text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are several indications in the literature (see  and extended references therein) that a local symmetry of all fundamental interactions of the matter and the corresponding massless gauge fields could be dynamically generated. They include observations stemming from Kaluza-Klein type theories, string theories, non-linear $`\sigma `$-models and non-standard interpretations of gauge symmetry.

In particular there has been considerable interest  in the interpretation of gauge fields as composite Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) bosons , possibly associated with the spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz symmetry (SBLS). A typical model realising this mechanism is based on the four fermion (current $`\times `$ current) interaction, where the gauge field appears as a fermion-antifermion pair composite state, in complete analogy with the massless composite scalar field in the original NJL model . While this model is non-renormalisable and one must fix the momentum cut-off at some large (but finite) scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is well-known to be largely equivalent to a gauge theory under the compositeness condition $`Z_3=0`$, where $`Z_3`$ is the wave function renormalisation constant of the gauge boson . Under this condition, the gauge field becomes an auxiliary field without propagating degrees of freedom. The quantum fluctuations, then, give rise to its kinetic and self-interaction (for the non-Abelian case) terms, so that a dynamical gauge boson is finally induced as an independent composite field. However, in contrast to the belief advocated in the pioneering works , there appears a generic problem in turning the composite vector particles into genuine massless gauge bosons . Actually, one must make a precise tuning of parameters, including a cancellation between terms of different orders in the $`1/N`$ expansion (where $`N`$ is the number of fermion species involved), in order to achieve the massless case needed.

In this note we would like to turn back to the role of Lorentz symmetry in a dynamical generation of gauge invariance. We argue that, generally, Lorentz invariance can only be imposed in the sense that all Lorentz non-invariant effects caused by its spontaneous breakdown are physically unobservable. We show here that the physical non-observability of the spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz symmetry (SBLS), taken as a basic principle, leads to genuine gauge invariant theories in both Abelian (Section 2) and non-Abelian (Section 3) cases, even though one starts from an arbitrary relativistically invariant Lagrangian. In the original Lagrangian, the vector fields are taken as massive and all possible kinetic and interaction terms are included. However, when SBLS occurs and its non-observability is imposed, the vector bosons become massless and the only surviving interaction terms are those allowed by the corresponding gauge symmetry. Thus, the Lorentz symmetry breaking does not manifest itself in any physical way, due to the generated gauge symmetry converting the SBLS into gauge degrees of freedom of the massless vector bosons. Remarkably, even global symmetries are not required in the original Lagrangian - the SBLS induces them automatically.

A simple heuristic model for the SBLS, based on massive vector and real scalar field interactions, is considered (Section 4) and it is found that spontaneously broken gauge symmetries could also appear when SBLS occurs and is required to be physically unobservable.

Finally we summarise our conclusions in Section 5.

## 2 Abelian gauge invariance

The would-be Abelian model in the simplest case corresponds to massive electrodynamics including one charged fermion species. The Lagrangian density for the model is given by:

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}M^2A_\mu ^2+i\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi +eA_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi $$
(1)
where $`e`$ is the appropriate (would-be gauge) coupling constant of the vector field $`A_\mu `$ with the charged fermion field. In this paper we shall assume that all the vector fields describe pure spin-1 fields satisfying the Lorentz condition:

$$_\mu A_\mu =0$$
(2)
We impose this condition (2) as an off-shell constraint, singling out a genuine spin-1 component in the four-vector $`A_\mu `$ independent of the equations of motion. One can readily see that the Lagrangian density (1) possesses a $`U(1)^\psi `$ global symmetry, with the corresponding conserved Noether current $`j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ which, in this simple case, is closely connected to the current $`j_\mu ^A`$ associated with $`A_\mu `$,

$$j_\mu ^A=\frac{L}{A_\mu }=ej_\mu +M^2A_\mu $$
(3)
It is then clear that the $`j_\mu ^A`$ current is also conserved, provided that the vector field satisfies the Lorentz condition (2) and preserves its transverality.

Let us consider now the SBLS in some detail. We propose that the vector field $`A_\mu `$ takes the form

$$A_\mu =a_\mu (x)+n_\mu $$
(4)
when the SBLS occurs. Here the constant Lorentz four-vector $`n_\mu `$ is a classical background field appearing when the vector field $`A_\mu `$ develops a VEV. We do not yet specify the mechanism which could induce the SBLS of type (4)—rather we study its general consequences for the possible dynamics of the matter and vector (gauge) fields and require it to be physically unobservable.

Substitution of the form (4) into the Lagrangian (1) immediately shows that the kinetic term for the vector field $`A_\mu `$ translates into a kinetic term for $`a_\mu `$ ($`F_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=F_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}`$), while its mass and interaction terms are correspondingly changed:

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}M^2(a_\mu +n_\mu )^2+i\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi +e(a_\mu +n_\mu )\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi $$
(5)
As to the interaction term, one can always go by a unitary transformation111In momentum representation this transformation corresponds to displacing the momentum of each fermion by an amount $`en_\mu `$. In the presence of terms breaking the $`U(1)^\psi `$ global symmetry, this transformation would induce a breaking of momentum conservation in processes where the $`U(1)^\psi `$ charge is not conserved. This non-conservation of momentum would also break Lorentz symmetry, whose breaking we require to be unobservable, and so it is necessary here to have $`U(1)^\psi `$ charge conservation. to a new fermion field $`𝚿`$

$$\psi =\mathrm{exp}[ie\omega (x)]\text{ }𝚿\text{}\omega (x)=nx$$
(6)
so as to exactly cancel the Lorentz symmetry-breaking term $`n_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ in the Lagrangian (5). This cancellation occurs due to the appearance of a compensating term from the fermion kinetic term, provided that the phase function $`\omega (x)`$ is chosen to be linear in the coordinate four-vector $`x_\mu `$ (as indicated in Eq. 6)222A gauge function of this type was first considered in the framework of quantum electrodynamics . We use this form for $`\omega `$ here just for simplicity and convenience. In the general case, when the shift in the vector field depends on space-time in the form $`A_\mu =a_\mu (x)+n_\mu f(nx)`$ where $`f`$ is any integrable function of $`y=nx=n_\mu x_\mu `$, the gauge function $`\omega `$ is given by the integral $`\omega =f(y)𝑑y`$. In the non-Abelian case (see Section 3) such a shift could have the general factorised form $`A_\mu ^i=a_\mu ^i(x)+n_\mu f^i(nx)`$, with the gauge function $`\omega ^i`$ given by the integral $`\omega ^i=f^i(y)𝑑y`$. The corresponding vacuum states would of course formally break translational invariance, as well as Lorentz invariance.. Thus, the only trace left of SBLS is in the mass term for the vector field which contains the scalar product $`(na)`$ and the physical non-observability of SBLS requires it to be set equal to zero:

$$M^2(na)=0$$
(7)
An extra gauge condition $`na`$ $`n_\mu a_\mu =0`$ would be incompatible with the Lorentz gauge (2), which has already been imposed for the massive vector field $`a_\mu `$. Therefore, the only way to satisfy Eq. (7) is to take $`M^2=0`$. Otherwise Lorentz symmetry is explicitly broken. In such a way all other terms but the gauge invariant ones (for which “compensating” local transformations of the type (6) are always available) can be excluded by our non-observability assumption.

Let, for example, the original Lagrangian include a term of the type

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_1=\frac{f}{4}A_\mu ^2A_\mu ^2$$
(8)
which would cause non-conservation of the current

$$j_\mu ^A=ej_\mu +M^2A_\mu +fA_\mu A_\nu ^2$$
(9)
related with the vector field $`A_\mu `$. The condition (7) for the non-observability of SBLS now becomes

$$[M^2\text{ }+f(a^2+(na)+n^2)](na)=0$$
(10)
Again, this condition must be fulfilled identically, i.e. $`M^2=0`$ and $`f=0`$. Otherwise it would either represent another supplementary condition on $`a_\mu `$, in addition to the Lorentz gauge already taken (2), or it would impose another dynamical equation in addition to the usual Euler equation for the vector field $`a_\mu `$. Hence physical Lorentz invariance requires the survival of $`j_\mu ^A`$ current conservation.

So far we have considered (a) the case of massive electrodynamics where the current $`j_\mu ^A`$ related to the vector field is conserved, and (b) the case where $`j_\mu ^A`$ would not be conserved due to the vector field self-interaction term (8), while the Noether current $`j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ is still conserved. Let us now include in the Lagrangian (1) terms which break even global $`U(1)^\psi `$ invariance:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_2=\frac{G}{2}A_\mu \overline{\psi }_C\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi +\frac{G^{}}{2}A_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi _C$$
(11)
where $`\psi _C`$ is a charge-conjugated spinor, $`\psi _C=C\overline{\psi }`$, while $`G`$ and its complex conjugate $`G^{}`$ stand for coupling constants (the term $`A_\mu \overline{\psi }_C\gamma _\mu \psi `$ and its Hermitian conjugate are absent since they are identically equal to zero due to Fermi statistics). So, in writing down the Lagrangian (1) with the addition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2`$, we do not impose beforehand any restrictions connected with conservation of fermion number. Now, in distinct contrast to the ordinary vector field-current interaction in Lagrangian (1), no transformation of the type (6) is available for the fermion field $`\psi `$ which could eliminate the trace of SBLS in $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2`$ (11). The Lorentz invariance condition (10), extended now so as to include the SBLS terms from $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2`$, again requires the identical vanishing of the vector boson mass $`M^2=0`$ and coupling constants, $`f=0`$ and $`G=0`$. Otherwise there would be fewer degrees of freedom for the vector and fermion fields, $`a_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$, than is needed for describing the spins $`1`$ and $`1/2`$, respectively, which is inadmissible333If we extend the SBLS non-observability assumption to the much stronger form required in the next section to derive a non-Abelian gauge symmetry, it is not necessary to impose the the Lorentz condition (2) as an off-shell constraint on the four-vector field $`A_\mu `$. The stronger form of the SBLS non-observability assumption requires the condition (7) or (10) to be satisfied for any vector $`n_\mu `$. In this case, the condition $`na`$ $`n_\mu a_\mu =0`$ would require the vector field to vanish identically, $`a_\mu =0`$, which is also inadmissable. When the Lorentz condition (2) is dropped, there is an extra allowed contribution $`\beta \left(_\mu A_\mu \right)^2`$ to the kinetic term for the vector field; however the SBLS non-observability assumption would require it to vanish ($`\beta =0`$), if the vacuum vector field took the general space-time dependent form considered in footnote 2..

Proceeding in such a way with all possible interactions (including those with other fermion and scalar fields), one finally arrives at the gauge invariant Abelian theory as the only version of the theory which is compatible with physical Lorentz invariance when SBLS occurs. One may, of course, wonder whether it is at all possible for the lowest energy (vacuum) state to have SBLS. It is indeed possible, by introducing an $`\frac{f}{4}A_\mu ^2A_\mu ^2`$ term (8), to arrange that the $`A_\mu `$ field potential energy density term is minimised for $`n_\mu ^2=\frac{M^2}{f}`$. However we have seen that the non-observability of SBLS requires $`M^2=f=0`$, in which case the (vanishing) vector field potential obviously has many flat directions and the energy density for the SBLS and Lorentz invariant vacua happen to be the same. This means that the SBLS vacuum is quite possible.

We will extend this discussion to include scalar fields and the spontaneous breakdown of the gauge symmetry in section 4.

## 3 Non-Abelian gauge invariance

Let us come now to the many-vector field case which results in the non-Abelian gauge symmetry. We suppose there are a number of pure spin-1 vector fields of the type $`A_\mu (x)`$, satisfying the Lorentz gauge condition (2), considered in the previous section. Proposing not even a global symmetry at the start, one can simply collect them in some set $`A_\mu ^i(x)`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$. The matter fields, say fermions again as in the Abelian case, are collected in another set $`\psi =(\psi ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\psi ^{(r)})`$. The general Lagrangian describing all their interactions with dimensionless coupling constants (some exotic terms violating fermion number and parity are omitted for simplicity) is given by:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^iF_{\mu \nu }^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M^2)_{ij}A_\mu ^iA_\mu ^j+\alpha ^{ijk}_\nu A_\mu ^iA_\mu ^jA_\nu ^k+\beta ^{ijkl}A_\mu ^iA_\nu ^jA_\mu ^kA_\nu ^l+`$ (12)
$`+i\overline{\psi }\gamma \psi \overline{\psi }m\psi +A_\mu ^i\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu T^i\psi `$
Here $`F_{\mu \nu }^i=_\mu A_\nu ^i_\nu A_\mu ^i`$ , while $`(M^2)_{ij}`$ is a general $`N\times N`$ mass-matrix for the vector fields and $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$ and $`\beta ^{ijkl}`$ are their coupling constants—all as yet unknown numbers. The $`r\times r`$ matrices $`m`$ and $`T^i`$ contain, in a compact form, the still arbitrary fermion masses and coupling constants describing the interaction between the fermions and the vector fields (all the numbers mentioned are real and the matrices Hermitian, as follows in this case from the Hermiticity of the Lagrangian).

We assume now that the vector fields $`A_\mu ^i`$ each take the form

$$A_\mu ^i(x)=a_\mu ^i(x)+n_\mu ^i$$
(13)
when SBLS occurs; here the independent constant Lorentz four-vectors $`n_\mu ^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$) are the VEVs of the vector fields, analogous to the $`n_\mu `$ of the Abelian case. However, in contrast to the Abelian case where the constant vector $`n_\mu `$ in the form (4) may have any length, we consider here at first just infinitesimally small $`n_\mu ^i`$ four vectors (for the generalization to finite vectors $`n_\mu ^i`$ see below). Furthermore we require the non-observability of the SBLS for any set444As will be motivated in the conclusion, we are here using the very strong assumption that the SBLS shall be physically unobservable whatever the infinitesimal VEVs $`n_\mu ^i`$ would be. This means we are assuming that Nature hides the SBLS not only for the actually realised vacuum but also for the a priori possible vacua. of infinitesimal vectors $`n_\mu ^i`$.

Substitution of the form (13) into the Lagrangian (12) shows, again as in the Abelian case, that the kinetic term for the vector fields $`A_\mu ^i`$ translates into a kinetic term for the vector fields $`a_\mu ^i`$ ($`F_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=F_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}`$), while their mass and interaction terms are correspondingly changed:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^iF_{\mu \nu }^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M^2)_{ij}(a_\mu ^i+n_\mu ^i)(a_\mu ^j+n_\mu ^j)`$
$`+\alpha ^{ijk}_\nu a_\mu ^i(a_\mu ^j+n_\mu ^j)(a_\nu ^k+n_\nu ^k)+`$
$`+\beta ^{ijkl}(a_\mu ^i+n_\mu ^i)(a_\nu ^j+n_\nu ^j)(a_\mu ^k+n_\mu ^k)(a_\nu ^l+n_\nu ^l)+`$
$`+i\overline{\psi }\gamma \psi \overline{\psi }m\psi +(a_\mu ^i+n_\mu ^i)\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu T^i\psi `$
The non-observability of the SBLS for any set of infinitesimal vectors $`n_\mu ^i`$ requires, as in the Abelian case, exact cancellations between non-Lorentz invariant terms of the same structure in the Lagrangian (3). One can first introduce a new set of vector fields $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$ defined by the infinitesimal transformation

$$a_\mu ^i=𝐚_\mu ^i\alpha ^{ijk}\omega ^j(x)𝐚_\mu ^k\text{ , }\omega ^i(x)=n_\mu ^ix_\mu $$
(15)
which includes the above coupling constants $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$ and the linear “gauge” functions $`\omega ^i(x)`$. The condition that the Lorentz symmetry-breaking terms in the trilinear and quadrilinear self-interaction couplings of the vector fields $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$, including those which arise from the kinetic term for the vector fields, should cancel for any infinitesimal vector $`n_\mu ^i`$ is then satisfied, if and only if the sets of real numbers $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$ and $`\beta ^{ijkl}`$ in these couplings satisfy the following conditions (a) and (b):

(a) $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$ is totally antisymmetric (in the indices $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k)`$ and obeys the structure relations:

$$\alpha ^{ijk}\alpha ^{[ijk]}\alpha _{[jk]}^i\text{ , }[\alpha ^i,\alpha ^j]=\alpha ^{ijk}\alpha ^k$$
(16)
where the $`\alpha ^i`$ are defined as matrices with elements $`(\alpha ^i)^{jk}=\alpha ^{ijk}`$. This means that the matrices $`\alpha ^k`$ form the adjoint representation of a Lie algebra, under which the vector fields transform infinitesimally as given in Eq. (15). In the case when the matrices $`\alpha ^i`$ can be decomposed into a block diagonal form, there appears a product of symmetry groups rather than a single simple group555For simplicity we shall consider the case of a single simple group in the following..

(b) $`\beta ^{ijkl}`$ takes the factorised form

$$\beta ^{ijkl}=\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{ijm}\alpha ^{klm}$$
(17)
The above requirements (a) and (b) would of course also be fulfilled if the coupling terms $`\alpha _{ijk}`$ were zero rather than antisymmetric structure constants, as is required to make the theory a true Yang-Mills theory. We would however like to argue that it is most natural and most likely that the gauge theory derived will be truly non-Abelian. Really it should be sufficient to just remark that there are many more possibilities for interacting Yang-Mills theories than for vector fields without self-interactions.

Let us turn now to the mass term for the vector fields in the Lagrangian (3). When expressed in terms of the transformed vector fields $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$ (15), it contains should-be vanishing SBLS remnants of the type

$$(M^2)_{ij}(\alpha ^{ikl}\omega ^k𝐚_\mu ^l𝐚_\mu ^j\text{ }+𝐚_\mu ^in_\mu ^j)=0$$
(18)
Here we have used the symmetry feature $`(M^2)_{ij}=(M^2)_{ji}`$ for a real Hermitian matrix $`M^2`$ and have retained only the first-order terms in $`n_\mu ^i`$. These two types of remnant have different structures and hence must vanish independently. One can readily see that, in view of the antisymmetry of the structure constants, the first term in Eq. (18) may be written in the following form containing the commutator of the matrices $`M^2`$ and $`\alpha ^k`$

$$[M^2,\alpha ^k]_{jl}\omega ^k𝐚_\mu ^l𝐚_\mu ^j=0$$
(19)
It follows that the mass matrix $`M^2`$ should commute with all the matrices $`\alpha ^k`$, in order to satisfy Eq. (19) for all sets of “gauge” functions $`\omega ^i=n_\mu ^ix_\mu `$. That means according to Schur’s lemma that, since the matrices $`\alpha ^k`$ heve been shown to form an irreducible representation of a (simple) Lie algebra, the matrix $`M^2`$ is a multiple of the identity matrix, ($`M^2)_{ij}=𝐌^2\delta _{ij}`$, thus giving the same mass for all the vector fields. It then follows that the vanishing of the second term in Eq. (18) leads to the simple condition analogous to that (7) in the Abelian case:

$$𝐌^2(n^i𝐚^i)=0$$
(20)
for any infinitesimal $`n_\mu ^i`$. Since the Lorentz gauge condition has already been imposed on $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$ ($`_\mu 𝐚_\mu ^i=0`$), we cannot impose extra gauge conditions of the type $`n^i𝐚^i=n_\mu ^i𝐚_\mu ^i=0`$. Thus, we are necessarily led to:

(c) masslessness of the vector fields, $`(M^2)_{ij}=𝐌^2\delta _{ij\text{ }}=0`$.

Finally we consider the interaction term between the vector and fermion fields in the Lagrangian (3). In terms of the transformed vector fields $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$ (15), it takes the form

$$(𝐚_\mu ^i\alpha ^{ijk}\omega ^j𝐚_\mu ^k\text{ }+n_\mu ^i)\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu T^i\psi $$
(21)
One now readily confirms that the Lorentz symmetry-breaking terms (the second and third ones) can be eliminated, when one goes to a new set of fermion fields $`𝚿`$ using a unitary transformation of the type:

$$\psi =\mathrm{exp}[iT^i\omega ^i(x)]𝚿\text{ , }\omega ^i(x)=n^ix$$
(22)
A compensating term appears from the fermion kinetic term and the compensation occurs for any set of “gauge” functions $`\omega ^i(x)`$ if and only if:

(d) the matrices $`T^i`$ form a representation of the Lie algebra with structure constants $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$

$$[T^i,T^j]=i\alpha ^{ijk}T^k$$
(23)
In general this will be a reducible representation but, for simplicity, we shall take it to be irreducible here. This means that the matter fermions $`𝚿`$ are all assigned to an irreducible multiplet determined by the matrices $`T^i`$. At the same time, the unitary transformation (22) changes the mass term for the fermions to

$$\overline{𝚿}(m+i\omega ^k[m,T^k])𝚿$$
(24)
The vanishing of the Lorentz non-invariant term (the second one) in Eq. (24) for any set of “gauge” functions $`\omega ^i(x)`$ requires that the matrix $`m`$ should commute with all the matrices $`T^k`$. According to Schur’s lemma, this again means that the matrix $`m`$ is proportional to the identity, $`m_{rs}=𝐦\delta _{rs}`$, thus giving:

(e) the same mass for all the matter fermion fields within the irreducible multiplet determined by the matrices $`T^i`$; in the case when the fermions are decomposed into several irreducible multiplets, their masses are necessarily equal only within each multiplet.

The above argument for gauge symmetry as a consequence of the non-observability of SBLS also works in the absence of matter fields. However, if fermions are present, there is a technically shorter derivation of all the above conclusions. Firstly, one can transform to the new sets of vector and fermion fields according to Eqs. (15) and (22) and, as in the Abelian case, consider the vector field and fermion-current interaction terms (21). After compensation of all the linear (under $`n_\mu ^i`$) SBLS terms, one is led to the commutator (23) for the fermion current matrices $`T^i`$. Then the standard Jacobi identity for the $`T`$ matrices immediately leads to the basic structure relation (16) for the $`\alpha ^{ijk}`$, whose antisymmetry with respect to indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ follows from the commutator (23) by itself. Its antisymmetry under indices $`j`$ and $`k`$ stems from the required cancellation of the linear SBLS terms (containing a vector-field derivative) in the trilinear self-interaction couplings in the Lagrangian (3) with the terms that appear from the kinetic term for the vector fields. The cancellation of the linear SBLS terms (containing no vector-field derivative) in the trilinear and quadrilinear vector field couplings in the Lagrangian results in the relation (17) for their coupling constants. Finally, the conclusions (c) and (e) for the masses of the vector and fermion fields are derived.

Now, collecting together all the outcomes (a)-(e) derived from the non-observability of the SBLS for any set of infinitesimal vectors $`n_\mu ^i`$ applied to the general Lagrangian (12), we arrive at a truly gauge invariant Yang-Mills theory for the new fields $`𝐚_\mu ^i`$ and $`𝚿`$:

$$L_{YM}=\frac{1}{4}𝐅_{\mu \nu }^i𝐅_{\mu \nu }^i+i\overline{𝚿}\gamma 𝚿𝐦\overline{𝚿}𝚿+\mathrm{𝐠𝐚}_\mu ^i\overline{𝚿}\gamma _\mu 𝐓^i𝚿$$
(25)
Here $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }^i=_\mu 𝐚_\nu ^i_\nu 𝐚_\mu ^i+\mathrm{𝐠𝐚}^{ijk}𝐚_\mu ^j𝐚_\nu ^k`$ and $`𝐠`$ is a universal gauge coupling constant extracted from the corresponding matrices $`\alpha ^{ijk}=\mathrm{𝐠𝐚}^{ijk}`$ and $`T^i=\mathrm{𝐠𝐓}^i`$.

Let us now consider the generalisation of the vector field VEVs from infinitesimal to finite background classical fields $`n_\mu ^i`$. Unfortunately one cannot directly generalise the SBLS form (13) to all finite $`n_\mu ^i`$ vectors. Due to the non-cancellation of the high-order $`n_\mu ^i`$ terms, one would inevitably come to an Abelian rather than a non-Abelian symmetry, when applying the principle of the SBLS non-observability to the Lagrangian (3). Otherwise, one has a non-vanishing field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ in the vacuum, implying a real physical breakdown of Lorentz symmetry. This problem can be automatically avoided if the finite SBLS shift vector $`n_\mu ^i`$ in the basic equation (13) takes the factorised form

$$A_\mu ^i(x)=a_\mu ^i(x)+n_\mu f^i$$
(26)
where $`n_\mu `$ is a constant Lorentz vector as in the Abelian case, while $`f^i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$) is a vector in the internal charge space. So we now formulate the strong form of our SBLS non-observability assumption, needed to derive non-Abelian gauge invariance, as follows: the SBLS must remain hidden for any set of VEVs for the vector fields $`A_\mu ^i`$ of the factorised form $`n_\mu ^i=n_\mu f^i`$ (26). Using the Lagrangian (25) derived for infinitesimal VEVs, it is now straightforward to show that there will be no observable effects of SBLS for any set of finite factorised VEVs $`n_\mu ^i=n_\mu f^i`$ (26). For this purpose, it is sufficient to generalise Eq. (15) to the finite transformation:

$$a_\mu \alpha =\mathrm{exp}[(\omega \alpha )]𝐚_\mu \alpha \mathrm{exp}[(\omega \alpha )]$$
(27)
Then Eqs. (13, 22, 27) combine to form a genuine finite gauge transformation666Note that $`\mathrm{exp}[(nx)(f\alpha )]_\mu \mathrm{exp}[(nx)(f\alpha )]=n_\mu (f\alpha )`$ and hence Eq. (26) correctly represents the derivative term in the gauge transformation for finite factorised VEVs $`n_\mu ^i=n_\mu f^i`$. for the Yang-Mills Lagrangian (25) and the SBLS is simply transformed away as a gauge degree of freedom.

If other fermion and scalar fields are included, the Lorentz invariance condition applied to their SBLS remnants will assign them to appropriate symmetry multiplets. Thus the gauge symmetry is readily extended to the Yukawa and Higgs sectors as well.

## 4 Spontaneously broken gauge invariance

So far our considerations have been quite general and model-independent, as they concerned the impact of the SBLS upon the possible dynamics of the matter and vector (gauge) fields. However, we have not yet explicitly discussed the role of scalar fields, particularly in the situation when these fields develop VEVs. An interesting question then arises: how does the SBLS interplay with the spontaneously broken internal symmetries? The presence of scalar fields may also provide a possible mechanism for inducing the appearance of non-zero classical fields $`n_\mu `$ and $`n_\mu ^i`$, as the VEVs of the original vector fields $`A_\mu `$ (4) and $`A_\mu ^i`$ (13). The simplest case to consider involves just vector and scalar field interactions.

In the Abelian case, with one vector and one real scalar field, the corresponding general Lagrangian density is given by:

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{h}{2}A_\mu ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \sigma )^2\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\sigma ^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\sigma ^4+L^{}$$
(28)
Here we have divided the total Lagrangian into two parts: the explicitly written terms are, as we will see, compatible with Lorentz invariance, while the part $`L^{}`$ includes all other terms having an independent structure, which break Lorentz invariance once the SBLS appears. These include a fundamental mass term for the vector field $`\frac{M^2}{2}A_\mu ^2`$ and a quadrilinear term $`A_\mu ^2A_\mu ^2`$, both of which were considered in section 2. Also there are the interaction terms $`_\mu A_\nu A_\mu A_\nu `$, $`A_\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma `$ and all the odd-power couplings of the $`\sigma `$ (which for simplicity we exclude, by requiring the reflection $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`\sigma \sigma `$ ).

Let us consider first the possible vacuum configurations corresponding to the potential in $`L`$ (28):

$$U=\frac{h}{2}A_\mu ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\sigma ^4+U^{}$$
(29)
One can see that the explicitly written part of the potential $`U`$ (29) drives the vector field $`A_\mu `$ to have a VEV as large as possible—it is in fact unstable in the absence of a quadrilinear term $`A_\mu ^2A_\mu ^2`$, or some other stabilizing term (see below). For the moment, let us ignore $`U^{}`$ and this instability and take the VEV of $`A_\mu `$ as some given parameter. Variation of the potential $`U`$ with respect to $`\sigma `$ yields one equation between the VEVs $`n_\mu `$ and $`v`$ of the fields (for $`v0`$):

$$A_\mu =a_\mu +n_\mu ,\sigma =\rho +v,\text{ }hn_\mu ^2=\lambda v^2+\mu ^2\text{ }$$
(30)
This leads to a non-trivial minimum of the potential $`U`$

$$U_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{4\lambda }(hn_\mu ^2\mu ^2)^2$$
(31)
provided that $`hn_\mu ^2>`$ $`\mu ^2`$. The trivial minimum $`U_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$ with $`v=0`$ corresponds to the case $`hn_\mu ^2\mu ^2`$. As mentioned above, the potential $`U`$ is unbounded below and drives the VEV of $`A_\mu `$ towards large values, $`hn_\mu ^2\mathrm{}`$. So it is necessary to add a term to the potential $`U`$ in order to cut-off this instability for some large (but finite) value of $`A_\mu ^2`$. As a simple example, we could add a cut-off term $`U_{cutoff}=(A_\mu ^2)^2\theta \left((A_\mu ^2)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\right)`$ and consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}`$ at the end of the calculation, when Lorentz symmetry breaking effects from such a term become unobservable. Similar results can be obtained by including a large dimensional irrelevant term, such as $`U_{cutoff}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{(A_\mu ^2)^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$; however note that it is necessary to take $`\mu ^2`$ (and $`v^2`$) to be of order the cut-off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$.

Now, apart from the standard symmetrical case ($`n_\mu =0`$, $`v=0`$), the following vacua are possible for the potential $`U`$ (depending on the sign and value of $`n_\mu ^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$): an ordinary Goldstone-Higgs (GH) mode ($`n_\mu =0`$, $`v0`$) which breaks the above reflection symmetry, the SBLS mode ($`n_\mu 0`$, $`v=0`$) and the combined SBLS-GH mode ($`n_\mu 0`$, $`v0`$). When the cut-off term $`U_{cutoff}`$ is added, one finds that the preferred vacuum configuration in the potential $`U`$ corresponds to the case when the vector field $`A_\mu `$ develops a VEV $`n_\mu `$, having a large value $`|n_\mu ^2|=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The pure GH minimum is degenerate with the symmetrical one ($`U_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$) for $`\mu ^2>0`$ or located at $`U_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\mu ^4}{4\lambda }`$ for $`\mu ^2<0`$. This means that, provided $`h\mathrm{\Lambda }^2>|\mu ^2|`$, the combined SBLS-GH mode dominates over the other possible vacua777The pure SBLS mode ($`n_\mu 0`$, $`v=0`$) corresponds to the particular choice $`n_\mu ^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{h}`$ and is degenerate with the trivial symmetrical case with $`U_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$..

After symmetry breaking (30), the potential $`U`$ (29) takes the form

$$U=\frac{h}{2}(a_\mu +n_\mu )^2(\rho +v)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2(\rho +v)^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}(\rho +v)^4+U^{}(a_\mu +n_\mu ,\rho +v)$$
(32)
It can be seen from (32) that, due to the SBLS and the spontaneous breakdown of the reflection $`Z_2`$ symmetry888Another physical consequence is the formation of domain walls separating the vacua with $`<\sigma >=+v`$ and $`<\sigma >=v`$. $`\sigma \sigma `$, the whole vector field $`A_\mu =a_\mu +n_\mu `$ has acquired a soft mass in addition to the fundamental mass term contained in $`U^{}`$. However, the situation drastically changes when $`U^{}`$, which simultaneously induces (as we already know from section 2) the physical breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, is required to vanish identically. Thereby, the potential (32) becomes nothing but the potential of spontaneously broken scalar electrodynamics. This can be converted into its well-known gauge invariant form by making an inverse Higgs transformation:

$$a_\mu a_\mu +\frac{1}{gv}_\mu \theta \text{ , }\varphi =\frac{\rho +v}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\frac{\theta }{v}}\text{ , }\varphi ^{}=\frac{\rho +v}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\frac{\theta }{v}}$$
(33)
So, one finally arrives at the standard QED Lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+ig(a_\mu +n_\mu )\left(\varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi ^{}\varphi \right)+`$
$`+g^2(a_\mu +n_\mu )^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +_\mu \varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi \mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \lambda \left(\varphi ^{}\varphi \right)^2\text{.}`$
of the massive charged scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ with a gauge coupling constant $`g=\sqrt{h}`$. Going then by a unitary transformation to a new scalar field $`\varphi `$ $`e^{ignx}\varphi `$, one can completely eliminate999The consequent spontaneous breakdown of momentum conservation, mentioned in footnote 1 and postulated to be unobservable since it also violates Lorentz symmetry, is in fact hidden by the global charge conservation manifest in the Lagrangian (4). This global charge conservation arose through the inverse Higgs transformation (33). any dependence on the constant vector $`n_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian (4) thus excluding it from the VEV of the charged field $`\varphi `$ (33) as well. This means that the predominant SBLS-GH mode, while being physical in the Lorentz non-invariant phase, turns into a false vacuum when Lorentz invariance is restored and gauge symmetry appears. Thus, any terms in the original Lagrangian (28) which have not evolved to a gauge invariant form (they are collected in $`L^{}`$) must definitely vanish—otherwise the SBLS-GH mode will dominate, inevitably inducing an explicit Lorentz non-invariance. The actual scenario for the physical vacuum depends only on the mass of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. If $`\mu ^2`$ is positive one has standard scalar electrodynamics with a massless photon, if it is negative then a spontaneously broken gauge theory emerges. So, we come to the conclusion that spontaneously broken gauge symmetries could also appear when the SBLS happens, as a consequence of the non-observability of the Lorentz symmetry breakdown.

The emergence of the massive charged scalar $`\varphi `$ (or neutral scalar $`\rho `$ in the case of the spontaneously broken gauge theory) is, as a matter of fact, the most direct prediction of the model considered. In the non-Abelian case, to which this model is straightforwardly extended, it follows from the generalisation of Eq. (33) that the scalars should belong (like the vector fields do) to the adjoint representation of the gauge symmetry group.

In the model of section 2 with a charged fermion field, the SBLS arose as a consequence of the existence of “flat directions”, meaning that from gauge symmetry the energy for a vacuum state with $`A_\mu =0`$ is the same as for one with $`A_\mu =n_\mu `$. If the reader does not like this idea of getting SBLS as the result of a flat direction, the price to be paid is all the above scalars. Alternatively, instead of using fundamental vector fields $`A_\mu ^i`$, one could consider them as being effective composite fields and then again ask the question from which we started in this section: what could induce the SBLS? Some possibilities may be related, for example, with a Lorentz-symmetry breaking fermion-antifermion pair condensate, as in the composite models mentioned earlier , rather than with the scalar condensate considered here. However, independent of its origin, if SBLS appears and is unobservable, it inevitably generates some gauge invariance, as was demonstrated in the previous sections.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that gauge invariant Abelian and non-Abelian theories can be obtained from the requirement of the physical non-observability of the SBLS rather than by using the Yang-Mills gauge principle.

Imposing the condition that the Lorentz symmetry breaking be unobservable of course restricts the values of the coupling constants and mass parameters in the Lagrangian density. These restrictions may naturally also depend on the direction and strength of the Lorentz symmetry breaking vector field vacuum expectation values (VEVs), whose effects are to be hidden. This allows us a choice as to how strong an assumption we make about the non-observability requirement. Actually, in the Abelian case, we just assumed this non-observability for the physical vacuum that really appears (4), but we needed a stronger assumption in the non-Abelian case. A stronger assumption is needed because we believe that, for a given translational invariant but Lorentz symmetry breaking vacuum state, it is always possible to hide SBLS by only imposing restrictions on the couplings which lead to an Abelian gauge theory. We could ensure the derivation of a non-Abelian gauge symmetry by choosing a stronger version of the non-observability assumption: the SBLS is unobservable for all conceivable vacuum field configurations, including even those vacua that could never be realised. This is clearly a very strong assumption. Then we note that we let the coupling constants and mass parameters be restricted in a way which a priori depends on the vacuum from which we have to hide the SBLS. So, as the vacuum state itself depends on the values of these coupling constants and mass parameters, there is a back reaction problem unless one simply imposes that all possible vacua must have their SBLS hidden. Nevertheless this assumption looks to be too strong, in the sense that even Yang-Mills theories would in general not be able to hide the SBLS unless all the $`n_\mu ^i`$ commute. The reason for this is that, if the $`n_\mu ^i`$ did not commute, the Yang-Mills field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ would not vanish in the vacuum and would break Lorentz symmetry spontaneously. If, for some combination of the Lorentz indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ we have some components $`F_{\mu \nu }^a0`$, there is no way to gauge that property away. Thus once the field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is non-zero, it is virtually impossible to gauge the SBLS away. We have therefore invented a milder assumption, which can be used for deriving non-Abelian gauge symmetry: the SBLS is unobservable in any vacuum for which the vector fields have VEVs of the factorised form $`n_\mu ^i=n_\mu f^i`$ (26). This factorised form is a special case in which the $`n_\mu ^i`$ commute with each other.

A working assumption in the present work is that the vector fields are taken to be pure spin-1 fields, satisfying the Lorentz condition (2). Due to this constraint $`_\mu A_\mu =0`$, there is a difficulty, a priori, in prescribing the functional measure $`𝒟A_\mu `$ over the vector fields in the path integral for the theory. Therefore a priori we have only worked in the classical approximation (although most of our arguments are also true quantum mechanically). In the Abelian case it is essentially obvious how to define the measure $`𝒟A_\mu `$. However, in the non-Abelian case, it would be necessary to introduce ghost fields as usual, in order to keep the gauge invariance beyond tree-level. We do not address here the interesting and important question of how these ghost fields arise in our argumentation, when calculating quantum mechanically. At the same time, we recall from footnote 3 that the Lorentz condition (2) is not actually required, when we use the strong form of the SBLS non-observability assumption and space-time dependent vacuum vector fields.

Gauge transformations having parameters $`\omega ^i(x)=n^ix`$ varying linearly with $`x^\mu `$ are important in our calculations, in as far as they induce changes in the VEVs of the vector fields. Such linear gauge functions $`\omega ^i(x)`$ do not obey the boundary conditions of vanishing at infinity—not even their gradients vanish at infinity. However, due to the required commutation of the different components $`n_\mu ^i`$ discussed above, we effectively work with a Cartan algebra. Since we are only using a Cartan algebra, the immediately needed large fields at infinity do not imply the large gauge transformations required to allow non-Abelian instantons (it is essential that the instantons are genuinely non-Abelian even at infinity). So the danger of introducing non-trivial topological effects is avoided.

There could of course be other (non-perturbative) sources of spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance, causing the field strengths $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ to acquire non-zero VEVs in Abelian or non-Abelian models. In this case, however, there would be no way to rescue the Lorentz invariance, even by having a gauge symmetry in the theory. Such a theory would be totally excluded by our main assumption of no observable Lorentz invariance breaking. So logically our strong requirement of the non-observability of SBLS excludes this possibility, which otherwise could easily happen. It was precisely to avoid this possibility that we introduced our assumption of factorised VEVs (26) in the non-Abelian case.

Remarkably, the application of the here proposed non-observability principle to the most general relativistically invariant Lagrangian density, with arbitrary couplings for all the fields involved, leads by itself to the appearance of a continuous symmetry in terms of conserved Noether currents and, what is more, to the massless vector field(s) gauging this symmetry. As a consequence, matrices constructed out of the coupling constants constitute representations of the Lie algebra corresponding to the above symmetry and (in the non-Abelian case) the coupling constants for the vector field self-interaction terms prove to be the structure constants for this algebra. Thus the vector fields are then a source of the symmetries, rather than local symmetries being a source of the vector fields as in the usual formulation101010In a similar manner, it was shown a long time ago  that the massive Abelian or non-Abelian theories can be obtained from the requirement that the vector fields preserve their transversality (2) in all their interactions. However, this requirement cannot lead to the massless vector field case, and for good reason.. We considered a simple model for SBLS based on the interaction between a massive vector and a real scalar field and found that the gauge, or spontaneously broken gauge, symmetry phase has to appear. So, to conclude, when Lorentz symmetry spontaneously breaks through the appearance of constant background vector fields then, simultaneously, a stable gauge (or spontaneously broken gauge) symmetry phase is created in order to avoid a physical breakdown of Lorentz invariance.

It is difficult to confirm our SBLS hypothesis phenomenologically since, by assumption, there can be no non-Lorentz invariant evidence for it. However, the very fact that there are many well-established gauge symmetries in the Standard Model might be taken as a weak confirmation of the viewpoint in this paper. There could be some indirect phenomenological manifestation of this picture, related to the underlying mechanism responsible for the genesis of the SBLS, such as the existence of scalar or composite fermion states at higher scales. We leave this and other open questions for further investigation.

## Acknowledgements

We are indebted to David Sutherland for many suggestions and useful remarks. One of us (JLC ) would like to thank Oleg Kancheli for stimulating conversations and criticism and Zurab Berezhiani, Hans Durr, Kazumi Maki and Peter Minkowski for interesting discussions. Financial support to JLC from INTAS grant No. 96-155, PPARC grant No. PPA/V/S/2000/ and the Joint Project grant from the Royal Society are also gratefully acknowledged. CDF and HBN would like to thank the EU commission for financial support from grants No. SCI-0430-C (PSTS) and No. CHRX-CT-94-0621. Also JLC, CDF and HBN would like to acknowledge financial support from INTAS grant No. 95-567.


format: text

text:
# Multiple-path interferometer with a single quantum obstacle

\[

## Abstract

We consider the scattering of particles by an obstacle which tunnels coherently between two positions. We show that the obstacle mimics two classical scatterers at fixed positions when the kinetic energy $`\epsilon `$ of the incident particles is smaller than the tunnel splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: If the obstacles are arranged in parallel, one observes an interference pattern as in the conventional double-slit experiment. If they are arranged in series, the observations conform with a Fabry-Perot interferometer. At larger $`\epsilon `$ inelastic processes result in more complex interference phenomena. Interference disappears when $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }`$, but can be recovered if only the elastic scattering channel is detected. We discuss the realization of a quantum obstacle in mesoscopic systems.

\]

In the familiar double-slit experiment a beam of particles is sent through two slits in a plate and the transmitted intensity is observed on a screen. One finds an interference pattern, thus demonstrating the coherent superposition of the two possible scattering paths. The same result is obtained for the reflection from obstacles, e. g., the bars of a reflection grating.

In these experiments the slits or bars only play a passive role. In this paper we consider scattering by a single obstacle, which, however, is by itself a quantum object with states that correspond to different locations (see Fig. 1). Allowing for superpositions of these states, we have an obstacle that is delocalized in space. Which reflection or transmission pattern is then observed on the screen? What we will demonstrate here is that the quantum obstacle may act as a collection of classical scatterers, in that one observes the corresponding interference pattern on the screen. The condition for interference is that the tunnel splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is of order or larger than the kinetic energy $`\epsilon `$ of the incident particles. This suggests the interpretation that the obstacle has to tunnel quickly enough in order to give the particles a choice of the path. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$ the interference pattern from the obstacle disappears, but can be recovered if only the elastic scattering channel is detected. (It is also recovered by coincidence detection of the final state of the obstacle in its delocalized eigenbasis.)

The double slits or bars are two scattering elements put in parallel. We contrast this with the one-dimensional problem of two barriers arranged in series—a Fabry-Perot interferometer. The quantum analogue is an obstacle which tunnels between two locations along the propagation direction of the incident particles. We solve exactly the one-dimensional model with a repulsive contact interaction (delta-function potential $`U\delta (x)`$) and find transmission resonances for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$, hence again that the quantum obstacle acts as two classical obstacles if it tunnels quickly enough. In the limit of large interaction strength $`U`$ and sufficiently large separation between the positions of the obstacle, the transmission amplitude becomes identical to the transmission amplitude of the Fabry-Perot interferometer. In general, the transmission probability remains finite even if the barrier strength $`U`$ is infinite. At smaller tunnel splitting one finds a rich behavior of the transmission probability due to multiple inelastic scattering. These results are further illuminated by the delay time, a measure of the interaction time .

Let us first consider the ‘parallel’ quantum scatterer in three dimensions, which hops between two positions $`𝐑_1=𝐫_0/2`$ (internal state $`|1`$), $`𝐑_2=𝐫_0/2`$ (internal state $`|2`$), with separation $`𝐫_0`$. The eigenstates of the scatterer are the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations $`|s=2^{1/2}(|1+|2)`$ and $`|a=2^{1/2}(|1|2)`$, respectively. The corresponding eigenenergies $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ differ by the tunnel splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. (As usual we assume that the ground state is the symmetric state $`|s`$.) This gives rise to tunneling of the scatterer between the two positions at a frequency $`\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }/h`$. The incident particle with coordinate $`𝐫`$ interacts with the scatterer at position $`𝐑_k`$ through a potential $`V_k(𝐫)=V(𝐫𝐑_k)`$ which depends only on its relative position to the scatterer. The Hamiltonian describing the total system composed of the particle and the scatterer can then be written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}}+\widehat{W}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left[|12|+|21|\right],`$ (1)
$`\widehat{W}`$ $`=`$ $`V_1(𝐫)|11|+V_2(𝐫)|22|.`$ (2)
Here $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ is the momentum operator of the particle of mass $`m`$. The plane-wave eigenstates $`|𝐤`$ are denoted by their wave vector $`𝐤=𝐩/\mathrm{}`$.

We assume that the scatterer is initially prepared in its ground state $`|s`$ (preparation in its excited state $`|a`$ is equivalent to the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$; superpositions result in nonstationary behavior). In the limit of a weak interaction we can apply the Born approximation and obtain the probability of scattering from the initial state $`|𝐤_\mathrm{i}`$ into the final state $`|𝐤_\mathrm{f}`$ by summing the probabilities for each final state of the scatterer:

$`P_{𝐤_\mathrm{i}𝐤_\mathrm{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\left\{\right|𝐤_\mathrm{f};s|\widehat{W}|s;𝐤_\mathrm{i}|^2\delta (\epsilon _\mathrm{i}\epsilon _\mathrm{f})`$ (4)
$`+\left|𝐤_\mathrm{f};a|\widehat{W}|s;𝐤_\mathrm{i}|^2\delta (\epsilon _\mathrm{i}\epsilon _\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\Delta })\right\}.`$
For of a short-ranged potential of the form $`V(𝐫)=U\delta \left(𝐫\right)`$ the probability reads

$`P_{𝐤_\mathrm{i}𝐤_\mathrm{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}U^2[\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}/2)\delta (\epsilon _\mathrm{i}\epsilon _\mathrm{f})`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}/2)\delta (\epsilon _\mathrm{i}\epsilon _\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\Delta })],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤=𝐤_\mathrm{i}𝐤_\mathrm{f}`$. Interference with full contrast is observed when the energy $`\epsilon _i`$ of the incoming particle is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, because then the argument of the second delta function is always negative (inelastic processes are forbidden). In this situation the quantum scatterer acts as two classical scatterers of fixed positions $`𝐑_1`$ and $`𝐑_2`$, since $`P_{𝐤_\mathrm{i}𝐤_\mathrm{f}}\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤𝐫_0/2)`$. On the other hand, interference is lost if the kinetic energy of the incident particles $`\epsilon _\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . The interference pattern can be recovered if one only detects the elastic scattering channel (by means of energy-resolved detection at energy $`\epsilon `$).

Now we turn to the ‘serial’ quantum barrier, which hops in the propagation direction of the scattered particle. In the case of one-dimensional scattering (plane-parallel barriers, or confined propagation) and for the delta-function potential $`V_1(x)=U\delta (xL/2)`$, $`V_2(x)=U\delta (x+L/2)`$, this scattering problem can be solved exactly. \[The problem is defined by the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (2) with these potentials and $`\widehat{𝐩}^2`$ replaced by $`\widehat{p}_x^2=\mathrm{}^2^2/x^2`$.\] In order to simplify the notation we use units $`\mathrm{}^2/2m1`$, such that the kinetic energy $`\epsilon =k^2`$.

Before we present the solution, let us briefly recall the results for the conventional case of immobile barriers. For a single immobile barrier of strength $`U`$ the transmission and reflection amplitudes at wave number $`k`$ are given by

$$t=\frac{1}{1+iU/2k}\text{and}r=\frac{iU/2k}{1+iU/2k},$$
(7)
respectively, such that the reflection probability approaches unity when $`U|k|`$. When two such immobile barriers are placed in series with separation $`L`$ they form a Fabry-Perot interferometer, with transmission amplitude

$$t=\frac{k^2}{k^2+ikU+U^2[\mathrm{exp}(2ikL)1]/4}.$$
(8)
For a large finesse of the interferometer ($`U/k1`$) one finds the well-known transmission resonances close to integer values of $`kL/\pi `$.

The quantum scatterer is delocalized, giving rise to a number of additional resonance and interference effects. In order to explore these effects we solve the stationary scattering problem for electrons with momentum $`k>0`$ incident from the left, while the scatterer is prepared in the eigenstate $`|s`$, hence giving the total energy $`E=\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$. Under conservation of this energy, the electrons can be reflected or transmitted either elastically or inelastically, where in the latter case the outgoing electrons have momentum $`\pm q`$, with $`q=\sqrt{\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }}`$, and the scatterer is excited into the state $`|a`$.

The scattering probabilities and phase shifts can be determined via wave matching of the wavefunctions

$$\varphi _\alpha =(a_\alpha e^{ikx}+b_\alpha e^{ikx})|s+(c_\alpha e^{iqx}+d_\alpha e^{iqx})|a$$
(9)
at the boundaries of the three regions $`\alpha =\mathrm{I}`$ for $`x<L/2`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{II}`$ for $`L/2<x<L/2`$, and $`\alpha =\mathrm{III}`$ for $`x>L/2`$ (see Fig. 1). The resulting linear system of equations is then solved for $`b_\mathrm{I}`$, $`d_\mathrm{I}`$, $`a_{\mathrm{III}}`$, and $`c_{\mathrm{III}}`$ as a linear function of $`a_\mathrm{I}`$ (which we set to unity), under the conditions $`c_\mathrm{I}=b_{\mathrm{III}}=d_{\mathrm{III}}=0`$, because no electrons are coming in with momentum $`q`$, or from the right. (For the case $`\epsilon <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we use the convention $`\mathrm{Im}q>0`$, so that the wavefunctions with coefficient $`d_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{III}}`$ decay exponentially with the distance to the scatterer.) The coefficients (which are lengthy algebraic expressions and hence not written down here) determine the elastic and inelastic transmission and reflection probabilities by $`T_{\mathrm{el}}=|a_{\mathrm{III}}|^2`$, $`T_{\mathrm{inel}}=(\mathrm{Re}q/k)|c_{\mathrm{III}}|^2`$, $`R_{\mathrm{el}}=|b_\mathrm{I}|^2`$, and $`R_{\mathrm{inel}}=(\mathrm{Re}q/k)|d_\mathrm{I}|^2`$. (The inelastic scattering probability $`T_{\mathrm{inel}}+R_{\mathrm{inel}}`$ vanishes for $`\epsilon <\mathrm{\Delta }`$.) The coefficients also deliver the scattering phase shifts $`\varphi _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{T};\mathrm{el},\mathrm{inel}}`$, with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{T};\mathrm{el}}=\mathrm{arg}a_{\mathrm{III}}`$, etc, and the delay times $`\tau =\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\varphi /\mathrm{d}\epsilon `$.

Let us now discuss some special cases. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ of slow tunneling we find

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{U^2}{4k^2+U^2}},R_{\mathrm{el}}=\mathrm{cos}^2(kL)R,R_{\mathrm{inel}}=\mathrm{sin}^2(kL)R,`$ (10)
$`T=T_{\mathrm{el}}={\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{4k^2+U^2}},T_{\mathrm{inel}}=0.`$ (11)
Qualitatively, the parameter dependence of Eq. (11) corresponds to the result in Born approximation, Eq. (6), with parallel vectors $`𝐤_f𝐤_i𝐫_0`$. Moreover, the total transmission and reflection probabilities are the same as for the conventional problem of a single delta function of strength $`U`$ \[see Eq. (7)\]. However, the scatterer has a finite probability $`R_{\mathrm{inel}}`$ to change its internal state. (This can be probed in the elastic channel if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is greater than the energy resolution of the detector, but still much smaller than $`\epsilon `$.)

In the limit $`Uk`$ of strong scattering, according to Eq. (11) the transmittance vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. In striking contrast, a finite transmission probability results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ even in the limiting case $`U\mathrm{}`$, which can be interpreted as systematic avoidance of the particle and the scatterer. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\epsilon `$ we find in this limit the coefficients

$`a_{\mathrm{III}}`$ $`=`$ $`2ik\mathrm{exp}(iqL)g^1\mathrm{Im}f,`$ (12)
$`c_{\mathrm{III}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i(kq)L/2]a_{\mathrm{III}},`$ (13)
$`b_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`2qg^1[i\mathrm{Im}fk(\mathrm{cos}kL+\mathrm{cos}qL)],`$ (14)
$`d_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`k\mathrm{exp}[i(k+q)L/2]g^1`$ (16)
$`\times [(\mathrm{exp}[2iqL]1)k+(\mathrm{exp}[2ikL]1)q],`$
where $`f=q\mathrm{exp}(ikL)k\mathrm{exp}(iqL)`$, $`g=(k+q)^2f^2`$. The proportionality between the transmission coefficients $`a_{\mathrm{III}}`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{III}}`$ in Eq. (16) entails for the elastic and inelastic transmission delay times the relation

$$\tau _{\mathrm{T};\mathrm{inel}}=\tau _{\mathrm{T};\mathrm{el}}\frac{L}{4}\left(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{k}\right)\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}},$$
(17)
where we momentarily reintroduced the units $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$.

The corresponding probabilities of transmission and inelastic-scattering, as well as the delay times $`\tau _{\mathrm{T};\mathrm{el}}`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{R};\mathrm{el}}`$, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{R};\mathrm{inel}}`$, are plotted in Fig. 2 as function of $`kL/\pi `$ for fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\epsilon =0.4`$. We find a regular sequence of transmission zeros, accompanied by long delay times for the various scattering processes. The peaks of $`\tau _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{el}}`$ point upwards, the peaks of $`\tau _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{inel}}`$ point downwards. The transmission probability is modulated by a function $`F(kL/\pi )`$ \[related to $`f`$ in Eq. (16)\] with period $`p=2/(1\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }/\epsilon })`$ and maxima at $`kL/\pi =(n+1/2)p`$. In the limit $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }`$ (where $`p4\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta }`$) the maxima occur when the time of flight $`L/v`$ of the particle between the two positions of the obstacle is an odd multiple of the tunneling time $`h/2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between these positions (the minima occur at even multiples). Close to the minima the peaks in $`\tau _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{inel}}`$ alternate; close to the maxima they coincide.

At $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\epsilon `$ the momentum $`q`$ vanishes, and the inelastic scattering rate (which is proportional to $`\mathrm{Re}q`$) drops to zero. The transmission probability becomes

$$T=T_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{(kL\mathrm{sin}kL)^2}{(1+\mathrm{cos}kL)^2+(kL\mathrm{sin}kL)^2}.$$
(18)
In the limit $`kL1`$ the transmission probability $`T=1`$. This is a remarkable observation: The scatterer becomes totally transparent although $`U\mathrm{}`$.

Another remarkable case of total transmission is found for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\epsilon `$, where all electrons are scattered elastically. The transmission probability is now

$`T=T_{\mathrm{el}}=4k^2(k\mathrm{sinh}L|q||q|\mathrm{sin}kL)^2e^{2L|q|}`$ (19)
$`\times |(k+i|q|)^2e^{ikL}(ke^{L(|q|+ik)}i|q|)^2|^2.`$ (20)
The delay times $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ are equal (this is a joint consequence of the unitarity of the scattering matrix and the reflection symmetry of the potential). At large length $`L1/|q|`$ the transmission amplitude $`t`$ becomes exactly identical to the transmission amplitude of the Fabry-Perot interferometer, Eq. (8), with $`U`$ replaced by $`2|q|`$. Hence, although we started out with an infinite scattering strength $`U`$, the finesse of the quantum version of the Fabry-Perot interferometer is finite.

The transmission probability and the delay time is plotted for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\epsilon =4`$ as a function of $`kL/\pi `$ in Fig. 3 (solid curves). The dashed curves show these quantities for two fixed classical barriers with scattering strength $`U/k=2\sqrt{3}`$. The comparison again demonstrates that the quantum obstacle behaves as two fixed classical scatterers when the tunnel splitting exceeds the kinetic energy.

Let us briefly discuss some implications of our results for mesoscopic systems. A possible manifestation of the delocalized scatterer is an interstitial defect, like a light atom, which hops between two energetically equivalent positions. When the thermal excitation energy is of the order of the energy barrier that the particle has to overcome, the defect jumps incoherently from one position to another. Since the potential in the system is changed after each jump, the conductance exhibits random temporal fluctuations (telegraphic noise) between two values $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ . For a long measurement time one measures the time average $`G=(G_1+G_2)/2`$.

For lower temperature one enters the coherent regime in which the defect acts as a quantum obstacle. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is sufficiently large the defect is in its ground state, as we have assumed in our analysis. Up to now, however, we have neglected many-body effects. The most straight-forward modification is to account for the Pauli blocking of states below the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$: Inelastic scattering is forbidden when the excitation energy $`\epsilon E_\mathrm{F}<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. (The typical excitation energy is given by the potential drop $`eV`$ or by the thermal excitation energy, whatever the larger.) More intricate many-body effects arise, for example, from sequential scattering of several particles by the same quantum scatterer. If these can be neglected and inelastic processes are forbidden by Pauli blocking, we can use the Landauer formula $`G=(e^2/h)T`$ to relate the conductance to the transmission probability calculated above.

Can one also realize the serial quantum obstacle in one dimension (the Fabry-Perot interferometer)? An experimentally controllable set-up could consist of a single-channel wire placed adjacent to a double-quantum-dot device, which is tuned in resonance in the Coulomb-blockade regime. (For some experiments on double dots see Ref. .) The quantum obstacle is the electron which occupies the two degenerate levels on the dots, and interacts with the electrons in the wire by Coulomb repulsion. However, once again for a quantitative theory one cannot neglect many-body effects. In order to circumvent these complications to some extent, one might think of injecting “hot electrons” from one end of the wire, by shooting them over an additional potential barrier. In this way the excitation energies can be restricted to a small energy interval which is well separated from the Fermi energy.

In summary, we have investigated scattering by a quantum obstacle which is delocalized in space, and found close analogies to the double slit and the Fabry-Perot interferometer. This owes to the capability of the scatterer to act as a collection of classical scatterers for fast coherent tunneling (which can be interpreted as unsuccessful resolution of the scatterer position by the particle). A striking feature of the quantum obstacle is that an infinitely high potential barrier can become transparent (which can be interpreted as successful avoidance of the particle and the scatterer). Additional regimes with a rich phenomenology have been identified, depending on the kinetic energy of the incoming particle and the tunnel frequency of the scatterer.

Recent experiments on mesoscopic structures have probed the scattering by tunable  or spontaneously formed  two-level systems consisting of mobile entities. These are classical obstacles at high temperatures, but could turn into quantum obstacles as the temperature is lowered. It is challenging to find signatures for having entered this new regime. We propose the appearance of interference effects like the ones discussed in this paper as such a signature. We have concentrated on a single-particle scenario which neglects many-body effects of the scattered particles, most importantly sequential scattering of several particles by the same quantum scatterer. In view of the mesoscopic applications, our results could serve as the building block for a more quantitative theory that includes these effects. This is a promising subject for further investigations.

We thank S. Bahn, H. Bouchiat, A. Georges, Y. Imry, M. Kociak, and B. Reulet for discussions. This work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM and the European Commission.


text:
# A Compendium of Light-Cone Quantization

## 1 Four-vector conventions in the instant form

Lorentz vectors. Contra-variant four-vectors of position $`x^\mu `$ are written as

$$x^\mu =(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)=(t,x,y,z)=(x^0,\stackrel{}{x}_{},x^3)=(t,\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(1)
Covariant four-vectors $`x_\mu `$ are written as

$$x_\mu =(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(t,x,y,z)=g_{\mu \nu }x^\nu .$$
(2)
The metric tensors $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ lower and raise the indices, respectively, and are given in Fig. 1. Implicit summation over repeated Lorentz ($`\mu ,\nu ,\kappa `$) or space ($`i,j,k`$) indices is understood. Scalar products are

$$xp=x^\mu p_\mu =x^0p_0+x^1p_1+x^2p_2+x^3p_3=tE\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{p},$$
(3)
for example. The four-momentum of energy-momentum is $`p^\mu =(p^0,p^1,p^2,p^3)`$ or $`p^\mu =(E,\stackrel{}{p})`$.
Dirac matrices. The $`4\times 4`$ Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are defined by

$$\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu =2g^{\mu \nu },$$
(4)
up to unitary transformations. The $`\gamma ^k`$ are anti-hermitean and $`\gamma ^0`$ is hermitean. Useful combinations are $`\alpha ^k=\gamma ^0\gamma ^k`$ and $`\beta =\gamma ^0`$, as well as

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}\left(\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \right),\gamma _5=\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3.$$
(5)
They usually are expressed in terms of the $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices which are compiled here for completeness,

$$I=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right],\sigma ^1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill 1\\ 1\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right],\sigma ^2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill i\\ i\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right],\sigma ^3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right].$$
(6)
In Dirac representation the matrices are

$`\gamma ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill I\end{array}\right),\gamma ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\\ \sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
$`\gamma _5`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill +I\\ I\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\alpha ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\\ +\sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\sigma ^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\end{array}\right).`$ (18)
In chiral representation $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma _5`$ are interchanged:

$`\gamma ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill +I\\ I\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\\ \sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),`$ (23)
$`\gamma _5`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill I\end{array}\right),\alpha ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\end{array}\right),\sigma ^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^k\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^k\end{array}\right).`$ (30)
$`(i,j,k)=1,2,3`$ are used cyclically.

Projection operators. Combinations of Dirac matrices like

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha ^3)=\frac{\gamma ^0}{2}(\gamma ^0+\gamma ^3),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha ^3)=\frac{\gamma ^0}{2}(\gamma ^0\gamma ^3),$$
(31)
have often projector properties, particularly

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_++\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}.$$
(32)
They are diagonal in the chiral and off-diagonal in the Dirac representation:

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+)_{\mathrm{chiral}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+)_{\mathrm{Dirac}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
Dirac spinors. The solutions of the Dirac equations for mass $`m`$ particles are the spinors $`u(p,\lambda )u_\alpha (p,\lambda )`$ and $`v(p,\lambda )v_\alpha (p,\lambda )`$,

$$(/pm)u(p,\lambda )=0,(/p+m)v(p,\lambda )=0.$$
(34)
They form an orthonormal set,

$$\overline{u}(p,\lambda )u(p,\lambda ^{})=\overline{v}(p,\lambda ^{})v(p,\lambda )=2m\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}},$$
(35)
which is complete,

$$\underset{\lambda }{}u(p,\lambda )\overline{u}(p,\lambda )=/p+m,\underset{\lambda }{}v(p,\lambda )\overline{v}(p,\lambda )=/pm.$$
(36)
Note that normalization here differs from most of the textbooks. The ‘Feynman slash’ is $`/p=p_\mu \gamma ^\mu `$. The Gordon decomposition of currents

$$\overline{u}(p,\lambda )\gamma ^\mu u(q,\lambda ^{})=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{u}(p,\lambda )\left((p+q)^\mu +i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(pq)_\nu \right)u(q,\lambda ^{})$$
(37)
is often useful. The relations

$$\gamma ^\mu /a\gamma _\mu =2a,\gamma ^\mu /a/b\gamma _\mu =4ab,\gamma ^\mu /a/b/c\gamma _\mu =/c/b/a$$
(38)
hold identically. With $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, the spin projection is $`s=\lambda /2`$.
Polarization vectors. The two polarization four-vectors $`ϵ_\mu (p,\lambda )`$ are labeled by the spin projections $`\lambda =\pm 1`$. As solutions of the free Maxwell equations they are orthonormal and complete:

$$ϵ^\mu (p,\lambda )ϵ_\mu ^{}(p,\lambda ^{})=\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}},p^\mu ϵ_\mu (p,\lambda )=0.$$
(39)
The star () refers to complex conjugation. The polarization sum is

$$d_{\mu \nu }(p)=\underset{\lambda }{}ϵ_\mu (p,\lambda )ϵ_\nu ^{}(p,\lambda )=g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{\eta _\mu p_\nu +\eta _\nu p_\mu }{p^\kappa \eta _\kappa },$$
(40)
with the null vector $`\eta ^\mu \eta _\mu =0`$ given below.

## 2 Additional front-form conventions (LB)

Lorentz vectors. Contra-variant four-vectors of position $`x^\mu `$ are written as

$$x^\mu =(x^+,x^1,x^2,x^{})=(x^+,\stackrel{}{x}_{},x^{}).$$
(41)
Its time-like and space-like components are related to the instant form by

$$x^+=x^0+x^3\mathrm{and}x^{}=x^0x^3,$$
(42)
respectively, and referred to as ‘light-cone time’ and ‘light-cone space’. The covariant vectors are obtained by $`x_\mu =g_{\mu \nu }x^\nu `$, with the metric tensor(s)

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 2\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 2& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
Scalar products $`xp=x^\mu p_\mu `$ are

$$x^\mu p_\mu =x^+p_++x^{}p_{}+x^1p_1+x^2p_2=\frac{1}{2}(x^+p^{}+x^{}p^+)\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_{}.$$
(44)
All other four-vectors including $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are treated correspondingly.
Dirac matrices. In Dirac representation of the $`\gamma `$-matrices holds

$$\gamma ^+\gamma ^+=\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}=0.$$
(45)
Alternating products are for example

$$\gamma ^+\gamma ^{}\gamma ^+=4\gamma ^+,\gamma ^{}\gamma ^+\gamma ^{}=4\gamma ^{}.$$
(46)
Projection operators. The projection matrices become

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^0\gamma ^+=\frac{1}{4}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^0\gamma ^{}=\frac{1}{4}\gamma ^+\gamma ^{}.$$
(47)
Dirac spinors. The Lepage-Brodsky representation is particularly simple:

$`u(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p^+}}}\left(p^++\beta m+\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{}\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right)\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\chi (),\hfill & \text{for }\lambda =+1\text{,}\hfill \\ \chi (),\hfill & \text{for }\lambda =1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (48)
$`v(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p^+}}}\left(p^+\beta m+\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{}\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right)\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\chi (),\hfill & \text{for }\lambda =+1\text{,}\hfill \\ \chi (),\hfill & \text{for }\lambda =1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (49)
The two $`\chi `$-spinors are

$$\chi ()=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\chi ()=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
Tables of Dirac spinors. Matrix elements of Dirac spinors are given in Tables 1 and 2. As a particular application the Lorentz invariant spinor factor

$$S=j^\mu \overline{j}_\mu =\left[\overline{u}(k_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},\lambda _1^{})\right]\left[\overline{v}(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\gamma _\mu v(k_2,\lambda _2)\right]$$
(51)
is calculated explicitly. It appears for example in the $`q\overline{q}`$-scattering amplitude. In helicity space it can be understood as the matrix $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}`$ whose matrix elements are functions of $`x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and $`x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}`$. For convenience, $`S`$ is calculated here as $`S=2T\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}`$, i.e.

$$\lambda _q,\lambda _{\overline{q}}|T|\lambda _q^{},\lambda _{\overline{q}}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left[\overline{u}(k_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},\lambda _1^{})\right]}{\sqrt{xx^{}}}\frac{\left[\overline{v}(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\gamma _\mu v(k_2,\lambda _2)\right]}{\sqrt{(1x)(1x^{})}}.$$
(52)
It is often useful to arrange $`S`$ or $`T`$ as a matrix in helicity space,

$$\lambda _q,\lambda _{\overline{q}}|T|\lambda _q^{},\lambda _{\overline{q}}^{}=\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & (\mathrm{}& T_{11}& T_{12}& T_{13}& T_{14}& )\mathrm{}\\ & T_{21}& T_{22}& T_{23}& T_{24}\\ & T_{31}& T_{32}& T_{33}& T_{34}\\ & T_{41}& T_{42}& T_{43}& T_{44}\end{array}.$$
(53)
With $`y1x`$ the diagonal elements are

$`T_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{xx^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{yy^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{xy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{}^2}{x^{}y^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}+i\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}{xx^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}i\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}{yy^{}}},`$ (54)
$`T_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{11},`$ (55)
$`T_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{xx^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{yy^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}+i\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}{xyx^{}y^{}}},`$ (56)
$`T_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{33}.`$ (57)
The off-diagonal matrix elements become

$`T_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1m_2{\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})^2}{xyx^{}y^{}}},T_{21}=m_1m_2{\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})^2}{xyx^{}y^{}}},`$ (58)
$`T_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{yy^{}}}x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{x^{}}}\right],T_{31}={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{yy^{}}}x^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{x^{}}}\right],`$ (59)
$`T_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{xx^{}}}y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{y^{}}}\right],T_{41}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{xx^{}}}y^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{y^{}}}\right],`$ (60)
$`T_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{xx^{}}}y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{y^{}}}\right],T_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{xx^{}}}y^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{y^{}}}\right],`$ (61)
$`T_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{yy^{}}}x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{x^{}}}\right],T_{42}={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{yy^{}}}x^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}()}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{}()}{x^{}}}\right],`$ (62)
$`T_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`0,T_{43}=0,`$ (63)
where $`k_{}()=k_xik_y`$ and $`k_{}()=k_xik_y`$.
Close to kinematic equilibrium, i.e. for $`xx^{}=\overline{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}=0`$, the particles are essentially at rest, and $`S`$ is diagonal ($`\overline{x}=m_1/(m_1+m_2)`$):

$$\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}=4m_1m_2\delta _{\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{}}\delta _{\lambda _2,\lambda _2^{}}.$$
(64)
Far-off equilibrium $`S`$ is also diagonal; all matrix elements vanish essentially as compared to the two leading ones (for $`xx^{}`$ and $`k_{}^{}k_{}m`$):

$$|S|=|S|=2\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{}^2.$$
(65)
Polarization vectors. The null vector is

$$\eta ^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{0},2).$$
(66)
The transversal polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}()=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,i)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}()=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,i)`$ are the same as in Bjørken-Drell convention: Circular polarization has the spin projections $`\lambda =\pm 1=`$. With the unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{e}_x`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}_y`$ in $`p_x`$\- and $`p_y`$-direction, respectively, one writes collectively

$$\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lambda \stackrel{}{e}_x+i\stackrel{}{e}_y).$$
(67)
The light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ induces $`ϵ^+(p,\lambda )=0`$, thus

$$ϵ^\mu (p,\lambda )=(0,\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}(\lambda ),\frac{2\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}(\lambda )\stackrel{}{p}_{}}{p^+}),$$
(68)
which satisfies the transversality condition $`p_\mu ϵ^\mu (p,\lambda )=0`$ identically.

## 3 Canonical field theory for Quantum Chromodynamics

If one replaces each local gauge field $`A^\mu (x)`$ in QED by the matrix $`𝐀^\mu (x)`$,

$$A^\mu (𝐀^\mu )_{cc^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}A_8^\mu +A_3^\mu & A_1^\mu iA_2^\mu & A_4^\mu iA_5^\mu \\ A_1^\mu +iA_2^\mu & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}A_8^\mu A_3^\mu & A_6^\mu iA_7^\mu \\ A_4^\mu +iA_5^\mu & A_6^\mu +iA_7^\mu & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}A_8^\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(69)
one generates Quantum Chromodynamics with its eight real valued color vector potentials $`A_a^\mu `$, enumerated by the glue index $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$. These matrices are all hermitean and traceless since the trace can always be absorbed into an Abelian U(1) gauge theory. Unitary transformations of this matrix belong to the class of special unitary $`3\times 3`$ matrices, SU(3). In order to make sense of expressions like $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝐀^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ the quark fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ must carry a color index $`c=1,2,3`$ which is usually suppressed in the color triplet spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{c,\alpha }(x)`$.

More generally for SU(N), the vector potentials $`𝐀^\mu `$ are hermitian and traceless $`N\times N`$ matrices. All such matrices can be parametrized $`𝐀^\mu T_{cc^{}}^aA_a^\mu `$. The color index $`c`$ (or $`c^{}`$) runs now from 1 to $`n_c`$, and correspondingly the gluon index $`a`$ (or $`r,s,t`$) from 1 to $`n_c^21`$. Both are implicitly summed over, with no distinction of lowering or raising them. The color matrices $`T_{cc^{}}^a`$ obey

$$[T^r,T^s]_{cc^{}}=if^{rsa}T_{cc^{}}^a\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^rT^s\right)=\frac{1}{2}\delta _r^s.$$
(70)
The structure constants $`f^{rst}`$ for SU(3) are tabulated in the literature. For SU(2) they are the totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{rst}`$, since $`T^a=\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^a`$ with $`\sigma ^a`$ being the Pauli matrices. For SU(3), the $`T^a`$ are related to the Gell-Mann matrices $`\lambda ^a`$ by $`T^a=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^a`$, see also Eq.(69). The gauge-invariant Lagrangian density for QCD or SU(N) is then

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝐅^{\mu \nu }𝐅_{\mu \nu }\right)+\frac{1}{2}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\gamma ^\mu 𝐃_\mu 𝐦)\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(71)
The factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is because of the trace convention in Eq.(70). The mass matrix $`𝐦=m\delta _{cc^{}}`$ is diagonal in color space. The matrix notation is particularly suited for establishing gauge invariance, with the unitary operators $`𝐔`$ now being $`N\times N`$ matrices, hence non-Abelian gauge theory. Gauge invariance generates an extra term in the color-electro-magnetic fields

$$𝐅^{\mu \nu }^\mu 𝐀^\nu ^\nu 𝐀^\mu +ig[𝐀^\mu ,𝐀^\nu ].$$
(72)
The covariant derivative matrix finally is $`𝐃_{cc^{}}^\mu =\delta _{cc^{}}^\mu +ig𝐀_{cc^{}}^\mu `$, and the canonical energy-momentum stress tensor becomes

$$T^{\mu \nu }=2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left(𝐅^{\mu \kappa }𝐅_\kappa ^\nu \right)+\frac{1}{2}[i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu 𝐃^\nu \mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(73)
Integrating it over a space-like hyper-surface, with the surface elements $`d\omega _\lambda `$ and the (finite) volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined most conveniently in terms of the totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }`$ ($`ϵ_{+12}=1`$),

$$d\omega _\lambda =\frac{1}{3!}ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }dx^\mu dx^\nu dx^\rho \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }=𝑑\omega _+=𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^{},$$
(74)
respectively, one arrives at the canonical energy-momentum four-vector

$$P^\nu =_\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega _+(2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐅^{+\kappa }𝐅_\kappa ^\nu )g^{+\nu }+\frac{1}{2}[i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^+𝐃^\nu \mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]).$$
(75)
Note that both $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`P^\nu `$ are manifestly gauge-invariant, and that all of this holds for SU(N), in fact that it holds for $`d+1`$ dimensions.

Since $`P^\nu `$ is gauge-independent and a constant of motion, it can be evaluated in the light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ and at the fixed light-cone time $`x^+=0`$. As initial condition one uses the free fields. For the fermions they are

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\alpha cf}(x)=\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{dk^+d^2k_{}}{\sqrt{2k^+(2\pi )^3}}\left(b_qu_\alpha (k,\lambda )e^{ikx}+d_q^{}v_\alpha (k,\lambda )e^{+ikx}\right).$$
(76)
Each fermion is specified by the five numbers $`q=(k^+,k_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{},k_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{},\lambda ,c,f)`$, i.e. by the three momenta,the helicity, color, and flavor, repectively. The fermion fields $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ become operator valued by the anti-commutation relations

$$\{b_q,b_q^{}^{}\}=\{d_q,d_q^{}^{}\}=\delta (k^+k^+)\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})\delta _\lambda ^\lambda ^{}\delta _c^c^{}\delta _f^f^{}.$$
(77)
For the gauge bosons, the free fields are

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(x)=\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{dk^+d^2k_{}}{\sqrt{2k^+(2\pi )^3}}\left(a_qϵ_\mu (k,\lambda )e^{ikx}+a_q^{}ϵ_\mu ^{}(k,\lambda )e^{+ikx}\right).$$
(78)
Each boson is specified by the four numbers $`q=(k^+,k_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{},k_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{},\lambda ,a)`$, i.e. by the three momenta, the helicity, and glue, respectively. The operator structure of the boson fields is determined by

$$[a_q,a_q^{}^{}]=\delta (k^+k^+)\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})\delta _\lambda ^\lambda ^{}\delta _a^a^{}.$$
(79)
Now the space integrations can be performed straight forwardly. At the end one remains with the $`P^\nu `$ as operators in Fock-space.

## 4 Energy-momentum as Fock-space operators

The three space-like momentum operators $`P^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ are diagonal,

$`P^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^+d^2k_{}\left(k_q^+b_q^{}b_q+k_q^+d_q^{}d_q+k_q^+a_q^{}a_q\right)},`$ (80)
$`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^+d^2k_{}\left((\stackrel{}{k}_{})_qb_q^{}b_q+(\stackrel{}{k}_{})_qd_q^{}d_q+(\stackrel{}{k}_{})_qa_q^{}a_q\right)}.`$ (81)
Here as well as below the summation over color, glue and flavor is suppressed in the notation. Their eigenvalue is the same for all Fock states, i.e.

$$P^+=\underset{i\nu }{}\left(k^+\right)_i,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\underset{i\nu }{}\left(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\right)_i,$$
(82)
where $`i`$ runs over all particles in a Fock state $`\nu `$. Since $`k^+`$ and thus $`P^+`$ are positive, one can introduce longitudinal momentum fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/P^+`$, and, due to boost-invariance, intrinsic transversal momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}__i`$. They obey

$$\underset{i\nu }{}\left(x\right)_i=1,\underset{i\nu }{}\left(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\right)_i=0,$$
(83)
and will be used extensively below. Occasionally, the more compact notation

$$[d^3q]𝑑x_qd^2k_{}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}\underset{\lambda _q}{}\underset{f_q}{}\underset{c_q}{}$$
(84)
will be used.

The time-like component of $`P^\nu `$ is the analogue to the energy or the Hamiltonian in the conventional instant form of Hamiltonian dynamics and is highly off-diagonal. Rather than $`P^{}`$, however, one considers the operator of invariant mass squared,

$$P_\nu P^\nu =P^+P^{}\stackrel{}{P}_{}^2=P^+P^{}H_{\mathrm{LC}},$$
(85)
referred to as the ‘light-cone Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{LC}}`$ . This is reasonable, since $`P^{}`$ is multiplied only with the c-number $`P^+`$. Unlike in the instant form, the front form Hamiltonian is additive in the free part $`T`$ and the interaction $`U`$,

$$H_{\mathrm{LC}}=T+U.$$
(86)
The kinetic energy $`T`$ is defined as that part of $`H_{\mathrm{LC}}`$ which is independent of the coupling constant and which can be interpreted as the free invariant mass-squared of the system. It is the sum of the three diagonal operators

$$T=[d^3q]\left(\left(\frac{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{x}\right)_qb_q^{}b_q+\left(\frac{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{x}\right)_qd_q^{}d_q+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{x}\right)_qa_q^{}a_q\right).$$
(87)
The interaction energy $`U`$ breaks up into 20 different operators, grouped into

$$U=V+F+S.$$
(88)
The vertex interaction $`V`$ is a sum of 4 operators

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d^3q_1][d^3q_2][d^3q_3]}`$ (89)
$`(`$ $`[b_1^{}b_2a_3V_1(1;2,3)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+[d_1^{}d_2a_3V_2(1;2,3)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`+`$ $`[a_1^{}d_2b_3V_3(1;2,3)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+[a_1^{}a_2a_3V_4(1;2,3)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]).`$
It changes the particle number by 1. The matrix elements $`V_n(1;2,3)`$ are complex $`c`$-numbers with $`V_2(1;2,3)=V_1^{}(1;2,3)`$. They are functions of the various single-particle momenta $`k^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$, helicities, colors and flavors and are tabulated in Table 3. As compact notation $`b_i=b_{q}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ and $`V_n(1;2,3)=V_n(q_1;q_2,q_3)`$ is used. It should be emphasized that the graphs in these tables are energy graphs but not Feynman diagrams. They symbolize matrix elements but not scattering amplitudes. They conserve three-momentum but not four-momentum.
The fork interaction $`F`$ is a sum of 6 operators,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d^3q_1][d^3q_2][d^3q_3][d^3q_4]}`$ (90)
$`(`$ $`[b_1^{}b_2d_3b_4F_1(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+[d_1^{}d_2b_3d_4F_2(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`+`$ $`[b_1^{}b_2a_3a_4F_3(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+[d_1^{}d_2a_3a_4F_4(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`+`$ $`[a_1^{}a_2d_3b_4F_5(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+[a_1^{}a_2a_3a_4F_6(1;2,3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]).`$
It changes the particle number by 2. The matrix elements $`F_n(1;2,3,4)`$ and their graphs are tabulated in Table 4, with $`F_2=F_1`$ and $`F_4=F_3`$.

The seagull interaction $`S`$ is a sum of 7 operators

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d^3q_1][d^3q_2][d^3q_3][d^3q_4]}`$ (91)
$`(`$ $`b_1^{}b_2^{}b_3b_4S_1(1,2;3,4)+d_1^{}d_2^{}d_3d_4S_2(1,2;3,4)+b_1^{}d_2^{}b_3d_4S_3(1,2;3,4)`$
$`+`$ $`b_1^{}a_2^{}b_3a_4S_4(1,2;3,4)+d_1^{}a_2^{}d_3a_4S_5(1,2;3,4)+`$
$`+`$ $`[b_1^{}d_2^{}a_3a_4S_6(1,2;3,4)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+a_1^{}a_2^{}a_3a_4S_7(1,2;3,4)).`$
It does not change particle number. The matrix elements $`S_n(1,2;3,4)`$ and their energy graphs are tabulated in Table 5, with $`S_2=S_1`$ and $`S_5=S_4`$.
Summarizing these considerations, one can state that the light-cone Hamiltonian $`HH_{\mathrm{LC}}`$ consists of 23 operators with different operator structure.

## 5 The Sawicki transformation

When dealing with practical matters in the front form, particularly when working numerically, one is often pondered by the fact that the kinematical variables have a different range: $`0x1`$ and $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{}`$. An elegant escape is to use a variable transform from $`x`$ to $`k_z`$ whose precursor had been introduced first by Sawicki .

The Sawicki transformation is demonstrated here at hand of the example:

$`M^2\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}}\right]`$ $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{Q^2}}`$ $`\psi (x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})`$ . (92)
The physical interpretation of this integral equation in the three variables $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ is given below. $`M^2`$ is the invariant-mass squared eigenvalue and $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ is the associated eigenfunction. It is the probability amplitude for finding a particle of mass $`m_1`$ with momentum fraction $`x`$ and transversal momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$, and correspondingly an anti-particle of mass $`m_2`$ with $`1x`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$. The inverse of the kernel is defined as

$$Q^2(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{},x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})=\frac{1}{2}\left[(k_1k_1^{})^2+(k_2k_2^{})^2\right],$$
(93)
thus

$`Q^2=\left(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(xx^{}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{x^{}}}\right)`$ (94)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(xx^{}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1x^{}}}\right).`$
The coupling constant is $`\alpha `$.

Integration variables can be changed from $`x`$ to $`k_z`$ by introducing

$$x(k_z)=\frac{E_1+k_z}{E_1+E_2},\text{ with }E_{1,2}=\sqrt{m^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_z^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(95)
The new integration variable $`k_z`$ can be combined with $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ into $`\stackrel{}{k}=(\stackrel{}{k}_{},k_z)`$ which however is not a 3-vector in the usual sense. The Jacobian is

$$\frac{dx}{x(1x)}=\frac{1}{A(k)}\frac{dk_z}{m_r},$$
(96)
with the dimensionless function

$$A(k)=\frac{1}{m_r}\frac{E_1E_2}{E_1+E_2}.$$
(97)
The reduced mass and the sum mass is

$$\frac{1}{m_r}=\frac{1}{m_1}+\frac{1}{m_2},m_s=m_1+m_2.$$
(98)
The free invariant mass-squared on the r.h.s. of Eq.(92), i.e.

$$\frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}+\frac{m_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x},$$
(99)
plays the role of a the kinetic energy $`T`$. Rewriting it, one uses first

$$\frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}=\frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{E_1+k_z}\left(E_1+E_2\right)=\left(E_1k_z\right)\left(E_1+E_2\right),$$
(100)
and correspondingly

$$\frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}=\left(E_2+k_z\right)\left(E_1+E_2\right).$$
(101)
The kinetic energy can thus be rewritten identically as

$$T(k)=\frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}+\frac{m_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}m_s^2C(k)\stackrel{}{k}^2,$$
(102)
with the dimensionless function

$$C(k)=(E_1+m_1+E_2+m_2)\left(\frac{1}{E_1+m_1}+\frac{1}{E_2+m_2}\right).$$
(103)
If the wave function is substituted according to

$$\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\varphi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\sqrt{\frac{A(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{x(1x)}},$$
(104)
one converts the integral equation (92) into an integral equation

$$\left[M^2m_s^2C(k)\stackrel{}{k}^2\right]\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{m_s}{\pi ^2}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{\sqrt{A(k)A(k^{})}}\frac{\alpha }{Q^2(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})}\varphi (\stackrel{}{k}^{}),$$
(105)
like in usual momentum space. However, since no changes have been made except relabeling the integration variable, it is identical with Eq.(92), and thus is a genuine front-form or light-cone integral equation.

The above simplifies considerably for equal particle masses $`m_1=m_2=m`$:

$$m_r=\frac{m}{2},m_s=2m,$$
(106)
and

$$x(k_z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{k_z}{\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_z^2}}\right),k_z(x)=\left(x\frac{1}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{m^2+k_{}^2}{x(1x)}}.$$
(107)
The coefficient functions $`A`$ and $`C`$ become

$$A(k)=\sqrt{1+\frac{k^2}{m^2}},C(k)=4.$$
(108)
In a non-relativistic situation holds $`k^2m^2`$, thus

$$A(k)1,Q^2(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})^2.$$
(109)
To substitute that in the kernel of an integral equation like (105) is certainly not justified, since the integration variable has $`k^{}\mathrm{}`$ at the upper limit. But if one does it anyway, i.e.

$$\left[M^24m^24\stackrel{}{k}^2\right]\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{2m}{\pi ^2}d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}\frac{\alpha }{\left(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right)^2}\varphi (\stackrel{}{k}^{}),$$
(110)
one can generate analytical solutions, see Sect. 6. The ground state has

$$M^2=m^2(4\alpha ^2),\varphi (k)=\frac{1}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p_B^2}}\right)^2},$$
(111)
with $`p_B=m\alpha /2`$. When substituting the inverse Sawicki transformation back into the defining Eq.(104),

$$\stackrel{}{k}^2=\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_z^2=\frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4x(1x)},$$
(112)
one expresses the (un-normalized) light-cone wavefunction in terms of the light-cone variables $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$,

$`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\alpha ^2m^2x(1x)}}\right)^2}}`$ (113)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4m^2x(1x)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.`$
The last factor can also be set to unity because of $`A1`$. Even then, the present $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ differs considerably from a similar expression in the literature . In particular the factor $`\sqrt{x(1x)}`$ is different. Here is the part of $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ which violates rotational invariance as it should!

## 6 Fourier transforms in the front form

The interpretation of front-form equations such as Eq.(92) in terms of physics is not always easy, even if they are Sawicki-transformed to a momentum space integral equation like (105). Our intuition and our language is shaped in configuration space. To boost that one can apply Fourier transformation, but only in principle, since an exact but analytical Fourier transformation of Eq.(105) for example is close to impossible. But one can apply simplifying assumptions.

The steps are demonstrated at hand of the example

$$\left[M^2m_s^2\frac{m_s}{m_r}\stackrel{}{k}^2\right]\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{m_s}{\pi ^2}d^3\stackrel{}{k^{}}\left(\frac{\alpha }{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})^2}+\frac{\alpha }{2m_rm_s}\right)\varphi (\stackrel{}{k^{}}).$$
(114)
It is identical with Eq.(105), except for the simple additive constant $`\alpha /(2m_rm_s)`$ in the kernel. What is its interpretation?

Transforming the momentum-space wave function to one in configuration space by $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})=(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}d^3\stackrel{}{p}\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}\varphi (\stackrel{}{p})`$, and using the expressions compiled in Table 6, one gets

$$\left[M^2m_s^2+\frac{m_s}{m_r}\stackrel{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right]\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=2m_sV(r)\psi (\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(115)
The function $`V(r)`$ has the dimension of a mass and is defined by

$$V(r)=\frac{\alpha }{r}2\frac{\alpha \pi }{m_rm_s}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(116)
The strange ‘2’ finds its explanation as the gyro-magnetic ratio for a fermion, by analogy with the hyperfine interaction in hydrogen in the singlet channel,

$$V_{\text{hf-s}}(r)=\frac{\alpha }{r}g_p\frac{\alpha \pi }{m_em_p}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(117)
Here, $`m_p`$ and $`g_p`$ are the protons mass and gyro-magnetic ratio, respectively and $`m_e`$ is the mass of the electron. If the mass-square eigenvalue is substituted by an energy eigenvalue $`E`$, defined by

$$M^2=m_s^2+m_sE,$$
(118)
one gets the conventional Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb plus a contact potential,

$$\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2m_r}\stackrel{}{\psi }(\stackrel{}{r})+V(r)\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi (\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(119)
If the latter is suppressed, the analytical solution for the ground state is

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\text{e}^{p_B\stackrel{}{r}},E=\frac{p_B^2}{2m_r},$$
(120)
with the Bohr momentum $`p_B=m_r\alpha `$. If one includes the contact term, one gets in first order perturbation theory the usual

$$E_{\text{perturbative}}=\frac{p_B^2}{2m_r}+\alpha \frac{2\pi }{m_rm_s}|\psi (0)|^2.$$
(121)
The size in either case is

$$<r^2>=\frac{3}{p_B^2}=\frac{3}{m_r^2\alpha ^2}.$$
(122)
But Eq.(116) has no solution in the proper sense! A Dirac-delta function is no proper function and must be regulated, for instance by a Yukawa potential

$$V(r)=\frac{\alpha }{r}\frac{\alpha \mu ^2}{m_rm_s}\frac{e^{\mu r}}{r}.$$
(123)
Transforming back to momentum space gives

$$\left[M^2m_s^2\frac{m_s}{m_r}\stackrel{}{k}^2\right]\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{\alpha }{\pi ^2}d^3\stackrel{}{k^{}}\left(\frac{m_s}{Q^2}+\frac{1}{2m_r}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}\right)\varphi (\stackrel{}{k^{}}).$$
(124)
Note that the coupling constant of the Yukawa potential $`\beta =\alpha \mu ^2/(m_rm_s)`$ is potentially very large, since one must go to the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ to retrieve the Dirac-delta-function. It is not trivial to solve Eqs.(123) or (124).