format: text

text:
# Simple diamagnetic monotonicities for Schrödinger operators with inhomogeneous magnetic fields of constant direction

## 1 Introduction

In non-relativistic classical and quantum statistical mechanics of thermal equilibrium the ground-state energy and, more generally, the free energy of the considered particle system do not decrease when its external potential and/or interaction potential is increased. This monotonicity property continues to hold in the presence of a fixed external, possibly inhomogeneous magnetic field, a fact which is trivial in the classical situation, because here the magnetic field can be eliminated in accordance with the Bohr/van Leeuwen theorem  on the non-existence of diamagnetism in classical physics. In the non-trivial quantum case a monotonicity with respect to the magnetic field analogous to that in the potentials does not hold in such generality. Only few results are available. The most general one is due to the so-called diamagnetic inequality which implies that the free energy of a system of spinless distinguishable particles or of spinless bosons within an arbitrary magnetic field is not smaller than without . More generally, for such a system the absolute value of its canonical-equilibrium density matrix, that is, of the position representation of the underlying “Boltzmann operator” (in other words: heat kernel) does not decrease when the magnetic field is switched off. As observed by E. Nelson, this is most easily obtained by applying the triangle inequality to the Feynman-Kac(-Itô) path-integral representation of the density matrix . A drawback of the diamagnetic inequality is that it only enables one to compare the two extreme situations with or without magnetic field. It does not supply control when a magnetic field is changed (pointwise) from a given non-zero value to another non-zero one. *Diamagnetic monotonicities* in this more general sense are in fact much harder to obtain and even wrong in general, already for one-particle systems. This has been nicely discussed by L. Erdős  in terms of illuminating examples and counterexamples for one-particle Schrödinger and Pauli operators. In deriving some of his results, Erdős was inspired by an interesting diamagnetic-monotonicity result of Loss and Thaller  for the density matrix of a spinless electrically charged particle subject exclusively to an inhomogeneous magnetic field of constant direction or, what amounts to the same, of a particle confined to a plane perpendicular to that field. (For a more precise statement, see (14) below.)

The present note is inspired by both works . Given the Schrödinger operator for a spinless charged particle in the Euclidean plane subject to a perpendicular and continuously differentiable but otherwise arbitrary magnetic field and to an additional (scalar) potential, we are going to present two results which to a certain extent complement results in  and provide partial positive answers to the open problem \[6, II.12\]. We first point out a simple sufficient but, in general, somewhat implicit condition for the ground-state energy not to decrease when the magnetic field and/or the potential is increased pointwise. Secondly, a rather direct genuine path-integral argument yields a diamagnetic monotonicity for density matrices under the simplifying condition that both the magnetic field and the potential are constant along (at least) one direction in the plane. As a by-product, the estimate of Loss and Thaller  is sharpened for these special fields. The validity of both results and the simplicity of their proofs heavily rely on the fact that under the mentioned conditions the term in the Schrödinger operator which is linear in the canonical momentum can easily be brought under control.

In the remainder of the Introduction we set the stage and fix our basic notation. We consider a spinless charged particle in the Euclidean plane $`^2`$ and choose physical units where the mass and the charge of the particle as well as Planck’s constant (divided by $`2\pi `$) are all equal to one. The corresponding quantum system is characterized by a *Schrödinger operator*, or standard Hamiltonian, informally given by the expression

$$H(b,v):=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{P}\mathbf{}\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}^2\mathbf{+}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}_1\mathbf{,}\mathrm{Q}_2\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathrm{P}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{P}_1\mathbf{,}\mathrm{P}_2\mathbf{)}`$ denote the usual two-component vector operators of position and canonical momentum, respectively. Since we are interested in gauge-independent quantities only, we take the liberty to slightly abuse the notation in that the operator (1) actually depends on the vector potential $`\mathrm{a}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{a}_1\mathbf{,}\mathrm{a}_2\mathbf{)}`$ (and the scalar potential $`v`$) and not just on the magnetic field $`b:^2`$ related to $`\mathrm{a}`$ by $`b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{a}_2\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{a}_1\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}_2`$, where $`(x_1,x_2)`$ is the pair of Cartesian co-ordinates of the point $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$. We write $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{:=}\mathrm{x}_1\mathrm{y}_1\mathbf{+}\mathrm{x}_2\mathrm{y}_2`$ for the Euclidean scalar product of $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ and also $`\mathrm{x}^2\mathbf{:=}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}`$ and $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{:=}\sqrt{\mathrm{x}^2}`$. To avoid technical complications, we will assume throughout that $`\mathrm{a}\mathbf{:}^2\mathbf{}^2`$ is continuously differentiable and $`v:^2`$ is continuous and bounded from below. This in particular implies that $`H(b,v)`$ can be defined straightforwardly and uniquely as a self-adjoint bounded below operator acting on a dense domain in the separable Hilbert space $`\mathrm{L}^2(^2)`$ of all (equivalence classes of) Lebesgue square-integrable complex-valued functions on the plane with the usual scalar product $`\phi ,\psi :=_^2d^2x\phi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}𝝍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$, for $`\phi `$, $`\psi \mathrm{L}^2(^2)`$.

The simplest quantity we are going to look at is the *ground-state energy* of $`H(b,v)`$, that is, the bottom of its spectrum, in symbols

$$e_0(b,v):=\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}H(b,v)=\underset{\psi ,\psi =1}{inf}\psi ,H(b,v)\psi .$$
(2)
Here the second infimum is taken over all normalized wave-functions $`\psi `$ in the domain of $`H(b,v)`$. The other quantity we will deal with is the canonical-equilibrium *density matrix* of $`H(b,v)`$, that is, $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}`$. It is defined as the in $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ jointly continuous Hermitian integral kernel of the self-adjoint, non-negative and bounded “Boltzmann operator” $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta H(b,v)]`$ corresponding to inverse temperature $`\beta >0`$. In particular, the image $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta H(b,v)]\psi \mathrm{L}^2(^2)`$ of an arbitrary $`\psi \mathrm{L}^2(^2)`$ has a continuous representative given by the function $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_^2\mathrm{d}^2\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}𝝍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}`$ and the density-matrix diagonal $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}`$ is a well-defined, non-negative and continuous function of $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$. For the precise definition of $`H(b,v)`$ and the existence of a continuous integral kernel of the corresponding “Boltzmann operator” (under much weaker assumptions on $`b`$ and $`v`$), see .

## 2 Monotonicity of ground-state energies

The following two facts, which we recall from , show that diamagnetic monotonicity fails in general already for ground-state energies.

Fact 1 (\[6, II.10\]): There exists a centrally symmetric potential $`\widehat{v}`$ with the function $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}`$ being decreasing in some neighbourhood of some $`\varrho >0`$. Moreover, there exist two constant magnetic fields $`b`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ such that $`0<b<\widehat{b}`$ but $`e_0(b,\widehat{v})>e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$.

Fact 2 (\[6, II.11\]): There exist two inhomogeneous centrally symmetric magnetic fields $`b`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ such that $`0b(|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ but $`e_0(b,0)>e_0(\widehat{b},0)`$.

In both situations the ground-state wave-function $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$, in the *Poincaré gauge*

$$\widehat{}a(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}_2\mathbf{,}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_0^1d𝝃𝝃\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{\left(}𝝃\mathrm{x}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
is an eigenfunction of the canonical angular-momentum operator $`L_3:=Q_1P_2Q_2P_1`$ with a non-zero eigenvalue. Hence $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ is not real-valued. This motivates the additional assumption in

###### Theorem 1.

Let the Schrödinger operator $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ in the Poincaré gauge (3) possess a real-valued ground-state wave-function, that is, $`e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})=\widehat{\psi }_0,H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})\widehat{\psi }_0`$ for some real-valued $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ in the domain of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ with $`\widehat{\psi }_0,\widehat{\psi }_0=1`$. Then the pointwise inequalities $`|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`v(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ imply the inequality

$$e_0(b,v)e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})$$
(4)
for the corresponding ground-state energies.

Before giving a simple proof of the theorem at the end of the section, four remarks are in order:

* An unpleasant feature of Theorem 1 is that the additional assumption uses the special gauge (3) and therefore is not gauge independent. However, this gauge is often convenient, in particular, if $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ are centrally symmetric, see below. For other gauges the existence of a real-valued ground-state wave-function $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ is in general not sufficient to imply the monotonicity (4). Conversely, even in the gauge (3) real-valuedness of a $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ is not necessary for (4) to hold as the diamagnetic inequality $`e_0(0,\widehat{v})e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ illustrates . (See also the Introduction and the first remark following Theorem 2 below.)
* If $`e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ does not belong to the point spectrum of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$, equivalently, if there is no square-integrable ground-state wave-function $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$, assertion (4) remains true, provided there is a generalized real-valued ground-state, that is, a sequence $`\{\widehat{\psi }_{0,n}\}_n`$ of real-valued functions in the domain of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ such that $`\widehat{\psi }_{0,n},\widehat{\psi }_{0,n}=1`$ for all $`n`$ and $`e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})=inf_n\widehat{\psi }_{0,n},H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})\widehat{\psi }_{0,n}`$.
* If $`\widehat{b}`$ is constant, one may use Lieb’s inequality \[1, App.\]

$$e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})\frac{1}{2}|\widehat{b}|+e_0(0,\widehat{v})$$
(5)
to further estimates the r.h.s. of (4).
* The subsequent proof shows that analogous statements hold in more than two dimensions and also for spinless (interacting) many-particle systems obeying either Boltzmann or Bose statistics.

If both $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ are centrally symmetric (or axially symmetric, when taking into account the third dimension along the magnetic-field direction), a ground-state wave-function $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$, in the gauge (3), is real-valued if and only if it is centrally symmetric or, equivalently, an eigenfunction of $`L_3`$ with eigenvalue zero, $`L_3\widehat{\psi }_0=0`$. For vanishing magnetic field it is a standard textbook wisdom  that the ground state in a centrally symmetric potential is always given by a zero angular-momentum eigenfunction. For non-vanishing magnetic fields this is wrong in general, cf. . However, in case the magnetic field $`\widehat{b}>0`$ is constant, the potential $`\widehat{v}`$ is centrally symmetric and the function $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}`$ is non-decreasing, then there exists, cf. \[2, Thm. 4.6\], at least one $`\widehat{\psi }_00`$ with $`L_3\widehat{\psi }_0=0`$ in the (in general multi-dimensional) ground-state eigenspace of $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ and the additional assumption of Theorem 1 is fulfilled. This applies for instance to the (centrally symmetric) harmonic-oscillator potential

$$v_{\mathrm{osc}}(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}\frac{𝝎^2}{2}\mathrm{x}^2\mathbf{,}𝝎\mathbf{}0\mathbf{,}$$
(6)
and the attractive Coulomb-type potential,

$$v_{\mathrm{cou}}(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{g}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{x}^2\mathbf{+}𝝀^2}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{g}\mathbf{,}𝝀\mathbf{>}0\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
Accordingly, Theorem 1 implies the following upper bounds on the ground-state energy of a spinless charged particle in the plane $`^2`$ subject to one of these potentials and to a perpendicular, possibly inhomogeneous magnetic field $`b`$ the strength of which not exceeding a certain value, that is, $`|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ with some constant $`\widehat{b}>0`$,

$`e_0(b,v_{\mathrm{osc}})e_0(\widehat{b},v_{\mathrm{osc}})=\sqrt{\left(\widehat{b}/2\right)^2+\omega ^2},`$ (8)
$`e_0(b,v_{\mathrm{cou}})e_0(\widehat{b},v_{\mathrm{cou}}).`$ (9)
The equality in (8) follows from the explicitly known  spectral properties of $`H(\widehat{b},v_{\mathrm{osc}})`$ with a constant $`\widehat{b}`$, see also (13) below.

Taking $`\omega =0`$ and $`\widehat{b}=sup_{\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2}|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ in (8) yields the upper bound in the following sandwiching estimate on the ground-state energy of a spinless charged particle in a globally bounded and continuously differentiable but otherwise arbitrary magnetic field $`b:^2`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2}{inf}\left|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{e}_0\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2}{𝐬𝐮𝐩}\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{.}$$
(10)
The lower bound in (10) is a well-known consequence of the continuity of $`b`$ together with the non-negativity of $`H(b,0)`$ and that of its associated Pauli operator , in symbols, $`H(b,0)0`$ and $`H(b,\pm b/2)0`$.

We close this section with a simple

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

The vector potentials $`\mathrm{a}`$ and $`\widehat{}a`$ defined by (3) satisfy the pointwise inequality

$$|\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}_0^1d𝝃𝝃\mathbf{|}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{(}𝝃\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}_0^1d𝝃𝝃\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{(}𝝃\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}\widehat{}\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}$$
(11)
by the triangle inequality and the assumption $`|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$. The non-commutative binomial formula gives

$`\psi ,H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})\psi =`$ $`\psi ,H(b,v)\psi +\mathrm{Re}\psi ,(\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\widehat{}\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{P}𝝍\mathbf{}`$ (12)
$`+\frac{1}{2}\psi ,(\widehat{}a(\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}^2\mathbf{}\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}^2\mathbf{)}𝝍\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝍\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}𝝍\mathbf{}`$
for any $`\psi `$ in the domain of $`H(0,0)`$, hence in those of $`H(b,v)`$ and $`H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ by the Kato-Rellich theorem . The real part of $`\psi ,(\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\widehat{}\mathrm{a}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{Q}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{P}𝝍\mathbf{}`$ on the r.h.s. vanishes if $`\psi `$ is real-valued, because $`\mathrm{P}`$ acts as the gradient divided by the imaginary unit $`i=\sqrt{1}`$. Employing (11) and the assumption on the potentials the last two terms on the r.h.s. of (12) are both seen to be non-negative. Altogether this yields $`e_0(b,v)\widehat{\psi }_0,H(b,v)\widehat{\psi }_0\widehat{\psi }_0,H(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})\widehat{\psi }_0=e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ where the first inequality is a consequence of the Rayleigh-Ritz variational principle. ∎

## 3 Monotonicity of density matrices

Diamagnetic monotonicity of density matrices (or only of their diagonals) implies monotonicity of the corresponding ground-state energies in the zero-temperature limit. Therefore, Facts 1 and 2 show that the former monotonicity can also neither hold in the presence of general potentials for two homogeneous magnetic fields nor in case of vanishing potential for two general magnetic fields. Accordingly, one can hope to find a diamagnetic monotonicity of density matrices only under additional assumptions on the magnetic fields and/or the potentials.

### 3.1 Globally constant magnetic fields and harmonic-oscillator potential

In case of a homogeneous, that is, globally constant magnetic field $`b`$ and the harmonic-oscillator potential (6), the density matrix is exactly known and, in the gauge (3), explicitly given  in terms of the ground-state energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b:=\sqrt{(b/2)^2+\omega ^2}`$, cf. (8), and hyperbolic functions by the Mehler-type of formula

$`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐜}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{2\pi \mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_b\right)}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{2\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_b\right)}}\left[\mathrm{x}^2\mathbf{+}\mathrm{y}^2\mathbf{}2\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathrm{b}\mathbf{/}2\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{\left(}𝜷\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}\mathbf{\right)}}}\right]\right\}`$ (13)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{\Omega }_b{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta b/2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_b)}}\left(x_2y_1x_1y_2\right)\right\}.`$
By discriminating the cases $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}0`$ and $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{<}0`$, an elementary (but somewhat tedious) calculation shows that the function $`|b||\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐜}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}`$ is non-increasing for all $`\omega 0`$, all $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ and all $`\beta >0`$. This monotonicity extends (8) in case of a globally constant $`b`$ and, in view of Fact 1, is a particularity of the harmonic oscillator.

As for the monotonicity in the potential, we remark the following. The function $`\omega \mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐜}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}`$ is obviously non-increasing for all $`b`$, all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ and all $`\beta >0`$. This property of the harmonic-oscillator density-matrix diagonal is a stronger one than the universally valid (reverse) monotonicity of the free energy $`\beta ^1\mathrm{ln}_^2d^2x\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}`$ when $`v`$ is pointwise increased, cf. the Introduction. However, the harmonic oscillator already illustrates that, in contrast to the situation with $`b=0`$, monotonicity of the density-matrix off-diagonal in the potential in general ceases to hold for $`b0`$. More precisely, by elementary calculations one finds

Fact 3: There exist two constants $`b`$, $`\beta >0`$ and a non-zero $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$, such that the function $`\omega |\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐜}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}`$ is increasing in some neighbourhood of some $`\omega _0>0`$.

### 3.2 Non-constant magnetic fields and vanishing potential

Loss and Thaller  studied the density matrix associated with an inhomogeneous magnetic field $`\widehat{b}`$ which is globally bounded from below by a non-negative constant one. In particular, they have shown \[15, Thm. 1.3\] that the inequality

$$\left|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{b}}{4𝝅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathrm{b}\mathbf{/}2\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}^2}{2𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(14)
holds for all $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ and all $`\beta >0`$ as long as $`b\widehat{b}(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ with some constant $`b0`$. The Gaussian in (14) coincides with that of the free density matrix $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}0\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}`$ and the pre-factor with the diagonal $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}`$, which is actually independent of $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$, see (13) with $`\omega =0`$.

Erdős  has shown that (14) provides basically the best upper bound on the density-matrix off-diagonal one can hope for, unless $`\widehat{b}:^2`$ has further properties. More precisely, he proved that (14) cannot be improved universally by replacing its r.h.s. by $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}`$, which has more rapid Gaussian decay as $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$, cf. (13).

Fact 4 (\[6, II.16\]): Define $`\widehat{b}(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{(}1\mathbf{+}\mathrm{x}_1^2\mathbf{/}𝝀^2\mathbf{)}\mathrm{b}`$ with two constants $`b`$, $`\lambda >0`$. Then $`b\widehat{b}(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$, but $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}`$ for some $`\lambda >0`$, some $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ and some $`\beta >0`$.

Nevertheless, in the next subsection it will turn out that (14) can be improved at the cost of allowing only a restricted class of inhomogeneous magnetic fields (including the one of Fact 4).

### 3.3 Magnetic fields and potentials which are constant along one direction

In this subsection we will restrict ourselves to the special class of magnetic fields $`b`$ which do not depend on the second co-ordinate $`x_2`$. This class covers the case of globally constant fields, for which the spectrum of the Schrödinger operator $`H(b,0)`$ is well known  to consist only of isolated harmonic-oscillator like eigenvalues $`(n1/2)|b|`$, $`n`$, of infinite degeneracy, the so-called Landau levels. However, in case such a field is not globally constant, $`H(b,0)`$ is conjectured  to possess only (absolutely) continuous spectrum. The first rigorous proof of this conjecture was given by Iwatsuka  under certain additional assumptions, see also . In acknowledgement of this achievement, for such fields $`H(b,0)`$ often goes under the name *Iwatsuka model*.

In what follows, it is most convenient to choose the asymmetric gauge defined by

$$a_1(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}0\mathbf{,}\mathrm{a}_2\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{}_0^{\mathrm{x}_1}d\mathrm{x}_1^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(15)
Then the resulting Schrödinger operator

$$H(b,v)=\frac{1}{2}P_1^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(P_2a_2(Q_1)\right)^2+v(Q_1),$$
(16)
is translation invariant along the $`x_2`$-direction, provided the potential $`v`$ does not depend on $`x_2`$, too. The operator (16) can therefore be decomposed by partial Fourier transformation into the one-parameter family $`H_1(k):=P_1^2/2+(ka_2(Q_1))^2/2+v(Q_1)`$, $`k`$, of Schrödinger operators for the $`x_1`$-direction. As a consequence, one obtains for the density matrix of (16)

$`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}x_1|\mathrm{}^{\beta H_1(k)}|y_1\mathrm{}^{i(x_2y_2)k}`$ (17)
$`=(2\pi \beta )^1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}^2}{2\beta }}\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }_{x_1,y_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\beta }\left(dw\right)\mathrm{exp}[i(x_2y_2)\mu _\beta (a_2w){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\sigma _\beta ^2(a_2w)\beta \mu _\beta (vw)].`$
For the derivation of the second equality we used the Feynman-Kac formula  for the density matrix of $`H_1(k)`$ in (17), which involves path integration with respect to the probability measure $`_{x_1,y_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\beta }`$ of the one-dimensional Brownian bridge going from $`x_1`$ at time $`0`$ to $`y_1`$ at time $`\beta `$. The latter is the unique normalized Gaussian measure on the set of continuous paths $`w:[0,\beta ]`$, $`\tau w(\tau )`$ with mean function $`\tau x_1+(y_1x_1)\tau /\beta `$ and covariance function $`(\tau ,\tau ^{})\mathrm{min}\{\tau ,\tau ^{}\}\tau \tau ^{}/\beta `$. In (3.3) we are making use of the notations

$`\mu _\beta (fw)`$ $`:=\beta ^1{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau f\left(w(\tau )\right),`$ (19)
$`\sigma _\beta ^2(fw)`$ $`:=\mu _\beta \left((fw)^2\right)\left(\mu _\beta (fw)\right)^20`$ (20)
for the mean and variance of the composition $`fw`$ of a continuous function $`f:`$ and a path $`w`$ with respect to the uniform time average $`\beta ^1_0^\beta 𝑑\tau ()`$. To obtain (3.3) we also interchanged the (Lebesgue) integration with respect to $`k`$ and the Browian-bridge integration by referring to the Fubini-Tonelli theorem. Thanks to translation invariance along the $`x_2`$-direction the density matrix of (16) depends on $`x_2`$ and $`y_2`$ only through their difference $`x_2y_2`$. Moreover, a nice feature of the path-integral representation (3.3) is that its integrand contains the magnetic field but is nevertheless non-negative if $`x_2=y_2`$. This enables one to estimate the density matrix of (16) by using standard inequalities of general integration theory (cf. ) without loosing the dependence on the magnetic field. For example, the triangle inequality applied to (3.3) gives the (gauge-independent) estimate

$$\left|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}_1\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_2\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}_2\mathbf{)}^2}{2𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(21)
where, in the chosen gauge (15), it would not be necessary to take the absolute value of the r.h.s.. The following theorem provides a generalization of (21). For an interesting application of (3.3) in case $`a_2`$ is a Gaussian random field and $`v=0`$, see .

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`b`$, $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`v`$, $`\widehat{v}`$ be two magnetic fields and two potentials, all four of them not depending on the second co-ordinate $`x_2`$. Then the pointwise inequalities $`|b(x_1)|\widehat{b}(x_1)`$ and $`v(x_1)\widehat{v}(x_1)`$ for all $`x_1`$ imply the inequality

$$\left|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}_1\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_2\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}_2\mathbf{)}^2}{2𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(22)
for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{,}\mathrm{x}_2\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2`$, all $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}_1\mathbf{,}\mathrm{y}_2\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2`$ and all $`\beta >0`$.

Three special cases of (22) are worth to be mentioned separately:

* Theorem 2 and translation invariance along the $`x_2`$-direction imply monotonicity of the density-matrix diagonal in the magnetic field and the potential in the sense that $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}\widehat{\mathrm{v}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{v}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$. In particular, in the zero-temperature limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the monotonicity $`e_0(b,v)e_0(\widehat{b},\widehat{v})`$ of the corresponding ground-state energies emerges. In general, this monotonicity is not covered by Theorem 1 as the case $`b=0`$ already illustrates.
* If $`b0`$ is globally constant and $`v=\widehat{v}=0`$, (22) together with (13) yields the following improvement of (14) for the present situation, in which $`\widehat{b}`$ does not depend on $`x_2`$,

$$\left|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{b}}{4𝝅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathrm{b}\mathbf{/}2\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{b}}{4}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_1\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}_1\mathbf{)}^2}{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathrm{b}\mathbf{/}2\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_2\mathbf{}\mathrm{y}_2\mathbf{)}^2}{2𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(23)
The Gaussian decay on the r.h.s. of (14) as $`|x_1y_1|\mathrm{}`$ may thus be replaced by that of $`|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}`$. However, as illustrated by Fact 4, this is not allowed for the Gaussian decay along the perpendicular direction in the plane. In this sense (23) is optimal for the present situation. For given non-negative $`\widehat{b}:[0,\mathrm{}[`$, the r.h.s. of (23) is minimized by taking $`b=inf_{x_1}\widehat{b}(x_1)`$.
* If $`\widehat{b}>0`$ is globally constant and $`v=\widehat{v}=0`$, (22) together with (13) yields the following lower estimate on certain density-matrix off-diagonals:

$$\frac{\widehat{b}}{4\pi \mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta \widehat{b}/2\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\widehat{b}}{\stackrel{}{4}}\frac{(x_1y_1)^2}{\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \widehat{b}/2\right)}\right]\left|(x_1,0)\left|\mathrm{}^{\beta H(b,0)}\right|(y_1,0)\right|.$$
(24)
For given $`b:`$, the l.h.s. of (24) is maximized by taking $`\widehat{b}=sup_{x_1}|b(x_1)|`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

Without loosing generality, we may choose the gauge (15) for $`b`$ and analogously for $`\widehat{b}`$. Then we observe the pathwise non-negativity

$`\sigma _\beta ^2(\widehat{a}_2w)\sigma _\beta ^2(a_2w)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau ^{}\left\{\left[\widehat{a}_2(w(\tau ))\widehat{a}_2(w(\tau ^{}))\right]^2\left[a_2(w(\tau ))a_2(w(\tau ^{}))\right]^2\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau ^{}\left[a_+\left(w(\tau )\right)a_+\left(w(\tau ^{})\right)\right]\left[a_{}\left(w(\tau )\right)a_{}\left(w(\tau ^{})\right)\right]0.`$ (25)
Here the non-negativity of the last integrand follows from the fact that the two functions $`x_1a_\pm (x_1):=\widehat{a}_2(x_1)\pm a_2(x_1)=_0^{x_1}𝑑x_1^{}\left[\widehat{b}(x_1^{})\pm b(x_1^{})\right]`$, cf. (15), are both non-decreasing since $`\widehat{b}(x_1^{})|b(x_1^{})|b(x_1^{})`$ for all $`x_1^{}`$ by assumption. Besides (25) we have $`\mu _\beta (vw)\mu _\beta (\widehat{v}w)`$, also by assumption. Employing both inequalities in (3.3) with $`x_2=y_2`$, the proof is completed with the help of (21) (with $`b`$ replaced by $`\widehat{b}`$). ∎

## 4 Concluding remark

We conclude by specifying part of the open problem \[6, II.12\] which deals with the complementary situation of (14).

Open problem: Let $`b:^2`$ be continuously differentiable and satisfy $`|b(\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}`$ for all $`\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}^2`$ with some constant $`\widehat{b}>0`$. Prove or disprove the assertion

$$\left|\mathrm{x}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\widehat{\mathrm{b}}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}𝜷\mathrm{H}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{b}\mathbf{,}0\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}$$
(26)
for all $`\mathrm{x}`$, $`\mathrm{y}\mathbf{}^2`$ and all $`\beta >0`$.

The present note contains partial support for the validity of this assertion. Namely, (26) is true at least in each of the following three limiting cases:

* to logarithmic accuracy in the zero-temperature limit, by the second inequality in (10).
* if $`b`$ is constant along the $`x_2`$-direction and $`x_2=y_2`$, by (24).
* if $`b`$ is globally constant, by (13) with $`\omega =0`$.

The third case is well known.

This work was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant no. Le 330/12. The latter is a project within the Schwerpunktprogramm “Interagierende stochastische Systeme von hoher Komplexität” (DFG Priority Programme SPP 1033).

## References


text:
# References

Parity Violation and a Preferred Frame

Tsao Chang

Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research

University of Alabama in Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 35899

Email: changt@cspar.uah.edu

Based on parity violation in the weak interaction and evidences from neutrino oscillation, a natural choice is that neutrinos may be spacelike particles with a tiny mass. To keep causality for spacelike particles, a kinematic time under a non-standard form of the Lorentz transformation is introduced, which is related to a preferred frame. A Dirac-type equation for spacelike neutrinos is further investigated and its solutions are discussed. This equation can be written in two spinor equations coupled together via nonzero mass while respecting maximum parity violation. As a consequence, parity violation implies that the principle of relativity is violated in the weak interaction.

PACS number: 03.65.-w; 14.60.St; 03.30.+p;

I. INTRODUCTION

Parity violation is a specific feature of the weak interaction. It was first argued by T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang in 1956  and experimentally established by C.S. Wu in beta-transition of polarized Cobalt nuclei. In the standard model, neutrinos are naturally massless. Three flavors of neutrinos are purely left-handed, but anti-neutrinos are right-handed. In recent years, many convincing evidences for neutrino oscillation come from the solar and atmospheric neutrino data have shown that neutrinos have tiny mass (about 1 eV) or mass difference \[3-5\].

If neutrino has a tiny rest mass, it would move slower than light. When taking a Lorentz boost with a speed faster than the neutrino, the helicity of the neutrino would change its sign in the new reference frame. In another word, parity would not be violated in the weak interactions. In order to solve this dilemma, The hypothesis that neutrinos may be spacelike particles is further investigated in this paper. To keep causality for spacelike particles, a kinematic time under a non-standard form of the Lorentz transformation is introduced, which is related to a preferred frame.

Besides neutrino oscillations, the cosmic ray spectrum at $`E14`$ PeV  has suggested that the electron neutrino is a tachyon. Using a model to fit data, it yields a value for $`m^2(\nu _e)3eV^2`$, which is consistent with the results from recent measurements in tritium beta decay experiments \[7-9\]. Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass squared .

The negative value of the neutrino mass-square simply means:

$$E^2/c^2p^2=m_\nu ^2c^2<0$$
$`(1)`$
The right-hand side in Eq.(1) can be rewritten as ($`m_s^2c^2`$), then $`m_s`$ has a positive value. The subscript $`s`$ means spacelike particle, i.e. tachyon. The negative value on the right hand side of Eq.(1) means that $`p^2`$ is greater than $`(E/c)^2`$. Based on special relativity and known as re-interpretation rule, tachyon as a hypothetical particle was proposed by Bilaniuk et al. in the 1960s \[11-12\]. Some reviews can be found in Ref..

It is usually to introduce an imaginary mass to consider neutrinos as tachyons, but these efforts could not reach the point of constructing a consistent quantum theory. Some early investigations of Dirac-type equations for tachyons are listed in Ref.. An alternative approach was investigated by Chodos et al. . A form of the lagrangian density for tachyonic neutrinos was proposed. Although they did not obtain a satisfactory quantum theory for tachyonic fermions, they suggested that more theoretical work would be needed to determine a physically acceptable theory.

II. GGT AND A PREFERRED FRAME

To keep causality for spacelike particles, a non-standard form of the Lorentz transformation has been studied, which is called the generalized Galilean transformation (GGT). The reason is as follows.

Within the context of the variation principle, It is well known that there is the freedom to choose different types of physical time . In general, the invariant four-line element can be written in arbitrary coordinates

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
$`(2)`$
where index $`\mu `$ (or $`\nu `$) = 0,1,2,3. The 0th coordinate is the time coordinate, which is related to the measured time but may be not identical to it. The action integral for a free particle has a form:

$$S=(mc)𝑑s=L(x^\mu ,\dot{x}^\mu )𝑑\lambda $$
$`(3)`$
where $`\dot{x}^\mu =dx^\mu /d\lambda `$ and $`\lambda `$ is called the evolution parameter, which also plays roll of time. $`L(x^\mu ,\dot{x}^\mu )`$ is the Lagrangian in four-dimensional space,

$$L(x^\mu ,\dot{x}^\mu )=(mc)ds/d\lambda =mc(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu )^{1/2}$$
$`(4)`$
When using the Eular-Lagrange equation in terms of the variation principle, we can obtain the geodesic equation. Notice that the above Lagrangian is valid for any choice of the evolution parameter $`\lambda `$ in one reference frame. This method can be applied to the space-time theories in flat space though it is frequently used in general relativity for curved space. Furthermore, when we consider a specific evolution parameter as the physical time in all of the inertial frames, certain consistent rules must be imposed. Under this constraint, the definitions of physical time have only a few limited choices.

Besides the definition of relativistic time, another natural time, $`\lambda =\stackrel{~}{t}`$, defined by the generalized Galilean transformation (GGT) has been studied \[18-21\]. Let us start with a simplified 2-D line element, $`ds^2=c^2dT^2dX^2`$, in a preferred inertial frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X,T)`$. Considering another inertial frame, $`S(x,t)`$, which moves with a constant velocity $`v<c`$ along the $`x`$ axis respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the 2-D form of GGT can be expressed as follows:

$$x=\gamma (XvT)$$

$$\stackrel{~}{t}=\gamma ^1T$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\gamma =(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$ is the factor of time dilation or length contraction. It is easily seen from Eq.(5) that the synchronization of distant events is absolute, independent of the choice of the reference frame. It has been shown that GGT is a non-standard form of the Lorentz transformation (LT)\[18-21\]. GGT and LT are equivalent if we describe particles with velocity less than (or equal to) light. On the other hand, when describing spacelike particles, GGT has its advantages since the GGT time, $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, always goes forward.

In terms of GGT, 4-D line element in Eq.(2) can be written as:

$$ds^2=(cd\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐯/c)d𝐫)^2(d𝐫)d(𝐫)=(cdt)^2(d𝐫)d(𝐫)$$
$`(6)`$
It gives the relationship between GGT time $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and the SR time $`t`$. Therefore, GGT time is a supplement to SR time. For timelike particles, the 4-D momentum can be defined as

$$P^\mu =m_ocdx^\mu /ds$$
$`(7)`$
where the contravariant 4-D momentum $`P^\mu =(𝐩,(ds/cd\stackrel{~}{t})^1m_oc)`$. Using tensor calculus, the covariant 4-D momentum can be obtained as $`P_\mu =g_{\mu \nu }P^\nu `$. It can be easily proven that the relation of energy and momentum under GGT is the same as in SR \[18-21\]. For spacelike particles, since $`ds^2<0`$, we need to introduce an invariant, $`d\tau =\sqrt{(ds^2)}/c`$, the contravariant 4-D momentum can be defined as

$$P^\mu =m_sdx^\mu /d\tau =m_s\mathrm{\Gamma }dx^\mu /d\stackrel{~}{t}=(m_s\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{𝐮}_𝐬,m_s\mathrm{\Gamma }c)$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(d\tau /d\stackrel{~}{t})^1`$. In terms of Eq.(8), the relation of energy and momentum under GGT for spacelike particles is also the same as Eq.(1) \[18-21\]. As a natural choice, we assume that a tachyon has only positive energy in the preferred frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. However, the lowest limitation of momentum and energy for tachyons are different in a non-preferred frame. It can be derived from Eq.(8) when velocity $`\stackrel{~}{u}\mathrm{}`$:

$$p_{\mathrm{}}=m_sc[1(𝐧𝐯/c)^2]^{1/2}𝐧$$

$$E_{\mathrm{}}=m_sc^2(𝐮𝐯/c^2)[1(𝐧𝐯/c)^2]^{1/2}$$
$`(9)`$
where the unit vector $`𝐧=\stackrel{~}{𝐮}/\stackrel{~}{u}`$. In the preferred inertial frame, $`v`$ = 0, then the low limit $`𝐩_{\mathrm{}}`$ = $`m_sc𝐧`$, and $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ = 0. In other inertial frames, the lowest energy is not equal to zero, which could have a limited negative value. In Eq.(9), when the unit vector $`𝐧`$ changes its direction from $`x`$ to $`x`$, the sigh of $`(𝐮𝐯)`$ is also changed. Because neutrinos are created in the weak interaction, the asymmetry for $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ space inversion may be a source of CP violation in the weak interaction. If we identify the preferred frame with the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), the earth frame has a speed of ($`v/c10^3`$) with respect to CMBR. Since the mass of e-neutrino is about $`1eV`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{}}10^3eV`$, which is a undetectable effect at present time.

III. A SPACELIKE DIRAC-TYPE EQUATION

To follow Dirac’s approach , the Hamiltonian form of spacelike Dirac-type equation for neutrinos can be written in:

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }=c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }+\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
$`(10)`$
with ($`\widehat{E}=i\mathrm{}/t,\widehat{p}=i\mathrm{}`$). $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$) and $`\beta _s`$ are 4$`\times `$ 4 matrix, which are defined as

$$\alpha _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\beta _s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\sigma _i`$ is 2$`\times `$2 Pauli matrix, $`I`$ is 2$`\times `$2 unit matrix. It is easily to prove that there are commutation relations as follows:

$$\alpha _i\alpha _j+\alpha _j\alpha _i=2\delta _{ij}$$

$$\alpha _i\beta _s+\beta _s\alpha _i=0$$

$$\beta _s^2=1$$
$`(12)`$
Furthermore, the relation between the matrix $`\beta _s`$ and the standard matrix $`\beta `$ is

$$\beta _s=\beta \gamma _5,where\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right),\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(13)`$
The spacelike Dirac-type equation (10) was briefly studied in . It can be rewritten in covariant forms by multiplying matrics $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma _5`$. The covariant form has been discussed in Ref. and \[25-26\] except the sign for the momentum operator can be negative. A more general form of Dirac equation with two mass parameters has also been studied in Ref.. In addition, Eq.(10) was investigated in a different way .

We now study the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ property of the neutrino (or antineutrino) as a tachyonic fermion. Denote the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by two spinor functions $`\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t),\chi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ the spacelike Dirac-type equation (10) can be rewritten as a pair of two-component equations:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\phi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi +m_sc^2\chi $$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\chi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi m_sc^2\phi $$
$`(14)`$
From Eq.(14), the conserved current can be derived:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{j}=0$$
$`(15)`$
and we obtain

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{}{j}=c(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi })$$
$`(16)`$
where $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ are probability density and current; $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is the Hermitian adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ .

Considering a plane wave along the $`z`$ axis for a right-handed particle, $`\overline{\nu }`$, the helicity $`H=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p})/|\stackrel{}{p}|=1`$, then Eq.(14) yields the following relation:

$$\chi =\frac{cpm_sc^2}{E}\phi $$
$`(17)`$
The plane wave can be represented by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=\psi _\sigma exp[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pzEt)]`$, where $`\psi _\sigma `$ is a four-component bispinor. Substituting this bispinor into the wave equation (10) or (14), the explicit form of two bispinors with positive-energy states are listed as follows:

$$\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _2=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(18)`$
and other two bispinors with the negative-energy states are:

$$\psi _3=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _4=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(19)`$
where the component $`A`$ and the normalization factor $`N`$ are

$$A=\frac{cpm_sc^2}{|E|},N=\sqrt{\frac{p+m_sc}{2m_sc}}$$
$`(20)`$
For $`\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}`$, the conserved current in Eq.(15) becomes:

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }_1{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _{5}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{|E|}{m_sc^2},j=\frac{p}{m_s}$$
$`(21)`$
Clearly, the ratio $`j/\rho `$ represents the superluminal speed $`u_s`$. For $`\psi _2=\psi _{(+)}`$, the density $`\rho `$ is negative so that it should be discarded. If we consider the negative states as mathematics solutions in the preferred frame, then $`\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}`$ is the only solution with physical identity i.e. $`\overline{\nu }_R`$. It gives a natural choice that antineutrino is right-handed only. Therefore, maximum parity violation implies that the principle of relativity is violated in the weak interaction. If we identify the preferred frame with CMBR, the earth frame can be considered as the preferred frame approximately ($`v/c10^3`$). Further study on the negative states and negative $`\rho `$ may be associated with complicated mathematics under GGT (see ), which will not be discussed here.

Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta `$, we can obtain the following scalars:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3=1$$
$`(22)`$
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4=1$$
$`(23)`$
In addition, the pseudo scalar for each spinor satisfies:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
$`(24)`$
IV. PARITY VIOLATION FOR NEUTRINOS

In order to compare the spacelike Dirac-type equation Eq.(10) with the two component Weyl equation in the massless limit, we now consider a unitary transformation of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ :

$$\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi +\chi ),\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi \chi )$$
$`(25)`$
where $`\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ are two-component spinor functions. In terms of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, Eq.(16) becomes

$$\rho =\xi ^{}\xi \eta ^{}\eta ,\stackrel{}{j}=c(\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi +\eta ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta )$$
$`(26)`$
Moreover, Eq.(10) can be rewritten in Weyl representation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\xi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi m_sc^2\eta $$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\eta }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta +m_sc^2\xi $$
$`(27)`$
In the above equations, both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are coupled via the mass term $`m_s`$.

Comparing Eq.(27) with the well known Weyl equation, we take a limit, $`m_s=0`$, then the first equation in Eq.(27) reduces to

$$\frac{\xi _{\overline{\nu }}}{t}=c\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi _{\overline{\nu }}$$
$`(28)`$
In addition, the second equation in Eq.(27) vanishes because $`\phi =\chi `$ when $`m_s=0`$.

Eq.(28) is the two-component Weyl equation for describing anti-neutrinos $`\overline{\nu }`$, which is related to the maximum parity violation discovered in 1956 by Lee, Yang and Wu . They pointed out that no experiment had shown parity to be a good symmetry for weak interactions. Now we see that, in terms of Eq.(27), once if neutrino has some mass, no matter how small it is, two equations should be coupled together via the mass term while still respecting maximum parity violation.

Indeed, the Weyl equation (28) is only valid for the antineutrinos since the antineutrino always has right-handed spin, which is opposite to the neutrino. In order to describe the left-handed neutrino, we now take a minus sign for the momentum operator, then Eq.(2) becomes

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu +\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu $$
$`(29)`$
Similar to the solutions for Eq.(10), Eq.(29) yields one physical solution for the neutrino: $`\psi _\nu =\psi _{(+)}`$. Therefore, only $`\overline{\nu }_R`$ and $`\nu _L`$ exist in nature. From Eq.(29), the two-component Weyl equation for massless neutrino becomes:

$$\frac{\xi _\nu }{t}=c\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi _\nu $$
$`(30)`$
Some related discussions the CPT theorem can be found in Ref..

V. REMARKS

Based on parity violation in the weak interaction and evidences from neutrino oscillation, a natural choice is that neutrinos may be spacelike particles with a tiny mass. A Dirac-type equation for spacelike neutrinos is further investigated and its solutions are discussed. This equation can be written in two spinor equations coupled together via nonzero mass while respecting maximum parity violation. As a consequence, parity violation implies that the principle of relativity is violated in the weak interaction.

Spacelike neutrinos have many peculiar features, which are very different from all other particles. Neutrino has left-handed spin in any reference frame, but anti-neutrino always has right-handed spin. This means that the speed of neutrinos must be equal to or greater than the speed of light. Otherwise, the spin direction of neutrino would be changed in some reference frames when taking a Lorentz boost. Moreover, as shown in this paper, the energy of a tachyonic neutrino (or anti-neutrino), $`E_\nu `$, could be negative in non-preferred frames, which was studied in Ref..

The electron neutrino and the muon neutrino may have slightly different proper masses. It provides a natural explanation why the numbers of e-lepton and $`\mu `$-lepton are conserved respectively in low energy experiments.

Comparing with the electron mass, the mass term of the e-neutrino in Eq.(10) is approximately close to zero. Moreover, from Eq.(24), $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ for Spacelike neutrinos. It means that the mass term in Eq.(10) can be negligible in most experiments. In fact, the momentum of a neutrino is much greater than ($`m_sc`$) in most measurements. For instance, let $`p_s=10(m_sc)=16eV/c`$, the speed of the e-neutrino is about $`u_s=1.005c`$. It also yields the component of bispinor $`A1`$ in Eq.(18). Therefore, spacelike neutrinos behave just like the massless neutrinos. This similarity may also play role at the level of SU(2) gauge theory.

According to special relativity , if there is a spacelike particle, it might travel backward in time. Besides the re- interpretation rule introduced in the 1960s, another approach is to introduce a kinematic time under GGT \[18-21\]. Therefore, special relativity can be extended to the spacelike region without causality violation.

The author is grateful to G-j. Ni for helpful discussions. Thanks also due to helpful correspondence with E. Recami and H-B. Ai.