1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: 

3: % PERSONAL MACROS

4: 

5: % LATEX commands

6: 

7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

9: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

10: \newcommand{\p}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

11: \newcommand{\lb}[1]{\label{#1}}

12: \newcommand\s{\scriptscriptstyle}

13: \newcommand\di{\displaystyle}

14: \newcommand\q{\quad}

15: \newcommand\qq{\quad\quad}

16: \renewcommand\={\ =\ }

17: 

18: %Trace

19: 

20: \newcommand\Tr{\mbox{Tr}\,}

21: 

22: % Caligraphic

23: 

24: \newcommand\cA{{\cal A}}

25: \newcommand\cB{{\cal B}}

26: \newcommand\cD{{\cal D}}

27: \newcommand\cC{{\cal C}}

28: \newcommand\cE{{\cal E}}

29: \newcommand\cF{{\cal F}}

30: \newcommand\cN{{\cal N}}

31: \newcommand\cP{{\cal P}}

32: \newcommand\cQ{{\cal Q}}

33: \newcommand\cS{{\cal S}}

34: \newcommand\cR{{\cal R}}

35: \newcommand\cW{{\cal W}}

36: \newcommand\bcW{\bar{\cal W}}

37: \newcommand\bcD{\overline{\cal D}}

38: 

39: %Barred symbols

40: 

41: \newcommand\bA{{\bar A}}

42: \newcommand\bB{{\bar B}}

43: \newcommand\bC{{\bar C}}

44: \newcommand\baf{{\bar{f}}}

45: \newcommand\bag{{\bar{g}}}

46: 

47: %Star-symbols

48: 

49: \newcommand\stU{\stackrel{*}{U\!}\!}

50: 

51: \newcommand\stc{\stackrel{\star}{,}}

52: 

53: %Arrows

54: 

55: \newcommand\olp{\overleftarrow{\partial}}

56: \newcommand\orp{\overrightarrow{\partial}}

57: \newcommand\olD{\overleftarrow{D}}

58: \newcommand\orD{\overrightarrow{D}}

59: \newcommand\olQ{\overleftarrow{Q}}

60: \newcommand\orQ{\overrightarrow{Q}}

61: \newcommand\olbD{\overleftarrow{\bar D}}

62: \newcommand\orbD{\overrightarrow{\bar D}}

63: 

64: %Trace

65: 

66: \newcommand\T{\mbox{Tr}\,}

67: 

68: % Spinor 4D coordinates

69: 

70: \newcommand\tpm{\theta^{+\mu}}

71: \newcommand\tpa{\theta^{+\alpha}}

72: \newcommand\tpb{\theta^{+\beta}}

73: \newcommand\tma{\theta^{-\alpha}}

74: \newcommand\tmb{\theta^{-\beta}}

75: \newcommand\ti{\theta_i}

76: \newcommand\tk{\theta_k}

77: \newcommand\tka{\theta^{\alpha}_k}

78: \newcommand\tkb{\theta^{\beta}_k}

79: \newcommand\tja{\theta^{\alpha}_j}

80: \newcommand\tjb{\theta^{\beta}_j}

81: \newcommand\tib{\theta^{\beta}_i}

82: \newcommand\tia{\theta^{\alpha}_i}

83: \newcommand\tlb{\theta^{\beta}_l}

84: \newcommand\tla{\theta^{\alpha}_l}

85: \newcommand\bti{\bar\theta^i}

86: \newcommand\btk{\bar\theta^k}

87: \newcommand\btka{\bar\theta^{\da k}}

88: \newcommand\btkb{\bar\theta^{\db k}}

89: \newcommand\btib{\bar\theta^{\db i}}

90: \newcommand\btia{\bar\theta^{\da i}}

91: \newcommand\btjb{\bar\theta^{\db j}}

92: \newcommand\btja{\bar\theta^{\da j}}

93: \newcommand\btpm{\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\mu}}}

94: \newcommand\btpa{\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\alpha}}}

95: \newcommand\btpb{\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\beta}}}

96: \newcommand\btpn{\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\nu}}}

97: \newcommand\btm{\bar{\theta}^-}

98: \newcommand\tmm{\theta^{-\mu}}

99: \newcommand\btma{\bar{\theta}^{-\dot{\alpha}}}

100: \newcommand\btmb{\bar{\theta}^{-\dot{\beta}}}

101: \newcommand\btmm{\bar{\theta}^{-\dot{\mu}}}

102: \newcommand\btmn{\bar{\theta}^{-\dot{\nu}}}

103: \newcommand\bth{\bar{\theta}}

104: \newcommand\tp{\theta^+}

105: \newcommand\tm{\theta^-}

106: \newcommand\btp{\bar\theta^+}

107: 

108:  %Abbreviations for Greek letters

109: 

110: \def\a{\alpha}

111: \def\da{{\dot\alpha}}

112: \def\b{\beta}

113: \def\db{{\dot\beta}}

114: \def\g{\gamma}

115: \def\dg{{\dot\gamma}}

116: \def\d{\delta}

117: \def\dd{{\dot\delta}}

118: \def\eps{\epsilon}

119: \def\bep{{\bar\epsilon}}

120: \def\ve{\varepsilon}

121: \def\ph{\phi}

122: \def\bph{{\bar\phi}}

123: \def\vp{\varphi}

124: \def\bvp{\bar\varphi}

125: \def\h{\eta}

126: \def\i{\iota}

127: \def\j{\psi} \def\bj{{\bar\psi}}

128: \def\k{\kappa}  \def\vk{\varkappa}

129: \def\bka{{\bar\kappa}}

130: \def\l{\lambda}

131: %\def\n{\nu}

132: \def\o{\omega}

133: \def\vpi{\varpi}

134: \def\bpi{\bar\pi}

135: %\def\q{\theta}

136:  \def\th{\theta}  \def\bt{\bar\theta}

137: \def\vt{\vartheta}

138: \def\r{\rho}

139: \newcommand\dr{{\dot{\rho}}}

140: \newcommand\br{{\bar{\rho}}}

141: \def\vr{\varrho}

142: \def\si{\sigma}

143: \newcommand\ds{{\dot{\sigma}}}

144: \def\vs{\varsigma}

145: \def\bs{\bar\sigma}

146: \def\t{\tau}

147: \def\u{\upsilon}

148: \def\x{\xi}

149: \def\z{\zeta}

150: \def\D{\Delta}

151: \def\F{\Phi}

152: \def\G{\Gamma}

153: \def\J{\Psi}

154: \def\bJ{\bar\Psi}

155: \def\L{\Lambda}

156: \def\O{\Omega}

157: \def\T{\Theta}

158: \def\S{\Sigma}

159: %\def\U{\Upsilon}

160: \def\X{\Xi}

161: \def\pa{\partial}

162: \def\na{\nabla}

163: 

164: %Bispinor 4D indices

165: 

166: \newcommand\ada{{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}}

167: \newcommand\adb{{\alpha\dot{\beta}}}

168: \newcommand\bdb{{\beta\dot{\beta}}}

169: \newcommand\bda{{\beta\dot{\alpha}}}

170: \newcommand\mdn{{\mu\dot{\nu}}}

171: 

172: %Bispinor 4D coordinate

173: 

174: \newcommand\xadb{x^{\alpha\dot{\beta}}}

175: \newcommand\xadg{x^{\alpha\dot{\gamma}}}

176: \newcommand\xmdn{x^{\mu\dot{\nu}}}

177: 

178: 

179: 

180: %Bispinor 4D indices

181: 

182: \newcommand\ab{{\alpha\beta}}

183: \newcommand\ba{{\beta\alpha}}

184: \newcommand\ag{{\alpha\gamma}}

185: \newcommand\ga{{\gamma\alpha}}

186: \newcommand\gr{{\gamma\rho}}

187: \newcommand\sr{{\sigma\rho}}

188: \newcommand\absr{{\ab\sr}}

189: \newcommand\xab{x^\ab}

190: \newcommand\xag{x^\ag}

191: 

192: 

193: % Partial vector 4D derivatives

194: 

195: \newcommand\pada{\partial_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}}

196: \newcommand\padb{\partial_{\alpha\dot{\beta}}}

197: \newcommand\pmdn{\partial_{\mu\dot{\nu}}}

198: 

199: 

200: % Partial vector 6D derivatives

201: 

202: \newcommand\pab{\partial_\ab}

203: \newcommand\pba{\partial_\ba}

204: \newcommand\pmn{\partial_{\mu\nu}}

205: 

206: 

207: % Spinor 4D indices

208: \newcommand\alp{{+\alpha }}

209: %\newcommand\bep{{+\beta }}

210: \newcommand\dap{{+\dot{\alpha}}}

211: \newcommand\alm{{-\alpha}}

212: \newcommand\bem{{-\beta}}

213: \newcommand\dam{{-\dot{\alpha}}}

214: \newcommand\dbm{{-\dot{\beta}}}

215: 

216: 

217: % Script capital indices and superindices

218: 

219: \newcommand\A{{\s A}}

220: \newcommand\B{{\s B}}

221: \newcommand\C{{\s C}}

222: \newcommand\E{{\s E}}

223: %\newcommand\D{{\s D}}

224: \newcommand\R{{\s R}}

225: \newcommand\M{{\s M}}

226: \newcommand\sL{{\s L}}

227: \newcommand\N{{\s N}}

228: \newcommand\W{{\s W}}

229: \newcommand\Z{{\s Z}}

230: \newcommand\HA{{\widehat{\s A}}}

231: \newcommand\HB{{\widehat{\s B}}}

232: \newcommand\HM{{\widehat{\s M}}}

233: \newcommand\HN{{\widehat{\s N}}}

234: \newcommand{\0}{{\s 0}}

235: \newcommand{\2}{{\s 2}}

236: \newcommand{\3}{{\s 3}}

237: \newcommand{\4}{{\s 4}}

238: \newcommand{\5}{{\s 5}}

239: \newcommand{\6}{{\s 6}}

240: 

241: 

242: % Harmonic charges

243: 

244: \newcommand{\pp}{{++}}

245: \newcommand{\m}{{--}}

246: \newcommand{\pT}{{(+3)}}

247: 

248: 

249: % Harmonic derivatives

250: \newcommand{\Dbp}{{\cal D}^{\pp}}

251: \newcommand{\Dbm}{{\cal D}^{\m}}

252: \newcommand{\Dbpm}{{\cal D}^{\s\pm\pm}}

253: \newcommand{\Dp}{D^{\pp}}

254: \newcommand{\Dm}{D^{\m}}

255: \newcommand{\Dep}{\Delta^{\pp}}

256: \newcommand{\Dem}{\Delta^{\m}}

257: \newcommand{\dpp}{\partial^{\pp}}

258: \newcommand{\dm}{\partial^{\m}}

259: 

260: 

261: 

262: %Harmonic fields

263: 

264: \newcommand{\Vp}{V^\pp}

265: \newcommand{\Vm}{V^\m}

266: 

267: 

268: 

269: % 4D spinor derivatives

270: 

271: \newcommand{\Dpa}{D^+_\alpha}

272: \newcommand{\Dma}{D^-_\alpha}

273: \newcommand{\Dpb}{D^+_\beta}

274: \newcommand{\Dmb}{D^-_\beta}

275: \newcommand{\bDpa}{\bar{D}^+_{\dot{\alpha}}}

276: \newcommand{\bDpb}{\bar{D}^+_{\dot{\beta}}}

277: \newcommand{\bDma}{\bar{D}^-_{\dot{\alpha}}}

278: \newcommand{\bD}{\bar{D}}

279: 

280: 

281: % Analytic measure

282: 

283: \newcommand\dza{d\zeta^{\s(-4)}}

284: 

285: % Fractions

286: 

287: \def\sfrac#1#2{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

288: \def\ha{\frac12}

289: \def\sha{\sfrac12}

290: 

291: % Math symbols

292: 

293: \newcommand{\mR}{\mathbb R}

294: \def\e{\mbox{e}}

295: \def\ii{\mbox{i}}

296: \def\diff{\mbox{d}}

297: 

298: \newcommand{\grpicture}[1]

299: {

300:     \begin{center}

301:         \epsfxsize=200pt

302:         \epsfysize=0pt

303:         \vspace{-5mm}

304:         \parbox{\epsfxsize}{\epsffile{#1.eps}}

305:         \vspace{5mm}

306:     \end{center}

307: }

308: 

309: 

310: 

311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

312: 

313: 

314: 

315: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

316: 

317: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

318: \usepackage{graphicx}

319: \usepackage{cite}

320: \usepackage{bm}

321: %\input epsf

322: 

323: %\def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

324: \topmargin=-1cm \textheight=225mm\textwidth=16cm

325: \oddsidemargin=-0.2cm\evensidemargin=-0.2cm

326: 

327: 

328: \begin{document}

329: 

330: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

331: 

332: 

333: 

334: 

335: 

336: \vskip 15mm

337: 

338: \begin{center}

339: 

340: {\Large Cryptoreality of nonanticommutative Hamiltonians}

341: 

342: \vskip 4ex

343: 

344: E.A. \textsc{Ivanov}$\,^{1}$,

345: A.V. \textsc{Smilga}\,$^{2}$,

346: 

347: 

348: \vskip 3ex

349: 

350: $^{1}\,$\textit{ Bogoliubov  Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region,

351: Russia}

352: \\

353: \texttt{eivanov@theor.jinr.ru},\\[3ex]

354: $^{2}\,$\textit{SUBATECH, Universit\'e de

355: Nantes,  4 rue Alfred Kastler, BP 20722, Nantes  44307, France

356: \footnote{On leave of absence from ITEP, Moscow, Russia.}}

357: \\

358: \texttt{smilga@subatech.in2p3.fr}

359: \end{center}

360: 

361: \vskip 5ex

362: 

363: 

364: \begin{abstract}

365: \noindent We note that, though nonanticommutative (NAC) deformations of Minkowski supersymmetric

366: theories do not respect the  reality condition and seem to lead to non-Hermitian Hamiltonians $H$, the

367: latter belong to the class of ``cryptoreal'' Hamiltonians considered recently by Bender and

368: collaborators. They can be made manifestly Hermitian via the similarity transformation

369: $H \to e^R H e^{-R}$ with a properly chosen $R$. The deformed model enjoys {\it the same} supersymmetry

370: algebra as the undeformed one, though being realized differently on the involved canonical variables.

371: Besides quantum-mechanical models, we treat, along similar lines, some NAC deformed field models in

372: $4D$ Minkowski space.

373: \end{abstract}

374: 

375: 

376: 

377: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

378: \setcounter{footnote}0

379: %\setcounter{equation}0

380: \setcounter{page}{1}

381: 

382: \section{Introduction}

383: Supersymmetric models with nonanticommutative (NAC) deformations \cite{Seiberg} have

384: recently attracted  a considerable

385: interest. The main idea is that the odd superspace coordinates $\theta^\alpha$ and

386: $\bar \theta^{\dot \alpha}$

387: are not treated as strictly anticommuting anymore, but involve  non-vanishing

388: anticommutators \cite{Nonc} \footnote{In other words, the original Grassmann algebra of the odd coordinates

389: is deformed into a {\it Clifford} algebra.}.

390: In  original Seiberg's paper and in many subsequent works (see e.g. \cite{Euclid,Ito} and

391: references therein), the deformation

392: is performed in Euclidean

393: rather than Minkowski space-time. The reason is that in Minkowski space it seems  impossible

394: to preserve

395: both supersymmetry and reality of the action after deformation, still retaining simple properties of

396: the corresponding $\star$-product (e.g., associativity and nilpotency) \cite{Mink}.

397: As discussed in \cite{Seiberg}, Euclidean

398: NAC theories are of interest in stringy perspectives \footnote{The stringy origin

399: of such deformations \cite{StrOr}

400: was actually the main motivation of their consideration in \cite{Seiberg} (see also \cite{N2,Ito}).}.

401: An interesting question

402: is whether NAC theories are meaningful by themselves, leaving aside the issue

403: of their relationships

404: with string theory.

405: In other words --- whether it is possible

406: to consistently define them in Minkowski

407: space, introduce a Hamiltonian with real spectrum and find

408: a unitary evolution operator.

409: 

410: We argue that the answer to this question is positive. Our consideration is mostly based on the analysis of

411: an interesting 1--dimensional NAC model constructed in a recent paper of Aldrovandi

412: and Schaposnik \cite{shap}.

413: In that work, NAC deformations of the conventional Witten's supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SQM)

414: model \cite{Witten} were studied in the chiral basis. In this case,

415: the deformation operator commutes with the supercharge $Q$, but does not commute with $\bar Q$. However,

416: Aldrovandi and Schaposnik noticed the presence of the second supercharge $\bar {\cal Q}$ that commutes with

417: the Hamiltonian. On the other hand, $Q$ and    $\bar {\cal Q}$ seem not to be Hermitian conjugate to each other

418: and the deformed Hamiltonian also seemingly lacks the Hermitian property.

419: 

420: Our key observation is that, in spite of having a complex appearance, this Hamiltonian is actually

421: Hermitian in disguise. One can call it ``crypto-Hermitian'' (or ``cryptoreal''). It belongs to the

422: class of Hamiltonians studied recently by Bender and collaborators \cite{Bender}. The simplest example is

423:  \be

424: \label{ix3}

425: H \ =\ \frac {p^2 + x^2}2 + igx^3\,.

426:  \ee

427: In spite of the manifestly complex potential, it is possible to endow the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3})

428: with a properly defined Hilbert space such that the spectrum of $H$ is real. The clearest way to see

429: this is to observe

430: the existence of the operator $R$ such that the conjugated Hamiltonian

431:   \be

432: \label{conjug}

433:   \tilde H \ = \ e^{R} H e^{-R}

434:   \ee

435:  is manifestly

436: self-adjoint \cite{turok}. The explicit form of $R$ for the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}) is

437: \footnote{Actually, what is written here is the Weyl symbol of the operator $R$. The expression

438: for a contribution

439: to the quantum operator corresponding to a monomial $\sim p^n x^n$ in its Weyl symbol is a properly

440: symmetrized structure, $px \to (1/2)(\hat p x + x \hat p)$, $x^2 p

441: \to (1/3)( x^2 \hat p + \hat p x^2 + x\hat p x)\,$, etc.}

442:  \be

443: \label{Rix3}

444:   R = g\left( \frac 23 p^3 + x^2 p \right) - g^3 \left( \frac {64}{15} p^5 + \frac {20}3 p^3 x^2 +

445: 4px^4 - 6p \right) + O(g^5)\ .

446:  \ee

447: The rotated Hamiltonian is

448:  \be

449:  \label{hix3}

450: \tilde H \ =\ \frac{p^2 + x^2}2 + g^2 \left( 3p^2x^2 + \frac {3x^4}2 - \frac 12 \right) + O(g^4)\ .

451:  \ee

452: The (real) spectrum of $\tilde H$ (and $H$) can be found to any order in g in the perturbation theory,

453: and also non-perturbatively.

454: 

455:  We will see that in  the case of the Aldrovandi-Schaposnik Hamiltonian, there also exists

456: the operator $R$  making the Hamiltonian Hermitian. The rotated supercharges $e^R Qe^{-R}$ and

457: $ e^R \bar {\cal Q} e^{-R}$ are Hermitian-conjugated.

458: 

459: We start in Section 2 by constructing the operator $R$ for certain non-supersymmetric

460: Hamiltonians. In particular, we discuss holomorphic deformations

461: (adding to the Hamiltonian a holomorphic function of a complex dynamic variable). In Section 3, we present

462: the Aldrovandi-Schaposnik model, find  the corresponding operator $R$, as well as the rotated Hamiltonian and supercharges.

463: Also we briefly consider a NAC deformation of the SQM model with two sorts of chiral supermultiplets.

464: In Section 4, we discuss possible generalizations to field theory.

465: 

466: \section{Cryptoreality: some comments}

467: %\setcounter{equation}0

468:  \begin{itemize}

469: 

470: \item

471: First, about the term ``cryptoreality''. In the original papers \cite{Bender}, the Hermiticity of the

472: Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}) and its relatives was deduced

473: from a certain special symmetry of this Hamiltonian, the ${\cal PT}$-symmetry. Indeed, the Hamiltonian

474: (\ref{ix3}) is invariant

475: with respect to the combination of the parity transformation (which changes the sign of $x$)

476: and the time reversal

477: transformation (which changes $i$ to $-i$). The ${\cal PT}$-symmetry of the Hamiltonian might be

478: a sufficient condition for the

479: existence of the operator $R$ such that the conjugated Hamiltonian (\ref{conjug}) is manifestly Hermitian,

480: but, as we will see later, it is not a necessary condition. In Ref.\cite{turok},

481: the term ``pseudo-Hermiticity''

482: was used. To our mind, however, there is nothing ``pseudo'' about it, the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}) is simply

483: Hermitian (in the properly defined Hilbert space), but its Hermiticity is  hidden, not immediately

484: obvious. That is why the term ``crypto-Hermiticity'' (or ``cryptoreality'') seems to us somewhat more

485: appropriate.

486: 

487: \item

488: The conjugation (\ref{conjug}) acts upon all operators including the operators $p,x$. The Weyl symbols of the

489: transformed operators $p', x'$ are

490:   \be

491:  \label{p,x}

492: p' &=& p + 2igxp + g^2(2p^3 - px^2) + \ldots \nonumber \\

493: x' &=& x -ig(x^2 + 2p^2) - g^2 (x^3-2xp^2) + \ldots\,.

494:   \ee

495: One can actually obtain the expression (\ref{hix3}) for the Weyl symbol of the rotated Hamiltonian by simply

496: expressing $H$ in terms of $p', \, x'$.

497: The commutator $[p,x]$ is not changed after conjugation, that means that the {\it Moyal bracket}

498: $\{p', x'\}_{M.B.}$ is equal to one. The Moyal bracket is defined as \cite{Moyal}

499:  \be

500: \label{Moyal}

501: \{A,B\}_{M.B.} \ =\ 2 \left. \sin \left[ \frac 12 \left( \frac {\partial^2}{\partial p \partial X} -

502:  \frac {\partial^2}{\partial P \partial x} \right) \right] A(p,x) B(P,X) \right|_{p=P, x=X}

503:   \ee

504: The expansion starts with the   Poisson bracket, but, generically, there are also higher terms.

505:  In particular, $\{p', x'\}_{M.B.}$ differs from

506: $\{p', x'\}_{P.B.}$ by the terms of order $\sim g^4$ and higher. But that means that (\ref{p,x}) {\it is}

507: not a canonical transformation. And this means that the {\it classical} dynamics of $H(p,x)$ and $H(p',x')$

508: are different. The quantum dynamics of the original and conjugated Hamiltonians is, however,

509: the same.

510: 

511: \item

512: One can rotate away not only imaginary pieces in the potential, but also other unfriendly looking terms in the

513: Hamiltonian. For example, one can consider the Hamiltonian

514:  \be

515: \label{Hx3}

516: H \ =\ \frac {p^2 + x^2}2 + gx^3

517:  \ee

518: and conjugate it with the operator $R$ coinciding with the expression in

519:  Eq.(\ref{Rix3}) multiplied by the factor $-i$. The conjugated Hamiltonian

520: coincides with (\ref{hix3}), with the sign of $g^2$ being reversed. The spectrum of the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hx3})

521: can be found by the same

522: token as for the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}). Actually, an exact mapping relating the system (\ref{Hx3}) to

523: the system (\ref{ix3}) exists. Indeed, for any eigenfunction $\Psi_n(x)$ of the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3})

524: with eigenvalue $E_n$,

525: the function $\Psi_n(-ix)$ is an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hx3}) with the eigenvalue $-E_n$.

526: 

527: The appearance of complex values of $x$ may be somewhat unusual, but it is actually an inherent

528: feature of the crypto-Hermitian systems.

529: The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian are required to behave well (be not  singular and  die  out for

530: large absolute values of the argument)

531: in a certain domain in the complex $x$-plane that might or might not include the real axis \cite{Bender}.

532: The relevant domains for the Hamiltonians

533: (\ref{ix3}) and (\ref{Hx3}) are shown in Fig. \ref{oblastx3}. One is rotated with respect to the other by

534: the angle $\pi/2$.

535: 

536:  \begin{figure}[h]

537:    \begin{center}

538:  \includegraphics[width=4.0in]{oblastx3}

539:        % \vspace{-22cm}

540:     \end{center}

541: \caption{Wave functions for {\it a)} the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}) and {\it b)}

542:   Hamiltonian (\ref{Hx3}) asymptotically die out in the dashed sectors.}

543: \label{oblastx3}

544: \end{figure}

545: 

546: 

547: Another unusual feature of the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hx3}) is the absence of the ground state -

548: the state

549: with the lowest energy.

550: In this case, the spectrum has an upper rather than lower bound. But the overall sign of energy

551: is in fact a matter of book-keeping.

552: For all physical purposes,

553: the dynamics of the Hamiltonian (\ref{ix3}) in the region in Fig.\ref{oblastx3}a and

554: the dynamics of the Hamiltonian

555: (\ref{Hx3}) in the region in Fig.\ref{oblastx3}b are equivalent.

556: 

557: Consider now the Hamiltonian

558:  \be

559: \label{Hz}

560: H \=\ \bar \pi \pi + \bar z z + gz^3 \, .

561:  \ee

562:  Remarkably, by conjugating it with the operator

563:  \be

564: \label{Rz}

565: R = -ig\left( \bar \pi z^2 + \frac 23 \bar \pi^3 \right),

566:  \ee

567: one can rotate away the cubic term in the potential {\it without trace} such that the conjugated Hamiltonian

568: $H' = \bar \pi' \pi' + \bar z' z' + g z'{}^3$ is simply $\bar \pi \pi + \bar z z$. Hence the spectrum of

569: the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hz}) coincides with the

570: spectrum of a 2-dimensional oscillator, $E_{n,m} = 1 + n + m\,$.  The wave functions of the original

571: Hamiltonian (\ref{Hz}) are obtained from the

572: oscillator wave functions

573: by conjugation $\Psi = e^{-R} \tilde \Psi$. For example, the ground state wave function is

574:  \be

575: \label{ground}

576: \Psi_0 \ \sim \ \exp\left\{ - \frac {gz^3}3 - \bar z z \right \}.

577:  \ee

578: It decays exponentially in the three sectors in the complex plane of $z$ shown in Fig. \ref{oblastz3}, and

579: the Hilbert space where the crypto-Hermitian

580: Hamiltonian (\ref{Hz}) is well defined is  formed by the functions sharing this property.

581: 

582:  \begin{figure}[h]

583:    \begin{center}

584:  \includegraphics[width=2.0in]{oblastz3}

585:        % \vspace{-22cm}

586:     \end{center}

587: \caption{The same for the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hz}).}

588: \label{oblastz3}

589: \end{figure}

590: 

591: 

592:  By the same token, one can rotate away without trace {\it any} holomorphic term in the potential.

593:  For example,

594: for the Hamiltonian

595: $  \bar \pi \pi + \bar z z + gz^5 $, this is done with the operator

596:  $$

597:  R = -ig\left( \bar \pi z^4 + \frac 43 \bar \pi^3 z^2 + \frac 8{15} \bar \pi^5 \right).

598:  $$

599: Generally, the operator rotating away the term $gz^N$ in the potential has the form

600:   $$

601:  R_N = -ig \bar \pi z^{N-1} f_N\left( \frac {\bar \pi}{z} \right),

602:  $$

603: with $f_N(r)$ satisfying the equation

604:  \be

605: \label{eqf}

606: [1 - r^2(N-1)] f_N + r (1+r^2) f'_N = 1\ .

607:  \ee

608: When  $N$ is odd, the solution represents a polynomial. For even $N$, it is more complicated. For example,

609:  \be

610: \label{f2}

611: f_2(r) = \frac 12 \left[\frac {1+r^2}r \arctan r + 1 \right].

612:  \ee

613: 

614: \item

615:  Cryptoreal Hamiltonians for the systems with continuum number of degrees of freedom also exist.

616:  Bender, Brody, and Jones

617: found the proper conjugation operator for the system described by the Lagrangian \cite{Bender}

618:  \be

619:  \label{Lfi3}

620:  {\cal L} \ =\  \frac 12 (\partial_\mu \phi )^2 - \frac {\mu^2 \phi^2}  2 - ig \phi^3\ ,

621: \ee

622: $\phi$ is a real scalar field.

623: In the lowest order in $g$, it is given by a nonlocal expression

624:  \be

625: \label{Rphi3}

626:  R \ =\ \int \!\!\int\!\!\int d{\bf x}  d{\bf y}  d{\bf z}

627:  \left[ M_{ {\bf x}  {\bf y}  {\bf z} } p_{\bf x}  p_{\bf y}  p_{\bf y}

628: + N_{ {\bf x}  {\bf y}  {\bf z} } \phi_{\bf x} \phi_{\bf y} p_{\bf z} \right],

629:   \ee

630: where $p_{\bf x}$ are canonical momenta, $p_{\bf x} = -i\partial /\partial \phi_{\bf x}\,$,

631:  and the kernels $ M_{ {\bf x}  {\bf y}  {\bf z} },  N_{ {\bf x}  {\bf y}  {\bf z} }$

632:  have a complicated, but explicit form.

633: 

634: We want to notice that the system of the complex scalar field $\varphi$ with the interaction Hamiltonian

635: $\sim \varphi^3$ is also cryptoreal,

636: and the corresponding conjugation operator is given, again, by the expression (\ref{Rphi3}) with

637: $\bar \pi_{\bf x} = -i \partial /\partial \bar

638: \varphi_{\bf x}$ being substituted for $p_{\bf x}$. This operator rotates the interaction term away

639: without trace by the same token as the

640: operator (\ref{Rz}) rotates it away in the QM case.

641: 

642: Actually, the pattern is quite general. Any holomorphic interaction term can be entirely rotated away

643: simply because the proper conjugation operator

644: $R$ involves in this case only the momentum operators $\bar \pi_{\bf x}$ rather than  $\pi_{\bf x}\,$,

645: and $\bar \partial f = 0$ for holomorphic functions.

646: 

647: \item

648: Finally, let us reproduce here the arguments of \cite{Bender} displaying the reality of the spectrum

649: of a ${\cal PT}$-symmetric  Hamiltonian.

650: The operator ${\cal PT}$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, and it is reasonable

651: to assume that a basis of the states representing the eigenstates

652: of both ${\cal PT}$ and $H$ can be chosen \footnote{Were ${\cal PT}$ a linear operator, it would be

653: trivial, but ${\cal PT}$ involves complex conjugation and is not linear. Hence, the existence of such

654: basis is, indeed,

655: an {\it assumption} and  the reasoning given here cannot be regarded as a formal proof.}.

656:   Let $\Psi$ be an

657: eigenstate of both ${\cal PT}$ and $H$,

658:  \be

659: {\cal PT} \, \Psi \ =\ \lambda \Psi,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H\, \Psi \ =\ E\Psi\ .

660:  \ee

661: Applying the operator ${\cal PT}$ to the second equality and using $[{\cal PT},H] = 0 $ and

662: $  {\cal PT} (E\Psi) = E^* {\cal PT}(\Psi)\,$, we conclude that

663: $E = E^*$ {\it Q.E.D.} Note also that applying ${\cal PT}$ to the first equality and

664: using $({\cal PT})^2 = 1$, one can show that

665: $\lambda \lambda^* = 1$ and hence $\lambda = e^{i\alpha}$. By going from $\Psi$

666: to  $\Psi e^{-i\alpha/2}$, one can set $\lambda = 1\,$.

667: 

668: The norm of some eigenstates may happen to be negative.  However, this can be mended \cite{Bender}

669: if redefining  inner product by including

670: in its definition the action of the  ``charge conjugation'' operator ${\cal C}$  that commutes

671: with both $H$ and ${\cal PT}$ and is defined as

672:  \be

673:  \label{C}

674: {\cal C}(x,y) \ =\ \sum_n \Psi_n(x) \Psi^*_n(y)\ .

675:  \ee

676: The operator ${\cal C}$ is in fact closely related to the operator $R$ rotating the Hamiltonian

677: to the manifestly Hermitian form,

678: as discussed above,

679:  \be

680: {\cal C}\ =\ e^{-2R}{\cal P}\, .

681:  \ee

682: 

683: \end{itemize}

684: 

685: 

686: \section{Aldrovandi-Schaposnik model}

687: %\setcounter{equation}0

688: 

689: The simplest SQM model \cite{Witten} involves a real supervariable

690: \be

691: \label{X}

692: X(\theta, \bar \theta, t) \  = \ x(t) + \theta \psi(t)

693: + \bar \psi(t) \bar \theta  + \theta \bar \theta F(t)\ .

694:  \ee

695: The action is

696:  \be

697: \label{LSQM}

698:  S \ =\ -\int dt \, d^2\theta \left[ \frac 12 (DX) (\bar D X)  + V(X) \right],

699:  \ee

700: with the convention $\int d^2\theta \, \theta \bar\theta = 1\,$. Here $V(X)$ is the superpotential

701: and $D, \bar D$ are covariant derivatives. Bearing in mind the

702: deformation coming soon, we will choose their left chiral basis representation

703:  \be

704: \label{DDbar}

705:  D \ =\ \frac \partial{\partial \theta}  - 2i  \bar\theta \frac \partial {\partial t} \, ,\ \ \ \

706:  \ \ \bar D \ =\

707: - \frac \partial{\partial \bar \theta} \ .

708:  \ee

709: Here $t = \tau -i\theta\bar\theta\,$ and $\tau$ is the real time coordinate of the central basis.

710: Asymmetry between $D$ and $\bar D$ makes the Lagrangian following from (\ref{LSQM}) complex,

711:  \be

712: \label{Lnedef}

713:  L \ =\ -i\dot x F - \frac{\partial V(x)} {\partial x} F + \frac 12 F^2 + i \bar \psi \dot \psi +

714: \frac {\partial^2 V(x)}{\partial x^2}

715: \bar \psi \psi \, ,

716:  \ee

717: but one can easily make it real, rewriting it in terms  of $\tilde F = F - i\dot x$

718: and subtracting a total derivative.

719: This corresponds to going

720: over to the central basis from the chiral one.

721: 

722: The deformation is introduced by postulating non-vanishing anticommutators

723:  \be

724: \label{deform}

725: \{\theta, \theta\} = C,\ \ \ \ \{\bar\theta, \bar\theta\} = \bar C, \ \ \ \ \ \{\theta, \bar \theta\}

726: = \tilde C \, .

727:   \ee

728:  The deformed action  involves star products,

729:    \be

730: \label{Ldeform}

731:  S \ =\ -\int dt \, d^2\theta \left[ \frac 12 (D \star X)\star (\bar D \star X)

732:  +  V_{\star}(X) \right],

733:  \ee

734: where

735:  \be

736: \label{star}

737:  X\star Y \ =\  \left. \exp \left\{ - \frac C2 \frac {\partial^2 }{\partial \theta_1 \partial \theta_2}

738:   - \frac {\bar C}2

739: \frac {\partial^2}{\partial \bar \theta_1 \partial \bar \theta_2 }

740:   - \frac {\tilde C}2 \left(

741: \frac {\partial^2}{\partial  \theta_1 \partial  \bar \theta_2 } +

742: \frac {\partial^2}{\partial  \bar \theta_1 \partial   \theta_2 } \right) \right\} X(1) Y(2) \right|_{1=2}

743:  \ee

744: and $V_{\star}(X)$ is obtained from $V(X) = \sum_n c_n X^n$ by substituting $X^2 \to X_\star^2 \equiv

745: X\star X,\ X^3 \to X_\star^3 \equiv X\star X\star X$, etc

746: in its Taylor expansion. The star product in \p{Ldeform} just ensures the Weyl ordering of any

747: product of the $\theta $ monomials such that

748: $$ \theta \star\theta = \frac C2,\ \ \ \bar \theta \star \bar \theta =  \frac {\bar C}2, \ \ \

749: \theta \star \bar\theta =

750: \theta \bar\theta + \frac {\tilde C}2, \ \ \ \bar \theta \star \theta =

751: \bar \theta \theta + \frac {\tilde C}2\ ,$$

752: in accordance with the basic relation \p{deform}. The star product is associative.

753: 

754: The component expression for the deformed Lagrangian is the same as in Eq. (\ref{Lnedef}), with $V(x)$

755: being substituted by \cite{Alv,shap}

756:  \be

757: \label{Vtildint}

758:  \tilde V(x, F) \ =\ \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} d\xi \, V(x + \xi c F)\ ,

759:  \ee

760: where

761:  \be

762: \label{c2}

763: c^2 =  \tilde C^2 - C\bar C

764:  \ee

765:  is the relevant deformation parameter \footnote{ The relation (\ref{Vtildint}) can be easily derived by

766: keeping the term $\propto \theta \bar\theta$ in the products $X_\star^n$, with using

767: associativity and the identity

768: $ (\theta \bar\theta) \star (\theta \bar\theta) = c^2/4$. Note the correct sign of $c^2$ in \p{c2} as compared

769: to the wrong one in the definition of $c^2$ in \cite{shap}.}.

770:     If $\bar C$ is conjugate to $C$ and $\tilde C$ is real,

771:  $c^2$ is also real.

772: Note, however, that one may, generally speaking, lift the condition that $\theta$ and $\bar \theta$

773: are conjugate to each other, in which

774: case $C,\bar C$ and $\tilde C$ can take arbitrary values. We still require the reality of $c^2$.

775: The crypto-Hermiticity of the deformed Hamiltonian discussed below is fulfilled under this condition.

776: 

777:  In the simplest nontrivial case,

778: $V(X) = \lambda X^3/3$,

779:  \be

780: \label{Vtild}

781:  \tilde V(x, F) \ =\ \frac {\lambda x^3}3 + \frac {\lambda c^2xF^2}{12} \ .

782:  \ee

783: The corresponding canonical Hamiltonian is

784:  \be

785: \label{Hamdef}

786: H \ =\ \frac {p^2}2 + i \frac {\partial \tilde V}{\partial x} p

787: -  \frac {\partial^2 \tilde V}{\partial x^2} \bar \psi \psi\,,

788:  \ee

789: with $p = -iF$. The deformed Lagrangian and Hamiltonian look inherently complex. Obviously, the complexities

790: now cannot be removed by simply

791: going from the chiral to the central basis.

792: 

793: In the chiral basis, the supercharges are represented by the following superspace differential operators,

794: \be

795: \label{QQbar}

796:  Q \ =\ \frac \partial{\partial \theta} \, ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \bar Q \ =\

797: - \frac \partial{\partial \bar \theta}  - 2i  \theta \frac \partial {\partial t}\ .

798:  \ee

799:  Note that the star product operator (\ref{star}) still commutes with $Q$ (in  other words, the Leibnitz rule

800: $Q\star(X\star Y) = (Q\star X)\star Y + X\star (Q\star Y)$ still holds), but not with $\bar Q$.

801: That means that the deformed

802: action (\ref{Ldeform})

803: is still invariant with respect to the supersymmetry transformations generated by $Q$, but not $\bar Q$.

804: The $Q$-invariance implies the existence of the conserved N\"other supercharge whose component phase space

805: expression is simply

806:  \be

807: \label{Qcomp}

808:  Q \ =\ \psi p\ .

809:  \ee

810: As was observed in \cite{shap}, there is another Grassmann-odd operator commuting with the Hamiltonian.

811: It reads

812:  \be

813: \label{Qbarcomp}

814:  \bar{\cal Q} \ =\ \bar \psi \left( p + 2i \frac{\partial \tilde V}{\partial x} \right).

815:  \ee

816: The standard SUSY algebra

817: \be

818: \label{algebra}

819:  Q^2 = \bar {\cal Q}^2 = 0,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \{Q, \bar{\cal Q} \} = 2H

820:  \ee

821: holds, but,

822: naively, $\bar{\cal Q}$ is not adjoint to $Q$ and $H$ is not Hermitian.

823: 

824: Let us show now that the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamdef}) is in fact cryptoreal. Consider for simplicity only the case

825: (\ref{Vtild}). We have \footnote{Note that this Hamiltonian is not ${\cal PT}$-, but just ${\cal T}$-symmetric. },

826:  \be

827: H \ = \ \frac {p^2}2 + i\lambda p x^2 - i\beta p^3 - 2\lambda  x \bar \psi \psi \ ,

828:  \ee

829: where $ \beta = \lambda c^2/12$.

830: 

831: It is convenient to treat $\lambda$ and $\beta$ on equal footing and to get rid of

832: the complexities $\sim ipx^2$ and

833: $\sim i p^3$ simultaneously. The operator $R$ doing this job is

834:  \be

835: \label{RSQM}

836: R  \ =\ - \frac {\lambda x^3}3 + \beta x p^2 - 2 \lambda \beta x^2 \bar \psi \psi + \ldots \ ,

837:  \ee

838: where the dots stand for the terms of the third and higher order in $\lambda$ and/or $\beta$. The conjugated

839: Hamiltonian is

840:  \be

841: \label{hSQM}

842: \tilde{H} = e^R H e^{-R} \ =\ \frac {p^2}2 - 2\lambda x \bar\psi \psi + \frac 12 [ \lambda^2 x^4 + 3\beta^2 p^4]

843: + \frac{1}{2}\lambda\beta + O(\lambda^3,\beta^3, \lambda^2 \beta, \lambda \beta^2)\,.

844:  \ee

845: It is Hermitian.

846: The rotated supercharges are

847:  \be

848: \label{QHerm}

849:  \tilde Q = e^R Qe^{-R} = \psi[p - i(\lambda x^2 - \beta p^2) + \lambda \beta x^2 p - \beta^2 p^3

850:  + \ldots]\,, \nonumber \\

851: \tilde {\bar Q} = e^R \bar{\cal Q} e^{-R} = \bar\psi [p + i(\lambda x^2 - \beta p^2)  + \lambda \beta x^2 p +

852: 3\beta^2 p^3 + \ldots ]\,.

853:   \ee

854: We observe that they are still not adjoint to each other. To make them mutually adjoint

855: to the considered order in

856: $\beta, \lambda\,$, one should add to the operator $R$ one more term

857: \be

858: R \; \Rightarrow \; \hat{R} = R - 2\beta^2p^2\bar\psi \psi\,.

859: \ee

860: It is easy to see that this modification does not change the rotated Hamiltonian in the considered order,

861: but ensures the rotated supercharges to be manifestly adjoint to each other

862:  \be

863: \label{QHerm1}

864:  \hat{Q} = e^{\hat{R}} Qe^{-\hat{R}} = \psi[p - i(\lambda x^2 - \beta p^2) + \lambda \beta x^2 p

865:  + \beta^2 p^3 + \ldots]\,, \nonumber \\

866: \hat{\bar Q} = e^R \bar{\cal Q} e^{-R} = \bar\psi [p + i(\lambda x^2 - \beta p^2)  + \lambda \beta x^2 p +

867: \beta^2 p^3 + \ldots ]\,.

868:   \ee

869: By construction, the operators $\hat{Q}, \hat{\bar Q}$ and $\tilde{H}$ satisfy the standard

870: algebra (\ref{algebra}). We see that the requirement of the mutual adjointness of supercharges

871: is to some extent more fundamental than that of the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian ---

872: the latter does not strictly fix the rotation operator $R$ while the former does.

873: 

874:  One can be convinced, order by order in $\beta, \lambda\,$, that complexities in $H$ can

875: be successfully rotated away also in higher orders (with simultaneously restoring the mutual conjugacy

876: of the supercharges), and this is also true for higher powers $N > 3$ in $V(X) \sim X^N$ and

877: hence for any analytic superpotential \footnote{It would be worth being aware of the full analytic

878: proof of this.}.

879: 

880: As the last topic of this Section, we shall consider NAC deformations of some other ${\cal N}=1$

881: SQM models \footnote{We denote by ${\cal N}$ the number of  complex

882: supercharges.}.

883: 

884: Besides the ${\cal N}=1$ multiplet with the off-shell content ${\bf (1, 2, 1)}$, there also exist

885: chiral ${\cal N}=1$ multiplets ${\bf (2,2, 0)}$ and ${\bf (0,2,2)}$,

886: having, correspondingly, even and odd overall Grassmann parity. They are described, respectively,

887: by the chiral superfields $\Phi(\theta, \bar\theta, t)$ and $\Psi(\theta, \bar\theta, t)$:

888: \be

889: \bar D \Phi = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Phi = z(t) + \theta \chi(t)\,, \quad

890: \bar D \Psi = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Psi = \omega(t) + \theta h(t)\,,

891: \ee

892: where as before $t = \tau - i\theta \bar \theta$, $z$ is a complex bosonic field, $\xi$ and $\omega$

893: are complex fermionic fields and

894: $h$ is a complex bosonic auxiliary field. It was shown in \cite{shap} that the only NAC deformation

895: preserving the $1D$ chirality and anti-chirality corresponds to the choice $\bar{C}=\tilde{C} = c^2 = 0,

896: C\neq 0$ in \p{deform}. Then the action of $\Phi$,

897: \be

898: S_{\Phi} = -\int dt \, d^2\theta \left[\frac{1}{4} D\Phi \bar D\bar \Phi + K(\Phi, \bar\Phi)\right]

899: = \int dt \left( \dot z \dot{\bar z} + \frac{i}{2}\bar\chi\dot\chi + \ldots \right), \label{Phi}

900: \ee

901: remains undeformed after replacing all products by the relevant $\star $ products \cite{shap}.

902: 

903: Actually, the same is true for the action of $\Psi $

904: \be

905: S_{\Psi} = -\int dt \, d^2\theta \left[ \frac{1}{4}\Psi\bar\Psi + \beta \bar\theta \Psi

906: - \bar\beta \theta \bar\Psi \right]  = \int dt \left(\frac{i}{2}\bar\omega\dot\omega

907: -\frac{1}{4}h\bar h + \beta h +

908: \bar\beta \bar h\right), \label{Psi}

909: \ee

910: where $\beta $ is a complex constant. However, while considering mutual couplings of

911: $\Psi$ and $\Phi$, there arise new possibilities. Prior to switching on any deformation, such

912: couplings provide potential terms for the ${\bf (2,2,0)}$ multiplet which do not exist

913: within the pure $\Phi$ system (the ``potential'' term $K(\Phi, \Bar\Phi)$ in \p{Phi}

914: produces only a Wess-Zumino type term $\sim (\dot z \bar z - \dot{\bar z} z) + \ldots \,$.).

915: In particular, one can consider the action

916:  \be

917:  \label{mixed}

918: S_{\Phi+\Psi} = -\int dt \, d^2\theta \left[\frac{1}{4} D\Phi \bar D\bar \Phi +

919:  \frac{1}{4}\Psi\bar\Psi + \bar \theta \Psi {\cal F}(\Phi) -

920: \theta \bar \Psi \bar {\cal F}(\bar \Phi) \right],

921: \ee

922: which  gives rise to a non-trivial

923: scalar potential for $z, \bar z$ upon eliminating the auxiliary fields $h, \bar h$ by

924: their equations of motion. For instance, choosing ${\cal F} = a + b\Phi + d \Phi^2$, one obtains  after

925: elimination of $h, \bar h$ the following on-shell component action

926:   \be

927:  S_{\Phi + \Psi} = \int dt \left[ |\dot z|^2 + \frac{i}{2}(\bar\chi\dot\chi + \bar\omega\dot\omega)

928:  + 4|a + b z + d z^2|^2 + \mbox{Yukawa $\omega, \chi$ couplings} \right].

929:   \ee

930: Nevertheless, once again, the direct (anti)chirality-preserving deformation of \p{mixed}

931: does not yield nothing new. The reason is that the terms proportional to the deformation

932: constant $C$  either never appear (in the antiholomorphic part $\sim \bar\Psi$) or vanish after doing

933: the Berezin integral (in the holomorphic part $\sim \Psi\,$).

934: 

935: There still exists an interesting mechanism of generating new potential terms via

936: the deformation. It is based on the observation that, while $\Psi^2= 0$ because of the Grassmann

937: character of $\Psi$, this nilpotency property is not longer valid for $\Psi\star\Psi$ and

938: higher-order star products. Indeed, we find

939: \be

940: \Psi\star \Psi = \frac{C}{2} h^2\,, \; \Psi\star(\Psi\star \Psi) = \frac{C}{2}\left(\omega h^2

941: + \theta h^3\right), \; \Psi\star(\Psi\star \Psi\star \Psi) = \frac{C^2}{4} h^4\,, \quad \mbox{etc\,}.

942: \ee

943: The star products of $\bar \Psi$ coincide with the ordinary ones and so are identically zero.

944: Let us then e.g. add to the Lagrangian in \p{mixed}, with ${\cal F} = a + b z$ as the simplest choice,

945: the term $ {a_1}\,\bar\theta \Psi\star(\Psi\star \Psi)\,$. The bosonic

946: part of the corresponding component Lagrangian  is given by the following expression

947: \be

948: L = |\dot z|^2 -\frac{1}{4}h\bar h + h(a + bz) + \bar h (\bar a + \bar b\bar z) - \frac{a_1 C}{2} h^3\,.

949: \ee

950: Here we cannot longer treat $\bar h$ as a conjugate of $h$: both these fields should now be treated as

951: independent complex ones. Eliminating $\bar h$ by its equation of motion, we obtain

952: \be

953: L = |\dot z|^2 + 4|a + b z|^2 - 32 a_1 C (\bar a + \bar b \bar z)^3\,.

954: \ee

955: The additional term is holomorphic; by the same token as in Section 2 we conclude that the corresponding

956: term in the quantum Hamiltonian can be rotated away without trace! So the modified system proves to be

957: physically equivalent to the undeformed system (has the same quantum spectrum)

958: in spite of an apparent difference in their Lagrangians.

959: 

960: The star product deformation breaks a half of supersymmetries and the modified action is

961: manifestly invariant only under the holomorphic half of the original supersymmetry. Since after rotation

962: we reproduce the original system, the modified system should also respect some additional hidden

963: supersymmetry of the opposite holomorphy, like in the ${\bf (1, 2, 1)}$ system of Ref.

964: \cite{shap} discussed above.

965: 

966: \section{Field theories}

967: 

968: The first example of an anticommutative deformation of a supersymmetric field theory was considered in

969: Ref.\cite{Seiberg}. Seiberg took the standard Wess-Zumino model

970:  \be

971: \label{WZ}

972: {\cal L} \ =\ \int d^4\theta \, \bar \Phi \Phi + \left[ \int d^2\theta \left( \frac {m\Phi^2}2

973: + \frac {\lambda \Phi^3}3

974: \right) + {\rm c.c} \right]

975:  \ee

976: (where now $\int d^2\theta\, (\theta^\alpha \theta_\alpha) = 1\,$) and deformed it by introducing the nontrivial anticommutator

977:   \be

978: \label{Calbet}

979:  \{\theta^\alpha, \theta^\beta \} \ =\ C^{\alpha\beta}\ ,

980:  \ee

981: $  C^{\alpha\beta} =  C^{\beta\alpha}$, in the assumption that all other (anti)commutators vanish,

982:   \be

983: \label{drugiekom}

984: \{\bar \theta^{\dot \alpha}, \bar \theta^{\dot \beta} \} = \{ \theta^{\alpha}, \bar \theta^{\dot \beta} \} =

985: [\theta^\alpha, x^L_\mu] = [ \bar \theta^{\dot \alpha}, x^L_\mu] = [x^L_\mu, x^L_\nu] = 0\ .

986:   \ee

987: Note that this all was written in the {\it chiral} basis,

988: $x_\mu^L = x_\mu^{\rm central} + i\theta \sigma_\mu \bar \theta $.

989:  In Ref.\cite{Seiberg}, the space $x_\mu$ was assumed to be Euclidean. We will work in Minkowski space, however,

990:  and will not be scared

991: by the appearance of complexities  at intermediate steps.  The Minkowski space deformation

992: (\ref{Calbet}), (\ref{drugiekom}) is analogous

993: to the SQM deformation (\ref{deform}) with $\bar C = \tilde C = 0\,$.

994: 

995: The anticommutator

996: (\ref{Calbet}) introduces a constant self-dual tensor which explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance.

997: However, the deformed Lagrangian expressed in terms of the component fields proves still

998: to be Lorentz invariant. Indeed, it is easy to find that the

999:  kinetic term $\int d^4\theta \, \bar \Phi \Phi $ is undeformed and the only extra piece comes from

1000:  \be

1001:  \label{F3}

1002: \frac \lambda 3 \int d^2\theta \, \Phi^3 \ \to\   \int d^2\theta \, \Phi*\Phi*\Phi =

1003:  F(m\phi + \lambda \phi^2)

1004: -   \frac \lambda 3  \,\det \|C\| F^3\ .

1005:  \ee

1006:  It depends only on

1007: the scalar $~\det\|C\|$ and is obviously Lorentz invariant. Adding

1008: $ \bar F(m \bar\phi + \lambda \bar \phi^2)$

1009: from $\int d^2 \bar\theta \bar\Phi^3$ and $F\bar F$ from the kinetic term, and

1010: expressing $F$ and $\bar F$ via

1011: $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$, we see that the undeformed potential $|m\phi + \lambda \phi^2|^2$

1012: acquires an extra holomorphic contribution $\sim (m\bar\phi + \lambda \bar\phi^2)^3$.

1013: 

1014: We have seen, however, that such a holomorphic deformation can be rotated away without

1015: trace! In other words, the deformation (\ref{Calbet}) does not change the dynamics

1016: (the spectrum of the Hamiltonian etc) of the Wess-Zumino model in Minkowski

1017: space \footnote{To avoid a misunderstanding, we

1018: would like to point out that even in Minkowski space, the fields $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$ (as well

1019: as $F$ and $\bar F$) after deformation should be treated as complex fields which {\it are not conjugate}

1020: to each other. The standard complex conjugacy requirements can be consistently imposed

1021: on the {\it rotated} fields and their canonical momenta.}.

1022: 

1023:  The final example is the deformed ${\cal N} = 2$ gauge theory \cite{N2,2N2}. There exists

1024:  in this case a natural Lorentz invariant

1025: deformation \cite{N2},

1026:   \be

1027: \label{N2deform}

1028: \{\theta^\alpha_i, \theta^\beta_j \}\ =\ \frac{1}{4} J \epsilon^{\alpha\beta} \epsilon_{ij}\ ,

1029:  \ee

1030: $i,j = 1,2$ \footnote{The deformation parameter $J$ is related to the original one $I$ \cite{N2} as

1031: $J = 4I\,$.}. The Lagrangian of the deformed ${\cal N} = 2$ supersymmetric $U(1)$ theory is \cite{N2,2N2}

1032:   \be

1033: && {\cal L} = {\cal L}_{\phi} + {\cal L}_{\Psi} + {\cal L}_{A}\,, \label{N2defAct} \\

1034: && {\cal L}_{\phi} = -\frac{1}{2}\Box \bar\phi\left[\phi + \frac{J A_mA_m}{1 + J\bar\phi} +

1035: \frac{1}{4}\frac{J^3 \partial_m\bar\phi\partial_m\bar\phi}{1 + J\bar\phi} \right], \label{phiAct}\\

1036: &&{\cal L}_\Psi = i\left[\Psi^{i\alpha} + \frac {J A_m (\sigma_m)^\alpha_{\dot\alpha}

1037: \bar \Psi^{i\dot \alpha}}{1 + J\bar \phi} \right] (\sigma_n)_{\alpha\dot\beta} \, \partial_n

1038: \left( \frac {\bar \Psi_i^{\dot\beta}}{1 + J\bar\phi} \right),

1039: \label{PsiAct} \\

1040: &&{\cal L}_{A} = \frac{1}{4}(1 + J\bar\phi)^2\left(f_{mn}f_{mn}

1041: + f_{mn}\tilde{f}_{m n}\right), \label{AAct} \\

1042: && f_{mn} = \partial_m \left(\frac{1}{1 + J\bar\phi} A_n\right)-

1043: \partial_n \left(\frac{1}{1 + J\bar\phi} A_m\right).

1044: \ee

1045: 

1046: 

1047: The Lagrangian \p{N2defAct} was derived originally in Euclidean space.

1048:  In Minkowski space, it is clearly complex. Bearing in mind the previous discussion, it is natural

1049: to suggest, however, that the corresponding Hamiltonian is cryptoreal.

1050: Leaving the issue of cryptoreality of the full field theory Hamiltonian for  future study, let us disregard

1051: the fermion part of \p{N2defAct} and consider the

1052: $1D$ reduction of what is left. We will  show that the resulting quantum-mechanical model is cryptoreal

1053: and actually amounts to the free model. The reduction goes as

1054: \be

1055: \Box \to \partial^2_t\,, \; \partial_m\phi\partial_m\bar\phi \to \dot\phi\dot{\bar\phi}\,, \;

1056: A_nA_n \to -A_0A_0 + \vec{A}\vec{A}

1057: \ee

1058: and we obtain

1059: \be

1060: {\cal L}_{bos}^{QM} = \frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}\dot{\bar\phi} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{\vec{A}}\dot{\vec{A}}

1061: -\frac{1}{24}\frac{J^4(\dot{\bar\phi})^4}{(1 + J\bar\phi)^2}

1062: + \frac{J}{2} \frac{\ddot{\bar\phi}}{1 + J\bar\phi} A^2_0\,.

1063: \ee

1064: The corresponding canonical Hamiltonian, in the obvious notation, is as follows

1065: \be

1066: H = 2P \bar P + \frac{1}{2}\, \vec{P}\vec{P}+ \frac{2}{3}J^4\frac{P^4}{(1 + J\bar\phi)^2} - 2J^2 A^2_0

1067: \frac{P^2}{(1 + J\bar\phi)^2}\,.

1068: \ee

1069: Making the rotation

1070: \be

1071: H' = e^R H e^{-R}\,, \quad R = -\frac{i}{3}\frac{J^3 P^3}{1 + J\bar\phi} + iA^2_0 \frac{J P}{1 + J\bar\phi}\,,

1072: \ee

1073: we find that

1074: \be

1075: H' = 2P \bar P + \frac{1}{2}\, \vec{P}\vec{P}\,,

1076: \ee

1077: i.e. the deformation is rotated away without trace, like in the examples above, and

1078: our quantum-mechanical system is reduced to the free one. In the full 4-dimensional case

1079: the situation is more subtle due to the presence of the term $\sim \varepsilon_{mnrq}$ that vanished after

1080: reduction. Our simple $1D$ consideration shows that the corresponding dynamics

1081: in Minkowski space is expected to be ``almost trivial''. Nevertheless, we do not see reasons

1082: why the deformation in this case can be entirely rotated away. Rather, the situation should be similar

1083: to what we observed in the Aldrovandi-Schaposnik model. To get a deeper insight into these issues,

1084: it would be instructive to analyze, from a similar point of view, the deformations of

1085: the nonabelian ${\cal N}=2$ gauge theories \cite{N2} and the models involving

1086: hypermultiplets \cite{N22}, which are not free in the undeformed limit $J=0\,$.

1087: 

1088: \section{Discussion}

1089:  Our main result is that NAC deformations of supersymmetric theories are well defined

1090: not only in Euclidean, but also in Minkowski space. In spite of its unfriendly looking complex

1091: appearance, the deformed theory can be endowed with a Hilbert space where the Hamiltonian is

1092: Hermitian and its spectrum is real. In many cases (in particular in the case of the deformed Wess-Zumino

1093: model considered in Seiberg's original paper), the deformed Hamiltonian is actually physically equivalent

1094: to the undeformed one. Extra contributions stemming from nonanticommutativity have holomorphic structure

1095: and can be ``rotated away'' without trace, as was explained in the text of the paper. For some other NAC

1096: theories, the new Hamiltonian is not equivalent to the old one and deformation brings about nontrivial

1097: changes in dynamics.

1098: 

1099: We discussed at length a one-dimensional SQM example due to Aldrovandi and Schaposnik. While going to

1100: $4D$ field theories, the requirement that Lorentz invariance is kept after deformation dictates

1101: the undeformed theory

1102: to possess at least  ${\cal N} = 2$ supersymmetry [see Eq.(\ref{N2deform})]. The Lagrangian

1103: of the deformed ${\cal N} = 2$ gauge theory

1104: was constructed before. We have not proven, but argued that it is cryptoreal (i.e. the Hamiltonian

1105: can be made Hermitian) but is not equivalent to the undeformed Lagrangian.

1106: A thorough study of this interesting question is a problem for the future.

1107: 

1108: Another interesting direction of study, not related to nonanticommutativity, but related to cryptoreality

1109: is the following. In Ref. \cite{ISZ}, we constructed a gauge theory in six dimensions which is

1110: superconformal at the classical level. It is renormalizable, and the variant of the theory

1111: involving interaction with a hypermultiplet \cite{hyp} is anomaly free \cite{anom}. However,

1112: this theory involves higher derivatives, which may in principle lead to the  loss of unitarity due to the

1113: presence of ghosts. In particular, the theory involves scalar fields $D$ of canonical dimension 2

1114: with the potential $\sim D^3$. Naively, such a potential means vacuum instability and the associated

1115: loss of unitarity. We have seen, however, that the QM models with the potentials $V(x) \sim ix^3$

1116: or $V(x) \sim x^3$ {\it can} be meaningful since their Hamiltonians can be made Hermitian.

1117: It is not excluded that this is also the case for certain higher-derivative field theories and,

1118: in particular, for the models constructed in \cite{ISZ,hyp}.

1119: 

1120: 

1121: 

1122: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1123: 

1124: 

1125: %We are indebted to

1126: E.I. acknowledges a support from RFBR grant, project  No

1127: 06-02-16684, NATO grant PST.GLG.980302, the grant INTAS-05-7928,

1128: the FRBR-DFG grant 06-0204012, the DFG grant No 436 RUS 113/669/0-3 and a grant of the

1129: Heisenberg-Landau program. He thanks B. Zupnik for useful discussions and the SUBATECH for

1130: the warm hospitality in Nantes. A.S. is grateful to C. Bender for the interest in the work

1131: and valuable correspondence.

1132: 

1133: \begin{thebibliography}{40}

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{Seiberg} N.~Seiberg, JHEP {\bf 0006} (2003) 010 [{\tt hep-th/0305248}].

1136: \bibitem{Nonc}

1137: D.~Klemm, S.~Penati, L.~Tamassia,

1138: %Non(anti)commutative superspace.

1139: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 20} (2003) 2905-2916 [{\tt hep-th/0104190}];

1140: %Some aspects of deformations of supersymmetric field theories.

1141: S.~Ferrara, M.A.~Lled\'o, JHEP {\bf 0005} (2000) 008 [{\tt hep-th/0002084}];

1142: S.~Ferrara, M.A.~Lled\'o, O.~Macia,

1143: %Supersymmetry in noncommutative superspaces.

1144: JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 068 [{\tt hep-th/0307039}].

1145: \bibitem{Euclid}

1146: M.T.~Grisaru, S.~Penati, A.~Romagnoni,

1147: %Nonanticommutative superspace and N = 1/2 WZ model.

1148: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 21} (2004) S1391-1398 [{\tt hep-th/0401174}].

1149: \bibitem{Ito} K.~Ito, S.~Sasaki,

1150: %Non(anti)commutative N=2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theory from Superstrings in the Graviphoton Background.

1151: JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 004 [{\tt hep-th/0608143}].

1152: \bibitem{Mink}

1153: J.S.~Cook,

1154: %Gauged Wess-Zumino model in noncommutative Minkowski superspace.

1155: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 47} (2006) 012304 [{\tt hep-th/0505247}];

1156: V.~Nazaryan, C.E.~Carlson,

1157: %Field theory in noncommutative Minkowski superspace.

1158: Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 025019 [{\tt hep-th/0410056}];

1159: M.~Chaichian, A.~Kobakhidze,

1160: %Deformed N=1 supersymmetry.

1161: Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 047501 [{\tt hep-th/0307243}].

1162: \bibitem{StrOr}

1163: H.~Ooguri, C.~Vafa,

1164: %The C deformation of Gluino and nonplanar diagrams.

1165: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 7} (2003) 53-85 [{\tt hep-th/0302109}],

1166: %H.~Ooguri, C.~Vafa,

1167: %Gravity induced C deformation.

1168: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 7} (2004) 405-417 [{\tt hep-th/0303063}];

1169: %Noncommutative superspace from string theory.

1170: J.~de Boer, P.A.~Grassi, P.~van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. {\bf B574} (2003) 98-104

1171: [{\tt hep-th/0302078}].

1172: \bibitem{N2} S.~Ferrara, E.~Ivanov, O.~Lechtenfeld, E.~Sokatchev, B.~Zupnik,

1173: %Non-anticommutative chiral singlet deformation of N=(1,1) gauge theory.

1174: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B704} (2005) 154-180 [{\tt hep-th/0405049}].

1175: \bibitem{shap} L.G.~Aldrovandi, F.A.~Schaposnik, JHEP {\bf 0608} (2006) 081 [{\tt hep-th/0604197}].

1176: \bibitem{Witten} E.~Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B188} (1981) 513.

1177: \bibitem{Bender}  C.M.~Bender, S.~Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 5243

1178: [{\tt physics/9712001}];

1179: C.M.~Bender, D.C.~Brody, H.F.~Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89} (2002) 270401 [{\tt quant-ph/0208076}];

1180: Am. J. Phys. {\bf 71} (2003) 1095 [{\tt hep-th/0303005}]; for a review see

1181: C.M.~Bender, {\tt quant-ph/0501052}.

1182: \bibitem{turok} A.~Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. {\bf A38} (2005) 6557-6570 [{\tt quant-ph/0411137}].

1183: \bibitem{Moyal} J.E.~Moyal,  Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. {\bf 45} (1949) 99.

1184: \bibitem{Alv} L.~Alvarez-Gaume, M.A.~Vazquez-Mozo, JHEP {\bf 0504} (2005) 007

1185: [{\tt hep-th/0503016}].

1186: \bibitem{2N2} I.L.~Buchbinder, E.A.~Ivanov, O.~Lechtenfeld, I.B.~Samsonov, B.M.~Zupnik,

1187: % Renormalizability of non-anticommutative N=(1,1) theories with singlet deformation.

1188: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B740} (2006) 358-385 [{\tt hep-th/0511234}].

1189: \bibitem{N22}

1190: E.~Ivanov, O.~Lechtenfeld, B.~Zupnik,

1191: %Non-anticommutative deformation of N=(1,1) hypermultiplets.

1192: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B707} (2005) 69-86 [{\tt hep-th/0408146}].

1193: \bibitem{ISZ} E.A.~Ivanov, A.V.~Smilga, B.M.~Zupnik, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B726} (2005) 131-148

1194: [{\tt hep-th/0505082}].

1195: \bibitem{hyp} E.A.~Ivanov, A.V.~Smilga, Phys. Lett. {\bf B637} (2006) 374-381 [{\tt hep-th/0510273}].

1196: \bibitem{anom} A.V.~Smilga, {\tt hep-th/0606139} (Phys. Lett. {\bf B}, to appear).

1197: 

1198: 

1199: 

1200: 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \end{thebibliography}

1204: 

1205: \end{document}