r
X
i
v
:
h
e
p

t
h
/
9
8
1
0
1
3
8
v
1
1
9
O
c
t
1
9
9
8
Framework for a theory that underlies the standard model
Marijan Ribaric and Luka
Sustersic
a)
Jozef Stefan Institute, p.p.3000, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
We put forward the following, physically motivated premise for constructing a theory that un
derlies the standard model in fourdimensional spacetime: The EulerLagrange equations of such
a theory formally resemble some equations of motion underlying uiddynamics equations in the
kinetic theory of gases. Following this premise, we point out Lorentzinvariant Lagrangians whose
EulerLagrange equations contain a subsystem equivalent to the EulerLagrange equations of the
standard model with covariantly regularized propagators.
12.60.i, 03.30.+p, 03.40.Kf, 05.60.+w
I. INTRODUCTION
The standard model, which provides an adequate description of all quantummechanical experiments so far per
formed, is generally considered to be only an eective eld theory: a lowenergy approximation to an underlying
theory (UT). [1] To obtain a UT, within the last fteen years or so considerable eort has been put into various string
theories. But it is still open whether this topdown approach leads to the observed lowenergy physics. In this paper
we put forward a new framework for an opposite, bottomup approach to construction of a UT in fourdimensional
spacetime. We base it on the analogy of the kinetic theory of gases and give basic assumptions in Sec. II, the premise
in Sec. III, and a transporttheoretic example in Sec. IV. As a starting point, we note that:
(A) Propagators of the standard model must be regularized to obtain physically meaningful results. [1,2] Following
Pauli, [3] we presume there is a UT whose propagators (i) do not need to be regularized, and (ii) can be regarded as
such regularizations of standardmodel propagators that reect highenergy physics. [4] In Sec. IVC we construct a
possible Lagrangian of such a UT.
(B) Ever since Einstein, Podolski and Rosen published their gedankenexperiment some sixty years ago, physicists
have been aware that, if we go beyond a strictly operational description of quantum phenomena, interpretations of
certain results suggest the existence of fasterthanlight eects (FTLEs). [5,6] So we expect the mathematical formalism
of a UT to exhibit some FTLEs. However, special relativity poses two serious conceptual problems in connection with
FTLEs:
(i) When the relation between two events suggests FTLEs, dierent observers may not agree on what is the cause
and what is the consequence! Suppose we observe two spacelikeseparated measurements, say A and B, and
we believe that the result of the earlier one determines the result of the latter one by a FTLE, e.g., by an
instantaneous change of the quantummechanical state. In our frame of reference, let A precede B so that we
believe B is determined by A. However, there are inertial frames where B precedes A, and there observers believe
the opposite, that B determines A.
(ii) It is not clear how to model states that exhibit FTLEs without predicting that the present can inuence the past!
Suppose the relation between responses and their sources is covariant in the sense that to Lorentztransformed
source corresponds Lorentztransformed response. So, if a part of the response due to some source is faster than
light, then the corresponding parts of responses to sources that equal certain Lorentz transformations of this
source precede their causes. Which is a very strong objection to FTLEs, since no physical phenomenon ever
suggested the existence of eects that precede their causes. [6]
Resolution of such problems is often seen as the key to a better understanding of quantum phenomena. [5] We see
no way around the rst problem. [7] Regarding the second problem, we point out in Sec. IV such EulerLagrange
equations where one can avoid this problem without coming in conict with special relativity.
II. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
The shape of a UT is quite unknown. However, we assume that its EulerLagrange equations are local [8] and
covariant, and the freeeld equations (i.e., EulerLagrange equations with all nonlinear terms taken as external
sources) admit classical solutions that have: (i) properties that are propagated not faster than light according to
1
covariant, regularized Green functions of basic eld equations, (ii) unbounded front velocity, and (iii) no eects that
precede their causes. We believe therefore that an understanding of classical systems with such equations of motion
would be invaluable in searching for and constructing a UT.
To this end let us be more specic about the mathematical properties we expect from the above classical, freeeld
solutions in a particular, scalar system:
(A) An external source is described by a real function j(x) of the spacetime variable x = (ct, r) R
1,3
. The set of
possible sources is invariant under the inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations x x + a, i.e., if a particular
source j(x) belongs to this set, then so does any moving source j(x + a).
(B) The total response of the system to the external source j(x) is described by the state function determined by
some local, linear, covariant, EulerLagrange equations of motion and subsidiary conditions. A certain part of
this total response, described by the real function (x) of x R
1,3
, is such that: (i) There is a Green function
G(x) such that (x) = G j, where denotes the convolution with respect to x. (ii) The relation between
(x) and j(x) is covariant [if j(x) is the source of (x), then a moving source j(x + a) causes (x + a)].
(iii) Responses (x) do not precede their sources j(x). Thus, G(x) is covariant in the sense that G(x) = G(x),
and G(x) = 0 if t < 0, and also if c
2
t
2
< r
2
. [9] Consequently, (i) all responses (x) exhibit Einsteins causality,
[6] and (ii) the propagator
G(k)
_
d
4
xe
ikx
G(x) (1)
where k R
1,3
and k x = k r k
0
ct, is covariant, i.e.,
G(k) =
G(k).
(C) This propagator
G(k) (i) can be adequately approximated by the propagator
G
w
(k) (k
2
)
1
(2a)
up to some extremely large value of k
2
, and (ii) is regular in the sense that
G(k) = O
_
(k
2
)
n
_
(2b)
as k
2
, with constant n > 2. [2,3]
(D) The total response to any source j(x) exhibits some FTLEs, but no eects that precede their causes. So
state functions of the system in question depend causally on their sources; but, as pointed out in Sec. I, this
dependence cannot be covariant! Thus the subsidiary conditions that together with covariant equations of
motion determine the state functions cannot be covariant.
(E) All inertial frames are equivalent: The properties (A) to (D), and the relations between state functions, responses
(x), and their sources j(x) do not depend on the inertial frame of the observer. Sources j(x) and responses
(x) are relativistic: functions j(x) that represent the same source in dierent inertial frames are related by
Lorentz transformations for scalar elds; and the same goes for the corresponding functions (x), in agreement
with assumption (B). As certain Lorentz transformations of any state function exhibit eects that precede their
causes, total responses are not relativisticthe relation between state functions in dierent inertial frames is
open. [7]
By (C) above, the Fourier transform
G
w
(k) of the waveequation Green function G
w
(x) adequately approximates
2
/t
2
)
w
(x) = j(x) is a good approximation to the unknown, covariant equation of motion for
response (x). So we can say that the unknown equations of motion for the state function of the system in question
underly the wave equation in the sense that their causal solutions, though exhibiting FTLEs, propagate certain eects
by a covariant, regular propagator
G(k) that can be approximated by the wave propagator
G
w
(k) up to extremely
high values of k
2
.
2
III. PREMISE
Above properties (A) to (E), however, do not even suggest whether such a classical system has a state function of
only four continuous variables (ct and r), and certainly give no indication about the nature of its equations of motion.
So we went looking for classical physical systems that behave similarly in order to construct by analogy such equations
of motion that underly the basic freeeld equations in the above sense. We found such systems in the kinetic theory
of gases. [9]
Take a nonrelativistic gas, for example. Its macroscopic state is described by macroscopic variables such as kinetic
energy and density, slow changes of which propagate with a nite speed of sound, approximately according to some
uiddynamics partialdierential equations. But its microscopic state is aected almost immediately everywhere by
a localized source since the velocity of gas particles is not bounded in the nonrelativistic theory. Only a nite number
of local averages of the microscopic state are regarded as macroscopically observable, i.e., the macroscopic variables,
which can also be dened independently with no reference to the microscopic state. The remaining properties of the
microscopic state (i.e., innitely many, macroscopically directly unobservable degrees of freedom), describe processes
that manifest themselves (i) in uctuations of macroscopic variables, and (ii) in the fact that uiddynamics equations
are only asymptotically valid approximations for smoothly and slowly changing macroscopic variables.
For a rare gas of identical pointlike particles, the uiddynamics equations can be extended to model somewhat
faster changes of macroscopic variables by introducing additional elds of spacetime variable, which have no direct
signicance within the framework of uid dynamics, though they can be interpreted as local averages of the microscopic
state, see, e.g., the Grad method of moments. [10] But eventually these equations of motion cannot be improved this
way any more, and one must resort to a more detailed description by the oneparticle distribution, a function of time,
position, and velocity, evolving according to the integrodierential Boltzmann equation. [10] So in the case of a rare
gas, there are a characteristic length and time interval where a completely new physics appears with three additional
independent variables: physics essentialy dierent from the macroscopic physics described by uiddynamics equations.
For various theoretical reasons, many theorists believe that the framework of present quantum eld theories may
not be appropriate for a theory of quantum phenomena valid for all energies. It was Feynman who rst suggested in
Ref. [11] that the basic partialdierential equations of theoretical physics might be actually describing macroscopic
motion of some innitesimal entities he called Xons. In addition, already Heisenberg [12] and Bjorken and Drell
[13] expected that there is a characteristic energy (and length) beyond which quantum dynamics will be essentially
dierent from the one described by the canonical formalism; so we expect the EulerLagrange equations of a UT to
be very dierent from those of the standard model. All of which, together with the behaviour of a nonrelativistic
gas, leads us to put forward the following premise for a bottomup approach to fundamental interactions: The
EulerLagrange equations of a UT formally resemble some of equations of motion underlying uiddynamics equations
in the kinetic theory of gases. We believe that this physically motivated premise will help us (i) to construct a UT
whose propagators do not need to be regularized, and (ii) to model quantummechanical FTLEs.
IV. TRANSPORTTHEORETIC EXAMPLE
A. Equation of motion
Following the above premise, we now consider a class of systems with properties (A) to (E), dened by covariant,
linear, integrodierential equations of motion with a noncovariant causality condition. On the analogy with the
linearized Boltzmann equation let us provisionally regard these equations of motion as modeling transport of some
innitesimal entities, Xons, with arbitrary fourmomenta, whose macroscopic motion evolves almost according to the
wave equation.
We describe the state of Xons in a given inertial frame by a real state function (x, p) of the spacetime variable
x R
1,3
and of the fourmomentum variable p = (p
0
, p) R
1,3
. [14] As the equation of motion for (x, p) we take
the local, linear, transport equation
p = S +Q, (3)
where: (i) p = p
0
c
1
/t + p
is the covariant, substantial time derivative. Thus the equation (3) with S = 0
and Q = 0 is an analog of Newtons rst law and describes free streaming of Xons.
(ii) The scattering operator S describes the scattering of Xons by the host mediumthe vacuum. In the case
considered,
3
S f
0
(p
2
)
_
d
4
p
f
0
(p
2
)(x, p
)
+f
1
(p
2
)p
_
d
4
p
f
1
(p
2
)p
(x, p
) t(p
2
)(x, p) , (4)
where f
0
(p
2
), f
1
(p
2
) and t(p
2
) are real functions of p
2
R; and the integral
_
d
4
p F(p) i lim
r
_
ir
ir
dp
0
_
p
2
r
2
F(p) d
3
p (5)
for functions F(p), p R
1,3
. [15]
(iii) The source of all Xons described by (x, p) is given by
Q(x, p) q
0
f
0
(p
2
)j(x) , (6)
with q
0
being a real parameter. As we do not permit eects that precede their causes we assume the causality
condition: if Q(x, p) = 0 for all t t
0
, the corresponding state function
(x, p) = 0 for all t t
0
. (7)
The equation of motion (3) is covariant with respect to inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations
x x + a , p p , (x, p) (x + a, p) , Q(x, p) Q(x + a, p) . (8)
However, like the Boltzmann equation, equation (3) is not invariant under time reversal: state function (x, p) displays
an arrow of time in the sense that the timereversed (x, p) is not a solution to (3) with timereversed source Q(x, p).
In contrast to the Einstein causality condition, condition (7) is not covariant. As a consequence, the relation between
solutions (x, p) to equation (3) and their sources Q(x, p) need not be covariant.
B. Properties of the state function (x, p)
The total responses (x, p) of the system in question to sources j(x) are such that certain local averages, the
macroscopic variables
[x; ]
_
d
4
p f
0
(p
2
)(x, p) , (9)
a[x; ]
_
d
4
p f
1
(p
2
)(x, p)p ,
covariantly depend on sources j(x) and exhibit Einsteins causality despite the noncovariant causality condition (7).
To infer this we proceed as in Ref. [9] to compute the Fourier transforms [k; ] and a[k; ] of [x; ] and a[x; ],
and conclude that
[k; ] =
G
0
(k)
j(k) , (10a)
a[k; ] = ik
G
1
(k)
j(k) , (10b)
where
G
0
(k) = q
0
D
1
(1 I
3
D) , (10c)
G
1
(k) = q
0
D
1
I
2
, (10d)
with
D (1 I
1
)(1 I
3
) + k
2
I
2
2
, (10e)
I
1
(k
2
) (2
2
/k
2
)
_
0
f
2
0
(y)t(y)[
_
1 + k
2
y/t
2
(y) 1]dy , (10f)
I
2
(k
2
) (/k
2
)
2
_
0
f
0
(y)f
1
(y)t
2
(y)[
_
1 + k
2
y/t
2
(y) 1]
2
dy , (10g)
I
3
(k
2
) (/k
2
)
2
_
0
f
2
1
(y)t
3
(y)[
_
1 + k
2
y/t
2
(y) 1]
2
dy . (10h)
4
As
G
0
(k) and
G
1
(k) are covariant, the corresponding retarded Green functions G
0
(x) and G
1
(x) are covariant, and
[x; ] = G
0
j and a[x; ] = G
1
j satisfy Einsteins causality condition. [9]
When t
2
(p
2
)/p
2
and its inverse are bounded for all p
2
0, propagator
G
0
(k) has the following properties:
(A) If a
11
4
= 4, a
00
2
= 1 and (4 a
11
4
)(4q
0
a
00
4
) = (a
01
4
)
2
, where a
mn
r
2
_
0
f
m
(y)f
n
(y)[t(y)]
m+n+1

y/t(y)
r
dy,
then
G
0
(k) = 1/k
2
+ O((k
2
)
0
) as k
2
0.
(B)
G
0
(k) = O((k
2
)
n
) as k
2
, where n = 1 if a
00
1
= 0, n = 3/2 if also 2a
00
0
= (a
01
2
)
2
, n = 2 if also
a
00
1
= 4a
01
2
a
01
1
, n = 5/2 if also a
11
2
a
00
0
= 2(a
01
1
)
2
+ 2a
01
2
a
01
0
, and n = 3 if also a
00
3
= 8a
01
2
a
01
1
+ 32a
01
1
a
01
0
16a
00
0
a
11
1
4a
00
1
a
11
2
.
These results enable us to explicitly show that within the presented transporttheoretical framework there are covariant
propagators
G
0
(k) regularizing the wave propagator
G
w
(k). Namely, when
_
p
2
/t(p
2
) has only two values for p
2
0,
say
1
and
2
, we can explicitly calculate the corresponding propagator
G
0
(k) as a rational function of
_
1 +
2
j
k
2
,
j = 1, 2, whose six parameters are determined by integrals of f
0
(p
2
) and f
1
(p
2
). For
2
>
1
> 0, there are innitely
many f
0
and f
1
such that for some real q
0
the corresponding
G
0
(k) has the required properties: (i) it satises
conditions (A) and (B) with n = 3, (ii)
G
0
(k) is a decreasing function of k
2
> 0, (iii) the dierence 
G
0
(k)
G
w
(k)
is a bounded function of real k
2
, e.g., for
2
/
1
= 2, and (iv) for any
0
this dierence can be made arbitrarily small
for all k
2
 <
0
by taking
1
and
2
suciently small.
By (3), (4), (5), (7) and (9), when j(x) = 0 if t t
0
, we can express the state function (x, p) for p
0
= 0 in terms
of the source j(x) and elds [x; ] and a[x; ]: [9]
(x, p) = (t t
0
)
_
c(tt0)/p
0
0
e
t(p
2
)y
q(x yp, p) dy (11)
with
q(x, p) {[x; ] + q
0
j(x)}f
0
(p
2
) + p a[x; ]f
1
(p
2
) (12)
and (t < 0) 0 and (t 0) 1. By (9)(12), the source j(x) at x = (ct
1
, r
1
): (i) does not aect (x, p)
at x = (ct
2
, r
2
), t
2
< t
1
, i.e., the system considered is causal; and (ii) aects (x, p) at x = (ct
2
, r
2
), t
2
> t
1
, for
some values of fourmomentum p no matter how small is the time interval t
2
t
1
and/or how large is the distance
r
2
r
1
, [16] i.e., the physical system considered displays everywhere arbitrary fast eects: the front velocity of its
state function (x, p) is not bounded! Thus the dependence of (x, p) on j(x) is not covariant in contrast with the
dependence of its properties [x; ] and a[x; ]: the covariance (8) of the equation of motion (3) is partly broken by
the noncovariant causality condition (7).
Regarding the connection between descriptions of Xons in dierent inertial frames, we assume that (i) there is
no prefered inertial frame, (ii) the source j(x) is a scalar relativistic eld, and, (iii) the independent variable p
transforms as a fourmomentum. In particular, when considering Xons from an inertial frame whose spacetime
coordinates x
= x + a, their fourmomenta p
(x
, p
) is uniquely determined
by (i) the equations of motion (3)(6) with
, p p
and j(x) j
(x
) = j(
1
x
1
a), and (ii) the
noncovariant causality condition (7). The preceding results imply that G
0
(x) = G
0
(x) and G
1
(x) = G
1
(x) so that
[x
] = [x; ] and a
[x
] = a[x; ]; so these two local averages of the state function are relativistic scalar
and vector elds. The state function itself is not relativistic;
(x
, p
) is related to
[x
], a
[x
] and j
(x
)
through the noncovariant relation (11).
Above results showthat one can construct integrodierential equations of motion that can be regarded as underlying
the wave equation in the sense specied at the end of Sec. II. In the same manner one can construct also integro
dierential equations that can be regarded as underlying other basic, dierential freeeld equations (see Appendices
A and B).
C. Lagrangian in accordance with the premise
The equations of motion (3)(6) equal the EulerLagrange equations of the local, Lorentzinvariant Lagrangian
L
0
= L
0tr
+L
0s
, (13a)
with
5
L
0tr
() (2q
0
)
1
_
d
4
p (x, p)[p S] , (13b)
L
0s
_
d
4
p (x, p)f
0
(p
2
)j(x) . (13c)
To construct a possible Lagrangian for a UT, we may proceed as follows:
(i) We take the EulerLagrange equations of the standard model and express them in terms of spin0, spin
1
2
and
spin1 propagators.
(ii) We replace these propagators with propagators analogous to
G
0
(k) with properties (B) to obtain relations such
as (10) with spin0, spin
1
2
and spin1 sources.
(iii) Combining Lagrangians that are related to the obtained relations as (13) is related to (10), we can then construct
a possible transporttheoretic Lagrangian for a UT as specied in Secs. II and III. Its local and covariant Euler
Lagrange equations comprise transport equations such as (3) with scalar, spinor, and vector sources.
For QED, an example of such a construction is given in Appendix C. The question remains, however, which of the
innity of such transporttheoretic Lagrangians are physically relevant for constructing a UT. We considered quantum
eld theories dened by Feynman path integrals of such transporttheoretic Lagrangians in Ref. [17]. It may be that
only two functions of x and p are needed for modeling of quantum phenomena: a fourvector one, containing all integer
spin elds of fundamental forces, and a chiralbispinor one, containing all elds of fundamental matter particles, see
Ref. [17].
The EulerLagrange equations of a Lagrangian constructed as specied above contain a subsystem of equations
equivalent to the EulerLagrange equations of the standard model with some covariantly regularized propagators.
This subsystem determines the dynamics of all elds of the standard model in the classical approximation so that
they exhibit no FTLEs, though solutions to the whole set of covariant transporttheoretic EulerLagrange equations
do exhibit FTLEs. As in the classical approximation the temporal dependence of the elds of the standard model
describes the temporal dependence of its quantum states, FTLEs are absent there. How to use transporttheoretic
FTLEs to explain FTLEs implied by certain quantum phenomena is open. Such an explanation would not require,
as sometime suggested, [18] that we abandon the traditional belief that the basic equations of motion are covariant,
and all inertial frames are equivalent.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper we have put forward a new framework for constructing a theory that may underly the standard model.
It requires that the EulerLagrange equations of this theory: (i) are local and covariant, (ii) have propagators that
need not be regularized, (iii) describe some fasterthanlight eects, and (iv) formally resemble equations of motion of
some theory that underlies uid dynamics in the kinetic theory of gases. Motivations for and details of this framework
are given in Secs. IIII.
To show that the proposed framework for modeling fundamental interactions is feasible, we have pointed out in
Sec. IVC how one can construct EulerLagrange equations such that: (i) they are integrodierential equations dened
in eightdimensional R
1,3
R
1,3
on the analogy with the Boltzmann transport equation, (ii) their causal solutions
display FTLEs, and (iii) certain local averages of these solutions are propagated not faster than light by the Euler
Lagrange equations of the standard model whose propagators are covariantly regularized. Given transporttheoretic
EulerLagrange equations dene for the rst time such a physically motivated class of classical models that (i) are not
invariant under time reversal, (ii) have covariant, regular propagators, (iii) model certain FTLEs without predicting
that present can inuence the past, and (iv) are not in conict with special relativity.
Whether it makes physical sense to interprete such transporttheoretic EulerLagrange equations as describing the
macroscopic movement of some Feynman Xons is an open question. It took almost thirty years since the formulation
of the kinetic theory of gases by Maxwell and Boltzmann until the basic idea of molecules was accepted as a physical
reality due to Perrins experimental work that veried Einsteinss and Smoluckowskis analysis of Brownian motion.
So it would be of great interest if one could identify some phenomenon characteristic of Xons.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Matjaz Poljsak and Igor Sega for many useful suggestions.
6
APPENDIX A: SCALAR BOSON PROPAGATOR
Propagator for a massive scalar eld is G
KG
(k
2
+m
2
)
1
, m 0, and equals the propagator for a spin1 massive
boson in the Feynman gauge. Propagator G
0
(k) dened by (10a) can be made regular and approximate G
KG
(k) as
accurately as desired for all k up to some extremely large value of k
2
 by choosing q
0
, f
0
(y), f
1
(y) and t(y) so that
(i) conditions (B) in Sec. IVB are satised, (ii) at y = m
2
,
[1 I
1
(y)][1 I
3
(y)] = yI
2
2
(y) , (A1a)
q
0
[1 I
3
(y)] = d{[1 I
1
(y)][1 I
3
(y)] + yI
2
2
(y)}/dy , (A1b)
and (iii) t(y) is suciently large.
APPENDIX B: SPIN
1
2
FERMION PROPAGATOR
Let the Fourier transforms of the chiral bispinor eld and source
(k) and
s
(k), k R
1,3
, be related by spin
1
2
fermion propagator
G1
2
(k)
mi/ k
m
2
+ k
2
, m 0 , (B1)
i.e., let
=
G1
2
s
.
We will consider a system whose state is described by the bispinorvalued function 1
2
(x, p) of x, p R
1,3
, that is
a solution to the EulerLagrange equations of the Lagrangian
L1
2
L1
2
tr
+L1
2
s
, (B2a)
L1
2
tr
(1
2
) q
1
1
2
_
d
4
p 1
2
(x, p)[p
+ t(p
2
)]1
2
(x, p)
sq
1
1
2
_
d
4
p
_
d
4
p
_
f
0
(p
2
)f
1
(p
2
)p
1
2
(x, p)
1
2
(x, p
) + c.c.
_
, (B2b)
L1
2
s
(1
2
)
_
d
4
p
_
f
0
(p
2
)1
2
(x, p)
s
(x) + c.c.
_
, (B2c)
where: 2a
b a(
b) (
a)b; 1
2
1
2
i
0
;
1
2
(x, p) and
s
(x)
c
s
(x), 
c

2
= 1. It transforms as a scalar eld of x under: (i) Lorentz
transformations, (ii) spatial inversion 1
2
(ct, r, p
0
, p)
p
0
1
2
(ct, r, p
0
, p) and
s
(ct, r)
p
s
(ct, r),

p

2
= 1, and (iii) time reversal 1
2
(ct, r, p
0
, p)
t
1
2
(ct, r, p
0
, p) and
s
(ct, r)
t
s
(ct, r),

t

2
= 1.
We take Fourier transforms
1
2
(k, p) of the solution to the EulerLagrange equations of L1
2
that is subject to a
causality condition such as (7) to dene the chiral bispinor eld of k R
1,3
:
m
(k)
_
d
4
p f
0
(p
2
)
1
2
(k, p) . (B3)
The relation between
m
(k) and its source
s
(k),
m
(k) =
G1
2
m
(k)
s
(k) (B4a)
where
G1
2
m
(k) = N(k
2
)
M(k
2
) i/ k
M
2
(k
2
) + k
2
, (B4b)
N(k
2
) q1
2
I
1
(k
2
)/2sI
2
(k
2
) , (B4c)
M(k
2
) {1 s
2
[I
1
(k
2
)I
3
(k
2
) + k
2
I
2
2
(k
2
)]}
_
2sI
2
(k
2
) , (B4d)
7
with I
1
(k
2
) and I
2
(k
2
) given by (10f) and (10g), and
I
3
(k
2
) (2
2
/k
2
)
_
0
yf
2
1
(y)t(y)[
_
1 + k
2
y/t
2
(y) 1]dy , (B4e)
is invariant under the charge conjugation transformation. For certain f
0
(y), f
1
(y), t(y), q1
2
and s, we can take G1
2
m
(k)
as a regularization of spin
1
2
propagator. Namely, (i) as k
2
,
G1
2
m
(k) = O((k
2
)
n
) (B5)
with n = 1/2 if a
1
= 0, n = 1 if also a
0
= 0, n = 3/2 if also a
1
= 0, and n = 5/2 if also a
3
= 0, where
a
r
_
0
f
2
0
(y)t(y)
y/t(y)
r
dy, (ii) the dierence 
G1
2
m
(k)
G1
2
(k) can be made arbitrarily small for all k
2

2
o
for any
2
o
> 0 provided t(y) is suciently large and q1
2
and s are such that N(y) = 1 +dM
2
(y)/dy and M(y) = m
at y = m
2
, and (iii)
G1
2
m
(k) is bounded for all real k
2
= m
2
.
The propagator
G1
2
m
(k) is through multiplication by N(k
2
) regularized fermion propagator
G1
2
(k) with energy
dependent mass M(k
2
), which does not equal zero even when the mass m of the lowenergy approximation
G1
2
(k)
equals zero. So within the transporttheoretic framework presented the neutrino mass may equal zero in the low
energy, quantum eldtheoretic approximation, though it is denitely not equal to zero for higher energies!
APPENDIX C: TRANSPORTTHEORETIC REGULARIZATION OF PROPAGATORS IN QUANTUM
ELECTRODYNAMICS
Lagrangian of quantum electrodynamics in Feynman gauge reads
L
QED
=
1
2
(
)
2
+ ie
+ m) . (C1)
Its EulerLagrange equations are the wave equation
= ie
+ m) =
ie
.
Transporttheoretic, Lorentzinvariant Lagrangian
L
ttQED
3
=0
L
0tr
(
) +L1
2
tr
(1
2
) ie
[x;
]
m
(C2)
where
(x, p) are components of a fourvector, has EulerLagrange equations that contain in kspace the following
subsystems:
[k;
] = ie
G
0
(k)
m
(k)
m
(k) , (C3)
m
(k) = ieG1
2
m
(k)
[k;
m
(k) . (C4)
If we replace
G
0
(k) with
G
w
(k) and
G1
2
m
(k) with
G1
2
(k), these two subsystems become equivalent to the above wave
and Dirac equations. Under conditions given in Sec. IVC and Appendix B, the transporttheoretic Lagrangian L
ttQED
yields EulerLagrange equations correspoding to those of L
QED
with regularized propagators.
a)
Electronic address: luka.sustersic@ijs.si.
[1] See, e.g., S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995), Vol. I, Sec. 1.3,
Chaps. 11 and 12.
[2] See, e.g., T. P. Cheng and L.F. Li, Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics (Claredon Press, Oxford 1992), Sec. 2.3.
[3] F. Villars, in Theoretical Physics in the Twentieth Century, edited by M. Fierz and V. F. Weisskopf (Interscience Publishers,
New York 1960), p. 78.
8
[4] C. J. Isham, A. Salam, and J. Strathdee, Phys. Rev. D5, 2548 (1972), Sec. I, comment on this belief.
[5] See, e.g., J. S. Bell: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987),
Chaps. 2 and 12; A. Sudbery: Quantum Mechanics and the Particles of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1988), Sects. 5.35.5; B. dEspagnat, in Quantum Theory and Pictures of Reality, edited by W. Schommers (Springer,
Berlin, 1989), p. 89; P. Eberhard, ibid, p. 49; W. Schommers, ibid, p. 1; H. P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 65, 300 (1997).
[6] A change in the state of a physical system that occurs at the spacetime point (ct2, r2) and is attributed to a source at
(ct1, r1) is refered to as: an eect (response) if t2 t1; a fasterthanlight eect (FTLE) if r2 r1 > c(t2 t1) and t2 t1;
an eect that precedes its cause if t2 < t1; an eect that satises Einsteins causality condition if r2 r1 c(t2 t1).
[7] In this connection we note that Y. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert, Phys. Rev. D 24, 359 (1981); 29, 228 (1984), argued that
one cannot use relativistic functions to describe FTLEs suggested by quantum mechanics.
[8] We label an equation of motion as local if it relates only the values of the state function and of nitely many of its time
and space derivatives at the same spacetime point.
[9] M. Ribaric and L.
Sustersic, Fund. Phys. Lett. 7, 531 (1994); Fizika B3, 93 (1994).
[10] See, e.g., M. M. R. Williams: Mathematical Methods in Particle Transport Theory (Butterworths, London, 1971), Secs.
2.3, 2.7 and 2.8; R. L. Libo, Kinetic Theory (Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, 1990), Chap. 3.
[11] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands: The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II (AddisonWesley, Reading,
Mass., 1965), Sec.127.
[12] W. Heisenberg, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 32, 20 (1938).
[13] J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell: Relativistic Quantum Fields (McGrawHill, New York, 1965), pp. 3, 14.
[14] Thus Xons with p
0
< 0 have negative energy. Which may have something to do with quantum particles that have negative
kinetic energies, considered by D. Rohrlich, Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and L. Vaidman, Fundamental Problems in quantum
Theory, edited by D. M. Greenberger and A. Zeilinger (New York Academy of Sciences, New York 1995), p. 394.
[15] The integral (5) is equivalent to the standard, Lorentzinvariant, symmetric fourintegral of F(p) over p provided Wicks
rotation is legitimate. The values of F(p) for complex p are dened by analytic continuation; which is not necessary if
we start with ps belonging to the Euclidean space R
4
. For additional properties of (5) see M. Ribaric and L.
Sustersic,
Transp. Theory Stat. Phys. 24, 1 (1995).
[16] We can regard cp/p
0
 as the speed of an Xon with fourmomentum p. If we take as the domain of the independent variable
p the invariant subset {p : p
0
> 0, p/p
0
 < 1} of R
1,3
, then no Xon is faster than light, the relation (11) is covariant, the
state function (x, p) dened by (11) exhibits Einsteins causality, and there are no FTLEs. On the other hand, if S = 0
and Q(x, p) = 0 if p/p
0
 1, then all Xons are faster than light and all properties of (x, p) propagate faster than light.
[17] M. Ribaric and L.
Sustersic, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 34, 571 (1995); hepth/9710220.
[18] See, e.g., P. H. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento 46B, 392 (1978); D. Bohm, B. Hiley and P. Kalogerou, Phys. Rep. 144, 321
(1987); L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981 (1992); L. Hardy and E. J. Squires, Phys. Lett. A168, 169 (1992); P. R.
Holland, Phys. Rep. 224, 95 (1993); M. C. Combourieu and J. P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. A175, 269 (1993).
9