format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A paradigmatic model to study systems of strongly correlated electrons is the Hubbard model. It contains the minimum of features necessary to describe bandlike itinerant or localized electrons depending on microscopic parameters. The Hamiltonian has the simple form:

$$H=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{ij}{}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+U\underset{i}{}c_i^{}c_ic_i^{}c_j,$$
(1)
where the first term is a one-band tight-binding Hamiltonian. Its first kinetic term describes the destruction of an electron on site $`j`$ and the creation of an electron with the same spin on site $`i`$. The second term in equation (1) is the on-site repulsion between electrons, which is expected to be relevant in real materials for $`d`$\- and $`f`$\- orbitals. While the limiting case $`Ut`$ can easily be dealt with by means of perturbation theory, leading to a renormalized band of quasiparticles, the intermediate and the strong-coupling limits $`Ut`$ are much more interesting. From a qualitative point of view, in these regimes the system is described by a narrow coherent band of itinerant quasiparticles on the top of a large background of incoherent localized states. The metal-insulator transition is thus characterized by the disappearing of the coherent band. This picture is confirmed by dynamical mean field analyses?. In the strong coupling case ($`Ut`$) the bandwidth and the spectral weight of the itinerant quasiparticles scales only with the number of holes $`\delta `$, so that an insulating state is achieved at half-filling $`\delta =0`$. In such a situation the total weight of the spectral function is in its incoherent part.

On the analytical ground, all the possible informations about the single-particle properties of the system are obtained by the knowledge of the one-electron Green’s function $`G`$. Without losing any generality, it can be splitted in a coherent and an incoherent contribution?:

$$G_\sigma (𝐤,\omega )=\frac{Z}{\omega ϵ(𝐤)+\mu +i0^+i\mathrm{sgn}[ϵ(𝐤)\mu ]}+G_\sigma ^{\mathrm{inc}}(𝐤,\omega ),$$
(2)
where $`Z`$ is the spectral weight of itinerant states with effective dispersion $`ϵ(𝐤)`$ and $`G^{\mathrm{inc}}`$ contains all the physics not described by the first term. For the above arguments, we expect $`Z\delta `$.

A meaningful quantity that can be calculated by the Green’s function is the occupation number

$$n_\sigma (𝐤)=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}G_\sigma (𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega 0^{}}.$$
(3)
In a similar way as the Green’s function, $`n_\sigma (𝐤)`$ can be distinguish in a coherent part, with a sharp jump of height $`Z`$ at the Fermi surface, plus the incoherent background spread over the whole Brillouin zone.

One of the most popular tools to deal with strongly correlated systems is the slave-boson technique?. Its feasibility makes it suitable to be applied to different models, as for instance the Kondo problem or the Anderson Hamiltonian?. In the finite $`U`$ Hubbard model, it is applied by introducing four auxiliary bosonic fields?, while in the $`t`$-$`J`$ Hamiltonian, obtained as strong-coupling limit of the Hubbard one, only one boson is needed. For the purpose of this work we restrict our study to the simplest case of the so-called “$`t`$-model”, equivalent to the infinite-$`U`$ Hubbard model or to the $`t`$-$`J`$ model with zero exchange coupling constant. In this case the strong correlation arises from the constraint of no double occupancy on each site.

As above discussed, in the $`U\mathrm{}`$ limit the metal-insulator transition, at zero temperature, is driven by only one relevant parameter, the hole number $`\delta `$, related to the total number of electrons $`n`$ by $`\delta =1n`$. In the mean-field approximation, which represents its simplest formulation, the slave-boson technique maps the strong correlated Hamiltonian into an effective model of non interacting fermions with renormalized bandwidth?. Thus, the resulting Hamiltonian is thought to describe the physics of the itinerant coherent states, whereas the contribution of the localized states is totally disregarded at this level, and it can be restored only by higher order approximations. In agreement with this picture, the spectral weight associated with the coherent states can be shown to be equal to the doping $`\delta `$ and it can be therefore identified with $`Z`$. If one considers the occupation number of the electrons, the mean-field solution of the slave-boson approach accounts only for the sharp jump at the Fermi energy while the incoherent background is missing (figure 1). Incoherent states are described in the slave-boson picture only at higher order than the mean-field solution. An analysis of the finite-$`U`$ Hubbard model shows that the dynamics of the auxiliary bosons reconstructs the lower and upper Hubbard bands with splitting $`U`$?. However in the infinite-$`U`$ Hubbard model, where single occupancy constraint is more compelling and no energy scale but the kinetic one exists, it is not clear where the incoherent background should be located and how the total sum rule fulfilled. In the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, where the inclusion of the exchange term identifies a characteristic magnetic energy, spectral weight is expected to arise on a scale $`J`$ associated with spin excitations. However, the violation or less of the total sum rule is basically connected with the single occupancy constraint, independently of the exchange term which would just redistribute the total spectral weight. In this perspective, the simple $`t`$-model is as respresentative as the $`t`$-$`J`$ in order to test the conservation of the total spectral weight.

The aim of this paper is to revise the mean-field solution in order to take into account in a proper way the incoherent background. It is shown that, even in mean-field approximation, a rigorous implementation of the no double occupancy constraint leads to an analytic expression of the Green’s function that describes on the same foot itinerant and localized states. According to its mean-field nature the proposed approach shares with the standard mean-field solution the common shortcomings due to neglecting the boson dynamics. In particular incoherent states in lower and upper bands can not be described. Nevertheless it provides an improved version of the mean-field slave-boson solution free of some inconsistencies of the standard one and preserving the correct spectral weight sum rule. The same procedure is applied to the “mean-field” solution of the $`t`$-model in terms of Hubbard $`X`$-operators, which differs deeply from the one obtained by the slave-boson technique. It is shown that the inclusion of the incoherent part permits to overcome some intrinsic inconsistencies of the $`X`$-operator solution, as for instance about the validity of Luttinger’s theorem.

## 2 Mean field approximation in the slave-boson approach

Let us start with a brief summary of the well-known mean field solution within the slave-boson formalism?. This reviewing is finalized to present all the main analytic steps of such a derivation permitting to point out the critical passages that will be afterwards modified in order to obtain a consistent picture.

Let us consider the Hamiltonian of the $`t`$-model:

$$H=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}t_{ij}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{j\sigma }\mu \underset{i,\sigma }{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma },$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^{}`$ are electronic fields operating on the reduced Hilbert space with no double occupied sites.

In the slave-boson formalism the creation (destruction) operator of the real electron is decomposed in two operators by the usual substitution:

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}`$ $``$ $`b_if_{i\sigma }^{},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }`$ $``$ $`b_i^{}f_{i\sigma },`$ (6)
where the $`b`$ and $`f`$ operators fulfil respectively bosonic and fermionic algebras. The constraint of no double occupancy is implemented on each site by the condition

$$b_i^{}b_i+f_i^{}f_i+f_i^{}f_i=1.$$
(7)
By using the relations (5)-(6), and introducing the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda _i`$ on each site to enforce the constraint, the slave-boson Hamiltonian reads:

$$H=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}t_{ij}b_ib_j^{}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }\mu \underset{i,\sigma }{}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }+\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\left[b_i^{}b_i+f_i^{}f_i+f_i^{}f_i1\right].$$
(8)
In the derivation of equation (8) the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }=b_ib_i^{}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }=f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }$$
(9)
has been used.

In the mean-field approximation the local fields $`b_i(t)`$, $`b_i^{}(t)`$, $`\lambda _i(t)`$ are replaced by their mean-field global values: $`b_i(t)b_ib`$, $`b_i^{}(t)b_i^{}b^{}`$, $`\lambda _i(t)\lambda _i\lambda `$. Note that in such an approximation both the space and time dependences of $`b`$ and $`\lambda `$ are dropped. The resulting Hamiltonian describes an effective model of renormalized non interacting fermions:

$$H^{MF}=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}b^2t_{ij}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }(\mu \lambda )\underset{i,\sigma }{}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }+\lambda \underset{i}{}\left[b^21\right],$$
(10)
or, in Fourier space,

$$H^{MF}=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[b^2t(𝐤)\mu +\lambda \right]f_{𝐤\sigma }^{}f_{𝐤\sigma }+\lambda \left[b^21\right].$$
(11)
The Green’s function of the $`f`$-fermions takes the simple form

$$G_\sigma ^f(𝐤;\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega b^2t(𝐤)+\mu \lambda +i\mathrm{sgn}[b^2t(𝐤)\mu +\lambda ]},$$
(12)
that represents the Green’s function of purely itinerant fermions with bandwidth renormalized by a factor $`b^2`$ and chemical potential shifted by $`\lambda `$. The corresponding zero temperature occupation number of the $`f`$-particles,

$$n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}G_\sigma ^f(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega 0^{}},$$
(13)
has thus a jump from 1 to 0 at the chemical potential. For simplicity in the following the zero temperature case will be always considered. Discussion and results can be however straightforwardly generalized at finite temperature.

The internal energy can be expressed as function of $`n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)`$:

$$E=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[b^2t(𝐤)\mu +\lambda \right]n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)+\lambda \left[b^21\right].$$
(14)
The physical solution for the mean-field parameters $`b^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ is obtained by minimizing equation (14). Their analytical expressions are:

$$\lambda =\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}t(𝐤)n_\sigma ^f(𝐤),$$
(15)
and

$$b^2=1\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(16)
By using these relations, equation (14) is therefore simplified:

$$E=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}b^2t(𝐤)n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)\mu \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(17)
The total number of electrons $`n`$ is easily obtained by the thermodynamic relation $`n=E/\mu `$:

$$n=n^f=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤),$$
(18)
which identifies the number of “real” electrons with the number of the $`f`$-fermions, that is to say with the number of single occupied states.

Equation (18) is indeed consistent with relation (9). However, some intrinsic inconsistencies appear just by looking at the spectral function. If one considers the Green’s function of real electrons

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=iT_tc_{i\sigma }(t)c_{j\sigma }^{},$$
(19)
the relation between $`G_\sigma `$ and $`G_\sigma ^f`$, within the mean field approximation, is simply:

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=b^2G_\sigma ^f(i,j;t).$$
(20)
The same relation thus holds for the spectral functions $`A(𝐤,\omega )=b^2A^f(𝐤,\omega )`$, and for the corresponding electronic occupation number

$$n(𝐤)=b^2n^f(𝐤).$$
(21)
This result is in partial agreement with the physical situation depicted in figure 1, where the contribution of the coherent states to the total number of electrons scales with $`Z=\delta =1n`$, but it is in open contrast with Equation (18). In order to reconcile the two descriptions one should assume two relations linking $`n(𝐤)`$ with $`n^f(𝐤)`$, respectively $`n(𝐤)=n^f(𝐤)`$ and $`n(𝐤)=b^2n^f(𝐤)`$. The first one should be employed to calculate only local quantities as the total number of electrons $`n`$, as it has implicitly done in the expression of the internal energy in equation (17). The second one should be used for non local quantities, as shown by the kinetic energy in the same equation. It is not clear in this procedure which of them is the physical occupation number of the real electrons.

The inconsistency is clearly related to the neglecting of the incoherent background of localized states. The spectral function $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ as well as the occupation number $`n(𝐤)`$ of the real electrons should contain both the coherent and incoherent contributions. In the following it is shown how the previous approach can be modified to take into account in a simply way both the coherent and incoherent parts, leading to an unambiguous determination of the spectral function and of the related quantities $`n(𝐤)`$ and $`n`$.

## 3 Modified mean-field approach

Actually, the procedure here proposed is quite simple. The basilar consideration arises from the realizing that the above discrepancies stem from the different implementations of the no double occupancy constraint. Indeed, in the evaluation of the local quantity $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }`$ the condition (9) has been used to identity $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }`$ with $`f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }`$. A similar equality however does not hold for the non local Green’s function of the real electrons defined in equation (19). In this situation equation (9) can not be applied whereas the relation (20) is rather fulfilled. An appropriate way to deal with the generic Green’s function is to split it in the local and non local part:

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=iT_t\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }(t)\stackrel{~}{c}_{j\sigma }^{}\left[1\delta _{ij}\right]iT_t\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }(t)\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\delta _{ij}.$$
(22)
Let us now introduce the slave-boson formalism and perform the mean field approximation in two steps: firstly the fields $`b_i(t)`$, $`b_i^{}(t)`$ are replaced by their mean field values with respect to the time $`b_i(t)b_i`$, $`b_i^{}(t)b_i^{}`$. Note that they still preserve a full site dependence. As a consequence of this first approximation the relation (9) can now be formulated in the dynamic version:

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }=b_ib_i^{}f_{i\sigma }^{}(t)f_{i\sigma }=f_{i\sigma }^{}(t)f_{i\sigma }.$$
(23)
We can now safely apply in equation (22) the spatial mean field approximation in the first non local part, while in the second local term the relation (23) can correctly be employed. The resulting Green’s function becomes:

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=ib^2T_tf_{i\sigma }(t)f_{j\sigma }^{}\left[1\delta _{ij}\right]iT_tf_{i\sigma }(t)f_{i\sigma }^{}\delta _{ij},$$
(24)
or, in a more compact way,

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=ib^2T_tf_{i\sigma }(t)f_{j\sigma }^{}i\left[1b^2\right]T_tf_{i\sigma }(t)f_{i\sigma }^{}\delta _{ij}.$$
(25)
In Fourier space, the analytic expression of the electronic Green’s function takes the form:

$$G_\sigma (𝐤;\omega )=ZG_\sigma ^f(𝐤;\omega )+\left(1Z\right)\underset{𝐤}{}G_\sigma (𝐤;\omega ),$$
(26)
where $`Z`$ is the coherent spectral weight $`Z=b^2`$. A straightforward consequence of equation (26) is:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}G_\sigma (𝐤;\omega )=\underset{𝐤}{}G_\sigma ^f(𝐤;\omega ),$$
(27)
so that the electronic propagator $`G`$ can be fully expressed as function of $`G^f`$:

$$G_\sigma (𝐤;\omega )=ZG_\sigma ^f(𝐤;\omega )+\left(1Z\right)\underset{𝐤}{}G_\sigma ^f(𝐤;\omega ).$$
(28)
From equation (26), the occupation number of the real electrons is also immediately evaluated:

$$n_\sigma (𝐤)=Zn_\sigma ^f(𝐤)+\left(1Z\right)n_\sigma ,$$
(29)
where $`n_\sigma `$ is the total number of electrons per spin.

The analytic expressions of the Green’s function for the $`f`$-fermions, and consequently of $`n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)`$, in the present approach are just the same as in the standard mean field slave-boson result given by equation (12). This can be easily checked by considering that the mean field Hamiltonian in term of $`f`$-operators, as defined in equation (10), is still valid in the present approach.

In agreement with the intuitive picture, the occupation number derived in the present paper contains two contributions: one describing itinerant dispersive states with total spectral weight $`Z`$ and accounting for the sharp jump at the Fermi energy; and an incoherent part of localized states with no $`𝐤`$-dependence and containing $`(1Z)n`$ spectral weight. The resulting picture is shown in figure 2.

It should be stressed that equation (28) defines in an unambiguous way the Green’s function of real electrons $`G`$, although expressed as function of $`G^f`$. It can be now directly employed to calculate any quantity involving one-particle physics, with no more need to deal with auxiliary fields. In particular, this unique definition of $`G`$, and consequently of $`n(𝐤)`$, yields a consistent derivation of the total number of electrons and of the internal energy, overcoming the discrepancy found in the standard mean field slave-boson solution.

By working directly in $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$-operators, the total number of electrons $`n`$ and the internal energy $`E`$ are expressed as function of $`n_\sigma (𝐤)`$ as:

$$n=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma (𝐤),$$
(30)
$$E=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[t(𝐤)\mu \right]\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[t(𝐤)\mu \right]n_\sigma (𝐤).$$
(31)
Inserting equation (29) in (30) we then obtain

$$n=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(32)
On the other hand, as previously discussed, the number of particles can be derived also by the thermodynamic relation $`n=E/\mu `$. The internal energy, by using the same expression of $`n_\sigma (𝐤)`$ as in the calculation of $`n`$, reads:

$$E=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[b^2t(𝐤)\mu \right]n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(33)
In the same way as in the standard mean field slave-boson derivation, the physical values of $`b^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ that appear as parameters in $`n_\sigma ^f(𝐤)`$ are found:

$$\lambda =\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}t(𝐤)n_\sigma ^f(𝐤),$$
(34)
$$b^2=1\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(35)
Then, deriving $`E`$ with respect to $`\mu `$ as required by the thermodynamic relation, one finally obtains

$$n=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma ^f(𝐤),$$
(36)
just like in equation (32).

This result shows the fully consistency of the analytic expression of $`G`$ derived in the present approach. The Green’s function for real electrons is univocally determined and its employment to calculate the total number of electrons and the internal energy obeys the thermodynamic relation $`E/\mu =n`$. It is also worthy to note that Luttinger’s theorem is naturally fulfilled by using the Green’s function here derived. This is particularly interesting since the validity of Luttinger’s theorem has not been imposed as a precondition to be satisfied. This will appear even more relevant if compared with the results of mean field theories performed within the $`X`$-operator formalism, where not only the thermodynamic relation $`E/\mu =n`$ is not fulfilled, but the validity or the breakdown of Luttinger’s theorem is controversial. In the next section it will be shown how the inclusion of the incoherent background, in the same spirit of the present analysis, allows to overcome all these inconsistencies also in the mean field solutions based on the Hubbard $`X`$-operators.

## 4 Hubbard operators and mean field theories

One of the advantages of using $`X`$-operators is that they permit to work directly in terms of real electrons, without introducing any auxiliary field. In the case of the $`t`$-model here considered, the $`X`$-operators live in the reduced Hilbert space constructed on each site by the states $`|0`$, $`|`$, $`|`$. The Hubbard $`X`$-operators can then be represented as projection operators: $`X^{\alpha \beta }=|\alpha \beta |`$. It is easy to check that they follow the algebra:

$$[X_i^{\alpha \beta },X_j^{\gamma \delta }]_\pm =\delta _{ij}\left(\delta _{\beta \gamma }X_i^{\alpha \delta }\pm \delta _{\alpha \delta }X_i^{\gamma \beta }\right).$$
(37)
Moreover the more restrictive relation

$$X^{\alpha \beta }X^{\gamma \delta }=\delta _{\beta \gamma }X^{\alpha \delta }$$
(38)
is obeyed.

By using the Hubbard operator formalism, the $`t`$-model Hamiltonian can be written as:

$$H=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}t_{ij}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_j^{0\sigma }\mu \underset{i,\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }.$$
(39)
In similar way, the Green’s function of real electrons is defined as:

$$G_\sigma (i,j;t)=iT_tX_i^{0\sigma }(t)X_j^{\sigma 0}.$$
(40)
Different mean field approximations in terms of Hubbard $`X`$-operators have been performed in literature by using several approaches: diagrammatic studies?,? as well as derivations based on the equation of motion?. All these analyses converge to a unique expression of the mean field Green’s function:

$$G_\sigma (𝐤;\omega )=\frac{Z}{\omega Zt(𝐤)+\mu \lambda +i\mathrm{sgn}[Zt(𝐤)\mu +\lambda ]},$$
(41)
where, unlike in the slave-boson technique,

$$Z=1\frac{n}{2},$$
(42)
and

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}t(𝐤)n_\sigma ^f(𝐤).$$
(43)
Coherently with the spirit of a mean field approximation, equation (41) describes a system of non interacting electrons with total spectral weight $`(1n/2)`$ and with a dispersive band renormalized by the same factor.

The occupation number is directly evaluated by (41). In fact, equation (38) implies as a particular case the relation

$$X_i^{\sigma \sigma }=X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma },$$
(44)
hence

$$n_\sigma (𝐤)=\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right],$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function. The corresponding total number of electrons,

$$n=\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_\sigma (𝐤),$$
(46)
shows one the peculiarities of the mean field solutions based on $`X`$-operators, namely the breakdown of Luttinger’s theorem. In fact, according to equation (46), the half-filled case $`n=1`$ corresponds to the complete filling of the electronic band and to a vanishing Fermi surface. On the contrary, the half-band filling case corresponds to $`n=2/3`$ leading to unphysical results. For instance, all the properties and instabilities of the system due to possible nesting of the Fermi surface, as antiferromagnetic or charge-density-wave ordering, lie around this particular value $`n=2/3`$, a clear artifact of the approximation.

On the other hand, the same breakdown of Luttinger’s theorem appears questionable. One could as well use the above widely discussed thermodynamic relation $`E/\mu =n`$ to determine the total number of electrons. However, it is easy to check that the expression (45), once plugged in the internal energy

$$E=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}\left[t_{ij}\mu \delta _{ij}\right]X_i^{\sigma 0}X_j^{0\sigma }=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[t(𝐤)\mu \right]n_\sigma (𝐤),$$
(47)
does not reproduce the result of equation (46).

We found ourselves in the same controversial situation as for the slave-boson solution. As before, one should postulate that the electronic propagator in equation (41) (and related functions like spectral function or occupation number $`n_\sigma (𝐤)`$) has to be used only for non local quantities as the kinetic energy, but it does not give any information about the total number of particles. This inconsistency was in that case solved by the introduction of the incoherent background. An identical result will be also recovered in the Hubbard operator approach.

Let us rewrite the “correct” occupation number by adding an incoherent contribution $`B`$:

$$n_\sigma (𝐤)=\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right]+B.$$
(48)
The total number of electrons is thus given by:

$$n=\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right]+2B.$$
(49)
By substituting equation (48) in (47), the internal energy becomes:

$$E=\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}t(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right]\mu n.$$
(50)
The thermodynamic relation can now be employed to determine the spectral weight of the incoherent background $`B`$ by requiring the total number of electrons to be equal to equation (49). The derivative of the internal energy in equation (50) with respect to $`\mu `$ gives

$$\frac{E}{\mu }=n=\frac{n}{\mu }\lambda n\mu \frac{n}{\mu }+\left(\mu \lambda \right)\frac{}{\mu }\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right],$$
(51)
where the equality

$$\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)t(𝐤)\frac{}{\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right]=\left(\mu \lambda \right)\frac{}{\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right]$$
(52)
has been used. Equation (51) can be further simplified to obtain

$$\frac{n}{\mu }=\frac{}{\mu }\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right],$$
(53)
whose solution is trivially:

$$n=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mu \left(1n/2\right)t(𝐤)\lambda \right].$$
(54)
The constant $`B`$ is thus easily obtained by equating (49) with (54):

$$B=\frac{n^2}{4}.$$
(55)
Note that the validity of Luttinger’s theorem is now unambiguously defined and, just as in the slave-boson formalism, arises in a natural way from the correct $`n_\sigma (𝐤)`$ which includes the proper incoherent background.

## 5 Summary and discussion

A slightly modified version of the slave-boson mean field approximation has been proposed in this paper to account for the localized incoherent background missing in the standard mean field theories. In contrast to them, the resulting Green’s function here derived can be safely used in the calculation of any, local or non local, quantity as the kinetic energy, the total number of electrons or the internal energy. It has also been shown that Luttinger’s theorem is naturally fulfilled when such a Green’s function is employed.

This approach permits a particular compact and suitable way, although approximate, to deal with the redistribution of the one-particle spectral weight due to strong correlation effects. Broken symmetry states, at a mean field level, can be also taken into account in similar way. A straightforward generalization is the superconducting case. It is well known that no purely local $`s`$-wave Cooper pair can be established in a strongly correlated system, once an attractive interaction is taken into account, because of the forbidding of double occupancy. However, a common shortcoming of the standard mean field theories is to allow for a finite local $`s`$-wave order parameter as a consequence of the relaxing of the local constraint?. This spurious result disappears when the modified mean field approximation here proposed is used. Just in the same way as in the normal state, the anomalous propagator $`F(ij;t)=i\stackrel{~}{c}_i^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{c}_j^{}`$ can be splitted in a local and non local part. Following the previous procedure, it easy to obtain the corresponding BCS expression for the anomalous Green’s function $`F`$:

$$F(𝐤;\omega )=Z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}{\omega ^2\xi ^2(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}+Z\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}{\omega ^2\xi ^2(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}.$$
(56)
Note that both the local part has the same spectral weight $`Z=b^2`$ as the non local one because the relation (9) can not be employed in this case. and the non local part have the same spectral weight. From equation (56) it is thus clear that the condensate relative to local Cooper pairs, given by the order parameter $`_𝐤F(𝐤;\omega )`$, is identically zero, as physically expected.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank R. Zeyher and M. Grilli for the useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Growing evidence indicates that soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) are very likely magnetars, isolated neutron stars with surface magnetic fields of the order of $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G (Duncan & Thompson 1992), although consensus is not fully achieved (see, e.g., Zhang 2001). One prominent feature of these objects is that none of them has been firmly detected to have pulsed radio emission, making them a distinct category from the normal radio pulsars. Radio quiescence of magnetars has been attributed to the function of an exotic QED process, namely photon splitting, which, in a magnetic field in excess of roughly the critical field strength, $`B_q=4.4\times 10^{13}`$ G, causes $`\gamma `$-ray photons to split into two lower energy photons before they are materialized to electron-positron pairs in reaction with the strong magnetic fields (Baring & Harding 1998; 2001). This argument, however, is not certain since a complete pair-suppression requires that both photon polarizations split. This will be realized if all the three photon splitting modes permitted by charge-parity invariance in QED, i.e., $``$, $``$, and $``$, operate. However, under the weak linear vacuum dispersion limit (which may not be true in a magnetar environment) only one splitting mode ($``$) can fulfill the energy and momentum conservation requirements simultaneously (Adler 1971). Recently, three high magnetic field pulsars (HBPs) are detected to be above the “photon splitting deathline” for surface emission proposed by Baring & Harding (1998), and one of them, PSR J1814-1744 resides very closely to an AXP, 1E 2259+586, in the $`P\dot{P}`$ (period - spindown rate) phase space, casting doubt on the effectiveness of photon splitting to suppress radio emission and the proximity in the nature of HBPs and magnetars (Camilo et al. 2000). Zhang & Harding (2000), after investigating the formation condition and the properties of the two types of inner accelerators (space-charge-limited flow, SCLF, or vacuum gap, VG) in HBPs, conjectured that the distinct observational difference between PSR J1814-1744 and 1E 2259+586 is due to a geometric effect, i.e., different orientations of the magnetic pole with respect to the rotational pole. In this interpretation and in our present paper, the assumption that all three photon splitting modes operate is still adopted. Here we investigate this idea in more detail by deriving explicit gap parameters of the HBPs and by re-investigating the competition between photon splitting and pair production for various cases.

## 2 Vacuum type models: deathline for anti-parallel rotators

If all three photon splitting modes operate, pair production is strongly suppressed when the magnetic field is strong enough. The condition for photon splitting dominating pair production is that the attenuation length for photon splitting gets shorter than that of pair production. We define a line in the $`B_pP`$ (or $`\dot{P}P`$) diagram which satisfies this condition: the photon-splitting-dominant (PSD) line (Eq.). Here $`B_p`$ is the surface magnetic field at the pole for the dipolar field component. The adoptions for the $``$ mode, the $``$ mode, or the polarization-averaged photons do not change the result significantly, and hereafter we adopt the polarization-averaged attenuation coefficients. A precise study of the competition between photon splitting and pair production can only be attained through numerical simulations (e.g. Baring & Harding 2001). However, present simulations have not included the pulsar inner accelerator physics, which we intend to study here. For this purpose, we derive some approximate analytic expressions for photon splitting.

The polarization-averaged photon splitting attenuation coefficient is (see e.g. Harding, Baring & Gonthier 1997)

$$T_{\mathrm{sp}}(ϵ)\frac{\alpha ^3}{10\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(\frac{19}{315}\right)^2(B^{})B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}ϵ^5\mathrm{sin}^6\theta 0.37(B^{})B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}ϵ^5\mathrm{sin}^6\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant, $`\lambda `$ is the Compton wavelength of the electron, and $`(B^{})`$ is a strong-field modification factor (see Harding et al. 1997 for an explicit expression). Here the photon energy $`ϵ`$ is in units of electron rest energy, the magnetic field $`B^{}`$ is in units of the critical field $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and $`\theta `$ denotes the angle between the photon momentum and the magnetic field. The function $`(B^{})=1`$ for $`B^{}<<1`$, but $`1.9B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$ for $`B^{}>>1`$. In the regime $`B^{}1`$ in which the photon splitting starts to suppress pair production (which is the most interesting regime we are discussing in this paper), one expects $`(B^{})𝒜B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$, where $`0<\alpha <6`$, and $`𝒜`$ is a factor of the order of unity. Numerical simulations give $`\alpha 9/4`$ (Baring & Harding 2001). The photon splitting attenuation length, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{sp}}`$, can be obtained by solving $`_0^{\lambda _{\mathrm{sp}}}T_{\mathrm{sp}}(s)𝑑s=1`$, where $`s`$ is the trajectory length of the photon propagation which is approximately $`s\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and $`\rho `$ is the curvature radius of the field line. This gives $`\lambda _{\mathrm{sp}}1.5𝒜^{1/7}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{15/28}ϵ^{5/7}\rho ^{6/7}`$. For a pure dipolar geometry, one has $`\rho =9.2\times 10^7(\mathrm{cm})r_{e,6}^{1/2}P^{1/2}\xi ^1`$, where $`r_e=10^6(\mathrm{cm})r_{e,6}`$ is the emission altitude, $`P`$ is the pulsar period, and $`0<\xi =\mathrm{\Theta }_s/\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{pc}}<1`$ is the ratio of the field line magnetic colatitude at the surface to the polar cap angle at the surface. The splitting attenuation length is then

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{sp}}1.0\times 10^7(\mathrm{cm})𝒜^{1/7}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{15/28}ϵ^{5/7}r_{e,6}^{3/7}P^{3/7}\xi ^{6/7}.$$
(2)
Since $`1<𝒜<1.9`$, $`𝒜^{1/7}`$ is approximately unity, and we will drop it out hereafter. For the magnetic field strength considered, pair production should occur as soon as the threshold condition is fulfilled, i.e., $`ϵ\mathrm{sin}\theta =2`$. Thus the pair production attenuation length can be approximated as

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{pp}}=2\rho ϵ^11.84\times 10^8(\mathrm{cm})ϵ^1r_{e,6}^{1/2}P^{1/2}\xi ^1.$$
(3)
Photon splitting can cause a pulsar to “die” only when the inner accelerator of the pulsar is vacuum-like, formed under the condition of strong binding of charged particles in the neutron star surface, because pair formation must take place near the surface (Zhang & Harding 2000). Therefore the so-called “photon splitting deathline” is only relevant for VG accelerators. One remark is that the deathline of Baring & Harding (2001) is derived under several conditions: (a) emission comes from the surface; (b) field configuration is dipole; (c) photon energy is the “escape energy” for both pair production and photon splitting. We note that although both (a) and (b) can be still adopted, the condition (c) may be not of much physical meaning when taking into account the inner accelerators. This is because the typical energy of the photons produced by the primary particles in the gap is usually different from the escape energy, and more importantly, both $`\lambda _{\mathrm{sp}}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{pp}}`$ depend on $`ϵ`$, but with different dependences. Furthermore, the characteristic $`ϵ`$ from the gap also depends on pulsar parameters (e.g., $`P`$, $`B_p`$), which will alter the slope of the deathline.

Now we derive the PSD line for VG accelerators. This is physically a radio emission deathline for the anti-parallel rotators (APRs) (Zhang & Harding 2000). First, we neglect photon splitting and derive the gap parameters following the same procedure as Zhang, Harding & Muslimov (2000). The difference here is that we derive the photon mean free path by adopting the near-threshold condition for pair creation. Assuming dipolar configuration at the surface, the curvature radiation (CR) controlled gap has a height $`h(\mathrm{CR}\mathrm{VG})=3.2\times 10^3(\mathrm{cm})P^{4/7}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/7}\xi ^{2/7}`$, and the resonant inverse Compton scattering (ICS) controlled gap has a height of $`h(\mathrm{ICS}\mathrm{VG})=3.3\times 10^3(\mathrm{cm})P^{3/7}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\xi ^{4/7}`$. Notice that although both gaps have a similar height for the typical values, the ICS gap height has a much steeper inverse dependence on $`B^{}`$, which means that in slightly higher fields, ICS becomes the dominant mechanism for pair production. We therefore adopt ICS-VG parameters to define the photon splitting deathline. The characteristic photon energy from such an accelerator, which is the lowest photon energy produced within the gap by resonant inverse Compton scattering of the electrons off the thermal photons that can produce pairs if photon splitting is neglected, can be expressed as

$$ϵ_c(\mathrm{ICS}\mathrm{VG})5.5\times 10^4P^{1/14}B^{}\xi ^{3/7}.$$
(4)
Plug Eq.(4) into Eqs. (2) and (3), and using

$$\lambda _{sp}\lambda _{pp}$$
(5)
as the definition of photon splitting dominating pair production, the photon splitting deathline for the APRs is (see Fig.1)

$$B_p1.0\times 10^{14}\mathrm{G}(P/1\mathrm{s})^{10/49}\xi ^{4/49},$$
(6)
or by adopting $`B_p=6.4\times 10^{19}\mathrm{G}\sqrt{P\dot{P}}`$, $`\dot{P}2.44\times 10^{12}(P/1\mathrm{s})^{69/49}\xi ^{8/49}`$. This line has a steeper slope than the one derived using the “escape energy” criterion (Baring & Harding 2001), and allows two HBPs with relatively short periods, i.e., PSR J1119-6127 and PSR J1726-3530, to be below the deathline, which means that they should not be dead even if their gaps are (but not necessary are) vacuum type. The reasons are that the faster pulsars tend to have larger acceleration potentials and hence, produce more energetic photons than the slower pulsars, and that for higher energy photons, even higher magnetic field strength is required for photon splitting to suppress pair production due to the different $`ϵ`$-dependences of both attenuation lengths (see Eqs. and ). Another remark is that the deathline has a very weak dependence on $`\xi `$, thus the deathline is a very nice indicator regardless of the location of the sparks in the polar caps. We note that all known “magnetars” are above this deathline, so that their radio quiescence is understandable if their surface charges are bound to the surface so that the type of their inner gaps is expected to be vacuum-like if they exist.

## 3 Space-charge-limited flow models: are the gaps lengthened?

PSR J1814-1744 is above the deathline of the APRs, and thus must be a parallel rotator (PR) with a SCLF accelerator, if all three splitting modes operate (Zhang & Harding 2000). In such a case, we can also define a PSD line. But this line is no longer a “deathline”, but rather a line which determines whether the accelerator should be lengthened with respect to its normal height (that derived assuming that photon splitting plays no role). SCLF accelerators with frame-dragging effect taken into account have been explicitly studied by Muslimov & Tsygan (1992) and Harding & Muslimov (1998). Despite the complicated form of the parallel electric field in the gap, some approximations could be made in certain regimes. More specifically, for the solution with upper boundary condition, $`E_{}`$ increases linearly with height in the beginning and gets saturated at a certain level when the gap height is comparable to the polar cap radius (Harding & Muslimov 1998). For young pulsars, the $`E_{}`$ of the gaps have not reached the saturated values, and the gaps are pancake-shaped. This is defined as Regime I. For older pulsars, $`E_{}`$ have attained the saturated values well below the pair formation front. The gap shape in this case is long and narrow, and we define it as the Regime II SCLF gap. For both CR or ICS controlled SCLF, we can have both the cases for regime I and regime II. We then have four types of accelerators. Using the near-threshold pair production condition which is applicable for HBPs, we have derived the gap parameters of all these types. We find that in the phase space where the three HBPs reside, the gaps are marginally in Regime II if the gap is controlled by CR, but are in regime I if the gap is controlled by ICS (PSR J1814-1744 is marginally in regime I). The CR-controlled gap has a height of $`h(\mathrm{CR}\mathrm{SCLF})=2.4\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/4}P^{7/4}R_6^{5/4}\xi ^{1/2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi )^{3/4}`$, while the ICS-controlled gap has a much lower height of $`h(\mathrm{ICS}\mathrm{SCLF})=8.1\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{14/15}P^{13/30}R_6^{3/10}\xi ^{8/15}(\mathrm{cos}\chi )^{1/15}`$ and a lower potential, where $`\chi `$ is the pulsar obliquity. Therefore ICS is the dominant pair production mechanism for the HBPs. Another argument is that in a strong field a stable ICS-controlled accelerator could be formed right above the surface (Harding & Muslimov 1998). The characteristic ICS photon energy produced from such a gap is

$$ϵ_c(\mathrm{ICS}\mathrm{SCLF})2.3\times 10^4B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{14/15}P^{1/15}R_6^{1/5}\xi ^{7/15}(\mathrm{cos}\chi )^{1/15},$$
(7)
which is smaller than $`ϵ_c(\mathrm{ICS}\mathrm{VG})`$ (Eq.). The PSD line is therefore expected to be lower. Notice that the dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ is rather weak. Using a same criterion (Eq.), the PSD line for the SCLF gaps is then (see Fig.1)

$$B3.6\times 10^{13}\mathrm{G}(P/1\mathrm{s})^{22/113}\xi ^{4/113},$$
(8)
or $`\dot{P}3.16\times 10^{13}(P/1\mathrm{s})^{157/113}\xi ^{8/113}`$. Notice that this line is only a rough indication due to the analytic approximation adopted here, and detailed numerical calculations are necessary. Nevertheless, with Eq. we find that all the three known HBPs as well as some more pulsars are above this line (Fig.1), which means that the delayed pair production conjectured by Zhang & Harding (2000) is necessary to interpret these pulsars. The gaps in these pulsars must be lengthened to allow pair formation front to occur at a higher altitude. The deathline for the HBPs (which should be PRs), is still the “SCLF deathline” defined according to the binding condition of the electrons, as discussed in Zhang & Harding (2000), which occurs around $`B_p\stackrel{>}{}2\times 10^{14}`$ G.

## 4 Possible implications: connection with the AXPs/SGRs

All the results presented here are based on the assumption that all three photon splitting modes operate. Therefore the consequences from this picture can be then regarded as the criteria to test the assumption itself. All known HBPs as well as some pulsars with lower fields do need to invoke “delayed pair production” if their gaps are SCLF types, as expected before (Zhang & Harding 2000). The particle luminosity from such an accelerator therefore should be enhanced with respect to that of a normal pulsar. This allows a direct distinction between the two splitting scenarios, since different scenarios may result in different $`\gamma `$-ray and X-ray luminosity predictions. Further work is necessary to reveal such differences. A caution is that the analytic approach adopted here may not be good enough to describe the phase space where PSR J1814-1744 is located, so that the “photon splitting dominant line” may be altered after numerical calculations. Nonetheless, the qualitative conclusion that “delayed pair production” is necessary will not be changed.

If it turns out that in a magnetar environment, still only one splitting mode can operate, some other ideas must be introduced to account for the radio quiescence of the AXPs and the SGRs. One such idea is that the particle flows induced by bursting activities may be able to short out the inner accelerator of a magnetar for a long period of time (Thompson 2000). In this picture, all AXPs must be assumed to have experienced some bursting behaviors recently. Alternatively, radio quiescence in AXPs/SGRs is natural if these objects are powered by accretion from their fossil disks.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Matthew Baring for helpful discussions. B.Z. acknowledges NASA NAG5-9192 and NAG5-9193 for support.


text:
# Massless particles of any spin obey linear equations of motion

## 1 Introduction

All theories with $`d>4`$ have to answer the question why Nature has made a choice of four-dimensional subspace with one time and three space coordinates and with the particular choice of charges beside the spin degree of freedom for either fermions or bosons. One of us and Nielsen  has prooved that in $`d`$-dimensional spaces, with even $`d`$, the spin degrees of freedom require $`q`$ time and $`(dq)`$ space dimensions, with $`q`$ which has to be odd. Accordingly in four-dimensional space Nature could only make a choice of the Minkowsky metric. This proof was made under the assumption that equations of motion are for massless fields of any spin linear in the $`d`$-momentum $`p^a,a=0,1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d`$. (In addition, also the Hermiticity of the equation of motion operator as well as that this operator operates within an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group was required.) Our experiences tell us that equations of motion of all known massless fields are linear in the four-momentum $`p^a,a=0,1,2,3.`$ We are refering to the Dirac equation of motion for massless spinor fields and the Maxwell or Maxwell-like equations of motion for massless bosonic fields. One of us together with A. Borštnik  has shown that the Weyl-like equations exist not only for fermions but also for bosons. For four dimensional space-time Wigner  classified the representations of the Poincaré group, connecting them with particles. The classification of representations can also be found in Weinberg , for example. According to these classifications, equations of motion follow, when constraining a solution space to a certain Poincaré group representation. For spinors this leads to the Dirac equation and for vectors to the Maxwell equations .

The aim of this paper is to briefly present the proof (the detailed version is presented in Ref. ) that in even dimensional spaces, for any $`d=2n`$, free massless fields $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ( $`(p^ap_a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi },a=0,1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},2n`$) of any spin satisfy equations of motion which are linear in the $`d`$-momentum $`p^a=(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$

$`(W^a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },a=0,1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d,`$
$`\mathrm{with}\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1`$ (1)
and guarantee the validity of the equation $`(p^ap_a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

In Eq. (1) the operators $`S^{ab}`$ are the generators of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ in internal space, which is the space of spin degrees of freedom. Parameters $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$ are eigenvalues of the operators of the Cartan (Eq.(7)) subalgebra of the algebra of the group $`SO(1,d1)`$ on the maximal weight state (10) of an irreducible representation. Vector $`W^a`$ is the generalized Pauli-Ljubanski  $`d`$-vector

$`W^a:=\rho \epsilon ^{ab}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}p_{b}^{}S^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}}.`$ (2)
The value of $`\rho `$ is irrelevant in the equations of motion (1) since it cancels out. It becomes relevant with the introduction of $`d1`$ vector

$$S^i:=\rho \epsilon ^{0i}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}}.$$
(3)
We choose the value of $`\rho `$ in such a way that $`S^i`$ has eigenvalues independent of dimension $`d`$ and with values familiar from four dimensions. For spinors, which are determined by Eqs.(6) or equivalently by $`1/2=l_n=\mathrm{}=l_2=\pm l_1`$ we have

$$\alpha =\pm \frac{1}{2},\rho =\frac{2^{n2}}{(2n2)!}$$

and for vector fields with $`1=l_n=\mathrm{}=l_2=\pm l_1`$ we have

$$\alpha =\pm 1,\rho =\frac{1}{2^{n1}(n1)!^2}.$$

The proof is made only for fields with no gauge symmetry and with a nonzero value of the handedness operator  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}:`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d1}a_d},`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2^nn!(l_n+n1)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1}},d=2n,`$ (4)
which commutes with all the generators of the Poincaré group. We choose $`\beta `$ so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\pm 1`$ on representations with nonzero handedness. For spinors (Eq.(6)) $`\beta =(2^ni)/(2n)!`$, while for vector fields it is $`\beta =i/(2^n(n!)^2)`$.

We prove that for spinors in $`d`$-dimensional space Eq.(1) is equivalent to the equation

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^0=\frac{1}{|\alpha |}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{p})|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(5)
with $`1/|\alpha |`$ equal to $`2`$ for any $`d=2n`$ while for a general spin Eq.(1) may impose additional conditions on the field.

We recognize the generators $`S^{ab}`$ to be of the spinorial character, if they fulfil the relation

$$\{S^{ab},S^{ac}\}=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{aa}\eta ^{bc},\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}\mathrm{a},$$
(6)
with $`\{A,B\}=AB+BA`$.

In this paper the metric is, independantly of the dimension, assumed to be the Minkowsky metric with $`\eta ^{ab}=\delta ^{ab}(1)^A,A=0\mathrm{for}a=0\mathrm{and}A=1`$, otherwise.

We present the proof in steps introducing only the very needed quantities and assuming that the reader can find the rest in text-books, as well as in Ref. .

## 2 Irreducible representations of the Lorentz group

We denote an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ by the weight of the dominant weight state of the representation .

The Lie algebra of $`SO(1,d1)`$ is spanned by the generators $`S^{ab}`$, which satisfy the commutation relations $`[S^{ab},S^{cd}]=i(\eta ^{ad}S^{bc}+\eta ^{bc}S^{ad}\eta ^{ac}S^{bd}\eta ^{bd}S^{ac}).`$ We choose the $`n`$ commuting operators of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ as follows

$$iS^{0d},S^{12},S^{35},\mathrm{},S^{d2d1}$$
(7)
and call them $`C_0,C_1,C_2,\mathrm{},C_{n1}`$ respectively. We say that a state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_w`$ has the weight $`(w_0,w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{n1})`$ if the following equations hold

$$C_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_w=w_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_w,j=0,1,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(8)
According to the definition of the operators (Eq.(7)), weight components $`w_0,w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$ are always real numbers.

We introduce in a standard way  the raising and the lowering operators

$$E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ):=\frac{1}{2}((i)^{\delta _{j0}}S^{j_{}k_{}}+i\lambda S^{j_+k_{}}i^{1+\delta _{j0}}\mu S^{j_{}k_+}\lambda \mu S^{j_+k_+}),$$
(9)
with $`0j<kn1,\lambda ,\mu =\pm 1`$ and $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}_{}=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}_+=d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{}=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_+=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}_{}=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}_+=5`$ and so on. Due to the commutation relations

$$[E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ),C_l]=(\delta _{jl}\lambda +\delta _{kl}\mu )E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ),$$

if the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_w`$ has the weight $`(w_0,w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n1})`$ then the state $`E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu )|\mathrm{\Phi }_w`$ has the weight $`(\mathrm{},w_j+\lambda ,\mathrm{},w_k+\mu ,\mathrm{})`$. We call the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ with the property

$`E_{jk}(+1,\pm 1)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,0j<kn1,`$ (10)
the dominant weight state. All the other states of an irreducible representation are obtained by the application of the generators $`S^{ab}`$. We shall denote an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ by the weight of the dominant weight state: $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)`$. Numbers $`l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1`$ are either all integer or all half integer and satisfy $`l_nl_{n1}\mathrm{}l_2|l_1|.`$

We can write Eq.(10) in an equivalent way

$`(S^{0i}+S^{id})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1`$
$`(S^{1i}+iS^{2i})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=3,5,\mathrm{},d1,`$
$`(S^{3i}+iS^{5i})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=6,7\mathrm{},d1,\mathrm{and}\mathrm{so}\mathrm{on}.`$ (11)
By applying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\beta \epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}`$ (Eq.(4)) on a state with the dominant weight and taking into account Eqs.(11), we find

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=2^nn!i\beta (l_n+n1)(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.$$
(12)
In order to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\pm 1`$ for any irreducible representation in any $`d=2n`$, $`\beta `$ must be the one, presented in Eq.(4).

## 3 The unitary discrete massless representations of the Poincaré group

The generators of the Poincaré group, that is the generators of translations $`p^a`$ and the generators of the Lorentz transformations $`M^{ab}`$ (which form the Lorentz group), fulfil in any dimension $`d`$, even or odd, the commutation relations:

$`[p^a,p^b]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`[M^{ab},M^{cd}]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{ad}M^{bc}+\eta ^{bc}M^{ad}\eta ^{ac}M^{bd}\eta ^{bd}M^{ac}),`$
$`[M^{ab},p^c]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{bc}p^a\eta ^{ac}p^b).`$
For momenta $`p^a`$ appearing in an irreducible massless representations of the Poincaré group it holds $`p^ap_a=0,p^0>0\mathrm{or}p^0<0`$ (we omit the trivial case $`p^0=0`$). We denote $`r=p^0/|p^0|`$. The Poincaré group representations are then characterized by the representation of the little group, which is a subgroup of the Lorentz group leaving some fixed $`d`$-momentum $`p^a=𝐤^a`$, satisfying equation $`𝐤^a𝐤_a=0`$, unchanged. Making the choice of $`𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0)`$, with $`r=\pm 1,k^0>0`$, the infinitesimal generators of the little group $`\omega _{bc}M^{bc},(\omega _{bc}=\omega _{cb})`$ can be found by requiring that, when operating on the $`d`$-vector $`𝐤^a`$ give zero, so that accordingly the corresponding group transformations leave the $`d`$-vector $`𝐤^a`$ unchanged: $`(\omega _{bc}M^{bc})𝐤^a=0`$. It is easily checked that this requirement leads to equations $`\omega _{0d}=0,\omega _{i0}+r\omega _{id}=0,i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{}d1.`$

All $`\omega _{bc}M^{bc}`$ with $`\omega _{bc}`$ subject to conditions $`(\omega _{bc}M^{bc})𝐤^a=0`$ form the Lie algebra of the little group. We choose the following basis of the little group Lie algebra

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i=M^{0i}+rM^{id},i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1`$
$`\mathrm{and}\mathrm{all}M^{ij},i,j=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1.`$ (13)
One finds

$`[\mathrm{\Pi }_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_j]=0,[\mathrm{\Pi }_i,M^{jk}]=i(\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_k\eta ^{ik}\mathrm{\Pi }_j).`$ (14)
We are interested only in unitary discrete representations of the Poincaré group. This means that the states in the representation space can be labeled by the momentum and an additional label for internal degrees of freedom, which can only have discrete values.

Lemma 1: For a discrete representation of the Poincaré group operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ give zero $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0.`$

Proof: We may arrange the representation space of the little group so that the commuting operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{d1}`$ are diagonal: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=b_a^i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. Making the rotation $`e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ for a continious set of values of the parameter $`\theta `$ and for the chosen indices $`i,j`$ we find that the states $`e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ can only have the discrete eigenvalues for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ if $`b_a^i=0`$ for all $`a`$ and $`i`$. (The detailed version of the proof can be found in Ref. ).

We now introduce the decomposition of the generators of Lorentz transformations to external and internal space. We write $`M^{ab}=L^{ab}+S^{ab}`$ where $`L^{ab}=x^ap^bx^bp^a`$ and $`S^{ab}`$ are the generators of the Lorentz transformations in internal space (ie. spin generators). We see that on the representation space of the little group with the choice $`𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0)`$, on which $`(L^{0i}+rL^{id})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0,`$ the following holds:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}:=(S^{0i}+rS^{id}),\mathrm{for}\mathrm{each}i.$$
(15)
The only little group generators, which are not necesserily zero on the representation space, are $`M^{ij},i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ and they form the Lie algebra of $`SO(d2)`$. Since the irreducible discrete representations of the Poincaré group in $`d(=2n)`$ dimensions for massless particles are determined by the irreducible representations of the group $`SO(d2)`$ we will denote the former with the same symbol as the latter with an additional label $`r`$ (ie. energy sign): $`(l_{n1},l_{n2},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1;r)`$.

Lemma 2: On the representation space of an irreducible massless representation of the Poincaré group $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;r)`$ the equation (1) holds with $`\alpha =\rho r2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1`$.

Proof: First, we prove the lemma on the representation space of the little group for the choice $`p^a=𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0),k^0>0,r=\pm 1`$. We begin with the cases $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ in Eq.(1)

$`W^a/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(\epsilon ^{aa_1}{}_{a_2a_3\mathrm{}a_{d1}}{}^{}p_{a_1}^{}M^{a_2a_3}M^{a_4a_5}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$
$`2k^0(n1)𝜶^{ai}\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a,`$ (16)
where

$$𝜶^{ai}:=\epsilon ^{0dai}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d4}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}M^{a_{d5}a_{d4}},[\mathrm{\Pi }^i,𝜶^{ai}]=0.$$
(17)
Taking into account Eq.(15) we conclude that for $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$, $`W^a|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=p^a|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0`$.

For $`a=0`$ and $`a=d`$ we obtain

$`W^0/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(r)p^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}/\beta |\mathrm{\Phi }_a,`$
$`W^d/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(r)p^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}/\beta |\mathrm{\Phi }_a,`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}`$ is the handedness operator corresponding to the subgroup $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acting on coordinates $`1,\mathrm{},d1`$. Substituting for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}`$ the appropriate value (Eq.(12) with $`n1`$ instead of $`n`$ and without the $`i`$ factor) we conclude the proof for the choice $`p^a=𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0)`$. To extend the proof for Eq.(1) to the whole representation space one only has to note that Eq.(1) is in a covariant form and must therefore hold generally.

Since Eq.(1) with $`\alpha `$ from Eq.(1) holds on the Poincaré group representation $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;+1)`$ it is a candidate for an equation of motion.

## 4 Equations of motion for free massless fields of any spin in $`d=2n`$

What we have to prove is that the solutions of Eq.(1) belong to an irreducible unitary discrete representation, possibly with a degeneracy in the energy sign.

In all proofs that follow we shall make the choice $`p^a=𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0)`$, $`k^0>0,r=\pm 1,`$ since then the covariance of Eq.(1) guarantees that the proofs are valid for general $`p^a`$.

Lemma 3: On the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1),`$ states satisfying the discreteness condition of Eq.(15) for the little group, form the $`SO(d2)`$-irreducible representation space $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},rl_1)`$, where the subgroup $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acts on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$.

Proof: We present an outline of the proof for $`r=1`$ only. The case $`r=1`$ is treated similarly (see ).

Eq.(14) implies that the space of solutions $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ of Eq.(15) forms an $`SO(d2)`$-invariant space, where $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acts on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$. To show that $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ is irreducible and corresponds to the $`SO(d2)`$-representation $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)`$, we choose any state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ with a $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight and prove both that it is unique up to a scalar multiple and has $`SO(d2)`$-weight $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)`$. The set of states $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ is nontrivial, because the $`SO(1,d1)`$-dominant weight state is in $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$.

Since $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has a $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight the last two lines in Eqs.(11) must hold. Eq.(15) then implies that the first line of Eq.(11) must also hold. It follows then that the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has a $`SO(1,d1)`$-dominant weight and is (up to a scalar multiple) unique and the proof that the corresponding representation of the Poincaré group is determined by all but the first dominant weight component of the internal Lorentz group representation $`(l_{n1},l_{n2},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)`$ is complete.

It remains to answer the question: when are the solutions of equations $`(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ with $`\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1`$ on the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1),`$ exactly those described by the lemma 3, ie. $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},rl_1;r),r=\pm 1`$.

Lemma 4: On the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1),`$ where $`l_10\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}0,`$ the solutions of Eq.(1) are exactly $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},rl_1;r),`$ with $`r=\pm 1`$.

Proof: First, we take the simplest case of $`d=4`$, proving that on the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ representation $`(l_2,l_1)`$ the solutions of Eq.(1) are exactly $`(l_1;+1)`$ and $`(l_1;1)`$.

In this case, the first equation of Eqs.(1), with $`a=1,2`$ reads $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}=0)|\mathrm{\Phi },(\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}=0)|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ which are exactly Eq.(15) and lemma 3 completes the proof since cases $`a=0,3`$ both give the equation $`S^{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }=rl_1|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which imposes no additional constraints on representation spaces $`(l_1;+1)`$ and $`(l_1;1)`$.

We can proceed now with the general case $`d6`$. ¿From Eqs.(16), (18) we know that Eq.(1) can be written for our choice of $`p^a`$ as follows

$`𝜶^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{for}a=i,`$
$`\rho \epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{for}a=0\mathrm{and}a=d,`$ (19)
with $`𝜶^{ij}`$ defined in Eq.(17).

By lemma 3 it is sufficient to show that every solution $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Eqs.(19) satisfies the condition

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,\mathrm{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},d1.`$ (20)
According to the proof of lemma 3 the dominant weight of the group $`SO(1,d1)`$ satisfies all the above equations and we can conclude that the space $`V`$ of solutions of equations in Eq.(19) is nontrivial. It is also $`SO(d2)`$-invariant due to the commutation relations $`[𝜶^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)},S^{kl}]=i(\eta ^{ik}𝜶^{lj}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}\eta ^{il}𝜶^{kj}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)})`$ and $`[\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}},S^{kl}]=0`$ for $`i,j,k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ .

To prove that Eq.(20) holds on $`V`$ it suffices to prove that Eq.(20) holds on any $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight state in $`V`$. This is done with the aid of Eqs.(19), (11) and some lengthy but elementary calculations (details can be found in ).

We may now write down the main result of this letter.

On the space with internal Lorentz group representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)`$ where $`l_10`$ equations

$$(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1$$
(21)
are equations of motion for massless particles corresponding to the following representations of the Poincaré group

$$(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;+1)\mathrm{and}(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;1),$$
(22)
where the masslessness condition $`(p_ap^a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not needed, since it follows from (21) and they are linear in the $`p^a`$-momentum.

With the aid of Eqs. (12), (4) the equation of motion can also be written as

$`(W^a=|\alpha |\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`|\alpha |=\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)|l_1|.`$ (23)
This equation is convenient when dealing with positive and negative handedness on the same footing (an example of this is the Dirac equation) since $`|\alpha |`$ is independent of the sign of $`l_1`$.

We note that the particular value of $`\rho `$ is irrelevant in Eqs. (21), (23) since $`\rho `$ is found in both the lefthand and the righthand side of equations and thus cancels out. (The value of $`\rho `$ becomes relevant, as we have already said, when dealing with the particular spin when it is used to insure that the operators $`S^i`$ have the familiar values independent of the dimension.)

Making a choice of $`a=0`$ one finds

$$(\stackrel{}{S}.\stackrel{}{p}=|\alpha |\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(24)
Since $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)})^2=1`$, one immediately finds that $`|\alpha |=|\stackrel{}{S}.\stackrel{}{p}|/|p^0|`$. The rest of equations make no additional requirements for spinors, while this is not the case for other spins.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have proven in this letter that massless fields of any spin (with nonzero handedness and no gauge symmetry) in $`d=2n`$-dimensional spaces, if having the Poincaré symmetry, obey the linear equations of motion (Eq.(1)). We have limited our proof to only even $`d`$, because the operator for handedness Eq.(4), needed in the proof, as well as the $`d`$-vector (Eq.(3)), can only be defined in even-dimensional spaces. (The generalization of the proof to all $`d`$ and any signature is under consideration.)

We know that in four-dimensional space the Weyl equation is linear in the four-momentum and so are the Maxwell equations , describing massless spinors and massless vectors, respectively. In $`d`$-dimensional spaces the operator of handedness for spinors can be defined not only for even but also for odd dimensions. Also the Dirac-like equations exist for any dimension  and follow for even $`d`$ from Eq.(1) if we take into account that for spinors $`S^{ab}=i[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]/4`$:

$`(\gamma ^ap_a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (25)
with $`\gamma ^a`$ matrices defined for $`d`$-dimensional spaces .

Similarly it follows from Eq.(1)  that vectors in $`d`$-dimensional space obey the equations of motion

$$p_aF^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}}=p_a\epsilon ^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}}{}_{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}{}^{}F_{}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}=0$$
(26)
where $`F^{abcd..}`$ is a totally antisymmmetric tensor field.

## 6 Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of Slovenia. One of us (N.M.B.) wants to thank for many fruitful discussions to Holger Bech Nielsen and Anamarija Borštnik.