text:
# 1 Two-loop selfenergy diagrams. Solid lines denote propagators with the mass 𝑚; dashed lines denote massless propagators.

The Differential Equation Method:
evaluation of complicated Feynman diagrams

A.V.Kotikov

Particle Physics Laboratory, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research

141980 Dubna, Russia.

## Abstract

We discuss a progress in calculation of Feynman integrals which has been done with help of the Differential Equation Method and demonstrate the results for a class of two-point two-loop diagrams.

The idea of the Differential Equation Method (see -) (see a reviews in ): to apply the integration by parts procedure  to an internal $`n`$-point subgraph of a complicated Feynman diagram and later to represent new complicated diagrams, obtained here, as derivatives in respect of corresponding masses of the initial diagram.

The integration by parts procedure , - for a general $`n`$-point (sub)graph with masses of its lines $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_n`$, line momenta $`p_1,p_2=p_1p_{12},p_n=p_1p_{1n}`$ and indices $`j_1,j_2,..,j_n`$, respectively, has the following form:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dp_1\frac{}{p_1^\mu }\left\{p_1^\mu \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_i^{j_i}\right)^1\right\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dp_1\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_i^{j_i}\right)^1\left[D2j_1\left(1\frac{m_1^2}{c_1}\right)\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}j_i\left(1\frac{m_1^2+m_i^2+p_{1i}^2c_1}{c_i}\right)\right]},`$
where $`c_k=p_k^2+m_k^2`$ are the propagators of $`n`$-point (sub)graph.

Because the diagram with the index $`(j_i+1)`$ of the propagator $`c_i`$ may be represented as the derivative (on the mass $`m_i`$), Eq.(S0.Ex1) leads to the differential equations (in principle, to partial differential equations) for the initial diagram (having the index $`j_i`$, respectively). This approach which is based on the Eq.(S0.Ex1) and allows to construct the (differential) relations between diagrams has been named as Differential Equations Method (DEM). For most interested cases (where the number of the masses is limited) these partial differential equations may be represented through original differential equation111The example of the direct application of the partial differential equation may be found in ., which is usually simpler to analyze.

Thus, we have got the differential equations for the initial diagram. The inhomogeneous term contains only more simpler diagrams. These simpler diagrams have more trivial topological structure and/or less number of loops  and/or ends .

Applying the procedure several times, we will able to represent complicated Feynman integrals (FI) and their derivatives (in respect of internal masses) through a set of quite simple well-known diagrams. Then, the results for the complicated FI can be obtained by integration several times of the known results for corresponding simple diagrams 222In calculations of real processes (essentially in the framework of Standard Model) it is useful to use the relation (1) (at least, at first steps of calculations) to decrease the number of contributed diagrams (see - and  and references therein)..

Sometimes it is useful (see ) to use external momenta (or some their functions) but not masses as parameters of integration.

The recent progress in calculation of Feynman integrals with help of the DEM.

1. The articles  and :

a) The set of two-point two-loop FI with one- and two-mass thresholds has been evaluated by DEM (see Fig.1). The results are given on pages 2 and 3 and of some of them have been known before (see ). The check of the results has been done by Veretin programs (see discussions in  and references therein).

b) The set of three-point two-loop FI with one- and two-mass thresholds has been evaluated (the results of some of them has been known before (see )) by a combination of DEM and Veretin programs for calculation of first terms of FI small-moment expansion (see discussions in  and references therein).

2. The article :

The full set of two-point two-loop onshell master diagrams has been evaluated by DEM. The check of the results has been done by Kalmykov programs (see page 5 and discussions in  and references therein).

3. The articles :

The set of three-point and four-point two-loop massless FI has been evaluated.

Here we demonstrate the results of FI are displayed on Fig.1.

We introduce the notation for polylogarithmic functions :

$`\mathrm{Li}_a(z)=S_{a1,1}(z),S_{a+1,b}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{a+b}}{a!b!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^a(t)\mathrm{log}^b(1zt)}{t}}𝑑t.`$
We introduce also the following two variables

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m^2}},y={\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{z/(z4)}}{1+\sqrt{z/(z4)}}}.`$
Then333We would like to note that the coefficients of expansions of the results (2) in respect of $`z`$ are very similar (see ) to results for the moments of structure functions of deep inelastic scattering.

$`q^2I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2(z)\mathrm{log}(1z)2\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(z)6S_{1,2}(z)\mathrm{log}(1z)\left(\zeta _2+2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(z)\right),`$
$`q^2I_5`$ $`=`$ $`2\zeta _2\mathrm{log}(1+z)+2\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\mathrm{log}^2(z)\mathrm{log}(1+z)+4\mathrm{log}(1+z)\mathrm{Li}_2(z)`$
$``$ $`2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(z)2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(z)+2S_{1,2}(z^2)4S_{1,2}(z)4S_{1,2}(z),`$
$`q^2I_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Li}_3(z)6\zeta _3\zeta _2\mathrm{log}y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{log}^3y4\mathrm{log}y\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+4\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y^3),`$
$`q^2I_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`6S_{1,2}(z)2\mathrm{log}(1z)\left(\zeta _2+\mathrm{Li}_2(z)\right),`$
$`q^2I_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}(2z)\left(\mathrm{log}^2(1z)2\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{log}(1z)2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(z)\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{log}^3(1z)2\zeta _2\mathrm{log}(1z)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{log}^2(1z)S_{1,2}(1/(1z)^2)+2S_{1,2}(1/(1z))+2S_{1,2}(1/(1z))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{log}^3y`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{log}^2y\left(2\mathrm{log}(1+y^2)3\mathrm{log}(1y+y^2)\right)6\zeta _3\mathrm{Li}_3(y^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y^3)6\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{log}y\left(\mathrm{Li}_2(y^2)\mathrm{Li}_2(y^3)+3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y)\right),`$
$`q^2I_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(z)\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\zeta _2\mathrm{log}(1z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2y\left(8\mathrm{log}(1y)3\mathrm{log}(1y+y^2)\right)6\zeta _3`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{log}^3y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y^3)+3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)+8\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)+\mathrm{log}y\left(\mathrm{Li}_2(y^3)3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y)8\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y)\right),`$
$`q^2I_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _2\left(\mathrm{log}(1z)+\mathrm{log}y\right)6\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}(1y+y^2)\mathrm{log}^2y+\mathrm{Li}_3(y^3)9\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)`$
$``$ $`2\mathrm{log}y\left(\mathrm{Li}_2(y^3)3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y)\right),`$
$`q^2I_{125}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{log}^2y\mathrm{log}(1y)6\zeta _3+6\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)6\mathrm{log}y\mathrm{Li}_2(y),`$
$`q^2I_{1234}`$ $`=`$ $`6\zeta _312\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)24\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)+8\mathrm{log}y(\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y))+2\mathrm{log}^2y(\mathrm{log}(1y)`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{log}(1+y)).`$
Here we demonstrate the results of FI are displayed on Fig.2.

We consider here the following master-integrals in Euclidean space-time with dimension $`D=42\epsilon `$:

$`\mathrm{𝐎𝐍𝐒}\{𝒥\}(i,j,m)`$ $``$ $`K^1{\displaystyle d^DkP^{(i)}(k,m)P^{(j)}(kp,𝒥m)}|_{p^2=m^2},`$
$`𝐉\{𝒥𝒦\}(i,j,k,m)`$ $``$ $`K^2{\displaystyle d^Dk_1d^Dk_2P^{(i)}(k_1,m)P^{(j)}(k_1k_2,𝒥m)P^{(k)}(k_2p,𝒦m)}|_{p^2=m^2},`$
$`𝐕\{𝒥𝒦\}(i,j,k,l,m)`$ $``$ $`K^2{\displaystyle d^Dk_1d^Dk_2P^{(i)}(k_2p,m)}`$
$`\times P^{(j)}(k_1k_2,𝒥m)P^{(k)}(k_1,𝒦m)P^{(l)}(k_2,m)|_{p^2=m^2},`$
$`𝐅\{𝒜𝒥𝒦\}(a,b,i,j,k,m)`$ $``$ $`m^2K^2{\displaystyle d^Dk_1d^Dk_2P^{(a)}(k_1,𝒜m)P^{(b)}(k_2,m)}`$
$`\times P^{(i)}(k_1p,m)P^{(j)}(k_2p,𝒥m)P^{(k)}(k_1k_2,𝒦m)|_{p^2=m^2},`$
where

$$K=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\left(m^2\right)^\epsilon },P^{(l)}(k,m)\frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^l},$$

the normalization factor $`1/(2\pi )^D`$ for each loop is assumed, and $`𝒜,,,𝒥,𝒦=0,1.`$

The finite part of most of the F-type master-integrals can be obtained from results of Ref. in the limit $`z1`$. F10101 and F11111 have been calculated in Refs., respectively. Instead of the usually taken F01101 integral  we consider J111 as master integral. We recall the results of all master integrals for completeness. The last master integral F00111 has been found in .

The finite part of the integrals of V- and J-type can be found in Refs.. The calculation of the $`\epsilon `$ e ($`\epsilon ^2`$) parts of master integrals of this type have been performed by DEM.

The results for F-type master-integrals are follows:

$$𝐅\{𝒜𝒥𝒦\}(1,1,1,1,1,m)=a_1\zeta (3)+a_2\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}S_2+a_3i\pi \zeta (2)+𝒪(\epsilon ),$$
(3)
and the coefficients $`\{a_i\}`$ are given in Table I:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{9}{c}{TABLEI}\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & \mathrm{𝐅𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟏}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟏}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟎}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟏}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟎}& \mathrm{𝐅𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏}\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_1& 1& 0& 4& 1& 0& 3& 2& 3\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_2& \frac{9}{2}& 9& \frac{27}{2}& 9& \frac{27}{2}& \frac{27}{2}& 9& 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_3& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}& 0& 1& 1& \frac{2}{3}& 1\end{array}$$

where

$$S_2=\frac{4}{9\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{Cl}_2\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)=0.260434137632\mathrm{}.$$

Here we used the $`m^2i\epsilon `$ prescription. The results for the remaining master integrals are the following ones:

$`𝐕\{𝒥𝒦\}(1,1,1,1,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2}}\zeta (2)4{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{63}{4}}S_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}3`$
$`+`$ $`\epsilon \{{\displaystyle \frac{65}{2}}+b_2\zeta (2)b_3\zeta (3)12{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}63S_2+b_4\zeta (2)\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}b_4S_2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{63}{4}}S_2\mathrm{ln}3+4{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}^23{\displaystyle \frac{b_5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\zeta (2){\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ls}_3\left(\frac{2\pi }{3}\right)}{\sqrt{3}}}\}+𝒪(\epsilon ^2),`$
where the coefficients $`\{b_i\}`$ are listen in Table II 444The results for the master integral V1001 had a little error (see ):

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{TABLEII}\\ & & & & & \\ & b_1& b_2& b_3& b_4& b_5\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{𝐕𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏}& 1& 6& \frac{9}{2}& 4& 9\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{𝐕𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟏}& 3& 8& \frac{3}{2}& 0& 21\end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{𝐉𝟏𝟏𝟏}(1,1,1,m)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\epsilon ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{4\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{59}{8}}+\epsilon \{{\displaystyle \frac{65}{16}}+8\zeta (2)\}`$ (4)
$``$ $`\epsilon ^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1117}{32}}52\zeta (2)+48\zeta (2)\mathrm{ln}228\zeta (3)\}+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)),`$
$`\mathrm{𝐉𝟎𝟏𝟏}(1,1,2,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{14\epsilon }{2(12\epsilon )(13\epsilon )}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta (2)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon \{8{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta (2)6{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta (3)+27S_2\}+𝒪(\epsilon ^2)),`$
$`\mathrm{𝐉𝟎𝟏𝟏}(1,1,1,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{415\epsilon }{(12\epsilon )(13\epsilon )(23\epsilon )}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}+\epsilon \{{\displaystyle \frac{45}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{81}{4}}S_2\}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon ^2\{12\zeta (2){\displaystyle \frac{1863}{16}}S_2{\displaystyle \frac{867}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{243}{4}}S_2\mathrm{ln}3`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}^2321{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\zeta (2){\displaystyle \frac{81}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ls}_3\left(\frac{2\pi }{3}\right)}{\sqrt{3}}}\}+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)),`$
$`\mathrm{𝐎𝐍𝐒𝟏𝟏}(1,1,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\epsilon }}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}+\epsilon \{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}39S_2\}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon ^2\{9S_2\mathrm{ln}3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}^236{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ls}_3\left(\frac{2\pi }{3}\right)}{\sqrt{3}}}3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}\zeta (2)\}+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)],`$
where

$$\mathrm{Ls}_3(x)=_0^x\mathrm{ln}^2\left|2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right|d\theta \text{ and }\mathrm{Ls}_3\left(\frac{2\pi }{3}\right)=2.14476721256949\mathrm{}$$

The above results were checked numerically. Padé approximants were calculated from the small momentum Taylor expansion of the diagrams . The Taylor coefficients were obtained by means of the package  with the master integrals taken from . Further we made use of the idea of Broadhurst  to apply the FORTRAN program PSLQ  to express the obtained numerical values in terms of a ‘basis’ of irrational numbers, which were predicted by DEM.

Let us point out that the numbers we obtain are related to polylogarithms at the sixth root of unity555For the results obtained in $`1/N`$ expansion, however, the arguments of polylogarithms have other values (see ). and hence are in the same class of transcendentals obtained by Broadhurst  in his investigation of three-loop diagrams which correspond to a closure of the two-loop topologies considered here.

Acknowledgments. Author would like to express his sincerely thanks to the Organizing Committees of the Research Workshop “Calculations for modern and future Colliders” and the XVth International Workshop “High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory” and especially to E.E. Boss, V.A. Ilyin, D.I. Kazakov and D.V. Shirkov for the kind invitation, the financial support at such remarkable Conferences, and for fruitful discussions. Author was supported in part by Alexander von Humboldt fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Locality in Free String Field Theory - II.

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Overview

We continue to explore the locality properties of free bosonic string field theory. The guiding question is whether one can find string fields which satisfy the field equation, are strictly local (causal), and are Lorentz covariant. Success in this quest would mean one could define an algebra of local observables of the type that one usually considers in quantum field theory . We do not necessarily expect to succeed in this quest, but do expect that the ways in which we fall short will be of interest.

In an earlier work , , , the problem was considered in the light cone gauge and string fields were found which were local with respect to the center of mass coordinate. However these fields were not Lorentz covariant.

In the present paper we work with a Lorentz covariant formalism right from the start. It is the so-called ”old covariant quantization” in which one quantizes first and then imposes the constraint. Before imposing constraints, we are able to construct string field operators which are Lorentz covariant and local in the sense that the commutator of two fields vanishes when the center of mass coordinates are spacelike separated. However the field operators act on a Hilbert space with an indefinite inner product. Once the constraints are imposed one obtains a definite inner product. On this space we also define covariant field operators called observable fields. For these observable fields we establish an approximate locality property.

Our results seem to be consistent with the treatment of Hata and Oda  who work in a BRST formalism. A general account of string field theory can be found in Thorn

Another goal of this work is to solidify the mathematical foundations of covariant string theory. For earlier work in this direction see Grundling and Hurst .

### 1.2 Lorentz invariant measures

We start by developing some facts about Lorentz invariant measures on the mass shells. (See also ). For any real number $`r`$ let

$$V_r=\{p^d\{0\}:p^2+r=0\}$$
(1)
Here $`p^2=pp=_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu =(p^0)^2+|\stackrel{}{p}|^2`$ is the Lorentz inner product. The Lorentz group is all nonsingular linear transformations preserving $`p^2`$ and it acts on $`V_r`$.

First we define a Lorentz invariant volume element on $`V_r`$. Let $`\tau =dp^0dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d1}`$ be the volume element in $`^d`$. With $`\alpha (p)=p^2`$ define $`\sigma `$ to be the unique $`d1`$ form on $`V_r`$ such that

$$d\alpha \sigma =\tau $$
(2)
Transforming this by a proper Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have $`d(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\tau `$. But $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha `$ by definition and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\tau =\tau `$ since $`det\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Thus $`d\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\sigma =\tau `$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\sigma =\sigma `$.

Now $`_{V_r}f\sigma `$ is defined for continuous functions $`f`$ with compact support on $`V_r`$. The map $`f_{V_r}f\sigma `$ is positive and hence there is a positive measure $`\mu _r`$ on $`V_r`$ such that

$$_{V_r}f𝑑\mu _r=f\sigma $$
(3)
The Lorentz invariance of $`\sigma `$ implies the invariance of $`\mu _r`$.

Now we comment on some specific representations of this measure, first for $`r0`$. In this case the hyperboloid has two sheets which are

$$V_r^\pm =\{pV_r:\pm p^0>0\}$$
(4)
###### Lemma 1

For $`r0`$, let $`f`$ have compact support on $`V_r^\pm `$ and let $`\omega _r(p)=\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}|^2+r}`$. Then

$$_{V_r^\pm }f𝑑\mu _r=f(\pm \omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{2\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p})}$$
(5)
Proof. For $`V_r^\pm `$ we can take global coordinates $`\stackrel{}{p}=(p^1,\mathrm{},p^{d1})`$. In these coordinates we have

$$\sigma =\frac{1}{\alpha /p^0}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d1}=\frac{1}{2p^0}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d1}$$
(6)
This is the form on $`V_r^\pm `$. Pulling it back to $`^{d1}`$ with the inverse coordinate function $`\varphi _\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=(\pm \omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})`$ we have

$$\varphi _\pm ^{}(\sigma )=\frac{\pm 1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d1}$$
(7)
Now $`\varphi _+`$ is orientation preserving so $`_{V_r^+}f\sigma `$ is evaluated as $`(f\varphi _+)\varphi _+^{}(\sigma )`$. On the other hand $`\varphi _{}`$ is orientation reversing so $`_{V_r^{}}f\sigma `$ is evaluated as $`(f\varphi _{})\varphi _{}^{}(\sigma )`$ In either case we get the stated result.

Another representation uses light-cone coordinates and now we allow all $`r`$. Light-cone coordinates $`\widehat{p}=\mathrm{}(p)`$ are defined on $`^d`$ by $`\widehat{p}=(p^{},\stackrel{~}{p},p^+)`$ where $`p^\pm =(2)^{1/2}(p^0\pm p^{d1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}=(p^1,\mathrm{},p^{d2})`$. For any function $`f`$ let $`\widehat{f}=f\mathrm{}^1`$ be the expression in light-cone coordinates. Also define

$$V_r^\pm =\{pV_r:\pm p^+>0\}$$
(8)
either in the original coordinates or in light-cone coordinates depending on the context. For $`r0`$ these are again the two components of $`V_r`$, but for $`r<0`$ they are just open sets in $`V_r`$.

###### Lemma 2

For any r, let $`f`$ have compact support on $`V_r^\pm `$. Then

$$_{V_r^\pm }f𝑑\mu _r=\widehat{f}(\frac{|\stackrel{~}{p}|^2+r}{2p^+},\stackrel{~}{p},p^+)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}dp^+}{2|p^+|}$$
(9)
Proof. The integral $`f\sigma `$ can be evaluated as $`\widehat{f}\widehat{\sigma }`$ where $`\widehat{\sigma }=(\mathrm{}^1)^{}\sigma `$. Since $`(\mathrm{}^1)^{}\tau =\tau `$ we have $`d\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\sigma }=\tau `$. On $`V_r^\pm `$ we can take coordinates $`(p^+,\stackrel{~}{p})`$ . Since $`\tau =dp^{}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d2}dp^+`$ and since $`\widehat{\alpha }(p)=2p^+p^{}|\stackrel{~}{p}|^2`$. we find that expressed in these coordinates

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\frac{1}{\widehat{\alpha }/p^{}}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d2}dp^+=\frac{1}{2p^+}dp^1\mathrm{}dp^{d2}dp^+$$
(10)
The inverse coordinate function is $`\varphi (p^+,\stackrel{~}{p})=((|\stackrel{~}{p}|^2+r)/2p^+,\stackrel{~}{p},p^+)`$ defined on the half spaces $`\pm p^+>0`$ in $`^{d1}`$. The pull back $`\varphi ^{}(\widehat{\sigma })`$ to these half spaces has the same form. The function $`\varphi `$ is orientation preserving for $`V_r^+`$ and orientation reversing for $`V_r^{}`$. Thus the integral is evaluated as $`\pm (\widehat{f}\varphi )\varphi ^{}(\widehat{\sigma })`$ respectively, and in either case we get the stated result.

For $`r0`$ the sets $`V_r^\pm `$ do not cover all of $`V_r`$. However suppose we define $`p_j^\pm =(2)^{1/2}(p^0\pm p^j)`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{},d1`$ and define more sets $`V_{r,j}^\pm =\{pV_r:\pm p_j^+>0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{r,j}^\pm =\{pV_r:\pm p_j^{}>0\}`$. On each of these sets we can prove a result similar to (9). These sets do cover $`V_r`$ and by taking a partition of unity subordinate to this covering we can express any integral as a sum of integrals of the type (9).

###### Lemma 3

Let $`f`$ be a function on on $`^d\{0\}`$ which is continuous and has compact support. Let $`f_r`$ be the restriction to $`V_r`$. Then

$$f=\left(_{V_r}f_r𝑑\mu _r\right)𝑑r$$
(11)
Proof. Let $`U_{r,j}^\pm =\{p^d:\pm p_j^+>0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{r,j}^\pm =\{p^d:\pm p_j^{}>0\}`$. These cover $`\{0\}`$ and by introducing a subordinate partition of unity it suffices to prove the theorem assuming that $`f`$ has compact support in one of these sets, for example $`U_r^+`$ defined by $`p^+=p_{d1}^+>0`$. Then $`f_r`$ has compact support in $`V_r^+`$ for all $`r`$. We make the change of variables $`p^{}r`$ with $`r=2p^+p^{}|\stackrel{~}{p}|^2`$ and then we have

$$\widehat{f}(p^{},\stackrel{~}{p},p^+)𝑑p^{}𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}𝑑p^+=\widehat{f}(\frac{|\stackrel{~}{p}|^2+r}{2p^+},\stackrel{~}{p},p^+)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}dp^+dr}{2|p^+|}=(_{V_r}f_r𝑑\mu _r)𝑑r$$
(12)
## 2 The single string

### 2.1 Pre-constrained

We now undertake the covariant quantization of the single string. The construction is mostly standard . However, one novelty is that the center of mass momentum is treated as a genuine quantum observable with a distribution of values. Most treatments take a fixed center of mass momentum.

For the open string in $`^d`$ the coordinates of the quantum string should be operators $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ define for $`(\tau ,\sigma )\times [0,\pi ]`$ and satisfying the wave equation

$$(\frac{^2X^\mu }{\tau ^2}\frac{^2X^\mu }{\sigma ^2})=0$$
(13)
with Neumann boundary conditions on $`[0,\pi ]`$. The operators $`X^\mu `$ and the string momentum $`P^\mu =X^\mu /\tau `$ are supposed to satisfy the equal $`\tau `$ commutation relations

$$[X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau ),P^\nu (\sigma ^{},\tau )]=i\pi \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\eta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(14)
Corresponding to reparametrization invariance we impose the constraints

$$\left(\frac{X}{\sigma }\pm \frac{X}{\tau }\right)^2=0$$
(15)
That is we ask for states which are annihilated by these operators. Finally we ask that the center of mass $`x^\mu =\pi ^1_0^\pi X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )𝑑\sigma `$ be parametrized in a forward moving direction. This means we require that the constant center of mass momentum $`p^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau =\pi ^1_0^\pi P^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )𝑑\sigma `$ should satisfy

$$p^0=\frac{dx^0}{d\tau }>0$$
(16)
Classically one can find solutions of the wave equation by expanding in eigenfunctions of the Laplacian with Neuman boundary conditions, that is in a cosine series. One finds that

$$X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=x^\mu +p^\mu \tau +i\underset{n0}{}\alpha _n^\mu e^{in\tau }\frac{\mathrm{cos}n\sigma }{n}$$
(17)
The quantum operator will be given by the same expression. It formally satisfies the commutation relations (14) if we ask that $`x^\mu ,p^\mu ,\alpha _n^\mu `$ be operators satisfying the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [x^\mu ,p^\nu ]=& i\eta ^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill [\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=& m\delta _{m+n}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Here is a construction of these operators. First consider the Hilbert space $`^2(^d)`$. On this space let $`x^\mu `$ be the multiplication operator, let $`p_\nu =i/x^\nu `$ and let $`p^\nu =_\nu \eta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$ (the spacetime representation), or else let $`p^\nu `$ be the multiplication operators and let $`x_\mu =i/p^\mu `$, etc. (the momentum representation). In either case these satisfy (18). A convenient dense domain for these operators is $`𝒮(^d)`$, the Schwartz space of smooth rapidly decreasing functions. This is invariant under the Fourier transform and connects the two representations.

Next let $`\mathrm{}^2=\mathrm{}^2(,^d)`$ be the space of square summable maps $`f:^d`$. This has the usual inner product $`(f,g)`$ and also an indefinite inner product $`<f,g>`$. They are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (f,g)=& \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mu }{}\overline{f_{\mu n}}g_{\mu n}\hfill \\ \hfill <f,g>=& \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mu \nu }{}\eta _{\mu \nu }\overline{f_{\mu n}}g_{\nu n}\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
They are related by $`<f,g>=(f,Jg)`$ where $`(Jg)_\mu =\eta _{\mu \mu }g_\mu `$. (Thus $`J=\eta `$ , but without the geometric interpretation). Let $`_j(\mathrm{}^2)`$ be the $`j`$-fold symmetric tensor product of $`\mathrm{}^2`$ and let $`(\mathrm{}^2)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}_j(\mathrm{}^2)`$ be the bosonic Fock space over $`\mathrm{}^2`$. Any unitary operator $`U`$ on $`\mathrm{}^2`$ induces a unitary $`^jU`$ on $`_j(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and hence an operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U)`$ on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$. We define an indefinite inner product on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ by $`<f,g>=(f,𝒥g)`$ where $`𝒥=\mathrm{\Gamma }(J)`$.

For any operator $`𝒪`$ on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$, let $`𝒪^{}`$ be the adjoint with the definite inner product, and let $`𝒪^{}`$ be the adjoint with the indefinite inner product. Hence $`(f,𝒪g)=(𝒪^{}f,g)`$ and $`<f,𝒪g>=<𝒪^{}f,g>`$ . They are related by $`𝒪^{}=𝒥𝒪^{}𝒥`$.

Next define annihilation operators $`a(f),b(f)`$ on the n-fold symmetric tensor product by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(f)(f_1\mathrm{}f_j)=& \sqrt{j}<f,f_1>f_2\mathrm{}f_j\hfill \\ \hfill b(f)(f_1\mathrm{}f_j)=& \sqrt{j}(f,f_1)f_2\mathrm{}f_j\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
By restriction these define operators on the symmetric subspace and hence on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$. We have $`a(f)=b(Jf)`$. The adjoints satisfy $`a^{}(f)=b^{}(f)`$. We have $`[b(f),b^{}(g)]=(f,g)`$ and $`[a(f),a^{}(g)]=<f,g>`$.

In $`\mathrm{}^2`$ there is a standard basis $`e_m^\mu `$ defined by $`(e_n^\mu )_{\nu m}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _{m,n}`$. We define for $`n>0`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _n^\mu =& \sqrt{n}a(e_n^\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _n^\mu =& \sqrt{n}a^{}(e_n^\mu )\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
These satisfy (18) since $`<e_n^\mu ,e_m^\nu >=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{n,m}`$. Let $`𝒟_0`$ be the dense subspace of $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ generated by applying a finite number of operators $`\alpha _n^\mu `$ to the no excitation state $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=(1,0,0\mathrm{})`$.

Now consider the Hilbert space

$$^2(^d)(\mathrm{}^2))^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))$$
(22)
Besides the usual inner product this space has an indefinite inner product inherited from $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and defined by

$$<\psi ,\chi >=<\psi (p),\chi (p)>dp$$
(23)
The operators $`x^\mu ,p^\mu `$ in the momentum representation, and $`\alpha _n^\mu `$ all act on this space. Now we can define the coordinate operator $`X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )`$ by (17). It is well defined provided we interpret it as a distribution in $`\sigma `$ and to restrict a nice domain like $`𝒮(^d)𝒟_0`$. It does satisfy (13),(14). On the same domain $`(x^\mu )^{}=x^\mu `$, $`(p^\mu )^{}=p^\mu `$, $`(\alpha _n^\mu )^{}=\alpha _n^\mu `$. and hence $`(X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau ))^{}=X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )`$.

We digress to discuss representations of the Lorentz group. First on $`\mathrm{}^2`$ there is a representation defined by $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }f)_{\mu n}=_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu f_{\nu n}`$ which preserves the indefinite inner product. This induces an operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ which also preserves the indefinite inner product. It is not bounded but is at least defined on vectors with a finite number of entries. Finally for $`a^d`$ and a proper Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we define $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on $`^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ by

$$(U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\psi )(p)=e^{ipa}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1p)$$
(24)
This is well-defined if $`\psi `$ takes values in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The operators $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ give a representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group which preserves the indefinite inner product since Lebesgue measure is Lorentz invariant. We note that $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1a(f)U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=a(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1f)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1e_n^\mu =_\nu (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)_\nu ^\mu e_n^\nu =_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu e_n^\nu `$ this implies

$$U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1\alpha _n^\mu U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{\nu }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu \alpha _n^\nu $$
(25)
We also have $`x^\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu +a^\mu `$, and $`p^\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu p^\nu `$ and thus

$$U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{\nu }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu X^\nu (\sigma ,\tau )+a^\mu $$
(26)
Now we turn to the constraint operators (15). Passing to the Fourier components one finds the operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_0& =\frac{1}{2}p^2+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n\alpha _n\hfill \\ \hfill L_m& =\alpha _mp+\frac{1}{2}\underset{nm,0}{}\alpha _{mn}\alpha _nm0\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
These are well defined on $`𝒮(^d)𝒟_0`$ and satisfy $`L_m^{}=L_m`$.

Instead of asking for states $`\psi `$ satisfying $`L_n\psi =0`$ for all $`n`$ we make the standard modification and ask for states satisfying

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (L_01)\psi =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill L_m\psi =& 0m>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
As usual when quantizing a parametrized theory, the dynamics are contained in the constraints. Suppose we define the operator $`M^2`$ (not really a square) on a dense domain in $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ by

$$M^2=2(N1)$$
(29)
where $`N`$ is the excitation operator which can be written in any of the following forms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N=& \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n\alpha _n\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{n,\mu \nu }{}n\eta _{\mu \nu }a^{}(e_n^\mu )a(e_n^\nu )\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{n,\mu }{}nb^{}(e_n^\mu )b(e_n^\mu )\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The constraint $`(L_01)\psi =0`$ can be written $`(p^2+M^2)\psi =0`$. In the spacetime representation we have

$$(\mathrm{}+M^2)\psi =0$$
(31)
It the Klein - Gordon equation for an $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ valued function, and gives the evolution in time. The operator $`M^2`$ is identified as a mass operator. The next result shows that $`M^2`$ is self-adjoint and has spectrum $`2,0,2,4,6\mathrm{}`$ with finite multiplicity.

###### Lemma 4

$`N`$ is self-adjoint and has spectrum $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ with finite multiplicity.

Proof. Let $`\{N_{\mu ,n}\}`$ be a finite sequence of positive integers indexed by $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},d1`$ and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, with at most finitely many $`N_{\mu ,n}0`$. For each such sequence we define a vector

$$\psi (\{N_{\mu ,n}\})=\underset{\mu ,n}{}\frac{(b^{}(e_n^\mu ))^{N_{\mu ,n}}}{\sqrt{N_{\mu ,n}!}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0$$
(32)
This is a orthonormal basis for $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and they are eigenfunctions of $`N`$ since

$$N\psi (\{N_{\mu ,n}\})=(\underset{\mu ,n}{}nN_{\mu ,n})\psi (\{N_{\mu ,n}\})$$
(33)
This gives the self adjointness and the spectrum. The finite multiplicity follows since for any positive integer $`n^{}`$ there are only a finite number of sequences with $`_{\mu ,n}nN_{\mu ,n}=n^{}`$.

### 2.2 Reconfigured

The constraint (31) cannot be satisfied in $`^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$. To impose the constraint we will have to modify the Hilbert space. To begin we write this space as a direct integral over the various mass shells. For the moment our purpose is just to motivate Definition 1 below, so we pass over various technicalities such as the exact definition of the direct integral in this case. (See however Nielsen  ).

Let $``$ denote the norm in the Fock space $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ defined by the definite inner product. For $`\psi ^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ the norm squared can be written as

$$_^d\psi (p)^2𝑑p=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(_{V_r}\psi (p)^2𝑑\mu _r(p)\right)𝑑r$$
(34)
This follows from (12) extended to $`^2`$ functions. Then we can make the identification

$$^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2),dp)=^{}^2(V_r,(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)𝑑r$$
(35)
where $`\psi ^2(^d,(\mathrm{}^2),dp)`$ is identified with the map $`r\psi _r`$ ( the restriction of $`\psi `$ to $`V_r`$). The indefinite inner product on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ induces the same on $`^2(V_r,(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)`$ and we have, again by (12),

$$<\psi ,\chi >=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}<\psi _r,\chi _r>dr$$
(36)
Thus the decomposition can be regarded as a decomposition of indefinite inner product spaces. The operators $`M^2,L_m`$ act on $`^2(V_r,(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)`$ and we have the decompositions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_01=& ^{}\frac{1}{2}(r+M^2)𝑑r\hfill \\ \hfill L_m=& ^{}L_m𝑑r\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
This means for example that $`(L_m\psi )_r=L_m\psi _r`$. Since the Lorentz group acts on $`V_r`$ the operators $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ act on $`^2(V_r,(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)`$, and they preserve the indefinite inner product since the measure is Lorentz invariant. Denoting this representation by $`U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ we have

$$U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=^{}U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝑑r$$
(38)
To impose the constraint we first make a minimal reconfiguration of the Hilbert space so it can accept the constraints. Since $`M^2`$ has spectrum in $`2,0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ the constraint $`(L_01)\psi =0`$ only has a chance for $`r`$ in this set. Accordingly we pick out these values from the direct integral and form a direct sum.

At this stage we also impose the forward moving condition $`p_0>0`$ as much as possible. For $`r0`$ we pick out the positive energy part $`V_r^+`$ of the mass shell. This is not possible for $`r<0`$ without losing the representation of the Lorentz group, and so we leave it alone.

We these ideas in mind we make the following definitions after (35), (36), (37), (38).

###### Definition 1

1. The Hilbert space for the single string is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill =& \underset{r=2,0,2,\mathrm{}}{}_r\hfill \\ \hfill _r=& ^2(V_r^{(+)},(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
where $`V_r^{(+)}=V_r^+`$ for $`r0`$ and $`V_r^{(+)}=V_r`$ for $`r<0`$ .
2. For $`\psi ,\chi `$ in $``$ with components $`\psi _r,\chi _r`$ an indefinite inner product is defined by

$$<\psi ,\chi >=\underset{r}{}<\psi _r,\chi _r>$$
(40)
3. A representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group is defined by

$$U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{r}{}U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(41)
4. The constraint operators are defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_01=& \underset{r}{}\frac{1}{2}(r+M^2)\hfill \\ \hfill L_m=& \underset{r}{}L_m\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)

Let us be more precise about the domains of $`N,M^2,L_m`$. We will define them as closed operators on $`_r`$ and then the above equations define them as closed operators on $``$. As we have noted $`N`$ (or $`M^2`$) is self-adjoint on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and we define $`N`$ on $`_r`$ by $`(N\psi )(p)=N\psi (p)`$ with domain

$$D(N)=\{\psi _r:\psi (p)D(N)a.e.p,N\psi (p)^2𝑑\mu _r(p)<\mathrm{}\}$$
(43)
Similarly for each $`p`$ let $`L_m(p)`$ be the closure of the operator (27) defined on $`𝒟_0(\mathrm{}^2)`$. (It is closable since the adjoint $`L_m^{}(p)=𝒥L_m𝒥`$ is densely defined). Then define $`L_m`$ on $`_r`$ by $`(L_m\psi )(p)=L_m(p)\psi (p)`$ with domain

$$D(L_m)=\{\psi _r:\psi (p)D(L_m(p))a.e.p,L_m(p)\psi (p)^2𝑑\mu _r(p)<\mathrm{}\}$$
(44)
With these domains we have:

###### Lemma 5

$`N`$ and $`M^2`$ are self adjoint, and $`L_m`$ is closed.

Proof. Start with the second. Let $`\psi _jD(L_m)`$ satisfy $`\psi _j\psi `$ and $`L_m\psi _j\chi `$. Then there exist a subsequence such that for almost every $`p`$ we have $`\psi _{j_k}(p)\psi (p)`$ and $`L_m(p)\psi _{j_k}(p)\chi (p)`$. (This is a corollary of the proof that vector-valued $`^p`$ spaces are complete ). Since $`L_m(p)`$ is closed it follows that $`\psi (p)D(L_m(p))`$ and $`L_m(p)\psi (p)=\chi (p)`$ for a.e. $`p`$. Hence $`\psi D(L_m)`$ and $`L_m\psi =\chi `$. Thus $`L_m`$ is closed

The same argument shows that $`N`$ is closed. It is also symmetric and since it has a dense set of analytic vectors, for example $`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒟_0`$, it is self-adjoint.

### 2.3 Constrained

Now let $`^{}`$ be the subspace of $``$ satisfying the constraints (28). We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^{}=& \underset{r=2,0,2,\mathrm{}}{}_r^{}\hfill \\ \hfill _r^{}=& \{\psi _r:(r+M^2)\psi =0,L_m\psi =0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{m}>0\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
Note that a function $`\psi _2`$ is in $`_2^{}`$ iff both $`N\psi =0`$ and $`L_m\psi =0`$ which is true iff $`\psi `$ takes values in $`_0(\mathrm{}^2)`$. Thus $`_2^{}=L^2(V_2,_0(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _2)`$. These are the tachyons.

Next we consider the isotropic or spurious elements in $`^{}`$ which are defined by $`^{\prime \prime }=^{}(^{})^{}`$. Here the orthogonal subspace is defined by the indefinite inner product. Vectors in $`^{\prime \prime }`$ satisfy $`<\psi ,\psi >=0`$. The subspace has the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^{\prime \prime }=& \underset{r}{}_r^{\prime \prime }\hfill \\ \hfill _r^{\prime \prime }=& _r^{}(_r^{})^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Now let $`^{phys}=^{}/^{\prime \prime }`$. We identify

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^{phys}=& \underset{r}{}_r^{phys}\hfill \\ \hfill _r^{phys}=& _r^{}/_r^{\prime \prime }\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
The indefinite inner product on $`^{}`$ lifts to $`^{phys}`$ and is the direct sum of the the inner products on $`_r^{phys}`$ lifted from $`_r^{}`$.

Now we establish the famous no-ghost theorem. Our method is to reduce the result to a statement pointwise in $`p`$ and them quote the literature.

###### Lemma 6

For $`d=26`$, $`<.,.>`$ is positive definite on $`_r^{phys}`$ and $`^{phys}`$.

Proof. It suffices to prove the result on $`_r^{phys}`$. The space $`_r=^2(V_r^{(+)},(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)`$ can be regarded as a constant fiber direct integral

$$_r=_{V_r^{(+)}}^{}(\mathrm{}^2)𝑑\mu _r(p)$$
(48)
Indeed the former can be taken as the definition of the latter, so this just amounts to a change in notation. We have the decompositions $`(r+M^2)=^{}(r+M^2)𝑑\mu _r(p)`$ and $`L_m=^{}L_m(p)𝑑\mu _r(p)`$. The constrained space can be characterized as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _r^{}=& _{V_r^{(+)}}^{}^{}(p)𝑑\mu _r(p)\hfill \\ \hfill ^{}(p)=& \{\psi (\mathrm{}^2):(p^2+M^2)\psi =0,L_m(p)\psi =0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{m}>0\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
This means $`\psi _r^{}`$ iff $`\psi (p)^{}(p)`$ for a.e. $`pV_r^{(+)}`$. Since eigenvalues of $`M^2`$ have finite multiplicity, $`^{}(p)`$ is finite dimensional. Note also $`^{}(p)𝒟_0`$.

Next we have $`(_r^{})^{}=^{}(^{}(p))^{}𝑑\mu _r(p)`$ and it follows that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _r^{\prime \prime }=& _{V_r^{(+)}}^{}^{\prime \prime }(p)𝑑\mu _r(p)\hfill \\ \hfill ^{\prime \prime }(p)=& ^{}(p)^{}(p)^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
Now for $`\psi ,\chi _r^{}`$ we have $`\psi \chi _r^{\prime \prime }`$ if and only if $`\psi (p),\chi (p)^{}(p)`$ satisfy $`\psi (p)\chi (p)^{\prime \prime }(p)`$ for a.e. $`p`$. Thus equivalence classes can be defined pointwise which we write as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _r^{phys}=& _{V_r^{(+)}}^{}^{phys}(p)𝑑\mu _r(p)\hfill \\ \hfill ^{phys}(p)=& ^{}(p)/^{\prime \prime }(p)\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
Now it suffices to prove that the inner product is positive definite on $`_{phys}(p)`$. A proof of this can be found in Frenkel, Garland, and Zuckerman . They also compute the dimension of this space and show it depends only on $`p^2`$. For the original proofs see Brower  and Goddard and Thorn .

###### Lemma 7

$`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ determines a unitary representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group on $`^{phys}`$.

Proof. $`U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is defined on all of $`_r^{}`$. It preserves $`_r^{}`$ since $`[L_m,U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })]=0`$ by(25). If $`\chi (_r^{})^{}`$ then for $`\psi _r^{}`$ we have $`<\psi ,U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\chi >=<U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1\psi ,\chi >=0`$ and so $`U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\chi (_r^{})^{}`$. Thus $`U_r(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ preserves $`_r^{\prime \prime }`$ and so it lifts to $`_r^{phys}`$. Since it is still inner product preserving it is unitary.

### 2.4 Physical States

We want to exhibit some non-trivial smooth elements of $`_r^{}^2(V_r^{(+)},(\mathrm{}^2),d\mu _r)`$. These then determine well-behaved vectors in $`_r^{phys}`$ and $`^{phys}`$. We start with the fact the for each $`p`$ the spaces $`^{}(p)`$ are non-trivial (finite dimensional ) vector spaces.

###### Lemma 8

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a bijection from $`^{}(p)`$ to $`^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)`$ .

Proof. First note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is defined on $`^{}(p)`$ since $`^{}(p)𝒟_0`$. Then we use (25) to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })^1M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })=M^2`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })^1L_m(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })=L_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1p)`$. This gives the result.

###### Lemma 9

For any $`qV_r^{(+)}`$ there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`q`$ in $`V_r^{(+)}`$ and a smooth family $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)`$ of Lorentz transformations defined for $`pU`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)q=p`$.

Proof. The proof uses the following well-known fact (see for example ). Let $`G`$ be a Lie group with closed subgroup $`H`$. Let $`\pi :GG/H`$ be the projection onto the coset space. Then there are local smooth sections. That is for any point in $`G/H`$ there is a neighborhood $`U`$ and a smooth map $`s:UG`$ such that $`\pi s=id`$.

In our case let $``$ be the proper Lorentz transformations ($``$ = a component of $`SO(d1,1)`$). Fix $`q`$ and let $`H`$ be the subgroup which leaves $`q`$ invariant. (e.g. if $`r>0`$ then $`H=SO(d1)`$). Since $``$ acts transitively on $`V_r^{(+)}`$ we have that the map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }q`$ from $``$ to $`V_r^{(+)}`$ lifts to a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }H\mathrm{\Lambda }q`$ from the coset space $`/H`$ to $`V_r^{(+)}`$. This identifies the two spaces.

Now from the general result there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`H`$ in $`/H`$ and a map $`s:U`$ such that $`s(\mathrm{\Lambda }H)H=\mathrm{\Lambda }H`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }HU`$. Equivalently we can regard $`U`$ as a neighborhood of $`q`$ in $`V_r^{(+)}`$ and have a map $`s:U`$ satisfying $`s(p)q=p`$ for all $`pU`$. Defining $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)=s(p)`$ we have the result.

###### Lemma 10

Let $`q,U`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)`$ be as above.

1. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q))`$ is a bijection from $`^{}(q)`$ to $`^{}(p)`$.
2. There exist $`\psi 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(U,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ such that $`\psi (p)^{}(p)`$ for all $`pU`$.
3. There exist $`\psi 𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(V_r^{(+)},(\mathrm{}^2))`$ such that $`\psi (p)^{}(p)`$ for all $`pV_r`$, i.e. $`\psi _r^{}`$.

Proof. The first follows from lemma 8. For the second let $`\psi _0𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(U,^{}(q))`$ and take $`\psi (p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q))\psi _0(p)`$. Multiplying by $`\chi 𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ gives a functions satisfying the third condition. By adding functions for different neighborhoods $`U`$ we get a rich class of functions.

Remarks.

1. There is another way to look at this result. Let $`\xi `$ the set of all pairs $`\{(p,\psi )\}`$ where $`pV_r`$ and $`\psi ^{}(p)`$, and let $`\xi _U`$ be the subset of pairs with $`pU`$. We have smooth mappings $`(p,\psi )(p,\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)^1)\psi )`$ from $`\xi _U`$ to $`U\times ^{}(q)`$ and hence from $`\xi _U`$ to $`U\times ^s`$ where $`s`$ is the dimension of $`^{}(q)`$. Covering $`V_r^{(+)}`$ by such charts gives $`\xi `$ the structure of a smooth vector bundle. Such bundles have smooth sections which our result.
2. If $`r>0`$ then the neighborhood $`U`$ can be taken to be all of $`V_r^+`$. In this case we can take $`q=(\sqrt{r},0,0,..)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,q)`$ be the standard boost to $`p`$. ( See Weinberg , equation (2.5.24) for the explicit formula).

## 3 String field theory

We develop the string field theory by taking the dynamical equation satisfied by the single string wave equation, specializing to real solutions, treating these solutions as a classical Hamiltonian system, quantizing this system, and then finally imposing the constraints. This is ”second quantization” , and the exact status of this process is always a little ambiguous …which quantization was the genuine quantization? Whatever attitude one takes one ends up at the same place. In any case the quantization process is just meant to be suggestive of a true quantum theory.

Our formulation of the problem uses techniques which have been useful in the study of quantum field theory in curved spacetime , , .

### 3.1 String field equation

We start by defining real elements of $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$. These are vectors satisfying $`C\psi =\psi `$ where $`C`$ is some conjugation on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$. A conjugation is an anti-linear isometry satisfying $`C^2=1`$. We also want our conjugation to satisfy $`[C,M^2]=0`$ and $`[C,𝒥]=0`$. Then also $`\overline{<\psi ,\chi >}=<C\psi ,C\chi >`$. For example one could take $`C_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(c_0)`$ where $`c_0`$ is the usual conjugation $`c_0\psi =\overline{\psi }`$ on $`\mathrm{}^2`$. In the following we just suppose that some $`C`$ satisfying the above conditions has been chosen.

Now we study the Klein-Gordon equation:

$$(\mathrm{}+M^2)U=0$$
(52)
for functions $`U:^d(\mathrm{}^2)`$. Given real $`F_0,G_0𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{d1},(\mathrm{}^2))`$ there is a unique smooth real solution $`U`$ such that $`U=F_0`$ and $`U/x^0=G_0`$ on some surface $`x^0=t_0`$, called a Cauchy surface. The solution has compact support on any other Cauchy surface $`x^0=t`$. Such solutions will be called regular.

Associated with this equation there is a real bilinear form. For any functions $`U(x)=U(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`V(x)=V(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ it is defined by

$$\sigma _t(U,V)=_{x_0=t}(<U(x),\frac{V}{x^0}(x)><\frac{U}{x^0}(x),V(x)>)d\stackrel{}{x}$$
(53)
Green’s identity states that for $`t>s`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \sigma _t(U,V)\sigma _s(U,V)=\hfill \\ & _{s<x^0<t}(<U(x),((\mathrm{}+M^2)V)(x)><((\mathrm{}+M^2)U)(x),V(x)>)dx\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
Thus if $`U,V`$ are regular solutions then $`\sigma _t(U,V)`$ is independent of $`t`$ and is just denoted $`\sigma (U,V)`$. This form is skew symmetric and non-degenerate on the space of regular solutions, i.e. it is symplectic. This symplectic form will be the basis on quantization.

But first we develop some facts about fundamental solutions for our KG equation. The following results are standard for the scalar KG equation. Advanced and retarded fundamental solutions $`E^\pm `$ are operators on functions $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ defined by

$$(E^\pm F)(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm \times ^{d1}}\frac{e^{ipx}}{p^2+M^2}\stackrel{~}{F}(p)𝑑p$$
(55)
The $`p^0`$ contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ is the real line shifted slightly above/below the real axis. The exact choice does not matter because $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is entire and rapidly decreasing in real directions. Also for $`x^d`$ let $`J^\pm (x)=\{y:(xy)^2<0,\pm (x^0y^0)>0\}`$ be the past or future of $`x`$. For $`A^d`$ define $`J^\pm (A)=_{xA}J^\pm (x)`$.

###### Lemma 11

For $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ we have $`(\mathrm{}+M^2)E^\pm F=F`$ and $`supp(E^\pm F)J^\pm (suppF)`$.

Proof. Let $`P_r`$ be the operator on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$ which is the projection onto the eigenspace $`M^2=r`$. On the range of $`P_r`$ we have $`E^\pm F=E_r^\pm F`$ where

$$(E_r^\pm F)(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm \times ^{d1}}\frac{e^{ipx}}{p^2+r}\stackrel{~}{F}(p)𝑑p$$
(56)
These are the advanced/retarded fundamental solutions for the Klein-Gordon equation with mass $`r`$ and they satisfy $`(\mathrm{}+r)E_r^\pm F=F`$ and $`supp(E_r^\pm F)J^\pm (suppF)`$.

Now $`E^\pm `$ are fundamental solutions since $`P_r(\mathrm{}+M^2)E^\pm F=(\mathrm{}+r)E_r^\pm P_rF=P_rF`$. For the support property we have $`supp(E^\pm F)_rsupp(P_rE^\pm F)`$ . But $`P_rE^\pm F=E_r^\pm P_rF`$ and $`supp(E_r^\pm P_rF)J^\pm (supp(P_rF))J^\pm (suppF)`$ and hence the result.

The propagator function is defined by $`E=E^+E^{}`$. Then $`U=EF`$ is a regular solution. In fact we have:

###### Lemma 12

1. $`U`$ is a regular solution of $`(\mathrm{}+M^2)U=0`$ iff it can be written $`U=EF`$ with $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$
2. $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ satisfies $`EF=0`$ iff $`F=(\mathrm{}+M^2)H`$ for some $`H𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$

Proof. Let $`U`$ be a regular solution and let $`\theta =\theta (x^0)`$ be smooth and satisfy $`\theta =1`$ for $`x^0`$ sufficiently positive and $`\theta =0`$ for $`x^0`$ sufficiently negative. Define $`F=(\mathrm{}+M^2)(\theta U)=(\mathrm{}+M^2)((1\theta )U)`$. Then $`F`$ has compact support. Next note that $`\theta U=E^+F`$ since the difference satisfies the $`KG`$ equation and vanishes in the distant past. Similarly $`((1\theta )U)=E^{}F`$. Taking the difference of the last two equations gives $`U=EF`$ . This proves the first claim.

For the second suppose $`F=(\mathrm{}+M^2)H`$. Then $`EF=(\mathrm{}+M^2)EH=0`$. On the other hand if $`EF=0`$, then $`H=E^\pm F`$ has compact support and $`(\mathrm{}+M^2)H=F`$.

The next identity establishes a connection between any solution and its values on any Cauchy surface (all in the sense of distributions). We define

$$<U,F>=<U(x),F(x)>dx$$
(57)
###### Lemma 13

For $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ and any regular solution $`U`$ :

$$\sigma (U,EF)=<U,F>$$
(58)
or equivalently For $`F,G𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$

$$\sigma (EF,EG)=<EF,G>=<F,EG>$$
(59)
Proof. By Green’s identity we have for $`t<0`$

$$\sigma _0(U,E^+F)\sigma _t(U,E^+F)=_{t<x^0<0}<U(x),F(x)>dx$$
(60)
Letting $`t\mathrm{}`$ we get an expression for $`\sigma _0(U,E^+F)`$. Similarly we get an expression for $`\sigma _0(U,E^{}F)`$ . They are

$$\sigma _0(U,E^\pm f)=\pm _{x^0>0}<U(x),F(x)>dx$$
(61)
Take the difference to obtain the result.

We next want to make a connection with the single string Hilbert space $`=_r_r`$. Given $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ we define $`\mathrm{\Pi }F`$ by specifying that $`(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_r_r`$ is obtained by taking the Fourier transform, projecting onto the subspace $`M^2=r`$ with $`P_r`$, and then restricting to $`V_r^{(+)}`$. More precisely for $`pV_r^{(+)}`$ we define

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_r(p)=\sqrt{2\pi }P_r\stackrel{~}{F}(p)$$
(62)
We will need to exclude tachyons, so we restrict to functions $`F`$ which take values in

$$_+(\mathrm{}^2)(_0(\mathrm{}^2))^{}\underset{j1}{}_j(\mathrm{}^2)$$
(63)
We have $`M^20`$ on this subspace. Hence for such $`F`$ , $`(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_2=0`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_+`$ the no-tachyon subspace of $``$:

$$_+=\underset{r0}{}_r$$
(64)
###### Lemma 14

For (real) $`F,G𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$

$$\sigma (EF,EG)=<EF,G>=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}<\mathrm{\Pi }F,\mathrm{\Pi }G>$$
(65)
Proof. Only the second identity needs proof. We compute with $`E_r=E_r^+E_r^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <EF,G>=& \underset{r0}{}<E_rP_rF,P_rG>\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{r0}{}2\mathrm{Im}<(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_r,(\mathrm{\Pi }G)_r>=2\mathrm{Im}<\mathrm{\Pi }F,\mathrm{\Pi }G>\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
The second step follows since for $`r0`$ and any $`F,G`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <E_rF,G>=& _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}<\stackrel{~}{F}(\overline{p}),\stackrel{~}{G}(p)>\frac{1}{p^2+r}dp\hfill \\ \hfill =& 2\pi i\{<\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})>\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{2\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p})}c.c.\}\hfill \\ \hfill =& 2\mathrm{Im}<\sqrt{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{F}|V_r^+,\sqrt{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{G}|V_r^+>\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
In the second step we have evaluated the contour integral by taking residues at $`p^0=\pm \omega (\stackrel{}{p})`$. We have also used $`\overline{<\stackrel{~}{F}(p),\stackrel{~}{G}(p)>}=<𝒞\stackrel{~}{F}(p),𝒞\stackrel{~}{G}(p)>=<\stackrel{~}{F}(p),\stackrel{~}{G}(p)>`$ for $`p`$ real , a consequence of the reality of $`F,G`$.

### 3.2 String field operator

Now we quantize solutions of the string field equation. We take as our phase space the space of all regular solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`(\mathrm{}+M^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ with symplectic form $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ defined previously. For each solution $`U`$ there is a function $`\mathrm{\Phi }\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$ on the phase space. We quantize these functions by replacing them by operators on a complex Hilbert space, also denoted $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$, which are required to satisfy

$$[\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U),\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },V)]=i\sigma (U,V)$$
(68)
This looks more familiar if we identify solutions with their data on some Cauchy surface. Then the operators are $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Pi }_0;F_0,G_0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(G_0)\mathrm{\Pi }_0(F_0)`$ and the commutator is written $`[\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Pi }_0;F_0,G_0),\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Pi }_0;F_0^{},G_0^{})]=i\sigma (F_0,G_0;F_0^{},G_0^{})`$. As a special case we have the standard $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_0(G_0),\mathrm{\Pi }_0(F_0)]=i<G_0,F_0>`$.

The full spacetime field operator is obtained from the operators $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$ just as in the classical case. Following (58) we define the field operator as a distribution by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },EF)$$
(69)
Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ satisfies the field equation and has a local commutator as the next result shows.

###### Lemma 15

let $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$ be a family of operators indexed by regular solutions $`U`$ of the KG equation and satisfying (68). Then the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },EF)`$ defined for $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ satisfies

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }((\mathrm{}+M^2)F)=& 0\hfill \\ \hfill [\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=& i<F,EG>\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
Furthermore every operator valued distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ satisfying (LABEL:basic) arises in this way.

Proof. The field equation follows from $`E(\mathrm{}+M^2)F=0`$ and the commutator follows from the identity (59). For the converse given $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ we define $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)=\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ for any $`F`$ such that $`U=EF`$. To see that this is well defined we have to show that if $`EF_1=EF_2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(F_2)`$, or if $`EF=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=0`$. But we have seen that $`EF=0`$ implies $`F=(\mathrm{}+M^2)H`$ and hence the result follows. The operators $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$ have the commutator (68) again by the identity (59).

Remarks.

1. Since $`\sigma (U,V)`$ is a symplectic form, representations of (68) do exist on general principles. Thus string field theories exist. Furthermore the spacetime field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ defined by (69) is strictly local because if $`supp(F)`$ and $`supp(G)`$ are spacelike separated, then $`supp(EF)`$ and $`supp(G)`$ do not overlap and hence $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=i<F,EG>=0`$. All this holds without suppressing the negative mass part of the equation!
2. However this is not the end of the story. We actually want the particular representation in which time translation is unitarily implemented with positive energy. (One can think of this as the forward moving condition again). Choosing a particular representation requires a complex structure or a ”one-particle structure” on phase space. These are equivalent to expressing the symplectic form $`\sigma (EF,EG)`$ as the imaginary part of an inner product on some complex Hilbert space. But if we suppress the tachyon then this has already been accomplished in (65) where it is written as $`2\mathrm{Im}<\mathrm{\Pi }F,\mathrm{\Pi }G>`$ . Furthermore it is this choice which is associated with positive energy as we shall see.

These considerations lead to the following definition. Tachyons are completely suppressed. We bypass $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },U)`$ and go directly to operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ satisfying (LABEL:basic). Also we enlarge the class of test functions from compact support to the Schwartz space of smooth rapidly decreasing functions. The Hilbert space is the Fock space over the no-tachyon single string Hilbert space $`_+`$:

$$𝒦=(_+)$$
(71)
This has the indefinite inner product $`<\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Xi }>=(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒥)\mathrm{\Xi })`$. States in $`𝒦`$ with finitely many entries are denoted $`𝒦_f`$.

###### Definition 2

(The String Field). For $`F𝒮(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_+`$ and we define on $`𝒦_f`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=a^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }F)+a(\mathrm{\Pi }F)$$
(72)
###### Theorem 1

1. The string field satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$, the field equation $`\mathrm{\Phi }((\mathrm{}+M^2)F)=0`$, and has the commutator $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=i<F,EG>`$.
2. There is positive energy representation $`𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group on $`𝒦`$ such that

$$𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }(F)𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1=\mathrm{\Phi }(F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }})$$
(73)
where $`F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda })F(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(xa))`$.

Proof. The field equation is satisfied since $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{}+M^2)F=0`$. The commutator is evaluated as

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=2i\mathrm{Im}<\mathrm{\Pi }F,\mathrm{\Pi }G>=i<F,EG>$$
(74)
since the identity (65) holds for $`𝒮`$ as well as $`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}`$. The representation is defined by $`𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$. We compute

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }(F)𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1=& a^{}(U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Pi }F)+a(U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Pi }F)\hfill \\ \hfill =& a^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }})+a(\mathrm{\Pi }F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }})\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\Phi }(F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }})\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
As noted we have the following corollary:

###### Corollary 1

( Locality). If $`F,G`$ have spacelike separated supports $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=0`$.

Now we impose the constraint, and just as for the single string this will give us a positive definite inner product. Let $`\widehat{L}_m`$ be the Fourier transform of $`L_m`$, that is $`\widehat{L}_m`$ is given by (27) but with $`p_\mu =i/x^\mu `$. We would like to select states which are annihilated by $`L_m\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`m>0`$. However, just as for the Gupta- Beuler quantization of the electromagnetic field  we must compromise and only impose the condition on the negative frequency part of the field defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(F)=a(\mathrm{\Pi }F)`$. This is defined and anti-linear on complex test functions. We look for states annihilated by $`(\widehat{L}_m\mathrm{\Phi }_{})(F)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\widehat{L}_mF)`$. This is fulfilled by taking the subspace

$$𝒦^{}=(_+^{})_+^{}=^{}_+$$
(76)
All $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒦^{}`$ satisfy the required $`a(\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{L}_mF)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ since if $`\psi _+^{}`$ then

$$<\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{L}_mF,\psi >=<L_m\mathrm{\Pi }F,\psi >=<\mathrm{\Pi }F,L_m\psi >=0$$
(77)
Thus $`𝒦^{}`$ is our constrained space, something we might have guessed directly.

Next let $`𝒦^{\prime \prime }=𝒦^{}(𝒦^{})^{}`$ be the isotropic vectors in $`𝒦^{}`$. and define

$$𝒦^{phys}=𝒦^{}/𝒦^{\prime \prime }$$
(78)
This space inherits an indefinite inner product from $`𝒦^{}`$.

###### Lemma 16

For $`d=26`$ the inner product on $`𝒦^{phys}`$ is positive definite and we have the identification of Hilbert spaces:

$$𝒦^{phys}=(_+^{phys})_+^{phys}=_+^{}/_+^{\prime \prime }$$
(79)
Proof. $`_+^{\prime \prime }=^{\prime \prime }_+`$ is a closed subspace of $`_+^{}`$ and so we can write $`_+^{}=_+^{\prime \prime }`$ where $``$ is the orthogonal complement with respect to the definite inner product. The projection onto $``$ has kernel $`_+^{\prime \prime }`$ and gives an identification of $``$ with $`_+^{phys}`$ which preserves the indefinite inner product. Thus the inner product is positive definite on $``$, and of course zero if either entry is in $`_+^{\prime \prime }`$.

Now we have the identification of Hilbert spaces

$$𝒦^{}=(_+^{\prime \prime })=(_+^{\prime \prime })()$$
(80)
Under this identification $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒥)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒥)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒥)`$ and so the induced indefinite inner product satisfies $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}>=<\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}><\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}>`$. Splitting $`(_+^{\prime \prime })=_0(_+^{\prime \prime })_+(_+^{\prime \prime })`$ and using $`_0(_+^{\prime \prime })`$ we have

$$𝒦^{}=()(_+(_+^{\prime \prime })())$$
(81)
with the natural indefinite inner product. Every component of $`_+(_+^{\prime \prime })()`$ has at least one factor in $`_+^{\prime \prime }`$ and so we can identify

$$𝒦^{\prime \prime }=_+(_+^{\prime \prime })()$$
(82)
Thus

$$𝒦^{phys}=()=(_+^{phys})$$
(83)
These identifications preserve the indefinite inner product. Since the inner product is positive definite on $`_+^{phys}`$ it is positive definite on $`𝒦^{phys}`$.

For certain test functions the string field operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ on $`𝒦`$ determines an operator on $`𝒦^{phys}`$. We define

###### Definition 3

$`F𝒮(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$ is a *constrained* test function if $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_+^{}`$

To get real constrained test functions it is useful to pick a particular conjugation on $`(\mathrm{}^2)`$. It is $`C_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }(c_1)`$ where $`c_1`$ on $`\mathrm{}^2`$ is defined by $`(c_1f)_{0n}=\overline{f}_{0n}`$ and $`(c_1f)_{kn}=\overline{f}_{kn}`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},d1`$. For the next result real means $`C_1\psi =\psi `$.

###### Lemma 17

Non-trivial (real) constrained test functions exist

Proof. Take $`r0`$ and choose $`\psi _0𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(V_r^+,(\mathrm{}^2))`$ so that $`\psi _0(p)^{}(p)`$ for all $`pV_r^+`$. Then $`\psi `$ defines an element of $`_r^{}`$ and hence an element of $`_+^{}`$. We have seen that such functions exist in lemma 10.

Next define

$$\psi (\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})=\psi _0(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})+C_1\psi _0(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})$$
(84)
This satisfies $`C_1\psi (\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})=\psi (\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})`$ and is still an element of $`_r^{}`$. This is so since $`C_1\alpha _n^0C_1=\alpha _n^0`$ and $`C_1\alpha _n^kC_1=\alpha _n^k`$ and hence $`C_1L_m(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})C_1=L_m(\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})`$.

We will find $`F`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Pi }F=\psi `$. First write $`\psi (\omega _r(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p})=h(\stackrel{}{p})`$ for a function $`h𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{d1},(\mathrm{}^2))`$. (Or $`^{d1}\{0\}`$ if $`r=0`$). Let $`\chi 𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}()`$ be real and satisfy $`\chi (0)=1`$. We define $`F`$ by specifying that the Fourier transform be

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})=(2\pi )^{(1/2)}\chi ((p^0)^2+|\stackrel{}{p}|^2+r)h(\stackrel{}{p})$$
(85)
Then $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is smooth and has compact support and hence $`F𝒮(^d,(\mathrm{}^2))`$. Since $`h(\stackrel{}{p})RanP_r`$ we have $`(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_r=\psi `$ and $`(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_r^{}=0`$ for $`r^{}r`$ as required. Since elements of $`RanP_r`$ have no zero component in Fock space, this is true of $`h(\stackrel{}{p})`$ and hence $`F(x)`$. Thus $`F`$ takes values in $`_+`$. Finally we have $`C_1\stackrel{~}{F}(p)=\stackrel{~}{F}(p)`$ and hence $`C_1F(x)=F(x)`$ so $`F`$ is real.

Recall that $`𝒦_f`$ is the subspace of $`𝒦`$ with a finite number of entries. Similarly define $`𝒦_f^{}`$ and $`𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`𝒦_f^{phys}=𝒦_f^{}/𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$. One can identify $`𝒦_f^{phys}`$ with a dense subspace of $`𝒦^{phys}`$.

###### Theorem 2

(Observable fields for $`d=26`$)

1. Let $`F𝒮(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$ be a constrained test function. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ on $`𝒦_f`$ lifts to an operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ on $`𝒦_f^{phys}`$ called an observable field
2. These satisfy $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(F),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=i<F,EG>`$.
3. The representation $`𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on $`𝒦`$ lifts to a unitary representation $`𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on $`𝒦^{phys}`$ and

$$𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }(F)𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })^1=\mathrm{\Phi }(F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }})$$

Proof. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_+^{}`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ preserves $`𝒦_f^{}`$. It also preserves $`𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$ since if $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }𝒦_f^{}`$ then $`<\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Phi }(F)\mathrm{\Psi }>=<\mathrm{\Phi }(F)\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Psi }>=0`$. Since $`𝒦_f^{}`$ is dense in $`𝒦^{}`$ we have $`<\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Phi }(F)\mathrm{\Psi }>=0`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Xi }𝒦^{}`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)\mathrm{\Psi }𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ acts on $`𝒦_f^{phys}`$.

The commutator follows from the commutator on $`𝒦_f`$

For the covariance first note that $`F`$ is constrained if and only if $`F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is constrained. This follows from the identity $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_{a,\mathrm{\Lambda }}=U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Pi }F`$ and the fact that $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ preserves $`_+^{}`$. The operator $`𝒰(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ preserves $`𝒦_f^{}`$ since $`U(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ preserves $`_+^{}`$. We argue as before that it also preserves $`𝒦_f^{\prime \prime }`$ and so it lifts. The unitarity follows since it is inner product preserving, and the identity lifts from the identity on $`𝒦_f`$.

Remark. According to this theorem the observable fields have a local commutator. But can the fields themselves be localized? That is, are there constrained test functions $`F𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$? Or is there some other way to get strictly localized operators? These are open questions. Without strictly localized fields we cannot get a vanishing result like Corollary 1. The best we can do is the following approximate result. If $`F,G`$ are constrained then it estimates the commutator for observable fields on $`𝒦^{phys}`$. Otherwise it refers to fields on $`𝒦`$.

###### Corollary 2

let $`F,G𝒮(^d,_+(\mathrm{}^2))`$, and let $`a`$ be in the spacelike region $`|a^0|<(1ϵ)|\stackrel{}{a}|`$. Then as $`|a|\mathrm{}`$, we have for any $`n>0`$

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }(F_a),\mathrm{\Phi }(G)]=i<F_a,EG>=𝒪(|a|^n)$$
(86)
Proof. Since $`EG`$ is bounded we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |<F_a,EG>|& 𝒪(1)_{supp(EG)}F(xa)𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill & 𝒪(1)_{supp(EG)}(1+|xa|)^{nd1}𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill & 𝒪(1)d(a,supp(EG))^n\hfill \\ \hfill & 𝒪(|a|^n)\hfill \end{array}$$
(87)
In the last step we use the fact that $`supp(EG)`$ is contained in a set of the form $`\{x^d:|\stackrel{}{x}|x^0+C\}`$. We omit the details.


text:
# Analysis of ProNaOS submillimeter maps in the M42 Orion Nebula — Temperature - spectral index inverse correlation in several regions

## 1. Introduction

At about 470 pc, the Orion Nebula is one of the nearest massive star formation regions. The Orion A giant cloud contains the HII region M42, well known as the Great Orion Nebula. Behind the H II region is the OMC-1 molecular cloud, which corresponds to a CO emission peak. North from OMC-1, one can clearly see an extended ”integral-shaped” filament (ISF below) with two denser regions called OMC-2 and OMC-3. This area has been intensively studied, from optical radiations to radio wavelengths, often with high angular resolution but restricted to the hot core of the nebula (see for example the review of Genzel & Stutzki 1989).

We have studied this region with the submillimeter balloon-borne telescope ProNaOS. The simultaneous measurements within four bands covering the wavelength range 200 $`\mu m`$ \- 800 $`\mu m`$ allows for the first time to constrain both temperature and spectral index of the dust, and reveals their variation over the whole complex. A little part of the area mapped here had been already mapped by Ristorcelli et al. (1998).

## 2. Observations

ProNaOS (PROgramme NAtional d’Observations Submillimétriques) is a French balloon-borne submillimeter experiment, with a 2 m diameter telescope (Buisson & Durand 1990). The focal plane instrument SPM (Système Photométrique Multibande, see Lamarre et al. 1994) is composed of a wobbling mirror, providing a beam switching on the sky and four bolometers cooled at 0.3 K (180-240 $`\mu m`$, 240-340 $`\mu m`$, 340-540 $`\mu m`$, 540-1200 $`\mu m`$). The beam diameters are 2’ in bands 1 and 2, 2.5’ in band 3 and 3.5’ in band 4. The true sky is optimally restored from the time-ordered data by using a Wiener linear inversion method. The data we present here were obtained during the second flight of ProNaOS in september 1996, at Fort-Sumner, New Mexico.

## 3. Results

We present in Fig. 1 the images obtained in the extreme photometric bands of ProNaOS-SPM.

The brightest observed area is the molecular cloud OMC-1. North from it is clearly visible the integral-shaped filament. One can see west from the central core a weaker cloud that we call Cloud 1. A weaker emission can be seen around this cloud, that is linked to the Cloud 2 northwards. The Clouds 2, 3, 4 can be seen on the west of the maps on Fig. 1, from east to west. The Cloud 2 is a weak intensity condensation discovered during the first flight of ProNaOS (Ristorcelli et al. 1998). The Clouds 3 and 4 are two extremely weak condensations, discovered with this ProNaOS flight.

## 4. Analysis

### 4.1. Dust temperatures and spectral indexes

We average the intensity of bands 1, 2, 3 with an adequate profile in order to obtain for each band the fwhm of the fourth band (3.5’). We model the emission of the grains with a modified blackbody law:

$`I_{\nu fit}(\lambda ,T,n)=C.B_\nu (\lambda ,T).\lambda ^\beta `$

where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, C a constant, T the temperature of the grains, $`\beta `$ the spectral index and $`B_\nu `$ the Planck function.

The three parameters C, T and $`\beta `$, are adjusted with a least square fit. The best parameters for each region selected are presented in Table 1. The dust temperature is highly variable inside and in the neighborhood of this molecular complex: from 12 K to 70 K; and the spectral index changes much too: from 1.1 to 2.2.

### 4.2. Column densities

Using the dust 100 $`\mu m`$ opacity from Désert et al. (1990), and assuming that the spectral index does not change in the ProNaOS spectral range, we make a simple self-consistent model that allows us to estimate the column density $`N_H`$, as a function of the spectral intensity and the spectral index. There is then a proportionality relation between the constant C and $`N_H`$:

$`N_H`$ = 1.67 $`10^{24}`$ . C . (100 $`\mu m)^\beta `$

with $`N_H`$ in protons/cm2 and C in $`\mu m^\beta `$.

We make another simple model using the 100 $`\mu m`$ opacity of Ossenkopf & Henning (1994) model specific to protostellar cores. The proportionality relation is then:

$`N_H`$ = 6.02 $`10^{23}`$ . C . (100 $`\mu m)^\beta `$

with $`N_H`$ in protons/cm2 and C in $`\mu m^\beta `$.

We compare our column density results to those derived from observations of the rotational transition $`J=10`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{13}CO`$, made by Nagahama et al. (1998). We transform the observed $`W_{{}_{}{}^{13}CO}`$ into the column density in cm-2 by using the correspondence established by Bally et al. (1991) in the Orion Nebula: $`N_H/W_{{}_{}{}^{13}CO}`$ = 2 1021 cm-2/(K km/s). As we can see in Table 2, there is a rather good agreement between NH estimated by the model from Désert et al. and NH from 13CO data, except for the cold clouds 3 and 4. That may be explained by the fact that some cold condensations are the site of formation of molecular ice mantles on the grains, and of coagulation of grains. These processes are taken into account by the model of Ossenkopf & Henning. The estimations of NH from this model are in rather good agreement with 13CO data for Clouds 3 and 4.

We also show in Table 2 the mass of each region. In order to have a first evaluation of the gravitational stability of the clouds, we compare their masses to their Jeans masses. We see a trend that the closer to the complex the cold clouds are, the more unstable they seem to be.

### 4.3. Temperature - index inverse correlation

The correlation coefficient between T and $`\beta `$ has been computed globally for each studied region of ProNaOS second flight.

$`C=\frac{(T_i\overline{T}).(\beta _i\overline{\beta })}{\sqrt{{\scriptscriptstyle (T_i\overline{T})^2}.{\scriptscriptstyle (\beta _i\overline{\beta })^2}}}`$

The correlation coefficients are -0.92 for Orion, -0.78 for M17, -0.89 for $`\rho `$ Ophiuci. From our simulations, this inverse correlation has to be an intrinsic physical property of the grains.

## 5. Conclusion

Our study shows a large distribution of temperatures and spectral indexes all around the M42 Orion Nebula. The temperature varies from 12 K to 70 K, and the spectral index from 1.1 to 2.2. The discovery of two new cold clouds (Clouds 3 and 4) confirms that the existence of cold condensations in such regions is not unusual. The statistical analysis of the temperature and spectral index spatial distribution shows an evidence for an inverse correlation between these two parameters. This effect is not well explained yet, especially in the submillimeter spectral range for cold grains ($`<`$ 20 K). It has been shown to occur in the laboratory for warm grains by Mennella et al., and for cold grains in the millimeter by Agladze et al.

We see a trend that the closer to the complex the cold clouds are, the more unstable they are. The history of star formation around OMC-1 shows that there has already been 3 to 4 successive bursts of star formation in this region with the embedded cluster responsible for the BN/KL object being the latest. The clouds that we observe close to the active region may thus be the seeds of the next generation of stars. This should be sustained by more observations, particularly of the possible embedded protostars.