Four-fold way to helicity M. Elbistan1∗ , P. A. Horv´athy1,2† , P.-M. Zhang1‡ , 1 2

Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, (China)

Laboratoire de Math´ematiques et de Physique Th´eorique, Universit´e de Tours, (France)

arXiv:1608.08573v1 [hep-th] 30 Aug 2016

(Dated: August 31, 2016)

Abstract Bialynicki-Birula’s “photon wave equation”, derived from a Dirac/Weyl-type action principle, is symmetric w.r.t. duality transformations, but the associated Noether quantity vanishes. Replacing fields by potentials in the definition and using instead a Klein-Gordon-type action allows us to recover the previously proposed conserved “double-Chern-Simons” expression of helicity. The Dirac/Weyl-type approach applied to our potential-modified theory yields again zero conserved charge. The Klein-Gordon-type approach applied to the original Bialynicki-Birula setting yields in turn Lipkin’s “zilch”. Our results are consistent with the theorem of Weinberg and Witten. PACS numbers: 03.50.De Classical electromagnetism, Maxwell equations 03.65.Pm Relativistic wave equations 11.30.-j Symmetry and conservation laws

∗ † ‡

mailto:[email protected]. mailto:[email protected] e-mail:[email protected]

1

1.

INTRODUCTION

The century-old problem of symmetry of the vacuum Maxwell equations under duality transformations [1], E → cos θ E + sin θ B,

B → − sin θ E + cos θ B,

(1.1)

has attracted considerable amount of recent attention [2–9]. As pointed out by Calkin [10] and confirmed by several authors including those listed above, the Noether quantity associated associated to duality symmetry is the integral of two Chern-Simons terms for the e.m. field and its dual,

Z 1 (A · B − C · E) d3 r , (1.2) χ= 2 R3 where A and C are vector potentials for the magnetic field B and its dual, respectively. χ is the (optical) helicity. The aim of this Note is to shed some new light on this statement, namely by using a suitably modified version of the “photon wave function”, long advocated by Iwo (and Zofia) Bialynicki-Birula [11]. In detail, we show that while the original Bialynicki-Birula equations, derived from a Dirac/Weyl-type action principle, fail to provide a non-zero charge, the formula (1.2), can be recovered when fields are replaced by their potentials and a KleinGordon- motivated action is used. The Dirac/Weyl-type approach yields again zero charge. Applied to the original Bialynicki-Birula framework, our Klein-Gordon approach yields instead Lipkin’s “zilch” [12]. Our results provide us with a nice illustration to the celebrated theorem of Weinberg and Witten [13] on spin and helicity of massless particles.

2.

THE PHOTON WAVE FUNCTION OF BIALYNICKI-BIRULA [11]

The starting point of Bialynicki-Birula to rewrite the vacuum Maxwell equations as a wave equation reminiscent of those of Dirac and/or Weyl is the observation that requiring that the Riemann-Silberstein vector
1 V = √ E + iB 2

(2.1)

satisfies the coupled system i ∂t V = ∇ × V , 2

∇·V =0

(2.2)

is equivalent to the vacuum Maxwell equations with ε0 = µ0 = 1. In terms of the 3 × 3
rotation matrices in the spin 1 representation, Si ab = −iǫiab , the first eqn in (2.2) and its conjugate can also be presented as

i ∂t V = −i (S · ∇)V

and

i ∂t V ∗ = i (S · ∇)V ∗ .

(2.3)

These two equations are plainly equivalent; note here the opposite signs. Bialynicki-Birula actually imitates the Dirac procedure, understood intuitively as “taking the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation” [14, 15]. His clue is that the spin-1 rotation matrices satisfy (S · ∇)(S · ∇) = ∇2

(2.4)

when the divergence condition ∇ · V = 0 holds. Iterating (2.3) shows therefore that each component of the electromagnetic field satisfies the scalar wave equation,  2  ∂t − ∇2 Vi = 0

(2.5)

(as it is well-known). Conversely, (2.4) allows taking the “square root” of the D’Alembert operator and leading him to posit the two, equivalent equations in (2.3), supplemented by ∇ · V = 0 as in (2.2). His argument mimics the derivation of the Dirac equation [14, 15], the only difference being the use of the spin-1 representation S instead of Pauli matrices σ, as for spin 21 . The next step is to introduce a 6-component vector and the 6 × 6 matrices         µ V+ 0 13 13 0 0 S    , V= ρ1 =  ρ3 =  Σµ =  V− 13 0 0 −13 Sµ 0

(2.6)

µ

µ = 0, . . . , 3, where S µ = (1, S) and S = (1, −S) and note that putting

1 V+ = V = √ (E + iB) (2.7) 2 allows us to unify the two eqns (2.3) into a 6-component Dirac-type equation, supplemented V− = V+∗ ,

with the divergence constraint, Σµ ∂µ V = 0

(2.8a)

∇ · V = 0.

(2.8b)

Here ρ3 acts diagonally but changes the sign of the lower component, allowing us to identify left and right helicity states as eigenvectors of ρ3 with eigenvalues ±1 1 . The two massless 1

These matrices could be used to define a supersymmetry between the components V± , see [16].

3

3-component equations with fixed helicity satisfied by V± are uncoupled; they are the spin-1 counterparts of the Weyl equations, which describe neutrinos and antineutrinos with spin 1/2. ρ3 is the analog of the chirality operator γ 5 ; ρ1 intertwines the helicity components, ρ1 V∓ = V± . Let us emphasize that the condition (2.7) is necessary for being able to recover a well-defined Maxwell field from the V± s. At this point we go one step further and derive the Dirac-type equation (2.8a) from an action principle (not considered by Bialynicki-Birula ). Inspired by the analogy with the Dirac/Weyl system, we propose the Lagrange density   † µ † µ LV = V (iΣ ∂µ ) V = i V− S ∂µ V− + V+ S ∂µ V+ , µ

V = V † Σ0 .

(2.9)

Treating V and V as independent fields, the Euler-Lagrange equations reproduce the

Bialynicki-Birula equation and its conjugate when V = V † Σ0 is used. Expressed in electric and magnetic terms, 

 LV = i E · ∂t E − ∇ × B + B · ∂t B + ∇ × E ,   1 = i ∂t ( (E 2 + B 2 )) + ∇ · (E × B) 2

(2.10a) (2.10b)

shows that LV is manifestly different from the usual e.m. Lagrange density 21 (E 2 − B 2 ) — as it indeed should be : the two yield the same (namely Maxwell) equations only when the constraint (2.8b) is also assumed. (2.10a) shows that LV vanishes when the Maxwell equations are satisfied, and from (2.10b) we infer that LV is the divergence of the cur-

rent j µ = (T 00 , T i0 ) associated with the usual electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor. One checks however that the energy-momentum tensor of the theory defined by (2.9) is substantially different from the usual one in Maxwell’s electromagnetism (with or without “improvements”). The theory given by (2.10) is duality invariant : the transformation (1.1), written as V → e−iθρ3 V,

(2.11)

plainly leaves the Lagrange density (2.9) invariant because ρ3 and Σµ anticommute, {ρ3 , Σµ } = 0, in full analogy with what happens for Dirac/Weyl for spin 1/2. Then the Noether theorem provides us with the conserved current µ

k µ = V Σµ ρ3 V = V+† S µ V+ − V−† S V− , 4

∂µ k µ = 0,

(2.12)

which is reminiscent of the chiral current of a massless particle with spin 1/2. Integrating the time component provides us with a conserved charge, namely Z
χV = d3 r V+† V+ − V−† V− ,

(2.13)

which we would be tempted to identify with the helicity. However, condition (2.7), which is necessary for relating the Bialynicki-Birula theory to that of Maxwell, implies that this charge is identically zero, χV = 0: the Bialynicki-Birula theory is therefore not appropriate to recover (1.2). It is worth mentioning that the Bialynicki-Birula construction has further unusual aspects: for example, unlike usual wave functions in quantum mechanics, V in (2.6) does not have any gauge degree of freedom : the strict gauge invariance of the fields implies strict invariance for V. Note also that neither the action (2.9) or (2.10) nor further conserved quantities have the correct physical dimension.

3.

NEW WAVE FUNCTION BASED ON POTENTIALS

Now we turn to our main result. Our clue for obtaining a theory with nontrivial dualsymmetry properties is the observation that the wave equation (2.5) is satisfied also by the electromagnetic potentials when the Lorentz gauge is chosen. We define therefore the new Riemann-Silberstein-type vectors F± by replacing fields by potentials in the definitions (2.1), 1 F± = √ (A ± i C), 2 ∇ × A = −∂t C = B,

(3.1a) ∇ × C = ∂t A = −E,

A0 = C 0 = 0.

(3.1b)

The condition (2.7) (but now for potentials), F− = F+∗ ,

(3.2)

is, once again, built into the theory. We have also incorporated a double gauge freedom, F± → F± +∇f ±i∇g, which is not that of a usual wave function but nevertheless legitimates the choice (3.1b), which imply the gauge conditions ∇ · A = ∇ · C = 0, i.e., we choose the transverse Coulomb gauge, cf. [2, 3, 5]. Thus both of our potentials verify the Lorenz gauge condition ∂µ Aµ = ∂0 A0 + ∇ · A = 0. Therefore each component of F± satisfies, once 5

again, the free wave equation, (2.5), allowing us to posit also for the new wave functions F± a Bialynicki-Birula -type system, i.e., to require that i ∂t F± = ∓ i (S · ∇)F± ,

(3.3a)

∇ · F± = 0

(3.3b)

hold for F± as defined in (3.1). Here we used, once again, the the spin-1 SO(3) generators S. Eqns (3.3) are of the first order in the potentials which make up the F± . Taking divergences and curls allows us to prove that in fact they imply the Maxwell equations, ∇ · (∂t A) = ∇ · (∇ × C) = 0

=⇒

∇ · E = 0,

(3.4a)

∇ · (∂t C) = −∇ · (∇ × A) = 0

=⇒

∇ · B = 0,

(3.4b)

∇ × (∂t A) = ∇ × (∇ × C) = −∇ × E

=⇒

∂t B + ∇ × E = 0,

(3.4c)

∇ × (∂t C) = −∇ × (∇ × A) = −∇ × B

=⇒

∂t E − ∇ × B = 0.

(3.4d)

From eqns (3.3) we infer that ∂t2 F± − (S · ∇)(S · ∇)F± = 0 and therefore (3.3) implies, due to (2.4), two (equivalent) massless Klein-Gordon [i.e. wave] equations, i h ∂µ ∂ µ F± = ∂t2 − ∇2 F± = 0.

(3.5)

Remembering the usual Klein-Gordon Lagrangian, we note that (3.5) derives from the manifestly dual-symmetric Lagrangian LF =

1 (∂µ F− ) · (∂ µ F+ ), 2

(3.6)

after putting F+ = F and F− = F ∗ . Further insight is gained by noting that (3.6) is in fact equivalent to the one put forward in [3, 5]: i 1 

 1h 1 (∂µ F− ) · (∂ µ F+ ) = − Fµν F µν + ⋆Fµν ⋆ F µν + ∂i Aj ∂j Ai − ∂i Cj ∂j Ci |2 {z } | 8 {z } |4 {z } our LV

Barnett et al−−Bliokh et al

(3.7)

surf ace

Turning now to duality it is readily seen that (1.1), implemented on the potentials as, A → A cos θ + C sin θ, C → C cos θ − A sin θ 6

i.e.

F± → F± e∓iθ ,

(3.8)

leaves (3.3) invariant, Zestablishing the duality symmetry of the proposed system, (3.3). In fact, the action S = d4 x LF is itself manifestly invariant. The infinitesimal version of (3.8), δF = −iθF , δF ∗ = iθF ∗ , allows us to infer the Noether current  1  1 µ ∗ µ ∗ µ µ ∂ F · δF + ∂ F · δF = (∂ A) · C − (∂ C) · A , j = 2 2 µ

(3.9)

whose conservation, ∂µ j µ = 0, can easily be checked also directly using (3.5). The associated conserved charge is the space integral of the zeroth component, Z  Z  1 1 3 ∂t A · C − ∂t C · A = d3 r −E·C+B·A , χ= d r 2 2

(3.10)

by (3.1) – where we recognize the “double Chern-Simons” expression, (1.2), of the helicity [2, 3, 5, 8, 10]. Let us emphasize that the constraint (3.2) does not now imply the vanishing of the helicity in (3.10) : one of the factors has been changed into a derivative which is the field strength by (3.1). The integral (3.10) i.e. (1.2) can be evaluated using Fourier transform to momentum space [2], showing that the helicity is in fact the difference of the number of left- and right-handed photons, χ = nL − nR .

(3.11)   F+ , The F± could again be unified into a 6-component system by putting F =  F− with the two components corresponding to the two helicity components, interchanged by ρ1 . The two upper equations in (3.3) are also unified and are supplemented with the divergence constraint, Σµ ∂µ F = 0,

(3.12a)

∇ · F = 0,

(3.12b)

as in (2.8) : once again, we get analogs of the Dirac / Weyl systems. The Lagrangian (3.6) can also be written as in (2.9) but with F± replacing V± ,   µ LF = i F(Σµ ∂µ )F = i F−† S ∂µ F− + F+† S µ ∂µ F+ , which is again 4-divergence, LF = i ∂t

1 (A2 2

vanishes when the field equations are satisfied.

7

F = F † Σ0 ,

(3.13)



+ C 2 ) + ∇ · (A × C) , cf. (2.10b), and

The Lagrangian (3.13) is again invariant under duality, (3.8) and yields the Noether current similar to (2.12), ℓµ = F Σµ ρ3 F = F+† S µ F+ − F−† S¯µ F− .

(3.14)

R R
The to-be helicity vanishes therefore again, χF = ℓ0 d3 r = F+† F+ −F−† F− d3 r = 0, owing to F+∗ = F− . The Dirac-type approach yields, once again, a trivial conserved charge.

At last, we inquire what our Klein-Gordon-motivated trick above would yield for the original Bialynicki-Birula theory. As said before, all components of the RS vector V satisfy the scalar wave equation (2.5) which can in turn be derived from the Klein-Gordon-type Lagrangian analogous to (3.6),  1 1 ∂µ E · ∂ µ E + ∂µ B · ∂ µ B . LV = (∂µ V ∗ ) · (∂ µ V ) = 2 4

(3.15)

This Lagrangian is plainly symmetric under duality (2.11) with associated Noether current zµ =

 1 (∂µ E) · B − (∂µ B) · E , 2

whose time component is a conserved charge, Z   Z  1 3 1 Z = d r (∂t E) · B − (∂t B) · E = d3 r (∇ × B) · B + (∇ × E) · E 2 2

(3.16)

(3.17)

upon using the Maxwell equations (3.17). It’s conservation can also be checked directly. This expression is reminiscent of (3.10) but with field strengths instead of potentials (consistently with (2.1) vs (3.1b)). It is in fact Lipkin’s “Z 000 -zilch” [12] cf. eqn. # (8.1) in [4].

4.

CONCLUSION

In this Letter, we asked the same question in four, slightly different frameworks — and got different answers. How could this come about ? The answer is provided by Weinberg and Witten [13] : Theorem 1. A theory that allows the construction of a Lorentz-covariant conserved fourcurrent J µ cannot contain massless particles of spin J > 1/2 with non-vanishing values of Z the conserved charge J 0 d3 r.

8

The currents (2.12) and (3.14), derived using a first-order spin-1 Dirac/Weyl-type Lagrangian, contain no derivatives and are therefore Lorentz-covariant. The vanishing of the associated helicities is thus consistent with Theorem 1. In the quadratic, Klein-Gordon-type cases the currents (3.9) and (3.14) do, on the contrary, contain derivatives, breaking Lorentz covariance. The Weinberg-Witten theorem does not apply therefore cf. [13]. Non-zero charges — namely optical helicity (1.2) or “zilch” (3.17) — may (and do) arise. Our (3.6) with (3.1), which replaces the e.m. field by the respective vector potentials, works because all components of both the field strengths and of the potentials in the Lorentz gauge satisfy the scalar wave equation (2.5), allowing for the “square root trick” of BialynickiBirula . The modified transcription (3.1) of electromagnetism allows us to derive the correct duality/helicity correspondence using standard techniques of field theory, mimicking the procedures used for spin 1/2. Bialynicki-Birula ’s concept of a “photon wave function” has long been debated, to which we do not wish to contribute. We used it here merely as a trick to convert Maxwell’s electromagnetism into a Dirac/Weyl resp. Klein-Gordon-type system, allowing us to use field theoretical tools.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank J. Balog and X. Bekaert for discussions. ME and PH are grateful to the IMP of the CAS for hospitality in Lanzhou. This work was supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program in China (No. 2015CB856903), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11575254 and 11175215).

[1] O. Heaviside, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 183 423 (1892); J. Larmor, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 190 205 (1897) [2] G. N. Afanasiev, Yu. P. Stepanovsky, “The helicity of the free electromagnetic field and its physical meaning,” Il Nuovo Cimento. 109, 271 (1996). [3] K. Y. Bliokh, A.Y. Beksaev and F. Nori, “Dual electromagnetism: helicity, spin, momentum and angular momentum,” New Journal of Physics 15 (2013) 033026.

9

[4] R. P. Cameron, S. M. Barnett and A. M. Yao, “Optical helicity, optical spin and related quantities in electromagnetic theory,” New J. Phys. 14 053050 (2012); [5] R. P. Cameron and S. M. Barnett, “Electric-magnetic symmetry and Noether’s theorem,” New J. Phys. 14 123019 (2012). [6] I. Fernandez-Corbaton, et al. “Electromagnetic Duality Symmetry and Helicity Conservation for the Macroscopic Maxwell’s Equations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 6, 060401. [7] C. Manuel and J. M. Torres-Rincon, “Dynamical evolution of the chiral magnetic effect:

Applications to the quark-gluon plasma,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 074018.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07608 [8] M. Elbistan, C. Duval, P. A. Horvathy and P.-M. Zhang, “Duality and helicity: a symplectic viewpoint,” Phys. Lett. B (2016), arXiv:1608.01131 [math-ph]. [9] I. Agullo, A. del Rio and J. Navarro-Salas, “Electromagnetic duality anomaly in curved spacetimes,” arXiv:1607.08879 [gr-qc]. [10] M. G. Calkin, “An invariance property of the free electromagnetic field,” Am. J. Phys. 33, 958 (1965). [11] I. Bialynicki-Birula, “On the wave function of the photon,” Acta Phys. Pol. 86, 97 (1994); “Photon wave function,” Progress in Optics, Vol. 36, E. Wolf, Editor, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/0508202. [12] D. M. Lipkin, “Existence of a new conservation law in electromagnetic theory,” J. Math. Phys. 5 696 (1964) [13] S. Weinberg and E. Witten, “Limits on massless particles,” Phys. Lett. B 96 59 (1980). [14] P. A. M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, (International Series of Monographs on Physics) 4th Edition. Oxford University Press (1958) [15] J. D. Bj¨ orken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, N.Y. McGraw-Hill (1964) [16] F. Bloore and P. A. Horv´ athy, “Helicity-supersymmetry of dyons,” Journ. Math. Phys. 33, 1869 (1992) [hep-th/0512144].

10