text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was believed that because of the large Planck scale: $`G_N^{1/2}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the gravity is so weak that the particle physics cannot explore the world of gravity. The hierarchy between the weak scale $`G_F^{1/2}100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and the Planck scale is the most serious problem in the Standard Model (hierarchy problem). Conventionally, it was explained by supersymmetry. The successful supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ gauge coupling unification also encourage the existence of low-energy supersymmetry.

But no supersymmetric particles are found so far, and thus it is worthwhile to search for alternatives. In fact, some groups proposed  that the weakness of the gravity can be explained by the existence of extra dimensions. We are trapped in ’3-brane’  of the higher-dimensional spacetime, and only graviton can propagate the compactified extra dimensions. Thus the overlapping between the Standard Model particles and gravitons becomes small, and the weakness of gravity can be explained. The true fundamental scale $`M_D`$ is the weak scale itself, and no hierarchy problem exists. It is related to the volume of extra dimension $`V_n`$ and the appearance fundamental scale $`M_{pl}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ by

$`M_D^2V_nM_{pl}^{n+2},`$ (1)
where $`n`$ denotes the number of extra dimensions. We assume $`V_nR^n`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the compactified extra dimensions. If $`n=1`$, $`R`$ is so large that the successful Newtonian gravity is modified, and this scenario is excluded. But if $`n2`$, $`R1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$. In this region, the Newtonian gravity is not tested, and thus this scenario may survive.

Also, Randall and Sundrum proposed that warped spacetime can lower the fundamental scale . But we do not consider their scenario in this mini-review, and concentrate on the proposal of ADD. This scenario is called as the large extra dimension.

The very low fundamental scale $`M_D1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ naively becomes a source of very rapid proton decay, unacceptable FCNC, $`K\overline{K},B\overline{B}`$ oscillations and rare decays like $`\mu e\gamma `$. But there are many proposals against them. Therefore it is worthwhile to consider the ADD scenario in detail.

This mini-review is aimed to summarize the currently obtained constraints from many experiments. This mini-review is organized as follows: in section 2, we show the already obtained constraints from collider experiments. in section 3, we consider the astrophysical and cosmological constraints on the ADD scenario. And in section 4 we summarize.

Please note that, many experimental groups use different notations on the fundamental scale, and many theorists also use different notations. I will explain order by order what kind of notation is used, and obtain the constraint in our notation, $`M_D`$.

## 2 Constraints from Collider Experiments

Up to now, LEP, Tevatron and HELA give lower bound on the fundamental scale $`M_D`$. We discuss the detail of their result in this section. There is another review about this issue .

### 2.1 Real Graviton Emission

Gravitons only weekly interact with other particles. Their interactions are suppressed by $`1/M_{pl}^2`$. But the huge number of Kaluza-Klein graviton modes enable us to observe graviton emission process, like $`e^+e^{}\gamma /Z+G`$. The graviton Kaluza-Klein modes have masses equal to $`|n|/R`$ and therefore the different excitations have the mass splittings  :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_D}{\mathrm{TeV}}}\right)^{\frac{n+2}{2}}10^{\frac{12n31}{n}}\mathrm{eV}.`$ (2)
The enormous number of Kaluza-Klain modes enable us to detect the massive graviton emission processes. The number of modes with Kaluza- Klein index between $`|n|`$ and $`|n|+dn`$ is :

$`dN=S_{n1}|n|^{n1}dn,S_{n1}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{n/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)}},`$ (3)
where $`S_{n1}`$ is the surface of a unit radius sphere in n dimensions. From Eq. (1) and $`m=|n|/R`$, we obtain

$`dN=S_{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{pl}^2}{M_D^{2+n}}}m^{n1}dm.`$ (4)
This numerator factor $`M_{pl}^2`$ is the resultant of the enormous number of Kaluza-Klein modes, and it completely cancels the suppression factor of real graviton emission, $`1/M_{pl}^2`$.

L3  and H1  searched for this process.  set the stringent bound on the fundamental scale.

Here we have to make clear the notation in . They used that of .

$`G_N^1=8\pi R^nM_D^{2+n}=R^n((8\pi )^{1/(2+n)}M_D)^{2+n}.`$ (5)
So we have to multiply $`(8\pi )^{1/(2+n)}`$ to the result of . They are shown in table 1.

### 2.2 Virtual Graviton Exchange

Now we want to study the virtual graviton exchange processes. We concentrate on s-channel processes, but t- and u- channel exchange processes are completely analogous. The scattering amplitude is :

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮(s)𝒯,`$ (6a)
$`𝒮(s)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{pl}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_n^2}},`$ (6b)
$`𝒯`$ $``$ $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+2}}T_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu .`$ (6c)
Again, this amplitude is suppressed by $`M_{pl}`$. But enormous number of Kaluza-Klein modes enables us to investigate the virtual graviton exchange processes by $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma ,e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},`$ etc.

ALEPH , DELPHI , L3 , OPAL , H1  and D0  searched for this virtual graviton exchange processes. Among them, the constraint from D0 collaboration is the most stringent. Instead of our fundamental scale $`M_D`$, D0 used the cutoff scale $`M_S`$ defined as :

$`\kappa ^2R^n=8\pi (4\pi )^{(n+2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)M_S^{(n+2)},`$ (7)
where $`\kappa =\sqrt{16\pi G_N^{(n+4)}}\widehat{\kappa }`$. The obtained bound on $`M_S`$ are shown in . From these values, we obtain the bound on the fundamental value $`M_D`$, defined by us. They are shown in table 2.

### 2.3 Universal Torsion-Induced Interaction

Even in the minimal Kaluza-Klein scenario wherein only gravity exists in the bulk while all standard model fields are localized on a four-dimensional brane, fermions always induce antisymmetric pieces, or torsion, in the gravity connection \[LEBEDEV1\]. They affect Z-pole electroweak observables. In order not to destroy the success of the SM Z-pole experiments, they derived $`M_S>28\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}(n=2)`$ at $`3\sigma `$ level. $`M_S`$ is defined in (7) and This constraint becomes

$`M_D>18\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}(n=2).`$ (8)
This is the strongest collider constraint. They also considered the case of Randall-Sundrum scenario .

## 3 Constraints from Astrophysical and Cosmological Considerations

If we consider the large extra dimension scenario, there are Kaluza-Klein graviton modes in the universe. They affect the evolution of supernovas, neutron stars, cosmic diffuse gamma rays, and lead to early matter domination. And furthermore, the ultra-high energy cosmic rays can create black holes and may be detected by cosmic ray detectors. From these considerations, we can set very strong bound on the fundamental scale $`M_D`$.

### 3.1 Supernova and Neutron Star

The existence of massive Kaluza-Klein gravitons affects the phenomenology of SN1987A and neutron star.

SN1987A lose energy by Kaluza-Klein graviton emission. such gravitons are created by $`\gamma \gamma GG,e^+e^{}GG,e\gamma eG`$, gravi-bremsstrahlung and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. Therefore in order not to lose too much energy by graviton emission, the fundamental scale should not be large.

The references in  use different definition of the fundamental scale, and we rearranged their result into our defined value $`M_D`$. Then the result becomes:

$`M_D26.5188\mathrm{TeV}(n=2),`$ (9a)
$`M_D2.113\mathrm{TeV}(n=3).`$ (9b)
The obtained bounds depend on the supernova temperature.

Next, we consider neutron stars. The Kaluza-Klein gravitons around neutron stars decay into photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. They hit the neutron stars and heat them. The requirement that neutron stars are not excessively heated by Kaluza-Klain graviton decay products implies  :

$`M_D`$ $``$ $`11003600\mathrm{TeV}(n=2),`$ (10a)
$`M_D`$ $``$ $`19190\mathrm{TeV}(n=3).`$ (10b)
Note that  use $`M_{pl}=1.2\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which do not agree with our definition $`M_{pl}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$. We take into account this difference.

### 3.2 Cosmic Diffuse Gamma Ray

In standard cosmology, big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) provides a detailed and accurate understanding of the observed light element abundances. But the existence of massive Kaluza-Klein gravitons can destroy BBN completely. we must set “normalcy temperature” $`T_{}`$, when the extra dimension are virtually empty of energy density. $`T_{}`$ is about $`1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, and the result highly depend on the value of $`T_{}`$.

After successful BBN, Kaluza-Klein gravitons are produced through the process $`\nu \overline{\nu }G`$, for example. And when it decay into two photons, it can destroy the observed cosmic diffuse gamma ray background. It have been measured in the $`800\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ to $`30\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ energy range, and from the experiment we can set  :

$`M_D`$ $``$ $`210660\mathrm{TeV}(n=2),`$ (11a)
$`M_D`$ $``$ $`8.322.9\mathrm{TeV}(n=3).`$ (11b)
In deriving these constraints we consider the definition difference of the fundamental scale.

### 3.3 Early Matter Domination

Again, Kaluza-Klein massive gravitons are created by gravi-bremsstrahlung etc. Such massive gravitons inject extra massive matter in the universe, and lead to a more rapid decline in the CMB temperature. The increased cooling rate means that by the time the CMB has cooled to 2.73K the universe is still be much too young to hold the objects we observe in ours. From this fact, we can set lower bound on fundamental scale. The energy density of massive gravitons highly depends on the QCD scale, and so the obtained bound also depend on it. The bound is  :

$`M_D`$ $``$ $`1611900\mathrm{TeV}(n=2),`$ (12a)
$`M_D`$ $``$ $`1298\mathrm{TeV}(n=3),`$ (12b)
$`M_D`$ $``$ $`2.314\mathrm{TeV}(n=4).`$ (12c)
### 3.4 Can Black Hole Production by Cosmic Rays Constrain the Fundamental Scale?

If the large extra dimension scenario is true, black holes are created when the collision energy of two particles is larger than the fundamental scale. Ultra-high energy cosmic rays provide the most promising window to observe black holes or p-branes before LHC starts . Cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere of the earth and collide with some nuclei, producing black holes. They immediately evaporate and lead to energetic showers. There exists a paper which claims that AGASA already provides the most stringent bound on the fundamental scale for $`n5`$ .

Of course, the black hole production cross section suffers from many uncertainties, say grey body factors, angular momentum effects and finite impact parameters. Furthermore if the mass of black hole is near $`M_D`$, quantum gravity effects may drastically change the cross section.

But these uncertainties are under control . First consider the grey body factors. these are not important for the bound if one does not see events, the exact appearance of the predicted events is not important (other than the fact that these events are visible, but we do not know any reason to expect black holes decay only to neutrinos, gravitons, and muons). Next, while angular momentum is important, all analyses incorporating this lead to small effects. And finally, while quantum effects are certainly important at $`M_{BH}M_D`$, one can suppress this dependence by taking $`M_{BH,min}`$ to be a few $`M_D`$.

So I use the limit obtained from AGASA. Conservative bounds are :

$`1.1\mathrm{TeV}<`$ $`M_D`$ $`<1.2\mathrm{TeV}(n=5),`$ (13a)
$`1.1\mathrm{TeV}<`$ $`M_D`$ $`<1.3\mathrm{TeV}(n=6),`$ (13b)
$`1.2\mathrm{TeV}<`$ $`M_D`$ $`<1.3\mathrm{TeV}(n=7).`$ (13c)
## 4 Summary

To summarize, we have shown the currently obtained lower bound on the fundamental scale of the large extra dimension. It is summarized in table 3. You notice that the constraints from present colliders are so weak that astrophysical and cosmological ones dominate. If $`n3`$, the constraints from astrophysics and cosmology are so stringent that we cannot solve the hierarchy problem. But if $`n4`$, the constraints are very weak and there is still possibility that the large extra dimension is the solution of the hierarchy problem.

## Note Added

After the completion of this letter, we were informed many articles which were concerned with this letter. First, we learned that Tevatron can put lower bound on the fundamental scale, $`M_D>1.4\mathrm{TeV}`$ . Next, we noticed that a simple extension of the original ADD scenario can escape from the bounds described in this article . Finally our attention were drawn to , which examines model-independent test of extra-dimensional gravity performed at high-energy colliders using transplanckian collisions.

## Acknowledgement

We thank H. Takayanagi for stimulating discussions. Y.U. thank Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Modular Localization and Wigner Particles

## 1. Introduction

Although Quantum Physics represents one of the most innovative and drastic conceptual changes of view in modern science, the construction of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory has been fruitfully realized with the guidelines of the “classical analogue”. This is unsatisfactory, beyond the well known difficulties to construct a quantum field theory with interaction, if one takes the attitude that quantum field theory should stand on its own legs .

One point where the structure is selfconsistently dictated by quantum principles is the construction of local observable algebras associated with free fields. We may summarize the construction in the following building blocks:

1. The one-particle Hilbert space.
2. Second quantization.
3. Localization.

Point 1 is E. Wigner’s cornerstone analysis of the irreducible unitary representations of (the cover of) the Poincaré group. As is well known, the positive energy representations are classified by the mass $`m`$ and the spin $`s`$ if $`m>0`$. When $`m=0`$ the stabilizer of a non-zero point is isomorphic to the Euclidean group $`E(2)`$ which is not compact. Irreducible representations of the Poincaré group induced by finite-dimensional representations of $`E(2)`$, namely by representations which are trivial on the translational part, are labelled by the helicity (a character on the one-dimensional torus). Irreducible representations of the Poincaré group induced by infinite-dimensional representations of $`E(2)`$ are historically called continuous spin representations (although properly speaking one should talk of helicity rather than spin). Usually one discards such representations because the corresponding particles have not been experimentally observed so far, but there is no conceptual a priori reason not to consider them. As we will explain below, the analysis in this paper naturally gets into the consideration of the case of continuous spin too.

Point 2 is well described by E. Nelson’s expression: “First quantization is a mystery, but second quantization is a functor”. Segal’s quantization is indeed an automatic procedure to get Weyl operators on the Fock space associated with vectors in the one-particle Hilbert space. In particular one gets a von Neumann algebra out of a real Hilbert subspace of the one-particle space: this is Araki’s lattice of von Neumann algebras . In this sense free field analysis is basically reduced to one-particle analysis.

In point 3 the basic principle of locality enters. The definition of local real Hilbert subspaces, hence of local von Neumann algebras, requires however one more step. One possibility is to take the functions localized in a region of the configuration spacetime and then get the real Hilbert space in the momentum space. That this procedure is not entirely intrinsic may be seen from the fact that it is not possible to extend it to the case of continuous spin .

The purpose of this note is to show how a net of local algebras may be canonically associated with any positive energy (anti)-unitary representation of the proper Poincaré group. This construction relies on the idea of modular covariance, namely the identification of some one-parameter subgroups of the Poincaré group with some modular groups constructed via the Tomita-Takesaki theory. In this way a net of standard subspaces of the representation space may be canonically defined directly in the Wigner one-particle space. Then the second quantization functor produces the net of local von Neumann algebras. Such a net coincides with the one generated by the free Bose field of mass $`m`$ and spin $`s`$ when the corresponding irreducible representation of the proper Poincaré group is considered. This construction reveals the deep connection between the positivity of the energy and the isotony property of the net, and reflects the relation between the cyclicity of the vacuum for the intersection of two wedges and the existence of a PCT operator in terms of the Tomita modular conjugations, cf. . Our analysis is related to .

In other words, the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem tells us what the Tomita operator associated with a wedge region $`W`$ should be. Since it is a second quantization operator , it is determined by the operator $`S_W`$ on the one-particle Hilbert space $``$. According to Bisognano-Wichmann

(1.1)
$$S_W=J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}$$

is made up by the boosts unitaries $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}`$ and the PCT anti-unitary that are canonically associated with the given (anti)-unitary irreducible representation of the proper Poincaré group. We may then reverse the point of view and define $`S_W`$ by formula (1.1) in terms of the Poincaré group representation, hence define the real subspace

$$𝒦_W\{\xi :S_W\xi =\xi \}.$$

This procedure is, of course, general and can be performed for any unitary representation of the Poincaré group, including those with continuous spin, where the construction of the corresponding Wightman fields is not possible .

The von Neumann algebra $`(W)`$ is then defined by

$$(W)=\{V(\xi ):\xi 𝒦_W\}^{\prime \prime },$$

where $`V`$ is the representation of the Weyl commutation relations on the Fock space over $``$. If $`𝒪`$ is a region of the spacetime obtained as intersection of wedges, we may then define

$$(𝒪)\underset{W𝒪}{}(W)$$

(intersection over all wedges containing $`𝒪`$). By a classical result the vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝒪)`$ if $`𝒪`$ is a double cone, for any irreducible representation of finite helicity. By an intrinsic analysis in terms of Poincaré group representations, we shall show that, in case of continuous spin, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝒪)`$ if $`𝒪`$ is a space-like cone. But Reeh-Schlieder property for double cones is not to be expected in this case .

Our analysis extends to spacetimes with a group of symmetries, where a suitable notion of “wedge region” can be defined, in particular to any such wedge one would associate a one-parameter group of symmetries and a time-reversing reflection, both giving rise to modular objects in the unitary representations. The precise context is explained in Section 5, cf. also  for related notions of wedge. Relevant situations are those given by the Minkowski spacetime (or the covering of its Dirac-Weyl compactification) with conformal symmetries, by the circle with Möbius transformations, and by the ($`d`$-dimensional) de Sitter spacetime with the isometry group $`SO(d,1)`$.

Preliminary versions of this article have been circulating since a few years. The concept of modular localization has then found different applications in papers by B. Schroer and collaborators, see  and references therein.

## 2. Basic Preliminaries

Let us recall some basic geometrical and analytical facts. The most important geometrical setting we consider is Minkowski spacetime, but we shall abstract our procedure to extend it to more general spaces and to discuss some other examples.

The Minkowski spacetime is the real manifold $`^d\times ^{d1}`$ of dimension $`d2`$, equipped with the metric

$$x,y=x^0y^0\underset{i=1}{\overset{d1}{}}x^iy^i,x,y^d.$$

This makes Minkowski space a Lorentzian manifold and we consider the time orientation fixed once and for all. As a result the Minkowski spacetime is divided into subregions called spacelike, timelike and lightlike corresponding resp. to $`x,x<0`$, $`x,x>0`$, and $`x,x=0`$.

By theorems of Zeeman, the group of diffeomorphisms of the Minkowski space preserving the causal structure is the semidirect product of $`\times `$ with the translations, where $``$ acts as the group of dilations and $``$ is the full homogeneous Lorentz group. On the other hand the group of isometries of the Minkowski space is the Poincaré group $`𝒫`$, the semidirect product $`^d`$, where $`^d`$ corresponds to the spacetime translations:

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},b)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},a+\mathrm{\Lambda }b),\text{with}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},a,b^d.$$

The full Poincaré group $`𝒫`$ is simply connected, non connected, non compact, and perfect. It admits a splitting into connected components

$$𝒫=𝒫_+^{}𝒫_+^{}𝒫_{}^{}𝒫_{}^{}.$$

where the $`\pm `$ corresponds to $`\text{det}(g)=\pm 1`$, namely selects those transformations which preserve or change the orientation, and the up/down arrow corresponds to $`x,gx0`$, namely selects those transformations which preserve or change the time orientation.

We shall be mainly concerned with the proper part of the Poincaré group, i.e. $`𝒫_+=𝒫_+^{}𝒫_+^{}`$.

Let then $`𝒫_+gU(g)`$ be a strongly continuous (anti-)unitary representation on the Hilbert space $``$, i.e.,

$$U(g)\text{is}\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{unitary}\hfill & \text{if}g𝒫_+^{}\hfill \\ \text{antiunitary}\hfill & \text{if}g𝒫_+^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

We select now a particular class of causally complete subregions in Minkowski spacetime which are left globally invariant by suitable one-parameter velocity transformations. It is traditional to call them wedge regions and we denote the set of wedges by $`𝒲`$. As usual, $`W^{}`$ denotes the causal complement of $`W`$. Each wedge is a Poincaré transform of the wedge $`W_1=\{x^d:x_1>|x_0|\}`$. It is possible to assign to each wedge a one parameter group of transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ and a time-reversing reflection $`R_W`$ satisfying

* Reflection covariance. For any $`W𝒲`$, $`R_W`$ maps $`𝒲`$ onto $`𝒲`$, $`R_W(W)=W^{}`$ and $`R_{gW}=gR_Wg^1`$, $`g𝒫_+`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-covariance. For any $`W𝒲`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$ maps $`𝒲`$ onto $`𝒲`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)(W)=W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{gW}(t)=g\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)g^1`$, $`t`$, $`g𝒫_+^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{gW}(t)=g\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)g^1`$, $`t`$, $`g𝒫_+^{}`$.

Indeed, since the action of $`𝒫_+`$ is transitive on the family $`𝒲`$, it is enough to choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_1}`$ and $`R_{W_1}`$ to determine the whole assignment. Moreover, setting $`𝒫_+^{}(W):=\{g𝒫_+^{}:gW=W\}`$, properties (a) and (b) imply that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ is in the center of $`𝒫_+^{}(W)`$, while $`R_W`$ commutes with $`𝒫_+^{}(W)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_1}`$ is chosen as the (rescaled) boosts preserving $`W_1`$, namely

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_1}:t\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_1}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{cosh}(2\pi t)& \mathrm{sinh}(2\pi t)& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{sinh}(2\pi t)& \mathrm{cosh}(2\pi t)& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right)_+^{}.$$

The element $`R_{W_1}`$ in $`𝒫_+`$ is the reflection w.r.t. the edge of the wedge $`W_1`$, and is given by

$$R_{W_1}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})=(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{d1}).$$

Let’s fix a unitary representation $`U`$ of $`𝒫_+`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. With $`W𝒲`$ a wedge, let $`H_W`$ be the self-adjoint generator of $`U(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t))`$ and define

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ $`:=\mathrm{exp}(H_W)`$
$`J_W`$ $`:=U(R_W).`$
###### Proposition 2.1.

The following facts hold true:

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ is a densely defined, closed, positive non-singular linear operator on $``$;
2. $`J_W`$ is a antiunitary operator on $``$ and $`J_W^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$;
3. $`J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_WJ_W^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_W^1`$.

###### Proof.

$`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ are obvious. Concerning $`(iii)`$, let us observe that $`R_W`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$ which implies that $`J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}J_W^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}`$, but from the anti-unitarity of $`J_W`$ we have that $`J_WH_WJ_W^1`$ $`=`$ $`H_W`$, hence the thesis. ∎

These properties allow us to introduce and discuss the properties of the following operator

$$S_W:=J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}:,$$

indeed, denoting by $`R`$ and $`D`$ the range and the domain, we have:

###### Proposition 2.2.

$`S_W`$ is a densely defined, antilinear, closed operator on $``$ with $`R(S_W)=D(S_W)`$ and $`S_W^21`$.

###### Proof.

Density and closedness follow from the corresponding property of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ in Proposition 2.1 $`(i)`$, antilinearity from the antilinearity of $`J_W`$. Now, $`R(S_W)D(S_W)D(\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2})`$, indeed by Proposition 2.1 $`(iii)`$ we have that $`J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}x=\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}J_WxD(\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2})`$. But we get immediately that $`S_W^2=J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}1`$ and therefore if $`xD(S_W)`$ then $`x=S_W(S_Wx)R(S_W)`$, so we can conclude. ∎

Let us now define real subspaces of $``$ associated with any $`W𝒲`$, $`𝒦_W=\{hD(S_W):S_Wh=h\}`$. Recall that an $``$-linear subspace $`G`$ in $``$ is said to be standard whenever the following holds:

(2.1) $`GiG`$ $`=\{0\},`$
(2.2) $`\overline{G+iG}`$ $`=.`$
###### Proposition 2.3.

Each $`𝒦_W`$ is an $``$-linear closed and standard subspace in $``$, $`S_W`$ is the Tomita operator of $`𝒦_W`$, namely $`D(S_W)=𝒦_W+i𝒦_W`$ and $`S_W(h+ik)=hik`$, $`h,k𝒦_W`$. In particular we have:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}𝒦_W`$ $`=𝒦_W`$
$`J_W𝒦_W`$ $`=𝒦_W^{},`$
where $`𝒦_W^{}:=\{h:\mathrm{Im}(h,k)=0k𝒦_W\}`$ is the symplectic complement of $`𝒦_W`$.

###### Proof.

The $``$-linearity and subspace property of any $`𝒦_W`$ is obvious. Note first than any $`xD(S_W)`$ can be written as $`x=h+ik`$ where $`h`$ resp. $`k`$ have the form

$$h=\frac{x+S_Wx}{2},k=i\frac{i(xS_Wx)}{2}.$$

By the preceding Proposition both terms belong to $`𝒦_W`$. Hence $`𝒦_W+i𝒦_W=D(S_W)`$ which is dense, so $`(\text{2.2})`$ is fulfilled, and if $`x𝒦_Wi𝒦_W`$ then $`x=S_Wx`$ and $`ix=S_Wix=iS_Wx=ix`$, therefore $`x0`$, and $`(\text{2.1})`$ holds too.

The graph norm on $`D(S_W)`$ is, for $`x=h+ik`$ where $`h,k𝒦_W`$,

$`h+ik_{S_W}^2`$ $`=h+ik^2+S_W(h+ik)^2`$
$`=h+ik^2+hik^2`$
$`=2(h^2+k^2).`$
Therefore $`D(S_W)`$ with the graph norm is $`𝒦_Wi𝒦_W`$, hence the closedness of $`𝒦_W`$ follows from that of $`S_W`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.4.

The representation $`U`$ acts covariantly on the family $`\{𝒦_W:W𝒲\}`$, namely,

(2.3)
$$U(g)𝒦_W=𝒦_{gW}g𝒫_+^{}.$$

###### Proof.

From properties (a) and (b) it follows that

$$U(g)\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}U(g)^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{gW}^{it}$$

and

$$U(g)J_WU(g)^{}=J_{gW}$$

which imply that

$$U(g)S_WU(g)^{}=S_{gW}$$

hence the thesis. ∎

Note that eq. (2.3) holds true also for $`g𝒫_+^{}`$ due to Prop. 2.3 and the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`U`$ be a (anti-) unitary representation of $`𝒫_+`$ and $`W𝒦_W`$ the above defined map. Then wedge duality holds, namely

$$𝒦_W^{}=𝒦_W^{}.$$

Moreover, the following are equivalent:

* The spaces $`𝒦_W`$ are factors, namely $`𝒦_W𝒦_W^{}=\{0\}`$.
* The representation $`U`$ does not contain the trivial representation.
* The net is irreducible, namely

$$\underset{W𝒲}{}𝒦_W=\{0\}.$$

###### Proof.

Observe that $`S_𝒦^{}=S_𝒦^{}=J_𝒦\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒦^{1/2}`$. Since $`R_W^{}=R_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W^{}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$, we get the first statement. Let’s prove the equivalences.
$`(ii)(i)`$. We have $`𝒦_W𝒦_W^{}=𝒦_W𝒦_W^{}=\{x:U(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t))x=x=J_Wx,t\}`$. If such a space contains a non-zero $`x`$ then the matrix coefficient $`(x,U(g)x)`$ does not vanish at infinity. By the vanishing of the matrix coefficient theorem for semisimple Lie groups (cf. e.g. ) the representation must admit an invariant vector.
$`(i)(iii)`$. This follows directly by the first statement.
$`(iii)(ii)`$. Decompose $`U|_{𝒫_+^{}}`$ as $`U^0I`$ where $`I`$ is the trivial representation (with some multiplicity) and $`U^0`$ does not contain the trivial representation. The commutation relations between $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}`$ and $`J`$ imply that any $`J`$ decomposes accordingly, namely has no anti-diagonal terms. Hence any space $`𝒦_W`$ decomposes as $`𝒦_W=𝒦_W^0𝒦_W^I`$. We have $`U^I(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t))=I`$, and, given two wedges $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$, $`J_{W_1}^IJ_{W_2}^I=U^I(R_{W_1}R_{W_2})=I`$, namely $`𝒦_W^I`$ is independent of $`W`$. Therefore

$$\underset{W𝒲}{}𝒦_W0𝒦^I.$$

Irreducibility implies $`𝒦^I=0`$, namely $`U=U^0`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

Let us note that the construction of the net $`𝒦_W`$ requires a representation of $`𝒫_+`$, or, equivalently, a representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ and a PCT operator.

More precisely we need an anti-unitary involution $`J`$ satisfying $`JU(g)J=U(RgR)`$, for some space-time reflection $`R`$. Such involution does not necessarily exist in any representation. However, given a representation $`U`$ of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ on $``$, a reflection $`R`$ and an anti-unitary involution $`C`$ on $``$, we may set

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(g)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U(g)& 0\\ 0& CU(RgR)C\end{array}\right),g𝒫_+^{},\stackrel{~}{U}(R)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& C\\ C& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ gives rise to a (anti)-unitary representation of $`𝒫_+`$ on $``$.

Moreover, if $`U|_{𝒫_+^{}}`$ is irreducible, then the anti-unitary involution $`U(R_W)`$ is unique up to a phase, that does not depends on $`W`$ by covariance. Hence the family $`\{𝒦_W\}`$ depends only on $`U|_{𝒫_+^{}}`$ up to unitary equivalence.

It is known (see e.g. ) that a PCT operator exists for an irreducible representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ (on $`^4`$) if and only if the representation is induced by a self-conjugate representation of the stabilizer of a point, which is always the case, except for the finite non-zero helicity representations.

## 3. Inclusions of real subspaces and wedges

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`𝒦_1`$, $`𝒦_2`$ be standard subspaces of the Hilbert space $``$, and assume that $`U𝒦_1=𝒦_2`$, with $`U`$ unitary on $``$. Then $`𝒦_2𝒦_1`$ iff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}U^{}J_1U^{}J_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}`$.

###### Proof.

The following equivalences hold:

$`𝒦_2𝒦_1`$ $`S_2S_1`$
$`UJ_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}U^{}J_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}U^{}J_1U^{}J_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1/2}.`$
The following theorem is a one-particle analogue of results in . It is related to the positive energy criterion in .

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`𝒦`$ be a standard space in the Hilbert space $``$ and $`U(a)=e^{iaH}`$ a one-parameter group of unitaries on $``$ satisfying

(3.1) $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}U(a)\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}`$ $`=U(e^{2\pi t}a)`$
(3.2) $`JU(a)J`$ $`=U(a),`$
where $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the modular conjugation and operator associated with $`𝒦`$.

The following are equivalent:

* $`U(a)𝒦𝒦`$ for $`a0`$;
* $`\pm H`$ is positive.

###### Proof.

By replacing $`𝒦`$ with $`𝒦^{}`$ it suffices to prove the case $`H`$ positive. The implication $`(i)(ii)`$ was proved in .

$`(ii)(i)`$. Let us observe that the spectrum of $`H`$ is acted upon by the group $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}`$ and by $`J`$, with $`\{0\}`$ and $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ being the invariant subsets. The corresponding eigenspaces are henceforth invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}`$ and $`J`$, as a consequence $`𝒦`$ is decomposed in a direct sum of respectively the $`H=0`$ and the $`H>0`$ parts. Hence the thesis may be proven in the two cases separately. When $`H=0`$ isotony trivially holds.

In the following we assume that $`H>0`$. By Proposition 3.1, together with equation (3.2), we get

(3.3)
$$U(a)𝒦𝒦\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}U(a)^{}U(a)\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}.$$

Let $`K=\mathrm{log}H`$ (it exists since $`H>0`$), and $`M`$ the generator of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{it/2\pi }`$. It is easy to see that $`e^{i\mu K}`$ and $`e^{i\lambda M}`$ satisfy Weyl’s commutation relations, i.e.,

$$e^{i\lambda M}e^{i\mu K}=e^{i\lambda \mu }e^{i\mu K}e^{i\lambda M}.$$

According to von Neumann’s theorem every representation of the Weyl’s commutation relations is equivalent to a multiple of the Heisenberg representation. Then the relation on the right hand side of (3.3) can be checked in just one representation. Because of the equivalence (3.3), it is enough to verify the inclusion $`U(a)𝒦𝒦`$, $`a>0`$, in one non-trivial representation.

An example is provided by the one-particle space of the conformal field theory on the line corresponding to lowest weight representations of $`PSL(2,)`$. Taking $`𝒦`$ as the standard space associated with the right half-line $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, and $`U(t)`$ as the translations, the relations in the hypothesis are verified , and the mentioned inclusion of subspaces hold by isotony. ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

Condition (3.2) is not needed for the implication $`(i)(ii)`$ in the above theorem, see . However the condition is necessary for the converse implication. Indeed, given $`J`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`U`$ as in the theorem, and assuming positivity of the generator of $`U(a)`$, one may choose a unitary $`V`$ which commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, anticommutes with $`J`$ and does not commute with $`U(a)`$, e.g. $`V=(\mathrm{\Delta }+i)(\mathrm{\Delta }i)^1`$, and then replace $`J`$ with $`VJ`$, the space $`𝒦`$ being redefined accordingly. Now property $`(i)`$ in the theorem above cannot hold, since, by the result of Borchers , it would imply condition (3.2) for the new $`J`$, against the hypothesis.

Let us denote by $`H`$ the cone in the Lie algebra of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ consisting of the generators of future-pointing light-like or time-like translations. As is known, a unitary representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ has positive energy if the corresponding self-adjoint generators are positive. Given two wedges $`W_0W`$, we shall say that $`W_0`$ is positively included in $`W`$ whenever $`W_0`$ can be obtained by $`W`$ via a suitable translation $`\mathrm{exp}(a_0h)`$, $`a_00`$, such that $`\pm hH`$, where we denoted by $`\mathrm{exp}`$ the exponential map from the Lie algebra to the Lie group, and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)\mathrm{exp}(ah)\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)& =\mathrm{exp}(e^{2\pi t}ah)\hfill \\ \hfill R_W\mathrm{exp}(ah)R_W& =\mathrm{exp}(ah)\hfill \end{array}a,t.$$

The following is a well known geometric fact:

* Positive inclusion. Any inclusion of wedges is the composition of finitely many positive inclusions.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`U`$ be a (anti-)unitary representation of $`𝒫_+`$, $`W_1W_2`$ wedges. Then $`𝒦_{W_1}𝒦_{W_2}`$ iff $`U`$ is a positive energy representation.

###### Proof.

Follows immediately from (c) and Theorem 3.2. ∎

Since causally complete convex regions are intersections of wedges, the map $`W𝒦_W`$ extends to causally complete, convex regions $`𝒞`$ via

(3.4)
$$𝒦_𝒞=\underset{W𝒞}{}𝒦_W,$$

and to general causally complete regions via

(3.5)
$$𝒦_𝒪=\underset{𝒞𝒪}{}𝒦_𝒞,$$

where $`𝒞`$ are convex and causally complete. Let us observe that isotony for wedges implies that equation (3.4) is consistent with the original definition of $`𝒦_W`$.

Denote by $`𝔎`$ the family of all convex causally complete regions. Let us point out he following fact (see e.g. ):

* Wedge separation. For any space-like separated $`𝒪_1,𝒪_2𝔎`$ there exists a wedge $`W`$ such that $`𝒪_1W`$ and $`𝒪_2W^{}`$.

###### Corollary 3.5.

Let $`U`$ be a positive energy representation of $`𝒫_+`$. Then the map $`𝒪𝒦_𝒪`$ is a local Poincaré covariant net of real vector spaces, i.e., isotony holds and if $`𝒪_1𝒪_2^{}`$ then $`𝒦_{𝒪_1}𝒦_{𝒪_2}^{}`$. If $`𝒪`$ is a convex causally complete region then Haag duality holds, namely $`𝒦_𝒪^{}=𝒦_𝒪^{}`$.

###### Proof.

The first part of the statement holds by definition.
Let us fix $`𝒪_0𝔎`$. If $`𝒪_0`$ is a wedge, then duality has been proved in Theorem 2.5. If $`𝒪_0`$ is not a wedge, then its space-like complement is not convex, hence, by (d), we have the following chain of identities:

$$𝒦_{𝒪_0^{}}^{}=(\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝒪𝒪_0^{}\\ 𝒪𝔎\end{array}}{}𝒦_𝒪)^{}=(\underset{\begin{array}{c}W^{}𝒪_0^{}\\ W𝒲\end{array}}{}𝒦_W^{})^{}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}W^{}𝒪_0^{}\\ W𝒲\end{array}}{}𝒦_W^{}^{}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}W𝒪_0\\ W𝒲\end{array}}{}𝒦_W=𝒦_{𝒪_0}.$$

Therefore Haag duality holds. ∎

###### Remark 3.6.

$`(1)`$ A net of von Neumann algebras may be obtained via second quantization:

$$(𝒪)=\{V(h):h𝒦_𝒪\}^{\prime \prime }$$

where $`V(h)`$ are the Weyl unitaries on the Bosonic Fock space $`e^{}`$. Weyl unitaries may be defined via

$`V(h)e^0`$ $`=e^{\frac{1}{4}h^2}e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}h},h`$
$`V(h)V(k)`$ $`=e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Im}(h,k)}V(h+k)h,k`$
where the coherent vectors $`e^h`$ are defined by $`e^h=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{h^n}{\sqrt{n!}}`$. Coherent vectors turn out to form a total set in $`e^{}`$ (see e.g.  p.32), hence the $`V(h)`$’s are well defined unitaries. The standard property of $`𝒦_𝒪`$ is equivalent to the Reeh-Schlieder property for $`(𝒪)`$ (cf. ).

$`(2)`$ If $`U`$ is the irreducible representation of mass $`m`$ and spin $`s`$ the map $`𝒪(𝒪)`$ gives the net of local observable algebras for the free field of mass $`m`$ and spin $`s`$. In fact, for these nets the one-particle version of the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem holds, i.e.,

$`J_W`$ $`=U(R_W)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}`$ $`=U(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t))`$
where $`J_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ are the Tomita operators of the real space $`𝒦_W`$ of vectors localized in $`W`$. This means that $`𝒦_W`$ is effectively reconstructed in terms of the representation $`U`$. Moreover, it was shown by Araki  that the map $`𝒪𝒦_𝒪`$ is an isomorphism of complemented lattices

$$(,,\text{space-like complement})(,,\text{symplectic complement})$$

if $`𝒪`$ is connected, causally complete, with piecewise $`C^1`$ boundary. This shows that $`𝒦_𝒪`$ is also reconstructed in terms of the representation $`U`$.

Three questions arise for the subspaces of the described net $`𝒪𝒦_𝒪`$: the standard property, the III<sub>1</sub> factor property (see ), namely the fact that the corresponding second quantization algebra is a type III<sub>1</sub> factor, and the intersection property (for convex causally complete regions), namely

(3.6)
$$𝒞=\underset{iI}{}W_i𝒦_𝒞=\underset{iI}{}𝒦_{W_i}.$$

When wedge regions are concerned, we proved the standard property, the intersection property and the factor property for irreducible nets. The III<sub>1</sub> factor property (for irreducible nets) and the other properties are proved for space like cones in Section 4.

## 4. Intersections and cyclicity

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`𝒦_j`$, $`j𝒥`$, a family of standard subspaces of a Hilbert space $``$, $`o`$ a distinguished element of $`𝒥`$. Then $`_{j𝒥}𝒦_j`$ is standard if and only if the space

(4.1)
$$\{x:xD(S_jS_o)\&S_jS_ox=x,j𝒥\}$$

is dense.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝒦_o`$ is standard, $`_{j𝒥}𝒦_j`$ is standard if and only if $`_{j𝒥}𝒦_j+i_{j𝒥}𝒦_j`$ is dense. We contend that the last subspace can be equivalently written as the expression in (4.1).

Indeed, if $`x𝒦_j`$ for any $`j𝒥`$, then $`S_jx=S_ox=x`$ for any $`j𝒥`$. Since range and domain of the $`S`$ operators coincide, $`S_ox`$ belongs to the domain of $`S_j`$ and $`S_jS_ox=x`$, $`j𝒥`$. Hence $`x`$ belongs to the space in (4.1). Such a space being complex linear, it contains also $`i_{j𝒥}𝒦_j`$.

Conversely, if $`xD(S_jS_o)`$ and $`S_jS_ox=x`$ $`j𝒥`$, then, $`j𝒥`$, $`xD(S_j)`$, hence it can be written as $`x=h_j+ik_j`$ with $`h_j,k_j𝒦_j`$, and $`S_ox=S_jx`$.

Therefore we get $`S_ox=S_jx=S_j(h_j+ik_j)=h_jik_j`$, hence $`\frac{1}{2}(x+S_ox)=h_j`$ and $`\frac{1}{2i}(xS_ox)=k_j`$, namely $`h_j`$ and $`k_j`$ are independent of $`j`$ and belong to $`_{j𝒥}𝒦_j`$. ∎

Recalling the definition in equation (3.4), we get the following.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`U`$ be a (anti-)unitary representation of $`𝒫_+`$ on the Hilbert space $``$, $`𝒞`$ a convex, causally complete region, $`W`$ a wedge containing $`𝒞`$, and $`𝒢(𝒞)=\{g𝒫_+^{}:gW𝒞\}`$. Then $`𝒦_𝒞`$ is standard iff, denoting by $`T(g)`$ the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}U(Rg^1R)\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}`$, $`g𝒫_+^{}`$,

(4.2)
$$\{x:xD(T(g))\&T(g)x=U(g^1)x,g𝒢(𝒞)\}$$

is dense, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`R`$ refer to the wedge $`W`$.
Also, given two subsets $`𝒢_1,𝒢_2`$ of $`𝒫_+^{}`$, $`_{𝒢_1}𝒦_{gW}=_{𝒢_2}𝒦_{gW}`$ iff

(4.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{x:xD(T(g))\&T(g)x=U(g^1)x,g𝒢_1\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\{x:xD(T(g))\&T(g)x=U(g^1)x,g𝒢_2\}.\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Since the action of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ is transitive on the wedges, the first statement immediately follows by the previous proposition. The second statement follows by the proof of the previous proposition. ∎

Now we may tackle the main questions concerning convex, causally complete regions in the Minkowski space in this approach, namely the standard property (2.1), (2.2), the III<sub>1</sub> factor property and intersection property (3.6).

Since local algebras (and local subspaces) are not defined in terms of local fields, the classical Reeh-Schlieder argument does not apply. However, Proposition 4.2 shows that the standardness for a given region (or family of regions) is a property of the representation $`U`$, hence group theoretic techniques may be applied.

Intersection property instead has to do with the definition in 3.4. Though the local space of a given convex causally complete region $`𝒞`$ is defined as the intersection of the spaces of all wedges containing it, just a few of them may be enough to determine $`𝒞`$. Would the corresponding intersection of local spaces give rise to the same space? Again, because of the absence of local fields, the answer is not trivial, and the group theoretic approach may do the job.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`U`$ be a (anti-)unitary positive energy representation of $`𝒫_+`$ on the Hilbert space $``$, $`𝒞`$ a convex, causally complete region. Assume that the representation $`U`$ (restricted to $`𝒫_+^{}`$) decomposes as $`^{}U_\lambda 𝑑\mu (\lambda )`$. Then $`𝒦_𝒞^U`$ is standard if and only if $`𝒦_𝒞^{U_\lambda }`$ is standard for $`\mu `$-almost all $`\lambda `$.

Given $`W_j`$, $`j𝒥`$, such that $`𝒞=_{j𝒥}W_j`$, then $`𝒦_𝒞^U=_{j𝒥}𝒦_{W_j}^U`$ if and only if $`𝒦_𝒞^{U_\lambda }=_{j𝒥}𝒦_{W_j}^{U_\lambda }`$ for $`\mu `$-almost all $`\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 4.2, both properties depend only on $`U|_{𝒫_+^{}}`$. The thesis follows by equations (4.2), (4.3). ∎

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`U`$ be a (anti-)unitary positive energy representation of $`𝒫_+`$ on the Hilbert space $``$, $`𝒞`$ a spacelike cone. Then the standard property and the intersection property hold. If $`U`$ does not contain the trivial representation, then the type III<sub>1</sub> factor property holds too.

###### Proof.

Let us prove the standard property. Clearly we may assume that the vertex of the space-like cone lies at the origin of the coordinates.

Lemma 4.3 shows that is enough to check the density of the space in (4.2) for all the irreducible positive energy representations. Since this property is known for the positive mass representations and for the zero mass, finite helicity representations, we only have to verify it for the so called continuous spin representations.

Let us now denote by $`(𝒞)`$ the set of wedges containing $`𝒞`$. Given a wedge in $`(𝒞)`$, we may consider the family of wedges parallel to the given one and still belonging to $`(𝒞)`$. The intersection of all such wedges is clearly a wedge in $`(𝒞)`$ whose edge contains the vertex of $`𝒞`$, namely the origin. Because of isotony (Theorem 3.4),

$$\underset{W(𝒞)}{}𝒦_W=\underset{W_0(𝒞)}{}𝒦_W,$$

where $`_0(𝒞)`$ denotes the subset consisting of wedges whose edge contains the origin.

Then, fixing a wedge $`W`$ in $`_0(𝒞)`$ and setting $`𝒢_0(𝒞)=\{g𝒫_+:gW_0(𝒞)\}`$, the complex span of the space $`_{W_0(𝒞)}𝒦_W`$ is given by

(4.4)
$$\{x:xD(T(g))\&T(g)x=U(g^1)x,g𝒢_0(𝒞)\},$$

namely only the Lorentz subgroup is involved. Therefore the standard property has only to be checked on the restriction to the Lorentz group of the given continuous spin representation $`U`$. Theorem A.1 concludes the proof.

Let us now prove the intersection property. Again by isotony, we may restrict to the intersection of wedges whose edge contains the origin. If $`𝒢_1`$, $`𝒢_2`$ are two subsets of $`_+^{}`$ such that $`_{g𝒢_1}gW=_{g𝒢_2}gW=𝒞`$, then the equality $`_{g𝒢_1}𝒦_{gW}=_{g𝒢_2}𝒦_{gW}`$ is equivalent to relation (4.3). Then the proof goes on as for the previous case.

We finally prove the III<sub>1</sub> factor property. It has been proved in  that if 1 is in the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but not in the point spectrum, then the second quantization algebra is a type III<sub>1</sub> factor. Clearly the property $`1\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })\sigma _p(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is stable under direct sums and quasi-equivalence. Then, by the proof of Theorem A.1, it is enough to show this property for the finite spin representations. Indeed this shows the property for the regular representation of $`_+^{}`$, hence for the restriction to $`_+^{}`$ of the continuous spin representations of $`𝒫_+^{}`$, since they are quasi-equivalent to the regular representation.

Now we follow , where it is shown (Theorem 3.6) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be written as a functional calculus of a selfadjoint operator $`B`$ via the function $`\frac{t+1}{t1}`$, showing in particular that $`1\sigma _p(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Moreover, using the explicit formula for $`B`$, one concludes that $`B`$ is unbounded, hence 1 is in the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. ∎

Now we prove the standard property for light-like strips, namely for regions given by $`\overline{W}\overline{W^{}+a}`$, where $`a`$ is a lightlike vector parallel to $`W`$, namely such that $`W+aW`$. Such property is motivated by the proof of the spin and statistics property for spacetimes with bifurcated Killing horizon given in , Section 4.2.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`W`$ and $`a`$ be as above and assume the spacetime dimension is $`d2`$. For any positive energy (anti-)unitary representation of $`𝒫_+`$, $`𝒦_{\overline{W}\overline{W^{}+a}}`$ is standard.

###### Proof.

Clearly any wedge containing $`L=\overline{W}\overline{W^{}+a}`$ either contains $`W`$ or contains $`W^{}+a`$. Then, by isotony (Theorem 3.4),

$$\underset{WL}{}𝒦_W=𝒦𝒦_{W^{}+a}.$$

Let us assume for the moment that $`U`$ is the trivial representation. Then translations and boosts act trivially, namely $`𝒦_{W^{}+a}=𝒦_W^{}=𝒦_W`$, since $`S_W^{}=S_W^{}=S_W`$. Therefore we may assume that $`U`$ does not contain the trivial representation, namely $`U`$ does not have invariant vectors. Since $`d2`$, the vanishing of the matrix coefficient theorem applies (cf. e.g. , Proposition 2.3.5), hence the spectrum of the generator of any light-like translation is strictly positive, i.e. zero is not an eigenvalue.

As explained before, the standard property is equivalent to the density of the space

(4.5)
$$\{xD(\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}U(\tau ((a))\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}):U(\tau ((a))\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}U(\tau ((a))\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}x=x\},$$

where $`\tau (a)`$ denotes the translation by $`a`$. This property clearly depends only on the restriction of the representation of the Poincaré group to the subgroup $`_1`$ generated by boosts and light-like translations with strictly positive generator (relative to the wedge $`W`$). As the logarithm of the generator of translations and the generator of the boosts give rise to (and are determined by) a representation of the CCR in one dimension, the strictly positive energy representations of $`_1`$ have a simple structure: they are always a multiple of the unique irreducible representation. Therefore the density of the space in eqn. (4.5) holds either always or never, and hence can be checked in the irreducible case. But this is the case of the current algebra on the circle, where cyclicity holds by conformal covariance. ∎

Now we show that some form of the intersection property holds for double cones too.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a diamond generated by a relatively open convex subregion $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of some space-like hyperplane $`𝒢`$. For any $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$, let us consider the family $`(\xi )`$ of the half-spaces in $`𝒢`$ tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`\xi `$, namely the half-spaces containing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and whose boundary contains $`\xi `$. Being parametrized by the normal vectors at $`\xi `$, they have a linear structure, and clearly form a closed convex set. Let us denote by $`_{}(\xi )`$ its extreme points, and by $`_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the union $`_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(\xi )`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{h_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })}h`$. We shall call $`_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the minimal family for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Analogously, denoting with $`W_h`$ the wedge generated by the space-like half-space $`h`$, we shall call $`_{}(𝒞)=\{W_h:h_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$ the minimal family for $`𝒞`$. Clearly when $`𝒞`$ is the intersection of a finite number of wedges $`W_i`$, the minimal family $`_{}(𝒞)`$ consists only of (some) $`W_i`$.

###### Theorem 4.6.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a diamond generated by a relatively open convex subregion $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of some space-like hyperplane $`𝒢`$, $`_{}(𝒞)`$ its minimal family. Then

$$𝒦_𝒞=\underset{W_{}(𝒞)}{}𝒦_W.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`W`$ be a wedge containing $`𝒞`$. Then $`W𝒢\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`W𝒢`$ is a cone given by the intersection of (at most) two half spaces $`h_1`$, $`h_2`$ of $`𝒢`$, then, by the intersection property for space-like cones, one gets $`𝒦_W𝒦_{W_{h_1}W_{h_2}}𝒦_𝒞`$ and $`𝒦_{W_{h_1}}𝒦_{W_{h_2}}=𝒦_{W_{h_1}W_{h_2}}`$. Therefore

$$𝒦_𝒞=\underset{h(\mathrm{\Omega })}{}𝒦_{W_h}.$$

Then, again by the intersection property for space-like cones, for any point $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we may replace $`_{h(\xi )}𝒦_{W_h}`$ with $`_{h_{}(\xi )}𝒦_{W_h}`$, since $`_{h(\xi )}W_h`$ is a spacelike cone, and the proof is completed. ∎

###### Theorem 4.7.

The following pair of classes can be put in one-to-one correspondence:

* Positive energy representations of $`𝒫_+`$.
* Local nets of closed real vector spaces on $`𝔎`$ satisfying modular covariance, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{it}𝒦_𝒪=𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)𝒪}`$, and standard property for the space-like cones.

###### Proof.

The map from $`(i)`$ to $`(ii)`$ has been illustrated above. The inverse map has been constructed in , getting a representation of the universal covering of $`𝒫_+^{}`$. It has been shown in  that such representation is indeed a representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$, and extends to a representation of $`𝒫_+`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.8.

Let $`U`$ be a unitary representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ which is finite direct sum of irreducible representations each with strictly positive mass. As recently shown in , if $`:W𝒲_W`$ is a net of standard real subspaces of $``$ and $`U`$ acts covariantly on $``$, namely $`U(g)_W=_{gW}`$, then $`_W`$ is the standard subspace associated with $`W`$ and $`U`$.

## 5. Free nets on different spacetimes

In this section we discuss various extensions of the previous construction to different spacetimes. We begin with a general setting.

Let $`M`$ be a globally hyperbolic spacetime, $`G`$ a (Lie) group of transformations acting on it (e.g. isometries, or conformal transformations), $`G_+`$ the subgroup of orientation preserving transformations, $`G^{}`$ the subgroup of time-preserving transformations, $`G_+^{}`$ their intersection.

Assume it is possible to choose a triple $`(𝒲,R,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ where $`𝒲`$ is a family of open, causally complete subregions, called wedges, stable under the action of $`G_+`$, $`R:WR_W`$ is a map from $`𝒲`$ to time-reversing reflections in $`G_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:W\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ is a map from $`𝒲`$ to one-parameter subgroups of $`G_+^{}`$ satisfying the following properties:

* Reflection covariance. For any $`W𝒲`$, $`R_W`$ maps $`𝒲`$ onto $`𝒲`$, $`R_W(W)=W^{}`$ and $`R_{gW}=gR_Wg^1`$, $`gG_+`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-covariance. For any $`W𝒲`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$ maps $`𝒲`$ onto $`𝒲`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)(W)=W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{gW}(t)=g\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)g^1`$, $`t`$, $`gG_+^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{gW}(t)=g\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)g^1`$, $`t`$, $`gG_+^{}`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

Properties (a) and (b) imply that $`R_W^{}=R_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W^{}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$. Moreover, if $`gW=W`$, then $`g`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ and $`R_W`$, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ belongs to the center of the stabilizer $`G_+^{}(W)=\{gG_+^{}:gW=W\}`$ and $`R_W`$ commutes with $`G_+^{}(W)`$.

If $`G_+^{}`$ acts transitively on $`𝒲`$, then the assignments $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$, $`WR_W`$ are determined by the choice of a one parameter subgroup in the center of the stabilizer of one wedge $`W_0`$, and by the choice of a reflection commuting with $`G_+^{}(W_0)`$.

In many cases, e.g. Minkowski spacetime with Poincaré symmetry in dimension $`d3`$, or Minkowski with conformal symmetry in any dimension, or de Sitter spacetime in dimension $`d3`$, the center of $`G_+^{}(W)`$ is one-dimensional, hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ is fixed up to rescaling.

Given a (anti)-unitary representation $`U`$ of $`G_+`$, we can reproduce the analysis in Section 2: Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W=U(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(i))`$, $`J_W=U(R_W)`$ (the above normalization at $`t=i`$ is conventional, as we could arbitrarily rescale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. The positive energy condition, see below, will fix the normalization). Clearly $`J_W`$ is a self-adjoint antiunitary, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is strictly positive. By (a) and (b), $`R_W=R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)W}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)R_W\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)`$, namely $`R_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ commute. Therefore $`J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_WJ_W=\mathrm{\Delta }_W^1`$, and, setting $`S_W=J_W\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{1/2}`$, we easily obtain that $`S_W`$ is closed, densely defined and satisfies $`S_W^2I`$.

Set $`𝒦_W=\{\xi D(S_W):S_W\xi =\xi \}`$. It turns out that $`𝒦_W`$ is a standard space, and that the representation $`U`$ acts geometrically on the family: $`U(g)𝒦_W=𝒦_{gW}`$. Moreover, essential duality holds: $`𝒦_W^{}=𝒦_W^{}.`$

Let $``$ be the family of regions that are intersections of wedges, and set $`𝒦_B=_{WB}𝒦_W`$, $`B`$. If we assume $`𝒲`$ to be a subbase for the topology of $`M`$, then $``$ forms a base, hence any open set $`𝒪`$ is a union of elements in $``$. Then we may define $`𝒦_𝒪=_{B𝒪}𝒦_B`$. $`G`$-covariance follows as in Section 2.

###### Proposition 5.2.

The following properties hold:

* $`\{𝒦_W,W𝒲\}`$ is a covariant family of real subspaces, namely $`𝒦_{g𝒲}=U(g)𝒦_𝒲`$, $`gG_+`$, moreover $`𝒦_W`$ is standard and $`𝒦_W^{}=𝒦_W^{}`$.
* $`\{𝒦_B,B\}`$ is a covariant net of real subspaces, namely $`B_1B_2`$ implies $`𝒦_{B_1}𝒦_{B_2}`$, and $`𝒦_g=U(g)𝒦_{}`$, $`gG_+`$.

###### Remark 5.3.

As in Remark 2.6, giving a representation of $`G_+`$ is equivalent to giving a representation of $`G_+^{}`$ together with some sort of PCT, namely an anti-unitary involution $`J`$ satisfying $`JU(g)J=U(RgR)`$, for some reflection $`R`$.

Notice that the net $`B𝒦_B`$, $`B`$, is not necessarily local. Also, it is not necessarily true that $`𝒦_B=𝒦_W`$ if $`B=W`$, namely it may happen that $`_{WW_0}𝒦_W`$ is strictly smaller than $`𝒦_W`$, since we did not prove wedge isotony. We need further assumptions to solve these two problems.

Let $`H`$ be a convex cone in the Lie algebra of $`G`$, and let us denote by $`\mathrm{exp}`$ the exponential map from the Lie algebra to $`G_+^{}`$. If $`W_0W`$ are wedges, we shall say that $`W_0`$ is positively included in $`W`$ w.r.t the cone $`H`$ if there is a one parameter subgroup $`\mathrm{exp}(ah)`$ of $`G_+^{}`$, depending on $`W_0`$ and $`W`$, with $`\mathrm{exp}(a_0h)W=W_0`$ for some $`a_00`$, such that $`\pm hH`$, and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)\mathrm{exp}(ah)\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t)& =\mathrm{exp}(e^{2\pi t}ah)\hfill \\ \hfill R_W\mathrm{exp}(ah)R_W& =\mathrm{exp}(ah)\hfill \end{array}a,t.$$

Let us assume the following:

* Positive inclusion. Any inclusion of wedges is the composition of finitely many positive inclusions.
* Wedge separation. For any space-like separated $`𝒪_1,𝒪_2`$ there exists a wedge $`W`$ such that $`𝒪_1W`$ and $`𝒪_2W^{}`$.

We shall say that a (anti)-unitary representation of $`G_+`$ is positive if, whenever $`hH`$, the self-adjoint generators in the representation space of the one-parameter groups $`U(\mathrm{exp}(ah))`$ are positive.

###### Theorem 5.4.

Assume the triple $`(𝒲,R,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ satisfies assumptions (a), (b), (c), (d), and let $`U`$ be a (anti)-unitary positive representation of $`G_+`$. Then wedge isotony holds, namely $`W_1W_2`$ implies $`𝒦_{W_1}𝒦_{W_2}`$, the net $`B𝒦_B`$, $`B`$, is local and extends the net $`W𝒦_W`$, $`W𝒲`$. Moreover, for any $`B`$ such that $`B^{}`$, Haag duality holds:

$$𝒦_B^{}=𝒦_B^{}.$$

If $`G_+^{}`$ is a simple Lie group with finite center and $`U`$ does not contain the trivial representation, the net is irreducible. If moreover the closure of $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t):t\}`$ in $`G_+^{}`$ is not compact, the local space $`𝒦_W`$ is a factor.

###### Proof.

Wedge isotony follows by property (c), locality of $`B𝒦_B`$ follows by property (d). If $`B_0^{}`$ then $`𝒦_{B_0^{}}=_{BB_0^{}}𝒦_B`$, hence Haag duality follows as in Corollary 3.5. The assumption of non-compactness for the closure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ allows us to use the vanishing of the matrix coefficients Theorem as in Theorem 2.5 to prove the factoriality. ∎

Let us observe that, if the positivity in the previous statement is a non-trivial requirement, namely if there are wedges included one in another, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(ah)`$ give rise to a representation of the $`ax+b`$ group, namely the requirement that the closure of $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W(t):t\}`$ in $`G_+^{}`$ is not compact is automatically satisfied. For the same reason, also the assumption on the finiteness of the center is unnecessary (cf. ).

Let us discuss a toy example satisfying the general scheme presented above, where the last statement of the previous Theorem does not apply. Let $`M=S^2\times `$, where $`S^2`$ is the unit sphere in $`^3`$, with the induced Lorentzian metric, and $`G_+=SO(3)\times _2`$, where $`SO(3)`$ acts on the sphere, $``$ gives time-translations, and the $`_2`$ element implements the orientation preserving space-time reflection (PT transformation). We also set $`𝒲`$ to be the family of diamonds with base a hemisphere (at time $`t`$). Clearly the stabilizer $`G_+^{}(W)`$ is one-dimensional, and, since two hemispheres included one in the other coincide, no positivity is needed. Therefore the parametrization of the groups $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ may be fixed arbitrarily. Also, the action of $`G_+`$ is transitive, hence we may fix a wedge $`W_0`$ as the causal completion of $`\{(t,x,y,z):x^2+y^2+z^2=1,t=0,z>0\}`$ and assign

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_0}(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

$`R_{W_0}(t,x,y,z)=(t,x,y,z)`$. In any faithful irreducible representation of $`G_+^{}`$, the generator of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{W_0}`$ has a one-dimensional kernel, therefore the corresponding space $`𝒦_{W_0}`$ is not a factor. More precisely it is a tensor product of a continuous abelian von Neumann algebra and of a type $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ factor (cf. ). However the net is irreducibile.

In such a generality, it is not possible to prove important properties, such as the standard property, the intersection property, or the factor property, for elements of $``$. We now discuss this structure in specific spacetimes.

### 5.1. Conformal Group

In the following the conformal group on the Minkowski spacetime $`M`$ of dimension $`d1`$ (with $`M=`$ if $`d=1`$) is the group generated by the Poincaré group (“$`ax+b`$” group if $`d=1`$) and the relativistic ray inversion map. The conformal group is isomorphic to $`PSO(d,2)`$. If $`d>2`$, this is the group of local diffeomorphisms (defined out of meager sets) which preserve the metric tensor up to non-vanishing functions; its universal covering acts globally and transitively on the universal covering of the Dirac-Weyl compactification of $`M`$. If $`d=2`$, the Dirac-Weyl compactification is a two-torus, and only the time-covering is considered, namely the conformal group acts on the cylinder spacetime with non compact time curves. In the $`d=1`$ case the identity component of $`PSO(d,2)`$ is isomorphic to $`PSL(2,)`$ and we consider its action on $`S^1`$. For details see .

If $`d2`$ a wedge is any conformal transformed of (the lift of) a wedge in the Minkowski space, in particular Poincaré-wedges, double cones, future cones and past cones give rise to conformal wedges. The maps $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are here the lifts of those defined on Minkowski spacetime. If $`d=1`$ wedges are proper intervals, the reflection associated with the upper semi-circle maps $`zS^1`$ to its complex conjugate $`\overline{z}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the (lift of the) one parameter subgroup of $`PSL(2,)`$ of (Cayley transformed) dilations.

Then, we may consider (anti-)unitary representations of these groups, and check that properties (a), (b) and (c) hold true, the cone $`H`$ being generated by the Lie algebra generators of lightlike translations and their conjugates under the action of the conformal group. In this case wedges form already a base for the topology, so it is enough to consider the net on wedges. Hence assumption (d) is not needed. An analogue of Theorem 5.4 holds true here.

###### Theorem 5.5.

Let the spacetime be the universal covering of the compactified Minkowski space $`S^{d1}\times `$ for $`d2`$ and $`S^1`$ if $`d=1`$. Let $`U`$ be a (anti-)unitary positive representation of $`\stackrel{~}{PSO}(d,2)`$ which does not contain the trivial representation. Then, $`𝒲W𝒦_W`$ is a local conformal net for which Haag duality holds. The standard and the III<sub>1</sub> factor properties are satisfied. Moreover, the family is irreducible.

###### Proof.

Haag duality, conformal covariance and standard property follow by Proposition 5.2 $`(i)`$, wedge-isotony, factor property and irreducibility follow by Theorem 5.4, and locality follows by wedge isotony and wedge-duality. III<sub>1</sub> factor property follows as in Proposition 1.2, . ∎

The one-dimensional conformal case is extensively studied in  and we refer to that paper for further details. We recall that all the nets corresponding to irreducible representations of $`PSL(2,)`$ are subsystems ($`n`$-th derivatives) of the same net on $``$ (the $`U(1)`$ current algebra) which is their common dual net.

### 5.2. de Sitter spacetime

Since the $`d`$-dimensional de Sitter spacetime $`dS^d`$ may be defined as the hyperboloid $`x_0^2+1=_{i=1}^dx_i^2`$ in $`M^{d+1}`$, the wedges can be defined as the intersection of this hyperboloid with the wedges in $`M^{d+1}`$ whose edges contains the origin.

The natural symmetry group of $`dS^d`$ is the Lorentz group $`_+=SO(d,1)`$, and the maps $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are assigned here as in the Minkowski spacetime. Then properties (a), (b), and (d) immediately follow from the corresponding properties for the Minkowski spacetime. Property (c) instead is trivially satisfied, since two wedges $`W_1W_2`$, whose edge contain the origin, coincide.

Intersections of wedges, namely elements of $``$, correspond to spacelike cones in the Minkowski space, therefore the standard property and the intersection property on the $`d`$-dimensional de Sitter spacetime can be studied applying the techniques of the preceding section. But we can also rely on the direct analysis by Bros and Moschella .

Let us recall that the irreducible representations of the group $`SO(d,1)`$, $`d2`$, belong to three classes, usually called principal series representations, complementary series representations, and discrete series representations (cf. e.g. ). The first class corresponds to representations appearing in the direct integral decomposition of the regular representation, the second one to representations not appearing in the direct integral decomposition of the regular representation. Concerning the third class however, the name “discrete series” is not always appropriate, namely it is not always true that they are irreducible direct summands of the regular representation. Indeed, applying a result of Harish-Chandra, it turns out that this fact is possible if and only if $`d`$ is even (see ). The exact determination of the direct-summand representations, namely the recognition of the discrete series as opposed to the “mock discrete series” is well known for the two-covering $`SL(2,)`$ of $`SO(2,1)`$ , implying that there are not mock discrete series representations for $`SO(2,1)`$. This problem has been solved in  for $`d=4`$ and in  for a general $`d=2m`$, $`m2`$.

###### Theorem 5.6.

Let $`\{𝒦(B):B\}`$ be the net of local real vector subspaces associated to a representation $`U`$ of the Lorentz group $`SO(d,1)`$. If $`U`$ is a subrepresentation of the regular representation, then the standard property, the intersection property and the factor property hold. If $`U`$ is a representation in the principal or complementary series of the Lorentz group $`SO(d,1)`$, then the mentioned properties hold.

###### Proof.

The restriction of a representation from the Poincaré group to the Lorentz group gives a map from nets $`𝒦^M`$ on the Minkowski space $`M^d`$ to nets $`𝒦^S`$ on the de Sitter space defined as $`𝒦^S(B)=𝒦^M(𝒞(B))`$, where $`𝒞(B)`$ is the spacelike cone in $`M^d`$ generated by the region $`B`$ in $`S^{d1}`$ and the origin. We may rephrase results in the previous section saying that the standard property, the intersection property and the factor property hold for regions $`B`$ given as intersections of wedges in the regular representation of the Lorentz group.

By Theorem A.1, cf. also Remark A.8, the properties hold for all subrepresentations. Since the regular representation decomposes as direct integral of the principal series representations, the standard and the intersection properties hold for almost all values of the parameter labeling the principal series.

However, we may use the analysis in , where it is shown that a class of free fields may be constructed, corresponding to the principal, resp. complementary series of the representations of $`_+^{}`$. In  the authors prove the Reeh-Schlieder and Bisognano-Wichmann properties for the free fields corresponding to the principal series, and state that these results extend to the complementary series. By the Bisognano-Wichmann property, such free fields necessarily give rise to the nets constructed as above for the corresponding representations. Therefore the standard property follows by the Reeh-Schlieder property and the intersection property is trivially satisfied since the local algebras are generated by local fields. ∎

Thus, concerning the principal and complementary series, the standard and intersection properties are consequence of the Reeh-Schlieder in . Yet the above proof goes beyond that, by showing the same properties to hold in the $`dS^d`$ models associated with the discrete series, $`d`$ even. Discrete series representations have been explicitly excluded in the analysis in , and the result that such representations give rise to (free) nets of local algebras on the de Sitter space-time seems to be not known before our analysis. This will be discussed in detail in .

## Appendix A Restricting the Poincaré group representations to the Lorentz subgroup

We give here an analysis of the representations of the Lorentz and Poincaré groups needed in the paper. We treat explicitly the $`3+1`$-dimensional case, however the analysis extends to any dimension, as explained in Remark A.8.

If $`G`$ is a locally compact group, we shall denote by $`\lambda _G`$ its left regular representation. If $`HG`$ is a closed subgroup and $`\pi `$ is a unitary representation of $`H`$, we shall denote by $`Ind_{HG}(\pi )`$ the representation of $`G`$ induced by $`\pi `$ in the sense of Frobenius, Wigner and Mackey; we shall refer to the books  for the theory of induced representations.

Let us recall that the irreducible representations of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ are induced representations $`Ind_{F𝒫_+^{}}(\eta )`$, where $`F=F(p)`$ is the stabilizer of some point $`p^4`$, $`𝒫_+^{}`$ acting on the subgroup $`^4`$ by conjugation, and $`\eta `$ is an irreducible representation of $`F`$. We often identify $`^4`$ with its dual $`\widehat{}^4`$. When $`p`$ varies in a given $`𝒫_+^{}`$-orbit the corresponding induced representations are equivalent, therefore they are labelled by $`m=p^\mu p_\mu `$. When $`m>0`$ the stabilizer is isomorphic to $`SO(3)^4`$, therefore positive mass $`m`$ representations are completely described by the spin $`s`$. When $`m=0`$ and we choose $`p_0>0`$ (to have positive energy), the stabilizer is isomorphic to the Euclidean group $`E(2)`$. The representations which are trivial on the $`E(2)`$-translations are the so-called finite-helicity representations, and are completely labelled by $``$. The others are called continuous-spin representations.

The other cases, namely $`p=0`$ and $`m<0`$, correspond respectively to null energy (trivial translations) and non positive energy.

In the following we shall say that a property $`P`$ for representations of a group $`G`$ is stable if “$`P`$ is true for $`\pi `$” implies “$`P`$ is true for all representations unitarily equivalent to $`\pi `$” and

(A.1)
$$P\text{is true for}\pi \pi _1\pi _2P\text{is true for}\pi _1\mathrm{and}\pi _2.$$

###### Theorem A.1.

Assume that $`P`$ is a stable property for the representations of $`_+^{}`$. The following are equivalent:

* $`P`$ is true for the restriction to $`_+^{}`$ of the positive mass representations.
* $`P`$ is true for the restriction to $`_+^{}`$ of the continuous spin representations.
* $`P`$ is true for the restriction to $`_+^{}`$ of the massless finite helicity representations.
* $`P`$ is true for $`\lambda __+^{}`$.

The proof of this theorem requires some steps.

###### Lemma A.2.

Let $`\pi =Ind_{F𝒫_+^{}}(\eta )`$ be an irreducible representation of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ as above, $`F=F(p_0)`$. Then

$$\pi |__+^{}=\underset{E_+^{}}{Ind}(\eta |_E),$$

where $`E`$ is the stabilizer, in $`_+^{}`$, of $`p_0`$.

###### Proof.

Let us denote by $`X`$ the orbit of $`p_0`$ under the adjoint action of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ on the subgroup $`^4`$, or equivalently the homogeneous space $`𝒫_+/F(p_0)`$, and let $`\nu `$ be the $`𝒫_+^{}`$-invariant measure on $`X`$. If $`\eta `$ is a representation of $`F`$ acting on the Hilbert space $`_\eta `$ of $`\eta `$, $`\pi `$ can be defined as

$$(\pi (g)\xi )(p)=\eta (\alpha (g,p))\xi (g^1p),$$

where $`g𝒫_+^{}`$, $`pX`$, $`\xi L^2(X,_\eta ,d\nu )`$, and $`\alpha `$ is an $`F`$-valued cocycle of the form $`\alpha (g,p)=s(p)^1gs(g^1p)`$, where $`s`$ is a Borel section, namely a Borel map $`s:X𝒫_+^{}`$ satisfying $`s(p)p_0=p`$.

By definition, $`^4`$ acts trivially on itself, hence $`F=E^4`$ with $`^4`$ acting trivially on $`X`$, therefore we may choose $`s`$ to be a $`_+^{}`$-valued section. As a consequence, $`\alpha :_+^{}\times X`$ is $`E`$-valued, namely the restriction to $`_+^{}`$ of $`\pi `$ is by definition the representation induced by $`\eta |_E`$. ∎

If $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are representations, we shall write $`\rho =\sigma `$ if $`\rho `$ is unitary equivalent to $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho \sigma `$ if $`\rho `$ is quasi equivalent to $`\sigma `$, namely $`\rho \iota =\sigma \iota `$, where $`\iota `$ is the identity representation on $`\mathrm{}^2()`$.

###### Lemma A.3.

Let $`H`$ be a locally compact group isomorphic to the Euclidean group $`E(2)`$. If $`\pi `$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $`H`$ and $`\pi `$ has non-trivial restriction to the subgroup $`^2`$, then $`\pi =\pi _qInd_{^2H}(q)`$ where $`q0`$ is a character $`q\widehat{}^2`$.

We have $`\lambda _H=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\pi _q\text{d}q`$.

###### Proof.

$`E(2)`$ is the semidirect product $`E(2)=^2𝕋`$, where $`𝕋`$ acts on the plane $`^2`$ by rotations. The action of $`E(2)`$ on $`\widehat{}^2`$ by dual conjugation factors through the action of $`𝕋`$ and is smooth. The stabilizer $`H_q`$ of a point $`q\widehat{}^2`$ is $`E(2)`$ (iff $`q=0`$) or $`H_q=^2`$. By Mackey’s theorem every irreducible representation $`\pi `$ of $`H`$ is induced from an irreducible representation $`\rho `$ of $`H_q`$ with $`\rho |_^2=\text{dim}(\rho )q`$.

Thus either $`q=0`$ and $`\pi `$ acts trivially on $`^2`$, or $`q0`$ and $`\pi =\pi _q`$.

The rest is now clear by induction at stages because

$$\lambda _H=\underset{^2H}{Ind}(\lambda _^2)=\underset{^2H}{Ind}(_{\widehat{}^2}^{}q\text{d}q)=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\underset{^2H}{Ind}(q)\text{d}q=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\pi _q\text{d}q.$$

###### Proposition A.4.

Let $`G`$ be a locally compact group and $`HG`$ a closed subgroup isomorphic to the Euclidean group $`E(2)`$. Then

$$\lambda _G=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\underset{HG}{Ind}(\pi _q)\text{d}q.$$

###### Proof.

Immediate by the Lemma A.3 because

$$\lambda _G=\underset{HG}{Ind}(\lambda _H)=\underset{HG}{Ind}(_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\pi _q\text{d}q)=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\underset{HG}{Ind}(\pi _q)\text{d}q.$$

We shall denote by $`\pi _{m,s}`$ the irreducible representation of mass $`m>0`$ and spin $`s`$ of the Poincaré group $`𝒫_+^{}`$ and by $`\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}`$ its restriction to the Lorentz subgroup $`_+^{}`$.

By definition, the continuous spin representations $`\sigma _q`$ of $`𝒫_+^{}`$ are the ones induced by the representations $`\pi _q`$ of $`H=E(2)^4`$ in Lemma A.3, where $`H`$ is the stabilizer in $`𝒫_+^{}`$ of a point $`p`$ with $`p,p=0`$, $`p_0>0`$. We shall denote by $`\sigma _q^_+^{}`$ the restriction of $`\sigma _q`$ to $`_+^{}`$. By Lemma A.2 we have $`\sigma _q^_+^{}=Ind_{^2_+^{}}(q)`$.

###### Lemma A.5.

$`\lambda __+^{}=_{\widehat{}^2}^{}\sigma _q^_+^{}\text{d}q.`$

###### Proof.

Immediate by Lemmas A.2, A.3 and Prop. A.4. ∎

###### Lemma A.6.

For any given $`m>0`$ we have

$$\lambda __+^{}\underset{s}{}\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}.$$

###### Proof.

Denote by $`\rho _s`$ the representation of $`SO(3)`$ of spin $`s`$. By Lemma A.2 $`\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}Ind_{SO(3)_+^{}}(\rho _s)`$, in particular $`\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}`$ is independent of $`m>0`$.

We have

$$\underset{s}{}\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}=\underset{s}{}\underset{SO(3)_+^{}}{Ind}(\rho _s)=\underset{SO(3)_+^{}}{Ind}(\underset{s}{}\rho _s)\underset{SO(3)_+^{}}{Ind}(\lambda _{SO(3)})\lambda __+^{}.$$

The following Lemma is a particular case of the subgroup Theorem of Mackey (cf. e.g. , Chapter II, Theorem 1) when the subgroup $`G_2`$ coincides with the group $`G`$. We give a proof here for the convenience of the reader.

###### Lemma A.7.

Let $`H`$ be a subgroup of $`G`$, $`\eta `$ a representation of $`H`$ and $`g_0`$ an element of $`G`$ normalizing $`H`$. Then

$$\underset{HG}{Ind}(\eta )=\underset{HG}{Ind}(\eta ^{g_0}),$$

where $`\pi ^{g_0}(h)\pi (g_0^1hg_0)`$, $`hH`$.

###### Proof.

Let us denote by $`X`$ the homogeneous space $`G/H`$, and let $`\nu `$ be a $`G`$-quasi-invariant measure on $`X`$, that for simplicity we assume to be invariant. Setting $`\pi =Ind_{HG}(\eta )`$, namely

$$(\pi (g)\xi )(p)=\eta (\alpha (g,p))\xi (g^1p),$$

where $`gG`$, $`pX`$, $`\xi L^2(X,_\eta ,d\nu )`$, and $`\alpha `$ is an $`H`$-valued cocycle $`\alpha (g,p)=s(p)^1gs(g^1p)`$, with $`s:XG`$ a Borel section satisfying $`s(p)p_0=p`$.

Hence $`\pi ^{g_0}`$ is given by

(A.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}(\pi ^{g_0}(g)\xi )(p)=\eta (g_0^1\alpha (g,p)g_0)\xi (g^1p)\hfill \\ \hfill =\eta (g_0^1s(p)^1gs(g^1p)g_0)\xi (g^1p)=\eta (\alpha ^{g_0}(g,p))\xi (g^1p),\end{array}$$

where the cocycle $`\alpha ^{g_0}(g,p)=g_0^1s(p)^1gs(g^1p)g_0=s^{g_0}(p)^1gs^{g_0}(g^1p)`$ is associated with the map $`s^{g_0}(p)=s(p)g_0`$. Clearly $`s^{g_0}:XG`$ is a Borel section for the different quotient map $`ggg_0^1p_0`$. As the stabilizer of $`p_0`$ coincides with the stabilizer of $`g_0^1p_0`$, the statement follows by the uniqueness of the induced representation. ∎

###### Proof.

(of Theorem A.1) $`(i)(iv)`$: By Lemma A.6, property $`P`$ holds for the representations $`\pi _{m,s}^_+^{}`$ iff it holds for the regular representation, by stability.

$`(ii)(iv)`$: If $`p0`$ has zero mass, the stabilizer $`E(p)`$ in $`_+^{}`$ does not change replacing $`p`$ with $`\lambda p`$, $`\lambda >0`$. Therefore all elements in $`_+^{}`$ moving $`p`$ to some of its multiples normalizes the stabilizer of $`p`$. For such a $`g`$,

$$\pi _q(g^1hg)=\pi _{gq}(h),hE(p).$$

Note that every $`p`$-orbit in $`\widehat{}^2`$ (except $`\{0\}`$) can be reached by some $`g`$ with the property $`g:p\lambda p`$. Therefore the $`\sigma _q^_+^{}`$’s are all equivalent, by Lemma A.7. Then, by Lemma A.5, $`\sigma _q^_+^{}`$ is a subrepresentation of the regular representation, hence property $`P`$ holds by stability. The converse is also true by stability.

$`(iii)(iv)`$: The argument is again similar to the above ones. Let $`\chi _n\widehat{𝕋}`$, $`n`$ be the characters of $`𝕋`$. The finite helicity representations are the representations of the Poincaré group induced by the representations $`\alpha _nInd_{𝕋E(2)}(\chi _n)`$ of $`E(2)`$. Their restrictions to $`_+^{}`$ are $`Ind_{E(2)_+^{}}(\alpha _n)`$. Then, by induction at stages,

$$\underset{n}{}\underset{E(2)_+^{}}{Ind}(\alpha _n)=\underset{n}{}\underset{𝕋_+^{}}{Ind}(\chi _n)=\underset{𝕋_+^{}}{Ind}(\underset{n}{}\chi _n)=\underset{𝕋_+^{}}{Ind}(\lambda _𝕋)=\lambda __+^{},$$

and the statement follows by stability. ∎

###### Remark A.8.

Although the proof of Theorem A.1 has been written for the 4-dimensional case, it extends to the case of the Poincaré group $`𝒫_+^{}(d)`$ acting on the $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski space, $`d2`$. Indeed the continuous spin representations are present only when $`d4`$, therefore the property $`(ii)`$ is void for dimension $`3`$. When $`d4`$, the stabilizer of a light-like point is the Euclidean group $`E(d2)`$, whose irreducible representations are parametrized by vectors in $`^{d2}`$ (and vectors with the same length give equivalent representations). This can be found e.g. in , or proved by induction where the first is given by Lemma A.3 and the induction step follows by the Mackey Theorem (, Thm 7.3.1). Therefore all the above analysis applies.