. 61
( 78 .)


several years after its creation. Only in one or two occasions, theoretical predic-
tions of comparable magnitude had to wait for experimental con¬rmation that
long. For example, the neutrino had a time lag of 27 years. A natural question
arises: why do we believe that this concept is so fundamental?
Supersymmetry may help us to solve two of the the deepest mysteries of
nature “ the cosmological term problem and the hierarchy problem.
Supersymmetric Solitons and Topology 281

B.2 Cosmological Term
An additional term in the Einstein action of the form

d4 x g Λ
∆S = (B.2)

goes under the name of the cosmological term. It is compatible with general
covariance and, therefore, can be added freely; this fact was known to Einstein.
Empirically Λ is very small, see below. In classical theory there is no problem
with ¬ne-tuning Λ to any value.
The problem arises at the quantum level. In conventional (non-supersym-
metric) quantum ¬eld theory it is practically inevitable that

Λ ∼ MPl ,

where MPl is the Planck scale, MPl ∼ 1019 GeV. This is to be confronted with
the experimental value of the cosmological term,

Λexp ∼ (10’12 GeV)4 . (B.4)

The divergence between theoretical expectations and experiment is 124 orders
of magnitude! This is probably the largest discrepancy in the history of physics.
Why may supersymmetry help? In supersymmetric theories Λ is strictly for-
bidden by supersymmetry, Λ ≡ 0. Of course, supersymmetry, even if it is there,
must be broken in nature. People hope that the breaking occurs in a way en-
suring splittings between the superpartners™ masses in the ball-park of 100 GeV,
with the cosmological term in the ball-park of the experimental value (B.4).

B.3 Hierarchy Problem
The masses of the spinor particles (electrons, quarks) are protected against large
quantum corrections by chirality (“handedness”). For scalar particles the only
natural mass scale is MPl . Even if originally you choose this mass in the “human”
range of, say, 100 GeV, quantum loops will inevitably drag it to MPl . A crucial
element of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions is the Higgs boson
(not yet discovered). Its mass has to be in the ball-park of 100 GeV. If you
let its mass to be ∼ MPl , this will drag, in turn, the masses of the W bosons.
Thus, you would expect (MW )theor ∼ 1019 GeV while (MW )exp ∼ 102 GeV. The
discrepancy is 17 orders of magnitude.
Again, supersymmetry comes to rescue. In supersymmetry the notion of chi-
rality extends to bosons, through their fermion superpartners. There are no
quadratic divergences in the boson masses, at most they are logarithmic, just
like in the fermion case. Thus, the Higgs boson mass gets protected against large
quantum corrections.
Having explained that supersymmetry may help to solve two of the most
challenging problems in high-energy physics, I hasten to add that it does a
lot of other good things already right now. It proved to be a remarkable tool in
282 M. Shifman

Fig. 9. SUSY time arrow.

dealing with previously “uncrackable” issues in gauge theories at strong coupling.
Let me give a brief list of achievements: (i) ¬rst ¬nite four-dimensional ¬eld
theories; (ii) ¬rst exact results in four-dimensional gauge theories [26]; (iii) ¬rst
fully dynamical (albeit toy) theory of con¬nement [27]; (iv) dualities in gauge
theories [28]. The latter ¬nding was almost immediately generalized to strings
which gave rise to the breakthrough discovery of string dualities.
To conclude my mini-introduction, I present an arrow of time in supersym-
metry (Fig. 9).

1. Yu. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, JETP Lett. 13, 323 (1971) [Reprinted in
Supersymmetry, Ed. S. Ferrara, (North-Holland/World Scienti¬c, Amsterdam “
Singapore, 1987), Vol. 1, page 7].
2. E. Witten and D. I. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 78, 97 (1978).
3. R. Haag, J. T. Lopuszanski, and M. Sohnius, Nucl. Phys. B 88, 257 (1975).
Supersymmetric Solitons and Topology 283

4. E. B. Bogomol™nyi, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24, 449 (1976) [Reprinted in Solitons and
Particles, Eds. C. Rebbi and G. Soliani (World Scienti¬c, Singapore, 1984) p. 389];
M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommer¬eld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975) [Reprinted in
Solitons and Particles, Eds. C. Rebbi and G. Soliani (World Scienti¬c, Singapore,
1984) p. 530].
5. J. Milnor, Morse theory (Princeton University Press, 1973).
6. M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and M. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 045016 (1999)
7. A. Losev, M. A. Shifman, and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 522, 327 (2001) [hep-
th/0108153]; New J. Phys. 4, 21 (2002) [hep-th/0011027], reprinted in Multiple
Facets of Quantization and Supersymmetry, the Michael Marinov Memorial Vol-
ume, Eds. M. Olshanetsky and A. Vainshtein (World Scienti¬c, Singapore, 2002),
p. 585“625.
8. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 13, 3398 (1976), reprinted in Solitons and
Particles, Eds. C. Rebbi and G. Soliani, (World Scienti¬c, Singapore, 1984), p. 331.
9. J. Bagger and J. Wess, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, (Princeton University
Press, 1990).
10. B. Chibisov and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D 56, 7990 (1997) (E) D58 (1998)
109901. [hep-th/9706141].
11. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B49 (1974) 52 [Reprinted in Supersymmetry,
Ed. S. Ferrara, (North-Holland/World Scienti¬c, Amsterdam “ Singapore, 1987),
Vol. 1, page 77].
12. G. R. Dvali and M. A. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 127 (1997) [hep-th/9611213];
Phys. Lett. B 396, 64 (1997) (E) 407, 452 (1997) [hep-th/9612128].
13. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B49 (1974) 52;
J. Iliopoulos and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B76 (1974) 310;
P. West, Nucl. Phys. B106 (1976) 219;
M. Grisaru, M. Roˇek, and W. Siegel, Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979) 429.
14. D. Bazeia, J. Menezes and M. M. Santos, Phys. Lett. B 521, 418 (2001) [hep-
th/0110111]; Nucl. Phys. B 636, 132 (2002) [hep-th/0103041].
15. E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 86, 283 (1979) [Reprinted in Solitons and Particles, Eds.
C. Rebbi and G. Soliani, (World Scineti¬c, Singapore, 1984) p. 777].
16. G. ™t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 79, 276 (1974).
17. A. M. Polyakov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20, 430 (1974) [Engl. transl. JETP
Lett. 20, 194 (1974), reprinted in Solitons and Particles, Eds. C. Rebbi and G.
Soliani, (World Scienti¬c, Singapore, 1984), p. 522].
18. B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 87, 203 (1979).
19. J. Bagger, Supersymmetric Sigma Models, Report SLAC-PUB-3461, published in
Supersymmetry, Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on Supersymmetry, Bonn,
Germany, August 1984, Eds. K. Dietz, R. Flume, G. von Gehlen, and V. Rittenberg
(Plenum Press, New York 1985) pp. 45-87, and in Supergravities in Diverse Di-
mensions, Eds. A. Salam and E. Sezgin (World Scienti¬c, Singapore, 1989), Vol. 1,
pp. 569-611.
20. A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 59, 79 (1975).
21. L. Alvarez-Gaume and D. Z. Freedman, Commun. Math. Phys. 91, 87 (1983).
22. N. Dorey, JHEP 9811, 005 (1998) [hep-th/9806056].
23. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 202, 253 (1982).
24. V. A. Novikov et al., Phys. Rept. 116, 103 (1984).
25. E. Witten, in G. Kane, Supersymmetry: Unveiling the Ultimate Laws of Nature
(Perseus Books, 2000).
284 M. Shifman

26. V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.
B 229, 381 (1983); Phys. Lett. B 166, 329 (1986).
27. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19 (1994), (E) B 430, 485 (1994);
[hep-th/9407087]. Nucl. Phys. B 431, 484 (1994) [hep-th/9408099].
28. N. Seiberg, Proceedings 4th Int. Symposium on Particles, Strings, and Cosmology
(PASCOS 94), Syracuse, New York, May 1994, Ed. K. C. Wali (World Scienti¬c,
Singapore, 1995), p. 183 [hep-th/9408013]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 5171
Forces from Connes™ Geometry

T. Sch¨cker

Centre de Physique Th´orique, CNRS “ Luminy, Case 907, 13288 Marseille Cedex 9,

Abstract. Einstein derived general relativity from Riemannian geometry. Connes ex-
tends this derivation to noncommutative geometry and obtains electro“magnetic, weak,
and strong forces. These are pseudo forces, that accompany the gravitational force just
as in Minkowskian geometry the magnetic force accompanies the electric force. The
main physical input of Connes™ derivation is parity violation. His main output is the
Higgs boson which breaks the gauge symmetry spontaneously and gives masses to
gauge and Higgs bosons.

1 Introduction

Still today one of the major summits in physics is the understanding of the
spectrum of the hydrogen atom. The phenomenological formula by Balmer and
Rydberg was a remarkable pre-summit on the way up. The true summit was
reached by deriving this formula from quantum mechanics. We would like to
compare the standard model of electro“magnetic, weak, and strong forces with
the Balmer“Rydberg formula [1] and review the present status of Connes™ deriva-
tion of this model from noncommutative geometry, see Table 1. This geometry
extends Riemannian geometry, and Connes™ derivation is a natural extension of
another major summit in physics: Einstein™s derivation of general relativity from
Riemannian geometry. Indeed, Connes™ derivation uni¬es gravity with the other
three forces.
Let us brie¬‚y recall four nested, analytic geometries and their impact on our
understanding of forces and time, see Table 2. Euclidean geometry is underly-
ing Newton™s mechanics as space of positions. Forces are described by vectors
living in the same space and the Euclidean scalar product is needed to de¬ne
work and potential energy. Time is not part of geometry, it is absolute. This
point of view is abandoned in special relativity unifying space and time into
Minkowskian geometry. This new point of view allows to derive the magnetic
¬eld from the electric ¬eld as a pseudo force associated to a Lorentz boost. Al-
though time has become relative, one can still imagine a grid of synchronized
clocks, i.e. a universal time. The next generalization is Riemannian geometry =
curved spacetime. Here gravity can be viewed as the pseudo force associated to
a uniformly accelerated coordinate transformation. At the same time, universal
time loses all meaning and we must content ourselves with proper time. With
today™s precision in time measurement, this complication of life becomes a bare
necessity, e.g. the global positioning system (GPS).

T. Sch¨ cker, Forces from Connes™ Geometry, Lect. Notes Phys. 659, 285“350 (2005)
http://www.springerlink.com/ c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005
286 T. Sch¨cker

Table 1. An analogy
atoms particles and forces
Balmer“Rydberg formula standard model
quantum mechanics noncommutative geometry

Table 2. Four nested analytic geometries
geometry force time

F · dx
Euclidean E= absolute
E, ’ B, µ0 =
Minkowskian universal
0 2

Coriolis ” gravity
Riemannian proper, „
∆„ ∼ 10’40 s
gravity ’ YMH, » =
noncommutative g

Our last generalization is to Connes™ noncommutative geometry = curved
space(time) with uncertainty. It allows to understand some Yang“Mills and some
Higgs forces as pseudo forces associated to transformations that extend the two
coordinate transformations above to the new geometry without points. Also,
proper time comes with an uncertainty. This uncertainty of some hundred Planck
times might be accessible to experiments through gravitational wave detectors
within the next ten years [2].


On the physical side, the reader is supposed to be acquainted with general rel-
ativity, e.g. [3], Dirac spinors at the level of e.g. the ¬rst few chapters in [4]
and Yang“Mills theory with spontaneous symmetry break-down, for example
the standard model, e.g. [5]. I am not ashamed to adhere to the minimax prin-
ciple: a maximum of pleasure with a minimum of e¬ort. The e¬ort is to do
a calculation, the pleasure is when its result coincides with an experiment re-
sult. Consequently our mathematical treatment is as low-tech as possible. We
do need local di¬erential and Riemannian geometry at the level of e.g. the ¬rst
few chapters in [6]. Local means that our spaces or manifolds can be thought of
as open subsets of R4 . Nevertheless, we sometimes use compact spaces like the
torus: only to simplify some integrals. We do need some group theory, e.g. [7],
mostly matrix groups and their representations. We also need a few basic facts
on associative algebras. Most of them are recalled as we go along and can be
found for instance in [8]. For the reader™s convenience, a few simple de¬nitions
from groups and algebras are collected in the Appendix. And, of course, we need
some chapters of noncommutative geometry which are developped in the text.
For a more detailed presentation still with particular care for the physicist see
Refs. [9,10].
Forces from Connes™ Geometry 287

2 Gravity from Riemannian Geometry
In this section we brie¬‚y review Einstein™s derivation of general relativity from
Riemannian geometry. His derivation is in two strokes, kinematics and dynamics.

2.1 First Stroke: Kinematics
Consider ¬‚at space(time) M in inertial or Cartesian coordinates x» . Take as
matter a free, classical point particle. Its dynamics, Newton™s free equation,
¬xes the trajectory x» (p):


. 61
( 78 .)