text:
# Integrated density of states for ergodic random Schrödinger operators on manifolds

## 1. Introduction and statement of results

The integrated density of states (IDS) is an important notion in the quantum theory of solids and describes the number of electron states below a certain energy level per unit volume. Let us shortly explain this notion in the case of a disordered solid, e.g., an alloy of two metals with a crystal structure where the nuclei of the two metals are randomly distributed at the lattice points. The situation can be described quantum mechanically by a corresponding family $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ of random Schrödinger operators. Due to the macroscopic dimensions of the solid one can consider operators on the whole $`^3`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^3`$ denote a cube of sidelength $`n`$, centered at the origin, and let $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}^\omega `$ denote the restriction of $`H^\omega `$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ with a suitable boundary condition (e.g. Dirichlet or Neumann or periodic). Then the IDS is the limit of the corresponding eigenvalue counting functions of $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}^\omega `$, normalized by the volume of the cubes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. An ergodicity assumption yields the fact that one can associate to the whole family $`\{H^\omega \}`$ a non-random spectrum, i.e., that almost all operators have the same spectrum. Moreover, the points of increase of the IDS coincide with the almost sure spectrum of $`\{H^\omega \}`$. The non-randomness of spectral data implies that the alloy exhibits almost surely a particular behaviour of conductivity. For the importance of the IDS from the viewpoint of Solid State Physics see \[BBEE+84, ES-84, Lif-85, LGP-88\]. An overview over the mathematical results on random Schrödinger operators is given in the books \[CL-90\] and \[PF-92\]. Early rigorous results on the IDS can be found, e.g., in articles by Pastur \[Pas-71a, Pas-71b, Pas-80\] or Šubin \[Shu-79, Shu-82\]. A good introductory course on random Schrödinger operators is \[Kir-89\].

Our aim is to generalize the classical existence result of a non-random IDS for random Schrödinger operators to more general spaces. The main results are Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 below. They are generalizations of \[PV-00\]. We consider the universal Riemannian covering $`X`$ of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with an infinite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of deck transformations. In this context, Adachi, Brüning and Sunada \[BS-92, AS-93\] proved the existence of an IDS for a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-periodic elliptic operator $`H`$ in the case that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable. They also proved that this IDS agrees with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-trace of the spectral projections of $`H`$. Note also that Dodziuk and Mathai in their paper \[DM-97\] on $`L^2`$-Betti numbers derived a result for the IDS of the pure Laplace operator on $`k`$-forms. All mentioned results on the IDS use Šubin’s \[Shu-82\] convergence criterium based on the Laplace-transform.

In this article we consider a family of Schrödinger operators $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ (on a Riemannian manifold $`X`$), which are parameterized by the elements of a probability space. More precisely, we consider the following objects:

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be the Riemannian universal covering of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\{H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be a family of Schrödinger operators, parameterized by elements of the probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,)`$. The family $`\{H^\omega \}`$ is called an ergodic random family of Schrödinger operators, if the potential $`V:\mathrm{\Omega }\times X`$ is jointly measurable and if there exists an ergodic family of measure preserving transformations $`\{T_\gamma :\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\}_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with $`T_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}=T_{\gamma _1}T_{\gamma _2}`$ such that the potential satisfies the following compatibility condition

(1)
$$V^{T_\gamma \omega }(x)=V^\omega (\gamma ^1x)$$

for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`xX`$.

According to our convention $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a non-negative operator.

For the notion of measurability of random unbounded selfadjoint operators we refer to \[KM-82a, Section 2\] and \[CL-90, Chapter V\]. The ergodicity of such operators is thoroughly investigated in \[PF-92\]. If $`X\times \mathrm{\Omega }(x,\omega )V^\omega (x)`$ is jointly measurable, the multiplication operator $`\omega V^\omega `$ is measurable in the sense of Kirsch-Martinelli \[KM-82a\]. Furthermore, by their Proposition 2.4 we know that $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ is measurable, too.

In the Euclidean case $`X=^n`$, already mild integrability assumptions on $`(x,\omega )V^\omega (x)`$ ensure the independence of the IDS of the boundary conditions (b.c.) used for its construction (see \[KM-82b\]). On cubes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, one can consider Dirichlet and Neumann b.c. as well as periodic ones. In more general geometries, b.c. (in)dependence is a more subtle question. See \[Sz-89, Sz-90\], where Dirichlet- and Neumann-IDS’ on hyperbolic spaces are compared.

Note that ergodicity of the family $`\{T_\gamma \}`$ means that the only invariant measurable sets $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are measure-theoretically trivial, i.e. $`(A)=0`$ or $`(A)=1`$. For technical reasons (in order to apply a Sobolev lemma) we require for an ergodic random family of Schrödinger operators that there exists a constant $`C_0>`$ such that

(2)
$$^kV^\omega _{\mathrm{}}C_0,\text{for all }\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\text{ and }k\frac{1}{2}dim(X)+2\text{.}$$

This implies in particular that $`V^\omega `$ is infinitesimally $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-bounded, uniformly in $`\omega `$. It seems that this regularity condition on the potential may be relaxed considerably by using stochastic methods instead of analytical methods for the required heat kernel estimates. Another approach to circumvent strong regularity assumptions could be the use of quadratic forms \[Sim-71\].

###### Example 1.2.

Let $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be as in Definition 1.1. Then we can consider the following potential, which is an analogue of an alloy-type potential in the Euclidean setting:

Let $`u:X`$ be a smooth function with compact support. We choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\times _{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, equipped with the product measure $`=_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is a probability measure on $``$. Then the random variables $`\pi _\gamma :\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\pi _\gamma (\omega )=\omega _\gamma `$ are independent and identically distributed. The transformations $`(T_{\gamma _1}(\omega ))_{\gamma _2}=\omega _{\gamma _1^1\gamma _2}`$ are measure preserving and ergodic. Then $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ with

$$V^\omega (x)=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\pi _\gamma (\omega )u(\gamma ^1x)$$

defines an ergodic random family of Schrödinger operators. Note that $`V^\omega `$ is a superposition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-translates of the single site potential $`u`$ with coupling constants given by the random variables.

Let us introduce some more notation. For a given $`h>0`$, the $`h`$-boundary of $`DX`$ is defined as

$$_hD=\{xXd(x,D)h\}.$$

A subset of $`X`$ is called a regular domain if it is the non-empty interior of a connected compact set with smooth boundary. A regular set $`D`$ is a finite union $`D=_{j=1}^kD_j`$ of regular domains with disjoint closures $`\overline{D_j}`$. In the sequel we will often deal with $`h`$-approximations and $`h`$-regularizations:

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`U,VX`$ be open subsets and $`h>0`$. $`V`$ is called an $`h`$-approximation of $`U`$, if the symmetric difference satisfies the following property:

(3)
$$U\mathrm{\Delta }V_hU.$$

If, additionally, $`V`$ is a regular set, we call $`V`$ an $`h`$-regularization of $`U`$.

Similarly, a sequence $`\{V_n\}`$ is called an $`h`$-approximation ($`h`$-regularization) of $`\{U_n\}`$ if there is a fixed $`h>0`$ with $`U_n\mathrm{\Delta }V_n_hU_n`$ for all $`n`$ (and the sets $`V_n`$ are regular). If only the existence and not the actual value of $`h>0`$ is of importance, we also refer to $`\{V_n\}`$ as an approximation (regularization) of $`\{U_n\}`$.

###### Remarks 1.4.

1) For $`pX`$ let $`B_r(p)`$ denote the open metric $`r`$-ball around $`p`$. Then $`B_{r+h}(p)`$ is an $`h`$-approximation of $`B_r(p)`$, but generally not vice versa (think, e.g., of the ball of radius $`\pi h/2`$ around any point of the unit $`2`$-sphere).

2) Relation (3) ist equivalent to $`U\backslash _hUV(U_hU)`$ and implies $`V_hU`$.

3) A natural procedure to construct an $`h`$-regularization $`V`$ of a set $`U`$ goes as follows: Choose a smooth function $`g:X[0,1]`$ with

$$g(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{for}xX\backslash U,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{for}xU\backslash _hU,\hfill \end{array}$$

a regular value $`t(0,1)`$ of $`g`$, and $`V=g^1((t,1])`$. $`g`$ can be obtained by smoothing the characteristic function $`\chi _{U\backslash _hU}`$ via a suitable convolution process.

The restriction of a Schrödinger operator $`H^\omega `$ to a regular set $`D`$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions is denoted by $`H_D^\omega `$. It is well known that such an operator has discrete spectrum and, thus, we can define the normalized eigenvalue counting function (including multiplicities) as

(4)
$$N_D^\omega (\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{\#}\{i\lambda _i(H_D^\omega )<\lambda \}}{|D|},$$

where $`|D|`$ denotes the volume of $`D`$. A non-negative, monotone increasing and left-continuous function on $``$ is called a distribution function. Thus, $`N_D^\omega `$ is a distribution function. Note that a distribution function has at most countably many discontinuity points.

For a better understanding of our general result we first state the simpler case where we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be of polynomial growth. We denote the metric open $`r`$-ball around $`pX`$ by $`B_r(p)`$. Then we have, for every $`pX`$, a sequence of increasing radii $`r_1<r_2<\mathrm{}`$ satisfying

(5)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|_dB_{r_n}(p)|}{|B_{r_n}(p)|}=0\text{for all }d>0.$$

This follows readily from Lemma 3.2. in \[AS-93\]. Since metric balls may not be regular sets (due to the existence of conjugate points), we need a regularization of those balls in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.5.

Let $`X`$ be the Riemannian universal covering of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of polynomial growth. Let $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ be a family of ergodic random Schrödinger operators satisfying (2). Then there exists a (non-random) distribution function $`N`$ with the following property: For every $`pX`$ and any regularization $`D_n`$ of an increasing sequence of balls $`B_{r_n}(p)`$ satisfying (5) we have, for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$N(\lambda )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}N_{D_n}^\omega (\lambda )$$

at all continuity points of $`N`$. Note that $`N_{D_n}`$ denotes the normalized eigenvalue counting function of the restricted operator $`H_{D_n}^\omega `$ with Dirichlet boundary condition, as defined in (4). $`N`$ is called the integrated density of states (IDS) of the family $`\{H^\omega \}`$.

In fact, existence of a non-random IDS can be proved in the much more general setting of amenable covering groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the following general result we use the notion of “admissible sequences”. This is our generalization of the cubes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ in the Euclidean case. However, to avoid too many technical details, we postpone the precise definition of this notion to the next section.

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`X`$ be the Riemannian universal covering of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable. Let $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$ be a family of ergodic random Schrödinger operators satisfying (2). Then there exists a (non-random) distribution function $`N`$ such that we have, for every admissible sequence $`D_nX`$ and almost every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$N(\lambda )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}N_{D_n}^\omega (\lambda )$$

at all continuity points of $`N`$. $`N`$ is called the integrated density of states of the family $`\{H^\omega \}`$.

As mentioned before, we do not present the definition of admissible sequences at this point. We think it is more useful to give some information about the existence of those sequences to give some feeling for the applicability of Theorem 1.6.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Let $`X`$ be the Riemannian universal covering of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For every monotone increasing sequence $`D_nX`$ of regular sets satisfying the following property

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|_dD_n|}{|D_n|}=0\text{for all }d>0,\text{(P)}$$

there exists a subsequence $`D_{n_j}`$ which is an admissible sequence.

Henceforth, we refer to this isoperimetric property of (not necessarily regular) subsets of $`X`$ as property (P). The existence of a sequence $`\{D_n\}`$ satisfying property (P) is equivalent to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable.

The first part of this proposition will be proved after the definition of admissible sequences in the next section. The equivalence-statement coincides essentially with \[AS-93, Prop. 1.1.\].

In the particular case that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of polynomial growth (and, thus, automatically amenable) there are two natural choices for admissible sequences: either via combinatorial balls in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or via metric balls in $`X`$. This is the content of Proposition 1.8 below. However, if one drops the assumption on the polynomial growth, metric balls do not seem to be always an appropriate choice for admissible sequences. For example, choose $`X`$ to be the $`3`$-dimensional diagonal horosphere of the Riemannian product of two real hyperbolic planes. $`X`$ is a solvable Lie group with a left invariant metric admitting a cocompact lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.111$`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ coincides with the solvmanifold described in \[Thu-97, Example 3.8.9\]. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable and Proposition 1.7 guarantees the existence of admissible sequences.222An admissible sequence for the diagonal horosphere is explicitely given in \[KP-99, p. 668\]. On the other hand, metric balls $`B_r(p)X`$ have exponential volume growth (see \[KP-99, p. 669\]). This yields strong evidence that a sequence of those balls cannot be used as an admissible sequence.

In order to state Proposition 1.8 below we need, again, some notation.

Let $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be as before. It was explained in \[AS-93, Section 3\] how to obtain a connected polyhedral $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-fundamental domain $`X`$ by lifting simplices of a triangularization of $`M`$ in a suitable manner. $``$ consists of finitely many smooth images of simplices which can overlap only at their boundaries. Using a polyhedral fundamental domain $``$, any finite subset $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ induces naturally a corresponding subset $`\varphi (I)X`$ defined as

(6)
$$\varphi (I)=\mathrm{int}(\overline{I})=\mathrm{int}(\underset{\gamma I}{}\overline{\gamma }).$$

###### Proposition 1.8.

Let $`X`$ be the Riemannian universal covering of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be of polynomial growth.

a)Let $``$ be a connected polyhedral fundamental domain and $`\varphi `$ be the corresponding map (see (6)). Let $`e`$ be the identity element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`E`$ a finite set of generators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`eE=E^1`$ and $`E^n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the combinatorial ball of radius $`n`$ about $`e`$. Then there exists an increasing sequence $`r_1<r_2<`$ of integer radii such that

(7)
$$\frac{|E^{r_n+d}\backslash E^{r_nd}|}{|E^{r_n}|}0\text{for all }d\text{.}$$

Any regularization of $`\{\varphi (E^{r_n})\}`$ is an admissible sequence.

b) Let $`pX`$ be an arbitrary point. Then there exists an increasing sequence $`r_1<r_2<`$ of radii such that the corresponding metric balls $`\{B_{r_n}(p)\}`$ satisfy (5). Moreover, any regularization of $`\{B_{r_n}\}`$ is an admissible sequence.

We obtain as an immediate consequence of Proposition 1.8 b) that Theorem 1.5 is a particular case of Theorem 1.6. Thus it suffices to prove Theorem 1.6 which is done in Section 4.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Uwe Abresch, Jozef Dodziuk, Werner Kirsch, Gerhard Knieper, Daniel Lenz, Thomas Schick and Anton Thalmaier for many discussions concerning this paper. In particular, we are grateful to J. Dodziuk for helpful remarks about heat kernel estimates and to Th. Schick for the useful reference to Linderstrauss’ paper \[Lin-99\].

## 2. Admissible sequences and ergodic theorem

An important tool in the existence proof of a non-random IDS is an ergodic theorem for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of deck transformations on $`X`$. We will use Lindenstrauss’ pointwise ergodic theorem which is related to a maximal ergodic theorem of Shulman (see \[Shul-88\] and \[Lin-99\]; further informations about ergodic theorems can be found in \[Kre-85\] or \[Tem-92\]). Lindenstrauss’ theorem applies to discrete amenable groups. This section contains some useful geometric facts and their interaction with this ergodic theorem.

As in the previous section, let $`X`$ denote a connected polyhedral fundamental domain of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\varphi `$ the associated map from finite subsets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to open subsets of $`X`$ (see (6)), which we assume to be fixed once and for all.

###### Definition 2.1.

A sequence $`\{D_n\}`$ of regular subsets of $`X`$ is called an admissible sequence of $`X`$ if the following properties are satisfied:

* There exists a sequence $`\{I_n\}`$ of monotone increasing, non-empty, finite subsets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with

(8) $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{|I_n\mathrm{\Delta }I_n\gamma |}{|I_n|}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{for all }\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },`$
(9) $`\underset{n}{sup}{\displaystyle \frac{|I_{n+1}I_n^1|}{|I_{n+1}|}}`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$
Let $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)`$. (Lemma 2.4 below implies that $`\{A_n\}`$ satisfies property (P).)
* Either $`\{A_n\}`$ is an approximation of $`\{D_n\}`$ and $`\{D_n\}`$ satisfies the isoperimetric property (P), or $`\{D_n\}`$ is an approximation of $`\{A_n\}`$. (In the second case, $`\{D_n\}`$ satisfies property (P) automatically, see the second statement of Lemma 2.5 below.)

Sequences satisfying only (8) are called Følner sequences. Monotone increasing sequences $`\{I_n\}`$ satisfying (8) and (9) are called tempered Følner sequences.

(8) describes geometrically that the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable. Condition (9) and the notion ‘tempered Følner sequence” are due to A. Shulman who proved a maximal ergodic theorem for those sequences. The following proposition states that (9) is not a serious restriction for Følner sequences:

###### Proposition 2.2 (see \[Lin-99, Prop. 1.5\]).

Every Følner sequence has a tempered subsequence. In particular, every amenable group admits a monotone increasing sequence $`\{I_n\}`$ satisfying (8) and (9).

Next we state Lindenstrauss’ pointwise ergodic theorem \[Lin-99, Thm. 1.3\].

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an amenable discrete group and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,)`$ be a probability space. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts ergodically on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by measure preserving transformations $`\{T_\gamma \}`$. Let $`\{I_n\}`$ be a tempered Følner sequence. Then we have, for every $`fL^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

(10)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|I_n|}\underset{\gamma I_n^1}{}f(T_\gamma \omega )=𝔼(f)=_\mathrm{\Omega }f(\omega )𝑑(\omega ).$$

Furthermore

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_\mathrm{\Omega }\left|𝔼(f)\frac{1}{|I_n|}\underset{\gamma I_n^1}{}f(T_\gamma \omega )\right|𝑑(\omega )=0.$$

In the statement of the theorem one can replace the space $`L^1`$ by $`L^2`$, due to Shulman \[Shul-88\]. Mean ergodic theorems hold in more general circumstances, see, e.g., \[Tem-72, Thm. 6.4\] or \[Kre-85, §6.4\].

The reader might wonder why there is a summation over $`I_n^1`$ instead of $`I_n`$ in (10). The reason for this choice is simply that we want it to fit, without modification, for the application later in the paper. Lindenstrauss’ theorem contains a summation over $`I_n`$. Accordingly, our conditions on $`I_n`$ agree with those of him only after replacing $`I_n`$ by $`I_n^1`$. Note that condition (8) is equivalent to

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|I_n^1\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma I_n^1|}{|I_n^1|}=0,\text{for all }\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

The following lemma exhibits a useful connection between the isoperimetric property (P) and the Følner condition (8).

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`I_n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a sequence of non-empty, finite sets and let $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)`$. Then the following properties are equivalent:

* $`\{I_n\}`$ satisfies the Følner condition (8).
* $`\{A_n\}`$ satisfies the isoperimetric property (P).

###### Proof.

We first show that a) implies b). For an arbitrary fixed $`d>0`$ we define the following finite set:

$$B=\{g\mathrm{\Gamma }d(\overline{g},\overline{})d\}.$$

We first observe that if $`A=\overline{\varphi (I)}`$ then

$$T_d(A):=\{xXd(x,A)d\}\overline{\varphi (IB)}.$$

In fact, for any $`xT_d(A)`$ there exists an $`x_0A`$ and a $`\gamma I`$ with $`d(x,x_0)d`$ and $`x_0\overline{\gamma }`$. Consequently, we have $`d(\gamma ^1x,\overline{})d`$ and, thus, there exists a $`gB`$ with $`\gamma ^1x\overline{g}`$. This implies $`x\overline{\gamma g}\overline{\varphi (IB)}`$.

For the proof we apply this observation twice. From $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)`$ we conclude that

$$T_d(\overline{A_n})\backslash A_n\overline{\varphi (I_nB)}\backslash \varphi (I_n)=\overline{\varphi (I_nB\backslash I_n)}.$$

Let $`H_n=I_nB\backslash I_n`$. A second application of the above observation yields

$`_dA_n`$ $``$ $`T_d(T_d(\overline{A_n})\backslash A_n)\overline{\varphi (H_nB)}`$
$``$ $`\overline{\varphi ({\displaystyle \underset{g_1,g_2B}{}}(I_ng_1\mathrm{\Delta }I_n)g_2)}={\displaystyle \underset{g_1,g_2B}{}}\overline{\varphi ((I_ng_1\mathrm{\Delta }I_n)g_2)}.`$
This implies

$$\frac{|_dA_n|}{|A_n|}\underset{g_1,g_2B}{}\frac{|\varphi (I_ng_1g_2\mathrm{\Delta }I_ng_2)|}{|\varphi (I_n)|}=|B|\underset{g_1B}{}\frac{|I_ng_1\mathrm{\Delta }I_n|}{|I_n|}0,$$

finishing the proof of the first implication.

For the proof of “b) $``$ a)” it suffices to show that there is a $`d>0`$ (not dependent on $`n`$) such that $`\varphi (I_n\mathrm{\Delta }I_n\gamma )_dA_n`$. We first prove that $`\varphi (I_n\gamma \backslash I_n)_{d_0+d_1}A_n`$, where $`d_0=d(\overline{\gamma },\overline{})`$ and $`d_1=\mathrm{diam}(\overline{})`$. Let $`gI_n\gamma \backslash I_n`$. Then $`g=g_0\gamma `$ with $`g_0I_n`$ and $`g_0A_n`$, $`gA_n=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`d(\overline{g},\overline{g_0})=d_0`$ we conclude that there exists a $`zA_n`$ with $`d(z,\overline{g})d_0`$. This implies that

$$g_{d_0+d_1}A_n,$$

finishing this inclusion. We are done if we prove that $`\varphi (I_n\backslash I_n\gamma )_{2d_0+2d_1}A_n`$. Let $`gI_n\backslash I_n\gamma `$. Then we have $`g\gamma ^1I_n\gamma ^1\backslash I_n`$ and we obtain by the previous considerations that

$$g\gamma ^1_{d_0+d_1}A_n.$$

The required inclusion follows now from $`gT_{d_0+d_1}(g\gamma ^1)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`\{U_n\}`$ be a sequence of subsets of $`X`$ satisfying the isoperimetric property (P). Then we have, for every radius $`r>0`$, an index $`n_0=n_0(r)`$ such that every set $`U_n`$, $`nn_0`$, contains a metric ball of radius $`r`$.

Moreover, if $`\{V_n\}`$ is an approximation of $`\{U_n\}`$, then $`\{V_n\}`$ satisfies also property (P).

###### Proof.

We assume that there exists an $`r>0`$ and a sequence $`n_1<n_2<n_3<\mathrm{}`$ such that we have $`B_r(p)U_{n_j}`$ for all $`pU_{n_j}`$ and all $`j1`$. This implies $`U_{n_j}_rU_{n_j}`$, which is a contradiction to property (P). It remains to prove the second statement. We have $`U_n\backslash _hU_nV_n(U_n_hU_n)`$ and $`V_n_hU_n`$. This implies that

(11)
$$\frac{|_dV_n|}{|V_n|}\frac{|_{h+d}U_n|}{|U_n|}\frac{|U_n|}{|U_n\backslash _hU_n|}=\frac{|_{h+d}U_n|}{|U_n|}\frac{|U_n|}{|U_n||U_n_hU_n|}0.$$

Note that, for $`n`$ large enough, the denominator $`|U_n\backslash _hU_n|`$ in (11) is strictly larger than $`0`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

The second statement in Lemma 2.5 is not symmetric w.r.t. $`V_n`$ and $`U_n`$.

Proposition 1.7 is now a consequence of Proposition 2.2 and the previous geometric considerations:

###### Proof of Proposition 1.7.

Let $`D_nX`$ be as in the proposition. We define

$$I_n=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma D_n\}.$$

Note that $`I_n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is monotone increasing and non-empty, for $`n`$ sufficiently large, by the first statement of Lemma 2.5. One easily checks that $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)`$ is a $`d_1`$-approximation of $`D_n`$ with $`d_1=\mathrm{diam}(\overline{})`$. Thus, by the second statement of Lemma 2.5, $`A_n`$ inherits the isoperimetric property of $`D_n`$. This implies, by Lemma 2.4, that $`I_n`$ is an increasing Følner sequence. By Proposition 2.2, there exists a tempered Følner subsequence $`I_{n_j}`$. Consequently, $`D_{n_j}`$ is an admissible sequence. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 1.8.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of polynomial growth. We first prove a). The existence of an increasing sequence of radii $`r_n`$ satisfying (7) was proved in \[Ad-93, Prop. 5\]. Let $`I_n=E^{r_n}`$. (8) follows readily from Lemma 2.4. By Gromov’s famous result \[Gro-81\], $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is almost nilpotent and this implies, together with \[Ba-72\], that there exist a constant $`C1`$ such that

(12)
$$\frac{r^k}{C}|E^r|Cr^k\text{ for all }r$$

where $`k`$ is the degree of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This immediately yields (9):

$$\frac{|I_{n+1}I_n^1|}{|I_{n+1}|}\frac{|E^{2r_{n+1}}|}{|E^{r_{n+1}}|}2^kC^2.$$

Now we prove b). W.l.o.g. we can assume that $`p\overline{}`$. Let $`I_n=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma B_{r_n}(p)`$. The Følner property of $`I_n`$ follows precisely as in the proof of Proposition 1.7. It remains to prove (9). One easily checks that

(13)
$$B_{r_nd_1}(p)A_n=\varphi (I_n)B_{r_n}(p)$$

with $`d_1=\mathrm{diam}(\overline{})`$. Let $``$ denote the word norm of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to $`E`$. Milnor showed in \[Mil-68\] that there are $`a1`$, $`b0`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{a}\gamma bd(p,\gamma p)a\gamma .$$

This implies, together with (13), that

$$\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma \frac{1}{a}(r_nd_1)\}I_n\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma a(r_n+b)\},$$

and the same inclusions hold for $`I_n^1`$. Consequently, we have

$$\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma \frac{2}{a}(r_nd_1)\}I_n^{}I_n^1\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma 2a(r_n+b)\},$$

and the required estimate follows, again, by (12). ∎

The final lemma of this section, which we will apply later to heat kernels, is an immediate consequence of Lindenstrauss’ ergodic theorem.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`I_n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a tempered Følner sequence and $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)X`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts ergodically on a probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,)`$ by measure preserving transformations $`\{T_\gamma \}`$. Let $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }\times X`$ be a jointly measurable bounded function satisfying the compatibility condition

$$f(T_\gamma \omega ,x)=f(\omega ,\gamma ^1x)$$

for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`xX`$. Then we have, for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

(14)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}f(\omega ,x)𝑑x=\frac{1}{||}𝔼\left(_{}f(,x)𝑑x\right),$$

where $`𝔼`$ denotes the expectation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The convergence holds in the $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$-topology, as well.

###### Proof.

Let $`F(\omega )=_{}f(\omega ,x)𝑑x`$. Then we obviously have $`FL^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We conclude that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|A_n|}}{\displaystyle _{A_n}}f(\omega ,x)𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|I_n|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma I_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{||}}{\displaystyle _\gamma }f(\omega ,x)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|I_n|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma I_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{||}}{\displaystyle _{}}f(\omega ,\gamma x)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|I_n|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma I_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{||}}{\displaystyle _{}}f(T_{\gamma ^1}\omega ,x)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|I_n|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma I_n^1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{||}}F(T_\gamma \omega ).`$
Now Theorem 2.3 implies

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}f(\omega ,x)𝑑x=\frac{1}{||}𝔼(F),$$

for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and in $`L^1`$-sense. ∎

## 3. Heat kernel estimates

In this section we derive heat kernel estimates for a family of Schrödinger operators $`\{H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ satisfying the regularity condition

(15)
$$^kV^\omega _{\mathrm{}}C_0,\text{for all }\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\text{ and }k\frac{1}{2}dim(X)+2\text{.}$$

These estimates are, besides an ergodic theorem, the second crucial tool for our existence proof of an IDS.

Due to the Kato-Rellich Theorem \[RSII-75\] all $`H^\omega `$ are densely defined selfadjoint operators on $`L^2(X)`$ and their domains coincide. By the spectral theorem we can define the operator $`\mathrm{exp}(tH^\omega )`$, which has an integral kernel $`k^\omega (t,,)`$. Let $`DX`$ be a regular set. We denote the restriction of $`H^\omega `$ to $`D`$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions by $`H_D^\omega `$ and the corresponding heat kernel of $`\mathrm{exp}(tH_D^\omega )`$ by $`k_D^\omega (t,,)`$. We will need the following estimates.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, be a family of operators satisfying (15). Then the following estimates hold:

* Domain Monotonicity: For every regular set $`DX`$ we have

$$0k_D^\omega (t,x,y)k^\omega (t,x,y),$$

for all $`x,yD`$ and $`t>0`$.
* Upper Bound: There exists a function $`C(t)`$, $`t>0`$, such that

$$0k^\omega (t,x,y)C(t),$$

for all $`x,yX`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.
* Principle of not feeling the boundary: For all $`t>0`$ there exists an $`h=h(t,ϵ)>0`$ such that, for all regular sets $`DX`$ and all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have

$$|k^\omega (t,x,y)k_D^\omega (t,x,y)|ϵ\text{for all }x,yD\backslash _hD.$$

###### Proof.

Inequality a) is a consequence of the maximum principle for solutions of the heat equation (see, e.g., \[Tay-96\] or \[Cha-84\]).

We consider now assertion b). Let $`t>0`$ be fixed. The heat kernel $`k(t,x,y)`$ of the Laplacian on $`X`$ (i.e., without potential) is a continuous function (see, e.g., \[Dav90\]) satisfying $`k(t,x,y)=k(t,\gamma x,\gamma y)`$ for any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts cocompactly on $`X`$ we conclude the existence of a constant $`C_1(t)`$ with $`0k(t,x,x)C_1(t)`$. A simple application of the semigroup property yields the same off-diagonal estimate

$$0k(t,x,y)\sqrt{k(t,x,x)k(t,y,y)}C_1(t).$$

The potential can be treated with stochastic arguments which was proposed to us by A. Thalmaier: Since $`X`$ is stochastically complete, we can apply the Feynman-Kac formula for manifolds (see, e.g., \[Elw-82\]) and obtain, for every $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$:

$$_Xk^\omega (t,x,y)f(y)𝑑y=𝔼_x\left(f(b_t)\mathrm{exp}(_0^tV^\omega (b_s)𝑑s)\right),$$

where $`b_t`$ is the Brownian motion on $`X`$ starting in $`x`$ and $`𝔼_x`$ is the corresponding expectation. Using $`V^\omega C_0`$ we obtain for every non-negative $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$:

$$|_Xk^\omega (t,x,y)f(y)𝑑y|𝔼_x(f(b_t))e^{C_0t}C_1(t)e^{C_0t}f_1.$$

Continuity of $`k^\omega `$ implies

$$|k^\omega (t,x,y)|C_1(t)e^{C_0t},$$

finishing the proof of b).

The proof of c) is based on finite propagation speed of the wave equation. The roots of this approach can be found in \[CGT-82\]. We follow the arguments given in \[LS-99, Thm 2.26\] and which are attributed to U. Bunke. For the reader’s convenience we present the proof in detail (see also \[DM-97\] for a related method).

To simplify the notation we omit the index $`\omega `$. Due to condition (15), all inequalities hold uniformly in $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In what follows, $`t>0`$ is fixed and $`h>0`$ is kept variable. Let $`x_0,y_0D^h:=D\backslash _hD`$ and $`B_1=B_{h/3}(x_0)`$ and $`B_2=B_{h/3}(y_0)`$ be the corresponding balls. Our first aim is to prove existence of a function $`C(h)`$ with $`C(h)0`$, as $`h\mathrm{}`$ such that, for every $`uC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_2)`$ and $`f=(e^{tH}e^{tH_D})u`$, the following pointwise estimate holds:

(16)
$$|H^kf(x_0)|C(h)u_2.$$

Our departure point is the following Fourier transform identity

(17)
$$\frac{(1)^m}{\sqrt{\pi t}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{d^{2m}}{ds^{2m}}e^{s^2/4t}\right)\mathrm{cos}(s\xi )𝑑s=\xi ^{2m}e^{t\xi ^2}.$$

Applying the spectral theorem to (17) with $`\xi =\sqrt{H}`$ and $`\xi =\sqrt{H_D}`$ we obtain

$$H^{k+l}f=_0^{\mathrm{}}P(s)e^{s^2/4t}(\mathrm{cos}(s\sqrt{H})\mathrm{cos}(s\sqrt{H_D}))u𝑑s,$$

where $`P(s)`$ is a fixed polynomial. Note that the coefficients of $`P`$ are expressions in $`t`$ and that $`t`$ is considered as a fixed positive constant. Unit propagation speed (see, e.g., \[Tay-96\]) implies, for $`g_s=\mathrm{cos}(s\sqrt{H})u`$ and $`h_s=\mathrm{cos}(s\sqrt{H_d})u`$ that

$$\mathrm{supp}(g_s),\mathrm{supp}(h_s)B_{2h/3}(y_0)D$$

for $`s<h/3`$. Since $`g_s`$ and $`h_s`$ both satisfy the wave equation with initial conditions $`g(0,)=u`$, $`\frac{g}{s}(0,)=0`$, we conclude that $`g_sh_s0`$, for $`0<s<h/3`$. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields

$`H^{k+l}f_{L^2(B_1)}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{B_1}}\left({\displaystyle _{h/3}^{\mathrm{}}}|P(s)(g_s(x)h_s(x))|e^{s^2/4t}𝑑s\right)^2𝑑x`$
$``$ $`A_1(h){\displaystyle _{h/3}^{\mathrm{}}}|P(s)|e^{s^2/4t}{\displaystyle _{B_1}}(g_s(x)h_s(x))^2𝑑x𝑑s,`$
where $`A_1(h)=_{h/3}^{\mathrm{}}|P(s)|e^{s^2/4t}𝑑s0`$, as $`h\mathrm{}`$. Using, again, the spectral theorem, we conclude from $`|\mathrm{cos}(s\xi )|1`$ that

$$H^{k+l}f_{L^2(B_1)}2A_1(h)u_{L^2(B_2)}.$$

In order to obtain the pointwise estimate (16), we would like to apply a Sobolev inequality of the type

(18)
$$|g(x)|\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}a_lH^lg_{L^2(B_{h/3}(x))}$$

for all $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_{h/3}(x))`$, where $`N=[\frac{dimX}{2}+2]`$, and the coefficients $`a_l`$ are independent of $`xX`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is possible since $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is compact. Moreover, the condition $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_{h/3}(x))`$ can be relaxed to $`gC^{\mathrm{}}(B_{h/3}(x))`$, since, for $`hh_0>0`$, we can choose, for every point $`xX`$, cut-off functions $`\rho _xC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_{h/3}(x))`$ with universal bounds on the derivatives and, thus, apply an estimate

$$H^l\rho _xg_{L^2(B_{h/3}(x))}\beta _lg_{L^2(B_{h/3}(x))}+\gamma _lH^lg_{L^2(B_{h/3}(x))}$$

with universal constants $`\beta _l,\gamma _l`$. This proves (16), namely

$$|H^kf(x_0)|\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}a_lH^{k+l}f_{L^2(B_1)}A_2(h)u_{L^2(B_2)},$$

where $`A_2(h)0`$, as $`h\mathrm{}`$.

Next the heat kernels come into play:

$$|H_y^k(k(t,x_0,)k_D(t,x_0,)),u_{L^2(B_2)}|$$

$$=|_{B_2}H_y^k(k(t,x_0,y)k_D(t,x_0,y))u(y)𝑑y|$$

$$=|_{B_2}(k(t,x_0,y)k_D(t,x_0,y))(H^ku)(y)𝑑y|$$

$$=|((e^{tH}e^{tH_D})H^ku)(x_0)|$$

$$=|H^kf(x_0)|A_2(h)u_{L^2(B_2)}.$$

Since $`uC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_2)`$ was arbitrary, we conclude that

$$H_y^k(k(t,x_0,)k_D(t,x_0,))_{L^2(B_2)}A_2(h).$$

Again, using the Sobolev inequality (18), we end up with

$$|k(t,x_0,y_0)k_D(t,x_0,y_0)|A_3(h),$$

where $`A_3(h)0`$, as $`h\mathrm{}`$. Choosing $`h`$ large enough, we obtain the required estimate of the lemma. ∎

###### Remarks 3.2.

1) Estimate b) of Proposition 3.1 is very crude, but sufficient for our purposes. For a much better estimate, we refer the reader to \[LY-86\].

2) For the Neumann heat kernel, estimate c) is still valid \[LS-99\]. However, Domain Monotonicity for Neumann heat kernels is a subtle question. See \[Cha-86, BB-93\] and \[CZ-94\].

The following lemma states, in concise form, the crucial fact about heat kernels, which is needed in the next section.

###### Lemma 3.3 (Heat Kernel Lemma).

Let $`\{A_n\}`$ and $`\{D_n\}`$ be two sequences of subsets of $`X`$ satisfying both the isoperimetric property (P). Moreover, we assume that the sets $`D_n`$ are regular and that either $`\{A_n\}`$ is an approximation of $`\{D_n\}`$, or vice versa. Moreover, let $`H^\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+V^\omega `$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, be a family of operators satisfying (15). Then we have, for $`n\mathrm{}`$,

(19)
$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\left|\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\frac{1}{|D_n|}_{D_n}k_{D_n}^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\right|0.$$

###### Remark 3.4.

Note that (19) can be also interpreted as the following limit of traces:

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\left|\frac{1}{|A_n|}\mathrm{Tr}(\chi _{A_n}e^{tH^\omega })\frac{1}{|D_n|}\mathrm{Tr}(e^{tH_{D_n}^\omega })\right|0,$$

where $`\chi _A`$ denotes the characteristic function of $`AX`$.

###### Proof.

Proposition 3.1 b) and property (P) easily imply that

$$\left|\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\frac{1}{|D_n|}_{D_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\right|0.$$

Thus we have to prove (19) only in the case $`A_n=D_n`$. Using, again, Proposition 3.1 and property (P) we conclude, for $`h=h(t,ϵ)`$, that

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\frac{1}{|D_n|}_{D_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\frac{1}{|D_n|}_{D_n}k_{D_n}^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\right|\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{|D_n|}\left(_{(D_n\backslash _hD_n)}+_{(D_n_hD_n)}\right)(k^\omega (t,x,x)k_{D_n}^\omega (t,x,x))dx\\ \hfill \frac{|D_n\backslash _hD_n|}{|D_n|}ϵ+\frac{|_hD_n|}{|D_n|}C(t)ϵ.\end{array}$$

This finishes the proof, since $`ϵ>0`$ was arbitrary. ∎

## 4. Proof of the main theorem

In this section we present the proof of Theorem 1.6. We assume that $`\{D_n\}`$ is an admissible sequence of $`X`$, and that $`I_n`$ and $`A_n=\varphi (I_n)`$ are the associated sequences (see Definition 2.1). Let $`\{H^\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be an ergodic random family of Schrödinger operators satisfying the regularity condition (15). In order to show almost-sure-convergence of the normalized eigenvalue counting functions $`N_{D_n}^\omega `$ to a non-random distribution function $`N`$ at all continuity points it suffices to prove pointwise convergence of the corresponding Laplace-transformations. This fact is a consequence of the following lemma. Recall that a distribution function is a non-negative, left-continuous, monotone increasing function.

###### Lemma 4.1 (Pastur/Šubin).

Let $`N_n`$ be a sequence of distribution functions such that

1. there exists a $`c`$ such that $`N_n(\lambda )=0`$ for all $`\lambda c`$ and $`n`$,
2. there exists a $`C_1:^+`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_n(t):=e^{\lambda t}𝑑N_n(\lambda )C_1(t)`$ for all $`n`$, $`t>0`$,
3. $`lim_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}_n(t)=:\psi (t)`$ exists for all $`t>0`$.

Then the limit

$$N(\lambda ):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}N_n(\lambda )$$

exists at all continuity points. $`N`$ is, again, a distribution function, and its Laplace transform is $`\psi `$.

Proof of Theorem 1.6: Now let $`t>0`$ be fixed. The Laplace-transforms of the normalized eigenvalue counting functions can be written in terms of heat kernels:

(20) $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{D_n}^\omega (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{D_n}}e^{t\lambda }𝑑N_{D_n}^\omega (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|D_n|}}\mathrm{Tr}(e^{tH_{D_n}^\omega })`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|D_n|}}{\displaystyle _{D_n}}k_{D_n}^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x.`$
Applying the Heat Kernel Lemma 3.3, we obtain

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\stackrel{~}{N}_{D_n}^\omega (t)\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x\right|=0.$$

Note that the function $`(\omega ,x)k^\omega (t,x,x)`$ is jointly measurable. (1) and the spectral theorem imply that

$$e^{tH^{T_\gamma \omega }}=U_\gamma e^{tH^\omega }U_\gamma ^{},$$

where $`U_\gamma :L^2(X)L^2(X)`$ are unitary operators, defined by $`U_\gamma f(x)=f(\gamma ^1x)`$. This yields $`k^{T_\gamma \omega }(t,x,x)=k^\omega (t,\gamma ^1x,\gamma ^1x)`$, and we can apply Lemma 2.7. Consequently, we have, for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{N}_{D_n}^\omega (t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|A_n|}_{A_n}k^\omega (t,x,x)𝑑x=\frac{1}{||}𝔼\left(_{}k^{}(t,x,x)𝑑x\right).$$

Note that the conditions of the Pastur-Šubin Lemma are satisfied: The previous considerations imply c), for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. a) holds with $`c=C_0`$, where $`C_0`$ is the constant in (15), and b) follows from (20) and Proposition 3.1. Consequently, an application of Šubin’s lemma finishes the proof of Theorem 1.6. Moreover, we obtain an explicit formula for the Laplace transform of the non-random IDS:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(t)=e^{\lambda t}𝑑N(\lambda )=\frac{1}{||}𝔼\left(_{}k^{}(t,x,x)𝑑x\right).$$

## 5. Discussion

There are at least two natural extensions of our results including random higher order terms. From the physical point of view it would be interesting to include a magnetic field term in the Schrödinger operator. The non-Euclidean setting raises the question whether one can consider the pure Laplace operator on a differentiable manifold equipped with a family of Riemannian metrics depending ergodically on a random parameter. This may model, e.g., a quantum mechanical system of a membrane with random hollows. For these cases, as well as for more singular potentials, we would need to extend the methods of Section 3.

We restricted ourselves to the case where the group acton is discrete and the configuration space is continuous. One could also consider actions of Lie groups on manifolds; or a graph instead of a manifold as the configuration space.

In collaboration with Daniel Lenz we currently investigate whether our IDS coincides with a trace of an appropriate von Neumann algebra. The concept of a von Neumann algebra of random operators may be also useful as a common abstract setting for all the situations described in the previous paragraph. Such an abstract setting for the case of an abelian group acting on another abelian group was studied, e.g., in \[Le-99\].

Furthermore, from the physical point of view, it would be interesting to investigate finer properties of the IDS for particular models: the continuity or differentiability of $`\lambda N(\lambda )`$, and the asymptotic behaviour as $`\lambda `$ approaches an edge of the spectrum of $`\{H^\omega \}`$, cf. \[Sz-89, Sz-90\].


format: text

text:
# THEORY OF ANTISYMMETRIC TENSOR FIELDS

## I Introduction

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a construct which has found overwhelming experimental confirmations (for recent reviews see, e.g., refs. ). Nevertheless, a number of theoretical aspects of this theory deserve more attention. First of all, they are: the problem of “fictious photons of helicity other than $`\pm j`$, as well as the indefinite metric that must accompany them”; the renormalization idea, which “would be sensible only if it was applied with finite renormalization factors, not infinite ones (one is not allowed to neglect \[and to subtract\] infinitely large quantities)”; contradictions with the Weinberg theorem “that no symmetric tensor field of rank $`j`$ can be constructed from the creation and annihilation operators of massless particles of spin $`j`$”, etc. They were shown by Dirac  and by Weinberg . Moreover, it appears now that we do not yet understand many specific features of classical electromagnetism; first of all, the problems of longitudinal modes, of the gauge, of the Coulomb action-at-a-distance, and of the Horwitz’ additional invariant parameter, refs. . Secondly, the standard model, which has been constructed on the basis of ideas, which are similar to QED, appears to be unable to explain many puzzles in neutrino physics.

In my opinion, all these shortcomings can be the consequence of ignoring several important questions. “In the classical electrodynamics of charged particles, a knowledge of $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ completely determines the properties of the system. A knowledge of $`A^\mu `$ is redundant there, because it is determined only up to gauge transformations, which do not affect $`F^{\mu \nu }`$…Such is not the case in quantum theory…” . We learnt, indeed, about this fact from the Aharonov-Bohm  and the Aharonov-Casher effects  . However, recently several attempts have been undertaken to explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect classically . These attempts have, in my opinion, logical basis. In the meantime, quantizing the antisymmetric tensor field led us to a new puzzle, which until now had not received fair hearings. It was claimed that the antisymmetric tensor field of the second rank is longitudinal after quantization (in the sense of the helicity $`\sigma =0`$), refs. . ***M. Kalb and P. Ramond claimed explicitly \[21b, p. 2283, the third line from below\]: “thus, the massless $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ has one degree of freedom”. While they call $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ as “potentials” for the field $`F^{\alpha \beta \gamma }=^\alpha \varphi ^{\beta \gamma }+^\beta \varphi ^{\gamma \alpha }+^\gamma \varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$, nevertheless, the physical content of the antisymmetric tensor field (potential) of the second rank (the representation $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ of the Lorentz group) must be in accordance with the requirements of relativistic invariance. Furthermore, “the helicity – the projection of the spin onto the direction of motion – proves to be equal to zero …even without the restriction to plane waves, the 3-vector of spin \[formula (12) of \] vanishes on solutions …”, ref. \[23b\], Avdeev and Chizhov claimed in their turn. In the meantime, we know that the antisymmetric tensor field (electric and magnetic fields, indeed) is transverse in the Maxwellian classical electrodynamics. It is not clear how physically longitudinal components can be transformed into the physically transverse ones in some limit. It may be of interest to compare this question with the group-theoretical consideration in ref.  which deals with the reduction of rotational degrees of freedom to gauge degrees of freedom in infinite-momentum/zero-mass limit. See the only mentions of the transversality of the quantized antisymmetric tensor field in refs. . It is often concluded: one is not allowed to use the antisymmetric tensor field to represent the quantized electromagnetic field in relativistic quantum mechanics. Instead one should pay attention to the 4-vector potential and gauge freedom. Nevertheless, I am convinced that a reliable theory should be constructed on the basis of a minimal number of ingredients (“Occam’s Razor”) and should have a well-defined classical limit (as well as the massless limit). Moreover, physicists recently turned again to the problem of energy in CED . Therefore, in this paper I undertake a detailed analysis of translational and rotational properties of the antisymmetric tensor field, I derive various forms of the Proca equations (which also can be written in the Duffin-Kemmer form), then calculate the Pauli-Lubanski operator of relativistic spin (which must define whether the quantum is in the left- or right- polarized states or in the unpolarized state) and then conclude, if it is possible to obtain the conventional electromagnetic theory with photon helicities $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ provided that strengths (not potentials) are chosen to be physical variables in the Lagrangian formalism. The particular case also exists when the Pauli-Lubanski vector for the antisymmetric tensor field of the second rank is equal to zero, that corresponds to the claimed ‘longitudinality’ (helicity $`\sigma =0`$ ?) of this field. The answer achieved is that the physical results depend on the normalization and chosen type of the ‘gauge’ freedom.

Research in this area from a viewpoint of the Weinberg’s $`2(2j+1)`$ component theory has been started in refs. . I would also like to point out that the problem at hand is directly connected with our understanding of the nature of neutral particles, including neutrinos .

## II Bargmann-Wigner Procedure, the Proca Equations and Relevant Field Functions

We believe in the power of the group-theoretical methods in the analyses of the physical behaviour of different-type classical (and quantum) fields. We also believe that the Dirac equation can be applied to some particular quantum states of the spin $`1/2`$. Finally, we believe that the spin-0 and spin-1 particles can be constructed by taking the direct product of the spin-1/2 field functions . So, on the basis of these postulates let us firstly repeat the Bargmann-Wigner procedure of obtaining the equations for bosons of spin 0 and 1. The sets of basic equations for $`j=0`$ and $`j=1`$ are written, e.g., ref.

$`\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m\right]_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta \gamma }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m\right]_{\gamma \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2)
We expand the $`4\times 4`$ matrix wave function into the antisymmetric and symmetric parts in a standard way

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \beta }\varphi +\gamma _{\alpha \delta }^5R_{\delta \beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\gamma _{\alpha \delta }^5\gamma _{\delta \tau }^\mu R_{\tau \beta }\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\left\{\alpha \beta \right\}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{\alpha \delta }^\mu R_{\delta \beta }A_\mu +\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\delta \beta }F_{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
where $`R=CP`$ has the properties (which are necessary to make expansions (3,4) to be possible in such a form)

$`R^T=R,R^{}=R=R^1,`$ (5)
$`R^1\gamma ^5R=(\gamma ^5)^T,`$ (6)
$`R^1\gamma ^\mu R=(\gamma ^\mu )^T,`$ (7)
$`R^1\sigma ^{\mu \nu }R=(\sigma ^{\mu \nu })^T.`$ (8)
The explicit form of this matrix can be chosen:

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{\Theta }& 0\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Theta }\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Theta }=i\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
provided that $`\gamma ^\mu `$ matrices are in the spinorial representation. The equations (1,2) lead to the Kemmer set of the $`j=0`$ equations:

$`m\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10)
$`m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`i_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ,`$ (11)
$`m\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i^\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (12)
and to the Proca-Duffin-Kemmer set of the equations for the $`j=1`$ case: We could use another symmetric matrix $`\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }R`$ in the expansion of the symmetric spinor of the second rank. In this case the equations will read    $`i_\alpha \stackrel{~}{F}^{\alpha \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}B^\mu =0,`$  (13)   $`2im\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=^\mu B^\nu ^\nu B^\mu .`$  (14)  in which the dual tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ presents, because we used that $`\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\sigma _{\rho \sigma }`$; $`B^\mu `$ is the corresponding vector potential. The equation for the antisymmetric tensor field (which can be obtained from this set) does not change its form (cf. ) but we see some “renormalization” of the field functions. In general, it is permitted to choose various relative phase factors in the expansion of the symmetric wave function (4) and also consider the matrix term of the form $`\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$. We shall have additional phase factors in equations relating the physical fields and the 4-vector potentials. They can be absorbed by the redefinition of the potentials/fields (the choice of normalization/phase). The above discussion shows that the dual tensor of the second rank can also be expanded in potentials, as opposed to the opinion of the referee (“Journ. Phys. A”) of my previous paper. , Recently, after completing this work the paper  was brought to our attention. It deals with the redundant components in the $`j=3/2`$ spin case. In our case the redundant components are the 4-vector potentials. The relations between parity properties and spin contents have not been considered in full in the paper .

$`_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}A^\mu =0,`$ (15)
$`2mF^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu ,`$ (16)
In the meantime, in the textbooks, the latter set is usually written as (e.g., ref. , p. 135)

$`_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }+m^2A^\mu =0,`$ (17)
$`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu ,`$ (18)
The massive-case set (17,18) is obtained from (15,16) after the normalization change $`A_\mu 2mA_\mu `$ or $`F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2m}F_{\mu \nu }`$. Of course, one can investigate other sets of equations with different normalization of the $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_\mu `$ fields. Are all these sets of equations equivalent? As we shall see, to answer this question is not trivial. The paper \[34a\] argued that the physical normalization is such that in the massless limit zero-momentum field functions should vanish in the momentum representation (there are no massless particles at rest). Next, we advocate the following approach: the massless limit can and must be taken in the end of all calculations only, i. e., for physical quantities.

Let us proceed further. In order to be able to answer the question about the behaviour of the spin operator $`𝐉^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}J^{jk}`$ in the massless limit, one should know the behaviour of the fields $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and/or $`A_\mu `$ in the massless limit. We want to analyze the first set (15,16). If one advocates the following definitions \[44, p.209\]§§§ Of course, different choices of the 4-vectorial basis are connected by unitary transformations.

$`ϵ^\mu (\mathrm{𝟎},+1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ i\\ 0\end{array}\right),ϵ^\mu (\mathrm{𝟎},0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),ϵ^\mu (\mathrm{𝟎},1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ i\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
and ($`\widehat{p}_i=p_i/𝐩`$, $`\gamma =E_p/m`$), ref. \[44, p.68\] or ref. \[45, p. 108\],

$`ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )=L_\nu ^\mu (𝐩)ϵ^\nu (\mathrm{𝟎},\sigma ),`$ (20)
$`L_0^0(𝐩)=\gamma ,L_0^i(𝐩)=L_i^0(𝐩)=\widehat{p}_i\sqrt{\gamma ^21},`$ (21)
$`L_k^i(𝐩)=\delta _{ik}+(\gamma 1)\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_k`$ (22)
for the field operator of the 4-vector potential, ref. \[45, p.109\] or ref. \[41, p.129\]Remember that the invariant integral measure over the Minkowski space for physical particles is
$$d^4p\delta (p^2m^2)\frac{d^3𝐩}{2E_p},E_p=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}.$$
Therefore, we use the field operator as in (23). The coefficient $`(2\pi )^3`$ can be considered at this stage as chosen for convenience. In ref.  the factor $`1/(2E_p)`$ was absorbed in creation/annihilation operators and instead of the field operator (23) the operator was used in which the $`ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )`$ functions for a massive spin-1 particle were substituted by $`u^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )=(2E_p)^{1/2}ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )`$, which may lead to confusions in the definitions of the massless limit $`m0`$ for classical polarization vectors.,In general, it might be useful to consider front-form helicities ( the $`E(2)`$ basis , and/or “time-like” $`j=0`$ polarizations) too. But, we leave the presentation of rigorous theory of this type for subsequent publications. Here we want only to note that the choice (23) implicitly assumes the choice of the corresponding gauge invariance.

$$A^\mu (x)=\underset{\sigma =0,\pm 1}{}\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2E_p}\left[ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )a(𝐩,\sigma )e^{ipx}+(ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma ))^cb^{}(𝐩,\sigma )e^{+ipx}\right],$$
(23)
the normalization of the wave functions in the momentum representation is thus chosen to the unit, $`ϵ_\mu ^{}(𝐩,\sigma )ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )=1`$.\**\**\**The metric used in this paper $`g^{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is different from that of ref. . We observe that in the massless limit all the defined polarization vectors of the momentum space do not have good behaviour; the functions describing spin-1 particles tend to infinity. This is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, after renormalizing the potentials, e. g., $`ϵ^\mu u^\mu mϵ^\mu `$ we come to the wave functions in the momentum representation:†††††† It is interesting to note that all vectors $`u^\mu `$ satisfy the condition $`p_\mu u^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )=0`$, $`\sigma =0,\pm 1`$. It is relevant to the case of the Lorentz gauge and, perhaps, to the analyses of the neutrino theories of light.

$$u^\mu (𝐩,+1)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_r\\ m+\frac{p_1p_r}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_2p_r}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_r}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),u^\mu (𝐩,1)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2}m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_l\\ m+\frac{p_1p_l}{E_p+m}\\ im+\frac{p_2p_l}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_l}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),$$
(24)
$$u^\mu (𝐩,0)=\frac{N}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_3\\ \frac{p_1p_3}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_2p_3}{E_p+m}\\ m+\frac{p_3^2}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
($`N=m`$ and $`p_{r,l}=p_1\pm ip_2`$) which do not diverge in the massless limit. Two of the massless functions (with $`\sigma =\pm 1`$) are equal to zero when the particle, described by this field, is moving along the third axis ($`p_1=p_2=0`$, $`p_30`$). The third one ($`\sigma =0`$) is

$$u^\mu (p_3,0)_{m0}=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_3\\ 0\\ 0\\ \frac{p_3^2}{E_p}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\pm E_p\\ 0\\ 0\\ E_p\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
and at the rest ($`E_p=|𝐩|=\pm p_30`$) also vanishes. Thus, such a field operator describes the “longitudinal photons” which is in complete accordance with the Weinberg theorem $`BA=\sigma `$ for massless particles (let us remind that we use the $`D(1/2,1/2)`$ representation). Thus, the change of the normalization can lead to the “change” of physical content described by the classical field (at least, comparing with the well-accepted one). Of course, in the quantum case one should somehow fix the form of commutation relations by some physical principles.‡‡‡‡‡‡I am very grateful to an anonymous referee of my previous papers (“Foundation of Physics”) who suggested to fix them by requirements of the dimensionless nature of the action in the variational formalism (apart from the requirements of the translational and rotational invariancies). In the connection with the above consideration it is interesting to remind that the authors of ref.  (see page 136 therein) tried to inforce the Stueckelberg’s Lagrangian in order to overcome the difficulties related to the $`m0`$ limit (or the Proca theory $``$ Quantum Electrodynamics). The Stueckelberg’s Lagrangian is well known to contain the additional term which may be put in correspondence to some scalar (longitudinal) field (cf. also ).

Furthermore, it is easy to prove that the physical fields $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ (defined as in (15,16), for instance) vanish in the massless zero-momentum limit under the commensurated definitions of normalization and field equations. It is straightforward to find $`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,\sigma )=\frac{i}{2m}𝐩\times 𝐮(𝐩,\sigma )`$, $`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,\sigma )=\frac{i}{2m}p_0𝐮(𝐩,\sigma )\frac{i}{2m}𝐩u^0(𝐩,\sigma )`$ and the corresponding negative-energy strengths. Here they are:\**\**\**In this paper we assume that $`[ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )]^c=e^{i\alpha _\sigma }[ϵ^\mu (𝐩,\sigma )]^{}`$, with $`\alpha _\sigma `$ being arbitrary phase factors at this stage. Thus, $`𝒞=I_{4\times 4}`$ and $`S^c=e^{i\alpha _\sigma }𝒦`$. It is interesting to investigate other choices of the $`𝒞`$, the charge conjugation matrix and/or consider a field operator composed of CP-conjugate states.

$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}ip_3\\ p_3\\ ip_r\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _1}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (27)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_2\\ p_1\\ 0\end{array}\right)=e^{i\alpha _0}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0),`$ (28)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}ip_3\\ p_3\\ ip_l\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _{+1}}𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1),`$ (29)
and

$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\frac{p_1p_r}{E_p+m}\\ iE_p\frac{p_2p_r}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_r}{E+m}\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _1^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (30)
$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{p_1p_3}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_2p_3}{E_p+m}\\ E_p\frac{p_3^2}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\alpha _0^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,0),`$ (31)
$`𝐄^{(+)}(𝐩,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2\sqrt{2}m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\frac{p_1p_l}{E_p+m}\\ iE_p\frac{p_2p_l}{E_p+m}\\ \frac{p_3p_l}{E_p+m}\end{array}\right)=+e^{i\alpha _{+1}^{}}𝐄^{()}(𝐩,+1),`$ (32)
where we denoted, as previously, a normalization factor standing in the definitions of the potentials (and/or in the definitions of the physical fields through potentials) as $`N`$. Let us note that as a result of the above definitions we have

* The cross products of magnetic fields of different spin states (such as $`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,\sigma )\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,\sigma ^{})`$) may be unequal to zero and may be expressed by the “time-like” $`j=0`$ potential (see the formula (50) below):\*†\*†\*†The relevant phase factors are assumed to be equal to zero here.

$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN^2}{4m^2}}p_3\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right)=`$ (33)
$`=𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (34)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN^2}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_r}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right)=`$ (35)
$`=+𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (36)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN^2}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_l}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right)=`$ (37)
$`=+𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)\times 𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1).`$ (38)
Other cross products are equal to zero.
* Furthermore, one can find the interesting relation:

$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1)+𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1)+`$ (39)
$`+𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2m^2}}(E_p^2m^2),`$ (40)
due to

$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{8m^2}}(p_rp_l+2p_3^2)=`$ (41)
$`=+𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (42)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4\sqrt{2}m^2}}p_3p_r=𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1),`$ (43)
(44)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4\sqrt{2}m^2}}p_3p_l=𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1),`$ (45)
(46)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,+1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,1)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{8m^2}}p_r^2,`$ (47)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,1)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,+1)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{8m^2}}p_l^2,`$ (48)
$`𝐁^{(+)}(𝐩,0)𝐁^{()}(𝐩,0)={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4m^2}}p_rp_l.`$ (49)

For the sake of completeness let us present the momentum-space field functions corresponding to the “time-like” polarization:

$$u^\mu (𝐩,0_t)=\frac{N}{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\\ p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right),𝐁^{(\pm )}(𝐩,0_t)=\mathrm{𝟎},𝐄^{(\pm )}(𝐩,0_t)=\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(50)
The polarization vector $`u^\mu (𝐩,0_t)`$ has the good behaviour in $`N=m`$, $`m0`$ (and also in the subsequent limit $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and it may correspond to some quantized field (particle). As one can see, the field operator composed of the states of longitudinal (e.g., as positive-energy solution) and time-like (e.g., as negative-energy solution)\*‡\*‡\*‡At the present level of our knowledge only relative intrinsic parities have physical sense. Cf. . polarizations may describe a situation when a particle and an antiparticle have opposite intrinsic parities (cf. \[34a\]). Furthermore, in the case of the normalization of potentials to the mass $`N=m`$ the physical fields $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐄`$, which correspond to the “time-like” polarization, are equal to zero identically. The longitudinal fields (strengths) are equal to zero in this limit only when one chooses the frame with $`p_3=𝐩`$, cf. with the light front formulation, ref. . In the case $`N=1`$ and (15,16) we have, in general, the divergent behaviour of potentials and strengths in the massless limit in this spin basis.In the case of $`N=1`$ the fields $`𝐁^\pm (𝐩,0_t)`$ and $`𝐄^\pm (𝐩,0_t)`$ would be undefined in $`m0`$. This fact was also not fully appreciated in the previous formulations of the theory of $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ and $`(1/2,1/2)`$ fields.

## III Translational and Rotational Properties of Antisymmetric Tensor Field

I begin this Section with the antisymmetric tensor field operator (in general, complex-valued):

$$F^{\mu \nu }(x)=\underset{\sigma =0,\pm 1}{}\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^32E_p}\left[F_{(+)}^{\mu \nu }(𝐩,\sigma )a(𝐩,\sigma )e^{ipx}+F_{()}^{\mu \nu }(𝐩,\sigma )b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )e^{+ipx}\right]$$
(51)
and with the Lagrangian, including, in general, mass term:The massless limit ($`m0`$) of the Lagrangian is connected with the Lagrangians used in the conformal field theory and in the conformal supergravity by adding the total derivative:
$$_{CFT}=+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \left(F_{\nu \alpha }^\nu F^{\mu \alpha }F^{\mu \alpha }^\nu F_{\nu \alpha }\right).$$
(52)  The Kalb-Ramond gauge-invariant form (with respect to “gauge” transformations $`F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$), ref. , is obtained only if one uses the Fermi procedure mutatis mutandis by removing the additional “phase” field $`\lambda (_\mu F^{\mu \nu })^2`$, with the appropriate coefficient $`\lambda `$, from the Lagrangian. This has certain analogy with the QED, where the question of whether the Lagrangian is gauge-invariant or not, is solved depending on the presence of the term $`\lambda (_\mu A^\mu )^2`$. For details see ref.  and what is below. In general it is possible to introduce various forms of the mass term and of corresponding normalization of the field.

$$=\frac{1}{4}(_\mu F_{\nu \alpha })(^\mu F^{\nu \alpha })\frac{1}{2}(_\mu F^{\mu \alpha })(^\nu F_{\nu \alpha })\frac{1}{2}(_\mu F_{\nu \alpha })(^\nu F^{\mu \alpha })+\frac{1}{4}m^2F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(53)
The Lagrangian leads to the equation of motion in the following form (provided that the appropriate antisymmetrization procedure has been taken into account):

$$\frac{1}{2}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2)F_{\mu \nu }+(_\mu F_{\alpha \nu }^{,\alpha }_\nu F_{\alpha \mu }^{,\alpha })=0,$$
(54)
where $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=_\alpha ^\alpha `$, cf. with the set of equations (15,16). It is this equation for antisymmetric-tensor-field components that follows from the Proca-Duffin-Kemmer-Bargmann-Wigner consideration, provided that $`m0`$ and in the final expression one takes into account the Klein-Gordon equation $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }m^2)F_{\mu \nu }=0`$. The latter expresses relativistic dispersion relations $`E^2𝐩^2=m^2`$ and it follows from the coordinate Lorentz transformation laws \[47, §2.3\].

Following the variation procedure given, e.g., in refs.  one can obtain that the energy-momentum tensor is expressed:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\lambda \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(^\lambda F_{\mu \alpha })(^\beta F^{\mu \alpha })2(_\mu F^{\mu \alpha })(^\beta F_\alpha ^\lambda )`$ (55)
$``$ $`2(^\mu F^{\lambda \alpha })(^\beta F_{\mu \alpha })]g^{\lambda \beta }.`$ (56)
One can also obtain that for rotations $`x^\mu ^{}=x^\mu +\omega ^{\mu \nu }x_\nu `$ the corresponding variation of the wave function is found from the formula:

$$\delta F^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{\kappa \tau }𝒯_{\kappa \tau }^{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(57)
The generators of infinitesimal transformations are then defined as

$`𝒯_{\kappa \tau }^{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\alpha \mu }(\delta _\kappa ^\beta \delta _\tau ^\nu \delta _\tau ^\beta \delta _\kappa ^\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\beta \mu }(\delta _\kappa ^\nu \delta _\tau ^\alpha \delta _\tau ^\nu \delta _\kappa ^\alpha )+`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\alpha \nu }(\delta _\kappa ^\mu \delta _\tau ^\beta \delta _\tau ^\mu \delta _\kappa ^\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\beta \nu }(\delta _\kappa ^\alpha \delta _\tau ^\mu \delta _\tau ^\alpha \delta _\kappa ^\mu ).`$ (59)
It is $`𝒯_{\kappa \tau }^{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }`$, the generators of infinitesimal transformations, that enter in the formula for the relativistic spin tensor:

$$J_{\kappa \tau }=d^3𝐱\left[\frac{}{(F^{\alpha \beta }/t)}𝒯_{\kappa \tau }^{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right].$$
(60)
As a result one obtains:

$`J_{\kappa \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3𝐱[(_\mu F^{\mu \nu })(g_{0\kappa }F_{\nu \tau }g_{0\tau }F_{\nu \kappa })(_\mu F_\kappa ^\mu )F_{0\tau }+(_\mu F_\tau ^\mu )F_{0\kappa }+`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`F_\kappa ^\mu (_0F_{\tau \mu }+_\mu F_{0\tau }+_\tau F_{\mu 0})F_\tau ^\mu (_0F_{\kappa \mu }+_\mu F_{0\kappa }+_\kappa F_{\mu 0})].`$ (62)
If one agrees that the orbital part of the angular momentum

$$L_{\kappa \tau }=x_\kappa \mathrm{\Theta }_{0\tau }x_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }_{0\kappa },$$
(63)
with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\tau \lambda }`$ being the energy-momentum tensor, does not contribute to the Pauli-Lubanski operator when acting on the one-particle free states (as in the Dirac $`j=1/2`$ case), then the Pauli-Lubanski 4-vector is constructed as follows  (Eq. (2-21))

$$W_\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \kappa \tau \nu }J^{\kappa \tau }P^\nu ,$$
(64)
with $`J^{\kappa \tau }`$ defined by Eqs. (60,62). The 4-momentum operator $`P^\nu `$ can be replaced by its eigenvalue when acting on the plane-wave eigenstates. Furthermore, one should choose space-like normalized vector $`n^\mu n_\mu =1`$, for example $`n_0=0`$, $`𝐧=\widehat{𝐩}=𝐩/|𝐩|`$. \*∥\*∥\*∥ One should remember that the helicity operator is usually connected with the Pauli-Lubanski vector in the following manner $`(𝐉\widehat{𝐩})=(𝐖\widehat{𝐩})/E_p`$, see ref. . The choice of ref. \[41, p. 147\], $`n^\mu =\left(t^\mu p^\mu \frac{pt}{m^2}\right)\frac{m}{𝐩}`$, with $`t^\mu (1,0,0,0)`$ being a time-like vector, is also possible but it leads to some obscurities in the procedure of taking the massless limit. These obscurities will be clarified in a separate paper. After lengthy calculations in a spirit of \[41, p.58, 147\] one can find the explicit form of the relativistic spin:

$`(W_\mu n^\mu )=(𝐖𝐧)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ijk}n^kJ^{ij}p^0,`$ (65)
$`𝐉^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ijk}J^{ij}=ϵ^{ijk}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[F^{0i}(_\mu F^{\mu j})+F_\mu ^j(^0F^{\mu i}+^\mu F^{i0}+^iF^{0\mu })\right]}.`$ (66)
(67)
Now it becomes obvious that the application of the generalized Lorentz conditions (which are quantum versions of free-space dual Maxwell’s equations) leads in such a formulation to the absence of electromagnetism in a conventional sense. The resulting Kalb-Ramond field is longitudinal (helicity $`\sigma =0`$). All the components of the angular momentum tensor for this case are identically equated to zero. The discussion of this fact can also be found in ref. . This situation can happen in the particular choice of the normalization of the field operators and unusual “gauge” invariance.

Furthermore, the spin operator recasts in the terms of the vector potentials as follows (if one takes into account the dynamical equations, Eqs. (13,14,15,16)):\***\***\*** The formula (71) has certain similarities with the formula for the spin vector obtained from Eqs. (5.15,5.21) of ref. :    $`𝐉_i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}{\displaystyle J_{jk}^0d^3𝐱},`$  (68)   $`J_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(A_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{A_\alpha }{x_0}}A_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{A_\beta }{x_0}}\right).`$  (69)  It describes the “transverse photons” in the ordinary wisdom. But, not all the questions related to the second $`B_\mu `$ potential, the dual tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ and the normalization of 4-potentials and fields have been clarified in the standard textbooks.

$`𝐉^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ijk}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[F^{0i}(_\mu F^{\mu j})+\stackrel{~}{F}^{0i}(_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu j})\right]}=`$ (70)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{ijk}{\displaystyle d^3x\left[B^j(^0B^i^iB^0)A^j(^0A^i^iA^0)\right]}.`$ (71)
If we put, as usual, $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\pm iF^{\mu \nu }`$ (or $`B^\mu =\pm A^\mu `$) for the right- and left- circularly polarized radiation we shall again obtain equating the spin operator to zero. The same situation would happen if one chooses “unappropriate” normalization and/or if one uses the equations (17,18) in the massless limit without necessary precautions. The straightforward application of (17,18) would lead to the proportionality $`J_{\kappa \tau }m^2`$ and, thus, it appears that the spin operator would be equal to zero in the massless limit, provided that the components of $`A_\mu `$ have good behaviour (do not diverge in $`m0`$). Probably, this fact (the relation between generators and the normalization) was the origin of why many respectable persons claimed that the antisymmetric tensor field is a pure longitudinal field. On the other hand, in a private communication Prof. Y. S. Kim stressed that neither he nor E. Wigner used the normalization of the spin generators to the mass. What is the situation which is realized in Nature (or both)? The theoretical answer depends on the choice of the field operators, namely on the choice of positive- and negative- energy solutions, creation/annihilation operators and the normalization.

One of the possible ways to obtain $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ is a modification of the electromagnetic field tensor, i.e., introducing the non-Abelian electrodynamics :

$$F_{\mu \nu }𝐆_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^{(a)}_\nu A_\mu ^{(a)}i\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}[A_\mu ^{(b)},A_\nu ^{(c)}],$$
(72)
where $`(a),(b),(c)`$ denote the vector components in the $`(1),(2),(3)`$ circular basis. In other words, one can add some ghost field (the $`𝐁^{(3)}`$ field) to the antisymmetric tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ which initially supposed to contain transverse components only. As a matter of fact this induces hypotheses on a massive photon and/or an additional displacement current. I can agree with the possibility of the $`𝐁^{(3)}`$ field concept (while it is required rigorous elaboration in the terminology of the modern quantum field theory), but, at the moment, I prefer to avoid any auxiliary constructions (even if they may be valuable in intuitive explanations and generalizations). If these non-Abelian constructions exist they should be deduced from a more general theory on the basis of some fundamental postulates, e.g., in a spirit of refs. . Moreover, this concept appears to be in contradiction with the concept of the $`m0`$ group contraction for a photon as presented by Wigner and Inonu  and Kim .

In the procedure of the quantization one can reveal an important case, when the transversality (in the meaning of existence of $`\sigma =\pm 1`$) of the antisymmetric tensor field is preserved. This conclusion is related with existence of the dual tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ or with correcting the procedure of taking the massless limit.

In this Section, I first choose the field operator, Eq. (51), such that:

$`F_{(+)}^{i0}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`E^i(𝐩),F_{(+)}^{jk}(𝐩)=ϵ^{jkl}B^l(𝐩);`$ (73)
$`F_{()}^{i0}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{i0}(𝐩)=B^i(𝐩),F_{()}^{jk}(𝐩)=\stackrel{~}{F}^{jk}(𝐩)=ϵ^{jkl}E^l(𝐩),`$ (74)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ is the tensor dual to $`F^{\mu \nu }`$; and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ , $`ϵ^{0123}=1`$ is the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. After lengthy but standard calculations one achieves:\*††\*††\*††Of course, the question of the behaviour of vectors $`𝐄_\sigma (𝐩)`$ and $`𝐁_\sigma (𝐩)`$ and/or of creation and annihilation operators with respect to the discrete symmetry operations in this particular case deserves detailed elaboration.

$`𝐉^k={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^32E_p}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{iϵ^{ijk}𝐄_\sigma ^i(𝐩)𝐁_\sigma ^{}^j(𝐩)}{2}}[a(𝐩,\sigma )b^{}(𝐩,\sigma ^{})+a(𝐩,\sigma ^{})b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )+`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`b^{}(𝐩,\sigma ^{})a(𝐩,\sigma )+b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )a(𝐩,\sigma ^{})]`$ (76)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E_p}}[i𝐩^k(𝐄_\sigma (𝐩)𝐄_\sigma ^{}(𝐩)+𝐁_\sigma (𝐩)𝐁_\sigma ^{}(𝐩))`$ (77)
$``$ $`i𝐄_\sigma ^{}^k(𝐩)(𝐩𝐄_\sigma (𝐩))i𝐁_\sigma ^{}^k(𝐩)(𝐩𝐁_\sigma (𝐩))][a(𝐩,\sigma )b^{}(𝐩,\sigma ^{})+b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )a(𝐩,\sigma ^{})]\}.`$ (78)
One should choose normalization conditions for field functions in the momentum representation. For instance, one can use the analogy with the (dual) classical electrodynamics:\*‡‡\*‡‡\*‡‡Different choices of the normalization can still lead to equating the spin operator to zero or even to the other values of helicity, which differ from $`\pm 1`$. This was also discussed with Prof. N. Mankoc-Borstnik during the Workshop “Lorentz Group, CPT and Neutrinos” (Zacatecas, México, June 23-26, 1999). The question is: which cases are realized in Nature and what processes do correspond to every case?

$`(𝐄_\sigma (𝐩)𝐄_\sigma ^{}(𝐩)+𝐁_\sigma (𝐩)𝐁_\sigma ^{}(𝐩))=2E_p\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}},`$ (79)
$`𝐄_\sigma \times 𝐁_\sigma ^{}=𝐩\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}𝐩\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}.`$ (80)
These conditions still imply that $`𝐄𝐁𝐩`$.

Finally, one obtains

$$𝐉^k=i\underset{\sigma }{}\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{𝐩^k}{2E_p}\left[a(𝐩,\sigma )b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )+b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )a(𝐩,\sigma )\right].$$
(81)
If we want to describe states with the definite helicity quantum number (photons) we should assume that $`b^{}(𝐩,\sigma )=ia^{}(𝐩,\sigma )`$ which is reminiscent of the Majorana-like theories . †\*†\*†\*Of course, the imaginary unit can be absorbed by the corresponding re-definition of negative-frequency solutions. One can take into account the prescription of the normal ordering and set up the commutation relations in the form:

$$[a(𝐩,\sigma ),a^{}(𝐤,\sigma ^{})]_{}=(2\pi )^3\delta (𝐩𝐤)\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}.$$
(82)
After acting the operator (81) on the physical states, e.g., $`a^{}(𝐩,\sigma )|0>`$ , we are convinced that the antisymmetric tensor field can describe particles with helicities to be equal to $`\pm 1`$). One can see that the origin of this conclusion is the possibility of different definitions of the field operator (and its normalization), non-unique definition of the energy-momentum tensor  and possible existence of the ‘antiparticle’ for the particle described by antisymmetric tensor field. This consideration is obviously related to the Weinberg discussion of the connection between helicity and representations of the Lorentz group \[5a\]. Next, I would like to point out that the Proca-like equations for antisymmetric tensor field with mass, e.g., Eq. (54) can possess tachyonic solutions, see for the discussion in ref. . Therefore, in a massive case the free physical states can be mixed with unphysical (at the present level of our knowledge) tachyonic states.

## IV Normalization and $`m0`$ Limit of the Proca Theory

As opposed to the previous sections, where we assumed that the application of the generalized Lorentz condition is not always well-founded, in this Section we pay more attention to the correct procedure of taking the massless limit. We note that not all obscurities were clarified in previous sections and recent works .††††††First of all, we note that the equality of the angular momentum generators to zero can be re-interpreted as
$$W_\mu P^\mu =0,$$
with $`W_\mu `$ being the Pauli-Lubanski operator. This yields
$$W_\mu =\lambda P_\mu $$
in the massless case. But, according to the analysis above the 4-vector $`W_\mu `$ would be equal to zero identically in the massless limit. This is not satisfactory from the conceptual viewpoints. Let us analyze in a straightforward manner the operator (71). If one uses the following definitions of positive- and negative-energy parts of the antisymmetric tensor field in the momentum space, i. e., according to (27-32) with ($`\alpha _\sigma =0`$):

$$(F_{\mu \nu })_{+1}^{(+)}=+(F_{\mu \nu })_1^{()},(F_{\mu \nu })_1^{(+)}=+(F_{\mu \nu })_{+1}^{()},(F_{\mu \nu })_0^{(+)}=(F_{\mu \nu })_0^{()}.$$
(83)
for the field operator (51) then one obtains in the frame where $`p_{1,2}=0`$:

$`𝐉^k`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^3𝐱𝐄(x^\mu )\times 𝐀(x^\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}E_p^2}}\{\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ E_p\end{array}\right)`$ (85)
$`[a(𝐩,+1)b^{}(𝐩,+1)a(𝐩,1)b^{}(𝐩,1)+`$
$`+`$ $`b^{}(𝐩,+1)a(𝐩,+1)b^{}(𝐩,1)a(𝐩,1)]+`$ (86)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_p}{m\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\\ iE_p\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left[a(𝐩,+1)b^{}(𝐩,0)+b^{}(𝐩,1)a(𝐩,0)\right]+`$ (87)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_p}{m\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_p\\ iE_p\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left[a(𝐩,1)b^{}(𝐩,0)+b^{}(𝐩,+1)a(𝐩,0)\right]+`$ (88)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ im\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left[a(𝐩,0)b^{}(𝐩,+1)+b^{}(𝐩,0)a(𝐩,1)\right]+`$ (89)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ im\\ 0\end{array}\right)[a(𝐩,0)b^{}(𝐩,1)+b^{}(𝐩,0)a(𝐩,+1)]\}.`$ (90)
Above, we used that according to dynamical equations (15,16) written in the momentum representation, one has

$`[(_\mu F^{\mu j}(𝐩,\sigma )]^{(+)}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}u^j(𝐩,\sigma ),[(_\mu F^{\mu j}(𝐩,\sigma )]^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}[u^j(𝐩,\sigma )]^{}`$ (91)
$`[_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu j}(𝐩,\sigma )]^\pm =0.`$ (92)
Next, it is obvious that though $`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }`$ may be equal to zero in the massless limit from the formal viewpoint, and the equation (85) is proportional to the squared mass (?) at first sight, it must not be forgotten that the commutation relations may provide additional mass factors in the denominator of (85). It is the factor $`E_p/m^2`$ in the commutation relations†‡†‡†‡Remember that the dimension of the $`\delta `$ function is inverse to its argument.

$$[a(𝐩,\sigma ),b^{}(𝐤,\sigma ^{})](2\pi )^3\frac{E_p}{m^2}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\delta (𝐩𝐤).$$
(93)
which is required by the principles of the rotational and translational invariance †§†§†§That is to say: the factor $`\frac{1}{m^2}`$ is required if one wants to obtain non-zero energy (and, hence, helicity) excitations. (and also by the necessity of the description of the Coulomb long-range force $`1/r^2`$ by means of the antisymmetric tensor field of the second rank).

The dimension of the creation/annihilation operators of the 4-vector potential should be \[energy\]-2 provided that we use (24,25) with $`N=m`$ and $`ϵ^\mu u^\mu `$. Next, if we want the $`F^{\mu \nu }(x^\mu )`$ to have the dimension \[energy\]2 in the unit system $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$,†¶†¶†¶The dimensions \[energy\]+1 of the field operators for strengths was used in my previous research in order to keep similarities with the Dirac case (the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation) where the mass term presents explicitly in the term of the bilinear combination of the fields. we must divide the Lagrangian by $`m^2`$ (with the same $`m`$, the mass of the particle!):

$$=\frac{(Eq.46)}{m^2}.$$
(94)
In this case, the antisymmetric tensor field has the dimension which is compatible with the inverse-square law, but the procedure of taking massless limit is somewhat different (and cannot be carried out from the beginning). This procedure will have the influence on the form of (71,85) because the derivatives in this case pick up the additional mass factor. Thus, we can remove the “ghost” proportionality of the $`c`$\- number coefficients in (85) to $`m`$. The commutation relations also change their form. For instance, one can now consider that $`[a(𝐩,\sigma ),b^{}(𝐤,\sigma ^{})]_{}(2\pi )^32E_p\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\delta (𝐩𝐤)`$ . The possibility of the above renormalizations was not noted in the previous papers on the theory of the 4-vector potential and of the antisymmetric tensor field of the second rank. Probably, this was the reason why people were confused after including the mass factor of the creation/annihilation operators in the field functions of $`(1/2,1/2)`$ and/or $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representations, and/or applying the generalized Lorentz condition inside the dynamical invariant(s), which, as noted above, coincides in the form with the Maxwell free-space equations.

Finally, we showed that the interplay between definitions of field functions, Lagrangian and commutation relations occurs, thus giving the non-zero values of the angular momentum generators in the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation.

The conclusion of the “transversality” (in the meaning of existence of $`\sigma =\pm 1`$) is in accordance with the conclusion of the Ohanian’s paper , cf. formula (7) there:†∥†∥†∥The formula (7) of ref.  is in the SI unit system. Our arguments above are similar in the physical content with that paper. But, remember that in almost all papers the electric field is defined to be equal to $`𝐄^i=F^{i0}=^iA^0^0A^i`$, with the potentials being not well-defined in the massless limit of the Proca theory. Usually, the divergent part of the potentials was referred to the gauge-dependent part. Furthermore, the physical fields and potentials were considered classically in the cited paper, so the integration over the 3-momenta (the quantization inside a cube) was not implied, see the formula (5) therein. Please pay also attention to the complex conjugation operation on the potentials in the Ohanian’s formula. We did not still exclude the possibility of the mathematical framework, which is different from our presentation, but the conclusions, in my opinion, must be in accordance with the Weinberg theorem, provided that, of course, the relativistic covariance is assumed.

$$𝐉=\frac{1}{2\mu _0c^2}\mathrm{}e(𝐄\times 𝐀^{})d^3𝐱=\pm \frac{1}{\mu _0c^2}\frac{\widehat{𝐳}E_0^2}{\omega }d^3𝐱,$$
(95)
with the Weinberg theorem, also with known experiments. The question, whether the situation could be realized when the spin of the antisymmetric tensor field would be equal to zero (in other words, whether the antisymmetric tensor field with unusual normalization exists or whether the third state of the massless 4-vector potential exists, as argued by Ogievetskiĭ and Polubarinov ), must be checked by additional experimental verifications. We do not exclude this possibility, founding our viewpoint on the papers .

Finally, one should note that we agree with the author of the cited work , see Eq. (4), about the gauge non-invariance of the division of the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field into the “orbital” and “spin” part (95). We proved again that for the antisymmetric tensor field $`𝐉d^3𝐱𝐄\times 𝐀`$. So, what people actually did (when spoken about the Ogievetskiĭ-Polubarinov-Kalb-Ramond field is: when $`N=m`$ they considered the gauge part of the 4-vector field functions. Then, they equated $`𝐀`$ containing the transverse modes on choosing $`p_r=p_l=0`$ (see formulas (24)). Under this choice the $`𝐄(𝐩,0)`$ and $`𝐁(𝐩,0)`$ are equal to zero in massless limit. But, the gauge part of $`u^\mu (𝐩,0)`$ is not. The spin angular momentum can still be zero. When $`N=1`$ the situation may be the same because of the different form of dynamical equations and the Lagrangian. So, for those who prefer simpler consideration it is enough to regard all possible states of 4-potentials/antisymmetric tensor field in the massless limit in the calculation of physical observables. Of course, I would like to repeat, it is not yet clear and it is not yet supported by reliable experiments whether the third state of the 4-vector potential/antisymmetric tensor field has physical significance and whether it is observable.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, I calculated the Pauli-Lubanski vector of relativistic spin on the basis of the Nötherian symmetry method . Let me recall that it is connected with the angular momentum vector, which is conserved as a consequence of the rotational invariance. After explicit  (or implicit ) applications of the constraints (the generalized Lorentz condition) in the Minkowski space, the antisymmetric tensor field becomes ‘longitudinal’ in the meaning that the angular momentum operator is equated to zero (this interpretation was attached by the authors of the works ). I proposed one of the possible ways to resolve this apparent contradiction with the Correspondence Principle in refs.  and in several unpublished works. The present article continues and sums up this research. The achieved conclusion is: the antisymmetric tensor field can describe both the Maxwellian $`j=1`$ field and the Ogievetskiĭ-Polubarinov-Kalb-Ramond $`j=0`$ field. Nevertheless, I still think that the physical nature of the $`E=0`$ solution discovered in ref. , its connections with the so-called $`𝐁^{(3)}`$ field, ref. , with Avdeev-Chizhov $`\delta ^{}`$\- type transversal solutions \[23b\], which cannot be interpreted as relativistic particles, as well as with my concept of $`\chi `$ boundary functions, ref. , are not completely explained until now. Finally, while I do not have any intention of doubting the theoretical results of the ordinary quantum electrodynamics, I am sure that the questions put forth in this note (as well as in previous papers of both mine and other groups) should be explained properly.

Acknowledgments. As a matter of fact, the physical content of my series of papers has been inspired by remarks of the referees of IJMPA (1994), FP and FPL (1997) and HPA (1998). I am thankful to Profs. A. E. Chubykalo, Y. S. Kim, A. F. Pashkov and S. Roy for stimulating discussions. Several papers of other authors which are devoted to a consideration of the similar topics, but from very different standpoints, were motivations for revising the preliminary versions of manuscripts. I am delighted by the referee reports on the papers  from “Journal of Physics A”. In fact, they helped me to learn many useful things.

I am grateful to Zacatecas University for a professorship. This work has been partially supported by the Mexican Sistema Nacional de Investigadores and the Programa de Apoyo a la Carrera Docente.