text:
# Linear equations of motion for massless particles of any spin in any even dimensional spaces

## I Introduction.

The ordinary space-time which we seem to experience is four-dimensional. However, besides the ordinary space-time, the internal space of spin and charges is equally important. Without spins and charges the World would manifest no dynamics - noninteracting chargeless scalar fields could form no matter. Theories of strings and membranes as well as Kaluza-Klein theories are predicting more than four-dimensional ordinary space-time. One of us has proposed the approach, which describes geometrically not only the ordinary space-time but also the internal space of spins and charges, unifying spins and charges. In this approach the internal space is described by a vector space spanned over the anticommuting coordinate space of the same dimension $`d`$ as that of ordinary space-time. To describe the physics of the Standard model both spaces, the one of commuting and the one of anticommuting coordinates, have to be more than four-dimensional. In $`d`$-dimensional space-time only spin degrees of freedom exists. It is the appropriate break of symmetry, which in four-dimensional subspace makes the spin manifesting itself as the spin and the known charges. In all theories with $`d>4`$ the question arises 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 spinors or vectors.

Mankoč and Nielsen proved 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 even. Accordingly in four-dimensional space Nature could only make a choice of the Minkowski 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 equations 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 vectorial fields. One of us together with A. Borštnik has shown that the Weyl-like equations exist not only for spinors but also for vectors.

In this paper we present the proof that equations of motion for free massless particles in even-dimensional spaces, if manifesting the Poincaré symmetry, are linear in the $`p^a`$momentum. For four dimensional space-time Wigner  clarified that as far as masses and spins are concerned (point-like) particles can be described by their properties under transformations of the Poincaré group. The classification of particles with respect to the unitary discrete representations of the Poincaré group can be found in Weinberg, for example. In his language equations of motion are those equations that constrain 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 use similar techniques for massless particles in general even-dimensional spaces. We prove that in even-dimensional spaces, for any $`d=2n`$, free massless fields $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$(p^ap_a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi },a=0,1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},2n$$
(1)
of any spin satisfy equations of motion which are linear in a $`d`$-momentum $`p^a=(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$

$$(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },a=0,1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d,$$
(2)
with $`\alpha =\frac{\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{p}}{|p^0|}`$ to be determined in this paper111After this paper appeared on hep-th W. Siegel let us know that equations $`(S^{ab}p_b+wp^a=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the linear equations in $`p^a`$-momentum, as well as in $`S^{ab}`$, which all irreducible representations of massless fields in any $`d`$ obey, and that these equations can be found in his book and in his paper. Following derivations of this paper in section (IV) one easily proves that solutions of Siegel’s equations belong to irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. The proof is simpler than for our equations $`(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Both equations are of course equivalent. Following our derivations one finds that the constant $`w`$ in the Siegel’s equation is $`w=l_n`$, with $`l_n`$ defined in Eq.(28). One derives our equation from the Siegel’s one for even $`d`$ after some rather tedious calculations if multiplying it by $`\epsilon _{aca_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}S^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}}`$. The way how we present the linear equations of motion has several obvious advantages, which reader will easily find by himself.. For spinors, which will be determined in Eq.(7), $`\alpha =\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. The proof is made only for fields with no gauge symmetry and with a nonzero value of the handedness operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\beta \epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d1}a_d},$$
(3)
which commutes with all the generators of the Poincaré group. We choose $`\beta `$ so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\pm 1`$. For spinors (Eq.(7)) $`\beta =i\frac{2^n}{(d!)}`$, while for fields of a general spin $`\beta `$ will be determined in section III. 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. In Eq.(2) $`W^a`$ is the generalized Pauli-Ljubanski $`d`$-vector

$$W^a=\rho \epsilon ^{ab}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}p_{b}^{}S^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}}.$$
(4)
We define  $`S^i`$ as the $`d1`$ vector

$$S^i=\rho \epsilon ^{0i}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}}$$
(5)
and determine the value of $`\rho `$ so that the eigenvalues of $`S^i`$ are independent of a dimension and the same as in four-dimensional space. We will show that this dictates the choice $`\rho =\frac{2^{n2}}{(d2)!}`$ for spinors ($`S^i=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$) and $`\rho =\frac{1}{2^{n1}(n1)!^2}`$ for vectors ($`S^i=\pm 1,0`$). Eq.(2) also guarantees that Eq.(1) is fulfilled for all massless fields with no gauge freedom and with nonzero spin.

We prove that for spinors in $`d`$-dimensional space Eq.(2) is equivalent to the equation

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^0=\frac{1}{|\alpha |}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{p})|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(6)
with $`\frac{1}{|\alpha |}`$ equal to $`2`$ for any d=2n, while for a general spin Eq.(2) may impose additional conditions on the field.

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

$$\{S^{ab},S^{ac}\}=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{aa}\eta ^{bc},\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}\mathrm{a},$$
(7)
with $`\{A,B\}=AB+BA`$.

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

The paper is arranged as follows:

We first present in section II the infinitesimal generators of the Poincaré group in $`d`$-dimensional spaces, the corresponding algebra and the Casimirs. We define appropriate $`d`$-vectors and $`(d1)`$-vectors (some of them can be defined only in even-dimensional spaces), and present their properties and their commutation (and for spinors anticommutation) relations.

In section III we review representations of the Lorentz group and determine the parameter $`\beta `$ of Eq.(3), specifying the Casimir $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$ for a general spin.

In section IV we define the generators of the little group and the constraints, which the generators of the little group have to fulfil in order to define discrete representations of the Poincaré group. We determine the factor $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(2), so that the equation Eq.(2) holds on discrete representations of the Poincaré group and represents accordingly a promising candidate for equations of motion.

In section V we investigate the solutions of Eq.(2) on spaces with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}0`$. We show that they form irreducible representations of the Poincaré group (barring the sign of energy degeneracy) and in this sense we prove that Eq.(2) is the equation of motion.

At the end we comment in section VI on spinorial representations and on vectorial (we shall define these representations later) representations in any $`d=2n`$-dimensional spaces.

## II Poincaré symmetry.

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:

$`[p^a,p^b]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
$`[M^{ab},M^{cd}]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{ad}M^{bc}+\eta ^{bc}M^{ad}\eta ^{ac}M^{bd}\eta ^{bd}M^{ac}),`$ (9)
$`[M^{ab},p^c]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{bc}p^a\eta ^{ac}p^b).`$ (10)
The generators of the Lorentz transformations of the internal group $`S^{ab}`$ ($`M^{ab}=L^{ab}+S^{ab}`$, with $`L^{ab}=x^ap^bx^bp^a`$) fulfil the same commutation relations as $`M^{ab}`$ (as do also $`L^{ab}`$ by themselves) and commute with $`p^a`$ (commutation relations for $`[L^{ab},p^c]`$ are the same as for $`M^{ab}`$).

There are $`n`$ commuting operators of the Lorentz group in $`d`$-dimensional spaces, for either $`d=2n+1`$ or $`d=2n`$, namely $`M^{01},M^{23},\mathrm{},M^{d1d}`$ (or any other set of generators with all different indices) and accordingly $`n`$ Casimirs of the Lorentz group. There are two Casimirs of the Lorentz group, which are easily found to be:

$`M^2:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^{ab}M_{ab}\mathrm{and}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }:`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \epsilon _{a_1a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n1}a_{2n}}M^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}M^{a_{2n1}a_{2n}}.`$ (12)
The second Casimir of Eq.(12) can only be defined for $`d=2n`$. We see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$ from Eq.(3) follows from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by replacing $`M^{ab}`$ by $`S^{ab}`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$ commutes with all the generators of the Poincaré group.

With the help of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the generalized Pauli-Ljubanski vector as presented in Eq.(4) can be defined as

$`W^a=i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2n\beta }}[\mathrm{\Gamma },p^a],`$ (13)
with $`\beta `$ and $`\rho `$ from Eqs.(3, 4) for any even $`d`$. $`W^a`$ in Eq.(13) can be as well expressed by $`S^{ab}`$ instead by $`M^{ab}`$. One immediately finds that

$`W^ap_a=0.`$ (14)
Lemma II.1: $`W^aW_a`$ is the Casimir of the Poincaré group and so is $`p^ap_a`$.

Proof: The proof goes, by taking into account Eq.(13) and the Lie algebra of the Poincaré group, as follows

$`[W^aW_a,M^{bc}]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2n\beta }}\{W_a[[\mathrm{\Gamma },p^a],M^{bc}]+[[\mathrm{\Gamma },p^a],M^{bc}]W_a\}=`$ (15)
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2n\beta }}\{W_a[\mathrm{\Gamma },[p^a,M^{bc}]]+[\mathrm{\Gamma },[p^a,M^{bc}]]W_a\}=0.`$ (16)
The proof that $`W^aW_a`$ commutes with $`p^b`$ is obvious due to Eq. (4), while the proof that $`p^ap_a`$ commutes with $`M^{bc}`$ is straightforward.

The following commutation relations follow

$`[p^a,W^b]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`[M^{ab},W^c]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{ac}W^b\eta ^{bc}W^a),`$ (18)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^0}},W^a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(p^0)^2}}(\eta ^{a0}p^b\eta ^{b0}p^a).`$ (19)
To prove the first equation of Eqs.(19) is straightforward. To prove the second one, Eq.(13) as well as Jacobi identity $`[M^{ab},[\mathrm{\Gamma },p^c]]+[p^c,[M^{ab},\mathrm{\Gamma }]]+[\mathrm{\Gamma },[p^c,M^{ab}]]=0`$ have to be taken into account. To prove the third of the above equations the equations $`[M^{ab},\frac{p^0}{p^0}]=0=\frac{1}{p^0}[M^{ab},p^0]+[M^{ab},\frac{1}{p^0}]p^0`$ have to be taken into account. This type of a proof was used also in the ref.().

We present, for the spinorial case only, the commutation and anticommutation relations for $`(d1)`$-vectors $`S^i`$, which are defined in Eq.(5)

$$[S^i,S^j]=i(1)^{ij}S^{ij},\{S^i,S^j\}=\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{ij}.$$
(20)
## III Representations of Lorentz group in internal space.

In this section we introduce the notation for ireducible representations of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ (or $`SO(d)`$) for $`d=2n`$, denoting an irreducible representation by the weight of the dominant weight state of the representation. This exposition of the subject follows those of , . We also express the two Casimirs of Eq.(12) in terms of the dominant weight. We pay attention only to the internal degrees of freedom for the Lorentz group, that is to a spin.

The Lie algebra of $`SO(1,d1)`$ is spanned by the generators $`S^{ab}`$, which satisfy the commutation relations of the second equation of Eqs.(10)

$$[S^{ab},S^{cd}]=i(\eta ^{ad}S^{bc}+\eta ^{bc}S^{ad}\eta ^{ac}S^{bd}\eta ^{bd}S^{ac}).$$
(21)
We choose the $`n`$ commuting operators of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ as follows

$$iS^{0d},S^{12},S^{35},\mathrm{},S^{d2d1}$$
(22)
and call them $`𝒞_0,𝒞_1,𝒞_2,\mathrm{},𝒞_{n1}`$, respectively.

(Everything what follows will be valid also for the group $`SO(d)`$, provided that the generators $`iS^{01},iS^{02},\mathrm{}`$ are corespondingly replaced, that is by $`S^{01},S^{02},\mathrm{}`$, 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

$$𝒞_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_w=w_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_w,j=0,1,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(23)
According to the definition in Eq.(22), weight components $`w_0,w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$ are always real numbers.

We introduce the raising and lowering operators

$$E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ):=\frac{1}{2}((i)^{\delta _{j0}}S^{j_{}k_{}}+i\lambda S^{j_+k_{}}i^{1+\delta _{j0}}\mu S^{j_{}k_+}\lambda \mu S^{j_+k_+}),$$
(24)
with $`0j<kn1,\lambda ,\mu =\pm 1`$ and $`0_{}=0,0_+=d,1_{}=1,1_+=2,2_{}=3,2_+=5`$ and so on. For these operators the following commutation relations hold

$$[E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ),𝒞_l]=(\delta _{jl}\lambda +\delta _{kl}\mu )E_{jk}(\lambda ,\mu ).$$
(25)
Therefore, 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 now proceed to the definition of the dominant weight. We fix $`q\{+1,1\}`$ and call the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ with the property

$`E_{jk}(q,\pm 1)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,0j<kn1`$ (26)
the dominant weight state. This state is (up to a scalar multiple) uniquely determined by the irreducible representation in question and vice versa, knowing the dominant weight state of a particular representation (or any state of a particular representation), all the others are obtained by the application of the generators $`S^{ab}`$. We will denote the irreducible representation of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ by the weight of the dominant weight state: $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_q`$ with the index $`q`$ attached to distinguish which definition of the dominant weight state we are using. Numbers $`l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1`$ are either all integer or all half integer and satisfy

$$l_nl_{n1}\mathrm{}l_2|l_1|$$
(27)
in case $`q=+1`$ or

$$l_nl_{n1}\mathrm{}l_2|l_1|$$
(28)
in case $`q=1`$.

The correspondence between the two notations is given by the fact that the following representations are equivalent

$$(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_{+1}=(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,(1)^{n1}l_1)_1.$$
(29)
In section V we will find it useful to work with the notation $`q=+1`$ when dealing with the positive energy ($`p^0>0`$) representations and with $`q=1`$ when dealing with the negative energy ($`p^0<0`$) representations.

For future use we reformulate the condition (26) which determines the dominant weight state. It follows from Eq.(24) that

$`i(E_{0k}(q,+1)+E_{0k}(q,1))`$ $`=`$ $`S^{0k_{}}+qS^{dk_{}},`$ (30)
$`E_{0k}(q,+1)+E_{0k}(q,1)`$ $`=`$ $`S^{0k_+}+qS^{dk_+}`$ (31)
for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$. Eq.(26) then implies

$$(S^{0i}+qS^{id})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1.$$
(32)
Similarly, we obtain the following conditions

$`(S^{1i}+qiS^{2i})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=3,5,\mathrm{},d1,`$ (33)
$`(S^{3i}+qiS^{5i})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=6,7\mathrm{},d1,\mathrm{and}\mathrm{so}\mathrm{on}.`$ (34)
By reversing this process we can also conclude that Eqs.(32), (33),(34) imply (26). They are therefore equivalent to condition (26).

We now determine the values of the two Casimirs of Eq.(12) for a particular irreducible representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_q`$. Since the Casimirs (Eq.(12)) are scalars it suffices to determine their value on the dominant weight state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$. Since the dominant weight state satisfies Eqs.(32),(33),(34) which are not invariant to the permutations of $`𝒞_0,𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_n`$, we don’t expect the values of Casimirs to be symmetric in $`l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1`$. It will turn out this is indeed the case.

We now find for the Casimir $`M^2`$ (which we shall denote when useful by $`M_d^2`$) from Eq.(12)

$$M_d^2=\frac{1}{2}S^{ab}S_{ab}=(S^{0d})^2S^{0i}S^{0i}+S^{di}S^{di}+\frac{1}{2}S^{ij}S_{ij}.$$
(35)
We use Eq.(32) and the relation $`S^{0i}S^{0i}S^{di}S^{di}=(S^{0i}qS^{di})(S^{0i}+qS^{di})q[S^{0i},S^{di}]`$ to find

$`(S^{0i}S^{0i}S^{di}S^{di})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`iq(d2)S^{0d}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l,`$ (36)
$`M_d^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`(q(d2)iS^{0d}(S^{0d})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S^{ij}S_{ij})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l,`$ (37)
$`M_d^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`((d2)ql_n+l_n^2+M_{d2}^2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (38)
The operators $`S^{ij}`$ belong to the Lie algebra of the subgroup $`SO(d2)`$ of the group $`SO(1,d1)`$ acting only on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$. We may use Eq.(38) inductively to express the Casimir $`M_d^2`$

$$M_d^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=(l_n(l_n+q(d2))+l_{n1}(l_{n1}+q(d4))+\mathrm{}+l_2(l_2+2q)+l_1^2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.$$
(39)
We proceed with the Casimir $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$ of Eq.(3) in a similar way as with $`M^2`$ (again sometimes using the subscript $`d`$ to point out the dimension of space-time). We define

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}:=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}/\beta =\epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}$$
(40)
and note

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}/(2n)=S^{0d}\epsilon _{0da_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}+`$ (41)
$`+2(n1)\epsilon _{0idja_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}S^{0i}S^{dj}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}.`$ (42)
Applying $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}/(2n)`$ on the dominant weight state and taking into account Eq.(32) we find

$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}/(2n)S^{0d}(\epsilon _{0da_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (43)
$`=(n1)(\epsilon _{0idja_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}(S^{0i}S^{dj}S^{0j}S^{di})S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (44)
$`=(n1)q(\epsilon _{0idja_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}(S^{0i}S^{0j}S^{0j}S^{0i})S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (45)
$`=(n1)q(\epsilon _{0idja_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}[S^{0i},S^{0j}]S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (46)
$`=i(n1)q(\epsilon _{0dija_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}S^{ij}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (47)
It therefore follows that

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=2ni(l_n+q(n1))(\epsilon _{0da_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (48)
$`2ni(l_n+q(n1))\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{d2}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l,`$ (49)
where we have taken into account that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}`$ refers to the handedness operator for subgroup $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acting on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$. We could repeat this process for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d2}^{(int)}`$ with equations

$$(S^{1i}+iqS^{2i})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,i=3,5,\mathrm{},d1$$
(50)
taking place of Eqs.(32). We obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{d2}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=2(n1)(l_{n1}+q(n2))(\epsilon _{0d12a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}S^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (51)
$`=2(n1)(l_{n1}+q(n2))\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{d4}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (52)
We note the absence of a factor $`i`$ in the last equation. Repeating this process inductively we find

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}=2^nn!i(l_n+q(n1))(l_{n1}+q(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2+q)l_1)|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.$$
(53)
(Had we been dealing with the group $`SO(d)`$ the result would have been similar, the only difference being the absence of $`i`$ in the previous equation.) We have therefore obtained

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=2^nn!i\beta {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(l_j+q(j1))|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (54)
It follows from (53) that on spaces $`(l_n,\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1}`$ with nonzero handedness ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^{(int)}0l_10`$) we must take

$$\beta =\frac{i}{2^nn!(l_n+n1)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)|l_1|},d=2n,$$
(55)
to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\pm 1`$. In what follows we assume this choice of $`\beta `$ has been made.

## IV Little group.

In this section we characterize the unitary massless discrete representations of the Poincaré group and work out some of their properties. In doing so we follow the little group method .

For momenta $`p^a`$ appearing in an irreducible massless representations of the Poincaré group it holds

$$p^ap_a=0,p^0>0\mathrm{or}p^0<0$$
(56)
(we omit the trivial case $`p^0=0`$). We denote $`r=\frac{p^0}{|p^0|}`$. The Poincaré group representation is then characterized by the representation of the so-called little group, which is a subgroup of the Lorentz group leaving some fixed $`d`$-momentum $`p^a=𝐤^a`$ satisfying Eq.(56) unchanged.

Let us make 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 $`\omega _{ab}M^{ab},(\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ji})`$ 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

$`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\omega _{bc}M^{bc}}𝐤^a`$ $`=`$ $`𝐤^a,\mathrm{or}\mathrm{equivalently}`$ (57)
$`\omega _{bc}M^{bc}𝐤^a`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (58)
We see that Eq.(58) requires

$$0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \omega _{01}& \mathrm{}& \omega _{0d}\\ \omega _{10}& 0& \mathrm{}& \omega _{1d}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \omega _{d0}& \omega _{d1}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}rk^0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ k^0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega _{0d}\\ r\omega _{10}+\omega _{1d}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \omega _{d0}\end{array}\right)k^0$$
(59)
and it follows

$`\omega _{0d}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (60)
$`\omega _{i0}+r\omega _{id}`$ $`=`$ $`0,i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{}d1.`$ (61)
All $`\omega _{ab}M^{ab}`$ with $`\omega _{ab}`$ subject to conditions (61) form the Lie algebra of the little group. We choose the following basis of the little group Lie algebra

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i=M^{0i}+rM^{id},i=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{and}\mathrm{all}M^{ij},i,j=1,2,3,5,\mathrm{},d1.`$ (63)
One finds

$`[\mathrm{\Pi }_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_j]=0,[\mathrm{\Pi }_i,M^{jk}]=i(\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_k\eta ^{ik}\mathrm{\Pi }_j).`$ (64)
We are interested only in 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 IV.1: For a discrete representation of the Poincaré group operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ give zero.

Proof: We may arrange the representation space of the little group to be eigenvectors of the commuting operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ of the little group***We can diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ since we are interested in unitary representations.

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=b^i{}_{a}{}^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a.$$
(65)
Here $`a`$ stands for a set of quantum numbers. We make the rotation $`e^{i\theta M^{ij}}`$ on a state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ depending on the parameter $`\theta `$ and the operator $`M^{ij}`$, with the particular choice of $`i`$ and $`j`$. Taking into account Eq.(64) we find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_ie^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(b^i{}_{a}{}^{}cos\theta b^j{}_{a}{}^{}sin\theta )e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a,`$ (66)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_je^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(b^i{}_{a}{}^{}sin\theta +b^j{}_{a}{}^{}cos\theta )e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a.`$ (67)
It is obvious that the states $`e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ produce a continous set of eigenvalues for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{d1}`$, since $`\theta `$ is a continous parameter, which contradicts the discreteness of the label $`a`$. The only exception occurs when $`b^i{}_{a}{}^{}cos\theta b^j{}_{a}{}^{}sin\theta =b^i{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{and}b^i{}_{a}{}^{}sin\theta +b^j{}_{a}{}^{}cos\theta =b^j_a`$ for all $`\theta `$. This is only possible if $`b^i{}_{a}{}^{}=b^j{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$ for all $`a`$ and each $`i,j`$. Therefore

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0.`$ (68)
We see that on the representation space of the little group with the choice $`𝐤^a=(rk^0,o,\mathrm{},0,k^0)`$, on which $`(L^{0i}+rL^{id})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(x^0𝐤^ix^i𝐤^0+rx^i𝐤^drx^d𝐤^i)|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0`$ the following holds

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}=(S^{0i}+rS^{id}).$$
(69)
It follows then that the only little group generators, which are not necessarily zero on the representation space, are $`M^{ij},i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ and they form the Lie algebra of $`SO(d2)`$. We conclude that 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 therefore denote the former with the same symbol as the latter with an additional index $`r`$ for the energy sign: $`(l_{n1},l_{n2},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1;r)_q`$.

The group $`SO(d2)`$ has $`\frac{(d2)(d3)}{2}`$ generators and according to the commutation relations of Eq.(10), $`(\frac{d}{2}1)`$ commuting generators and also $`(\frac{d}{2}1)`$ quantum numbers which determine a state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$.

We now show the validity of the Eq.(2).

Lemma IV.2: On the representation space of an irreducible massless representation of the Poincaré group $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;r)_q`$ the equation (2) holds with

$$\alpha =\rho r2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+q(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2+q)l_1.$$
(70)
Proof: First, we prove the lemma on the representation space of the little group for the choice $`p^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0),r=\pm 1,k^0>0`$. We begin with the cases $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ in Eq.(2)

$`W^a/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(\epsilon ^{aa_1}{}_{a_2a_3\mathrm{}a_{d1}}{}^{}p_{b}^{}M^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (71)
$`=k^0(r\epsilon ^{a0}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}\epsilon ^{ad}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (72)
$`=2k^0(n1)(r\epsilon ^{a0}{}_{da_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}}{}^{}M_{}^{da_1}M^{a_2a_3}\mathrm{}\epsilon ^{ad}{}_{0a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}}{}^{}M_{}^{0a_1}M^{a_2a_3}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (73)
$`=2k^0(n1)(\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{aa_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}}{}^{}(rM^{da_1}M^{0a_1})M^{a_2a_3}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (74)
$`=2k^0(n1)𝜶^{ai}\mathrm{\Pi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ (75)
where

$$𝜶^{ai}=\epsilon ^{0dai}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d4}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}M^{a_{d5}a_{d4}},[\mathrm{\Pi }^i,𝜶^{ai}]=0.$$
(76)
Eq.(68) concludes the proof for $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$.

We now turn to the case $`a=0`$

$`W^0/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(\epsilon ^{0b}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}p_{b}^{}M^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (77)
$`=k^0(\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(r)p^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{d2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a.`$ (78)
Eq.(70) holds according to the value of the handedness operator obtained in section III and applied to the group $`SO(d2)`$. The case $`a=d`$ goes similarly

$`W^d/\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(\epsilon ^{db}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}p_{b}^{}M^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (79)
$`=rk^0(\epsilon ^{d0}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}M_{}^{a_1a_2}M^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=(r)p^d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{d2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_a.`$ (80)
Again, we point out that in all these derivations $`M^{ab}`$ can be replaced by $`S^{ab}`$.

To prove Eq.(2) on the whole representation space, one only has to note that Eq.(2) is in covariant form and must therefore hold generally. To put this explicitly: the linear hull of the states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a^{}=U(\mathrm{\Lambda })|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ runs through the representation space of our little group and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }SO(1,d1)`$ (here $`U(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes the unitary transformation belonging to the element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }SO(1,d1)`$ in our representation), is dense in the whole representation space. It is therefore sufficient to prove (2) for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a^{}`$. This follows from

$`(W^a\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }_a^{}=U(\mathrm{\Lambda })U(\mathrm{\Lambda })^1(W^a\alpha p^a)U(\mathrm{\Lambda })|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=`$ (81)
$`=U(\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)_{ab}(W^b\alpha p^b)|\mathrm{\Phi }_a=0.`$ (82)
It is proved that Eq.(2) with the parameter $`\alpha `$ from Eq.(70) holds on the Poincaré group representation $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;r)_q`$. It is therefore a candidate for an equation of motion. Before it can be admitted to that status we have to investigate its solutions. We do that in the next section.

## V Equations of motion.

In this section we investigate the solutions of the equations

$$(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },p_ap^a|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(83)
on the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_{+1}`$. Since Eq.(83) is in a covariant form it is clear that the space of its solutions forms a representation of the Poincaré group. It also corresponds to massless particles as indicated by the second equation in Eq.(83). What remains to be investigated is the irreducibility and discreteness of solutions.

For irreducibility, we will allow only degeneracy in the sign of $`p^0`$ (the energy) and no degeneracy as far the internal degrees of freedom are concerned, since we don’t want the same equation to describe particles of different spins. As we will see, to provide both this and the discreteness, the condition

$$\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1$$
(84)
must be fulfilled. For $`d=4`$ this is also the sufficient condition, while for dimensions $`d6`$ for sufficiency the following condition must be added

$$l_10\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}0.$$
(85)
As shown in section IV, due to the covariant form of Eq.(83) the investigation of the Poincaré representations formed by the solutions of Eq.(83) reduces to the investigation of the $`SO(d2)`$-representations formed by the solutions of Eq.(83) with $`p^a=𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0),r=\pm 1,k^0>0`$.

We begin with the following lemma.

Lemma V.1 : On the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_r`$, states satisfying the discreteness condition of Eq.(69) for the little group, form the $`SO(d2)`$-irreducible representation space $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)_r`$, where the subgroup $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acts on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$.

Proof: Eqs.(64) imply that the space of solutions $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ of Eq.(69) forms an $`SO(d2)`$-invariant space, where $`SO(d2)SO(1,d1)`$ acts on coordinates $`1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$. To prove our lemma we must show that $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ is irreducible and corresponds to the $`SO(d2)`$-representation $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)_r`$. We do this by choosing any state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ with a $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight (with $`q=r`$) and proving both that it is unique (up to a scalar multiple) and has $`SO(d2)`$-weight $`(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)`$. This is possible because the $`SO(1,d1)`$-dominant weight state is in $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$, as shown by Eqs.(32) with $`q=r`$, Eq.(68) and Eq.(69). The set of states $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_a\}`$ is therefore not trivial. Since $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has a $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight, Eqs.(33) and (34) must hold with $`q=r`$. Eq.(69) then implies Eq.(32) for $`q=r`$. Therefore, the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has a $`SO(1,d1)`$-dominant weight (with $`q=r`$) and is therefore unique (up to a scalar multiple). Thus we have also proven that the corresponding representation of the Poincaré group is determined by all but the first dominant weight component of the internal Lorentz group representation. It is therefore $`(l_{n1},l_{n2},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_r`$ as was to be shown.

Given any representation of the internal Lorentz group, say $`(l_n,\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1}`$, the only possible discrete Poincaré representation are given by the previous lemma and Eq.(29): they are

$$(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;+1)_{+1}\mathrm{and}(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,(1)^{n1}l_1;1)_1=(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1;1)_{+1}.$$
(86)
We note that in four dimensions in our notation $`(\sigma ;r)_q`$ of the Poincaré group representation the quantum number $`\sigma `$ is helicity since it is the eigenvalue of the operator $`S^{12}`$. We have therefore generalized the known result in four dimensions which states $`\sigma =rl_1`$ (, ) to general even-dimensional spaces.

So, according to Eq.(70) if we are to hope for the solutions of Eq.(83) to form a discrete Poincaré representation we must have $`\alpha =\rho r2^{n1}(n1)!(l_n+n1)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)(rl_1)`$, which is exactly Eq.(84).

We now answer the question: when are the solutions of the equations

$$(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1,p_ap^a|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(87)
on the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_2,l_1)_{+1}`$, exactly those described by Eq.(86) ? First, we deal with the simplest case of $`d=4`$.

Lemma V.2 : On the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ representation $`(l_2,l_1)_{+1}`$ the solutions of the Eq.(87) are exactly those of Eq.(86).

Proof: Again we choose $`p^a=𝐤^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0),r=\pm 1,k^0>0`$. In this case, the first equation of Eqs.(87), with $`a=1,2`$ reads as follows

$`(\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}`$ $`=`$ $`0)|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (88)
$`(\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}`$ $`=`$ $`0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (89)
These are exactly Eq.(69) and according to lemma V.1 their solutions are listed in Eq.(86). Finally, we note that $`(W^0=\alpha p^0)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`(W^3=\alpha p^3)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ both give the equation $`S^{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }=rl_1|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which agrees with Eq.(86) and therefore doesn’t impose any additional constraints to the solutions of Eq.(86). This concludes the proof.

We shall now prove the general case $`d6`$.

Lemma V.3 : On the space with the internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1}`$, where

$$l_10\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}0,$$
(90)
the solutions of Eq.(87) are exactly those of Eq.(86).

Proof: We prove the lemma for the standard choice of the $`d`$-momentum $`p^a=(rk^0,0,\mathrm{},0,k^0),r=\pm 1,k^0>0`$. From the proof of lemma IV.2 we know that Eq.(87) reads as follows

$$𝜶^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(91)
$$\rho \epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(92)
with $`𝜶^{ij}=\epsilon ^{0dij}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d5}a_{d4}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}\mathrm{for}i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d1.`$ By lemma V.1 it is sufficient to show that every solution $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Eqs.(91, 92) satisfies the condition

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,\mathrm{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},d1.$$
(93)
In what follows we take the definition of dominant weights (Eq.(26)) with $`q=r`$. According to lemma V.1 and the discussion directly following this lemma the dominant weight of the group $`SO(1,d1)`$ satisfies both Eqs.(91, 92), so that we conclude that the space $`𝒲`$ of solutions of Eq.(91) and Eq.(92) is nontrivial. It is also $`SO(d2)`$-invariant since the following relations hold

$`[𝜶^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)},S^{kl}]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta ^{ik}𝜶^{lj}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}\eta ^{il}𝜶^{kj}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}),`$ (94)
$`[\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}S^{a_{d3}a_{d2}},S^{kl}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (95)
for $`i,j,k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$. To prove that Eq.(93) holds on $`𝒲`$ it suffices to prove that Eq.(93) holds on any $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight state in $`𝒲`$. (By lemma V.1 this also implies that $`𝒲`$ is irreducible and the $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight state in $`𝒲`$ is therefore unique up to a scalar multiple.) We therefore choose any $`SO(d2)`$-dominant weight state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_l𝒲`$. We designate its weight as $`(l_{n1}^{},l_{n2}^{},\mathrm{},l_2^{},l_1^{})_r`$. It follows from Eq.(92) that $`\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}^{}+r(n2))\mathrm{}(l_2^{}+r)l_1^{}`$.

From Eq.(33) it follows that

$`𝜶^{1i^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`2(n2)\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{1i^{}2j^{}\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{2j^{}}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`2r(n2)\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{1i^{}2j^{}\mathrm{}}{}^{}iS^{1j^{}}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=ir𝜶^{2i^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l,`$ (97)
for $`i^{}=3,5,\mathrm{},d1`$. If we add the equation with $`i=2`$ from Eq.(91), which we first multiply by $`ir𝜶^{12}`$, to the equation with $`i=1`$, we find taking into account Eq.(97) that

$`0=((\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}ir\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)})𝜶^{12}+\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{}^{(int)}(𝜶^{1i^{}}+ir𝜶^{2i^{}}))|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=(\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}ir\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)})𝜶^{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (98)
Following similar techniques as in section III and taking into account Eq.(92), we find

$`\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \epsilon ^{0d}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`\rho 2(n1)(S^{12}+r(n2))\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{12a_1a_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`\rho 2(n1)(l_{n1}^{}+r(n2))𝜶^{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ (101)
$`𝜶^{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho 2(n1)(l_{n1}^{}+r(n2))}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (102)
Since the condition $`l_10`$ implies $`\alpha 0`$ (Eq.(70)), we may conclude from Eq.(102) and Eq.(98)

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}ir\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0.$$
(103)
From Eqs. (91), (97), (103) we find

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}𝜶^{1i^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}𝜶^{2i^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}𝜶^{j^{}i^{}})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`(ri\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}𝜶^{2i^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}𝜶^{2i^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}𝜶^{j^{}i^{}})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (105)
$`=`$ $`ir[\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)},𝜶^{2i^{}}]|\mathrm{\Phi }_l+𝜶^{2i^{}}(ir\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l+\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}𝜶^{j^{}i^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`ir[\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)},𝜶^{2i^{}}]|\mathrm{\Phi }_l+\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}𝜶^{j^{}i^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (107)
$`=`$ $`2r(n2)(\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{12i^{}j^{}a_1a_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l+\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}𝜶^{j^{}i^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$ (108)
$`=`$ $`2r(n2)(\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{12i^{}j^{}a_1a_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l+`$ (110)
$`+2r(n2)(\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}(l_{n1}^{}+r(n3))\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{12i^{}j^{}a_1a_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=`$
$`=`$ $`2r(n2)(l_{n1}^{}+r(n2))\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{}^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d}{}_{12i^{}j^{}a_1a_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ (111)
with indices $`i^{},j^{}=3,5,\mathrm{},d1`$.

We summarize

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d12ij}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i.`$ (112)
Now, we can repeat this process by using (34) to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d1234ij}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4\mathrm{}}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i`$ (113)
and so on. Finally we arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d8)(d7)ij}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i,`$ (114)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d6)(d5)ij}{}_{a_1a_2}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i`$ (115)
and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{(int)}(\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d4)(d3)ij})|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i.`$ (116)
This obviously implies

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{d1}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{d2}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0.`$ (117)
We use this result in Eq.(115) for $`i=d4,d3`$ to find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{d3}^{(int)}S^{d2d1}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{d4}^{(int)}S^{d2d1}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0.$$
(118)
Since $`S^{d2d1}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=l_1^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ and $`\alpha 0`$, Eq.(70) requires that $`l_1^{}0`$ and we conclude from Eq.(118)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{d3}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{d4}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0.$$
(119)
Using this result and the one of Eq.(117) in Eq.(114) for $`i=d6,d5`$, we find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{d5}^{(int)}\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d8)(d7)(d6)(d5)}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,`$ (120)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{d6}^{(int)}\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d8)(d7)(d6)(d5)}{}_{a_1a_2a_4a_4}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0.`$ (121)
Again, the equality $`\epsilon ^{0d1234\mathrm{}(d8)(d7)(d6)(d5)}{}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}{}^{}S_{}^{a_1a_2}S^{a_3a_4}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=8(l_2^{}+r)l_1^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ and $`l_1^{}0`$ implies that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{d5}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{d6}^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0$$
(122)
and so on. Finally we find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0,$$
(123)
which proves $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(int)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_l=0`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ and concludes the proof.

We may now write down the main result of this paper:

On the space with internal Lorentz group $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation $`(l_n,l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1},(l_10)`$ the equation

$$(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{with}\alpha =\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)l_1$$
(124)
is the equation of motion for massless particles corresponding to the following representations of the Poincaré group

$$(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;+1)_{+1}\mathrm{and}(l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_1;1)_{+1},$$
(125)
where the masslessness condition $`(p_ap^a0)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not needed, since it follows from (124).

With the aid of Eqs. (54), (55) the equation of motion can also be written as

$$(W^a=|\alpha |\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi },|\alpha |=\rho 2^{n1}(n1)!(l_{n1}+n2)\mathrm{}(l_2+1)|l_1|.$$
(126)
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. (124), (126) since $`\rho `$ is found in both the lefthand and the righthand side of the equations and thus cancels out. The value of $`\rho `$ becomes relevant when dealing with the particular spin (i.e. in the next section) 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

$$(\stackrel{}{S}.\stackrel{}{p}=|\alpha |\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(127)
Since $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)})^2=1`$, one immediately finds that $`|\alpha |=|\stackrel{}{S}.\stackrel{}{p}|/|p^0|`$. We shall comment that for spinors Eq.(127) is equivalent to Eq.(126), while for vectors Eq.(126) gives additional condition to Eq.(127).

## VI Discussions on examples.

We have shown in previous sections that massless fields in $`d=2n`$-dimensional spaces, if having the Poincaré symmetry, obey the linear equations of motion. We shall present in this section the equations of motion for massless fields in $`d=2n`$ dimensional spaces for two types of fields, which we call spinorial and vectorial fields, respectively. Spinorial fields are defined by the generators of the Lorentz transformations, which fulfil Eq.(7) and are represented by $`(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\pm \frac{1}{2})_{+1}`$. The irreducible representations of the internal Lorentz group for vectorial fields are given by $`(1,\mathrm{},\pm 1)_{+1}`$. We shall later define the generators of the Lorentz group for the vectorial internal space in any dimension $`d=2n`$ (see Eq.(133)).

Although both kinds of fields can be treated in an ordinary way, that is by using the group theoretical approaches, which determine properties of states of an irreducible representation by defining the operation of the generators of the group on a state without going into any representation, just as we have done in sections above, we shall use the space of anicommuting $`d=2n`$ coordinates to describe the internal degrees of freedom (it is the spin degree of freedom in our case) for both types of fields mentioned above, representing states as polynomials of the anticommuting coordinates. We shall do that, because this way offers a very simple and transparent presentation of operators in any dimension, as well as of representations. We shall follow the approach of one of us, using Grassmann coordinates. As it was proven in ref. we could as well use differential forms instead of Grassmann coordinates. At the end we shall comment on results.

We briefly review the description of the internal space we use . It is the Grassmann space (also known as the exterior algebra) spanned over $`2n`$-dimensional vector space; we denote it as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2n}`$. Formally, this space is the space spanned by $`2n`$ variables

$$\theta ^0,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{2n}$$
(128)
and their products, where the following anticommutation relations hold

$$\{\theta ^a,\theta ^b\}=\theta ^a\theta ^b+\theta ^a\theta ^b=0,a,b=0,1,\mathrm{},2n.$$
(129)
We use the symbol $`\theta ^a`$ to also denote the operator of multiplication with the variable $`\theta ^a`$. Accordingly, relations (129) hold for $`\theta ^a`$ as operators also. The operator of differentiation $`\frac{}{\theta ^a}`$ is defined as follows

$$\frac{}{\theta ^a}(\theta ^{a_1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{a_p})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& \mathrm{if}aa_1,\mathrm{},a_k,\\ (1)^{l1}\theta ^{a_1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{a_{l1}}\theta ^{a_{l+1}}\mathrm{}\theta ^{a_p},& \mathrm{if}a=a_l\end{array},$$
(130)
if we assume that the differentiation is allways performed from the left.

We denote $`p_{\theta a}=i\frac{}{\theta ^a}`$. It is easily checked that the following anticommutation relations hold

$$\{\theta ^a,\theta ^b\}=\{p_\theta ^a,p_\theta ^b\}=0,\{\theta ^a,p_\theta ^b\}=i\eta ^{ab}.$$
(131)
Following the references, we define the generators of the internal Lorentz group. For spinors they are

$$S_s^{ab}=\frac{i}{4}[a^a,a^b],\mathrm{where}a^a=i(p_\theta ^ai\theta ^a),$$
(132)
with $`[a^a,a^b]=a^aa^ba^ba^a`$, and for vectors they are

$$S_v^{ab}=\theta ^ap_\theta ^b\theta ^bp_\theta ^a.$$
(133)
Both $`S_s^{ab}`$ and $`S_v^{ab}`$ satisfy Lorentz group commutation relations and therefore furnish a representation of the Lorentz group. For operators $`a^a`$ the following anticommutation relations hold

$$\{a^a,a^b\}=2\eta ^{ab}.$$
(134)
We shall first comment on the representations for the spinorial case and derive the corresponding equations of motion for spinorial massless fields in $`d=2n`$. Later we shall do the same for vectorial massless fields.

### A Spinors.

We introduce the following definitions for the handedness operator and the Pauli-Ljubanski vector ($`\beta =i\frac{2^n}{d!},\rho =\frac{2^{n2}}{(d2)!}`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=i{\displaystyle \frac{2^n}{d!}}\epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S_s^{a_1a_2}S_s^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}=(i)^{n+1}a^0a^1\mathrm{}a^{2n},`$ (135)
$`W^a={\displaystyle \frac{2^{n2}}{(d2)!}}\epsilon ^{aa_1}{}_{a_2a_3\mathrm{}a_{d1}}{}^{}p_{a_1}^{}S_s^{a_2a_3}S_s^{a_4a_5}\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{(i)^{n1}}{2}}p_ba^aa^b(a^0a^1\mathrm{}a^{2n}).`$ (136)
This ensures $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(int)}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$ which implies $`l_10`$ for all irreducible representations $`(l_n,\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1}`$ into which the representation space decomposes. Then we must have $`|l_1|\frac{1}{2}`$ and by the equation (54) this implies $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}|1`$ where equality is achieved for $`l_n=l_{n1}=\mathrm{}=|l_1|=\frac{1}{2}`$. Since this is our case we conclude that we are dealing with the representations $`(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2})_{+1}`$. For $`d=6`$ we present in Table I the basis for two of the irreducible representations $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2})`$ our internal space decomposes into.

We now proceed to determination of the equations of motion. First we introduce the operators

$$\overline{S_s}^{ab}=\frac{2^{n2}}{(d2)!}\epsilon ^{ab}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d2}}{}^{}S_{s}^{a_1a_2}S_s^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}=\frac{(i)^{n1}}{2}a^aa^b(a^0a^1\mathrm{}a^{2n}).$$
(137)
and state

Lemma VI A.1 : It holds

$$\overline{S_s}^{ab}=i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_s^{ab}.$$
(138)
Proof: Obvious from our previous definitions.

We now state our equation of motion. It is Eq.(126) and it reads

$$(W^a=p_b\overline{S_s}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(139)
Now, the lemma VI A.1 implies that this is equivalent to

$$(ip_b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_s^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(140)
Taking into account the definition $`S_s^{ab}=\frac{i}{2}(a^aa^b\eta ^{ab})`$ and multiplying the above equation by $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}`$ we obtain

$$(p_b(a^aa^b\eta ^{ab})=p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(141)
which upon multiplication by $`a_a`$ implies

$$p_ba^b|\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(142)
By reversing this process we may show that Eq. (142) implies Eq. (126). It is therefore our equation of motion. For $`d=4`$ we may recognize it as the Weyl-like equation. Further discussions about this equation of motion can be found in references and other references included in these papers. We may also check, that by multiplying Eq.(142) by $`(i)^{n+1}_{a0}a^a`$, Eq.(142) is equivalent to

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^0=2\stackrel{}{S_s}.\stackrel{}{p})|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}.$$
(143)
Defining $`\gamma ^a`$ matrices for any $`d`$ and replacing $`a^a`$ by $`\gamma ^a`$, we could repeat all the above derivations and end up with the Dirac equation for spinors in $`d`$-dimensional spaces.

### B Vectors.

We take the following definition of the handedness operator ($`\beta =\frac{i}{2^nn!^2}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}=\frac{i}{2^nn!^2}\epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}S_v^{a_1a_2}S_v^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}=\frac{i}{n!^2}\epsilon _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d1}a_d}\theta ^{a_1}p_\theta ^{a_2}\theta ^{a_3}p_\theta ^{a_4}\mathrm{}.$$
(144)
We limit our attention to the subspace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ spanned by $`n`$-monomials of the form

$$\theta ^{a_1}\theta ^{a_2}\mathrm{}\theta ^{a_n},a_1,\mathrm{},a_n=0,1,\mathrm{},2n.$$
(145)
On this subspace it obviously holds

$$((\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)})^2=1)|\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(146)
from where we conclude that $`l_10`$ for all irreducible representations $`(l_n,\mathrm{},l_1)_{+1}`$ into which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ decomposes. It is easily checked that

$$(S_v^{ab}S_{vab})^2=S_v^{ab}S_{vab},(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}a,b)$$
(147)
which implies that (in absolute value) the possible values for $`S_v^{ab}`$ are $`0,1`$. Since $`l_1`$ is nonzero, we conclude from Eq.(54) that $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}|1`$ where equality is achieved for

$$l_n=l_{n1}=\mathrm{}=|l_1|=1.$$
(148)
Therefore, equation (146) implies Eq.(148). For $`d=6`$ we present in Table II the basis for the irreducible representation $`(1,1,1)`$.

We now proceed to the formulation of the equation of motion on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. We take $`\rho =\frac{1}{2^{n1}(n1)!^2}`$ in the definition of the Pauli-Ljubanski vector

$`W^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{n1}(n1)!^2}}\epsilon _{a_2a_3\mathrm{}a_{d1}}^{aa_1}p_{a_1}S_v^{a_2a_3}S_v^{a_4a_5}\mathrm{}=`$ (149)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)!^2}}\epsilon ^{aa_1}{}_{a_2a_3\mathrm{}a_{d1}}{}^{}p_{a_1}^{}\theta ^{a_2}p_\theta ^{a_3}\theta ^{a_4}p_\theta ^{a_5}\mathrm{}=p_b\overline{S_v}^{ab}`$ (150)
where we have introduced

$$\overline{S_v}^{ab}=\frac{1}{(n1)!^2}\epsilon ^{ab}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d3}a_{d2}}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a_1}p_\theta ^{a_2}\theta ^{a_3}p_\theta ^{a_4}\mathrm{}.$$
(151)
Before formulating the equations of motion we prove

Lemma VI B.1 : On the space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ it holds

$$(\overline{S_v}^{ab}=i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_v^{ab})|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(152)
Proof: We fix $`a,b=0,1,\mathrm{},2n`$ and write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{n!^2}}(n(n1)p_\theta ^ap_\theta ^b\epsilon _{aba_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d2}}\theta ^{a_1}\theta ^{a_2}\theta ^{a_3}p_\theta ^{a_4}\mathrm{}+`$ (153)
$`+n(n1)\theta ^a\theta ^b\epsilon _{aba_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d2}}p_\theta ^{a_1}p_\theta ^{a_2}\theta ^{a_3}p_\theta ^{a_4}\mathrm{}+n^2S_v^{ab}[\overline{S}_{vab}(n1)!^2]).`$ (154)
Multiplying this by $`S_{vab}=\theta _ap_{\theta b}\theta _bp_{\theta a}`$ and $`\overline{S_vab}`$ respectively we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_{vab}=i(S_v^{ab}S_{vab})\overline{S}_{vab},(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}a,b)$$
(155)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}\overline{S}_{vab}=i(\overline{S_v}^{ab}\overline{S}_{vab})S_{vab}.(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}a,b)$$
(156)
Taking into account the equations (146), (147), (155), (156) we obtain

$`i\overline{S}_{vab}|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(i\overline{S}_{vab}(1S_v^{ab}S_{vab})+i\overline{S}_{vab}S_v^{ab}S_{vab})|\mathrm{\Phi }=`$ (157)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}\overline{S}_{vab}\overline{S_v}^{ab}S_{vab}(1S_v^{ab}S_{vab})+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_{vab})|\mathrm{\Phi }=`$ (158)
$`=`$ $`(i\overline{S}_{vab}\overline{S_v}^{ab}\overline{S}_{vab}(S_v^{ab}S_{vab})(1S_v^{ab}S_{vab})+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_{vab})|\mathrm{\Phi }=`$ (159)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}S_{vab}|\mathrm{\Phi },(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}\mathrm{over}a,b).`$ (160)
We may now write our equations of motion (126)

$$(p_b\overline{S_v}^{ab}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(int)}p^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(161)
With the equation (152) this is equivalent to

$$(p_bS_v^{ab}=ip^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(162)
or

$$(p_b(\theta ^ap_\theta ^b\theta ^bp_\theta ^a)=ip^a)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(163)
We multiply the last equation by $`p_\theta ^a\theta _a`$ (no summation over $`a`$) to obtain

$$(p_\theta ^a(p_b\theta ^b)=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(164)
Since this holds for every $`a`$ we may conclude

$$(p_b\theta ^b=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(165)
We similarly obtain

$$(p_bp_\theta ^b=0)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(166)
The equations (165), (166) are also easily shown to imply (162) : one simply multiplies Eqs. (165), (166) by $`p_{\theta a},\theta _a`$, respectively, and adds the two equations. Therefore (165) and (166) are the equations of motion.

The above discussion also shows that Eq.(127), which is a special case $`a=0`$ of Eq.(126), is not equivalent to Eq.(126) for vectors. It is equivalent to (164) with $`b=0`$ which in general does not imply (165). Therefore in the case of vectors (and in general) Eq.(127) must be complemented by additional equations to ensure that it is the equation of motion. These additional equations are of course the remaining equations $`a=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ of (126).

Finally we show that the obtained equations of motion are the generalized Maxwell equations . The space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ may be identified with the space of totally antisymmetric $`n`$-tensor $`F^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n}`$ with the correspondence

$$\theta _{a_1}\theta _{a_2}\mathrm{}\theta _{a_n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_nF^{c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_n}=\frac{1}{n!}\epsilon ^{c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_n}{}_{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}{}_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n}{}^{}.$$
(167)
Then Eqs.(165), (166) may be written as

$$p_aF^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}}=p_a\epsilon ^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}}{}_{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}{}^{}F_{}^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n}=0,$$
(168)
which are the generalized Maxwell equations.

## VII Acknowledgement.

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


format: text

text:
# Identification of the 4486, 4504Å emission lines in O-type spectra

## 1. Introduction

In his paper, Walborn (these proceedings) emphasizes that two prominent emission lines occurring in O-type spectra remain unidentified 37 years after being documented by Wolff (1963). In fact, as pointed out by Wolff, these lines were reported even earlier by Swings & Struve (1940) in a spectrum they have taken of 9 Sge, O7.5 Iaf, hence this problem remains unsolved over 60 years. Walborn furthermore states that despite several contrary suggestions in the literature, these lines are unlikely to be due to CNO ions, because they show no preference for ON or OC spectral types. Because of their possible role as selective emission lines with potential diagnostic power he concludes that “we should not sleep well until these lines are identified”. The prospect of many sleepless nights, though not too frightening to astronomers, prompted us to attack this problem.

## 2. NLTE calculations

We calculated plane-parallel static NLTE model atmospheres composed of hydrogen, helium, and sulfur. The code used is based on an Accelerated Lambda Iteration (ALI) technique and is described in detail by Werner & Dreizler (1999). The sulfur model atom consists of ionization stages II–VI. Figure 1 displays our model atom for IV, which has 27 NLTE levels linked by 70 radiative transitions. Energy levels were obtained from the NIST database (http://www.nist.gov/), oscillator strengths and bound-free cross-sections from the Opacity Project database (Seaton et al. 1994). Line broadening and collisional rates are computed by standard approximate expressions due to the lack of reliable data. In the following we exclusively describe results from a single model calculation ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=35 500 K, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ =3.7, solar abundances). Systematic investigations covering the O spectral sequence and all luminosity classes are the subject of future work.

Figure 2 shows the sulfur ionization structure throughout the atmosphere. It can be seen that V is the dominant stage in the line formation region ($`\mathrm{log}m`$ = $`0\mathrm{}0.4`$), followed by IV. This situation favors recombination from V into highly excited IV levels which then de-excite radiatively by photon emission. In fact this turns out to be the mechanism responsible for the emission lines under discussion. The observed emission line pair stems from the transition 3s24d 2D–3s24f 2Fo, which in detail is composed of three lines. In all observed spectra we have inspected in the literature, the two blue components at 4486Å are too close to be resolved because of stellar rotation (Fig. 2).

Figure 3 compares the computed model spectrum with observations of 15 Mon, O7 V((f)), and HD 105056, ON9.7 Iae. The model is convolved with rotation profiles with $`v`$ sin$`i`$=67 km/s and 68 km/s, respectively (from Howarth et al. 1997). It has parameters appropriate for 15 Mon (see above), being somewhat cooler than the temperature obtained by Herrero et al. (1992, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=39 500 K). The IV emission lines match the observation very well, both in wavelength and in strength. The supergiant HD 105056 requires a much cooler model with much lower gravity ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=31 600 K, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ =3.1, Pauldrach et al. 1990), but nevertheless we show the spectrum of this star with the same model in order to emphasize the relative strength of the IV emissions as compared to the main sequence star 15 Mon. The relative strength of the two emission lines is not matched by the model. This can be caused by subtle details, like treatment of collisional rates among the levels, and deserves further investigation.

Our models also include IV and V lines in the UV and FUV spectral regions. They show an V absorption line at 1502Å which supports the identification first suggested by Howarth (1987). In addition, the models predict an absorption line of IV at 1099Å. It is a multiplet with four components between 1098.4Å and 1100.05Å arising from transitions between the lowest 2D and 2Do terms in the Grotrian diagram (Fig. 1). A hitherto unidentified line at this wavelength has been observed in COPERNICUS spectra of O-stars (Walborn & Bohlin 1996) and we suggest the identification with IV.

## 3. Conclusion

Finally, sixty years after the first documentation of the 4486, 4504Å emission lines in O-star spectra, their origin has been revealed; by using model calculations, we have shown that they are attributable to IV. Since the models are of plane-parallel atmospheres, neither sphericity effects nor stellar winds need to be invoked for this emission line phenomenon. Future work may explain the observed strength of these lines as a function of effective temperature and luminosity class so that, in turn, these selective emission lines may henceforth be used as a diagnostic tool.

### Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to Nolan Walborn for useful correspondence and for a preprint of his paper that initiated this work. We thank Nidia Morrell and Ian Howarth for generously providing us with their optical data of 15 Mon and HD 105056. This work is supported by DLR (50 OR 9705 5).

## References

Herrero A., Kudritzki R.P., Vilchez J.M., Kunze D., Butler K., Haser S. 1992, A&A 261, 209

Howarth I.D. 1987, MNRAS 226, 249

Howarth I.D., Siebert K.W., Hussain G.A.J., Prinja R.K. 1997, MNRAS 284, 265

Pauldrach A.W.A., Kudritzki R.P., Puls J., Butler K. 1990, A&A 228, 125

Seaton M.J., Yan Y., Mihalas D., Pradhan A.K. 1994, MNRAS 266, 805

Swings P., Struve O. 1940, ApJ 91, 546

Walborn N.R., Bohlin R.C. 1996, PASP 108, 477

Werner K., Dreizler S. 1999, in Computational Astrophysics, eds. H. Riffert, K. Werner, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 109, 65

Wolff R.J. 1963, PASP 75, 485


text:
# Hard Non-commutative Loops Resummation

\[

## Abstract

The non-commutative version of the euclidean $`g^2\varphi ^4`$ theory is considered. By using Wilsonian flow equations the ultraviolet renormalizability can be proved to all orders in perturbation theory. On the other hand, the infrared sector cannot be treated perturbatively and requires a resummation of the leading divergences in the two-point function. This is analogous to what is done in the Hard Thermal Loops resummation of finite temperature field theory. Next-to-leading order corrections to the self-energy are computed, resulting in $`O(g^3)`$ contributions in the massless case, and $`O(g^6\mathrm{log}g^2)`$ in the massive one.

\]

Quantum field theories on non-commutative spaces have been the subject of intense investigation in the recent past, mainly motivated by their tight relation with string theories. Low energy excitations of a $`D`$-brane in a magnetic $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ background are indeed described by field theories with space non-commutativity . In this limit the relevant description of dynamics is in term of massless open string states, while massive open string states and closed strings decouple: the full consistent string theory seems therefore truncated to the usual field theoretical degrees of freedom, suggesting the possibility that also the related quantum field theories are well defined. On the other hand their consistency is far from being obvious when examined from a purely field theoretical point of view: they are non-local (involving interactions with an arbitrarily high number of derivatives) and there is a new dimensionful parameter, other than the masses, taking into account the scale at which non-commutativity becomes relevant.

It is then natural to ask whether these theories are renormalizable. Contrary to early suggestions it was shown in ref.  that infinities appear when perturbative computations are performed in non-commutative scalar theories. Moreover, an higly non-trivial mixture between ultraviolet (UV) and infra-red (IR) behaviors  makes a proof of perturbative renormalization along the usual lines quite cumbersome. Indeed, the one-loop self-energy in the non-commutative version of $`g^2\varphi ^4/4!`$ theory gets a contribution of $`O(g^2M_{nc}^4/p^2)`$, where $`M_{nc}`$ is the scale of non-commutativity and $`p`$ the external momentum. This behavior is easily understood taking into account that the so called ‘non-planar’ graphs are effectively cut-off in the UV at a scale $`O(M_{nc}^2/p)`$ and that the scalar self-energy is quadratically divergent in the commutative case . When inserted in a higher order graph, the one-loop self-energy induces IR-divergences even in the case of a massive theory. For instance, the two-point function diverges quadratically in the IR for the massless theory at $`O(g^4)`$ and logarithmically for the massive one at $`O(g^6)`$, more tadpole insertions giving more and more IR-divergent behaviors. A similar behavior was discovered for gauge theories .

Due to this problematic ‘IR/UV connection’ no complete calculation has been performed up to now in the scalar theory at next-to-leading order in perturbation theory. The possibility of absorbing UV divergences by means of local counterterms has been discussed at two-loops in refs. , but no finite result could be obtained at that order due to the pathological behavior of the integrals in the IR.

In this letter we will present the result of a resummation of the IR divergences which allows a consistent computation of finite corrections beyond the leading perturbative order. Before doing that, we will give the main lines of a proof of UV renormalizability to all orders in perturbation theory, which will be presented in full detail in .

The need of a resummation has been realized by different people, and discussed for instance in . However, to our knowledge, no systematic approach has been formulated and therefore no explicit computation has been presented up to now. In the resummed perturbative expansion, the first correction to the leading $`O(g^2)`$ contribution to the self-energy of the massless theory arises at $`O(g^3)`$ instead of the naively expected $`O(g^4)`$. For the massive case, the resummation of all the problematic diagrams first arising at $`O(g^6)`$, results in a $`g^6\mathrm{log}g^2`$ behavior.

The pattern of the IR problem in the non-commutative scalar theory presents some remarkable similarity with that arising in finite temperature field theory . In that case, the UV divergences of the new thermal contributions are cut-off by the temperature $`T`$, resulting in a $`O(g^2T^2)`$ correction to the self-energy at one-loop. The ratio between the one-loop amplitude and the tree-level one, $`O(g^2T^2/p^2)`$ becomes of $`O(1)`$ for soft external momenta, p

<

gT

<

𝑝𝑔𝑇p\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}gT, so that a resummation must be performed in order to define a sensible perturbative expansion. The program is accomplished by using a resummed propagator, in which a ‘thermal mass’ is included, $`(p^2+g^2T^2/24)^1`$. Since the amplitude which has been resummed receives contributions mainly by the hard ($`pT`$) momentum part of the one-loop integral, the resummed theory goes customarily under the name of ‘hard thermal loops’. Analogously, we will use propagators in which one-loop amplitudes, dominated by momenta $`O(M_{nc}^2/p)`$, are resummed, and will consistently call this procedure ‘hard non-commutative loops’ resummation.

Before giving the details and results of the resummation, we outline a formulation of the Wilsonian renormalization group (RG) à la Polchinski  for the non-commutative scalar theory which will be presented in detail in a forthcoming publication. By studying perturbatively the Wilsonian flow equation we are able to prove UV renormalization to all orders. Then, turning to the IR regime, we will show how a resummation procedure emerges quite naturally in this context.

¿From a field-theoretical point of view, the non-commutative version of $`g^2\varphi ^4/4!`$ theory is again a scalar theory with the same tree-level propagator but a different vertex, which at tree-level is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=`$ $`g^2h(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{3}}[\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{2}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{p_3p_4}{2}})`$ (3)
$`+\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(13)(24)^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(14)(23)^{\prime \prime }],`$
where $`pqp_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }q_\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ being the anti-symmetric matrix defining the commutation relations ($`[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$). As a consequence, the Wilsonian action and the RG equations can be derived in the same way as in refs.  – they are actually the same equations, but with different boundary conditions. Our proof of perturbative UV renormalization parallels quite closely the one given by Bonini, D’Attanasio and Marchesini for the commutative case , so we only sketch here the main lines and stress only the differences emerging in the non-commutative theory.

A Wilsonian effective action can be defined, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\varphi )`$, as the generating functional of 1PI Green functions obtained by integrating out loop momenta $`q`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<q<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. Our task is to prove that the double limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ (UV renormalizability) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ (IR finitness) can be taken.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\varphi )`$ and the Green function generated by $`\varphi `$-derivating it, obey exact evolution equations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. There is a simple recipe to obtain the RG equation for any $`2n`$-point function; i) write the 1-loop expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}`$ obtained by using all the vertices up to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}`$, as if they were formally tree-level; ii) promote the tree-level vertices above to full, running, vertices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{(2n)}`$, and the tree-level propagator to the full, cut-off, propagator,

$`D_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)=[(p^2+m^2)K(p;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)]^1,`$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is the full, running, self-energy, and the cut-off function $`K(p;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ is equal to one in the interval $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<p<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and vanishes rapidly outside; iii) take the derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ everywhere in the $`K`$’s but not in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s.

So, the evolution equation for e.g. the self-energy is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q)}{q^2+m^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^4(q,p,p,q)},`$

where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q)}{q^2+m^2}}`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q^2+m^2)K(q;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q)}}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (5)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q)}{q^2+m^2}K(q;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\right]^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}K(q;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ (6)
The RG equations for higher point functions are obtained analogously, and they together form an infinite system of coupled ordinary differential equations which define the theory non-perturbatively. The renormalization conditions are imposed by properly chosing the boundary conditions. For the relevant vertices

$`\gamma _2(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)}{dp^2}}|_{p^2=\mu ^2},\gamma _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)|_{p^2=\mu ^2},`$ (7)
$`\gamma _4(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^4(\overline{p}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{p}_4)}{h(\overline{p}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{p}_4)}}`$ (8)
(where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale and the momenta $`\overline{p}_i`$ have been chosen such that $`\overline{p}_i\overline{p}_j=\mu ^2(\delta _{ij}\frac{1}{4})`$) the boundary conditions are given at the physical point $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$,

$$\gamma _2(0)=1,\gamma _3(0)=\mu ^2,\gamma _4(0)=g^2.$$
(9)
The boundary conditions for all the other –irrelevant– vertices (higher momentum derivatives in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^4`$ and all the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{2n}`$’s with $`n>2`$) are instead fixed at the UV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where the irrelevant vertices can be set equal to zero.

With these boundary conditions, the relevant vertices at a generic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are given by integrals between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, whereas the irrelevant ones are given by integrals between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ . Then, one can disentangle the UV from the IR by taking the physical limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ in two successive steps. The proof of UV renormalizability follows quite closely the well known one given by Polchinski in the commutative case , and discussed further in . It exploits two remarkable features of the RG equations; i) the momentum ordering, by which a given irrelevant coupling evaluated at cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ receives contributions only from loop momenta $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and ii) the one-loop structure of the exact equations, which make it possible to recover perturbation theory solving them iteratively. As a result, the proof is extremely simple, as it is based just on power counting arguments. In the UV regime, the non-commutative and the commutative theories exhibit essentially the same power counting. Indeed, by chosing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ much larger than any physical scale of the theory, that is $`\mu ,m,M_{nc}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the above mentioned $`g^2M_{nc}^4/q^2`$ behavior of the 1-loop self-energy has not developed yet, as the momenta in the relevant integrals are bounded from below by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{nc}`$, and the one-loop self-energy is subdominant with respect to the tree-level $`q^2`$ contribution in (4). As a consequence, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ limit can be shown to be finite at any perturbative order by a straightforward translation of the arguments given in . All the details of the proof will be given in a separate paper .

When the IR regime comes under scrutiny, things change considerably. In  the IR finitness of Green functions with non-exceptional external momenta (i.e $`p>O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$) was proved for the commutative massless theory at any order in perturbation theory. Crucial for that proof is the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is at most logarithmically divergent as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ at any finite order in the expansion. As we have repeatedly seen, this is not the case any more in the non-commutative case, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}g^2M_{nc}^4/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Any perturbative computation is thus plagued by IR divergences which emerge sooner or later in the expansion in $`g^2`$.

A quick look at the exact form of the RG evolution equations, and in particular at the kernel in eq. (4), shows both what the problem is and how a solution can be found. Namely, the more dangerous IR divergences come out when –at any finite order in perturbation theory– one expands the full-propagator appearing in the kernel in powers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q)/(q^2+m^2)`$. Since $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the kernel, this ratio diverges as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ in the massive theory and as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ in the massless one. It is then clear that any Green function – even at non-exceptional momenta– will be divergent at a sufficiently high order in $`g^2`$.

The exact form of the RG kernel gives the solution as well. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(q\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ comes in the denominator, it is clear that the full equations are indeed better behaved in the IR than any approximation to them computed at any finite order in $`g^2`$. Actually, since the effective mass explodes as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, they are even better behaved than those for the massive theory in the commutative case!

It appears then clear that the IR pathologies are just an artifact of the perturbative expansion, which should disappear if this is properly reorganized. To this end, one can still pursue the RG framework, splitting the full two-point function as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{(2)}(p)=`$ $`(p^2+m^2)K(p;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{\mathrm{L}O}(p)`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{\mathrm{L}O}=(g^2/24\pi ^2)[1J_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\stackrel{~}{p}]/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ is the leading IR contribution the one-loop self-energy (we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$, and $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function). Eq. (11) defines a new expansion in terms of $`g^2`$ and the new ‘tree-level’ propagator $`[(p^2+m^2)K(p;\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{\mathrm{L}O}(p)]^1`$. All this can be done consistently in the Wilsonian RG framework, where the evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)`$ is easily obtained from that for the full self-energy. Notice that, after resummation, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limits can be interchanged.

In more common language, the resummation procedure simply amounts to adding and subtracting the term

$$\frac{g^2}{48\pi ^2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\varphi (p)\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\varphi (p)$$
(12)
to the tree-level lagrangian (we have taken the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ limit), so as to get the resummed propagator provided a new two-point ‘interaction’ in eq. (12) is consistently taken into account, in very close analogy to what is done in the finite temperature theory case .

The interactions of the resummed theory give the Feynman rules in Fig. 1.

Now we are ready to compute the next-to-leading order corrections to the self-energy, which are given by the two diagrams in Fig. 2, where the resummed propagator runs into the loop (of course also the graph with the UV counterterms has to be included, which is not shown in the figure).

The tadpole diagram in the resummed theory gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^2+m^2+\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}\left[2+\mathrm{cos}(qp)\right]}`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}+\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{U}Vc.t.^{\prime \prime }.`$
In the UV, the integral has the same structure as for the non-resummed theory, with a quadratically divergent contribution from the ‘planar’ diagrams and a finite one from the ‘non-planar’ ones, giving the $`1/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ term which is exactly cancelled by the new two-point interaction of the resummed theory. In the IR, the planar and non-planar contributions sum up. By writing

$`\stackrel{~}{q}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr𝐀q^2+q𝐁q,`$

where $`A_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Theta }_{\rho \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is a traceless symmetric matrix. The symmetry of the integrand in the IR regime, selects the $`q^2`$ term as the dominant contribution.

In the massless case ($`m=0`$) we find the following contribution from the ‘planar’ graph

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{p}l}^{m=0}(p)=\frac{g^3}{96\pi }M_{nc}^2+O(g^5),$$
(15)
whereas from the ‘non-planar’ one we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{n}pl}^{m=0}(p)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{192\pi }}M_{nc}^2`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4M_{nc}^4\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{1536\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2M_{nc}^4\stackrel{~}{p}^4}{256}}\mathrm{c}onst\right]`$
for $`M_{nc}\stackrel{~}{p}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{n}pl}^{m=0}(p)=O(g/M_{nc}^4\stackrel{~}{p}^6)`$, for $`M_{nc}\stackrel{~}{p}1`$, where we have defined $`M_{nc}(6\pi ^2Tr𝐀)^{1/4}`$. In the massive case we get (planar + non-planar)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}}[m^2\mathrm{log}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{nc}^4}{m^2}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{nc}^8}{m^6}}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4M_{nc}^8}{m^8}}+3)+O(g^6)].`$
As one could expect, the non-analiticity in the coupling $`g^2`$ emerges at lower order in the massless case (where we find a $`O((g^2)^{3/2})`$ correction) compared to the massive one ($`g^6\mathrm{log}g^4`$). This reflects the fact that, in ordinary perturbation theory, the self-energy is IR divergent at $`O(g^4)`$ in the former case and at $`O(g^6)`$ in the latter.

In computing the next-to-next-to-leading order in the resummed perturbative expansion one must consistently take into account the two-point interaction in (12). Indeed, the two-loop graph for the resummed $`m=0`$ theory with one non-planar tadpole insertion (first graph in Fig. 3) gives a contribution of $`O(g^3M_{nc}^2)`$, the same as the corrections computed above. It is only when the graph containing the two-point interaction is added that the whole correction comes out $`O(g^5M_{nc}^2)`$.

The $`O(g^4)`$ corrections that one gets at two-loop, coming from UV loop momenta, cannot modify the $`O(g^4\mathrm{log}g^2)`$ term in eq. (17). The corrections computed above are really ‘perturbatively small’ compared to the leading two-point function $`p^2+g^2/24\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ in any range of the momentum $`p`$. Indeed, for large enough momenta, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ correction dominates over the $`g^2/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ term, but in that regime the tree-level $`p^2`$ term is leading. On the other hand in the IR the opposite happens, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ never dominating over $`g^2/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$. Consequently, no tachyonic behavior can be induced by the next-to-leading order corrections.

The resummed propagator was interpreted in ref.  as originating from some high-energy degrees of freedom which, when integrated out, leave a commutative scalar theory with modified dispersion relations. In the RG language, the contributions to the two– and four–point functions induced by non-commutativity may be analogously seen as high-energy boundary conditions of an otherwise commutative theory valid up to some energy $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_{NC}`$ .

It would be interesting to know if a resummation can be performed in gauge theories on the same spirit of this paper. Modifying only the two-point function is not a gauge invariant operation, so that an hypotetical resummation must necessarily involve all Green functions, as it is the case in hard-thermal-loop resummed QCD .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Marisa Bonini for useful discussions.