arXiv reader

Quantization of the Maxwell field in curved spacetimes of arbitrary dimension

Michael J. Pfenning

arXiv
0902.4887v3 · PDF · 6 August 2013
Categories
math-ph, math.MP
Journal
Class.Quant.Grav.26:135017,2009
DOI
10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135017
Licence
CC0 1.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We quantize the massless p-form field that obeys the generalized Maxwell field equations in curved spacetimes of dimension n > 1. We begin by showing that the classical Cauchy problem of the generalized Maxwell field is well posed and that the field possess the expected gauge invariance. Then the classical phase space is developed in terms of gauge equivalent classes, first in terms of the Cauchy data and then reformulated in terms of Maxwell solutions. The latter is employed to quantize the field in the framework of Dimock. Finally, the resulting algebra of observables is shown to satisfy the wave equation with the usual canonical commutation relations.

Items 31

Proposition

Proposition 2.1

WCIG

Let f\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}) be a test function, then the following operations involving E^\pm commute: (a) {\bf d} E^\pm f = E^\pm {\bf d} f, and (b) \bm{\delta} E^\pm f = E^\pm \bm{\delta} f.

Proof of Proposition 2.1

(a) Let f\in\Omega_0^p({\bm M}). We know that \mathcal{A}^\pm = E^\pm f \in \Omega^p({\bm M}) is the unique solution to \Box \mathcal{A}^\pm = f. Likewise we have \mathcal{A}'^\pm = E^\pm {\bf d} f \in \Omega^{p+1}({\bm M}) is the unique solution to \Box \mathcal{A}'^\pm = {\bf d} f. Consider

\Box{\bf d}\mathcal{A}^\pm = {\bf d}\Box\mathcal{A}^\pm = {\bf d} f = \Box\mathcal{A}'^\pm.

Since \mathcal{A}'^\pm is unique we deduce {\bf d}\mathcal{A}^\pm =\mathcal{A}'^\pm, therefore {\bf d} E^\pm f = E^\pm {\bf d} f.

(b) Let f and \mathcal{A}^\pm be as defined above. Set \mathcal{A}'^\pm = E^\pm\bm{\delta} f\in \Omega^{p-1}({\bm M}), which is the unique solution to \Box \mathcal{A}'^\pm = \bm{\delta} f. Then consider

\bm{\delta}\Box\mathcal{A}^\pm = \Box\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}^\pm = \bm{\delta} f = \Box\mathcal{A}'^\pm.

Since \mathcal{A}'^\pm is unique we deduce \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}^\pm =\mathcal{A}'^\pm, therefore \bm{\delta} E^\pm f = E^\pm \bm{\delta} f.

Proposition

Proposition 2.2

QB58

Let \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) be a smooth solution of \Box\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{J} with Cauchy data

\begin{aligned} A_{(0)}&\equiv& \rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A} \in\Omega^p(\Sigma)\\ A_{({\bf d})}&\equiv& \rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A} \in\Omega^p(\Sigma)\\ A_{(\bm{\delta})}&\equiv& \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\mathcal{A} \in\Omega^{p-1}(\Sigma)\\ A_{(n)}&\equiv& \rho_{(n)}\mathcal{A} \in\Omega^{p-1}(\Sigma). \end{aligned}

Then, for any compactly supported test function f\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}) we have

\int_{\bm M} \mathcal{A}\wedge*f = \langle\mathcal{J} , E^- f\rangle_{\Sigma^+} +\langle\mathcal{J} , E^+ f\rangle_{\Sigma^-} -\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{({\bf d})} E f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)} E f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{({\bf d})},\rho_{(0)} E f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{(n)},\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E f\rangle_\Sigma.
Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.2

This is a generalization of the proof for Theorem 5 of Furlani [Furl99]. Note, Furlani uses a different sign convention for the definition of the propagator E. Using Eq. ?, set \mathcal{A} equal to the smooth solution of \Box\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{J} and \mathcal{B} = E^\mp f for \Sigma^\pm respectively, then

\begin{aligned} \int_{\Sigma^\pm} \left(\mathcal{A}\wedge*\Box E^\mp f - E^\mp f \wedge*\Box\mathcal{A}\right) &= \mp\left(\langle\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A},\rho_{({\bf d})}E^\mp f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\mathcal{A},\rho_{(n)}E^\mp f\rangle_\Sigma\right.\\ &&\left.-\langle\rho_{(0)}E^\mp f,\rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A}\rangle_\Sigma -\langle\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}E^\mp f,\rho_{(n)}\mathcal{A}\rangle_\Sigma\right). \end{aligned}

Substituting the Cauchy data, noting that \mathcal{A} is a smooth solution to the Klein-Gordon equation with source \mathcal{J} and using \Box E^\pm = \openone, we can simplify the above to

\int_{\Sigma^\pm} \mathcal{A}\wedge* f = \langle\mathcal{J} , E^\mp f \rangle_{\Sigma^\pm} \mp\left(\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{({\bf d})}E^\mp f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)}E^\mp f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle \rho_{(0)}E^\mp f, A_{({\bf d})}\rangle_\Sigma -\langle\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}E^\mp f, A_{(n)}\rangle_\Sigma\right)

When the two above equations are added for \Sigma^\pm, the result is Eq. 2.2. Furthermore, the integrals in this expression are well defined because f has compact support, thus E^\pm f and E f have compact support on all other Cauchy surfaces.

Proposition

Proposition 2.3

0ULH

(Uniqueness of homogeneous \Box solutions) If \mathcal{A} is a smooth solution to \Box\mathcal{A}=0 with Cauchy data A_{(0)}=0, A_{(\bm{\delta})} = 0, A_{({\bf d})}=0, and A_{(n)} = 0 then \mathcal{A}=0.

Proof of Proposition 2.3

By Proposition 2.2 we have \int_{\bm M} \mathcal{A}\wedge*f = 0 which is true for all compactly supported f; therefore, \mathcal{A}=0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.4

XH0E

(Existence of homogenous \Box solutions) Let A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})} \in \Omega^p_0(\Sigma) and A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})} \in\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma) specify Cauchy data on \Sigma. Then

\mathcal{A}' = E\rho_{({\bf d})}' A_{(0)}+E\rho_{(n)}' A_{(\bm{\delta})} -E\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}' A_{(n)}-E\rho_{(0)}' A_{({\bf d})}

is the unique smooth solution of \Box\mathcal{A}'=0 with these data.

Used by Theorem 2.6
Proof of Proposition 2.4

Let f\in\Omega_0^p({\bm M}) be any compactly supported test form and consider

\begin{aligned} \langle \mathcal{A}', f \rangle_{\bm M} &=\langle E\rho_{({\bf d})}' A_{(0)},f\rangle_{\bm M} +\langle E\rho_{(n)}' A_{(\bm{\delta})},f\rangle_{\bm M}-\langle E\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}' A_{(n)},f\rangle_{\bm M}-\langle E\rho_{(0)}' A_{({\bf d})},f\rangle_{\bm M}\\ &= \langle \rho_{({\bf d})}' A_{(0)}, E'f\rangle_{\bm M} +\langle \rho_{(n)}' A_{(\bm{\delta})},E'f\rangle_{\bm M}-\langle \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}' A_{(n)},E' f\rangle_{\bm M}-\langle \rho_{(0)}' A_{({\bf d})}, E' f\rangle_{\bm M}. \end{aligned}

The operator \Box = -(\bm{\delta}{\bf d} - {\bf d}\bm{\delta}) is self-adjoint, therefore the transpose operator E' = -E (see Choquet-Bruhat [Choq67], corollary to Theorem II). The pullback operators are all linear and continuous, thus there exist transpose operators for the \rho’s denoted with the primes and we have

\langle \mathcal{A}', f \rangle_{\bm M} = -\langle A_{(0)}, \rho_{({\bf d})}E f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)}Ef\rangle_\Sigma+\langle A_{(n)},\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E f\rangle_\Sigma+\langle A_{({\bf d})}, \rho_{(0)}E f\rangle_\Sigma.

By Proposition 2.2, if \mathcal{A} is a solution to \Box\mathcal{A}=0 with the Cauchy data given above, then we have \langle \mathcal{A}', f \rangle_{\bm M} = \langle\mathcal{A},f\rangle_{\bm M} which implies \mathcal{A}'=\mathcal{A} in a distributional sense. Thus \mathcal{A}' is identified with the unique smooth solution \mathcal{A}.

Proposition

Proposition 2.5

IMRT

\mathcal{A}' is continuously dependent on the Cauchy data \left(A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}\right).

Proof of Proposition 2.5

The proof is a generalization of Theorem 3.2.12 of Bär et. al. [BGP07]. Define \mathcal{H}^p({\bm M}) \equiv \left\{ \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) | \Box\mathcal{A}=0 \right\} as the space of smooth homogeneous Klein-Gordon solutions, then the mapping \mathcal{P}:\mathcal{H}^p({\bm M})\rightarrow\Omega^p(\Sigma) \oplus\Omega^p(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}(\Sigma) of a solution to its Cauchy data is by definition both linear and continuous. Next, let K\subset{\bm M} be a compact subset of {\bm M}. On K we have the spaces \Omega_0^p(K) \subset \Omega^p({\bm M}) and \Omega_0^p(K\cap\Sigma)\subset \Omega^p(\Sigma) for all p\le n. We also define the space \mathcal{V}_K^p = \mathcal{P}^{-1}\left[ \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma) \oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\right]. Since \mathcal{P} is continuous and \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0 (K\cap\Sigma) \subset\Omega^p(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^p(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1} (\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}(\Sigma) is a closed subset, this implies \mathcal{V}_K^p\subset \mathcal{H}^p({\bm M}) is also a closed subset. Furthermore, both \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0 (K\cap\Sigma) and \mathcal{V}_K^p are Fréchet spaces. Also, the map \mathcal{P}: \mathcal{V}_K^p \rightarrow \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma) \oplus \Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma) is linear, continuous, bijective, and by the open mapping theorem for Fréchet spaces (Theorem V.6 of Reed and Simon [RSvI:80]) it is also an open mapping. Since a bijection that is open implies a continuous inverse, we conclude that \mathcal{P}^{-1} is continuous.

Finally, if we have a convergent sequence of Cauchy data \left( A_{(0),i}, A_{({\bf d}),i}, A_{(n),i}, A_{(\bm{\delta}),i}\right)\rightarrow \left(A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}\right) in \Omega^p_0(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^p_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma), then we can choose a compact subset K \subset {\bm M} with the property that \mbox{supp}\left( A_{(0),i}\right)\cup\mbox{supp}\left( A_{({\bf d}),i}\right) \cup \mbox{supp}\left( A_{(n),i}\right)\cup\mbox{supp}\left( A_{(\bm{\delta}),i} \right) \subset K for all i and \mbox{supp}\left( A_{(0)}\right)\cup \mbox{supp}\left( A_{({\bf d})}\right)\cup \mbox{supp}\left( A_{(n)}\right)\cup \mbox{supp}\left( A_{(\bm{\delta})}\right)\subset K. Thus, \left( A_{(0),i}, A_{({\bf d}),i}, A_{(n),i}, A_{(\bm{\delta}),i}\right)\rightarrow \left(A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}\right) in \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^p_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(K\cap\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0 (K\cap\Sigma) and we conclude that the inverse mapping \mathcal{P}^{-1} \left( A_{(0),i},A_{({\bf d}),i}, A_{(n),i}, A_{(\bm{\delta}),i}\right)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}^{-1}\left(A_{(0)},A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}\right).

Theorem

Theorem 2.6

TSBA

(Well-posed Cauchy problem for \Box\mathcal{A}=0.) Let {\bm M} be a globally hyperbolic Lorentzian spacetime with Cauchy surface \Sigma\subset{\bm M}. Let (A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})})\in\Omega^p_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^p_0(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma) specify initial data on \Sigma. Then, \mathcal{A}' given by Equation 2.4 is the unique smooth solution to \Box\mathcal{A}'=0 which satisfies

\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A}' = A_{(0)},\qquad\rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A}' = A_{({\bf d})},\qquad \rho_{(n)}\mathcal{A}' = A_{(n)},\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\mathcal{A}' = A_{(\bm{\delta})}.

Furthermore, \mathcal{A}' is continuously dependent on the Cauchy data.

Uses Proposition 2.4 · Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proposition

Proposition 2.7

3VA6

(Maxwell Solutions) Suppose \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) solves \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 with Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}); then -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0 if and only if \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0 and {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.7

First, suppose that \mathcal{A} solves both \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 and -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A}=0, and evaluate the two conditions,

\begin{aligned} \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} &= \bm{\delta} \rho_{({\bf d})} \mathcal{A} = \bm{\delta} \rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = (-1)^{n(p+1)}\rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\\ {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})} &= {\bf d} \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} \mathcal{A} = {\bf d} \rho_{(0)} \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = \rho_{(0)}{\bf d}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = - \rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0. \end{aligned}

Alternatively, suppose we have Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}) with \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0 and {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0. By Theorem 2.6, there exists a unique \mathcal{A} which is a solutions to \Box\mathcal{A} = 0. Next, let f\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}), then by Proposition 2.2 we can evaluate

\begin{aligned} \langle -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A},f\rangle_{\bm M} &= -\langle \mathcal{A}, \bm{\delta}{\bf d} f\rangle_{\bm M} \\ &=\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{({\bf d})} E\bm{\delta}{\bf d} f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)} E\bm{\delta}{\bf d} f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(n)},\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E\bm{\delta}{\bf d} f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{({\bf d})},\rho_{(0)} E\bm{\delta}{\bf d} f\rangle_\Sigma\\ &=-\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{({\bf d})} {\bf d}\bm{\delta} E f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)} \bm{\delta}{\bf d} E f\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(n)},\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} \bm{\delta}{\bf d} E f\rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{({\bf d})},\rho_{(0)} {\bf d}\bm{\delta} E f\rangle_\Sigma, \end{aligned}

where we have made use of \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 in the first and fourth terms. The first and third terms vanish because \rho_{({\bf d})}{\bf d} = 0 and \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\bm{\delta} = 0. For the remaining two terms, we commute the pullback operators with the first derivative operation to obtain

\langle -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A},f\rangle_{\bm M} = (-1)^{n(p+1)}\langle {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})} , \rho_{({\bf d})} E f \rangle_\Sigma + \langle \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})}, \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E f \rangle_\Sigma = 0,

where we have made use of the properties of the Cauchy data. This is true for all f, so we conclude -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A}=0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.8

KS89

(Lorenz solutions) Suppose \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) solves \Box\mathcal{A}=0 with Cauchy data \left ( A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})} \right), then \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = 0 if and only if \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0, \bm{\delta} A_{(n)} = 0, and A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.8

First suppose that \mathcal{A} solves both \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 and \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} =0 and let us evaluate the three conditions above. For the forward normal derivative we have

\bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = \bm{\delta} \rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A} = \bm{\delta} \rho_{(n)}{\bf d} \mathcal{A}.

Using the identity for p-forms that \bm{\delta}\rho_{(n)} = (-1)^{np} \rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta} we find

\bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = (-1)^{n(p+1)}\rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = -(-1)^{n(p+1)}\rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}=0,

where we have used the wave equation and the subsidiary condition in the last two steps. For the divergence of the forward normal we find

\bm{\delta} A_{(n)} = \bm{\delta}\rho_{(n)} \mathcal{A} = (-1)^{np}\rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} =0.

Finally, for the pullback of the divergence we have

A_{(\bm{\delta})} = \rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = 0.

On the other hand, assume \mathcal{A} is a Klein-Gordon solution whose Cauchy data satisfies \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0=\bm{\delta} A_{(n)} and A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0. Let f\in\Omega_0^{p-1} ({\bm M}) and evaluate

\begin{aligned} \langle \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} , f \rangle_{\bm M} &= \langle \mathcal{A}, {\bf d} f \rangle_{\bm M}\\ &= -\langle A_{(0)}, \rho_{({\bf d})} E {\bf d} f \rangle_\Sigma - \langle A_{(\bm{\delta})}, \rho_{(n)} E {\bf d} f \rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{({\bf d})}, \rho_{(0)} E {\bf d} f \rangle_\Sigma + \langle A_{(n)}, \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E {\bf d} f \rangle_\Sigma\\ &= -\langle A_{(0)}, \rho_{({\bf d})} {\bf d} E f \rangle_\Sigma - \langle 0, \rho_{(n)} {\bf d} E f \rangle_\Sigma +\langle A_{({\bf d})}, \rho_{(0)} {\bf d} E f \rangle_\Sigma + \langle A_{(n)}, \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} {\bf d} E f \rangle_\Sigma, \end{aligned}

where we have used the fact that {\bf d} commutes with E on forms of compact support. The first term vanishes because \rho_{({\bf d})}{\bf d} = 0. The second term trivially vanishes. For the third term we have that \rho_{(0)} and {\bf d} commute. For the fourth term we use \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} = \rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta} and the fact that E f is a solution to the homogeneous Klein-Gordon equation to swap the order of the derivative operators. Therefore

\langle \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} , f \rangle_{\bm M} = \langle A_{({\bf d})}, {\bf d} \rho_{(0)} E f \rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(n)}, \rho_{(0)} {\bf d}\bm{\delta} E f \rangle_\Sigma\ = \langle \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})}, \rho_{(0)} E f \rangle_\Sigma - \langle \bm{\delta} A_{(n)}, \rho_{(0)} \bm{\delta} E f \rangle_\Sigma =0,

where we have used the conditions on the initial data. Since this is true for all f we deduce that \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = 0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.9

VPLY

(Closed Solutions) Suppose \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) solves \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 with Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}); then \mathcal{A}\in{\rm ker}\, {\bf d}_p on {\bm M} if and only if {\bf d} A_{(0)} = 0, A_{({\bf d})}=0 and {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.9

Let \mathcal{A}\in{\rm ker}\,{\bf d}_p be a Klein-Gordon solution, then \mathcal{A} is also a Maxwell solution. Next, evaluate the three conditions;

\begin{aligned} {\bf d} A_{(0)} &= {\bf d}\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A} = \rho_{(0)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\\ A_{({\bf d})} &= \rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\\ {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})} &= {\bf d}\rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = \rho_{(0)}{\bf d}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} =-\rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0. \end{aligned}

Alternatively, assume Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, 0, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}) where {\bf d} A_{(0)} = 0 ={\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}. Then, there exists an unique \mathcal{A} that solves \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 with this Cauchy data. By proposition  2.7 above, it is also a Maxwell solution. Additionally, let g\in\Omega^{p+1}_0({\bm M}) and evaluate

\begin{aligned} \langle {\bf d} \mathcal{A} , g\rangle_{\bm M} &= \langle \mathcal{A}, \bm{\delta} g \rangle_{\bm M} \\ &= -\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{({\bf d})}E\bm{\delta} g \rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})} ,\rho_{(n)} E \bm{\delta} g \rangle_\Sigma + \langle A_{(n)}, \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} E\bm{\delta} g\rangle_\Sigma + \langle 0, \rho_{(0)} E\bm{\delta} g\rangle_\Sigma \\ &= -\langle A_{(0)},\rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\bm{\delta} E g \rangle_\Sigma - \langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)} \bm{\delta} E g \rangle_\Sigma + \langle A_{(n)}, \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\bm{\delta} E g\rangle_\Sigma\\ &=\langle A_{(0)}, \rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d} E g\rangle_\Sigma -\langle A_{(\bm{\delta})},\rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta} E g\rangle_\Sigma\\ &= (-1)^{n(p+2)}\langle {\bf d} A_{(0)} , \rho_{(n)} {\bf d} E g\rangle_\Sigma- (-1)^{n(p+1)}\langle {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}, \rho_{(n)} E g\rangle_\Sigma\\ &= 0, \end{aligned}

which is true for all g, implying that {\bf d} \mathcal{A} =0. Therefore, \mathcal{A}\in{\rm ker}\, {\bf d}_p on the spacetime {\bm M}.

Proposition

Proposition 2.10

HXXS

(“Traditional” Harmonic Solutions) Suppose \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) solves \Box\mathcal{A}=0 with Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})}, A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})}); then {\bf d}\mathcal{A}=\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}=0 if and only if {\bf d} A_{(0)}=0, A_{({\bf d})}=0, \bm{\delta} A_{(n)}=0 and A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.10

First, supposed \mathcal{A} satifies {\bf d}\mathcal{A}=0 and \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}=0, then \mathcal{A} trivially satisfies the Klein-Gordon and Maxwell equations. We evaluate

\begin{aligned} {\bf d} A_{(0)} &= {\bf d}\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A} = \rho_{(0)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\\ A_{({\bf d})} &= \rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\\ \bm{\delta} A_{(n)} &= \bm{\delta}\rho_{(n)}\mathcal{A} = (-1)^{np}\rho_{(n)}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = 0, \\ \mathcal{A}_{(\bm{\delta})} &= \rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}\mathcal{A} = 0. \end{aligned}

Alternatively, assume Cauchy data (A_{(0)}, 0, A_{(n)}, 0) where {\bf d} A_{(0)} = 0 and \bm{\delta} A_{(n)} =0. Then, there exists an unique \mathcal{A} that solves \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 with this Cauchy data. By Proposition 2.8 above, it is also a Lorenz solution with \bm{\delta}\mathcal{A}=0. By Proposition 2.9, \mathcal{A}\in{\rm ker}\, {\bf d}_p, i.e., {\bf d}\mathcal{A}=0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.11

KRG0

(Existence of Homogenous Maxwell Solutions) For any ( A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})} )\in\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma) with \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0, there exists an \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) such that

-\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0,\qquad\qquad\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A} = A_{(0)}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A} = A_{({\bf d})}.
Proof of Proposition 2.11

This is a broader proof than that given by Proposition 2.10 of Pfenning (original version of this manuscript), which was itself a generalization of the proof given for Dimock’s Proposition 2. We add additional constraints and show that a solution still exists. Choose any ( A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})} )\in\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0 (\Sigma) with {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0. We now have Cauchy data

(A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})},A_{(n)}, A_{(\bm{\delta})})\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

By Theorem 2.6, there exists an unique \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p ({\bm M}) which is a \Box\mathcal{A} = 0 solution with this Cauchy data. Furthermore, by proposition 2.7, \mathcal{A} also satisfies -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.12

UW0V

(Gauge Equivalence of Maxwell Solutions)
(a) Let ( A_{(0)}, A_{({\bf d})} )\in\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma) with \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0 specify reduced Cauchy data on \Sigma. If \mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}' \in\Omega^p({\bm M}) are Maxwell solutions with this data, then \mathcal{A}\sim\mathcal{A}'.

(b) Let (A_{(0)},A_{({\bf d})}) and (A'_{(0)},A'_{({\bf d})}) with \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = 0 = \bm{\delta} A'_{({\bf d})} specify Cauchy data on a common Cauchy surface \Sigma. If \mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}' \in\Omega^p({\bm M}) are Maxwell solutions with these Cauchy data, then \mathcal{A}'\sim\mathcal{A} if and only if A'_{(0)}\sim A_{(0)}, A'_{({\bf d})}=A_{({\bf d})}.

Proof of Proposition 2.12

(a) In terms of the complete Cauchy data on \Sigma, any Maxwell solution will have

\mathcal{A} \mapsto (A_{(0)},A_{({\bf d})},A_{(n)},A_{(\bm{\delta})}) \qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad \mathcal{A}' \mapsto (A_{(0)},A_{({\bf d})},A'_{(n)},A'_{(\bm{\delta})})

with the constraints \bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})}=0 and {\bf d} A_{(\bm{\delta})}=0={\bf d} A'_{(\bm{\delta})}.

On the Cauchy surface \Sigma, we specify complete initial data (0, 0, A'_{(n)}-A_{(n)}, A'_{(\bm{\delta})}-A_{(\bm{\delta})})\in\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p}_0(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma). By Proposition 2.6, there exists a unique smooth \mathcal{B}\in\Omega^{p} ({\bm M}) which is a solution to \Box\mathcal{B}=0 with this Cauchy data. By Propositions 2.7 and 2.9, \mathcal{B} is a closed solution to the Maxwell equation.

Define \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}= \mathcal{A} +\mathcal{B}, which is also a Maxwell solution, and evaluate its Cauchy data;

\begin{aligned} \rho_{(0)} \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} &= \rho_{(0)}(\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}) = A_{(0)} + \rho_{(0)}\mathcal{B} = A_{(0)},\\ \rho_{({\bf d})} \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} &= \rho_{({\bf d})}(\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}) = A_{({\bf d})} + \rho_{({\bf d})} \mathcal{B} = A_{({\bf d})},\\ \rho_{(n)} \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} &= \rho_{(n)}(\mathcal{A} + \mathcal{B}) = A_{(n)} + \rho_{(n)}\mathcal{B} = A_{(n)}+A'_{(n)}-A_{(n)} = A'_{(n)},\\ \rho_{(\bm{\delta})} \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} &= \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}(\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}) = A_{(\bm{\delta})} + \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\mathcal{B} = A_{(\bm{\delta})} + A'_{(\bm{\delta})}-A_{(\bm{\delta})} = A'_{(\bm{\delta})}. \end{aligned}

We immediately see that \mathcal{A}' and \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} are both Maxwell solutions with identical complete Cauchy data, and by uniqueness of homogenous Klein-Gordon solutions \mathcal{A}' = \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{A} +\mathcal{B}. Setting the p-th deRham cohomology group for the spacetime, H^p({\bm M}), to be trivial, we can then conclude that \mathcal{B} is exact. More specifically, there exists a \lambda\in\Omega^{p-1} ({\bm M}) such that \mathcal{B}={\bf d}\lambda. Upon substitution, we have \mathcal{A}' = \mathcal{A} +{\bf d}\lambda, or more simply, \mathcal{A}'\sim\mathcal{A}.

(b)Let \lambda\in\Omega^{p-1}({\bm M}) and set \mathcal{A}' = \mathcal{A} + {\bf d}\lambda; then it immediately follows A'_{(0)}\sim A_{(0)} and A'_{({\bf d})}=A_{({\bf d})}.

Alternatively, assume A'_{(0)} = A_{(0)} +{\bf d} \alpha and A'_{({\bf d})}=A_{({\bf d})}, where \alpha\in\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma). By part (a) of this proposition, \mathcal{A}\sim \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}, where \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} is the Coulomb solution with complete Cauchy data (A_{(0)},A_{({\bf d})},0,0). Likewise, \mathcal{A}'\sim\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}' where \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}' is the Coulomb solution with complete Cauchy data (A_{(0)}+{\bf d}\alpha,A_{({\bf d})},0,0).

Next, on the Cauchy surface \Sigma, specify initial data (\alpha, 0,0,0)\in \Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma)\oplus \Omega^{p-2}_0(\Sigma) \oplus\Omega^{p-2}_0(\Sigma). By Theorem 2.6, there exists a unique smooth \lambda which is a solution to \Box\lambda=0 with this Cauchy data. Furthermore, by Proposition 2.8 and the text following the proposition, \lambda is a Coulomb solution to the Maxwell equation.

Define \mathcal{B} = \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + {\bf d}\lambda, then

\Box\mathcal{B} = \Box\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + \Box{\bf d}\lambda = {\bf d}\Box\lambda = 0

and

\bm{\delta}\mathcal{B} = \bm{\delta}\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} +\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\lambda = 0.

Evaluating the initial data for \mathcal{B}, we find;

\begin{aligned} \rho_{(0)}\mathcal{B} &= \rho_{(0)}\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + {\bf d}\rho_{(0)}\lambda=A_{(0)} +{\bf d}\alpha, \\ \rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{B} &= \rho_{({\bf d})}\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + \rho_{({\bf d})}{\bf d}\lambda = A_{({\bf d})}, \\ \rho_{(n)}\mathcal{B} &= \rho_{(n)}\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + \rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\lambda = \rho_{({\bf d})}\lambda = 0,\\ \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\mathcal{B} &=\rho_{(\bm{\delta})}\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + \rho_{(\bm{\delta})}{\bf d}\lambda = \rho_{(0)}\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\lambda = 0. \end{aligned}

Thus, \mathcal{B} is a Coulomb solution with complete Cauchy data identical to that \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}'. By the uniqueness of solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation, we have \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}' = \mathcal{B} = \widetilde{\mathcal{A}} + {\bf d}\lambda, or more simply \widetilde{\mathcal{A}'}\sim\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}. Therefore, we conclude \mathcal{A}'\sim\mathcal{A}.

Theorem

Theorem 2.13

3INE

(Gauge Equivalence to Fundamental Solutions)
(a) Let \mathcal{J}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) with \bm{\delta}\mathcal{J} = 0 and \mbox{supp}(\mathcal{J}) compact to the past/future, then \mathcal{A}^\pm = E^\pm\mathcal{J} solves -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A}^\pm = \mathcal{J}.
(b) If \mathcal{A}^\pm\in\Omega^p({\bm M}), \mbox{supp}(\mathcal{A}^\pm) is compact to the past/future and -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A}^\pm = \mathcal{J} (so \bm{\delta}\mathcal{J}=0 and \mbox{supp}(\mathcal{J}) compact to the past/future) then \mathcal{A}^\pm \sim E^\pm\mathcal{J}.
(c) \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}) satisfies -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0 on spacetimes with compact spacelike Cauchy surfaces if and only if \mathcal{A}\sim E\mathcal{J} for some \mathcal{J}\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}) with \bm{\delta}\mathcal{J} = 0.

Proof of Theorem 2.13

Part (a) is proven directly in Proposition 4 by Dimock [Dimock], to which we refer the reader. Parts (b) and (c) are generalizations of the corresponding parts of proposition 4 in Dimock and we leave the proof to the reader.

Proposition

Proposition 2.14

PZMX

For [\mathcal{A}]\in\mathcal{M}^p({\bm M}) and f\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}) where \bm{\delta} f=0, we have

\langle [\mathcal{A}] , f\rangle_{\bm M} = -\sigma( [\mathcal{A}], [Ef]).
Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.14

Choose any Cauchy surface \Sigma, then from Eq. 2.2 above, we have for all [\mathcal{A}] that are homogeneous solutions of the Maxwell equation

\langle [\mathcal{A}], f\rangle_{\bm M} = -\int_\Sigma i^* \left( [\mathcal{A}]\wedge *{\bf d} Ef + \bm{\delta}[\mathcal{A}]\wedge *Ef -Ef\wedge *{\bf d}[\mathcal{A}] - \bm{\delta} Ef \wedge *[\mathcal{A}] \right)=-\sigma([\mathcal{A}], Ef).

Also, recall that Ef is a Lorenz solution and thus belongs to some equivalence class, therefore giving us the result.

Proposition

Proposition 3.1

DUY3

For \mathcal{J}\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}), \bm{\delta}\mathcal{J} = 0 we have
(a) \widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\mathcal{J}) satisfies the generalized Maxwell equation in the weak sense, i.e., \widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J})=0.
(b) \left[\widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\mathcal{J}),\widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\mathcal{J}')\right]=-i\langle \mathcal{J}, E\mathcal{J}'\rangle_{\bm M}. In particular, if \mbox{supp }\mathcal{J}, \mbox{supp }\mathcal{J}' are spacelike separated then the commutator is zero.

Proof of Proposition 3.1

(a) By definition we have \widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}) =i\hat{a}(\overline{K [E\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}]}) - i\hat{a}^*(K[E\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}]), so we will show [E\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}]=0. For any \theta\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}), we have \Box E\theta = E\Box\theta = 0, so [E\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\theta] = -[E{\bf d}\bm{\delta}\theta] =-[{\bf d} E \bm{\delta}\theta] = 0, because all exact forms are in the equivalence class of zero. Since \mathcal{J}\in\Omega^p_0({\bm M}), we have [E\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}]=0 and \widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{J}) = i\hat{a}(0)-i\hat{a}^*(0)=0. Notice, this part of the proposition does not require the co-closed condition \bm{\delta}\mathcal{J} = 0.
(b) Substituting the definition of the field operator into the commutator yields

\begin{aligned} [\widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\mathcal{J}),\widehat{[{\mathcal{A}}]}(\mathcal{J}')] &= \left [ \hat{a}(\overline{K[E\mathcal{J}]}),\hat{a}^*(K[E\mathcal{J}'])\right]+ \left [ \hat{a}^*(\overline{K[E\mathcal{J}]}),\hat{a}(K[E\mathcal{J}'])\right]\\ &= \left ( K[E\mathcal{J}], K[E\mathcal{J}']\right)_\mathcal{H}-\overline{\left ( K[E\mathcal{J}], K[E\mathcal{J}']\right)}_\mathcal{H}\\ &=-i\sigma([E\mathcal{J}],[E\mathcal{J}']). \end{aligned}

By Proposition 2.14 we obtain the desired result. Finally, if \mbox{supp }\mathcal{J} and \mbox{supp }\mathcal{J}' are spacelike separated, then \mbox{{\rm supp}\, }\mathcal{J} \cap \mbox{{\rm supp}\, }E\mathcal{J}' = \emptyset and the integral in the inner product vanishes.

Proposition

Proposition A.1

J4NA

Let F_{(0)}\in\Omega_0^p(\Sigma) and F_{(n)}\in\Omega^{p-1}_0(\Sigma) with {\bf d} F_{(0)}=0 and \bm{\delta} F_{(n)}=0 specify Cauchy data for the field strength \mathcal{F}\in\Omega^p({\bm M}), with 0<p\le n, such that

\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{F} = F_{(0)} \qquad\mbox{ and}\qquad \rho_{(n)}\mathcal{F} = F_{(n)}.

Given this data, there exists a smooth potential \mathcal{A}\in\Omega^{p-1}({\bm M}) such that \mathcal{F} = {\bf d}\mathcal{A} satisfies the generalized Maxwell equations {\bf d}\mathcal{F}=0 and \bm{\delta}\mathcal{F}=0, as well as the conditions A.1.

Proof of Proposition A.1

We know that \mathcal{F} = {\bf d}\mathcal{A} will satisfy the Maxwell equations if \bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = 0. To show that such an \mathcal{A} exists we choose as Cauchy data:

{\bf d} A_{(0)} = F_{(0)},\qquad A_{({\bf d})} = F_{(n)},

while A_{(n)} and A_{(\bm{\delta})} are arbitrary up to {\bf d}\mathcal{A}_{(\bm{\delta})}=0.

The first thing to address is the existence of A_{(0)}. For non-compact Cauchy surface \Sigma we could restrict to only those manifolds that are contractible. By the Poincaré lemma for contractible manifolds (Theorem 6.4.18 of AMR [AMR88]) all closed p-forms (for p>0) are exact.

Alternatively, we could require that the compactly supported deRham cohomology group H^p_c(\Sigma) for p-forms on the Cauchy surface be of dimension zero, i.e. H^p_c(\Sigma)=\{[0]\}. This is a restriction on the topology of the Cauchy surface. If we do have a trivial deRham cohomology group then all closed p-forms F_{(0)} are exact. Either the contractible or cohomology condition is sufficient to allow for the existence of a suitable A_{(0)}.

From the initial Cauchy data on \mathcal{F} we have

\bm{\delta} A_{({\bf d})} = \bm{\delta} F_{(n)} = 0.

Our Cauchy data for \mathcal{A} has the properties necessary to use Proposition 2.7. So \mathcal{A} is a solution to -\bm{\delta}{\bf d}\mathcal{A}=0 and therefore \mathcal{F}={\bf d}\mathcal{A} is a solution to the generalized Maxwell equations.

Now we show this also reproduces the Cauchy data. We evaluate

\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{F} = \rho_{(0)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} = {\bf d}\rho_{(0)}\mathcal{A} ={\bf d} A_{(0)}= F_{(0)}.

Next we evaluate

\rho_{(n)}\mathcal{F} = \rho_{(n)}{\bf d}\mathcal{A} =\rho_{({\bf d})}\mathcal{A} = A_{({\bf d})} = F_{(n)}.

The remaining two pullbacks are trivially zero since

\rho_{({\bf d})} \mathcal{F}=\rho_{({\bf d})} {\bf d} \mathcal{A} = 0

and

\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} \mathcal{F}=\rho_{(\bm{\delta})} {\bf d} \mathcal{A} = \rho_{(0)} \bm{\delta}{\bf d} \mathcal{A}=0.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:0902.4887v3 by Michael J. Pfenning, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0902/0902.4887.jsonl.