text:
# Peculiarities of the Weyl - Wigner - Moyal formalism for scalar charged particles*footnote **footnote *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001) 4323 4339, www.iop.org/Journals/ja (c) 2001 IOP Publishing Ltd

## I Introduction

The question regarding the nature of the wavefunction has its origin in the early years of quantum mechanics. For a long time it has been considered as a philosophical rather then a physical question . However, it is now very real because of the recent theoretical and experimental progress in quantum information .

One of the significant points in understanding the nature of the wave function is the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paradox and the existence of quantum correlations related to it. Since 1980, such specific behavior of quantum systems has been confirmed many times in experiments . It is very important that such correlations ”spread” in space instantly. Nevertheless, if one adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no violation of causality principle.

However, due to the fact that collapse of the wavefunction takes place at a given instant (or maybe in a small time interval) in the whole space, one can speak of violation of causality principle and a conflict between quantum mechanics and special relativity  in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Following the idea of Bell and Eberhard that a consistent description should contain a preferred frame, relativistic classical and quantum mechanics is built in  in such a way that the relativity principle is generalized and the causality is not violated. A basic assumption of this theory is that transformation from one frame to another is realized by operators which are isomorphic to the Lorentz group and depend on a certain four-vector (as parameter) in such a way that the instant time hyper-plain is invariant. This vector is interpreted as a relative to an observer four-velocity of the preferred frame. Under this assumption the postulate about the light speed constancy is changed to the postulate about the constancy of the average speed of light on closed path.

One of the remarkable peculiarities of this theory is in the existence of a well-defined position operator  which coincides with the Newton - Wigner position operator  in the preferred frame. It means that in this approach measurement of position does not create a particle - antiparticle couple since the odd part responsible for appearance of a different charge state superposition is absent. Hence, there exists a supposition that localization of relativistic particles can bear information about presence of the preferred frame in the Universe.

The above arguments show the fundamental role that determination of the position operator structure can play. Moreover, the question of whether it is a one-particle, or, in principle, a many-particle operator, is of specific interest as well. Therefore, it is very important to find situations where the odd part of the position operator could manifest itself. It would be possible to realize such observation on strongly localized (near the Compton wavelength) states of a separate particle. However, because such states are a problem for laboratory experiments, it is of great interest how this peculiarity manifests itself in a many-particle system.

The Weyl - Wigner - Moyal (WWM) formalism is a convenient method to describe both one-particle and many-particle quantum systems in non-relativistic theory . Nevertheless, attempts to generalize it for the relativistic case lead to a number of problems. The first problem is that the Weyl rule  does not include time as a dynamical variable, and the scalar product in the Hilbert space of states is formulated for functions square integrable not over the whole space-time but in the three-dimensional space or in a space-like hyper-surface only. In  this problem was resolved by generalization of the spatial integration over the whole space-time without Weyl rule application. The WWM formalism in the framework of the stochastic formulation of quantum mechanics, where the scalar product is formulated for square integrable functions in the whole space-time, also leads to Lorenz-invariant expressions .

The matrix-valued Wigner function formalism has been developed for the general case of many component equations and, in particular, for $`1/2`$ spin particles on the basis of the usual Weyl rule . Certainly, such equations are not Lorenz invariant, though average values coincide with their analogues in the usual approach.

The next essential problem in relativistic WWM formalism is in absence of a well-defined position operator. Unlike the works mentioned above, where the Wigner function is determined by means of the usual position operator, in  a formalism with the Newton - Wigner position operator is developed. This approach is not Lorenz invariant either, and respective results differ from the standard ones. However, they can be related to , where the consistent definition of the position operator is possible.

The goals of this paper are in formulating the WWM relativistic formalism for scalar charged particles under the approach of  and finding a set of specific peculiarities in relativistic quantum system behavior, that are related to the non-trivial structure of the position operator. It turns out that values of some observables depend directly on the position operator definition, that, as mentioned above, can be a consequence of existence of the preferred frame in the Universe.

In Sec.II we introduce the Weyl rule for matrix-valued observables in the case of scalar charged particles and discuss peculiarities of correspondence between classical and quantum dynamical algebras. Sec.III is devoted to the matrix-valued Wigner function and quantum Liouville equation. Here we also discuss the absence of Lorenz invariance of this approach, and how it can be related to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Sec.IV we consider how the usual Weyl rule turns into the Feshbach - Villars representation. Among the whole set of dynamical variables, we separate a special class of observables with the Weyl symbols independent of charge variable (charge-invariant variables). They have several remarkable properties. In particular, we find the relationship between their even and odd parts. The usual (not matrix-valued) Wigner function can be introduced for such observables. It is considered in Sec.V (for a brief abstract of this approach see ). This object includes four components: one corresponds to a particle, second one corresponds to an antiparticle (even part of Wigner function), and two more are interference terms (odd part of Wigner function). The evolution equation for the odd part becomes zero in the classical limit, and the equation for the even part coincides with its analogue in the Newton - Wigner position operator approach . The difference reveals itself in peculiarities of constraints on initial conditions that are considered in Sec.VI.

## II Weyl rule and specific properties of dynamical algebra for scalar charged particles

In this and the following Sections we apply the methods developed in  to the Klein - Gordon equation that is written using the Feshbach - Villars formalism . This makes it possible to take the charge variable into account explicitly. With account of the fact that the Hilbert space of states for scalar charged particles has an indefinite metric, we have to distinguish between covariant and contravariant basis vectors and coordinates for subspace corresponding to the charge variable. Hence, arbitrary state is expanded on basis vectors in the following way:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\alpha =\pm 1}{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha |e_\alpha ,$$
(1)
where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =\underset{s}{}\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (s)|s.$$
(2)
Here $`s=q,p,\mathrm{}`$ is an arbitrary dynamical variable and the summarizing symbol can be interpreted as an integration with respect to $`s`$. Greek indices take values $`\pm 1`$. $`\tau _3_{\alpha \beta }`$ plays the role of metric tensor (see ). In notations like $`\delta _\alpha ^\beta `$, $`\tau _{1_\alpha \beta }`$, $`\tau _{2\alpha \beta }`$, $`\tau _{3\alpha \beta }`$, $`\tau _3{}_{\alpha }{}^{}^\beta `$,…, symbols $`\delta `$, $`\tau _i`$ do not correspond to specific operators and mean only values of the corresponding matrix elements. There are some peculiarities in notations of operators as well. $`\widehat{A}`$ is a full operator that acts on all dynamical variables. $`\stackrel{ˇ}{A}`$ is an operator that acts on the charge variables only (or, in other words, it is a $`c`$-numeric matrix).

For a consistent development of the WWM formalism we shall formulate the Weyl rule bringing into correspondence matrix-valued classical variables (Weyl symbols) to quantum-mechanical operators. Here we should take into account that in our case classical variables are operators acting on the charge variable. However, because the operator of quasi-probability density in the coordinate representation is proportional to the identity matrix in charge space, the succession of this operator and a matrix-valued Weyl symbol does not matter. Choosing it in an arbitrary way, one can write the Weyl rule as follows:

$$\widehat{A}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\gamma =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }(p,q)dpdq,$$
(3)
where $`A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)`$ is the matrix-valued Weyl symbol, $`\widehat{A}_\alpha ^\beta `$ stands for corresponding quantum-mechanical operator, $`\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)`$ is the operator of quasi-probability density that is the Fourier transform of the displacement operator. Following  one can obtain the expansion of $`\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)`$ on eigenvectors of the position operator:

$$\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|q+\frac{Q}{2}\delta _\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Qp]dQq\frac{Q}{2}|,$$
(4)
where $`d=3`$ is dimensionality of the physical space.

Substituting (4) to (3) one can find the expression for an arbitrary operator expansion:

$$\widehat{A}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|q+\frac{Q}{2}A_\alpha ^\beta (p,q)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Qp]dQdpdqq\frac{Q}{2}|.$$
(5)
Similarly, such expression can be written by expending the operator of quasi-probability density on the eigenvectors of the momentum operator:

$$\widehat{A}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}A_\alpha ^\beta (p,q)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPdpdqp\frac{P}{2}|.$$
(6)
Matrix elements of this operator can be found in the form:

$$q_1|\widehat{A}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }|q_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,\frac{1}{2}(q_1+q_2))\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(q_1q_2)p\right]dp.$$
(7)
By changing variables in this expression in a standard way and performing Fourier transformation one can obtain the expression that reconstructs matrix-valued Weyl symbol through operator:

$$A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}q+\frac{Q}{2}|\widehat{A}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }|q\frac{Q}{2}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Qp]dQ.$$
(8)
In  the integral form of the Klein - Gordon equation with pseudo-differential symbols in the Feshbach - Villars representation (where Hamiltonian matrix has a diagonal form) is obtained. In fact, it means that the Newton - Wigner coordinate is used there instead of the usual coordinate. Here we obtain another integral form of the Klein - Gordon equation using the usual position operator:

$$i\mathrm{}_t\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\beta =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}H^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p,\frac{1}{2}(x+y))\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(xy)p\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (y)dpdy,$$
(9)
where

$$H^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p,x)=(\tau _3{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+i\tau _2{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{})\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}e\stackrel{}{A}(x))^2}{2m}+\tau _3{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}mc^2+e\phi (x)\delta ^\beta _\alpha $$
(10)
is the matrix-valued Weyl symbol of the Hamiltonian in the general case (for a particle in electromagnetic field), which depends on both coordinate and momentum. Unlike  this equation takes into account that the position operator mixes states with different charge signs.

Until now,consideration of the matrix-valued WWM formalism has been very similar to the usual one. Considerable differences appear in determining the matrix-valued Moyal bracket and in the classical limit. To consider this question one should find the matrix-valued Weyl symbol from the product of two operators in a standard way.

Let $`\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q)`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{B}(p,q)`$ be matrix-valued Weyl symbols of two operators $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ respectively. Let us introduce operators $`\widehat{C}_1,\widehat{C}_2,\widehat{C}`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{C}_1=\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\hfill \\ \widehat{C}_2=\widehat{B}\widehat{A}\hfill \\ \widehat{C}=[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]=\widehat{C}_1\widehat{C}_2\hfill \end{array}.$$
(11)
Then, using (8) and consideration like that used in , one can obtain the matrix-valued Weyl symbol of the operator $`\widehat{C}_1`$:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{C}_1(p,q)=\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\stackrel{}{}_q\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q)\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{B}(p,q).$$
(12)
For the matrix-valued Weyl symbol of the operator $`\widehat{C}_2`$ one can find a similar expression. Therefore, the matrix-valued Moyal bracket can be determined in the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q),\stackrel{ˇ}{B}(p,q)\}_M=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{C}(p,q)=\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\stackrel{}{}_q\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q)\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{B}(p,q)\stackrel{ˇ}{B}(p,q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\stackrel{}{}_q\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q)\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q)\right)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
Unlike the usual case, matrix-valued Weyl symbols do not commutate, so it is not possible to represent such a Moyal bracket as a sinus from the operator of the Poisson bracket. This fact results in the classical limit in some peculiarities. In the general case, one can express the classical limit of the matrix-valued Moyal bracket via the matrix-valued Poisson bracket  and the commutator of the matrix-valued Weyl symbols:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A},\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\}_M=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\stackrel{ˇ}{A},\stackrel{ˇ}{B}]+\frac{1}{2}\left(\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A},\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\}_P\{\stackrel{ˇ}{B},\stackrel{ˇ}{A}\}_P\right).$$
(14)
If the matrix-valued Weyl symbols (for example position and Hamiltonian) commutate, the matrix-valued Moyal bracket is in fact the usual one and coincides with the Poisson bracket in the classical limit. If they do not commutate with each other, three cases are possible. Let $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{A},\stackrel{ˇ}{B}]=O\left(\mathrm{}^\nu \right)`$ when $`\mathrm{}0`$. If $`\nu <1`$, the classical limit does not exist for such a couple of the matrix-valued Weyl symbols, since the value of the matrix-valued Moyal bracket increases infinitely. If $`\nu >1`$, it becomes zero in the classical limit. If $`\nu =1`$, the classical limit exists. Here we can take as an example the Newton -Wigner position operator . Part of its matrix-valued Weyl symbol,not commutating with the Hamiltonian, is proportional to Planck’s constant, thus in this case there exists a well-defined classical limit.

## III Matrix-valued Wigner function and quantum Liouville equation

Using (3), one can find the average value of an arbitrary operator $`\widehat{A}`$ expressed via its matrix-valued Weyl symbol:

$$\overline{A}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \left|\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }(p,q)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha dpdq.$$
(15)
Then, introducing the matrix-valued Wigner function

$$W_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma }(p,q)=\underset{\alpha =\pm 1}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \left|\widehat{W}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }(p,q)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha ,$$
(16)
this expression can be written in a simpler form:

$$\overline{A}=tr\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q)\stackrel{ˇ}{W}(p,q)𝑑p𝑑q.$$
(17)
Substitution of the operator of quasi-probability density expansion (4) into (16) leads to the expression for the matrix-valued Wigner function in the coordinate representation. As a result we obtain a formula that coincides with the definition given in :

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(q+\frac{Q}{2})\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta (q\frac{Q}{2})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Qp\right]dQ.$$
(18)
Next, let us describe a method to obtain evolution equation for the matrix-valued Wigner function of a scalar charged particle. To do this one shall differentiate expression (18) with respect to time. The value of the wavefunction derivative is taken from the integral form of the Klein - Gordon equation (9). After standard transformations, similar to the usual WWM formalism, we obtain the quantum Liouville equation

$$_t\stackrel{ˇ}{W}=\{\stackrel{ˇ}{H},\stackrel{ˇ}{W}\}_M,$$
(19)
where the matrix-valued Moyal bracket is determined by expression (13).

At first sight, this equation has a considerable defect in comparison to similar expressions in ; namely, it is not Lorentz invariant. For an interpretation of this fact, we have to take into account arguments from the measurement theory. The fact is that average values calculated in this approach coincide with ones in the usual (Schrödinger) representation of quantum mechanics that is Lorentz invariant. Nevertheless, unlike the stochastic formulation of quantum mechanics , the scalar product is determined here with functions that are square integrable in a certain space-like hyper-surface, rather than over the whole space-time. Moreover, the value of scalar product does not depend on its choice . One can relate this hyper-surface to the measurement device frame. In other words, the wavefunction collapse occurs in a frame in which equation (19) is written. The absence of Lorentz invariance is a consequence of the fact that the Weyl rule does not include time as an independent dynamical variable.

In  the process of relativistic measurement is considered. In that work the point of view is expressed, that the wavefunction (and as result the Wigner function, we notice) has no objective value and does not covariantly transform when there are classical interventions. Here we note that in principle equation (19) can be written with four-dimensional Lorentz invariant symbols only, but to do this we have to incorporate in the theory a certain time-like unit vector in a way similar to Tomonaga-Schwinger approach to quantum field theory . It is the four-velocity of the frame where the wavefunction collapse occurs (the measuring device frame) relative to the second static observer (watching observer). This frame has principally another sense to that of the preferred frame in . In that approach  collapse of the wavefunction has to take place in all frames in the whole space (because of the instant time hyper-surface being invariant). In our approach this process obeys the relativity of simultaneity. If it were possible to observe the wave function directly, such a hypothetical watching observer would see the wavefunction collapse as a certain moving front. As a result, at a certain instant, in a static frame (attached to the watching observer), a state with a part of the wavefunction before measurement on one hand and a part of the wavefunction after measurement on the other hand, is realized (Fig.1). But perhaps it is impossible to propose even gedanken experiment without use of a superluminar signal to interpret the results in favor of one of the approaches.

Hence we find to be very important and of fundamental value the fact that quantum mechanics in the Wigner representation necessarily includes the four-velocity of the measuring device frame in explicit form.

## IV Transformation to the Feshbach - Villars representation

In the Feshbach - Villars representation, Hamiltonian matrix has a diagonal form and indices in the charge space correspond to the particle and antiparticle . Therefore, it is convenient to distinguish between solutions with different charge signs and to give them explicit physical sense. Furthermore, in this approach an influence of the odd part of the position operator on values of some physical variables is more evident.

Operator $`\widehat{A}_\alpha ^\beta `$transforms to the Feshbach - Villars representation by the following formula:

$$\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\gamma ,\delta =\pm 1}{}\widehat{U}_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\beta }\widehat{A}_{\delta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\widehat{U}_{}^{1}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta },$$
(20)
where the transformation matrix has the form:

$$\widehat{U}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\widehat{p})=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{mc^2E(\widehat{p})}}[(E(\widehat{p})+mc^2)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+(E(\widehat{p})mc^2)\tau _1{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }].$$
(21)
Here and below

$$E(p)=\left(m^2c^4+c^2p^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(22)
is the energy of a relativistic free particle.

Next, we apply (20) to the Weyl rule in the form (6). As result, we obtain the expression that brings into correspondence the matrix-valued Weyl symbol to the operator in the Feshbach-Villars representation:

$$\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}_{\gamma ,\delta =\pm 1}U_\gamma ^\beta (p+\frac{P}{2})A_\delta ^\gamma (p,q)U^1_\alpha ^\delta (p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPdpdqp\frac{P}{2}|.$$
(23)
In general, it is rather difficult to interpret this expression since there is a complicated dependence on the integration variable under the integral sign. Here we do not go beyond the simplest case.

Let the matrix-valued Weyl symbol be proportional to the identity matrix:

$$A_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=A(p,q)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }.$$
(24)
In principle, one can say that such symbols do not depend on the charge variable, so that the class of dynamical variables, which corresponds to those, we denominate here, to be more brief, as a class of charge-invariant variables. Most of the dynamical variables that we consider in relativistic (non-quantum) mechanics belong to this class. The reason for this is the absence of a dependence on the charge variable in classical mechanics. Hence, the question about the classical limit is for such variables especially interesting.

The Weyl rule for charge-invariant variables in the Feshbach - Villars representation has the form:

$$\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}A(p,q)R_\alpha ^\beta (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPdpdqp\frac{P}{2}|.$$
(25)
Unlike  and non-relativistic case there is a matrix-valued variable here:

$$R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p_1,p_2)=\epsilon (p_1,p_2)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+\chi (p_1,p_2)\tau _1{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }.$$
(26)
It contains even and odd parts and is expressed via the energy of a free particle (22):

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (p_1,p_2)=\frac{E(p_1)+E(p_2)}{2\sqrt{E(p_1)E(p_2)}}\hfill \\ \chi (p_1,p_2)=\frac{E(p_1)E(p_2)}{2\sqrt{E(p_1)E(p_2)}}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(27)
Consequences from (25) are expressions for even $`[\widehat{A}]`$ and odd $`\{\widehat{A}\}`$ parts of the operator of a charge-invariant observable in terms of its Weyl symbol:

$$\left[\widehat{A}^{FV}\right]_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}A(p,q)\epsilon (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\delta _\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPdpdqp\frac{P}{2}|,$$
(28)
$$\left\{\widehat{A}^{FV}\right\}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}A(p,q)\chi (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\tau _1_\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPdpdqp\frac{P}{2}|.$$
(29)
Matrix elements with eigenvectors of the momentum of the operator of a charge-invariant variable and its even and odd parts can be written in the following form:

$$p_1|\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }|p_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q]dq,$$
(30)
$$p_1|\left[\widehat{A}^{FV}\right]_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }|p_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\epsilon (p_1,p_2)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q]dq,$$
(31)
$$p_1|\left\{\widehat{A}^{FV}\right\}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }|p_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\chi (p_1,p_2)\tau _1{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q]dq.$$
(32)
Then, as was achieved in Sec.II, one can obtain a formula that reconstructs the Weyl symbol from the operator, with even and odd parts, in the Feshbach Villars representation:

$$A(p,q)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\gamma =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}R^1{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }(p\frac{P}{2},p+\frac{P}{2})p+\frac{P}{2}|\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }|p\frac{P}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq\right]dP,$$
(33)
$$A(p,q)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^1(p\frac{P}{2},p+\frac{P}{2})p+\frac{P}{2}|\left[\widehat{A}^{FV}\right]_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }|p\frac{P}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq\right]dP,$$
(34)
$$A(p,q)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\gamma =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\chi ^1(p\frac{P}{2},p+\frac{P}{2})\tau _1{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }p+\frac{P}{2}|\left\{\widehat{A}^{FV}\right\}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }|p\frac{P}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq\right]dP.$$
(35)
Comparing (31) and (32) we conclude that matrix elements (integral kernels) of even and odd parts of the operator of an arbitrary charge-invariant variable are uniquely related to each other due to the Weyl rule:

$$p_1|\left\{\widehat{A}^{FV}\right\}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }|p_2=\frac{E(p_1)E(p_2)}{E(p_1)+E(p_2)}\underset{\gamma =\pm 1}{}\tau _1{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }p_1|\left[\widehat{A}^{FV}\right]{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }|p_2.$$
(36)
A consequence of this expression is the fact that independent of position the odd part of an operator is zero. If one uses as $`\widehat{A}`$, for example, the scalar potential of an electric field, expression (35) establishes a quantitative relationship between effects of motion of a particle in an electric field and its interaction with a polarizable vacuum (trembling motion, Zitterbewegung) .

Consider now time derivative peculiarities of charge-invariant variables. In the coordinate representation, the matrix-valued Weyl symbol of such an operator has the form:

$$_t\stackrel{ˇ}{A}=\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A},\stackrel{ˇ}{H}\}_M.$$
(37)
The Weyl rule (23) (in the Feshbach - Villars representation) for this can be written as follows:

$$_t\widehat{A}^{FV}=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}\stackrel{ˇ}{U}(p+\frac{P}{2})\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q),\stackrel{ˇ}{H}(p)\}_M\stackrel{ˇ}{U}^1(p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq\right]𝑑P𝑑p𝑑qp\frac{P}{2}|,$$
(38)
or, in another form:

$$_t\widehat{A}^{FV}=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}\{\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(p,q),\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(p^{}+\frac{P}{2},p,p^{}\frac{P}{2})\}_M^{p^{}=p}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq\right]𝑑P𝑑p𝑑qp\frac{P}{2}|,$$
(39)
where we have introduced a new matrix-valued variable of three arguments:

$$G_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p_1,p,p_2)=\frac{E^2(p)}{2\sqrt{E(p_1)E(p_2)}}(\tau _3{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }+i\tau _2{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }).$$
(40)
If $`A(p,q)`$ on $`q`$ linearly depends, formula (39) can be presented in a particularly simple form:

$$_t\widehat{A}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p\frac{A(p,q)}{q}\frac{E(p)}{p}(\tau _3{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }+i\tau _2{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta })dpp|.$$
(41)
The time derivative of an operator is a composition of its even and odd parts, where the odd part has a classical limit because of the absence of interference terms. As an example one can take the Newton - Wigner position operator that is even part of the usual position operator.

In the general case this formula contains in higher orders of $`\mathrm{}`$ non-standard terms, since $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(p_1,p,p_2)`$ distinguishes from $`E(p)`$. However, in the classical limit they vanish and this expression takes the form of (41).

Hence, in the Feshbach - Villars representation, where we distinguish between solutions with different charge signs, the odd part of the position results not only in the emergence of the odd part of operators, but leads to some peculiarities in their even parts as well. In particular, it appears in the specifics of the semi-classical limit.

## V Wigner function and quantum Liouville equation for charge-invariant variables

It is easy to see from (25) that it is possible to introduce the usual Wigner function for the charge invariant variables in such a way that their average values are determined by the formula:

$$\overline{A}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}A(p,q)W(p,q)𝑑p𝑑q.$$
(42)
To show this, we expand the operator of quasi-probability density in the Feshbach - Villars representation through the eigenvectors of momentum:

$$\widehat{W}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}|p+\frac{P}{2}R_\alpha ^\beta (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dPp\frac{P}{2}|.$$
(43)
The Wigner function is determined as the average value of this operator over an arbitrary state that contains in the general case components with both charge signs:

$$W(p,q)=\underset{\alpha ,\beta =\pm 1}{}\psi _\beta \left|\widehat{W}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)\right|\psi ^\alpha .$$
(44)
There are four components in this expression. Two of them are the average value of the even part of the operator of quasi-probability density, and the other two are the average values of the odd part. Let us introduce the symbols:

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\psi _\beta \left|\widehat{W}^{FV}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)\right|\psi ^\alpha .$$
(45)
It should be noted here and below that the object $`W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)`$ is not the matrix-valued Wigner function in the sense of  and Sec.III of this work.

Substituting (43) into (45), we obtain for the Wigner function components following expressions

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\psi _\alpha ^{}(p+\frac{P}{2})\psi ^\alpha (p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dP,$$
(46)
$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\chi (p+\frac{P}{2},p\frac{P}{2})\psi _\alpha ^{}(p+\frac{P}{2})\psi ^\alpha (p\frac{P}{2})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Pq]dP.$$
(47)
Even components of the Wigner function (46) correspond to a charge definite state. The value of odd components (47) for such a state is zero. The expression (46) differs from analogous one for a non-relativistic Wigner function and relativistic one determined using the Newton - Wigner position operator  by the function $`\epsilon (p_1,p_2)`$under the integral sign (see (27)). This function has a specific feature: its expansion on $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ does not contain square terms. This means that in the non-relativistic limit expression (46) coincides with the usual determination of the Wigner function.

We obtain the evolution equations for every component separately. The general principle here is the same as in Sec.III. However, instead of equation (9) we shall use the integral form of Klein -Gordon equation in the Feshbach - Villars representation :

$$i\mathrm{}_t\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (p)=\underset{\beta =\pm 1}{}E(p)\tau _3{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta }^{}(p).$$
(48)
The following equations can be obtained in a standard way, through differentiating Wigner function components with respect to time:

$$_tW_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q,t)=\alpha \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}E(p)\mathrm{sin}\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q\}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q,t),$$
(49)
$$_tW_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q,t)=i\alpha \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}E(p)\mathrm{cos}\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_q\}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q,t).$$
(50)
Nevertheless, the Wigner function components are not independent, i.e. a specific constraint is imposed on solutions of the system (49),(50). To find this one should take the Fourier transform and make the standard change of variables for every component (46),(47). As a result, we obtain the following expressions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(p_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^+(p_2)=\epsilon ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_+{}_{}{}^{+}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq,$$
(51)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(p_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(p_2)=\epsilon ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_{}{}_{}{}^{}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq,$$
(52)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(p_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(p_2)=\chi ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_+{}_{}{}^{}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq,$$
(53)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(p_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^+(p_2)=\chi ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_{}{}_{}{}^{+}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq.$$
(54)
Now we divide (52) by (53) and (54) by (51), and equate the resulting expressions with each other due to the equality of their left-hand sides. This gives us the constraint we are looking for:

$$\begin{array}{c}(E(p_1)E(p_2))^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_+^+(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q_1)W_{}^{}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q_2)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(q_1+q_2)(p_1p_2)]dq_1dq_2=\hfill \\ =(E(p_1)+E(p_2))^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_+^{}(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q_1)W_{}^+(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q_2)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(q_1+q_2)(p_1p_2)]dq_1dq_2\hfill \end{array}.$$
(55)
Equation (50) explicitly contains the imaginary unit, so the actual question is whether the Wigner function is real. To test this we consider the complex-conjugate expressions for (46),(47). After some easy transformations we obtain the following identities:

$$W^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)=W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q),$$
(56)
$$W^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)=W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q).$$
(57)
These mean that even components of the Wigner function are real. Odd components are complex conjugate to each other so that their sum is real as well.

It is essential that the equation for even components of the Wigner function coincides with the analogous expression obtained in  for the formalism where the Newton - Wigner position operator is used. Hence, the dynamics of quasi-distribution functions for systems of particles with charges of the same sign (charge definite states) is identical in both cases.

## VI Statistical properties of the Wigner function for charge-invariant variables

Constraint on the initial conditions of the Wigner function is the general peculiarity of the approach described here because equations are identical in both cases (for charge definite states). In this Section we show how some theorems and properties differ from their analogues in the usual WWM formalism  and in an approach where the Newton - Wigner position operator is used .

First of all one should note the property of normality. Even part of the Wigner function (46) is normalized in the whole phase space, and the integral of the odd part (47) is zero.

Consider now the compatibility of the Wigner function (46) with distributions in the coordinate and momentum spaces for a single-charge state. For this purpose we integrate (46) by coordinate. As a result, we obtain the distribution in momentum space:

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p)\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (p).$$
(58)
This function always has a definite sign, so that it can be interpreted as the probability density. One can obtain a more non-trivial result for distribution in coordinate space. The result of integrating of (46) by momentum can be given in the following form:

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(q)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p_1)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_1q]\epsilon (p_1,p_2)\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (p_2)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_2q\right]dp_1dp_2,$$
(59)
or, which is the same,

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(q)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(q)\epsilon (i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_q,i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_q)\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (q),$$
(60)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (q)`$ is the wavefunction in the representation of the Newton - Wigner coordinate . It is obvious, that quasi-distribution, (59) and (60), is not sign-definite. This property is typical for bosons and causes difficulties in probability interpretation . Nevertheless, formal use of such quasi-probability makes it possible to calculate average values of the variables dependent on coordinate.

Average values of variables only depending on momentum do not differ from similar ones in usual approach. Let us find the peculiarities of higher moments of coordinate in our case. For this purpose we integrate (59) with $`q^n`$ by coordinate and use the identity:

$$q^ne^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_2p_1)q}=(i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_{p_2})^n\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_2p_1)q\right].$$
(61)
After some obvious transformations the result for the $`n`$-th moment of the coordinate can be written as follows:

$$q^n=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p)\left[i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_p\right]^n\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (p)\epsilon (p,p^{})\right\}_{p^{}=p}𝑑p.$$
(62)
The first moment (average coordinate) has a value similar to one in the Newton - Wigner coordinate approach. Differences manifest themselves in higher moments. As an example, we apply this expression to second moment of the coordinate:

$$q^2=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p)\left[i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_p\right]^2\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (p)𝑑p\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}c^2p}{2E^2(p)}\right]^2\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (p)𝑑p.$$
(63)
As well as the usual part, this formula also contains an additional term that causes the peculiarities related to determination of the position operator. For strongly localized states, it results in formal violation of the uncertainty relation.

Similar to the case of the usual WWM formalism , we prove two criteria that make it possible to select Wigner functions for pure and mixed states out of the whole set of functions of the variables $`(p,q)`$.

###### Criterion 1

Criterion of pure state.

For the functions $`W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)`$ and $`W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)`$ to be even and odd components of the Wigner function for charge invariant variables, it is necessary and sufficient that equalities (55),(56),(57) hold true, and the following conditions are satisfied:

$$\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\frac{c^4p_1p_2}{E(p_1)E(p_2)(E(p_1)+E(p_2))^2},$$
(64)
$$\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\frac{c^4p_1p_2}{E(p_1)E(p_2)(E(p_1)E(p_2))^2}.$$
(65)
Necessity. Following  we start from an obvious identity:

$$\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(p_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta (p_2)0.$$
(66)
Applying it to formulas (51) - (54) one obtains the equalities

$$\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon (p_1,p_2),$$
(67)
$$\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\frac{^2}{p_1p_2}\mathrm{ln}\chi (p_1,p_2).$$
(68)
Now, substituting the explicit form of $`\epsilon (p_1,p_2)`$ and $`\chi (p_1,p_2)`$from (27), we obtain (64),(65).

Sufficiency. Let components of the function satisfy conditions (64),(65) or, equivalently, (67),(68). So one can write following conditions:

$$\epsilon ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\phi _1(p_1,\alpha )\phi _2(p_2,\alpha ),$$
(69)
$$\chi ^1(p_1,p_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),q)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_1p_2)q\right]dq=\phi _3(p_1,\alpha )\phi _4(p_2,\alpha ),$$
(70)
where $`\phi _i(p_k,\alpha )`$ are certain functions. Let us show that they can be chosen in such a way as to be consistent with each other and present a wavefunction for a scalar charged particle. From (56),(69) and (57),(70) it follows that

$$\phi _1^{}(p_1,\alpha )\phi _2^{}(p_2,\alpha )=\phi _1(p_2,\alpha )\phi _2(p_1,\alpha ),$$
(71)
$$\phi _4^{}(p_1,\alpha )\phi _3^{}(p_2,\alpha )=\phi _4(p_2,\alpha )\phi _3(p_1,\alpha ).$$
(72)
Then one obtains

$$\frac{\phi _1^{}(p_1,\alpha )}{\phi _2(p_1,\alpha )}=\frac{\phi _1(p_2,\alpha )}{\phi _2^{}(p_2,\alpha )}=const=A,$$
(73)
$$\frac{\phi _3^{}(p_1,\alpha )}{\phi _4(p_1,\alpha )}=\frac{\phi _3(p_2,\alpha )}{\phi _4^{}(p_2,\alpha )}=const=B.$$
(74)
Hence, one can say that our system is described by the following wavefunctions:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha (p)=\sqrt{A}\phi _2(p,\alpha ),$$
(75)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha ^{}(p)=\frac{\phi _1(p,\alpha )}{\sqrt{A}};$$
(76)
$$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p)=\sqrt{B}\phi _4(p,\alpha ),$$
(77)
$$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p)=\frac{\phi _3(p,\alpha )}{\sqrt{B}}.$$
(78)
Now one has to prove that wavefunctions presented in such a way (with one and two tildes) are consistent with each other. For this purpose, a combination of expressions (75) - (78) and (69) and (70) is substituted into condition (55). As a result, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{+}{}^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{+}(p_2)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(p_2).$$
(79)
This leads to the following equality:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{+}{}^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{}(p_1)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{}(p_1)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(p_2)}{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{}(p_2)\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{}_{}{}^{+}(p_2)}=const=1.$$
(80)
If this condition is fulfilled, one can accept as the wavefunction

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (p)=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}_\alpha (p).$$
(81)
Then condition (70) is satisfied and, taking account of the fact that components of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (p)`$ differ from components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (p)`$ by a constant phase, condition (69) is satisfied as well. Hence, conditions of this criterion allow us to introduce wavefunction (81). Then, similar to how it is done in , one can show that it satisfies the Klein - Gordon equation in the Feshbach - Villars representation. Which was to be proved.

This criterion differs from a similar one in the usual WWM formalism  and in the approach that uses the Newton - Wigner position operator by difference of the right-hand parts of conditions (64),(65) from zero. The obvious consequence from this is the fact that the one-particle state, where Wigner function would be a joint Gauss distribution by coordinate and momentum, is impossible in the approach described here.

Consider another property of Wigner function, true for both pure and mixed states. For this purpose, we introduce the formula for the square of the module of the scalar product of state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=(2\pi \mathrm{})^d_{\alpha =\pm 1}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^\alpha (p,q)\epsilon ^2(p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q)W_\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\alpha (p,q)dpdq+\hfill \\ \text{}+(2\pi \mathrm{})^d_{\alpha =\pm 1}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^\alpha (p,q)\chi ^2(p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q)W_\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\alpha (p,q)dpdq\hfill \end{array}.$$
(82)
It is easy to test this by substituting expressions (46) and (47) for the Wigner function components into it. Then, let $`W(p,q)`$ presents a mixed state consisting of orthogonal states described by $`W_n(p,q)`$:

$$W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q)=\underset{n}{}s_nW_n{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }(p,q),$$
(83)
$$\underset{n}{}s_n=1.$$
(84)
Taking into account that the sum of $`s_n`$(the probability of system to be in state $`n`$) squares is less than unity (a consequence from (84) ) one obtains for an arbitrary state

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\alpha =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)\epsilon ^2(p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q)W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)dpdq+\hfill \\ +\underset{\alpha =\pm 1}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)\chi ^2(p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q)W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)dpdq\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(85)
Moreover, for a pure state this inequality turns into an equality. Expression (85) can be used as necessary and sufficient condition for both pure and mixed states.

This condition is written for a state that is the superposition of states with different charges signs, which is more typical for the many-particle case. It takes a simpler form for a state where only one charge sign is realized:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)\epsilon ^2(p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\stackrel{}{}_q)W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(p,q)dpdq\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}.$$
(86)
Though this inequality does not contain interference terms, it differs from its non-relativistic analogue due to function (27) being present. Hence, a dynamical variable that contains square and higher moments of coordinate can have peculiarities in many-particle systems that are described by statistical physics.

The type of influence of the odd part of the position operator on dynamical variables can be illustrated with the one-particle state that is the Gauss distribution in momentum space with arbitrary square of dispersion $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p^2}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{2\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{p^2}{4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p^2}}\right]\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right),$$
(87)
where we have chosen the natural units of measure, $`\mathrm{}=c=m=1`$. The dependence of position dispersion on momentum dispersion is shown in Fig.2. Its peculiarity is the formal violation of uncertainty relation. Under very strong localization, states even with negative square of dispersion are possible, which was shown in . This fact is a property of scalar charged particles, and localization peculiarities for fermions rather different.

## VII Conclusions

The usual (not Lorentz invariant) Weyl rule makes it possible to introduce the Wigner function that is not Lorentz invariant, but all average values calculated with it coincide with ones calculated with Lorentz invariant wavefunction. This results in the fact that quantum mechanics in the Wigner formulation contains with necessity a measuring device frame. In principle, we can write the evolution equations using only four-dimensional Lorentz invariant symbols, but it is necessary to introduce a certain time-like vector for it. It is the four-velocity of the frame in which wavefunction collapse occurs, relative to the second (static) observer. It should be noted, that this approach differs from  where there is the preferred frame. In the last cases such a frame has a global sense and its introduction is related to attempts of correct tachyons description and, as a consequence, to a possible explanation of the instant quantum correlations (in a relativistic case) from the position of de Broglie - Bohm quantum mechanics.

Phase space for a scalar charged particle is not only limited by three couples of the momenta and coordinates . The charge part of it exists as well. However, in the approach presented here we leave the operator nature of such variables without modification. As a result, the matrix-valued Wigner function is the density matrix in charge space with standard rules of average values calculation as well.

If we limit our consideration only to such elements of dynamical algebra that do not depend on variables of the charge space, it is possible to introduce the usual Wigner function. This object differs from the Wigner function for a non-relativistic particle and from the Wigner function in the Newton - Wigner position operator approach as well. First of all it should be noted that it contains four components, corresponding to particles, antiparticles and their interference with each other. Moreover, even for the one-particle case, when only one component exists, the definition of the Wigner function differs, as the result of odd part of the position operator being present, from the usual one.

This results in non-standard behaviour of some physical variables, even in the absence of conditions when particles creation is possible. However, it is not observed for all physical variables. For example, energy and number of particles (that are usually considered in statistical physics) do not show such peculiarities. Hence, one can expect such effects on the quadratic and higher moments of coordinate. As an example, one can take the dispersion that can be interpreted as the real (physical) size of system that is not limited by external borders.

One can separate two groups of effects that result from this approach: ones related to interference between particles and antiparticles, and ones that take place in systems with same charge signs. Effects of the first group result from presence of the odd part of the Wigner function, the second ones are due to the specific function $`\epsilon (p_1,p_2)`$ being present in the even component of the Wigner function. At the one-particle level it manifests itself, for example, in violation of the uncertainty relation. Perhaps, such effects can exist in many-particle systems as well.

Even and odd components of Wigner function in the system of quantum Liouville equations are not mixed up together. This results from absence of particles creation from vacuum in the system. For example, in an electric field the vacuum is not stable , and this can be interpreted as a consequence of the odd part of the position operator being present as well. It manifests itself in mixing up of different components in the quantum Liouville equation. There is another situation for the instant magnetic field: particles are not created and the Wigner function components are not mixed up . Nevertheless, even components of position and momentum of such a system satisfy not the usual commutation relations but the deformed Heisenberg - Weyl algebra ones . These facts can mean that in external electromagnetic fields the odd part of the position operator reveals itself to be especially strong.


format: text

text:
# Gaussianity of Degree-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Observations

## 1 Introduction

An important feature of the simplest inflation models is that the initial density fluctuation field has a Gaussian random phase distribution (see, e.g., Fischler, Ratra, & Susskind 1985). Therefore, an observational test of the Gaussianity of the initial density fluctuation field will provide an important constraint on inflation models. Since the CMB temperature anisotropy fluctuation reflects the density distribution on the last scattering surface, one can study the Gaussianity of the primordial density fluctuation field by measuring the topology of the CMB anisotropy.

Topology measures for two-dimensional fields, introduced by Coles & Barrow (1987), Melott et al. (1989), and Gott et al. (1990), have been applied to many different kinds of observational data. These include the angular distribution of galaxies on the sky (Coles & Plionis 1991; Gott et al. 1992), the distribution of galaxies in slices of the universe (Park et al. 1992; Colley 1997; Park, Gott, & Choi 2001), and the CMB temperature anisotropy field (Coles 1988; Gott et al. 1990; Smoot et al. 1994; Kogut et al. 1996; Colley, Gott, & Park 1996).

Recently, there have been many analyses of the Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy at large ($`>10^{}`$) angular scales that make use of the DMR maps (Colley et al. 1996; Kogut et al. 1996; Ferreira, Magueijo, & Górski 1998; Novikov, Feldman, & Shandarin 1999; Pando, Valls-Gabaud, & Fang 1998; Bromley & Tegmark 1999; Banday, Zaroubi, & Górski 2000; Magueijo 2000; Mukherjee, Hobson, & Lasenby 2000; Barreiro et al. 2000; Aghanim, Forni, & Bouchet 2001; Phillips & Kogut 2001). While it has been argued that the DMR data shows slight evidence for non-Gaussianity, this has been attributed to non-CMB anisotropy systematics.

Previous studies of the Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy have been limited to large angular scales, in particular to the DMR maps. On these large angular scales the central limit theorem, in conjunction with sufficient smoothing, ensures that any reasonable theoretical model will predict a Gaussian CMB anisotropy. This does not hold on smaller angular scales. Therefore, it is important to investigate the Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy on smaller angular scales.

Small-scale CMB anisotropy observations will soon be able to tightly constrain cosmological parameters; see, e.g., Rocha (1999), Page (1999), and Gawiser & Silk (2000) for reviews. Current observational error bars are asymmetric (i.e., non-Gaussian), so accurate constraints on cosmological parameters can only be derived from a complete maximum likelihood analysis of current data (see, e.g., Ganga et al. 1997; Górski et al. 1998; Ratra et al. 1999a; Rocha et al. 1999) or good approximations thereof (Bond, Jaffe, & Knox 2000), although even in this case one assumes that the underlying theoretical model is Gaussian, and it is important to explicitly test this assumption111 In fact, comparison of results from different experiments indicates evidence for non-Gaussianity (Podariu et al. 2001), but this is almost certainly a consequence of underestimated observational error bars rather than evidence for a non-Gaussian CMB anisotropy.. Derivation of tight constraints on cosmological parameters requires a combined analysis of as many CMB anisotropy data sets as possible. For current data this requires a full maximum likelihood analysis (see, e.g., Ratra et al. 1999b). If the CMB anisotropy is Gaussian and future observational error bars are symmetric (i.e., consistent with Gaussianity), then a $`\chi ^2`$ comparison of CMB anisotropy observations and model predictions will be a much faster way of determining constraints on cosmological parameters (see, e.g., Ganga, Ratra, & Sugiyama 1996; Dodelson & Knox 2000; Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000; Le Dour et al. 2000).

In this paper we present results from a first test of the Gaussianity of the small-scale (degree-scale) CMB anisotropy. We measure the genus statistic from CMB anisotropy maps of the QMAP and Saskatoon experiments (which have an angular resolution of about $`1^{}`$ FWHM). We also analyze a combination map of the data from these two experiments (QMASK, Xu et al. 2001). In the next section we summarize the Wiener-filtering method used to construct noise-reduced CMB anisotropy maps and the method used to generate mock simulated survey maps. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 we compute the genus of the Wiener-filtered QMAP, Saskatoon, and QMASK maps. Our results are summarized and discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 and we conclude in $`\mathrm{\S }`$5.

## 2 Summary of Map-Making Processes

### 2.1 Wiener-filtered maps

The QMAP (balloon-borne) and Saskatoon (ground-based) experiments were designed to measure the degree-scale CMB anisotropy in regions around the north celestial pole (NCP). QMAP measured in the Ka ($`30`$ GHz) and Q ($`40`$ GHz) bands, with six detectors in two polarizations (Ka1/2, Q1/2, Q3/4), with angular resolutions of $`0.^{}89`$, $`0.^{}66`$, and $`0.^{}70`$ FWHM for Ka1/2, Q1/2, and Q3/4, respectively. See Devlin et al. (1998), Herbig et al. (1998), and de Oliveira-Costa et al. (1998) for details of the experiment and the data from the two flights. The Saskatoon experiment measured the CMB anisotropy with an angular resolution of about $`1^{}`$ in the same frequency range as QMAP. See Netterfield et al. (1997) for details of the experiment and the data from three years of observations. Xu et al. (2001) have combined all QMAP data with Saskatoon data into a degree-scale CMB anisotropy map which they call QMASK. This is the largest degree-scale CMB anisotropy map (648 square degrees). It has an angular resolution of $`0.^{}68`$ FWHM.

The QMAP maps are very noisy, with large noise correlations between pixels. The Saskatoon map is linear combinations of sky temperatures convolved with complicated synthesized beams. Wiener-filtering suppresses the noisiest modes in a map, thus emphasizing a statistically significant signal. Tegmark (1997) reviews the general map-making process and discusses the various filters used. In what follows we summarize our Wiener-filtering of the QMAP data, based on de Oliveira-Costa et al. (1998). We also apply this method to the QMASK data. The Saskatoon data are more complicated and for this we adopt the Wiener-filtering method of Tegmark et al. (1997).

The QMAP data are composed of $`n`$-dimensional map vectors $`X`$’s (the temperature at each of the $`n`$ pixels) and $`n\times n`$-dimensional covariance matrices $`N`$’s which characterize the pixel noise. The numbers of pixels of the QMAP data set are 2695 (1Ka1/2 band), 2754 (1Q2), and 2937 (1Q3/4) for the 1st flight, and 1625 (2Ka1/2), 1633 (2Q1/2), and 1591 (2Q3/4) for the 2nd flight. For the Saskatoon data set the number of data points (sky temperatures convolved with the synthesized beams) are 2586 for the NCP Cap data. The QMASK data, the combined version of QMAP and Saskatoon, has 6495 pixel temperatures.

For each experiment we compute the Wiener-filtered map $`X_{\mathrm{WF}}`$ given by

$$X_{\mathrm{WF}}=S[S+N]^1X.$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`S`$ is the CMB theoretical model covariance matrix defined as

$$S_{ij}=X_{\mathrm{CMB}}X_{\mathrm{CMB}}^T=\underset{\mathrm{}=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{r}_i\widehat{r}_j)B_{\mathrm{}}^2C_{\mathrm{}},$$
$`(2)`$
where we sum over multipole moments $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ is the CMB theoretical model temperature map vector, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$’s are Legendre polynomials, and $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$’s are the spherical harmonic expansion coefficients of the beam of the experiment. For QMAP and Saskatoon, the CMB anisotropy theoretical spectrum we use is the flat bandpower spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{24\pi }{5}Q^2/\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$ normalized to $`Q=30\mu \mathrm{K}`$. The global appearance of a map depends on the bandpower at the angular scales where the experiment is sensitive (Tegmark et al. 1997). If we use a different power spectrum for the signal, e.g., a spatially-flat cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) dominated cold dark matter (CDM) model power spectrum, the temperatures of the filtered map change, but the overall distribution of hot and cold spots is conserved. The QMASK data contains more cosmological information than QMAP or Saskatoon alone, so we use a flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ CDM model power spectrum (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.2) to Wiener-filter QMASK. Such a spectrum more accurately summarizes available CMB anisotropy observations (e.g., Podariu et al. 2001).

The Wiener-filtered maps generally have the same angular resolution as the experimental beams. This is true for the QMAP and QMASK data. That is, these maps have angular resolutions of $`0.^{}89`$, $`0.^{}66`$, and $`0.^{}70`$ FWHM for QMAP Ka1/2, Q1/2, and Q3/4, respectively, and $`0.^{}68`$ FWHM for QMASK. For Saskatoon, however, there is an additional $`1^{}`$ FWHM smoothing in the filtering process (see Tegmark et al. 1997 for details). Assuming a $`1^{}`$ FWHM angular resolution for the Saskatoon experiment, the total angular resolution of the Saskatoon Wiener-filtered map is approximately $`1.^{}4`$ FWHM.

To compute the genus we stereographically project the Wiener-filtered maps on to a plane. This projective mapping is conformal and locally preserves shapes of structures. A Gaussian interpolation filter is used in the projection. We choose the radius of the Gaussian filter to be 2.5 times the pixel size, where the pixel sizes are those of the Wiener-filtered maps. The total smoothing scales of the final maps are $`1.^{}53`$, $`1.^{}6`$, and $`1.^{}42`$ FWHM for QMAP, Saskatoon, and QMASK, respectively.

### 2.2 Mock Survey Maps

We have generated 50 Wiener-filtered mock survey maps for each experiment. To generate these CMB anisotropy maps we use a flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ CDM model spectrum with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$, non-relativistic matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$, $`h=0.6`$ (where the Hubble constant $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1), and baryonic density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.0125h^2`$ (Ratra et al. 1997). First the pure CMB anisotropy flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model map is observed at 50 different parts of the sky using the method of Park et al. (1998). Then the instrumental noise is generated from the noise covariance matrix. The noise map vector of each experiment is computed from $`\stackrel{}{n}=N^{1/2}\stackrel{}{n}_r`$ where $`N^{1/2}`$ is the Cholesky decomposition of the noise covariance matrix and $`\stackrel{}{n}_r`$ is a vector of the same dimension as $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and is composed of samples randomly drawn from a unit normal distribution (Netterfield et al. 1997, $`\mathrm{\S }`$10).

The 50 pure CMB anisotropy signal map vectors are convolved with the beam of each experiment. They are then added to the instrumental noise map vectors to produce the mock survey data. These CMB mock survey maps are Wiener-filtered and projected stereographically in the same way that the observational data are analyzed. The Wiener-filtered versions of the observed QMAP and Saskatoon CMB maps are shown in Figure 1, along with Wiener-filtered mock maps. The observed QMASK Wiener-filtered map is shown in the Figure 2$`a`$ together with mock QMASK maps (Fig. 2$`c`$ and 2$`d`$).

## 3 Genus Analysis

We use the two-dimensional genus statistic introduced by Gott et al. (1990) as a quantitative measure of the topology of the CMB anisotropy. For the two-dimensional CMB anisotropy temperature field the genus is the number of hot spots minus the number of cold spots. Equivalently the genus at a temperature threshold level $`\nu `$ is

$$g(\nu )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_C\kappa 𝑑s,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\kappa `$ is the signed curvature of the iso-temperature contours $`C`$. The genus curve as a function of the temperature threshold level has a characteristic S shape for a Gaussian random-phase field.

The theoretical genus per steradian of a two-dimensional Gaussian field with correlation function $`C(\theta )`$ is (Gott et al. 1990)

$$g(\nu )=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\frac{C^{(2)}}{C^{(0)}}\nu e^{\nu ^2/2},$$
$`(4)`$
where $`C^{(n)}(1)^{n/2}(d^nC/d\theta ^n)_{\theta =0}`$, and the temperature threshold is $`\nu (C^{(0)})^{1/2}=\nu \sigma `$. For a CMB anisotropy temperature map convolved with a beam $`B`$ and a smoothing filter $`F`$, the genus per steradian can be expressed in terms of the CMB power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ as

$$g(\nu )=\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^{3/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}B_{\mathrm{}}^2F_{\mathrm{}}^2}{(2\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}B_{\mathrm{}}^2F_{\mathrm{}}^2}\nu e^{\nu ^2/2}.$$
$`(5)`$
The genus curve shape is fixed by the Gaussian random-phase nature of the anisotropy field and its amplitude depends only on the shape of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and not on its amplitude.

Non-Gaussian features in the CMB anisotropy will affect the genus curve in many different ways. Since the genus-threshold level relation is known for Gaussian fields, non-Gaussian behavior of a field can be detected from deviations of the genus curve from this relation (Park et al. 1998, 2001). Non-Gaussianity can shift the observed genus curve to the left (toward negative thresholds) or right near the mean threshold level. It can also alter the amplitudes of the genus curve at positive and negative levels differently causing $`|g(\nu =1)||g(\nu =+1)|`$. We quantify these properties by using genus-related statistics.

First the shift of the genus curve $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (Park et al. 1992, 1998, 2001) is measured from the genus curve by minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ between the data and the fitting function

$$G=A_s\nu ^{}e^{\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2},$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\nu ^{}=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and the amplitude $`A_s`$ of the genus curve is allowed to have different values at negative and positive $`\nu ^{}`$. The fitting is performed over the range $`1.0\nu 1.0`$. The second statistic is the asymmetry parameter which measures the difference in the amplitude of the genus curve at positive and negative thresholds (i.e., the difference between the numbers of hot and cold spots at positive and negative threshold levels, respectively). The asymmetry parameter is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g=A_HA_C,$$
$`(7)`$
where

$$A_H=_{\nu _1}^{\nu _2}g_{\mathrm{obs}}𝑑\nu /_{\nu _1}^{\nu _2}g_{\mathrm{fit}}𝑑\nu ,$$
$`(8)`$
and likewise for $`A_C`$. The integration is limited to $`2.4\nu 0.4`$ for $`A_C`$ and to $`0.4\nu 2.4`$ for $`A_H`$. The overall amplitude $`A`$ of the best-fit Gaussian genus curve $`g_{\mathrm{fit}}`$ is found from $`\chi ^2`$-fitting over the range $`2.4\nu 2.4`$. Positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ means that more hot spots are present than cold spots. In summary, for a given genus curve we measure the best-fit amplitude $`A`$, the shift parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and the asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$.

We present the genus curves as a function of the area fraction threshold level $`\nu _A`$. $`\nu _A`$ is defined to be the temperature threshold level at which the corresponding iso-temperature contour encloses a fraction of the survey area equal to that at the temperature threshold level $`\nu _A`$ for a Gaussian field. The genus estimated at each threshold level is an average over three genus values with threshold levels $`\nu _A`$ shifted by 0 and $`\pm 0.1`$. The amplitude of the genus curves for each band and flight of QMAP are low because of the small survey area. So we have averaged all QMAP genus curves over bands (Ka & Q) and flights (1st & 2nd) to get a total QMAP genus curve.

Figure 3 shows the observed genus curves (filled dots) of the Wiener-filtered versions of the observed QMAP and Saskatoon maps and their best fitting Gaussian genus curves (solid curves). Open circles are the median genus curves from 50 realizations of Wiener-filtered mock survey maps made using the Gaussian flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ CDM model. The error bars are the $`\pm 68`$% uncertainty limits from the 50 genus values. The QMASK genus curve is shown in Figure 4$`a`$. Table 1 lists the genus-related statistics $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ (only for QMASK) measured from each CMB map, as well as the results from the mock survey maps. The 68% uncertainty limits are again estimated from the 50 $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ values obtained from the mock data.

## 4 Discussion

The observed genus curves of the QMAP and Saskatoon maps have shift parameters consistent with zero, and are consistent with those of the simulated Gaussian model. Although there are some deviations in the observed genus curves from the Gaussian curves at high threshold levels, i.e., at $`\nu _A2.0`$, for both QMAP and Saskatoon, these effects are probably not evidence for non-Gaussianity in the CMB anisotropy but are probably caused by the small areas of the observed fields. This is because the genus is forced to have non-zero values even at high threshold levels when it is given as a function of the area fraction threshold level.

The QMASK genus curve, however, has a different behavior. Its Gaussian fitting curve matches well the mock survey result and the shift parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}=+0.18`$ is consistent with zero. From the 50 mock survey maps, the probability that the shift parameter $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu |0.18`$ is 20%. In the QMASK Wiener-filtered map there are many fewer hot spots near $`\nu _A=+1`$ than cold spots near $`\nu _A=1`$. This difference in the number of hot and cold spots causes an asymmetry of the genus curve, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\mathrm{obs}}=0.37`$. The phenomenological reason for this asymmetry is that the observed region of the first flight QMAP experiment in the QMASK map, especially the middle-left region of Figure 2$`a`$, has many cold spots near the threshold level $`\nu _A=1`$. We now consider a few possibilities which might cause this asymmetry.

The first possibility for the asymmetry in the genus curve is the statistical effect caused by a small survey area. From the 50 genus curves of the mock survey maps, we estimate the probability that a genus curve measured from the QMASK survey area has asymmetry parameter $`|\mathrm{\Delta }g|0.37`$ to be 18%. Therefore, the asymmetry of QMASK genus curve is not a very significant effect.

The second is the effect of Galactic foreground contamination in the QMASK data since the survey region is located at low Galactic latitude ($`8^{}b46^{}`$). De Oliveira-Costa et al. (1997, 2000) have quantified the level of foreground contamination in the QMAP and Saskatoon data by using a cross-correlation technique. For the Saskatoon experiment they detect a marginal correlation with the Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment (DIRBE) maps, but no significant correlation with synchrotron emission maps. They also find that the QMAP 30 GHz Ka-band data are significantly correlated with synchrotron maps but not with the DIRBE maps. However, an overall consideration of the effects of these foreground contaminations on the CMB temperature fluctuations show that the Saskatoon and QMAP data are not seriously contaminated by foreground sources since the foreground signal causes the CMB fluctuations to be overestimated by only a few percent. Because the foreground and CMB temperature fluctuations add in quadrature, a foreground signal with an amplitude a few tens of a percent of the CMB fluctuation will cause the CMB fluctuations to be overestimated by only a few percent.

In this study we investigate the effect of foreground contamination on genus appearance by using the cross-correlation technique of de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2000) to quantify the level of Galactic emission contamination in the QMASK data. The high resolution 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ dust map (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis 1998) and the 1420 MHz synchrotron map (Reich 1982; Reich & Reich 1986) are used as foreground templates. The results, summarized in Table 2, show that the QMASK data are marginally correlated with Galactic foreground emission, especially with synchrotron emission. Here, the coefficients $`\widehat{a}`$’s represent the correlation of foreground templates with the QMASK map and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$’s are the corresponding temperature fluctuations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T=\widehat{a}\sigma _{\mathrm{Gal}}`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Gal}}`$ is the standard deviation of the template map). The best-fit estimate of the foreground contribution to the QMASK map is obtained by summing the two foreground maps multiplied by the correlation coefficients $`\widehat{a}`$. However, the genus curve measured from the foreground-subtracted QMASK map is also asymmetric (Fig. 4$`b`$ and Table 1). The asymmetry is somewhat larger ($`\mathrm{\Delta }g=0.46`$) but the probability that the asymmetry parameter $`|\mathrm{\Delta }g|0.46`$ is still only 10%. The Wiener-filtered version of the foreground template used in this analysis is shown in Figure 2$`b`$. We have also computed the genus of the mock surveys after adding the Galactic foreground template to the mock survey CMB anisotropy maps. Adding the foreground causes negligible asymmetry and shift, compared with the results of the foreground-free mock survey. The genus curve estimated from the QMASK data with a Galactic cut at $`b>20^{}`$ also has essentially the same shape. Thus these foregrounds cannot be responsible for the degree-scale spots. It is most probable that the QMASK survey region has statistically more cold CMB spots and less hot spots.

## 5 Conclusions

We present results from a first test of the Gaussianity of degree-scale CMB anisotropy. The observed QMAP, Saskatoon, and QMASK CMB anisotropy fields are Gaussian, given the errors. In combination with previous upper limits on the non-Gaussianity of the large-scale (DMR-scale) CMB anisotropy, these results indicate that the CMB anisotropy appears to be Gaussian all the way from angular scales $`>10^{}`$ down to degree angular scales.

Larger area CMB anisotropy maps with higher signal-to-noise will allow for a more confident test of Gaussianity of the degree and sub-degree scale CMB anisotropy. The recent BOOMERanG 1998 and MAXIMA-1 data appear promising for this purpose.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with S. Dodelson, L. Knox, P. Mukherjee, L. Page (PI of the QMAP and Saskatoon experiments), T. Souradeep, and Y. Xu. CP and CGP acknowledge support from the BK21 program of the Korean Government and KOSEF. BR acknowledges support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031. MT acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-0071213, NASA grant NAG5-9194, and the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation.

FIGURE CAPTIONS