be careful in how we label the points ( i j k l ) of the
slattice. A naive manipulation of these factors will result
in an expression in terms of the non-gauge-invariant
quantity R , rather than the gauge-invariant curvature F.
Taking into account the symmetrizations and antisym-
metrizations, we finally arrive at expressions involving
A ~ F where
, ABC now represents both vectorial and spi-
norial indices because it is a supersymmetric generaliza-
tion of (4.4). Exactly the same analysis applies to the case
of Bianchi identities in superspace. The details are tedi-
ous, but we also find
As before, in the case of traces over a single simplex, we
have a contribution due to the torsion terms because sums
over ca's do not necessarily equal zero.
We explicitly write out all the terms found in this ex-
pression:
where ( ] stands for cyclic permutations of the indices, so
that a negative sign is picked up upon interchanging two
real indices or one real and one Grassmann, while there is
no sign change picked up by interchanging two
Grassmann indices. The presence of the F ' s is due to tor-
sion terms that must be carefully included, e.g., because of
(3.10).
V. CONCLUSION
In summary, we have found that the usual Wilson lat-
tice is not a suitable form in which to introduce super-
symmetry, because the Wilson lattice manifestly breaks
Lorentz invariance, while supersymmetry is an extension
of Lorentz invariance. Thus, we are forced to formulate
the theory on a random supersymmetric lattice.
We have seen that the essence of a supersymmetric
transformation is a translation-invariant mapping which
takes an arbitrary superfield and maps it into a real num-
ber. The Berezin integration rules are one consequence of
this definition, and the superlattice is another.
With this new approach to constructing lattice versions
of the Berezin integration rules, we have shown that we
can also construct supersymmetric actions, both for the
Wess-Zumino model and for the supersymmetric gauge
theory. In theory, by adding isospin indices to our
Grassmann variables, we should also be able to build ex-
 SUPER LATTICES A N D GAUGE THEORY
FIG. 2. The Bianchi identities on the super lattice are con-
structed by forming the product of string elements by multiply-
ing these paths togehter. The product over these paths is exact-
ly equal to one.
tended supersymmetric models on the lattice.
One complication that we found was the presence of
constraints to eliminate unwanted fields and to find the
simplest irreducible representation of the group. For the
Wess-Zumino model, these constraints can be satisfied by
rewriting the coordinates of the lattice point in chiral no-
tation. For the gauge theory on a lattice, we found that
there were several ways in which to implement the vanish-
ing of fermionic curvatures. The problem, however, is to
find the unique way in which the strong-coupling expan-
sion can be applied. The solution to the constraint prob-
lem mentioned here reduces correctly to the usual contin-
uum theory in the weak-coupling approximation, but
must be modified to correctly incorporate the strong-
coupling expansion. More will be presented on the
strong-coupling expansion in another paper.
Once the strong-coupling expansion is defined, then we
are in a position to calculate possible dynamical symmetry
breaking on the lattice. We need to calculate the vacuum
energy on the lattice, which should be straightforward
once one defines integration over the group measure in the
presence of constraints.
'P. H. Dondi and H. Nicolai, Nuovo Cimento 41A, 1 (1977); E.
Elitzur, E. Rabinovici, and A. Schwimmer, Phys. Lett. 119B,
165 (1982); V. Rittenberg and S. Yankielowicz, CERN Report
No. TH-3263 (unpublished); C. M. Bender, F. Cooper, and
A. Das, Rochester Report No. UR-838 (unpublished). See also
M. Kaku, in Superspace and Supergrauity, edited by S. W.
Hawking and M. Rocek (Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, England, 1980).
2E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B186, 513 (1981).
3N. H. Christ, R. Freidberg, and T. D. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B202,
89 (1982); Columbia Reports Nos. CU-TP-206 and 207 (un-
published). Random lattices, and, in particular, actions like
(3.4), have been proposed before, for example by this author
2005
There are many possible physical applications for the
super lattice, among them calculating the mass hierarchy
which will be introduced by dynamical symmetry break-
ing, which may play a crucial role in understanding the
large number problem in grand unified field theories.
Another application is to perform strong-coupling calcu-
lations on superconformal gravity, which is formally re-
normalizable, in order to construct the correct Hilbert
space for the theory, which may or may not have the
troublesome unitary ghosts that plague higher-derivative
theories. Dynamical breaking of scale invariance will
then reproduce the usual theory of supergravity.
After this work was completed, we received an interest-
ing paper from V. Alan Kostelecky and J. M. Rabin [Re-
port No. LA-UR-83- 1373 (unpublished)] which is perhaps
the most developed of the various formalisms involving
hypercubical lattices. Because their work depends on a
hypercubical lattice, however, their work necessarily
breaks supersymmetry. As a result, their work is plagued
with the standard problems common to all fixed lattices:
(a) they have problems with the Leibnitz rule, which is
simply not a problem with the random lattice approach,
(b) they must postulate the existence of nonlocal terms in
their action, which prevents them from defining a gauge
theory, which is necessarily polynomial in the fields, and
(c) they take the measure of integration to be unity, which
means that their integrations do not preserve Berezin's
rules. In particular, their measure selects out the lowest
rather than the highest polynomial in the Grassmann
variables, which is quite unacceptable. As a consequence,
they must postulate additional factors involving D~ which
considerably complicates their formalism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. PHY-78-24888 and by
Facility Research Award No. R F 13090.
(unpublished), but the previous references represent the most
complete approach to this method.
4M. Kaku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1893 (1983).
5D. Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and S. Ferrara, Phys.
Rev. D 13, 3214 (1976); S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett.
62B, 335 (1976).
6M. Kaku, P. K . Townsend, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys.
Rev. D 17, 3179 (1978).
7M. Kaku, Nucl. Phys. B203, 285 (1982); Phys. Rev. D 27, 2809
(1983); 27, 2819 (1983).
8M. Kaku, CCNY report (unpublished).
9A. Rogers, J. Math. Phys. 21, 1352 (1980).
1°J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D 26, 429 (1982).