text:
# Infinite Component Relativistic Wave Equations11footnote 1Presented at The Dirac Centenary Conference, Baylor University, Waco, TX October 1, 2002.

## 1 Introduction

The construction of relativistic wave equations has been of great interest to physicists, in particular in the last century where relativistic quantum mechanics has evolved to the now celebrated quantum field theory. Besides the complete relativistic description of a free filed, the latter has invoked a need for such equations, so that mechanisms such as free field perturbation theory will have some degree of success. In this context much work has been invested on studying free field equations describing particles possessing a particular spin (those have been mostly of fields carrying spin 0, 1, 2, $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and even $`\frac{3}{2}`$), however not as much has focused on relativistic wave equations describing fields possessing multiple states of spin333Some of these constructions were initially made by Majorana , and Dirac . and rest mass (bound states), or so called composite fields. A particular case in point which we will utilize repeatedly as a fitting case for such a construction of relativistic wave equations, and in fact will provide a major motivation for our work is an Hadronic field. A Hadron is a composite entity which can be excited along a particular Regge trajectory and therefore may poses different states both in energy, and in angular momentum. It follows that the physical motivation for constructing such an equation is to have a collective description of interactions among such fields taking into account the various energy and angular momentum states such fields may acquire. This description would be an effective treatment of Hadronic fields whose fundamental interactions are that of constituent quarks and gluons, those however would not be specified in such a treatment, but would be inferred from the fact that excited states of the composite fields correspond to various interactions of constituent fields. It is therefore appropriate that we limit our discussion to kinematic considerations with respect to such an infinite component wave equation.

To demonstrate further the physical motivation for such an equation in the context of Hadron physics it would be instructive to examine the decomposition of physical currents of Hadronic fields. As an example, a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ field may be used to demonstrate one such current decomposition .

According to the Gordon identity  the current for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ field is given (in momentum space) by:

$`j^\mu (p,p^{})=p^{}|{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu +p^\mu }{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}}|p`$ (1)
where $`q_\nu =p_\nu ^{}p_\nu `$, and $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ comprise the six Lorentz generators.

This decomposition is of course based on the existence of a linear wave equation, or what is know as the Dirac Equation. What is revelling about this decomposition is that the current is split into two parts; one describing the linear motion of the current given by the first term on the right hand side of (1), the second describing the spinning part of the current given by the second term on the right. The latter also gives us the magnetic moment of the electron.

It is evident that such a decomposition will describe a particle of a definite spin (in this case it is $`\frac{1}{2}`$), and indeed by the use of the Bargmann Wigner equations  such a decomposition should be attained for a field of any spin. However, for a particle acquiring different spin states as it interacts such a decomposition would have to yield another term to its current, namely that which has an expectation value between different angular momentum states, indicating that such a particle may acquire additional higher multipole moments. Indeed it was shown in  that Hadrons may interact through their quadrupole moments produced by a digluon intermediate state which leads to Hadron structure deformation. This would be a hint that an additional term to (1) would have to be added, and would be proportional to:

$`j^\mu =p^{}j^{}|c_1\tau _1^{\mu \nu }l_{1\nu }+c_2\tau _2^{\mu \nu \rho }l_{2\nu }l_{3\rho }+\mathrm{}+c_n\tau _n^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}\rho _n}l_{2\nu }l_{3\rho }\mathrm{}l_{n\rho _n}|pj`$ (2)
where the terms $`\tau _n^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}\rho _n}`$ are tensors associated with multipole moments that a particle may posses, and the vectors $`l_{n\rho _n}`$ are four vectors comprised of linear combinations of the vectors $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$.

The first tensor in (2) is a symmetric ‘shear’ tensor describing quadrupolar pulsations  providing excitations between angular momentum states that differ by $`J=2`$ along a given Regge trajectory . Higher terms in (2) will produce transitions of $`J=3,4\mathrm{}.n`$.

In a sense this formalism would be an attempt to give a description of an entire Regge trajectory, and therefore its consistency is dependent on the presence of strong interactions. After all a Regge (Hadronic) field is considered a bound state very much like a Hydrogen atom whose excitations are dependent on electromagnetic interactions. For the present wave equation (which carries multiple states of angular momentum) to meet its ultimate goal in describing such excitations, one has to assume as a priori that any interactions of interest must require that Hadrons appear as asymptotic states.

## 2 A First Construction of the Equation

### 2.1 Preliminary considerations

In this section we will attempt to construct the infinite component wave equation more or less in a ‘naive’ approach which will initially render the field in question un-physical since it will fail to satisfy a causal condition. This initial effort however will not be in vain since it does point the way on how to overcome such a problem by utilizing the same formalism with some modifications.

The current (2) suggests that an infinite component wave equation describing a field possessing multiple spin states could be a first order linear differential equation similar to that of the Dirac equation. In fact the main motivation for such a construction is derived from Dirac’s inspiration for searching relativistic first order linear equations to describe interaction of particles which possess spin. We therefore conjecture on the form of this equation namely:

$$\left(i_\alpha ^\mu X_\mu M_\alpha \right)\psi (x_\alpha )=0.$$
(3)
The terms $`X^\mu `$ whose construction will be given below, are infinite dimensional matrices describing transitions between different spin states, and are analogous to the gamma matrices appearing in the Dirac equation. The index $`\mu `$ is a Lorentz index, while $`\alpha `$ is an infinite (spin) frame index for which we reserve the discussion on its meaning for later.444The first letters in the Greek alphabet will be reserved for frame indices.. The term $`M_\alpha `$ is a real diagonal matrix whose entrees correspond to the masses of each (spin) frame.

Because we insist that $`(M_\alpha )_{jj}`$ correspond to the masses of the Regge field as it acquires different spin states we are actually saying that the mass shell condition $`p_\alpha ^2\psi _j=m_{\alpha j}^2\psi _j`$ is satisfied for each spin component of the field $`\psi `$ . In fact one of the major driving conditions for building the representations of $`X^\mu `$ will be this mass shell condition, however it should be noted that for the wave equation (3) to be Lorentz invariant such a condition is not necessary.

A famous case in point is the infinite component wave equation constructed by Majorana  from which two important features are worth while examining. First, in his treatment the matrix $`M`$ is considered to be a constant (and thus does not carry any spin frame index), which leads to a particle mass spectrum of the form $`m=\frac{M}{j+1}`$. This does not correspond to the observed spectrum of Hadrons, never the less it is a unique and a remarkable result. This result also implies that in the rest frame the operator $`p^0`$ does not correspond to $`m`$, and therefore it follows that Majorana does not enforce the relation $`p^2m^2=0`$. The second feature of this equation is that the matrix $`X^0`$ is positive definite, meaning that in the Fourier transform of the field $`\psi `$, negative frequencies are excluded, implying that quantization of the field $`\psi `$ would be a bit awkward since this field would not correspond to neither Fermi nor Bose Einstein statistics 555I would like to thank E.C.G Sudarshan for clarifying to me this point..

Such features will be avoided from the following treatment by first introducing an infinite spin frame. This means that for each spin state $`p_\alpha ^0`$ is different, and if the latter is to be interpreted as the mass of the particle in the rest frame then it also must follow that $`p_\alpha ^2=m_\alpha ^2`$. This means that each spin state has a different mass forcing $`M_\alpha `$ not to be a constant.

The physical motivation for introducing frames was explained by Ne’eman  when considering relativistic excitations of fields which carry multiple angular momentum states. The analogy is made with that of Einstein’s gravity in a local frame on a 4-manyfold with a defined local metric using tetrads. In this formalism any general transformation under the covariant group (diffeomorphisms) can describe a transformation from one local frame to another in a gravitational field. In our case, excitations of Hadronic fields really correspond to structural deformations of these ‘extended’ objects. Since the problem of describing relativistic extended objects (in four dimensions) is yet to be formulated, spin is one of the local properties that may be used to describe such excitations. Similar to the situation in gravity, one can describe the transformation of a four manyfold of an extended object from one geometrical state (frame) to another by describing the spin states associated with each geometrical state with the use of some symmetry group. Since an Hadronic field in theory can be excited to an infinite amount of geometrical states (frames) through structural deformations, where each geometrical state corresponds to a particular spin state (frame); hence the term infinite spin frames.

It should be stressed that an infinite (spin) has no relation and should not to be confused with a Lorentz frame. The indices $`\mu `$, and $`\alpha `$ represent two distinct coordinates; one representing a space time coordinate, the other a spin coordinate. The relation between $`\alpha `$ the spin frame, and $`j`$ the spin of the particle will be given in section (4).

### 2.2 The representations of $`X^\mu `$

Since the matrices $`X^\mu `$ should comprise a four vector (a statement which has yet to be proven) it should follow that:

$$[S^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]=i\eta ^{\nu \lambda }X^\mu i\eta ^{\mu \lambda }X^\nu $$
(4)
In light of this the following spherical basis can be defined:

$`X^+`$ $`=`$ $`X^1+iX^2`$
$`X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`X^1iX^2`$
$`X^3`$ $`=`$ $`X^3`$
$`X^0`$ $`=`$ $`X^0.`$ (5)
This together with (4), the general representations of $`X^\mu `$ can be written by the use of the Wigner Eckart theorem. One particular representation which will be convenient for the development of the subject has been given by Weyl  for the spherical basis (5), and is given by:

$`\alpha ,j,m|X^+|\alpha ,j1,m1`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(j+m)(j+m1)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m1|X^{}|\alpha ,j1,m`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(jm+1)(jm)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^3|\alpha ,j1,m`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(j+m)(jm)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^+|\alpha ,j,m1`$ $`=`$ $`c(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m1|X^{}|\alpha ,j,m`$ $`=`$ $`c(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(jm+1)(j+m)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^3|\alpha ,j,m`$ $`=`$ $`c(j)m`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^+|\alpha ,j+1,m1`$ $`=`$ $`c^+(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(jm+1)(jm+2)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m1|X^{}|\alpha ,j+1,m`$ $`=`$ $`c^+(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(j+m)(j+m+1)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^3|\alpha ,j1,m`$ $`=`$ $`c^+(\alpha ,j)\sqrt{(j+m+1)(jm+1)}`$
$`\alpha ,j,m|X^0|\alpha ,j,m`$ $`=`$ $`c^0(\alpha ,j)`$
The term general representations with regards to (5)) is used since the coefficients $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`c^0(\alpha ,j)`$ have yet to be determined. As will be shown these representations are proportional to the infinite dimensional Lorentz boosts , just as in the case of the Dirac equation where the gamma matrices are a result of boosts acting on a field.

The coefficient $`c(\alpha ,j)`$ furnishes a finite representation of (3) and therefore is of no use to us in the current development 666it will be shown below that in fact an inclusion of such terms is inconsistent with certain conditions the wave equation must fulfill. To obtain the coefficients $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`c^0(\alpha ,j)`$ we enforce the following condition:

$$\left(_\alpha ^2+m_\alpha ^2\right)\psi =0.$$
(7)
777There are more conditions related to Lorentz invariance (to be discussed) that the mass matrix must fulfill in order to be called a mass matrix, though (7) will suffice to obtain the coefficients $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`c^0(\alpha ,j)`$.

To arrive at such a condition one can use Dirac’s trick by operating on (3) from the left with its conjugate for a particular frame and spin to give:

$`\left[\left(i_\alpha ^\nu X_\nu M_\alpha \right)\left(i_\alpha ^\mu X_\mu M_\alpha \right)\right]_{j,j}\psi (x_\alpha )=`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha ^\nu _\alpha ^\mu \left\{X_\nu X_\mu \right\}+m_\alpha ^2\right]_{j,j}\psi (x_\alpha )=0,`$ (8)
and it appears that in order to arrive at a mass shell condition the $`X^\mu `$’s have to fulfill the familiar statement for each spin frame namely,

$$\alpha ,j,m|\left\{X_\nu X_\mu \right\}|\alpha ^{},j,m=2\eta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}.$$
(9)
It should be emphasized that unlike the gamma matrices appearing in the Dirac equation, the statement $`\left\{X_\nu X_\mu \right\}=2\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is not true in general, but should only apply when this expression is taken between equal values of spin.

Keeping this in mind we note that when $`\mu \nu `$, it is easy to see that the condition (9) is satisfied. First, for the case $`\mu =0,\nu =i`$, or vice a versa the term

$$\alpha ,j,m|X^0X^i|\alpha ,j,m=0.$$

This is because according to (4), $`X^0`$ is spherical tensor of rank zero, while $`X^i`$ is a spherical tensor of rank one. This term therefore can only have expectation values between $`j`$ and $`j\pm 1`$. Second, for the case where both $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are space indices one can decompose their bilinear as follows:

$$X^iX^j=\frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ij}D_3+\frac{1}{2}\left[X^iX^j\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left(\left\{X^iX^j\right\}\frac{2}{3}D_3\right),$$
(10)
where $`D_3=X^iX_i`$.

The nine bilinears according to the decomposition of (10) have split into one spherical scalar, three spherical vectors, and five spherical tensors of rank two containing the symmetric combination in (9). When $`ij`$ the latter symmetric combination can only have expectation values between $`j`$ and $`j\pm 2`$, and condition (9) is satisfied for this case.

For the case $`\mu =\nu =0`$ one gets from (9) that $`c^0(\alpha ,j)=\pm 1`$. For the case $`\mu =\nu =i`$ the situation is more problematic for which the representations of $`X^\mu `$ will have to be modified. To illustrate how naive our approach has been so far in dealing with this construction, and the problem that arises it is sufficient to evaluate the term $`X^iX_i`$. Using the representations (LABEL:wig), the following is obtained 888The terms proportional to $`c(\alpha ,j)`$ have been included in this step to justify the earlier assumption made on their irrelevance.:

$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`(j(j+1)+m)c^2(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j1)(j+m)(2j1)`$
$`+`$ $`c^+(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j+1)(jm+1)(2j+3)m`$
This expression should not depend neither on $`j`$, nor on $`m`$, in fact the expression above should equal $`X^iX_i=3`$. Further, $`c^0(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`c(\alpha ,j)`$ are all independent of $`m`$, therefore from (LABEL:ex1) the following two conditions are obtained:

$`1+c^2(\alpha ,j)`$ $`=`$ $`c^+(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j+1)(2j+3)`$ (12)
$``$ $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j1)(2j1),`$
and

$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`j(j+1)c^2(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j+1)(j+1)(2j+3)`$ (13)
$``$ $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j1)j(2j1).`$
These relations enable to eliminate the term $`c(\alpha ,j)`$ completely, which does not have any baring on the representation of $`X^i`$, so it might as well be set equal to zero. Hence the only possible way to satisfy the condition $`D_3=3`$ would be to set

$$c^+(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j+1)=c^{}(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j1)=\frac{1}{2j+1}$$
(14)
This implies however that:

$$c^+(\alpha ,j+1)c^{}(\alpha ,j+2)=c^{}(\alpha ,j)c^+(\alpha ,j1)$$
(15)
which says that $`c^+(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`c^{}(\alpha ,j)`$ are both independent of $`j`$ contradicting (14). Although an impossible result, statements (14, 15) do suggest that the form $`c^+(\alpha ,j)c^{}(\alpha ,j1)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2j+1}}`$ up to some phase is the right prescription if there was another set of coefficients requiring more freedom with respect to how one writes the representations for $`X^i`$. Thus there should exist $`c_1^+(\alpha ,j_1,j_2)`$, $`c_2^+(\alpha ,j_1,j_2)`$, $`c_1^{}(\alpha ,j_1,j_2)`$, $`c_2^{}(\alpha ,j_1,j_2)`$, for each $`X^i`$, and $`c_1^0(\alpha ,j_1),c_2^0(\alpha ,j_2)`$ for each $`X^0`$ with ($`|j_1j_2|=1`$) . Thus expression (14) would read:

$`c_1^+(\alpha ,j_1)c_2^{}(\alpha ,j_2)=c_1^{}(\alpha ,j_1)c_2^+(\alpha ,j_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2j_1+1}}`$
$`c_1^+(\alpha ,j_2)c_2^{}(\alpha ,j_1)=c_1^{}(\alpha ,j_2)c_2^+(\alpha ,j_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2j_2+1}},`$ (16)
where $`\eta `$ is some phase, and the contradiction of the form of (15) is avoided. Although these additions are motivated by the above arguments they have not been fully justified, and it seems a bit blurry at this point how such conditions may arise from the representations given by (LABEL:wig). To put these on a more firm footing we proceed at this stage to the next section to better formulate the representations of $`X^\mu `$.

## 3 A Second Construction of the Equation

### 3.1 Defining the odd and even representations

As indicated in the last section it seems that there should be two sets of matrices $`X^\mu `$ in order to fulfill (9). It will be shown that having two of these matrices corresponds to a kind of chirality that exist in the Dirac case, where the gamma matrices in the chiral representation mix left and right components of the spinor field. The correspondence between the current wave equation and the Dirac equation is that the two sets of $`X^\mu `$ will act as the sigma matrices appearing in the gamma matrices of the chiral representation, performing the mixing mentioned above.999There may well be other infinite representations not necessarily of this type that may fulfill conditions that have been mentioned (in particular (9)), though I am not aware of any..

We proceed with this construction by first defining the projection operator:

$$\alpha ,j,m^{}|P_n|\alpha ^{},j^{},m^{}=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\delta _{j,j^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}},$$
(17)
with $`n=jj_{min}`$, and where $`j_{min}`$ is the lowest value of $`j`$ for a particular representation. This matrix operator has $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ dimensions with $`m=j,j1\mathrm{}j`$ which forms a subspace of the infinite dimensional identity, hence

$$I=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n.$$

Using (3.1) it is possible to define the odd, and even projection operators respectively $`P_{2n\pm 1}`$, and $`P_{2n}`$ which have the property of splitting the Hilbert space $`|jm`$ into two separate spaces which we will call ‘odd’ and ‘even’ respectively. These are given by:

$`|j_o,m=P_o|j,m={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n+1}|j,m`$
$`|j_e,m=P_e|j,m={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n}|j,m.`$ (18)
where $`|j_oj_e|=1`$.

Thus for example for a space with half integral spins

$`j_e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{}`$
$`j_o={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\mathrm{}`$ (19)
Now define the following operators:

$`L^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n+1}X^iP_{2n}+P_{2n}X^iP_{2n+1}`$ (20)
$`N^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n1}X^iP_{2n}+P_{2n}X_{2n1}^i`$ (21)
$`L^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n+1}X^0P_{2n+1}`$ (22)
$`N^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{2n}X^0P_{2n},`$ (23)
where it is understood that for the lowest term in (21) $`P_1=0`$.

From this splitting (18) it is apparent that with respect to rotations the operators $`L^i,N^i`$, and $`L^0,N^0`$ are spherical tensors of rank one and zero respectively, and by the methods of (LABEL:wig) their representations are given by:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha ,j_o,m|L^+|\alpha ,j_e,m1& =& l^{}(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_o+m)(j_o+m1)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m1|L^{}|\alpha ,j_e,m& =& l^{}(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_om+1)(j_om)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m|L^3|\alpha ,j_e,m& =& l^{}(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_o+m)(j_om)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m|L^+|\alpha ,j_o,m1& =& l^+(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_om1)(j_om)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m1|L^{}|\alpha ,j_o,m& =& l^+(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_o+m1)(j_o+m)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m|L^3|\alpha ,j_o,m& =& l^+(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_o+m)(j_om)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m|L^0|\alpha ,j_o,m& =& l^0(\alpha ,j_o)\end{array}\}j_oj_e=1,`$ (25)
(26)
and

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha ,j_e,m|N^+|\alpha ,j_o,m1& =& n^{}(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_e+m+1)(j_e+m)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m1|N^{}|\alpha ,j_o,m& =& n^{}(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_em+1)(j_em)}\\ \alpha ,j_e,m|N^3|\alpha ,j_o,m& =& n^{}(\alpha ,j_e)\sqrt{(j_e+m)(j_em)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m|N^+|\alpha ,j_e,m1& =& n^+(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_em)(j_em1)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m1|N^{}|\alpha ,j_e,m& =& n^+(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_e+m)(j_e+m+1)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m|N^3|\alpha ,j_e,m& =& n^+(\alpha ,j_o)\sqrt{(j_e+m)(j_em)}\\ \alpha ,j_o,m|N^0|\alpha ,j_e,m& =& n^0(\alpha ,j_e)\end{array}\}j_ej_o=1.`$ (28)
(29)
The terms $`l(\alpha ,j),n(\alpha ,j)=0`$ by the same arguments of the previous section.

It follows from the representations (26), and (29) that the bilinears of the operators $`L^\mu `$, $`N^\mu `$ have expectation values only between the following states:

$`j,m|L^\mu L^\nu |j^{}=j,m^{}=m,m\pm 2,`$ $`j|N^\mu N^\nu |j^{}=j,m^{}=m,m\pm 2,`$
$`j|L^iN^j|j^{}=j\pm 2,m^{}=m,m\pm 2,`$ $`j|N^iL^j|j^{}=j\pm 2,m^{}=m,m\pm 2.`$
With these representations the matrices $`X^\mu `$ can be constructed by adding a two dimensional index to their labels denoted by $`a,b=1,2`$ to give $`X_{ab}^\mu `$, which are defined as follows:

$`X_{12}^i`$ $`=`$ $`L^i+N^i`$
$`X_{21}^i`$ $`=`$ $`L^iN^i`$
$`X_{11}^i`$ $`=`$ $`X_{22}^i=0.`$
and

$`X_{11}^0`$ $`=`$ $`X_{22}^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L^0+N^0)`$
$`X_{12}^0`$ $`=`$ $`X_{21}^0=0.`$ (31)
The above representations could also be written more compactly as:

$`\alpha ,j,m|X^\mu |\alpha ^{}j^{},m^{}=\alpha ,j,m|\left(\begin{array}{cc}X_{11}^0& X_{12}^i\\ X_{21}^i& X_{22}^0\end{array}\right)|\alpha ^{},j^{},m^{}`$ (34)
In defining the multiplication with regards to the indices $`a,b`$ we introduce a raising and lowering metric $`ϵ_{ab}=ϵ^{ab}`$, where $`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}`$, $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=0`$, and whose representation is given by

$$ϵ_{ab}=\epsilon _{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}j,j^{},m,m^{}}\delta _{ab},$$
(35)
where

$`\epsilon _{\alpha \alpha ^{}j,j^{},m,m^{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}\delta _{j,j^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}}& j=j_o\\ \delta _{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}\delta _{j,j^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}}& j=j_e\end{array}`$ (38)
The metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$ has the following properties:

$`\{ϵ_{ab},X^i\}=0`$
$`[ϵ_{ab},X^0]=0,`$ (39)
and behaves like the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\gamma ^0`$ that appears in the Dirac theory.

Using the metric (38) the following bilinear can be defined:

$$Q_{ab}^{\mu \nu }=(X^\mu X^\nu )_{ab}=X_{ac}^\mu ϵ^{cc^{}}X_{c^{}b}^\nu .$$
(40)
The condition (9) can now be implemented, and due to (3.1) only terms proportional to $`(L^i)^2`$ and $`(N^i)^2`$ need to be considered when evaluating the following:

$`(D_4)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ,j,m|(X^\mu X_\mu )_{ab}|\alpha ,j,m=\alpha ,j,m|X_1^{\mu 2}X_{\mu 21}|\alpha ,j,m`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\alpha ,j,m|X_2^{\mu 1}X_{\mu 12}|\alpha ,j,m.`$
In order to determine the coefficients $`l^\pm (\alpha ,j),n^\pm (\alpha ,j),l^0(\alpha ,j)`$, and $`n^0(\alpha ,j)`$ it would be sufficient to evaluate $`(X^1)^2`$, (any other of the space components will do as well), and $`(X^0)^2`$. Using the representation (26), and (29) together with (120) it follows that

$`\alpha ,j,m|(L^1+N^1)(L^1N^1)|\alpha ,j,m`$ $`=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[l^{}(\alpha ,j)l^+(\alpha ,j1)(j^2j+m^2)`$
$``$ $`n^+(\alpha ,j)n^{}(\alpha ,j+1)(j^2+3j+m^2+2)].`$
Because $`l^\pm (\alpha ,j)`$, and $`n^\pm (\alpha ,j)`$, are independent of $`m`$ one immediate consequence of (LABEL:con1) is

$$n^+(\alpha ,j)n^{}(\alpha ,j+1)=l^{}(\alpha ,j)l^+(\alpha ,j1).$$
(44)
Now (LABEL:con1) reads

$$\alpha ,j,m|(L^1+N^1)(L^1N^1)|\alpha ,j,m=l^{}(\alpha ,j)l^+(\alpha ,j1)(2j+1).$$
(45)
By choosing

$`l^{}(\alpha ,j)=l^+(\alpha ,j1)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{(2j+1)}}}`$
$`n^+(\alpha ,j)=n^{}(\alpha ,j+1)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{(2j+1)}}}`$ (46)
with $`\eta `$ being either a pure complex number, or a pure real number with a modulus of unity, the condition (9) can be satisfied for all the space components of $`X^\mu `$ up to a sign. The choice $`\eta =i`$ will make $`j,m|(X^i)^2|j,m=1`$ (up to a sign), but more importantly would mean that the matrices $`X^i`$ are anti-Hermitian which would be consistent if $`\psi `$ in (3) is to be interpreted as a field.

For the time component $`X^0`$, the condition (9), and the condition that in the rest frame $`p_0^\alpha =m^\alpha `$ implies that

$$n^0(\alpha ,j)=l^0(\alpha ,j)=1$$
(47)
With this condition (9) reads as follows:

$$\alpha ,j,m|\left\{X_\nu X_\mu \right\}|\alpha ,j,m=2_{\mu \nu },$$
(48)
where

$`_{\mu \nu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\eta _{\mu \nu }& j=j_o\\ \delta _{\mu \nu }& j=j_e\end{array}`$ (51)
(52)
This peculiarity has a physical consequence and in fact is necessary for any physical interpretation as will be discussed in the next section. Although the choice of sign in (47) is arbitrary, other conventions will not change the outcome (52), namely that the metric changes from a Euclidian metric to a Minkowskian metric for states that differ by $`J=1`$ in (52).

### 3.2 Lorentz Generators

At this stage it would be useful to look at commutation relations of the type $`[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]_{ab}`$, where one contraction with respect to the indices $`a,b`$ is obtained, so as to project a (1,1) component with respect to these indices. To get a feel what such terms correspond to it would be instructive to evaluate as an example the following commutator:

$`[X^1,X^2]_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{12}^1ϵ_{22}X_{21}^2X_{12}^2ϵ_{22}X_{21}^1`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{22}\left(X_{12}^2X_{21}^1X_{12}^1X_{21}^2\right)`$
Implementing the definitions (LABEL:chiralrep), and a bit of algebra we get:

$`[X^1,X^2]_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{22}}{2}}(N^+N^{}N^{}N^+L^{}L^{}L^+L^{}`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`L^+N^{}L^{}N^+N^+L^{}+N^{}L^+)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{22}}{2}}([N^+,N^{}]+[L^{},L^+]+\{L^+,N^{}\}`$
$``$ $`\{L^{},N^+\}).`$
Using the representations (29), (26), and the properties (3.1) the four expressions in (54) can be evaluated for their non-vanishing matrix elements which are given by (we drop the labels ‘odd’, and ‘even’ from $`j`$):

$`j,m|[N^+,N^{}]|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`2m\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j+3}{2j+1}}\right)`$
$`j,m|[L^{},L^+]|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`2m\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j+1}{2j+1}}\right)`$
$`j,m|L^+,N^{}|j2,m`$ $`=`$ $`j,m|L^{}N^+|j2,m`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(j+m)(j+m1)(jm)(jm1)}{(2j+1)(2j3)}}}`$
$`j,m|N^+L^{}|j+2,m`$ $`=`$ $`j,m|N^{}L^+|j+2,m`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(j+m+1)(j+m+2)(jm+1)(jm+2)}{(2j+1)(2j+3)}}}.`$
The first two terms in (54) add, while the last two exactly cancel, and we are left with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[X^1,X^2]_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[X^1,X^2]_{22}`$
$`=j,m|J_3|j,m=m,`$ (56)
which is nothing more than the representation of the 3-generator of angular momentum. Upon evaluating

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left([X^2,X^3]_{ab}+i[X^1,X^3]_{ab}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`j,m|J^+|j,m1`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left([X^2,X^3]_{ab}i[X^1,X^3]_{ab}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`j,m|J^{}|j,m+1`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(j+m+1)(jm)}`$
it is evident that the terms $`\frac{i}{2}[X^i,X^j]_{ab}`$ furnish the finite spinorial representations of the group of rotation $`SU(2)`$.

By the same method, and upon the use of representation (26, 29) the following operators are evaluated

$$K^i=S_{ab}^{i0}=\frac{i}{2}[X^i,X^0]_{ab}.$$
(58)
Evaluating the commutation relations

$$[K^i,K^j]=iϵ_{ijk}J^k[K^i,J^j]=iϵ_{ijk}K^k$$
(59)
it follows that the operators $`K^i`$ furnish the representations of the boost generators of the Lorentz group. It should be noted that the representation of $`ϵ_{ab}`$ (35) establishes the consistency of these commutation relations, and provides the motivation for its definition.

## 4 Physical States

### 4.1 ‘Even’ and ‘odd’ trajectories and spin frames

In this section we would like to investigate the physical consequences of equation (3) in light of the representations and properties of $`X^\mu `$ discussed in the previous sections.

Equation (3) can be written in component form which manifestly resembles a chiral component of the Dirac equation in its chiral representation, (while providing an entire different physical description) and is given in the form:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}_\alpha ^0X^0M_{aa\alpha }& _\alpha 𝐗_{ab}\\ _\alpha 𝐗_{ba}& _\alpha ^0X^0M_{bb\alpha }\end{array}\right)_{jj^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^a(x_\alpha )\\ \psi ^b(x_\alpha )\end{array}\right)_j^{}=0.`$ (64)
where it is understood that $`a,b=1,2`$, and that upper and lower indices are connected via the metric (35), with the term $`M_{ab\alpha }=\delta _{ab}\delta _{j,j^{}}m_\alpha `$.

As stated in section (2) the mass shell condition should be satisfied for each frame, meaning each state of a definite spin should satisfy $`p_\alpha ^2=m_\alpha ^2`$. This is done by effecting the operation (8) which gives the second order equation

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(^0)_\alpha ^2ϵ_{aa}_\alpha ^2I_{aa}+ϵ_{aa}M_\alpha ^2& 0\\ 0& (^0)_\alpha ^2ϵ_{bb}_\alpha ^2+ϵ_{bb}M_\alpha ^2\end{array}\right)_{jj}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^a(x_\alpha )\\ \psi ^b(x_\alpha )\end{array}\right)_j=0,`$ (69)
(70)
where $`I_{aa}`$ is just the identity matrix.

We have attempted to achieve a Klein-Gordon equation however the result in (70) is not quite such an equation if the term $`M_\alpha `$ is to be interpreted as the mass of the particle in a particular spin state. The source of what seems to be a problem is the alternating signs of the terms $`(^0)_\alpha ^2ϵ_{ab}`$ and $`ϵ_{ab}M^2`$ as one goes from $`j_o`$ to $`j_e`$. By the definition of $`ϵ_{ab}`$ (35) it is obvious that for $`j=j_o`$ one has the equation

$$\left(_\alpha ^2+M_\alpha ^2\right)_{j_oj_0}\psi _{j_o}=0,$$
(71)
while for $`j=j_e`$ Eq. (70) reads

$$\left((^0)_\alpha ^2+_\alpha ^2+M_\alpha ^2\right)_{j_ej_e}\psi _{j_e}=0.$$
(72)
So it is evident that states that carry $`j=j_o`$ do satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation while those that carry $`j=j_e`$ do not. It should be stressed that had a different convention been chosen for the metric, $`j_e`$ would satisfy (71), while $`j_o`$ would satisfy (72). As an example, in the former case $`\psi _{j_o}`$ would be a trajectory of states carrying half integral spin $`\frac{3}{2},\frac{7}{2},\frac{11}{2}\mathrm{}..`$ and does satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation. On the other hand $`\psi _{j_e}`$ is a trajectory of states carrying the half integral spins $`\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2},\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{}..`$, and which does not satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation. The natural question to ask now is why aren’t these two trajectories on the same physical footing?

To resolve this quandary one has to look more carefully at the Lorentz transformations furnished by the representations of $`X^\mu `$, particularly the boosts. Under an infitesimal Lorentz boost $`\psi `$ transforms as

$`\psi ^{}(x^\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`1+iS_{ab}^{i0}\varphi _{i0}\psi (x^\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[X^i,X^0]_{ab}\varphi _{i0}\psi (x^\alpha ),`$
and it is evident from the representations (26, 29) that the above transformation is non-unitary since the Lorentz boost are anti-Hermitian. Furthermore, according to these representations a Lorentz boost takes the field from a state $`j`$ to a state $`j\pm 1`$. From a physical stand point there is absolutely no reason why one observer may measure one value of spin in one frame, and a second observer may measure a different value in another (boosted) frame. The boost being represented non-unitarily is exactly the right prescription since these correspond to non-physical transitions. What seems as a conflict in (72) is simply a statement that states that correspond to $`j=j_e`$ (keeping in mind our initial convention of $`ϵ_{ab}`$) are not physical states, and therefore do not have a rest frame description nor a mass. As a result equation (64) applies to fields whose states differ in two units of angular momentum.

The concept of infinite spin frames which has been used repeatedly so far becomes more clear. It is phenomenologically well known that a Hadron can be excited to different spin states when interacting with an external field, due to its structure (comprised of gluons and quarks). In calculations of physical processes such as amplitudes and cross sections, one should take into account all possible states that the particle can be found in, which provides the main motivation for the wave equation at hand. A Regge trajectory can be defined as a sum on an infinite ensemble of free states, or frames (in $`J/m^2`$ space). In other words if a particle is free, it is said to be in a specific spin frame as far as its spin and rest mass are concerned. Applying a boost to a particle similar to the one in (LABEL:confl3) alters its Lorentzian (kinetic) frame, however it does not alter its spin frame. The fact that the boost in (LABEL:confl3) may change the field’s angular momentum component by $`J=\pm 1`$ has no physical consequence what so ever since the transition to such a state is done non-unitarily, and therefore it not observed. Thus a particular spin frame which is described by a Regge field will span angular momentum values $`J1<J<J+1`$. If a Regge field is measured to be in a physical state with some spin $`J`$ then by the argument presented above its $`J1,J+1`$ components cannot correspond to any physical observables, and therefore don’t have a rest frame description in the equation (3).

The field describing an entire Regge trajectory as a sum of spin frames thus may be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^a(x)=\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j}{}\psi _j^a(x_\alpha )$$
(74)
where $`j`$ is either $`j_o`$, or $`j_e`$, and the sum on their values is given by:

$$2\alpha +(j_o)_{min}1j_o2\alpha +(j_o)_{min}+1,$$
(75)
for and odd trajectory, while for an even trajectory

$$2\alpha (j_e)_{min}j_o2\alpha (j_e)_{min}+2.$$
(76)
In the latter case when $`\alpha =0`$ the left hand side of (76) should be taken as zero.

### 4.2 Left and right boosts and free particle solutions

We now proceed to obtain free particle solutions to the wave equation (3) by boosting a rest frame spinor. Before performing such a boost it would be worth while to further investigate the properties of the Lorentz generators given by (LABEL:comu8). One of these is given by:

$$S_{12}^{i0}=\frac{i}{2}(X_{12}^iϵ_{22}X_{22}^0X_{11}^0ϵ_{11}X_{12}^i).$$
(77)
From the properties of the metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$ given by (39) it is evident that (77) furnishes two representations of a boost which could be obtained by anti-commuting the metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$ either to the left, or to the right; thus yielding two representations that differ by an over all minus sign (the same goes for $`S_{21}^{i0}`$). Due to this ambiguity it is appropriate to define left and right boosts given by:

$`(S_{ab}^{i0})_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{cc^{}}X_{ac}^iX_{c^{}b}^0`$
$`(S_{ab}^{i0})_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{ac}^iX_{c^{}b}^0ϵ^{cc^{}},`$
The representations (LABEL:leri1) suggests that the wave equation (3) supports left and right fields which transform differently under Lorentz boosts according to

$`\psi (x^\alpha )_{aR}`$ $`=`$ $`1+i(S_{ab}^{i0})_{RR}\varphi _i^\alpha \xi `$
$`\psi (x^\alpha )_{aL}`$ $`=`$ $`1+i(S_{ab}^{i0})_{LL}\varphi _i^\alpha \xi ,`$
where $`\xi `$ is a rest frame spinor with $`(2j+1)\times 1`$ dimensions.

Splitting the above two components we find the following:

$`(\psi _1)_R=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{12}^i\varphi _i\xi (\psi _2)_R=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{21}^i\varphi _i\xi ,`$
(80)
and

$`(\psi _2)_L=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{12}^i\varphi _i\xi (\psi _2)_L=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_{21}^i\varphi _i\xi ,`$
(81)
Because of the left/right splitting the wave equation (3) doubles in dimension with respect to indices $`ab`$ which is analogous to the Dirac case in the chiral representation. The matrices $`X^\mu `$ now take on the form101010With this definition $`X_{21}^i`$ is different from its initial definition by a minus sign.:

$$X_{abRL}^i=X_{abLR}^iX_{aaRL}^0=X_{aaLR}^0,$$
(82)
or in a left/right tensor form

$`X^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& X_{RL}^i\\ X_{LR}^i& 0\end{array}\right)X^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& X_{RL}^0\\ X_{LR}^0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (87)
with

$`X_{RL}^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& X_{12}^i\\ X_{21}^i& 0\end{array}\right)X_{RL}^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (92)
The representation (87) assume that multiplication of any two $`X_{ab}^\mu `$ is done between left and right components which induces a left/right metric $`g_{LR}`$. Thus the four dimensional space $`abLR`$ is very similar in nature to that of the four dimensional space that exist in Dirac case of the chiral representation.

Equation (3) in the rest frame with both left and right components takes a finite dimensional form and can be written as the following (in momentum space):

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_\alpha & p_\alpha ^0\\ p_\alpha ^0& M_\alpha \end{array}\right)_{jj}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R\\ \psi _L\end{array}\right)_j=0,`$ (97)
where $`\psi `$ has $`2j+1`$ components, and the matrix above $`2(2j+1)\times 2(2j+1)`$ dimensions (for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ the above is identical to the rest frame Dirac equation). The vanishing determinant of this matrix produces $`2(2j+1)`$ eigenvalues; $`2j+1`$ with a value of $`M_\alpha `$, and $`2j+1`$ with a value of $`M_\alpha `$, implying that the equation (3) admits negative particle solutions

To obtain a solution to the free particle wave equation in a moving frame we can apply a Lorentz boosts to the rest frame spinor, keeping in mind that such boosts must not take the field out of its spin frame. Effectively what needs to be done is to decompose the full Lorentz transformation with respect to each spin frame, and to project those spherical tensors which don’t take the particle out of its spin frame. To understand this better we write the Lorentz transformations as the following:

$`U_{Lorentz}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }}=1+iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu })^2`$ (98)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu })^3+\mathrm{}.`$
With respect to the different powers of $`S^{\mu \nu }`$ it is evident that each power can be decomposed into its irreducible spherical tensors. For example the first term in (98) is a scalar, the second is a vector, the third is comprised of rank two tensor and a scalar, the fourth is comprised of a vector and a rank three tensor, and so on. For each term in the series above that contains a spherical tensor of rank $`n`$, a field with a spin component of $`J`$ will be taken by the action of each of these terms to a state of $`J\pm n`$, each being independent from the other. If the wave equation (3) is to describes a free particle in a specific state, and this equation at most connects field components that differ in angular momentum by $`J=0,\pm 1`$, with a physical spin frame spanning components of $`J1<J<J+1`$, it follows that the only relevant tensors (as far as a physical boost is concerned) are those that could carry the field components from $`J`$ to $`J\pm 0,1`$, namely those tensors which are scalars or vectors. If higher order terms are to be considered for each frame, for example tensors of rank two from the third term in (98), then the free wave equation would describe transitions between physical frames. Physically this wouldn’t be consistent since a wave equation of a non-interacting particle under a Lorentz transformation must retain its description of the same particle of the same spin. In effect this means that one can choose a subset of solutions to the wave equation which correspond to the physical solutions while neglecting those that correspond to non-physical solutions. From this picture it stems that a particular Lorentz transformation can describe a particular boost for an infinite amount of spin frames, however each one will be disjoint from the other as required by physical constraints.

In order to extract from the boosts (98) the appropriate components fitting each spin, the Lorentz boosts generators (in our chiral representation (LABEL:leri1)) can be written as the following:

$$𝐗_{abRL}(P^\alpha 𝐗P^\alpha )_{abRL},$$
(99)
where $`P^\alpha `$ is the projection operator which is defined in a similar way to that in (17), and $`\alpha `$ determines the range of $`J`$ given by (75). This does not alter the representation of the boosts what so ever since the upper and lower values of the representations (26, 29) for any particular $`J`$ are within the limits of (75).

Now apply this boost as in (98) to a rest frame spinor:

$`\psi (p^\alpha )_{aj}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^{iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }}\right)_{physical}\xi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1(P^\alpha 𝐗P^\alpha )_{abjj^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P^\alpha 𝐗P^\alpha )_{abjj^{}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right)^2+\mathrm{}..)\xi _{j_o}.`$
The second term just gives the original boost back while the third term gives:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{b^{}}{}}P_{aajjmm}^\alpha (X^i)_{ab^{}jj^{\prime \prime }mm^{\prime \prime }}P_{b^{}b^{}j^{\prime \prime }j^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}^\alpha (X^j)_{b^{}bj^{\prime \prime }j^{}m^{\prime \prime }m^{}}P_{bbj^{}j^{}m^{}m^{}}^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _j}{2}}`$
$`=\delta _{ab}\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{m^{}m^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right)^2`$
(101)
where it is assumed that $`j^{}`$ belongs to a physical state, meaning the one which actually propagates and for which $`(ϵ_{ab})_{j^{}jm^{}m}=1`$. Because of (101) the fourth term in the series gives:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}(P^\alpha 𝐗P^\alpha )_{abjj^{}}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}𝐗,`$
(102)
and when summing on all terms in the series the right handed boosted field is given by:

$`\psi (p^\alpha )_{aRj}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^{iS^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }}\right)_{physical}\xi `$ (103)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\varphi )𝐗_{RL}𝐧\mathrm{sinh}(\varphi )\right)\xi .`$
Putting the expressions for the rapidity and the explicit expression for $`𝐗_{RL}`$ together with a summation on $`\alpha `$, (103) can be written as:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(p)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2(p)\end{array}\right)_R={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m^\alpha (E^\alpha +m^\alpha )}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E^\alpha +m^\alpha & 𝐩𝐗_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\\ 𝐩𝐗_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}& E^\alpha +m^\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _2\end{array}\right),`$ (110)
(111)
while the left handed field is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(p)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2(p)\end{array}\right)_L={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m^\alpha (E^\alpha +m^\alpha )}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E^\alpha +m^\alpha & 𝐩𝐗_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\\ 𝐩𝐗_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}& E^\alpha +m^\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _2\end{array}\right),`$ (118)
(119)
The above representation establishes the fact that under a physical Lorentz transformation the following is true

$$\left(U_{Lorentz}^1X_{ab}^\mu U_{Lorentz}\right)_{Physical}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu X_{ab}^\nu ,$$
(120)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu `$ are the familiar four dimensional Lorentz transformation. This establishes that the wave equation (3) is Lorentz invariant.

To complete the construction of the wave equation (3) we need to address the question of what values should the mass matrix $`M_{ab}^\alpha `$ take for those entries which correspond to non-physical states. For example lets assume that particles corresponding to the trajectory $`j_o`$ are the physical states then according to (103, 111) it is clear that

$$(M_{11}^\alpha )_{j_oj_o}=(M_{22}^\alpha )_{j_oj_o}=m_{j_o}^\alpha .$$
(121)
Inserting (103, 111) into the wave equation (3) we also find

$$(M_{11}^\alpha )_{j_o\pm 1j_o\pm 1}=(M_{22}^\alpha )_{j_o\pm 1j_o\pm 1}=m_{j_o}^\alpha .$$
(122)
These relations are also consistent with (120), meaning the mass matrix in equation (3) transforms as a scalar under a Lorentz transformation.

## 5 The GL(3,1R) and GL(4,R) Groups

### 5.1  GL(3,1)/GL(4R) splitting

In the introduction it was proposed that the non-locality of Hadrons may manifest itself in local parameters such as spin. If equation (3) describes a collection of states acquired by a Regge field then it is reasonable to assume that this equation could give rise to currents discussed in (2) when interactions are concerned (for which no treatment will be given in the present work). Due to this and the fact that the representation of the Lorentz generators are proportional to the commutators of $`X^\mu X^\nu `$ suggest that these bi-linears may have further properties worth exploring.

In section (2) the tensorial decomposition of the bi-linear $`X^iX^j`$ was performed, and was given by: 111111 Due to the left/right representations of the Lorentz transformation it will be convenient in what follows to contract such bi-linears with the metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$ from either the left or the right. Also since $`ϵ_{ab}`$ commutes with such terms the labels $`a,b`$ are suppressed, and it is understood that all multiplications are done with this metric between left/right, and right/left components.:

$$X^iX^j=\frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ij}D_3+\frac{1}{2}\left[X^iX^j\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left(\left\{X^iX^j\right\}\frac{2}{3}D_3\right),$$
(123)
where $`D_3=X^iX_i`$.

The decomposition (123) splits the bilinear $`iX^iX^j`$ into three irreducible spherical tensors. The first is a symmetric tensor $`D_3\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ which has one independent term, the second an anti-symmetric traceless tensor $`S^{ij}`$ which has three terms, and the last is a traceless symmetric tensor $`T^{ij}`$ which has five terms. Given this, and the representations (26, 29), it follows that the first term transforms as a spherical tensor of rank zero, the second term transforms as a spherical tensor of rank one, and the third as a spherical tensor of rank two, all under rotations, making nine terms all together.

Now define the following irreducible spherical tensors:

$`T_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`D`$
$`J^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{kij}S^{ij}`$
$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`J^1+iJ^2J^{}=J^1iJ^2`$
$`T_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(T_{11}+T_{22}2T_{33}\right)`$
$`T_{+1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`T_{13}+iT_{23}`$
$`T_{+1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`T_{13}+iT_{23}`$
$`T_{+2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`T_{11}T_{22}+2iT_{22}`$
$`T_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`T_{11}T_{22}2iT_{22}`$
By the Wigner Eckart theorem the following commutation relations follow:

$`[J^3,T^0]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[J^3,T_m^j]`$ $`=`$ $`mT_m^j`$
$`[J^\pm ,T_m^1]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(1m)(1\pm m+1)}T_{m\pm 1}^1`$
$`[J^\pm ,T_m^2]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(2m)(2\pm m+1)}T_{m\pm 1}^2.`$
The last three of these could also be put in the form:

$`[J^i,T^{jk}]=iϵ^{ijl}T^{lk}+iϵ^{ikl}T^{jl}.`$
(126)
Since the angular momentum operator is given by (LABEL:comu5), then (126) can also be written as:

$`[S^{ij},S^{kl}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\eta ^{ik}S^{jl}+i\eta ^{il}S^{jk}`$
$`+`$ $`i\eta ^{jk}S^{il}i\eta ^{jl}S^{ik}`$
$`[S^{ij},T^{kl}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\eta ^{ik}T^{jl}i\eta ^{il}T^{jk}`$
$`+`$ $`i\eta ^{jk}T^{il}i\eta ^{jl}T^{ik}`$
$`[S^{ij},D_3]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[T^{ij},D_3]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
These commutation relations are satisfied if the operators:

$$Q^{ij}=\frac{i}{2}X^iX^j$$
(128)
(note that this definition of $`Q^{ij}`$ is different from that of (35) by a factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$) satisfy the commutation relations:

$$[Q^{ij},Q^{kl}]=i\eta ^{jk}Q^{il}i\eta ^{il}Q^{kj},$$
(129)
which are the commutation relations of the group $`GL(3R)`$, and which make $`Q^{ij}`$ a $`GL(3R)`$ group element. Omitting the operator $`D_3`$, the irreducible spherical tensors (LABEL:sphert1) furnish the representation of the group $`SL(3R)`$. This group has been shown by Ne’eman  to give the correct Regge excitations of Hadrons with respect to angular momentum, and its emergence should not come as a big surprise. Extended objects unlike point like particles posses properties that are indicative of their structure; one such example is the particle’s spin altered by some deformation of its structure. The operators $`T^{ij}`$ are the shear tensors that describe such deformations, and lead to excitations of angular momentum with $`J=2`$. Indeed such excitations characterize a Regge trajectory , where resonances of Hadrons are observed to have these selection rules.

We can attempt to do the same kind of analysis above while incorporating the operators $`Q^{i0}`$ $`Q^{00}`$, however from (26, 29) it is apparent that these are already irreducible. Furthermore there seems to be a peculiarity in the way these are defined with respect to the metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$. Unlike the operators $`Q^{ij}`$, multiplication for left or right by $`ϵ_{ab}`$ doesn’t affect the representations of these operators since $`ϵ_{ab}`$ anti-commutes with $`X^i`$. On the other hand for the operators $`Q^{i0}`$ we have:

$$(Q^{i0})_{abLL}=\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{cc^{}}X_{ac}^iX_{c^{}b}^0=(Q^{i0})_{abRR}=\frac{i}{2}X_{ac}^iX_{c^{}b}^0ϵ_{cc^{}}$$
(130)
For the case where multiplication is done from the left one finds the commutation relations:

$$[Q^{\mu \nu },Q^{\lambda \sigma }]=i\delta ^{\nu \lambda }Q^{\mu \sigma }i\delta ^{\mu \sigma }Q^{\lambda \nu },$$
(131)
where $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1)`$ is the four dimensional (negative) Euclidean metric, which would indicate that $`(Q^{\mu \nu })`$ is a $`GL(4R)`$ group element. However for the right hand multiplication we get the same commutation relation as in (131) but with $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }`$ replaced with $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(+1,1,1,1)`$ the Minkowskian metric, indicting that $`Q^{\mu \nu }`$ is a $`GL(3,1)`$ group element. The source of this splitting can be understood by observing that

$$\alpha ,j,m|\{X^\mu X^\nu \}|\alpha ,jm=^{\mu \nu }$$
(132)
where $`_j^{\mu \nu }`$ is $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ if $`J`$ corresponds to an angular momentum of physical state, or $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }`$ if $`J`$ corresponds to angular momentum of a non-physical state. Again as an example choosing $`J=j_o`$ to be a physical state described by the wave equation (3) would mean it’s free particle description is governed by the subgroup of $`GL(3,1)`$, namely $`SO(3,1)`$ with $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ being its invariant metric. Upon the action of a boost whose representations are made from bi-linears of $`X^\mu `$, a physical state is carried to a non-physical state in a non-unitary fashion and its ‘free’ description is now described by the subgroup of $`GL(4R)`$, namely $`SO(4)`$ with a negative metric; hence this state cannot correspond to any physical observable. Finally if a Wick rotation of the form

$$X^0iX^0X^iX^i$$
(133)
is performed then the left and right multiplications with respect to the metric $`ϵ_{ab}`$ are interchanged, and so do the roles of $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }`$. This should be expected since the symmetry groups $`GL(3,1R)`$, and $`GL(4R)`$ are separated by such a rotation.

### 5.2 Establishing $`X^\mu `$ as Lorentz vector

Finally we would like to show that the commutation relations (131) (with $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ being the metric) are consistent with the statement that $`X^\mu `$ is indeed a Lorentz vector, which simply means the following :

$`[S^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]=i\eta ^{\nu \lambda }X^\mu i\eta ^{\mu \lambda }X^\nu .`$ (134)
Although this statement has already been shown for each spin frame in (120) by a decomposition of a full Lorentz transformation with respect to each frame, it would be more desirable to show it in a more general fashion.

The above relation could be verified by using the representations (26, 29), which cloud turn out to be a lengthy process due to the latter being of the infinite dimensional type, involving Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, never the less it can be done. Fortunately there is a more efficient way to establish (134) which utilizes (131).

We start by writing the left hand side of (131) as the following:

$`[Q^{\mu \nu },Q^{\lambda \sigma }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[Q^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]X^\sigma `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^\lambda \left[Q^{\mu \nu }X^\sigma \right]`$
Without any loss of generality the commutators on the right hand side of (LABEL:lorentz2) may be written in the following way:

$`[Q^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]=i\eta ^{\nu \lambda }X^\mu i\eta ^{\mu \lambda }X^\nu +\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda },`$
(136)
with an analogous expression for $`\left[Q^{\mu \nu }X^\sigma \right]`$, and we note that the tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is a reducible rank three tensor with no apparent symmetries.

Putting (136) back into (LABEL:lorentz2), and using (131) the following is obtained:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda }X^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}X^\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\mu \lambda }Q^{\nu \sigma }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }Q^{\lambda \mu }`$
$`=`$ $`i[Q^{\nu \mu },Q^{\lambda \sigma }]`$
This suggests that the tensors $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$, can be written as the following:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(X^\nu X^\mu X^\lambda X^\lambda X^\nu X^\mu +\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }\right),`$
again with a similar expression for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \sigma }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ being a general a tensor with no apparent special properties. Putting these expressions on the left hand side of (LABEL:lorentz5), and upon comparing to the right hand side while writing $`Q^{\mu \nu }`$ in terms of $`X^\mu X^\nu `$, it follows that:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }X^\sigma +X^\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \sigma }=0.`$ (139)
Interchanging the indices $`\lambda `$ with $`\sigma `$, a similar equation to (139) is obtained from which it follows that:

$$[\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda },X^\sigma ]=0.$$
(140)
Setting $`\lambda =\sigma `$, relations (139, 140), and (LABEL:lorentz6) produce:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }X^\lambda =0.$$
(141)
From which it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }=0,$$
(142)
and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu \lambda }=[X^\nu X^\mu ,X^\lambda ]$$
(143)
Putting (143) in (LABEL:lorentz6) one obtains:

$$[S^{\mu \nu },X^\lambda ]=i\eta ^{\nu \lambda }X^\mu i\eta ^{\mu \lambda }X^\nu .$$
(144)
Hence $`X^\mu `$ is a Lorentz vector.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

In this chapter we have constructed a relativistic infinite component wave equation describing a field carrying multiple states of angular momentum. The physical motivation for such a construction is to give a collective description for Hadronic fields which are composite fields exhibiting excitations in both angular momentum, and rest mass ($`J/m^2`$) known as excitations along Regge trajectories.

The treatment above has been purely kinematic, and a fundamental assumption has been made regarding the compositeness of the field in questions enabling it to acquire different states of spin. For such a relativistic equation to be consistent it was necessary to introduce the concept of spin frames, a direct result of the varying mass matrix appearing in (3). The physical motivation for introducing spin frames comes about from the non-unitarity of the Lorentz transformation constructed from the infinite dimensional matrices $`X^\mu `$ appearing in (3). Under a boost, the field $`\psi `$ is taken to an angular momentum state which differs from its original (pre-boosted) state by $`J=\pm 1`$. Such a transition does not correspond to an actual physical process, meaning the field under a boost remains with the same value of spin, or in other words every observer along any constant moving frame measures the same value of spin for the field in question. Thus it was shown that a free field is characterized by a spin frame which spans spin values $`J1<J<J+1`$, with $`J`$ being the actual physical spin of the free field. As a result of this it was shown that the relativistic wave equation can support fields whose physical spin states differ by $`J=2`$.

Due to these kinematic considerations it is apparent that when interactions are included the field $`\psi `$ may be excited to states that differ by $`J=2`$ through the action of the quadrupolar tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ which is also constructed form the matrices $`X^\mu `$. It therefore seems that structural (non-local) deformations lead to excitations of spin as should be expected. In an interacting theory it is conceivable that incorporation of fields like $`\psi `$ with other fields (possibly gauge fields) may lead to structural information regarding Hadronic fields through such transitions. As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, having a linear relativistic wave equation similar to that of the Dirac equation should give rise to a current decomposition similar to that of the Gordon identity (1). Since the minimal physical transition in spin states according to the wave equation (3) are in two units of angular momentum, one should expect that a current decomposition similar to the latter should yield terms proportional to the quadrupolar moments of the Hadron. Of course a full current decomposition should yield higher multipole moments.

Although we have been referring to Hadron physics through out this paper, the construction of the infinite component wave equation is a general construction that may fit other fields with the same characteristics. It is conceivable that a particle such as a quark, or an electron at some energy (not presently attainable) would get excited to a higher state of spin and rest mass due to some internal structure yet to be discovered.


format: text

text:
# Higgs- and quark-inspired modifications of the finite-temperature properties of the Polyakov model

## 1 Introduction. The model

Since the second half of the seventies , (2+1)-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model, oftenly also called the Polyakov model, is known as an example of the theory allowing for an analytic description of confinement. However, confinement in the Polyakov model is typically discussed in the limit of infinitely large Higgs-boson mass, when the model is reduced to compact QED. In the present talk, we shall discuss various modifications of the finite-temperature properties of the Polyakov model stemming from the finiteness of this mass.

The Euclidean action of the model reads

$$S=d^3x[\frac{1}{4g^2}\left(F_{\mu \nu }^a\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a\right)^2+$$

$$+\frac{\lambda }{4}(\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\right)^2\eta ^2)^2].$$
(1)
Here, the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ transforms by the adjoint representation, $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a+\epsilon ^{abc}A_\mu ^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$. Next, $`\lambda `$ is the Higgs coupling constant of dimensionality \[mass\], $`\eta `$ is the Higgs v.e.v. of dimensionality $`[\mathrm{mass}]^{1/2}`$, and $`g`$ is the electric coupling constant of the same dimensionality. At the one-loop level, the sector of the theory (1) containing dual photons and Higgs bosons is represented by the following partition function :

$$𝒵=1+$$

$$+\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^N}{N!}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^3z_i\underset{q_i=\pm 1}{})\mathrm{exp}[\frac{g_m^2}{8\pi }\times $$

$$\times \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a,b=1}{ab}}{\overset{N}{}}(\frac{q_aq_b}{|𝐳_a𝐳_b|}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m_H|𝐳_a𝐳_b|}}{|𝐳_a𝐳_b|})]$$

$$𝒟\chi 𝒟\psi \mathrm{e}^S,$$
(2)
where

$$S=d^3x[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \chi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \psi )^2+\frac{m_H^2}{2}\psi ^2$$

$$2\zeta \mathrm{e}^{g_m\psi }\mathrm{cos}(g_m\chi )]d^3x[\chi ,\psi |g_m,\zeta ].$$
(3)
The partition function (2) describes the grand canonical ensemble of monopoles with the account for their Higgs-mediated interaction. In Eqs. (2) and (3), $`\chi `$ is the dual-photon field, and the field $`\psi `$ accounts for the Higgs field, whose mass reads $`m_H=\eta \sqrt{2\lambda }`$. Note that from Eq. (2) it is straightforward to deduce that when $`m_H`$ formally tends to infinity, one arrives at the conventional sine-Gordon theory of the dual-photon field  describing the compact-QED limit of the model. Next, in the above equations, $`g_m`$ stands for the magnetic coupling constant related to the electric one as $`g_mg=4\pi `$, and the monopole fugacity $`\zeta `$ has the form $`\zeta =\frac{m_W^{7/2}}{g}\delta \left(\frac{\lambda }{g^2}\right)\mathrm{e}^{4\pi m_Wϵ/g^2}`$. In this formula, $`m_W=g\eta `$ is the W-boson mass, and $`ϵ=ϵ(\lambda /g^2)`$ is a certain monotonic, slowly varying function, $`ϵ1`$, $`ϵ(0)=1`$ , $`ϵ(\mathrm{})1.787`$ . As far as the function $`\delta `$ is concerned, it is determined by the loop corrections. In what follows, we shall work in the standard weak-coupling regime $`g^2m_W`$, which parallels the requirement that $`\eta `$ should be large enough to ensure the spontaneous symmetry breaking from $`SU(2)`$ to $`U(1)`$. The W-boson mass will thus play the role of the UV cutoff in the further analysis.

## 2 The model at finite temperature beyond the compact-QED limit

In the discussion of finite-temperature properties of the Polyakov model in the present Section, we shall follow Ref. . At finite temperature $`T1/\beta `$, one should supply the fields $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$ with the periodic boundary conditions in the temporal direction, with the period equal to $`\beta `$. Because of that, the lines of magnetic field emitted by a monopole cannot cross the boundary of the one-period region and consequently, at the distances larger than $`\beta `$, should go almost parallel to this boundary, approaching it. Therefore, monopoles separated by such distances interact via the 2D Coulomb potential, rather than the 3D one. Since the average distance between monopoles in the plasma is of the order $`\zeta ^{1/3}`$, we see that at $`T𝒪\left(\zeta ^{1/3}\right)`$, the monopole ensemble becomes two-dimensional. Owing to the fact that $`\zeta `$ is exponentially small in the weak-coupling regime under discussion, the idea of dimensional reduction is perfectly applicable at the temperatures of the order of the critical temperature of the Berezinsky-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) phase transition  (for a review see e.g. Ref. ) in the monopole plasma, which is equal to $`g^2/2\pi `$  111Note that due to the $`T`$-dependence of the strength of the monopole-antimonopole interaction, which is a consequence of the dimensional reduction, the BKT phase transition in the Polyakov model is inverse with respect to the standard one of the 2D XY model. Namely, monopoles exist in the plasma phase at the temperatures below the BKT critical one and in the molecular phase otherwise.. Up to exponentially small corrections, this temperature is unaffected by the finiteness of the Higgs-boson mass. This can be seen from the expression for the mean squared separation in the monopole-antimonopole molecule,

$$L^2=\frac{\underset{|𝐱|>m_W^1}{}d^2𝐱|𝐱|^{2\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}J}{\underset{|𝐱|>m_W^1}{}d^2𝐱|𝐱|^{\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}J},$$

where $`J\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi T}{g^2}K_0\left(m_H|𝐱|\right)\right]`$ and $`K_0`$ denotes the modified Bessel function. Disregarding the exponential factors in the numerator and denominator of this equation, we obtain $`L^2\frac{4\pi Tg^2}{2m_W^2\left(2\pi Tg^2\right)}`$, that yields the above-mentioned value of the BKT critical temperature $`g^2/2\pi `$. Besides that, it is straightforward to see that in the weak-coupling regime under study, the value of $`\sqrt{L^2}`$ is exponentially smaller than the characteristic distance in the monopole plasma, $`\zeta ^{1/3}`$, i.e., molecules are very small-sized with respect to that distance.

The factor $`\beta `$ at the action of the dimensionally-reduced theory, $`S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}=\beta d^2x[\chi ,\psi |g_m,\zeta ]`$, can be removed \[and this action can be cast to the original form of eq. (3) with the substitution $`d^3xd^2x`$\] by the obvious rescaling: $`S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}=d^2x[\chi ^{\mathrm{new}},\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}|\sqrt{K},\beta \zeta ]`$. Here, $`Kg_m^2T`$, $`\chi ^{\mathrm{new}}=\sqrt{\beta }\chi `$, $`\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}=\sqrt{\beta }\psi `$, and in what follows we shall denote for brevity $`\chi ^{\mathrm{new}}`$ and $`\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}`$ simply as $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$, respectively. Averaging then over the field $`\psi `$ with the use of the cumulant expansion we arrive at the following action:

$$S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}(\chi )^22\xi \mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\sqrt{T}\chi \right)\right]$$

$$2\xi ^2d^2xd^2y\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{K}\chi (𝐱)\right)𝒦^{(2)}(𝐱𝐲)\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{K}\chi (𝐲)\right).$$
(4)
In this expression, we have disregarded all the cumulants higher than the quadratic one, and the limits of applicability of this so-called bilocal approximation will be discussed below. Further, in Eq. (4), $`𝒦^{(2)}(𝐱)\mathrm{e}^{KD_{m_H}^{(2)}(𝐱)}1`$, where $`D_{m_H}^{(2)}(𝐱)K_0(m_H|𝐱|)/2\pi `$ is the 2D Yukawa propagator, and $`\xi \beta \zeta \mathrm{e}^{\frac{K}{2}D_{m_H}^{(2)}(m_W^1)}`$ denotes the monopole fugacity modified by the interaction of monopoles via the Higgs field. Clearly, in the compact-QED limit (when $`m_H`$ formally tends to infinity) $`D_{m_H}^{(2)}(m_W^1)0`$, and $`\xi \beta \zeta `$, as it should be. In the general case, when the mass of the Higgs field is moderate and does not exceed $`m_W`$, we obtain $`\xi \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\left(m_Wϵ+T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)\right)\right]`$. Here, we have introduced the notation $`cm_H/m_W`$, $`c<1`$, and $`\gamma 0.577`$ is the Euler constant, so that $`\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}0.89<1`$. We see that the modified fugacity remains exponentially small, provided that

$$T<\frac{m_Wϵ}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)}.$$
(5)
This constraint should be updated by another one, which would provide the convergence of the cumulant expansion applied in course of the average over $`\psi `$. Were the cumulant expansion divergent, this fact would indicate that the Higgs vacuum loses its normal stochastic properties and becomes a coherent one. In order to get the new constraint, notice that the parameter of the cumulant expansion reads $`\xi I^{(2)}`$, where $`I^{(2)}d^2x𝒦^{(2)}(𝐱)`$. The most essential, exponential, part of the parameter of the cumulant expansion then reads : $`\xi I^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\left(m_Wϵ+T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)T\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\right)\right]`$. Therefore, the cumulant expansion converges at the temperatures obeying the inequality

$$T<\frac{m_Wϵ}{\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)},$$

which updates the inequality (5). On the other hand, since we are working in the plasma phase, i.e., $`Tg^2/2\pi `$, it is enough to impose the following upper bound on the parameter of the weak-coupling approximation, $`g^2/m_W`$:

$$\frac{g^2}{m_W}<\frac{2\pi ϵ}{\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)}.$$

Note that although this inequality is satisfied automatically at $`\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c1`$, since it then takes the form $`\frac{g^2}{m_W}<\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{e}ϵ`$, this is not so for the Bogomolny-Prasad-Sommerfield limit, $`c1`$. Indeed, in such a case, we have $`\frac{g^2}{m_W}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2}{c\mathrm{e}^\gamma }\right)<2\pi ϵ`$, that owing to the logarithm is however quite feasible.

## 3 Including massless quarks

Let us consider the extension of the model (1) by the fundamental dynamical quarks, which are supposed to be massless: $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=id^3x\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{D}\psi `$. In this formula, $`D_\mu \psi =\left(_\mu ig\frac{\tau ^a}{2}A_\mu ^a\right)\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\beta `$, where the Euclidean Dirac matrices are defined as $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }=i\beta \stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ with $`\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{}{\tau }\\ \stackrel{}{\tau }& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Our discussion in the present Section will further follow Ref. . In that paper, it has been shown that at the temperatures higher than the BKT one, quark zero modes in the monopole field lead to the additional attraction between a monopole and an antimonopole in the molecule. In particular, when the number of these modes (equal to the number of massless flavors) is sufficiently large, the molecule shrinks so strongly that its size becomes of the order of the inverse W-boson mass. Another factor which determines the size of the molecule is the characteristic range of localization of zero modes. Namely, it can be shown that the stronger zero modes are localized in the vicinity of the monopole center, the smaller molecular size is. Let us consider the case when the Yukawa coupling of quarks with the Higgs field vanishes, and originally massless quarks do not acquire any mass. This means that zero modes are maximally delocalized. We shall see that in the case of one flavor, such a weakness of the quark-mediated interaction of monopoles opens a possibility for molecules to undergo the phase transition into the plasma phase at the temperature comparable with the BKT one.

It is a well known fact that in 3D, ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole is actually an instanton . Owing to this fact, we can use the results of Ref.  on the quark contribution to the effective action of the instanton-antiinstanton molecule in QCD. Referring the reader for details to Ref. , we shall present here the final expression for the effective action, which reads $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2N_f\mathrm{ln}|a|`$. Here, $`a=\psi _0^{\overline{M}}\left|g\stackrel{}{\gamma }\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\stackrel{}{A}^{aM}\right|\psi _0^M`$ is the matrix element of the monopole field $`\stackrel{}{A}^{aM}`$ taken between the zero modes $`|\psi _0^M>`$, $`|\psi _0^{\overline{M}}>`$ of the operator $`i\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{D}`$ defined at the field of a monopole and an antimonopole, respectively. The dependence of $`|a|`$ on the molecular size $`R`$ can be straightforwardly found and reads $`|a|d^3r/\left(r^2\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}\right|\right)4\pi \mathrm{ln}(\mu R)`$, where $`\mu `$ stands for the IR cutoff.

At finite temperature, in the dimensionally-reduced theory, the usual Coulomb interaction of monopoles 222Without the loss of generality, we consider the molecule with the temporal component of $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ equal to zero. $`R^1=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(^2+(\beta n)^2\right)^{1/2}`$ goes over to $`2T\mathrm{ln}(\mu )`$, where $``$ denotes the absolute value of the 2D vector $`\stackrel{}{}`$. As far as the novel logarithmic interaction, $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu R)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mu \left(^2+(\beta n)^2\right)^{1/2}\right]`$, is concerned, it transforms into $`\pi T+\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T)\right]\mathrm{ln}2`$. Accounting for both interactions and introducing the notation $`I\left[\pi T+\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T)\right]\mathrm{ln}2\right]^{2N_f}`$, we eventually arrive at the following expression for the mean squared separation $`L^2`$ in the molecule as a function of $`T`$, $`g`$, and $`N_f`$:

$$L^2=\frac{\underset{m_W^1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑^{3\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}I}{\underset{m_W^1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑^{1\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}I}.$$

At large $``$, $`\mathrm{ln}2\&\left|\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T)\right]\right|\pi T`$. Hence, we see that $`L^2`$ is finite at $`T>(2N_f)g^2/4\pi `$, that reproduces the standard result $`g^2/2\pi `$ at $`N_f=0`$. For $`N_f=1`$, the plasma phase is still present at $`T<g^2/4\pi `$, whereas for $`N_f2`$ the monopole ensemble exists only in the molecular phase at any temperature larger than $`\zeta ^{1/3}`$. Clearly, at $`N_f\mathrm{max}\{1,4\pi T/g^2\}`$, $`\sqrt{L^2}m_W^1`$, i.e., such a large number of zero modes shrinks the molecule to the minimal admissible size.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Dr. N.O. Agasian for collaboration and to Prof. A. Di Giacomo for useful discussions. This work has been supported by INFN and partially by the INTAS grant Open Call 2000, Project No. 110. And last but not least, the author is grateful to the organizers of the International Conference “QCD02” (Montpellier, 2-9th July 2002) for an opportunity to present these results in a very pleasant and stimulating atmosphere.