text:
# Black hole entropy in string-generated gravity models

(December 30, 2002)

## Abstract

The Euclidean action and entropy are computed in string-generated gravity models with quadratic curvatures, and used to argue that a negative mass extremal metric is the background for hyperbolic ($`k=1`$) black hole spacetimes, $`k`$ being the curvature constant of the event horizon. The entropy associated with a black hole is always positive for $`k=\{0,1\}`$ family. The positivity of energy condition also ensures that the $`k=1`$ (extremal) entropy is non-negative.

preprint: NTUTH-02/S015preprint: CERN/TH/02-xxxpreprint: hep-th/0212092

The area–entropy law Bekenstein73a  (in Planck units) $`𝒮=\frac{A_H}{4G}`$ (where $`A_H`$ is the area of the event horizon of the black hole and $`G`$ is the Newton constant) is one of most celebrated results in general relativity. It is known Myers88a  that the black hole entropy is not simply given by one-quarter the area, particularly, if one allows higher curvature corrections to the Einstein action, such as

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}+\alpha _1{\displaystyle d^{n+1}x}`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{g}\left(R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }+aR_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+bR^2\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
There are some known reasons to explore black holes in such generalized gravity models. The Gauss-Bonnet term obtained by setting $`a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},b=1`$, originally motivated by string theory, produces the most general Lagrangian retaining only second-order field equations, and admits exact spherically symmetric solutions in dimensions $`n+1>4`$ Deser85a . The action (1) with $`a=b=0`$, $`n=4`$ corresponds to an effective $`AdS_5`$ (bulk) action, deduced from a heterotic string via heterotic-type I duality Blau99a ,

$$I=\frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2l^3}d^5x\sqrt{g}\left[\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\frac{l^2}{16N}R_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\right],$$
(2)
where, using AdS/CFT duality Maldacena97a , the coefficient of $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term is fixed as $`32\pi G\alpha _1=l^2/8N\epsilon `$.

One can evaluate leading order corrections to the black hole entropy by finding exact solutions of Einstein equations supplemented by higher curvature (HC) terms, such as a Gauss-Bonnet term or quadratic interactions without a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term, or by treating HC terms as perturbation about the Einstein gravity. The first approach allows one to study global properties of the solutions with an asymptotically (anti-)de Sitter branch Deser85a ; Myers88a ; Nojiri01c ; IPN02a . In this context, a question may be raised as to whether higher derivative gravities can have negative entropy Nojiri01c ; Odint02a , in particular, when the curvature length of AdS geometry itself is in the order of HC couplings. In order to address this issue and gain some insight into the problem, it is essential to calculate the total energy. In doing so, we find that the requirement of positivity of energy ensures the positivity of (extremal) black hole entropy.

In this paper, we also answer to the important question of what is the correct ground state to use in hyperbolic anti-de Sitter spacetimes. We reiterate the earlier assertions made by Vanzo Vanzo  and Birmingham Birmingham98a  (see also Emparan99a  for a discussion in the context of the counterterm substraction method) that a negative mass extremal metric is the background for hyperbolic black holes Mann96a .

The action (1) with $`a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$, $`b=1`$, admits the exact black hole solution Cai01a ; IPN02a ; Nojiri01c

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{f(r)}}+r^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}h_{ij}dx^idx^j`$ (3)
$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`k+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2\alpha }}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{n(n1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha \mu }{r^n}}}.`$ (4)
where $`\alpha 16\pi G(n2)(n3)\alpha _1`$, $`\mu `$ is a mass parameter, and $`h_{ij}`$ is the metric of an $`(n1)`$-dimensional maximally symmetric space $`_k^{n1}`$ with curvature $`k=0,\pm 1`$. For a symmetric space $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }=(g_{\mu \lambda }g_{\nu \rho }g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \lambda })/\mathrm{}^2`$, the cosmological term is fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/2l^2`$, where $`l=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{1\alpha /\mathrm{}^2}`$ is the (effective) curvature radius of AdS bulk geometry. One also identifies the imaginary time of the solution with a period $`\beta =4\pi /f^{}(r_+)`$, namely

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi r_+l^2\left(r_+^2+2\alpha k\right)}{nr_+^4+(n2)kr_+^2l^2+(n4)\alpha k^2l^2},$$
(5)
where $`r_+`$ is the largest positive root of $`f(r)`$ (c.f., negative root in (4)), and $`1/\beta =T`$ is the Hawking temperature of a black hole.

The extremal black-holes are defined to have zero temperature, which require a vanishing denominator in (5). Therefore, for $`n=4`$, there is an extremal $`k=1`$ solution, with a degenerate horizon at $`r_+=r_e`$, satisfying

$$r_e^2=\frac{l^2}{2},\mu _e=\frac{l^2}{4}\left(1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}\right),$$
(6)
and $`\alpha <\frac{l^2}{4}`$. Here we need to be more precise. The above solutions are extremal ones only if $`\alpha <\frac{l^2}{4}`$ holds. Because, in particular, for the coupling $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, one obtains $`\beta =\frac{8\pi r_+l^2}{2nr_+^2+(n4)kl^2}`$, and hence the Hawking temperature is finite, namely, $`T=r_+/\pi l^2`$, when $`n=4`$, independent of the curvature $`k`$ of the horizon. That is to say, the extremal Hawking temperature can be zero only for the coupling $`\alpha <\frac{l^2}{4}`$ Cai01a . To present a better picture, we need to consider $`n>4`$ case. With $`k=1`$, the $`T=0`$ ($`\beta =\mathrm{}`$) condition yields

$`r_{c,e}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2n}}\right)l^2\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4n(n4)}{(n2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{l^2}}}\right)`$ (7)
$`\mu _{c,e}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_{c,e}^{n2}}{n4}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\pm \sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{n2}{n}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4(n4)}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{l^2}}}\right].`$ (8)
For $`\alpha =0`$, the critical horizon $`r_c(<r_e)`$ given by negative root of (7) coincides with the singularity at $`r=0`$, so the space-time region $`r<r_e`$ has an internal infinity. With $`\alpha >0`$, we can have non-degenerate horizons with hyperbolic geometry. Moreover, with $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, one has $`r_+=r_c=l\sqrt{(n4)/2n}`$ and hence $`T=\frac{n(r_+^2r_c^2)}{4\pi r_+l^2}=0`$, which is of course not a massless (BPS) state, since $`\mu _c>0`$. This corresponds to a particular solution studied in Zanelli00a , where the coupling $`\alpha ^{}`$ is fixed in the starting action using $`8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }+n(n1)=0`$. Notice that, for $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, $`\mu _e=0`$ at $`r_+=r_e=l/\sqrt{2}`$ but $`T0`$. A clear message is that only for $`\mu _e<0`$ (or $`\mu _c>0`$) background one can consistently set $`T=0`$. The possible backgrounds are

$`n=4`$ $`:`$ $`\mu _e=0,T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi l}}\text{or}(ii)\mu _e<0,T=0,`$
$`n>4`$ $`:`$ $`\mu _e=0,T>0;\mu _c>0,T=0;\mu _e<0,T=0.`$
It would be natural to call ”ground state” the state with zero temperature. We find that only a negative mass extremal state can be stable under gravitational (tensor) perturbations. So a massless state may not be the ground state for the $`k=1`$ horizon, as expected in Vanzo ; Birmingham98a ; Surya01a .

The on-shell Gauss-Bonnet gravity action reads

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+1}}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{2R}{n3}+\frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n3}\right).$$
(9)
It is known that the AdS space Witten98a  and the Horowitz-Myers soliton Horowitz98a  are the appropriate backgrounds, respectively, for spherical ($`k=1`$) and toroidal ($`k=0`$) horizons. For $`k=0`$, a zero mass ground state is still legitimate, and is an acceptable background Vanzo ; Birmingham98a . For $`k=1`$, by matching the asymptotic geometries between extremal and asymptotically locally AdS metrics, one subtracts a non-zero mass extremal background Birmingham98a , restricting attention to the region $`rr_e`$ for the background and $`rr_+`$ for the black hole. The Euclideanized action, valid for $`k=0,\pm 1`$, is thus evaluated to be

$`\widehat{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}r_+^{n4}\beta }{16\pi G_{n+1}(n3)}}\left[\left(kr_+^2\alpha k^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3r_+^4}{l^2}}\right]`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n1}}{2(n3)G_{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}\beta }{16\pi G_{n+1}}}\mu _e,`$
where $`V_{n1}=d^{n1}x\sqrt{h}`$. One reads off the free energy from $`F=\widehat{I}/\beta `$. When $`\alpha =0,k=1`$, there is no phase transition since the black hole dominates over $`\mu _e`$ background for all temperatures. Typically, a massless state at $`\alpha =l^2/4>0`$ has an initial positive free energy in $`n=4`$ but zero free energy in $`n=6`$, so, for $`\alpha >0`$ solutions, the behavior of Hawking-Page phase transition could depend on spacetime dimensions, unlike in the $`\alpha =0`$ case Hawking83a ; Witten98a .

Since $`\mu _e`$ is temperature (or horizon $`r_+`$) independent, the black hole entropy takes a remarkably simple form

$$𝒮=\beta ^2\frac{F}{\beta }=\frac{A_H}{4G_{n+1}}\left[1+\frac{(n1)}{(n3)}\frac{2\alpha k}{r_+^2}\right],$$
(11)
where $`A_H=V_{n1}r_+^{n1}`$. This derivation is essentially an application of Eq. (10) and second law of black hole thermodynamics. So, conceptually, it is fundamentally different from the calculation in Cai01a  where entropy comes from first law. Eq. (11) is the correct entropy formula even in a flat spacetime ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$Myers88a , so the cosmological constant on the AdS boundary is not dynamical. As a result, the central charge of an effective theory with a GB term allows one to compute entropy without breaking Virasoro algebra near the horizon Cvitan02a . The entropy flow

$$d𝒮=\frac{(n1)A}{4G_{n+1}r_+}\left(1+\frac{2\alpha k}{r_+^2}\right),$$
(12)
is always positive, because $`r_+^2+2\alpha k0`$ should hold for black hole interpretation IPN02a , and satisfies a generalized second law Bekenstein73a . Moreover, since

$`T𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}r_+^{n4}}{16\pi G_{n+1}(n3)}}[(n2)kr_+^2+(n4)\alpha k^2`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{nr_+^4}{l^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi T}{n3}},`$
one readily evaluates the thermodynamic energy to be

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T𝒮+F=M{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}\mu _e=MM_e,`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}\left(kr_+^{n2}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^n}{l^2}}+\alpha k^2r_+^{n4}\right).`$ (14)
For $`k=1`$, since $`M_e=0`$, one has $`E=M`$. For $`k=1`$, since $`M_e<0`$, $`EM`$, in general. It is quite interesting that, for $`k=1`$, $`E=0`$ at $`r_+=r_e`$, and $`E>0`$ otherwise. Consider for concreteness the $`n=4`$ case. Then, one has

$$E=\frac{3V_3}{16\pi G}\mu +\frac{3l^2V_3}{64\pi G}\left(1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}\right).$$
(15)
This energy is vanishing at the extremal state, and also in Nariai limit $`\mu =\alpha l^2/4`$. As in de-Sitter case Vijay01a , the Nariai solution is not the ground state in $`n4`$.

The black hole entropy (11) is always positive for the curvature $`k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. However, for $`k=1`$, one has

$$𝒮=\frac{V_{3,k=1}r_+^3}{4G_5}\left(1\frac{6\alpha }{r_+^2}\right)𝒮_e=\frac{V_3}{G_5}\frac{l^3}{2^{7/2}}\left(1\frac{12\alpha }{l^2}\right).$$
(16)
Thus, in particular, when one approaches a massless state at $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, the extremal entropy becomes negative. This is of course not an encouraging situation, because, as a microscopic interpretation, the black hole entropy is the logarithm of the number of (quantum) states and should be positive. It is expected that additional higher order corrections, like that $`R^4`$ terms, might cure this problem, so that a full theory will yield only positive (extremal) entropy. One also notes that, for the $`\alpha =0`$ case, the $`k=1`$ extremal ground state has positive entropy Emparan99a

$$𝒮_e=\frac{V_{n1}}{G_{n+1}}\frac{l^{n1}}{2^{(n+3)/2}}.$$
(17)
These results further provide a hint that a massless extremal state is simply not allowed as ground state.

As the first plot in Fig. (1) shows, the small horizon regime $`r<r_e`$ has a single branch for $`\alpha =\frac{l^2}{4}`$ and two branches for $`\alpha <\frac{l^2}{4}`$. The first branch (cusp) on left, which might have negative specific heat, has no black hole interpretation since this region is not allowed due to a constraint $`r_+^2>2\alpha `$. Here we should note that, when $`k=1`$, $`n=4`$, for the coupling $`\alpha =\frac{l^2}{12}`$, the Euclidean period $`\beta `$ is negative in the range $`\frac{1}{6}<r_+^2<\frac{1}{2}`$, i.e., $`0.408<r_+<0.707`$. So the Hawking temperature, which is a non-negative entity, should be defined as $`T=|\beta ^1|`$. That is, in the range $`0.408<r_+<0.707`$, the specific heat must be defined by $`C=\beta ^2dE/(d(\beta ))`$. As a result, the second cusp in the first plot of Fig. (1) should be mirror reflected, and hence can have a positive specific heat. Nevertheless, for the coupling $`\alpha =\frac{l^2}{4}`$, the Euclidean period $`\beta `$ is always positive, so the formula $`C=\beta ^2dE/(d\beta )`$ is still effective. For this particular coupling, the specific heat could be negative, which might signal the instability of a massless state. Because the energy condition $`E0`$ always holds, the black holes of size of the extremal state or bigger than this have zero or positive specific heat, and the corresponding solutions are thermodynamically stable and globally preferred.

It is interesting that the minimum of the energy is also the minimum of the temperature. As a result, the ratio $`dE/dT`$ is well behaved even if $`k=1`$, which should be contrasted with the result in Einstein gravity $`(\alpha =0)`$. This might show the emergence of a stable branch of small spherical black holes, and similar result was obtained by Caldarelli and Klemm in Klemm99a , where a detailed treatment of M-theory/stringy-corrections, specifically, the $`𝒪(\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3})`$ corrections of type IIB string theory, to black hole thermodynamics is presented. It has been shown that Klemm99a  the leading stringy or M-theory corrections do not give rise to any phase transition for flat and hyperbolic horizons, although to a quotient of hyperbolic space $`H^{n1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there may arise new phase transitions. Further elaboration and related discussion upon this issue appear in IPN03a .

Given the importance of Gauss-Bonnet correction to Einstein gravity, the extremal entropy is non-negative only if $`12\alpha <l^2`$. This constraint also enforces the positivity of energy for the $`k=1`$ case. Following Vijay01a ; Nojiri01c , we may calculate the total mass (quasi-local energy) of $`k=+1`$ Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter spacetime using the surface energy-momentum tensor. In $`n+1=5`$, we find

$$E=\frac{3V_3l^2}{16\pi G}\left(1\frac{12\alpha }{l^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\mu }{l^2}\right).$$
(18)
In using a relation $`d𝒮=\beta dE`$, we arrive at

$$𝒮=\frac{dr_+}{T}\frac{dE}{d\mu }\frac{d\mu }{dr_+}=\frac{V_3}{4Gl^2}\left(r_+^3+6\alpha r_+\right)\left(l^212\alpha \right)+𝒮_0.$$
(19)
This entropy is non-negative when $`\alpha <l^2/12`$, since $`𝒮_0=0`$ at $`r_+=0`$. It is worth noting that the positivity of energy and entropy in the $`k=+1`$ case also ensures that the $`k=1`$ extremal entropy is non-negative.

Next we consider the action (2). The metric solution that solves the field equations, to the order $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$, is

$$f(r)=k\frac{m}{r^2}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{\epsilon m^2}{r^6},$$
(20)
where $`l^2`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via $`l^2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }l^2+6\right)=2\epsilon `$. Using $`f(r_+)=0`$, we express $`m`$ as a function of horizon radius:

$$m=\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)\left[r_+^2+\epsilon \left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)\right]\frac{4\pi ^2l^3}{N^2}\frac{M}{3V_3},$$
(21)
where $`r_+`$ is the largest positive root of $`f(r)`$ and $`M`$ is the black hole mass. The inverse Hawking temperature is

$$\beta =\frac{1}{T}=\frac{2\pi r_+^3l^4}{r_+^2l^2\left(kl^2+2r_+^2\right)2\epsilon \left(kl^2+r_+^2\right)^2}.$$
(22)
The extremal $`k=1`$ solution, implied by $`T=0`$, reads

$$r_e^2\frac{l^2}{2}\left(1+\frac{\epsilon }{l^2}\right),m_e\frac{l^2}{4}\left(1\frac{\epsilon }{l^2}\right).$$
(23)
Using these as background values for $`k=1`$, we obtain an Euclideanized action valid for $`k=0,\pm 1`$ to be quote

$`\widehat{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3N^2}{4\pi ^2l^3}}[(m{\displaystyle \frac{2r_+^4}{l^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon }{l^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{6\epsilon m^2}{r_+^4}}`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{4}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{l^2}})].`$
The last expression, independent of $`r_+`$, will be in effect only to the $`k=1`$ case. As usual, free energy is defined by $`\widehat{I}=\beta F`$. The resulting entropy is

$$𝒮=\beta ^2\frac{F}{\beta }=\frac{V_3r_+^3}{4}\frac{4N^2}{\pi l^3}\left[1+\frac{1}{4N}\frac{2r_+^2+3kl^2}{r_+^2}\right].$$
(25)
This entropy is essentially positive in the limit $`r_+>>l`$. It may be negative for $`k=1`$ when $`r_+^2<\frac{3l^2}{2}`$, but this limit is not allowed due to the energy condition $`E0`$. In the large $`N`$ limit, (25) approximates to usual form $`𝒮=\frac{A_H}{4G}`$. So one can expect that for large black holes the asymptotic regions feel only minor corrections due to the higher curvature terms. The extremal entropy

$$𝒮_e=\frac{V_3}{4G}\frac{l^3}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)$$
(26)
is positive since $`N>1`$. The thermodynamic energy is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{I}}{\beta }}=F+T𝒮=M+E_k,`$ (27)
$`E_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3V_3N^2}{4\pi ^2l^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon r_+^4}{l^4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{kl^2}{r_+^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2l^2}{4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{l^2}}\right)\right].`$
One reads $`M`$ from (21). The specific heat $`C=\frac{E}{T}`$ is

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3V_3r_+^3N^2}{\pi l^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2r_+^2\left(l^2+3\epsilon \right)}{l^2\left(2r_+^2kl^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k\left(l^2+4\epsilon \right)}{2r_+^2kl^2}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon \left(l^2+2kr_+^2\right)\left(3k^2l^4+2kr_+^2l^2r_+^4\right)}{r_+^2l^2\left(l^22kr_+^2\right)\left(2r_+^2kl^2\right)}}].`$
A pleasing result is that the energy and specific heat are vanishing at the extremal state defined by (23), an important hint that the extremal state is the ground state. For $`k=1`$, there is a discontinuity in specific heat at $`r_+=\frac{l}{\sqrt{2}}`$, even if $`\epsilon >0`$. This is partly because the solutions are only perturbative and we have retained the terms only linear in $`\epsilon `$. In the $`k=1`$ case, however, the solutions are well behaved, for example, the specific heat and entropy are positive when $`r_+>r_e`$. A difference from the $`\epsilon =0`$ case is that now a small size black hole has a positive specific heat at finite coupling $`3<N<\mathrm{}`$.

We end with few remarks and future problems.

We have calculated leading order curvature corrections to the black hole entropy with horizons $`k=0,\pm 1`$. In general, the entropy is not obtained by evaluating the horizon area of the unperturbed solution divided by $`4G`$. It is encouraging that the formulae (11), (25) perfectly match with the entropies calculated using Wald’s covariant approach Wald93a , where the entropy is (unambiguously) determined by a local geometric expression at the horizon. Presumably, these results provide some elegant test of our knowledge of entropy in string theory, for the higher curvature terms as the Gauss-Bonnet invariant and/or $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ interaction arise in most string theory as leading $`\alpha ^{}`$-corrections.

In general, the hyperbolic AdS black hole with zero (extremal) mass is not stable as a supersymmetric background. The stability of a hyperbolic horizon is therefore an important issue in dimensions $`n+1>4`$, which might be essential for a non-supersymmetric extension of AdS/CFT correspondence. We find that a negative mass $`k=1`$ extremal background, which has the lowest energy configuration in its asymptotic class, is stable under gravitational perturbations when $`\frac{\alpha }{l^2}<<1`$, and the potential is bounded from below (work in preparation). It would be interesting in this case to investigate the thermal phase structures and conformal behavior at infinity by coupling the theory with scalars.

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Juan Maldacena and Soo-Jong Rey for providing many intuitions on the problem; D. Birmingham and S. Nojiri for fruitful comments on the subject. I wish to acknowledge a warm hospitality of CERN Theory Group during my visit. This work is supported by the National Science Council, the center for Theoretical Physics at NTU, Taiwan, R.O.C..


format: text

text:
# Evidence for Majorana Neutrinos: Dawn of a new era in spacetime structure

## 1 Introduction

The long sought-after signal from experiments on neutrinoless double beta decay has finally been reported by the Heidelberg-Moscow (HM) collaboration . In its most natural explanation the HM events suggest neutrinos to be fundamentally neutral particles in the sense of Majorana .

It is our intention to argue that the discovery a Majorana particle, taken to its logical implications, opens a new era in the structure of spacetime. It constitutes a discovery in which spacetime is not merely a classical object, a mere $`SU(2)_RSU(2)_L`$ realization of the Lorentz algebra (in the sense of Ryder ), but the underlying representation spaces exploit additional relative phases. These phases between the two $`SU(2)`$ building blocks encode in them important C, P, and T properties. Furthermore, Majorana particles belong to a new and unusual Wigner class – a class necessary for implementing supersymmetry. Even though neutrino itself may not be a supersymmetric particle, its Majorana nature tells us that spacetime does realize a construct that is central to construction of supersymmetric theories.

The Lorentz algebra, associated with the generators of rotation, $`𝐉`$, and boosts, $`𝐊`$, fails to incorporate fermionic fields. As is well known, see, e.g., Ref. , this circumstance is remedied by the introduction of two $`SU(2)`$ generators:

$`SU(2)_R:𝐀={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐉+i𝐊),`$ (1)
$`SU(2)_L:𝐁={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐉i𝐊).`$ (2)
The resulting algebra is no longer that of the Lorentz group. In the notation of Ref. , the Weyl spinors belong to $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2)`$ representation spaces; and the parity covariant spin-$`1/2`$ constructs belong to the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. The vector indexed objects, such as $`x^\mu `$, $`A^\mu `$, transform as $`(1/2,1/2)`$, and so on. Therefore, while the Lorentz algebra has served us well, the underlying representation spaces for the quantum field theoretic description of nature belong, at least in the non-Planckian realm, to the two $`SU(2)`$’s introduced above. In reference  we have taken an ab intio look at the representation spaces which are appropriate to the description of spin $`1/2`$ charged particles, vector particles, and Rarita-Schwinger particles. Here, we present an ab initio formalism that embodies the original spirit of Majorana but extends/completes it in a non-trivial way. In doing so we build upon, but do not confine, to already existing original literature  and exploit our experience in the spacetime structure of massive particles to benefit us .

Based upon our studies in Refs.  we take as given that wave equation for spinors underlying the description of spin one half charged particles carries a symmetry under the operation of $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$-representation-space charge conjugation operator:

$`C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& i\mathrm{\Theta }\\ i\mathrm{\Theta }& 0_2\end{array}\right)K.`$ (5)
Here, operator $`K`$ complex conjugates any object that appears on its right, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Wigner’s spin-$`1/2`$ time reversal operator222 For an arbitrary spin it is defined by the property $`\mathrm{\Theta }𝐉\mathrm{\Theta }^1=𝐉^{}`$. We refrain from identifying $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with “$`i\sigma _2`$,” as is done implicitly in all considerations on the subject – see, e.g., Ref.  – because such an identification does not exist for higher-spin $`(j,0)(0,j)`$ representation spaces. The existence of Wigner time reversal operator for all $`j`$, allows, for fermionic $`j`$’s, the introduction of $`(j,0)(0,j)`$ neutral particles.

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
We further assume that the $`C`$ operator, and related $`P`$, and $`T`$ operators, are intrinsic to the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space up to certain phases which may be fixed by additional physical requirements. The mentioned phases may affect commutative and anticommutative properties of the $`C`$, $`P`$, and $`T`$ as these properties depend not only on the form of the operators but also on these phases and the spinors on which the operators act upon.

The operator $`C`$ appeared on the physics scene not in expectation but as a surprise that lay hidden in spacetime symmetries and it revealed itself in the now famous Dirac construct for spin one half. The well-known symmetry associated with this operator brought into existence prediction of an entirely new type matter, called antimatter. Yet, the particles associated with matter, and those associated with antimatter, are not eigenstates of this very operator. Instead, this operator takes particle spinors into antiparticle spinors and vice versa. The notion readily extends to a fully quantum field theoretic framework.

Beyond Dirac, Stückelberg in 1942 and Feynman in 1948 proposed to interpret antiparticles as particles scattered backward in time . This latter proposal, as noted by Hatfield , carries the advantage that it applies equally well to fermions as to bosons. However, already in 1937 Majorana identified particle creation operators with antiparticle creation operators. In that quantum-field-theoretic proposal, Majorana did not consistently alter the relevant representation space since he still used Dirac’s $`u_h(𝐩)`$ and $`v_h(𝐩)`$ spinors. Moreover, given the time sequence of ideas, he could not foresee the impact of Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation for his proposal. The former deficiency was remedied, though only partly, by 1957 papers of McLennan and Case , and by the 1996 work of Ref. . Here we hope to attend to all these question, and in the process bring to attention additional structure in the theory of neutral particles.

At this stage of the paper it is, therefore, to be concluded that as far as neutral particles are concerned the existing state of theory is unsatisfactory. It calls for an ab initio construction based on the eigenspinors of the $`C`$ operator. After the reader has examined our presentation, it is our contention that she/he will find it absurd, though “workable,” to describe charged particles in terms of the neutral-particle framework we present. We carry the same sentiments for the existing description of neutral particles (for it carries a strong dependence on charged-particle framework). Charged and neutral particles demand their own independent frameworks. Once that is done one may, if one wishes, seek differences and similarities between the two. But, not before. This paper undertakes this task.

The stated assertion that discovery of a spin-1/2 neutral particle shall be a step into a new realm of spacetime structure, arises, in part, from our ability to construct Table 1. In that table the diagonal Wigner blocks are the ordinary fermionic-matter and bosonic-gauge fields. The top off-diagonal block is one of the key results of this paper. Supersymmetric fermionic gauge bosons live in that block. The bottom off-diagonal block is populated by bosonic matter fields and awaits experimental confirmation. It was constructed in the 1993 paper cited as Ref. . The gauge aspect of the top off-diagonal block tentatively refers either to the gauginos, or for neutrinos (should they be confirmed to belong there) it should be interpreted as an internal fermionic line as it appears in neutrinoless double beta decay. The $`C`$ and $`P`$ operators belong to the indicated representation space for each of the Wigner blocks. Possibility, but without explicit construction (for which we take credit), of such blocks is due to Wigner, and his colleagues .

We now present a detailed and systematic development of the theory of neutral particles.

## 2 Neutral particle spinors as Eigenspinors of charge conjugation operator: $`𝝀(𝐩)`$ and $`𝝆(𝐩)`$

The boost generator for the $`(1/2,0)`$ representation space is $`i𝝈/2`$, and that for $`(0,1/2)`$ is $`+i𝝈/2`$. Consequently, the respective boosts are

$`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right),`$ (9)
$`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right),`$ (10)
where the linear boost parameter is defined as:

$`\mathrm{cosh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}},\mathrm{sinh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{m}},\widehat{𝝋}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}}.`$ (11)
The boosts take a particle at rest to a particle moving with momentum $`𝐩`$ in the “boosted frame.” We use the notation in which $`1_n`$ and $`0_n`$ represent $`n\times n`$ identity and null matrices, respectively.

Thus each of the $`SU(2)`$’s is separately endowed with the dispersion relation $`E^2=𝐩^2+m^2`$ as encoded in Eqs. (11) via the identity, $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\phi \right)=1`$.

The explicit expressions for $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ and $`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ allow for the observation:

$`\left(\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\right)^1=\left(\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\right)^{},\left(\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\right)^1=\left(\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\right)^{}.`$ (12)
Further, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the Wigner’s spin-$`1/2`$ time reversal operator, has the property

$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left[𝝈/2\right]\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\left[𝝈/2\right]^{},`$ (13)
When combined, these observations imply that :

1. If $`\varphi _L(𝐩)`$ transforms as a left handed spinor, then $`\left(\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }\right)\varphi _L^{}(𝐩)`$ transforms as a right handed spinor – where, $`\zeta _\lambda `$ is an unspecified phase.
2. If $`\varphi _R(𝐩)`$ transforms as a right handed spinor, then $`\left(\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }\right)^{}\varphi _R^{}(𝐩)`$ transforms as a left handed spinor – where, $`\zeta _\rho `$ is an unspecified phase.

As a consequence, the following spinors belong to the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space :

$`\lambda (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }\right)\varphi _L^{}(𝐩)\\ \varphi _L(𝐩)\end{array}\right),\rho (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R(𝐩)\\ \left(\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }\right)^{}\varphi _R^{}(𝐩)\end{array}\right).`$  (18)

Demanding $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ to be self/anti-self conjugate under $`C`$,

$`C\lambda (𝐩)=\pm \lambda (𝐩),C\rho (𝐩)=\pm \rho (𝐩),`$ (19)
restricts the phases, $`\zeta _\lambda `$ and $`\zeta _\rho `$, to two values:

$`\zeta _\lambda =\pm i,\zeta _\rho =\pm i.`$  (20)

The plus sign in the above equation yields self conjugate, $`\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^S(𝐩)`$ spinors; while the minus sign results in the anti-self conjugate spinors, $`\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^A(𝐩)`$.

Several remarks appear appropriate:

1. The $`\lambda ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$ are eigenspinors of the charge conjugation operator, $`C`$, in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. They are counterpart of the Dirac’s $`u(𝐩)`$ and $`v(𝐩)`$ spinors, which are eigenspinors of the charge operator in the same representation space.
2. The self-conjugate spinors are the standard textbook material.333 See, e.g., Eq. (1.4.52) of Ref. . However, we take issue with the colloquial assertion that “Majorana spinors,” i.e., $`\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$, are Weyl spinors in four-component form. Such a misunderstanding has perhaps arisen due to implicit, or inadvertent, neglect of the $`\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$ spinors. A Weyl spinor transform as a $`(1/2,0)`$, or as a $`(0,1/2)`$, spinor; while the neutral particle spinors transform as $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ four-component spinors. The Weyl space is a two dimensional representation space. Hence, it cannot be spanned by four independent neutral particle spinors, i.e., $`\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$. That honor belongs to the the four-dimensional $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. However, they must be supplemented by anti-self conjugate spinors to span the entire $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. Their neglect results in internal inconsistencies and the wrong conclusion on the true number of degrees of freedom for neutral particles. Any attempt to discard the anti-self conjugate spinors would parallel a call to discard the $`v(𝐩)`$ spinors. The latter would amount to throwing away the antiparticles from one’s theory. This would not only go against the observed reality but would make the theory internally inconsistent. Similar conclusions shall be seen to hold for our theory, and we shall duly examine the entire set of eigenspinors associated with $`C`$. It shall, however, suffice to confine to the set, $`\lambda ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$, or to the physically equivalent set, $`\rho ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$.
3. The necessary presence of the Wigner time reversal operator in the neutral particle spinors, as we shall sometime call the eigenspinors of the $`C`$ operator, endows them with their own unique time evolution. We shall examine this aspect below.
4. Both the the $`\lambda ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$, as well as $`u(𝐩)`$ and $`v(𝐩)`$ spinors, can be expressed in any realization (i.e., in Weyl, in Dirac, or in Majorana realizations; or whatever realization serves a particular task at hand). This brings in no new physics beyond convenience.

## 3 The explicit form of $`𝝀(𝐩)`$ spinors

To obtain explicit expressions for $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, we first write down the rest spinors. These are:

$`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda ^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
Next, we choose the $`\varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ to be helicity eigenstates,

$`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})=\pm \varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (26)
and concurrently note that

$`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.`$ (27)
> Derivation of Eq. (27): Complex conjugating Eq. (26) gives,
>
> $$𝝈^{}\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\pm \left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
>
> Substituting for $`𝝈^{}`$ from Eq. (13) then results in,
>
> $$\mathrm{\Theta }𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }^1\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
>
> But $`\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\mathrm{\Theta }`$. So,
>
> $$\mathrm{\Theta }𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
>
> Or, equivalently,
>
> $$\mathrm{\Theta }^1𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
>
> Finally, left multiplying both sides of the preceding equation by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and moving $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ through $`\widehat{𝐩}`$, yields Eq. (27).

That is, $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}`$ has opposite helicity of $`\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})`$. Since $`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}`$ commutes with the boost operator $`\kappa ^{(1/2,0)}`$ the above result applies for all momenta. In conjunction with the definition of the neutral spinors we are thus lead to the result that neutral spinors are not single helicity objects. Instead, they invite an interpretation of dual helicity spinors. This shall allow for processes like neutrinoless double beta decay.

In the process we are led to four rest spinors. Two of which are self-conjugate,

$`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),`$ (32)
and the other two, which are anti-self conjugate,

$`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right).`$ (37)
The first helicity entry refers to the $`(1/2,0)`$ transforming component of the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, while the second entry encodes the helicity of the $`(0,1/2)`$ component.

The boosted spinors are now obtained via the operation:

$`\lambda _{\{h,h\}}(𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}& 0_2\\ 0_2& \kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\end{array}\right)\lambda _{\{h,h\}}(\mathrm{𝟎}).`$ (40)
In the boosts, we replace $`𝝈𝐩`$ by $`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}|𝐩|`$, and then exploit Eq. (27). After simplification, Eq. (40) yields:

$`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$  (41)

which, in the massless limit, identically vanishes, while

$`\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$  (42)

does not. We hasten to warn the reader that one should not be tempted to read the two different prefactors to $`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ in the above expressions as the boost operator that appears in Eq. (40). For one thing, there is only one (not two) boost operator(s) in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. The simplification that appears here is due to a fine interplay between Eq. (27), the boost operator, and the structure of the $`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$. Similarly, the anti-self conjugate set of the boosted spinors reads:

$`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$  (43)   $`\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(\mathrm{𝟎}).`$  (44)

In the massless limit, the first of these spinors identically vanishes, while the second does not. Representing the unit vector along $`𝐩`$, as,

$`\widehat{𝐩}=(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(\theta )),`$ (45)
the $`\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ take the explicit form:

$`\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})=\sqrt{m}e^{i\vartheta _1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\end{array}\right),`$ (48)
$`\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\sqrt{m}e^{i\vartheta _2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\\ \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
On setting $`\vartheta _1`$ and $`\vartheta _2`$ to be zero — a fact that we explicitly note  — we find the following bi-orthonormality relations for the self-conjugate neutral spinors,

$`\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=0,\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=+2im,`$  (52)   $`\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=2im,\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=0.`$  (53)

Their counterpart for antiself-conjugate neutral spinors reads,

$`\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=0,\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=2im,`$  (54)   $`\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=+2im,\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=0,`$  (55)

while all combinations of the type $`\overline{\lambda }^A(𝐩)\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^S(𝐩)\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$ identically vanish.

We take note that the bi-orthogonal norms of the Majorana spinors are intrinsically imaginary. The associated completeness relation is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2im}}`$  $`([\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^S(p)]`$      $`[\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)])=1_4.`$

## 4 Neutral particle spinors in Majorana realization

The $`\lambda ^{S,A}(𝐩)`$ obtained above are in Weyl realization – locally, in this section, we denote them by, $`\lambda _W^{S,A}(𝐩)`$. In Majorana realization (subscripted by, $`M`$) these spinors are given by:

$`\lambda _M^{S,A}(𝐩)=𝒮\lambda _W^{S,A}(𝐩),`$ (57)
where

$`𝒮={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2+i\mathrm{\Theta }& 1_2i\mathrm{\Theta }\\ \left(1_2i\mathrm{\Theta }\right)& 1_2+i\mathrm{\Theta }\end{array}\right).`$ (60)
The $`\lambda _M^S(𝐩)`$ are real, while $`\lambda _M^A(𝐩)`$ are pure imaginary.

## 5 The $`𝝆(𝐩)`$ spinors are not independent

Now, $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ is a four dimensional representation space. Therefore, there cannot be more than four independent spinors. Consistent with this observation, we find that the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors are related to the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors via the following identities:

$`\rho _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=i\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩),\rho _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩),`$ (61)
$`\rho _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩),\rho _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=i\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩).`$ (62)
Using these identities, one may immediately obtain the bi-orthonormality and completeness relations for the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors. In the massless limit, $`\rho _{}^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho _{}^A(𝐩)`$ identically vanish. A particularly simple orthonormality, as opposed to bi-orthonormality, relation exists between the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors:

$`\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\rho _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=2m=\overline{\lambda }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\rho _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)`$ (63)
$`\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\rho _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=2m=\overline{\lambda }_{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\rho _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩).`$ (64)
An associated completeness relation also exists, and it reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}`$ $`([\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)+\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{\{+,\}}^A(p)]`$
$`+[\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)+\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)])=1_4.`$
The results of this section are in spirit of Refs. .

The completeness relation (LABEL:lc) confirms that a physically complete theory of neutral particle spinors must incorporate the self as well as antiself conjugate spinors. However, one has a choice. One may either work with the set $`\{\lambda ^S(𝐩),\lambda ^A(𝐩\})`$, or with the physically and mathematically equivalent set, $`\{\rho ^S(𝐩),\rho ^A(𝐩)\}`$. One is also free to choose some appropriate combinations of neutral particle spinors from these two sets.

## 6 Comparison with the Dirac framework: The $`𝝀(𝐩)`$ do not satisfy Dirac equation

The main result of this section is a re-rendering of a proof given my M. Kirchbach. Any mistake, if any, that the reader may notice is entirely due to my failure.

The bi-orthonormality relations (52-55) and the completeness relation (LABEL:lc) are counterpart of the following relations for the charged, i.e. Dirac, particle spinors:

$`\overline{u}_h(𝐩)u_h^{}(𝐩)=+2m\delta _{hh^{}},\overline{v}_h(𝐩)v_h^{}(𝐩)=2m\delta _{hh^{}},`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}u_h(𝐩)\overline{u}_h(𝐩){\displaystyle \underset{h=\pm 1/2}{}}v_h(𝐩)\overline{v}_h(𝐩)\right]=1_4.`$ (67)
Furthermore, if one wishes (with certain element of hazard to become apparent below), one can write the the momentum-space neutral spinor set $`\{\lambda ^S(𝐩),\lambda ^A(𝐩\})`$, in terms of charged particle spinor momentum-space set $`\{u(𝐩),v(𝐩)\}`$. This task is best accomplished by introducing the following – to be used only locally – notation:

$`d_1u_+(𝐩),d_2u_{}(𝐩),d_3v_+(𝐩),d_4v_{}(𝐩),`$ (68)
$`m_1\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩),m_2\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩),m_3\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩),m_4\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩).`$ (69)
Then, the neutral particle spinors can be written as,

$`m_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}d_j,`$ (70)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\left(1/2m\right)\overline{d}_jm_i1_4,\hfill & \text{ }\text{f}\text{or }j=1,2\hfill \\ \left(1/2m\right)\overline{d}_jm_i1_4,\hfill & \text{ }\text{f}\text{or }j=3,4\hfill \end{array}.$$
(71)
In matrix form, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ reads:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1_4& i_4& 1_4& i_4\\ i_4& 1_4& i_4& 1_4\\ 1_4& i_4& 1_4& i_4\\ i_4& 1_4& i_4& 1_4\end{array}\right),`$ (76)
where, $`i_4i1_4`$. Equations (70) and (76) immediately tell us that a neutral particle momentum-space spinor is a linear combination of the charged particle momentum-space particle and antiparticle spinors. In momentum space, the charged-particle spinors are annihilated by $`\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu \pm m1_4\right)`$,

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{For particles:}\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu m1_4\right)u(𝐩)=0,\hfill & \\ \text{For antiparticles:}\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu +m1_4\right)v(𝐩)=0.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (77)
Since the mass terms carry opposite signs, hence are different for the particle and antiparticle, the neutral particle spinors cannot be annihilated by $`\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu m1_4\right)`$, or, by $`\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu +m1_4\right)`$. Moreover, in the configuration space, since the time evolution of the of $`u(𝐩)`$ occurs via $`\mathrm{exp}(ip_\mu x^\mu )`$ while that for $`v(𝐩)`$ spinors occurs via $`\mathrm{exp}(+ip_\mu x^\mu )`$ one cannot naively go from momentum-space expression (70) to its configuration space counterpart. In fact several conceptual and technically subtle hazards are confronted if one begins to mix the two set of spinors. One ought to, as we intend to and shall, develop the theory of neutral particle spinors entirely in its own right. We thus end this digression by making part of the above argument more explicitly. For that purpose we introduce:

$`M\left(\begin{array}{c}m_1\\ m_2\\ m_3\\ m_4\end{array}\right),D\left(\begin{array}{c}d_1\\ d_2\\ d_3\\ d_4\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu \end{array}\right).`$ (90)
In this language, equation (70) becomes

$`M=\mathrm{\Omega }D.`$ (91)
Now, applying from left the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and using, $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }]=0`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }M=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }D.`$ (92)
But, Eqs. (77) imply

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m1_4& 0_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& m1_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& m1_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& 0_4& m1_4\end{array}\right).`$ (97)
Therefore, on using $`D=\mathrm{\Omega }^1M`$ we obtain,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }M=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\text{r.h.s. of Eq. }\text{97}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^1M.`$ (98)
An explicit evaluation of, $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\left(\text{r.h.s. of Eq. }\text{97}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, reveals it to be,

$`\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0_4& im1_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ im1_4& 0_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& 0_4& im1_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& im1_4& 0_4\end{array}\right).`$ (103)
Thus, finally giving us the result,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4& 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4& 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu & 0_4\\ 0_4& 0_4& 0_4& \gamma _\mu p^\mu \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\end{array}\right)im\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\\ \lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\end{array}\right)=0,`$ (116)
which explicitly establishes the result that $`\left(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu \pm m1_4\right)`$ do not annihilate the neutral particle spinors.444The result contained in the above equation confirms earlier result of Ref. . The text-book assertions that Majorana mass term is ‘off-diagonal” is a rough translation of this equation.

## 7 Commutativity of C and P for neutral particle spinors

The parity operation is slightly subtle for neutral particle spinors.

With a reminder to remarks made immediately after Eq. (8), the parity operator in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space is,

$`P=e^{i\varphi _P}\gamma ^0,`$ (118)
where

$`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& 1_2\\ 1_2& 0_2\end{array}\right).`$ (121)
The $``$ is defined as,

$`\left\{\theta \pi \theta ,\varphi \varphi +\pi ,pp\right\}.`$ (122)
This has the consequence that eigenvalues, $`h`$, of the helicity operator

$`𝐡={\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}\widehat{𝐩}`$ (123)
change sign under the operation of $``$,

$`:hh^{}=h.`$ (124)
Furthermore,

$`Pu_h(𝐩)=e^{i\varphi _P}\gamma ^0u_h(𝐩)=e^{i\varphi _P}\gamma ^0u_h(𝐩)=ie^{i\varphi _P}u_h(𝐩)`$ (125)
Similarly,

$`Pv_h(𝐩)=ie^{i\varphi _P}v_h(𝐩).`$ (126)
We now require the eigenvalues of the $`P`$ to be real. This fixes the phase factor,

$`e^{i\varphi _P}=\pm i.`$ (127)
The remaining ambiguity, as contained in the sign, still remains. It is fixed by recourse to text-book convention by taking the sign on the right-hand side of Eq. (127) of to be positive. This very last choice shall not affect our conclusions (as it should not). The parity operator is thus fixed to be,

$`P=i\gamma ^0.`$ (128)
Thus,

$`Pu_h(𝐩)=+u_h(𝐩),`$ (129)
$`Pv_h(𝐩)=v_h(𝐩).`$ (130)
The consistency of Eqs. (129) and (130) requires,

$`\text{Charged particle spinors}:P^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_4,[\text{cf.}\text{ Eq.(}\text{140}\text{)}].`$ (131)
To calculate the anticommutator, $`\{C,P\}`$, when acting on the $`u_h(𝐩)`$ and $`v_h(𝐩)`$ we now need, in addition, the action of $`C`$ on these spinors. This action can be summarized as follows:

$`C:\{\begin{array}{c}u_{+1/2}(𝐩)v_{1/2}(𝐩),u_{1/2}(𝐩)v_{+1/2}(𝐩),\hfill \\ v_{+1/2}(𝐩)u_{1/2}(𝐩),v_{1/2}(𝐩)u_{+1/2}(𝐩).\hfill \end{array}`$ (134)
Using Eqs. (129), (130), and (134) one can readily obtain the action of anticommutator, $`\{C,P\}`$, on the four $`u(𝐩)`$ and $`v(p)`$ spinors. For each case it is found to vanish: $`\{C,P\}=0`$.

The P acting on the neutral particle spinors yields the result,

$`P\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩),P\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=i\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩),`$  (135)   $`P\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=i\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩),P\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩).`$  (136)

Following the same procedure as before, we now use (135), (136), and (134) to evaluate the action of the commutator $`[C,P]`$ on each of the four neutral particle spinors. We find it vanishes for each of them: $`[C,P]=0`$. It confirms the claim we made in Table 1.

The commutativity and anticommutatitvity of the $`C`$ and $`P`$ operators is a deeply profound result and it establishes that the theory of neutral and charged particles must be developed in their own rights. This is the task we have undertaken and are developing here in this Paper.

## 8 Parity asymmetry for neutral particle spinors

Unlike the charged particle spinors, Eqs. (135) and (136) reveal that neutral particle spinors are not eigenstates of $`P`$. Furthermore, a rather apparently paradoxical asymmetry is contained in these equations. For instance, the second equation in (135) reads:

$`P\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=i\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩).`$ (137)
Now, in a normalization-independent manner

$`\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (138)
while

$`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(\mathrm{𝟎}).`$ (139)
Consequently, in the massless/high-energy limit the $`P`$-reflection of $`\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)`$ identically vanishes. The same happens to the $`\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)`$ spinors under $`P`$-reflection. This situation is in sharp contrast to the charged particle spinors. The consistency of Eqs. (135) and (136) requires $`P^2=1_4`$ and in the process shows that the remaining two, i.e. first and third equation in that set, do not contain additional physical content:

$`\text{Neutral particle spinors}:P^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_4.[\text{cf.}\text{ Eq.(}\text{131}\text{)}].`$      (140)

That is, for neutral particle spinors:

$`\text{Neutral particle spinors}:P^4=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_4,.`$  (141)

The origin of the asymmetry under $`P`$-reflection resides in the fact that the $`(1/2,0)(1/2,0)`$ neutral particles spinors, in being dual helicity objects, combine Weyl spinors of opposite helicities. However, in the massless limit, the structures of $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ and $`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ force only positive helicity $`(1/2,0)`$-Weyl and negative helicity $`(0,1/2)`$-Weyl spinors to be non-vanishing. For this reason, in the massless limit the neutral particle spinors, $`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)`$, carrying negative helicity $`(1/2,0)`$-Weyl and positive helicity $`(0,1/2)`$-Weyl spinors identically vanish.

So we have the following situation: The $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ is a $`P`$ covariant representation space. Yet, in the neutral particle formalism, it carries $`P`$-reflection asymmetry. This circumstance has a precedence in the Velo-Zwanziger observation, who noted , “the main lesson to be drawn from our analysis is that special relativity is not automatically satisfied by writing equations which transform covariantly.” We conjecture that this asymmetry may underlie the phenomenologically known parity violation. Even though the latter is incorporated, by hand, in the standard model of the electroweak interactions its true physical origin has remained unknown.

## 9 A Master wave equation for spinors

To study time evolution of neutral particle spinors we need appropriate wave equation. This we do in the following manner. First, we obtain the momentum-space wave equation satisfied by the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors. Next, we ascertain the time evolution via a “$`p_\mu i_\mu `$” prescription.

Since the method we use, and the results we obtain, appear somewhat unusual we exercise extra care in presenting our results. We, therefore, present a unified method which applies not only to neutral particle spinors but applies equally well to other cases (such as the Dirac formalism). The method is a generalization of the textbook procedure  with corrections noted in Refs. .

Thus, define a general $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinor

$`\chi (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩)\\ \chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩)\end{array}\right),`$ (144)
such that in particle’s rest frame, where, $`𝐩=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, by definition,

$`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})=𝒜\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎}).`$ (145)
Here, the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`𝒜`$ encodes $`C`$, $`P`$, and $`T`$ properties of the spinor and is left unspecified at the moment except that we require it to be invertible.

Once $`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and $`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ are specified the $`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩)`$ and $`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩)`$ follow from,

$`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩)=`$ $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (146)
$`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩)=`$ $`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎}).,`$ (147)
Below, we shall need their inverted forms also. These we write as follows:

$`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\right)^1\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩),`$ (148)
$`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\right)^1\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩).`$ (149)
Equation (145) implies,

$`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎})=𝒜^1\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (150)
which on immediate use of (148) yields,

$`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜^1\left(\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\right)^1\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩).`$ (151)
However, since

$`\left(\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\right)^1=\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ (152)
we have:

$`\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟎})=𝒜^1\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩).`$ (153)
Similarly,

$`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})=𝒜\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩).`$ (154)
Substituting for $`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ from Eq. (154) in Eq. (146) and re-arranging gives:

$`\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩)+\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}𝒜\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩)=0;`$ (155)
while similar use of Eq. (153) in Eq. (147) results in:

$`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}𝒜^1\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}\chi ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}(𝐩)\chi ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}(𝐩)=0.`$ (156)
The last two equations when combined into a matrix form result in the momentum-space master equation for $`\chi (𝐩)`$,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2& \kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}𝒜\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\\ \kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}𝒜^1\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}& 1_2\end{array}\right)\chi (𝐩)=0.`$  (159)

Thus, the momentum-space equation for $`\chi (𝐩)`$ is entirely determined by the boosts $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ and $`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$ and the CPT-property encoding matrix $`𝒜`$.

We envisage the most general form of $`𝒜`$ to be a unitary matrix with determinant $`\pm 1`$:

$`𝒜_\pm =\left(\begin{array}{cc}ae^{i\varphi _a}& \sqrt{\pm 1a^2}e^{i\varphi _b}\\ \sqrt{\pm 1a^2}e^{i\varphi _b}& ae^{i\varphi _a}\end{array}\right),`$ (162)
with $`a`$, $`\varphi _a`$, and $`\varphi _b`$ real. The plus sign yields Determinant of $`𝒜`$ to be $`+1`$, while the minus sign yields it to be $`1`$. Inserting $`𝒜`$ from Eq. (162) into (159), we evaluate the determinant of the operator

$`𝒪=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2& \kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}𝒜\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}\\ \kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}𝒜^1\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}& 1_2\end{array}\right),`$ (165)
and find it to be:

$`Det[𝒪]={\displaystyle \frac{\left(m^2+p^2(2m+E)^2\right)^2\left(m^2+p^2E^2\right)^2}{\left(2m(E+m)\right)^4}}.`$
The wave operator, $`𝒪`$, supports two type of spinors. Those associated with the usual Einsteinian dispersion relation,

$`E^2=m^2+p^2,\text{multiplicity = 4}`$ (167)
and those associated with:

$`E=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m\sqrt{m^2+p^2},\text{multiplicity = 2}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m+\sqrt{m^2+p^2},\text{multiplicity = 2}\hfill & \end{array}.`$ (168)
The origin of the new dispersion relation must certainly lie, or at least we suspect it to be so, in the new $`U(2)`$ phases matrix. We shall see below that for the Dirac, as well as Majorana, spinors only the Einsteinian dispersion relation gets invoked.

We hope to take up the other class of spinors, $`\chi (𝐩)`$, in a subsequent study. Should something of physical interest emerge we shall report it in an appropriate publication.

## 10 Obtaining Dirac equation from Master equation

To give confidence to our reader in the physical content of the Master equation we now apply it to the charged particle spinors of Dirac formalism. Once we do that we shall return to the task of constructing momentum-space wave equation for the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$.

The $`𝒜`$ can be read off from the Dirac rest spinors. However, we remind the reader, that the writing down of the Dirac rest spinors, as shown by Weinberg and also by our independent studies, follows from the following two requirements:

1. The conservation of parity .
2. That, in a quantum field theoretic framework, the Dirac field describe fermions .

These physical requirements determine $`𝒜`$ to be:

$`𝒜=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_2,\text{for}u(𝐩)\text{spinors}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_2,\text{for}v(𝐩)\text{spinors},\hfill & \end{array}`$ (169)
and correspond to $`𝒜_+`$ with $`a=1`$, $`\varphi _a=0`$, and $`a=1`$, $`\varphi _a=\pi `$, respectively, with $`\varphi _b`$ remaining arbitrary. The subscript on $`𝒜`$ simply represents that its determinant is plus unity.

Using this information in the Master equation (159), along with the explicit expressions for $`\kappa ^{(\frac{1}{2},0)}`$ and $`\kappa ^{(0,\frac{1}{2})}`$, yields:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_2& \mathrm{exp}\left(𝝈𝝋\right)\\ \mathrm{exp}\left(𝝈𝝋\right)& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_2\end{array}\right)u(𝐩)=0,`$ (172)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2& \mathrm{exp}\left(𝝈𝝋\right)\\ \mathrm{exp}\left(𝝈𝝋\right)& 1_2\end{array}\right)v(𝐩)=0.`$ (175)
Exploiting the fact that $`𝝈^2=1_2`$, and using the definition of the boost parameter $`𝝋`$ given in Eqs. (11), the exponentials that appear in the above equation take the form,

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝝈𝝋\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(E1_2\pm 𝝈𝐩\right)}{m}}.`$ (176)
Using these expansions in Eqs. (172) and (175), multiplying both sides of the resulting equations by $`m`$, using $`p_\mu =(E,𝐩)`$, and introducing:

$`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2\hfill & 1_2\hfill \\ 1_2\hfill & 0_2\hfill \end{array}\right),\gamma ^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0_2\end{array}\right),`$ (181)
gives Eqs. (172) and (172) the form

$`\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu m1_4\right)u(𝐩)=0,`$ (182)
$`\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m1_4\right)v(𝐩)=0.`$ (183)
These are the well-known momentum space wave equations for the charged particle spinors (i.e. the Dirac equations). The linearity of these equations in $`p_\mu `$ is due to form of $`𝒜`$, and the property of Pauli matrices, $`𝝈^2=1_2`$ – see, Eq. (176).

## 11 Obtaining wave equation for neutral particle spinors from Master equation

The requirement that the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ be eigenstates of the charge conjugation operator completely determines $`𝒜`$ for the neutral particle spinors to be:

$`𝒜=\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }\alpha ,`$ (184)
where

$`\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi \right)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi \right)\end{array}\right).`$ (187)
Explicitly,

$`𝒜_{}^S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ie^{i\varphi }\\ ie^{i\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right),𝒜_{}^A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ie^{i\varphi }\\ ie^{i\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (192)
The noted $`𝒜`$’s arise from the following choice of the parameters $`\{a,\varphi _a,\varphi _b\}`$: $`a=0,\varphi _b=\varphi +\pi `$ and $`a=0,\varphi _b=\varphi `$, respectively, with $`\varphi _a`$ remaining arbitrary. The subscript on $`𝒜`$ is to remind that its determinant is minus unity. This difference – summarized in Table 2 – in $`𝒜`$, for Dirac and Majorana spinors, does not allow the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ to satisfy the Dirac equation.

Following the same procedure as above, and using

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm {\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝝋}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(E+m\right)1_2\pm 𝝈𝐩}{\sqrt{2m\left(E+m\right)}}},`$ (193)
we obtain, instead:

$`\left[\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m\gamma ^0\right)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m\gamma ^0\right)2m\left(E+m\right)1_4\right]\lambda (𝐩)=0;`$ (194)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& 𝒜\\ 𝒜^1& 0_2\end{array}\right).`$ (197)
However, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ commutes with $`\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m\gamma ^0\right)`$

$`[\left(p_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m\gamma ^0\right),\stackrel{~}{𝒜}]=0.`$ (198)
Therefore, Eq. (194) after due simplification becomes:

$`\left[\left(p_\mu p^\mu +2mE+m^2\right)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}2m\left(E+m\right)1_4\right]\lambda (𝐩)=0.`$  (199)

As a check, we calculate the determinant of the operator acting on $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, and find

$`\text{Det}\left[\left(p_\mu p^\mu +2mE+m^2\right)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}2m\left(E+m\right)1_4\right]`$
$`=\left(m^2+p^2(2m+E)^2\right)^2\left(m^2+p^2E^2\right)^2.`$ (200)
Furthermore, we make the observation that for all-four $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\lambda (𝐩)=\lambda (𝐩).`$ With this observation, Eq. (199) shows that each of the four components of the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation: $`\left[\left(p_\mu p^\mu m^2\right)1_4\right]\lambda (𝐩)=0.`$ However, the latter equation should not be considered the wave equation for the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$. The correct equation is (199), and it is this equation when transformed to the configuration space which shall yield the full time evolution.

## 12 Insensitivity of Majorana spinors to the direction of time

The plane waves for the $`\lambda (𝐱,t)`$ and $`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ are, $`\mathrm{exp}(iϵpx)\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(iϵpx)\rho (𝐩)`$, where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ (depending upon whether the propagation is forward in time, or backward in time). To determine $`ϵ`$, it suffices to study the wave equations in the rest frame of the particles. In that frame, the $`\lambda (𝐱,t)`$ satisfies the following (simplified)differential equation:555To obtain the simplified equation below we first multiplied the momentum-space wave equation by $`2m(E+m)`$. Then, we exploited the fact that in configuration space, $`𝐩=\frac{1}{i}\mathbf{}`$. When it acts upon $`\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ the resulting eigenvalue vanishes (so we dropped this term), and that $`E=i\frac{}{t}`$.

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒪_a& 0& 0& 𝒪_b\\ 0& 𝒪_a& 𝒪_c& 0\\ 0& 𝒪_b& 𝒪_a& 0\\ 𝒪_c& 0& 0& 𝒪_a\end{array}\right)\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})e^{iϵmt}=0`$ (205)
where

$`𝒪_a2m\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+m\right),`$ (206)
$`𝒪_b\zeta _\lambda e^{i\varphi }\left(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+2im{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right),`$ (207)
$`𝒪_c\zeta _\lambda e^{i\varphi }\left(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+2im{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right).`$ (208)
This equation does not fix the sign of $`ϵ`$. It only determines $`ϵ^2`$ to be unity. To convince the reader, we give an example result of a simple calculation. Let’s consider $`\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ to be $`\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$. Then, set $`\zeta _\lambda =\zeta _\lambda ^S=i`$. For this example, the time evolution Eq. (205) gives:

$`m^2\left(ϵ^21\right)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})e^{iϵmt}=0.`$ (209)
This result does not determine sign of $`ϵ`$. That is, Majorana spinors are insensitive to the forward and backward directions in time so important in the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of particles and antiparticles. The conventional distinction between particles and antiparticles disappears.

## 13  Remarks for a quantum field theoretic description for neutral particles

In the Dirac theory of charged particles, the positive-definite norms of the $`u(𝐩)`$ spinors and negative-definite norms of the $`v(𝐩)`$ spinors and  the anticommutativity of the annihilation and creation operators plays a fundamental role in securing a theory with energy bounded from below. The Dirac-particle dual, $`\overline{\psi }(𝐩)`$ to a $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinor, $`\psi (𝐩)`$, is,

$`\overline{\psi }(𝐩)=\left[\psi (𝐩)\right]^{}\gamma ^0.`$ (210)
It yields real-definite norm for the spinors inhabiting the basis spinors of the Dirac’s $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space, and it implies the stated spinorial properties.

In order to quantize the theory with neutral particle spinors we find it necessary (as has been verified through a detailed calculation) to define neutral-particle duals $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }(𝐩)`$:

$`\underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)=+\overline{\rho }_{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩),\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)=+\overline{\rho }_{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩),`$ (211)
$`\underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)=\overline{\rho }_{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩),\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)=\overline{\rho }_{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩).`$ (212)
The use of dispersion relation $`E=\pm \sqrt{p^2+m^2}`$, yields:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)=\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)=+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m,& \\ \underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)=\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m.& \end{array}`$ (215)
We construct the projectors:

$`P_S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(\lambda _{\{,+\}}^S(𝐩)\underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)+\lambda _{\{+,\}}^S(𝐩)\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{S}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\right)|_{E=\pm \sqrt{p^2+m^2}}`$ (216)
$`P_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(\lambda _{\{,+\}}^A(𝐩)\underset{\{,+\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)+\lambda _{\{+,\}}^A(𝐩)\underset{\{+,\}}{\overset{A}{\stackrel{}{\lambda }}}(𝐩)\right)|_{E=\pm \sqrt{p^2+m^2}}`$ (217)
and verify that indeed, $`P_S^2=P_S`$ and $`P_A^2=P_A`$. Furthermore, these degrees of freedom form a complete set:

$`P_S+P_A=I_4.`$ (218)
Elsewhere we shall report on the quantum field theory based on these degrees of freedom .

## 14 Conclusion

We showed that Majorana particles belong to the Wigner class of fermions in which the charge conjugation and the parity operators commute, rather than anticommute. We proved, that rigorously speaking, Majorana spinors do not satisfy the Dirac equation. Instead, they satisfy a different wave equation, which we derived. This allowed us to reconcile Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation with the Majorana construct. We presented several new properties of neutral particle spinors and argued that discovery of Majorana particles constitutes dawn of a new era in spacetime structure.

## Acknowledgments

I have enjoyed numerous in-person discussions with M. Kirchbach on the subject of this manuscript. It is inevitable that this written version contains many of her insights and contributions, without she being responsible for its content and presentation, in any direct manner. For my failures my apologies to her. For her time, patience, and insights, my deepest thanks to her.

I extend my warmly felt thanks to the local and international organizers of the Beyond the Desert 2002. I also thank and congratulate with all the very best wishes, Hans Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and his collaborators at the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration, for presenting us the positive signal on neutrinoless double beta decay , and for his patience in explaining all the questions raised on the subject .

I extend my warmest thanks to Naresh Dadhich, and to Parampreet Singh, for extended discussions which led to a deeper understanding, to new insights, and to new questions .

IUCAA’s hospitality, where part of this work was done, is recorded with appreciation. CONACyT (Mexico) is thanked for funding this research through Project E-32076.

## References