text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Nowadays, scientific databases have become the bread-and-butter of particle physicists. They are used not only for citation and publication , but also for access to data compilations  and for the determination of the best parameters of currently accepted models . These databases provide inestimable tools as they organize our knowledge in a coherent and trustworthy picture. They have lead not only to published works such as the Review of Particle Physics , but also to web interfaces, and reference data compilations available in a computerized format readily usable by physicists. It should be pointed out at this point that one is far from using the full power of the web, as cross-linking between various databases and interactive interfaces are only sketchy. Part of the problem comes from the absence of a common repository or environment.

One must also stress that this crucial activity is not a given, and that these databases must be maintained and checked repeatedly to insure the accuracy of their content. In fact, we run the risk to loose some or all of the information contained in them, as the maintainers are getting older. There is a need for teaching the systematization and evaluation of data in the standard physics curriculum, need which so far has totally been overlooked. We stress the importance of summer schools and workshops dedicated to data systematization.

The COMPETE collaboration aims at motivating data maintenance via the interfacing of theory and experiment at the database level, thus providing a complete picture of the phenomenology describing a given subclass of phenomena. The database concept then needs to be supplemented by a “model-base” . Such an object enables one not only to decide what the best description may be, but also to discern what potential problems exist in the data. The systematization of such a cross-fertilization between models and data, which is at the core of physics, results in what we shall call an “object of knowledge”, containing both factual and theoretical information, and presumably becoming the point at which all existing information resources on a given problem could converge.

There are many advantages to such a global approach. First of all, the maintenance of a data set is not a static task: it needs to be motivated by physics. Discrepancies between models and data call for checks, and often those checks lead to a new data set, where published errata in data are fixed and preliminary data are removed. A clear example of such improvements can be found in the total cross section data set. Furthermore, at times such studies show that there may be problems in the experimental analysis itself. For instance, in the analysis of the $`\rho `$ parameter, the systematic error resulting from the use of a specific model is usually neglected. A general re-analysis of these data is therefore needed, or a different treatment of systematic errors may be brought in.

The second advantage is obviously that one can have a common testing ground for theories and models, so that all the details of the comparison are under control. This means that it becomes possible, for a given set of assumptions, to define the best models reproducing a given set of data. In this respect, as many models have to be tested, and as the usual “best fit” criterion, i.e. lowest $`\chi ^2/dof`$, is not fully satisfactory, we have developed a set of procedures that enable artificial intelligence decisions, simulating to some extent a physicist’s intuition and taste.

Thirdly, it is obvious that an extensive theoretical database can be used to plan new experiments, and to predict various quantities. The automated treatment of a large number of models and theories enables us to quote a theoretical error, which gives the interval in which existing models can reproduce experimental results, and to determine the sensitivity needed to discriminate between various models.

Finally, as new data come in, one can very quickly decide on their theoretical impact, and hence immediately evaluate the need for new physics ideas.

As we want to treat a large amount of data and many models, computer technology constitutes an important part of our activity. We have concentrated on the elaboration of artificial intelligence decision-making algorithms, as well as on the delivery of computer tools for the end-user: these include web summaries of results, web calculators of various quantities for the best models, and of course computer-readable data-sets and Fortran codes. Finally, the consideration of several different physics problems brings in the need to interface various objects of knowledge. The interconnection and compatibility of these is an important constraint. Further linkage with existing databases, such as PDG , COMPAS , and HEPDATA  is being developed or planned.

### Methodology

Our work is based on the following information model: theoretical descriptions and data are arranged in bases, which are then interfaced. This cross assessment leads to a ranking of models, and to an evaluation of data: some models globally reproduce data and some don’t, some data seem incompatible with all models or with similar data. At this point, a selection of acceptable models and of acceptable data is made. The models are then ranked according not only to their $`\chi ^2/dof`$, but also to their number of parameters, stability, extendability to other data, etc. The best models are kept, and organized into an object of knowledge. One can then make predictions based on these few best models, and evaluate theoretical errors from all acceptable models. The data set can also be re-evaluated, and after a new data set is produced, one can re-iterate the above procedure. The next step is then to find models that can accommodate more data and once such new models are proposed, one can iterate again.

It is worth pointing out here the problems directly linked with data and parameters. First of all, contradictory data lead to sizable uncertainties. One way to handle these is to use a Birge factor, renormalizing the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ to 1. Another way is to re-normalize a given data set, and assign to this operation a penalty factor. Finally, it is also possible to shift data sets within their systematic errors in order to obtain the best data set overall. Each method has its problems and advantages, and no overall best method has been found so far. Secondly, one must stress that, besides the usual statistical and systematic errors, one should independently quote a theoretical error which may not be combined with the experimental systematics. Finally, it is important for a given set of parameters to indicate their area of applicability, e.g. often high-$`Q^2`$ or high-$`s`$ models are used outside their area of validity.

The organization of work within the collaboration is similar to that of the Particle Data Group: each member of the collaboration has access to the current object of knowledge which gets released to the community once a year, in the form of computer-usable files, and web-accessible notes. Part of the collaboration is devoted to the finding of new data and models in the literature, as well as to their encoding. Other people check the accuracy of the encoding. The study and elaboration of the object of knowledge is done under the guidance of a few developers, whose work then gets partially or fully verified by the rest of the team in charge of that study. The web interface and tools are then developed or updated by another part of the collaboration.

The organization of the object of knowledge itself goes as follows: a compilation of data is interfaced with a compilation of models, typically kept as a set of Mathematica routines (which can then be used to produce Fortran or C). The conclusions of the cross-assessment are then fed into a program devoted to predictions, and freely executable via the web. Tables of predictions then become available. Another module gathers the information obtained from the cross-assessment and makes it available to the collaboration for cross-checks. Finally, another module uses the citation databases to track new work that refers to our existing databases.

## Results

The results we have obtained so far fall within two main categories: the first concerns the tools that we have developed, which could be used by others in a wide variety of tasks, the second concerns the physics conclusions which we have reached.

### Tools

#### Elements of the artificial intelligence

The usual indicator $`\chi ^2/dof`$ is certainly an important measure of the quality of a fit. However, it does not give us all the relevant information to choose the best models. We have developed , in the context of fits to soft data, a series of other indicators that enable us to study numerically some of the aspects of fits which so far had only received a qualitative treatment. Models usually rely on some approximation which breaks down in some region. For instance, in DIS, the starting value of $`Q_0`$ is an indication of the area of applicability of a given parameterisation. Within a common area of applicability, fits with a better $`\chi ^2`$/dof are to be preferred. If the parameters of a fit have physical meaning, then their values must be stable when one restricts the fit to a sub-set of the full data set, or if one limits the area of applicability, e.g. but modifying the starting $`Q_0`$ of a DIS fit. Similarly, fits that use a handful of parameters are usually preferred to those that use many. All these features can be studied numerically, and details can be found in refs. . The use of these indicators then enables one to decide which model may be preferred to describe some set of data.

#### Web

We have also developed an automatic generation of results which are then gathered in postscript files available on the web , as well as a calculational interface that predicts values of observables for the first few best parameterisations . Furthermore, computer-readable files , as well as Fortran code for the best models , are also given. As we shall see, this is only a first step as a full interface between different objects of knowledge still needs to be built.

### Physics

### Soft Forward data: FORWARD2.1

We started our activities a few years ago , concentrating on analytic fits to total cross sections and to the $`\rho `$ parameter. Such studies first revealed a few problems with the data set, and then proved the equivalence of simple, double and triple pole parameterisations in the region $`\sqrt{s}9`$ GeV. This resulted in the first version of the object of knowledge concerned with soft forward physics, FORWARD1.0. Its second version , dating from last year, came when it was realized that some fits could be extended down to $`\sqrt{s}4`$ GeV. The latter models thus became favored, and constitute the second version of the object of knowledge, FORWARD2.0. It now contains 3092 points (742 above 4 GeV), and 37 adjusted and ranked models. We have recently used it to produce predictions at present and future colliders , and included cosmic ray data to obtain FORWARD2.1, which is detailed in J.R. Cudell’s contribution to these proceedings.

This object of knowledge has demonstrated that $`\rho `$ parameter data were poorly reproduced. Some experiments at low energy seem to have systematic shifts with respect to other experiments, and the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ of the $`\rho `$ data is very bad for some data sets ($`pp`$, $`p\pi ^+`$, $`pK^{}`$). Although some of the problems can be understood as coming from the use of derivative dispersion relations (see O.V. Selyugin’s contribution to these proceedings), discrepancies between data nevertheless make a good fit impossible.

The only clean way out is to perform the experimental analysis again, or part of it, either through a check (and correction) of the theoretical input used, or through a re-analysis of the data in the Coulomb-nuclear interference region. One thus needs a common parameterisation of electromagnetic form factors, a common procedure to analyse data in the Coulomb-nuclear interference region, a common set of strong interaction elastic scattering parameterisations, and a common study of Regge trajectories. The next few objects of knowledge are devoted to the systematization of such information.

### Regge trajectories: RT1.0$`\beta `$

First of all the long way of modelling the forms of Regge trajectories for positive and negative values of $`t`$ should be systemized. Even the good old idea of linearity at positive $`t`$ should be tested and maintained.

We have extracted from the RPP-2002 database a new set of hadronic states (213 mesons and 123 baryons), including their masses, widths and quantum numbers. Corresponding isotopic multiplets (one isomultiplet – one point) are all presented in a log-linear Chew-Frautschi plot with different markers for different flavors to show the similarities and differences of the $`(M^2,J)`$ populations for different hadron classes, see Fig.1.

There is only one linear meson trajectory $`(a_2,a_4,a_6)`$ that give the acceptable fit quality with weights constructed from the errors in masses. This trajectory is placed on the Fig. 1 together with longest baryon trajectory (5 $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ members) with good fit quality.

Preliminary fits of the RPP-2000 data to linear trajectories (in the approximation where weights in the fits are constructed from $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M^2)=M\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M^2)=2M\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ ) show a clear systematic flavor dependence of the slope for mesons, as shown in Table I. Such a dependence of the slopes on flavor does not seem to be present in the baryon case.

| Slopes of meson Regge trajectories as a function of | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| their flavor content (obtained from the 2000 data) | | | | |
|  | q | s | c | b |
| $`\overline{q}`$ | $`0.84\pm 0.09`$ | $`0.86\pm 0.02`$ | $`0.49\pm 0.08`$ | $`0.22\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`\overline{s}`$ |  | $`0.82\pm 0.01`$ | $`0.55\pm 0.01`$ | $`0.22\pm 0.02`$ |
| $`\overline{c}`$ |  |  | $`0.40\pm 0.01`$ |  |
| $`\overline{b}`$ |  |  |  | $`0.11\pm 0.01`$ |

We plan to reiterate fits in this approximation on the 2002 RPP data to see if the regularity is stable and we will then proceed to collect and compare different functional forms of the trajectories on a regular basis using the: spectroscopic data together with the elastic scattering data; data on two body reactions; decay properties data to see if the decision rule for the dichotomy “quark model hadrons – exotic hadrons” can be constructed.

### Electromagnetic form factors of hadrons: EFFH1.0$`\beta `$

This object of knowledge is also under construction. So far only nucleon emff were considered. Its data set consists of 785 values of $`d\sigma _{ep}/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, 29 values of $`G_e/G_m`$ and 31 values of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ for $`\overline{p}pe^+e^{}`$, for a total of 845 points. We ignore derived data on emff and produce fits only to the directly measured observables and then compare fits. The base of models consists of 4 adjusted and maintained parameterizations.

Recently the extended Gari-Kruempelmann  parameterization for the nucleon emff were fitted  to the most complete data set of the derived data with inclusion of the new data on $`G_E/G_M`$ . To include this extension of the Gari-Kruempelmann parameterization to the model base we started to check if it could be reasonably fitted to our database.

It turns out that in the VMD part of parameterization it is enough to include only one vector meson ($`\rho (770)`$) to obtain a reasonable fit to the $`d\sigma /dt`$ and $`G_E/G_M`$ data.

However it leads to the determination of the electric and magnetic radii of the nucleons that are incompatible with that determined from the Lamb shift in hydrogen atom measurements.

We see from Tables 1, 2 that estimates of the physical parameters changed markedly with the addition of new observables measured in the same range of kinematic variables.

It should be noted that the mean square proton radii $`(r_E^p)^2=0.61`$ $`\mathrm{fm}^2`$, $`(r_M^p)^2=1.82`$ $`\mathrm{fm}^2`$ calculated from the fit obtained in  for the same model but with a VMD part containing $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, and $`\varphi `$ contributions are even worse in comparison with estimates from the Lamb shift data. This is a signal for possible problems with the database and/or with parameterizations (see also ). Further cross-assessment iterations with models ranking are needed.

### Forward elastic scattering of hadrons: FESH1.0$`\beta `$

This database contains the measured differential distribution $`d\sigma /dt`$ for $`|t|<0.6`$ GeV2 for $`\pi ^\pm p`$ (438 points at 73 energies), $`K^\pm p`$ (204 points at 34 energies) and $`\overline{p}p`$, $`pp`$ (564 points at 94 energies). The associated object of knowledge is interfaced with the FORWARD, EFFH and RT objects of knowledge as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\pi \left(|f_c|^2+2Re(f_c^{}f_h)+|f_h^2|^2\right)$$
(1)
with $`f_c`$ the Coulomb amplitude, which depends on the form factors of EFFH, $`f_h`$ the hard-interaction amplitude, which depends on $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\rho `$ (from FORWARD), and on Regge trajectories (from RT).

So far, we have done a preliminary study trying to find regularity in energy of the several claimed evidences for oscillations on the diffraction cone. The method to reveal the oscillations is illustrated in the Figure 3

Using the naïve models for the diffractive cone description $`(A(s)e^{B(s)\alpha (t)})`$ and the standard Coulomb amplitude with popular dipole(pole) charge form-factors for nucleons(mesons), we calculate the normalized autocorrelation $`R(s)`$ of the difference $`T(s,t)=(\frac{d\sigma ^{data}/dt}{d\sigma ^{theory}/dt}1)`$ for 195 experimental distributions $`d\sigma /dt`$ at different values of $`P_{lab}10`$ GeV/$`c`$ and having more than 7 data points in the region $`|t|<0.6`$ GeV2.

$$R(s)=\underset{i}{}\frac{T(s,t_i)T(s,t_{i+1})}{\sigma _i^2\sigma _{i+1}^2}\left(\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{\sigma _i^2\sigma _{i+1}^2}\right)^1,$$

where $`\sigma _i=\frac{\sigma _i^{data}}{d\sigma ^{theory}(s,t_i)/dt}`$.

Large $`(>1)`$ values of the autocorrelator are signals for oscillations or fit biases, large negative values $`(<1)`$ are signals that we have problems with data (the errors are over-estimated).

Figure 4 shows that almost all values of the autocorrelations for the three intervals $`|t|<0.1`$ GeV2, $`|t|<0.2`$ GeV2, and $`|t|<0.3`$ GeV2 are close to the normal distribution. There are some outstanding points but the data on the corresponding scatter plots do not show any stable regularity in energy dependence of the scatter plots structures.

These outstanding autocorrelation values may be due hidden t-dependent systematic effects, or to biases in the fits on the diffraction cone.

Furthermore, the possible oscillation pattern seems to be model-dependent, as seen on the same figure. For example, the Figure 3 clearly show absence of the oscillations claimed in some phenomenological papers. Our preliminary conclusion is based on the analyses of two different forms of the t-dependence of the pomeron trajectory: linear and square root dependence with branch point at $`t=4m_\pi ^2`$. The optical points also were calculated with use different models of the energy dependence of the total cross sections.

To make unambiguous conclusions we need more iterations of cross-assessments to find a parameterization that give good description of the diffractive cones and their evolution with energy. Having such a parameterisation it will be possible to clarify the situation with claimed oscillations.

### Cross section in $`e^+e^{}hadrons`$, $`R`$, QCD tests: CSEE1.0

As a parallel activity, we have gathered  the data for the annihilation cross sections $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}hadrons}`$ and for their ratio $`R`$ to $`\sigma _{ee\mu \mu }`$ for $`0.36`$ GeV $`\sqrt{s}188.7`$ GeV. The database consists of 1066 points rescaled to the hadronic $`R`$. The QCD fit to the hadronic part clearly shows that a 3-loop calculation is preferred with respect to the naïve Born formula, and leads to the following value of $`\alpha _S`$:

$$\alpha _S(M_Z^2)=0.128\pm 0.032$$
(2)
All available data on the total cross section and the $`R`$ ratio of $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{h}adrons`$ are compiled from the PPDS(DataGuide, ReacData) (IHEP, Protvino, Russia) and HEPDATA(Reaction) (Durham, UK) databases and transformed to a compilation of data on the ratio $`R=\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}q\overline{q}\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}`$, with the full set of radiative corrections. This compilation is the most complete set of evaluated hadronic $`R`$ ratio data publicly available to date. The current status of the data is shown in Fig. 5. The compilation is continuously maintained so that new experimental data are added as they become available.

The compilation is intended for tests of pQCD calculations as well as for a precise evaluation of hadronic contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{QED}(M_Z)`$, $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)`$, etc. The results we obtained so far are as follows: current theoretical predictions from the parton model and pQCD are well supported by the world “continuum” data on $`\sigma _{tot}(e^+e^{}\mathrm{h}adrons)`$. Our preliminary value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{QED}^{had}(M_Z)`$ is $`0.02736\pm 0.00040(exp)`$, in agreement with the results of other groups . The refinement of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{QED}^{had}(M_Z)`$ calculation and the evaluation of $`a_{\mu }^{}{}_{LO}{}^{had}`$ are in progress.

Computer-readable data files are accessible on the Web at

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/contents plots.html (see also ) and

http://wwwppds.ihep.su:8001/eehadron.html

## Prospects for the future

The various objects of knowledge described in this report should be released to the community within a year. The FORWARD object of knowledge will also probably be renewed in light of the analysis of $`\rho `$. We also plan soon to build objects of knowledge devoted to 2-body processes at large $`s`$ and $`t`$, to photoproduction of vector mesons, and to hadronic multiplicities.

## Acknowledgments

The COMPAS group was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grants RFBR-98-07-90381 and RFBR-01-07-90392. K.K. is in part supported by the U.S. D.o.E. Contract DE-FG-02-91ER40688-Task A. E. Martynov and O. Selyugin are visiting fellows of the Belgian FNRS.


format: text

text:
# An effective Hamiltonian for 2D black hole Physics

## I Introduction

The so-called “zero-Hamiltonian problem” (ZH problem) is present in diffeomorphisms invariant models . Being more specific, we can say that in theories of gravitation the canonical hamiltonian density is a linear combination of constraints; therefore, after complete gauge fixing, it reduces to a strongly zero quantity. The ZH problem was analysed by Henneaux, Teitelboim and Vergara : the idea was to construct an extension on the original action that is invariant under gauge transformations not vanishing at the end-points; the boundary conditions were then modified through the gauge generators. The extension mentioned above is related to the physical (effective) Hamiltonian of the theory that is going to rule the dynamics of the physical degrees of freedom. An alternative approach was proposed by Fulop, Gitman and Tyutin ; the main point here is that one works in the reduced phase-space. Once determined the simplectic structure, after complete gauge fixing, an special time-dependent canonical transformation is performed, obtaining the generator of dynamics for the physical variables. A direct application of these techniques was done in the 2D induced gravity model of Polyakov ; here  it was possible to obtain the physical Hamiltonian and dynamics of the true degrees of freedom in a systematic way; without the complications found when other methods are used . The ZH problem was also focused in the 2D black hole theory, using dilatonic gravity models  (in particular, the CGHS model). Here a different approach was considered: the basic idea was that the physical Hamiltonian must be a proper quantity . Although the results were consistent the techniques used were not systematical, using several arbitrary assumptions related to the particular model under analysis. In this work, ss an application of the methods of Henneaux et al. and Gitman et al., we focus the 2D CGHS gravity model and show that it is possible to recognize its true degrees of freedom and obtain the correspondent reduced phase-space physics in a step-by-step procedure; the key point is the calculation of the effective hamiltonian density using those methods. The manuscript is structured as follows. In the second section we make a brief description, as a review, of the techniques used to analyse the ZH problem in the induced gravity case. In the third section we follow the Henneaux et al. method to study the CGHS model, working in the conformal gauge as a concrete example. In the final section we display our conclusions.

## II The ZH problem in induced 2D gravity

The presence of the ZH problem in field theories is a consequence of diffeomorphisms invariance . As is well known, in those systems the extended hamiltonian density ($`H_E`$) is a linear combination of constraints

$$H_E=H_0+\lambda ^aG_a0,$$
(1)
where $`G_a`$ represent the first-class constraints. Therefore, the Hamiltonian is a strongly zero quantity after the (complete) gauge fixing procedure, leaving no generator of dynamics in reduced phase-space . Henneaux, Teitelboim and Vergara  proposed to perform an extension on the action that takes into account end-point contributions. The action for the paths obeying these open boundary conditions (the gauge parameters $`ϵ^a`$ do not vanish at the end points) is

$$S=_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2}(pqH_0\lambda ^aG_a)𝑑\tau [P_i\frac{G}{P_i}G]_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2},$$
(2)
with $`Gϵ^aG_a`$. The corresponding generating function ($`M`$) is related to the gauge (Diff ) generator. We have in fact

$$M=P_i\frac{G}{P_i}G.$$
(3)
In the induced 2D gravity case the action is given by

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left(\phi ^\mu _\mu \phi \alpha R\phi \right),$$
(4)
where $`\phi (x)`$ is an auxiliary field and $`R`$ is the 2D scalar curvature. For this model the generating function $`M`$ is

$$M=𝑑ym=𝑑y[P^i\frac{G}{P^i}G],$$
(5)
with

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{g_{11}}}ϵ^0[{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^2}}(g_{11}\pi ^{11})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1g_{11}}{2g_{11}}}_1\phi `$ (6)
$`+\alpha _1^2\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha }}g_{11}\pi ^{11}\pi _\phi ]+(ϵ^1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{01}}{g_{11}}}ϵ^0)[2g_{11}_1\pi ^{11}2_1g_{11}\pi ^{11}],`$ (7)
being a function of the gravitational field components $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the auxiliary field $`\phi `$ and their conjugated momenta. It is also possible to obtain a non-zero effective Hamiltonian ($`\overline{H}`$), in reduced phase-space, using the technique proposed in . After complete gauge fixing a canonical transformation is performed, whose generator ($`F`$) is determined by the form of the gauge fixing constraints :

$$\overline{H}=\left[H_E+\frac{F}{\tau }\right]|_{fixed}.$$
(8)
We obtain the last equality after (complete) gauge fixing, meaning that $`\overline{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian for the new variables ($`\overline{Q}`$), in reduced phase-space. The equations of motion will be

$$\dot{\overline{Q}}=\{\overline{Q},\overline{H}\}_D\dot{\overline{P}}=\{\overline{P},\overline{H}\}_D,$$
(9)
where D denotes the Dirac bracket  operation. In the 2D induced gravity case we found

$$\{g_{11}(x),\pi ^{11}(y)\}_D=\delta (xy).$$
(10)
Although this is the canonical bracket relation the gravitational field and the corresponding momentum are not independent quantities in this case . For the effective hamiltonian density we obtained

$$H_{eff}=g_{11}+\alpha \left(1\frac{1+g_{11}}{2g_{11}}\right)\pi ^{11}_1g_{11},$$
(11)
this density rules the dynamics of the physical gravitational field ($`g_{11}`$) in reduced phase-space.

## III The 2D black hole

2D black hole physics can be described using the CGHS model of dilatonic gravity . The corresponding action can be written in the following form

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left(\eta R\lambda \right),$$
(12)
the cosmological constant is $`\lambda `$; $`\eta `$ is related to the dilaton field $`\phi `$ through $`\eta =e^{2\phi }`$ ; in the following we will call $`\eta `$ the dilaton field for simplification. The 2D scalar curvature $`R`$ is constructed out of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ as usual, while the physical gravitational field is represented by the $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{\eta }`$ components. Being a gravitation theory the local gauge transformations are the 2D diffeomorphisms. In fact, The dilaton and gravitational fields transform as

$`\delta \eta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^\mu _\mu \eta `$ (13)
$`\delta g^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\sigma g^{\mu \nu }ϵ^\sigma g^{\mu \sigma }_\sigma ϵ^\nu +g^{\nu \sigma }_\sigma ϵ^\mu .`$ (14)
Using the physical gravitational field components we can put the action (4) in a more convenient form

$$\overline{I}_2=d^2x\sqrt{\overline{g}}e^{2\phi }\left(\overline{R}+4\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi \mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$
(15)
Using a new set of canonical transformations it is possible to write the metric components in terms of the shift vector $`N`$ and the lapse function $`n`$. We have

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{4\alpha }e^{2\phi },\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4\alpha \varphi }e^{\frac{\varphi }{\alpha }}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(16)
$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{00}=N^2+n^2g,\stackrel{~}{g}_{01}=ng,\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}=g.$$
(17)
With these new fields we furnish the primary (first class) constraints of the theory namely $`\pi _N=0`$ and $`\pi _n=0`$. In turn, the consistency-in-time condition of these quantities give two secondary constraints

$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_1\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha ^2}}(g\pi _g)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha }}(g\pi _g)\pi _\varphi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{_1g}{g}}+2\alpha _1^2\varphi +\alpha ^2\beta g\right)`$ (18)
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _\varphi _1\varphi 2g_1\pi _g\pi _g_1g,`$ (19)
and the canonical hamiltonian density is, as expected, a combination of these secondary (first class) constraints

$$H_c=\frac{N}{g}\omega _1+n\omega _2.$$
(20)
In an analogous procedure to the one used in  we choose as gauge fixing conditions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\pi _gf(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_6=_1\varphi 1.$$
(21)
where $`f(t)`$ is an arbitrary function of time. To obtain a more convenient form of the Dirac matrix we use the following linear combinations

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\omega _1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\omega _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,$$
(22)
whose Poisson brackets are

$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(y)\}=2\alpha _x\delta (xy).`$ (23)
The Dirac brackets for the physical degrees of freedom can be obtained in a two-steps procedure. First we fix the $`[\pi _n`$ , $`\pi _N]`$ sector using the conformal gauge fixing condition ; this is straightforward. In a second step we take the sector formed by $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. We obtain as fundamental Dirac bracket

$$\{g(x),\pi _g(y)\}_D=\delta (xy),$$
(24)
analogously to the induced gravity case; the complete simplectic structure of reduced phase-space follows from this relation. To find the effective Hamiltonian in reduced phase-space we perform, as was explained in section II, a time-dependent canonical transformation. In the gravity sector we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_g=\pi _gf(t),G=g.$$
(25)
The new Lagrangian density reads

$$\overline{L}=L+_\mu F^\mu ,$$
(26)
where $`F^\mu `$ is the generator of the canonical transformation. The correct equations of motion are obtained when

$$F^0=\mathrm{\Pi }g,F^1=\alpha \left(1\frac{1+g}{2g}\right)g^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_g.$$
(27)
Going back to the “physical” variables of action (15) we finally obtain that the effective hamiltonian density is

$$H_{eff}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(e^{2\phi }[2_1\phi +\lambda ]\right).$$
(28)
This is the ADM hamiltonian density, in conformal gauge, in agreement with ; the dilaton appears as the fundamental field (in fact, $`g`$ is related to the dilaton through the secondary constraints $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$). The hamiltonian density (28) replaces the original ( equation (20), that is strongly zero after complete gauge fixing) for the reproduction of the black hole equations, using the simplectic structure of the reduced phase-space.

## IV Conclusions

Using the methods developed by Henneaux, Teitelboim and Vergara; Gitman and Tyutin, we have obtained a solution to the ZH problem for the 2D dilatonic gravity model, getting the reduced phase-space Physics whose hamiltonian density is in agreement with the one found in  (for conformal gauge fixing). The expressions are the result of a totally systematic approach; contrary to what is usually found in the literature when considering diffeomorphisms invariant models.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank FUNPAR and PIBIC/CNPq for financial support.


text:
# Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere

## Introduction

The question of spectrum and eigenstates of Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere $`S^2`$ is a well posed mathematical problem that may be solved exactly. The resulting family of orthogonal two-component spinors plays the role of orthogonal spherical functions in problems with half-integer momenta. Therefore the solutions are of fundamental value.

The eigenspinors were first found by Newman and Penrose  and the relation with SU(2) matrix elements was deduced later in . These eigenspinors also reappear from time to time under the name of “monopole harmonics”, see, for instance . A general construction of Dirac operator eigenfunctions on $`N`$-dimensional spheres was given in paper  and the two-dimensional case was specially addressed in  (see also ).

One must mention several physical situations where the solutions may find application. The first involves the so-called spectral boundary conditions. Those have been introduced by Atiah, Patodi and Singer  and are widely used now in studies of spectral properties of operators in the limited space . Being compatible with chiral symmetry these boundary conditions are perfectly suited for investigations of chirality breaking in quantum field theory.

The spectral boundary conditions are defined in terms of eigenvalues of Dirac operator on the boundary. Thus our problem bears a direct relation to the (spherical) spectral bag that allows to hold quarks while preserving the chiral symmetry.

Another application refers to physics of electrons in substances called fullerenes. Their molecules consist of carbon atoms located in vertices of polyhedra or on the surface of clusters with a spheroidal crystallographic structure. The most abundant and the most spherical is the $`\mathrm{C}_{60}`$ molecule (known also as Buckminsterfullerene or buckyball) that looks like a standard soccer ball. The interest to electronic structure of fullerenes was heated by their unconventional superconducting properties with transition temperatures higher than those of the classic superconductors (reaching up to 60 K!). In the continuum limit the conducting electrons of fullerene molecules obey the Dirac equation  and our results are pertinent for the continuous description of electron states in fullerenes.

Our present goal was to implement an explicit classical approach to eigenstates of the Dirac operator with the intention to make them a tool that could be later employed in physical problems. A short presentation of the topic was given in . In principle one could extract the required information from the already cited papers but this would take some effort.

It was shown in  that for Dirac operator on the $`N`$-dimensional sphere one may separate the dependence on principal polar angle and solve the obtained second order differential equation. The result was written in terms of Jacobi polynomials. This led to a recurrent formula that related spinor spherical functions on $`S^N`$ to those on $`S^{N1}`$. The subsequent reduction (quite conceivable for $`S^2`$ though) was left to the reader.

The two-dimensional case was considered as an example in  (Chapter 9) and may be also found in . However there the problem was elegantly solved with the help of complex coordinates on the Riemann sphere whereas the transformation to standard spherical coordinates was left aside.

With practical applications in mind we shall try to make the paper self-contained. It has the following structure. Section 1 introduces the notation and expounds on general properties of Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere. The spectrum and eigenfunctions themselves are investigated in Section 2. We start from the eigenvalues (Sect. 2.1), analyse $`SU(2)`$ properties of solutions (Sect. 2.2), then write them out explicitly (Sect. 2.3) and check their properties with respect to time-reversal (Sect. 2.4). Section 3 explains the link between the newly found spherical spinors and the conventional ones . After reminding the spinor transformation rules (Sect. 3.2) we convert our eigenspinors to Cartesian coordinates and derive the relationship in question (Sect 3.3). The conclusion is followed by two technical Appendices dwelling on properties of Jacobi polynomials (Appendix A) and spherical functions (Appendix B).

## 1 Generalities

We shall start with introducing spherical coordinates and writing down the Dirac operator for free massless fermions on the Riemann sphere $`S^2`$. Then we shall show that Dirac operator has has no zero eigenvalues on the sphere.

The sphere of unit radius $`S^2`$ may be parameterized by two spherical angles $`q^1=\theta `$, $`q^2=\varphi `$ that are related to Cartesian coordinates $`x,y,z`$ as follows:

$$x=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ;y=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ;z=\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(1)
The metric tensor and the natural diagonal zweibein on the sphere are well known:

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=diag(1,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta );e_\alpha ^a=diag(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta );g_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{ab}e_\alpha ^ae_\beta ^b.$$
(2)
From here on we shall denote zweibein and coordinate indices by Latin and Greek letters respectively. Multiplication by the zweibein converts the two types of indices into each other:

$$A_a=e_a^\alpha A_\alpha ;A^a=e_\alpha ^aA^\alpha ;e_\alpha ^ae_b^\alpha =\delta _b^a.$$
(3)
In curvilinear coordinates the ordinary Euclidean partial derivatives must be replaced by covariant ones. For quantities with Latin indices those include the spin connection $`R_{\alpha b}^a`$111Since there is actually no difference between upper and lower Latin indices the second of eqs. (4) is nothing but the skew symmetry of $`\widehat{R}`$.:

$$D_\alpha A^a=_\alpha A^a+R_{\alpha b}^aA^b\mathrm{and}D_\alpha A_a=_\alpha A_aA_bR_{\alpha a}^b.$$
(4)
In our case the nonzero components of spin connection are:

$$R_\varphi ^{12}=R_\varphi ^{21}=\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(5)
Spinors in two dimensions have two components and the role of Dirac matrices belongs to Pauli matrices: $`\gamma ^a(\sigma _x,\sigma _y)`$ where

$$\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right);\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill i& \hfill 0\end{array}\right);\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Covariant derivatives of 2-spinors are also expressed in terms of the spin connection:

$$_\alpha \psi =_\alpha \psi +\frac{i}{4}R_\alpha ^{ab}\sigma _{ab}\psi .$$
(7)
Here $`\sigma _{ab}`$ are the rotation generators for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fields:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma _1,\gamma _2]=\sigma _z.$$
(8)
A standard calculation gives for covariant derivatives:

$$_\theta =_\theta \mathrm{and}_\varphi =_\varphi \frac{i\sigma _z}{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(9)
Now we may define the Dirac operator. In spherical coordinates it is given by the convolution of covariant derivatives in spinor representation with the zweibein and $`\sigma `$-matrices:

$$i\widehat{}=ie^{\alpha a}\sigma _a_\alpha .$$
(10)
With the help of definitions (2, 6, 9) it is straightforward to obtain:

$$i\widehat{}=i\sigma _x\left(_\theta +\frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2}\right)\frac{i\sigma _y}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\varphi .$$
(11)
Finally let us show that Dirac operator on the sphere has no zero eigenvalues. This is a general property of manifolds with positive curvature known as Lichnerowicz theorem . Consider the square of Dirac operator $`(i\widehat{})^2`$. Obviously if $`i\widehat{}`$ had a zero eigenvalue then $`(i\widehat{})^2`$ must have it either. Let us split the product of $`\sigma `$-matrices in $`(\widehat{})^2`$ into symmetric and antisymmetric parts $`\sigma ^\alpha \sigma ^\beta =\frac{1}{2}\{\sigma ^\alpha ,\sigma ^\beta \}+\frac{1}{2}[\sigma ^\alpha ,\sigma ^\beta ]`$. Implementing the relation between commutators of covariant derivatives and curvature we obtain:

$$(i\widehat{})^2+_F^2=\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }[_\alpha ,_\beta ]=\frac{1}{4}R_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(12)
Here $`R_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the trace of Riemann curvature tensor and $`_F^2`$ is the covariant Laplace operator in fundamental representation of the $`SU(2)`$-group:

$$_F^2=g^{\alpha \beta }(_\alpha _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma _\gamma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{g}_\beta ,$$
(13)
where $`_{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }`$ are covariant derivatives in fundamental representation (7), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ is the Christoffel symbol and $`g`$ is the determinant of metric, $`g=detg_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

The result (12) is called the Lichnerowicz formula. In the case of sphere $`R_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }=2`$ so that

$$(i\widehat{})^2+^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(14)
(certainly this may be proved directly). The positive difference is brought about by the curvature of Riemann sphere. The covariant Laplacian is a non-positive operator $`^20`$. Hence, by virtue of (14), $`(i\widehat{})^2`$ must be strictly positive and Dirac operator $`i\widehat{}`$ has no zero eigenvalues.

In conclusion I would like to present the explicit formulae for the square of Dirac operator and the fundamental Laplace operator on the unit sphere:

$`(i\widehat{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta {\displaystyle \frac{_\varphi ^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}+i\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }};`$ (15a)
$`_F^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta {\displaystyle \frac{_\varphi ^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}+i\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}.`$ (15b)
Obviously the difference between the two agrees with (14).

## 2 Dirac operator on the sphere

Now we shall study the eigenvalue problem for Dirac operator on the sphere $`S^2`$. First we shall derive the differential equation for spinor components, find eigenvalues and the general form of solutions. Then we shall study properties of the eigenfunctions that arise from the $`SU(2)`$-invariance of the problem and classify the solutions. Finally we shall present them explicitly and discuss their behaviour under the complex conjugation and time-reversal.

### 2.1 The eigenvalue problem

Eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator (11) are two-component spinors that satisfy the eigenvalue equation:

$$i\widehat{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\\ \beta _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\end{array}\right)=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\\ \beta _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
This system of first order partial differential equations in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ allows separation of variables. The first thing is to isolate the $`\varphi `$-dependence by expanding the spinors into Fourier series:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\\ \beta _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )\end{array}\right)=\underset{m}{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}im\varphi }{\sqrt{2\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}(\theta )\\ \beta _{\lambda m}(\theta )\end{array}\right);m=\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}$$
(17)
where $`m`$ are half-integers since we work with the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ field. This converts Eqn. (16) into

$`i\left(_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right)\beta _{\lambda m}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \alpha _{\lambda m}(\theta );`$ (18a)
$`i\left(_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right)\alpha _{\lambda m}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \beta _{\lambda m}(\theta ).`$ (18b)
By analogy with the ordinary quantum mechanics the number $`m`$ may be called the projection of angular momentum onto the polar axis.

Separate equations for spinor components $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ may be obtained by taking the square of Dirac operator (15a):

$$\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta +\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\sigma _z\frac{m\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}\\ \beta _{\lambda m}\end{array}\right)=\lambda ^2\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}\\ \beta _{\lambda m}\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
Mark that because of the $`\sigma _z`$ present in the third term the equations for upper and lower components are different. As may be seen from eqn. (14) the difference arises already at the level of Laplace operator in fundamental representation (15b).

The further simplification comes from the change of variables $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`x[1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$, that converts (19) into the generalized hypergeometric equation:

$$\left[\frac{d}{dx}(1x^2)\frac{d}{dx}\frac{m^2\sigma _zmx+\frac{1}{4}}{1x^2}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}(x)\\ \beta _{\lambda m}(x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}(x)\\ \beta _{\lambda m}(x)\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
Take the notice that the replacement $`xx`$ (or $`mm`$) is equivalent to trading $`\alpha `$ for $`\beta `$. Thus the upper and lower spinor components are conjugate with respect to mirror reflection.

Equation (20) is singular at the poles of the sphere $`x=\pm 1`$. After the redefinition of the unknowns

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}(x)\\ \beta _{\lambda m}(x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(1x)^{\frac{1}{2}\left|m\frac{1}{2}\right|}(1+x)^{\frac{1}{2}\left|m+\frac{1}{2}\right|}\xi _{\lambda m}(x)\\ (1x)^{\frac{1}{2}\left|m+\frac{1}{2}\right|}(1+x)^{\frac{1}{2}\left|m\frac{1}{2}\right|}\eta _{\lambda m}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
we arrive to the separate equations of hypergeometric type in $`\xi _{\lambda m}`$ and $`\eta _{\lambda m}`$:

$$\left\{(1x^2)\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\left[\frac{m}{|m|}\sigma _z(2|m|+2)x\right]\frac{d}{dx}m(m+1)+\left(\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\right)\right\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _{\lambda m}\\ \eta _{\lambda m}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(22)
In order that these equations had on the interval $`x[1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ square integrable solutions $`\lambda `$ must fulfill the condition (see (A.1)–(A.3))

$$\lambda ^2=\left(n+|m|+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2,$$
(23)
with non-negative integer $`n0`$. Thus $`\lambda `$ are nonzero integers

$$\lambda =\pm 1,\pm 2\mathrm{},$$
(24)
and indeed the Dirac operator has no zero-modes. Equations (22) are Jacobi-type equations and their solutions are Jacobi polynomials of the $`n`$-th order :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _{\lambda m}(x)\\ \eta _{\lambda m}(x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}C_\alpha ^{mn}P_n^{(|m\frac{1}{2}|,|m+\frac{1}{2}|)}(x)\\ C_\beta ^{mn}P_n^{(|m+\frac{1}{2}|,|m\frac{1}{2}|)}(x)\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
A brief review of Jacobi polynomials may be found in Appendix A. Properties of solutions (25) will be discussed in Section 2.3.

The constants $`C_\alpha ^{mn},C_\beta ^{mn}`$ may be fixed by substituting the solutions into equation (16) and normalizing the obtained functions. Let us first find the relation between $`C_\alpha `$ and $`C_\beta `$. The Dirac operator is sensitive to the sign of $`m`$. Applying it to functions (21) at $`m>0`$ gives for the Fourier components (the same can be done for $`m<0`$):

$$i\widehat{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\lambda m}\\ \beta _{\lambda m}\end{array}\right)=i(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \left(\frac{1+x}{1x}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\eta _{\lambda m}(1x)\frac{d}{dx}\eta _{\lambda m}\right]\\ \hfill \left(\frac{1x}{1+x}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\xi _{\lambda m}+(1+x)\frac{d}{dx}\xi _{\lambda m}\right]\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
(Note that coefficients $`C_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ were absorbed in functions $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$.) Substituting this into the eigenvalue equation (16) written in terms of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ and using identities (A) of the Appendix we find the condition on $`C_\alpha ^{mn},C_\beta ^{mn}`$ which, after generalization to negative $`m`$, takes the form:

$$i\left(n+|m|+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill C_\alpha ^{mn}\\ \hfill C_\beta ^{mn}\end{array}\right)=\lambda sgnm\left(\begin{array}{c}C_\beta ^{mn}\\ C_\alpha ^{mn}\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
Provided that $`\lambda `$ is given by (23) this equation has nonzero solutions and the ratio of constants $`C_\alpha /C_\beta `$ is defined by the sign of the product $`m\lambda `$:

$$C_\beta ^{mn}=iC_\alpha ^{mn}sgn(m\lambda ).$$
(28)
The absolute values of the constants can be found from the normalization conditions,

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _0^\pi \left[|\alpha _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )|^2+|\beta _\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )|^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta =1.$$
(29)
This immediately refers us to the norms of Jacobi polynomials with the result:

$$|C_\alpha ^{mn}|=|C_\beta ^{mn}|=\frac{\sqrt{n!(n+2m)!}}{2^{m+\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+m+\frac{1}{2})}.$$
(30)
The last condition determines the eigenfunctions up to a complex phase that will be fixed in Section 2.4. Presently we shall not write the solutions explicitly leaving this till Section 2.3.

The last remark due here concerns an apparent contradiction between the integer spectrum (24) and formula (14). The latter implies that spectra of the two operators (1) are similar but to the shift $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Hence according to formula (24) the lowest eigenvalue of the (minus) covariant Laplace operator $`_F^2`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and not zero as one could naively expect by analogy with scalar fields. The confusion is readily resolved if one recalls that the aforementioned integer spectrum was obtained for spinors. Unlike scalars those satisfy antiperiodic boundary conditions $`\alpha ,\beta (0)=\alpha ,\beta (2\pi )`$ and are expanded in half-integer Fourier harmonics. Therefore although formally $`^2`$ and $`\widehat{}^2`$ differ only by the numerical constant in fact both spectra and eigenfunctions for scalars and spinors are different.

### 2.2 The $`SU(2)`$ algebra

Let us show that the Dirac operator on the sphere $`S^2`$ is invariant under transformations of the $`SU(2)`$ group. The Weyl —Cartan set of generators looks as follows:

$`\widehat{L}_z`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }};`$ (31a)
$`\widehat{L}_+`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}+i\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right);`$ (31b)
$`\widehat{L}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}i\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right).`$ (31c)
These operators satisfy the standard commutation relations of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra:

$`[\widehat{L}_z,\widehat{L}_+]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{L}_+;`$ (32a)
$`[\widehat{L}_z,\widehat{L}_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{L}_{};`$ (32b)
$`[\widehat{L}_+,\widehat{L}_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\widehat{L}_z.`$ (32c)
In our case representations of $`SU(2)`$-group are characterized by half-integer highest weight $`l`$ (see (37). It will be shown in Section 3.3 that it corresponds to the total angular momentum of the fermion state. The Casimir operator $`\widehat{L}^2`$ takes the value

$$l\widehat{L}^2l=l\widehat{L}_z^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{L}_+\widehat{L}_{}+\widehat{L}_{}\widehat{L}_+)l=l(l+1).$$
(33)
The basis vectors of the representation are classified by half-integer projection of angular momentum onto the polar axis that varies in the range $`m=l_z=l,\mathrm{}l`$. The number of basis vector in the representation is $`2l+1`$. The raising and lowering operators $`\widehat{L}_+`$ and $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ change the projection by unity $`\widehat{L}_\pm l,ml,m\pm 1`$.

A direct check proves that generators (2.2) commute with spherical Dirac operator (11):

$$[i\widehat{},\widehat{L}_z]=[i\widehat{},\widehat{L}_+]=[i\widehat{},\widehat{L}_{}]=0.$$
(34)
This means that the Dirac operator is $`SU(2)`$ invariant and its eigenfunctions may be classified according to their $`SU(2)`$ transformation properties. Moreover, the action of raising and lowering generators $`\widehat{L}_+`$ and $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ transforms its eigenfunctions into the eigenfunctions with the same $`\lambda `$ but greater or smaller $`m`$ respectively.

The square of Dirac operator (15a) and Casimir operator (33) may be diagonalized simultaneously

$$\widehat{}^2=\widehat{L}^2+\frac{1}{4},$$
(35)
and their eigenvalues are interrelated:

$$\lambda ,n|\widehat{L}^2|\lambda ,n=l(l+1)=\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}=(n+|m|)(n+|m|+1).$$
(36)
We conclude that the proper values of angular momentum are indeed half-integers related to the eigenvalues of Dirac operator

$$l=|\lambda |\frac{1}{2}=n+|m|=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{}$$
(37)
The final remark concerns reducibility of our representation. It is well known that spinor representations in even dimensions are reducible and one may separate the left and right spinor components. One may see that formally this is the case. Operators (2.2) are diagonal, so the upper and lower spinor components behave with respect to the $`SU(2)`$-group like two singlets with equal momenta $`l`$. However diagonalizing the Dirac operator requires joining them into the pair of doublets with $`\lambda =\pm (l+\frac{1}{2})`$.

### 2.3 The spinor spherical functions

Here we shall show how the formerly obtained functions (25) can be grouped into $`SU(2)`$ multiplets. The multiplets can be constructed in the standard manner, *i. e* by successive application of the lowering operator $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ to the highest weight vector, namely to the function with the maximum projection $`m=l`$ of angular momentum. Let us pass right to the result.

It is quite natural to use instead of $`n`$ the angular momentum $`l=n+|m|`$. Let us introduce the integers $`l^\pm =l\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m^\pm =m\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. Having in mind that according to formula (27) solutions for positive and negative $`\lambda `$ are different we may write (here again $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$):

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^\pm (x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\pm i^{l^+}(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(m^{}+|m^{}|)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(l+m)!(lm)!}}{2^{|m|+\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l^+)}}`$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{im\varphi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sqrt{i\rho ^{(|m^{}|,|m^+|)}(x)}P_{l|m|}^{(|m^{}|,|m^+|)}(x)\\ \hfill sgnm\sqrt{\pm i\rho ^{(|m^+|,|m^{}|)}(x)}P_{l|m|}^{(|m^+|,|m^{}|)}(x)\end{array}\right);`$
Here the $`\pm `$-superscripts stand for the sign of $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta `$ is the weight function for Jacobi polynomials $`P^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$ defined in the Appendix A. The overall multiplicative constants in these expressions were chosen in order to fix the right signs of matrix elements (2.3) and ensure the correct behavior of spherical functions under complex conjugation (53).

The relation between $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ is very simple:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^\pm (x,\varphi )=\pm i\sigma _z\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^{}(x,\varphi ).$$
(41)
The structure of this representation allows to prove directly the orthogonality of spherical functions:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l_1m_1}^{\epsilon _1}|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l_2m_2}^{\epsilon _2}=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _0^\pi (\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l_1m_1}^{\epsilon _1})^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l_2m_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta =\delta ^{\epsilon _1\epsilon _2}\delta _{l_1l_2}\delta _{m_1m_2}.$$
(42)
Integration over $`d\varphi `$ generates the Kronecker $`\delta _{m_1m_2}`$-symbol. After that the integrand becomes a sum of two expressions of the type $`\rho ^{(|m^\pm |,|m^{}|)}P_{l_1|m|}^{(|m^\pm |,|m^{}|)}P_{l_2|m|}^{(|m^\pm |,|m^{}|)}`$ that adverts us to the orthogonality of Jacobi polynomials (A.5). If the only distinction between the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions is $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ one should turn back to eqn. (41). Due to the presence of $`\sigma _z`$ for $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ the equal contributions of upper and lower spinor components are subtracted from each other and cancel.

Two more economic representations can be found with the help of identities (A) of the Appendix. The first is:

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^\pm (x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i^{l^+}(1)^l^{}}{2^{l^+}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l^+)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}}}`$ (45)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{im\varphi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sqrt{i}(1x)^{\frac{m^{}}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{m^+}{2}}\frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}(1x)^l^{}(1+x)^{l^+}\\ \hfill \sqrt{\pm i}(1x)^{\frac{m^+}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{m^{}}{2}}\frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}(1x)^{l^+}(1+x)^l^{}\end{array}\right).`$
The second one differs from it mainly by the sign of $`m`$.

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^\pm (x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i^{l^+}(1)^{lm}}{2^{l^+}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l^+)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(lm)!}{(l+m)!}}}`$ (48)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{im\varphi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sqrt{i}(1x)^{\frac{m^{}}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{m^+}{2}}\frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}(1x)^{l^+}(1+x)^l^{}\\ \hfill \pm \sqrt{\pm i}(1x)^{\frac{m^+}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{m^{}}{2}}\frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}(1x)^l^{}(1+x)^{l^+}\end{array}\right).`$
The important feature of these functions is that they are not zero only for values of $`m`$ ranging from $`l`$ to $`l`$. Hence each multiplet contains $`2l+1`$ terms. Indeed once $`l=n+|m|`$ is a half-integer then $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ in their turn must be integers. As a result the products $`(1x)^{l^\pm }(1+x)^l^{}`$ are polynomials of order $`2l`$ and their derivatives of orders higher than $`2l`$ are zero.

These expressions are perfectly suited for acting on them by $`\widehat{L}_+`$ and $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ operators. First let us note that for any $`m`$

$$\widehat{L}_{}e^{im\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\left[\rho ^{(m^{},m^+)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ \left[\rho ^{(m^+,m^{})}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right)=\widehat{L}_+e^{im\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\left[\rho ^{(m^{},m^+)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ \left[\rho ^{(m^+,m^{})}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(49)
If we take $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in the form (45) when acting by $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ and in the form (48) when acting by $`\widehat{L}_+`$ we shall readily find that

$`\widehat{L}_{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}=\sqrt{(l+m)(lm+1)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m1};`$ (50a)
$`\widehat{L}_+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}=\sqrt{(l+m+1)(lm)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m+1}.`$ (50b)
Thus we retain the standard expressions for the matrix elements of momentum operators,

$`l,m1|\widehat{L}_{}|l,m`$ $`=`$ $`l,m|\widehat{L}_+|l,m1=\sqrt{(l+m)(lm+1)};`$ (51a)
$`l,m|\widehat{L}_z|l,m`$ $`=`$ $`m.`$ (51b)
Deducing these relations directly from formulae (40) would require engaging but to (49) the Jacobi polynomial differentiation formula (A.6).

### 2.4 Complex conjugation and time-reversal

Finally I would like to comment the choice of coefficients in definition (40). We have already mentioned that insofar as the momentum operators (2.2) are diagonal the upper and lower spinor components of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}`$ belong to different representations of the $`SU(2)`$-group. The eigenvalue equation (16) and normalization condition (29) link the components to each other and fix their ratio (28) and absolute values. In the mean time the overall complex phase remains free. It may be determined from the behaviour of eigenfunctions under the complex conjugation. The latter in its own turn is closely related to properties with respect to time-reversal symmetry in $`2+1`$-dimensions. Action of the time-reversal ($`T`$) transformation onto spinors is described by the formulae :

$$T:\psi i\sigma _y\psi ^{}.$$
(52a)
The $`i\sigma _y`$ matrix guarantees that the time reversed spinors belong to the same fundamental representation of $`SU(2)`$ group and not to the complex-conjugated one. This definition agrees with the time-reversal properties of ordinary spherical functions $`Y_{l,m}`$ (see Appendix B)

$$T:Y_{l,m}Y_{l,m}^{}=(1)^{lm}Y_{l,m}.$$
(52b)
Definitions (2.4) guarantee the equivalence of integer-momentum representations of $`SU(2)`$ written both in terms of spinors and spherical functions.

The same line was pursued by our definitions of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions. The idea was that the $`T`$-transformation must convert $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$’s into themselves: $`T:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}(1)^{lm}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}`$. This relates components of the complex conjugated spinor $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}^{}`$ to those of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}`$ as follows:

$$T:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}=i\sigma _y\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \beta _{l,m}^{}\\ \hfill \alpha _{l,m}^{}\end{array}\right)=(1)^{lm}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{l,m}\\ \beta _{l,m}\end{array}\right).$$
(53)
One may show that for the functions introduced in the previous section this is indeed the case. The simplest way to is to take $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}`$ in different representations, say (45) and (48). A direct comparison of the coefficients proves (53) (mark that $`(m)^\pm =(m^{})`$).

The time-reversal transformation performed twice changes the sign of the eigenfunctions:

$$T^2:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}=(1)^{2l}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{l,m}.$$
(54)
This also complies with what should be expected from general considerations for representations with half-integer momentum.

## 3 Relation between $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ spherical spinors

### 3.1 Cartesian coordinates

Now we shall study the relation of the newly found functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to the standard spherical spinors. In order to do this we are going to convert $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions to Cartesian coordinates. This requires passing from the two-dimensional Riemann sphere $`S^2`$ to the three-dimensional Euclidean space. In order to access the new dimension we must first add to the two polar angles $`q^1=\theta `$ and $`q^2=\varphi `$ the radial coordinate $`q^3=r`$. The relations between the 3-dimensional spherical and Euclidean coordinates are standard:

$$x^1=x=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ;x^2=y=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ;x^3=z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(55)
The old metric tensor and zweibein on the sphere (2) must be substituted by the new spherical metric and dreibein

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=diag(r^2,r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1});e_\alpha ^a=diag(r,r\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}).$$
(56)
The place of the third Dirac matrix is taken by $`\gamma ^3=\sigma _z`$.

### 3.2 Spinor transformation rules

Now we would like to transform our formulae to the Cartesian coordinates. Note that the transformation includes a rotation of the dreibein. Accordingly the spinors will change. Let us remind the corresponding transformation rules.

Local rotations of the dreibein associated with coordinate changes generate the spin connection. The spinor and dreibein connections depend on each other so that $`\gamma ^a`$-matrices with dreibein indices stay constant.

In order to find the explicit form of spinor transformation let us consider an auxiliary local bilinear $`A^\alpha (q)=\psi ^{}(q)\sigma ^\alpha \psi (q)`$ with $`\psi (q)`$ being an arbitrary spinor. Let $`q^\alpha `$ be the old and $`x^\mu `$ the new coordinates (there was no reason yet to claim that $`x^m`$ were Euclidean). Being a simple contravariant vector $`A`$ obeys the following transformation law:

$$A^\mu (x)=\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }A^\alpha (q)\mathrm{and}A^a=e_\mu ^a(x)\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }e_b^\alpha (q)\psi ^{}(q)\sigma ^b\psi (q),$$
(57)
where $`x`$ and $`q`$ refer to the same spatial point. Take the note of the two different dreibeins that appear in this expression: the first one $`e_\alpha ^a(q)`$ refers to the original frame and $`e_\mu ^b(x)`$ to the new one. The matrix $`U_b^a=e_\mu ^a(x)\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }e_b^\alpha (q)`$ is orthogonal $`\stackrel{~}{U}U=U\stackrel{~}{U}=1`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ denotes the transposed matrix $`\stackrel{~}{U}_b^a=U_a^b`$). It describes the local rotation of objects with dreibein indices that arise from the coordinate transformation. Let us introduce into equation (57) an auxiliary unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`V(q)`$ ($`VV^{}=1`$):

$$A^a=U_b^a\psi ^{}\sigma ^\alpha \psi =e_\mu ^a(x)\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }e_b^\alpha (q)\psi ^{}(q)VV^{}\sigma ^bVV^{}\psi (q).$$
(58)
We shall show shortly that it is always possible to choose $`V`$ so that it will compensate the rotation $`U`$ of the dreibein putting the Pauli matrices back into the conventional form:

$$e_\mu ^a(x)\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }e_b^\alpha (q)V^{}(q)\sigma ^bV(q)=\sigma ^a.$$
(59)
Provided that this condition holds the $`\sigma `$-matrices will stay the same in the new coordinate frame. The associated transformation rule for spinors must be:

$$\psi (x)=V^{}\psi (q),\psi ^{}(x)=\psi ^{}(q)V.$$
(60)
Let us calculate the $`V`$-matrix. Similarly to any other rotation the matrix $`U_b^a`$ may be written in terms of the adjoint $`O(3)`$ rotation generators $`\widehat{L}`$ as:

$$\left[\widehat{L}^a\right]_c^b=iϵ^{abc}.$$
(61)
Let unit vector $`n_c(q)`$ point along the axis and $`\theta (q)`$ be the angle of local rotation. Then

$$U_b^a(q)=\left[\mathrm{exp}i\widehat{L}^cn_c(q)\theta (q)\right]_b^a=n^an_b+(\delta _b^an^an_b)\mathrm{cos}\theta +in_c\left[\widehat{L}^c\right]_b^a\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(62)
From the commutation relations of the Pauli matrices it is straightforward to see that

$$\left[\mathrm{exp}i\widehat{L}^cn_c\theta \right]_b^a\left(\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^cn_c\theta \sigma ^b\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^cn_c\theta \right)=\sigma ^a.$$
(63)
Therefore the matrices $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ compensating the rotation (62) are

$$V(q)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^cn_c(q)\theta (q)\mathrm{and}V^{}(q)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^cn_c(q)\theta (q).$$
(64)
Thus the transformation of spinors is unambiguously determined by the rotation angle $`\theta `$ and direction of the axis $`n`$ which may be found either from geometrical considerations or algebraically by solving equation (59).

### 3.3 Cartesian realization of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions

Now we can apply the theory and find out what do $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-spinors look like in the ordinary Cartesian coordinates. First we shall derive the general formulae transforming spinors from the spherical to the orthogonal frame and then apply them to the spinors in question. Taking for input the relation between spherical and orthogonal coordinates (55), the explicit spherical dreibein (56) and the trivial Cartesian dreibein $`e_\mu ^a=\delta _\mu ^a`$ we obtain the rotation matrix ($`e_\mu ^a=\delta _\mu ^a`$).

$$U_b^a=e_\mu ^a(x)\frac{x^\mu }{q^\alpha }e_b^\alpha (q)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(65)
This may be decomposed into the product of two successive turns:

$$U_b^a(q)=\left[\mathrm{exp}i\varphi \widehat{L}_3\mathrm{exp}i\theta \widehat{L}_2\right]_b^a.$$
(66)
Geometrically these two rotations align the local axes of spherical frame with those of Cartesian one. Obviously $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are nothing but the corresponding Euler angles. Spinors must also suffer the same two successive rotations with $`V`$-matrices being:

$`V=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _y}{2}}\theta \mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _z}{2}}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}& \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}& \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right);`$ (67c)
$`V^{}=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _z}{2}}\varphi \mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _y}{2}}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}& \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}& \hfill e^{\frac{i\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (67f)
Now we shall perform the $`V`$-rotation on spinor spherical functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (the trick is to use representation (45) when calculating the upper line and apply (48) to the lower one):

$$V^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{l+m}{2l}}Y_{l^{}m^{}}\pm \sqrt{\frac{lm+1}{2l+2}}Y_{l^+m^{}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{lm}{2l}}Y_{l^{}m^+}\sqrt{\frac{l+m+1}{2l+2}}Y_{l^+m^+}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{l,l^{},m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{l,l^+,m}\right).$$
(68)
Here $`Y_{lm}`$ are spherical functions (see Appendix B) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}`$ are the ordinary spherical spinors that realize an alternative representation of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ states on the sphere . The quantum numbers characteristic of a spinor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}`$ are: the half-integer total angular momentum $`j>0`$, integer orbital momentum $`l=j\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and projection of the total momentum onto the polar axis $`m`$ (that is again a half-integer). They are the two-component functions defined by the formulae

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{l+\frac{1}{2},l,m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sqrt{\frac{j+m}{2j}}Y_{l,m\frac{1}{2}}\\ \hfill \sqrt{\frac{jm}{2j}}Y_{l,m+\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }_{l\frac{1}{2},l,m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sqrt{\frac{jm+1}{2j+2}}Y_{l,m\frac{1}{2}}\\ \hfill \sqrt{\frac{j+m+1}{2j+2}}Y_{l,m+\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right).$$
(69)
Similarly to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-spinors make an orthonormal basis in the space of spinor functions on $`S^2`$:

$$_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_{jlm}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }_{j^{}l^{}m^{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )=\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}.$$
(70)
We conclude that in Cartesian coordinates the functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ may be expressed in terms of the ordinary spherical spinors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see (69)) but do not coincide with those. Representation (68) helps finding the standard quantum numbers of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-spinors. Inasmuch as they are superpositions of states with equal values of $`j`$ and $`m`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions must the same values of total angular momentum $`\widehat{J}`$ and its $`z`$-projection $`\widehat{J}_z`$:

$$\widehat{𝐉}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}=(\widehat{𝐋}_C+\widehat{𝐒}_C)^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}=l(l+1)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}\mathrm{and}\widehat{J}_z\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}=m\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm};$$
(71)
where $`\widehat{𝐋}_C`$ and $`\widehat{𝐒}_C`$ are the Cartesian operators of vectors of orbital momentum and spin respectively. In the mean time being composed of states with different orbital momenta $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ our spinors do not diagonalize $`\widehat{𝐋}_C^2`$. Still it is interesting to calculate its average:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}|\widehat{𝐋}_C^2|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{lm}>=\frac{1}{2}\left[l^+(l^++1)+l^{}(l^{}+1)\right]=\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2=\lambda ^2.$$
(72)
You see that the average value of $`\widehat{𝐋}_C^2`$ for spherical spinors $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is equal to the squared eigenvalue of spherical Dirac operator. Clearly this is a mere coincidence since in this representation $`i\widehat{}`$ is diagonal whereas $`\widehat{𝐋_C^2}`$ is not.

Now it is the time to compare the two types of spinors. Either of them forms a complete orthogonal functional system and belongs to the same representation of the $`SU(2)`$ group. Moreover $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$’s are linear combinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s and *vice versa.* The question arises what is the origin of distinction between them.

The answer is very simple. Both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ diagonalize one more operator but to $`\widehat{J}`$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$. These are the square of orbital momentum $`\widehat{𝐋_C^2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and spherical Dirac operator for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. The different choice of supplementary operators leads to different representations.

The ordinary spinors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ were obtained from solving in the flat space the three-dimensional Laplace equation on spinors

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[\frac{1}{r^2}\widehat{𝐋}_C^2+\frac{1}{r^2}_rr^2_r\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=k^2\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(73)
The Laplace operator is diagonal with respect to spin so that the upper and lower components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ behave as independent scalars. Separating the radial and angular dependencies one arrives at solutions with integer values of orbital momentum $`l_C=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{}`$ Then those are united into doublets with definite total momentum $`j`$ and its projection $`j_z=m`$.

Now the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-spinors are found by diagonalizing Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere that is an essentially curved manifold. One may clearly mark the difference from flat Euclidean space from the curvature term that manifestly enters the square of Dirac operator (14). Besides the nontrivial spin connection makes even the covariant two-dimensional Laplace operator (1) on the sphere differ from the angular part of (73).

To summarize one may say that as a result $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-spinors are better suited for separation of variables in spherically symmetric problems of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. On the other hand $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-functions may be useful when one is specially interested in properties of fermions localized on the sphere.

In conclusion we present for reference the Cartesian realization of Dirac operator (11) $`i\widehat{}_C=iV^{}\widehat{}V`$ with $`V`$-matrices given by (65)

$`i\widehat{}_C`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _xe^{i\varphi \sigma _z}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )+i\sigma _z(\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta +\mathrm{cos}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _y}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}e^{i\varphi \sigma _z}_\varphi `$ (74)
$`=`$ $`ie^{\frac{i\sigma _z\varphi }{2}}\sigma _x_\theta e^{i\sigma _y\theta }e^{\frac{i\sigma _z\varphi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _y}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}e^{i\varphi \sigma _z}_\varphi .`$
Calculation of $`(i\widehat{}_C)^2`$ is left to the reader as an exercise.

## Conclusion

We have found the eigenfunctions of Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere $`S^2`$. This family of orthonormal two-component spinors may be used for basis in problems involving fermions in spherically symmetric fields. The eigensponors are expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials. The solutions depend on spherical angles and are characterized by the following quantum numbers:

* eigenvalues of Dirac operator $`\lambda `$ which are nonzero either positive or negative integers ($`\lambda =0`$ is excluded by Lichnerovicz theorem);
* half-integer total angular momentum $`l=|\lambda |\frac{1}{2}`$;
* projection of angular momentum onto the polar axis $`m=l,\mathrm{}l`$ which is obviously a half-integer.

The set of solutions corresponding to highest weight $`l`$ realizes a $`2l+1`$ dimensional representation of $`SU(2)`$ group with matrix elements being given by the usual formulae for half-integer spin. The normalization coefficients are chosen so that the properties of our solutions with respect to complex conjugation and time reversal are in accord with those of spherical functions.

The eigenspinors of spherical Dirac operator $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ differ from the ordinary spherical spinors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These two types of spinors diagonalize the different sets of operators. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-spinors are listed by another set of quantum numbers. It includes: half-integer total angular momentum $`j`$; integer orbital momentum $`l=j\pm \frac{1}{2}`$; half-integer projection $`m`$ of angular momentum onto the polar axis.

The second source of difference is the curvature of $`S^2`$. The functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ diagonalize the Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere which is a genuinely curved manifold. Therefore the spin connection is inevitably present in the equation. On the other hand the conventional spherical spinors are found by separating the angular variables in the flat three-dimensional space $`R^3`$. Obviously the resulting equations contain no spin connection unless one inserts it by hand.

As a consequence the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ spherical spinors must be better suited for problems formulated on the Riemann sphere (see Introduction for examples). We hope that the explicit and detailed presentation of properties of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-spinors will help to use them for practical needs.

In conclusion I would like to thank Maximillian Kreuzer for the kind hospitality and discussions during the preparation of the pilot version of the paper. I’m particularly grateful to Joseph C. Varilly for introducing me to the history of the subject and rendering me excerpts from his own work.

The work was done with partial support from RFBR grants 00–02–17808 and 00–15–96786.

## Appendix A Properties of Jacobi polynomials

Jacobi polynomials $`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta >1`$, $`n`$ being the order) are classical orthogonal polynomials that satisfy the equation of hypergeometric type

$$\sigma (x)y^{\prime \prime }+\tau (x)y^{}+\lambda _ny=\frac{1}{\rho (x)}\frac{d}{dx}[\sigma (x)\rho (x)y^{}]+\lambda _ny=0,$$
(A.1)
with the coefficient functions:

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)=(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta ;\sigma (x)=1x^2;\tau (x)=\beta \alpha (\alpha +\beta +2)x.$$
(A.2)
The constant $`\lambda _n`$ is equal to

$$\lambda _n=n(n+\alpha +\beta +1).$$
(A.3)
The explicit form of Jacobi polynomials is given by the differential and integral Rodrigues’ formulas:

$`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2^nn!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dx^n}}[\sigma ^n(x)\rho (x)];`$ (A.4a)
$`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2^nn!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^n(z)\rho (z)}{(zx)^{n+1}}𝑑z}.`$ (A.4b)
The contour of complex integration in the second equation must encircle the point $`x`$.

Jacobi polynomials with given $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are orthogonal on the interval $`[1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ with the weight $`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$

$$_1^1P_m^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)𝑑x=\delta _{mn}\frac{2^{\alpha +\beta +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\alpha +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\beta +1)}{n!(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\alpha +\beta +1)}.$$
(A.5)
Jacobi polynomials form on this interval a complete set and any square integrable function can be expanded in terms of $`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}`$.

Adjacent polynomials are related to each other by the differentiation formula:

$$\frac{d}{dx}P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(n+\alpha +\beta +1)P_{n1}^{(\alpha +1,\beta +1)}(x).$$
(A.6)
In the paper we met Jacobi polynomials with $`\alpha =\beta \pm 1`$ and used their special properties. The first two identities help to relate the upper and lower components of spinor spherical functions (25). Let us prove that for $`k1`$

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)P_n^{(k,k1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+k}{1x}}P_n^{(k1,k)}(x);`$ (A.7a)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{1x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)P_n^{(k1,k)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+k}{1+x}}P_n^{(k,k1)}(x).`$ (A.7b)
The proof is based on the integral Rodrigues’ formula (A.4b). Let $`C=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n`$ be the numerical factor common to the both sides of the equations. Then after differentiation we get:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)P_n^{(k,k1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+k}{1+x}}P_n^{(k,k1)}{\displaystyle \frac{C(n+1)}{(1x^2)^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1z^2)^{n+k}dz}{(zx)^{n+2}}};`$ (A.8a)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{1+x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)P_n^{(k1,k)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+k}{1x}}P_n^{(k1,k)}+{\displaystyle \frac{C(n+1)}{(1x^2)^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1z^2)^{n+k}dz}{(zx)^{n+2}}}.`$ (A.8b)
Integrating the rightmost terms by parts opens the way to the desired result (A).

The second pair of relations was used in deducing representations (45, 48). They are valid only for integer $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and for convenience we shall use the notation of Section 2.3. (We remind that both $`l^\pm =l\pm \frac{1}{2}0`$ and $`m^\pm =m\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are integers.)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}}(1x)^l^{}(1+x)^{l^+}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}(1x)^{l^+}(1+x)^l^{}}{(1x)^{m^+}(1+x)^m^{}}};`$ (A.9a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}}(1x)^{l^+}(1+x)^l^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{m^+}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}(1x)^l^{}(1+x)^{l^+}}{(1x)^m^{}(1+x)^{m^+}}}.`$ (A.9b)
For example let us prove (A.9a) for $`m>0`$. Note that relation (A.9b) extends its validity to negative $`m`$ and *v. v.* The $`l+m`$-th derivative of the product is

$$A=\frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}(1x)^l^{}(1+x)^{l^+}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{l+m}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l+m}{k}\right)\frac{d^k}{dx^k}(1x)^l^{}\frac{d^{l+mk}}{dx^{l+mk}}(1+x)^{l^+}.$$
(A.10)
Insofar as $`l^+,l^{}`$ are integers the derivatives of $`(1x)^l^{}`$ and $`(1+x)^{l^+}`$ of orders higher than $`l^{}`$ and $`l^+`$ vanish. Thus only the terms with $`m^{}kl^{}`$ survive. Introducing a new summation index $`j=km^{}`$ we obtain after expanding the derivatives

$$A=\underset{j=0}{\overset{lm}{}}\frac{(1)^{j+m^{}}(l+m)!}{(m^{}+j)!(l^+j)!}\frac{l^{}!(1x)^{lmj}}{(lmj)!}\frac{l^+!(1+x)^j}{j!}.$$
(A.11)
Observing that

$$\frac{(1)^jl^+!}{(l^+j)!}(1x)^{lmj}=\frac{\frac{d^j}{dx^j}(1x)^{l^+}}{(1x)^{m^+}}\mathrm{and}\frac{l^{}!}{(m^{}+j)!}(1+x)^j=\frac{\frac{d^{lmj}}{dx^{lmj}}(1+x)^l^{}}{(1+x)^m^{}},$$
(A.12)
we immediately find

$$A=\frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}\frac{(1)^m^{}}{(1x)^{m^+}(1+x)^m^{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{lm}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{lm}{j}\right)\frac{d^j}{dx^j}(1x)^{l^+}\frac{d^{lmj}}{dx^{lmj}}(1+x)^l^{}.$$
(A.13)
This is nothing but the RHS of equation (A.9a). The proof of (A.9b) may be carried out by simply reversing the sign $`xx`$.

## Appendix B Spherical functions

Here we cite for reference the basics of spherical functions and Legendre polynomials.

The associated Legendre polynomials $`P_l^m(x_)`$ with $`l`$, $`m`$ being nonnegative integers are solutions to the second order ordinary differential equation

$$\frac{d}{dx}(1x^2)\frac{d}{dx}y\frac{m^2}{1x^2}y+l(l+1)y=0.$$
(B.1)
The two convenient representations of functions $`P_l^m(x_)`$ are:

$`P_l^m(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^l}{2^ll!}}(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}}(1x^2)^l`$ (B.2a)
$`P_l^m(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{lm}}{2^ll!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}}(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}}(1x^2)^l.`$ (B.2b)
They may be also expressed in terms of the Jacobi and Legendre polynomials,

$$P_l^m(x)=\frac{(l+m)!}{2^ml!}(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}P_{lm}^{(m,m)}(x),\mathrm{and}P_l^m(x)=(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}\frac{d^m}{dx^m}P_l(x).$$
(B.3)
From the orthogonality of Jacobi polynomials (A.5) it follows that associated Legendre polynomials with the same value of $`m`$ are orthogonal on the interval $`[1,1]`$ with the unit weight:

$$_1^1𝑑xP_k^m(x)P_l^m(x)=\delta _{kl}\frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}\frac{2}{2l+1}.$$
(B.4)
Spherical functions $`Y_{lm}(x,\varphi )`$ are listed by two integers, namely, by the value of the angular momentum $`l0`$ and its projection onto the polar axis $`lml`$. The functions $`Y_{lm}(x,\varphi )`$ are normalized eigenfunctions of the scalar (spin-zero) Laplace operator on the sphere:

$$\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{}{\theta }\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\right)Y_{lm}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )=l(l+1)Y_{lm}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(B.5)
They may be expressed in terms of the associated Legendre polynomials:

$$Y_{lm}(x,\varphi )=(1)^{\frac{m+|m|}{2}}i^l\frac{e^{im\varphi }}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{2}\frac{(l|m|)!}{(l+|m|)!}}P_l^{|m|}(x).$$
(B.6)
With the help of identities (B.1) the spherical functions may be written as

$`Y_{lm}(x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^li^l}{2^ll!}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{im\varphi }}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}}}(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{lm}}{dx^{lm}}}(1x^2)^l.`$ (B.7a)
$`Y_{lm}(x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{lm}i^l}{2^ll!}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{im\varphi }}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(lm)!}{(l+m)!}}}(1x^2)^{\frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{l+m}}{dx^{l+m}}}(1x^2)^l.`$ (B.7b)
The functions $`Y_{lm}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )`$ form on the sphere the orthonormal functional basis:

$$_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi Y_{lm}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\varphi )=\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}.$$
(B.8)
Inasmuch as the angular part of 3-dimensional Laplace operator (B.5) coincides with the square of angular momentum $`\widehat{𝐋}_C^2`$ in coordinate representation spherical functions $`Y_{lm}`$ are the basis vectors of $`2l+1`$ dimensional representation of rotation group $`O(3)`$.