format: text

text:
# Heat Capacity of MgB2: Evidence for Moderately Strong Coupling Behavior

## Abstract

We characterize the superconducting state of phase pure polycrystalline samples of the new layered superconductor MgB2 by specific heat measurements in magnetic fields up to 9 T. The characteristic jump at the superconducting transition is observed and compared with the predictions of weak coupling BCS-theory and the $`\alpha `$-model. Our analysis shows excellent agreement with the predictions for 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_\mathrm{C}`$ = 4.2(2) with a Sommerfeld term $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ of 3.1(1) mJ/mol K2 indicating that MgB2 is a superconductor in the moderately strong electron-phonon coupling regime.

Recently, Akimitsu and co-workers reported superconductivity at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ 39 K in the layered diboride MgB2 . This discovery on the one hand again focuses attention on the borides as possible candidates for high-$`T_\mathrm{C}`$ superconductivity. On the other hand, $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ of MgB2 exceeds the generally agreed theoretical limit for phonon mediated superconductivity and raises the question as to another possible coupling mechanism . However, first measurements of the thermodynamic properties and in particular of a sizeable partial 11B isotope effect by Bud’ko et al. strongly hint at the importance of phonons for superconductivity in MgB2 . Kortus and co-workers, based on electronic band structure calculations conclude that the metallic character is due to covalent B-B bonding and that $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ particularly benefits from strong electron-phonon coupling in concert with high frequency vibrations associated with the light mass of the boron atoms . Evidence for strong-coupling $`s`$-wave superconductivity was indeed found from 11B nuclear spin lattice relaxation measurements from which a rather large gap ratio of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$/$`k_BT_C`$ 5 was derived . Strong electron-lattice coupling also seems to be able to explain Al doping experiments carried out by Slusky et al. that show a decrease of $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ with increasing Al content and finally a loss of bulk superconductivity at $``$ 10 % Al doping . These experiments, in particular, reveal MgB2 to be close to a structural instability involving a boron interlayer alternation rather than bond alternation in the B layers. All presently available tunneling spectroscopy experiments consistently fit very well to an $`s`$-wave BCS quasi-particle density of states and consistently exclude $`d`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter. However, the gap values resulting from these studies span a wide range and currently leave a somewhat inconclusive situation. The very first experiments by Rubio-Bollinger et al. gave a surprisingly small value of 2 meV (weak-coupling BCS value is 5.9 meV) . More recent work by Schmidt et al.  ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=4.3 meV) and Sharoni et al.  ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=5 - 7 meV) put $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ closer to the weak-coupling value or even into an intermediate coupling regime. This wide range of gap values seems to result from defects or minor non-superconducting impurity phases, or chemical reactions at the surface of the polycrystalline specimen.

In this Letter, we report a heat capacity study in zero field and a magnetic field of 9 T of phase pure samples of MgB2. In the zero-field measurements we observe the characteristic jump in $`c_P`$ at the superconducting transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{C}`$=38.5 K associated with the formation of the superconducting condensate. Our $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T_\mathrm{C})`$ is in good agreement with the finding of Bud’ko et al. . However, a more detailed analysis of the anomaly was not carried out in their work. The detailed temperature dependence of the heat capacity anomaly fits very well to model calculations assuming a BCS-like temperature dependence of the gap and a gap ratio 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$/$`k_BT_\mathrm{C}4.2(2)`$. This value is significantly increased over the BCS ratio of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$/$`k_BT_\mathrm{C}`$=3.52. From the low temperature data taken at 9 T we extract a Sommerfeld coefficient $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ = 3.1(1) mJ/mol K2. Comparing this value with the results of band structure calculations we derive an electron-phonon coupling parameter $`\lambda _{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ 0.8 in good agreement with theoretical estimates from linear-response electronic structure calculations . Our findings for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T_\mathrm{C})`$ imply a ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T_\mathrm{C})/\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}T_\mathrm{C}`$0.7 which is significantly lower than e.g. for the weak coupling BCS value of 1.43.

Polycrystalline samples of MgB2 were prepared from stoichiometric mixtures according to the procedure described in ref. . Phase purity was confirmed with a STOE powder diffractometer. The superconducting transition temperatures $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ were determined with a Quantum Design MPMS7 magnetometer and conventional 4-point resistivity measurements and amounted to $``$38.5 K. For the heat capacity measurements pellets of $``$3 mm diameter and $``$15 mg were pressed, sealed in Ta tubes under Ar atmosphere, and sintered at 950 oC (sample 1) and 850 oC (sample 2) for 10 h. The heat capacity was measured with a Quantum Design PPMS relaxation calorimeter in the temperature range 1.8 to 100 K in fields up to 9 T. Particular care was taken to determine the addenda and thermal relaxation parameters of the platform and the suspension wires at each magnetic field individually .

Fig. 1 displays the zero-field heat capacity of MgB2 in comparison with the data taken within an external field of 9 T. An anomaly centered at $``$38 K is visible in the zero-field data which is suppressed by a magnetic field of 9 T. The maximum of the anomaly amounts to $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T_\mathrm{C})/T_\mathrm{C}`$ 2 mJ/mol K2. The difference of the zero-field and the heat capacity at 9 T is shown in Fig. 2 together with a theoretical curve (solid line in Fig. 2). The theoretical calculations were carried out within the framework of the ‘$`\alpha `$-model’ proposed by Padamsee et al. . This model assumes a BCS-type gap but allows a variable ratio $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{C}`$; in the case of weak-coupling BCS theory $`\alpha `$ = 1.76. This simplistic approach was initially used to model the specific heat jumps of elemental superconductors like In, Sn and Zn, Pb - In alloys, and more recently also of layered organic superconductors as well as of the layered rare earth carbide halides .

To calculate the heat capacity we used a polynomial representation of the temperature dependence of the BCS gap as tabulated by Mühlschlegel for $`TT_\mathrm{C}`$ . Following Padamsee et al. $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T)`$ was obtained according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/(\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}T_\mathrm{C})=C_{\mathrm{es}}(t)/(\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}T_\mathrm{C})t=d/dt(S_{\mathrm{es}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}T_\mathrm{C})t$$
(1)
with $`tT/T_\mathrm{C}`$ and the entropy $`S_{\mathrm{es}}`$ as defined in eq. (2) in ref.. Subtraction of high-field data from zero-field heat capacities to correct for the lattice heat capacity contributions also implies a subtraction of the normal state linear heat capacity term which is accounted for by the -$`t`$ term in eq. (1). With $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$0, for $`T>T_\mathrm{C}`$ eq. (1) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/T_\mathrm{C}0.$$
(2)
Fitting eq. (1) to the experimental results therefore provides $`\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}`$ merely from the magnitude of the anomaly. The detailed temperature dependent shape of the anomaly is determined by $`\alpha `$. To fit the experimental data we varied as adjustable parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}`$, $`T_\mathrm{C}`$, and a parameter that simulated a Gaussian broadening of $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ . In addition, we allowed for a small shift of the baseline which never exceeded 2 mJ/mol K.

The fits of the experimental results of the two independent samples converge rapidly to $`\alpha `$ = 2.1(1) with $`T_\mathrm{C}`$=38.67(5) K and $`\delta T_\mathrm{C}`$=0.55(5) K (sample 1) and with $`T_\mathrm{C}`$=37.84(5) K and $`\delta T_\mathrm{C}`$=0.56(5) K (sample 2). $`\delta T_\mathrm{C}`$ corresponds to $`\sigma `$ in a Gaussian distribution of $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ and indicates a smearing of $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ of less than 1.5 % emphasizing good homogeneity of both samples. The fits consistently converged to $`\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}`$=1.1(1) mJ/mol K2 for both samples.

A reliable independent determination of the Sommerfeld coefficient e.g. from low temperature heat capacity data turned out to be difficult since a field of 9 T is not sufficient to suppress superconductivity completely . $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ measurements indicate a critical temperature of $``$15K at 9 T. In a plot $`c_P/T`$ versus $`T^2`$ we observe a good linear correlation already above 10K and marked deviations only below $``$5 K (see Fig. 3).

A fit of the 9 T data using $`c_P/T`$=$`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ \+ $`\beta T^2`$ yields $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$=3.1(1) mJ/mol K2 and $`\beta `$=1.24(6)$`\times `$10-5 J/mol K4 corresponding to a low temperature Debye temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }{}_{D}{}^{}(0)`$ of $``$ 776(14)K in good agreement with the results of the early heat capacity study by Swift and White and recently by Bud’ko et al..

From a comparison with the results of various band structure calculations, which consistently predict a Sommerfeld term $`\gamma _{\mathrm{BS}}`$1.7 mJ/mol K2 , an electron phonon coupling parameter $`\lambda _{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ is derived to

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}=\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{BS}}10.82(6)$$
(3)
which is in very good agreement with theoretical predictions .

Our results clearly substantiate the scenario of MgB2 being in the ‘intermediate or moderately strong’ coupling regime as conjectured from tunneling spectroscopy experiments by Sharoni et al.  and more recently by Raman spectroscopy  and full-potential LMTO density-functional calculations . The heat capacity measurements do not suffer from the inherent problems of tunneling or optical techniques, namely surface defects or deterioration and our results indicate a gap value of 7.0(3) meV for MgB2. The ratio ($`T_\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{D}`$)2 amounts to 2.3$`\times `$10-3 and is close to classical elemental strongly-coupled superconductors. From McMillans’s expression using a typical value $`\mu ^{}0.15`$ for the Coulomb pseudopotential we estimate an empirical electron-phonon coupling constant $`\lambda _{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ which is somewhat larger than the value obtained from the linear heat capacity term.

Since initial submission of this paper two more heat capacity studies have been reported, both carried out on commercial samples with 98% nominal purity . Both papers find somewhat decreased $`T_\mathrm{C}`$’s but within error limits identical $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P(T_\mathrm{C})`$’s of $``$ 80 mJ/mol K2. The work by Wang et al. reliably derives $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$=2.67 mJ/mol K2 from measurements in magnetic fields up to 16 T which is close to our findings. From a subtraction of a theoretically estimated lattice heat capacity from zero-field data Wälti et al. find an increased $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ of 5.5 mJ/mol K2. As in our work these investigations observe as well the striking difference between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{fit}}`$ which now appears to have become a robust result. Wang et al. assign this discrepancy to possible non-BCS behavior resulting from gap anisotropy and only partial condensation of the electrons at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$. Liu et al. propose multigap superconductivity and an impurity-sensitive specific-heat jump at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ as a possible explanation .

In summary, we present and analyze heat capacity measurements which show that the new superconductor MgB2 is a BCS superconductor in the intermediate or ’moderately’ strong electron-phonon coupling regime. From fits of the heat capacity jump we conclude 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{C}`$=4.2(2) corresponding to a gap of 7.0(3) meV at $`T`$=0 K.

We would like to thank E. Brücher and G. Siegle for experimental assistance. We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with O. K. Andersen, A. Bussmann-Holder, O. Dolgov, U. Habermeier, O. Jepsen, J. Köhler, J. Kortus, and W. Schnelle.


text:
# Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 2001ITEP-TH-05/01 Polar Homology and Holomorphic Bundles

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we describe certain homology groups, for complex projective and one-dimensional quasi-projective manifolds. These polar homology  groups can be regarded as a complex geometric counterpart of singular homology groups in topology.

The essence of the “polar homology” theory described below is presented in the following “complexification dictionary”:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{a real manifold}& & \text{a complex manifold}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{an orientation of the manifold}& & \text{a meromorphic volume form on the manifold}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{manifold’s boundary}& & \text{form’s divisor of poles}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{induced orientation of the boundary}& & \text{residue of the meromorphic form}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{ open manifold’s infinity}& & \text{form’s divisor of  zeros}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{Stokes formula}& & \text{Cauchy formula}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{singular homology}& & \text{polar homology}\hfill \end{array}$$

In short, polar $`k`$-chains in a complex projective manifold are linear combinations of $`k`$-dimensional complex submanifolds with meromorphic closed $`k`$-forms on them. The boundary operator sends such a pair (complex submanifold, meromorphic form) to the pair (form’s divisor of poles, form’s residue at the divisor), that is, to a $`(k1)`$-chain in the same ambient manifold. The square of the boundary operator is zero, and the polar homology groups are defined as the quotients of polar cycles over polar boundaries, see Section 3.

While the form’s divisor of poles on a complex manifold is an analogue of the boundary of a real manifold, the form’s divisor of zeros can be related to the “infinity” of a real manifold, if the latter is non-compact (see Section 4).

This parallelism between topology and algebraic geometry extends to various gauge-theoretic notions and facts. In particular, we discuss below several problems related to the correspondence of flat and holomorphic bundles. Some features of this correspondence are also present in the papers \[A, FK, LMNS, DT, K, T, KR\]. Note that the gauge theory related to a version of the Chern–Simons functional on Calabi–Yau manifolds (see \[W2\]) was a motivation for the construction of these homology groups and of the relevant notion of the polar linking number (see Section 5 and cf. \[FT, KR2\]).

## 2 Polar homology of projective manifolds

We start with a heuristic motivation for polar homology and recall (following \[KR2\]) the formal definition of the corresponding groups in the next section.

2.1 A holomorphic analogue of orientation. In order to see why a meromorphic or holomorphic form on a complex manifold can be regarded as an analogue of orientation of a real manifold, we extend the analogy between de Rham and Dolbeault cochains ( $`d\overline{}`$ ) to an analogy at the level of the corresponding chain  complexes.

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold and $`u`$ be a smooth $`(0,k)`$-form on it, $`0kn=dimX`$. We would like to treat such $`(0,k)`$-forms in the same manner as ordinary $`k`$-forms on a smooth manifold, but in the framework of complex geometry. In particular, we have to be able to integrate them over $`k`$-dimensional complex submanifolds in $`X`$. Recall that in the theory of differential forms, a form can be integrated over a real submanifold provided that the submanifold is endowed with an orientation. Thus, we need to find a holomorphic analogue of the orientation.

For a $`k`$-dimensional submanifold $`WX`$ is equipped with a holomorphic $`k`$-form $`\omega `$ one can consider the following integral

$$_W\omega u$$

of the product of the $`(k,0)`$\- and $`(0,k)`$-forms. Therefore, here we are going to regard a top degree holomorphic form $`\omega `$ on a complex manifold as an analogue of orientation.

2.2 The Cauchy–Stokes formula. More generally, if the form $`\omega `$ is allowed to have first order poles on a smooth hypersurface in $`W`$, the above integral is still well-defined. The new feature brought by the presence of poles of $`\omega `$ manifests in the following relation.

Consider the integral $`_W\omega u`$ with a meromorphic $`k`$-form $`\omega `$ having first order poles on a smooth hypersurface $`VW`$. Let the smooth $`(0,k)`$-form $`u`$ on $`X`$ be $`\overline{}`$-exact, that is $`u=\overline{}v`$ for some $`(0,k1)`$-form $`v`$ on $`X`$. Then

$$_W\omega \overline{}v=2\pi i_V\mathrm{res}\omega v.$$

We shall exploit this straightforward generalization of the Cauchy formula as a complexified analogue of the Stokes theorem.

In the above formula $`\mathrm{res}\omega `$ denotes a $`(k1)`$-form on $`V`$ which is the Poincaré residue of $`\omega `$. Namely, the form $`\omega `$ can be locally expressed as $`\omega =\rho dz/z+\epsilon ,`$ where $`z=0`$ is a local equation of $`V`$ in $`W`$ and $`\rho `$ (respectively, $`\epsilon `$) is a holomorphic $`(n1)`$-form (resp., $`n`$-form). Then the restriction $`\rho |_V`$ is an unambiguously defined holomorphic $`(n1)`$-form on $`V`$, and it is called the Poincaré residue $`\mathrm{res}\omega `$ of the form $`\omega `$.

2.3 Boundary operator. The Cauchy–Stokes formula prompts us to consider the pair $`(W,\omega )`$ consisting of a $`k`$-dimensional submanifold $`W`$ equipped with a meromorphic form $`\omega `$ (with first order poles on $`V`$) as an analogue of a compact oriented submanifold with boundary. In the polar homology theory the pairs $`(W,\omega )`$ will play the role of chains, while the boundary operator will take the form $`(W,\omega )=2\pi i(V,\mathrm{res}\omega )`$. Note, that in the situation under consideration, when the polar set $`V`$ of the form $`\omega `$ is a smooth $`(k1)`$-dimensional submanifold in a smooth $`k`$-dimensional $`W`$, the induced “orientation” on $`V`$ is given by a holomorphic $`(k1)`$-form $`\mathrm{res}\omega `$. This means that $`(V,\mathrm{res}\omega )=0`$, or the boundary of a boundary is zero. The latter is the source of the identity $`^2=0`$, which allows one to define polar homology groups $`HP_k`$.

2.4 Pairing to smooth forms. It is clear that the polar homology groups of a complex manifold $`X`$ should have a pairing to Dolbeault cohomology groups $`H_\overline{}^{0,k}(X)`$. Indeed, for a polar $`k`$-chain $`(W,\omega )`$ and any $`(0,k)`$-form $`u`$ such a pairing is given by the integral

$$(W,\omega ),u=_W\omega u.$$

In other words, the polar chain $`(W,\omega )`$ defines a current on $`X`$ of degree $`(n,nk)`$, where $`n=dimX`$. One can see that this pairing descends to (co)homology classes by virtue of the Cauchy–Stokes formula:

$$(W,\omega ),\overline{}v=(W,\omega ),v.$$

2.5 Example. Now we are already able to find out the polar homology groups $`HP_k`$ of a complex projective curve $`Z`$. In this (and in any) case, all the 0-chains are cycles. Let $`(P,a)`$ and $`(Q,b)`$ be two 0-cycles, where $`P,Q`$ are points on $`Z`$ and $`a,b`$. They are polar homologically equivalent iff $`a=b`$. Indeed, $`a=b`$ is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a meromorphic 1-form $`\alpha `$ on $`Z`$, such that $`\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}\alpha =P+Q`$ and $`\mathrm{res}_P\alpha =2\pi ia,\mathrm{res}_Q\alpha =2\pi ib`$. (The sum of all residues of a meromorphic differential on a projective curve is zero by the Cauchy theorem.) Then, we can write in terms of polar chain complex (to be formally defined in the next section) that $`(P,a)(Q,a)=(Z,\alpha )`$. Thus, $`HP_0(Z)=`$.

Polar 1-cycles correspond to all possible holomorphic 1-forms on $`Z`$. On the other hand, there are no 1-boundaries, since there are no polar 2-chains in $`Z`$. Hence $`HP_1(Z)^g`$, where $`g`$ is the genus of the curve $`Z`$.

2.6 Polar intersections. One can define a polar analogue of the intersection number in topology. For instance, let $`(X,\mu )`$ be a complex manifold equipped with a meromorphic volume form $`\mu `$ without zeros (its “polar orientation”). Consider two polar cycles $`(A,\alpha )`$ and $`(B,\beta )`$ of complimentary dimensions that intersect transversely in $`X`$ (here $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are volume forms, or “polar orientations,” on the corresponding submanifolds). Then the polar intersection number is defined by the formula

$$(A,\alpha )(B,\beta )=\underset{PAB}{}\frac{\alpha (P)\beta (P)}{\mu (P)}.$$

At every intersection point $`P`$, the ratio in the right-hand-side is the “comparison” of the orientations of the polar cycles at that point (the form $`\alpha \beta `$ at $`P`$) with the orientation of the ambient manifold (the form $`\mu `$ at $`P`$). This is a straightforward analogue of the use of mutual orientation of cycles in the definition of the topological intersection number. Note, that in the polar case the intersection number does not have to be an integer. (Rather, it is a holomorphic function of the “parameters” $`(A,\alpha ),(B,\beta )`$ and $`(X,\mu )`$.)

Similarly, there is a polar analogue of the intersection product of cycles when they intersect over a manifold of positive dimension, given essentially by the same formula (see \[KR2\]). Furthermore, one can define a polar analogue of the linking number using the same philosophy of polar chains. We discuss polar linkings, which are very close in spirit to the polar intersections, in relation to the Chern–Simons theory at the end of the paper.

2.7 Remark. Most of the above discussion extends to polar chains $`(A,\alpha )`$ where the meromorphic $`p`$-form $`\alpha `$ is not necessarily of top degree, that is $`0pk`$, where $`k=dim_{}A`$. To define the boundary operator we have to restrict ourselves to the meromorphic forms with logarithmic singularities. The corresponding polar homology groups are enumerated by two indices $`k`$ and $`p`$ ($`0pk`$). One can see that the Cauchy–Stokes formula extends to this case as well, if we pair meromorphic $`p`$-forms $`\omega `$ on $`W`$ with smooth $`(kp,p)`$-forms on $`X`$.

## 3 Definition of polar homology groups.

3.1 Polar chains. In this section we deal with complex projective varieties, i.e., subvarieties of a complex projective space. By a smooth projective variety we always understand a smooth and connected one. For a smooth variety $`M`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^p`$ the sheaf of holomorphic $`p`$-forms on $`M`$. The sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{dimM}`$ of forms of the top degree on $`M`$ will sometimes be denoted by $`K_M`$.

The space of polar $`k`$-chains for a complex projective variety $`X,dimX=n,`$ will be defined as a $``$-vector space with certain generators and relations.

###### Definition 3.2

The space of polar $`k`$-chains  $`𝒞_k(X)`$ is a vector space over $``$ defined as the quotient $`𝒞_k(X)=\widehat{𝒞}_k(X)/_k`$, where the vector space $`\widehat{𝒞}_k(X)`$ is freely generated by the triples $`(A,f,\alpha )`$ described in (i),(ii),(iii) and $`_k`$ is defined as relations (R1),(R2),(R3) imposed on the triples.

(i) $`A`$ is a smooth complex projective variety, $`dimA=k`$;

(ii) $`f:AX`$ is a holomorphic map of projective varieties;

(iii) $`\alpha `$ is a rational $`k`$-form on $`A`$ with first order poles on $`VA`$, where $`V`$ is a normal crossing divisor in $`A`$, i.e., $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A,\mathrm{\Omega }_A^k(V))`$.

The relations are:

(R1) $`\lambda (A,f,\alpha )=(A,f,\lambda \alpha )`$

(R2) $`_i(A_i,f_i,\alpha _i)=0`$ provided that $`_if_i\alpha _i0`$, where $`dimf_i(A_i)=k`$ for all $`i`$ and the push-forwards $`f_i\alpha _i`$ are considered on the smooth part of $`_if_i(A_i)`$;111See, e.g., \[Gr\] for the definition of the push-forward (or, trace) map on forms.

(R3) $`(A,f,\alpha )=0`$ if $`dimf(A)<k`$.

Note that by definition, $`𝒞_k(X)=0`$ for $`k<0`$ and $`k>dimX`$.

3.3 Remark. The relation (R2) allows us, in particular, to deal with pairs instead of triples replacing a triple $`(A,f,\alpha )`$ by a pair $`(\widehat{A},\widehat{\alpha })`$, where $`\widehat{A}=f(A)X`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is defined only on the smooth part of $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }=f_{}\alpha `$ there. Due to the relation (R2), such a pair $`(\widehat{A},\widehat{\alpha })`$ carries precisely the same information as $`(A,f,\alpha )`$. (The only point to worry about is that such pairs cannot be arbitrary. In fact, by the Hironaka theorem on resolution of singularities, any subvariety $`\widehat{A}X`$ can be the image of some regular $`A`$, but the form $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ on the smooth part of $`\widehat{A}`$ cannot be arbitrary.)

The same relation (R2) also represents additivity with respect to $`\alpha `$, that is

$$(A,f,\alpha _1)+(A,f,\alpha _2)=(A,f,\alpha _1+\alpha _2).$$

Formally speaking, the right hand side makes sense only if $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$ is an admissible form on $`A`$, that is if its polar divisor $`\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ has normal crossings. However, one can always replace $`A`$ with a variety $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, obtained from $`A`$ by a blow-up, $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{A}A`$, in such a way that $`\pi ^{}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ is admissible on $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ is already a normal crossing divisor. (This is again the Hironaka theorem.) The (R2) says that $`(A,f,\alpha _1)+(A,f,\alpha _2)=(\stackrel{~}{A},f\pi ,\pi ^{}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2))`$.

###### Definition 3.4

The boundary operator  $`:𝒞_k(X)𝒞_{k1}(X)`$ is defined by

$$(A,f,\alpha )=2\pi i\underset{i}{}(V_i,f_i,\mathrm{res}_{V_i}\alpha )$$

(and by linearity), where $`V_i`$ are the components of the polar divisor of $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}\alpha =_iV_i`$, and the maps $`f_i=f|_{V_i}`$ are restrictions of the map $`f`$ to each component of the divisor.

###### Theorem 3.5

\[KR2\] The boundary operator $``$ is well defined, i.e. it is compatible with the relations (R1),(R2),(R3). Moreover, $`^2=0.`$

For the proof we refer to \[KR2\]. Note that having proved compatibility, the relation $`^2=0`$ becomes nearly evident. Indeed, it suffices to prove it for normal crossing divisors of poles. In the latter case, the repeated residue at pairwise intersections differs by a sign according to the order in which the residues are taken. Thus the contributions to the repeated residue from different components cancel out.

###### Definition 3.6

For a smooth complex projective variety $`X,dimX=n`$, the chain complex

$$0𝒞_n(X)\stackrel{}{}𝒞_{n1}(X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}𝒞_0(X)0$$

is called the polar chain complex of $`X`$. Its homology groups, $`HP_k(X),k=0,\mathrm{},n`$, are called the polar homology groups of $`X`$.

3.7 Remark. As we mentioned before, one can similarly define the polar homology groups $`HP_{k,p}(M)`$ for the case of $`p`$-forms on $`k`$-manifolds, i.e., for the forms of not necessarily top degree, $`pk`$. Instead of meromorphic $`k`$-forms with poles of the first order we have to restrict ourselves by $`p`$-forms with logarithmic singularities, keeping the definition of the boundary operator $``$ intact.

## 4 Polar Homology for Affine Curves

In the preceding section we introduced polar homology of projective varieties. From the point of view of topological analogy (cf. Sect. 1), the projective varieties play the role of compact spaces. It would be useful, of course, to have also a consistent analogue of homology of arbitrary, i.e. not necessarily compact, manifolds. It is natural to expect that this latter role is played by Zariski open subsets in projective varieties, that is by quasi-projective varieties. This is indeed the case and the definition of polar homology can be extended to the quasi-projective case, so that the polar homology groups obey certain natural properties expected from the topological analogy. In particular, they obey the Mayer–Vietoris principle.

To simplify the exposition we shall describe here the case of dimension one only, i.e., that of affine curves.

4.1  Let $`X`$ be an affine curve and $`\overline{X}X`$ be its projective closure. We shall define the polar chains for the quasi-projective variety $`X`$ as a certain subset of polar chains for $`\overline{X}`$, but the result will depend only on $`X`$ and not on the choice of $`\overline{X}`$. Let us denote by $`D`$ the compactification divisor, $`D=\overline{X}X`$. By differentials of the third kind on a complex curve we shall understand, as usual, meromorphic 1-forms which may have only first order poles.

###### Definition 4.2

The space $`𝒞_0(X)`$ is the vector space formed by complex linear combinations of points in $`X`$. It is a subspace in $`𝒞_0(\overline{X})`$.

The vector space $`𝒞_1(X)`$ is defined as the subspace in $`𝒞_1(\overline{X})`$ generated by the triples $`(A,f,\alpha )`$ where $`A`$ is a smooth projective curve, $`f`$ is a map $`f:A\overline{X}`$, and $`\alpha `$ is a differential of the third kind on $`A`$ that vanishes at $`f^1(D)A`$.

###### Proposition 4.3

The spaces $`𝒞_k(X),k=0,1`$, form a subcomplex in the polar chain complex $`(𝒞_{}(\overline{X}),)`$ which depends only on the affine curve $`X`$ and not on the choice of its compactification, the projective curve $`\overline{X}`$.

The resulting homology groups of the chain complex $`(𝒞_{}(X),)`$ are denoted as before by $`PH_k(X)`$ and are called polar homology groups of $`X`$ also in this case of an affine $`X`$.

4.4 Example. Let us consider a smooth projective curve of genus $`g`$ without a point, $`Z\{P\}`$. Then for the dimensions of polar homology groups, $`hp_k(X)=dimHP_k(X)`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}hp_0(Z\{P\})=2,\hfill & hp_1(Z\{P\})=0,\hfill & g=0,\hfill \\ hp_0(Z\{P\})=1,\hfill & hp_1(Z\{P\})=g1,\hfill & g1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Indeed, the space $`HP_1(Z\{P\})`$ is the space of holomorphic 1-differentials on $`Z`$ which vanish at $`P`$. To calculate $`HP_0(Z\{P\})`$ in the case $`g1`$ it is sufficient to notice that for any two points $`Q_1,Q_2Z\{P\}`$, the 0-cycle $`(Q_1,q_1)+(Q_2,q_2)`$ is homologically equivalent to zero if and only if $`q_1+q_2=0`$ (the same condition as in the case of a non-punctured curve, cf. Example 2). In the case of $`g=0`$ an analogous statement requires three points to be involved (unlike the case of a non-punctured projective line): the corresponding 1-form on $`^1`$ has to have at least one zero, and hence at least three poles. We collect the results about the curves in the following figures (where we depict the complex curves by graphs, such that polar homology groups of the curves coincide with singular homology groups of the corresponding graphs).

In a similar way, for a smooth projective curve without two points, $`Z\{P,Q\}`$, we get the results summarized in fig. 3. Here, one has to distinguish the case of generic points $`P`$ and $`Q`$, and the case when $`P+Q`$ is a special divisor and there are more 1-differentials with zeros at $`P,Q`$ than generically.

###### Theorem 4.5

(The Mayer–Vietoris sequence.) Let a complex curve $`X`$ (either affine or projective) be the union of two Zariski open subsets $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$, $`X=U_1U_2`$ . Then the following Mayer–Vietoris sequence of chains is exact:

$$0𝒞_k(U_1U_2)\stackrel{i}{}𝒞_k(U_1)𝒞_k(U_2)\stackrel{\sigma }{}𝒞_k(X)0.$$

Here the map $`\sigma `$ represents the sum of chains,

$$\sigma :aba+b,$$

and the map $`i`$ is the embedding of the chain lying in the intersection $`U_1U_2`$ as a chain in each subset $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$:

$$i:c(c)(c).$$

This implies the following exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence in polar homology:

$$\mathrm{}HP_k(U_1U_2)\stackrel{i}{}HP_k(U_1)HP_k(U_2)\stackrel{\sigma }{}HP_k(X)HP_{k1}(U_1U_2)$$

The proof of this theorem in the case of curves readily follows from definitions of polar homology groups (by using a resolution if the curve is singular). One can see that such a proof essentially repeats the considerations with topological homology of appropriate one-dimensional cell complexes (i.e., graphs) as it is illustrated in Examples 2 and 4.3, as well as in figures 1-3 above.

## 5 Connections and Gauge Transformations on Complex Curves and Surfaces

The same philosophy of holomorphic orientation can be applied to field-theoretic notions in the following way. Suppose we have a functional $`𝒮(\phi )=_ML(\phi ,_j\phi )`$ on smooth fields $`\phi `$ (e.g., functions, connections, etc.) on a real (oriented) manifold $`M`$, and this functional is defined by an $`n`$-form $`L`$, which depends on the fields and their derivatives.

Then on a complex $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`X`$ equipped with a “polar orientation”, i.e., with a holomorphic or meromorphic $`n`$-form $`\mu `$, a complex counterpart $`𝒮_{}`$ of the functional $`𝒮`$ can be defined as follows: $`𝒮_{}(\phi )=_X\mu L(\phi ,\overline{}_j\phi )`$. Here $`\phi `$ stands for smooth  fields on a complex manifold $`X`$. Now the $`(0,n)`$-form $`L`$ is integrated against the holomorphic orientation $`\mu `$ over $`X`$.

Furthermore, the interrelation between the extremals of the real functional $`𝒮(\phi )`$ (on smooth fields) on the real manifold $`M`$ and the boundary values of those fields on $`M`$ (cf., e.g. \[S\]) is replaced by the analogous interrelation for the complex functional $`𝒮_{}(\phi )`$ (still on smooth fields) on $`(X,\mu )`$, i.e., a complex manifold $`X`$ equipped with polar orientation $`\mu `$, and on its polar boundary, $`(X,\mu )=(\text{div}_{\mathrm{}}\mu ,\mathrm{res}\mu )`$.

Below we demonstrate some features of the above-mentioned parallelism for gauge transformations and connections on curves and surfaces (cf. \[KR2, DT\] for other examples).

5.1 Affine and double loop Lie algebras. Our first example is the correspondence between the affine Kac–Moody algebras on a circle ($``$-case) and the Etingof–Frenkel Lie algebras of currents over an elliptic curve ($``$-case) \[EF\].

We will use the following notations throughout this section. Let $`G`$ be a simple simply connected Lie group that is supposed to be compact in the $``$-case and complex in the $``$-case; $`𝔤=\text{Lie}(G)`$ its Lie algebra. Fix some smooth vector $`G`$-bundle $``$ over an (either real or complex) manifold $`M`$. The notation $`G^M`$ (respectively, $`𝔤^M`$) stands for the Lie group (respectively, Lie algebra) of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth gauge transformations of $``$.

###### Definition 5.2

$``$) An affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^S`$ is the one-dimensional central extension of the loop algebra $`𝔤^S=C^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,𝔤)`$ (i.e., the gauge algebra over a circle) defined by the following 2-cocycle:

$$c(U,V)=_{S^1}tr(UdV)\text{for }U,V𝔤^S.$$

$``$) \[EF\] An elliptic (or double loop) Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^E`$ is a one-dimensional (complex) central extension of the gauge algebra $`𝔤^E`$ over an elliptic curve $`E`$ by means of the following 2-cocycle:

$$c(U,V)=_E\alpha tr(U\overline{}V)$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a holomorphic 1-form on $`E`$ (its “holomorphic orientation”), and $`U,V𝔤^E`$.

The original definition in \[EF\] was for the case of the current algebra $`𝔤^E=C^{\mathrm{}}(E,𝔤)`$. However, it is valid in a more general case, which we need, for the group of gauge transformations of a bundle $``$ not necessarily of degree zero.

The dual spaces to both affine and elliptic Lie algebras have a very natural geometric interpretation. Denote by $`𝒜^M`$ the infinite-dimensional affine space of all smooth connections (respectively, of all (0,1)-connections) in the $`G`$-bundle $``$ over real (respectively, complex) manifold $`M`$.

Note that over a real curve all connections are necessarily flat. Analogously, over a complex curve every (0,1)-connection defines a structure of holomorphic bundle in $``$ (since for such connections the curvature component $`F^{0,2}`$ is identically zero).

###### Proposition 5.3

$``$) (see, e.g., \[PS\]) The space $`𝒜^S:=\{d+A|A\mathrm{\Omega }^1(S^1,𝔤)\}`$ of smooth $`G`$-connections over the circle $`S^1`$ can be regarded as (a hyperplane in) the dual space to the affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^S`$: the gauge transformations coincide with the coadjoint action. Coadjoint orbits of the affine group, or the symplectic leaves of the linear Lie–Poisson structure on the dual space $`\left(\widehat{𝔤}^S\right)^{}`$, consist of gauge-equivalent connections and differ by (the conjugacy class of) the holonomy around $`S^1`$.

$``$) \[EF\] The space of (0,1)-connections $`\{\overline{}+A(z,\overline{z})|A\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,1}(E,𝔤)\}`$ in the bundle $``$ over the elliptic curve $`E`$ can be regarded as (a hyperplane in) the dual space $`\left(\widehat{𝔤}^E\right)^{}`$ of the elliptic Lie algebra. The symplectic leaves of the Lie–Poisson structure in the dual space $`\left(\widehat{𝔤}^E\right)^{}`$ are enumerated by the equivalence classes of holomorphic $`G`$-bundles (or, different holomorphic structures in the smooth bundle $``$) over the curve $`E`$.

5.4 Remark. Feigin and Odesski found a very interesting class of Poisson algebras (as well as their deformations, associative algebras) given by certain quadratic relations, and associated to a given complex $`G`$-bundle $``$ over an elliptic curve $`E`$. It turned out that the symplectic leaves of those Poisson brackets are enumerated by the isomorphism classes of holomorphic structures in $``$ (see \[FO\]), i.e., by the very same objects as the orbits of elliptic Lie algebras. Therefore it would be interesting to compare the transverse Poisson structures to the orbits of double loop Lie algebras with the transverse structures to the symplectic leaves of the Feigin–Odesski quadratic Poisson brackets.

5.5 Gauge transformations over real surfaces. Let $`P`$ be a real two-dimensional oriented manifold, possibly with boundary $`P=_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$. Let $`𝒜^P`$ be the affine space of all smooth connections in a trivial $`G`$-bundle $``$ over $`P`$. It is convenient to fix any trivialization of $``$ and identify $`𝒜^P`$ with the vector space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(P,𝔤)`$ of smooth $`𝔤`$-valued 1-forms on the surface:

$$𝒜^P=\{d+A|A\mathrm{\Omega }^1(P,𝔤)\}.$$

The space $`𝒜^P`$ is in a natural way a symplectic manifold with the symplectic structure

$$W:=_P\mathrm{tr}(\delta A\delta A),$$

where $`\delta `$ is the exterior differential on $`𝒜^P`$, and $``$ stands to denote the wedge product both on $`𝒜^P`$ and $`P`$. The symplectic structure $`W`$ is invariant with respect to the gauge transformations

$$Ag^1Ag+g^1dg,$$

where $`g`$ is an element of the group of gauge transformations, $`G^P`$, i.e., it is a smooth $`G`$-valued function on the surface $`P`$. However, this action is not Hamiltonian, if the surface $`P`$ has a non-empty boundary. In the latter case, the centrally extended group $`\widehat{G}^P`$ of gauge transformations on the surface acts on $`𝒜^P`$ in a Hamiltonian way.

We are interested in the quotient of the subset of flat connections $`𝒜_{\text{fl}}^P𝒜^P`$ over the gauge groups action of $`\widehat{G}^P`$:

$$_{\text{fl}}^P=𝒜_{\text{fl}}^P/\widehat{G}^P=\{d+A𝒜^P|dA+AA=0\}/\widehat{G}^P.$$

The moduli space $`_{\text{fl}}^P`$ is a finite-dimensional manifold (with orbifold singularities); it can be also described as the space of representations of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(P)`$ in $`G`$ modulo conjugation.

The manifold $`_{\text{fl}}^P`$ can be endowed with a Poisson structure. Its definition and properties can be conveniently dealt with by means of the Hamiltonian reduction $`𝒜^P//\widehat{G}^P`$.

###### Theorem 5.6

1) \[AB\] If the surface $`P`$ has no boundary, then the space $`_{\mathrm{fl}}^P`$ of flat $`G`$-connections modulo gauge transformations on a surface $`P`$ is symplectic.

2) \[FR\] If $`P=_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$, then the moduli space $`_{\mathrm{fl}}^P`$ on a surface $`P`$ with holes inherits a Poisson structure from the space of all (smooth) $`G`$-connections. The symplectic leaves of this structure are parameterised by the conjugacy classes of holonomies around the holes (that is, a symplectic leaf is singled out by fixing the conjugacy class of the holonomy around each hole).

We note that the second part of the theorem claims that the symplectic leaves of $`_{\text{fl}}^P`$ are labeled by the coadjoint orbits of the affine Lie algebra on a circle (or of several copies of the affine algebra, with each copy situated at a different boundary component of the surface $`P`$), since those orbits are parameterised by the conjugacy classes of holonomies around the circle.

5.7 Gauge transformations over complex surfaces. In this section we present a complex counterpart of the description of the Poisson structures on moduli spaces. Let $`Y`$ be a compact complex surface ($`dim_{}Y=2`$). Choose a polar analogue of orientation, i.e., a holomorphic or meromorphic 2-form $`\beta `$ on $`Y`$. Let $`\beta `$ be a meromorphic 2-form on $`Y`$, which has only first order poles on a smooth curve $`X`$. The curve $`XY`$ will play the role of the boundary of the surface $`Y`$ in our considerations. Moreover, assume that $`\beta `$ has no zeros (the situation analogous to a smooth oriented compact real surface). Then $`X`$ is an anticanonical divisor in $`Y`$ and it has to be an elliptic curve $`E`$, or, may be, a number of non-intersecting elliptic curves. (Example: $`Y=^2`$ with a smooth cubic as an anticanonical divisor. As a matter of fact, many Fano surfaces fall into this class. ) If it happens that $`\beta `$ has no zeros and no poles (i.e., $`Y`$ is “oriented, without boundary”) it means that we deal with either a K3 or an abelian surface.

Let $``$ be a smooth vector $`G`$-bundle over $`Y`$ which can be endowed with a holomorphic structure and $`\text{End}`$ be the corresponding bundle of endomorphisms with the fiber $`𝔤=\text{Lie}(G)`$. Let $`𝒜^Y`$ denote the infinite-dimensional affine space of smooth $`(0,1)`$-connections in $``$. By choosing a reference holomorphic structure $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$, $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=0`$, in $``$, the space $`𝒜^Y`$ can be identified with the vector space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}(Y,\text{End})`$ of $`(\text{End})`$-valued $`(0,1)`$-forms on $`Y`$, i.e.,

$$𝒜^Y=\{\overline{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}+A|A\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}(Y,\text{End})\}.$$

We often shall write $`\overline{}`$ instead of $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$, keeping in mind that this corresponds to a reference holomorphic structure in $``$ when it applies to sections of $``$ or associated bundles.

The space $`𝒜^Y`$ possesses a natural holomorphic symplectic structure

$$W_{}:=_Y\beta \mathrm{tr}(\delta A_1\delta A_2),$$

where $`\beta `$ is the “polar orientation” of $`Y`$, while the other notations are the same as above. The symplectic structure $`W_{}`$ is invariant with respect to the gauge transformations

$$Ag^1Ag+g^1\overline{}g,$$

where $`g`$ is an element of the group of gauge transformations, i.e., the group of automorphisms of the smooth bundle $``$. Abusing notation we denote this group by $`G^Y`$.

Again, we will need to centrally extend the group $`G^Y`$ of gauge transformations to make the action Hamiltonian. In the momentum map, taking the curvature is replaced by the mapping: $`A\beta F^{0,2}(A)=\beta (\overline{}A+AA)`$. When equating the result to zero, instead of the flatness condition $`F(A)=0`$, we come to the relation $`F^{0,2}(A)=0`$, which singles out (0,1)-connections defining holomorphic structures in $``$. Denote the space of such $`\overline{}`$-connections by $`𝒜_{\text{hol}}^Y`$. The set of isomorphism classes of holomorphic structures in $``$ is represented by the quotient

$$𝒜_{\text{hol}}^Y/\widehat{G}^Y=\{\overline{}+A𝒜^Y|\overline{}A+AA=0\}/\widehat{G}^Y.$$

Analogously to the moduli space of flat connections on a real surface, we would like to study the Poisson geometry of the moduli space of holomorphic bundles over a complex surface. However, the question of existence and singularities of such a moduli space is much more subtle. Suppose the bundle $``$ was chosen in such a way that there exists some version of the moduli space of holomorphic structures in $``$ (e.g., (semi-)stable bundles). Denote by $`_{\text{hol}}^Y`$ the non-singular part of that moduli space. This finite-dimensional manifold can be equipped with a holomorphic Poisson structure.

Since $`_{\text{hol}}^Y`$ is an open dense subset in the space of isomorphism classes of holomorphic bundles,

$$_{\text{hol}}^Y𝒜_{\text{hol}}^Y/\widehat{G}^Y,$$

the Poisson structure on $`_{\text{hol}}^Y`$ can be studied by means of the Hamiltonian reduction.

###### Theorem 5.8

1) \[Mu\] If $`Y`$ is a K3 surface or a complex torus of dimension 2, i.e., if the 2-form $`\beta `$ is holomorphic on $`Y`$, then the moduli space $`_{\mathrm{hol}}^Y`$ admits a holomorphic symplectic structure.

2) If $`\beta `$ is meromorphic, the moduli space $`_{\mathrm{hol}}^Y`$ of holomorphic bundles possesses a (holomorphic) Poisson structure (see \[Bon, Bot, Tyu\], where the Poisson structure is given in intrinsic terms). The symplectic leaves of this structure are parameterised by the isomorphism classes of the restrictions of bundles to the anticanonical divisor $`XY`$, \[KR2\].

Thus, the symplectic leaves of the Poisson structure on $`_{\text{hol}}^Y`$ are distinguished by the moduli of holomorphic bundles on elliptic curve(s) $`X`$, or, which is the same, by coadjoint orbits of the corresponding elliptic algebras $`\widehat{𝔤}^X`$ on (the connected components of) the smooth divisor $`XY`$. 222Note that the choice of isomorphism classes of bundles on $`X`$ must be subject to the condition that they arise as restrictions of bundles defined over $`Y`$.

The above consideration can be extended with minimal changes to the case of a non-smooth divisor $`X`$, in particular, to $`X`$ consisting of several components intersecting transversally. (Example: $`Y=^2`$ with $`\beta =dxdy/xy`$.) In the latter case the corresponding degeneration of the elliptic algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^X`$ can be described in terms of (several copies of) the current algebra on a punctured $`^1`$.

5.9 Chern–Simons functionals. First, let $`M`$ be a real compact three-dimensional manifold with boundary $`P=M`$, and $``$ a trivial $`G`$-bundle over $`M`$. The Chern–Simons functional CS on the space of $`G`$-connections $`𝒜^M`$ is given by the formula

$$\text{CS}(A)=\underset{M}{}tr(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA).$$

Extremals of this functional are flat connections on $`M`$. An action functional on the fields in three dimensions defines a symplectic structure on the space of fields in two dimensions. (It arises due to the relation between the boundary values of the fields and the solutions to the Euler-Lagrange equations; this is essentially the Hamiltonian approach to the corresponding variational problem.) In the present case, as it is well known \[W1\], the corresponding symplectic manifold is the moduli space of flat connections $`_{\mathrm{fl}}^P`$ on $`P=M`$.

The path integral corresponding to the Chern-Simons functional can be related with invariants of links in a three-dimensional manifold \[W1\] and, in the simplest case of an abelian gauge group ($`G=U(1)`$), reproduces the definition of the Gauss linking number.

The “holomorphic” counterpart of the Chern–Simons functional,

$$\text{CS}_{}(A)=\underset{Z}{}\gamma tr(A\overline{}A+\frac{2}{3}AAA)$$

suggested in ref. \[W2\], can be treated to some extent similarly. Here $`\text{CS}_{}(A)`$ is considered as a functional on the space of $`\overline{}`$-connections $`A𝒜^Z`$ in a trivial $`G`$-bundle $``$ over a complex 3-fold $`Z`$, where $`Z`$ is equipped with a meromorphic (“polar orientation”) 3-form $`\gamma `$ without zeros, but, may be, with poles of the first order. In such a situation, one can apply the arguments similar to the case of the ordinary Chern–Simons theory, provided that one replaces everywhere $`d`$ by $`\overline{}`$ and, instead of real boundary, one deals with the polar boundary $`Y:=\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}\gamma Z`$. The extrema of $`\text{CS}_{}(A)`$ are given now by integrable $`\overline{}`$-connections ($`\overline{}_A^2=0`$), that is by holomorphic bundles over $`Z`$ (which are counterparts of flat connections in three dimensions). Then, at the complex two dimensional “boundary”, one gets the symplectic manifold $`_{\text{hol}}^Y`$ of moduli of holomorphic bundles over a complex surface $`Y`$ (as a counterpart of the moduli space of flat connections in two real dimensions).

The holomorphic Chern–Simons theory in the case of an abelian gauge group $`G`$ on a complex simply connected 3-fold $`Z`$ can be discussed even further, at the level of path integrals, without much difference with its “real” prototype (unlike the case of an arbitrary, non-abelian, gauge group $`G`$, which is much more complicated and still lacks a rigorous treatment), cf. \[FT, T\].

5.10 Polar links. In the abelian case, the quantum holomorphic Chern–Simons theory reproduces a holomorphic analogue of the linking number. Its definition can be immediately found, again, by analogy with the ordinary one.

Let $`Z`$ be a complex projective three-dimensional manifold, equipped, as above, with a meromorphic 3-form $`\gamma `$ without zeros. Consider two smooth polar 1-cycles $`(C_1,\alpha _1)`$ and $`(C_2,\alpha _2)`$ in $`Z`$, i.e., $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are smooth complex curves equipped with holomorphic 1-forms. Let us take the 1-cycles which are polar boundaries. This means, in particular, that there exists such a 2-chain $`(S_2,\beta _2)`$ that $`(C_2,\alpha _2)=(S_2,\beta _2)`$. Suppose, the curves $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have no common points and $`S_2`$ is a smooth surface which intersects transversely with the curve $`C_1`$. Then, we define the polar linking number of the 1-cycles above as the polar intersection number (cf. (2)) of the 2-chain $`(S_2,\beta _2)`$ with the 1-cycle $`(C_1,\alpha _1)`$:

$$\mathrm{}k_{polar}((C_1,\alpha _1),(C_2,\alpha _2)):=\underset{PC_1S_2}{}\frac{\alpha _1(P)\beta _2(P)}{\gamma (P)}.$$

One can show that the expression above does not depend on the choice of $`(S_2,\beta _2)`$, and has certain invariance properties mimicking those of the topological linking number within the framework of the “polar” approach.

Acknowledgments. B.K. and A.R. are grateful for hospitality to the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in Bonn, where a large part of this work was completed. The present work was partially sponsored by PREA and McLean awards.

We are grateful to B. Feigin, R. Thomas, and A. Odesski for interesting discussions.

The work of B.K. was partially supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship, by the NSF and NSERC research grants. The work of A.R. was supported in part by the Grants RFBR-00-02-16530, INTAS-99-1782 and the Grant 00-15-96557 for the support of scientific schools.


text:
# Methods for Derivation of Generalized Equations in the (𝑆,0)⊕(0,𝑆) Representations of the Lorentz Group11footnote 1Some parts of this paper have been presented at the XI Escuela de DGFM SMF, Dec. 5-9, 2016, Playa del Carmen, QRoo, México, the IARD2018, June 4-7, 2018, Mérida, Yuc., México and the MG15 Meeting, July 1-7, Rome, Italy. To be published in the Proceedings of the 11th Vigier Symposium, Aug. 6-9, 2018. Liege, Belgium.

## 1 Introduction. The Gersten Method and its Relation to Relativistic Quantum Equations.

The content of this talk is the following. We use the van der Waerden-Sakurai procedure for derivation of the Dirac equation and its generalizations. As a consequence, for example, the scalar fields appear in the Maxwell-like equations. Next, we have massless particles ($`p^2=0`$) with massive parameters, which may be considered as the measures of chirality. We also discuss the massive/massless 2nd order equations.

The first part is based on recent papers . Gersten \[1a\] writes: “We have shown how all Maxwell equations can be derived simultaneously from first principles, similar to those which have been used to derive the Dirac relativistic electron equation” and concludes: “…Maxwell equations should be used as a guideline for proper interpretation of quantum theories”.

In fact, he used a method presented by van der Waerden and Sakurai . Let us begin with the Klein-Gordon equation:

$$(E^2c^2𝐩^2m^2c^4)\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=0.$$
(1)
Hence, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with two components and $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ we have

$$(EI^{(2)}𝝈𝐩)(EI^{(2)}+𝝈𝐩)\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=m^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}.$$
(2)
Let us denote $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=\eta `$, then we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(EI^{(2)}+𝝈𝐩)}{m}}\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\chi ,`$ (3)
$`(EI^{(2)}𝝈𝐩)\chi `$ $`=`$ $`m\eta .`$ (4)
In the 4-component form one has

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}mI^{(2)}& EI^{(2)}+𝝈𝐩\\ EI^{(2)}𝝈𝐩& mI^{(2)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi \\ \eta \end{array}\right)=0`$ (5)
With the quantum-operator substitutions $`Ei\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}`$ and $`𝐩i\mathrm{}\mathbf{}`$ we recover the Dirac equation!222One can also decompose (1) into the 4-component form from the beginning
$$(EI^{(4)}+𝜶𝐩+m\beta )(EI^{(4)}𝜶𝐩m\beta )\mathrm{\Psi }_{(4)}=0$$
and then look for $`𝜶`$ and $`\beta `$.

In the $`S=1`$ and $`m=0`$ case one can proceed in a similar way:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{c^2}}𝐩^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)𝚿_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}I^{(3)}𝐒𝐩\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}I^{(3)}+𝐒𝐩\right)𝚿_{(3)}`$
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}p_x\\ p_y\\ p_z\end{array}\right)\left(𝐩𝚿_{(3)}\right)=0,\text{Eq. (9) of [1a]},`$
where $`(𝐒^i)^{jk}=iϵ^{ijk}`$.333Please note the difference $`(𝝈𝐩)^2=𝐩^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, but $`(𝐒𝐩)^3=(𝐒𝐩)`$; the spin-1 matrices are singular. Gersten found that solutions are defined by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}I^{(3)}+𝐒𝐩\right)𝚿_{(3)}=0\text{Eq. (10) of [1a]}`$
$`\left(𝐩𝚿_{(3)}\right)=0\text{Eq. (11) of [1a]}`$
and their complex conjugates. The latter may be interpreted as the solutions of opposite helicity. If one assumes $`𝚿_{(3)}=𝐄i𝐁`$ then after quantum operator substitutions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚿_{(3)}}{t}}=\mathrm{}\mathbf{}\times 𝚿_{(3)},`$ (7)
$`i\mathrm{}\mathbf{}𝚿_{(3)}=0,`$ (8)
or

$`\mathbf{}\times (𝐄i𝐁)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐄i𝐁)}{t}},`$ (9)
$`\mathbf{}(𝐄i𝐁)=0.`$ (10)
Please note that the Planck constant was cancelled out! The procedure of separation into real and imaginary parts leads to

$$\mathbf{}\times \stackrel{}{𝐄}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\stackrel{}{𝐁}}{t},$$
(11)
$$\mathbf{}\times \stackrel{}{𝐁}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\stackrel{}{𝐄}}{t},$$
(12)
$$\mathbf{}\stackrel{}{𝐄}=0,$$
(13)
$$\mathbf{}\stackrel{}{𝐁}=0.$$
(14)
The situation is the same if one starts with the complex conjugate function $`𝚿_{(3)}^{}=𝐄+i𝐁`$.

The Lagrangian for this theory has recently been presented in :

$$=c𝚿_{(3)}^{}(\frac{E}{c}I^{(3)}+𝐒𝐩)𝚿_{(3)}.$$
(15)
However, it was shown in  that such a form of Lagrangians is not a scalar (it is a zero component of a 4-vector; see also ). Next, we have

$$W_\mu W^\mu =s(s+1)p_\mu p^\mu I^{(s)}$$
(16)
and

$$W^\mu p_\mu =0$$
(17)
by definition. Hence,

$$(W_\mu sp_\mu )(W^\mu +sp^\mu )=s(2s+1)p_\mu p^\mu I^{(s)},$$
(18)
which is similar to Eq. (9) of Ref. \[1a\] if one imposes $`p_\mu p^\mu =m^2=0`$.

Therefore, on using the definition of the Pauli-Lubanski operator we have:

$`(𝐒𝐩sp_0)𝚿_{(s)}=0,`$ (19)
$`(𝐒p_0+i𝐒\times 𝐩s𝐩)𝚿_{(s)}=0.`$ (20)
It is easy to see that in the $`S=1`$ case one can recover the previous consideration \[1b\]. The second equation can be considered as a subsidiary condition

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ p_x& p_y& p_z\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)𝚿_{(3)}=0.`$ (21)
In  we corrected the Gersten’s claim. The equation (9) of Ref. \[1a\] (the equation (1) above) is satisfied also under the choice

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}I^{(3)}+𝐒𝐩\right)𝚿_{(3)}=𝐩\chi ,`$ (22)
$`\left(𝐩𝚿_{(3)}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}\chi ,`$ (23)
due to $`(𝐒𝐩)𝐩=0`$. The above set leads to

$`\mathbf{}\times 𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}+\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}\chi ,`$ (24)
$`\mathbf{}\times 𝐁={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}}+\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}\chi ,`$ (25)
$`\mathbf{}𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}\chi ,`$ (26)
$`\mathbf{}𝐁={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}\chi ,`$ (27)
with an additional scalar field $`\chi `$. It is also possible that

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}I^{(3)}𝐒𝐩\right)𝚿_{(3)}^{}=𝐩\chi ^{}`$ (28)
$`\left(𝐩𝚿_{(3)}^{}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}}\chi ^{}.`$ (29)
If $`\chi ^{}=\chi ^{}`$ then $`𝚿_{(3)}^{}=𝐄+i𝐁`$ and we recover the generalized Maxwell equations (24-27). Kruglov found relations of $`\chi `$ functions with QED and the Riemann tensor .

Thus,

* We obtain $`𝐩𝚿_{(3)}0`$, therefore the free photon may have a non-transverse component ;
* The $`\chi `$-fields may be function(al) of higher-rank tensor fields, thus leading to equations which are non-linear in $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ (cf. Ref. );
* One can find possible relations to the Ogievetskiĭ-Polubarinov-Kalb-Ramond field . After performing the Bargmann-Wigner procedure for the spin-1 field we obtain

$`_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}A^\mu =0,`$ (30)
$`2mF^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu ,`$ (31)
instead of the well-known Proca set:

$`_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }+m^2A^\mu =0,`$ (32)
$`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu ,`$ (33)
In fact, these sets are related one to another by the re-normalization transformation: $`A^\mu 2mA^\mu `$ or $`F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2m}F^{\mu \nu }`$. Ogievetskiĭ and Polubarinov  wrote: “In the massless limit the system of $`2s+1`$ states is no longer irreducible; it decomposes and describes a set of different particles with zero mass and helicities $`\pm s,\pm (s1),\pm 1,0`$ (for integer spin and if parity is conserved); the situation is analogous for half-integer spins.” One can also see this after performing the Lorentz transformation in the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation, $`A^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu A_{basis}^\nu `$, and looking for massless limit. Thus, we find

$$u^\mu (𝐩,+1)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_r\\ m+\frac{p_xp_r}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_yp_r}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_zp_r}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),u^\mu (𝐩,1)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_l\\ m+\frac{p_xp_l}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_yp_l}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_zp_l}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
and

$$u^\mu (𝐩,0)=\frac{N}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_z\\ \frac{p_xp_z}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_yp_z}{E_p+m}\\ m+\frac{p_z^2}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),u^\mu (𝐩,0_t)=\frac{N}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\\ p_x\\ p_y\\ p_z\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
Please note that for helicities $`\sigma =\pm 1,0`$ one has $`p_\mu u^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )=0`$ (an analogue of the Lorentz condition ). This is not the case for the “time-like” photons. In view of the fact that in the case $`N=1`$ we have divergent behaviour of certain parts of the 4-vector momentum-space functions in $`m0`$, the first degree of $`m`$ in the equations (30,31) can cancel this divergent term in the denominators. The massless limits of the Proca-like equations are actually

$$_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }=\frac{m}{2}A^\mu _\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }=^\mu \chi .$$
(36)

I want to present some comments:

* Of course, when we pass over to the second quantization, the commutation relations for $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A^\mu `$ may be changed in order to keep the correct dimensions of the fields and in order the action to be dimensionless.
* Ogievetskiĭ and Polubarinov, Kalb and Ramond  analized the scalar Lagrangian of the antisymmetric tensor field  and “gauge out” the transverse components by means of

$$F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ,$$
(37)
the new “gauge” transformation. Therefore, they obtained a pure longitudinal field, the notoph (or, the Kalb-Ramond field, as it is frequently called in the US literature).
* In  we found a map between the Ogievetskiĭ-Polubarinov formulation and the Weinberg $`2(2s+1)`$ theory . In the latter case the Lagrangian is given by

$$=_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{(6)}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_{(6)}\pm m^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{(6)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(6)},$$
(38)
(or its analogues for fields of different dimensions). The $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a set of covariant matrices of the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation; $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(6)}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{(6)}`$ are bivectors. In general, various $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be used, which differ each other by discrete symmetry transformations. The map exists between the equations obtained from (38)

$$[\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu m^2]\mathrm{\Psi }_{(6)}=0$$
(39)
and the equation

$$_\mu ^\alpha F_\alpha ^\nu ^\nu ^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }\frac{1}{2}(m^2+_\lambda ^\lambda )F_{\mu \nu }=m^2F_\mu ^\nu $$
(40)
and its dual. See also .

Next, we return to the van der Waerden-Sakurai derivation of the Dirac equation:

$$(E^2c^2\stackrel{}{𝐩}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})I^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=\left[EI^{(2)}c𝝈𝐩\right]\left[EI^{(2)}+c𝝈𝐩\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=m_2^2c^4\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}.$$
(41)
If one denotes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}=\eta `$ one can define $`\chi =\frac{1}{m_1c}(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x_0}i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\eta `$. Please note that we introduced the second mass parameter $`m_1`$. The corresponding set of 2-component equations is

$`(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\eta =m_1c\chi ,`$ (42)
$`(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}+i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{})\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2c}{m_1}}\eta .`$ (43)
In the 4-component form we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{}(/x_0)& i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{}\\ i\mathrm{}𝝈\mathbf{}& i\mathrm{}(/x_0)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi +\eta \\ \chi \eta \end{array}\right)=`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m_2^2/m_1+m_1)& (m_2^2/m_1+m_1)\\ (m_2^2/m_1+m_1)& (m_2^2/m_1+m_1)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi +\eta \\ \chi \eta \end{array}\right),`$ (45)
which results in

$$\left[i\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \frac{m_2^2c}{m_1}\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}m_1c\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{(4)}=0.$$
(46)
The “new” massless equation is ($`m_20`$, $`p^2=0`$, $`m_10`$)

$$\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \frac{m_1c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{(4)}=0.$$
(47)
It is easy to check that dispersion relations are $`E=\pm |𝐩|`$, that give us rights to call it massless, even though there is a “mass” parameter in (47).

In the 2-component formalism we do not know the parity properties of the 2-spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}`$. It is possible to obtain yet another equation differing from (47) by the sign at the $`\gamma _5`$ term. The equation is

$$[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \frac{m_3c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}]\mathrm{\Psi }_{(4)}^{}=0.$$
(48)
Moreover, instead of $`(1\pm \gamma ^5)/2`$ one can use any singular $`4\times 4`$ matrix of appropriate physical dimension and still have massless particles. The relevant equations can be found in the old  and new literature  literature.

Is the physical content of the generalized $`S=1/2`$ massless equations the same as that of the Weyl equation? Our answer is ‘No’. The excellent discussion can be found in \[17a,b\]. First of all, the theory does not have chiral invariance. Those authors call the additional parameters as measures of the degree of chirality. Apart of this, Tokuoka introduced the concept of the gauge transformations (not to confuse with phase transformations) for the 4-spinor fields. He also found some strange properties of the anti-commutation relations (see §3 in \[17a\]). And finally, the equation describes four states, two of which answer for the positive energy $`E=|𝐩|`$, and two others answer for the negative energy $`E=|𝐩|`$. I just want to add the following to the discussion. The operator of the chiral-helicity $`\widehat{\eta }=(𝜶\widehat{𝐩})`$ does not commute, e.g., with the Hamiltonian of the equation (47):444Do not confuse with the Dirac Hamiltonian.

$$[,𝜶\widehat{𝐩}]_{}=2\frac{m_1c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}(𝜸\widehat{𝐩}).$$
(49)
For the eigenstates of the chiral-helicity the system of corresponding equations can be read ($`\eta =,`$)

$$i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\eta \frac{m_1c}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_\eta =0.$$
(50)
The conjugated eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}>`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}>`$ are connected, in fact, by $`\gamma ^5`$ transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜶\widehat{𝐩})\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (or $`m_1m_1`$). However, the $`\gamma ^5`$ transformation is related to the $`PT`$ ($`tt`$ only) transformation \[17b\], which, in its turn, can be interpreted as the change of the energy sign $`p_0p_0`$, if one accepts the Stueckelberg idea about antiparticles. For example, we may associate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}>`$ with the positive-energy eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}>`$, with the negative-energy eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian. Thus, the free chiral-helicity massless eigenstates may oscillate one to another with the frequency $`\omega =E/\mathrm{}`$ (as the massive chiral-helicity eigenstates, see  for details). Moreover, a special kind of interaction which is not symmetric with respect to the chiral-helicity states (for instance, if the left chiral-helicity eigenstates interact with the matter only) may induce changes in the oscillation frequency, like in the Wolfenstein (MSW) formalism.

## 2 The Second-Order Equations.

A correct equation for an adequate description of neutrinos was sought for a long time . This problem is, in general, connected with the problem of taking the massless limit of relativistic equations. For instance, it has been known for a long time that “one cannot simply set the mass equal to zero in a manifestly covariant massive-particle equation, in order to obtain the corresponding massless case”, e. g., Ref. \[17d\].

Secondly, in the seventies the second-order equation in the 4-dimensional representation of the $`O(4,2)`$ group was proposed by Barut et al. in order to solve the problem of the mass splitting of leptons  and by Fushchich et al., for describing various spin states in this representation . The equations (they proposed) may depend on two parameters. Recently we derived the Barut-Wilson equation on the basis of the first principles . Briefly, the scheme for derivation of the equation

$$\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +\alpha _2^\mu _\mu \kappa \right]\varphi (x)=0$$
(51)
is the following. First, apply the generalized Ryder relation  (see also below, Eq. (61)) and the standard scheme for the derivation of relativistic wave equations \[31, footnote # 1\]. Then form the Dirac 4-spinors; the left- and right parts of them are connected as follows:

$`\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi __R^{}(p^\mu )]^{},\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )=+\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi __R^{}(p^\mu )]^{},`$ (52)
$`\varphi __R^{}(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )]^{},\varphi __R^{}(p^\mu )=+\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )]^{},`$ (53)
in order to obtain

$$\left[a\frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}+b𝒞𝒦1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu )=0$$
(54)
in the coordinate space. Transfer to the Majorana representation with the unitary matrix

$$U=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}& 1+i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\\ 1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}& 1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\end{array}\right),U^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}& 1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\\ 1+i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}& 1i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\end{array}\right).$$
(55)
Finally, one obtains the set

$`\left[a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}1\right]\varphi b\chi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (56)
$`\left[a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}1\right]\chi b\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (57)
for $`\varphi (x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ or $`\chi (x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{MR}}(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1+i\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$). With the identification $`a/2m\alpha _2`$ and $`m(1b^2)/2a\kappa `$ the above set leads to the second-order equation of the Barut type.

Thirdly, we found the possibility of generalizations of the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ equations (namely, the Maxwell’s equations and the Weinberg-Tucker-Hammer equations555In general, the latter does not completely reduce to the former after taking the massless limit in the accustomed way.) also on the basis of including two independent constants .

The following definitions and postulates are used in this Section: The operators of the discrete symmetries are defined as follows: a) the space inversion operator:

$`P_{[1/2]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (58)
is the $`4\times 4`$ anti-diagonal matrix; b) the charge conjugation operator:

$`C_{[1/2]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\\ i\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}& 0\end{array}\right)𝒦,\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (59)
with $`𝒦`$ being the operation of complex conjugation.

The left- and the right- spinors transform to the frame with the momentum $`p^\mu `$ (from the zero-momentum frame) according to the Wigner rules, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_{R,L}}=\mathrm{exp}(\pm 𝐒𝝋)`$ being the matrices of the Lorentz boosts. $`𝐒`$ are the spin matrices for spin $`s`$, e. g., Ref.; $`𝝋`$ are parameters of the given boost. They are defined, e. g., Refs. , by means of

$$\mathrm{cosh}(\phi )=\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}=\frac{E}{m},\mathrm{sinh}(\phi )=v\gamma =\frac{|𝐩|}{m},\widehat{𝝋}=𝐧=\frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}.$$
(60)
The Ryder relation between spinors in the zero-momentum frame  is established666It can be derived from the Faustov work  too.

$$\varphi __L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )=a(1)^{\frac{1}{2}h}e^{i(\vartheta _1+\vartheta _2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}[\varphi __L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )]^{}+be^{2i\vartheta _h}\mathrm{\Xi }_{[1/2]}^1[\varphi __L^h(\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )]^{},$$
(61)
$`\stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu =(m,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ with the real constant $`a`$ and $`b`$ being arbitrary at this stage; $`h`$ is the polarization index. Next,

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{[1/2]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right),`$ (62)
$`\varphi `$ is here the azimuthal angle related to $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟎}`$.777In general, one can connect also $`\varphi _L^{}`$ and $`\varphi _L^{}`$. with using the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ matrix (see formulas (22a,b) in Ref. ):
$$\varphi _L^{}(0^\mu )=\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi _L^{}(0^\mu ),\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}cotan(\theta /2)& 0\\ 0& tan(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)=\frac{|𝐩|}{\sqrt{𝐩^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_3^2}}(\sigma _3+\frac{p_3}{|𝐩|}).$$
(63)  We did not yet find the explicitly covariant form of the resulting equation.

One can form either Dirac 4-spinors:

$$u_h(p^\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __R(p^\mu )\\ \varphi __L(p^\mu )\end{array}\right),v_h(p^\mu )=\gamma ^5u_h(p^\mu ),$$
(64)
or the second-type spinors , see also :

$$\lambda (p^\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }_{[j]})\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )\\ \varphi __L(p^\mu )\end{array}\right),\rho (p^\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __R(p^\mu )\\ (\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }_{[j]})^{}\varphi __R^{}(p^\mu )\end{array}\right),$$
(65)
or even more general forms of 4-spinors depending on the phase factors between their left- and right- parts and helicity sub-spaces that they belong to. For the second-type spinors several forms of the field operators have been proposed. For example,

$`\nu ^{DL}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E_p}}[\lambda _\eta ^S(p^\mu )c_\eta (p^\mu )\mathrm{exp}(ipx)+`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _\eta ^A(p^\mu )d_\eta ^{}(p^\mu )\mathrm{exp}(+ipx)].`$
The Dirac equation has been derived by this method (the relation between 2-spinors at rest. $`\varphi _R(\mathrm{𝟎})=\pm \varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})`$, and boosts). Next, the coupled Dirac equations for $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ spinors have also been presented . The corresponding Lagrangian, projection operators, and the Feynman-Dyson-Stueckelberg propagator have been found later. However, we have surprisingly:

$`d_\kappa ^{}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ip_y}{p}}\sigma _{\kappa \tau }^yc_\tau (p),`$ (67)
$`c_\kappa (p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ip_y}{p}}\sigma _{\kappa \tau }^yd_\tau ^{}(p).`$ (68)
In the Majorana-like case ($`c_\eta (p)=e^{i\phi }d_\eta (p)`$) we have difficulties in the construction of field operators.

On the basis of these definitions on using the standard rules \[31, footnote # 1\] one can derive: In the case $`\vartheta _1=0`$, $`\vartheta _2=\pi `$ the following equations are obtained for $`\varphi __L(p^\mu )`$ and $`\chi __R=\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\varphi __L^{}(p^\mu )`$:888The phase factors $`\zeta `$ are defined by various constraints imposed on the 4-spinors, e. g., the condition of the self/anti-self charge conjugacy gives $`\zeta _\lambda ^{S,A}=\pm i`$. But, one should still note that phase factors also depend on the phase factor in the definition of the charge conjugation operator (59). The “mass term” of resulting dynamical equations may also be different.

$`\varphi __L^h(p^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }__L(p^\mu \stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )\varphi __L^h(0^\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\zeta _\lambda }}(1)^{\frac{1}{2}+h}\mathrm{\Lambda }__L(p^\mu \stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )\mathrm{\Lambda }__R^1(p^\mu \stackrel{̊}{p}^\mu )\chi __R^h(p^\mu )+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\zeta _\lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }__L(p^\mu 0^\mu )\mathrm{\Xi }_{[1/2]}^1\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }__R^1(p^\mu 0^\mu )\chi __R^h(p^\mu ),`$ (69)
$`\chi __R^h(p^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }__R(p^\mu 0^\mu )\chi __R^h(0^\mu )=a\zeta _\lambda (1)^{\frac{1}{2}h}\mathrm{\Lambda }__R(p^\mu 0^\mu )\mathrm{\Lambda }__L^1(p^\mu 0^\mu )\varphi __L^h(p^\mu )+`$
$`+b\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }__R(p^\mu 0^\mu )\mathrm{\Theta }_{[1/2]}\mathrm{\Xi }_{[1/2]}\mathrm{\Lambda }__L^1(p^\mu 0^\mu )\varphi __L^h(p^\mu ).`$ (70)
Hence, the equations for the 4-spinors $`\lambda _\eta ^{S,A}(p^\mu )`$ take the forms:

$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}}{m}}\lambda _{}^S(p^\mu )(b𝒞𝒦1)\lambda _{}^S(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (71)
$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}}{m}}\lambda _{}^S(p^\mu )+(b𝒞𝒦1)\lambda _{}^S(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (72)
$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}}{m}}\lambda _{}^A(p^\mu )(b𝒞𝒦+1)\lambda _{}^A(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (73)
$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}}{m}}\lambda _{}^A(p^\mu )+(b𝒞𝒦+1)\lambda _{}^A(p^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (74)
$`a=\pm (b1)`$ if we want to have $`E_p^2𝐩^2=m^2`$ for massive particles. We can write several forms of equations in the coordinate representation depending on the relations between creation/annihilation operators. For example, provided that we imply $`d_{}(p^\mu )=+ic_{}(p^\mu )`$ and $`d_{}(p^\mu )=ic_{}(p^\mu )`$; the $`𝒦`$ operator acts on $`q`$ numbers as hermitian conjugation, then the first generalized equation in the coordinate space reads

$$\left[ia\frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}(b1)\gamma ^5𝒞𝒦\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu )=0.$$
(75)
Transferring into the Majorana representation one obtains two real equations:999This procedure can be carried out for any spin, cf. .

$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x^\mu )i(b1)\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (76)
$`ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x^\mu )i(b1)\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (77)
for real and imaginary parts of the field function $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{MR}}(x^\mu )=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x^\mu )+i\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x^\mu )`$. In the case of $`a=1b`$ and considering the field function $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ we come to the equation for the spinors of the second kind \[35, Eq.(8)\] and Ref. . Next, we come to the second-order equation in the coordinate representation for massive particles

$$\left[a^2\frac{_\mu ^\mu }{m^2}+(b1)^2\right]\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x^\mu )\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2(x^\mu )\hfill & \end{array}=0.$$
(78)
Of course, it may be reduced to the Klein-Gordon equation. In general, there may exist mass splitting between various $`CP`$ conjugate states.

One can find the relation between creation/annihilation operators for another equation ($`\beta _1,\beta _2\mathrm{}e`$)

$$\left[ia\frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}e^{i\alpha _1}\beta _1\gamma ^5𝒞𝒦+e^{i\alpha _2}\beta _2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu )=0,$$
(79)
which would be consistent with the equations (71-74).101010As one can expect from this consideration the equation (79) may be reminiscent of the old works, Refs. . In the Majorana representation the resulting set of the real equations are

$`\left[ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}+i\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1\gamma ^5+\beta _2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_1i\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _1\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_2=0,`$ (80)
$`\left[ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}i\beta _1\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1\gamma ^5+\beta _2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_2i\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _1\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0.`$ (81)
For instance in the $`\alpha _1=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ we obtain

$`\left[ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}+i\beta _1\gamma ^5+\beta _2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (82)
$`\left[ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}i\beta _1\gamma ^5+\beta _2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (83)
But, in any case one can recover the Klein-Gordon equation for both real and imaginary parts of the field function, Eq. (78).

We are able to consider other constraints on the creation/annihilation operators, introduce various types of fields operators (as in ) and/or generalize the Ryder relation even more. In the general case, we suggest to start from

$$(a\frac{\widehat{p}}{m}1)u_h(p^\mu )+ib(1)^{\frac{1}{2}h}\gamma ^5𝒞u_h^{}(p^\mu )=0;$$
(84)
i. e., the equation (11) of . But, as opposed to the cited paper, we write the coordinate-space equation in the form:

$$\left[a\frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}+b_1𝒞𝒦1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu )+b_2\gamma ^5𝒞𝒦\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x^\mu )=0,$$
(85)
thus introducing the third parameter. Then we can perform the same procedure as in Ref. . Implying $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{MR}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_1+i\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{^{MR}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_3+i\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$, one obtains real equations in the Majorana representation:

$`(a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}1)\varphi b_1\chi +ib_2\gamma ^5\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (86)
$`(a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}1)\chi b_1\varphi ib_2\gamma ^5\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (87)
for $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, $`\chi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_3+\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_3\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$. After algebraic transformations we have:

$`(a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}b_11)\left[2ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\nu _\nu }{m}}+a^2{\displaystyle \frac{^\nu _\nu }{m^2}}+b_1^21\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$
$`ib_2\gamma ^5\left[2ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\nu }{m}}a^2{\displaystyle \frac{^\mu _\mu }{m^2}}b_1^2+1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_4=0;`$ (88)
$`(a{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}+b_11)\left[2ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\nu _\nu }{m}}+a^2{\displaystyle \frac{^\nu _\nu }{m^2}}+b_1^21\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$
$`ib_2\gamma ^5\left[2ia{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu _\mu }{m}}a^2{\displaystyle \frac{^\mu _\mu }{m^2}}b_1^2+1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_3=0,`$ (89)
the third-order equations. However, the field operator $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ may be linear dependent on the states included in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. So, relations may exist between $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3,4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$. If we apply the simplest constraints $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=i\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=i\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ one should recover the Dirac-Barut-like equation with three mass eigenvalues:

$$\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m\frac{1\pm b_1\pm b_2}{a}\right]\times \left[i\gamma ^\nu _\nu +\frac{a}{2m}^\nu _\nu +m\frac{b_1^21}{2a}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}=0.$$
(90)
Furthermore, we apparently note that the similar results can be obtained by consecutive applications of the generalized Ryder relations. As indicated by Barut himself, several ways for introdcution of interaction with 4-vector potential exist in second-order equations. Only considering the correct one (and, probably, taking into account $`\gamma ^5`$ axial currents), we shall be able to answer the question of why the $`\alpha _2`$ parameter of the Barut works is fixed by means of the use of the classical value of the anomalous magentic moment; and on what physical basis we have to fix other parameters we introduced above.

Concerning the massless limit please note that the mass appears in the denominator within this method. So, we multiply by it in order to obtain the Dirac-like equations that is not an obvious procedure. Next, we have the d’Alembert operator $`_\mu ^\mu `$, whose eigenvalues may be different from $`m`$, and even be zeros. Anyway, a) in every equations we should calculate the characteristic determinant to find out the dispersion relations; b) we should not forget about the possibility of divergent (in $`m0`$) terms in the solutions of the corresponding equations, and treat them properly.

## 3 Conclusions.

In conclusion, we presented two very natural ways of deriving the massive/massless equations in the $`(S,0)(0,S)`$ representation space, which lead to the equations given by other researchers in the past. It is known that present-day neutrino physics has come across serious difficulties. Experiments and observations are not in agreement with theoretical predictions of the standard model. That was a motivation for the present work.

The Barut’s way of solving the hierarchy problem, which was almost forgotten, has been analized here from different viewpoint.

The terms $`m(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$ in the massless equation violate chiral invariance of the theory (due to $`[\widehat{p},\gamma _5]_{}0`$). The solutions are not eigenstates of $`\gamma _5`$ operator, but in the case $`m_{1,3}0`$ the chiral invariance is restored. So, they have been called measures of chirality.

In fact, the solutions of the Dirac massless/massive equation represent a mixture of various polarization states. This fact may be related to recent research of the Majorana-like constructs ($`m0`$) when we also mixed solutions of the Dirac equation in order to obtain self/anti-self charge conjugate states .

Dynamics of massless particles and neutrino may differ from those derived from the well-known Weyl and Maxwell equations.

Acknowledgements. I greatly appreciate discussions with Profs. A. Gersten, A. Raspini and A. F. Pashkov. This work has been partly supported by the Mexican Sistema Nacional de Investigadores and the ESDEPED.