text:
# References

Canonical Form and Separability of PPT States in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ Composite Quantum Systems

Shao-Ming Fei1, 2, Xiu-Hong Gao1, Xiao-Hong Wang1, Zhi-Xi Wang1, and Ke Wu1

1 Department of Mathematics, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.
2 Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn Germany

Abstract

We give a canonical form of PPT states in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ with rank=$`N`$. From this canonical form a necessary separable condition for these states is presented.

Key words: Separability, Quantum entanglement PACS number(s): 03.67.Hk, 03.65.Ta, 89.70.+c

Quantum entangled states have become one of the key resources in the rapidly expanding field of quantum information processing and computation . Nevertheless, the physical character and mathematical structure of the quantum entanglement are still not fully understood yet. One even does not know wether a general quantum (mixed) state is entangled or not, and how entangled it is after some noisy quantum processes.

To quantify entanglement, a number of entanglement measures such as entanglement of formation and distillation , negativity , von Neumann entropy and relative entropy  have been proposed for bipartite states. However most proposed measures of entanglement involve extremizations which are difficult to handle analytically. For instance, the entanglement of formation  is intended to quantify the amount of quantum communication required to create a given bipartite state. So far no explicit analytic formulae for entanglement of formation have been found for systems larger than a pair of qubits , except for some symmetric states  and a class of special states .

The separability problem concerns both bipartite and multipartite quantum states, although the measure of entanglement is only well defined for bipartite case. For pure states the separability is quite well understood . Nevertheless, in real conditions, due to the interactions with environment, one encounters mixed states rather than pure ones. These mixed states can still possess some residual entanglement, but the quantum correlations are weakened. Hence the manifestations of mixed-state entanglement can be very subtle .

A state of a composite quantum system is said to be disentangled or separable if it can be prepared in a local or classical way. Let $`𝒞_\mathrm{a}^M`$ (resp. $`𝒞_\mathrm{b}^N`$) be $`M`$ (resp. $`N`$) dimensional complex Hilbert spaces associated with sub-quantum systems $`\mathrm{a}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{b}`$). A separable bipartite state in $`𝒞_\mathrm{a}^M𝒞_\mathrm{b}^N`$ can be prepared as an ensemble realization of pure product states $`|\psi _\mathrm{a}^i|\psi _\mathrm{b}^i`$ occurring with a certain probability $`p_i`$:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{ab}}=\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _\mathrm{a}^i\rho _\mathrm{b}^i,$$
(1)
where $`_ip_i=1`$, $`\rho _\alpha ^i=|\psi _\alpha ^i\psi _\alpha ^i|`$, $`|\psi _\alpha ^i`$ are normalized pure states associated with the subsystems $`\alpha `$, $`\psi _\alpha ^i|`$ are the transpose and conjugate of $`|\psi _\alpha ^i`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b}`$. If no convex linear combination exists for a given $`\rho _{\mathrm{ab}}`$, the state is called entangled.

For a generic mixed state $`\rho _{\mathrm{ab}}`$, finding a decomposition like in Eq. (2) or proving that it does not exist is a non-trivial task (see and references therein). The Bell inequalities satisfied by a separable system give the first necessary condition for separability . Afterwards the Peres criterion  says that partial transpositions with respect to one or more subsystems of a separable state $`\rho `$ are positive: $`\rho ^{t_\alpha }0`$, where $`\alpha `$ is either $`\mathrm{a}`$ or $`\mathrm{b}`$, $`t_\alpha `$ stands for the partial transposition with respect to a subsystem $`\alpha `$. This criterion was further shown to be also sufficient for bipartite systems in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2`$ and $`𝒞^2𝒞^3`$ . The reduction criterion proposed independently in  and  gives another necessary criterion which is equivalent to the Peres criterion for $`𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ composite systems but is generally weaker. There are many other necessary criteria such as majorization , entanglement witnesses , extension of Peres criterion , matrix realignment , generalized partial transposition criterion (GPT) , generalized reduced criterion . For low rank density matrices there are also some necessary and sufficient criteria of separability .

The separability and entanglement in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ and $`𝒞^2𝒞^3𝒞^N`$ composite quantum systems have been studied in terms of matrix analysis on tensor spaces . It is shown that all such quantum states $`\rho `$ with positive partial transposes and rank $`r(\rho )N`$ are separable. In this article we extend the results in  to the case of composite quantum systems in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$. We give a canonical form of positive partial transpose (PPT) states in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ with rank $`N`$ and present a necessary separability criterion.

A separable state in $`𝒞_\mathrm{a}^2𝒞_\mathrm{b}^2𝒞_\mathrm{c}^2𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ is of the form:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{abcd}}=\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _\mathrm{a}^i\rho _\mathrm{b}^i\rho _\mathrm{c}^i\rho _\mathrm{d}^i,$$
(2)
where $`_ip_i=1`$, $`0<p_i1`$, $`\rho _\alpha ^i`$ are desity matrices associated with the subsystems $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c},\mathrm{d}`$. In the following we denote by $`R(\rho )`$, $`K(\rho )`$, $`r(\rho )`$ and $`k(\rho )`$ the range, kernel, rank, dimension of the kernel of $`\rho `$, respectively.

We first derive a canonical form of PPT states in $`𝒞_\mathrm{a}^2𝒞_\mathrm{b}^2𝒞_\mathrm{c}^2𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ with rank $`N`$, which allows for an explicit decomposition of a given state in terms of convex sum of projectors on product vectors. Let $`|0_A`$, $`|1_A`$; $`|0_B`$, $`|1_B`$; $`|0_C`$, $`|1_C`$ and $`|0_D\mathrm{}|N1_D`$ be some local bases of the sub-systems $`\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c},\mathrm{d}`$ respectively.

Lemma.  Every PPT state $`\rho `$ in $`𝒞_\mathrm{a}^2𝒞_\mathrm{b}^2𝒞_\mathrm{c}^2𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ such that $`r(1_A,1_B,1_C|\rho |1_A,1_B,1_C)=r(\rho )=N`$, can be transformed into the following canonical form by using a reversible local operation:

$$\rho =\sqrt{D}[CBACBCACBABAI]^{}[CBACBCACBABAI]\sqrt{D}$$
(3)
where $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ and the identity $`I`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices acting on $`𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ and satisfy the following relations: $`[A,A^{}]=[B,B^{}]=[C,C^{}]=[B,A]=[B,A^{}]=[C,A]=[C,A^{}]=[C,B]=[C,B^{}]=0`$ and $`D=D^{}`$ ($``$ stands for the transpose and conjugate).

Proof. In the considered basis a density matix $`\rho `$ can be always written as:

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}E_1& E_{12}& E_{13}& E_{14}& E_{15}& E_{16}& E_{17}& E_{18}\\ E_{12}^{}& E_2& E_{23}& E_{24}& E_{25}& E_{26}& E_{27}& E_{28}\\ E_{13}^{}& E_{23}^{}& E_3& E_{34}& E_{35}& E_{36}& E_{37}& E_{38}\\ E_{14}^{}& E_{24}^{}& E_{34}^{}& E_4& E_{45}& E_{46}& E_{47}& E_{48}\\ E_{15}^{}& E_{25}^{}& E_{35}^{}& E_{45}^{}& E_5& E_{56}& E_{57}& E_{58}\\ E_{16}^{}& E_{26}^{}& E_{36}^{}& E_{46}^{}& E_{56}^{}& E_6& E_{67}& E_{68}\\ E_{17}^{}& E_{27}^{}& E_{37}^{}& E_{47}^{}& E_{57}^{}& E_{67}^{}& E_7& E_{78}\\ E_{18}^{}& E_{28}^{}& E_{38}^{}& E_{48}^{}& E_{58}^{}& E_{68}^{}& E_{78}^{}& E_8\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`E^{}s`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices, $`r(E_8)=N`$. After the projection $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=1_A|\rho |1_A`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=1_A|\rho |1_A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_5& E_{56}& E_{57}& E_{58}\\ E_{56}^{}& E_6& E_{67}& E_{68}\\ E_{57}^{}& E_{67}^{}& E_7& E_{78}\\ E_{58}^{}& E_{68}^{}& E_{78}^{}& E_8\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is now a state in $`𝒞_\mathrm{b}^2𝒞_\mathrm{c}^2𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ with $`r(\stackrel{~}{\rho })=r(\rho )=N`$. As every principal minor determinant of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{t_B}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{t_C}`$) is some principal minor determinant of $`\rho `$, the fact that $`\rho `$ is PPT implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is also PPT, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }0`$. Using the Lemma 1 in  we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A^{}B^{}BA& A^{}B^{}B& A^{}B^{}A& A^{}B^{}\\ B^{}BA& B^{}B& B^{}A& B^{}\\ A^{}BA& A^{}B& A^{}A& A^{}\\ BA& B& A& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`[A,A^{}]=[B,B^{}]=[B,A]=[B,A^{}]=0`$. It is direct to verify that the following vectors in $`𝒞_\mathrm{b}^2𝒞_\mathrm{c}^2𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$ are kernel vectors $`k(\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|\psi _f=|10|f|11A|f,\hfill & |\psi _g=|01|g|11B|g,\hfill \\ |\psi _h=|00|h|11BA|h,\hfill & |f,|g,|h𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly, if we consider the projection $`1_B|\rho |1_B`$ and $`1_C|\rho |1_C`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{\rho }& =& 1_B|\rho |1_B\hfill \\ & =& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_3& E_{34}& E_{37}& E_{38}\\ E_{34}^{}& E_4& E_{47}& E_{48}\\ E_{37}^{}& E_{47}^{}& E_7& E_{78}\\ E_{38}^{}& E_{48}^{}& E_{78}^{}& E_8\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A^{}C^{}CA& A^{}C^{}C& A^{}C^{}A& A^{}C^{}\\ C^{}CA& C^{}C& C^{}A& C^{}\\ A^{}CA& A^{}C& A^{}A& A^{}\\ CA& C& A& 1\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }& =& 1_C|\rho |1_C\hfill \\ & =& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_2& E_{24}& E_{26}& E_{28}\\ E_{24}^{}& E_4& E_{46}& E_{48}\\ E_{26}^{}& E_{46}^{}& E_6& E_{68}\\ E_{28}^{}& E_{48}^{}& E_{68}^{}& E_8\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B^{}C^{}CB& B^{}C^{}C& B^{}C^{}B& B^{}C^{}\\ C^{}CB& C^{}C& C^{}B& C^{}\\ B^{}CB& B^{}C& B^{}B& B^{}\\ CB& C& B& 1\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`[C,C^{}]=[A,C]=[A,C^{}]=0`$, $`[B,B^{}]=[B,C]=[B,C^{}]=0`$.

Hence the matrix (4) now has the form:

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}E_1& E_{12}& E_{13}& E_{14}& E_{15}& E_{16}& E_{17}& E_{18}\\ E_{12}^{}& B^{}C^{}CB& E_{23}& B^{}C^{}C& E_{25}& B^{}C^{}B& E_{27}& B^{}C^{}\\ E_{13}^{}& E_{23}^{}& A^{}C^{}CA& A^{}C^{}C& E_{35}& E_{36}& A^{}C^{}A& A^{}C^{}\\ E_{14}^{}& C^{}CB& C^{}CA& C^{}C& E_{45}& C^{}B& C^{}A& C^{}\\ E_{15}^{}& E_{25}^{}& E_{35}^{}& E_{45}^{}& A^{}B^{}BA& A^{}B^{}B& A^{}B^{}A& A^{}B^{}\\ E_{16}^{}& B^{}C^{}B& E_{36}^{}& B^{}C& B^{}BA& B^{}B& B^{}A& B^{}\\ E_{17}^{}& E_{27}^{}& A^{}CA& A^{}C& A^{}BA& A^{}B& A^{}A& A^{}\\ E_{18}^{}& CB& CA& C& BA& B& A& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
It has the following kernel vectors:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|001|f|111CB|f,\hfill & |010|g|111CA|g,\hfill \\ |011|h|111C|h,\hfill & |100|p|111BA|p,\hfill \\ |101|q|111B|q,\hfill & |110|m|111A|m,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
for all $`|f,|g,\mathrm{},|m𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$. This implies

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E_{27}=B^{}C^{}A,\hfill & E_{36}=A^{}C^{}B,\hfill & E_{25}=B^{}C^{}BA,\hfill \\ E_{35}=A^{}C^{}BA,\hfill & E_{45}=C^{}BA,\hfill & E_{23}=B^{}C^{}CA,\hfill \\ E_{17}=E_{18}A,\hfill & E_{16}=E_{18}B,\hfill & E_{15}=E_{18}BA,\hfill \\ E_{14}=E_{18}C,\hfill & E_{13}=E_{18}CA,\hfill & E_{12}=E_{18}CB.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Substituting (9) into (7) and consider partial transpose of $`\rho `$ with respect to the first sub-system $`\mathrm{a}`$, we have

$$\rho ^{t_\mathrm{a}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}E_1& E_{18}CB& E_{18}CA& E_{18}C& A^{}B^{}E_{18}^{}& A^{}B^{}CB& A^{}B^{}CA& A^{}B^{}C\\ B^{}C^{}E_{18}^{}& B^{}C^{}CB& B^{}C^{}CA& B^{}C^{}C& B^{}E_{18}^{}& B^{}CB& B^{}CA& B^{}C\\ A^{}C^{}E_{18}^{}& A^{}C^{}CB& A^{}C^{}CA& A^{}C^{}C& A^{}E_{18}^{}& A^{}CB& A^{}CA& A^{}C\\ C^{}E_{18}^{}& C^{}CB& C^{}CA& C^{}C& E_{18}^{}& CB& CA& C\\ E_{18}BA& E_{18}B& E_{18}A& E_{18}& A^{}B^{}BA& A^{}B^{}B& A^{}B^{}A& A^{}B^{}\\ B^{}C^{}BA& B^{}C^{}B& B^{}C^{}A& B^{}C^{}& B^{}BA& B^{}B& B^{}A& B^{}\\ A^{}C^{}BA& A^{}C^{}B& A^{}C^{}A& A^{}C^{}& A^{}BA& A^{}B& A^{}A& A^{}\\ C^{}BA& C^{}B& C^{}A& C^{}& BA& B& A& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Since the partial transpose with respect to the sub-system $`\mathrm{a}`$ is positive, $`\rho ^{t_\mathrm{a}}0`$, and it does not change $`1_\mathrm{a}|\rho |1_\mathrm{a}`$, we still have $`|100|p|111BA|pk(\rho ^{t_\mathrm{a}})`$. This gives rise to the following equalities: $`E_{18}^{}=CBA`$, $`E_{18}=A^{}B^{}C^{}`$. $`\rho `$ is then of the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}E_1& A^{}B^{}C^{}CB& A^{}B^{}C^{}CA& A^{}B^{}C^{}C& A^{}B^{}C^{}BA& A^{}B^{}C^{}B& A^{}B^{}C^{}A& A^{}B^{}C^{}\\ B^{}C^{}CBA& B^{}C^{}CB& B^{}C^{}CA& B^{}C^{}C& B^{}C^{}BA& B^{}C^{}B& B^{}C^{}A& B^{}C^{}\\ A^{}C^{}CBA& A^{}C^{}CB& A^{}C^{}CA& A^{}C^{}C& A^{}C^{}BA& A^{}C^{}B& A^{}C^{}A& A^{}C^{}\\ C^{}CBA& C^{}CB& C^{}CA& C^{}C& C^{}BA& C^{}B& C^{}A& C^{}\\ A^{}B^{}CBA& A^{}B^{}CB& A^{}B^{}CA& A^{}B^{}C& A^{}B^{}BA& A^{}B^{}B& A^{}B^{}A& A^{}B^{}\\ B^{}CBA& B^{}CB& B^{}CA& B^{}C& B^{}BA& B^{}B& B^{}A& B^{}\\ A^{}CBA& A^{}CB& A^{}CA& A^{}C& A^{}BA& A^{}B& A^{}A& A^{}\\ CBA& CB& CA& C& BA& B& A& 1\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ =[\begin{array}{cccccccc}CBA& CB& CA& C& BA& B& A& I\end{array}]^{}[CBACBCACBABAI]\hfill \\ +\mathrm{diag}[\mathrm{\Delta },0,0,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{diag}[\mathrm{\Delta },0,0,0,0,0,0,0],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_1A^{}B^{}C^{}CBA`$ (diag$`[\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{}]`$ denotes a matrix with diagonal blocks $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{}`$). $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is PPT and has $`7N`$ kernel vectors:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|001|f|111CB|f,\hfill & |010|g|111CA|g,\hfill \\ |011|h|111C|h,\hfill & |100|p|111BA|p,\hfill \\ |101|q|111B|q,\hfill & |110|m|111A|m,\hfill \\ |000|k|111CBA|k,\hfill & \end{array}$$

for arbitrary $`|f,|g,\mathrm{},|k𝒞_\mathrm{d}^N`$.

Taking into account $`\rho 0`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Moreover, since $`r(\rho )=r(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, the ranges of the related matrices satisfy the relation $`R(\rho )=R(\mathrm{\Sigma })R(\mathrm{diag}[\mathrm{\Delta },0])`$. Therefore the corresponding kernels fulfill $`K(\mathrm{diag}[\mathrm{\Delta },0])K(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. For vectors $`|\varphi _k`$ belong to the kernel $`K(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we can deduce $`\varphi _k|\mathrm{diag}[\mathrm{\Delta },0]|\varphi _k=0`$. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Delta }|k=0`$ for all $`|k`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using Lemma we can prove the following Theorem:

Theorem. A PPT-state $`\rho `$ in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ with $`r(\rho )=N`$ is separable if there exists a product basis $`|e_A,f_B,g_C`$ such that $`r(e_A,f_B,g_C|\rho |e_A,f_B,g_C)=N`$.

Proof.  According to the Lemma the PPT state $`\rho `$ can be written as

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{c}A^{}B^{}C^{}\\ B^{}C^{}\\ A^{}C^{}\\ C^{}\\ A^{}B^{}\\ B^{}\\ A^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}CBA& CB& CA& C& BA& B& A& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Since all $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ commute, they have common eigenvectors $`|f_n`$. Let $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$ be the corresponding eigenvalues of $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ respectively. We have

$$f_n|\rho |f_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_n^{}b_n^{}c_n^{}\\ b_n^{}c_n^{}\\ a_n^{}c_n^{}\\ c_n^{}\\ a_n^{}b_n^{}\\ b_n^{}\\ a_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}c_nb_na_n& c_nb_n& c_na_n& c_n& b_na_n& b_n& a_n& 1\end{array}\right)$$

$$=\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}c_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\right](c_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1})(b_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1})(a_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1})=|e_\mathrm{a},f_\mathrm{b},g_\mathrm{c}e_\mathrm{a},f_\mathrm{b},g_\mathrm{c}|.$$

We can thus write $`\rho `$ as

$$\rho =\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\psi _n\psi _n||\varphi _n\varphi _n||\omega _n\omega _n||f_nf_n|,$$

where

$$|\psi _n=\left(\begin{array}{c}c_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right),|\varphi _n=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right),|\omega _n=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_n^{}\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$

Because the local transformations are reversible, we can now apply the inverse transformations and obtain a decomposition of the initial state $`\rho `$ in a sum of projectors onto product vectors. This proves the separability of $`\rho `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have derived a canonical form of PPT states in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ with rank $`N`$. A necessary separability criterion is also obtained from the representation of the canonical form. The results can be generalized to multipartite quantum systems with more sub-systems like $`𝒞^2𝒞^2\mathrm{}𝒞^N`$, or with higher dimensions.


format: text

text:
# Equations of motion as projectors and the gyromagnetic factor 𝑔_𝑠=1/𝑠 from first principles.

## 1 Dirac and Proca equations as projectors over subspaces with well defined parity.

In this work we take the point of view that the equation of motion satisfied by a field is just as a kinematical statement of the representation space which it belongs to and the discrete symmetries we impose on it . In order to illustrate the point, in this section we will obtain Dirac and Proca equations as simple projectors over parity eigen-subspaces of the corresponding representations of the HLG.

### 1.1 Dirac Equation

The Dirac field belongs to the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ representation of the Homogenous Lorentz Group (HLG) and is an eigenstate of parity operator. This last condition can be imposed in the rest frame as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }\psi (\mathrm{𝟎})=\eta \psi (\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ denotes parity operator in the rest frame (I-parity in the following to distinguish it from the full parity operation which requires also the change $`𝐩𝐩`$ ) and $`\eta =\pm 1`$.

The boost operator for fields transforming in the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ representation, can be constructed from first principles .We work in the Dirac basis for the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ space which is related to the Weyl basis by the transformation matrix

$$U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).$$

In this basis parity operator is diagonal $`\mathrm{\Pi }=Diag(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ whereas the boost operator reads

$`B(𝐩)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(i𝐊\phi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )& sinh(𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )\\ sinh(𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )& \mathrm{cos}(𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )\end{array}\right)`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(E+m)}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E+m& \sigma 𝐩\\ \sigma 𝐩& E+m\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
Applying the boost operator to Eq. (1) and using $`\mathrm{\Pi }B(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi }=B^1(𝐩)`$ we obtain

$`\left[B^2(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi }\eta \right]\psi (𝐩)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(2𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )\eta & sinh(2𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )\\ sinh(2𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )& \mathrm{cos}(2𝐒\widehat{𝐧}\phi )\eta \end{array}\right)\psi (𝐩)`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{E}{m}\eta & \frac{\sigma 𝐩}{m}\\ \frac{\sigma 𝐩}{m}& \frac{E}{m}\eta \end{array}\right)\psi (𝐩)=0.`$
If we now define the matrices

$$\gamma ^0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\gamma ^i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^i\\ \sigma ^i& 0\end{array}\right),$$

this equation can be rewritten in Dirac form

$$[\gamma ^\mu p_\mu \eta m]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(8)
States satisfying this condition for $`\eta =1`$ describes particles while anti-particles correspond to the subspace with $`\eta =1`$. So far we have just identified the $`\gamma ^\mu `$ matrices and assumed they transform as a four-vector. It can be explicitly shown that indeed these matrices transform as a four-vector by calculating $`\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{´}{}=B(𝐩)\gamma ^\mu B^1(𝐩)`$ with the boost operator in Eq.(4).

### 1.2 Proca equation

The very same philosophy can be used to show that Proca equation is just a projector over the subspaces with well defined (negative) parity of the representation space $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$. Indeed, a basis for the states living in the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ (denoted in the following simply as $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$) is $`\{|\frac{1}{2}m_R|\frac{1}{2}m^{}_L\}`$ . In the following we refer to this basis of the representation space as the tensor product basis (TPB). The specific representation of these states in the $`|\frac{1}{2},m`$ basis for the rest frame state reads

$`|+_R|+_L`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),|+_R|_L\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`|_R|+_L`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),|_R|_L\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
In the latter equation we used the customary notation $`|\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}|+`$ and $`|\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}|`$, and the $`L,R`$ subindices to denote the different transformation properties under boosts of spinors belonging to$`(\frac{1}{2},0)`$ and $`(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ respectively. A general rest frame state residing in the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ space can be written as

$$\varphi ^{TPB}\varphi _R\varphi _L=l.c.\{|+_R|+_L,|+_R|_L,|_R|+_L,|_R|_L\},$$

where l.c. stands for linear combination. Notice that under I-parity

$$\varphi _R\varphi _L\varphi _L\varphi _R,$$

thus formally I-parity take us from the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ to the $`(0,\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},0)`$ space, a different one. However, there exists a unitary transformation connecting these spaces thus they are unitarily equivalent. Indeed, in general it is possible to show that

$$AB=U(BA)U^{},$$
(27)
where$`U`$ is a permutation matrix which is also a unitary transformation. For the case at hand, we have the following representation for the TPB of $`(0,\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},0)`$ representation space

$`|+_L|+_R`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),|+_L|_R\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
$`|_L|+_R`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),|_L|_R\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (45)
Thus in this case

$$U\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(46)
Clearly, I-parity has the representation $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{TPB}=\eta U`$ where $`\eta `$ is a phase which is restricted to $`\eta =\pm 1`$ because $`\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{TPB}\right)^2=1`$. Thus the space $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ span an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group (boosts and rotations) extended by parity. The boost and rotation operators for this space can be constructed (in the TPB) as

$$R(\stackrel{}{\theta })=e^{i\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\stackrel{}{\theta }}e^{i\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\stackrel{}{\theta }},B(\stackrel{}{\phi })=e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\stackrel{}{\phi }}e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\stackrel{}{\phi }}.$$
(47)
The corresponding generators read

$$𝐒^{TPB}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma \mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma ),i𝐊^{TPB}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma \mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma ).$$
(48)
In terms of $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ , the boost operator for rest frame states reads

$$B^{TPB}(\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1}{2m(p_0+m)}[p_0+m+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}][p_0+m\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}].$$
(49)
Transforming the boost operator under I-parity we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{TPB}B(\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Pi }^{TPB}=B(\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(50)
So far, we have worked in the tensor product basis $`\{`$ $`|\frac{1}{2}m_R|\frac{1}{2}m^{}_L`$ $`\}`$ for the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ space. It is interesting to work in the total angular momentum basis in the rest frame (TAMB) or ”physical basis”. This basis is related to the TPB as $`|TAMB=M|TPB`$. Explicitly

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}|0,0\\ |1,1\\ |1,0\\ |1,1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|+_R|+_L\\ |+_R|_L\\ |_R|+_L\\ |_R|_L\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
Under this change of basis the operators transform as:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=M\mathrm{\Pi }^{TPB}M^{}=\eta Diag(1,1,1,1),$$
(52)
$`𝐒`$ $`=M𝐒^{TPB}M^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}_{1\times 1}& \mathrm{𝟎}_{1\times 3}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}_{3\times 1}& 𝐒^{\left(1\right)}\end{array}\right),`$ (55)
$`i𝐊`$ $`=Mi𝐊^{TPB}M^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}_{1\times 1}& 𝐕^{}\\ 𝐕& \mathrm{𝟎}_{3\times 3}\end{array}\right),`$ (58)
where

$$V_1^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,1),V_2^{}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,1),V_3^{}=(0,1,0),$$

and $`𝐒^{\left(1\right)}`$ denote the angular momentum operators for spin 1

$$S_1^{\left(1\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\end{array}\right),S_2^{\left(1\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\end{array}\right),S_3^{\left(1\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(59)
In this representation $`𝐒^2=Diag(0,2,2,2)`$ and $`𝐊^2=Diag(3,1,1,1).`$ These relations make clear that fields in this representation space in general describe a multiplet composed of a spin zero field and a spin 1 field with opposite intrinsic parities. The choice $`\eta =1`$ (which we use in the following) yields $`(\mathrm{\Pi })_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }`$ and with this choice we have a description for a spin 0 field with positive intrinsic parity and a spin 1 field with with negative intrinsic parity.

The boost operator in the ”physical basis” reads

$$B^{TAMB}(𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E& p_+& p_3& p_{}\\ p_{}& \frac{(E+m)^2p_3^2}{2(E+m)}& \frac{p_3p_{}}{E+m}& \frac{p_{}^2}{E+m}\\ p_3& \frac{p_3p_+}{E+m}& \frac{(E+m)^2+p_3^2p_+p_{}}{2(E+m)}& \frac{p_3p_{}}{E+m}\\ p_+& \frac{p_+^2}{E+m}& \frac{p_3p_+}{E+m}& \frac{(E+m)^2p_3^2}{2(E+m)}\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
Fields transforming in the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ representation are commonly written in terms of a four-vector $`A^\mu `$. We establish our results in this basis (hereafter ”Cartesian basis” (CB)) also. The CB is related to the TAMB as $`|A=M_{CB}|s,m_s`$. Explicitly

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}|A^0\\ |A^1\\ |A^2\\ |A^3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|0,0\\ |1,1\\ |1,0\\ |1,1\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
In this basis the operators so far discussed read

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{CB}=Diag(1,11,1),$$
(62)
$$S_1^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& i& 0\end{array}\right]S_2^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0& i\\ \hfill 0& 0& \hfill 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& i& \hfill 0& 0\end{array}\right]S_3^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& 0& 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& i& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& i& 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right]$$
(63)
$$iK_1^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right]iK_2^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right]iK_3^{CB}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right]$$
(64)
and still $`𝐒_{CB}^2=Diag(0,2,2,2)`$, $`𝐊_{CB}^2=Diag(3,111)`$.

The casimir operators of the HLG (actually ”internal” HLG, ($``$HLG) see next section) can be easily calculated from this explicit representations for the $``$HLG as

$$C_1=\frac{1}{2}(𝐒^2𝐊^2)=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{𝟏}_{4\times 4},C_2=i𝐒𝐆=0.$$
(65)
It is worth to remark that, in contrast to the $`(s,0)(0,s)`$ representation where $`𝐒^2`$ is proportional to one of the casimir operators of the $``$HLG, for the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ representation space the operator $`𝐒^2`$ ceases to be a casimir operator, the spin as an angular momentum ceases to be a good quantum number and it does not make sense to speak about the spin of fields transforming in this representation except as the eigenvalues of the squared PL operator (see below) which is proportional to $`𝐒^2`$ only in the rest frame.

The boost operator in the ”Cartesian basis” for this representation reads

$$B^{CB}(𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{E}{m}& \frac{p_x}{m}& \frac{p_y}{m}& \frac{p_z}{m}\\ \frac{p_x}{m}& 1+\frac{p_x^2}{m(E+m)}& \frac{p_xp_y}{m(E+m)}& \frac{p_xp_z}{m(E+m)}\\ \frac{p_y}{m}& \frac{p_xp_y}{m(E+m)}& 1+\frac{p_y^2}{m(E+m)}& \frac{p_yp_z}{m(E+m)}\\ \frac{p_z}{m}& \frac{p_xp_z}{m(E+m)}& \frac{p_yp_z}{m(E+m)}& 1+\frac{p_z^2}{m(E+m)}\end{array}\right)$$
(66)
The boosted states in each representation can be obtained acting with the corresponding boost operator on the rest frame states. For the ”physical basis” we obtain

$$A^{0,0}(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}E\\ p_{}\\ p_3\\ p_+\end{array}\right)A^{1,1}(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_+\\ \frac{(E+m)^2p_3^2}{2(E+m)}\\ \frac{p_3p_+}{E+m}\\ \frac{p_+^2}{E+m}\end{array}\right)$$
(67)
$$A^{1,0}(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_3\\ \frac{p_3p_{}}{E+m}\\ \frac{(E+m)^2+p_3^2p_+p_{}}{2(E+m)}\\ \frac{p_3p_+}{E+m}\end{array}\right)A^{1,1}(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_{}\\ \frac{p_{}^2}{E+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_{}}{E+m}\\ \frac{(E+m)^2p_3^2}{2(E+m)}\end{array}\right)$$
(68)
whereas for the ”Cartesian basis” we get

$$A^0(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}E\\ p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right)A^1(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m(E+m)}\left(\begin{array}{c}(E+m)p_1\\ m(E+m)+p_1^2\\ p_1p_2\\ p_1p_3\end{array}\right)$$

$$A^2(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m(E+m)}\left(\begin{array}{c}(E+m)p_2\\ p_1p_2\\ m(E+m)+p_2^2\\ p_2p_3\end{array}\right)A^3(𝐩)=\frac{1}{m(E+m)}\left(\begin{array}{c}(E+m)p_3\\ p_3p_1\\ p_3p_2\\ m(E+m)+p_2^3\end{array}\right)$$

A few remarks concerning the role of parity in the normalization of these states, the completeness relation and the definition of the scalar product in $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ space are in order here. Following the structure of Dirac theory we define the scalar product using the parity operator as

$$(A^a,A^b)\overline{A}^aA^b(A^a)^{}\mathrm{\Pi }A^b.$$

It is easily shown that rest frame states satisfy the normalization

$$\overline{A}^a(\mathrm{𝟎})A^b(\mathrm{𝟎})=\eta _a\delta _{ab}$$

where $`\eta _a`$ is the parity eigenvalue corresponding to $`A^a`$ i.e. $`\eta _0=1`$, $`\eta _i=1`$ , $`i=1,2,3`$. We can show that this is a scalar product using Eq.(50). Indeed, for the boosted states we obtain

$`\overline{A}^a(𝐩)A^b(𝐩)`$ $`=(B(𝐩)A^a(\mathrm{𝟎}))^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(B(𝐩)A^b(\mathrm{𝟎}))=A^a(\mathrm{𝟎})^{}B^{}(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi }B(𝐩)A^b(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (69)
$`=A^a(\mathrm{𝟎})^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^2B(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi }B(𝐩)A^b(\mathrm{𝟎})=\overline{A}^a(\mathrm{𝟎})A^b(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (70)
where we used $`B^{}(𝐩)=B(𝐩)`$ coming from the anti-hermiticity of $`𝐊`$ and Eq.(50).

The projectors over well defined parity ($`\eta `$) subspaces for this representation, in the rest frame, reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\eta (\mathrm{𝟎})=\frac{1}{2}(1+\eta \mathrm{\Pi }).$$
(71)
For an arbitrary frame this projector transforms as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\eta (𝐩)=B(𝐩)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\eta (\mathrm{𝟎})B^1(𝐩)`$ which can be explicitly calculated using Eq.(66) as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(𝐩)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+B^2(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E^2& Ep_1& Ep_2& Ep_3\\ Ep_1& p_1^2& p_1p_2& p_3p_1\\ Ep_2& p_1p_2& p_2^2& p_3p_2\\ Ep_3& p_3p_1& p_3p_2& p_3^2\end{array}\right)`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(𝐩)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1B^2(𝐩)\mathrm{\Pi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝐩^2& Ep_1& Ep_2& Ep_3\\ Ep_1& E^2p_3^2p_2^2& p_1p_2& p_3p_1\\ Ep_2& p_1p_2& E^2p_1^2p_3^2& p_3p_2\\ Ep_3& p_3p_1& p_3p_2& E^2p_1^2p_2^2\end{array}\right),`$ (81)
or in explicitly covariant terms

$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(𝐩)]_{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}}`$ (82)
$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(𝐩)]_{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}}.`$
The completeness relation can also be worked out in term of the states. Indeed, for the rest frame states we get

$$\underset{a}{}\eta _aA^a(\mathrm{𝟎})\overline{A}^a(\mathrm{𝟎})=A^0\overline{A}^0A^i\overline{A}^i=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

Again, using $`B^{}(𝐩)=B(𝐩)`$ and Eq.(50) it can be shown that this relation is frame independent and the boosted states satisfy the completeness relation

$$\underset{a}{}ϵ_aA^a(𝐩)\overline{A}^a(𝐩)=A^0(𝐩)\overline{A}^0(𝐩)A^i(𝐩)\overline{A}^i(𝐩)=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(83)
This relation exhibits the decomposition of the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ space into Stuckelberg and Proca sectors when we use the ”Cartesian basis” to represent the states. Indeed, in this basis $`A_\mu ^0=\frac{p_\mu }{m}`$ thus the $`A^0`$ state is divergenceful whereas the remaining states satisfy Lorentz condition $`p^\mu A_\mu ^i=0`$. Furthermore, $`A_\mu ^0\overline{A}_\nu ^0=\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{CB}=g_{\mu \nu }`$, Eq.(83) can be rewritten to

$$\underset{i}{}A_\mu ^i(𝐩)(A_\nu ^i)^{}(𝐩)=\frac{p^2}{m^2}g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{m^2}.$$
(84)
Notice that the projector over the negative parity sector

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(𝐩)]_{\mu \nu }A^\nu =A_\mu ,$$

is just Proca equation in momentum space, namely

$$p_\mu F^{\mu \nu }m^2A^\nu =0,$$

where $`F^{\mu \nu }p^\mu A^\nu p^\nu A^\mu `$ denotes the strength tensor.

## 2 Projectors over invariant subspaces of Casimir operators of the Poincaré group.

In general, a free field will satisfy equations of motion which just reflect the representation space to which it belongs, and the discrete symmetries we impose on it. Since the primary classification of elementary systems is usually done by identifying them with the irreps of the Poincaré group there must be conditions (equations of motion) associated to this classification. In order to make clear our point we briefly recall the transformation properties of fields under the action of the Poincaré group.

A Poincaré transformation in coordinate space

$`x_\mu ^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu x_\nu +a_\mu `$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu `$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu }\right],L_{\mu \nu }=X_\mu P_\nu X_\nu P_\mu .`$
induces the following transformation for the field $`\psi `$

$$\psi ^{}(x^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }M_{\mu \nu }+ϵ^\mu P_\mu \right]\psi (x).$$

Here, $`ϵ^\mu ,\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$are continuous parameters,$`P_\mu `$ and the $`n\times n`$ matrices $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ representing a totally antisymmetric 2nd rank Lorentz tensor are the generators of the Poincaré group in the representation space of interest. They satisfy the commutation relations of the Poincaré algebra :

$`[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\alpha \beta }]`$ $`=i(g_{\mu \alpha }M_{\nu \beta }g_{\mu \beta }M_{\nu \alpha }+g_{\nu \beta }M_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \alpha }M_{\mu \beta }),`$ (85)
$`[P_\mu ,M_{\alpha \beta }]`$ $`=i(g_{\mu \alpha }P_\beta g_{\mu \beta }P_\alpha ),[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]=0,`$
where $`g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ is the metric tensor. In the standard convention, $`P_\mu `$ are the generators of the translation group, $`𝒯`$ 1,3 in 1+3 time-space dimensions. The $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ generators consist of

$$M_{\mu \nu }=L_{\mu \nu }+S_{\mu \nu },[L_{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$

where $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ in turn generate rotations in external coordinate– and internal representation spaces. The generators of boosts ($`𝒦_x,𝒦_y,𝒦_z`$) and rotations ($`J_x,J_y,J_z`$) are related to $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ via

$$𝒦_i=M_{0i},J_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{jk},$$

respectively.

The Pauli–Lubanski (PL) vector is defined as

$$W_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }M^{\nu \alpha }P^\beta $$
(86)
where $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$. The eigenvalues of the squared PL operator are easily calculated in the rest frame as $`p^2s(s+1)`$ where $`s`$ stands for an integer or semi-integer positive number. This operator can be shown to have the following commutator relations :

$$[W_\alpha ,M_{\mu \nu }]=i(g_{\alpha \mu }W_\nu g_{\alpha \nu }W_\mu ),[W_\alpha ,P_\mu ]=0,$$
(87)
i.e. it transforms as a four-vector under Lorentz transformations. The remarkable point is that the “orbital” part of $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, namely $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, does not contribute to the PL operator due to the anti-symmetric Levi-Civita tensor. As a result, $`W_\mu `$ can be rewritten to

$$W_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }S^{\nu \rho }P^\tau ,$$
(88)
and its squared (in covariant form) is calculated to be

$$W^2=\frac{1}{2}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }P^2+G^2,G_\mu :=S_{\mu \nu }P^\nu .$$
(89)
The operators $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ generate Lorentz transformations in the intrinsic representation space and satisfy the algebra

$$[S_{\mu \nu },S_{\alpha \beta }]=i(g_{\mu \alpha }S_{\nu \beta }g_{\mu \beta }S_{\nu \alpha }+g_{\nu \beta }S_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \alpha }S_{\mu \beta }),[P_\mu ,S_{\alpha \beta }]=0,$$

i.e. , they commute with $`𝒯_{1,3}`$ and satisfy also the algebra of the HLG, but this is a set of transformations which are different from those of the HLG generated by $`M^{\mu \nu }`$. Hereafter we will refer to the group generated by $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ as the “Internal Homogeneous Lorentz Group” ($``$HLG) to distinguish it from the HLG spanned by $`M_{\mu \nu }`$. The $``$HLG generators are:

$$K_i=S_{0i},S_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}S_{jk}.$$
(90)
In terms of intrinsic boost and rotation generators, the Pauli-Lubanski vector and the $`G_\mu `$ vectors are now expressed as

$$W_\mu =(𝐒𝐏,𝐒P_0+𝐊\times 𝐏),G_\mu =(𝐊𝐏,𝐊P_0𝐒\times 𝐏),$$
(91)
On the other hand, the $``$HLG has by itself two Casimir invariants given by $`C_1=\frac{1}{4}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }`$; $`C_2=`$ $`S_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{S}^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }S^{\rho \tau }`$. Explicitly, in terms of the generators of boosts and rotations we obtain

$$C_1=\frac{1}{2}(𝐒^2𝐊^2),C_2=i𝐒𝐊,$$
(92)
which allow us to cast $`W^2`$ into the form

$$W^2(P)=2C_1P^2+G(P)^2,$$
(93)
where we explicitly wrote the $`P`$-dependence of $`W^2`$ and $`G`$.

Now, if we adopt the point of view that the equation of motion satisfied by a field is just as a kinematical statement of the representation space it belongs to  , the identification of elementary systems with the irreps of the Poincaré group lead us to two primary conditions for any field : it must belong to the invariant subspaces of both $`P^2`$ and $`W^2`$. These subspaces are characterized by the corresponding quantum numbers $`\{m^2,s\}`$ and the belonging of the field to a given representation is ensured by the corresponding projector. The first condition lead us to Klein-Gordon equation

$$[P^2m^2]\psi (𝐩)=0,$$
(94)
whereas the restriction of fields to invariant subspaces of the squared Pauli-Lubanski operator lead us to a new condition, namely 111This equation was firstly proposed for the Rarita-Schwinger representation in the second paper of Ref. with $`P^2`$ replaced by $`m^2`$.

$$[W^2(P)+P^2s(s+1)]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(95)
These are the two conditions to be satisfied by any field. The information on the particular representation space to which the field belongs, is encoded in the specific form of the generators $`S^{\mu \nu }`$entering $`W^2(P).`$ We emphasize that the latter equation is a general condition which just specify the value of $`s`$ . More stringent conditions are obtained when we enforce definite discrete properties like parity in these subspaces.

It would be desirable to work with a single equation which incorporates the information of both Eqs.(94,95). This fusion must be done in such a way that enforcing Eq.(95) ensures the Klein-Gordon condition is automatically satisfied. The corresponding equation is obtained by inspection as

$$[\frac{W^2(P)}{s}+sP^2+m^2]\psi (𝐩)=0.$$
(96)
As shown below, this particular combination gives the correct giromagnetic factor $`g=2`$ for $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ and in general predicts $`g=\frac{1}{s}`$ for arbitrary $`s`$.

## 3 Gyromagnetic factor for fields in the $`(s,0)`$ $``$ $`(0,s)`$ representation.

Coupling Eq.(96) minimally to an external electromagnetic field $`A_\mu `$ we obtain

$$[\frac{W^2(\pi )}{s}+s\pi ^2+m^2]\psi (𝐩)=0,$$
(97)
where $`\pi _\mu =P_\mu eA_\mu `$. A straightforward calculation yields the general relation

$$W^2(\pi )\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \tau }S^{\nu \rho }\pi ^\tau ϵ_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\mu S^{\beta \gamma }\pi ^\delta =\frac{1}{2}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }\pi ^2+S_{\mu \beta }(S^{\mu \nu }\pi _\nu )\pi ^\beta .$$
(98)
Let us now specialize the above relations to the$`(s,0)(0,s)`$ representation. In this case, $`𝐒=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0𝐊`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=Diag(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(2s+1)(2s+1)},\mathrm{𝟏}_{(2s+1)(2s+1)})`$. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2=\mathrm{𝟏}_{2(2s+1)(2s+1)}`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,𝐒]=0`$, thus $`𝐊^2=𝐒^2`$ , hence

$$\frac{1}{2}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }=2𝐒^2=2s(s+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_{2(2s+1)(2s+1)}.$$
(99)
As to the second term in Eq.(98) it is convenient to separate the product of generators as

$$S^{\mu \nu }S_{\mu \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\{S^{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \alpha }\}+\frac{1}{2}[S^{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \alpha }]=T_\alpha ^\nu iS_\alpha ^\nu $$

where we defined the symmetric part $`T_\alpha ^\nu \frac{1}{2}\{S^{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \alpha }\}`$ and used the Lie algebra of the $``$HLG to calculate the anti-symmetric part. The anti-symmetric part does not contribute in the free case but under minimal coupling this term generates the magnetic interaction. A straightforward calculation using the generators for the $`(s,0)`$ $``$ $`(0,s)`$ space yields $`T_\alpha ^\nu =𝐒^2g_\alpha ^\nu `$. As a result, for these representations we obtain

$$S_{\mu \beta }S^{\mu \nu }=𝐒^2g_\beta ^\nu iS_\beta ^\nu =s(s+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_{2(2s+1)(2s+1)}g_\beta ^\nu iS_\beta ^\nu .$$
(100)
Using Eqs.(100,99) in the equation of motion (97) we finally obtain

$$\left(\pi ^2m^2\right)\psi (𝐩)=\frac{i}{s}S^{\mu \nu }\pi _\mu \pi _\nu \psi (𝐩).$$
(101)
The term on the right hand side of this equation contains the magnetic interaction which for general $`s`$ gives the gyromagnetic factor $`g_s=\frac{1}{s}`$.

### 3.1 Summary

Summarizing, in this work we adopt the point of view that equations of motion are just a Lorentz invariant record of the representation space to which the field belongs, and the discrete symmetries we impose on it. We illustrate the point re-deriving Dirac and Proca equations from first principles. We remark that under this view point any field must satisfy two primary conditions (equations): Klein-Gordon equation and a new equation of motion related to eigenvalues of the squared Pauli-Lubanski operator. The latter is a very general condition in the sense that none discrete symmetry is imposed. We incorporate both equations into a single one and couple minimally to an external electromagnetic field finding a spin gyromagnetic factor $`g_s=\frac{1}{s}`$.This way, from first principles, we prove Belinfante´s conjecture  for fields transforming in the $`(s,0)`$ $``$ $`(0,s)`$ representation space.

## 4 Acknowledgments

Work supported by CONACYT - Mexico under project 37234-E.One of us (C.A. V.) acknowledges financial support from Universidad de Guanajuato under program ¨Veranos de la Investigación Científica¨. We thank M. Kirchbach for useful discussions on this topic.


text:
# Homogeneity rank of real representations of compact Lie groups

## 1. Introduction

Let a compact Lie group $`G`$ act smoothly on a smooth manifold $`M`$. The codimension of the principal orbits in $`M`$ is called the cohomogeneity $`\mathrm{cohom}(G,M)`$ of the action. Püttmann, starting from an inequality for the dimension of the fixed point set of a maximal torus in $`G`$ due to Bredon (\[Bre72\], p. 194), introduced in \[Pue02\] the *homogeneity rank* of $`(G,M)`$ as the integer

$`\mathrm{homrk}(G,M)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}}\mathrm{cohom}(G,M)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}}+(dimGdimG_{\mathrm{princ}})dimM,`$
where $`G_{\mathrm{princ}}`$ is a principal isotropy subgroup of the action and, for a compact Lie group $`K`$, $`\mathrm{rk}K`$ denotes its rank, namely the dimension of a maximal torus. We will see in the next section that orbit-equivalent actions have the same homogeneity rank.

This invariant, although not with this name, had already been considered by Huckleberry and Wurzbacher who proved that a Hamiltonian action of a compact Lie group on a symplectic manifold has vanishing homogeneity rank if and only if the principal orbits are coisotropic with respect to the invariant symplectic form (see \[HW90\], Theorem 3, p. 267 for this result and other characterizations of this property). If $`\rho :G𝐔(V)`$ is a complex representation where $`V`$ is a complex vector space endowed with an invariant symplectic structure, then the $`G`$-action is automatically Hamiltonian, and it has vanishing homogeneity rank if and only if every principal orbit is coisotropic; this condition can be proved to be equivalent to the fact that a Borel subgroup of the complexified group $`G^c`$ has an open orbit in $`V`$, and also to the fact that the naturally induced representation of $`G`$ on the ring of regular functions $`𝐂[V]`$ splits into the sum of mutually inequivalent irreducible representations (see e.g. \[Kra85\], p. 199). Complex representations with these equivalent properties are called *coisotropic* or *multiplicity-free*; Kac \[Kac80\] classified the irreducible multiplicity-free representations and, later, Benson and Ratcliff \[BR96\] and, independently, Leahy \[Lea98\] classified the reducible ones.

In this paper we consider the case of an irreducible representation $`\rho :G𝐎(V)`$ of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on a real vector space $`V`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank. Since representations admitting an invariant complex structure have null homogeneity rank if and only if they are multiplicity-free, we will deal only with irreducible representations of real type, also called absolutely irreducible, namely those which admit no invariant complex structure. Our main result is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

An absolutely irreducible representation $`\rho `$ of a compact connected Lie group $`G`$ has vanishing homogeneity rank if and only if it is either orbit-equivalent to the isotropy representation of a non-Hermitian symmetric space of inner type or it is one of the following representations:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ G& \rho & d& c\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n),n2& (\mathrm{standard})^3_𝐇(\mathrm{standard})& 8n& 3\\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(4)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)& (\mathrm{standard})_𝐑(\mathrm{spin})& 32& 5\\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)& (\mathrm{standard})_𝐇(\mathrm{spin})& 64& 6\end{array}$$

where $`d`$ denotes the dimension of the representation space and $`c`$ denotes its cohomogeneity.

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`(G,V)`$ be an absolutely irreducible representation of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on a real vector space $`V`$. It is shown in Corollary 1.2 in \[Pue02\] that the homogeneity rank of a linear representation is non positive. In this regard, the representations with vanishing homogeneity rank are precisely those with maximal homogeneity rank. The following monotonicity property that is stated on p. 375 in \[Pue02\] and is valid for smooth actions on smooth manifolds will be the basis of the method of our classification. Since there is no proof in \[Pue02\], we include one for the sake of completeness.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`(G,M)`$ be a smooth action. If $`G^{}`$ be a closed subgroup of $`G`$, then $`\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},M)\mathrm{homrk}(G,M)`$.

Proof. We first prove the statement in the case in which $`M`$ is $`G`$-homogeneous, i. e. we prove that given a homogeneous space $`M=G/H`$, where $`G`$ is a compact Lie group and $`H`$ is a closed subgroup, for every closed subgroup $`G^{}`$ of $`G`$ we have

$$\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},G/H)\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}H.$$

We prove this by induction on the dimension of the manifold, the initial case $`dimM=1`$ being clear. Fix the point $`o=[H]G/H`$, a maximal torus $`T_H`$ of $`H`$, and a maximal torus $`T`$ of $`G`$ containing $`T_H`$. Since conjugation of $`G^{}`$ by elements of $`G`$ does not affect the homogeneity rank, we can assume that a maximal torus $`T^{}`$ of $`G^{}`$ sits inside $`T`$. Then we have

$$\mathrm{rk}G^{}\mathrm{rk}G_o^{}dimT^{}dim(T^{}G_o^{})=dimT^{}odimTo,$$

where $`G_o^{}`$ denotes the isotropy subgroup of $`G^{}`$ at $`o`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{rk}G^{}\mathrm{rk}G_o^{}\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}H.$$

We now consider the slice representation of $`G_o^{}`$ on the normal space $`W`$ to the orbit $`G^{}o`$; we can assume that the dimension $`k`$ of $`W`$ is at least $`2`$, since otherwise $`G_o^{}`$ contains a principal isotropy subgroup of $`(G,G/H)`$ as a subgroup of finite index and the claim follows immediately. Denote by $`S`$ the unit sphere in $`W`$ with respect to a $`G_o^{}`$-invariant inner product in $`W`$ and apply the induction hypothesis. Since $`G_o^{}`$ is a closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)`$, we have

$`\mathrm{homrk}(G_o^{},S)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}G_o^{}\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}}^{}\mathrm{cohom}(G^{},M)+1`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{homrk}(\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k),S)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^k}{2}},`$
where $`G_{\mathrm{princ}}^{}`$ denotes a principal isotropy subgroup of $`G^{}`$ on $`M`$. It then follows that

$$\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},M)\mathrm{rk}G^{}\mathrm{rk}G_o^{}+\frac{1+(1)^k}{2}\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}H,$$

and our claim is proved.

In the general case, we fix a $`G`$-regular point $`pM`$ and observe that a point $`qGp`$ is principal for the $`G^{}`$-action on $`Gp`$ if and only if it is principal for the $`G^{}`$-action in $`M`$; this means that $`\mathrm{cohom}(G^{},M)=\mathrm{cohom}(G,M)+\mathrm{cohom}(G^{},Gp)`$. We know from the previous case that

$$\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},Gp)\mathrm{homrk}(G,Gp),$$

and now our claim follows by subtracting $`\mathrm{cohom}(G,M)`$ from both members of the above inequality. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.

Let $`(G,V)`$ be a representation of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on a real vector space $`V`$. If $`(G,V)`$ is not of vanishing homogeneity rank, then the action of a closed subgroup of $`G`$ on $`V`$ is never of vanishing homogeneity rank.

The preceding corollary indicates a strategy to classify representations with vanishing homogeneity rank. First we observe that the standard representation of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(n)`$ on $`𝐑^n`$ is of vanishing homogeneity rank if and only if $`n`$ is even. Then we need to decide which of the maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(n)`$, where $`n`$ is even, act absolutely irreducibly on $`𝐑^n`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank. For each example that we encounter, we examine which of its maximal subgroups still act absolutely irreducibly on $`𝐑^n`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank, and so on. The process will eventually yield all the closed subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(n)`$ that act absolutely irreducibly on $`𝐑^n`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank. The effectiveness of this strategy is elucidated by the following well known result of Dynkin \[Dyn52a\].

###### Theorem 4 (Dynkin).

1. Let $`G`$ be a maximal connected subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(n)`$. Then $`G`$ is conjugate in $`𝐎(n)`$ to one of the following:

1. $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(nk)`$, where $`1kn1`$;
    2. $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q))`$, where $`pq=n`$ and $`3pq`$, and $`\rho `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations;
    3. $`𝐔(k)`$, where $`2k=n`$;
    4. $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$, where $`4pq=n4`$, and $`\rho `$ is the quaternionic tensor product of the vector representations;
    5. $`\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1`$ is simple and $`\rho `$ is a real form of a complex irreducible representation of degree $`n`$ of real type.
2. Let $`G`$ be a maximal connected subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(n)`$. Then $`G`$ is conjugate to one of the following:

1. $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(n)`$;
    2. $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(k)`$, where $`2k=n`$;
    3. $`𝐒(𝐔(k)\times 𝐔(nk))`$, where $`1kn1`$;
    4. $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(q))`$, where $`pq=n`$ and $`p3`$ and $`q2`$, and $`\rho `$ is the complex tensor product of the vector representations;
    5. $`\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1`$ is simple and $`\rho `$ is a complex irreducible representation of degree $`n`$ of complex type.
3. Let $`G`$ be a maximal connected subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n)`$. Then $`G`$ is conjugate to one of the following:

1. $`𝐔(n)`$;
    2. $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(nk)`$, where $`1kn1`$;
    3. $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$, where $`pq=n`$ and $`p3`$ and $`q1`$, and $`\rho `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations;
    4. $`\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1`$ is simple and $`\rho `$ is a complex irreducible representation of degree $`2n`$ of quaternionic type.

Recall that a symmetric space of compact type $`X=L/G`$ is said to be of *inner type* if $`\mathrm{rk}L=\mathrm{rk}G`$; otherwise, $`X`$ is said to be of *outer type* (compare Theorem 8.6.7 on p. 255 in \[Wol84\]). Moreover, the isotropy representation of $`X`$ is absolutely irreducible if and only if $`X`$ is non-Hermitian. The following lemma implies that the isotropy representations of symmetric spaces of semisimple type that have vanishing homogeneity rank are precisely those coming from non-Hermitian symmetric spaces of inner type.

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`(G,V)`$ be the isotropy representation of a symmetric space of compact type $`X=L/G`$. Then $`\mathrm{homrk}(G,V)=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{rk}G=\mathrm{rk}L`$.

Proof. Let $`𝔩=𝔤+V`$ be the Cartan decomposition of $`X`$ with respect to the involution, where $`𝔩`$ and $`𝔤`$ respectively denote the Lie algebras of $`L`$ and $`G`$. Let $`𝔞V`$ be a maximal Abelian subspace. By the structural theory of symmetric spaces, it is known that the dimension of $`𝔞`$ is equal to the cohomogeneity of $`(G,V)`$, and that the centralizer $`𝔪`$ of $`𝔞`$ in $`𝔤`$ is the Lie algebra of a principal isotropy subgroup of $`(G,V)`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{homrk}(G,V)=\mathrm{rk}𝔤\mathrm{rk}𝔪dim𝔞`$. Let $`𝔱`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔪`$. Then it is easily seen that $`𝔱+𝔞`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔩`$. Now $`\mathrm{rk}𝔪=dim𝔱`$, $`\mathrm{rk}𝔩=dim𝔱+dim𝔞`$, and hence $`\mathrm{homrk}(G,V)=\mathrm{rk}𝔤\mathrm{rk}𝔩=\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}L`$ which proves our thesis. $`\mathrm{}`$

We will also use Theorem 1.3 of \[Pue02\] which, for convenience of the reader, we restate here.

###### Theorem 6 (Püttmann).

Let $`(G,M)`$ be an isometric action of the compact Lie group $`G`$ on a Riemannian manifold $`M`$. Then, for any $`xM`$, we have

$$dim\nu _x(Gx)^{G_x}\mathrm{cohom}(G,M)(\mathrm{rk}G_x\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}}),$$

where $`\nu _x(Gx)`$ denotes the normal space to the orbit $`Gx`$ at $`x`$, $`\nu _x(Gx)^{G_x}`$ denotes the fixed point subspace of $`G_x`$ in $`\nu _x(Gx)`$, and $`G_{\mathrm{princ}}`$ is a principal isotropy subgroup of $`(G,M)`$.

The following proposition implies that orbit-equivalent actions have the same homogemeity rank.

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`(G,M)`$ be a smooth action. If $`G^{}`$ is a closed subgroup of $`G`$, and $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ have the same orbits in $`M`$, then $`\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},M)=\mathrm{homrk}(G,M)`$.

Proof. It is clearly enough to prove that if $`G^{}`$ and $`G`$ act transitively on the same manifold $`M`$, then $`\mathrm{homrk}(G^{},M)=\mathrm{homrk}(G,M)`$. If we represent $`M=G/H=G^{}/H^{}`$ for suitable closed subgroups $`HG`$ and $`H^{}G^{}`$, then we claim that

$$\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}H=\mathrm{rk}G^{}\mathrm{rk}H^{}.$$

This follows from the fact that, given a homogeneous space $`M=G/H`$ with $`G`$ compact, the number $`\chi _\pi (M):=\mathrm{rk}H\mathrm{rk}G`$ is a homotopy invariant of $`M`$ (see \[Oni94\], p. 207) $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, we state the following direct consequences of the definition of homogeneity rank, which we shall repeatedly use in our arguments.

###### Remark 8.

Let $`(G,M)`$ be a smooth action of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on a smooth manifold $`M`$. Then:

1. If $`\mathrm{homrk}(G,M)=0`$, then $`dimMdimG+\mathrm{rk}G`$.
2. If $`G^{}`$ is a connected closed subgroup of $`G`$ having the same homogeneity rank, then $`\mathrm{rk}G^{}\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}}`$. Moreover if $`G_{\mathrm{princ}}`$ is finite, then $`G=G^{}`$ (indeed, $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ are orbit-equivalent both with finite principal isotropy, hence $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ have the same Lie algebra).

## 3. The classification

In this section, we apply the strategy discussed in the previous section to classify absolutely irreducible representations with vanishing homogeneity rank. It is enough to consider orthogonal representations of even degree $`2n`$. According to Theorem 4, the maximal connected subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2n)`$ acting absolutely irreducibly on $`V=𝐑^{2n}`$ are: $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q))`$, where $`pq=2n`$ and $`3pq`$, and $`\rho `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations; $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$, where $`4pq=2n4`$, and $`\rho `$ is the quaternionic tensor product of the vector representations; and $`\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1`$ is simple and $`\rho `$ is a real form of a complex irreducible representation of degree $`2n`$ of real type.

### 3.1. The case of $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q))`$ and its maximal subgroups

Here $`pq=2n`$ and $`3pq`$. We have that $`\rho `$ is the isotropy representation of the symmetric space $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p+q)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$, and $`\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p+q)=\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)+\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$ because not both of $`p`$, $`q`$ are odd. It follows from Corollary 3 that this is an example.

Next we must investigate maximal connected subgroups $`G`$ of $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q))`$. We shall consider separately three cases which cover all the possibilities.

#### 3.1.1. $`G=\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1=K\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$, and $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)`$ is a maximal connected subgroup.

Set $`\widehat{G}_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$, $`\widehat{G}=\rho (\widehat{G}_1)`$. There is a $`\widehat{G}_1`$-regular point $`xV`$ whose connected principal isotropy subgroup is given by $`\widehat{G}_{1x}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(qp)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$. The isotropy subgroup of $`G_1`$ at $`x`$ is the intersection $`\widehat{G}_{1x}G_1`$, and its connected component is $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(qp)`$. If $`G`$ has vanishing homogeneity rank on $`V`$, then Theorem 6 applied to $`x`$ gives

$`dim\nu _x(Gx)^{G_x}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cohom}(G,V)(\mathrm{rk}G_x\mathrm{rk}G_{\mathrm{princ}})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}G\mathrm{rk}G_x`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}K+\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(qp)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{rk}K+\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p),`$
where we have used that not both of $`p`$, $`q`$ are odd. Note that $`dim\nu _x(\widehat{G}x)=p`$ and $`dim\nu _x(Gx)=p+dim\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)dimK`$. It is clear that

$$\nu _x(Gx)^{G_x}\nu _x(\widehat{G}x),$$

since $`\nu _x(Gx)\nu _x(\widehat{G}x)`$, $`G_x\widehat{G}_x`$ and $`x`$ is $`\widehat{G}`$-regular. It follows that

$$dim\nu _x(Gx)^{G_x}p.$$

Combining with the above we get that

$$\mathrm{rk}K+\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)p2\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p),$$

and therefore

$$\mathrm{rk}K=\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p).$$

By the classification of maximal subgroups of maximal rank of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)`$, (see, for example, section 8.10 in \[Wol84\]), since $`K`$ is irreducible and of real type on $`𝐑^p`$, we must have $`K=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)`$.

#### 3.1.2. $`G=\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times K`$, and $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$ is a maximal connected subgroup.

According to Theorem 4, we need to consider three cases.

##### (a) $`K=\mu (K_1)`$, where $`K_1`$ is simple and $`\mu `$ is an absolutely irreducible representation of degree $`q`$.

Of course we need only to consider representations $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu (K_1)`$ is a proper subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$.

We may assume $`p<q`$. Remark 8(a) gives that $`p^2<pq\frac{p(p1)}{2}+\left[\frac{p}{2}\right]+r`$, where $`r=dimK_1+\mathrm{rk}K_1`$, and $`[x]`$ denotes the greatest integer contained not exceeding $`x`$. This implies that

(1)
$$p^2<2r,$$

and that

(2)
$$p^22qp+2r0.$$

Equation (2) and $`p3`$ then imply that

(3)
$$q\frac{r}{3}+\frac{3}{2}.$$

Let $`s`$ be the minimal degree of an absolutely irreducible representation of $`K`$ and such that its image is not the full $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(s)`$. Then

(4)
$$s>\frac{r}{3}+\frac{3}{2}$$

is a sufficient condition for $`(G,V)`$ not to be of vanishing homogeneity rank. We next run through the possibilities for $`K_1`$.

* $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(m)`$, where $`m2`$. Here $`r=m^2+m2`$. If $`m=2`$, then $`s=5`$, and (4) holds. If $`m3`$, then $`s=m^21`$ (realized by the adjoint representation), and (4) holds.
* $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(m)`$, where $`m2`$. Here $`r=2m^2+2m`$. If $`m=2`$, then $`s=10`$ (realized by the adjoint representation) and (3) holds. If $`m3`$ then $`s=2m^2m1`$ (realized by the second fundamental representation) and (3) holds.
* $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(m)`$, where $`m7`$. Here $`r=\frac{m(m1)}{2}+\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]`$. All irreducible representations of real type violate (3), except possibly the (half-)spin representations of $`𝐁_{4k1}`$, $`𝐁_{4k}`$, $`𝐃_{4k}`$. These have respectively $`q=2^{4k1}`$, $`2^{4k}`$, $`2^{4k1}`$. Condition (3) is respectively

$$32^{4k}64k^216k+9,$$

$$32^{4k+1}64k^2+16k+9,$$

$$32^{4k}64k^2+9.$$

The only cases that survive are $`𝐁_3`$ and $`𝐃_4`$. In the case of $`𝐁_3`$ we have $`q=8`$ and $`r=24`$. Then (1) implies that $`p=3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$, $`6`$. Next we use (2) to get rid of $`p=5`$, $`6`$. We end up with $`p=3`$ and $`p=4`$, and this gives the admissible cases $`(\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7),𝐑^3𝐑^8)`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(4)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7),𝐑^4𝐑^8)`$, but note that the first one of these is orbit-equivalent to $`(\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(8),𝐑^3𝐑^8)`$. In the case of $`𝐃_4`$, we have that $`\mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(8))=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(8)`$, and we rule this out.
* $`K_1`$ is an exceptional group. Here (4) holds in each case, so there are no examples, see the table below.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ K_1& r& s\\ & & \\ 𝐆_2& 16& 7\\ 𝐅_4& 56& 26\\ 𝐄_6& 84& 78\\ 𝐄_7& 140& 133\\ 𝐄_8& 256& 248\end{array}$$

##### (b) $`K=\mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(l))`$, where $`3kl`$ and $`q=kl`$, and $`\mu `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations.

Here $`r=\frac{k^2+l^2}{2}+\underset{=\theta }{\underset{}{\left[\frac{k}{2}\right]\frac{k}{2}+\left[\frac{l}{2}\right]\frac{l}{2}}}`$. Note that $`1\theta 0`$. Then (3) is $`k^2+l^26kl+2\theta +90`$. Set $`m=lk0`$. Then $`m^24km4k^2+9+2\theta 0`$. This implies that

(5)
$$2k+\sqrt{8k^292\theta }m.$$

If $`pkl`$, since the action of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(l))\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(q)`$ on $`𝐑^p𝐑^q`$ is the same thing as the action of $`\mu ^{}(\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k))\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(l)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(pk)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(l)`$ on $`𝐑^{pk}𝐑^l`$, where $`\mu ^{}`$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations, this case has already been considered in section 3.1.1. So now we assume that

(6)
$$pk>l.$$

Note that $`q>\sqrt{2r}`$. This implies via (2) that $`3pq\sqrt{q^22r}`$. Combining this with (6) we have $`l<kqk\sqrt{q^22r}`$ and then $`l^2(12k^2)+2k^2r>0`$. Substituting the value of $`r`$ we get $`kl<k\sqrt{\frac{k^2+2\theta }{k^21}}`$. We deduce that $`\theta =0`$ and

(7)
$$0m<k\left(\frac{k}{\sqrt{k^21}}1\right).$$

Now (5) and (7) combined imply that $`3k+\sqrt{8k^29}<\frac{k^2}{\sqrt{k^21}}`$, which is impossible for $`k3`$.

##### (c) $`K=\mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(l))`$, where $`q=4kl4`$, and $`\mu `$ is the quaternionic tensor product of the vector representations.

We postpone this case to section 3.4.

#### 3.1.3. $`G=\{(x,\sigma (x)):x\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)\}`$, where $`p=q`$ and $`\sigma `$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(p)`$.

Here Remark 8(a) immediately implies that $`(G,V)`$ cannot have vanishing homogeneity rank.

### 3.2. The case of $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$ and its maximal subgroups

Here $`4pq=2n4`$ and $`pq`$. We have that $`\rho `$ is the isotropy representation of the symmetric space $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p+q)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$, and $`\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p+q)=\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)+\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$. It follows from Corollary 3 that this is an example.

Next we must investigate maximal connected subgroups $`G`$ of $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$. We shall consider three cases separately which cover all the possibilities.

#### 3.2.1. $`G=\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1=K\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$, and $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)`$ is a maximal connected subgroup.

Set $`\widehat{G}_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$. There is a $`\widehat{G}_1`$-regular point $`xV`$ whose principal isotropy subgroup is given by $`\widehat{G}_{1x}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)^p\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(qp)`$. Let $`𝒪`$ be the orbit of $`\widehat{G}_1`$ through $`x`$. A point $`y𝒪`$ is $`G_1`$-regular in $`𝒪`$ if and only if it is $`G_1`$-regular in $`V`$; moreover the isotropy subgroup $`G_{1y}`$ is given by the intersection of $`G_1`$ with a suitable conjugate of $`\widehat{G}_{1x}`$ in $`\widehat{G}_1`$. This means that a principal isotropy subgroup of $`G_1`$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(qp)`$. If $`(G,V)`$ has vanishing homogeneity rank, it then follows that

$$dimV=4pqdimK+\mathrm{rk}K+2q^2+2q(2(qp)^2+2(qp)),$$

hence

(8)
$$2p^22pdimK+\mathrm{rk}K.$$

According to Theorem 4, there are two cases to be considered. But if $`K`$ is of the form $`\mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(l))`$, where $`\mu `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations, we refer to section 3.4. So we can assume that $`K`$ is of the form $`\mu (K_1)`$, where $`K_1`$ is simple and $`\mu `$ is a complex irreducible representation of degree $`2p`$ of quaternionic type. Let $`s`$ be half the minimal degree of a complex irreducible representation of quaternionic type of $`K_1`$ and such that its image is not the full $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(s)`$. The list of the values of $`s`$ for each compact simple group $`K_1`$ is given by the following table (groups not appearing in the table do not admit quaternionic representations):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ K_1& s\\ & \\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(4a+2),a1& \frac{1}{2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4a+2}{2a+1}\right)\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(8a+3),a1& 2^{4a}\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(8a+4),a1& 2^{4a}\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(8a+5),a1& 2^{4a+1}\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(a),a3& \frac{a}{3}(2a^23a2)\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(2)& 8\\ & \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)& 2\\ & \\ 𝐄_7& 28\end{array}$$

It is now easy to see that (8) implies $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)`$ and $`p=2`$, and then the only admissible case is $`G_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(2)`$ via the irreducible representation of degree $`4`$.

#### 3.2.2. $`G=\rho (G_1)`$, where $`G_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times K`$, and $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$ is a maximal connected subgroup.

According to Theorem 4, we need to consider two cases.

##### (a) $`K=\mu (K_1)`$, where $`K_1`$ is simple and $`\mu `$ is a complex irreducible representation of degree $`2q`$ of quaternionic type.

We may assume $`p<q`$. Remark 8(a) gives that $`4p^2<4pq2p^2+2p+r`$, where $`r=dimK_1+\mathrm{rk}K_1`$ (note that $`r4`$). This implies that

$$p<\frac{1+\sqrt{1+2r}}{2}\text{and}2p^2+2p(12q)+r0.$$

From this we get that

(9)
$$q\frac{r}{4}+1,$$

and

(10)
$$\text{if }q\frac{1+\sqrt{1+2r}}{2}\text{, then }pq\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(2q1)^22r}.$$

Running through the compact simple groups $`K_1`$ that admit quaternionic representations (see table in section 3.2.1) and using (9) and (10), we get the following admissible cases: $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=2`$; $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(3)`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=7`$; $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=16`$; $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(12)`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=16`$; $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=10`$; $`K_1=𝐄_7`$, $`p=1`$, $`q=28`$. All cases but that of $`K_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$ come from isotropy representations of symmetric spaces.

##### (b) $`K=\mu (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(k)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(l))`$, where $`q=kl`$, and $`\mu `$ is the real tensor product of the vector representations.

We postpone this case to section 3.4.

#### 3.2.3. $`G=\{(x,\sigma (x)):x\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\}`$, where $`p=q`$ and $`\sigma `$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)`$.

Here Remark 8(a) immediately implies that $`(G,V)`$ can have vanishing homogeneity rank only if $`p=1`$, so this case is out.

### 3.3. The case of $`\rho (G_1)`$

Here $`G_1`$ is a compact simple Lie group and $`\rho `$ is an absolutely irreducible representation of $`G_1`$ of degree $`2n`$. Remark 8(a) says that $`2ndimG_1+\mathrm{rk}G_1`$. In particular, this implies that $`2dimG_12n2`$, so we can use Lemma 2.6 in \[Kol02\] to deduce that $`(G,V)`$ is orbit equivalent to the isotropy representation of a symmetric space.

### 3.4. The case of $`\rho (\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(m)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q))`$, where $`\rho `$ is the real and quaternionic tensor products of the vector representations

Here $`2n=4mpq`$, $`m3`$ and $`pq`$. By direct computation or using Theorem 1.1 in \[HH70\], we see that:

1. if $`m4pq+2`$, then the connected principal isotropy is given by $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(m4pq)`$;
2. if $`qmp+1`$, then the connected principal isotropy is given by $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(qmp)`$;
3. in all other cases the connected principal isotropy is trivial.

In case (i) the condition of vanishing homogeneity rank reads

$$4p^2q^2=p^2+q^2+p+q2p^2+2q^2,$$

and this implies $`p=q=1`$. In case (ii) we have

$$4p^2(1m^2)+4p(1+m)+m^2m+2\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]=0.$$

If $`m=2l`$, then we have $`p^2(14l^2)+p(1+2l)+l^2=0`$, which implies that $`1+2l`$ divides $`l^2`$, impossible. If $`m=2l+1`$, then we have $`(4p^21)l=2p`$, which is impossible. In case (iii), we have the equation

$$8mpq=m^2m+2\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]+4p^2+4p+4q^2+4q.$$

If $`m=2l`$, this reads

(11)
$$l^24pql+p^2+q^2+p+q=0,$$

subject to the constraints

$$\frac{q}{2p}l2pq,pq,l2,$$

while if $`m=2l+1`$, we have

(12)
$$l^2(4pq1)l+p^2+q^22pq+p+q=0,$$

subject to the constraints

$$\frac{q}{2p}\frac{1}{2}l2pq,pq,l1.$$

Consider first equation (11). It can be solved in $`l`$ to yield $`l=2pq\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4p^2q^2p^2q^2pq`$. If $`l=2pq+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, using the fact that $`l2pq`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and then $`l=2pqp+q`$, which gives $`p=q=1`$, and then $`l=2`$, $`m=4`$. If $`l=2pq\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, then $`\frac{q}{2p}l`$ implies that

$$q^2(4p^21)4p^2q4p^2(p^2+p)0,$$

and therefore

$$pq\frac{2p^2+2p\sqrt{p(4p^3+4p^21)}}{4p^21}<p+2.$$

It then follows that we only need to consider the possibilities $`q=p`$ and $`q=p+1`$. If $`q=p`$, then we have

$$2l=2p^2\sqrt{4p^42p^22p}2,$$

so that $`l=2`$, $`p=q=1`$. If $`q=p+1`$, then

$$2l=2p^2+2p\sqrt{4p^4+8p^3+2p^24p2}<2,$$

which is impossible.

Next we consider equation (12). Here it is useful to note that Remark 8(b) applied to $`G=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(m)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(p)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$ viewed as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(m)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(4pq)`$ gives the extra condition

(13)
$$\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]p+q.$$

Equation (12) can be solved in $`l`$ to yield $`l=\frac{4pq1\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}}{2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=16p^2q^24p^24p4q^24q+1`$. If $`l=\frac{4pq1+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}}{2}`$, then (13) implies that

$$2pqlp+q2q,$$

which gives $`p=q=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=1`$, $`l=2`$ and $`m=5`$. If $`l=\frac{4pq1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}}{2}`$, then the inequality $`\frac{q}{2p}\frac{1}{2}l`$ implies that

$$q^2(4p^21)4p^2q4p^44p^3+p^20,$$

which in turn implies

$$pq\frac{2p^2+p\sqrt{16p^4+16p^34p^24p+1}}{4p^21}<p+2.$$

Therefore we need only to consider the cases $`q=p`$ and $`q=p+1`$. If $`q=p`$, then

$$l=\frac{4p^21\sqrt{16p^48p^28p+1}}{2}<2.$$

This gives $`l=1`$, $`m=3`$, $`p=q=1`$. If $`q=p+1`$, then

$$l=2p^2+2p\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{16p^4+32p^3+8p^216p7}<1,$$

which is impossible.

### 3.5. The examples and their subgroups

In this section we show that all candidates $`G\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2n)`$ found in the previous sections are actually examples of groups acting absolutely irreducibly on $`V=𝐑^{2n}`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank, and these groups do not admit subgroups with the same property. This will complete the proof of Theorem 1.

We first examine the representations that are not orbit-equivalent to isotropy representations of non-Hermitian symmetric spaces of inner type. We have three candidates:

1. $`G=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$ ($`q2`$) acting on $`V=S^3(𝐂^2)_𝐇𝐂^{2q}𝐑^{8q}`$;
2. $`G=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(4)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ acting on $`V=𝐑^4𝐑^8𝐑^{32}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ acts on $`𝐑^8`$ via the spin representation;
3. $`G=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$ acting on $`V=𝐂^2_𝐇𝐂^{32}𝐑^{64}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$ acts on $`𝐂^{32}`$ via the spin representation.

We now show that in each case the representation has vanishing homogeneity rank. Indeed, in case 1 we have that a connected principal isotropy is given by $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q2)`$ (see \[GT00\], Proposition 7.12), therefore the cohomogeneity is three and the homogeneity rank vanishes. In case 2, a connected isotropy subgroup is trivial. This can be seen by selecting a pure tensor $`vw`$ with $`v𝐑^4`$ and $`w𝐑^8`$ and computing the connected isotropy, which is $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times 𝐆_2`$; then the slice representation is given by $`𝐑𝐑^3𝐑^7`$; starting again with this new representation, we eventually come up with a trivial isotropy. Therefore the cohomogeneity is five and the homogeneity rank vanishes. In case 3, we also have trivial connected principal isotropy and vanishing homogeneity rank. Indeed, if $`v𝐂^{32}`$ is a highest weight vector for the spin representation of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$, then the subgroup $`H\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$ defined by $`H=\{g\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11):gv𝐂^{}v\}`$ is given by $`𝐔(5)`$. Now if $`p:\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$ is the projection, then

$$p((\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11))_v)=\{g\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11):gv\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)v\}H.$$

Since $`H`$ is maximal in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$, we get that $`(\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11))_v`$ is given by $`𝐓^1\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(5)`$, where $`𝐓^1`$ sits diagonally in the product of a suitable maximal torus in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)`$ and the center of $`H`$. From this we see that the slice representation at $`v`$ is given by $`𝐑𝐂^5\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝐂^5`$ and the connected principal isotropy is trivial. The cohomogeneity is six and the homogeneity rank vanishes.

We now examine subgroups of the previous examples. In case 1, a maximal subgroup of $`G`$ leaving no complex structure on $`V`$ invariant is of the form $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\times K`$, where $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(q)`$ is maximal. Since $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(2)\times K`$ does not have vanishing homogeneity rank on $`V`$ by the results of section 3.2.2, and $`G^{}\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(2)\times K`$, we have that $`G^{}`$ does not have vanishing homogeneity rank on $`V`$. In cases 2 and 3, $`G`$ admits no proper subgroups acting with vanishing homogeneity rank because the connected principal isotropy is trivial and then we may apply Remark 8(b).

We finally consider the representations $`(G,V)`$ that are orbit-equivalent to isotropy representations of non-Hermitian symmetric spaces of inner type, and we classify the subgroups $`G^{}G`$ which still act absolutely irreducibly on $`V`$ with vanishing homogeneity rank. In the following table we list the representations $`\rho `$ which need to be examined; we denote by $`c`$ the cohomogeneity of $`\rho `$, by $`d`$ the dimension of $`V`$, and by $`[[W]]`$ a real form of the $`G`$-module $`W`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ \text{Case}& G& \rho & c& d& dimG_{\text{princ}}\\ & & & & & \\ 1& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)& 𝐂^2_𝐇\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝐂^6& 4& 40& 2\\ & & & & & \\ 2& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(12)& 𝐂^2_𝐇\text{(half-spin)}& 4& 64& 9\\ & & & & & \\ 3& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)𝐄_7& 𝐂^2_𝐇𝐂^{56}& 4& 112& 28\\ & & & & & \\ 4& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(3)& 𝐂^2_𝐇𝐂^{14}& 4& 28& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 5& \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(4)& S^3(𝐂^2)_𝐇𝐂^2& 2& 8& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 6& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(16)& \text{half-spin}& 8& 128& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 7& \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(8)& [[\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝐂^8]]& 7& 70& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 8& \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)& 𝐑^3𝐑^8& 3& 24& 3\\ & & & & & \\ 9& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)& \text{spin}& 1& 8& 14\\ & & & & & \\ 10& \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)& \text{spin}& 1& 16& 21\end{array}$$

Cases 4 through 7 can be dealt with using Remark 8(b). We consider case 1. If $`G^{}`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`G`$, we may assume that $`G^{}`$ is of the form $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)G^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ is maximal in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$, since $`G^{}`$ does not leave any complex structure invariant. Now Remark 8(a) implies that $`dimG^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{rk}G^{\prime \prime }36`$, and $`\mathrm{rk}G^{\prime \prime }5`$ implies $`dimG^{\prime \prime }31`$, so that $`dim\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)/G^{\prime \prime }4`$. If $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ is a proper subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$, then the left action of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)/G^{\prime \prime }`$ is almost effective because $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$ is simple. Therefore $`dim\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$ is less than the dimension of the isometry group of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)/G^{\prime \prime }`$, which is at most $`10`$, but this is a contradiction. Hence $`G^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(6)`$.

In case 2, again we can assume that $`G^{}`$ is of the form $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)G^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ is maximal in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(12)`$. We have $`dimG^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{rk}G^{\prime \prime }60`$; since $`G^{}`$ is supposed to act absolutely irreducibly on $`V`$, its rank is not maximal by a theorem of Dynkin (see Theorem 7.1, p. 158 in \[Dyn52b\]), and therefore $`dimG^{\prime \prime }55=dim\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$. It is known that a subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(n)`$ of dimension greater or equal to $`dim\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(n1)`$ is conjugate to the standard $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(n1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(n)`$ if $`n4`$, $`8`$ (see e.g. \[Kob72\], p. 49). So, $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(11)`$, which is indeed an example with trivial connected principal isotropy by the discussion above.

In case 3, using the same argument as in case 2, we see that $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(1)G^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`dimG^{\prime \prime }102`$. An inspection of the list of all maximal subalgebras of $`𝐄_7`$ (see Table 12, p. 150 and Theorem 14.1, p. 231 in \[Dyn52b\]) shows that there is no such proper subgroup.

In case 8, a maximal subgroup $`G^{}`$ acting absolutely irreducibly on $`V`$ must be of the form $`G^{}=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times K`$, where $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ is maximal; arguing as above, we see that $`dimK18`$, so that $`dim(\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)/K)3`$ and this is impossible, because $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ is simple.

In case 9, let $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ be a maximal subgroup acting absolutely irreducibly on $`𝐑^8`$. Since $`K`$ cannot have maximal rank as above, and using Theorem 4, we see that $`K`$ must be simple of rank at most two and it must admit an irreducible representation of degree $`7`$ and of real type. Moreover, by Remark 8(a), we have $`dimK6`$, hence $`\mathrm{rk}K=2`$, and a direct inspection of all such simple groups shows that none of them but $`𝐆_2`$ admits an irreducible representation of degree $`7`$. But $`𝐆_2`$ does not admit an irreducible representation of degree $`8`$.

In case 10, we consider a maximal subgroup $`K`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)`$ acting absolutely irreducibly on $`𝐑^{16}`$. This means that $`\mathrm{rk}K3`$ and $`dimK13`$. Looking at the list of all maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)`$, we see that we can suppose $`K`$ to be simple and to act irreducibly on $`𝐑^9`$, via the embedding $`K\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)`$. Therefore $`K`$ must be one of $`𝐆_2`$, $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(4)`$, $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(7)`$ or $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(3)`$, but we immediately see that none of these groups admits an irreducible representation of degree $`9`$ and of real type.

This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.


text:
# The Neutral ISM in Nearby Luminous Compact Blue Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Luminous Compact Blue Galaxies (LCBGs) are $``$L, blue, high surface brightness, high metallicity, vigorously starbursting galaxies with an underlying older stellar population guz96 ; guz98b . They include a variety of morphological types, such as spiral, polar-ring, interacting/merging and peculiar galaxies. They have optical diameters of a few kpc, but are more luminous and more metal rich than the Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxies widely studied in the nearby Universe, e.g. thu81 ; tay95 .

When Jangren et al. jan03  compared intermediate redshift LCBGs with local normal galaxies, they found that they can be isolated quantitatively on the basis of color, surface brightness, image concentration and asymmetry, with color and surface brightness giving the best leverage for separating LCBGs from normal galaxies. Specifically, LCBGs have B$``$V $`<`$ 0.6, SBe $`<`$ 21 mag arcsec-2, and MB $`<`$ $``$18.5, assuming H0 = 70 km s-1 Mpc-1. LCBGs are quite common at intermediate redshifts, but by z$``$0 their number density has decreased by a factor of ten. At z$``$1, they have a total star formation rate density equal to that of grand-design spirals at that time, but today they contribute negligibly to the star formation rate density of the Universe mar94 . Therefore, LCBGs must undergo dramatic evolution. From studies at intermediate redshift, Koo et al. koo94  and Guzmán et al. guz96  suggest that some LCBGs may be the progenitors of local low-mass dwarf elliptical galaxies. Alternatively, Phillips et al. phi97  and Hammer et al. ham01  suggest that others may be more massive disks forming from the center outward to become local L galaxies.

In order to discriminate between the possible evolutionary scenarios it is essential to measure the dynamical masses of the galaxies: Are they as massive as implied by their high luminosities? It is also essential to measure their gas content for future star formation in order to constrain the amount of fading of their stellar populations. We have undertaken a survey of local LCBGs in H I and CO to address these questions. The H I provides a measure of the dynamical mass, while both H I and CO provide measures of the gas content: H I for long-term star formation and CO for the current burst of star formation.

## 2 Observations

The current sensitivity of telescopes limits us to detecting CO in LCBGs within $``$70 Mpc. We used the first data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to select our sample of nearby LCBGs, using Jangren et al.’s jan03  selection criteria. Out of the $``$million galaxies in the first data release, only $``$100 are LCBGs, and only 16 are within 70 Mpc. To these 16 local LCBGs, we added four more from the literature, for a local LCBG sample of 20 galaxies. We observed this sample in 21 cm H I using the Green Bank Telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia in Winter 2002. The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawai’i was used to observe our sample in CO(J=2$`1`$) in 2002 - 2003. All sources were detected in H I; 13 were detected in CO(J=2$``$1).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Dynamical Masses

We find that local LCBGs span a wide range of dynamical masses, from 4 $`\times `$ 109 to 1 $`\times `$ 1011 M (measured within R25). Figure 1 compares the dynamical masses of local LCBGs with intermediate redshift LCBGs and local spiral galaxies of all Hubble types. Many local LCBGs are $``$ten times less massive than local galaxies of similar luminosities, as found for LCBGs at intermediate redshifts phi97 . However, others are as massive as local galaxies of similar luminosities.

### 3.2 Gas Depletion Time Scales

We find our 13 LCBGs detected in CO(J=2$``$1) have molecular gas masses ranging from 5 $`\times `$ 107 to 2 $`\times `$ 109 M (assuming a Galactic CO-to-H2 conversion factor of 1.8 $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2 K-1 km-1 s dam01 ). Note that these are most likely underestimates of the molecular gas masses since we are using CO(J=2$``$1). The fraction of molecular to atomic gas mass is small, ranging from 0.03 to 0.3, similar to local late-type spiral galaxies rob94 .

We estimated star formation rates from available IRAS data, using 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m fluxes as outlined in Kewley et al. kew02 . The star formation rates for local LCBGs range from $``$1 to 15 M year-1. For comparison, local spirals of all types have star formation rates $``$2 M year-1 rob94 , so these LCBGs do not have unusually high star formation rates. However, they do have very high *specific* star formation rates–the ratio of star formation rate to dynamical mass (within Re). As seen in Figure 2, local LCBGs have specific star formation rates from $``$3 to 40 times those of local normal spirals rob94 . The specific star formation rates of local LCBGs are in the same range as local H II (starbursting) galaxies guz97 .

We find that the molecular gas in local LCBGs is depleted quite quickly, in 30 to 200 million years. The molecular plus atomic gas is depleted in 30 million to 10 billion years; however, $``$80% of the local LCBGs deplete their gas in less than 5 billion years. Therefore, most LCBGs will not be able to sustain their current rates of star formation and will eventually fade.

## 4 Conclusions

Both in dynamical masses and gas depletion time scales, we find that local LCBGs have a wide range of characteristics and are unlikely to evolve into one galaxy class. They have dynamical masses consistent with a range of galaxy types, such as dwarf ellipticals, Magellanic (low-luminosity) spirals and normal spirals. The majority have atomic plus molecular gas depletion time scales less than five billion years; such galaxies may have masses, sizes and faded luminosities and surface brightnesses consistent with the brightest local dwarf ellipticals. A few local LCBGs have longer gas depletion time scales, approaching a Hubble time. These may fade very little, becoming spirals or Magellanic irregulars.

*Acknowledgements* Support for this work was provided by the NSF through award GSSP02-0001 from the NRAO. Support for conference attendance was provided by the AAS and NSF in the form of an International Travel Grant.

## Index