Arxiv:2101.01427V2 [Math.FA] 31 May 2021

Home , Banach limit

arXiv:2101.01427v2 [math.FA] 31 May 2021 of h xrsinaoei l-enddet h atthat fact the to due ill-defined is above expression the aia cin ic hr sn sflwyo iigmeanin giving of way st useful it no dφ as is above there expression since the fiction, that matical well-known is it course, Of derivatives. its and finally, ed oda ih h nswihapa ttesotsae ( scales short the at appear th which and ones o 3] the kinds 2, two with: [1, are deal wo see there to of speaking, difficulties, needs amount Roughly these enormous solve therein. An to references try measure. to Gaussian the expended of support the where faueu ls ffntoasof functionals of class useful a of paig ewl ieargru enn oepesoso t of expressions to meaning situatio rigorous other w a to form it give familiar extended but will easily field, we a be scalar local speaking, can real of below single class arguments a wide the a to for ourselves and restrict dimensions will of The number distributions. any ver of in invar a space work Euclidean conditions, the positive, of mild reflection compactification under of certain give, class to a is of paper struction this of goal The osrcino ulda nain,Reflection Invariant, Euclidean of Construction A oehls,i spsil opoedb obnn h qua the combining by proceed to possible is it Nonetheless, . S with uin.A nsa etr sta h euaiain sdaen are used regularizations the re- that dist invariant, is of Euclidean positive. space feature reflection the of unusual of class An compactification a a butions. on of measures given positive is flection construction simple A oiieMaue naCmatfiainof Compactification a on Measures Positive φ S sspoe olv nsm pc f“functions”, of space some in live to supposed is [ φ dφ = ] n okwt h eutn asinmaue vnthen, Even measure. Gaussian resulting the with work and R ( ∇ φ ) 2 + m 2 φ Distributions 2 R + e R L − Abstract .Tlas T. φ e [ S φ − [ φ eg rgnmti oyoil,and polynomial), trigonometric a (e.g. ,where ], S ] F [ φ ] [ dφ φ ] dφ L , [ · sa“oa”fntoa of functional “local” a is ] L atmaue na on measures iant [ φ F osrcinwill construction sudfie on undefined is ] otemeasure the to g nsi mathe- a is ands l ecerthat clear be ill [ φ rbesone problems f samember a is ] ipecon- simple y s Roughly ns. efollowing he numerous e ultraviolet) rtcpart dratic tos We ctions. ri- ot kwas rk (1) φ and those appearing at the long scales (infrared). One typically proceeds by regularizing the theory in some fashion, by putting in cut-offs and removing them in the end. We shall proceed in the same way.

Let us give now the precise definitions. Fix D ∈ N. This will be the number of dimensions in which the φ’s will live in. It will be fixed throughout the paper. Let us first describe the infrared regularization. This is accomplished by essentially moving expression (1) to a sphere. Thus, let R > 0 and D consider the sphere SR in R × R given by the equation

x2 + (y − R)2 = R2, where x ∈ RD and y ∈ R. Let s denote the stereographic projection from D SR − (0, 2R) to R given by

2R s(x,y)= x. 2R − y

Let ∆(D, l) stand for the dimension of the space of spherical harmonics of 1 ∆(D,l) degree l. Let {Yl,m}m=0 be an orthonormal basis of the this space with respect to the L2 product on SD, where the sphere is given the Hausdorﬀ D+1 measure ΩR induced from the Lebesgue measure on R . If we denote by 2 2 ∇ the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the sphere, and recalling that ∇ Yl,m = −l(l + D − 1)Yl,m, we see that there is a unitary isometry between the Sobolev space2 on the sphere of order k, Hk, and the set of all ‘sequences’,3 {fl,m : m = 0, 1,..., ∆(D, l); l = 0, 1,... } satisfying

k 2 l(l + D − 1) + 1 |fl,m| < ∞. l=0,1,...;m=0X,1,...,∆(D,l) It follows in turn that the dual of Hk, H−k is isometric with the space of sequences {φl,m : m = 0, 1,..., ∆(D, l); l = 0, 1,... } satisfying

−k 2 l(l + D − 1) + 1 |φl,m| < ∞. l=0,1,...;mX=0,1,...,∆(D,l) Now, note that the expression

1 (2l+D−1)(l+D−2)! ∆(D,l) = (D−1)!l! , but we are not going to need the explicit expression in what follows. 2The most convenient definition of Hα for us is as the completion of the space of C∞ 2 α functions in the norm ||(−∇ + 1) f||L2 . 3We are slightly abusing terminology here since these are labelled by two indices, but this should not cause any confusion. f g B {f }, {g } = l,m l,m (2) l,m l,m l(l + D − 1) + 1 l=0,1,...;mX=0,1,...,∆(D,l) defines a trace class bilinear form on any Hk for a sufficiently large k. It thus follows by standard methods [4], that (2) is the covariance of a Gaus- sian measure µ supported on H−k for a sufficiently large k. At this point we select some such k and will hold it fixed in what follows. Of course, the measure just described is a rigorous realization of the heuristic expression 2 − RSD φ(∇ +1)φdΩR e R dφ.

We now move to the ultraviolet regularization. Let h be a positive, smooth, compactly supported and rotationally invariant function on RD. For any Λ > 0, let h˜Λ(x)= h Λx . Let

h˜ ◦ s(θ) h (θ)= Λ . Λ ˜ s SD hΛ ◦ (θ)dΩR(θ) It is easy to see, e.g. by consideringR spherical harmonics expansions, that −k ∞ for any element φ ∈ H , we have that φΛ = hΛ ∗ φ ∈ C , where ∗ stands 4 for the convolution on the sphere. Moreover, φΛ → φ (in the sense of distributions) as Λ → ∞. Now, given any bounded measurable function L on RN , we have that the

2 2 2 2 N L φΛ(θ), ∇ φΛ, (∇ ) φΛ(θ),..., (∇ ) φΛ(θ) dΩR(θ) S Z R is a well-deﬁned, bounded function on Hk, which is invariant under the orthogonal group in D + 1 dimensions, O(D + 1).

Consider now the expression

2 N − RS L φΛ,...,(∇ ) φΛ dΩR F [φ]e R dµ . 2 N − RS L φΛ,...,(∇ ) φΛ dΩR R e R dµ This is a well-deﬁned versionR of (1) for any bounded, measurable function F on the support of µ. One would like at this stage to send R and Λ to inﬁnity. ∞ ∞ Therefore suppose {Rn}n=1 and {Λn}n=1 are two sequences of positive numbers with Rn, Λn →∞. Notice that if we replace R and Λ with Rn and Λn, then the above expression gives a sequence of numbers whose absolute values are bounded from above by ||F ||L∞ . There are several straightforward ways to linearly extract a number from a bounded sequence. We’re going to do

4 For example, one can deﬁne f1 ∗ f2(θ)= RSO(D+1) f1(θ)f2(gθ)dg where dg is the Haar measure on the special orthogonal group in D + 1 dimensions, SO(D + 1). it using a Banach limit L.5 More precisely, let L be an element of the dual of l∞ which is norm one, positive, shift invariant6 and which coincides with the usual limit when it acts on a convergent l∞ element. The existence of such a functional L is guaranteed by the Hahn-Banach theorem (see e.g. [5]).

We are thus led to consider the following expression

2 N − RS L φΛn ,...,(∇ ) φΛn dΩRn F [φ]e Rn dµ L . (3) 2 N − RS L φΛn ,...,(∇ ) φΛn dΩRn R e Rn dµ ! We will show momentarilyR that the expression above can be considered an integral with respect to a certain measure. However, since we’re interested in measures which are Euclidean invariant and reﬂection positive, we need to restrict the class of functions F one is willing to consider simply to make these concepts meaningful. We shall take it to be the class of cylindrical functions given in the following

Deﬁnition. Let D denote the space of smooth, compactly supported functions on RD and D′ be its dual, the space of distributions. A function F on ′ D is said to be cylindrical if there is m ∈ N, and there are f1,...,fk ∈ D and a bounded continuous function F˜ on Rm, such that

F [T ]= F˜ f1(T ),...,fm(T ) . The set of all cylindrical functions will be denoted by Cyl.

It is obvious that the set of cylindrical functions is a vector space. Moreover, for any cylindrical function F [T ]= F˜ f1(T ),...,fm(T ) , we have that F˘[φ]= F˜ f1 ◦ s(φ),...,fm ◦ s(φ) is a bounded continuous function on H−k.

Before we state our main result there is one more issue we need to sort out. From renormalization group arguments, one in general would not expect that the measure constructed from (3) would be useful. This is because, as is familiar, one needs to adjust the bare parameters in the Lagrangian as the cutoﬀs are removed. This would correspond to making the function L above dependent on the cutoﬀ, i.e. dependent on n. Moreover, one should also allow (e.g. by considering the case D = 2) for L to be unbounded, at least

5Another intuitively appealing procedure would be to use nonstandard analysis, by taking R and Λ unlimited, and then extracting the standard part of the limited expression above. 6We can relax the requirement of shift-invariance as nothing in the proofs below will depend on it. ∞ in the limit [2]. Therefore, suppose that {Ln}n=1 is a sequence of bounded functions.7 and consider the expression

2 N − RS Ln φΛn ,...,(∇ ) φΛn dΩRn F [φ]e Rn dµ L = I(F ). (4) 2 N − RS Ln φΛn ,...,(∇ ) φΛn dΩRn R e Rn dµ ! We can now stateR our main result in the following Theorem. There is a unique (up to homeomorphism) compactiﬁcation D˚′ of D′ such that every cylindrical function F on D′ has a unique continuous extension F˚ to D˚′. Also, there is a unique, rotationally invariant probability measure µ such that F˚ d˚µ = I(F˘).

Z ∞ ∞ Moreover, one can choose the sequences {Rn}n=1 and {Λn}n=1 such that ˚µ is reflection positive. If, additionally, one has that I ||φ||H−k < ∞, then ˚µ is invariant under translations as well. Note that usually [1], Euclidean invariance and reflection positivity are defined for measures supported on D′. However, in view of our choice of the class of functions which we’re interested in integrating, we can use essentially the same definitions, which are:

• Euclidean invariance: For any element E of the Euclidean group, and any cylindrical F , we have that

F˚Ed˚µ = F˚ d˚µ, Z Z −1 where FE[φ]= F˜ Ef1(φ),...,Efm(φ) and Efj(x)= fj(E x). • Reﬂection positivity: Let V + stand for the subspace cylindrical functions such that the supports of f1,...,fm are contained in the subset D D D (x1,...,xD) ∈ R with xD > 0. Let Θ : R → R be the reﬂection + in the xD coordinate. Then, for any F ∈ V , we have that

F˚F˚Θ d˚µ ≥ 0. Z 7We are not assuming that the functions are uniformly bounded, nor that they are in fact functions of the same number of variables. In practice however, Ln is usually chosen to depend on a ﬁxed, small number of variables. For example if one is trying to do φ4 theory, one choice is 2 2 Ln(φΛn , ∇ φΛn )= Anfn(φΛn ∇ φΛn )+ Bngn(φΛn )+ Cnhn(φΛn ),

2 4 where fn,gn and hn are bounded functions which tend pointwise to x,x and x respectively as n →∞. Of course, An, Bn and Cn correspond to the usual bare constants (field strength, mass and coupling constant). Before we proceed with the proof of the theorem, let us give a couple of remarks: • Note that the condition I ||φ||H−k < ∞ can be considered a very mild version of the analyticity axiom [1], which in effect, would require that I(ezφ(f)) is a holomorphic function of z. Intuitively, this corresponds to the constructed measure having an exponential fall off ‘at infinity’ as opposed to the linear one required in the theorem. This, incidentally, would also guarantee that the support of ˚µ is contained within D′. This ties in with the remark below. • The theorem stated above gives a rather simple and a very general construction of measures on the compactification of the space of distributions. It should be clear that since there is very little restriction on the form of the Lagrangians nor on their coupling constants one will be able to construct “nontrivial” measures (no matter how one chooses to define “triviality”). Alas, this does not mean that all the usual difficulties of constructive quantum field theory are over. This is because, in this subject one is interested in constructing nontrivial measures on the space of distributions itself and not on its compactification. Thus, even with the theorem above one needs to do further work in order to show that the constructed measure is supported on the distributions (or at least its support has a nonempty intersection with them). This is similar to the issues in one of the proofs of Bochner-Minlos’ theorem where one would like to show that the constructed measure has no support in the corona set (“at infinity”) [6]. Of course, it is not difficult, again using the vast freedom in the choice of the Lagrangians, to make sure that the constructed measure is supported on the distributions (just send the “coupling constants” to zero sufficiently fast). However, unless one is extremely careful this will result in a Gaussian measure (even a Dirac one). It is precisely in trying to balance the two requirements, support on the distributions and non-Gaussianity, that one needs renormalization group arguments. The theorem above does not address this point and only states that the result will be Euclidean invariant and reflection positive.

Proof. Recalling the definition of the topology on D′, it follows at once that the set of cylindrical functions separates points from closed sets in D′. This implies that one can imitate the standard arguments (see e.g. [7]) used to show the existence and the properties of the Stone-Cˇech compactification, but with the algebra of all continuous functions being replaced with the algebra of cylindrical ones. This shows the existence and uniqueness of the compactification D˚′ that we want, as well as the unique extension property for cylindrical functions. Let A = {F˚ : F ∈ Cyl}. It is obvious that A is a subalgebra of continuous ˚′ ∞ functions on D . Note that if {Fn}n=1 is a sequence in Cyl which converges ′ ˚ ∞ uniformly on D , then {Fn}n=1 is also a uniformly convergent sequence on D˚′. It is to check that A vanishes nowhere and separates points on D˚′. Thus, by Stone-Weierstrass, the uniform closure of A coincides with C(D˚′), the algebra of all continuous functions on D˚′.

Now, it is obvious that F˚ → I(F˘) is a linear positive functional on A.

Moreover, as was mentioned above, we trivially have that I(F˘) ≤ ||F ||L∞ . It follows that the functional above extends uniquely to a linear positive functional on C(D˚′). By Riesz-Markov, we have that there is a probability measure ˚µ such that this functional coincides with the integral with respect to ˚µ. Uniqueness of ˚µ follows from the fact that A is dense in C(D˚′).8

Now, let F˘[φ]= F˜ g1(φ),...,gm(φ) . If O ∈ O(D + 1), let (F˘)O[φ]= F˜ O(g1)(φ),...,O(gm)(φ) , where, as usual, O(g)(·)= g(O−1(·)).

Now using the fact that µ and S Ln φΛn ,... dΩRn are O(D + 1) invari- Rn ant, we have R

− RS Ln φΛn ,... dΩRn − RS Ln φΛ,... dΩRn (F˘)O[φ]e Rn dµ = F˘[φ]e Rn dµ. Z Z Now, if O belongs to the O(D) subgroup preserving the y axis, it follows at once that I(F˘O)= I((F˘)O)= I(F˘), and thus ˚µ is rotationally invariant. What remains is to deal with translations and with reflection positivity. We shall handle reflection positivity first. The proof will, in effect, use the Markov property of the free quantum field [10]. The fact that a free quantum field on a Riemannian manifold with a reflection is reflection positive since it’s Markovian was shown in [11].9 We shall, along the way, show essentially the same thing by a somewhat different route which is more convenient to our setting.

We shall suppress the subscripts n in R, Λ, L to reduce clutter. We will re-instate them later on when we’ll deal with the limit.

8This procedure of defining a measure on a space by going to the compactification was used in a different, simpler context in [6]. Also, a similar idea is utilized in the construction of the celebrated Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure, see e.g. [8, 9]. 9The same fact was shown by different methods in [12, 13] as well. Now, let δ > 0.

S+δ SR RD+1 R = ∩ {(x1,...,xD−1,xD,y) ∈ : xD > δ}, S−δ with R having the same deﬁnition with the replacement xD < −δ. Also, S0δ S S+δ S−δ k k let R = R − ( R ∪ R ). Let H+ be the closed subspace of H which is ∞ S+δ k the closure of C functions supported in R with H− the analogous space S−δ k k k for R , and let H0 denote the orthogonal complement of H+ ⊕ H−. It is k S0δ trivial to see that the support of every element of H0 is contained in R . ± k k 0 Finally, let P denote the orthogonal projections of H onto H±, with P k being the projection onto H0 .

We extend now Θ to RD+1 in the obvious way, by keeping y ﬁxed, i.e. Θ(x1,...,xD−1,xD,y) = (x1,...,xD−1, −xD,y). It should be clear that Θ k k induces a unitary map, f(·) → f(Θ·), from H+ onto H−.

Now, observe that

B f, g = B (P + + P 0 + P −)f, (P + + P 0 + P −)g

− − = B P +f, P +g + B P 0f, P 0g + B P f, P g

− = B+ f, g + B0 f, g + B f, g . (5) To see that there are no cross-terms above, consider e.g. B P 0f, P +g . 0 2 −1 + From (2), we see that it is equal to hP f, (−∇ + 1) P giL2 . We want to show that this expression vanishes. To do that, it is enough to show 0 2 −1 ∞ that hP f, (−∇ + 1) hiL2 = 0 for any C function h which is supported S+δ k in R , as such functions are dense in H+. Now, notice that there is a smooth function hˇ such that h = (−∇2 + 1)hˇ. Moreover, the support of hˇ S+δ is contained in R (in fact in the support of h). Probably the easiest way to see this is to use the fact that

2 2 0= hhdˇ ΩR = |∇hˇ| + |hˇ| dΩR S −supp(h) S −supp(h) Z R Z R 2 ≥ |hˇ| dΩR. S − Z R supp(h) Therefore, since the support of P 0f is disjoint from that of hˇ, we have that

0 2 −1 0 ˇ hP f, (−∇ + 1) hiL2 = hP f, hiL2 = 0. The other cross terms are dealt with similarly. It is obvious that B+,B0, and B− in the decomposition (5) are symmetric, k k k positive, and trace class. Moreover, they are supported on H+,H0 , and H− respectively. It follows that there are three Gaussian measures µ+,µ0, and µ−, and a decomposition of the support of µ of the form φ = φ+ + φ0 + φ−, S+δ S0δ with the corresponding supports of the Sobolev functions being in R , R S−δ and R .

+ ˜ 1 Now, let F ∈ V with F [T ]= F f1(T ),...,fm(T ) . Let δ = Λ . Since the supports of f1,...,fm are compact and are all contained in the half-space {(x1,...,xD) : xD > 0}, it is clear that for all suﬃciently large R’s and Λ’s s s S+δ 10 one has that the supports of f1 ◦ ,...,fm ◦ are contained in R . Now ± ± let φΛ = hΛ ∗ φ . It is clear from elementary geometry that one can choose + S−(αδ) − 11 α> 0 such that φΛ vanishes in R with a symmetric statement for φΛ .

− R − L φ ,... dΩ S+(αδ)∪S (αδ) Λ R F˘[φ]F˘Θ[φ]e R R dµ[φ]= Z + − − R L φ ,... dΩ − R − L φ ,... dΩ + − S+(αδ) Λ R S (αδ) Λ R + + − − F˘[φ ]F˘Θ[φ ]e R e R dµ [φ ]dµ [φ ] Z − − R − L φ ,... dΩR − S (αδ) Λ − − = F˘Θ[φ ]e R dµ [φ ] × . . . Z ! − R L φ+,... dΩ + S+(αδ) Λ R + + ···× F˘[φ ]e R dµ [φ ] = Z ! 2 − R L φ+,... dΩ + S+(αδ) Λ R + + = F˘[φ ]e R dµ [φ ] , Z ! The ﬁrst equality above is a consequence of the decomposition of the measure µ just described, the fact that the integrand is independent of φ0, and that the

L φΛ,... dΩR = S+(αδ)∪S−(αδ) Z R R + − L φΛ ,... dΩR + L φΛ ,... dΩR S+(αδ) S−(αδ) Z R Z R 10 If the supports of f1,...,fm are contained in the subset {(x1,...,xD) : A ≤ xD ≤ B}, then the statement above is true provided one chooses e.g. δ B. Eventually, we will have that δ → 0 and R →∞, so this will be satisfied. 11If R is very large, so that the stereographic sphere almost ‘coincides’ with the plane, then it is clear that α ≃ 1 should be sufficient. Thus e.g. α = 1000 is more than enough for our purposes. Note that while eventually we will send R and Λ to ∞, α will be held fixed. The final line is a consequence of the change of variables φ− =Θφ+ in the first term. To see that this is so, note that by a direct calculation, for any k f ∈ H+ we have that

+ + − − eiφ (f)dµ[φ+]= e−B (f,f) = e−B (Θ(f),Θ(f)) = eiφ (Θ(f))dµ[φ−]. Z Z From this, it follows by taking limits that for any element F ∈ V +, we have that

+ + + − − − F˘[φ ]dµ [φ ]= F˘Θ[φ ]dµ [φ ]. Z Z + − ∞ If we now use that ΘφΛ (x) = φΛ (Θ(x)), then approximating L by a C function, and then taking limits of Riemann sums and using dominated con- vergence we have what we want.

Now, notice that (4) is invariant under L→L + constant. This means that without loss of generality, we can assume that L ≥ 0. Let M = supx∈RN L(x). We then have that

− R +(αδ) −(αδ) L φΛ,... dΩR S ∪S − RS L φΛ,... dΩR e R R − e R ≤

− RS L φΛ,... dΩR L φ ,... dΩ R RS0(αδ) Λ R e e − 1 . − RS L φΛ,... dΩ R e R L φΛ,... dΩR . S0(αδ) Z D − RS L φΛ,... dΩR D − RS L φΛ,... dΩR R e R MδR = e R M , Λ where the harmonic analysis notation . above stands for “less or equal than an irrelevant constant multiple of”. Putting back the subscripts n we have thus shown that

− L R +(αδn) −(αδn) n φΛn ,... dΩRn S ∪S − RS Ln φΛn ,... dΩRn e R Rn − e Rn . − L D RS n φΛ,... dΩRn Rn e Rn M . n Λ n ∞ Now, note that the above discussion works for any two sequences {Rn}n=1 ∞ and {Λ}n=1 as long as they go to ∞. In order to show reﬂection positivity, we need to choose our sequences12 so that they satisfy

12In other words, we’re simply choosing the relative rate at which we’re removing the ultraviolet and infrared cutoﬀs. M RD n n → 0. Λn Putting everything together we thus have that

− L R +( α ) −( α ) φΛn ,... dΩRn Λ Λ − RS L φΛn ,... dΩRn S n ∪S n F˘[φ]F˘ [φ] e Rn − e Rn Rn dµ Θ − L R RS φΛn ,... dΩRn e Rn dµ

D R 2 Rn . ||F ||L∞ Mn → 0. (6) Λn

Therefore, we get that I(F˘F˘Θ) ≥ 0 and thus we have reﬂection positivity.

It remains to show invariance under translations. Suppose that t is a trans- lation by a vector t. Let t⊥ stand for the subspace orthogonal to t in RD. For every R> 0, there is a unique SO(D + 1) rotation Ot,R of SR such that −1 ⊥ 13 s(Ot,R(0)) = t and s(Ot,R(s (t ))) is orthogonal to t at t.