format: text

text:
# Quantization via Star Products

## 1 Introduction

In 1949, Moyal discovered an interesting description of quantum mechanics, called Moyal quantization, in which the Wigner function is used as the phasespace distribution function, similar to that used in statistical mechanics. (See Ref. for an early work on quantization in phasespace.) The transformation function connecting the distribution functions at different times satisfies a differential equation similar to the classical equations of motion, where the Poisson bracket is replaced by the Moyal bracket.

After several decades, an abstract scheme of the Moyal quantization called deformation quantization was proposed. This scheme is based on the general star product satisfying some axioms and on a deformation of the symplectic structure of the phasespace in the classical theory, and it is formulated without a Hilbert space. Because one gets the Poisson bracket in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, this approach makes it possible to understand the connection between the classical and quantum theories from a new perspective. This scheme is believed to be equivalent to ordinary quantum mechanics and seems to effectively include functions that are written in the form of the (off-diagonal) Wigner functions or their linear combinations. There has been much progress in this field, especially with regard to its mathematical aspects.

In the present paper we set up a general framework for quantization, which is slightly different from the deformation quantization. In this formulation, the state function is not necessarily the Wigner function that is constructed from vectors of the Hilbert space. We construct this scheme without resort to the Hilbert space. In our scheme, the associativity of the star product is used in defining the basic function space. This contrasts with the situation regarding the deformation quantization, where the associativity is a guiding principle in deforming the classical symplectic structure of the phasespace. In our scheme, the functions describing physical states do not necessarily have counterparts in ordinary quantum mechanics. For example, unwanted states, such as those with negative energies, can appear if we do not impose the associativity of the star product. These state functions are excluded by associativity. For this reason, our theory is conjectured to be equivalent to quantum mechanics. This equivalence is demonstrated explicitly for the $`D`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator.

## 2 Assumptions and function space

Let us consider a dynamical system described by real coordinates, $`q_i(i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$, and their canonical momenta, $`p_i`$. We make the following assumptions (1)-(6).

(1) There exist a function space $`𝒮`$ of complex valued and integrable functions of $`(q,p)`$ and a map $`:𝒮\times 𝒮𝒮`$ satisfying the distributive and associative laws, the Hermiticity property, $`(f_1f_2)^{}=f_2^{}f_1^{}`$ for $`f_i𝒮`$, and the property $`1f=f1=f`$ for $`f𝒮`$. We postulate that the pair $`(,𝒮)`$ consisting of this operator (which refer to as the star product hereafter) and this function space is given, and physical states and observables are described by functions in $`𝒮`$.

(2) There exists a set of observables, $`𝒪=\{O_1,O_2,\mathrm{},O_r\}`$, that are mutually commuting with respect to the star product. Here $`r`$ may or may not be finite.

We can define the eigenvalue problem associated with the star product as in the theory of vector spaces. For functions $`g^i𝒮`$ the function $`f_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}𝒮`$ satisfying

$`g^if_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^if_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}},`$ (2.1)
$`f_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}g^i`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^if_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}`$ (2.2)
is called the phasespace eigenfunction of $`g^i`$, and $`\{\lambda \}`$ ($`\{\lambda ^{}\}`$) is called the set of left (right) eigenvalues. The above equations are sometimes called the stargen-value equations with respect to $`g^i`$. For observables $`O^i`$ and an observable or a state function $`\varphi 𝒮`$, let us define

$`\varphi _{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}^{(O)}:={\displaystyle \frac{dqdp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^N}\varphi (q,p)O_{\{\lambda ^{}\}\{\lambda \}}(q,p)},`$ (2.3)
where $`O_{\{\lambda ^{}\}\{\lambda \}}`$ is an eigenfunction of $`O^i`$. We call this quantity the matrix element of $`\varphi `$ with respect to the observables $`O^i`$. Note the order of the subscripts in the above equation.

In terms of the above quantities, we make the following assumptions (3)-(5) concerning measurements.

(3) An ideal measurement of a set of observables $`O_i`$ results in a specific set of values, and we assume each of these values to be one of left-right eigenvalues of $`O_i`$:

$`O_iO_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda \}}=O_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda \}}O_i=\lambda _iO_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda \}}.`$ (2.4)
(4) If the state is described by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the probability of obtaining a particular set of values $`\lambda `$ as a result of the measurement of observables $`O^i𝒮`$ is

$`P(\mathrm{\Psi };O;\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda \}}^{(O)},`$ (2.5)
where the r.h.s. is defined by (2.3). We assume that the state function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q,p)`$ and the eigenfunction $`O_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda \}}𝒮`$ are normalized as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dqdp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^N}O_{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}}(q,p)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\{\lambda \}\{\lambda ^{}\}},`$ (2.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dqdp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^N}\mathrm{\Psi }(q,p)}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.7)
where the r.h.s. of (2.6) is the Kronecker delta or the delta function in a discrete or continuous spectrum.

(5) After the measurement of an observable, the state reduces to the state described by a stargen-value function of the observable with equal left and right stargen-values. In general, this function is not a linear combination of left-right stargen functions of unobserved quantities.

For a non-ideal observation, in which the observed value lies in a certain range, the probability is the sum of the r.h.s. of Eq. (2.5) over that range. Thanks to the Hermiticity of the star product, the probability (2.5) is a real number. Furthermore, it can be made positive definite by a proper choice of the star product.

Now, the physical state described by a state function $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒮`$ that satisfies the condition

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (2.8)
is called a pure state. A linear combination of state functions describing pure states is another state function. Because the probability (2.5) is linear with respect to the state function, a linear combination does not respect ‘quantum mechanical’ coherence, and for this reason, we call it an incoherent mixture of these states. Presumably, there may exist other state functions that are neither pure states nor incoherent mixtures and have no counterparts in ordinary quantum mechanics. In the $`D`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator treated in Section 3, some solutions to the stargen-value equation correspond to neither pure states nor mixtures and violate the associative law of the star product. Because of this violation these states do not describe physical states.

The time development of our abstract system is determined by the following assumption.

(6) A physical state function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the Schrödinger-Moyal equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\mathrm{\Psi },H\}_M,`$ (2.9)
where

$`\{A,B\}_M:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}(ABBA)`$ (2.10)
is the Moyal bracket of $`A`$ and $`B`$, and $`H𝒮`$ is called the Hamiltonian of the system. The observables are assumed to be time independent.

These assumptions define the scheme of our star quantization. The concrete procedure of obtaining the physical predictions is as follows.

(i) Define a suitable star product operation in the function space of well-behaved functions of the phasespace, which may have some singularities.

(ii) Define the maximal set of observables, including the Hamiltonian, which are functions of the phasespace.

(iii) Solve the stargen-value equations for the maximal set of observables, which may have some singularities but should satisfy the normalization conditions.

(iv) In the function space spanned by the solutions obtained in (iii) and the functions of all the observables, determine the maximal function space, $`𝒮`$, in which any function satisfies the assumptions for the star product.

(v) A measurement of an observable determines the initial state function through the assumption (5).

(vi) Solve the Schrödinger-Moyal equation to get the state function at a later time.

(vii) The probability of getting a specific value of an observable at that time is obtained by Eq. (2.5).

The above framework resembles that of the deformation quantization scheme in formal appearance. The difference between the two schemes lies in the definition of the physical states. In both schemes, the physical spectrum is assumed to be determined by the left-right stargen-values of observables consisting of a maximal commuting set. The function describing the state after a measurement that consists of a subset of the maximal set of commuting observables is a left-right stargen-value function of the observable that is actually measured. In the deformation quantization scheme, however, this function is assumed to be a linear combination of the left-right stargen-value functions of all observables, some of which may not have been measured. Contrastingly, our scheme requires that the function be a left-right stargen-value function of only those observables that are actually measured. The function space of our scheme is larger than that of the deformation quantization, and our function space may contain functions possessing singularities, as long as they satisfy the normalization conditions. In particular, we can consider functions that are not (linear combinations of) the off-diagonal Wigner functions. Therefore it is not obvious whether the associativity of the star product applied to those functions holds (see below).

An example of the star product is that defined by Groenewold:

$`AB(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}_i\left(\frac{}{q_i}\frac{}{p_i^{}}\frac{}{q_i^{}}\frac{}{p_i}\right)}A(q,p)B(q^{},p^{})|_{q=q^{},p=p^{}}.`$ (2.11)
In what follows we do not consider other choices for the star product, dealing only with (2.11).

Although our framework is self-contained and requires no reference to the Hilbert space of ordinary quantization, we review, for the sake of comparison, some relations between the Hilbert space and the function space of the phasespace. For an operator $`\widehat{A}`$ of the Hilbert space a function of the phasespace is defined by the Weyl correspondence:

$`A_W(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ue^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}pu}q+\frac{u}{2}\left|\widehat{A}\right|q\frac{u}{2}}.`$ (2.12)
Conversely, we see

$`q|\widehat{A}|q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^N}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p(qq^{})}A_W(\frac{q+q^{}}{2},p)}.`$ (2.13)
These relations, however, do not always define a one to one map between the operators of the Hilbert space and functions of the phasespace. For example, the integral (2.13) for the function $`A_W=(q+ip)^1`$ has a singularity along $`q+q^{}=0`$, which makes it impossible to define the corresponding operator in the Hilbert space. (For the case of systems with constraints, see Ref..)

The Weyl correspondence is used in deriving various relations between quantities in ordinary quantum mechanics and those in the Moyal scheme. For example, the phasespace eigenfunction of an observable $`A`$ is $`(|nm|)_W`$, where $`|n`$ is the eigenvector of $`\widehat{A}`$, and the Wigner function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q,p)`$ is defined in terms of the state vector $`|\psi `$ as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q,p)=(|\psi \psi |)_W`$. The correspondence between operator multiplication and the star product is given by the relation

$`(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})_W=A_WB_W.`$ (2.14)
Finally, we comment on the associativity of the star product. The associative law of the star product would seem to be guaranteed by the corresponding operator relation of the quantum mechanics through the relation (2.14). However, this is not always the case, as there might exist functions of the phasespace that have no operator counterparts.

## 3 Application to the harmonic oscillator

The Schrödinger equation for the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator described by the Hamiltonian $`H_1=(p^2+q^2)/2`$ has solutions with positive energy eigenvalues expressed in terms of Hermite polynomials. There also exist solutions with negative energies, but they cannot be normalized and therefore are excluded. The eigenfunctions $`w_{nm}=(|nm|)_W`$ corresponding to solutions with positive energies, i.e., those for which $`n,m0`$, were calculated long ago  and found to be expressed in terms of the associated Laguerre polynomials:

$`w_{nm}a^{mn}f_0(z)L_n^{(mn)}(z),f_0(z)=2e^{z/2},`$ (3.1)
where $`a=(q+ip)/\sqrt{2},z=4H_1/\mathrm{}`$. These functions are solutions to the stargen-value equations

$`H_1w_{nm}=E_nw_{nm},w_{nm}H_1=E_mw_{nm},`$ (3.2)
with $`E_n=(n+1/2)\mathrm{}`$. (For calculations of the Wigner functions in various models, see Ref..)

Now, let us examine the solutions that are not necessarily off-diagonal Wigner functions but satisfy the stargen-value equations with normalization conditions. For example, the functions $`w_{nm}`$ with $`m<0`$ satisfy the stargen-value equation. In the one-dimensional case, however, the observed energies are the right and left eigenvalues of the stargen-value equations, and the values $`m<0`$ are excluded. Contrastingly, in the $`D`$-dimensional case with $`D2`$, the total energy can be positive even if the sub-energies for some dimensions are negative. This is a peculiar feature of our scheme, whose basic function space has no reference to a Hilbert space, which is absent in the case of the ordinary quantum mechanics and in the deformation quantization scheme.

The Hamiltonian of the $`D`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}}(p_i^2+q_i^2).`$ (3.3)
The stargen-value equations for the Hamiltonian are $`Hf=fH=Ef`$. For later convenience, we introduce the creation and annihilation coordinates:

$`a_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(q_i+ip_i),a_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(q_iip_i),z_i={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{}}}a_ia_i^{}.`$ (3.4)
The star product is written in terms of these coordinates as

$`AB(a,a^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}_i\left(\frac{}{a_i}\frac{}{a_i^{}}\frac{}{a_i^{}}\frac{}{a_i^{}}\right)}A(a,a^{})B(a^{},a^{})|_{a=a^{},a^{}=a^{}}.`$ (3.5)
The solutions to the stargen-value equations are the direct products of the one-dimensional solutions, and are expressed as

$`f(a_i,z_i)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(a_i)^{k_i}e^{z_i/2}F_i(z_i),`$ (3.6)
$`E=\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\right)\mathrm{},n={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}}n_i,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}}k_i=0,`$ (3.7)
where each $`F_i(z_i)`$ satisfies

$`z_iF_i^{\prime \prime }+(k_i+1z_i)F_i^{}+n_iF_i=0.`$ (3.8)
Here, the $`n_i`$ are the separation constants of the $`D`$-dimensional equation, and the $`k_i`$ are powers of Laurent expansions and are integers.

The quantity $`n_i`$ is the quantum number of the left stargen-value equation, $`H_if=(n_i+1/2)\mathrm{}f`$, of the sub-Hamiltonian $`H_i=(q_i^2+p_i^2)/2`$ of the $`i`$-th dimension, and the quantity $`n_i+k_i`$ is the quantum number of the right stargen-value equation, $`fH_i=(n_i+k_i+1/2)\mathrm{}f`$. At this stage, the sub-energy of each dimension is not necessarily positive.

The admissible solutions, whose normalization integrals over the range with large values of the coordinates are not divergent are determined in the appendix, and we see that the solutions for each dimension are (apart from the normalization constant) given by

$`W_{\nu \kappa }(a,z)=a^\kappa f_0(z)F_{\nu \kappa }(z),f_0(z)=2e^{z/2},`$ (3.9)
with integers $`\nu `$ and $`\kappa `$, where

$`F_{\nu \kappa }(z)=\{\begin{array}{c}L_\nu ^{(\kappa )}(z)\mathrm{for}\nu 0,\\ z^\kappa L_{\nu +\kappa }^{(\kappa )}(z)\mathrm{for}0>\nu \kappa .\end{array}`$ (3.12)
The energy eigenvalues of these solutions are

$`E_{left}=\left(\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{},E_{right}=\left(\nu +\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{}.`$ (3.13)
Note that the solutions with negative $`\nu `$ (and $`\nu +\kappa 0`$) have negative left energies, though they have positive right energies. (Here we consider stargen-value equations with sub-Hamiltonians.)

One possible argument for excluding such undesirable functions may be to show the divergence of the normalization integrals over the singularity at the origin of the phasespace. Since the functions considered here have different right and left eigenvalues of the sub-Hamiltonian, the normalization integrals should vanish. Writing $`a=re^{i\theta }`$, the integrals are of the form $`e^{i\kappa \theta }r^{1\kappa }f(r)𝑑r𝑑\theta `$, where $`f(r)`$ is a regular function at the origin. Although the integrals vanish if they are first integrated over $`\theta `$, they are not well-defined for $`\kappa >0`$, except in the case $`\kappa =1,\nu =1`$. This fact shows that we cannot exclude at least the undesirable functions $`W_{1,1}=af_0F_{1,1}`$ by the requirement of the normalization condition.

Another possible argument for selecting admissible functions is the requirement of the associativity of the star product for such functions. It can be verified that the star product operation is well-defined on the function space spanned by positive powers of $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ and the solutions (3.12) with $`\nu 0`$. It can also be shown that the associativity rule is satisfied. Now, for the $`\nu <0`$ case, we see that, for example,

$`a^{}W_{1,1}=2f_0,f_0a^{}=0,f_0f_0=f_0,`$ (3.14)
where $`W_{1,1}`$ has negative left eigenvalues of the sub-Hamiltonian. From (3.14) we see

$`(f_0a^{})W_{1,1}=0,f_0(a^{}W_{1,1})=2f_0,`$ (3.15)
i.e., the violation of associativity. The origin of this is seen from the inverse Weyl map, (2.13), of $`W_{1,1}`$, which diverges along $`q+q^{}=0`$. Therefore, the requirement of associativity excludes the undesirable solutions that have well-defined normalization integrals. Similarly, other solutions having negative energies are shown to violate associativity. These functions cannot be written as linear combinations of functions satisfying (2.8).

The admissible observable functions are also determined by the requirement of associativity. For example, we see

$`(f_0a^{})a^1=0,f_0(a^{}a^1)=f_0.`$ (3.16)
Similarly, all negative powers of $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are shown to violate associativity.

Thus the basic function space, $`𝒮`$, of the $`D`$-dimensional harmonic oscillator consists of the function space spanned by the positive energy solutions to the stargen-value equations, supplemented by the observable functions generated by the positive powers of $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$. The energy spectrum coincides with that of ordinary quantum mechanics. This offers evidence suggesting the equivalence of the present scheme and quantum mechanics.

Appendix

In order to find the admissible solutions to Eq. (3.8), we study the solutions to the confluent hypergeometric equation in general. The parameters $`n_i`$ appearing there can be non-integers at this stage. The solutions to the confluent hypergeometric equation,

$`z{\displaystyle \frac{d^2u}{dz^2}}+(\gamma z){\displaystyle \frac{du}{dz}}\alpha u=0,`$ (A.1)
are written symbolically with the confluent $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ function as

$`u=\stackrel{~}{P}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& 0& \\ \stackrel{}{0\alpha }& 0& z\\ 1\gamma \alpha & 1\gamma & \end{array}\right\}.`$ (A.2)
This shows that the four explicit solutions are given by either functions that are analytic (except for poles) around $`z=0`$ or such functions around $`z=\mathrm{}`$, which are the singularities of the equation. At most two of them are independent.

The solutions around $`z=0`$ are given by $`u_1=F(\alpha ,\gamma ;z)`$ and $`u_2=z^{1\gamma }F(\alpha \gamma +1,2\gamma ;z)`$ for $`\gamma Z_+`$, where $`Z_+`$ is the set of positive integers (and, similarly, $`Z_{}`$ represents the negative integers). (The case $`\gamma Z_+`$ will be discussed shortly.) Here, the hypergeometric function of fluent type $`F(\alpha ,\gamma ;z)`$ is defined by

$`F(\alpha ,\gamma ;z)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha )_n}{(\gamma )_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{n!}},`$ (A.3)
where $`(\alpha )_n=\alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{}(\alpha +n1)`$. We restrict ourselves to the case of integer $`\gamma `$ for the application of the present paper. The corresponding solutions constitute the basis of the Laurent expansions as mentioned in the main text.

Note that these solutions play the role of probability distribution functions when multiplied by $`f_0=e^{z/2}`$. Therefore we should impose the condition that the solutions diverge more slowly than $`e^{z/2}`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$, so that their integrations over phasespace are finite, which turns out to restrict the parameter region. A sufficient condition to realize this is the truncation of the power series of $`z`$, and it is in fact necessary also, because otherwise they diverge as $`e^z`$ in the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$. This restricts the parameters such that either $`\alpha Z_{}\{0\}`$ or $`\alpha \gamma +1Z_{}\{0\}`$. Introducing $`n=\alpha `$ and $`k=\gamma 1`$ (in accordance with (3.8)), the solutions can be written in terms of the associated Laguerre polynomials, $`L_n^{(k)}(z)`$, as

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`F(n,k+1;z)=L_n^{(k)}(z),\mathrm{for}n0,`$ (A.4)
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`z^kF((n+k),1k;z)=z^kL_{n+k}^{(k)}(z),\mathrm{for}nk,`$ (A.5)
where $`k1`$. These two solutions appear to be different, but they are in fact identical in the range $`nk1`$ which is seen by the identity

$`z^kL_{n+k}^{(k)}(z)=(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(n+k)!}}L_n^{(k)}(z),\mathrm{for}n,n+k0.`$ (A.6)
In the case $`\gamma Z_+`$, the solutions are $`\widehat{u}_1=F(\alpha ,\gamma ;z)`$ and $`\widehat{u}_2`$, where $`\widehat{u}_2=u_1\mathrm{log}z+z^{1\gamma }F^{}`$ for $`\alpha Z_{}\{0\}\{1\}`$ or $`\alpha \gamma +1Z_+\{0\}`$, and $`\widehat{u}_2=z^{1\gamma }F(\alpha \gamma +1,2\gamma ;z)`$ otherwise. Here $`F^{}`$ is an analytic function around $`z=0`$. The solution containing $`F^{}`$ is excluded, since it diverges as $`e^z`$ in the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the admissible solutions are

$`\widehat{u}_1`$ $`=`$ $`L_n^{(k)}(z),\mathrm{for}n0,`$ (A.7)
$`\widehat{u}_2`$ $`=`$ $`z^kL_{n+k}^{(k)}(z),\mathrm{for}1>nk,`$ (A.8)
where $`k0`$.

Other solutions represented by Eq. (A.2) are those around $`z=\mathrm{}`$, which might include solutions having essential singularities at $`z=0`$. One of these diverges as $`e^z`$ in the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$, and therefore we exclude it. Another solution is obtained by setting $`u=(1/z)^\alpha f(1/z)`$. By solving the equation for $`f(1/z)`$, we obtain the polynomial solutions obtained above.

We now summarize the solutions to Eq. (3.8). The solutions for $`n_i0`$ are the associated Laguerre polynomials, $`L_{n_i}^{(k_i)}(z_i)`$, and those for $`0>n_ik_i`$ are $`z^{k_i}L_{n+k}^{(k_i)}(z_i)`$. Defining

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_n^{(k)}(z)=\{\begin{array}{c}L_n^{(k)}(z)\mathrm{for}n0,\\ z^kL_{n+k}^{(k)}(z)\mathrm{for}0>nk,\end{array}`$ (A.11)
the general solution of the left stargen-value equation, with total energy

$`E_{left}=\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\right)\mathrm{},`$ (A.12)
is written as a linear combination of functions of the form

$`W(n_1,..,n_D;k_1,..,k_D)=f_0(z)(a_1)^{k_1}\mathrm{}(a_D)^{k_D}\stackrel{~}{L}_{n_1}^{(k_1)}(z_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{L}_{n_D}^{(k_D)}(z_D),`$ (A.13)
where $`k_i`$ are arbitrary integers and $`n_i`$ are integers greater than or equal to $`k_i`$, satisfying $`_{i=1}^Dn_i=n`$. (For the case $`D=1`$ see Ref..)


text:
# Photon polarization and Wigner’s little group

## I Introduction

In recent years a lot of interest has been devoted to the study of the quantum entanglement and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlation function under the Lorentz transformations for massive particles Peres et al. (2002); Czachor (1997a, b); Rembieliński and Smoliński (2002); Alsing and Milburn (2002); Terashima and Ueda (2003); Gingrich and Adami (2002). In recent papers Lindner et al. (2003); Bergou et al. (2003) also the massless particle case was discussed. One of the key ingredients of these papers is the calculation of the explicit form of the little group element for massless particle in some special cases to analyze transformation properties of entangled states and reduced density matrix.

In this paper we derive the explicit form of the Wigner’s little group element in the massless case for an arbitrary Lorentz transformation and discuss the transformation properties of the linearly polarized photons and the corresponding reduced density matrix obtained by tracing out kinematical degrees of freedom. As is well known in the Hilbert space of massless particles the one-particle momentum eigenvectors under Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are multiplied by a phase factor depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the particle four-momentum $`k^\mu `$. We show that this phase factor depends only on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the direction of the momentum $`𝐤/|𝐤|`$ but does not depend on the frequency $`k^0`$. In contrast to other papers Lindner et al. (2003) this observation enables us to give the description of the transformation rules of the linearly polarized photons which are not necessarily monochromatic.

## II Wigner’s little group for massless particles

As is well known, the pure quantum states are identified with rays in the Hilbert space. For this reason, on the quantum level, we should use ray representations of the classical symmetry groups. In our case of the proper ortochronous Poincaré group $`P_+^{}`$, which is the semidirect product of the proper ortochronous Lorentz group $`L_+^{}`$ and the translations group $`T^4`$, its ray representations (so called double-valued representations) are faithful representations of the universal covering of $`P_+^{}`$, i.e., the semidirect product of $`SL(2,)`$ and $`T^4`$. Moreover, the faithful representations of $`P_+^{}`$ are homomorphic representations of its universal covering group.

We use the canonical homomorphism between the group $`SL(2,)`$ (universal covering of the proper ortochronous Lorentz group $`L_+^{}`$) and the Lorentz group $`L_+^{}SO(1,3)_0`$ Barut and Ra̧czka (1977). This homomorphism is defined as follows: With every four-vector $`k^\mu `$ we associate a two-dimensional Hermitian matrix k such that

$$\text{k}=k^\mu \sigma _\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,3`$ are the standard Pauli matrices and $`\sigma _0=I`$. In the space of two-dimensional Hermitian matrices (1) the Lorentz group action is given by

$$𝗄^{}=A\text{k}A^{},$$
(2)
where $`A`$ denotes element of the $`SL(2,)`$ group corresponding to the Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)`$ which converts the four-vector $`k`$ to $`k^{}`$ (i.e., $`k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu k^\nu `$) and $`\text{k}^{}=k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\sigma _\mu `$. The kernel of this homomorphism is isomorphic to $`_2`$ (the center of the $`SL(2,)`$).

Now, let us focus on the case of massless particles. An explicit matrix representation (1) of the null (light-cone) four-vector $`k`$ can be written as

$$\text{k}=k^0\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+n^3& n_{}\\ n_+& 1n^3\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`n_\pm =n^1\pm in^2`$, $`𝐧=𝐤/|𝐤|`$, $`k^0=|𝐤|`$ and $`det\text{k}=k^\mu k_\mu =0`$. In this case we choose the standard four-vector as $`\stackrel{~}{k}=(1,0,0,1)`$. In the matrix representation (3) the following matrix is associated with $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Now, let us find the stability group of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}`$, i.e., $`A_0SL(2,)`$ which leaves $`\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}`$ invariant. All such $`A_0`$ form a subgroup of the $`SL(2,)`$ group, i.e.

$$(\text{stability group})=\{A_0SL(2,):\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}=A_0\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}A_0^{}\}.$$
(5)
As is well known Barut and Ra̧czka (1977) the stability group of the four-vector $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is isomorphic to the $`E(2)`$ group of rigid motions of Euclidean plane. We can easily find the most general $`A_0`$ by solving the equation $`\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}=A_0\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}A_0^{}`$. We get

$$A_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\frac{\psi }{2}}& z\\ 0& e^{i\frac{\psi }{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`z`$ is an arbitrary complex number. Since the $`SL(2,)`$ is the two-fold covering of the Lorentz group, we restricted the values of $`\psi `$ to the interval $`0,2\pi )`$. Our purpose is to find the Wigner’s little group element $`W(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)`$ corresponding to $`k`$ and the Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, namely

$$W(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)=L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }L_k,$$
(7)
where $`L_kL_+^{}`$ is determined uniquely by the following conditions:

$$k=L_k\stackrel{~}{k},L_{\stackrel{~}{k}}=I.$$
(8)
In order to find the corresponding element $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)`$ in $`SL(2,)`$ such that $`W(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k))`$, i.e.

$$S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)=A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}^1AA_k,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A_k)=L_k`$, we have to first calculate the matrix $`A_k`$. We can do it by solving the matrix equation

$$\text{k}=A_k\stackrel{~}{\text{k}}A_k^{}.$$
(10)
After simple calculation we get

$$A_k=U_𝐧B(k^0),$$
(11)
where

$$U_𝐧=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+n^3)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+n^3& n_{}\\ n_+& 1+n^3\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
represents rotation $`R_𝐧`$ which converts the spatial vector $`(0,0,1)`$ to $`𝐧`$, while

$$B(k^0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{k^0}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^0}}\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
represents boost along $`z`$-axis which converts $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ to $`k^0\stackrel{~}{k}`$. Therefore

$$A_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k^0(1+n^3)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^0(1+n^3)& n_{}\\ k^0n_+& 1+n^3\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
Note that according to Eq. (8) $`A_{\stackrel{~}{k}}=I`$. Now, an arbitrary Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)`$ is represented in $`SL(2,)`$ by the corresponding complex unimodular matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right),\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1.$$
(15)
To calculate $`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}`$ we simply use the formulas (2,3) to find $`\text{k}^{}`$ and then identify $`k^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }k`$. We find

$`k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^0a`$ (16)
$`n_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{a}}1,`$ (17)
$`n_+^{}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{a}},`$ (18)
$`n_{}^{}=`$ $`n_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (19)
where

$`a=`$ $`(|\alpha |^2+|\gamma |^2)(1+n^3)+(|\beta |^2+|\delta |^2)(1n^3)`$
$`+(\alpha \beta ^{}+\gamma \delta ^{})n_{}+(\alpha ^{}\beta +\gamma ^{}\delta )n_+,`$ (20)
$`b=`$ $`|\alpha |^2(1+n^3)+|\beta |^2(1n^3)+\alpha \beta ^{}n_{}+\alpha ^{}\beta n_+,`$ (21)
$`c=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\gamma (1+n^3)+\beta ^{}\delta (1n^3)+\beta ^{}\gamma n_{}+\alpha ^{}\delta n_+,`$ (22)
and $`𝐧^{}=𝐤^{}/|𝐤^{}|`$. Therefore we can find the explicit form of $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)`$ by means of Eqs. (9) and (14). We have to calculate only the elements $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)_{11}`$ and $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)_{12}`$, since the general little group element (6) depends only on the phase factor $`e^{i\frac{\psi }{2}}`$ and complex number $`z`$. A straightforward calculation yields finally the following formulas:

$`e^{i\frac{\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },k)}{2}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha (1+n^3)+\beta n_+)b+(\gamma (1+n^3)+\delta n_+)c^{}}{a\sqrt{b(1+n^3)}}}`$ (23)
$`z(\mathrm{\Lambda },k)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha n_{}+\beta (1+n^3))b+(\gamma n_{}+\delta (1+n^3))c^{}}{k^0a\sqrt{b(1+n^3)}}}`$ (24)
where $`a,b,`$ and $`c`$ are given by Eqs. (20-22).

The unitary irreducible representations of the Poincaré group are induced from the unitary irreducible representations of the little group of the four-momentum $`k^\mu `$ (i.e., the $`E(2)`$ group in the case of the massless particles) Weinberg (1964); Barut and Ra̧czka (1977) . Now, we have two classes of the unitary irreducible representations of $`E(2)`$: the faithful infinite dimensional representations and the one-dimensional homomorphic representations of $`E(2)`$, isomorphic to its compact subgroup $`SO(2)E(2)`$. Because there is no evidence for existence of massless particles with a continuous intrinsic degrees of freedom the physical choice is the last one Weinberg (1964). Thus by means of the induction procedure Barut and Ra̧czka (1977) the four-momentum eigenstates transform according to the formula

$$U(\mathrm{\Lambda })|k,\lambda =e^{i\lambda \psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },k)}|\mathrm{\Lambda }k,\lambda .$$
(25)
In the above formula $`U(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes unitary operator representing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the unitary representation of the Poincaré group while the helicity $`\lambda `$ fixes irreducible unitary representation of the Poincaré group induced from $`SO(2)`$; $`\lambda `$ takes integer and half-integer values only Weinberg (1964); Barut and Ra̧czka (1977). We use invariant normalization of the four-momentum eigenstates $`|k,\lambda `$, i.e., $`p,\sigma |k,\lambda =2k^0\delta _{\sigma \lambda }\delta (𝐤𝐩)`$. Thus, when analyzing the transformation properties of physical states only the value of the phase $`\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },k)`$ is relevant (Eq. (23)). So it is very important to stress that the value of the phase $`\psi `$ depends only on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝐧`$ and does not depend on the frequency $`k^0`$:

$$\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },k)=\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },\frac{𝐤}{|𝐤|})=\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧).$$
(26)
Note also that momenta of massless particles which are parallel in one inertial frame are parallel for every inertial observer, i.e.,

$$\frac{𝐤}{|𝐤|}=\frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}\frac{𝐤^{}}{|𝐤^{}|}=\frac{𝐩^{}}{|𝐩^{}|},$$
(27)
where $`k^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }k`$, $`p^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$. Indeed, for massless particles, $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐩`$ are parallel iff the corresponding four-momenta are Lorentz orthogonal, i.e., $`k_\mu p^\mu =0`$. Since $`k_\mu p^\mu `$ is a Lorentz invariant then this holds in all inertial frames. Equation (27) can be also verified explicitly by using Eqs. (17-19). The above property holds good only in the massless case.

Now, using Eq. (23) we can immediately obtain the value of $`e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },k)}`$ in a number of special cases considered elsewhere.

Rotations: In the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=R`$ we have $`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }(U)`$ where $`USU(2)SL(2,)`$, thus we put

$$\delta =\alpha ^{},\gamma =\beta ^{},|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1$$
(28)
and from (23) we get the following simple formula:

$$e^{i\psi (R,k)}=\frac{\alpha (1+n^3)+\beta n_+}{\alpha ^{}(1+n^3)+\beta ^{}n_{}}.$$
(29)
For the given rotation $`R`$ the explicit form of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be expressed by, e.g., Euler angles (see, for example, Ref. Korn and Korn (1961)). Also note that from Eq. (24), we get

$$z(R,k)=0.$$
(30)
Now let us consider the special case of the rotation $`R(\chi 𝐧)`$ around the direction $`𝐧`$. The matrix $`U_{R(\chi 𝐧)}SU(2)`$ representing $`R(\chi 𝐧)`$ can be written in the form Gürsey (1963)

$$U_{R(\chi 𝐧)}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\chi n^j\sigma _j}=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}+in^j\sigma _j\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}.$$
(31)
Thus,

$$U_{R(\chi 𝐧)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}+in^3\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}& in_{}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}\\ in_+\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}in^3\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
Thus inserting the corresponding values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to Eq. (29), we find in this case

$$e^{i\psi (R(\chi 𝐧),𝐧)}=e^{i\chi }.$$
(33)
As the next example, we consider the rotation $`R(\chi \widehat{𝐳})`$ around the $`z`$-axis. In this case (see Ref. Gürsey (1963))

$$U_{R(\chi \widehat{𝐳})}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\frac{\chi }{2}}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\frac{\chi }{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
therefore from Eq. (29), we get the same formula as previously

$$e^{i\psi (R(\chi \widehat{𝐳}),𝐧)}=e^{i\chi }.$$
(35)
Boosts: Pure Lorentz boost $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐯)`$ in an arbitrary direction $`𝐞=\frac{𝐯}{|𝐯|}`$ can be represented by the following $`SL(2,)`$ matrix Barut and Ra̧czka (1977):

$$A(𝐯)=e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi e^j\sigma _j}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\xi }{2}+e^3\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\xi }{2}& e_{}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\xi }{2}\\ e_+\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\xi }{2}& \mathrm{cosh}\frac{\xi }{2}e^3\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\xi }{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
where the parameter $`\xi `$ is connected with the velocity of the boosted frame by the relation

$$\mathrm{tanh}\xi =v$$
(37)
and $`e_\pm =e^1\pm ie^2`$ (we use natural units with the light velocity equal to 1). Inserting the corresponding values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ into Eqs. (20-22), we arrive at the relations of the form

$`a`$ $`=2(\mathrm{cosh}\xi +𝐞𝐧\mathrm{sinh}\xi ),`$ (38)
$`b`$ $`=\mathrm{cosh}\xi +n^3+(e^3+𝐞𝐧)\mathrm{sinh}\xi +e^3𝐞𝐧(\mathrm{cosh}\xi 1),`$ (39)
$`c`$ $`=n_++(\mathrm{sinh}\xi +𝐞𝐧(\mathrm{cosh}\xi 1))e_+.`$ (40)
Now, the corresponding little group element can be obtained from Eqs. (23,24). We consider here two special cases: boost $`A(v𝐧)`$ along the $`𝐧`$ direction and boost $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(v\widehat{𝐳})`$ along the $`z`$ direction. In the first case, we have $`𝐞=𝐧`$ and from Eqs. (38-40) and (23,24), we find

$$e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(v𝐧),k)}=1,z(\mathrm{\Lambda }(v𝐧),k)=0.$$
(41)
In the second case, we have

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\delta }=\sqrt[4]{\frac{1v}{1+v}},\beta =\gamma =0.$$
(42)
Inserting above values to Eqs. (23) and (24), we get

$$\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(v\widehat{𝐳}),k)=0,z(\mathrm{\Lambda }(v\widehat{𝐳}),k)=\frac{n_{}}{k^0(\frac{1}{v}n^3)}.$$
(43)
## III Transformation law for linearly polarized light

Now, we apply the above results to discuss some transformation properties of the polarized states and reduced density matrix for photons.

Let us consider first the classical electromagnetic field. As is well known the monochromatic plane electromagnetic wave is in general polarized eliptically. In the special case of the linear polarization we can deal also with the plane wave which is not necessarily monochromatic. In this case the electromagnetic field tensor can be written as

$$F^{\mu \nu }(x)=^{\mu \nu }f(ct𝐧𝐱)$$
(44)
for the lineary polarized wave propagating in the $`𝐧`$ direction, where the tensor $`^{\mu \nu }`$ is $`x^\mu `$ independent. It is evident that the above formula is covariant under Lorentz transformations. It means that Lorentz transformations preserve linear polarization of an arbitrary plane wave (not necessarily monochromatic). We show that it is also the case on the quantum level.

As is well known (see, e.g., Refs. \[Weinberg, 1964,Weinberg, 1996\]) the one-photon representation space is spanned by the vectors $`\{|k,1,|k,1\}`$ because the parity operator changes the sign of the helicity. Let us consider first the monochromatic linearly polarized plane wave. The photon state corresponding to such a wave is of the form Weinberg (1996)

$$|k,\varphi |(k^0,|𝐤|𝐧),\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\\ \lambda 0\end{array}}{\overset{1}{}}e^{i\lambda \varphi }|k,\lambda ,$$
(45)
where $`k^0=|𝐤|`$ and the momentum independent angle $`\varphi `$ determines the direction of the polarization in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the propagation $`𝐧`$. The general linearly polarized state corresponding to the wave (44) has the form

$$|g,\varphi ,𝐧=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{\lambda }{}e^{i\lambda \varphi }_0^{\mathrm{}}d|𝐤|g(|𝐤|)|(k^0,|𝐤|𝐧),\lambda ,$$
(46)
where $`𝐧`$ is fixed. The state (46) is a tensor product of momentum direction and polarization states in each Lorentz frame. Let us note that states belonging to the proper Hilbert space (wave packets) cannot be exactly linearly polarized states. However, linearly polarized states (46) can be approximated (as tempered distributions) with an arbitrary accuracy by sequences of wave packets. It is interesting to point out a parallelism between classical and quantum description of ideal linearly polarized states. Namely, on the classical level they have infinite total electromagnetic energy while on the quantum level they lie out of the proper Hilbert space of the wave packets, i.e., they are distributions.

Now, we show that for every inertial observer the lineary polarized state (46) remains lineary polarized. Indeed, taking into account Eqs. (23-26) we find

$`U(\mathrm{\Lambda })|g,\varphi ,𝐧=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}e^{i\lambda (\varphi +\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧))}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d|𝐤|g^{}(|𝐤|)|(k^0,|𝐤|𝐧^{}),\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`|g^{},\varphi +\psi ,𝐧^{},`$ (47)
where

$$g^{}(|𝐤|)=\frac{2}{a}g(\frac{2|𝐤|}{a}),$$
(48)
$`a`$ is given by Eq. (20) and by virtue of Eq. (27) the direction $`𝐧^{}`$ is fixed, too. Therefore, the state we received is again linearly polarized.

Now, we discuss the transformation of the reduced density matrix for lineary polarized plane wave. In general for the reduced density matrix describing the helicity properties of the state

$$|f=\underset{\lambda }{}𝑑\mu (k)f_\lambda (k)|k,\lambda $$
(49)
we obtain the following formula:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\sigma \lambda }=\frac{𝑑\mu (k)f_\sigma (k)f_\lambda ^{}(k)}{_\lambda 𝑑\mu (k)|f_\lambda (k)|^2},$$
(50)
where we have used the Lorentz invariant measure

$$d\mu (k)=\theta (k^0)\delta (k^2)d^4k\frac{d^3𝐤}{2|𝐤|}.$$
(51)
It should be noted that in general the state $`|f`$ can be a tempered distribution (it does not necessarily belong to the Hilbert space but rather to the Gel’fand triple), as for example four-momentum eigenstates. In such a situation the formula (50) should be understood as a result of a proper regularization procedure. Applying the above considerations to the density matrix describing the state $`|g,\varphi ,𝐧`$ we get the following reduced density matrix:

$$\rho _{\lambda \sigma }(g,\varphi ,𝐧)=\frac{1}{2}e^{i(\lambda \sigma )\varphi },$$
(52)
i.e.,

$$\rho (g,\varphi ,𝐧)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{2i\varphi }\\ e^{2i\varphi }& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(53)
which in fact represents a reduced pure state because $`\rho ^2=\rho `$. The above density matrix transforms properly under Lorentz transformations, namely

$`\rho ^{}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧)}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧)}\end{array}\right)\rho (g,\varphi ,𝐧)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧)}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐧)}\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{2i(\varphi +\psi )}\\ e^{2i(\varphi +\psi )}& 1\end{array}\right)=\rho (g^{},\varphi +\psi ,𝐧^{}).`$ (54)
We stress that the fact that the linearly polarized state admits a covariant reduced density matrix description in terms of helicity degrees of freedom is related to the property of the Lorentz transformation that it does not generate entanglement between momentum direction and helicity.

Finally, let us note that the von Neumann entropy corresponding to the density matrix (53) is equal to zero. Evidently it is Lorentz-invariant in view of Eq. (54).

Our discussion can be easily recast in terms of polarization vectors defined according to Ref. Weinberg (1964), for different approach see also Ref. Peres and Terno (2003).

## IV Conclusions

We have found in this paper the explicit form of the Wigner’s little group element in the massless case for arbitrary Lorentz transformation. Using this result we have shown that the light wave which is linearly polarized (but not necessarily monochromatic) for one inertial observer remains linearly polarized also for an arbitrary inertial observer. We have also shown that the reduced density matrix describing linearly polarized photon, obtained by tracing out kinematical degrees of freedom, transforms properly under Lorentz group action. Moreover the corresponding von Neumann entropy is a Lorentz scalar.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by University of Łódź and the Laboratory of Physical Bases of Processing of Information.