Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in High Energy Physics
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 310264, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/310264
Research Article

Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor Triple Systems and Certain Applications of *-Generalized Jordan Triple Systems to Field Theory

1Department of Mathematics, University of Aizu, Aizuwakamatsu 965-8580, Japan
2Department of Natural Science, Faculty of Education, Hirosaki University, Bunkyo-cho 1, Hirosaki, Aomori 036-8560, Japan

Received 15 August 2013; Revised 5 January 2014; Accepted 3 March 2014; Published 3 April 2014

Academic Editor: Anastasios Petkou

Copyright © 2014 Noriaki Kamiya and Matsuo Sato. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The publication of this article was funded by SCOAP3.

Abstract

We define Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems and prove a structure theorem. We also give some examples of triple systems that are generalizations of the and Hermitian 3-algebras. We apply a -generalized Jordan triple system to a field theory and obtain a Chern-Simons gauge theory. We find that the novel Higgs mechanism works, where the Chern-Simons gauge theory reduces to a Yang-Mills theory in a certain limit.

1. Introduction

The structure theory of -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems of finite dimensions, which contain the concept of Jordan triple systems, has been studied in [111].

On the other hand, it is well known that symmetric bounded domains have one-to-one correspondence to Hermitian Jordan triple systems [1215], for which a certain trace form is positive definite Hermitian. Moreover, structure theorems of Hermitian generalized Jordan triple systems of the second-order can be found in [16]. Hence, as a generalization of these concepts, it is interesting to investigate the structure theory of Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems (HFKTSs). In this generalization, Hermitian generalized Jordan triple systems of the second-order or the so-called Kantor triple systems are included as Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems.

From the viewpoint of string theory, HFKTSs are generalizations (A different generalization, the so-called differential crossed module, was extensively investigated in [1719].) of Hermitian 3-algebras [2062], which have played crucial roles in M-theory. The field theories applied with Hermitian 3-algebras are the Chern-Simons gauge theories that describe the effective actions of membranes in M-theory. In a certain limit, the novel Higgs mechanism works, where the Chern-Simons theories become the Yang-Mills theories that describe the effective actions of D-branes in string theory. Moreover, 3-algebra models of M-theory itself have been proposed and were studied in [6367]. Therefore, it is interesting to apply HFKTSs to field theories. It is particularly important to study whether the novel Higgs mechanism works in a field theory with an HFKTS.

The Hermitian 3-algebras are special cases, where or, equivalently, , of Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems of the second order. Also, the Hermitian 3-algebras are classified into and Hermitian 3-algebras [34, 36, 37, 43, 67]. Therefore, it is natural to extend these triple systems to more general Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems or Hermitian generalized Jordan triple systems.

Here, we are concerned with algebras and triple systems that are finite or infinite over a complex number field, unless otherwise specified. We refer to [6872] for nonassociative algebras and to [7375] for Lie superalgebras, for example.

2. Definitions and Preamble

A triple system is a vector space over a field of characteristic with a trilinear map . In this paper, we are concerned with triple systems over the complex number , and we denote the trilinear product by for , assuming that is -linear on and and -antilinear on . Also we use the notations of two operations End and End with respect to the triple systems [1, 2], where and .

Definition 1. A triple system is said to be a *--Freudenthal-Kantor triple system if the following relations (0)–(iv) are satisfied: is a Banach space,(i), where , , and ,(ii), (iii) is a -linear operator on and and a -antilinear operator on ,(iv) is continuous with respect to a norm, ; that is, there exists such that Furthermore, a *--Freudenthal-Kantor triple system is said to be Hermitian if it satisfies the following condition.(v)All operators are positive Hermitian operators with a Hermitian metric that is, and .

This definition is a generalization of the concept of known -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems (see [110]) to that of Hermitian triple systems. Note that there are many simple Lie algebras (the case of ) and simple Lie superalgebras (the case of ) constructed from -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems [4, 7, 8].

Let be a *--Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. Then we may define the notations of tripotent and bitripotent as follows.

Definition 2. It is said to be a tripotent of if

Definition 3. It is said to be a strong bitripotent of if a pair of tripotents satisfies the relations, and other products are zero.

Definition 4. It is said to be a bitripotent of if a pair of tripotents satisfies the relations and other products are zero, where

From now on, we will consider a finite-dimensional triple system equipped with a tripotent, unless otherwise specified.

Following [16], theorems concerning tripotents (Theorems 5 and 6) are proved for Hermitian generalized Jordan triple systems. Actually, the proofs of [16] are valid in Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems because they are independent of . Here, we show the theorems below for completeness.

Theorem 5. Let be a Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. If is flat (i.e., for all ), then we have the decomposition where are tripotents or bitripotents.

Proof. Let be the R-linear span of all , where .
From it follows that belongs to for all . Choose a scalar product, , for example, , satisfying .
By taking the real part of and restricting , we obtain a Euclidean scalar product on such that consists of self-adjoint transformations. Furthermore, is commutative since .
By a standard calculation, may be simultaneously diagonalized. Therefore, there exists a basis of such that for all . Hence, from , we have Furthermore, after sign changes, we may assume that .
Indeed, if , we write , then such that is positive.
Replacing by , we may assume that are tripotents.
On the other hand, if , we have
These imply that and are tripotents or bitripotents.
This completes the proof.

We define odd powers of inductively as follows:

By using this theorem, we have the following.

Theorem 6. Let be a Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. Then every can be written uniquely as where are tripotents or bitripotents and satisfy

Proof. Applying Theorem 5 to the subspace spanned by the powers of , from definition (i), we have for , and thus . Hence, is flat.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that . This implies that any element can be represented by , with real numbers , after permutations, and we may assume that , where are tripotents or bitripotents.
Furthermore, because are tripotents or bitripotents, the powers of are
That is, we obtain where are polynomials in with their coefficients in .
These expressions may also be written as This completes the proof.

For the HFKTS , we can define a norm as follows: where are tripotents or bitripotents. Note that

3. Peirce Decomposition

In this section, we briefly consider the Peirce decomposition of a *--Freudenthal-Kantor triple system equipped with the tripotent .

We recall conditions (i) and (ii) in Section 2, which are equivalent to the following conditions and :

From condition with , we have where we define . From condition with , we have We write (if is a tripotent element, ), and then we obtain

When , we obtain

From conditions and , we have

Summarizing the results, we have the following.

Theorem 7. Let be a *--Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. Then, we have the following decomposition with respect to a tripotent (i.e., ): where

4. Examples

Hermitian 3-algebras are classified into and Hermitian 3-algebras [34, 36, 37, 43, 67]. In this section, we extend these 3-algebras to Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems and *-generalized Jordan triple systems.

Example 1. Let be the set of all matrices with the operation where and denote the transpose and conjugation of , respectively.
Then is a Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. In fact, it satisfies conditions (0), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) in Section 2. This is an extension of the Hermitian 3-algebra (the metric of the Hermitian 3-algebra is defined as , which is different from our Definition 1(v)), which is a basis for the effective action of multiple membranes in M-theory.
One of the tripotents is given by where is the identity matrix (). Because any element can be decomposed as the Peirce decomposition is given by
As in Theorem 5, we can expand any element as , where denotes that element is 1 and other elements are zero, and and are tripotents, that is, and .

Example 2. Let be the set of all matrices with the operation where ,   is an × matrix and .
Then is a Hermitian -Freudenthal-Kantor triple system. In fact, it satisfies conditions (0), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) in Section 2. This triple system with reduces to the Hermitian 3-algebra.
In this example, we can show that , where are tripotents and any element can be expanded by using part of them.

Example 3. Let be the set of all matrices with the operation
Then is a *-generalized Jordan triple system. In fact, it satisfies conditions (0), (i) with , (iii), and (iv) in Section 2 but does not satisfy (ii) and (v). This is an extension of the triple system in Example 1.

5. Application to a Field Theory

In this section, we apply a *-generalized Jordan triple system to a field theory.

We start with where and are matter and gauge fields, respectively. runs from 1 to , whereas runs from 0 to 2. satisfies . This action is invariant under the transformations generated by the operator . This action describes the bosonic parts of the effective actions of supermembranes in M-theory if appropriate potential terms of are added and a Lorentzian Lie 3-algebra or a Hermitian 3-algebra is applied. Here, we apply the *-generalized Jordan triple system in Example 3 to this action.

The covariant derivative is explicitly written as where and are real antisymmetric matrices, which generate the and Lie algebras, respectively. The action can be rewritten in a covariant form with respect to and and we obtain a Chern-Simons gauge theory: In this action, and transform as adjoint representations of and , respectively, whereas transforms as a bifundamental representation of , where gauge parameters and are defined in the same way as and , respectively.

Next, let us examine whether the novel Higgs mechanism works in this theory when . By redefining the gauge fields as we can separate a nondynamical mode as where We divide into two real matrices as and consider fluctuations around a background solution as . If we rescale and as we obtain By using the equation of motion of , the action reduces to as , where and run from 1 to . Therefore, we conclude that the novel Higgs mechanism works in the Chern-Simons gauge theory with the *-generalized Jordan triple system in Example 3 with , and we obtain a Yang-Mills theory in this limit.

6. Concluding Remarks

For our triple systems, we emphasized in this paper that there exists a generalized concept of Hermitian 3-algebras, which have played crucial roles in M-theory. In particular, we find the novel Higgs mechanism also works in the generalized concept.

HFKTSs and *-generalized Jordan triple systems can be regarded as left and right actions on by two Lie algebras, as one can see in the examples. For the novel Higgs mechanism, it is necessary that the two Lie algebras are the same because we need to define summation between the Lie algebras as in Section 5. Thus, the novel Higgs mechanism works only when Example 3 is applied among the examples in this paper.

Our principal physical motivation for generalizing the Hermitian 3-algebras to HKFTSs is to regularize the Nambu 3-algebra, which is defined by a Nambu bracket. The area-preserving diffeomorphism (APD) algebra defined by a Poisson bracket on a torus is regularized by the algebra in the 't Hooft base. On the other hand, the APD algebra defined on a sphere is regularized by the algebra in another base. That is, regularizations of infinite-dimensional algebras depend on the basis of the corresponding finite algebras. Although Hermitian 3-algebras ( and Hermitian 3-algebras) are strong candidates for the regularization of the Nambu 3-algebra because of their large symmetries and their relations to M2-branes, it is not clear how to choose a base for the regularization. To study this systematically, we generalized the Hermitian 3-algebras to HFKTSs ( to Example 1 and to Example 2), and we found a nilpotent basis for them. The next step is to generalize the Nambu 3-algebra to HFKTSs and to find a corresponding nilpotent base. Then by restricting the HFKTSs to the 3-algebras, we may prove that the Nambu 3-algebra is regularized by a Hermitian 3-algebra.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

The work of  Matsuo Sato is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) no. 25800122 from JSPS.

References

  1. N. Kamiya, “A structure theory of Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems,” Journal of Algebra, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 108–123, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  2. N. Kamiya, “A structure theory of Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems II,” Commentarii Mathematici Universitatis Sancti Pauli, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 41–60, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  3. N. Kamiya, “A structure theory of Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems III,” Memoirs of the Faculty of Science and Engineering. Shimane University, vol. 23, pp. 33–51, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  4. N. Kamiya, “The construction of all simple Lie algebras over C from balanced Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems,” in Contributions to General Algebra, vol. 7, pp. 205–213, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, Austria; Veralg G. Teubner, Stuttgart, Germany, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  5. N. Kamiya, “On Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems and generalized structurable algebras,” in Non-Associative Algebra and Its Applications, vol. 303 of Mathematics and Its Applications, pp. 198–203, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  6. N. Kamiya, “On the Peirce decompositions for Freudenthal-Kantor triple systems,” Communications in Algebra, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1833–1844, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  7. N. Kamiya, “Examples of Peirce decomposition of generalized Jordan triple system of second order—balanced cases,” in Noncommutative Geometry and Representation Theory in Mathematical Physics, J. Fuchs, Ed., vol. 391 of Contemporary Mathematics, pp. 157–165, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  8. N. Kamiya and S. Okubo, “On δ-Lie supertriple systems associated with (ϵ,δ)-Freudenthal-Kantor supertriple systems,” Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 243–260, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  9. I. L. Kantor and N. Kamiya, “A Peirce decomposition for generalized Jordan triple systems of second order,” Communications in Algebra, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 5875–5913, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  10. I. L. Kantor, “Models of the exceptional Lie algebras,” Soviet Mathematics—Doklady, vol. 14, pp. 254–258, 1973. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  11. I. L. Kantor, “Some generalizations of Jordan algebras,” Trudy Seminara po Vektornomu i Tenzornomu Analizu s ikh Prilozheniyami k Geometrii, Mekhanike i Fizike, vol. 16, pp. 407–499, 1972 (Russian). View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. W. Kaup, “Algebraic characterization of symmetric complex Banach manifolds,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 228, no. 1, pp. 39–64, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  13. I. Loos, Bounded Symmetric Domains and Jordan Pairs, Mathematical Lectures, University of California, Irvine, Calif, USA, 1977.
  14. K. Meyberg, Lectures on Algebras and Triple Systems, Lecture Notes, The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va, USA, 1972. View at MathSciNet
  15. E. Neher, “On the radical of J*-triples,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 211, no. 1, pp. 323–332, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  16. N. Kamiya and M. Sato, “'Hermitian generalised Jordan triple systems and certain applications to field theory,” In press.
  17. S. Palmer and C. Sämann, “M-brane models from non-abelian gerbes,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2012, no. 7, article 10, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  18. S. Palmer and C. Sämann, “Six-dimensional (1,0) superconformal models and higher gauge theory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 54, no. 11, Article ID 113509, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  19. S. Palmer and C. Sämann, “The ABJM model is a higher gauge theory,” http://xxx.tau.ac.il/abs/1311.1997.
  20. Y. Nambu, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics,” Physical Review D, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 2405–2412, 1973. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  21. V. T. Filippov, “n-Lie algebras,” Sibirskiĭ Matematicheskiĭ Zhurnal, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 126–140, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  22. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, and P. K. Townsend, “Supermembranes and eleven-dimensional supergravity,” Physics Letters B, vol. 189, no. 1-2, pp. 75–78, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  23. B. de Wit, J. Hoppe, and H. Nicolai, “On the quantum mechanics of supermembranes,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 305, no. 4, pp. 545–581, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  24. H. Awata, M. Li, D. Minic, and T. Yoneya, “On the quantization of Nambu brackets,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2001, no. 2, article 13, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  25. D. Minic, “M-theory and deformation quantization,” http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9909022.
  26. J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Modeling multiple M2-branes,” Physical Review D, vol. 75, no. 4, Article ID 045020, 7 pages, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  27. A. Gustavsson, “Algebraic structures on parallel M2 branes,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 811, no. 1-2, pp. 66–76, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  28. J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry of multiple M2-branes,” Physical Review D, vol. 77, no. 6, Article ID 065008, 6 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  29. O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis, and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 10, article 91, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  30. J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Three-algebras and N=6 Chern-Simons gauge theories,” Physical Review D, vol. 79, no. 2, Article ID 025002, 8 pages, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  31. J. Figueroa-O'Farrill and G. Papadopoulos, “Plücker-type relations for orthogonal planes,” Journal of Geometry and Physics, vol. 49, no. 3-4, pp. 294–331, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  32. G. Papadopoulos, “M2-branes, 3-Lie algebras and Plücker relations,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 5, article 54, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  33. J. P. Gauntlett and J. B. Gutowski, “Constraining maximally supersymmetric membrane actions,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 6, article 53, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  34. D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Janus configurations, Chern-Simons couplings, and the θ-angle in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2010, no. 6, article 97, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  35. Y. Honma, S. Iso, Y. Sumitomo, and S. Zhang, “Janus field theories from multiple M2 branes,” Physical Review D, vol. 78, no. 2, Article ID 025027, 7 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  36. K. Hosomichi, K.-M. Lee, S. Lee, S. Lee, and J. Park, “N=5,6 superconformal Chern-Simons theories and M2-branes on orbifolds,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 9, article 2, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  37. M. Schnabl and Y. Tachikawa, “Classification of N=6 superconformal theories of ABJM type,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2010, no. 9, article 103, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  38. S. Mukhi and C. Papageorgakis, “M2 to D2,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 5, article 85, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  39. J. Gomis, G. Milanesi, and J. G. Russo, “Bagger-Lambert theory for general Lie algebras,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 6, article 75, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  40. S. Benvenuti, D. Rodríguez-Gómez, E. Tonni, and H. Verlinde, “N=8 superconformal gauge theories and M2 branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2009, no. 1, article 78, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  41. P.-M. Ho, Y. Imamura, and Y. Matsuo, “M2 to D2 revisited,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 7, article 3, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  42. M. A. Bandres, A. E. Lipstein, and J. H. Schwarz, “Ghost-free superconformal action for multiple M2-branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 7, article 117, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  43. P. de Medeiros, J. Figueroa-O'Farrill, E. Méndez-Escobar, and P. Ritter, “On the Lie-algebraic origin of metric 3-algebras,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 290, no. 3, pp. 871–902, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  44. S. A. Cherkis, V. Dotsenko, and C. Sämann, “Superspace actions for multiple M2-branes, metric 3-algebras, and their classification,” Physical Review D, vol. 79, no. 8, Article ID 086002, 11 pages, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  45. P.-M. Ho, Y. Matsuo, and S. Shiba, “Lorentzian Lie (3-)algebra and toroidal compactification of M/string theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2009, no. 3, article 45, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  46. P. de Medeiros, J. Figueroa-O'Farrill, E. Méndez-Escobar, and P. Ritter, “Metric 3-Lie algebras for unitary Bagger-Lambert theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2009, no. 4, article 37, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  47. H. Nishino and S. Rajpoot, “Triality and Bagger-Lambert theory,” Physics Letters B, vol. 671, no. 3, pp. 415–421, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  48. A. Gustavsson and S. -J. Rey, “Enhanced N=8 supersymmetry of ABJM theory on R(8) and R(8)/Z(2),” http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3568.
  49. O. Aharony, O. Bergman, and D. L. Jafferis, “Fractional M2-branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 11, article 43, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  50. M. Hanada, L. Mannelli, and Y. Matsuo, “Large-N reduced models of supersymmetric quiver, Chern-Simons gauge theories and ABJM,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2009, no. 11, article 87, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  51. G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “Large N reduction for Chern-Simons theory on S3,” Physical Review D, vol. 80, no. 8, Article ID 086004, 5 pages, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  52. H. Kawai, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “Large N reduction on group manifolds,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 25, no. 17, pp. 3389–3406, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  53. G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “A novel large-N reduction on S3: demonstration in Chern-Simons theory,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 834, no. 3, pp. 423–452, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. Y. Pang and T. Wang, “N M2-branes to N D2-branes,” Physical Review D, vol. 78, no. 12, Article ID 125007, 6 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  55. J. deBellis, C. Sämann, and R. J. Szabo, “Quantized Nambu-Poisson manifolds in a 3-Lie algebra reduced model,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2011, no. 4, article 75, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  56. M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Tiny graviton matrix theory: DLCQ of IIB plane-wave string theory, a conjecture,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2004, no. 9, article 17, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  57. J. Gomis, A. J. Salim, and F. Passerini, “Matrix theory of type IIB plane wave from membranes,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 8, article 2, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  58. K. Hosomichi, K.-M. Lee, and S. Lee, “Mass-deformed Bagger-Lambert theory and its BPS objects,” Physical Review D, vol. 78, no. 6, Article ID 066015, 6 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  59. L. Smolin, “M theory as a matrix extension of Chern-Simons theory,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 591, no. 1-2, pp. 227–242, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  60. L. Smolin, “The cubic matrix model and a duality between strings and loops,” http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0006137.
  61. T. Azuma, S. Iso, H. Kawai, and Y. Ohwashi, “Supermatrix models,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 610, no. 1-2, pp. 251–279, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  62. J. Palmkvist, “Unifying N=5 and N=6,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2011, no. 5, article 88, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  63. M. Sato, “Covariant formulation of M-theory,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 24, no. 27, pp. 5019–5024, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  64. M. Sato, “Model of M-theory with eleven matrices,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2010, no. 7, article 26, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  65. M. Sato, “Supersymmetry and the discrete light-cone quantization limit of the Lie 3-algebra model of M-theory,” Physical Review D, vol. 85, no. 4, Article ID 046003, 6 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. M. Sato, “Zariski quantization as second quantization,” Physical Review D, vol. 85, no. 12, Article ID 126012, 10 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  67. M. Sato, “3-algebras in string theory,” in Linear Algebra—Theorems and Applications, H. A. Yasser, Ed., InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  68. B. N. Allison, “A class of nonassociative algebras with involution containing the class of Jordan algebras,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 237, no. 2, pp. 133–156, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  69. N. Jacobson, Structure and Representations of Jordan Algebras, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 1968. View at MathSciNet
  70. S. Okubo, Introduction to Octonion and Other Non-Associative Algebras in Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. View at MathSciNet
  71. I. Satake, Algebraic Structure of Symmetric Domains, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1980.
  72. R. D. Shafer, An Introduction to Non-Associative Algebras, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1966.
  73. N. Kamiya and D. Mondoc, “A new class of nonassociative algebras with involution,” Proceedings of the Japan Academy A, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 68–72, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  74. N. Kamiya and S. Okubo, “A construction of simple Lie subalgebras of certain types from triple systems,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  75. N. Kamiya and S. Okubo, “Construction of Lie superalgebras D(2,1;α),G(3) and F(4) from some triple systems,” Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet