text:
# 1 Summary of terms generated by field redefinitions of the form 𝑣⋅Γ.

Next, we consider the $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, and $`C`$ redefinitions. To lowest order in these parameters, the transformed lagrangian becomes

$`=`$ $`_0\overline{\chi }A_\mu \gamma ^\mu \chi +B_\mu ^\mu _0\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu ^\mu [\frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\chi ]m\overline{\chi }\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \stackrel{}{^\mu }\chi `$ (11)
$`+C_{\mu \nu }x^\mu ^\nu _0+\frac{i}{2}C_{\mu \nu }\overline{\chi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\chi .`$
The $`A`$ term can be used to eliminate $`a^\mu `$ as is discussed in detail in reference . The $`B`$ term is a total divergence that drops out of the action. This is a direct consequence of translational invariance since under a (finite) translation of the coordinates by $`B`$

$$\psi (x)=e^B\chi (x)=\chi (x+B)=\chi (x^{}),$$
(12)
and the action takes the same form in the translated coordinate system. The first $`C`$ term can be partially integrated to yield a total divergence and a rescaling of $`_0`$. The final $`C`$ term is of the form $`c`$ as defined in Eq.(2).

A few remarks are in order regarding the above transformation involving $`C`$. First, note that such a field redefinition appears equivalent to changing fermion coordinates to a system with a new (constant) metric that skews the coordinates. We can see this by examination of the transformation

$$\psi (x)=(1+C^{\mu \nu }x_\mu _\nu )\chi (x)e^{C^{\mu \nu }x_\mu _\nu }\chi (x)=\chi (x+Cx)=\chi (x^{}),$$
(13)
where $`x^\mu =x^\mu +C_\nu ^\mu x^\nu `$ are the new field coordinates. This redefinition is therefore equivalent to transforming to a skewed coordinate system with a nondiagonal metric given by

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }+C^{(\mu \nu )}.$$
(14)
Rewriting the transformed lagrangian in terms of this new metric yields

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }(x^{})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^\mu \stackrel{}{_\mu ^{}}\chi (x^{})m\overline{\chi }(x^{})\chi (x^{})$$
(15)
where the modified matrices $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^\mu =(\eta _\nu ^\mu +c_\nu ^\mu )\gamma ^\nu `$ satisfy the relations $`\{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }`$. The resulting lagrangian can be related to the conventional one using the vierbein formalism of general relativity by performing the appropriate general coordinate transformation. This shows that there is a natural association between the theory containing a $`c`$ term and a theory formulated in a skewed coordinate system defined by the metric given above. If the free fermions are the only component to the theory it is possible to perform the appropriate general coordinate transformation on the skewed coordinates relating it to the conventional case. This is because it is not possible to distinguish the theory in a skewed coordinate system (with a $`c`$ term) from a conventional theory in an orthonormal system since fermion propagation properties are the only tool available to define the coordinate system itself.

However, when photon interactions are incorporated through the covariant derivative, it is no longer possible to perform the general coordinate transformation without affecting the photon sector. There is now an alternate way to distinguish the coordinates physically so that the skewed coordinates become observable. Under the fermion field redefinition, the fermion-photon interaction term becomes

$$_{int}=q\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu A_\mu (x)\psi (x)q\overline{\chi }(x^{})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^\mu A_\mu ^{}(x)\chi (x^{})$$
(16)
where the photon field is expressed as a function of the conventional coordinates $`x`$, but its components are resolved in the modified coordinates $`x^{}`$. In this picture, the theory exhibits a form of nonlocality since the fermion fields interact with the photon field at different spacetime points. If the photon field is re-expressed in terms of the new coordinates $`x^{}`$, the lagrangian becomes local, but picks up an extra term that breaks the natural association between the theories. Yet another approach is to redefine the physical photon field $`A_\mu ^{}(x)A_\mu ^{}(x^{})`$, but the new metric introduces corrections of the form in Eq.(1) into the kinetic photon sector. Therefore, the photon interactions prevent the trivial elimination of symmetric $`c`$ terms using the above field redefinition. Similar problems arise when using other derivative transformations, so these are not considered in detail in subsequent sections of this paper. For example, the term $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ in Eq.(6) generates a term of the form $`f`$ (defined in Eq.(2)) as well as a total divergence in the transformed lagrangian of Eq.(11). This transformation corresponds to a shift in opposite directions for the left-handed and right-handed fields due to the presence of $`\gamma _5`$. There is therefore a natural correspondence between the lagrangian with an $`f`$ term and the conventional theory provided the left-handed and right-handed fields can be translated independently222Actually, one of the redefinitions listed in table 1 can also be used to eliminate the $`f`$ term, so it is always removable from the lagrangian.. The interaction that breaks the correspondence with the conventional theory in this case is the fermion mass term that mixes left-handed and right-handed fields. A similar situation occurs when the $`C`$ transformation discussed above is multiplied by $`\gamma _5`$. Symmetric components of the form $`d`$ defined in Eq.(2) arise in the transformed lagrangian, but the mass term depends explicitly on $`x`$, therefore breaking the natural correspondence between the theories.

Finite field transformations can be constructed through exponentiation of Eq.(5). The results of these transformations are often much more complicated than the infinitesimal ones since several parameters can be mixed. As an example, consider a field redefinition of the form

$$\psi =e^{v_\mu \gamma ^\mu }\chi =(\mathrm{cosh}v+\frac{v_\mu \gamma ^\mu }{v}\mathrm{sinh}v)\chi ,$$
(17)
with $`v_\mu `$ real, timelike, and the quantity $`v`$ defined by $`v=\sqrt{v_\mu v^\mu }`$. Application of this transformation to the standard lagrangian in terms of $`\psi `$ yields a lagrangian for $`\chi `$ with apparent Lorentz-violating parameters and a modified mass given by

$`e^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{v}}\mathrm{sinh}2v`$ ; $`c^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu v^\nu }{v^2}}(\mathrm{cosh}2v1),`$
$`m^{}=m\mathrm{cosh}2v`$ ; $`a^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{mv^\mu }{v}}\mathrm{sinh}2v.`$ (18)
Note that the corrections to $`c`$ and $`m`$ terms appear only at second order in $`v`$.

Such a choice of parameters in the QED extension leaves the dispersion relation unaltered and therefore leads to no stability problems or microcausality violations. This is true for any finite field redefinition of the form $`e^{v\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ since the field redefinition commutes with the square of the conventional Dirac equation. The set of all such transformations generates a class of lagrangians equivalent to the conventional one.

The derivative field redefinitions may also be exponentiated to yield finite transformations. In the cases of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`C`$ of Eq.(6), finite transformations correspond to finite coordinate transformations, possibly different for various spinor components. As in the infinitessimal case, interactions between various spinor components and other fields limit the usefulness of these transformations due to nonlocality problems.

To gain further insight into the invariance of the physics under the above transformations, it is useful to compute the currents associated with the generators of the Poincaré group. We will see that it is necessary to redefine the action of the complex Lorentz group along with the field in order to yield maximally conserved Lorentz generators.

IV. POINCARÉ GENERATORS

We start with a general free fermion lagrangian of the form

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\chi \overline{\chi }M\chi ,$$
(19)
and apply Noether’s theorem to obtain the divergence of the currents associated with various continuous transformations of the field. Invariance under a global $`U(1)`$ phase transformation yields a conserved current of

$$j^\mu =\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi ,$$
(20)
satisfying $`_\mu j^\mu =0`$. Invariance under translations yields a conserved energy momentum tensor of

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\chi ,$$
(21)
satisfying $`_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The lagrangian is no longer invariant under the conventional action of the Lorentz group, so the divergences of the corresponding currents will not vanish. These can be calculated using the standard technique of writing the action over an arbitrary four-volume in terms of boosted coordinates and fields at $`x^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu x^\mu +ϵ_\nu ^\mu x^\nu `$ and calculating the variation to lowest order in $`ϵ_\nu ^\mu `$. A choice must be made for the induced transformation properties of the spinor components of $`\chi `$ under the complex extension of the Lorentz group $`SL(2,C)`$. Using the standard $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })=1\frac{i}{4}\sigma _{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ yields currents given by

$$_\alpha j^{\alpha \mu \nu }=X^{\mu \nu },$$
(22)
where

$$j^{\alpha \mu \nu }=x^{[\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \nu ]}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\chi }\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\}\chi ,$$
(23)
and

$`X^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`a^{[\mu }\overline{\chi }\gamma ^{\nu ]}\chi b^{[\mu }\overline{\chi }\gamma _5\gamma ^{\nu ]}\chi \frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }(c^{[\nu \alpha }\gamma ^{\mu ]}\underset{\alpha }{\overset{}{}}+c^{\alpha [\nu }\gamma _\alpha \stackrel{}{^{\mu ]}})\chi `$ (24)
$`\frac{i}{2}\overline{\chi }(d^{[\nu \alpha }\gamma _5\gamma ^{\mu ]}\underset{\alpha }{\overset{}{}}+d^{\alpha [\nu }\gamma _5\gamma _\alpha \stackrel{}{^{\mu ]}})\chi +\frac{i}{2}e^{[\mu }\overline{\chi }\stackrel{}{^{\nu ]}}\chi `$
$`\frac{1}{2}f^{[\mu }\overline{\chi }\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^{\nu ]}}\chi \frac{i}{4}\overline{\chi }(2g^{[\nu \alpha \beta }\sigma _\alpha ^{\mu ]}\underset{\beta }{\overset{}{}}+g^{\alpha \beta [\nu }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{^{\mu ]}})\chi \overline{\chi }H^{[\mu \alpha }\sigma _\alpha ^{\nu ]}\chi .`$
All of these equations can be verified by direct calculation.

It is expected that terms which can be eliminated using a field redefinition should also be removable from $`X^{\mu \nu }`$ with the appropriate redefinition of the associated currents. To explicitly construct the conserved currents, the field redefinition is applied to the conventional currents written in terms of $`\psi `$, satisfying the conventional Dirac equation. These conserved currents are re-expressed in terms of $`\chi `$ giving the proper conserved currents for the new lagrangian.

Alternatively, the conserved currents of the modified lagrangian may be computed from Nöether’s theorem using a modified action of the Lorentz group on the spinor fields. Using a general finite field redefinition $`\psi =e^{v\mathrm{\Gamma }}\chi `$ , it is found that the action of U(1) and translations is the same on $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ meaning that the 4-current and energy-momentum tensors are computed as in Eqs.(20, 21). However, the action of the Lorentz transformations are in fact modified due to the field redefinition. Under an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation of the coordinates, the $`\psi `$ spinor components mix according to $`\delta \psi =S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\psi `$, while the corresponding change in $`\chi `$ is calculated to be $`\delta \chi =e^{v\mathrm{\Gamma }}S(\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{v\mathrm{\Gamma }}\chi =\stackrel{~}{S}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\chi `$. This means that the $`\chi `$ components transform according to a similar representation of the complex Lorentz group. When the associated current is computed using this modified action of SL(2,C) on $`\chi `$, it is indeed conserved.

As an example, consider the field redefinition used in Eq.(8) involving $`\mathrm{Re}v_\mu `$. If the conventional $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is used to find the current associated with the Lorentz transformations, the result is $`j_\chi ^{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ given by Eq.(23) which is not conserved. However, if $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is used to transform the field $`\chi `$, then the associated current is

$$\stackrel{~}{j}_\chi ^{\alpha \mu \nu }=x^{[\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \nu ]}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\chi }\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\}\chi +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\chi }e^{[\mu }\sigma ^{\nu ]\alpha }\chi ,$$
(25)
which is in fact conserved. This shows that one must be careful to map the correct conserved generators into the proper associated currents written in terms of $`\chi `$. Similar maps between generators can be performed using the derivative transformations, however, in this case the $`U(1)`$ and translation currents may also be modified.

As a practical approach, the redundant parameters can first be removed from the lagrangian and then the conventional $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be used to construct the currents in the redefined lagrangian. We perform this removal of the redundant parameters in the next section.

V. ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT PARAMETERS

In this section, we start with a general lagrangian and apply field redefinitions to remove redundant parameters. The starting point is the lagrangian given in Eq.(2). The parameters $`m_5`$, $`a_\mu `$, $`e_\mu `$, $`f_\mu `$, and $`c_{[\mu \nu ]}`$ can all be immediately removed using a combination of the transformations described in section III. The parameter $`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ can be replaced by the traceless $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ satisfying $`g^{\lambda \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }=0`$. The other transformations listed in table 1 involve linear combinations of parameters.

To handle these terms, the lagrangian must be re-expressed in terms of the new, physically relevant linear combinations of parameters. For example, the combination of antisymmetric $`d`$ and $`H`$ terms of Eq.(2) are re-expressed as

$`\frac{i}{4}\overline{\psi }d_{[\mu \nu ]}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi \frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }H_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi `$ $`=`$ $`v_{\alpha \beta }^+\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi m\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi \right]`$
$`+v_{\alpha \beta }^{}\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi +m\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi \right],`$
where $`v_{\alpha \beta }^\pm =\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{d}_{\alpha \beta }\pm \frac{1}{m}H_{\alpha \beta })`$ , and $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{d}_{\alpha \beta }=d_{[\mu \nu ]}`$. The combination $`v_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ can be removed using a field redefinition, leaving only $`v_{\alpha \beta }^+`$ terms in the lagrangian. The $`g`$ and $`b`$ terms can be similarly combined using the definition $`v_\alpha ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(g_\alpha \pm \frac{1}{m}b_\alpha )`$

After all of these redefinitions have been performed, the form for the lagrangian becomes

$`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }(\gamma _\nu +\frac{1}{2}c_{(\mu \nu )}\gamma ^\mu +\frac{1}{2}d_{(\mu \nu )}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }\sigma ^{\lambda \mu })\stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi m\overline{\psi }\psi `$ (27)
$`+\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{d}_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{m}H_{\alpha \beta })\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi m\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi \right]`$
$`\frac{1}{2}(g_\alpha \frac{1}{m}b_\alpha )\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\lambda \mu }^{\nu \alpha }\sigma ^{\lambda \mu }\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\psi m\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\alpha \psi \right],`$
where $`\widehat{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ is a traceless coupling with a vanishing totally antisymmetric piece. The totally antisymmetric component of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is absorbed into $`g_\alpha =ϵ_\alpha ^{\lambda \mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$. This lagrangian can be written in the form

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu \stackrel{}{^\nu }\psi \overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{M}\psi ,$$
(28)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu =\gamma _\nu +\frac{1}{2}c_{(\mu \nu )}\gamma ^\mu +(\frac{1}{2}d_{(\mu \nu )}+ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }v_{\alpha \beta }^+)\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu +\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu }^\alpha v_\alpha ^{})\sigma ^{\lambda \mu },$$
(29)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=m(1+v_{\alpha \beta }^+\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }v_\alpha ^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\alpha ),$$
(30)
where all distinct parameters are now physically relevant.

This lagrangian is therefore the one for which $`\psi `$ can be assumed to transform under the standard representation of SL(2,C), yielding maximally conserved currents333Note that field redefinitions involving the physically relevant coupling constants may still be performed yielding different definitions of the Lorentz currents. However, the physically irrelevant parameters have been removed. For example, a further field redefinition is convenient in removing extra time derivatives for calculational purposes as is described preceding Eq.(32).. The relevant currents are given as in the previous section with appropriately mapped constants found by comparison of Eq.(2) and Eq.(28). The remaining terms cannot be removed by a redefinition of spinor coordinates. Other terms may be eliminated in the free theory using transformations involving derivatives of the fields as is discussed in section III, but interactions between the fermion fields and other fields often break the natural correspondence between the redefined lagrangian and the original theory. This means that if these terms are removed from the free fermion sector, they will appear as modified interaction terms and will not be removed from the theory, only shifted to another sector.

Physical quantities should therefore depend only on the combinations occurring in the lagrangian of Eq.(28). Therefore, it is not possible to obtain experimental bounds on all Lorentz-violating parameters of Eq.(2) independently, only on the combinations present in Eq.(28). For example, it is only the linear combination $`v_{\alpha \beta }^+`$ of the antisymmetric part of $`d`$ and $`H`$ that is observable. This implies that only one parameter should in fact be used to describe this quantity.

Comparison with previous calculations within the context of this model verify that this is indeed the case. For example, in applications to electrons and positrons in Penning traps , the relevant experimental bound is obtained from the observable cyclotron and anomaly frequencies ($`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\lambda \mu \nu }=0`$ in this calculation)

$`\omega _c^{e^\pm }(1c_{00}^ec_{11}^ec_{22}^e)\omega _c,`$
$`\omega _c^{e^\pm }\omega _a2b_3^e+2md_{30}^e+2H_{12}^e,`$ (31)
which can place bounds only on the combinations of parameters found in Eq.(27), not on the parameters that can be removed by the field redefinitions. As another example, a calculation of the cross-section for $`e^+e^{}2\gamma `$ within the QED extension  only depends on the symmetric components of $`c`$. Similar results have been obtained in other QED systems .

For many practical calculations it is convenient to perform another field redefinition to normalize $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^0\gamma ^0`$. This has the effect of removing extra time derivative couplings insuring that the resulting Schrödinger Equation has a conventional time evolution . Starting with a general lagrangian of the form (2), the appropriate field redefinition that removes time derivative couplings to lowest order is $`\psi =A\chi `$ with

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`1\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\gamma _0)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`1\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^0(c_{\mu 0}\gamma ^\mu +d_{\mu 0}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu +e_0+if_0\gamma _5+\frac{1}{2}g_{\lambda \mu 0}\sigma ^{\lambda \mu }).`$
Note that these are in 1-1 correspondence with the non-unitary transformations of the form $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ examined in section III. The unitary transformations of this type can be obtained by letting the coupling constants in Eq.(32) be pure imaginary rather than real. In this case, the time derivative structure is unaffected by the field redefinition. This provides an alternative perspective on the spinor component field redefinitions. The unitary transformations preserve the time derivative terms while the non-unitary transformations modify the time derivative structure. This can be seen directly from Eq.(7) by noting that the requirement that no time derivatives are introduced is equivalent to the condition $`(v\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}=v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, hence making the field redefinition unitary to lowest order. The unitary transformations are used in the standard Dirac theory to transition between various representations of the gamma matrices, an alternative perspective to the explicit correction terms used in this paper. In other words, any apparent Lorentz-violating terms generated by a unitary transformation may be absorbed into a modified gamma matrix representation.

As a practical method for calculation, the procedure is therefore to first remove the redundant parameters to obtain Eq.(28), then perform the field redefinition of Eq.(32) (using $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^0`$ in place of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$). The resulting lagrangian will therefore yeild a conventional Schrödinger Equation time evolution and will not contain any redundant parameters.

VI. SUMMARY

In this paper, an analysis of field redefinitions in the context of the Lorentz-violating QED extension was presented. It was shown that a variety of parameters that apparently violate Lorentz invariance can be eliminated from the lagrangian using suitable fermionic field redefinitions.

The approach taken to find these parameters was to begin with the conventional Dirac lagrangian, introduce an arbitrary spinor redefinition, and examine the resulting transformed lagrangian. Any parameters generated using this procedure can be removed by the corresponding inverse transformation. The action of SL(2,C) on the spinor fields is deduced using the conventional action on the $`\psi `$ spinors and performing the field redefinition to determine the corresponding action on $`\chi `$. The resulting transformation matrices of the new spinor are related by a similarity transformation to the original matrices. This modified action must be taken into account when defining the conserved generators in the modified lagrangian.

This implies a procedure for elimination of redundant parameters from the original lagrangian. By first identifying all possible terms that can be generated from the conventional lagrangian by a field redefinition, these terms can be omitted from the physical lagrangian. This procedure has been carried out in section V of the paper. A further transformation may be implemented to normalize the time derivative structure of the theory to obtain conventional Schrödinger time evolution and physical particle states.

The possible nonderivative field redefinitions that can be applied to the QED extension fall into two general categories, unitary and nonunitary. The nonunitary transformations modify the time derivative structure of the lagrangian and can be used to construct a hermitian hamiltonian and a Schrödinger equation with conventional time evolution. The time derivative couplings in a general bilinear lagrangian of the form in Eq.(2) can always be removed using a suitable nonunitary transformation. Moreover, there is a one-to-one correspondence between these nonunitary transformations and the field redefinitions used to eliminate the extra time derivative couplings.

Redefinitions involving differentiation may be useful in the free fermion theory, but often lead to nonlocal interactions or skewed coordinate systems when interactions are present. These problems make it difficult to perform a generic analysis of all possible applications of these transformations. Derivative redefinitions may be applied on a case by case basis where they might be useful in simplification of calculations.

Stability and causality issues  cannot be effectively addressed using the above arguments since the redefinition was only carried out to lowest order in Lorentz-violating parameters. Causality and stability problems appear either when the coupling constants are large, or when the momentum is significantly large to invalidate the linear approximations involved. However, the finite field redefinition considered in Eq.(17) leads to a finite set of parameters that maintain the conventional dispersion relation. The resulting theory must therefore be stable and microcausal. A class of apparently Lorentz-violating lagrangians that are microcausal and stable may therefore be generated by applying finite versions of the field redefinitions discussed in this paper. A complete nonperturbative analysis would be of interest, but is beyond the scope of this work.

Application of a similar analysis to the entire standard model extension would be of interest. For example, cross-generational mixings would allow for a richer structure of possible field redefinitions than in QED.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by a University of South Florida Division of Sponsored Research grant. We thank Alan Kostelecký and Robert Bluhm for discussions.

REFERENCES


format: text

text:
# A tracial quantum central limit theorem

## I Introduction

One of the most important results in mathematics for science is the central limit theorem. But there is only an incomplete theory of central limits in the setting of quantum probability theory, even though the quantum rules of probability describe physical reality just as the classical rules do. In this paper we will prove a quantum central limit theorem for tracial states. Our result is not as sharp or as general as what one may conjecture, but it is sharper than previous central limits theorems in the same setting GVV:central ; CH:mechanical ; Quaegebeur:ccr ; GW:algebraic .

The difference between quantum and classical central limits only appears in the multivariate case. In quantum probability theory, a real-valued random variable is expressed by a self-adjoint operator in a von Neumann algebra (see below). Quantum behavior only arises with non-commuting operators. In particular independent variables do commute, so the proof of the classical central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) real-valued quantum random variables.

The classical theorem does not apply to i.i.d. samples of a vector of random variables with non-commuting components. For example, let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two non-commuting measurements in a quantum probability space $``$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ be the corresponding averaged measurements in the larger space $`^N`$ consisting of $`N`$ independent copies of $``$. We would like to say that the joint distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ converges to a Gaussian distribution. But since $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are not simultaneously measurable, it is not clear what this means. One physically observable interpretation is that any suitable self-adjoint expression, such as the anti-commutator $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{A}`$, should approach a classical distribution.

Our result follows this interpretation. To state it precisely we introduce some notation. Let $`(,\rho )`$ a quantum probability space consisting of a von Neumann algebra $``$ and a normal state $`\rho `$. Then $`(^N,\rho ^N)`$ denotes $`N`$ independent copies of $`(,\rho )`$. If $`A`$, then

$$A^{(k)}=I^{k1}AI^{Nk}$$

denotes the $`k`$th copy of $`A`$ in $`^N`$, while

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}+\mathrm{}+A^{(N)}}{\sqrt{N}}$$

is the rescaled sum of $`N`$ independent samples of $`A`$. Finally if $`A`$ is a quantum random variable, $`[A]`$ denotes its distribution, or spectral measure.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`(,\rho )`$ be a quantum probability space with a tracial state $`\rho `$, and let $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a`$ be self-adjoint elements with mean 0. Let $`pA_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a`$ be a self-adjoint non-commutative polynomial in $`k`$ variables. Then

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[p(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\stackrel{~}{A}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{A}_a)]=[p(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_a)],$$

where $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_a`$ are classical Gaussian random variables with covariance matrix

$$E[X_jX_k]=\rho (A_jA_k).$$

We briefly review the terminology and notation in Theorem 1 and the discussion above KR:vol1 ; KR:vol2 . A *von Neumann algebra* is an algebra of bounded operators on some Hilbert space which is both $``$-closed and closed in the strong (equivalently weak) operator topology. A *state* $`\rho `$ is a bounded, $``$-invariant functional on $``$ which is non-negative on positive elements of $``$; it is called *normal* if it is continuous with respect to the strong (equivalently weak) operator topology. A state $`\rho `$ is *tracial* if

$$\rho (AB)=\rho (BA)$$

for all $`A,BM`$. If $`A`$ is self-adjoint, then any normal state $`\rho `$ on $``$ induces a measure on the spectrum of $`A`$, the (scalar-valued) *spectral measure* on $`A`$. Thus we can interpret $`A`$ as a real-valued random variable, this is the Copenhagen or Born interpretation in physics. If $``$ is commutative, then it is analogous to a $`\sigma `$-algebra, while $`\rho `$ is analogous to a measure on the algebra.

In physics terminology, $``$ is a suitably complete calculus of operators on a quantum system. The state $`\rho `$ then corresponds to a density operator or an ensemble, although the mathematical convention is to express it as a linear functional on operators rather than as an operator. I.e., $`\rho (A)`$ denotes the expectation or mean of $`A`$ with respect to $`\rho `$, often written $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho A)`$ in physics.

The ring $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a`$ of non-commutative polynomials admits a unique $``$-involution which fixes each $`A_n`$ and which, as usual, is anti-linear and an algebra anti-automorphism. A polynomial $`p`$ is self-adjoint if $`p^{}=p`$. For example, the commutator $`[A_1,A_2]`$ is anti-self-adjoint, but $`i[A_1,A_2]`$ is self-adjoint.

Readers who aren’t interested in general von Neumann algebras can consider the special case $`=_k`$, the $`k\times k`$ matrices, and

$$\rho (A)=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(A)}{k}.$$

In this case each $`A_n`$ is a $`k\times k`$ Hermitian matrix. We interpret a Hermitian matrix $`A`$ as a random variable by the formula

$$P[A=\lambda ]=\frac{m}{k}$$

if $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`A`$ with multiplicity $`m`$. This special case captures the difficulties of the general case. We refer readers to Nielsen and Chuang NC:book  or Sakurai Sakurai:modern  for introductions to quantum probability theory.

With these definitions we can discuss the limitations of Theorem 1. Possibly the most serious one is that $`\rho `$ must be tracial. We previously conjectured Theorem 1 without assuming that $`\rho `$ is tracial, only that the covariance matrix of $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a`$ is symmetric Kuperberg:words . Goderis, Verbeure, and Vets found a quantum central limit for any state $`\rho `$, namely a quasi-free state (or in physics terminology, a product of thermal states of harmonic oscillators) GVV:central . Thus we conjecture that in Theorem 1 we can let $`\rho `$ be any normal state if we replace “classical Gaussian random variables” by “quasi-free variables”.

Of course Theorem 1 applies to the case where $`\rho `$ does not symmetrize all of $``$, only the subalgebra generated by $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a`$, since we can replace $``$ by this subalgebra. In physics language it suffices for $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a`$ to commute with the density matrix. This occurs, for example, if $`\rho `$ is a thermal state (also called a Gibbs state or the Boltzmann distribution) of a Hamiltonian $`H`$ and each $`A_n`$ is a conserved quantity. It also occurs in the infinite-temperature limit of any system, because in this limit the density matrix approaches the identity.

Another limitation of Theorem 1 is the requirement that each $`A_n`$ is bounded. By contrast the classical central limit theorem requires only that the covariance matrix is finite. Thus a more satisfying version would allow each $`A_n`$ to be an unbounded operator affiliated with $``$, although with enough restrictions that $`p(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{A}_a)`$ is still well-defined. Finally the polynomial ring $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a`$ could be replaced by some von Neumann algebra to which $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ is affiliated. This algebra would model measurable non-polynomial expressions in the variables $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_a`$; it would be a non-commutative analogue of the algebra $`L^{\mathrm{}}(^a)`$ of bounded, measurable functions on $`^a`$.

Despite limitations, Theorem 1 is useful. For instance, we previously showed that it implies Johansson’s theorem on the limiting distribution of the shape of a random word in $`k`$ letters as the length $`N`$ goes to infinity Kuperberg:words ; Biane:dual ; Johansson:plancherel . Indeed Theorem 1 can be taken as a generalization of Johansson’s theorem.

### I.1 Some previous results

Many results in the literature are called or could be called quantum central limit theorems. Here we discuss a few of that apply to a discrete set of independent, non-commuting random variables, as Theorem 1 does.

Cushen and Hudson proved the quantum central limit theorem for a pair of conjugate variables $`P`$ and $`Q`$, i.e., such that $`[P,Q]=iI`$ CH:mechanical . Quaegebeur later generalized this result to arbitrary CCR algebras Quaegebeur:ccr .

Giri and von Waldenfels proved that the general non-commutative moment $`\rho (A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_a)`$ converges to a Gaussian or quasi-free value GW:algebraic . This can be considered an “algebraic” quantum central limit theorem because it applies to any $``$-algebra.

Goderis, Verbeure, and Vets established the convergence of $`\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{~}{A}})`$ for all $`A`$ to the characteristic functions of a quasi-free state of a universal CCR-algebra over $``$ GVV:central .

If we compare these three results and Theorem 1 to each other, none is eclipsed by the others. As implied above, we conjecture that there is a mutual generalization of all four results in the von Neumann algebra setting.

Finally Voiculescu and many followers have developed a non-commutative probability theory in which conventional statistical independence is replaced by free independence in the sense of non-commutative free products Voiculescu:lectures . This is a very interesting theory which may yet be useful in physics, but the results in this paper are not part of it.

###### Acknowledgements.

We especially thank Bruno Nachtergaele for his continued attention to this work. We also thank Philippe Biane, Janko Gravner, Tom Michoel, Marc Rieffel, and Dan Voiculescu for useful comments.

## II Outline of the proof

We use $`_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ to denote the space of self-adjoint elements of $``$. We abbreviate $`\stackrel{}{A}=(A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a)`$. We also abbreviate

$$\stackrel{}{A}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(A_1^{\alpha _1},A_2^{\alpha _2},\mathrm{},A_a^{\alpha _a}),$$

and we use $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}`$ to denote the standard inner product on $`^a`$.

Our proof of Theorem 1 is based on a multivariate generalization of the spectral measure $`[A]`$ that we call the ordered joint distribution

$$[A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a]=[\stackrel{}{A}].$$

It can be defined by its Fourier transform

$$\widehat{}[\stackrel{}{A}](\stackrel{}{t})=\rho (e^{it_1A_1}e^{it_2A_2}\mathrm{}e^{t_kA_a^{\alpha _a}}).$$

The ordered joint distribution is not directly observable, among other reasons because it allows negative and even non-real “probabilities”.

As a first step, an essentially classical central limit theorem holds for ordered joint distributions. Consequently for any positive exponents $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _a`$, the distribution

$$[\stackrel{~}{A}_1^{\alpha _1},\stackrel{~}{A}_2^{\alpha _2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{A}_a^{\alpha _a}]=[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }]$$

also approaches a classical limit. When $`\rho `$ is tracial, the difference between an ordered joint characteristic function,

$$\widehat{}[\stackrel{}{A}](\stackrel{}{t})=\rho (e^{it_1\stackrel{~}{A}_1^{\alpha _1}}e^{it_2\stackrel{~}{A}_2^{\alpha _2}}\mathrm{}e^{it_k\stackrel{~}{A}_a^{\alpha _a}}),$$

and the characteristic function of a linear combination of powers of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\stackrel{~}{A}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{A}_a,`$

$$\rho (e^{i(t_1\stackrel{~}{A}_1^{\alpha _1}+t_2\stackrel{~}{A}_2^{\alpha _2}+\mathrm{}+t_k\stackrel{~}{A}_a^{\alpha _a})})=\rho (e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }}),$$

is bounded by a decaying commutator estimate. Thus the spectral characteristic functions converge pointwise to a classical limit when $`p(\stackrel{}{A})`$ is a linear combination of powers. This implies many special cases of Theorem 1, indeed every case up to a change of variables.

## III The proof

The proof is more natural in the $`C^{}`$-algebra setting than the von Neumann algebra setting. Recall that a $`C^{}`$-algebra is special kind of complex Banach algebra and that every von Neumann algebra is a $`C^{}`$-algebra KR:vol1 . $`C^{}`$-algebras have states, but they do not have normal states in the absence of weak and strong operator topologies. By the GNS construction, given any state $`\rho `$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$, there exists a von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$ and an extension of $`\rho `$ which is normal on $``$. Henceforth we replace the von Neumann algebra $``$ by a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ and drop the inessential condition that $`\rho `$ is normal. (This is analogous to considering probability distributions on topological spaces instead of measure spaces.)

We call a norm $`||||_S`$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ *spectral* if it is $``$-invariant and if

$$UA_S=A_S$$

for any unitary $`U`$. We consider the GNS norm

$$A_\rho =\sqrt{\rho (A^{}A)}$$

on $`𝒜`$, which is spectral when $`\rho `$ is tracial. (If $`\rho `$ is not faithful, it is only a semi-norm.) By the Russo-Dye theorem KR:vol2 ,

$$AB_S\mathrm{min}\{A_SB,AB_S\}$$

in any spectral norm $`||||_S`$. In particular

$$A_S1_SA,$$

so the topology induced by $`A_S`$ is at least as coarse as the norm topology.

If $`𝒜`$ happens to be a von Neumann algebra and $`A𝒜_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ has a discrete spectrum, then its spectral measure $`[A]`$ is given by the rule

$$P[A=\lambda ]=\rho (A_\lambda ),$$

where $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`A`$ and $`A_\lambda `$ denotes projection onto its $`\lambda `$-eigenspace. If $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a𝒜_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ all have discrete spectra, the *ordered joint distribution* $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ is likewise given by

$$P[\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{\lambda }]=\rho ((A_1)_{\lambda _1}(A_2)_{\lambda _2}\mathrm{}(A_a)_{\lambda _a}).$$

This is generally a complex-valued measure rather than a non-negative measure. Without the discrete spectrum assumption, $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ might not strictly be a measure at all. Recall that a probability measure on $`^a`$ can be regarded as a bounded functional on the space $`C_0(^a)`$ of continuous functions on $`^a`$ that vanish at infinity. In this paper we define $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ as a function on the space of products

$$f(\stackrel{}{x})=f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)\mathrm{}f_a(x_a)$$

of decaying, continuous, univariate functions by the rule

$$[\stackrel{}{A}](f)=\rho (f_1(A_1)f_2(A_2)\mathrm{}f_a(A_a)).$$

Since $`\rho `$ is bounded, $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ is a bounded functional on the projective Banach tensor product $`C_0()^a`$ (i.e., the minimal completion of the algebra tensor product, or the completion with respect to the greatest cross norm). In order to be a genuine measure, $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ would have to extend from $`C_0()^a`$ to the much larger Banach space $`C_0(^a)`$. This is not always possible, although $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ might naturally extend to some intermediate Banach space. The distribution $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ is also sensitive to permutations of the variables. But it otherwise reasonably generalizes the usual joint distribution of classical random variables.

###### Remark.

For conjugate variables $`P`$ and $`Q`$, the ordered joint distribution is related to the Wigner distribution. The Fourier transform of the Wigner distribution is given by

$$\widehat{W}(q,p)=\rho (e^{iPq/2}e^{iQp}e^{iPq/2}).$$

We can then compare

$`\widehat{}[P,Q](q,p)`$ $`=\rho (e^{iPq}e^{iQp})=e^{ipq/2}\widehat{W}(q,p)`$
$`\widehat{}[Q,P](p,q)`$ $`=\rho (e^{iQp}e^{iPq})=e^{ipq/2}\widehat{W}(q,p).`$
Thus the Fourier transform of the Wigner distribution is a phase-corrected form of the Fourier transform of the ordered joint distribution.

###### Theorem 2.

If $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra with a tracial state $`\rho `$ and $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a𝒜_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ with mean zero, then their ordered joint distribution $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ obeys the central limit theorem:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}]=[\stackrel{}{X}]$$

weakly as functionals on $`C_0()^a`$, and $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is Gaussian with covariance matrix

$$M_{j,k}=E[X_jX_k]=\rho (A_jA_k).$$

###### Proof.

We follow standard proofs of the central limit theorem by the method of characteristic functions BR:normal , but the argument must be applied carefully because $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ is a complex measure. We will argue convergence of $`[\stackrel{}{A}]`$ on four classes of functions in turn:

products of sinusoids,

products of smooth functions with bounded support,

products of bounded, smooth functions, and

products of bounded, continuous functions.

Observe that if $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_a`$ are self-adjoint elements in another $`C^{}`$-algebra $``$ with a state $`\tau `$ and

$$A_n^{(1)}=A_nI𝒜B_n^{(2)}=IB_n𝒜,$$

then

$$[\stackrel{}{A}^{(1)}+\stackrel{}{B}^{(2)}]=[\stackrel{}{A}][\stackrel{}{B}],$$

where the operation $``$ denotes convolution. Thus

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}]=T_{1/\sqrt{N}}([\stackrel{}{A}][\stackrel{}{A}]\mathrm{}[\stackrel{}{A}]),$$
(1)
where $`T_x`$ denotes the operator on functionals induced by rescaling space by a factor of $`x`$. Equation (1) implies convergence of characteristic functions:

$$\widehat{}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](\stackrel{}{t})=\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}})e^{\stackrel{}{t}M\stackrel{}{t}/2}$$

locally uniformly in $`\stackrel{}{t}`$.

Suppose that

$$f(\stackrel{}{t})=f_1(t_1)f_2(t_2)\mathrm{}f_a(t_a)$$

is a product of smooth univariate functions with bounded support. Its Fourier transform $`\widehat{f}`$ decays super-polynomially. Consider the joint expectation

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)=(2\pi )^{a/2}_^a\widehat{}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](\stackrel{}{t})\overline{\widehat{f}(\stackrel{}{t})}𝑑\stackrel{}{t}$$

as an integral in Fourier space. For any $`R>0`$, the integral converges inside the box $`[R,R]^a`$ because there the integrand converges uniformly in $`\stackrel{}{t}`$. On the other hand, the integrand vanishes outside of the box uniformly in $`N`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$ because $`\widehat{f}`$ decays and for all $`\stackrel{}{t}`$,

$$|\widehat{}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](\stackrel{}{t})|=|\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}})|1.$$

(Both $`\rho ^N`$ and its argument have norm 1.) Thus for these $`f`$,

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)[\stackrel{}{X}](f).$$

Now suppose that $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_a`$ have bounded support but are merely continuous. By the Weierstrass approximation theorem, for each $`ϵ>0`$, we can let

$$f_n(t)=f_n^{(1)}(t)+f_n^{(2)}(t),$$

where $`f_n^{(1)}(t)`$ is smooth and

$$f_n^{(2)}ϵ.$$

Then

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)=\underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\{1,2\}^a}{}\rho ^N(f_1^{(\sigma _1)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_1)f_2^{(\sigma _2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_2)\mathrm{}f_a^{(\sigma _a)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_a)).$$

Each term of the sum other than the first one is bounded by $`ϵ`$, while the first term converges to $`[\stackrel{}{X}](f)`$ if we take $`ϵ0`$. Thus for continuous $`f`$ with bounded support,

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)[\stackrel{}{X}](f).$$

Finally suppose that $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_a`$ are bounded but do not have bounded support. Without loss of generality we suppose that

$$f_n1$$

for each $`n`$. For each $`R>0`$, we can choose a continuous partition

$$f_n(t)=f_n^{(1)}(t)+f_n^{(2)}(t),$$

where

$$f_n^{(1)}(t)=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{max}\{0,|t|R\},1\}f_n(t).$$

Thus

$$f_n(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_n^{(1)}(t)\hfill & |t|R\hfill \\ f_n^{(2)}(t)\hfill & |t|R+1\hfill \end{array}.$$

By the univariate central limit theorem,

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}f_n^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_n)_{\rho ^N}=0$$

uniformly in $`N`$. Let $`ϵ>0`$ and choose $`R`$ such that for each $`n`$,

$$f_n^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_n)_{\rho ^N}<ϵ.$$

Since for each $`n`$,

$$f_1^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_n)1,$$

and since $`||||_{\rho ^N}`$ is spectral, each term other than the first in the expansion

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)=\underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\{1,2\}^a}{}\rho ^N(f_1^{(\sigma _1)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_1)f_2^{(\sigma _2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_2)\mathrm{}f_a^{(\sigma _a)}(\stackrel{~}{A}_a))$$

is bounded by $`ϵ`$. (The $`\rho ^N`$-norm of the argument in each term is bounded by $`ϵ`$.) As before, the first term converges to $`[\stackrel{}{X}](f)`$ if we take $`ϵ0`$. Thus for all $`f`$ described in the theorem,

$$[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}](f)[\stackrel{}{X}](f).$$

###### Lemma 3.

If $`A,B`$ are elements of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$, then

$$e^Ae^Be^{A+B}=_0^1_0^{1t}e^{t(A+B)}e^{(1ts)A}[A,B]e^{sA}e^{(1t)B}𝑑s𝑑t.$$

###### Proof.

Let

$$X=e^{A/n}Y=e^{B/n}.$$

By elementary calculation,

$$X^nY^n(XY)^n=\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{nt1}{}}(XY)^{t1}X^{nts}[X,Y]X^sY^{nt}.$$
(2)
Since

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}X^{tn}`$ $`=e^{tA}`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Y^{tn}`$ $`=e^{tB}`$
$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(XY)^{tn}`$ $`=e^{t(A+B)}`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^2[X,Y]`$ $`=[A,B],`$
equation (2) converges to the statement of the lemma as $`n`$ goes to infinity. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

If $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a`$ are self-adjoint elements of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ and $`||||_S`$ is a spectral semi-norm, then

$$e^{iA_1}e^{iA_2}\mathrm{}e^{iA_a}e^{i(A_1+A_2+\mathrm{}+A_a)}_S\underset{1j<ka}{}\frac{[A_j,A_k]_S}{2}.$$

###### Proof.

If $`a=2`$, then Lemma 3 implies that

$$e^{iA_1}e^{iA_2}e^{i(A_1+A_2)}_S\frac{[A_1,A_2]_S}{2}$$

by taking the norm inside the integral. Note that the integral is defined convergence in the algebra norm, but it is equally valid to exchange it with any other form of convergence which is at least as weak, as convergence in $`||||_S`$ is necessarily.

The general case follows by induction. ∎

Let $`\{\stackrel{}{A}\}`$ denote the Lie algebra freely generated by the symbols $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a`$. Recall that its universal enveloping algebra is the ring of non-commutative polynomials in the same variables:

$$U(\{\stackrel{}{A}\})=\stackrel{}{A}.$$

###### Lemma 5.

If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ commute, $`\alpha ,\beta _0`$, and $`q>1`$, then

$$X^\alpha Y^\beta =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\alpha +\beta }{}}t_n(X+q^nY)^{\alpha +\beta }$$

for some $`t_0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_{\alpha +\beta }`$.

###### Proof.

The coefficients $`t_0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_{\alpha +\beta }`$ must satisfy the linear system

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\alpha +\beta }{}}q^{nk}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\beta }{\alpha }\right)}\hfill & k=\alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & k\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$

for $`0k\alpha +\beta `$. The matrix of this system is a Vandermonde matrix, invertible when $`q>1`$, so the system has a solution. ∎

###### Lemma 6.

Any $`p\stackrel{}{A}`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of power sums

$$p(\stackrel{}{A})=t_1B_1^{\beta _1}+t_2B_2^{\beta _1}+\mathrm{}+t_bB_b^{\beta _b}=\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{}{B}^\stackrel{}{\beta }$$

with each $`B_n\{A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a\}`$ and each $`\beta _n_0`$. If $`p`$ is self-adjoint, then we can take each $`t_n`$ and each $`B_n`$ to be self-adjoint.

###### Proof.

The Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem provides a vector space isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:S(L)U(L)$$

from the symmetric algebra to the universal enveloping algebra of any Lie algebra $`L`$ Humphreys:gtm . The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by symmetrization:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\pi S_n}{}X_{\pi (1)}X_{\pi (2)}\mathrm{}X_{\pi (n)}$$

for any $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_nL`$. If $`L`$ has an anti-involution $``$, then it extends to both $`S(L)`$ and $`U(L)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ intertwines it. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also preserves powers of elements of $`L`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X^n)=X^n.$$

It therefore also preserves linear combinations of powers.

We claim that if $`L`$ is a vector space, then every element of the symmetric algebra $`S(L)`$ is a linear combination of powers. Lemma 5 establishes the special case that the product of two powers is a linear combination of powers. The set $`P`$ of linear combinations of powers is therefore closed under multiplication; it is a (complex) subalgebra of $`S(L)`$. Since $`LP`$ trivially and $`L`$ generates $`S(L)`$, we conclude that $`P=S(L)`$. If $`L`$ has an anti-linear $``$-involution, then the same argument applies to $`S(L)_{\mathrm{sa}}`$, which is generated as a real algebra by the real vector space $`L_{\mathrm{sa}}`$.

In conclusion, for any Lie algebra $`L`$, powers of elements of $`L`$ span $`U(L)`$ as a complex vector space. If $`L`$ has an anti-involution $``$, then powers of elements of $`L_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ span $`U(L)_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ as a real vector space. The lemma is the special case

$$L=\{A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_a\}.$$

The proof of Theorem 1 is simpler if the vector of Lie elements $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ provided by Lemma 6 is linear in $`\stackrel{}{A}`$. (This includes many interesting choices for $`p`$, for instance the anti-commutator $`A_1A_2+A_2A_1`$.) Indeed in this case

$$p(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}})=\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}^\stackrel{}{\beta }$$

is a polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}`$, so we could replace $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the statement of the theorem.

###### Lemma 7.

If $`A,B𝒜_{\mathrm{sa}}`$ have mean 0 and $`\alpha ,\beta _0`$, then

$$[\stackrel{~}{A}^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{B}^\beta ]_{\rho ^N}=O(N^{1/2})AB.$$

Before proving Lemma 7 in full generality, we motivate it with a simple proof when $`\alpha =\beta =1`$. In this case

$$[\stackrel{~}{A}^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{B}^\beta ]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\stackrel{~}{[A,B]}.$$

Since $`[A,B]`$ has mean 0 (because $`\rho `$ is tracial), the typical eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{[A,B]}`$ is $`O(1)`$. Thus the norm of the right side is $`O(N^{1/2})`$.

###### Proof.

In brief, since

$$\rho (A)=\rho (B)=\rho ([A,B])=0,$$

and since $`\rho `$ is tracial, the multilinear expansion of

$$\rho ^N([\stackrel{~}{A}^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{B}^\beta ]^2)=\pm [\stackrel{~}{A}^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{B}^\beta ]_{\rho ^N}^2$$

has $`O(N^{\alpha +\beta 1})`$ non-cancelling terms. Since the expansion also has a factor of $`N^{\alpha +\beta }`$ in the denominator, the square of the norm is $`O(N^1)`$.

In detail, the expansion is

$$\begin{array}{c}N^{\alpha +\beta }\rho ^N([\stackrel{~}{A}^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{B}^\beta ]^2)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y},\stackrel{}{Z},\stackrel{}{W}}{}(\underset{n}{}\rho (X_nY_nZ_nW_n)\underset{n}{}\rho (Y_nX_nZ_nW_n)\\ \hfill \underset{n}{}\rho (X_nY_nW_nZ_n)+\underset{n}{}\rho (Y_nX_nW_nZ_n)),\end{array}$$
(3)
where each vector $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Z}`$ consists of $`\alpha `$ copies of $`A`$ and $`N\alpha `$ copies of $`I`$, and each vector $`\stackrel{}{Y}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{W}`$ consists of $`\beta `$ copies of $`B`$ and $`N\beta `$ copies of $`I`$. Momentarily fix $`\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y},\stackrel{}{Z},\stackrel{}{W}`$ and consider the corresponding four terms in equation (3). If for some $`n`$, exactly one of $`X_n,Y_n,Z_n,W_n`$ is $`A`$ or $`B`$, then all four terms vanish. Likewise if for all $`n`$, not all four of $`X_n,Y_n,Z_n,W_n`$ are $`A`$ or $`B`$, then the four terms cancel. Thus in a non-cancelling choice of the vectors $`\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y},\stackrel{}{Z},\stackrel{}{W}`$, the four components $`X_n,Y_n,Z_n,W_n`$ are non-trivial for at most $`\alpha +\beta 1`$ values of $`n`$. There are only $`O(N^{\alpha +\beta 1})`$ such terms, each bounded by $`A^2B^2`$. ∎

Applying Theorem 2 to $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, we learn not only that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}]=[\stackrel{}{Y}]$$

with $`\stackrel{}{Y}=(Y_1,Y_2,\mathrm{},Y_b)`$ Gaussian, but also that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{B}^\stackrel{}{\beta }]=[\stackrel{}{Y}^\stackrel{}{\beta }].$$

Thus for every $`\stackrel{}{t}`$,

$$\widehat{}[\stackrel{~}{B}^\stackrel{}{\beta }](\stackrel{}{t})=\rho ^N(e^{t_1\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{\beta _1}}e^{it_2\stackrel{~}{B}_2^{\beta _2}}\mathrm{}e^{it_b\stackrel{~}{B}_b^{\beta _b}})\widehat{}[\stackrel{}{Y}^\stackrel{}{\beta }](\stackrel{}{t})$$
(4)
approaches a classical limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Combining Lemma 4 with Lemma 7,

$$e^{it_1\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{\beta _1}}e^{it_2\stackrel{~}{B}_2^{\beta _2}}\mathrm{}e^{it_b\stackrel{~}{B}_b^{\beta _b}}e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}^\stackrel{}{\beta }}_{\rho ^N}=O(N^{1/2}).$$
(5)
Finally combining equations (4) and (5) with

$$\rho ^N_{\rho ^N}=1,$$

we obtain

$$\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}^\stackrel{}{\beta }})\widehat{}[\stackrel{}{Y}^\stackrel{}{\beta }](\stackrel{}{t}).$$

Replacing $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ by $`z\stackrel{}{t}`$, we obtain

$$\widehat{}[p(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}})](z)=\rho ^N(e^{iz\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{B}}^\stackrel{}{\beta }})\widehat{}[\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{}{Y}^\stackrel{}{\beta }](z).$$

Since $`p(\stackrel{}{X})=\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{}{Y}^\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ and pointwise convergence of characteristic functions implies weak convergence of measures, we have established Theorem 1 when $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is linear.

The idea behind the general case is that the non-linear terms in each $`B_n`$ decay as $`N\mathrm{}`$. We expand each $`B_n`$ as a sum of homogeneous terms:

$$B_n=B_{n,1}+B_{n,2}+\mathrm{}+B_{n,d_n},$$

where $`B_{n,d}`$ is the degree $`d`$ term of $`B_n`$. Then

$$p(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\stackrel{~}{A}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{A}_a)=t_1\stackrel{~}{C}_1^{\beta _1}+t_2\stackrel{~}{C}_2^{\beta _1}+\mathrm{}+t_b\stackrel{~}{C}_b^{\beta _b},$$

where

$$C_n=B_{n,1}+N^{1/2}B_{n,2}+\mathrm{}+N^{(1d_n)/2}B_{n,d_n}.$$

Furthermore

$$\rho (B_{n,1})=\rho (B_{n,2})=0,$$

in the first case because $`B_{n,1}`$ is linear, and in the second case because $`B_{n,2}`$ is a commutator and $`\rho `$ is tracial. It follows that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (\stackrel{~}{C}_n)=0.$$

###### Lemma 8.

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{C}}]=[\stackrel{}{X}],$$

where $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is Gaussian with covariance matrix

$$M_{j,k}=E[X_jX_k]=\rho (B_{j,1}B_{k,1}).$$

In other words,

$$[\stackrel{~}{C}_1,\stackrel{~}{C}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{C}_b]$$

approaches the same classical limit as

$$[\stackrel{~}{B}_{1,1},\stackrel{~}{B}_{2,1},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{B}_{b,1}].$$

###### Proof.

Observe that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}C_n=B_{n,1}.$$

The lemma follows from the proof of Theorem 2, where it was left unstated that all estimates are locally uniform in $`\stackrel{}{A}`$. We substitute $`\stackrel{}{C}\rho (\stackrel{}{C})`$ for $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ in the theorem and use the fact that $`\rho (\stackrel{~}{C}_n)0`$. ∎

The rest of the proof of Theorem 1 follows the same argument as the case when $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is linear by substituting $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ for $`\stackrel{}{B}`$.

## IV Not the proof

To understand the proof of Theorem 1, it may help to see why some alternative lines of argument do not suffice.

The Giri-von-Waldenfels central limit theorem implies that the moments of $`p(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}})`$ converge to the moments of $`p(\stackrel{}{X})`$ by multilinear expansion. However, unless $`p`$ is either linear or positive-definite quadratic, $`p(\stackrel{}{X})`$ is not uniquely determined by its moments because the tail of $`[p(\stackrel{}{X})]`$ is too thick. However, it is yet possible that Theorem 1 would follow from the Giri-von-Waldenfels theorem together with an analytic theory of non-commutative moments.

The Goderis-Verbeure-Vets central limit theorem establishes the convergence of any

$$\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{}{t}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}}),$$

which can be interpreted as a joint characteristic of $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}`$. Indeed Lemma 2 more generally establishes the convergence of

$$\rho ^N(e^{i\stackrel{}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}}e^{i\stackrel{}{t}_2\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}}\mathrm{}e^{i\stackrel{}{t}_b\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{A}}})$$

for any sequence of vectors $`\stackrel{}{t}_1,\stackrel{}{t}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{t}_b`$. However, absent an analytic theory of non-commutative characteristic functions, this does not imply Theorem 1.

The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion also shows that

$$e^{it_1\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{\beta _1}}e^{it_2\stackrel{~}{B}_2^{\beta _2}}\mathrm{}e^{it_b\stackrel{~}{B}_b^{\beta _b}}$$

approximates

$$e^{i(t_1\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{\beta _1}+t_2\stackrel{~}{B}_2^{\beta _2}+\mathrm{}+t_b\stackrel{~}{B}_b^{\beta _b})}.$$

Unfortunately the infinite sum of the BCH expansion does not (as far we know) commute with the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

If $`\rho `$ is not tracial, the proof of Lemma 4 fails for the non-spectral norm

$$A_\rho =\rho (A^{}A).$$

Alternatively, if $`\sigma `$ is a tracial state, then

$$\rho ^N_{\sigma ^N}=\rho _\sigma ^N\mathrm{}$$

exponentially, assuming that $`𝒜`$ even has a tracial state and that $`\rho _\sigma `$ is finite. Lemma 3 generalizes to higher-order commutators which decay more and more quickly, but these suffer from the same exchange-of-limits problem as the BCH expansion when combined with the norm of $`\rho ^N`$. Theorem 2 also depends on the assumption that $`\rho `$ is tracial, but there the assumption may be unnecessary.

Finally when $`\rho `$ is not tracial, then $`||||_\rho `$ is at least left-invariant under unitary multiplication. If each commutator $`[A_j,A_k]`$ is central, then we can move the unitary factors in Lemma 3 to the left and consequently establish Lemma 4 for $`||||_\rho `$. This proves a slight generalization of Theorem 1. However, it is equivalent to the Cushen-Hudson-Quaegebeur central limit theorem CH:mechanical ; Quaegebeur:ccr , except that they do not require bounded random variables.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Recently an iterative solution of the ground state for the one dimensional double-well potential is obtained based on the Green function method developed in ref.. This Green function is defined along a single trajectory, from which the ground state wave function in N-dimension can be expressed by quadratures along the single trajectory. This makes it possible to develop an iterative method for obtaining the ground state wave function, starting from a properly chosen trial function. The convergence of the iterative solution very much depends on the choice of the trial function. Therefore the key of this new method is to find the best trial function as the starting point of the iteration process.

On the other hand the variational method is a well-known approximate approach to solve Schroedinger equation starting from a trial function with a set of variational parameters. By minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian respect to the set of parameters of the trial function, the variational solution could be obtained. If the staring trial function is properly chosen the solution could be a very good approximation for the equation. However, it is difficult to further improve the accuracy of this approximate solution.

In this paper the two methods are combined to get a veriational-iterative solution. The result is obviously more accurate than the variational one. It has been shown in ref. that the final iterative solution is convergent if the trial function is properly chosen. As an example the variational-iterative method is applied to solve Yukawa potential, using the solution of a Hulthen potential as the trial function. The obtained result up to the second order is compared to those based on the pure variational procedure, starting from the same trial function. The solution of the combined method is improved significantly.

In Section 2, a brief introduction is given about the Green function method based on the single trajectory quadrature and the corresponding iterative formula for central potentials. The variational-iterative solution for Yukawa potential is given in Section 3. The numerical results and discussions are given in Section 4.

## 2. Green Function and Its Iterative Solution
for a Central Potential

1. Green function

We discuss a particle with unit mass, moving in a central potential $`V(r)`$. The ground state wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ satisfies

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^2+V(r)]\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(r).`$ (1)
The boundary condition for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ is set as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=1\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{})=0$$
(2)
Now a trial function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$, satisfying the same boundary condition as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$, is introduced into the following Schroedinger equation:

$$[\frac{1}{2}^2+V_0(r)]\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=E_0\mathrm{\Phi }(r).$$
(3)
The trial function should be chosen such that the difference of the two potentials

$$U(r)=V(r)V_0(r)$$
(4)
is small. Defining a Green function $`D`$ satisfying the following equation

$$[\frac{1}{2}^2+V_0(r)E_0]D=1,$$
(5)
then the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ can be formally expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }D(U\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=EE_0`$. Expressing $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }f`$, then $`f`$ satisfies

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1\overline{D}(U\mathrm{\Delta })f`$ (7)
where

$$\overline{D}=\mathrm{\Phi }^1D\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(8)
Following the same procedure as in , in the spherical coordinate system with variables $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ the single trajectory is chosen as the radial coordinate $`r`$ and correspondingly we define

$`h_r^2`$ $`=`$ $`[(r)^2]^1=1,`$
$`h_\theta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`[(\theta )^2]^1=r^2,`$ (9)
$`h_\varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`[(\varphi )^2]^1=r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`h_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`h_\theta h_\varphi =r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$
with the volume element

$$d\tau =h_\omega drd\theta d\varphi .$$
(10)
Introducing a step function

$$(r|\mathrm{\Theta }|r^{})\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \mathrm{𝖿𝗈𝗋}r>r^{}>0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \mathrm{𝖿𝗈𝗋}0<r<r^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
or

$$(r|\mathrm{\Theta }|r^{})\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \mathrm{𝖿𝗈𝗋}r>r^{}>0\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \mathrm{𝖿𝗈𝗋}0<r<r^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
It can be proved that the Green function is

$`\overline{D}`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{h_r}{h_\omega }}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }^2h_rh_\omega `$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }^2r^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }^2r^2.`$
According to the boundary condition of the wave functions we have

$$f=1\mathrm{at}r=0,\mathrm{and}f=\mathrm{finite}\mathrm{at}r\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
Using the definitions of the step function (11) and (12) to express the first and the second $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function in (13), respectively, $`f`$ has the following integral form

$`f(r)=12{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{})r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{\prime \prime })(U(r^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta })f(r^{\prime \prime })r^{\prime \prime 2}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }`$ (15)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)f(r)`$ is the solution of eq.(1). Considering the definitions in eqs.(2. Green Function and Its Iterative Solution  for a Central Potential) and (10), the corresponding energy correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r)U(r)f(r)r^2𝑑r}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r)f(r)r^2𝑑r},$$
(16)
which can be formally expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=[Uf]/[f],$$
(17)
with $`[F]`$ defined as

$`[F]={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r)F(r)r^2𝑑r`$ (18)
2. Iterative solution

Based on eqs.(7) and (17), two iterative sequences $`\{f_n\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_n\}`$ are introduced as

$`f_0`$ $`=`$ $`1,f_1,f_2,f_3,\mathrm{},f_n,\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{\Delta }_3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n,\mathrm{}`$ (19)
We require

$`f_n`$ $`=`$ $`1\overline{D}(U\mathrm{\Delta }_n)f_{n1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`[Uf_{n1}]/[f_{n1}].`$ (20)
In the explicit form,

$`f_n(r)=12{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{})r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{\prime \prime })(U(r^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }_n)f_{n1}(r^{\prime \prime })r^{\prime \prime 2}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }`$ (21)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r)f_{n1}(r)U(r)r^2𝑑r/{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r)f_{n1}(r)r^2𝑑r.`$ (22)
For a properly chosen trial function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ this iterative procedure will approach the solution

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}f_n(r)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}r0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ (23)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)f(r)`$, $`E=E_0+\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## 3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State
for Yukawa Potential

The veriational solution of Yukawa potential has been widely discussed in details. In ref. using a Hulthen solution as the trial function the result based on variational method is compared to the results from different methods. In our paper starting from the Hulthen solution we first give the traditional variational result. Using it as the trial function of the iterative procedure further improvement could be obtained. The Hamiltonian for Yukawa potential is

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}^2g^2\frac{e^{\alpha r}}{r}.$$
(24)
To simplify the notation, based on the following rescaling:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{mg^2}}`$ $``$ $`\alpha `$
$`mg^2r`$ $``$ $`r`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{mg^4}}`$ $``$ $`E`$
the Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha r}}{r}}`$
$`H\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`E\mathrm{\Psi }(r).`$ (26)
Introducing the trial function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (r)=\frac{1e^{\lambda r}}{r}e^{r+\frac{1}{2}\lambda r}$$
(27)
with a variational parameter $`\lambda `$, which satisfies the Schroedinger equation with a Hulthen potential:

$`H_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda e^{\lambda r}}{1e^{\lambda r}}}`$
$`H_\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (r)`$ $`=`$ $`E_\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (r),`$ (28)
where

$$E_\lambda =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\lambda \frac{1}{8}\lambda ^2.$$
(29)
Based on the variational method the approximate solution of eq.(3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential) could be obtained by minimizing the expectation value of $`H`$ in eq.(3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential):

$`\overline{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)(\frac{1}{2}^2\frac{e^{\alpha r}}{r})r^2𝑑r}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)r^2𝑑r}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{H}}{\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (30)
Now using the obtained wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (r)`$ as the zero-th order solution, we introduce the formal Green function expression of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (r)f(r)`$ in the following way: We can define Green function $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ satisfying

$`(H_\lambda E_\lambda )D=1`$ (31)
$`\overline{D}=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^1D\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda .`$ (32)
As in Section 2, introducing the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }=EE_\lambda `$ and the potential difference of Hamiltonian (3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential) and (3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential)

$`U(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda e^{\lambda r}}{1e^{\lambda r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha r}}{r}},`$ (33)
we obtain expressions for $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ similar to eqs.(7) and (17). The Green function is

$`\overline{D}=2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2r^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2r^2.`$ (34)
Introducing the iterative series $`\{f_n\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_n\}`$ as (2. Green Function and Its Iterative Solution  for a Central Potential) and (2. Green Function and Its Iterative Solution  for a Central Potential), the successive terms can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,f_0=1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[U]}{[1]}},f_1=1\overline{D}(U\mathrm{\Delta }_1)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[Uf_1]}{[f_1]}},f_2=1\overline{D}(U\mathrm{\Delta }_2)f_1`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[Uf_{n1}]}{[f_{n1}]}},f_n=1\overline{D}(U\mathrm{\Delta }_n)f_{n1}.`$ (35)
Here the trial function for the iterative procedure is the variational wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$. In the explicit form, for the first order, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)U(r)r^2𝑑r/{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)r^2𝑑r,`$ (36)
$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`E_\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$
and

$`f_1(r)=12{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r^{})r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r^{\prime \prime })(U(r^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }_1)r^{\prime \prime 2}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }.`$ (37)
It is interesting to compare this first order result to the variational energy and the first order perturbation result. From eq.(3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential)

$`\overline{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)(H_\lambda +U))r^2dr}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)r^2𝑑r}}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`E_\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }_1,`$
which is the same as the first order result of the iterative method. If applying the perturbation method, the first order perturbation also gives the same energy. However, to further improve the above result the perturbation method would meet problem with the unknown excited unperturbed states which are necessary for the calculation of the cross-matrix elements in the second order calculation. For the iterative method, in principle, there is no problem for the higher order calculation. In general, for the n-th order, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)f_{n1}(r)U(r)r^2𝑑r/{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^2(r)f_{n1}(r)r^2𝑑r.`$ (39)
$`E_n`$ $`=`$ $`E_\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }_n,`$
and

$`f_n(r)`$ $`=`$ $`12{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{})r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(r^{\prime \prime })(U(r^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }_n)f_{n1}(r^{\prime \prime })r^{\prime \prime 2}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }.`$ (40)
In the next section the numerical results of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are given and compared to the result from the variational method for different $`\alpha `$ of the Yukawa potential in eq.(3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential).

## 4. Numerical Results and Discussions

For Yukawa potential with different parameter $`\alpha `$, the variational parameter $`\lambda `$ of a Hulthen potential can be obtained by minimizing the expectation value of Hamiltonian eq.(3. Variational-Iterative Solution of Ground State  for Yukawa Potential) v.s. $`\lambda `$. The values of $`\lambda `$ corresponding to different $`\alpha `$ are listed in the first two columns of Table 1. For Hulthen potential the upper limit of $`\lambda `$ to have a bound state is $`\lambda <2`$. Considering this limitation the highest value of $`\alpha `$ is taken to be $`\alpha =1.15`$ which corresponds to $`\lambda =1.9473`$. For different $`\{\alpha ,\lambda \}`$ pair the obtained zero-th order energy $`E_\lambda `$, the 1st order energy correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and the corresponding binding energy of the ground state $`E_1=E_\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in the first order iteration are listed in columns 3-5 of Table 1. As mentioned in Section 3 the values of $`E_1`$ for different $`\{\alpha ,\lambda \}`$ are exactly the same as the variational result in ref.. In columns 6-7 of Talbe 1 are given the values of the energy correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and the obtained binding energy of the ground state $`E_2=E_\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ after the second order iteration. For larger $`\alpha `$, the correction in the second order iteration is visible. Comparing to the numerical exact solution in the column 8 taken from ref. the values after the second order iteration are obviously improved. In principle, the iteration could go on to get more accurate result if the integrations in the iteration procedure could be performed properly.

It is possible to solve some excited states based on this method if the proper variational solution could be found. For example, the variational solution of the excited $`S`$-states for Hulthen potential is known, the corresponding solution for Yukawa potential could be obtained by the iteration procedure. This method could also be extended to multi-dimensional cases as long as one could choose the proper variational solution and find the single trajectory to define the Green function and perform the necessary quadratures.

## Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Professor T. D. Lee for his continuous and substantial instructions and advice. This work is partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC, No. 19947001).

| $`\alpha `$ | $`\lambda `$ | $`E_\lambda `$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ | $`E_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ | $`E_2`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.1 | 0.2296 | 0.391790 | 0.015628 | 0.407058 | 0.015268 | 0.407058 | 0.4071 |
| 0.2 | 0.4358 | 0.305840 | 0.020968 | 0.326808 | 0.020968 | 0.326809 | 0.3268 |
| 0.25 | 0.5327 | 0.269121 | 0.021796 | 0.290918 | 0.021798 | 0.290920 | 0.2909 |
| 0.3 | 0.6263 | 0.235881 | 0.021753 | 0.257634 | 0.021757 | 0.257639 |  |
| 0.4 | 0.8052 | 0.178443 | 0.019918 | 0.198362 | 0.019933 | 0.198376 |  |
| 0.5 | 0.9750 | 0.131328 | 0.016756 | 0.148084 | 0.016789 | 0.148117 | 0.1481 |
| 0.6 | 1.1377 | 0.0929452 | 0.0131321 | 0.106077 | 0.0131915 | 0.106137 |  |
| 0.7 | 1.2944 | 0.0622339 | 0.0095107 | 0.0717446 | 0.0096002 | 0.0718341 |  |
| 0.8 | 1.4461 | 0.0383507 | 0.0062364 | 0.0445871 | 0.0063520 | 0.0447027 |  |
| 0.9 | 1.5936 | 0.0206451 | 0.00353503 | 0.0241802 | 0.0036677 | 0.0243128 |  |
| 1.0 | 1.7374 | 0.00861985 | 0.00153843 | 0.0101583 | 0.00165138 | 0.0102712 | 0.01029 |
| 1.05 | 1.8081 | 0.00460320 | 0.00083757 | 0.00544078 | 0.00093748 | 0.00554068 |  |
| 1.1 | 1.8780 | 0.00186050 | 0.00034306 | 0.00220356 | 0.00041866 | 0.00227916 |  |
| 1.15 | 1.9473 | 0.000347161 | 0.000065800 | 0.000412961 | 0.000068335 | 0.000415496 |  |

Reference

1. R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee and W. Q. Zhao, Ann. Phys. 288(2001)52

2. R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, W. Q. Zhao and A. Cimenser, Ann. Phys. 294(2001)67

3. C. S. Lam and Y. P. Varshni, Phys. Rev. A4(1971)1875

and the papers cited therein.

4. J. Rogers, H. C. Graboske, Jr. and D. J. Harwood, Phys. Rev. A1(1970)1577


text:
# References

Modern Physics Letters A,
c World Scientific Publishing Company

AN EFFECTIVE QUANTUM MECHANISM FOR MASS GENERATION

IN DIFFEOMORPHISM-INVARIANT THEORIES***Work partially supported by the DGICYT.

J. L. JARAMILLO

V. ALDAYA

Instituto Astrofísica Andalucía (CSIC), Apartado Postal 3004

Granada 18080, Spain

Instituto Carlos I de Física Teórica y Computacional, Facultad de Ciencias,

Universidad de Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva

Granada 18002, Spain

We propose a scenario for particle-mass generation, assuming the existence of a physical regime where, firstly, physical particles can be considered as point-like objects moving in a background space-time and, secondly, their mere presence spoils the invariance under the local diffeomorphism group, resulting in an anomalous realization of the latter. Under these hypotheses, we describe mass generation starting from the massless free theory. The mechanism is not sensitive to the detailed description of the underlying theory at higher energies, leaning only on general structural features of it, specifically diffeomorphism invariance.

The problem we address in this work is the origin of particle masses. Even though a strong emphasis has been placed on this issue throughout the development of modern physics, the subject seems far from being resolved.

The correction of the mass of a particle as an effective consequence of its interaction with the surrounding environment is a very old idea that can be tracked to nineteenth-century hydrodynamics. In fact, for many different physical systems describing the motion of an object inside a classical continuum fluid, the solution of hydrodynamical equations admits an effective treatment in which the object behaves as in free motion with a corrected or renormalized mass which depends on general features such as boundary conditions. The extension of these ideas to electrodynamics led J.J.Thomson to the introduction of the notion of electromagnetic mass of a charge as a consequence of the interaction with its own electromagnetic field, fundamental element in the later Lorentz’s theory of the electron ?. With the arrival of the Quantum Theory, the efforts by Kramers (largely inspired in Lorentz’s insights) resulted in the connection between the previous classical ideas and the new problems related to the divergences appearing in the calculation of the electron self-energy, leading to a radiative mass renormalization. In the early days of Quantum Electrodynamics there was hope of developing a fundamental theory that would eliminate the divergences and successfully derive the actual values of its characteristic parameters. However, the eventual resolution of the problem by implementing the renormalization program finally led to a situation in which Quantum Field Theory (QFT) appears as an effective theory. In fact, physics beyond a certain energy scale is not probed, though the renormalization of certain parameters of the model, among them the masses of the particles, non-trivially affects lower-energy physics. In this scenario, the idea of mass as self-energy has withered away to moot status. Nevertheless, conceptually different mechanisms can be devised for addressing partial yet fundamental aspects of the mass-origin problem, an example of which is the use of lattice QCD techniques for light hadrons ?. In any case, questions such as lepton masses or cosmological dark matter, remain open.

From this historical detour (see ? for further details), we extract our two main guidelines. Firstly, we take up the old idea of emphasizing the interaction with the surrounding fields as fundamental in the generation of mass and, secondly, we adopt an effective aproach in which physics beyond a certain scale is not discussed. The presence of unanswered questions suggests the introduction of physics often ignored in the mass generation problem. An appealing (and obvious) candidate for the missing physical ingredient is Gravity with its associated diffeomorphism invariance, generally not considered in high-energy particle physics. Therefore, the only explicit condition we shall impose on the underlying fundamental theory is an essential role for the notion of diffeomorphism invariance.

When adopting the above-mentioned effective attitude, it seems reasonable to admit the existence of a scale of energies in which standard QFT is a good approximation, and its notion of a particle as a local excitation of the vacuum resulting from the action of a local field operator applies. We are also implicitly accepting a notion of space-time as a differentiable manifold making up the background in which particles move. We shall phenomenologically separate the intrinsic dynamics of this effective background, governed by classical General Relativity, from the effect that the underlying diffeomorphism invariance could exert in the quantum proccess of particle creation.

We are therefore studying a regime in which physical particles can be considered as point-like objects and the classical dynamics of space-time is decoupled (adiabatic condition). The adjective physical appearing here is essential, as opossed to the ideal test particles, causing an effective breakdown of the space-time notion at the point itself on which the particle lies. We are suggesting that physical particles literally pierce space-time, producing a hole. This has profound consequences in the quantum model describing particle creation. It can be shown ? that the presence of a hole in a two-dimensional manifold induces anomalous (central) terms in the quantum commutators between (some of) the generators of diffeomorphism invariance, thus spoiling this classical symmetry (even though this can be properly healed in specific theories). We propose that this phenomenon generalizes to realistic space-time dimensions, inducing an anomalous realization of classical diffeomorphism symmetry in the effective quantum process of particle creation, something that could be supported by the analysis of the leading terms of appropiate Operator Product Expansions. This does not contradict an exact implementation of this symmetry at higher energies, when using a more fundamental model for the coupling between the gravitational and matter degrees of freedom. It simply means that the price we must pay for avoiding such a detailed description, and admitting an effective treatment in which classical space-time is decoupled, is the acceptance of a breakdown of classical diffeomorphism gauge invariance.

The previous heuristic motivations can be synthesized in the following hypothesis: there exists an effective regime in which physical particles are point-like and their creation process entails a breakdown of classical diffeomorphism invariance, the latter being realized in an anomalous way.

The presence of an anomaly in a local gauge theory obstructs the reduction of degrees of freedom for which the gauge symmetry is devised, entailing an enlargement of the physical phase space performed by the spurious (in principle) modes $`^\text{a}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{a}`$A familiar example of this phenomenon in string theory is the Liouville mode in the non-critical string.. This issue poses serious concerns for the consistency of the theory, at least when applying standard techniques, something especially critical when addressing the gauge theory as fundamental (attempts to construct consistent anomalous theories do exist ? and the above-mentioned explicit appearance of extra degrees of freedom can be made apparent). However, the presence of an anomaly can also be interpreted as a signature for understanding the theory as a low-energy effective model, indicating the existence of new physics at higher energies ?. This is precisely the situation we are dealing with here. The influence of higher-energy degrees of freedom is encoded in some effective degrees of freedom arising in the anomalous low-energy theory.

A standard way in which an anomaly manifests itself, in accordance with the considerations above, is through the appearance of extra terms in the quantum commutators with respect to the ones defining the classical symmetry. Therefore, we propose that the diffeomorphism symmetry is realized in the effective theory as an extension (not necessarily central) of the classical local diffeomorphism algebra. For concreteness we focus on the tensorial extensions, which are classified in ? and discussed in ?. We shall work in momentum space and denote the diffeomorphism generators by $`\widehat{L}_\mu (𝐦)`$, the fields corresponding to the particles generically by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(𝐦)`$ and the tensorial extensions by $`\widehat{A}_i(𝐦)`$ ($`\mu `$ is a space-time index, $`a`$ and $`i`$ internal indices and $`𝐦`$ a vector labelling momentum space). In this notation, the quantum brackets are given by:

$`[\widehat{L}_\mu (𝐦),\widehat{L}_\nu (𝐧)]`$ $`=`$ $`m_\nu \widehat{L}_\mu (𝐦+𝐧)n_\mu \widehat{L}_\nu (𝐦+𝐧)+c_{\mu \nu }^i(𝐦,𝐧)\widehat{A}_i(𝐦+𝐧)`$
$`[\widehat{L}_\mu (𝐦),\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(𝐧)]`$ $`=`$ $`n_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(𝐦+𝐧)`$
$`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(𝐦),\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_b(𝐧)]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ab}(𝐦,𝐧),`$ (1)
where $`c_{\mu \nu }^i(𝐦,𝐧)`$ is the cocycle linked to the anomalous extension giving effective dynamical content to the diffeomorphisms and $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ab}(𝐦,𝐧)`$ provides the standard commutators of the free fields.

To give a specific meaning to the entire foregoing discussions, we need to construct explicitly a physical model describing dynamics consistent with the algebra (1). A particularly well suited formalism for such a task is the so-called Group Approach to Quantization (GAQ, see ?). In short, the main achievement of this approach is the construction of physical dynamics out of a given Lie algebraic structure taken as the only physical input. The technique, in some points, resembles Kirillov’s construction of dynamics on the coadjoint orbits of a group ? and shares some important general features with Geometric Quantization ?. The final outcome is an explicit unitary and irreducible representation of the operators in the starting Lie algebra.

When applying these techniques to algebras of the type (1), we obtain maximum-weight representations (possessing a unique vacuum in the Hilbert space), where the corresponding diffeomorphism operators $`\widehat{L}_\mu (𝐦)`$ act and genuinely raise and lower the physical states, according to their gained dynamical content. A most important precise and general (perturbative $`^\text{b}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{b}`$A crucial step of GAQ consists in exponentiating the starting Lie algebra. When the latter is infinite-dimensional this is a enormous task and only an order-by-order procedure is generally feasible, leading to perturbative though renormalized results.) result is the construction of an (effective) Hamiltonian operator for the system with the general form:

$`\widehat{H}_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{free}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }(𝐦)(\widehat{L}_\mu )^{}(𝐦)\widehat{L}_\nu (𝐦)+`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{H}_{mixing}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},(\widehat{L}_\mu )^{},\widehat{L}_\mu ),`$
where $`\widehat{H}_{free}`$ is the Hamiltonian corresponding to the free massless field theory, the second term is a pure dynamical-diffeomorphism quadratic contribution to the energy ($`\theta ^{\mu \nu }(𝐦)`$ is a c-number function on $`𝐦`$ which closely depends on the inverse of the cocycle $`c_{\mu \nu }^i(𝐦,𝐧)`$) and $`\widehat{H}_{mixing}`$ corresponds to higher-power terms involving a potential mixing among all the operators. Appearing perhaps as an odd phenomenon, the lowest-order term producing interaction is not found inside $`\widehat{H}_{mixing}`$, but already in the quadratic diffeomorphism one, the reason being the non-canonical form of the commutators in (1), in particular the second one. This will be apparent in a specific example below. Regarding the expression (2), our claim is that the terms correcting the free Hamiltonian, could account for the mass terms in the effective theory.

Finally, we are in the position of unambiguosly stating our conjecture: a crucial part of mass generation can be phenomenologically described as a (radiative) correction resulting from the interaction between the massless fields and some effective degrees of freedom appearing from the mere existence of particles.

Of course, a real prediction of this contribution to the mass would require a knowledge of the underlying fundamental theory, since it plays the role of fixing the values of the extensions in the algebra (1) and therefore of the key $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }(𝐦)`$. Beyond that, the mechanism is not sensitive to the higher-energy detailed description which could find support on strings theory, loop quantum gravity, a non-commutative version of geometry, a more sophisticated QFT or another effective yet more fundamental model, such as worm-holes (see ?) in Euclidean quantum gravity. A serious attempt to provide a realistic example in this context deserves a careful analysis on the potential anomalous breaking of diffeomorphism invariance in current candidates for fundamental theories. For the time being, we present an over-simplified illustrative example, consisting of a free real scalar field in one (compact) spatial dimension. With the ansatz that only the spatial diffeomorphisms become dynamical, the relevant algebra is:

$`[\widehat{L}_m,\widehat{L}_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)\widehat{L}_{m+n}+cm^3\delta _{m+n,0}`$
$`[\widehat{L}_m,\widehat{a}_n]`$ $`=`$ $`n\widehat{a}_{m+n}`$
$`[\widehat{a}_m,\widehat{a}_n]`$ $`=`$ $`m\delta _{m+n,0}.`$ (3)
The Hilbert space is constructed from a unique vacuum state $`|0>`$, by applying the creation operators $`\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{a}_n`$ and $`\widehat{L}_n^{}\widehat{L}_n`$, with $`n>0`$, and where the annihilation operators are given by $`\widehat{\alpha }_n\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{a}_n`$ and $`\widehat{L}_n`$ ($`n0`$). The operators $`\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }_n`$ now satisfy the standard canonical commutators: $`[\widehat{\alpha }_n,\widehat{\alpha }_m^{}]=\delta _{n,m}`$. The perturbative calculation of the Hamiltonian of the system (which can be derived from Noether invariants in ?, together with a proper setting in the values of the central extensions there) yields:

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\left(n\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\widehat{\alpha }_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cn^2}}\widehat{L}_n^{}\widehat{L}_n+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (4)
The expression from the standard treatment of a free field with mass $`M`$ presents only a term $`\widehat{H}_{field}=_{n>0}\sqrt{M^2+n^2}\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\widehat{\alpha }_n`$ (we are explicitly omitting zero-energy terms). Taking into account that the expression in (4) is only perturbative, we must look for a regime in which we can coherently compare it with $`\widehat{H}_{field}`$$`^\text{c}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{c}`$The comparison with the corresponding expression in a first-quantization theory such as the standard treatment of the bosonic string would be formally more straightforward, but this is not our aim here.. This can be achieved by expanding the field dispersion relation for large $`n`$. Thus we have

$`\widehat{H}_{field}={\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}n\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{n^2}}}\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\widehat{\alpha }_n={\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\left(n\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\widehat{\alpha }_n+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2n}}\widehat{\alpha }_n^{}\widehat{\alpha }_n+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (5)
The explicit way of comparing both approaches is accomplished by evaluating (4) and (5) on physical states, in particular on 1-particle states $`|k>=\widehat{\alpha }_k^{}|0>`$. One can raise the question about the convenience of using $`|k>=\widehat{\alpha }_k^{}|0>`$ to implement the physical 1-particle states in the theory with dynamical diffeomorphisms, where the excitation of these effective modes would suggest the possibility of a more general linear combination containing $`\widehat{L}_k^{}|0>`$ states. At worst, one could consider (4) in the spirit of perturbation theory over a free massless scalar field, thus using the non-perturbated $`|k>=\widehat{\alpha }_k^{}|0>`$ to evaluate first-order corrections to the energy levels. This is the approach we shall use here.

The correction to the excitation energy of the massless particle, calculated in the quantum effective theory derived from (3), accounts for the energy of the interaction with the effective diffeomorphism degrees of freedom. Even though this energy could show a complicated behaviour in the momentum of the particle, we separate the intermediate (low) and very high-momenta dependence and attempt to extract the energy related to the mass out of the form of the interaction energy at the lowest appearing momenta. Therefore, when evaluting the second term in (4) (which we shall denote by $`\widehat{H}_L`$) we expect to find an expression that can be identified with the one coming from the second term in (5) plus an energy corresponding to very high-momenta dependence ($`E_{hm}`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<k|\widehat{H}_L|k>}{<k|k>}}={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2k}}+E_{hm}.`$ (6)
The evaluation of the first member gives the finite result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<k|\widehat{H}_L|k>}{<k|k>}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(kn)}{n^2}}.`$ (7)
The identification of the particle-mass out of (7) is guaranteed by the existence of terms in the sum with a $`k^1`$ behaviour (using large $`k`$). Therefore,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ck}}M\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}}.`$ (8)
The rest of the energy is in fact a very high-momenta correction to the interacting energy, implying high-energy deviations from the dispersion relation we are trying to match. The inclusion of these corrections in a corresponding field theory without diffeomorphisms, would imply the correction of the propagator of the free field. Therefore, as long as we do not deal with very high energies, a field theory of a Klein-Gordon scalar field with mass $`M=\sqrt{\frac{2}{c}}`$ is a good model of the effective quantum theory defined by (3), thus involving a rationale for the origin of the mass parameter in the field theory. However, when we extend the application range of the Klein-Gordon model beyond its limits, we are disregarding the above mentioned high-momentum interacting energy and, as a matter of fact, we are decoupling it from the non-gravitational interactions. We have then an energy, and therefore a source for the gravitational field dynamics described by Einstein equations (which we decoupled from the very beginning) that is not seen by the rest of physical interactions, and thus it is completely dark. It is tempting to suggest speculatively this as an avenue towards the dark-matter problem. When studying the two-particle states, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<kl|\widehat{H}_L|kl>}{<kl|kl>}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{kn}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ln}{n^2}}+`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kl}{c(1+\delta _{n,k})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k+l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{kl}}{(kl)^2}}\right),`$
where the first two terms in r.h.s. correspond to the masses of the particles and its high-momenta corrections while the third term can be interpretated as an extra energy needed to maintain the particles separated (note that it is positive, so that we must do some work to have separated particles).

Finally, we should point out that the use of the Virasoro algebra does not turn the two-dimensional example into a too special case, since a direct generalization to higher dimensions is in fact provided by the non-central Virasoro-like extension? obtained by making $`c_{\mu \nu }^i(𝐦,𝐧)=cm_\mu n_\nu (m^in^i)`$ and $`\widehat{A}_i(𝐦)=\widehat{S}_i(𝐦)`$ in (1), although involving much more cumbersome expressions. The only aim of the presented example is that of providing a taste of and sparking intuition for the potentialities of expressions (2) and (4), the real point we wish to emphasize. Rigorous analyses require a subtle weaving together of the possible extensions in (1), the field dispersion relation we seek to fit and the possibility of more complex settings in which those elements may act.

In conclusion, we have posed a simple framework for mass generation of particles by proposing a mechanism capable of endowing massless free fields with a non-zero mass. Even if this is a tiny effect, it would provide a non-zero germ suitable of being amplified with other mechanisms such as the multiplicative renormalization appearing in QED for the electron. The present description has an effective nature and is quite insensitive to the underlying fundamental theory, provided that diffeomorphism invariance plays a fundamental role. This last point is reinforced by Mach’s conceptual intuitions linking inertia and Gravity. A heavy use of the image of particle creation as an inherently quantum process is displayed. This can be explicitly seen in the example discussed by underlining the dependence of particle masses on the central charge of the Virasoro algebra in (3), in such a way that they vanish in the classical limit $`c\mathrm{}`$ (see ?), thus revealing themselves as a quantum phenomenon. Let us finally state that, though the presence of (non-gravitational) interactions is crucial in ascribing a point-like nature to the particles in QFT, once we accept such a nature we can get rid of those interactions and deal essentially with free theories as a starting point for the proposed mechanism. Therefore, even if our conjecture of relating a mass origin for particles to the interaction with the some effective degrees of freedom does not fully work, the proposed radiative corrections could imply important and observable consequences on the energy spectrum of free fields, in particular entailing modifications in the field propagators.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank C. Barceló for crucial discussions and his continuous support. We also want to thank A.P. Balachandran for stimulating comments.

References