text:
# GENERALIZATIONS OF THE DIRAC EQUATION AND THE MODIFIED BARGMANN-WIGNER FORMALISMSome parts of this work have been presented at the Second International Workshop ”Graphs-Operads-Logic, Parallel Computation, Mathematical Physics”, May 6-16, 2002, FESC-UNAM, Cuautitlán, México and the 6th International Conference on Clifford Algebras and Their Applications in Mathematical Physics, May 20-25, 2002, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA.

## I Introduction

In this work I am going to discuss the following matters:

* Generalizations of the Dirac equation. Why? Who? How far?
* The theory in the $`(J,0)(0,J)`$ representation of the Lorentz group (the Weinberg $`2(2J+1)`$ theory).
* A lot of antisymmetric tensor (AST) fields. The Proca theory is generalized.
* (The standard Bargmann-Wigner $`(2J+1)`$-formalism). $``$ (The Proca-Duffin-Kemmer formalism.)
* (Modifications of the Bargmann-Wigner formalism.) $``$ (Modifications of the Proca theory.)
* Conclusions. What further?

What is the purpose of my research? I am sure that the modern physics constructs have much deeper relations with the space-time and discrete symmetries than it was believed before.

## II Generalizations of the Dirac formalism

First of all, I am going to present some preliminary material (perhaps, not so known as it deserves). The equations below can be derived from the first principles and they are used for modifications of the Bargmann-Wigner formalism.

### A The Tokuoka-Sen Gupta-Fushchich formalism

It is based on the equation :

$$[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m_1+m_2\gamma ^5]\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(1)
* If $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ it was claimed  that this is simply the change of the representation of $`\gamma `$’s.
* Physical consequences are:

1. The equation can describe bradyonic, massless and tachyonic particles depending on the choice of the parameters $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, ref. .
    2. The equation we get under the charge conjugation operation is not the same equation; the sign before $`\gamma ^5`$ term is changed to the opposite one , provided that $`m_1,m_2\mathrm{}e`$.
    3. It is impossible to construct a Lagrangian unless we introduce the second field, e. g., $`\mathrm{\Psi }^c`$.
    4. In the massless case the solutions are no longer eigenstates of the $`\gamma _5`$ operator: neither they are eigenstates of the helicity operator of the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation .
    5. The commutation relations are quite unusual , e.g., for massless particles $`m_1=\pm m_2`$ one has $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ,\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}^c\}0`$, $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\}0`$, but $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ,\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}\}=0`$. However, even in the massive case we can have nonlocality, i.e. the presence of the even Pauli-Jordan function .
* Fushchich  generalized the formalism even further in 1970-72, and, in fact, he connected it with the Gelfand-Tsetlin-Sokolik idea  of the 2-dimensional representation of the inversion group.***This type of theories is frequently called the Wigner-type. However, the Wigner lectures turn out to have been presented later (1962-64).
* I derived the above parity-violating equation  (and its charge-conjugate) by the Sakurai-Gersten method from the first principles, see the Appendix A.

### B The Barut Formalism

It is based on the equation :

$$[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +\alpha _2\frac{_\mu _\mu }{m}+\ae ]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(2)
It was re-derived from the first principles in . The Ryder relation between zero-momentum left- and right- 2-spinors has been generalized :
$$\varphi _L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )=a(1)^{1/2h}e^{i(\vartheta _1+\vartheta _2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi _L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )]^{}+be^{2i\theta _h}\mathrm{\Xi }_{[1/2]}^1[\varphi _L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )]^{}.$$
(3)  see for the notation therein. As a result, in the Majorana representation we have different equations for real and imaginary parts of the field function:    $`\left[a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma _\mu _\mu }{m}}+b+1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$  (5)   $`\left[a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma _\mu _\mu }{m}}b+1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$  (6)

* It represents a theory with the conserved current that is linear in the generators of the 4-dimensional representation of the $`O(4,2)`$ group.
* Instead of 4 solutions it has 8 solutions with the correct relativistic dispersion $`E=\pm \sqrt{𝐩^2+m_i^2}`$; and, in fact, describes two mass states $`m_\mu =m_e(1+\frac{3}{2\alpha })`$, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, provided that the certain physical condition is imposed on the $`\alpha _2`$ parameter .
* One can also generalize the formalism to include the third state, $`\tau `$-lepton, see refs. \[8d,11\].
* Barut also indicated the possibility of including $`\gamma ^5`$ term. For instance, the equation can look something like this:

$$[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +a+b\mathrm{}+\gamma ^5(c+d\mathrm{})]\psi =0,$$
(7)
which cannot yet be factorized as a product of two Dirac equations with different masses.

### C The Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer (WTH) Formalism

The basic principles of constructing the theory in the $`(J,0)(0,J)`$ representation  can be seen in Appendix B.

For spin 1 we start from

$$[\gamma _{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta +Ap_\alpha p_\alpha +Bm^2]\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(8)
where $`p_\mu =i_\mu `$ and $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }`$ are the Barut-Muzinich-Williams covariantly defined $`6\times 6`$ matrices given in Appendix B, $`_\mu \gamma _{\mu \mu }=0`$. The determinant of $`[\gamma _{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta +Ap_\alpha p_\alpha +Bm^2]`$ is of the 12th order in $`p_\mu `$. Solutions with $`E^2𝐩^2=m^2`$, $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ can be obtained if and only if

$$\frac{B}{A+1}=1,\frac{B}{A1}=1.$$
(9)
The particular cases are:

* $`A=0,B=1`$ $``$ we have Weinberg’s equation for $`J=1`$ with 3 solutions $`E=+\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$, 3 solutions $`E=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$, 3 solutions $`E=+\sqrt{𝐩^2m^2}`$ and 3 solutions $`E=\sqrt{𝐩^2m^2}`$.
* $`A=1,B=2`$ $``$ we have the Tucker-Hammer equation for $`J=1`$. The solutions are only with $`E=\pm \sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$.

So, the addition of the Klein-Gordon equation may change the physical content even on the free level.

What are the corresponding equations for antisymmetric tensor field? Proca? Maxwell? Recently we have shown  that one can obtain four different equations for antisymmetric tensor fields from the Weinberg $`2(2J+1)`$ component formalism. First of all, we note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is, in fact, bivector, $`𝐄_i=iF_{4i}`$, $`𝐁_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}`$,, or $`𝐄_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{F}_{jk}`$, $`𝐁_i=i\stackrel{~}{F}_{4i}`$, or their combination. One can single out the four cases:

* $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(I)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐄+i𝐁\\ 𝐄i𝐁\end{array}\right)`$, $`P=1`$, where $`𝐄_i`$ and $`𝐁_i`$ are the components of the tensor.
* $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(II)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐁i𝐄\\ 𝐁+i𝐄\end{array}\right)`$, $`P=+1`$, where $`𝐄_i`$, $`𝐁_i`$ are the components of the tensor.
* $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(III)}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(I)}`$, but (!) $`𝐄_i`$ and $`𝐁_i`$ are the corresponding vector and axial-vector components of the dual tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(IV)}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(II)}`$, where $`𝐄_i`$ and $`𝐁_i`$ are the components of the dual tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$.

The mappings of the WTH equations are:

$`_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }^{(I)}_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }^{(I)}+{\displaystyle \frac{A1}{2}}_\mu _\mu F_{\alpha \beta }^{(I)}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2F_{\alpha \beta }^{(I)}=0,`$ (11)
$`_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }^{(II)}_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }^{(II)}{\displaystyle \frac{A+1}{2}}_\mu _\mu F_{\alpha \beta }^{(II)}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2F_{\alpha \beta }^{(II)}=0,`$ (12)
$`_\alpha _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \beta }^{(III)}_\beta _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \alpha }^{(III)}{\displaystyle \frac{A+1}{2}}_\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }^{(III)}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }^{(III)}=0,`$ (13)
$`_\alpha _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \beta }^{(IV)}_\beta _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \alpha }^{(IV)}+{\displaystyle \frac{A1}{2}}_\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }^{(IV)}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }^{(IV)}=0.`$ (14)
In the Tucker-Hammer case ($`A=1,B=2`$) we can recover the Proca theory from (11):

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=m^2F_{\alpha \beta },$$
(15)
($`A_\nu =\frac{1}{m^2}_\alpha F_{\alpha \nu }`$ should be substituted in $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, and multiplied by $`m^2`$).

We also noted  that the massless limit of this theory does not coincide in full with the Maxwell theory, while it contains the latter as a particular case. In  we showed that it is possible to define various massless limits for the Proca-Duffin-Kemmer theory. Another is the Ogievetskiĭ-Polubarinov notoph (which in the US literature is called the Kalb-Ramond field), ref. . Transverse components of the AST field can be removed from the corresponding Lagrangian by means of the “new gauge transformation” $`A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$, with the vector gauge function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$.

The second case is

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=[_\mu _\mu m^2]F_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(16)
So, on the mass shell $`[_\mu _\mu m^2]F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, and, hence,

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=0,$$
(17)
which rather corresponds to the Maxwell-like case. However, if we calculate dispersion relations for the second case (17) it appears that the equation has solutions even if $`m0`$.

The interesting case is $`B=8`$ and $`A=B1=7`$. In this case we can describe various mass states which are connected by the relation $`m^{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=\frac{4}{3}m^2`$. One can get

$`_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=3(_\mu _\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }+4m^2F_{\alpha \beta }(\text{originated from}P=1),`$ (19)
$`_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=+4(_\mu _\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }4m^2F_{\alpha \beta }(\text{originated from}P=+1).`$ (20)
If we consider $`_\mu ^2=m^2`$, the first equation will give us only causal solutions with the mass $`m`$ which are compatible with the Proca theory; the second case reduces to (17).

Let us consider also $`_\mu ^2=\ae m^2`$. If one does not want to have neither tachyonic solutions nor old Proca-like solutions with $`m`$, one can find another possibility: set from the first equation $`(43\ae )m^2=0`$ and, hence, $`\ae =\frac{4}{3}`$. On using this value of $`\ae `$ in the second equation we observe that the right-hand side comes to be equal

$$(4\ae 4)m^2=\frac{4}{3}m^2,$$
(21)
i.e., this is the compatible solution with the mass $`m^{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=\frac{4}{3}m^2`$:

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=\frac{4}{3}m^2.$$
(22)
Now we are interested in parity-violating equations for antisymmetric tensor fields. We also investigate the most general mapping of the Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer formulation to the antisymetric tensor field formulation. Instead of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(IIV)}`$ we shall try to use now

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(A)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐄+i𝐁\\ 𝐁+i𝐄\end{array}\right)=\frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(I)}+\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(II)}.$$
(23)
As a result, the equation for the AST fields is

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu _\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }+[\frac{A}{2}(_\mu _\mu )+\frac{B}{2}m^2]\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(24)
Of course, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(A)^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐁i𝐄\\ 𝐄i𝐁\end{array}\right)=i\mathrm{\Psi }^{(A)}`$, and the equation is unchanged. The different choice is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(B)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐄+i𝐁\\ 𝐁i𝐄\end{array}\right)=\frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(I)}\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(II)}.$$
(25)
Thus, one has

$$_\alpha _\mu F_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu F_{\mu \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu _\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }+[\frac{A}{2}(_\mu _\mu )\frac{B}{2}m^2]\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(26)
Of course, one can also use the dual tensor ($`𝐄^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{F}_{jk}`$ and $`𝐁^i=i\stackrel{~}{F}_{4i}`$) and obtain analogous equations:

$`_\alpha _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }+[{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}(_\mu _\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2]F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (28)
$`_\alpha _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \beta }_\beta _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }+[{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}(_\mu _\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}m^2]F_{\alpha \beta }.`$ (29)
They are connected with (24,26) by the dual transformations.

The states corresponding to the new functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(A)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(B)}`$ etc are not the parity eigenstates. So, it is not surprising that we have $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and its dual $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }`$ in the same equations. In total we have already eight equations.

One can also consider the most general case

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(W)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}aF_{4i}+b\stackrel{~}{F}_{4i}+cϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}+dϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{F}_{jk}\\ eF_{4i}+f\stackrel{~}{F}_{4i}+gϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}+hϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{F}_{jk}\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
So, we shall have dynamical equations for $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }`$ with additional parameters $`a,b,c,d,\mathrm{}𝐂`$. We have a lot of antisymmetric tensor fields here. However,

* the covariant form preserves if there are some restrictions on the parameters. Alternatively, we have some additional terms of $`_4^2`$ or $`^2`$;
* both $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ are present in the equations;
* under the definite choice of $`a,b,c,d\mathrm{}`$ the equations can be reduced to the above equations for the tensor $`_{\mu \nu }`$ and its dual:

$$_{\mu \nu }=c_1F_{\mu \nu }+c_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }+\frac{c_3}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{c_4}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta };$$
(31)
* the parity properties of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_W`$ are very complicated.

### D The Bargmann-Wigner Formalism

The way for constructing equations of high-spin particles has been given in . However, they claimed explicitly that they constructed $`(2J+1)`$ states (the Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer theory has essentially $`2(2J+1)`$ components). In this subsection we present the standard Bargmann-Wigner formalism for $`J=1`$:

$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m\right]_{\gamma \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (34)
If one has

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\left\{\alpha \beta \right\}}=(\gamma _\mu R)_{\alpha \beta }A_\mu +(\sigma _{\mu \nu }R)_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(35)
with

$$R=e^{ı\phi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Theta }\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
in the spinorial representation of $`\gamma `$-matrices we obtain the Duffin-Proca-Kemmer equations:

$`_\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}A_\mu ,`$ (38)
$`2mF_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .`$ (39)
(In order to obtain this set one should add the equations (33,34) and compare functional coefficients before the corresponding commutators, see ). After the corresponding re-normalization $`A_\mu 2mA_\mu `$, we obtain the standard textbook set:

$`_\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }=m^2A_\mu ,`$ (41)
$`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .`$ (42)
It gives the equation (15) for the antisymmetric tensor field. How can one obtain other equations following the Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer approach?

The recipe for the third equation is simple: use, instead of $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu }R)F_{\mu \nu }`$, another symmetric matrix $`(\gamma ^5\sigma _{\mu \nu }R)F_{\mu \nu }`$, see  and Appendix C. And what about the second and the fourth equations? One can modify the Dirac equation and form the direct product $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^c`$, see . So, I suggest:

* by means of specific similarity transformation, see above and :

$$[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m]\mathrm{\Psi }=0[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m_1+m_2\gamma _5]\mathrm{\Psi }=0;$$
(43)
* to use the Barut extension too:

$$[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m]\mathrm{\Psi }=0[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +a\frac{_\mu _\mu }{m}+\ae ]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(44)
In such a way we can enlarge the set of possible states.

## III Modified Bargmann-Wigner Formalism

We begin with

$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +ab\mathrm{}+\gamma _5(cd\mathrm{})\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (46)
$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +ab\mathrm{}\gamma _5(cd\mathrm{})\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{}`$ is the d’Alembertian. Thus, we obtain the Proca-like equations:

$`_\nu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\nu 2(a+b_\mu _\mu )F_{\nu \lambda }=0,`$ (49)
$`_\mu F_{\mu \lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a+b_\mu _\mu )A_\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c+d_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda ,`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda `$ is the axial-vector potential (analogous to that used in the Duffin-Kemmer set for $`J=0`$). Add‘itional constraints are:

$`i_\lambda A_\lambda +(c+d_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0,`$ (52)
$`ϵ_{\mu \lambda \ae \tau }_\mu F_{\lambda \ae }=0,`$ (53)
$`(c+d_\mu _\mu )\varphi =0.`$ (54)
The spin-0 Duffin-Kemmer equations are:

$`(a+b_\mu _\mu )\varphi =0,`$ (56)
$`i_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (a+b_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0,`$ (57)
$`(a+b_\mu _\mu )\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +(c+d_\mu _\mu )A_\nu +i(_\nu \stackrel{~}{\varphi })=0.`$ (58)
The additional constraints are:

$`_\mu \varphi =0`$ (60)
$`_\nu \stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda _\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +2(c+d_\mu _\mu )F_{\nu \lambda }=0.`$ (61)
In such a way the spin states are mixed through the 4-vector potentials. For higher-spin equations similar calculations and conclusions have been reached by M. Moshinsky et al.  and S. Kruglov . After elimination of the 4-vector potentials we obtain the equation for the AST field of the second rank:

$$\left[_\mu _\nu F_{\nu \lambda }_\lambda _\nu F_{\nu \mu }\right]+\left[(c^2a^2)2(abcd)_\mu _\mu +(d^2b^2)(_\mu _\mu )^2\right]F_{\mu \lambda }=0,$$
(62)
which should be compared with our previous equations which follow from the Weinberg-like formulation. Just put:

$`c^2a^2{\displaystyle \frac{Bm^2}{2}},`$ $`c^2a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Bm^2}{2}},`$ (64)
$`2(abcd){\displaystyle \frac{A1}{2}},`$ $`+2(abcd){\displaystyle \frac{A+1}{2}},`$ (65)
$`b=\pm d.`$ (66)
(The latter condition serves in order to exclude terms $`\mathrm{}^2`$). Of course, these sets of algebraic equations have solutions in terms $`A`$ and $`B`$. We found them and restored the equations:

$$\left[_\mu _\nu F_{\nu \lambda }_\lambda _\nu F_{\nu \mu }\right]\frac{A+1}{2}_\nu _\nu F_{\mu \lambda }+\frac{B}{2}m^2F_{\mu \lambda }=0$$
(67)
and

$$\left[_\mu _\nu F_{\nu \lambda }_\lambda _\nu F_{\nu \mu }\right]+\frac{A1}{2}_\nu _\nu F_{\mu \lambda }\frac{B}{2}m^2F_{\mu \lambda }=0$$
(68)
Thus, the procedure which we carried out is the following: The Modified Bargmann-Wigner formalism $``$ The AST field equations $``$ The Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer approach.

The parity violation and the spin mixing are intrinsic possibilities of the Proca-like theories. One can go in a different way: instead of modifying the equations, consider the spin basis rotations. In the helicity basis we have (see also , where it was claimed explicitly that helicity states cannot be parity eigenstates):

$`ϵ_\mu (𝐩,\lambda =+1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0,\frac{p_xp_zip_yp}{\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}},\frac{p_yp_z+ip_xp}{\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}},\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (70)
$`ϵ_\mu (𝐩,\lambda =1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0,\frac{p_xp_zip_yp}{\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}},\frac{p_yp_z+ip_xp}{\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}},+\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (71)
$`ϵ_\mu (𝐩,\lambda =0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p,\frac{E}{p}p_x,\frac{E}{p}p_y,\frac{E}{p}p_z\end{array}\right),`$ (72)
$`ϵ_\mu (𝐩,\lambda =0_t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E,p_x,p_y,p_z\end{array}\right).`$ (73)
and

$`𝐄(𝐩,\lambda =+1)={\displaystyle \frac{iEp_z}{\sqrt{2}pp_l}}𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\sqrt{2}p_l}}\stackrel{~}{𝐩},𝐁(𝐩,\lambda =+1)={\displaystyle \frac{p_z}{\sqrt{2}p_l}}𝐩+{\displaystyle \frac{ip}{\sqrt{2}p_l}}\stackrel{~}{𝐩},`$ (75)
$`𝐄(𝐩,\lambda =1)=+{\displaystyle \frac{iEp_z}{\sqrt{2}pp_r}}𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\sqrt{2}p_r}}\stackrel{~}{𝐩}^{},𝐁(𝐩,\lambda =1)={\displaystyle \frac{p_z}{\sqrt{2}p_r}}𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{ip}{\sqrt{2}p_r}}\stackrel{~}{𝐩}^{},`$ (76)
$`𝐄(𝐩,\lambda =0)={\displaystyle \frac{im}{p}}𝐩,𝐁(𝐩,\lambda =0)=0,`$ (77)
with $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_y\\ p_x\\ ip\end{array}\right)`$. See Appendix D for the 4-potentials and fields in the more common (parity) basis.

In fact, there are several modifications of the BW formalism. Thanks to Professor Z. Oziewicz I came to the following set:

$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +ϵ_1m_1+ϵ_2m_2\gamma _5\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (79)
$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +ϵ_3m_1+ϵ_4m_2\gamma _5\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (80)
where $`ϵ_i`$ are the sign operators. So, at first sight, we have 16 possible combinations for the AST fields. First, we come to

$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m_1A_1+m_2A_2\gamma _5\right]_{\alpha \beta }\left\{(\gamma _\lambda R)_{\beta \gamma }A_\lambda +(\sigma _{\lambda \ae }R)_{\beta \gamma }F_{\lambda \ae }\right\}+`$ (82)
$`+`$ $`\left[m_1B_1+m_2B_2\gamma _5\right]\left\{R_{\beta \gamma }\phi +(\gamma _5R)_{\beta \gamma }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+(\gamma _5\gamma _\lambda R)_{\beta \gamma }\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda \right\}=0,`$ (84)
$`\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +m_1A_1+m_2A_2\gamma _5\right]_{\gamma \beta }\left\{(\gamma _\lambda R)_{\alpha \beta }A_\lambda +(\sigma _{\lambda \ae }R)_{\alpha \beta }F_{\lambda \ae }\right\}`$
$``$ $`\left[m_1B_1+m_2B_2\gamma _5\right]\left\{R_{\alpha \beta }\phi +(\gamma _5R)_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+(\gamma _5\gamma _\lambda R)_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda \right\}=0,`$ (85)
where $`A_1=\frac{ϵ_1+ϵ_3}{2}`$, $`A_2=\frac{ϵ_2+ϵ_4}{2}`$, $`B_1=\frac{ϵ_1ϵ_3}{2}`$, and $`B_2=\frac{ϵ_2ϵ_4}{2}`$. Thus for spin 1 we have

$`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2m_1A_1F_{\mu \lambda }+im_2A_2ϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \lambda }F_{\alpha \beta }=0,`$ (87)
$`_\lambda F_{\ae \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_1A_\ae {\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}B_2\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0,`$ (88)
with constraints

$`i_\mu A_\mu +2m_1B_1\varphi +2m_2B_2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0,`$ (90)
$`iϵ_{\mu \nu \ae \lambda }_\mu F_{\nu \ae }m_2A_2A_\lambda m_1B_1\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda =0,`$ (91)
$`m_1B_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+m_2B_2\varphi =0.`$ (92)
If we remove $`A_\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda `$ from this set, we come to the final results for the AST field.

Actually, we have twelve equations (another four equations coincide with some of those indicated below):

$`(I):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (95)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }=0;`$
$`(II):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (98)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae {\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0;`$
$`(III):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu 2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (101)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae =0;`$
$`(IV):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu 2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (104)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }=0;`$
$`(V):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu 2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (107)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae +{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0;`$
$`(VI):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu 2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (110)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae {\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0;`$
$`(VII):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }+2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (113)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae =0;`$
$`(VIII):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (116)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae +{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0;`$
$`(IX):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu =0,`$ (119)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0;`$
$`(X):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu +2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (122)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae =0;`$
$`(XI):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu 2m_1F_{\mu \lambda }+2im_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (125)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{2}}A_\ae =0;`$
$`(XII):`$ $`_\mu A_\lambda _\lambda A_\mu =0,`$ (128)
$`_\lambda F_{\lambda \ae }{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\ae =0.`$
In the general case we obtain the equation where both $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and its dual $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ present, as above we obtain from the WTH formalism

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1B_1}{m_1^2A_1B_1m_2^2A_2B_2}}[_\mu _\ae F_{\ae \lambda }_\lambda _\ae F_{\ae \mu }]+`$ (129)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{im_2B_2}{m_1^2A_1B_1m_2^2A_2B_2}}[_\mu _\ae \stackrel{~}{F}_{\ae \lambda }_\lambda _\ae \stackrel{~}{F}_{\ae \mu }]=m_1A_1F_{\mu \lambda }+im_2A_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \lambda }`$ (130)
One can go even further. One can use the Barut equations for the BW input. So, we can get $`16\times 16`$ combinations (depending on the eigenvalues of the corresponding sign operators),Some of them can coincide each other. and we have different eigenvalues of masses due to $`_\mu ^2=\ae m^2`$.

What is their physical sense? Why do I think that the shown arbitrarieness of equations for the AST fields is related to 1) spin basis rotations; 2) the choice of normalization? In the common-used basis the three 4-potentials have parity eigenvalues $`1`$ and one time-like (or spin-0 state), $`+1`$; the fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ have also definite parity properties in this basis. If we transfer to other basis, e.g., to the helicity basis we can see that the 4-vector potentials and the corresponding fields are superpositions of the vector and the axial-vector. Of course, they can be expanded in the fields in the “old” basis. We are going to investigate this surprising fact in other publications.

## IV Conclusions

* The addition of the Klein-Gordon equation to the $`(J,0)(0,J)`$ equations may change physical content even on the free level.
* In the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation it is possible to introduce the parity-violating frameworks.
* We found the mappings between the Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer formalism for $`J=1`$ and the AST fields of the 2nd rank of at least eight types. Four of them include both $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$, which tells us that the parity violation may occur during the study of the corresponding dynamics.
* If we want to take into account the $`J=1`$ solutions with different parity properties, the Bargmann-Wigner (BW), the Proca and the Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau (DKP) formalisms are to be generalized.
* We considered the most general case, introducing eight scalar parameters. In order to have covariant equations for the AST fields, one should impose constraints on the corresponding parameters.
* It is possible to get solutions with mass splitting.
* We found the 4-potentials and fields in the helicity basis. They have different parity properties comparing with the standard (“parity”) basis (cf. ).
* The discussion induced us to generalize the BW, the Proca and the Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau formalisms. Higher-spin equations may actually describe various spin, mass, helicity and parity states. The states of different parity, helicity, and mass may be present in the same equation.
* On the basis of generalizations of the BW formalism, finally, we obtained twelve equations for the AST fields.
* A hypothesis was presented that the obtained results are related to the spin basis rotations and to the choice of normalization.

## Appendix A. Derivation of the Generalized Dirac Equation

I use the following equation for the two-component spinor wave function :

$$(E^2c^2𝐩^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})I^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[EI^{(2)}c𝐩𝝈\right]\left[EI^{(2)}+c𝐩𝝈\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu _2^2c^4\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(131)
One can define two-component ‘right’ and ‘left’ wave functions

$$\varphi _R=\frac{1}{\mu _1c}(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x_0}i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\mathrm{\Psi },\varphi _L=\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(132)
with an additional mass parameter $`\mu _1`$. In such a way we come to the set of equations

$`(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}+i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\varphi _R={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2^2c}{\mu _1}}\varphi _L,`$ (134)
$`(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\varphi _L=\mu _1c\varphi _R,`$ (135)
which can be written in the 4-component form:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{}(/x_0)& i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{}\\ i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{}& i\mathrm{}(/x_0)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _A\\ \psi _B\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\mu _2^2/\mu _1+\mu _1)& (\mu _2^2/\mu _1+\mu _1)\\ (\mu _2^2/\mu _1+\mu _1)& (\mu _2^2/\mu _1+\mu _1)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _A\\ \psi _B\end{array}\right)`$ (136)
for the function $`\psi =column(\varphi _R+\varphi _L\varphi _R\varphi _L)`$. The equation (136) can be written in the covariant form (as one can see, the standard representation of $`\gamma ^\mu `$ matrices was used here):

$$\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +\frac{\mu _2^2c}{\mu _1\mathrm{}}\frac{(1\gamma ^5)}{2}+\frac{\mu _1c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1+\gamma ^5)}{2}\right]\psi =0.$$
(137)
If $`\mu _1=\mu _2`$ we can recover the standard Dirac equation. As noted in ref.  this procedure can be viewed as simply changing the representation of $`\gamma ^\mu `$ matrices (unless $`\mu _10`$, $`\mu _20`$).

It is interesting that we also can repeat this procedure for the definition (or even more general):

$$\varphi _L=\frac{1}{\mu _3c}(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x_0}+i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\mathrm{\Psi },\varphi _R=\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(138)
since in the two-component equation the parity properties of the two-component spinor are undefined. The resulting equation is

$$\left[i\gamma _\mu _\mu +\frac{\mu _4^2c}{\mu _3\mathrm{}}\frac{(1+\gamma ^5)}{2}+\frac{\mu _3c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1\gamma ^5)}{2}\right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0.$$
(139)
The above procedure can be generalized to any Lorentz group representation, i. e., to any spin.

## Appendix B. Weinberg $`2(2J+1)`$-component Formalism

I reviewed the Weinberg $`2(2J+1)`$-component formalism in ref. . I found the following postulates :

* The fields transform according to the formula:

$$U[\mathrm{\Lambda },a]\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)U^1[\mathrm{\Lambda },a]=\underset{m}{}D_{nm}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1]\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }x+a),$$
(140)
where $`D_{nm}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is some representation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; $`x^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu +a^\mu `$, and $`U[\mathrm{\Lambda },a]`$ is a unitary operator.
* For $`(xy)`$ spacelike one has

$$[\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_m(y)]_\pm =0$$
(141)
for fermion and boson fields, respectively.
* The interaction Hamiltonian density is said by S. Weinberg to be scalar, and it is constructed out of the creation and annihilation operators for the free particles described by the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$.
* The $`S`$-matrix is constructed as an integral of the $`T`$-ordering product of the interaction Hamiltonians by Dyson’s formula.

Weinberg wrote: “In order to discuss theories with parity conservation it is convenient to use $`2(2J+1)`$-component fields, like the Dirac field. These do obey field equations, which can be derived as…consequences of (140,141).” §§§In the $`(2J+1)`$ formalism, fields obey only the Klein-Gordon equation, according to the Weinberg wisdom. In such a way he proceeds to form the $`2(2J+1)`$-component object

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma \end{array}\right)$$

transforming according to the Wigner rules. They are the following ones:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(+\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}𝐉)\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma (\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (143)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}𝐉)\mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (144)
from the zero-momentum frame. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the boost parameter, $`\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Theta }=|𝐩|/E`$, $`\widehat{𝐩}=𝐩/|𝐩|`$, $`𝐩`$ is the 3-momentum of the particle, $`𝐉`$ is the angular momentum operator. For a given representation the matrices $`𝐉`$ can be constructed. In the Dirac case (the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation) $`𝐉=𝝈/2`$; in the $`J=1`$ case (the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation) we can choose $`(J_i)_{jk}=iϵ_{ijk}`$, etc. Hence, we can explicitly calculate (143,144), see $`J=1/2,1,3/2,2`$ cases in the Table (cf. ref. ):

| Spin 0 | 1 |
| --- | --- |
| Spin 1/2 | $`[E+m\pm 𝝈𝐩]/[2m(E+m)]^{1/2}`$ |
| Spin 1 | $`[m(E+m)\pm (E+m)(𝐉𝐩)+(𝐉𝐩)^2]/[m(E+m)]`$ |
| Spin 3/2 | $`\frac{[(E+m)(E5m)(2/3)(E13m)(𝐉𝐩)+4(𝐉𝐩)^2\pm (8/3)(E+m)^1(𝐉𝐩)^3]}{[32m^3(E+m)]^{1/2}}`$ |
| Spin 2 | $`\frac{[m^2(E+m)^2(1/3)(E4m)(E+m)^2(𝐉𝐩)(1/6)(E7m)(E+m)(𝐉𝐩)^2\pm (1/3)(E+m)(𝐉𝐩)^3+(1/6)(𝐉𝐩)^4]}{[m^2(m+E)^2]}`$ |

The task is now to obtain relativistic equations for higher spins. Weinberg uses the following procedure (see also ). Firstly, he defined the scalar matrix

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }^{(j)}(q)=()^{2j}t_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2j}}q_{\mu _1}q_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}q_{\mu _{2j}}$$
(145)
for the $`(J,0)`$ representation of the Lorentz group ($`q_\mu q_\mu =m^2`$), with the tensor $`t`$ being defined by \[12a,Eqs.(A4-A5)\]. Hence,

$$D^{(j)}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)}(q)D^{(j)}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }q)$$
(146)
Since at rest we have $`[𝐉^{(j)},\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)}(m)]=0`$, then according to the Schur’s lemma $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(j)}(m)=m^{2j}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$. After the substitution of $`D^{(j)}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ in Eq. (146) one has

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)}(q)=m^{2j}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐪}𝐉^{(j)}).$$
(147)
One can construct the analogous matrix for the $`(0,J)`$ representation by the same procedure:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{(j)}(q)=m^{2j}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐪}𝐉^{(j)}).$$
(148)
Finally, by direct verification one has in the coordinate representation

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma ^{}=m^{2j}\mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma ,`$ (150)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(i)\mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma ^{}=m^{2j}\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma ,`$ (151)
if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\sigma (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ are indistinguishable.Later, this fact has been incorporated in the Ryder book . Truely speaking, this is an additional postulate. It is also possible that the zero-momentum-frame $`2(2J+1)`$-component objects (the 4-spinor in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation, the bivector in the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation, etc.) are connected by an arbitrary phase factor .

As a result one has

$$[\gamma ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2j}}_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}_{\mu _{2j}}+m^{2j}]\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0,$$
(152)
with the Barut-Muzinich-Williams covariantly-defined matrices . For the spin-1 they are:

$`\gamma _{44}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ & 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _{i4}=\gamma _{4i}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& iJ_i\\ iJ_i& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (154)
$`\gamma ^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \delta _{ij}J_iJ_jJ_jJ_i\\ \delta _{ij}J_iJ_jJ_jJ_i& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (155)
Later Sankaranarayanan and Good considered another version of this theory . For the $`J=1`$ case they introduced the Weaver-Hammer-Good sign operator, ref. , $`m^2m^2(i/t)/E`$, which led to the different parity properties of an antiparticle with respect to a boson particle. Next, Hammer et al  introduced another higher-spin equation. In the spin-1 case it is:

$$[\gamma _{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +_\mu _\mu 2m^2]\mathrm{\Psi }^{(j=1)}=0.$$
(156)
In fact, they added the Klein-Gordon equation to the Weinberg equation.

Weinberg considered massless cases too. He claimed that there is no problem \[12b\] to put $`m0`$ in propagators and field functions of the $`(J,0)`$ and $`(0,J)`$ fields. But, there are indeed problems for the fields of the $`(J/2,J/2)`$-types, e.g., for the 4-vector potential. The Weinberg theorem says \[12b,p.B885\]: “A massless particle operator $`a(𝐩,\lambda )`$ of helicity $`\lambda `$ can only be used to construct fields which transform according to representations $`(A,B)`$ such that $`BA=\lambda `$. For instance, a left-circularly polarized photon with $`\lambda =1`$ can be associated with $`(1,0)`$, $`(3/2,1/2)`$, $`(2,1)`$ fields but not with the 4-vector potential $`(1/2,1/2)`$, at least until we broaden our notion of what we mean by Lorentz transformations”. He indicated that this is a consequence of the non-semi-simple structure of the little group. In his book \[35, §5.9\], he gave additional details of what he meant in the above statement. Indeed, divergent terms of the 4-vector potential ($`\lambda =\pm 1`$; under certain choice of the normalization) in the $`m0`$ limit may be removed by gauge transformations, see Appendix D.

## Appendix C. Additional Fields in the Bargmann-Wigner Formalism

I noted  that it is possible to use another matrices in the expansion of the Bargmann-Wigner symmetric spinor . If

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=(\gamma ^\mu R)_{\alpha \beta }(c_amA_\mu +c_fF_\mu )+(\sigma ^{\mu \nu }R)_{\alpha \beta }(c_Am\gamma ^5A_{\mu \nu }+c_FF_{\mu \nu }),$$
(157)
we have “new” Proca equations

$`c_am(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )+c_f(_\mu F_\nu _\nu F_\mu )=ic_Am^2ϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }A_{\alpha \beta }+2mc_FF_{\mu \nu }`$ (159)
$`c_am^2A_\mu +c_fmF_\mu =ic_Amϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\nu A_{\alpha \beta }2c_F_\nu F_{\mu \nu }.`$ (160)
Other generalizations of the Bargmann-Wigner formalism have been presented therein and in ref. .

## Appendix D. Field Functions in the Momentum Space

The 4-potentials in the momentum space are  (the standard basis is used):

$`u^\mu (𝐩,+1)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_r\\ m+\frac{p_1p_r}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_2p_r}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_r}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right)`$ $`,u^\mu (𝐩,1)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_l\\ m+\frac{p_1p_l}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_2p_l}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_l}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),`$ (162)
$`u^\mu (𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_3\\ \frac{p_1p_3}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_2p_3}{E_p+m}\\ m+\frac{p_3^2}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),u^\mu (𝐩,0_t)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\\ p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right),`$ (163)
($`p_{r,l}=p_1\pm ip_2`$). The corresponding fields are:

$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}ip_3\\ p_3\\ ip_r\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _1}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (165)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_2\\ p_1\\ 0\end{array}\right)=e^{i\alpha _0}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0),`$ (166)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}ip_3\\ p_3\\ ip_l\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _{+1}}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1),`$ (167)
and

$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\frac{p_1p_r}{E_p+m}\\ iE_p\frac{p_2p_r}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_r}{E+m}\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _1^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (169)
$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{p_1p_3}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_2p_3}{E_p+m}\\ E_p\frac{p_3^2}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\alpha _0^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,0),`$ (170)
$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\frac{p_1p_l}{E_p+m}\\ iE_p\frac{p_2p_l}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_l}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _{+1}^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,+1),`$ (171)
where we denoted a normalization factor appearing in the definitions of the potentials (and/or in the definitions of the physical fields through potentials) as $`N`$ (it is usually to be chosen equal to 1 for 4-potentials). The signs $`(\pm )`$ refer to the positive- and negative- frequency solutions, respectively.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Profs. Y. S. Kim, S. I. Kruglov, Z. Oziewicz and participants of the recent conferences for useful discussions. I acknowledge the help of A. D’Amore in English grammatics.


format: text

text:
# 1 Deformations and non-unitary operators

## 1 Deformations and non-unitary operators

Are DLS and DPS broken symmetries or real symmetries? The algebraic approach tends to consider them as real symmetries incorporating the Planck scale as an extra fundamental parameter (see f.i. Lukierski and Nowicki, 2002, and references therein; Amelino-Camelia, Benedetti and D’Andrea, 2002; Amelino-Camelia, 2001 and 2002; Bruno, Amelino-Camelia and Kowalski-Gilman, 2001). This is in itself not required from a phenomenological point of view, but must be discussed and explored.

When completing this work, we recently found a paper (Magueijo and Smolin, 2002) where some basic ideas and models present similarities with those developed here. We refer to it and to our previous papers (Gonzalez-Mestres, 2000 a, b and c) for a description of the formalism used. It must be emphasized, however, that our physical assumptions are different from those of Magueijo and Smolin. A crucial question for the consistency of any deformed relativistic kinematics (DRK) is how the deformation depends on mass for large bodies.

The scenario discussed in the present paper is as follows. We assume that a reference dynamical system exists with a standard Poincaré group. But the real physical reference system is a different one, where the energy and momentum conserved in the physical space-time do not correspond to those of the standard underlying Poincaré group. Contrary to Magueijo and Smolin, we assume that in the physical reference system energy and momentum conservation is preserved and that energy is additive, as well as momentum, for a system of several non-interacting bodies. We also tacitly assume the existence of a physical vacuum rest frame, where everything is formulated in spite of the formal underlying Lorentz invariance. Following Poincaré (1895, 1901, 1905), we interpret special relativity as the impossibility to identify the vacuum rest frame by available physical measurements. But cosmology clearly seems to suggest the existence of a preferred reference frame (see, f.i., Peebles, 1993), and this circonstance must be fully understood from the point of view of Lorentz symmetry.

Following notations similar to (Magueijo and Smolin, 2002), we assume that the transition between the (possibly fundamental) symmetric reference system and the (experimentally natural) physical one is driven by a singular non-unitary operator:

$$U(p_0,p_i,T,T_0,a)$$
(1)
transforming a physical state $`|\psi >(physical)`$ into an object in the symmetric reference system, $`|\psi >(symmetric)`$ :

$$|\psi >(symmetric)=U|\psi >(physical)$$
(2)
and, forgetting about speed of light and Planck constant, $`p_0`$ is the energy, $`p_i`$ stands for momentum in the three space directions, $`T`$ is an intrinsic time scale associated to each particle, $`T_0`$ is a universal time scale and $`a`$ is the fundamental length scale (e.g. the Planck length). We ignore the problems raised by singularities but, as it will be discussed later, it is likely that in most cases an equivalent unitary operator can be found. We can then write for the energy-momentum quadrivector operator:

$$p_\alpha (symmetric)=Up_\alpha (physical)U^1$$
(3)
where ”physical” stands for the measured energy and momentum, and ”symmetric” for energy and momentum in the ideal symmetric frame. The index $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ corresponds to energy and the three momentum coordinates with the metrics (+, -, -, -). In the symmetric system, the equation of motion for free particles:

$$p_0^2(symmetric)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^3p_i^2(symmetric)+m^2$$
(4)
$`m=T^1`$ being the mass.

We shall be interested in models where, for instance:

$$U(p_0,p_i,T,T_0,a)=exp[1/2ln(1ϵp_0^2)D_{space}]$$
(5)
$`ϵ`$ being a parameter that will be determined below and $`D_{space}=p^i/p^i`$ (the sum over space indices is understood) the space dilatation generator. The symbol $`ln`$ stands for neperian logarithm. $`U`$ is obviously a singular operator. We then get:

$$p_0(symmetric)=p_0(physical)$$
(6)
$$p_i(symmetric)=p_i(physical)[1+ϵp_0^2(physical)]^{1/2}$$
(7)
We take in what follows $`p_\alpha `$ for $`p_\alpha (physical)`$ and use the equation of motion in the symmetric reference system expressed, in the physical system, by the equation:

$$p_0^2=p^2[1+ϵp_0^2]^1+m^2$$
(8)
equivalent to:

$$p_0^2m^2=p^2[1f(p^2)]^1$$
(9)
where $`p^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^3p_i^2`$ and:

$$2f(p^2)=1ϵm^2[(1ϵm^2)^2+4ϵ(p^2+m^2)]^{1/2}$$
(10)
This expression defines the hamiltonian $`H`$ in the physical reference system. For $`ϵp^21`$, it gives:

$$p_0^2m^2p^2(1ϵm^2)ϵp^4$$
(11)
which is similar to the QDRK (quadratically deformed relativistic kinematics) considered in I. Another possibility would be to take:

$$lnU(p_0,p_i,L,L_0,a)=1/2ln[1ϵ(p^2m^2)]D_{time}$$
(12)
where $`D_{time}=p_0/p_0`$ is the time dilatation generator, and $`L=cT`$ and $`L_0=cT_0`$ are constants. We then get:

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2(1+ϵm^2)ϵp^4$$
(13)
which coincides exactly (up to a trivial redefinition of mass) with the main QDRK model discussed in I. The differences between (11) and (13) are physically unobservable in practical cases. For a proton, assuming that the deformation term becomes of the same order as the mass term at $`E10^{19}GeV`$, $`ϵm^2`$ would have to be $`10^{40}`$ , so that the change in critical speed introduced by the term proportional to $`ϵm^2p^2`$ in (11) cannot produce any effect measurable by existing techniques (it is much smaller than those considered by Coleman and Glashow, 1997). A similar situation was already found when studying the sine-Gordon equation discretized with a one-dimensional space lattice with spacing $`a`$ (Gonzalez-Mestres, 1997 a and b). A perturbative expansion in powers of $`pa`$ for the lattice equation brought the same kind of deformation of the critical speeds.

It is also possible to obtain useful versions of LDRK with simple choices, such as:

$$lnU(p_0,p_i,T,T_0,a)=1/2ln[1\mu (p^2+m^2)^{1/2}]D_{time}$$
(14)
leading to:

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2\mu (p^2+m^2)^{3/2}$$
(15)
where $`\mu `$ is the coefficient of the deformation term.

For fermions obeying a Dirac equation:

$$[\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha (symmetric)m]|\psi >=0$$
(16)
where the $`\gamma `$’s are Dirac matrices, we can use $`U`$ such that:

$$lnU(p_0,p_i,L,L_0,a)=ln[1ϵ(p^2m\gamma _ip^i+m^2)]D_{time}$$
(17)
leading to the fermionic QDRK:

$$[\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha +ϵp^2\gamma _ip^im(1ϵm^2)]|\psi >=0$$
(18)
A LDRK for fermions is obtained using $`U`$ such that:

$$lnU(p_0,p_i,L,L_0,a)=ln[1\mu (\gamma _ip^im)]D_{time}$$
(19)
leading to:

$$[\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha +\mu p^2m(1+\mu m^2)]|\psi >=0$$
(20)
It must be noticed that the relation between space and time, such as they are defined in the physical reference system, and their equivalents in the symmetric reference system, i.e:

$$[t,x_i](symmetric)=U[t,x_i](physical)U^1$$
(21)
is highly nontrivial. In particular, the two sets of variables do not commute with each other (but each set of space-time coordinates does). In each reference system, energy-momentum conservation holds with respect to the space-time of the system under consideration.

## 2 Additivity

As previously stated, we assume that in the physical reference system energy and momentum are additive for a system of several non-interacting bodies. We will follow here and approach similar to (I). For a set of two large non-interacting objects of masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ travelling at the same speed, the law $`ϵm^2`$, assigning a mass $`M=m_1+m_2`$ to the two-particle system, guarantees the consistency of the deformed kinematics (Gonzalez-Mestres, 1997 a and b and 1998). Writing, for large bodies:

$$ϵ\lambda T^2T_0^2a^2=ϵ_0m^2$$
(22)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`ϵ_0`$ are constants, equation (13) becomes :

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2(1+ϵ_0)ϵ_0m^2p^4$$
(23)
and:

$$p_0m^1=g(p^2m^2)$$
(24)
where:

$$g(z)=(1+ϵ_0+z+ϵ_0z^2)^{1/2}$$
(25)
so that the velocity vector $`v_i=H/p^i`$ is a function of $`p_im^1`$ and $`p^2m^2`$. The situation is the same for the deformed Dirac equation in the case of fermions. This confirms that consistency for systems of large bodies is reached with the following assumptions:

\- The total mass of a system of N non-interacting bodies travelling together at the same speed is given by the sum of the masses of these objects.

\- In the physical system, the total energy and momentum of a N-body non interacting system are given the sum of their individual energies and momenta.

\- For large bodies, the deformation parameter $`ϵ`$ follows a universal law: $`ϵϵ_0m^2`$ where $`ϵ_0`$ is a universal parameter.

The value of the constant $`T_0`$ is related to the transition from the elementary particle domain, where we can expect $`ϵ`$ to depend weakly on the mass of the particle, to that of composite objects (f.i. nuclei and heavier bodies) where the asymptotic regime defined by (22) should be reached. We therefore expect $`T_0`$ to be in the range 0.1 to 1 $`GeV`$.

Similarly, for LDRK, we replace our third assumption by the statement:

\- For large bodies, the deformation parameter $`\mu `$ follows a universal law: $`\mu \mu _0m^1`$ where $`\mu _0`$ is a universal parameter given by the expression $`\mu _0=\rho T_0^1a`$ and $`\rho `$ is a constant.

## 3 On the use of the new operators

An interesting question is how far can we use this kind of singular operators, and how many physical problems they can help to solve. Can they be a way to renormalize field theories or make them finite? We start here the discussion by showing how it is formally possible to transform a world with chiral symmetry and only massless particles into a world where particles have masses, and how the operator $`U`$ can be made unitary.

If all particles are massless, we have a universal equation:

$$p_0^2(symmetric)p^2(symmetric)=0$$
(26)
but, if the singular operator $`U`$ transforms $`p_\alpha `$ into:

$$p_\alpha (symmetric)=p_\alpha (p_0^2p^2m^2)^{1/2}(p_0^2p^2)^{1/2}$$
(27)
then, equation (26) turns into:

$$p_0^2(physical)p^2(physical)m^2=0$$
(28)
To obtain this result, we can use an operator $`U`$ defined by:

$$lnU=1/2ln[1m^2(p_0^2p^2+\eta _1m^2)^1+\eta _2]D$$
(29)
where $`D=p_\alpha /p_\alpha `$ (the sum over the index $`\alpha =0,1,2,3)`$ is understood) is the dilatation operator and $`\eta _1`$ , $`\eta _2`$ are very small positive numbers introduced to avoid on-shell singularities in intermediate steps. Their systematic use is understood in the rest of the chapter, the limit $`\eta _1`$ , $`\eta _2`$ $`0`$ being equally understood at the end of the calculation. We consider $`m`$ as a Lorentz-invariant internal energy-momentum scale of each particle so that $`[D,m]=m`$ , or add a fifth space-time dimension (including it in the definition of $`D`$) to produce the same effect. Then, the expression $`ln[1m^2(p_0^2p^2)^1]`$ is Lorentz and dilatation invariant and the result (27) is obtained. A similar transformation can be used for fermions, with:

$$lnU=1/2ln[1m(\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha )^1]D$$
(30)
where the same convention for $`m`$ is taken as before, in order to turn the equation:

$$\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha |\psi >=0$$
(31)
into:

$$(\gamma _\alpha p^\alpha m)|\psi >=0$$
(32)
Replacing energy and momentum by their gauge covariant equivalents, and assuming the gauge invariance of $`m`$, nothing seems to prevent the use of similar techniques in the presence of gauge couplings. More generally, the operator $`U`$ can in principle simultaneously incorporate phenomena such as conventional symmetry breaking conserving standard Lorentz invariance and more unconventional physics accounting for the deformation of relativistic kinematics. Indeed, writing for exemple:

$$lnU=1/2ln[1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1]D$$
(33)
and assuming, as before, that $`m`$ transforms like energy or momentum under dilatations, and similarly for $`ϵ^{1/2}`$, we recover a simple QDRK equation:

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2ϵp^4$$
(34)
To obtain this result, we can introduce extra momentum dimensions for $`m`$ and $`ϵ^{1/2}`$, and use a generalized dilatation operator in the resulting six-dimensional space-time. The interpretation of $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ as a momentum may be linked to the breaking of a six-dimensional space-time symmetry. Similar techniques can be used for LDRK and fermions.

At this stage, it seems necessary to discuss the question of the unitarity of $`U`$. Taking, for instance, an expression like (33), we can build an equivalent unitary operator $`U^{}`$ by writing:

$$4lnU^{}=ln[1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1]D+/p_\alpha p_\alpha ln[1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1]$$
(35)
which, using the scale invariance of the expression $`1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1`$ with our generalization of $`D`$, is equivalent to:

$$lnU^{}=1/2ln[1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1](Dd/2)$$
(36)
where $`d`$ is the number of space-time dimensions under consideration (4 or 6) and $`U`$ is unitary provided $`1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1`$ is made real and positive by the regulators $`\eta _1`$ , $`\eta _2`$ as before. We then get:

$$U^{}=[1(m^2ϵp^4)(p_0^2p^2)^1]^{d/4}U$$
(37)
and the extra factor has no practical effect on the energy-momentum operators, as it commutes with $`D`$ and with any fonction of energy and momentum. Similar techniques apply to all versions of $`U`$ considered in the present paper, provided we assume that $`m`$ , $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ and $`\mu ^1`$ behave like momenta under dilatation or the four-dimensional space-time. $`D`$ can extended to the above mentioned six-dimensional space in order to produce the same result. Actually, in all relevant situations we can always define dilatations in such a way that the expression multiplying $`D`$ in the exponential form of $`U`$ commutes with $`D`$, so that an equivalent unitary operator $`U^{}`$ can be built and the ”physical” states can be related to the ”symmetric” ones by the expression:

$$|\psi ^{}>(symmetric)=U^{}|\psi >(physical)$$
(38)
and more generally, to build the $`U^{}`$ operator, if (taking QDRK):

$$lnU=h(p_0p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})D$$
(39)
where $`h`$ is a real fonction of the six momenta, $`D`$ is defined in the six-dimensional space and $`h`$ is an invariant under the six-dimensional $`D`$ , we just define:

$$2lnU^{}=lnU(lnU)^{}=h(p_0p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})D+/p_\beta p_\beta h(p_0p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})$$
(40)
where the index $`\beta `$ corresponds to the six space-time dimensions and sum over $`\beta `$ is understood. Using the commutation relation between $`p_\beta `$ and $`/p_\beta `$, we get for QDRK:

$$lnU^{}=h(p_0p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})(Dd/2)$$
(41)
where $`d`$ = 6 in this specific case, and:

$$U^{}=exp[d/2h(p_0p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})]U$$
(42)
and again, $`d/2`$ = 3 . Similar considerations apply to LDRK and to fermions.

We also notice that DRK introduces, besides the fundamental length scale, another energy scale. Taking, for a proton in QDRK, $`ϵ_00.1a^2`$ and $`a`$ to be the Planck length, it is found (see I) that the deformation term equals the mass term at a transition energy scale around $`E_{trans}10^{19}GeV`$. This transition is really dynamical and not just kinematical, as above $`E_{trans}`$ standard formulae for Lorentz contraction and time dilation do no longer hold (Gonzalez-Mestres, 1997 a and b). The standard parton picture also fails, but we can replace it by a new one if we admit that, indeed, $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ behaves like a momentum and can be shared by the partons. Defining the six-dimensional momentum $`P=(p_0,p_i,m,ϵ^{1/2})`$ and considering $`m`$ as the rest energy of the 3-parton system, a parton picture can still be formulated if $`P`$ can be shared by partons carrying any set fractions of it such that their sum is 1 . Then, the deformation term $`ϵp^4`$ can be interpreted as:

$$ϵp^4=(ϵp^2)p^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2p^2$$
(43)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ϵ^{1/2}p`$ is the tangent of an angle between two components of the six-dimensional momentum, and similarly for $`ϵ^{1/2}m`$. The component in the direction of $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ would then be of an order of magnitude close to Planck momentum, therefore much larger than $`p`$ in the physical situations under consideration. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would then be a very small angle, increasing linearly with $`p`$ , and $`E_{trans}`$ the energy scale at which the role of the sixth dimension becomes apparent. We conjecture that the energy scale $`E_{trans}`$ can play a crucial role in renormalization, as it is possible to use it to generate dimensionless quantities of order $`1`$ , such as $`mE_{Planck}E_{trans}^2`$ which may help to regularize infinities without producing large numbers of order $`E_{Planck}m^1`$. This question will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

It should also be pointed out that the transformation initially suggested in (Magueijo and Smolin, 2001) had rather trivial effects on energy and momentum, and did not lead to cubic or quartic terms when expressing $`E`$ as a fonction of $`p`$. With our convention for the definition of dilatations and using $`\mu `$ as the deformation parameter, the ansatz by Magueijo and Smolin would have given:

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2exp[\mu p_0]$$
(44)
which is an acceptable LDRK, and replacing as before $`D`$ by $`Dd/2`$ would have made the transformation unitary.

## 4 Conclusion and comments

The $`U`$ operators proposed by Magueijo and Smolin are a useful tool to manipulate and understand deformed relativistic kinematics. We have discussed here some possible improvements of this approach. But further work is required on the physical interpretation of the formalism. The fact that, in a given reference frame, DRK can be made equivalent to a relativistic equation via the $`U^{}`$ operator does not by itself imply that the situation is the same in other frames. It may happen, for instance, that the $`U^{}`$ (or $`U`$) operator is not universal and varies when a boost is performed in the ”symmetric” system. Then, it would still be possible to distinguish between the vacuum rest frame and other inertial frames. Physics is defined only by the full set of inertial frames with the corresponding transformation laws, plus the full lagrangian or Hamiltonian in each frame. The so-called DSR, ”doubly special relativity” (Amelino-Camelia, Benedetti and D’Andrea, 2002; Amelino-Camelia, 2001 and 2002; Bruno, Amelino-Camelia and Kowalski-Gilman, 2001) is a particular case of DRK. However, from a phenomenological point of view it is not obvious whether the difference between exact realizations of DSR and DRK models violating it will ever be testable through feasible experiments. Our 1997 phenomenological models (see, f.i. Gonzalez-Mestres, 1997 a to 1997 e) just conjectured the existence of a vacuum reference frame with a DRK, and assumed that the laboratory moves slowly with respect to this frame. This is in principle enough for present-day experimental applications, but it would be beautiful if it were not.

References

Amelino-Camelia, G., 2001, Phys.Lett. B510, 255.
Amelino-Camelia, G., 2002, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 35.
Amelino-Camelia, G., Benedetti, D. and D’Andrea, F., 2002, paper hep-th/0201045.
Bruno, R., Amelino-Camelia, G. and Kowalski-Gilman, J., Phys. Lett. B522, 133.
Coleman, S. and Glashow, S.L., 1997, Phys.Lett. B405, 249 , paper hep-ph/9703240.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997a, paper nucl-th/9708028.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997b, Proc. of the International Conference on Relativistic Physics and some of its Applications, Athens June 1997, paper physics/9709006.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997c, paper physics/9704017.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997d, Proc. 25th ICRC, Vol. 6, p. 113, physics/9705031.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997e, paper physics 9706032.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1998, Proc. COSMO 97, Ambleside September 1997, World Scient., p. 568, paper physics/9712056.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L. 2000a, paper physics/003080 , referred to as I.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L. 2000b, paper astro-ph/0011181, Proceedings of the International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany, June 26-30, 2000.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L. 2000c, paper astro-ph/0011182, same Proceedings.
Lukierski and Nowicki, 2000, paper hep-th/0203065.
Magueijo and Smolin, 2001, paper hep-th/0112090.
Magueijo and Smolin, 2002, paper gr-qc/0207085.
Peebles, P.J.E., 1993, ”Principles of Physical Cosmology”, Princeton University Press.
Poincaré, H., 1895, ”A propos de la théorie de M. Larmor”, L’Eclairage électrique, Vol. 5, 5.
Poincaré, H., 1901, ”Electricité et Optique: La lumière et les théories électriques”, Ed. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Poincaré, H., 1905, ”Sur la dynamique de l’électron”, C. Rend. Acad. Sci. Vol. 140, p. 1504.