The continuum limit of causal fermion systems

Fundamental Theories of Physics 186

Felix Finster

The Continuum
Limit of Causal
Fermion
Systems
From Planck Scale Structures to
Macroscopic Physics


Fundamental Theories of Physics
Volume 186

Series editors
Henk van Beijeren, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Philippe Blanchard, Bielefeld, Germany
Paul Busch, York, United Kingdom
Bob Coecke, Oxford, United Kingdom
Dennis Dieks, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Bianca Dittrich, Waterloo, Canada
Detlef Dürr, München, Germany
Ruth Durrer, Genève, Switzerland
Roman Frigg, London, United Kingdom
Christopher Fuchs, Boston, USA
Giancarlo Ghirardi, Trieste, Italy
Domenico J. W. Giulini, Bremen, Germany
Gregg Jaeger, Boston, USA
Claus Kiefer, Köln, Germany
Nicolaas P. Landsman, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Christian Maes, Leuven, Belgium
Mio Murao, Tokyo, Japan
Hermann Nicolai, Potsdam, Germany
Vesselin Petkov, Montreal, Canada
Laura Ruetsche, Ann Arbor, USA
Mairi Sakellariadou, London, United Kingdom
Alwyn van der Merwe, Denver, USA
Rainer Verch, Leipzig, Germany
Reinhard Werner, Hannover, Germany
Christian Wüthrich, Geneva, Switzerland
Lai-Sang Young, New York City, USA


The international monograph series “Fundamental Theories of Physics” aims to
stretch the boundaries of mainstream physics by clarifying and developing the
theoretical and conceptual framework of physics and by applying it to a wide range
of interdisciplinary scientific fields. Original contributions in well-established fields
such as Quantum Physics, Relativity Theory, Cosmology, Quantum Field Theory,
Statistical Mechanics and Nonlinear Dynamics are welcome. The series also
provides a forum for non-conventional approaches to these fields. Publications
should present new and promising ideas, with prospects for their further
development, and carefully show how they connect to conventional views of the
topic. Although the aim of this series is to go beyond established mainstream
physics, a high profile and open-minded Editorial Board will evaluate all
contributions carefully to ensure a high scientific standard.

More information about this series at />

Felix Finster

The Continuum Limit
of Causal Fermion Systems
From Planck Scale Structures to Macroscopic
Physics

123


Felix Finster
Fakultät für Mathematik
Universität Regensburg
Regensburg
Germany

ISSN 0168-1222
Fundamental Theories of Physics
ISBN 978-3-319-42066-0
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42067-7

ISSN 2365-6425

(electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-42067-7

(eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016945853
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part

of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland


Preface

This book is devoted to explaining how the causal action principle gives rise to the
interactions of the standard model plus gravity on the level of second-quantized
fermionic fields coupled to classical bosonic fields. It is the result of an endeavor
which I was occupied with for many years. Publishing the methods and results as a
book gives me the opportunity to present the material in a coherent and comprehensible way.
The four chapters of this book evolved differently. Chapters 1 and 2 are based on
the notes of my lecture “The fermionic projector and causal variational principles”
given at the University of Regensburg in the summer semester 2014. The intention
of this lecture was to introduce the basic concepts. Most of the material in these two
chapters has been published previously, as is made clear in the text by references to
the corresponding research articles. We also included exercises in order to facilitate
the self-study. Chapters 3–5, however, are extended versions of three consecutive

research papers written in the years 2007–2014 (arXiv:0908.1542 [math-ph], arXiv:
1211.3351 [math-ph], arXiv:1409.2568 [math-ph]). Thus the results of these
chapters are new and have not been published elsewhere. Similarly, the appendix is
formed of the appendices of the above-mentioned papers and also contains results
of original research.
The fact that Chaps. 3–5 originated from separate research papers is still visible
in their style. In particular, each chapter has its own short introduction, where the
notation is fixed and some important formulas are stated. Although this leads to
some redundancy and a few repetitions, I decided to leave these introductions
unchanged, because they might help the reader to revisit the prerequisites of each
chapter.
We remark that, having the explicit analysis of the continuum limit in mind, the
focus of this book is on the computational side. This entails that more theoretical
questions like the existence and uniqueness of solutions of Cauchy problems or the
non-perturbative methods for constructing the fermionic projector are omitted. To
the reader interested in mathematical concepts from functional analysis and partial
differential equations, we can recommend the book “An Introduction to the

v


vi

Preface

Fermionic Projector and Causal Fermion Systems” [FKT]. The intention is that the
book [FKT] explains the physical ideas in a non-technical way and introduces
the mathematical background from a conceptual point of view. It also includes the
non-perturbative construction of the fermionic projector in the presence of an
external potential and introduces spinors in curved space-time. The present book,

on the other hand, focuses on getting a rigorous connection between causal fermion
systems and physical systems in Minkowski space. Here we also introduce the
mathematical tools and give all the technical and computational details needed for
the analysis of the continuum limit. With this different perspective, the two books
should complement each other and when combined should give a mathematically
and physically convincing introduction to causal fermion systems and to the
analysis of the causal action principle in the continuum limit.
We point out that the connection to quantum field theory (in particular to
second-quantized bosonic fields) is not covered in this book. The reader interested
in this direction is referred to [F17] and [F20].
I would like to thank the participants of the spring school “Causal fermion
systems” hold in Regensburg in March 2016 for their interest and feedback.
Moreover, I am grateful to David Cherney, Andreas Grotz, Christian Hainzl,
Johannes Kleiner, Simone Murro, Joel Smoller and Alexander Strohmaier for
helpful discussions and valuable comments on the manuscript. Special thanks go to
Johannes Kleiner for suggesting many of the exercises. I would also like to thank
the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Leipzig and the Center
of Mathematical Sciences and Applications at Harvard University for hospitality
while I was working on the manuscript. I am grateful to the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for financial support.
Regensburg, Germany
May 2016

Felix Finster


Contents

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 The Abstract Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1.1 Basic Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.2 Space-Time and Causal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.3 The Kernel of the Fermionic Projector . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.4 Wave Functions and Spinors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.5 The Fermionic Projector on the Krein Space . . . . . .
1.1.6 Geometric Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.7 Topological Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Correspondence to Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Concepts Behind the Construction of Causal Fermion
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2 Introducing an Ultraviolet Regularization . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3 Correspondence of Space-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.4 Correspondence of Spinors and Physical Wave
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.5 Correspondence of the Causal Structure . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Underlying Physical Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 The Dynamics of Causal Fermion Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 The Euler-Lagrange Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Symmetries and Conserved Surface Layer Integrals . .
1.4.3 The Initial Value Problem and Time Evolution . . . . .
1.5 Limiting Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.1 The Quasi-free Dirac Field and Hadamard States . . .
1.5.2 Effective Interaction via Classical Gauge Fields . . . .
1.5.3 Effective Interaction via Bosonic Quantum Fields . . .
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
1
1
4
6
7
10
12
16
17

..

..
..

17
22
26

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

28
31
42
44
44
53
57
59
59
61
65
69

2 Computational Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 The Fermionic Projector in an External Potential . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 The Fermionic Projector of the Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . .

81
82
82

vii


viii

Contents

2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4

The External Field Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Main Ingredients to the Construction . . . . . . . . . .
The Perturbation Expansion of the Causal Green’s
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.5 Computation of Operator Products . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.6 The Causal Perturbation Expansion . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.7 Introducing Particles and Anti-Particles . . . . . . . .
2.2 The Light-Cone Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Basic Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Inductive Light-Cone Expansion of the Green’s
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3 Structural Results for Chiral Potentials . . . . . . . .
2.2.4 Reduction to the Phase-Free Contribution . . . . . .
2.2.5 The Residual Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.6 The Non-causal Low Energy Contribution . . . . . .
2.2.7 The Non-causal High Energy Contribution . . . . . .
2.2.8 The Unregularized Fermionic Projector in Position
Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Description of Linearized Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 The Formalism of the Continuum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Example: The ie-Regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Example: Linear Combinations
of ie-Regularizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Further Regularization Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.4 The Formalism of the Continuum Limit . . . . . . . .

2.4.5 Outline of the Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Computation of the Local Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Spectral Analysis of the Closed Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.1 Spectral Decomposition of the Regularized
Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.2 The Double Null Spinor Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.3 Perturbing the Spectral Decomposition . . . . . . . .
2.6.4 General Properties of the Spectral Decomposition .
2.6.5 Spectral Analysis of the Euler-Lagrange Equations
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 An Action Principle for an Interacting Fermion System
and Its Analysis in the Continuum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 An Action Principle for Fermion Systems
in Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Assuming a Vacuum Minimizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Introducing an Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 A Dirac Equation for the Fermionic Projector
3.4.2 The Interacting Dirac Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . .

....
....

83
84

.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

. 89
. 92
. 97
. 103
. 105
. 105

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

106
114
122
134
141
143

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

147
148
151
151

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

159
162
163
167
176
179

.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

180
184
187

189
191
193

. . . . . . . . 209
. . . . . . . . 209
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

212
215
219
220
221

Contents

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

ix

3.4.3 Introducing Particles and Anti-Particles . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.4 The Light-Cone Expansion and Resummation . . . . .
3.4.5 Clarifying Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.6 Relation to Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Continuum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.1 Weak Evaluation on the Light Cone . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.2 The Euler-Lagrange Equations
in the Continuum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Euler-Lagrange Equations to Degree Five . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.1 The Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.2 Chiral Gauge Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Euler-Lagrange Equations to Degree Four . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.1 The Axial Current Terms and the Mass Terms . . . . .
3.7.2 The Dirac Current Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.3 The Logarithmic Poles on the Light Cone . . . . . . . .

3.7.4 A Pseudoscalar Differential Potential . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.5 A Vector Differential Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.6 Recovering the Differential Potentials by a Local Axial
Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.7 General Local Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.8 The Shear Contributions by the Local Axial
Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.9 Homogeneous Transformations in the High-Frequency
Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.10 The Microlocal Chiral Transformation . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.11 The Shear Contributions by the Microlocal Chiral
Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Field Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.1 The Smooth Contributions to the Fermionic Projector
at the Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.2 Violation of Causality and the Vacuum Polarization .
3.8.3 Higher Order Non-Causal Corrections to the Field
Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.4 The Standard Quantum Corrections to the Field
Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.5 The Absence of the Higgs Boson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.6 The Coupling Constant and the Bosonic Mass
in Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Euler-Lagrange Equations to Degree Three and Lower . .
3.9.1 Scalar and Pseudoscalar Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.2 Bilinear Currents and Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.3 Further Potentials and Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.4 The Non-Dynamical Character of the EL Equations
to Lower Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

222
222
225
226
229
229

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

234
238
239
243
246
247
249
250
252
254

. . 256
. . 259
. . 260
. . 263
. . 271
. . 275

. . 278
. . 278
. . 283
. . 290
. . 292
. . 298
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

300
302
302
303
304

. . 306


x

Contents

3.10 Nonlocal Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10.1 Homogeneous Transformations in the Low-Frequency
Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10.2 Homogeneous Perturbations by Varying
the Momenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10.3 The Analysis of Homogeneous Perturbations
on the Light Cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10.4 Nonlocal Potentials, the Quasi-Homogeneous Ansatz .
3.10.5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 The Continuum Limit of a Fermion System Involving Neutrinos:
Weak and Gravitational Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Regularizing the Neutrino Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 A Naive Regularization of the Neutrino Sector . . . . .
4.2.2 Instability of the Naively Regularized Neutrino
Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3 Regularizing the Vacuum Neutrino
Sector—Introductory Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.4 Ruling Out the Chiral Neutrino Ansatz . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.5 A Formalism for the Regularized Vacuum Fermionic
Projector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.6 Interacting Systems, Regularization
of the Light-Cone Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.7 The i-Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Euler-Lagrange Equations to Degree Five . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 The Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 The Gauge Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 The Euler-Lagrange Equations to Degree Four . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 General Structural Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4.2 The Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3 The Current and Mass Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4 The Microlocal Chiral Transformation . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.5 The Shear Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 The Energy-Momentum Tensor and the Curvature Terms . . .
4.5.1 The Energy-Momentum Tensor of the Dirac Field . .
4.5.2 The Curvature Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.3 The Energy-Momentum Tensor of the Gauge Field . .
4.6 Structural Contributions to the Euler-Lagrange Equations . . . .
4.6.1 The Bilinear Logarithmic Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.2 The Field Tensor Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 The Effective Action in the Continuum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.1 Treating the Algebraic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.2 The Effective Dirac Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.3 Varying the Effective Dirac Action . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 308
. . 309
. . 309
. . 314
. . 321
. . 325
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.

327
327
330
331

. . 332
. . 335
. . 342
. . 344
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

347
351
354

355
357
365
365
368
370
374
384
387
387
389
392
397
398
405
410
410
415
417


Contents

xi

4.8
4.9

The Field Equations for Chiral Gauge Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
The Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

5 The Continuum Limit of a Fermion System Involving
Leptons and Quarks: Strong, Electroweak and Gravitational
Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 The Fermionic Projector and Its Perturbation
Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Chiral Gauge Potentials and Gauge Phases . . . . .
5.2.3 The Microlocal Chiral Transformation . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 The Causal Action Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Spontaneous Block Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 The Statement of Spontaneous Block Formation .
5.3.2 The Sectorial Projection of the Chiral
Gauge Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 The Bilinear Logarithmic Terms . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 The Field Tensor Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.5 Proof of Spontaneous Block Formation . . . . . . .
5.4 The Effective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 The General Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2 The Effective Lagrangian for Chiral Gauge Fields
5.4.3 The Effective Lagrangian for Gravity . . . . . . . . .
5.5 The Higgs Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . 431
. . . . . 431
. . . . . 432
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.

432
436
437
439
440
440

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

443

449
451
451
460
460
462
474
477

Appendix A: Testing on Null Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Appendix B: Spectral Analysis of the Closed Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
Appendix C: Ruling out the Local Axial Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . 499
Appendix D: Resummation of the Current and Mass Terms
at the Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Appendix E: The Weight Factors qb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Appendix F: The Regularized Causal Perturbation Theory
with Neutrinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Notation Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543


Chapter 1

Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

Causal fermion systems were introduced in [FGS] as a reformulation and generalization of the setting used in the fermionic projector approach [F7]. In the meantime, the
theory of causal fermion systems has evolved to an approach to fundamental physics.
It gives quantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum field theory as limiting
cases and is therefore a candidate for a unified physical theory. In this chapter, we

introduce the mathematical framework and give an overview of the different limiting
cases. The presentation is self-contained and includes references to the corresponding research papers. The aim is not only to convey the underlying physical picture,
but also to lay the mathematical foundations in a conceptually convincing way. This
includes technical issues like specifying the topologies on the different spaces of
functions and operators, giving a mathematical definition of an ultraviolet regularization, or specifying the maps which identify the objects of the causal fermion system
with corresponding objects in Minkowski space. Also, we use a basis-independent
notation whenever possible. The reader interested in a non-technical introduction is
referred to [FK1].

1.1 The Abstract Framework
1.1.1 Basic Definitions
For conceptual clarity, we begin with the general definitions.
Definition 1.1.1 (causal fermion system) Given a separable complex Hilbert space H
with scalar product .|. H and a parameter n ∈ N (the “spin dimension”), we
let F ⊂ L(H) be the set of all self-adjoint operators on H of finite rank, which
(counting multiplicities) have at most n positive and at most n negative eigenvalues.
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
F. Finster, The Continuum Limit of Causal Fermion Systems,
Fundamental Theories of Physics 186, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42067-7_1

1


2

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

On F we are given a positive measure ρ (defined on a σ-algebra of subsets of F), the
so-called universal measure. We refer to (H, F, ρ) as a causal fermion system.
We remark that the separability of the Hilbert space (i.e. the assumption that H

admits an at most countable Hilbert space basis) is not essential and could be left
out. We included the separability assumption because it seems to cover all cases of
physical interest and is useful if one wants to work with basis representations. A
simple example of a causal fermion system is given in Exercise 1.1.
As will be explained in detail in this book, a causal fermion system describes
a space-time together with all structures and objects therein (like the causal and
metric structures, spinors and interacting quantum fields). In order to single out the
physically admissible causal fermion systems, one must formulate physical equations. To this end, we impose that the universal measure should be a minimizer of
the causal action principle, which we now introduce. For any x, y ∈ F, the product x y is an operator of rank at most 2n. We denote its non-trivial eigenvalues
xy
xy
counting algebraic multiplicities by λ1 , . . . , λ2n ∈ C (more specifically, denoting
xy
xy
the rank of x y by k ≤ 2n, we choose λ1 , . . . , λk as all the non-zero eigenvalues
xy
xy
and set λk+1 , . . . , λ2n = 0). We introduce the spectral weight | . | of an operator as
the sum of the absolute values of its eigenvalues. In particular, the spectral weights
of the operator products x y and (x y)2 are defined by
2n

2n
xy

λi

|x y| =

and

xy 2

(x y)2 =

i=1

λi

.

i=1

We introduce the Lagrangian and the causal action by
Lagrangian:

L(x, y) = (x y)2 −

causal action:

S(ρ) =

F×F

1
|x y|2
2n

L(x, y) dρ(x) dρ(y) .

(1.1.1)
(1.1.2)

The causal action principle is to minimize S by varying the universal measure under
the following constraints:
ρ(F) = const

(1.1.3)

tr(x) dρ(x) = const

(1.1.4)

volume constraint:
trace constraint:
F

boundedness constraint: T (ρ) :=

F×F

|x y|2 dρ(x) dρ(y) ≤ C , (1.1.5)

where C is a given parameter (and tr denotes the trace of a linear operator on H).


1.1 The Abstract Framework

3

In order to make the causal action principle mathematically well-defined, one
needs to specify the class of measures in which to vary ρ. To this end, on F we
consider the topology induced by the operator norm
A := sup

Au

H

with u

H

=1 .

(1.1.6)

In this topology, the Lagrangian as well as the integrands in (1.1.4) and (1.1.5) are
continuous. The σ-algebra generated by the open sets of F consists of the so-called
Borel sets. A regular Borel measure is a measure on the Borel sets with the property
that it is continuous under approximations by compact sets from inside and by open
sets from outside (for basics see for example [Ha, Sect. 52]). The right prescription
is to vary ρ within the class of regular Borel measures of F. In the so-called finitedimensional setting when H is finite-dimensional and the total volume ρ(F) is finite,
the existence of minimizers is proven in [F10, F13], and the properties of minimizing
measures are analyzed in [FS, BF].
The causal action principle is ill-posed if the total volume ρ(F) is finite and the
Hilbert space H is infinite-dimensional (see Exercises 1.2 and 1.3). But the causal
action principle does make mathematical sense in the so-called infinite-dimensional
setting when H is infinite-dimensional and the total volume ρ(F) is infinite. In this
case, the volume constraint (1.1.3) is implemented by demanding that all variations (ρ(τ ))τ ∈(−ε,ε) should for all τ , τ ∈ (−ε, ε) satisfy the conditions

ρ(τ ) − ρ(τ ) (F) < ∞

and

ρ(τ ) − ρ(τ ) (F) = 0

(1.1.7)

(where |.| denotes the total variation of a measure; see [Ha, §28]). The existence
theory in the infinite-dimensional setting has not yet been developed. But it is known
that the Euler-Lagrange equations corresponding to the causal action principle still
have a mathematical meaning (as will be explained in Sect. 1.4.1 below). This will
make it possible to analyze the causal action principle without restrictions on the
dimension of H nor on the total volume. One way of getting along without an
existence theory in the infinite-dimensional setting is to take the point of view that
on a fundamental physical level, the total volume of is finite and the Hilbert space H is
finite-dimensional, whereas the infinite-dimensional setting merely is a mathematical
idealization needed in order to describe systems in infinite volume involving an
infinite number of quantum particles.
We finally explain the significance of the constraints. Generally speaking, the
constraints (1.1.3)–(1.1.5) are needed to avoid trivial minimizers and in order for the
variational principle to be well-posed. More specifically, if we dropped the constraint
of fixed total volume (1.1.3), the measure ρ = 0 would be a trivial minimizer. Without the boundedness constraint (1.1.5), the loss of compactness discussed in [F13,
Sect. 2.2] implies that no minimizers exist (see Exercises 1.2 and 1.4). If, on the
other hand, we dropped the trace constraint (1.1.4), a trivial minimizer could be
constructed as follows: We let x be the operator with the matrix representation


4

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

x = diag 1, . . . , 1, −1, . . . , −1, 0, 0, . . .
n times

(1.1.8)

n times

and choose ρ as a multiple of the Dirac measure supported at x. Then T > 0 but
S = 0.

1.1.2 Space-Time and Causal Structure
A causal fermion system (H, F, ρ) encodes a large amount of information. In order
to recover this information, one can for example form products of linear operators
in F, compute the eigenvalues of such operator products and integrate expressions
involving these eigenvalues with respect to the universal measure. However, it is not
obvious what all this information means. In order to clarify the situation, we now
introduce additional mathematical objects. These objects are inherent in the sense
that we only use information already encoded in the causal fermion system.
We define space-time, denoted by M, as the support of the universal measure,1
M := supp ρ ⊂ F .
Thus the space-time points are symmetric linear operators on H. On M we consider
the topology induced by F (generated by the sup-norm (1.1.6) on L(H)). Moreover,
the universal measure ρ| M restricted to M can be regarded as a volume measure on
space-time. This makes space-time to a topological measure space. Furthermore,
one has the following notion of causality:
Definition 1.1.2 (causal structure) For any x, y ∈ F, the product x y is an operator of rank at most 2n. We denote its non-trivial eigenvalues (counting algebraic
xy
xy

multiplicities) by λ1 , . . . , λ2n . The points x and y are called spacelike separated if
xy
all the λ j have the same absolute value. They are said to be timelike separated if
xy
the λ j are all real and do not all have the same absolute value. In all other cases (i.e.
xy
if the λ j are not all real and do not all have the same absolute value), the points x
and y are said to be lightlike separated.
Restricting the causal structure of F to M, we get causal relations in space-time.
To avoid confusion, we remark that in earlier papers (see [FG2, FGS]) a slightly
different definition of the causal structure was used. But the modified definition used
here seems preferable.
1 The support of a measure is defined as the complement of the largest open set of measure zero, i.e.

supp ρ := F \

⊂F

is open and ρ( ) = 0 .

It is by definition a closed set. This definition is illustrated in Exercise 1.5.


1.1 The Abstract Framework

5

The Lagrangian (1.1.1) is compatible with the above notion of causality in the
following sense. Suppose that two points x, y ∈ F are spacelike separated. Then the
xy

eigenvalues λi all have the same absolute value. Rewriting (1.1.1) as
2n
xy

L=

|λi |2 −
i=1

1
2n

2n
xy

xy

|λi | |λ j | =
i, j=1

1
4n

2n
xy

λi

xy

− λj

2

,

(1.1.9)

i, j=1

one concludes that the Lagrangian vanishes. Thus pairs of points with spacelike
separation do not enter the action. This can be seen in analogy to the usual notion of
causality where points with spacelike separation cannot influence each other.2 This
analogy is the reason for the notion “causal” in “causal fermion system” and “causal
action principle.”
The above notion of causality is symmetric in x and y, as we now explain. Since
the trace is invariant under cyclic permutations, we know that
tr (x y) p = tr x (yx) p−1 y = tr (yx) p−1 yx = tr (yx) p

(1.1.10)

(where tr again denotes the trace of a linear operator on H). Since all our operators
have finite rank, there is a finite-dimensional subspace I of H such that x y maps I to
itself and vanishes on the orthogonal complement of I . Then the non-trivial eigenvalues of the operator product x y are given as the zeros of the characteristic polynomial
of the restriction x y| I : I → I . The coefficients of this characteristic polynomial
(like the trace, the determinant, etc.) are symmetric polynomials in the eigenvalues
and can therefore be expressed in terms of traces of powers of x y. As a consequence,
the identity (1.1.10) implies that the operators x y and yx have the same characteristic polynomial and are thus isospectral. This shows that our notions of causality are
indeed symmetric in the sense that x and y are spacelike separated if and only if y
and x are (and similarly for timelike and lightlike separation). One also sees that the

Lagrangian L(x, y) is symmetric in its two arguments.
A causal fermion system also distinguishes a direction of time. To this end, we
let πx be the orthogonal projection in H on the subspace x(H) ⊂ H and introduce
the functional
C : M ×M →R,

C(x, y) := i tr y x π y πx − x y πx π y

(1.1.11)

(this functional was first stated in [FK, Sect. 8.5], motivated by constructions in [FG2,
Sect. 3.5]). Obviously, this functional is anti-symmetric in its two arguments. This
makes it possible to introduce the notions
y lies in the future of x
y lies in the past of x
2 For

if C(x, y) > 0
if C(x, y) < 0 .

(1.1.12)

clarity, we point out that our notion of causality does allow for nonlocal correlations and
entanglement between regions with space-like separation. This will become clear in Sects. 1.1.4
and 1.5.3.


6

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

By distinguishing a direction of time, we get a structure similar to a causal set (see
for example [BLMS]). But in contrast to a causal set, our notion of “lies in the future
of” is not necessarily transitive. This corresponds to our physical conception that the
transitivity of the causal relations could be violated both on the cosmological scale
(there might be closed timelike curves) and on the microscopic scale (there seems no
compelling reason why the causal relations should be transitive down to the Planck
scale). This is the reason why we consider other structures (namely the universal
measure and the causal action principle) as being more fundamental. In our setting,
causality merely is a derived structure encoded in the causal fermion system.
In Exercise 1.6, the causal structure is studied in the example of Exercise 1.1.

1.1.3 The Kernel of the Fermionic Projector
The causal action principle depends crucially on the eigenvalues of the operator
product x y with x, y ∈ F. For computing these eigenvalues, it is convenient not to
consider this operator product on the (possibly infinite-dimensional) Hilbert space H,
but instead to restrict attention to a finite-dimensional subspace of H, chosen such
that the operator product vanishes on the orthogonal complement of this subspace.
This construction leads us to the spin spaces and to the kernel of the fermionic
projector, which we now introduce. For every x ∈ F we define the spin space Sx
by Sx = x(H); it is a subspace of H of dimension at most 2n. For any x, y ∈ M we
define the kernel of the fermionic operator P(x, y) by
P(x, y) = πx y| Sy : S y → Sx

(1.1.13)

(where πx is again the orthogonal projection on the subspace x(H) ⊂ H). Taking the
trace of (1.1.13) in the case x = y, one finds that tr(x) = Tr Sx (P(x, x)), making it
possible to express the integrand of the trace constraint (1.1.4) in terms of the kernel
of the fermionic operator. In order to also express the eigenvalues of the operator x y,

we introduce the closed chain A x y as the product
A x y = P(x, y) P(y, x) : Sx → Sx .

(1.1.14)

Computing powers of the closed chain, one obtains
A x y = (πx y)(π y x)| Sx = πx yx| Sx ,

(A x y ) p = πx (yx) p | Sx .
p

Taking the trace, one sees in particular that Tr Sx (A x y ) = tr (yx) p . Repeating the
arguments after (1.1.10), one concludes that the eigenvalues of the closed chain
xy
xy
coincide with the non-trivial eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λ2n of the operator x y in Definition 1.1.2. Therefore, the kernel of the fermionic operator encodes the causal structure
of M. The main advantage of working with the kernel of the fermionic operator is
that the closed chain (1.1.14) is a linear operator on a vector space of dimension at


1.1 The Abstract Framework

7
xy

xy

most 2n, making it possible to compute the λ1 , . . . , λ2n as the eigenvalues of a finite
matrix.
Next, it is very convenient to arrange that the kernel of the fermionic operator is

symmetric in the sense that
P(x, y)∗ = P(y, x) .

(1.1.15)

To this end, one chooses on the spin space Sx the spin scalar product ≺.|.
≺u|v

x=

− u|xu

H

(for all u, v ∈ Sx ) .

x

by

(1.1.16)

Due to the factor x on the right, this definition really makes the kernel of the fermionic
operator symmetric, as is verified by the computation
≺u | P(x, y) v

x

= − u | x P(x, y) v
= − πy x u | y v

H

= − u | xy v

H

=≺P(y, x) u | v

y

H

(where u ∈ Sx and v ∈ S y ). The spin space (Sx , ≺.|. x ) is an indefinite inner product
of signature ( p, q) with p, q ≤ n (for textbooks on indefinite inner product spaces
see [B2, GLR]). In this way, indefinite inner product spaces arise naturally when
analyzing the mathematical structure of the causal action principle.
The kernel of the fermionic operator as defined by (1.1.13) is also referred to as the
kernel of the fermionic projector, provided that suitable normalization conditions are
satisfied. Different normalization conditions have been proposed and analyzed (see
the discussion in [FT2, Sect. 2.2]). More recently, it was observed in [FK2] that one
of these normalization conditions is automatically satisfied if the universal measure
is a minimizer of the causal action principle (see Sect. 1.4.2 below). With this in
mind, we no longer need to be so careful about the normalization. For notational
simplicity, we always refer to P(x, y) as the kernel of the fermionic projector.

1.1.4 Wave Functions and Spinors
For clarity, we sometimes denote the spin space Sx at a space-time point x ∈ M
by Sx M. A wave function ψ is defined as a function which to every x ∈ M associates
a vector of the corresponding spin space,

ψ : M →H

with

ψ(x) ∈ Sx M for all x ∈ M .

(1.1.17)

We now want to define what we mean by continuity of a wave function. For the
notion of continuity, we need to compare the wave function at different space-time
points, being vectors ψ(x) ∈ Sx M and ψ(y) ∈ S y M in different spin spaces. Using
that both spin spaces Sx M and S y M are subspaces of the same Hilbert space H,


8

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

an obvious idea is to simply work with the Hilbert space norm ψ(x) − ψ(y) H .
However, in view of the factor x in the spin scalar product (1.1.16), it is preferable
to insert a corresponding power of the operator x. Namely, the natural norm on the
spin space (Sx , ≺.|. x ) is given by
ψ(x)

2
x

:= ψ(x) |x| ψ(x) H =

2

|x| ψ(x)

H

√
(where |x| is the absolute value of the symmetric operator x on H, and |x| is the
square root thereof). This leads us to defining that the wave function ψ is continuous
at x if for every ε > 0 there is δ > 0 such that
|y| ψ(y) −

|x| ψ(x)

H

<ε

for all y ∈ M with

y−x ≤δ.

Likewise, ψ is said to be continuous on M if it continuous at every x ∈ M. We
denote the set of continuous wave functions by C 0 (M, S M). Clearly, the space of
continuous wave functions is a complex vector space with pointwise operations, i.e.
(αψ + βφ)(x) := αψ(x) + βφ(x) with α, β ∈ C.
It is an important observation that every vector u ∈ H of the Hilbert space gives
rise to a unique wave function. To obtain this wave function, denoted by ψ u , we
simply project the vector u to the corresponding spin spaces,
ψu : M → H ,

ψ u (x) = πx u ∈ Sx M .

(1.1.18)

We refer to ψ u as the physical wave function of u ∈ H. The estimate
|y| ψ u (y) −
≤

|y| −

|x| ψ u (x)
|x|

u

H
( )

H

=

≤ y−x

|y| u −
1
4

|x| u

y+x

1
4

H

u

(1.1.19)

H

shows that ψ u is indeed continuous (for the inequality ( ) see Exercise 1.7). The
physical picture is that the physical wave functions ψ u are those wave functions
which are realized in the physical system. Using a common physical notion, one
could say that the vectors in H correspond to the “occupied states” of the system,
and that an occupied state u ∈ H is represented in space-time by the corresponding
physical wave function ψ u . The shortcoming of this notion is that an “occupied
state” is defined only for free quantum fields, whereas the physical wave functions
are defined also in the interacting theory. For this reason, we prefer not use the notion
of “occupied states.”
For a convenient notation, we also introduce the wave evaluation operator as an
operator which to every Hilbert space vector associates the corresponding physical
wave function,
u → ψu .
(1.1.20)
: H → C 0 (M, S M) ,

1.1 The Abstract Framework

9

Evaluating at a fixed space-time point gives the mapping
(x) : H → Sx M ,

u → ψ u (x) .

The kernel of the fermionic projector can be expressed in terms of the wave evaluation
operator:
Lemma 1.1.3 For any x, y ∈ M,
x = − (x)∗ (x)
P(x, y) = − (x) (y)∗ .

(1.1.21)
(1.1.22)

Proof For any v ∈ Sx M and u ∈ H,
≺v |

(x) u

x =≺v | πx

and thus

Hence

u

(1.1.16)
x

=

− v|x u

H

= (−x) v | u

H

(x)∗ = −x| Sx M : Sx M → H .
(x)∗

(x) u =

(x)∗ ψxu = −x ψxu

(1.1.18)

=

−x πx u = −xu ,

proving (1.1.21). Similarly, the relation (1.1.22) follows from the computation
(x)

(y)∗ = −πx y| Sy = −P(x, y) .

This completes the proof.
The structure of the wave functions (1.1.17) taking values in the spin spaces is
reminiscent of sections of a vector bundle. The only difference is that our setting
is more general in that the base space M does not need to be a manifold, and the
fibres Sx M do not need to depend smoothly on the base point x. However, comparing to the setting of spinors in Minkowski space or on a Lorentzian manifold, one
important structure is missing: we have no Dirac matrices and no notion of Clifford
multiplication. The following definition is a step towards introducing these additional
structures.
Definition 1.1.4 (Clifford subspace) We denote the space of symmetric linear operators on (Sx , ≺.|. x ) by Symm(Sx ) ⊂ L(Sx ). A subspace K ⊂ Symm(Sx ) is called
a Clifford subspace of signature (r, s) at the point x (with r, s ∈ N0 ) if the following
conditions hold:
(i) For any u, v ∈ K , the anti-commutator {u, v} ≡ uv + vu is a multiple of the
identity on Sx .
(ii) The bilinear form ., . on K defined by


10

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

1
{u, v} = u, v 11
2

for all u, v ∈ K

(1.1.23)

is non-degenerate and has signature (r, s).
In view of the anti-commutation relations (1.1.23), a Clifford subspace can be
regarded as a generalization of the space spanned by the usual Dirac matrices. However, the above definition has two shortcomings: First, there are many different Clifford subspaces, so that there is no unique notion of Clifford multiplication. Second,
we are missing the structure of tangent vectors as well as a mapping which would
associate a tangent vector to an element of the Clifford subspace.
These shortcomings can be overcome by using either geometric or measuretheoretic methods. In the geometric approach, one gets along with the non-uniqueness
of the Clifford subspaces by working with suitable equivalence classes. Using geometric information encoded in the causal fermion system, one can then construct mappings between the equivalence classes at different space-time points. This method will
be outlined in Sect. 1.1.6. In the measure-theoretic approach, on the other hand, one
uses the local form of the universal measure with the aim of constructing a unique
Clifford subspace at every space-time point. This will be outlined in Sect. 1.1.7.
Before entering these geometric and measure-theoretic constructions, we introduce
additional structures on the space of wave functions.

1.1.5 The Fermionic Projector on the Krein Space
The space of wave functions can be endowed with an inner product and a topology.
The inner product is defined by
≺ψ(x)|φ(x)

<ψ|φ> =

x

dρ(x) .

(1.1.24)

M

In order to ensure that the last integral converges, we also introduce the scalar product .|. by
ψ(x)| |x| φ(x)

ψ|φ =

H

dρ(x)

(1.1.25)

M

(where |x| is again the absolute value of the symmetric operator x on H). The oneparticle space (K, <.|.>) is defined as the space of wave functions for which the
corresponding norm ||| . ||| is finite, with the topology induced by this norm, and
endowed with the inner product <.|.>. Such an indefinite inner product space with
a topology induced by an additional scalar product is referred to as a Krein space
(see for example [B2, L]).
When working with the one-particle Krein space, one must keep in mind that the
physical wave function ψ u of a vector u ∈ H does not need to be a vector in K because
the corresponding integral in (1.1.24) may diverge. Similarly, the scalar product


1.1 The Abstract Framework

11

ψ u |ψ u may be infinite. One could impose conditions on the causal fermion system
which ensure that the integrals in (1.1.24) and (1.1.25) are finite for all physical wave
functions. Then the mapping u → ψ u would give rise to an embedding H → K of
the Hilbert space H into the one-particle Krein space. However, such conditions seem
too restrictive and are not really needed. Therefore, here we shall not impose any

conditions on the causal fermion systems but simply keep in mind that the physical
wave functions are in general no Krein vectors.
Despite this shortcoming, the Krein space is useful because the kernel of the
fermionic projector gives rise to an operator on K. Namely, choosing a suitable
dense domain of definition3 D(P), we can regard P(x, y) as the integral kernel of a
corresponding operator P,
P : D(P) ⊂ K → K ,

P(x, y) ψ(y) dρ(y) ,

(Pψ)(x) =

(1.1.26)

M

referred to as the fermionic projector. The fermionic projector has the following two
useful properties:
P is symmetric in the sense that <Pψ|φ> = <ψ|Pφ> for all ψ, φ ∈ D(P):
The symmetry of the kernel of the fermionic projector (1.1.15) implies that
≺P(x, y)ψ(y) | ψ(x)

x =≺ψ(y) |

P(y, x)ψ(x)

y

.

Integrating over x and y and applying (1.1.26) and (1.1.24) gives the result.
(−P) is positive in the sense that <ψ|(−P)ψ> ≥ 0 for all ψ ∈ D(P):
This follows immediately from the calculation
≺ψ(x) | P(x, y) ψ(y)

<ψ|(−P)ψ> = −

x

dρ(x) dρ(y)

M×M

=

ψ(x) | x πx y ψ(y)

H

dρ(x) dρ(y) = φ|φ

H

≥0,

M×M

where we again used (1.1.24) and (1.1.13) and set
x ψ(x) dρ(x) .

φ=
M

In Exercise 1.8 the wave functions and the Krein structure are studied in the example
of Exercise 1.1.

3 For

example, one may choose D(P) as the set of all vectors ψ ∈ K satisfying the conditions
φ :=

x ψ(x) dρ(x) ∈ H
M

and

||| φ ||| < ∞ .


12

1 Causal Fermion Systems—An Overview

1.1.6 Geometric Structures
A causal fermion system also encodes geometric information on space-time. More
specifically, in the paper [FG2] notions of connection and curvature are introduced
and analyzed. We now outline a few constructions from this paper. Recall that the
kernel of the fermionic projector (1.1.13) is a mapping from one spin space to another,
thereby inducing relations between different space-time points. The idea is to use
these relations for the construction of a spin connection Dx,y , being a unitary mapping

between the corresponding spin spaces,
Dx,y : S y → Sx
(we consistently use the notation that the subscript x y denotes an object at the point x,
whereas the additional comma x,y denotes an operator which maps an object at y to
an object at x). The simplest method for constructing the spin connection would be to
−1

form a polar decomposition, P(x, y) = A x y2 U , and to introduce the spin connection
as the unitary part, Dx,y = U . However, this method is too naive, because we want the
spin connection to be compatible with a corresponding metric connection ∇x,y which
should map Clifford subspaces at x and y (see Definition 1.1.4 above) isometrically
to each other. A complication is that, as discussed at the end of Sect. 1.1.4, the Clifford
subspaces at x and y are not unique. The method to bypass these problems is to work
with several Clifford subspaces and to use so-called splice maps, as we now briefly
explain.
First, it is useful to restrict the freedom in choosing the Clifford subspaces with
the following construction. Recall that for any x ∈ M, the operator (−x) on H has
at most n positive and at most n negative eigenvalues. We denote its positive and
negative spectral subspaces by Sx+ and Sx− , respectively. In view of (1.1.16), these
subspaces are also orthogonal with respect to the spin scalar product,
Sx = Sx+ ⊕ Sx− .
We introduce the Euclidean sign operator sx as a symmetric operator on Sx whose
eigenspaces corresponding to the eigenvalues ±1 are the spaces Sx+ and Sx− , respectively. Since sx2 = 11, the span of the Euclidean sign operator is a one-dimensional
Clifford subspace of signature (1, 0). The idea is to extend sx to obtain higherdimensional Clifford subspaces. We thus define a Clifford extension as a Clifford
subspace which contains sx . By restricting attention to Clifford extensions, we have
reduced the freedom in choosing Clifford subspaces. However, still there is not
a unique Clifford extension, even for fixed dimension and signature. But one can
define the tangent space Tx as an equivalence class of Clifford extensions; for details
see [FG2, Sect. 3.1]. The bilinear form ., . in (1.1.23) induces a Lorentzian metric
on the tangent space.

1.1 The Abstract Framework

13

Next, for our constructions to work, we need to assume that the points x and y
are both regular and are properly timelike separated, defined as follows:
Definition 1.1.5 A space-time point x ∈ M is said to be regular if x has the maximal
possible rank, i.e. dim x(H) = 2n. Otherwise, the space-time point is called singular.
In most situations of physical interest (like Dirac sea configurations to be discussed
in Sects. 1.2 and 1.5 below), all space-time points are regular. Singular points, on the
other hand, should be regarded as exceptional points or “singularities” of space-time.
Definition 1.1.6 The space-time points x, y ∈ M are properly timelike separated if
the closed chain A x y , (1.1.14), has a strictly positive spectrum and if all eigenspaces
are definite subspaces of (Sx , ≺.|. x ).
By a definite subspace of Sx we mean a subspace on which the inner product ≺.|.
is either positive or negative definite.
The two following observations explain why the last definition makes sense:

x

Properly timelike separation implies timelike separation (see Definition 1.1.2):
Before entering the proof, we give a simple counter example which shows why
the assumption of definite eigenspaces in Definition 1.1.6 is necessary for the
implication to hold. Namely, if the point x is regular and A x y is the identity, then
the eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λ2n are all strictly positive, but they are all equal.
If I ⊂ Sx is a definite invariant subspace of A x y , then the restriction A x y | I is a
symmetric operator on the Hilbert space (I, ± ≺.|. I ×I ), which is diagonalizable with real eigenvalues. Moreover, the orthogonal complement I ⊥ of I ⊂ Sx
is again invariant. If I ⊥ is non-trivial, the restriction A x y | I ⊥ has at least one

eigenspace. Therefore, the assumption in Definition 1.1.6 that all eigenspaces
are definite makes it possible to proceed inductively to conclude that the operator A x y is diagonalizable and has real eigenvalues.
If x and y are properly timelike separated, then its eigenvalues are by definition
all real and positive. Thus it remains to show that they are not all the same. If
conversely they were all the same, i.e. λ1 = · · · = λ2n = λ > 0, then Sx would
necessarily have the maximal dimension 2n. Moreover, the fact that A x y is diagonalizable implies that A x y would be a multiple of the identity on Sx . Therefore,
the spin space (Sx , ≺.|. ) would have to be definite, in contradiction to the fact
that it has signature (n, n).
The notion is symmetric in x and y:
Suppose that A x y u = λu with u ∈ Sx and λ > 0. Then the vector w := P(y, x) u
∈ S y is an eigenvector of A yx again to the eigenvalue λ,
A yx w = P(y, x)P(x, y) P(y, x) u
= P(y, x) A x y u = λ P(y, x) u = λw .