format: text

text:
# KMS, etc.

## 1 Introduction and Summary of Results

The purpose of this paper is to review the general theory of quantum-mechanical matter in thermal equilibrium and to describe some applications of this theory to quantum field theory, in particular to theories in some curved space-times. We shall emphasize the rôle played by imaginary-time (“temperature-ordered”) Green functions (TOGF’s) in the analysis of quantum-mechanical systems in thermal equilibrium, because the TOGF’s are the objects that are most accessible to analytical studies of such systems based on functional integration; see  and references given there, and . Many features of quantum systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, such as phase transitions and long-range order, critical behaviour, strong correlations, etc. are encoded into the TOGF’s. Nevertheless, it is the real-time Green functions (RTGF’s) of systems in thermal equilibrium which are the physical objects. In order to calculate e.g. the response of such systems to small changes in the external control parameters, we need to know their RTGF’s.

The connection between the RTGF’s and the TOGF’s of a quantum system in thermal equilibrium is analogous to the one between Wightman distributions and Schwinger functions of a local relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) at zero temperature, which has been unravelled in the work of Osterwalder and Schrader , see also , building on a lot of previous, deep work in axiomatic quantum field theory, see  and references given there: One passes from TOGF’s to RTGF’s, and back, by analytic continuation in the time variables (“Wick rotation”). However, in contrast to the situation in local, relativistic QFT at zero temperature, one cannot make use of an (energy-) spectrum condition, in order to accomplish the analytic continuation at positive temperatures. While at zero temperature, the Hamiltonian of any reasonable quantum system is bounded from below, the spectrum of the thermal Hamiltonian, or “Liouvillian”, of a system with infinitely many degrees of freedom at positive temperature usually covers the entire real axis. At zero temperature, the analytic continuation from real to imaginary time, and back, is based on the fact that if the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is a non-negative operator, then $`\mathrm{exp}(izH)`$ is bounded in operator norm by 1, provided $`\mathrm{Im}(z)>0`$. At positive temperature, the analytic continuation of RTGF’s in the time variables to the TOGF’s, and back, is based on the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) condition  known to characterize thermal equilibrium states of quantum systems. The very formulation of the KMS condition for RTGF’s involves an analytic continuation of RTGF’s in one time-difference variable. An application of the generalized tube theorem then implies joint analyticity of RTGF’s in all time variables in a tubular domain containing, as a subset, cyclically ordered $`n`$-tuples of imaginary times. The TOGF’s are the restrictions of the analytically continued RTGF’s to the subset of cyclically ordered imaginary time arguments.

The main problem studied in this paper is to start from Green functions (calculated e.g. with the help of functional integrals) which have all the properties of TOGF’s — including an invariance under cyclic rearrangements of their arguments, which is the imaginary-time version of the KMS condition — and prove that they can be analytically continued in their (imaginary-)time arguments back to real times to yield RTGF’s with all the right properties. Thus, we present a variant of the Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem at positive temperature.

The reader is right in assuming that this cannot be a new result. However, while all the elements of our constructions have appeared in the literature, a complete synthesis does not appear to have been presented anywhere. It therefore seems worthwhile to attempt such a synthesis.

The interest of the senior author in these problems goes back to the first half of the 70’s. It was triggered by the work of Osterwalder and Schrader  mentioned above, Ruelle’s continuation  of Ginibre’s work on reduced density matrices , the classic work of Haag, Hugenholtz and Winnink  on KMS states in quantum statistical mechanics, Araki’s analytic continuation of RTGF’s , and some work of Hoegh-Krohn on thermal field theory . First results appeared in . In preparing a course on statistical mechanics at Princeton University , he also became familiar with important work of Araki  on “relative Hamiltonians”. This led to a translation of the results of  to imaginary time . A basic step towards a general (Osterwalder-Schrader type) reconstruction theorem at positive temperature was undertaken in , with crucial help by E. Nelson. Subsequently, there was important parallel work by A. Klein and L. Landau . However, in their work, use is made of mathematical structure, in particular of notions from the theory of random fields, which is not intrinsic to the general theory of KMS states. It may thus appear to be of interest to present details of some general results on the connection between RTGF’s and TOGF’s, even though, informally, they have been known since the late 1970’s.

Ever since the work of Bisognano and Wichman , it has been known that the KMS condition also plays a fundamental rôle in relativistic QFT at zero temperature. The vacuum is a KMS state for every one-parameter subgroup of Lorentz boosts. This observation is intimately related to (and based on) the connection between spin and statistics  and Jost’s general form of the PCT theorem . This will be briefly recalled towards the end of the paper from the point of view of an imaginary-time formulation of QFT. In particular, the KMS condition at imaginary time will be seen to be a consequence of locality and of the connection between spin and statistics (and conversely!) and to give rise to a direct definition of the anti-unitary PCT symmetry operation.

The paper is concluded with lengthy comments on the imaginary-time formulation of QFT on some curved space-times, in particular the space-time of a Schwarzschild black hole and de Sitter space. Recalling some general results on “virtual representations of symmetric spaces” proven in , it is shown how to reconstruct unitary representations of the Killing symmetries of space-time. The KMS condition then yields obvious variants of the spin-statistics connection and of the PCT theorem and provides general interpretations of the Unruh- and the Hawking effects.

Acknowledgements: The senior author is deeply grateful to his scientific grandfathers, fathers and uncles for having created the atmosphere and the facts which made considerations like the ones presented in this paper appear worthwhile and possible. He thanks his collaborators in work on which this review is based, and, in particular, E. Nelson and E. Seiler, for all they have taught him. He is grateful to H. Epstein for very helpful discussions, and to H. Araki for support and encouragement.

## 2 KMS States According to Haag-Hugenholtz-Winnink, and Araki

### 2.1 Finite systems in thermal equilibrium

Consider a quantum-mechanical physical system confined to a compact subset of space. Its time-evolution is generated by a self-adjoint Hamiltonian, $`H`$, on the Hilbert space, $``$, of pure physical state vectors. The energy spectrum of $`H`$ is discrete. Let $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$ be self-adjoint operators on $``$ representing conserved quantities (i.e., “$`[H,Q_i]=0`$”, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and commuting with all “observables”, which are identified with the self-adjoint operators in a subalgebra, $`𝒜`$, of the algebra of all bounded operators on $``$. Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ denote the chemical potentials conjugate to the conserved quantities $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$. As recognized by Landau and von Neumann, the state, $`()_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}`$, of the system describing thermal equilibrium at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ and chemical potentials $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ is given by the density matrix

$$\rho _{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}:=\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}^1\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}],$$
(2.1)
where

$$H_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}:=H\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _iQ_i,$$

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}=\mathrm{tr}_{}[e^{\beta H_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}];$$

namely

$$a_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}:=\mathrm{tr}_{}[\rho _{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}a],$$
(2.2)
$`a𝒜`$. The time-evolution of operators in $`𝒜`$ in the Heisenberg picture is given by

$$\alpha _t(a):=e^{itH}ae^{itH}=e^{itH_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}ae^{itH_{\underset{¯}{\mu }}},$$
(2.3)
$`a𝒜`$, where the second equation follows from the fact that elements of $`𝒜`$ commute with $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$. From (2.1)–(2.3) and the cyclicity of the trace we conclude that

$$\alpha _t(a)b_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }}=b\alpha _{t+i\beta }(a)_{\beta ,\underset{¯}{\mu }},$$
(2.4)
for arbitrary $`a,b`$ in $`𝒜`$. This is the famous KMS condition characterizing equilibrium states.

### 2.2 Systems with Infinitely Many Degrees of Freedom — Thermodynamic Limit

Systems in non-compact subsets of physical space (e.g. the thermodynamic limit of physical systems) with infinitely many degrees of freedom are conveniently described as $`C^{}`$-dynamical systems: The algebra of “observables” of such a system is thought to be a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ (with $`a`$ the $`C^{}`$-norm of an element $`a𝒜`$), its states are described as normalized, positive linear functionals, $`\omega `$, on $`𝒜`$; (we may assume that $`𝒜`$ contains an identity element, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and that states are normalized such that $`\omega (\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$). Symmetries of such a system are described by a group of $``$-automorphisms of $`𝒜`$. In particular, the time-translations are described by a one-parameter group,

$$\{\alpha _t()|t𝐑\},$$
(2.5)
of $``$-automorphisms of $`𝒜`$ weakly measurable in $`t`$.

It is convenient to introduce the following subalgebra, $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$, of $`𝒜`$:

$$\stackrel{}{𝒜}:=\{a_f\mathrm{d}tf(t)\alpha _t(a)|a𝒜,\widehat{f}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)\},$$
(2.6)
where $`\widehat{f}`$ denotes the Fourier transform of $`f`$. Since $`\widehat{f}`$ is assumed to have compact support, $`f(t)`$ is the restriction of an entire function to the real axis. If the $``$-automorphisms $`\alpha _t`$ are norm-continuous in $`t`$, then $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$ is dense in $`𝒜`$ in norm. (For definition (2.6) to make sense, $`\alpha _t(a)`$ need only be weakly measurable in $`t`$. A reasonable hypothesis is to assume that $`\omega (\alpha _t(a))`$ is continuous in $`t`$, for a weak-dense set of states, $`\omega `$, of $`𝒜`$ — norm continuity of $`\alpha _t`$ in $`t`$ does not usually hold.) For an element $`a=b_f\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$,

$$\alpha _z(a):=dtf(tz)\alpha _t(b)$$
(2.7)
is entire in $`z`$.

As suggested by equation (2.4) and argued in , a state, $`\omega _\beta `$, of such a system describing thermal equilibrium at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ should satisfy the KMS condition

$$\omega _\beta (\alpha _t(a)b)=\omega _\beta (b\alpha _{t+i\beta }(a)),$$
(2.8)
for all $`a\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$, $`b𝒜`$, $`t\mathrm{R}`$. A state $`\omega _\beta `$ satisfying equation (2.8) is said to be a ($`\beta `$-)KMS state for $`\alpha _t`$. Note that the KMS condition (2.8) implies that $`\omega _\beta `$ is $`\alpha _t`$-invariant:

$$\omega _\beta (\alpha _t(a))=\omega _\beta (a),a\stackrel{}{𝒜}.$$
(2.9)
(To show (2.9), one sets $`b=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in (2.8)!)

In order to characterize equilibrium states of infinite systems, the KMS condition (2.8) must be supplemented by an appropriate “separability-continuity condition”. For the purposes of this paper, the following notion appears to be adequate:

A state $`\omega _\beta `$ of $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ is said to be an equilibrium state at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ iff

1. $`\omega _\beta `$ is a $`\beta `$-KMS state for $`\alpha _t`$;
2. for arbitrary elements $`a`$ and $`b`$ of $`𝒜`$,

$$\omega _\beta (a\alpha _t(b))$$

is a continuous function of $`t`$;
3. the algebra $`𝒜`$ can be given a topology, $`\tau `$, which makes $`𝒜`$ a separable topological space, and such that $`\omega _\beta (ab)`$ is jointly continuous in $`a`$ and $`b`$ in the product topology on $`𝒜\times 𝒜`$.

### 2.3 The GNS Construction

A pair $`(𝒜,\omega )`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ and a state $`\omega `$ of $`𝒜`$ gives rise to a Hilbert space $`_\omega `$, a $``$-representation $`\lambda _\omega `$ of $`𝒜`$ on $`_\omega `$, and a cyclic vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega _\omega `$ such that

$$\omega (a)=\lambda _\omega (a)\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega ,a𝒜;$$
(2.10)
where $`,`$ is the scalar product on $`_\omega `$; see e.g. . If Property 3, above, holds for the state $`\omega `$, then $`_\omega `$ is separable. If $`\omega `$ is invariant under a one-parameter $``$-automorphism group $`\alpha _t`$ and $`(𝒜,\alpha _t,\omega )`$ satisfy Properties 2 and 3, above, then there is a strongly continuous one-parameter group

$$\left\{e^{itL}\right|t𝐑\}$$
(2.11)
of unitary operators, with a self-adjoint generator

$$L=L^{}$$
(2.12)
such that

$$\lambda _\omega (\alpha _t(a))=e^{itL}\lambda _\omega (a)e^{itL},$$
(2.13)
and

$$e^{itL}\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega ,$$
(2.14)
for all $`t𝐑`$.

We define the kernel, $`𝒩_\omega `$, of $`\omega `$ to be the left-ideal in $`𝒜`$ given by

$$𝒩_\omega :=\{a𝒜|\omega (a^{}a)=0\}.$$
(2.15)
Let us now assume that $`\omega =\omega _\beta `$ is an equilibrium state for $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ at inverse temperature $`\beta `$, in the sense that Properties 13 in section 2.2 hold. Then $`_\beta :=_{\omega _\beta }`$ is separable (Property 3), the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta :=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\omega _\beta }`$ is not only cyclic for $`\lambda (𝒜)`$, $`\lambda \lambda _{\omega _\beta }`$, but separating (i.e., $`\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =0`$ implies $`\lambda (a)=0`$ on $`_\beta `$, a consequence of the KMS condition (2.8)), and $`𝒩_{\omega _\beta }`$ is a two-sided $``$-ideal in $`𝒜`$ (Property 1, i.e., KMS condition); hence $`𝒩_{\omega _\beta }=\{0\}`$ if $`𝒜`$ is simple and $`\text{dim}_\beta >1`$.

The generator $`L`$ is then called thermal Hamiltonian or Liouvillian;(see  for further details).

### 2.4 Bi-Module Structure of $`_\beta `$ and Modular Conjugation $`J`$

The KMS condition gives rise to the following remarkable objects identified by Haag, Hugenholtz and Winnink in their fundamental paper : It is assumed that $`\omega _\beta `$ is an equilibrium state for $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ at inverse temperature $`\beta `$, in the sense of Properties 1 through 3 of section 2.2. As noted in section 2.3, the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$ is then cyclic and separating for the algebra $`\lambda (𝒜)`$. Thus, one can introduce a densely defined, anti-linear operator $`S`$ by

$$S\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta :=\lambda (a)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,a𝒜.$$
(2.16)
The KMS condition can be used to show that $`S`$ can be extended to a closed operator and to construct the polar decomposition of $`S`$. For this purpose, we define an anti-linear operator $`J`$ by setting

$$J\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta :=S\lambda (\alpha _{i\beta /2}(a))\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=\lambda (\alpha _{i\beta /2}(a^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,$$
(2.17)
for arbitrary $`a\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$. By Property 2, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$ is cyclic and separating for $`\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝒜})`$; hence $`J`$ is a densely defined, anti-linear operator. Using the KMS condition and the invariance of $`\omega _\beta `$ under $`\alpha _t`$, one easily verifies that

$`J`$ is an anti-unitary involution. (2.18)
Using (2.16)–(2.18) and (2.13), (2.14), we see that

$$S=Je^{\beta L/2}=e^{\beta L/2}J$$
(2.19)
is the polar decomposition of $`S`$.

From (2.17), (2.13) and (2.14),

$$Je^{itL}=e^{itL}J,t𝐑,$$
(2.20)
or, equivalently (recalling that $`J`$ is anti-linear),

$$JL=LJ,$$
(2.21)
on the domain of definition of $`L`$.

One defines

$$\rho (a):=J\lambda (a)J,a𝒜.$$
(2.22)
Since $`J`$ is an anti-unitary involution and $`\lambda `$ is a $``$-representation of $`𝒜`$, $`\rho `$ is an anti-(linear)$``$-representation of $`𝒜`$. By purely algebraic calculations, one finds that

$$[\rho (a),\lambda (b)]=0,$$
(2.23)
for arbitrary $`a,b`$ in $`𝒜`$. In fact ,

$$\rho (𝒜)^{\prime \prime }=\lambda (𝒜)^{},$$
(2.24)
where $`^{}`$ denotes the commutant (commuting algebra) of an algebra $`(_\beta )`$, and $`^{\prime \prime }`$ denotes the double commutant.

These results of Haag, Hugenholtz and Winnink contributed to the development of Tomita-Takesaki theory, see , which is among the deepest results in the theory of von Neumann algebras. The starting point is a von Neumann algebra $``$ acting on a Hilbert space $``$, with a cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One defines

$$SM\mathrm{\Omega }=M^{}\mathrm{\Omega },M.$$

It is difficult, but possible, to prove that $`S`$ can be closed. This implies that $`\overline{S}`$ has a polar decomposition

$$\overline{S}=J\mathrm{exp}(\pi L),$$

where $`J`$ is an anti-unitary involution, and $`L=L^{}`$ is self-adjoint. One then proves that

$$\alpha _t(M):=e^{itL}Me^{itL}$$

is a $``$-automorphism group of $``$, and that

$$\omega (M):=M\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }$$

is a $`2\pi `$-KMS state for $`(,\alpha _t)`$. As in (2.23), (2.24), it then follows that

$$^{}:=JJ$$

is the commutant of $``$.

The anti-unitarity of $`J`$ and (2.23) may remind one of the PCT theorem in relativistic QFT and its proof . The similarities are not accidental; see section 4.1.

Let $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ be a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system, and $`\omega _\beta `$ an equilibrium state at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ for $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$, in the sense of Properties 13 of section 2.2. Let us assume that 0 is a simple eigenvalue of the Liouvillian $`L`$ corresponding to the unique eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$. Let $`\omega `$ be an arbitrary state which is normal with respect to $`\omega _\beta `$. Then the KMS condition for $`\omega _\beta `$ can be used to prove the property of “return to equilibrium”; namely

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{T}_0^Tdt\omega (\alpha _t(a))=\omega _\beta (a),a𝒜,$$
(2.25)
which is a remarkable dynamical stability property of KMS states under local perturbations; see .

### 2.5 Thermal Green Functions and their Analytic Continuation

Most properties of a physical system in thermal equilibrium are encoded in its (real-time) thermal Green functions (RTGF), which we define below.

Let $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ be a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system, and let $`\omega _\beta `$ be an equilibrium state for $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$ at inverse temperature $`\beta `$, with Properties 13 of section 2.2. For arbitrary $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒜`$, $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$ in $`𝐑`$, we define

$$F_\beta (a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_n,t_n):=\omega _\beta \left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{t_j}(a_j)\right).$$
(2.26)
The functions $`F_\beta `$ are the real-time thermal Green functions. Because the state $`\omega _\beta `$ is $`\alpha _t`$-invariant, they only depend on the variables $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{n1}`$ defined by

$$t_j=t_1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}s_i,j=2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(2.27)
If $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ are elements of the algebra $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$ defined in (2.6), then

$$H_\beta (s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n1}):=F_\beta (a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_n,t_n)$$
(2.28)
is the restriction of an analytic function $`H_\beta (\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n1})`$, $`(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n1})𝐂^{n1}`$, to the real slice $`𝐑^{n1}𝐂^{n1}`$. On the real slice this function is bounded by

$$|H_\beta (s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n1})|=|F_\beta (a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_n,t_n)|$$

$$=\left|\omega _\beta \left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{t_j}(a_j)\right)\right|$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,$$
(2.29)
because $`\alpha _t(a)=a`$, for $`a𝒜`$, $`t𝐑`$, and because $`\omega _\beta `$ is a state on $`𝒜`$. The KMS condition (2.8) implies that, for every $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$,

$$H_\beta (s_1,\mathrm{},s_j+i\beta ,\mathrm{},s_{n1})$$

$$=F_\beta (a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_j,t_j,a_{j+1},t_{j+1}+i\beta ,\mathrm{},a_n,t_n+i\beta )$$

$$=F_\beta (a_{j+1},t_{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n,t_n,a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_j,t_j),$$
(2.30)
and thus, as in (2.29),

$$|H_\beta (s_1,\mathrm{},s_j+i\beta ,\mathrm{},s_{n1})|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,$$
(2.31)
for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. By the generalized tube theorem, due to Kunze, Stein, Malgrange and Zerner (see e.g. ),

$$|H_\beta (\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n1})|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,$$
(2.32)
for $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$ and $`(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n1})`$ in the tube

$$T_{n1}:=\{(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n1})|\mathrm{Im}\zeta _i>0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{Im}\zeta _i<\beta \}.$$
(2.33)
It follows that, for $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$, $`F_\beta (a_1,t_1,\mathrm{},a_n,t_n)`$ is the boundary value of a function $`F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)`$ analytic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ on

$$𝒯_n:=\{(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)|\mathrm{Im}z_1<\mathrm{Im}z_2<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{Im}z_n<\mathrm{Im}z_1+\beta \}$$
(2.34)
and bounded on the closure, $`\overline{𝒯_n}`$, of $`𝒯_n`$ by

$$|F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i.$$
(2.35)
By Property 2, section 2.2, and definition (2.6), it follows that Properties (2.34) and (2.35) hold for arbitrary $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒜`$.

These results have first been noticed by Araki .

The functions $`F_\beta `$ have an important positivity property. To start with, we note that, for $`a\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$, $`z𝐂`$,

$$(\alpha _z(a))^{}=\alpha _{\overline{z}}(a^{}).$$
(2.36)
Let $`a_1^i,\mathrm{},a_{n_i}^i`$, $`n_i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, be elements of $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}`$, and $`z_1^i,\mathrm{},z_{n_i}^i`$ be complex numbers with

$$0<\mathrm{Im}z_1^i<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{Im}z_{n_i}^i<\beta /2,$$
(2.37)
for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_N`$ be arbitrary complex numbers and set

$$a=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}Z_j\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\alpha _{z_k^ji\beta /2}(a_k^j)𝒜.$$

Since $`\omega _\beta `$ is a state, and by (2.36),

$$0\omega _\beta (aa^{})$$

$$=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}Z_i\overline{Z}_jF_\beta (a_1^i,z_1^ii\beta /2,\mathrm{},a_{n_i}^i,z_{n_i}^ii\beta /2,$$

$$(a_{n_j}^j)^{},\overline{z}_{n_j}^j+i\beta /2,\mathrm{},(a_1^j)^{},\overline{z}_1^j+i\beta /2).$$
(2.38)
By invariance, i.e.,

$$F_\beta (a_1,z_1+z,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n+z)=F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n),$$
(2.39)
the positivity (2.38) is seen to imply that the complex numbers

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}:=F_\beta (a_1^i,z_1^i,\mathrm{},a_{n_i}^i,z_{n_i}^i,(a_{n_j}^j)^{},\overline{z}_{n_j}^j+i\beta ,\mathrm{},(a_1^j)^{},\overline{z}_1^j+i\beta ),$$
(2.40)
$`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are the matrix elements of a positive semi-definite matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

Note that, by (2.37),

$$(z_1^i,\mathrm{},z_{n_i}^i,\overline{z}_{n_j}^j+i\beta ,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_1^j+i\beta )𝒯_{n_i+n_j},$$

for all $`i,j`$. Thus, by (2.35) and Property 2, section 2.2, the positivity Property (2.38) holds for arbitrary $`a_k^i𝒜`$, $`z_k^i`$ as in (2.37), $`k=1,\mathrm{},n_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N<\mathrm{}`$.

We observe that the KMS condition (2.8), see also (2.30), implies that, for arbitrary $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒜`$, $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)𝒯_n`$,

$$F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)=F_\beta (a_{j+1},z_{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n,z_n,a_1,z_1+i\beta ,\mathrm{},a_j,z_j+i\beta ).$$
(2.41)
Finally, Property 3, section 2.2, and the KMS condition imply that all RTGF’s and all functions $`F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)`$ can be obtained as limits of such functions evaluated on a countable set of $`n`$-tuples $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$.

Our main results in this section are stated in (2.34), (2.35) and in (2.39)–(2.41). In particular, (2.34) shows that we can define imaginary-time (“temperature-ordered”) Green functions (TOGF’s), $`\varphi _\beta `$, by setting

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n):=F_\beta (a_1,i\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,i\tau _n),$$
(2.42)
for $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒜`$, and

$$\tau _1<\tau _2<\mathrm{}<\tau _n<\tau _1+\beta .$$
(2.43)
It is convenient to think of $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n`$ as angles on a circle of circumference $`\beta `$, ordered in accordance with the orientation chosen on the circle; see (2.39) and (2.41).

The main properties of TOGF’s can immediately be inferred from (2.35) and (2.39)–(2.41). In the next section, we show that functions with all the general properties of TOGF’s are, in fact, the TOGF’s corresponding to an equilibrium state, $`\omega _\beta `$, of a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system.

## 3 A Reconstruction Theorem at Positive Temperature

In this section, we show how to reconstruct the RTGF’s of a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system in an equilibrium state from functions with all the properties of TOGF’s. Our result is an analogue of the Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem , which has solved a similar problem at zero temperature. A result of the kind we shall prove in this section, but with additional assumptions that make it inapplicable to systems of fermions, for example, such as non-relativistic electron liquids (see ), has been proven in ; see  for earlier, partial results.

### 3.1 Green Functions on an (Imaginary-Time) Circle

Our starting point, in this section, is a set of Green functions depending on $`n`$-tuples $`[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]`$, where $`a_i`$ is an element of a separable topological space $`𝒮`$, $`\tau _i`$ is a point on a circle of circumference $`\beta `$, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)𝐓_<^n`$, where

$$𝐓_<^n:=\{(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n)|\sigma _1<\sigma _2<\mathrm{}<\sigma _n<\sigma _1+\beta \}.$$
(3.1)
These Green functions are denoted

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n),$$
(3.2)
$`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, with $`\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{})=1`$. They are assumed to have the following properties. For arbitrary $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒮`$, and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$:

$`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$ is defined for arbitrary $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ $`𝒮^{\times n}`$ and $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)𝐓_<^n`$; it is jointly continuous in $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ in the product topology of $`𝒮^{\times n}`$, and it is a continuous function of $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)`$ on $`𝐓_<^n`$.

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)=\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1+\tau ,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n+\tau ),$$

for arbitrary $`\tau 𝐑`$.

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)=\varphi _\beta (a_{j+1},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,a_1,\tau _1+\beta ,\mathrm{},a_j,\tau _j+\beta ),$$

for arbitrary $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$.

There is a continuous involution  on $`𝒮`$,

$$𝒮aa^{}𝒮,(a^{})^{}=a,a,$$

with the property that, for all $`N=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, arbitrary $`a_1^i,\mathrm{},a_{n_i}^i`$ in $`𝒮`$, $`n_i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})_{i,j=1,\mathrm{},N}`$, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}:=\varphi _\beta (a_1^i,\tau _1^i,\mathrm{},a_{n_i}^i,\tau _{n_i}^i,(a_{n_j}^j)^{},\beta \tau _{n_j}^j,\mathrm{},(a_1^j)^{},\beta \tau _1^j),$$
(3.3)
with

$$0<\tau _1^i<\mathrm{}<\tau _{n_i}^i<\beta /2,i,$$
(3.4)
is positive semi-definite.

In much of this section, we shall require a much stronger version of Property (P1), namely:

The space $`𝒮`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra with identity, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and the involution  in (P4) is the usual $``$-operation on $`𝒮`$. It is then assumed that

$`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$ is linear in each argument $`a_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, jointly continuous in $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ in the product topology on $`𝒮^{\times n}`$ of a topology on $`𝒮`$ in which $`𝒮`$ is separable, and continuous in $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n`$ on the closure, $`\overline{𝐓_<^n}`$, of $`𝐓_<^n`$;

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_j,\tau _j,a_{j+1},\tau _j,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_ja_{j+1},\tau _j,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n),$$

for arbitrary $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$;

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_{j1},\tau _{j1},\mathrm{𝟏},\tau _j,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_{j1},\tau _{j1},a_{j+1},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n),$$

for arbitrary $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$; and

$$|\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)|\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_j,$$

where $`()`$ is the $`C^{}`$-norm on $`𝒮`$.

Remark: In the last section, we have seen that Properties (P1)–(P4) and (P) hold for the TOGF’s associated with an equilibrium state, $`\omega _\beta `$, of a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system $`(𝒜,\alpha _t)`$, with $`𝒮=𝒜`$.

It may be appropriate to mention some examples of physical systems with TOGF’s satisfying Properties (P1)–(P4) and (P):

(1) Let $`𝒮`$ be the CAR algebra of a system of non-relativistic fermions of the kind considered by Ginibre in , and let $`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$ be the TOGF’s of such a system as constructed in , for sufficiently small $`\beta `$. The functional-integral definition of $`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$ makes it clear that these functions can be defined for arbitrary $`n`$-tuples $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)`$, and if $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ are creation- or annihilation operators then $`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$ is totally antisymmetric in its $`n`$ arguments $`(a_i,\tau _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ denote a creation- and the corresponding annihilation operator in $`𝒮`$, then

$$\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\tau _1,\mathrm{\Psi },\tau _2)\stackrel{\text{KMS}}{=}\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Psi },\tau _2,\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\tau _1+\beta )$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\tau _1+\beta ,\mathrm{\Psi },\tau _2).$$
(3.5)
Thus, $`\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\tau _1,\mathrm{\Psi },\tau _2)`$ is an anti-periodic function of $`\tau _1\tau _2[0,\beta ]`$.

(2) For systems of non-relativistic bosons or of Bose quantum fields, as considered in , one may choose $`𝒮`$ to be a $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by Weyl operators constructed from bosonic creation- and annihilation operators. For bosons, the creation- and annihilation operators, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are unbounded operators (in contrast to the bounded creation- and annihilation operators for fermions). Yet, it may happen that, for arbitrary $`n`$, the TOGF’s

$$\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }_1^\mathrm{\#},\tau _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\mathrm{\#},\tau _n)$$

are well defined; here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}`$, for all $`j`$. The TOGF’s turn out to be totally symmetric under permutations of their arguments. Hence, the KMS condition implies that

$$\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\tau _1,\mathrm{\Phi },\tau _2)\stackrel{\text{KMS}}{=}\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Phi },\tau _2,\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\tau _1+\beta )$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\tau _1+\beta ,\mathrm{\Phi },\tau _2),$$
(3.6)
i.e. $`\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\tau _1,\mathrm{\Phi },\tau _2)`$ is a periodic function of $`\tau _1\tau _2[0,\beta ]`$.

### 3.2 The Main Theorem

In this section, we describe our main result concerning the reconstruction of a thermal equilibrium state and of real-time Green functions from a set of TOGF’s with the properties of section 3.1. Let $`𝒮`$, $`𝐓_<^n`$, etc. be as in section 3.1.

Main Theorem

(1) Assume that the TOGF’s

$$\{\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}$$

have Properties (P1)–(P4) of section 3.1. Then they uniquely determine a separable Hilbert space $`_\beta `$, a continuous, unitary one-parameter group $`\{e^{itL}\}_{t𝐑}`$ on $`_\beta `$, a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta _\beta `$ invariant under $`\{e^{itL}\}_{t𝐑}`$, and an anti-unitary operator $`J`$ on $`_\beta `$ such that

$$J\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,e^{itL}J=Je^{itL}.$$
(3.7)
(2) If $`𝒮`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra, and, in addition to (P1)–(P4), Property (P) of section 3.1 holds, then the TOGF’s

$$\{\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}$$

determine a $``$-representation, $`\lambda `$, of $`𝒮`$ on $`_\beta `$ and an anti-representation, $`\rho `$, of $`𝒮`$ on $`_\beta `$ given by

$$\rho (a)=J\lambda (a)J,a𝒮,$$
(3.8)
such that

$$[e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL},e^{isL}\rho (b)e^{isL}]=0,$$
(3.9)
for all $`a,b`$ in $`𝒮`$ and $`t,s`$ real. The state

$$\omega _\beta ():=()\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$
(3.10)
is a KMS state for $`\lambda (𝒮)`$ and the time evolution

$$\lambda (a)e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL},a𝒮.$$

The functions $`\{\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the TOGF’s obtained from the real-time Green functions

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{it_jL}\lambda (a_j)e^{it_jL}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$
(3.11)
by analytic continuation in the time variables $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$ to the tube $`𝒯_n`$ defined in (2.34) and restriction to

$$\{t_j=i\tau _j|j=1,\mathrm{},n,\tau _1<\tau _2<\mathrm{}<\tau _n<\tau _1+\beta \}.$$

Remarks: A similar result, but in a more special situation, has been established by Klein and Landau in ; (the results in  do not apply to systems of fermions, for example). With the exception of the very last part, this theorem was proven in ; see also  for further results.

Our result is an analogue, at positive temperature, of the Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem .

The proof of the Main Theorem forms the core of our paper.

### 3.3 Proof of Part (1) of the Main Theorem

The proof of the Main Theorem consists of a highly non-trivial extension of the GNS construction. The first step is to construct the Hilbert space $`_\beta `$.

#### i) Construction of Hilbert space

We consider the linear space

$$𝒱_\beta :=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒱_\beta ^{(n)},$$
(3.12)
of formal polynomials, where

$$𝒱_\beta ^{(n)}:=\left\{\underset{i}{}Z_i[a_1^i,\tau _1^i,\mathrm{},a_n^i,\tau _n^i]\right\},$$
(3.13)
with $`Z_i𝐂`$, $`a_1^i,\mathrm{},a_n^i`$ in $`𝒮`$,

$$0<\tau _1^i<\mathrm{}<\tau _n^i<\beta /2,$$
(3.14)
for all $`i`$, and

$$𝒱_\beta ^{(0)}:=𝐂.$$
(3.15)
The space $`𝒱_\beta `$ can be equipped with a positive semi-definite inner product determined from

$$[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n],[b_1,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\sigma _m]:=$$

$$\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,b_m^{},\beta \sigma _m,\mathrm{},b_1^{},\beta \sigma _1),$$
(3.16)
by linearity in the first and anti-linearity in the second argument; $`0<\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _n<\beta /2`$, $`0<\sigma _1<\mathrm{}<\sigma _m<\beta /2`$. The reflection positivity property, (P4), implies that, indeed, (3.16) determines a positive (semi-)definite inner product on $`𝒱_\beta `$. We define the kernel of $`,`$ by

$$𝒩_\beta :=\{v𝒱_\beta |v,v=0\}.$$
(3.17)
The equivalence class modulo $`𝒩_\beta `$ of an element $`v𝒱_\beta `$ is denoted by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=vmod𝒩_\beta .$$
(3.18)
Clearly,

$$_\beta :=\overline{𝒱_\beta /𝒩_\beta },$$
(3.19)
where the closure is taken in the norm determined by the scalar product $`,`$ on $`𝒱_\beta /𝒩_\beta `$, is a Hilbert space.

By Property (P1) and the separability of $`𝒮`$, $`_\beta `$ is a separable Hilbert space.

By construction, the linear space

$$𝒟_\beta :=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒱_\beta )$$
(3.20)
is dense in $`_\beta `$. We define the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}]),$$
(3.21)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\varphi _\beta (\mathrm{}):=1.$$

#### ii) Construction of a unitary one-parameter group of time translations

By linearity, the equation

$$[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]_\tau :=[a_1,\tau _1+\tau ,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n+\tau ],$$
(3.22)
for $`\tau _1<\tau <\beta /2\tau _n`$ ($`0<\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _n<\beta /2`$, $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒮`$), defines a shift operator

$$𝒱_\beta vv_\tau 𝒱_\beta ,$$
(3.23)
for all $`\tau (ϵ_{}(v),ϵ_+(v))`$, for some positive numbers $`ϵ_{}(v)`$ and $`ϵ_+(v)`$ (with $`ϵ_{}(v)=\tau _1`$, $`ϵ_+(v)=\beta /2\tau _n`$, for $`v`$ as in (3.22)).

It is clear from (3.22) that

$$(v_\tau )_\sigma =v_{\tau +\sigma },$$
(3.24)
if $`\tau `$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau +\sigma `$ all belong to the open interval $`(ϵ_{}(v),ϵ_+(v))`$.

Let $`v`$ and $`w`$ be two vectors in $`𝒱_\beta `$. Then the definition (3.16) of the inner product and Property (P2) (translation invariance) readily imply that

$$v_\tau ,w=v,w_\tau $$
(3.25)
if $`\mathrm{min}(ϵ_{}(v),ϵ_{}(w))<\tau <\mathrm{min}(ϵ_+(v),ϵ_+(w))`$.

We claim that

$$v𝒩_\beta v_\tau 𝒩_\beta ,\text{ for }ϵ_{}(v)<\tau <ϵ_+(v).$$
(3.26)
To prove (3.26), we notice that, for $`ϵ_{}(v)/2<\tau <ϵ_+(v)/2`$,

$$0v_\tau ,v_\tau =v,v_{2\tau }$$

$$v,v^{1/2}v_{2\tau },v_{2\tau }^{1/2}$$

$$=0,$$
(3.27)
for $`v𝒩_\beta `$, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality; hence $`v_\tau 𝒩_\beta `$. For $`\tau (ϵ_{}(v)/2,ϵ_+(v)/2)`$ and $`\tau _1(ϵ_{}(v)/4,ϵ_+(v)/4)`$, we have that $`v_{\tau +\tau _1}`$ and $`v_{\tau +2\tau _1}`$ are in $`𝒱_\beta `$, and

$$0v_{\tau +\tau _1},v_{\tau +\tau _1}=v_\tau ,v_{\tau +2\tau _1}$$

$$v_\tau ,v_\tau ^{1/2}v_{\tau +2\tau _1},v_{\tau +2\tau _1}^{1/2}$$

$$=0,$$

because $`v_\tau 𝒩_\beta `$, by (3.27). This makes it clear that the proof of (3.26) can be completed inductively.

Observation (3.26) permits us to define operators, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$, on the dense domain $`𝒟_\beta _\beta `$ as follows: Each $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟_\beta `$ is of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(v)`$, for some $`v𝒱_\beta `$. For $`\tau (ϵ_{}(v),ϵ_+(v))`$, we set

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }(v_\tau ).$$
(3.28)
Defining

$$ϵ_\pm (\mathrm{\Psi }):=\underset{v𝒱_\beta }{sup}\{ϵ_\pm (v)|\mathrm{\Phi }(v)=\mathrm{\Psi }\},$$
(3.29)
we see that (3.26) implies that the left hand side of (3.28) is well defined, for $`\tau (ϵ_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),ϵ_+(\mathrm{\Psi }))`$. Property (P1) (continuity) then implies that

$$\text{s-}\underset{\tau 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟_\beta .$$
(3.30)
Next, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(v)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ in $`𝒟_\beta `$, and $`\mathrm{min}(ϵ_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),ϵ_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}))<\tau <\mathrm{min}(ϵ_+(\mathrm{\Psi }),ϵ_+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}))`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(v),\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{v})$$

$$=v_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{v},\text{ by (}\text{3.28}\text{),(}\text{3.18}\text{)}$$

$$=v,\stackrel{~}{v}_\tau ,\text{ by (}\text{3.25}\text{)}$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{v})$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(3.31)
Finally, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(v)𝒟_\beta `$, and $`\tau ,\sigma ,\tau +\sigma `$ all in the interval $`(ϵ_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),ϵ_+(\mathrm{\Psi }))`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(v))$$

$$=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(v_\sigma )$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(v_{\tau +\sigma })$$

$$=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau +\sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }(v)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau +\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3.32)
A somewhat remarkable theorem on the essential self-adjointness of local, Hermitian semigroups proven in  says that from (3.28) through (3.32) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\tau L}\mathrm{\Psi },\text{ for }ϵ_{}(\mathrm{\Psi })<\tau <ϵ_+(\mathrm{\Psi }),$$
(3.33)
for every $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟_\beta `$, where $`L`$, the “Liouvillian”, is essentially self-adjoint on a domain $`\underset{\beta }{\overset{}{𝒟}}𝒟_\beta `$ which is dense in $`_\beta `$. (In , there is an explicit construction of $`\underset{\beta }{\overset{}{𝒟}}`$.)

Clearly,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}])=\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}])=\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,$$

for arbitrary $`\tau `$, i.e.,

$$L\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =0.$$
(3.34)
By Stone’s theorem, $`\mathrm{exp}(itL)|_{t𝐑}`$ defines a strongly continuous one-parameter group of unitary operators on $``$ leaving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$ invariant.

#### iii) Construction of an anti-unitary operator $`J`$

For

$$v:=Z[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]𝒱_\beta ,$$
(3.35)
$`Z𝐂`$, we define

$$jv:=\overline{Z}[a_n^{},\beta /2\tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta /2\tau _1].$$
(3.36)
Equation (3.36) is required for arbitrary $`n`$ and hence, by anti-linearity, defines an anti-linear operator $`j`$ on all of $`𝒱_\beta `$. Choosing

$$w:=\zeta [b_1,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\sigma _m]𝒱_\beta ,\zeta 𝐂,$$

we observe that, by (3.36) and (3.16),

$$jv,jw=\overline{Z}\zeta \varphi _\beta (a_n^{},\beta /2\tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta /2\tau _1,b_1,\beta /2+\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\beta /2+\sigma _m)$$

$$\stackrel{\text{(P2)}}{=}\overline{Z}\zeta \varphi _\beta (a_n^{},\tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\tau _1,b_1,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\sigma _m)$$

$$\stackrel{\text{(P3)}}{=}\zeta \overline{Z}\varphi _\beta (b_1,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\sigma _m,a_n^{},\beta \tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta \tau _1)$$

$$\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.16}\text{)}}{=}w,v.$$
(3.37)
Thus, if $`v𝒩_\beta `$,

$$jv,jv=v,v=0,$$

i.e.,

$$jv𝒩_\beta .$$
(3.38)
This observation enables us to define an anti-linear operator $`J`$ on $`𝒟_\beta `$ by setting

$$J\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(jv).$$
(3.39)
Then,

$$J\mathrm{\Phi }(v),J\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=\mathrm{\Phi }(jv),\mathrm{\Phi }(jw)$$

$$=jv,jw$$

$$\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.37}\text{)}}{=}w,v$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(w),\mathrm{\Phi }(v),$$
(3.40)
i.e., $`J`$ is anti-unitary.

Next, we note that, for $`v`$ as in (3.35),

$$j(v_\tau )=\overline{Z}[a_n^{},\beta /2\tau _n\tau ,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta /2\tau _1\tau ]$$

$$=(jv)_\tau ,$$
(3.41)
for $`\tau (ϵ_{}(v),ϵ_+(v))`$. It then follows from (3.28) and (3.39) that, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟_\beta `$ and $`\tau (ϵ_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),ϵ_+(\mathrm{\Psi }))`$,

$$J\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau J\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3.42)
Since $`J`$ is anti-unitary, and by (3.33),

$$Je^{itL}=e^{itL}J,\text{ or }JL=LJ.$$
(3.43)
Finally,

$$J\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =J\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}])=\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}])=\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta .$$
(3.44)
### 3.4 Proof of Part (2) of the Main Theorem

To prove part (2) of our Main Theorem, we must assume that the imaginary-time Green functions (TOGF’s), $`\varphi _\beta `$, not only obey Properties (P1)–(P4) of section 3.1, but, in addition, Property (P). In particular, we shall henceforth assume that $`𝒮`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra.

#### i) Construction of a $``$-representation $`\lambda `$ and an anti-representation $`\rho `$ of $`𝒮`$ on $`_\beta `$

Thanks to Property (P), in particular (Pi), we may define the linear spaces

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta :=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta ^{(n)},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta ^{(n)}:=\left\{\underset{i}{}Z_i[a_1^i,\tau _1^i,\mathrm{},a_n^i,\tau _n^i]\right\},$$

with $`Z_i𝐂`$, $`a_1^i,\mathrm{},a_n^i𝒮`$, and

$$0\tau _1^i\tau _2^i\mathrm{}\tau _n^i\beta /2,$$
(3.45)
for all $`i`$; $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta ^{(0)}=𝒱_\beta ^{(0)}=𝐂`$. Note that, thanks to Property (Pii),

$$[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_j,\tau _j,a_{j+1},\tau _j,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]$$

$$[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_ja_{j+1},\tau _j,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]$$
(3.46)
must be identified, for $`\tau _{j+1}=\tau _j`$, for arbitrary $`j`$. Obviously, the space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$ contains the space $`𝒱_\beta `$ defined in (3.12).

For $`a𝒮`$ and $`v:=[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$, we define

$$av:=[a,0,a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta ,$$
(3.47)
and

$$va^{}:=[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,a^{},\beta /2]\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta .$$
(3.48)
These definitions can be extended to all of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$ by linearity. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_\beta `$ denote the kernel of the inner product $`,`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$, defined as in (3.16), (3.17) (An example of a vector in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_\beta `$ is the difference of the two vectors in (3.46)). By (3.16),

$$va^{},w=v,wa,$$
(3.49)
and, using the KMS condition (Property (P3)),

$$av,w=v,a^{}w,$$
(3.50)
for arbitrary $`v`$ and $`w`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$. These equations and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality show that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_\beta `$ is a two-sided ideal under left- and right multiplication by elements of $`𝒮`$. This permits us to define a dense, linear subspace, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta `$, of $`_\beta `$ and, for $`a𝒮`$, linear operators $`\lambda (a)`$ and $`\rho (a)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta `$ by setting

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta :=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta )=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta mod\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_\beta ,$$
(3.51)
and

$$\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(av),\rho (a)\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(va^{}),$$
(3.52)
for arbitrary $`v\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$. We note that $`\lambda ()`$ is linear, while $`\rho ()`$ is anti-linear on $`𝒮`$. Property (Pii) shows that, for arbitrary $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`𝒮`$,

$$\lambda (a)\lambda (b)=\lambda (ab),\rho (a)\rho (b)=\rho (ab),$$
(3.53)
on the domain $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta `$. Further important properties of $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ are described in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

(1) For arbitrary $`a𝒮`$,

$$\rho (a)\mathrm{\Psi }=J\lambda (a)J\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta ,$$
(3.54)
where $`J`$ is the anti-unitary operator defined in (3.36), (3.39);

(2)

$$\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda (a^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$

for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta `$, i.e.,

$$\lambda (a)^{}\lambda (a^{});$$
(3.55)
(3) $`\lambda (a)`$ extends to a bounded operator on $`_\beta `$ with

$$\lambda (a)a.$$
(3.56)
Remark: By (1), parts (2) and (3) also hold for $`\rho (a)`$, instead of $`\lambda (a)`$.

Proof: (1) For $`v=[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n]\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$,

$$J\lambda (a)J\mathrm{\Phi }(v)=J\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Phi }(jv)$$

$$=J\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Phi }[a_n^{},\beta /2\tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta /2\tau _1]$$

$$=J\mathrm{\Phi }[a,0,a_n^{},\beta /2\tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta /2\tau _1]$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }[a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,a^{},\beta /2]$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(va^{})$$

$$=\rho (a)\mathrm{\Phi }(v),$$
(3.57)
by (3.39), (3.36) and (3.52). Part (1) then follows by linearity.

Part (2) is an immediate consequence of (3.50). Here are some details: Let $`v`$ be as above and $`\stackrel{~}{v}:=[b_1,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},b_m,\sigma _m]\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_\beta `$. We set $`\mathrm{\Psi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }(v)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}:=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{v})`$. Then, using (3.52), (3.16) and the KMS condition (P3),

$$\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\varphi _\beta (a,0,a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,b_m^{},\beta \sigma _m,\mathrm{},b_1^{},\beta \sigma _1)$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,b_m^{},\beta \sigma _m,\mathrm{},b_1^{},\beta \sigma _1,a,\beta )$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda (a^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$

It remains to prove part (3). By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, part (2) and (3.53),

$$|\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|^2\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

$$=\lambda (a^{}a)\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

$$\lambda (a^{}a)\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda (a^{}a)\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

$$=\lambda ((a^{}a)^2)\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

$$\lambda ((a^{}a)^2)\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda ((a^{}a)^2)\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/4}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{3/4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$\lambda ((a^{}a)^{2^N})\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{2^N}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{12^N}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$

for all $`N=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$.

Next, we note that

$$|\lambda ((a^{}a)^{2^N})\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }|=|\varphi _\beta ((a^{}a)^{2^N},0,a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n,a_n^{},\beta \tau _n,\mathrm{},a_1^{},\beta \tau _1)|$$

$$(a^{}a)^{2^N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(a_ja_j^{})$$

$$a^{2^{N+1}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_j^2,$$

by Property (Piv). We have used that $`()`$ is a $`C^{}`$-norm.

By letting $`N`$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$, we find that

$$|\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|a\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{1/2},$$

from which part (3) follows by (anti-)linearity in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, resp. $`\mathrm{}`$

We define a linear subspace $`𝒟_\beta ^+\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta `$ of $`_\beta `$ by

$$𝒟_\beta ^+:=\{\mathrm{\Phi }([a,\beta /2])|a𝒮\}.$$
(3.58)
To each vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$, we associate an operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}:𝒟_\beta ^+_\beta `$, by setting

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }([a,\beta /2]):=\rho (a^{})\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3.59)
Clearly,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(3.60)
and (3.59), (3.60) show that if

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(3.61)
then

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(3.62)
as operators on $`𝒟_\beta ^+`$.

###### Lemma 2.

For arbitrary $`a,b`$ in $`𝒮`$ and real numbers $`t,s`$,

$$[e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL},e^{isL}\rho (b)e^{isL}]=0,$$
(3.63)
where $`L`$ is the Liouvillian constructed in section 3.3; see equation (3.33).

Remark: Lemmas 1 and 2 show that $`_\beta `$ is a bi-module for the $`C^{}`$-algebra, $`𝒜`$, generated by

$$\left\{e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\right|a𝒮,t𝐑\}.$$

Proof: Since $`\{\mathrm{exp}(itL)\}_{t𝐑}`$ is a one-parameter unitary group, it is enough to prove (3.63) for $`s=0`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\beta `$. By unitarity of $`\mathrm{exp}(itL)`$ and part (3) of Lemma 1,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:=e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\beta .$$

Using (3.61) and (3.62), it is not hard to show that

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}.$$

This equality and (3.59) then yield

$$\rho (b)\mathrm{\Psi }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }([b^{},\beta /2])$$

$$=e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }([b^{},\beta /2])$$

$$=e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\rho (b)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$

which proves (3.63) for $`s=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We conclude this section with a comment on the KMS condition at real time. For $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`𝒮`$, $`t𝐑`$, we have that

$$e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\lambda (b)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=\lambda (b)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,e^{itL}\lambda (a^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=Je^{itL}\lambda (a^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,J\lambda (b)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=e^{itL}e^{\beta L/2}\lambda (a)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,e^{\beta L/2}\lambda (b^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,$$

by (3.36), (3.39) and (3.28). This implies that

$$F_{ab}(t):=e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\lambda (b)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

is the boundary value of a function $`F_{ab}(z)`$ analytic in $`z`$ on the strip $`\{z|\beta <\mathrm{Im}z<0\}`$, which is the KMS condition! In the next subsection, we use somewhat more sophisticated arguments of this type to reconstruct all real-time Green functions from TOGF’s, $`\varphi _\beta `$, by analytic continuation in the time variables.

#### ii) Back to Real Times

In this subsection, we show that if a set of TOGF’s, $`\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n,\tau _n)`$, $`a_i𝒮`$, for all $`i`$, $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)\overline{𝐓_<^n}`$ (see (3.1)), have Properties (P1)–(P4) and (P) of section 3.1, then they are the restrictions of functions $`F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)`$, analytic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ on the tubular domain $`\overline{𝒯_n}`$ defined in equation (2.34), to the region

$$(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=(i\tau _1,\mathrm{},i\tau _n),(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)\overline{𝐓_<^n}.$$

Real-time Green functions are then obtained as the boundary values of the functions $`F_\beta (a_1,z_1,\mathrm{},a_n,z_n)`$ when $`z_i`$ tends to the real axis, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Our results in this subsection will complete the proof of our Main Theorem, stated in section 3.2.

To start with, we note that

$$\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{}])=\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,0])_\beta ,$$
(3.64)
for all $`a_1𝒮`$. Furthermore, by (3.33) and (3.28),

$$e^{\tau _1L}\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =e^{\tau _1L}\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,0])$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,\tau _1])_\beta ,$$
(3.65)
for $`0\tau _1\beta /2`$. Since $`\{\mathrm{exp}(itL)\}_{t𝐑}`$ is a one-parameter unitary group on $`_\beta `$,

$$e^{z_1L}\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =e^{it_1L}\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,\tau _1])_\beta ,$$
(3.66)
for $`z_1=\tau _1+it_1`$, $`0\tau _1\beta /2`$, $`t_1𝐑`$, and the left hand side of (3.66) is holomorphic in $`z_1`$, for $`0<\mathrm{Re}z_1\tau _1<\beta /2`$. Furthermore,

$$e^{z_1L}\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^2=\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,\tau _1]),\mathrm{\Phi }([a_1,\tau _1])$$

$$=\varphi _\beta (a_1,\tau _1,a_1^{},\beta \tau _1)$$

$$a_1^2,$$
(3.67)
by Property (Piv).

Part (3) of Lemma 1 then shows that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_1}(z_1):=\lambda (a_2)e^{z_1L}\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$
(3.68)
is a holomorphic $`_\beta `$-valued function of $`z_1`$, for $`0<\mathrm{Re}z_1<\beta /2`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_1}(z_1)a_2a_1,$$
(3.69)
for $`0\mathrm{Re}z_1\beta /2`$.

The idea is now to proceed inductively, showing that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_1}(z_1)`$ is in the domain of definition of the unbounded operator $`\lambda (a_3)\mathrm{exp}(z_2L)`$, as long as $`0\mathrm{Re}z_2\beta /2\mathrm{Re}z_1`$, etc. The induction hypothesis is

$`[𝐀_{𝐧\mathrm{𝟏}}]`$ For arbitrary $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒮`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1):=\lambda (a_n)e^{z_{n1}L}\lambda (a_{n1})\mathrm{}\lambda (a_2)e^{z_1L}\lambda (a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$
(3.70)
is a vector in $`_\beta `$, for all $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, where

$$T_{n1}^{(\beta )}:=\{(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})|\mathrm{Re}z_i>0,i,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{Re}z_i<\beta /2\};$$
(3.71)
it is holomorphic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$ and, on $`\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, is bounded in norm by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_j.$$
(3.72)
In (3.68), (3.69), $`[A_1]`$ has been established. We shall now carry out the

Induction Step: $`[𝐀_{𝐧\mathrm{𝟏}}][𝐀_𝐧]`$, $`𝐧`$.

Let $`\chi _N`$ be the characteristic function of the interval $`[N,N]`$. Then,

$$\chi _N(L)e^{zL}=e^{zL}\chi _N(L)$$

is an entire operator-valued function of $`z`$, bounded in norm by $`\mathrm{exp}(N|\mathrm{Re}z|)`$. Thus, $`[A_{n1}]`$ implies that the vectors

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}^{(N)}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1):=\chi _N(L)e^{(\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}z_i)L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$
(3.73)
are well defined, for all $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, and depend holomorphically on $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})`$, for $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, for all $`N<\mathrm{}`$. For $`z_i=\tau _i`$ non-negative, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, with $`_{i=1}^{n1}\tau _i\beta /2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}^{(N)}(\tau _{n1},\mathrm{},\tau _1)=\chi _N(L)e^{(\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}\tau _i)L}\lambda (a_n)\left(\underset{i=n1}{\overset{1}{}}e^{\tau _iL}\lambda (a_i)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=\chi _N(L)\mathrm{\Phi }\left([a_n,\beta /2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\tau _i,a_{n1},\beta /2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}\tau _i,\mathrm{},a_1,\beta /2]\right)$$

$$=\chi _N(L)J\mathrm{\Phi }\left([a_1^{},0,a_2^{},\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^{},\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\tau _i]\right)$$

$$=\chi _N(L)J\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda (a_i^{})e^{\tau _iL}\right)\lambda (a_n^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta $$

$$=\chi _N(L)J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _{n1}),$$
(3.74)
by (3.36), (3.39) and (3.70). The induction hypothesis $`[A_{n1}]`$ tells us that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}`$ $`(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1})`$ is holomorphic in $`(\overline{z}_{n1},\mathrm{},\overline{z}_1)T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$ and bounded in norm by $`_{i=1}^na_i`$, for $`(\overline{z}_{n1},\mathrm{},\overline{z}_1)\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$. Since $`J`$ is an anti-unitary operator,

$$J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1})$$
(3.75)
is holomorphic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, and

$$J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,$$
(3.76)
for $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, by (3.72). If $`z_i`$ is non-negative for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, and $`_{i=1}^{n1}z_i\beta /2`$, then (3.74) shows that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}^{(N)}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)=\chi _N(L)J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1}).$$
(3.77)
Since the left hand side and the right hand side of (3.77) are holomorphic $`_\beta `$-valued functions of $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, equation (3.77) holds for all $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, for all $`N<\mathrm{}`$, and, with (3.76) and (3.74), and using that $`\chi _N(L)=1`$, we find that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}^{(N)}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,$$
(3.78)
uniformly in $`N<\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{exp}[(\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}z_i)L]`$ is a closed operator, and

$$\text{s-}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi _N(L)\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1),$$

$$\text{s-}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi _N(L)J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1})=J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1}),$$

for $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, by $`[A_{n1}]`$, it follows that

$$\text{s-}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}^{(N)}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)=e^{(\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}z_i)L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$

$$=J\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1}),$$
(3.79)
for $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, and the bound (3.78) remains true in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Next, we define functions $`M^{(N)}(\sigma )`$ by

$$M^{(N)}(\sigma ):=\chi _N(L)e^{\sigma (\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}\mathrm{Re}z_i)L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1),$$

$$\chi _N(L)e^{\sigma (\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}\mathrm{Re}z_i)L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1).$$
(3.80)
Since $`\mathrm{exp}(itL)`$ is unitary, the right hand side of (3.80) does not change if
$`\mathrm{exp}[\sigma (\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}\mathrm{Re}z_i)L]`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{exp}[\sigma (\beta /2_{i=1}^{n1}z_i)L]`$ in both arguments of the scalar product. Thus, using $`[A_{n1}]`$, (3.79), (3.78) and that $`\chi _N(L)=1`$, we find that

$$0M^{(N)}(0)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^2,$$

and

$$0M^{(N)}(1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^2.$$
(3.81)
For $`N<\mathrm{}`$, $`M^{(N)}(\sigma )`$ is smooth in $`\sigma 𝐑`$. Differentiating $`M^{(N)}(\sigma )`$ twice in $`\sigma `$ and using that $`L=L^{}`$, hence $`L^20`$, we conclude that $`M^{(N)}(\sigma )`$ is a convex function of $`\sigma `$. Thus,

$$0M^{(N)}(\sigma )\mathrm{max}(M^{(N)}(0),M^{(N)}(1))\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^2,$$
(3.82)
for all $`\sigma [0,1]`$, uniformly in $`N`$. Inequality (3.82) and the induction hypothesis $`[A_{n1}]`$ show that

$$\chi _N(L)e^{\tau L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$
(3.83)
is holomorphic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})T_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$ and bounded in norm by $`_{i=1}^na_i`$ on $`\overline{T}_{n1}^{(\beta )}`$, as long as

$$0\tau \beta /2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{Re}z_i,$$
(3.84)
uniformly in $`N<\mathrm{}`$. Using the spectral theorem for $`L`$ and, in particular, that $`\mathrm{exp}(\tau L)`$ is a closed operator, we conclude, similarly to (3.79), that

$$\text{s-}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi _N(L)e^{\tau L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)=e^{\tau L}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$
(3.85)
exists and has the same analyticity- and boundedness properties, provided (3.84) holds. Since $`\mathrm{exp}(itL)`$ is unitary, for $`t𝐑`$, we conclude that, for $`z_n=\tau +it`$, with

$$0<\mathrm{Re}z_n=\tau <\beta /2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{Re}z_i,$$
(3.86)
$$e^{z_nL}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$
(3.87)
is an $`_\beta `$-valued function of $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$. It is holomorphic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)T_n^{(\beta )}`$ and bounded in norm by $`_{i=1}^na_i`$, for all $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{T}_n^{(\beta )}`$. By part (3) of Lemma 1,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_{n+1}a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_n,\mathrm{},z_1):=\lambda (a_{n+1})e^{z_nL}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1)$$
(3.88)
is holomorphic in $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)T_n^{(\beta )}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_{n+1}a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_n,\mathrm{},z_1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}a_i,$$
(3.89)
for all $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{T}_n^{(\beta )}`$, for arbitrary $`a_{n+1}𝒮`$. Equation (3.88) and inequality (3.89) establish $`[A_n]`$, hence the induction step is complete.

Next, we set

$$b_j:=a_{nj+1},j=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

$$z_{j+1}^{}:=z_j^{}iz_{nj},j=1,\mathrm{},n1.$$

Then, equation (3.70) implies that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{n1},\mathrm{},z_1),\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{iz_j^{}L}\lambda (b_j)e^{iz_j^{}L}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta .$$
(3.90)
Real-time Green functions, as in (3.11), are obtained from (3.90) by taking the boundary values of these functions when $`z_i^{}`$ tends to the real axis, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. When

$$iz_j^{}=\tau _j𝐑,j=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

with $`0<\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _n<\beta /2`$, then (3.90) is clearly given by

$$\varphi _\beta (b_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},b_n,\tau _n);$$

see (3.16), (3.28), (3.33), etc. In order to obtain the Green functions on their maximal domain of analyticity, $`𝒯_n`$, see (2.34), one must consider scalar products

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_k\mathrm{}a_1}(z_{k1},\mathrm{},z_1),e^{\overline{z}_kL}\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_{k+1}^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}}(\overline{z}_{k+1},\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n1})$$

and use that

$$e^{zL}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta .$$

As a consequence of Properties (P3), (Piv) and analyticity on the tubular domain $`𝒯_n`$, they satisfy the KMS condition (2.41).

A $`C^{}`$-dynamical system can be constructed by choosing $`𝒜`$ to be the smallest $`C^{}`$-algebra generated, for example, by all the operators

$$\left\{f(t)e^{itL}\lambda (a)e^{itL}\right|fC_0(𝐑),a𝒮\},$$

and noticing that

$$\alpha _t(A):=e^{itL}Ae^{itL},A𝒜,$$

defines a $``$-automorphism group of $`𝒜`$.

## 4 KMS $``$ SSC, PCT, (A)dS, etc.

In this final section, we first recall the relationship between the KMS condition for Lorentz boosts in local, relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) on Minkowski space, at zero temperature, on the one hand, and the usual connection between spin and statistics (SSC) and the PCT theorem, on the other hand. Of course our discussion, which is an adaptation of one in , is based on the deep results in .

We then recall a generalization of part (1) of our Main Theorem and of the results in section 3.3 useful for an “imaginary-time analysis” of quantum field theory in some non-trivial gravitational backgrounds, in particular on Schwarzschild space-time , de Sitter space  and on anti-de Sitter space ($`AdS`$), . Our discussion is based on results in  and in  and is meant to merely recall and illustrate the usefulness of the general results in these papers. It goes beyond these papers only in so far as it includes a general form of the KMS condition.

### 4.1 SSC and PCT for Local, Relativistic QFT’s on Minkowski Space

We consider a local, relativistic QFT on Minkowski space $`𝐌^d`$, at zero temperature. We suppose that this theory satisfies the Wightman axioms; see . Let $``$ denote the Hilbert space of pure state vectors of the theory, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the vacuum vector. We consider a two-dimensional plane, $`\pi `$, in $`𝐌^d`$ containing a time-like direction. We may choose coordinates, $`x^0`$, $`x^1`$, $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, on $`𝐌^d`$ such that $`\pi `$ is the 01-coordinate plane. Let $``$ denote the self-adjoint operator on $``$ representing the generator of Lorentz boosts in $`\pi `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x})`$ denote a local field of the theory. Lorentz covariance implies that

$$e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x})e^{i\alpha }=\left(S(\alpha )\mathrm{\Psi }\right)(x_\alpha ^0,x_\alpha ^1,\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(4.1)
where

$$x_\alpha ^0=\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )x^0+\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha )x^1,$$

$$x_\alpha ^1=\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha )x^0+\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )x^1,$$
(4.2)
and $`S`$ is a finite-dimensional, projective representation of the Lorentz group, $`L_+^{}`$, of $`𝐌^d`$.

It is well known that, for a QFT satisfying the Wightman axioms, the passage from real to purely imaginary times (Wick rotation) is possible. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ denote either $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, and let

$$S^{(n)}(\mathrm{}_1,t_1,x_1^1,\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_n,t_n,x_n^1,\stackrel{}{x}_n)$$
(4.3)
denote the imaginary-time Green- or Schwinger functions of the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, where the arguments $`(t_j,x_j^1,\stackrel{}{x}_j)`$ are points in Euclidean space, $`t_j`$ being the imaginary time of the $`j`$th point, and $`\mathrm{}_j=\mathrm{},`$, if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, respectively, is inserted in the $`j`$th argument, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

We introduce polar coordinates, $`(\tau ,r)`$, in the $`(t,x^1)`$-coordinate plane of $`𝐄^d`$, where $`\tau `$ is the polar angle, and $`r0`$ the radial variable. Let $`𝒮`$ denote the linear space of column vectors

$$a=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ f_k\end{array}\right)$$
(4.4)
of Schwartz-space test functions, $`f_\alpha (r,\stackrel{}{x})`$, on $`𝐑^{d1}`$ with support contained in $`\{(r,\stackrel{}{x})|r0\}`$, denote by $`𝒮^{}`$ the space of row vectors, $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$, of test functions, and let  be the map from $`𝒮`$ to $`𝒮^{}`$ given by

$$a^{}:=(\overline{f}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{f}_k),$$
(4.5)
for $`a`$ as in (4.4). In (4.4), (4.5), $`k`$ is the dimension of the (projective) representation $`S`$ of $`L_+^{}`$ under which $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transforms. For $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ in $`𝒮`$, we define

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n):=$$

$$S^{(n)}(\mathrm{}_1,t(\tau _1,r_1),x^1(\tau _1,r_1),\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{},$$

$$\mathrm{}_n,t(\tau _n,r_n),x^1(\tau _n,r_n),\stackrel{}{x}_n)_{j=1}^na_j^\mathrm{}_j(r_j,\stackrel{}{x}_j)\mathrm{d}r_j\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}_j,$$
(4.6)
with

$$t(\tau ,r):=r\mathrm{sin}\tau ,x^1(\tau ,r):=r\mathrm{cos}\tau .$$

It follows from the results in  that the Green functions $`\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)`$ satisfy Properties (P1), continuity, and (P4), reflection positivity, of section 3.1; see equations (3.3), (3.4) with $`\beta =2\pi `$! Property (P2) (translation invariance) must be replaced by

(P2’) Rotation Invariance

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)=\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1(\tau ),\tau _1+\tau ,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n(\tau ),\tau _n+\tau ),$$
(4.7)
where

$$a(\tau )=R(\tau )a,a^{}(\tau )=(R(\tau )a)^{}=(a(\tau ))^{},$$
(4.8)
and $`R`$ is the $`k`$-dimensional, projective representation of the group of rotations of $`𝐄^d`$ obtained from the representation $`S`$ by analytic continuation in the rapidity, $`\alpha `$. If $`S`$ is irreducible, then

$$R(\tau =2\pi )=e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(4.9)
where $`s_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the “spin” of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. It is well known that

$$s_\mathrm{\Psi }=0,\frac{1}{2}mod𝐙,\text{ for }d3,$$
(4.10)
while

$$s_\mathrm{\Psi }=[0,1)mod𝐙,\text{ for }d=2.$$
(4.11)
We are interested in understanding whether a property similar to Property (P3), section 3.1, i.e., the KMS condition, holds, too. To this end, we first recall that, in QFT, the Green functions $`\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)`$ are defined for arbitrary, not necessarily ordered, $`n`$-tuples $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)𝐓^n`$ (with $`\beta =2\pi `$), and

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }j(nj)}\varphi _{2\pi }(a_{j+1}^{\mathrm{}_{j+1}},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n,a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_j^\mathrm{}_j,\tau _j),$$
(4.12)
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the statistics parameter of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and

$$ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=0,1,\text{ for }d3,$$
(4.13)
with $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ corresponding to Bose- and $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$ corresponding to Fermi statistics, while

$$ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }[0,2),\text{ for }d=2,$$
(4.14)
(fractional-, or braid statistics ).

###### Theorem 3.

If Properties (P2’) (rotation invariance) and (P4) (reflection positivity) hold, then

$$ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=2s_\mathrm{\Psi }mod2𝐙,$$
(4.15)
i.e., the usual connection between spin and statistics (SSC) holds.

Proof: Let $`a(\tau )`$, $`a^{}(\tau )`$ be as in (4.8). Reflection positivity, (P4)(for $`\beta =2\pi `$), says that

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,a^{}(\tau ),2\pi \tau )=\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,(a(\tau ))^{},2\pi \tau )0.$$

Hence,

$$e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,a^{}(2\pi \tau ),2\pi \tau )$$

$$=\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,R(2\pi )^1a^{}(2\pi \tau ),2\pi \tau )$$

$$=\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,a^{}(\tau ),2\pi \tau )$$

$$0.$$
(4.16)
Rotation invariance, (P2’), implies that

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau ),\tau ,a^{}(2\pi \tau ),2\pi \tau )=\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau \pi ),\tau \pi ,a^{}(\pi \tau ),\pi \tau ).$$
(4.17)
By (4.12), we have that

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a(\tau \pi ),\tau \pi ,a^{}(\pi \tau ),\pi \tau )$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a^{}(\pi \tau ),\pi \tau ,a(\tau \pi ),\tau \pi )$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a^{}(\pi \tau ),\pi \tau ,R(2\pi )a(\pi +\tau ),\pi +\tau )$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a^{}(\pi \tau ),\pi \tau ,a(\pi +\tau ),\pi +\tau ).$$
(4.18)
By (P4) and (4.16),the product of the second and the third factors on the right hand side is positive. Thus, comparing (4.18) with (4.17) and (4.16), we readily find that

$$e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}=e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(4.19)
or

$$ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=2s_\mathrm{\Psi }mod2𝐙,$$

which completes our proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

The heuristic idea behind our proof is captured in the following formal calculation: For $`\tau (0,\pi )`$,

$$0e^\tau \mathrm{\Psi }(0,a)\mathrm{\Omega },e^\tau \mathrm{\Psi }(0,a)\mathrm{\Omega }$$

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }(0,a)\mathrm{\Omega },e^{2\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }(0,a)\mathrm{\Omega },(=^{})$$

$$=\varphi _{2\pi }(a,0,a^{}(2\tau ),2\tau )$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a^{}(2\tau ),2\tau ,a,0)$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(2\tau ,(R(2\tau )a)^{})\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0,a^{})\mathrm{\Omega }$$

$$\stackrel{\tau \pi }{=}e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0,a^{})\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0,a^{})\mathrm{\Omega },$$

and the last factor on the right hand side is positive, which yields (4.19).

Remark: The general SSC for relativistic QFT’s with arbitrarily many local Bose- and Fermi fields in dimension $`d3`$ has been established by Araki in . SSC for two-dimensional theories or three-dimensional gauge theories with braid statistics has been established in .

Next, we apply Theorem 3 to establish the $`2\pi `$-KMS condition for the Lorentz boosts,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\alpha },$$

at imaginary rapidities (“times”).

###### Corollary 4 (KMS).

In $`d3`$ dimensions, the Green functions $`\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,`$ $`\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)`$ satisfy the KMS condition

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)=$$

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_{j+1}^{\mathrm{}_{j+1}},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n,a_1^\mathrm{}_1(2\pi ),\tau _1+2\pi ,\mathrm{},a_j^\mathrm{}_j(2\pi ),\tau _j+2\pi ).$$
(4.20)
Proof: Equation (4.12) tells us that

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n)$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }j(nj)}\varphi _{2\pi }(a_{j+1}^{\mathrm{}_{j+1}},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n,a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_j^\mathrm{}_j,\tau _j)$$

$$=e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }j(nj)}\varphi _{2\pi }(a_{j+1}^{\mathrm{}_{j+1}},\tau _{j+1},\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n,\tau _n,a_1^\mathrm{}_1,\tau _1+2\pi ,\mathrm{},a_j^\mathrm{}_j,\tau _j+2\pi ).$$
(4.21)
If $`s_\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ ($`ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }0`$), then $`n`$ must necessarily be even for the Green functions in (4.20), (4.21) to be different from zero. Then,

$$j(nj)j^2j(mod𝐙).$$

Hence, by theorem 3,

$$e^{i\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }j(nj)}=e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }j}.$$

The proof is completed by using (4.9). $`\mathrm{}`$

Thanks to Corollary 4, we may now define an anti-linear involution, $`J`$, as follows: On a vector

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=z\mathrm{\Phi }\left([a_1^\mathrm{}_1(\tau _1),\tau _1,\mathrm{},a_n^\mathrm{}_n(\tau _n),\tau _n]\right)$$
(4.22)
in the Hilbert space reconstructed from the Schwinger functions (4.3) of a QFT, as in , we set

$$J\mathrm{\Psi }:=\overline{z}\mathrm{\Phi }\left([(a_n^\mathrm{}_n(\tau _n\pi ))^{},\pi \tau _n,\mathrm{},(a_1^\mathrm{}_1(\tau _1\pi ))^{},\pi \tau _1]\right).$$
(4.23)
A variant of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem  shows that vectors of the form (4.22) span a dense set in the Hilbert space of the theory, and a calculation essentially identical to (3.37), based on using (4.8) and the KMS condition (4.20), proves that $`J`$ is an anti-unitary involution (see also (4.61), (4.63), below). By (3.43),

$$Je^{i\tau }=e^{i\tau }J,\tau 𝐑.$$
(4.24)
Equations (4.23), (4.24) and (4.6) show that $`J`$ has the interpretation

$$J=\mathrm{P}_1\mathrm{CT},$$
(4.25)
where P<sub>1</sub> represents the spatial reflection

$$(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x})(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(4.26)
C is charge conjugation, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, and T represents time reversal,

$$(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x})(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(4.27)
If the dimension $`d`$ is even, the product of the reflection (4.26) with space reflection,

$$\mathrm{P}:(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x})(x^0,x^1,\stackrel{}{x}),$$

has determinant $`+1`$, hence belongs to $`L_+^{}`$. Thus, PP<sub>1</sub> is always a symmetry of the theory, and hence

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:=\mathrm{PCT}=\mathrm{PP}_1J$$
(4.28)
is always an anti-unitary symmetry of the theory. This is Jost’s PCT theorem .

Remarks

(1) The KMS condition (4.20) and equation (4.12) (for $`n=2`$) also imply the SSC, $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Psi }=2s_\mathrm{\Psi }mod2𝐙`$, without assuming reflection positivity: By (4.20), (4.8) and (4.9),

$$\varphi _{2\pi }(a_1^{\mathrm{}},\tau _1,a_2^{\mathrm{}},\tau _2)=\varphi _{2\pi }(a_2^{\mathrm{}},\tau _2,a_1^{\mathrm{}}(2\pi ),\tau _1+2\pi )$$

$$=e^{i2\pi s_\mathrm{\Psi }}\varphi _{2\pi }(a_2^{\mathrm{}},\tau _2,a_1^{\mathrm{}},\tau _1),$$
(4.29)
which when compared with (4.12) proves the SSC, equation (4.15).

(2) Quite clearly, QFT’s with braid statistics in two or three space-time dimensions require a somewhat more elaborate analysis, which we will not present here; but see . Suffice it to say that Theorem 3, suitably interpreted, remains valid. Our analysis shows that, in three dimensions, braid statistics and fractional spin do not arise in theories with only point-like localized fields.

### 4.2 QFT in some Non-Trivial Gravitational <br>Backgrounds

Let $`X^d`$ be a $`d`$-(complex-)dimensional complex manifold equipped with a (symmetric) quadratic form, $`\eta `$, on the tangent bundle $`\mathrm{T}X^d`$. We assume that $`X^d`$ contains two $`d`$-real-dimensional submanifolds, $`N_L^d`$ and $`N_E^d`$, such that

$$\eta _L:=\eta |_{\mathrm{T}N_L^d}\text{ is a Lorentz metric on }N_L^d,$$
(4.30)
and

$$\eta _E:=\eta |_{\mathrm{T}N_E^d}\text{ is a Riemannian metric on }N_E^d.$$
(4.31)
We shall interpret $`N_L^d`$ as the space-time of a physical system and will be interested in studying local QFT’s on $`N_L^d`$. Our strategy will be to attempt to construct “imaginary-time” Green functions over the Riemannian slice, $`N_E^d`$, of $`X^d`$ and reconstruct from them data of a local quantum theory on $`N_L^d`$. This can be viewed as a general version of the “Wick rotation”. Our analysis is based on results in . It actually does not make use of the complex manifold $`X^d`$ — requiring $`N_E^d`$ to have appropriate symmetry properties will suffice! Our techniques are group-theoretical. The rôle of the KMS condition will be elucidated.

Here are examples of space-times which fit into the context described above.

(i) Complexified Minkowski space:

$$X^d=𝐂^d$$

Points in $`X^d`$ are denoted by $`z=(z^0,\stackrel{}{z})`$; and

$$\eta (z)=(\mathrm{d}z^0)^2+(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{z})^2.$$
(4.32)
Then

$$N_L^d=𝐌^d=\{z=(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})|x^0𝐑,\stackrel{}{x}𝐑^{d1}\},$$

$$N_E^d=𝐄^d=\{z=(x^0=it,\stackrel{}{x})|t𝐑,\stackrel{}{x}𝐑^{d1}\}.$$
(4.33)
(ii) de Sitter and AdS: We choose

$$X^d:=\{z=(z^0,z^1,\mathrm{},z^d)𝐂^{d+1}|\underset{j=0}{\overset{d}{}}(z^j)^2=R^2\},$$
(4.34)
for some $`R>0`$, and $`\eta `$ to be the restriction of $`_{j=0}^d(\mathrm{d}z^j)^2`$ to $`X^d`$. Then

$$N_L^d:=dS_R^d=\{z=(ix^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^d)|x^j𝐑,j=0,\mathrm{},d,$$

$$(x^0)^2+\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}(x^j)^2=R^2\},$$

$$N_E^d:=S_R^d=\{z=(x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^d)|x^j𝐑,j=0,\mathrm{},d,$$

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{d}{}}(x^j)^2=R^2\}$$
(4.35)
are $`d`$-dimensional de Sitter space and the $`d`$-sphere, respectively. Furthermore,

$$\stackrel{~}{N}_L^d:=AdS^d=\{z=(x^0,ix^1,\mathrm{},ix^{d1},x^d)|x^j𝐑,j=0,\mathrm{},d,$$

$$(x^0)^2+(x^d)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{d1}{}}(x^j)^2=R^2\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{N}_E^d:=𝐇^d=\{z=(ix^0,ix^1,\mathrm{},ix^{d1},x^d)|x^j𝐑,j=0,\mathrm{},d,$$

$$(x^d)^2\underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}(x^j)^2=R^2\}$$
(4.36)
are $`d`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter space and hyperbolic space, respectively.

Obviously, $`AdS^d`$ is not simply connected. It admits time-like closed curves. In general, there will be a connection between imaginary-time Green functions on $`𝐇^d`$ and a quantum theory on the (universal) covering space, $`\stackrel{~}{AdS^d}`$, .

Recently, the so-called $`AdS`$-CFT correspondence has been discovered  and widely studied. The simplest example of this correspondence is one between QFT’s on $`AdS^2`$ and chiral conformal field theories on a light ray. Here, we just wish to note that results concerning the passage from imaginary-time Green functions $`𝐇^d`$ to quantum theory on $`\stackrel{~}{AdS^d}`$ can be translated into statements concerning conformal field theory; see .

Next, we consider examples with the following product structure:

$$X^d=U^k\times Y^{dk},k=1,2,\mathrm{},$$

where $`U^k`$ is a subset of a $`k`$-dimensional complex manifold, while $`Y^{dk}`$ is a $`(dk)`$-dimensional, real manifold, and

$$N_L^d=U_L^k\times Y^{dk},N_E^d=U_E^k\times Y^{dk}.$$
(4.37)
Here is a concrete example.

(iii) Schwarzschild black hole:

$$X^d=U^2\times S^{d2},$$

$$\eta (z)=h(\xi ^2)(\mathrm{d}\xi ^2+\xi ^2\mathrm{d}\tau ^2)+k(\xi ^2)\mathrm{d}s^2,$$
(4.38)
where $`(\xi ,\tau )`$ are suitable coordinates on $`U^2𝐂^2`$, and $`h`$ and $`k`$ are analytic functions of $`\xi ^2`$, positive on the real axis. Then

$$N_L^d=U_L^2\times S^{d2},$$

with

$$U_L^2=\{(\xi ,\tau =it)|\xi ,t𝐑\}.$$
(4.39)
Note that, for $`d=4`$, the space-time outside the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole (together with its isometric twin) is of the form (4.38), (4.39).

$$N_E^d=U_E^2\times S^{d2},$$

with

$$U_E^2=\{(\xi ,\tau )|\xi 0,\tau 𝐑/2\pi 𝐙\}.$$
(4.40)
See e.g.  for background material.

From now on, only the Riemannian manifold $`N_E^d`$ will be featured, as promised. We must specify the properties of $`N_E^d`$ needed in our analysis and then check that they are valid in the examples just considered. We simplify our notation by setting $`N:=N_E^d`$, $`\eta :=\eta _E=\eta |_{\mathrm{T}N_E^d}`$.

Properties of $`(N,\eta )`$

(I) Reflection symmetry: $`N`$ admits an isometric involution (reflection), $`r`$. The fixed-point set of $`r`$ is a submanifol, $`M`$, of $`N`$, of co-dimension 1; $`M`$ is called the “equator” of $`N`$. It is equipped with the induced metric.

(II) Killing symmetries: There is a real symmetric space $`(G,K,\sigma )`$, where $`G`$ is a real, simply connected Lie group, $`\sigma `$ is an involutive homomorphism of $`G`$, and $`KG`$ is the fixed-point set of $`\sigma `$, with the properties that there is an action, $`\pi `$, of $`G`$ on $`N`$ generated by Killing vector fields of the metric $`\eta `$, that the equator $`M`$ is invariant under the action of $`K`$, and

$$r\pi (g)r=\pi (\sigma (g)),\text{ for all }gG.$$
(4.41)
Of course, $`K`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$.

It is an easy exercise to check that in all our examples, (i)–(iii), $`N:=N_E^d(\stackrel{~}{N}_E^d)`$, $`\eta :=\eta _E`$ have Properties (I) and (II). The simplest examples have the following structure:

$$G=U(1)\times K,\text{ or }G=\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\times K=𝐑\times K;$$

for $`g=(e^{i\alpha },k)U(1)\times K`$,

$$\sigma (e^{i\alpha },k)=(e^{i\alpha },k).$$

In these examples,

$$X^d=𝐂\times M,N=N_E^d=𝐑\times M,\text{ or }N=S^1\times M,N_L^d=i𝐑\times M.$$

Examples, where $`G=L\times K`$, with $`L`$ some non-abelian Lie group, are incompatible with the condition that, at zero temperature, the energy spectrum be contained in $`𝐑^+`$; see .

Following , we next describe the general mathematical structure underlying a formulation of local, relativistic quantum theory at imaginary time. It consists of the following objects.

(a) A Riemannian manifold $`(N,\eta )`$ with Properties (I) and (II), above. We let $`(G,K,\sigma )`$ denote the symmetric space appearing in Property (II). (For simplicity, we may assume that $`K`$ is a compact subgroup of $`G`$. This would exclude examples (i) and $`AdS^d𝐇^d`$, equation (4.36), above. But these examples are covered by the results of .)

(b) A separable topological vector space, $`𝒱`$, containing two isomorphic subspaces, $`𝒱_+`$ and $`𝒱_{}`$, (usually with $`𝒱_+𝒱_{}=\{0\}`$).

(c) A continuous representation, $`\rho `$, of the Lie group $`G`$ on $`𝒱`$ with the property that, for every $`v𝒱_\pm `$, there exists an open neighbourhood, $`U_v`$, of the identity element $`eG`$ such that

$$\rho (g)v𝒱_\pm ,\text{ for all }gU_v,$$
(4.42)
and

$$\rho (k)v𝒱_\pm ,\text{ for all }kK.$$
(4.43)
(d) An anti-linear involution, $`\theta _r`$, on $`𝒱`$ representing the reflection $`r`$ in Property (I) such that

$$\theta _r𝒱_\pm =𝒱_{},$$
(4.44)
and

$$\theta _r\rho (g)\theta _r=\rho (\sigma (g)),$$
(4.45)
for all $`gG`$.

(e) A bilinear functional, $`\varphi `$, on $`𝒱_+\times 𝒱_{}`$ with the following properties.

(P̃1) Continuity: $`\varphi `$ is continuous on $`𝒱_+\times 𝒱_{}`$ in the product topology of $`𝒱\times 𝒱`$.

(P̃2) Invariance:

$$\varphi (\rho (g)v,\rho (g)w)=\varphi (v,w),$$
(4.46)
for all $`gU_vU_w`$.

(P̃3) KMS condition: Let $`h`$ be any element of $`G`$ such that

$$\sigma (h)=h^1,\rho (h)𝒱_\pm 𝒱_{}.$$

Then, for arbitrary $`v𝒱_+`$, $`w𝒱_{}`$,

$$\varphi (v,w)=\varphi (\rho (h^1)w,\rho (h)v).$$
(4.47)
(P̃4) Reflection positivity: For arbitrary $`v𝒱_+`$,

$$\varphi (v,\theta _rv)0.$$
(4.48)
The point is that the structure described here enables us to formulate and prove a generalization of part (1) of the Main Theorem proven in section 3. Our result involves the Lie group, $`G^{}`$, dual to the Lie group $`G`$ of Killing symmetries of the manifold $`(N,\eta )`$. The group $`G^{}`$ is defined as follows. Let $`𝐠`$ denote the Lie algebra of $`G`$ and $`𝐤`$ the Lie algebra of $`K`$, the symmetry group of the “equator” of $`N`$. Clearly,

$$[𝐤,𝐤]𝐤,$$
(4.49)
where $`[,]`$ is the Lie bracket on $`𝐠`$, and $`𝐠`$ has a decomposition into linear subspaces,

$$𝐠=𝐤𝐦,$$
(4.50)
with the property that

$$[𝐤,𝐦]𝐦,[𝐦,𝐦]𝐤,$$

$$\sigma |_𝐤=\mathrm{id},\sigma |_𝐦=\mathrm{id}.$$
(4.51)
The dual symmetric Lie algebra, $`𝐠^{}`$, is defined by

$$𝐠^{}:=𝐤i𝐦.$$
(4.52)
By (4.51), $`𝐠^{}`$ is again a real Lie algebra. Let $`G^{}`$ be the simply connected, real Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝐠^{}`$. We say that $`G^{}`$ is dual to $`G`$, and that $`(G^{},K,\sigma )`$ is the symmetric space dual to $`(G,K,\sigma )`$.

The idea is that $`G^{}`$ is the group of Killing symmetries of “physical space-time”, $`(N_L,\eta _L)`$, associated with $`(N=N_E,\eta =\eta _E)`$. One may expect that, usually, $`(N_L,\eta _L)`$ can be reconstructed unambiguously from $`(N,\eta )`$ if $`(N,\eta )`$ has Properties (I) and (II), with $`\mathrm{dim}(𝐦)1`$ (with $`N_L`$ assumed to be simply connected).

Let $`h`$ be an element of $`G`$ as described in Property (P̃3). It is easy to see that

$$h=\mathrm{exp}M,\text{ for some }M𝐦,$$
(4.53)
and, assuming that Property (P̃2) holds, too, that

$$k^1hk\text{ satisfies equation (}\text{4.47}\text{), for all }kK.$$
(4.54)
Let $`𝐠_h`$ be the Lie subalgebra of $`𝐠`$ on which the adjoint action of $`h`$ is trivial, let $`𝐠_h^{}`$ be the corresponding Lie subalgebra of $`𝐠^{}`$; and let $`G_h`$, $`G_h^{}`$ be the subgroups of $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ generated by $`𝐠_h`$ and $`𝐠_h^{}`$, respectively. Clearly $`G_h`$ is the subgroup of $`G`$ commuting with $`h`$. We note that $`G_h`$ contains the one-parameter subgroup $`\{\mathrm{exp}\tau M|\tau 𝐑\}`$.

Henceforth, any element $`h`$ of $`G`$ as in Property (P̃3)is called a KMS-element of $`G`$.

We are now prepared to state the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`(N,\eta )`$ have Properties (I) and (II). Furthermore, let $`(N,\eta )`$, the associated symmetric space $`(G,K,\sigma )`$, $`𝒱`$, $`\rho `$, $`\theta _r`$ and $`\varphi `$ be as described in points (a) through (e), above, with Properties (P̃1) through (P̃4).

These data uniquely determine a separable Hilbert space, $``$, a continuous, unitary representation, $`\pi `$, of the group $`G^{}`$ on $``$, and, for any KMS-element $`h`$ of $`G`$, an anti-unitary involution, $`J_h`$, such that

$$\pi (g)J_h=J_h\pi (g),\text{ for all }gG_h^{},$$
(4.55)
and

$$\pi (k)J_h=J_{khk^1}\pi (k),$$
(4.56)
for all $`kK`$.

Remarks: (1) With the exception of the statements concerning the anti-unitary operators, $`J_h`$, associated with KMS-elements $`hG`$, this theorem has been proven, under different hypotheses on $`(G,K,\sigma )`$, in  and .

(2) The proof of the theorem follows steps i), ii) and iii) of the proof of part (1) of the Main Theorem of section 3; see section 3.3.

#### i) Construction of Hilbert Space

An inner product, $`,`$, on the subspace $`𝒱_+𝒱`$ is defined by

$$v,w:=\varphi (v,\theta _rw);$$
(4.57)
see (P̃4). Let $`𝒩`$ denote the kernel of $`,`$ in $`𝒱_+`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=vmod𝒩,v𝒱_+.$$
(4.58)
One defines $``$ to be the closure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒱)𝒱/𝒩`$ in the norm determined by $`,`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\mathrm{\Phi }(w):=v,w$$

defines the scalar product on $``$.

#### ii) Construction of a Unitary Representation, $`\pi `$, of $`G^{}`$ on $``$

The representation $`\pi `$ is defined as follows: For $`kK`$,

$$\pi (k)\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (k)v).$$
(4.59)
It follows directly from Property (P̃2) and (4.45) that $`\pi (k)`$ is a unitary operator. Furthermore, with every $`M𝐦`$ we associate an operator $``$ on $``$ by setting

$$e^t\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (e^{tM})v),$$

for $`t`$ so small that $`\mathrm{exp}(tM)U_v`$. Note that by (4.45), (4.51), Property (P̃2) and results in , $``$ is self-adjoint. Thus,

$$\pi (e^{itM}):=e^{it}$$

defines a one-parameter unitary group. As shown in  and , under somewhat different hypotheses, $`\pi `$ defines a unitary representation of $`G^{}`$ on $``$.

#### iii) Construction of the anti-unitary involution $`J_h`$, $`h`$ a KMS-element of $`G`$

If $`h`$ is a KMS-element of $`G`$ and $`v𝒱_+`$, we set

$$j_hv:=\theta _r\rho (h)v=\rho (h^1)\theta _rv.$$
(4.60)
Then

$$j_hv,j_hw=\varphi (\theta _r\rho (h)v,\rho (h)w)$$

$$=\varphi (\rho (h^1)\theta _rv,\rho (h)w)$$

$$=\varphi (w,\theta _rv)$$

$$=w,v,$$
(4.61)
by (4.45) and Property (P̃3), (4.47). It follows that $`𝒩`$ is invariant under $`j_h`$, and we may thus set

$$J_h\mathrm{\Phi }(v):=\mathrm{\Phi }(j_hv),v𝒱_+.$$
(4.62)
Equation (4.61) then implies that $`J_h`$ is anti-unitary. Furthermore, by (4.45) and Property (P̃3),

$$J_h^2\mathrm{\Phi }(v)=\mathrm{\Phi }(j_h^2v)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _r\rho (h)\theta _r\rho (h)v)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (h^1)\rho (h)v)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\text{ for arbitrary }v𝒱_+.$$

Hence,

$$J_h^2=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(4.63)
Using (4.60), (4.62), (4.54) and (4.59), we find that

$$\pi (k)J_h\mathrm{\Phi }(v)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (k)j_hv)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(j_{khk^1}\rho (k)v)$$

$$=J_{khk^1}\pi (k)\mathrm{\Phi }(v),$$
(4.64)
for all $`kK`$ and all $`v𝒱_+`$.

Equation (4.55) easily follows from the definition of $`G_h`$ and $`G_h^{}`$ by using theorems 1 and 3 of .

(3) To come up with an analogue of part (2) of the Main Theorem stated in section 3.2 and of the results in section 4.1 would require introducing more structure. As an example, let us imagine that $`𝒱_+`$ contains a linear subspace, $`𝒱_0`$, with

$$\theta _r𝒱_0=𝒱_0$$
(4.65)
(hence $`𝒱_0𝒱_+𝒱_{}`$). Then, the following variant of the real-time KMS condition holds: Let $`h`$ be a KMS-element of $`G`$, with

$$h=\mathrm{exp}M,M𝐦;$$

see (4.53). Let

$$:=\mathrm{d}\pi (M)$$
(4.66)
be the self-adjoint operator representing $`M`$ on the Hilbert space $``$. Then Property (P̃3), (4.47), (4.65) and the theorem stated above imply that, for arbitrary $`v`$ and $`w`$ in $`𝒱_0`$,

$$e^{it}\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=J_h\mathrm{\Phi }(w),J_he^{it}\mathrm{\Phi }(v)$$

$$=J_h\mathrm{\Phi }(w),e^{it}J_h\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\text{ cf. (}\text{4.24}\text{)}$$

$$=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (h^1)\theta _rw),e^{it}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho (h^1)\theta _rv),\text{ cf. (}\text{4.60}\text{)}$$

$$=e^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rw),e^{it}e^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rv),\text{ cf. (}\text{3.28}\text{), (}\text{3.33}\text{)}$$

$$=e^{i(ti)}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rw),e^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rv),$$

and we have used that $``$ is self-adjoint. The usual arguments show that

$$F_{vw}(t):=e^{it}\mathrm{\Phi }(v),\mathrm{\Phi }(w)$$
(4.67)
is the boundary value of a function, $`F_{vw}(z)`$, analytic in $`z`$ on the strip

$$\{z|0<\mathrm{Im}z<2i\},$$
(4.68)
with

$$F_{vw}(t+2i)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rw),e^{it}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _rv)$$

$$=F_{\theta _rw\theta _rv}(t).$$
(4.69)
We conclude that if

$$L:=2\beta ^1$$

can be interpreted as the generator of time evolution (the Liouvillian) in a suitably chosen frame of reference, then, apparently, the quantum theory reconstructed in theorem 5 describes a system in thermal equilibrium at inverse temperature $`\beta `$. This yields a (rather standard) imaginary-time interpretation of the Unruh- and the Hawking effects.

Comparing equations (4.67)–(4.69) with (4.29), (4.20), we easily arrive at a formulation of the connection between spin and statistics (SSC) in the present context.

Theorem 5 and the considerations above apply to all the examples described at the beginning of this section.

(i) Minkowski space:

$$NN_E^d=𝐄^d,N_L^d=𝐌^d,$$

$$G=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d)\times 𝐑^d,G^{}=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d1,1)\times 𝐑^d,$$

$`i`$ a boost generator (Unruh effect).

(ii) de Sitter and $`AdS`$: (1)

$$N=S_R^d,N_L^d=dS_R^d,$$

$$G=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d+1),G^{}=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d,1),$$

$`i`$ a boost generator (“cosmic Unruh effect”).

(2)

$$N=𝐇^d,N_L^d=\stackrel{~}{AdS^d},$$

$$G=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d,1),G^{}=\stackrel{~}{SO}(d1,2),$$

(“$`AdS`$-Unruh-effect” ).

(iii) Schwarzschild black hole:

$$N=𝐑^2\times S^{d2},$$

$$N_L^d=\text{Schwarzschild space-time},$$

$$G=\stackrel{~}{SO}(2)\times \stackrel{~}{SO}(d1),G^{}=𝐑\times \stackrel{~}{SO}(d1),$$

$``$ the generator of rotations of the plane $`𝐑^2=U_E^2`$ (i.e., $`i`$ generator of time translations, $`tt+\tau `$): Hawking effect!

We hope to present an extension of the analysis in this section to quantum theories on more general spaces, including non-commutative ones, elsewhere. (In this connection, note that it is really only the symmetries $`(G,K,\sigma )`$ and the anti-linear involution $`\theta _r`$ which are important in the proof of Theorem 5 and in the remarks (1) through (3), above, but not the manifolds $`(N_E,\eta _E)`$ and $`(N_L,\eta _L)`$!) A particularly interesting case concerns two-dimensional conformal field theories, where $`G`$ is infinite-dimensional. This case is not covered by the results in . It would be desirable to understand it more fully.

Bibliography

1. J. Ginibre, Reduced Density Matrices of Quantum Gases, J. Math. Phys. 6, 238–251, 252–262, 1432–1446; and in Statistical Mechanics, ed. T. Bak, Benjamin, New York, 1967, p. 148
2. J. Feldman and E. Trubowitz, Perturbation Theory for Many Fermion Systems, Helv. Phys. Acta 63, 156–260 (1990), J. Feldman, H. Knörrer and E. Trubowitz, A Two-Dimensional Fermi Liquid, Single Scale Analysis of Many-Fermion Systems, Convergence of Perturbation Expansions in Fermionic Models, &c., see http://www.math.ubc.ca/people /faculty/feldman/fl.html
3. T. Chen, J. Fröhlich and M. Seifert, Renormalization Group Methods: Landau-Fermi Liquid and BCS Superconductor, in: Fluctuating Geometries in Statistical Mechanics and Field Theory, F. David, P. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, eds., Les Houches Summer School 1994, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1995
4. K. Osterwalder and R. Schrader, Axioms for Euclidean Green’s Functions, Commun. Math. Phys. 42, 281–305 (1975)
5. V. Glaser, On the Equivalence of the Euclidean and Wightman Formulation of Field Theory, Comm. Math. Phys. 37, 257–272 (1974)
6. R. Jost, The General Theory of Quantized Fields, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1965
7. R.F. Streater and A.S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, Benjamin, New York, 1964
8. R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 12, 570 (1957)
9. P.C. Martin and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 115, 1342 (1959)
10. D. Ruelle, Analyticity of Green’s Functions of Dilute Quantum Gases, J. Math. Phys. 12, 901–903, (1971), and Definition of Green’s Functions for Dilute Fermi Gases, Helv. Phys. Acta 45, 215–219 (1972)
11. R. Haag, N. Hugenholtz and M. Winnink, On the Equilibrium States in Quantum Statistical Mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 5, 215–236 (1967)
12. H. Araki, Multiple Time Analyticity of a Quantum Statistical State Satisfying the KMS Boundary Condition, Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ. Ser. A, 4, 361–371 (1968)
13. R. Høgh-Krohn, Relativistic Quantum Statistical Mechanics in Two-Dimensional Space-Time, Comm. Math. Phys. 38, 195–224 (1974), R. Figari, R. Høgh-Krohn and C.R. Nappi, Interacting Relativistic Boson Fields in the De Sitter Universe with Two Space-Time Dimensions, Comm. Math. Phys. 44, 265–278 (1975)
14. J. Fröhlich, The Reconstruction of Quantum Fields from Euclidean Green’s Functions at Arbitrary Temperatures, Helv. Phys. Acta 48, 355–369 (1975)
15. J. Fröhlich, Lectures at Princeton University 1976/77, unpublished
16. H. Araki, Relative Hamiltonian for Faithful Normal States of a von Neumann Algebra, Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ., 9, 165–209 (1973)
17. J. Fröhlich, Unbounded Symmetric Semigroups on a Separable Hilbert Space Are Essentially Selfadjoint, Adv. Appl. Math. 1, 237–256 (1980)
18. A. Klein and L.J. Landau, Construction of a Unique Self-Adjoint Generator for a Symmetric Local Semigroup, J. Funct. Anal. 44, 121–137 (1981)
19. A. Klein and L.J. Landau, Stochastic Processes Associated with KMS States, J. Funct. Anal. 42, 368–428 (1981)
20. J.J. Bisognano and E.H. Wichmann, On the Duality Condition for a Hermitian Scalar Field, J. Math. Phys. 16, 985–1007 (1975)
21. R. Jost, Eine Bemerkung zum CTP Theorem, Helv. Phys. Acta 30, 409–416 (1957)
22. J. Fröhlich, K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, On Virtual Representations of Symmetric Spaces and their Analytic Continuation, Ann. Math. 118, 461–489 (1983)
23. O.E. Lanford, in: Mécanique Statistique et Théorie Quantique des Champs, C. De Witt, R. Stora, eds., Gordon and Breach, New York, 1971 (Les Houches Summer School 1970), pp. 109–214
24. O. Bratteli and D.W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics, Springer Verlag, New York, Volume I: 1979, Volume II: 1981
25. M. Takesaki, Tomita’s Theory of Modular Hilbert Algebras and its Applications, LNM 128, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1970
26. R. Haag, D. Kastler and E.B. Trych-Pohlmeyer, Stability and Equilibrium States, Comm. Math. Phys. 38, 173–193 (1974)
27. V. Jakšić and C.A. Pillet, On a Model for Quantum Friction III. Ergodic Properties of the Spin-Boson System, Comm. Math. Phys. 178, 627–651 (1996)
28. V. Bach, J. Fröhlich and I.M. Sigal, Return to Equilibrium, J. Math. Phys. 41, 3985 (2000)
29. H. Epstein, in: Axiomatic Field Theory, M. Chretien and S. Deser eds., Gordon and Breach, New York, 1966 (Brandeis Summer School 1965)
30. H. Kunze and E. Stein, Uniformly Bounded Representations II, Amer. J. Math. 83, 723–786 (1960)
31. A. Klein and L.J. Landau, From the Euclidean Group to the Poincaré Group via Osterwalder-Schrader Positivity, Comm. Math. Phys. 87, 469–484 (1983)
32. J. Fröhlich and P.A. Marchetti, Spin-Statistics Theorem and Scattering in Two-Dimensional Condensed Matter Physics, Nucl. Phys. B356, 533–573 (1991)
33. G.L. Sewell, Relativity of Temperature and the Hawking Effect, Phys. Lett. 79A, 23/24 (1980)
34. J. Bros, H. Epstein and U. Moschella, Analyticity Properties and Thermal Effects for General Quantum Field Theory on De Sitter Space-Time, Comm. Math. Phys. 196, 535–570 (1998)
35. M. Lüscher and G. Mack, Global Conformal Invariance in Quantum Field Theory, Comm. Math. Phys. 41, 203–234 (1975)
36. J. Fröhlich, Statistics of Fields, the Yang-Baxter Equation and the Theory of Knots and Links, in: G. ’t Hooft et al., eds., Non-Perturbative Quantum Field Theory, Cargèse 1987, NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series B: Physics 185, 71–100, Plenum, New York
37. H. Araki, On the Connection of Spin and Commutation Relations between Different Fields, J. Math. Phys. 2, 267–270 (1961)
38. J. Fröhlich and F. Gabbiani, Braid Statistics in Local Quantum Theory, Rev. Math. Phys. 2, 251–353 (1990)
39. J. Bros, H. Epstein and U. Moschella, Towards a General Theory of Quantized Fields on the Anti-de Sitter Space-Time, preprint November 2001
40. J. Maldacena, The Large $`N`$ Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231–252 (1998)
41. N. Straumann, General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1984