text:
# Real-normalized Whitham hierarchies and the WDVV equations

## Introduction

In the beginning of the 90’s, while studying deformations of $`2D`$ topological field theories (TFT), E. Witten, R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde, and H. Verlinde (\[DVV91b, DVV91a, Wit90\]) wrote down the following overdetermined system of non-linear PDEs for a function $`(t)=(t_0,t_1,\mathrm{})`$:

(WDVV)
$$_{\alpha \beta \lambda }(_{0\lambda \mu })^1_{\mu \gamma \delta }=_{\delta \beta \lambda }(_{0\lambda \mu })^1_{\mu \gamma \alpha },$$

where $`_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{}{t_\alpha }}`$, and the matrix $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=_{0\alpha \beta }`$ is constant and non-degenerate. These equations are now called the WDVV equations. They appear in the following way \[Dij98\].

One can show that the structure of a $`2D`$ TFT is equivalent to a structure of a *Frobenius algebra* $`A`$, i. e., a commutative associative algebra with a unit and a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form $`\eta `$ such that $`\eta (ab,d)=\eta (a,bd)`$. Let $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}`$ be a basis of $`A`$ ($`\varphi _\alpha `$ correspond to primary fields in TFT) and let $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\eta (\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta )=\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta _0`$, $`c_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\eta (\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma )=\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma _0`$. Deformations of a TFT structure considered in \[DVV91b, DVV91a, Wit90\] correspond to potential deformations of a Frobenius algebra, i. e., there should exist a function $`(t)`$, called the *WDVV potential*, such that $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=_{0\alpha \beta }(t)`$ and $`c_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)=_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)`$. Then the WDVV equations are just the associativity conditions for the deformed algebra structure.

It is now clear that the theory of the WDVV equations and its differential-geometric counterpart, the theory of Frobenius manifolds, are related to a whole spectrum of applications ranging from classical differential geometry (Darboux-Egoroff metrics, $`n`$-orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems, deformations of singularities) to quantum cohomology, Gromov-Witten invariants, integrable hierarchies, and the Seiberg-Witten equations.

Solutions of the WDVV equations that can be obtained from the theory of Whitham hierarchies correspond to the topological Landau-Ginzburg theories and minimal models. For $`A_n`$ minimal models, a Frobenius algebra structure is defined on the space of degree $`n2`$ polynomials in $`p`$ with the help of the superpotential $`W(p)={\displaystyle \frac{p^n}{n}}`$ by

$`uv`$ $`=u(p)v(p)modW^{}(p),`$
$`uv`$ $`=\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(p)v(p)}{W^{}(p)}}dp.`$
A Frobenius algebra structure is then deformed by deforming the superpotential $`W`$,

$$W(p|a)=\frac{p^n}{n}+a_{n2}p^{n2}+\mathrm{}+a_1p+a_0,$$

where we used the notation $`W(p|a)`$ to separate the variable $`p`$ from the deformation parameters $`a_{n2},\mathrm{},a_0`$. Let $`𝔨(p)`$ be an $`n^{\text{th}}`$ root of $`W(p|a)`$ in the neighborhood of infinity,

$$𝔨^n(p)=nW(p)=p^n+\mathrm{},𝔨(p)=p+O(p^1).$$

Then the deformed basis of primary fields $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is given by

(1)
$$\varphi _\alpha (p|t)=\frac{1}{\alpha +1}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha +1}(p|t)}{dp}=p^\alpha +\mathrm{},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (p)=\left[\begin{array}{c}𝔨^\alpha (p)\end{array}\right]_+`$ is a principal (i.e., polynomial) part of the Laurent expansion of $`𝔨^\alpha `$ in the neighborhood of infinity. The flat coordinates $`t_\alpha `$ on the space of the deformation parameters are given by $`t_\alpha =\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}𝔨^{(\alpha +1)}pdW`$, and $`\varphi _\alpha (p|t)=_{t_\alpha }W(p|t)`$. Then

$`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta =\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _a\varphi _\beta }{W^{}(p)}}dp=\delta _{\alpha +\beta ,n2},`$
$`c_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)`$ $`=(\text{coeff}){\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dW(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha +1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\beta +1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma +1}}{dpdW}}.`$
In \[DVV91b\] it was shown that $`c_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)`$ satisfy the integrability conditions and therefore $`c_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)=_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(t)`$. The closed expression for this WDVV potential $`(t)`$ was identified by I. Krichever \[Kri92\] with the logarithm of the $`\tau `$-function of a certain reduction of the genus zero Whitham hierarchy.

Whitham equations (or modulation equations) appear in the theory of perturbations of exact algebro-geometric solutions of soliton equations and describe “slow drift” on the moduli space of algebro-geometric data. These equations can be defined with the help of certain differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ on the universal curve, each differential generating a corresponding Whitham flow on the moduli. A large class of solutions of the Whitham hierarchy is given by the so-called algebraic orbits. Such solutions depend only on finitely many parameters and can be constructed as follows. One starts with a finite-dimensional moduli space, called the universal configuration space, that consists of a curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, punctures $`P_\alpha `$, and a pair of Abelian integrals $`E`$ and $`Q`$. Then one defines special coordinates on this space (Whitham times), picks a leaf defined by fixing some of them, and maps this leaf to the moduli space of algebro-geometric data in such a way that coordinate lines go to Whitham flows. All information about such algebraic orbit can be encoded in a single function $`\tau (t)`$ that depends only on the moduli. This function is called the $`\tau `$-function of an algebraic orbit.

In the genus zero case Abelian integrals become polynomials, and if we choose an algebraic orbit with $`Q=p`$, then $`E`$ can be identified (up to normalization) with the superpotential $`W`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ define a basis of the corresponding Frobenius algebra, Whitham times $`t_i`$ give flat coordinates on the orbit, and $`F(t)=\mathrm{ln}\tau (t)`$ is a WDVV potential.

This approach can be generalized to moduli spaces of curves of higher genus. One new feature of a higher genus case is a more complicated topology of the moduli space. As a result, the hierarchy has to be extended to include certain (multivalued) differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ that generate additional Whitham flows. Another important issue is a choice of the normalization. Namely, in the genus zero case, differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are completely determined by their expansions in the neighborhoods of marked points $`P_\alpha `$. In the higher genus case, these conditions define $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ only up to a holomorphic differential. This ambiguity is fixed by introducing a normalization condition. There are two main choices — real normalization, which is defined by

$$\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right]=0cH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,),$$

and complex normalization (or normalization w.r.t. $`a`$-cycles). Complex normalization requires making a choice of a canonical basis $``$ of cycles in the homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ and is then defined by

$$_{a_k}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0a_k.$$

Whitham equations were originally derived in \[Kri88\] for real-normalized differentials. However, after the relationship between Whitham equations and WDVV equations was found in \[Kri92\] and \[Dub92\], the focus shifted to the complex normalization condition \[Kri94\]. There were two main reasons for this. First, in the complex-normalized case the $`\tau `$-function is holomorphic, which is important for string theory applications. Second, the derivation of the expression for the $`\tau `$-function relied on the Riemann bilinear identities. Corresponding identities for real normalized differentials are technically more complicated. However, complex normalization has certain disadvantages. In particular, it is well-defined only on the extended moduli space that incorporates the choice of a canonical basis $``$ into moduli data.

In this paper we develop a real-normalized version of the above approach. In this case, Whitham hierarchy can be defined on the usual moduli space of curves with some extra algebro-geometric data. First, we define a real leaf in the universal configuration space, introduce Whitham coordinates on this leaf and map it into the moduli space in such a way that the resulting differentials are real-normalized. Then we prove the real-normalized version of the Riemann bilinear identities (generalized to multivalued differentials). Using these identities we find the formula for the $`\tau `$-function of an algebraic orbit and prove the following theorem for $`F(T)=\mathrm{ln}\tau (T)`$.

###### Theorem.

The third derivatives of $`F(T)`$ are given by the following formula

$$_{T_AT_BT_C}F(T)=\mathrm{}\left[\underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_C}{dEdQ}\right]$$

This theorem then implies that if we consider a special class of algebraic orbits by choosing $`dQ`$ to be a real-normalized differential with a pole of order two at a puncture $`P_1`$, then Whitham flows define potential deformations of a Frobenius algebra structure with observables corresponding to $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dQ}}`$, and we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem.

The logarithm of a $`\tau `$-function of a (reduced) real-normalized genus $`g`$ Whitham hierarchy is a solution to the WDVV equation.

### Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to I. Krichever for suggesting this problem and for constant attention to this work. The author also thanks Yu. Volvovski for many useful discussions.

## Whitham equations

Whitham equations first appeared in the theory of perturbations of exact algebro-geometric solutions of soliton equations. Such solutions are defined by linear flows on the Jacobian $`\mathrm{Jac}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g)`$ of an auxiliary algebraic curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ and are expressed in terms of theta functions. Perturbing these solutions by the so-called non-linear WKB (or Whitham averaging \[Whi74\]) method (\[FFM80, DM82, DN83\]) results in a “slow drift” on the moduli $``$ of algebro-geometric data. Equations describing this drift are called *Whitham equations*.

Although Whitham equations are equations on the moduli, they can be conveniently written with the help of certain Abelian differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A(P|I)`$, $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ defined on the universal curve $`𝒩_g^1`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_g& & 𝒩_g^1\\ & & & & \\ & & .\end{array}$$

Each of the differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ is coupled with a corresponding *Whitham time $`T_A`$* defining $`A^{\text{th}}`$ Whitham flow on $``$. Then, after making a special choice of connection on $`𝒩_g^1`$, Whitham equations can be written in the following implicit form,

$$_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B=_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_A.$$

This form of Whitham equations was first observed by Flashka, Forest, and McLaughlin \[FFM80\] for the KdV equation and hyperelliptic spectral curves. It was later justified by Krichever \[Kri88\] in a more general setting of $`(2+1)`$ equations and general spectral curves.

## Whitham hierarchies

It turns out that one can construct a whole hierarchy of Whitham equations. Following Krichever, we use algebro-geometric approach to construct Whitham hierarchies (Hamiltonian approach to the theory of Whitham equations was developed in \[DN83\]).

We begin with a local definition. Let $`T=\{T_A\}_{A𝒜}`$ be a collection of (real or complex) times, indexed by some set $`𝒜`$, let $`zD`$, and let $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_A(z|T)\}_{A𝒜}`$ be a collection of functions, meromorphic in $`z`$, each $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ is coupled with the corresponding time $`T_A`$. The functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(z|T)`$ should be thought of as pull-backs via Whitham times of Abelian integrals $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ from a leaf spanned by Whitham flows in $``$, with $`z`$ corresponding to a local coordinate along the fiber. Define a $`1`$-form $`\omega `$ by

$$\omega =\underset{A}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_A(z|T)dT_A.$$

Then, by definition, *Whitham hierarchy* is given by the generating equation

(2)
$$\delta \omega \delta \omega =0,$$

where

$$\delta \omega =\underset{A}{}_B\mathrm{\Omega }_AdT_BdT_A+\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dz}dzdT_A.$$

This is equivalent to the following two equations,

(3)
$$\underset{\{A,B,C\}}{}\epsilon ^{\{A,B,C\}}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dz}\right)(_B\mathrm{\Omega }_C)=0,\underset{\{A,B,C,D\}}{}\epsilon ^{\{A,B,C,D\}}(_A\mathrm{\Omega }_B)(_C\mathrm{\Omega }_D)=0,$$

where we sum over all possible permutations of a fixed collection of indexes and $`\epsilon `$ is a sign of a permutation.

Usually we have one marked index $`A_0𝒜`$ with

$$X=T_{A_0},p(z|T)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{A_0}(z|T).$$

Then, as long as $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dz}}0`$, we can make a change of coordinates from $`(z,T)`$ to $`(p,T)`$. In these coordinates, equation (3) written for $`A_0`$, $`A`$, $`B`$ takes the form

(4)
$$_A\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p|T)_B\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p|T)+\{\mathrm{\Omega }_A,\mathrm{\Omega }_B\}(p|T)=0,$$

where

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }_A,\mathrm{\Omega }_B\}(p|T)=_X\mathrm{\Omega }_A\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{dp}_X\mathrm{\Omega }_B\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dp}$$

is the usual Poisson bracket. Equations in this form are called *zero-curvature equations*. They can be interpreted as a compatibility conditions for the following Hamiltonian system,

$$_AE(p|T)=\{E,\mathrm{\Omega }_A\}(p|T).$$

Then, if zero-curvature equations are satisfied, there exists (locally) a solution $`E=E(p|T)`$ of this system and, as long as $`{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dp}}0`$, we can again change coordinates from $`(p,T)`$ to $`(E,T)`$. In these coordinates, the above system takes the form

$$_Ap(E|T)=_X\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)$$

and its compatibility conditions can be written as

$$_A\mathrm{\Omega }_B(E|T)=_B\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T).$$

Therefore, there exists (locally) a function $`S=S(E|T)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)=_AS(E|T)`$. This function $`S(E|T)`$ is called a *prepotential of the Whitham hierarchy*.

## Algebraic orbits

One can use the above formalism to construct certain exact solutions of Whitham equations. These solutions depend on finitely many parameters and are obtained as follows \[Kri94\]. First we construct Whitham flows on finite-dimensional submanifolds, called *algebraic orbits*, of $``$ (note that $``$ is usually infinite-dimensional) together with Whitham equations that they satisfy. Then these equations are extended to the whole $``$. By making a correct choice of algebraic data, one can obtain usual Whitham equations of the soliton theory.

We illustrate this idea in the special case of the so-called *dispersionless Lax equations*. In this case we take algebraic curve of genus zero, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P^1`$, with a single puncture $`P_1=\mathrm{}`$. The moduli space is equivalent to a moduli space of local coordinates around $`P_1`$,

$$=\widehat{}_{0,1}=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }P^1;P_1=\mathrm{};z(P)\}\{\nu _s,s=1,\mathrm{}\},$$

where

$$z^1(p)=𝔨(p)=p+\nu _1p^1+\nu _2p^2+\mathrm{},$$

and $`p`$ is the standard coordinate on $``$. Note that in this case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=p`$, i.e., the marked index is $`i=1`$. Then, by definition, the dispersionless Lax hierarchy (or dispersionless KP hierarchy) is a set of evolution equations on $`\nu _s=\nu _s(T)`$:

$$_i𝔨(p|T)=\{𝔨,(𝔨^i)_+\}=\{𝔨,\mathrm{\Omega }_i\},\text{where }_i=\frac{}{T_i}.$$

This hierarchy can be thought of as a quasi-classical limit of the usual KP hierarchy, and algebraic orbits correspond to $`n^{\text{th}}`$ order reductions of the KP hierarchy, i.e., nKdV hierarchies. Namely, let

$$E(p)=p^n+u_{n2}p^{n2}+\mathrm{}+u_0$$

and define $`𝔨(p)`$ by the condition $`𝔨(p)^n=E(p)`$. Then $`\nu _s=\nu _s(u_0,\mathrm{},u_{n2})`$ and we obtain a finite-dimensional leaf in $``$. Corresponding evolution equations on $`u_i=u_i(T)`$ can be written as

$`_iE(p|T)`$ $`=\{E,(E^{\frac{i}{n}})_+\}`$ $`\text{in }(p,T)\text{ coordinates},`$
$`_ip(E|T)`$ $`=_X\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E|T)`$ in $`(E,T)`$ coordinates.
Then the solution $`E=E(p|T)`$ (i.e., $`u_i=u_i(T)`$) can be obtained as follows \[Kri88, Kri92\].

###### Theorem.

Let

(5)
$$S(p|T)=\underset{i}{}T_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i(p|u)=\underset{i}{}T_i𝔨^i+O(𝔨^1).$$

Require that

(6)
$$\frac{dS}{dp}(q_s)=0\text{ for all }q_s\text{ such that }\frac{dE}{dp}(q_s)=0.$$

Equation (6) is equivalent to a collection of equations $`F_k(u,T)=0`$ that implicitly define $`u_i=u_i(T)`$.

Then $`u(T)`$ is a solution of the dispersionless Lax equations.

The theorem follows from the fact that $`S`$ defined above is a *global* prepotential, i.e.,

$$_iS(E|T)=\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E|T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝔨^i+O(𝔨^1)\text{ near }P_1\hfill & \\ \text{has no other poles}\hfill & \end{array}.$$

From the definition of $`S`$ it is clear that the first condition is satisfied. The role of the condition (6) is to ensure that $`_iS(E|T)`$ is holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P_1`$.

Note that the condition (6) can be also written in the form $`dS=QdE`$ for some polynomial $`Q(p|T)`$. Conversely, we can recover $`T_i`$ from $`S`$ and $`𝔨`$ by the formula

$$T_i=\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^idS.$$

This observation motivates the following alternative approach. Consider the so-called *universal configuration space*

$$_0(n,m)=\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }=P^1;P_1=\mathrm{};[z]_n;E,Q\right\}\{u_0,\mathrm{},u_{n2};b_0,\mathrm{},b_m\},$$

where

$$E(p)=p^n+u_{n2}p^{n2}+\mathrm{}+u_0,Q(p)=b_mp^m+\mathrm{}+b_0,$$

$`[z]_n`$ is an $`n`$-jet of a local coordinate near $`P_1`$ and we require that $`E=z^n+O(z)`$ near $`P_1`$. By definition, put

(7)
$$dS=QdE,T_i=\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^idS.$$

Then

$$_idS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E|T),$$

condition (7) is equivalent to a collection of equations $`T_k=T_k(u,b)`$, which can be inverted, $`u_i=u_i(T)`$, $`b_j=b_j(T)`$, and therefore we obtain a map from $`_{0,1}`$ to an algebraic orbit in $`\widehat{}_0`$.

## $`\tau `$-functions and solutions to the WDVV equations

For each algebraic orbit constructed above corresponds a so-called $`\tau `$-function. By definition,

$$\mathrm{ln}\tau (T)=F(T),$$

where

(8)
$$F(T)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}\left(\underset{i}{}T_i𝔨^i\right)dS,$$

and $`dS`$ is a (differential of) the prepotential of the corresponding algebraic orbit. Then we have the following theorem (Krichever \[Kri92\]).

###### Theorem.

The derivatives of $`F(T)`$ are given by the following formulas:

$`_iF(T)`$ $`=\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}𝔨^idS`$
$`_{ij}F(T)`$ $`=\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}𝔨^jd\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\mathrm{res}_{\mathrm{}}𝔨^jd\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$
$`_{ijk}F(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_id\mathrm{\Omega }_jd\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{dQdE}},\text{where }Q={\displaystyle \frac{dS}{dE}}.`$
###### Corollary.

If we choose

$$Q(p|T)=p,E(p|T_1,\mathrm{},T_{n+1})=p^n+u_{n2}(T)p^{n2}+\mathrm{}+u_0(T),$$

then $`F(T)`$ is a WDVV potential for $`A_{n1}`$ Landau-Ginzburg model defined by a superpotential

$$W(p|t_0,\mathrm{},t_{n2})=\frac{1}{n}E(p|t_0,\frac{t_1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{t_{n2}}{n},0,\frac{1}{n+1}).$$

## Higher genus case

The above approach can be generalized to algebraic curves of higher genus. This question was considered by Dubrovin \[Dub92\] for Hurwitz spaces and by Krichever \[Kri94\] in general. In the higher genus case, the “universal” moduli space

$$\widehat{}_{g,N}=\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_\alpha ;𝔨_\alpha ^1(P)=z_\alpha (P)\right\}$$

consists of the following algebro-geometric data:

* smooth algebraic curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ of genus $`g`$,
* collection of marked points $`P_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_g,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$,
* local coordinates $`z_\alpha (P)`$ in the neighborhoods of $`P_\alpha `$, $`z_\alpha (P_\alpha )=0`$.

For simplicity, we concentrate exclusively on a single puncture case, $`N=1`$.

To construct a realization of a Whitham hierarchy on $`\widehat{}_{g,1}`$, one can proceed as follows (see \[Kri94\]). Instead of polynomials $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ one has to consider Abelian differentials of the second kind $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ with prescribed behavior near the puncture,

(9)
$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_i=d\left(𝔨^i+O(𝔨^1)\right)\text{near }P_1\text{.}$$

However, condition (9) specifies $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ only up to a holomorphic differential. To define $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ uniquely, one has to impose certain normalization conditions. There are two choices — *real normalization* and *complex normalization* (or normalization w.r.t. *$`a`$-cycles*). Real normalization is defined by the condition

(10)
$$\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right]=0cH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,).$$

To define complex normalization, one has to first choose a canonical homology basis for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$,

$$=\left\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_g;b_1,\mathrm{},b_g\right|a_i,b_jH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,),a_ia_j=b_ib_j=0,a_ib_j=\delta _{ij}\}.$$

As a result, it is necessary to consider the extended moduli space

$$\widehat{}_{g,1}^{}=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;z(P);\},$$

which is a covering of $`\widehat{}_{g,1}`$. The differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are then uniquely normalized by the condition

(11)
$$_{a_k}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0a_k.$$

As before, the marked index is $`i=1`$ and $`p(P)=^P𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

## Universal configuration space

In order to construct solutions corresponding to algebraic orbits, it is convenient to use the universal configuration space approach. Following \[KP97, KP98\], define the universal configuration space for Whitham hierarchies,

$$_g(n,m)=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;[z]_n;E,Q\},$$

to be the moduli space of the following data:

* genus $`g`$ Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$,
* marked point $`P_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$,
* an $`n`$-jet $`[z]_n`$ of local coordinates $`z(P)`$ in the neighborhoods of $`P_1`$, $`z(P_1)=0`$,
* an Abelian integral $`E`$ with pole of order $`n`$ at $`P_1`$ such that

(12)
$$dEd(z^n+O(z))\text{near }P_1\text{}z[z]_n\text{ },$$
* an Abelian integral $`Q`$ with pole of order $`m`$ at $`P_1`$.

More precisely, by Abelian integrals we mean pairs $`E=(dE,P_0^E)`$, $`Q=(dQ,P_0^Q)`$, where $`dE`$, $`dQ`$ are meromorphic differentials of the second kind on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$, and with poles of order $`n+1`$ and $`m+1`$ at $`P_1`$, and

$$E(P)=_{P_0^E}^P𝑑E,Q(P)=_{P_0^Q}^P𝑑Q.$$

Alternatively, one can choose a local coordinate $`z[z]_n`$ and define $`E`$ and $`Q`$ to be pairs $`E=(dE,c_E)`$, $`Q=(dQ,c_Q)`$, where near $`P_1`$,

$$Ez^n+c_E+O(z),Qc_m^Qz^m+\mathrm{}+c_1^Qz^1+c_Q+O(z).$$

Note that after $`E`$ is chosen, there is a preferred local coordinate $`z_{}[z]_n`$ defined by

$$E=z_{}^n\text{near }P_1.$$

The moduli space $`_g(n,m)`$ is a complex manifold of dimension $`5g+n+m`$ with at most orbifold singularities. We also need to consider smaller $`(4g+n1)`$-dimensional moduli space

$$_g(n)=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;[z]_n;E\},$$

as well as the corresponding extended moduli spaces $`_g^{}(n,m)`$ and $`_g^{}(n)`$.

## Construction of algebraic orbits

A general approach for constructing algebraic orbits in the higher genus case is the following. First, choose a leaf $`𝒱(n,m)`$ in $`_g^{}(n,m)`$. The precise definition of such leaf depends on the choice of the normalization. Then introduce special coordinates $`T_A`$, called *Whitham times*, on $`𝒱(n,m)`$, and define the prepotential $`S`$ of the leaf by the formula

$$dS=QdE.$$

*Whitham differentials* $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ are then obtained from $`dS`$ by

$$_{T_A}dS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T),$$

where we use a connection on $`𝒩_g^1`$ given by choosing $`E=\text{const}`$ to be horizontal sections. Note that $`dS=_AT_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$. The leaf $`𝒱(n,m)`$ is then mapped to the corresponding algebraic orbit $`𝒪(n)`$ by the following sequence of maps:

(13)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒱(n,m)& & 𝒱(n)& & 𝒪(n)\\ & & & & \\ & & 𝒱^{}(n)& & 𝒪^{}(n)\\ \{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;[z]_n;E,Q\}& & \{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;[z]_n;E\}& & \{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;P_1;z_{}\},\end{array}$$

where $`𝒱^{}(n)`$ is a leaf of a subfibration of $`𝒱(n)`$ defined by fixing the periods of $`dE`$. Then, in the coordinates $`(E,T)`$ on the “universal curve” $`𝒩_{g^1}`$ over $`𝒪^{}(n)`$, the differential $`dS(E|T)=Q(E|T)dE`$ satisfies the equations $`_AdS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)`$. Therefore, $`dS`$ is a prepotential, $`_x\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)=_{T_A}p(E|T)`$, and we obtain solutions to Whitham equations. Note that Whitham coordinates on $`𝒱(n,m)`$ go to Whitham flows on the algebraic orbit.

For each Whitham derivative $`_{T_A}`$ we define a dual “integral” operator $`_{T_A}`$ in such a way that

(14)
$$_{T_A}_{T_B}dS=_{T_A}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_B=_{T_B}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_A=_{T_B}_{T_A}dST_A,T_B.$$

The exact definition of such operators $`_{T_A}`$ can be rather non-trivial and usually includes integration with some weight over a cycle and, maybe, some correction terms. The above identities can be thought of as a generalization of Riemann bilinear identities for Whitham differentials, and they are proved along the same lines. The $`\tau `$-function of an algebraic orbit is then defined by $`\tau (T)=e^{F(T)}`$, and

(15)
$$F(T)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{T_A}{}T_A_{T_A}𝑑S.$$

It encodes all information about the differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ and the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, and its first and second derivatives are given by

$`_{T_A}F(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{T_A}}𝑑S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{T_B}{}}T_B{\displaystyle _{T_B}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{T_A}}𝑑S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{T_B}{}}T_B{\displaystyle _{T_A}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_B={\displaystyle _{T_A}}𝑑S,`$
$`_{T_AT_B}F(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{T_A}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_B={\displaystyle _{T_B}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_A.`$
Note that the equality of mixed partials of $`F(T)`$ corresponds to equation $`(\text{14})`$. Third derivatives of $`F(T)`$ are then given by the residue type formula.

## Complex-normalized case

In this case, one chooses

$`t_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kQdE,k=1,\mathrm{},n+m,`$
$`t_{h,k}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{a_k^{}}}Q𝑑E,t_{E,a_k}={\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑E,t_{Q,a_k}={\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑Q,t_{E,b_k}={\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑E,t_{Q,b_k}={\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑Q,`$
as coordinates on $`_g(n,m)`$. The notation $`a_k^{}`$ indicates that the integral has to be taken over the right side of the cycle. A *complex* $`(3g+n+m)`$-dimensional $`𝒱_{}(n,m)_g^{}(n,m)`$ is defined by imposing the $`a`$-normalization condition on the Abelian differentials $`dE`$ and $`dQ`$,

$$_{a_k}𝑑E=_{a_k}𝑑Q=0a_k.$$

Note that the projection of $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$ to $`_g(n,m)`$ is not well-defined. Whitham coordinates on the leaf are then given by

$`T_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kdS,`$ $`k`$ $`=1,\mathrm{},n+m,`$
$`T_{h,k}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑S,T_{E,k}={\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑Q,T_{Q,k}={\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑E,`$ $`k`$ $`=1,\mathrm{},g`$
Corresponding Whitham differentials are divided into the following four groups.

* $`_{T_k}dS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_k(E|T)`$ are the usual complex-normalized Whitham differentials with prescribed behavior near the puncture,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_k=d\left(𝔨^k+O(𝔨^1)\right)\text{ near }P_1,_{a_l}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0.$$
* $`_{T_{h,k}}dS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}(E|T)`$ are holomorphic differentials that are dual to the canonical basis of cycles,

$$_{a_i}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}=\delta _{ik}.$$
* $`_{T_{E,k}}dS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}(E|T)`$ are $`a`$-normalized and holomorphic everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ except for the $`a`$-cycles, where they have jumps,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})=\delta _{kl}dE(P_{a_l}),_{a_i}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}=0.$$
* $`_{T_{Q,k}}dS(E|T)=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}(E|T)`$ are $`a`$-normalized and holomorphic everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ except for the $`a`$-cycles, where they have jumps,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})=\delta _{kl}dQ(P_{a_l}),_{a_i}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}=0.$$

The duals $`_{T_A}`$ are then given by

$$_{T_i}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^id\mathrm{\Omega },_{T_{h,k}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\left[_{[b_k]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right],_{T_{E,k}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\left[_{a_k^+}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right],$$

where the notation $`_{[b_k]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ indicates that a certain correction terms have to be added to make the integral independent on small cycle deformations. In particular,

$$_{[b_k]}𝑑S=_{b_k}𝑑S+T_{E,k}E(a_k^+b_k).$$

This remark becomes very important in the real-normalized case and is discussed at length in the next section.

The third derivatives of $`F(T)`$ are given by the following theorem (\[Kri94\]).

###### Theorem.

$$_{T_AT_BT_C}F(T)=\underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_C}{dEdQ}.$$

###### Remark.

The residue type formula for the third derivatives of $`F(T)`$ implies that if we consider the reduced hierarchy with $`dQ=dp`$, then $`F(T)`$ is a solution for the WDVV equation.

## Real-normalized Whitham hierarchies

### Real leaf and Whitham times

We begin the study of the real-normalized case by introducing the following real-analytic coordinate system on $`_g(n,m)`$:

$$t_k^𝔯=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kQdE\right],t_k^𝔦=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kQdE\right],k=1,\mathrm{},n+m,$$

and

$`t_{E,a_k}^𝔯`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑E\right],`$ $`t_{E,a_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑E\right],`$ $`t_{Q,a_k}^𝔯`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑Q\right],`$ $`t_{Q,a_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑Q\right],`$
$`t_{E,b_k}^𝔯`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑E\right],`$ $`t_{E,b_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑E\right],`$ $`t_{Q,b_k}^𝔯`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑Q\right],`$ $`t_{Q,b_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑Q\right],`$
$`t_{h,a_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_k^{}}}Q𝑑E\right],`$ $`t_{h,b_k}^𝔦`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_k^+}}Q𝑑E\right],`$ $`k`$ $`=1,\mathrm{},g.`$
Note that all coordinates except $`t_{h,a_k}^𝔦`$, $`t_{h,b_k}^𝔦`$ are just the real and imaginary parts of the corresponding complex analytic coordinates. A *real leaf* $`𝒱_{}(n,m)_g(n,m)`$ is defined to be a zero set of the coordinates $`t_{E,a_k}^𝔯,t_{E,b_k}^𝔯,t_{Q,a_k}^𝔯,t_{Q,a_k}^𝔯`$. Alternatively, $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$ can be defined by the following $`4g`$ basis-independent equations,

(16)
$$\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑E\right]=0,\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑Q\right]=0,cH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,).$$

Therefore, $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$ is well-defined as a real-analytic submanifold of both $`_g^{}(n,m)`$ and $`_g(n,m)`$.

Before introducing Whitham coordinates on $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$, we have to make the following important observation. In what follows we work with multivalued differentials that usually have the form $`fd\omega `$, where $`f`$ is an Abelian integral and the differential $`d\omega `$ can again be multivalued. These differentials are well-defined only if we cut the surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$. Thus, we always assume that some canonical basis $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ is chosen, and we cut our surface along the representatives $`a_k`$, $`b_k`$ of cycles in $``$. Sometimes these cuts are not enough and we need one extra cut $`\gamma `$. Let us introduce the following notation.

###### Notation.

By $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$ we denote the normal polygon obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ by cutting along the $`a`$ and $`b`$ cycles. For each cycle $`a_l`$ we denote by $`a_l^+`$ its *left* and by $`a_l^{}`$ its *right* sides. Same notation applies to $`b`$-cycles. The point of intersection of $`a_l^{}`$ and $`b_l^+`$ cycles is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ and the point of intersection of $`a_1^+`$ and $`b_g^{}`$ cycles is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. By $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\right)_{\text{cut}}`$ we denote a Riemann surface obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ by making a cut $`\gamma `$ from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ to $`P_1`$, and by $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g\right)_{\text{cut}}`$ we denote its normal polygon. Note that topologically $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\right)_{\text{cut}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$.

The multivalued differentials that we consider are single valued on either $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$ or $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g\right)_{\text{cut}}`$ and, as differentials on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ or $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\right)_{\text{cut}}`$, they can have jumps across the $`a`$ and $`b`$-cycles, and a cut $`\gamma `$. Note that for such differentials, the integral over a cycle depends not only on the homology class of the cycle, but also on the side of the cycle and the actual choice of a representative in the homology class. Thus, in order to make our construction independent of a choice of such representative in the homology class, for each differential $`fd\omega `$ we introduce a corresponding cocycle $`[fd\omega ]`$ by the following procedure. First, we define $`[fd\omega ]`$ on basic cycles $`a_k`$, $`b_k`$ by adding certain *correction terms* to $`f𝑑\omega `$, and then extend it to an arbitrary cycle by linearity. We use the following notation.

###### Notation.

For any cycle $`c=\alpha _1a_1+\mathrm{}\beta _gb_g`$, by

$$_{[c]}f𝑑\omega =\left[fd\omega \right](c)=\alpha _1[fd\omega ](a_1)+\mathrm{}+\beta _g[fd\omega ](b_g)$$

we denote the value of $`[fd\omega ]`$ on a cycle $`c`$. Note that $`[fd\omega ](a_k)`$ and $`[fd\omega ](b_k)`$ still depend on a side of the cycle. We always choose a right side for $`a`$-cycles and left side for $`b`$-cycles,

$$_{[a_k]}f𝑑\omega :=_{[a_k^{}]}f𝑑\omega ,_{[b_k]}f𝑑\omega :=_{[b_k^+]}f𝑑\omega .$$

However, it is convenient to indicate the side explicitly in the intermediate calculations. For consistency, we use same notation for usual Abelian differentials on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$. In addition, for any differential $`df`$, we denote by $`f_l=^{\mathrm{\Phi }_l}𝑑f`$ the value of the corresponding Abelian integral $`f`$ at the point $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ of intersection of the $`a_l^{}`$ and $`b_l^+`$ cycles. We also put

$$f_l^𝔯=\mathrm{}\left[f(\mathrm{\Phi }_l)\right],f_l^𝔦=\mathrm{}\left[f(\mathrm{\Phi }_l)\right].$$

We now define Whitahm times on $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$ by

$$T_k^𝔯=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kQdE\right],T_k^𝔦=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}z^kQdE\right],k=1,\mathrm{},n+m$$

and

$`T_{h,k}^a`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}Q𝑑E\right],`$ $`T_{h,k}^b`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[b_k^+]}}Q𝑑E\right],`$ $`T_{E,k}^a`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[b_k]}}𝑑Q\right],`$
$`T_{E,k}^b`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[a_k]}}𝑑Q\right],`$ $`T_{Q,k}^a`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[b_k]}}𝑑E\right],`$ $`T_{Q,k}^b`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[a_k]}}𝑑E\right].`$
Except for some relabeling, the main change occurs in the definition of $`T_{h,k}^a`$, $`T_{h,k}^b`$:

$$T_{h,k}^a=t_{h,a_k}^𝔦t_{Q,a_k}^𝔦E_k^𝔯,T_{h,k}^b=t_{h,b_k}^𝔦t_{Q,b_k}^𝔦E_k^𝔯.$$

### Prepotential

The prepotential $`dS=QdE`$ of the real leaf $`𝒱_{}(n,m)`$ is described by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 1.

The prepotential $`dS`$ is a meromorphic differential on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$, with pole of order $`n+m+1`$ at $`P_1`$, and with jumps on $`a`$ and $`b`$ cycles. Near $`P_1`$,

$$dSd\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}(T_j^𝔯+\sqrt{1}T_j^𝔦)𝔨^j+O(z)\right)+R^S\frac{dz}{z},$$

where $`z=𝔨^1`$ is our preferred local coordinate in the neighborhood of $`P_1`$, and

(17)
$$R^S=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}dS=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(T_{E,l}^aT_{Q,l}^bT_{E,l}^bT_{Q,l}^a\right).$$

The jumps of $`dS`$ across the $`a`$ and $`b`$-cycles come from the jumps of $`Q`$ and are given by

(18)
$$dS(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})=\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^adE,dS(P_{b_l}^+P_{b_l}^{})=\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^bdE.$$

The corresponding cocycle $`[dS]`$ is well-defined only on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$, and is given by

$$_{[a_l^\pm ]}𝑑S=_{a_l^\pm }𝑑S\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^bE_l_{[b_l^\pm ]}𝑑S=_{b_l^\pm }𝑑S+\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^aE_l$$

The proof of this proposition is a direct calculation.

Since $`dS`$ has a residue at $`P_1`$, the corresponding integral $`S(P)=^P𝑑S`$ is well-defined only on $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g\right)_{\text{cut}}`$. We choose an additive normalization constant in such a way that the regular part $`(S)_{}`$ vanishes at $`P_1`$. We can now consider cocycles corresponding to the differentials $`EdS`$ and $`SdE`$, which are well-defined on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$.

###### Proposition 2.

The cocycles $`[EdS]`$ and $`[SdE]`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle _{[a_l^{}]}}E𝑑S`$ $`={\displaystyle _{a_l^{}}}E𝑑S+\sqrt{1}T_{Q,l}^bS_l+T_{Q,l}^bT_{E,l}^bE_l\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^b{\displaystyle \frac{E_l^2}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{[b_l^+]}}E𝑑S`$ $`={\displaystyle _{b_l^+}}E𝑑S\sqrt{1}T_{Q,l}^aS_l+T_{Q,l}^aT_{E,l}^aE_l+\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^a{\displaystyle \frac{E_l^2}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{[a_l^{}]}}S𝑑E`$ $`={\displaystyle _{a_l^{}}}S𝑑E(\omega _S)_l^a^{}E_l+\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^b{\displaystyle \frac{E_l^2}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{[b_l^+]}}S𝑑E`$ $`={\displaystyle _{b_l^+}}S𝑑E(\omega _S)_l^{b^+}E_l\sqrt{1}T_{E,l}^a{\displaystyle \frac{E_l^2}{2}}.`$
Moreover, the following “*integration by parts*” formulas hold:

$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[a_l^{}]}}S𝑑E\right]`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[a_l^{}]}}E𝑑S+T_{h,l}^aT_{Q,l}^b\right],`$
$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[b_l^+]}}S𝑑E\right]`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{[b_l^+]}}E𝑑ST_{h,l}^bT_{Q,l}^a\right].`$
### Whitham differentials

Similarly to the complex-normalized case, Whitham differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)=_{T_A}dS(E|T)`$ can be divided into four groups:

* $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔯`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔦`$ are real-normalized meromorphic differentials with prescribed singularities at $`P_1`$, i.e., exactly the differentials of the real-normalized Whitham hierarchy,
* $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^b`$ form a canonical real basis in the space of real-normalized holomorphic differentials that is dual to our basis $``$,
* $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b`$ are meromorphic differentials with a simple pole at $`P_1`$ and a $`dE`$-jump across $`a`$ and $`b`$-cycles,
* $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^a`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^b`$ are meromorphic differentials with a simple pole at $`P_1`$ and a $`dQ`$-jump across $`a`$ and $`b`$-cycles.

In the sequel we restrict to leaves $`𝒱_{}^{}(n,m)`$ of a foliation defined by the level sets of $`T_{Q,k}^a`$, $`T_{Q,k}^b`$. Then all the differentials but $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^a`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^b`$ generate flows preserving the foliation. For this reason, we do not describe differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^a`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q,k}^b`$ in detail. We also need to consider corresponding Abelian differentials, which we always normalize by $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_A)_(P_1)=0`$.

###### Proposition 3.

For any Whitham time $`T_A`$, the differential $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A(E|T)=_{T_A}dS(E|T)`$ is holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$.

###### Proof.

The only possible extra poles can appear when $`E(P)`$ does not define a local coordinate, i.e., at the points $`q_s`$ such that $`dE(q_s)=0`$. Assuming for simplicity that $`dE`$ has a simple pole at $`q_s`$, let $`E_s(T)=E(q_s(T)|T)`$, and choose $`\xi (E|T)=\sqrt{EE_s(T)}`$ to be a local coordinate near $`q_s`$. Then we have

$`_{T_A}dS(E|T)`$ $`=_{T_A}(Q(\xi (E|T)|T))d(\xi ^2+E_s)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{d\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{_{T_A}(E_s)}{\sqrt{EE_s}}}2\xi d\xi =(_{T_A}E_s)dQ(E|T),`$
which is holomorphic at $`q_s`$. ∎

Main properties of the Whitham differentials are summarized in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.

* Differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔯(E|T)`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔦(E|T)`$ are *real-normalized*,

$$\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔯\right]=\mathrm{}\left[_c𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔦\right]=0cH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,),$$

meromorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, with a single pole at $`P_1`$, where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔯d(𝔨^k+O(1)),d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔦d(\sqrt{1}𝔨^k+O(1))\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔯=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_k^𝔦=0.$$
* Differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a(E|T)`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^b(E|T)`$ are holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ and form a canonical basis in the space of real-normalized holomorphic differentials dual to our homology basis $``$, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_l}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\right]`$ $`=\delta _{kl},`$ $`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_l}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\right]`$ $`=0,`$
$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{a_l}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^b\right]`$ $`=0,`$ $`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{b_l}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\right]`$ $`=\delta _{kl}`$
* Differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a(E|T)`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b(E|T)`$ are meromorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gP_1`$, have a simple pole at $`P_1`$ which is balanced by a single jump across one of the cycles:

$`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}T_{Q,k}^b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑E,`$ $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})`$ $`=\sqrt{1}\delta _{kl}dE(P_{a_l}),`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a(P_{b_l}^+P_{b_l}^{})`$ $`=0,`$
$`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}T_{Q,k}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑E,`$ $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})`$ $`=0,`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b(P_{b_l}^+P_{b_l}^{})`$ $`=\sqrt{1}\delta _{kl}dE(P_{b_l}),`$
differentials themselves are *not* real-normalized, but the corresponding cocycles are,

$$\mathrm{}\left[_{[c]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a\right]=\mathrm{}\left[_{[c]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b\right]=0.$$

### Duality and Riemann Bilinear Relations

In the real-normalized case, the dual “integral” operators $`_{T_A}`$ are given by the following formulas:

$`{\displaystyle _{T_i^𝔯}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^id\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$ $`{\displaystyle _{T_i^𝔦}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\sqrt{1}𝔨^id\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle _{T_{h,k}^a}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{[b_{k^+}]}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$ $`{\displaystyle _{T_{h,k}^a}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle _{T_{E,k}^a}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{Corr}_k^a(d\mathrm{\Omega })\right)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle _{T_{E,k}^a}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{[b_{k^+}]}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{Corr}_k^b(d\mathrm{\Omega })\right)\right],`$
where the correction terms $`\mathrm{Corr}(d\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{Corr}_k^a(dS)`$ $`=T_{h,k}^aT_{Q,k}^b+T_{h,k}^bT_{Q,k}^b,\mathrm{Corr}_k^b(dS)=T_{h,k}^aT_{Q,k}^b+T_{h,k}^bT_{Q,k}^b,`$
$`\mathrm{Corr}(d\mathrm{\Omega }_A)`$ $`=_{T_A}\mathrm{Corr}(dS).`$
We now have to establish relations $`(\text{14})`$.

###### Proposition 5.

Whitham differentials satisfy the identity

(19)
$$_{T_A}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_B=_{T_B}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_A$$

###### Proof.

This proposition is proved by a direct calculation. We illustrate it by considering the following cases.

First, let $`T_A=T_i^𝔯`$ and $`T_B=T_j^𝔯`$. Then we have to prove the following identity:

$$_{T_i^𝔯}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^id\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^jd\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\right]=_{T_j^𝔯}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯.$$

But

$`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^id\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯`$ $`=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d𝔨^i=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d(𝔨^i)_{}`$
$`=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^jd(𝔨^i)_{}=\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯+\mathrm{res}_{P_1}(𝔨^jd\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯).`$
Taking real parts and observing that

$$\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\right]=0,$$

we obtain the desired identity.

Let $`T_A=T_{h,k}^a`$, $`T_B=T_{h,l}^a`$. Then

$$_{T_{h,k}^a}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a=\mathrm{}\left[_{[b_k^+]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a\right]=\mathrm{}\left[_{[b_l^+]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\right]=_{T_{h,l}^a}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a$$

is just the usual Riemann bilinear identity for a canonical basis of real-normalized holomorphic differentials and it is proved in the regular way:

$$0=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(_{b_l}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a+_{b_k}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a\right)\right].$$

The most difficult identities to establish correspond to $`T_A=T_{E,k}^a`$, $`T_B=T_{E,s}^a`$ and the like, since $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b`$ have simple poles at $`P_1`$. In this case, let $`C_\epsilon `$ be a small circle around $`P_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon C_\epsilon `$, and let $`\gamma _\epsilon `$ be a cut from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$. We consider the integral $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a`$ along the contour

(20)
$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{g}{}}(a_i^++b_i^+a_i^{}b_i^{})+\gamma _\epsilon ^+\gamma _\epsilon ^{}+C_\epsilon .$$

First, we compute that

$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _{a_{l^+}}}+{\displaystyle _{b_{l^+}}}{\displaystyle _{a_l^{}}}{\displaystyle _{b_l^{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{a_k^{}}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a+{\displaystyle _{a_s^{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑E+\delta _{ks}E_k^𝔯T_{Q,k}^b\left({\displaystyle _{[a_s^{}]}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a\right)E_s^𝔯\right)\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a+{\displaystyle _{[a_s^{}]}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑E+T_{Q,k}^b((\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a)_k^𝔦+\delta _{ks}E_s^𝔯)\right)\right].`$
Note that

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a)_k^𝔦+\delta _{ks}E_k^𝔯`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a)_0^𝔦+\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_k}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a\right]+\delta _{ks}E_k^𝔯`$
$`=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a)_0^𝔦=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^+)\right],`$
since the only non-trivial imaginary contribution for periods of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a`$ comes from $`b`$-periods, and in order for $`b^+`$-contribution not to be canceled by $`b^{}`$-contribution, we need $`k=s`$, in which case $`\mathrm{}\left[_{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_k}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a\right]=\delta _{ks}E_k^𝔯.`$

On the cut $`\gamma `$ we have

$$\left(_{\gamma _\epsilon ^+}_{\gamma _\epsilon ^{}}\right)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a)=_{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^+}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+}T_{Q,k}^b𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a=T_{Q,k}^b(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+)\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^+)).$$

To evaluate $`_{C_\epsilon }\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a`$, we rewrite everything in terms of a local coordinate $`z`$ in the neighborhood of $`P_1`$:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a=\frac{T_{Q,k}^b}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\frac{dz}{z}+(\alpha +O(z))dz,\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a=\frac{T_{Q,k}^b}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\mathrm{Log}(z)+O(z).$$

Then

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{Q,k}^bT_{Q,s}^b}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Log}(z)}{z}}𝑑z+O(\epsilon )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T_{Q,k}^bT_{Q,s}^b}{8\pi ^2}}\left((\mathrm{Log}(z))^2|_{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^{}}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+}\right)+O(\epsilon )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T_{Q,k}^bT_{Q,s}^b}{8\pi ^2}}(4\pi \sqrt{1}\mathrm{Log}(z(\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+))+4\pi ^2)+O(\epsilon )`$
$`=T_{Q,k}^b(\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon ^+))+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{Q,k}^bT_{Q,s}^b}{2}}+O(\epsilon ).`$
Collecting all of the above together, we obtain

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _{a_{l^+}}}+{\displaystyle _{b_{l^+}}}{\displaystyle _{a_l^{}}}{\displaystyle _{b_l^{}}}\right)+{\displaystyle _{\gamma _\epsilon ^+}}{\displaystyle _{\gamma _\epsilon ^{}}}+{\displaystyle _{C_\epsilon }}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a+{\displaystyle _{[a_s^{}]}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑E+O(\epsilon )\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}E𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a+{\displaystyle _{[a_s^{}]}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a𝑑E\right)\right]\text{as }\epsilon 0,`$
which proves our identity. All other cases are somewhat intermediate in difficulty to the cases considered above and are proved along the same lines. ∎

The third derivatives of $`F(T)`$ are given by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

$$_{T_AT_BT_C}F(T)=\mathrm{}\left[\underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_C}{dEdQ}\right]$$

###### Proof.

First we prove the following formula. For any two Whitham differentials $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ we have

(21)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_C\right]& =\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)d\mathrm{\Omega }_C\right]\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{}\left[\underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_C}{dEdQ}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

To establish this identity, note that since $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ is holomorphic outside of $`P_1`$, the right hand side of our equation is a sum of residues at $`P_1`$ and at poles of $`_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. Using $`E`$ as a coordinate, we see that

$$_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B(E|T)=_{T_A}_{T_B}S(E|T),$$

is holomorphic. So the only extra poles can appear at $`q_s`$ such that $`dE(q_s)=0`$. Assuming that $`q_s`$ is a simple zero of $`dE`$ and using $`\xi (P|T)=\sqrt{E(P)E_s(T)}`$ as a local coordinate near $`q_s`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(P|T)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_B(q_s(T))+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{d\xi }}(q_s(T))\xi (P|T)+O(\xi (P|T)^2)`$
$`(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)(P|T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{d\xi }}(q_s(T)){\displaystyle \frac{_{T_A}E_s(T)}{2\xi (P|T)}}+O(1)`$
$`(_{T_A}Q)(P|T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{d\xi }}(q_s(T)){\displaystyle \frac{_{T_A}E_s(T)}{2\xi (P|T)}}+O(1).`$
At the same time,

$$(_{T_A}Q)(P|T)=_{T_A}\frac{dS(P|T)}{dE(P)}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dE}(P|T).$$

Therefore,

$`(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)(P|T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{d\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{dQ}}(q_s(T))\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dE}}(P|T)+O(1)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{dQ}}(q_s(T)){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dE}}(P|T)+O(1)`$
and we have

$`\mathrm{res}_{q_s}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)d\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ $`=\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{dQ}}(q_s(T)){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_A}{dE}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_C(P|T)`$
$`=\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_C}{dEdQ}}(P|T).`$
The rest of the proof is a direct calculation, which we illustrate by three different cases.

$`_{T_A}(_{T_i^𝔯}_{T_j^𝔯}F(T))`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}𝔨^id(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯)\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯d(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯)\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\right]=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯d\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯}{dEdQ}}\right],`$
since $`_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯`$ is holomorphic at $`P_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯\right]=0.`$

$`_{T_A}(_{T_{h,l}^a}_{T_{h,k}^a}F(T))`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{[b_{k^+}]}}d(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a)\right]=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a}{dEdQ}}\right],`$
since $`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,l}^a)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a=0.`$

$`_{T_A}(_{T_{E,l}^a}_{T_{E,k}^a}F(T))`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{[a_k^{}]}}Ed(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a)\right]=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{[a_l^{}]}}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a)𝑑E\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,l}^a\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,l}^a}{dEdQ}}\right],`$
since $`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,l}^a)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a=0`$ and $`(_{T_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a)`$ is well-defined on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$. ∎

### Reduction to Frobenius Structures and Solutions to the WDVV equations

In the real-normalized case we choose the marked variable to be $`T_1^𝔯`$. It correspond to the direction of unity,

(22)
$$_{T_1^𝔯}=ed\mathrm{\Omega }_1^𝔯.$$

In addition, we choose

(23)
$$dQ=\sqrt{1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_1^𝔯,$$

and truncate the hierarchy by considering $`T_i^𝔯,T_i^𝔦`$ only for $`in`$. Then we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

Given the above assumptions,

(24)
$$_{T_1^𝔯T_AT_B}F(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ij}{n},\hfill & d\mathrm{\Omega }_A=d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯,d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔦,\text{ and }i+j=n\hfill \\ \frac{ij}{n},\hfill & d\mathrm{\Omega }_A=d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔦,d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_j^𝔯,\text{ and }i+j=n\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2\pi },\hfill & d\mathrm{\Omega }_A=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a,d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2\pi },\hfill & d\mathrm{\Omega }_A=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b,d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, the coordinates are flat and $`F(T)`$ is a solution to the WDVV equation.

###### Proof.

Let us rewrite the formula for the third derivative with $`dQ=\sqrt{1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_1^𝔯`$:

$`_{T_1^𝔯T_AT_B}F(T)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{q_s|dE(q_s)=0}{}}\mathrm{res}_{q_s}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}}\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}}\mathrm{res}_{P_1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}}\right].`$
First let us see what is happening near the puncture $`P_1`$. Since $`dEd(z^n+O(1))`$ near $`P_1`$, $`\frac{dz}{dE}z^{n+1}`$ has a zero of order $`n+1`$ at $`P_1`$. It is clear that for the truncated hierarchy the only differentials that can contribute to the $`\mathrm{res}_{P_1}()`$-term are $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔯`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i^𝔦`$. Assume that near $`P_1`$,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad(\epsilon _Az^i+O(1)),d\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd(\epsilon _Bz^j+O(1)),\epsilon =1\text{ or }\sqrt{1}.$$

Then

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ $`=(\epsilon _A(i)z^{i1}+O(1))(\epsilon _B(j)z^{j1}+O(1))(dz)^2`$
$`=\{\epsilon _a\epsilon _B(ij)z^{(i+j)2}+O(z^{i1})+O(z^{j1})+O(1)\}(dz)^2`$
$`\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{res}_{P_1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}}\right]`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ij}{n}}\sqrt{1}\epsilon _A\epsilon _B\right]\delta _{i+j,n}={\displaystyle \frac{ij}{n}}\delta _{i+j,n}\delta _{\epsilon _A\epsilon _B,\sqrt{1}}.`$
Now let us consider the boundary term $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_Ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}`$. For it to be non-zero, at least one of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A,d\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ should be $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a`$ or $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^b`$. For example, let $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_A=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a`$. Then, if $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_Bd\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a,d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^b`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a}{dE}}(P_{a_l}^+P_{a_l}^{})`$ $`=\sqrt{1}\delta _{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^a}{dE}}(P_{b_l}^+P_{b_l}^{})=0`$
$`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\sqrt{1}dE}}\right]`$ $`=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}}{\displaystyle _{a_{k^+}}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_B\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2\pi },\hfill & d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,k}^a\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
and if $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a`$ or $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_B=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^b`$,

$$\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^a}{\sqrt{1}dE}\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,k}^ad\mathrm{\Omega }_{E,s}^b}{\sqrt{1}dE}\right]=0.$$

All the remaining cases are similar to the ones considered, and this concludes the proof of the theorem. ∎


format: text

text:
# Renormalization of the Regularized Relativistic Electron-Positron Field

## 1. Introduction

In relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED) the quantized electron-positron field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, which is an operator-valued spinor, is written formally as

(1)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x):=a(x)+b^{}(x),$$

where $`a(x)`$ annihilates an electron at $`x`$ and $`b^{}(x)`$ creates a positron at $`x`$. (We use the notation that $`x`$ denotes a space-spin point, namely $`x=(𝐱,\sigma )\mathrm{\Gamma }=^3\times \{1,2,3,4\}`$ and $`d^3x`$ denotes integration over $`^3`$ and a summation over the spin index.) More precisely, we take the Hilbert space, $``$ of $`L^2(^3)`$ spinors, i.e., $`=L^2(^3)^4`$. To specify the one-electron space we choose a subspace, $`_+`$ of $``$ and denote the orthogonal projector onto this subspace by $`P_+`$. The one-positron space is the (anti-unitary) charge conjugate, $`C_{}`$, of the orthogonal complement, $`_{}`$ with projector $`P_{}`$. In position space, $`(C(\psi ))(𝐱):=i\beta \alpha _2\overline{\psi (𝐱)}`$, whereas in momentum space $`(C(\widehat{\psi }))(𝐩):=i\beta \alpha _2\overline{\widehat{\psi }(𝐩)}`$. For later purposes we note explicitly that the Hilbert space $``$ can be written as the orthogonal sum

(2)
$$=_+_{}.$$

If $`f_\nu `$ is an orthonormal basis for $`_+`$ with $`\nu 0`$ and an orthonormal basis for $`_{}`$ with $`\nu <0`$ then $`a(x):=_{\nu =0}^{\mathrm{}}a(f_\nu )f_\nu (x)`$, and $`b(x):=_{\nu =\mathrm{}}^1b(f_\nu )\overline{f_\nu (x)}`$, where $`a^{}(f)`$ creates an electron in the state $`P_+f`$, etc. (For further details about the notation see Thaller , and also Helffer and Siedentop  and Bach et al .

For free electrons and positrons, $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ are, respectively, the positive and negative energy solutions of the free Dirac operator

(3)
$$D_0=𝜶𝐩+m_0\beta ,$$

in which $`𝜶`$ and $`\beta `$ denote the four $`4\times 4`$ Dirac matrices and $`𝐩=i`$. The number $`m_0`$ is the bare mass of the electron/positron. Perturbation theory is defined in terms of this splitting of $``$ into $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$. The electron/positron lines in Feynman diagrams are the resolvents of $`D_0`$ split in this way. As we shall see, this splitting may not be the best choice, ultimately, and another choice (which will require a fine-structure dependent, inequivalent representation of the canonical anticommutation relations) might be more useful.

The Hamiltonian for the free electron-positron field is

$$_0=d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }(x)^{}D_0\mathrm{\Psi }(x):$$

with this choice of $`_+`$. The symbol $`::`$ denotes normal ordering, i.e., anti-commuting all $`a^{},b^{}`$ operators to the left (but ignoring the anti-commutators).

In this paper we investigate the effect of the Coulomb interaction among the particles, which is a quartic form in the $`a^\mathrm{\#},b^\mathrm{\#}`$ operators. ($`\mathrm{\#}`$ denotes either a star or no star.) The normal ordering will give rise to extra constants and certain quadratic terms. Our main point will be that by making an appropriate choice of $`_+`$ that is different from the usual one mentioned above, we can absorb the additional quadratic terms into a mass, wave function, and charge renormalization. This choice of $`_+`$ has to be made self consistently and, as we show, can be successfully carried out if some combination of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ (=1/137 in nature) and the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small enough (but ‘small’ is actually ‘huge’ since the condition is, roughly, $`\alpha \mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$).

The physical significance of our construction is not immediate, but it does show that certain annoying terms, when treated non-perturbatively, can be incorporated into the renormalization program. It is not at all clear that what we have called wave function renormalization, for example, really corresponds to a correct interpretation of that renormalization, or even what the true meaning of wave function renormalization is. It could also be interpreted as a renormalization of Planck’s constant. Likewise, the charge renormalization we find is not mandatory. But our main point is that the effect is mathematically real and is best dealt with by a change of the meaning of the one-particle electron/positron states. It should be taken into account in the non-perturbative QED that is yet to be born. Of course, there are other renormalization effects in QED that we do not consider. In particular, the magnetic field has not been included and so we do not have a Ward identity to help us. Our result here is only a small part of the bigger picture of a proper, non-perturbative QED.

The last section of this paper contains a brief discussion of some possible interpretations of our findings and the interested reader is urged to look at that section.

Our starting point is the unrenormalized (‘bare’) Hamiltonian for a quantized electron/positron field interacting with itself via Coulomb’s law, namely

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}^{\mathrm{bare}}\hfill \\ \hfill :=d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)D_0\mathrm{\Psi }(x):+\frac{\alpha }{2}d^3xd^3yW(𝐱,𝐲):\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)::\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(y)\mathrm{\Psi }(y):.\end{array}$$

where $`W`$ is a symmetric ($`W(x,y)=W(y,x)`$) interaction potential. The case of interest here is the Coulomb potential $`W(x,y)=\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }|𝐱𝐲|^1`$ and regularized versions thereof. We will refer to the first term on the right side of (4) as the kinetic energy $`𝕋`$ and to the second term as the interaction energy $`𝕎^{\mathrm{bare}}`$.

Our choice of the product of the two normal ordered factors in the interaction, namely $`:\rho (x):`$ $`:\rho (y):`$, is taken from the book of Bjorken and Drell  (Eq. (15.28) without magnetic field). It is quite natural, we agree, to start with the closest possible analog to the classical energy of a field. Of course, this term is only partly normal ordered in the usual sense and therefore it does not have zero expectation value in the unperturbed vacuum or one-particle states. It is positive, however, as a Coulomb potential ought to be.

The fully normal ordered interaction (which is not positive) is defined to be

(5)
$$𝕎_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}=\frac{\alpha }{2}d^3xd^3yW(𝐱,𝐲):\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(y)\mathrm{\Psi }(y)\mathrm{\Psi }(x):.$$

Bear in mind that this definition entails a determination of the splitting (2) of $``$.

We introduce a normal ordered (‘dressed’) Hamiltonian

(6)
$$_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}:=d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)D_{Z,m}\mathrm{\Psi }(x):+𝕎^{\mathrm{ren}_\alpha }.$$

(Again, this depends on the splitting of $``$.) The operator $`D_{Z,m}`$ differs from $`D_0`$ in two respects:

(7)
$$D_{Z,m}=Z^1(𝜶𝐩+m\beta ),$$

where $`Z<1`$ and $`m>m_0`$. We call $`m_0`$ the bare mass and $`m`$ the ‘physical’ mass — up to further renormalizations, which we do not address in this paper. The factor $`Z`$ is called the ‘wave function renormalization’ because the ‘wave function renormalization’ in the standard theory is defined by the condition that the electron-positron propagator equals $`Z`$ times a non-interacting propagator, which is the inverse of a Dirac operator. To the extent that $`𝕎_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ can be neglected, the propagator with just the first term on the right side of (6) would, indeed, be $`Z`$ times a Dirac operator with mass $`m`$. One could also interpret $`Z`$ in other ways, e.g., as a renormalization of the speed of light, but such a choice would be considerably more radical. Some other interpretations are discussed in the last section.

Our goal is to show that by a suitable choice of $`Z`$, $`m`$, and the electron space $`_+`$, we have – up to physically unimportant infinite additive constants – asymptotic equality between $`^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ for momenta that are much smaller than the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

(8)
$$^{\mathrm{bare}}=_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}\text{ (for small momenta)}$$

The additional normal ordering in (6) will introduce some quadratic terms and it is these terms to which we turn our attention and which we would like to identify as renormalization terms. Whether our picture is really significant physically, or whether it is just a mathematical convenience remains to be seen. What it does do is indicate a need for starting with a non-conventional, non-perturbative choice of the free particle states, namely the choice of $`_+`$.

## 2. Calculation of the New Quadratic Terms

The canonical anti-commutation relations are

(9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{a(f),a(g)\}& =\{a^{}(f),a^{}(g)\}=\{a(f),b(g)\}=\{a^{}(f),b^{}(g)\}\hfill \\ & =\{a^{}(f),b(g)\}=\{a(f),b^{}(g)\}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and

(10)
$$\{a(f),a^{}(g)\}=(f,P_+g),\{b^{}(f),b(g)\}=(f,P_{}g).$$

Formally, this is equivalent to

(11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{a(x),a(y)\}& =\{a^{}(x),a^{}(y)\}=\{a(x),b(y)\}=\{a^{}(x),b^{}(y)\}\hfill \\ & =\{a^{}(x),b(y)\}=\{a(x),b^{}(y)\}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and

(12)
$$\{a(x),a^{}(y)\}=P_+(x,y),\{b^{}(x),b(y)\}=P_{}(x,y),$$

where $`P_\pm (x,y)`$ is the integral kernel of the projector $`P_\pm `$.

In order to compare the bare Hamiltonian $`^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ with the renormalized one $`_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ we must face a small problem; the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is necessary in order to get finite results, will spoil the theory at momenta comparable to this cutoff. Thus, our identification of the difference as a wave function and mass renormalization will be exact only for momenta that are small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will also require (although it is not clear if this is truly necessary or whether it is an artifact of our method) that $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)`$ is not too large.

The potential energy $`𝕎^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ clearly has positive singularities in it if the unregularized Coulomb interaction $`W(x,y)=|𝐱𝐲|^1\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }`$ is taken. We therefore cut off the field operators for high momenta above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. (Another choice would be to cut off the Fourier transform of $`|𝐱𝐲|^1`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the result would be essentially the same; our choice is motivated partly by computational convenience.) Our cutoff procedure is to require that

(13)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x):=(2\pi )^{3/2}_{\{𝐩^3||𝐩|<\mathrm{\Lambda }\}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐩,\sigma )e^{i𝐩𝐱}𝑑𝐩$$

holds, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. We could also take a smooth cutoff without any significant change. This regularization keeps the positivity of $`𝕎^{\mathrm{bare}}`$. To make all terms finite we also need a volume cutoff for one of the difference terms. However, the volume singularity only occurs as an additive constant, which we drop. The renormalized Hamiltonian is free of infrared divergent energies and so does not need a volume cutoff.

Next, we calculate the difference

(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}:=𝕎^{\mathrm{bare}}𝕎_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}=\frac{\alpha }{2}d^3xd^3yW(𝐱,𝐲)[a^{}(x)a(y)P_+(x,y)+a^{}(x)b^{}(y)P_+(x,y)\hfill \\ \hfill +b(x)a(y)P_+(x,y)b^{}(y)b(x)P_+(x,y)\\ \hfill a^{}(y)a(x)P_{}(x,y)+P_{}(x,y)P_+(x,y)+a(x)b(y)P_{}(x,y)\\ \hfill +b^{}(x)a^{}(y)P_{}(x,y)+b(x)^{}b(y)P_{}(x,y)].\end{array}$$

Thus, (4) can be rewritten as

(15)
$$\begin{array}{c}^{\mathrm{bare}}=d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)D_0\mathrm{\Psi }(x):\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{\alpha }{2}d^3xd^3y\frac{P_+(x,y)P_{}(x,y)}{|𝐱𝐲|}:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(y):+𝕎_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}\\ \hfill +\frac{\alpha }{2}d^3xd^3y\frac{P_+(x,y)P_{}(x,y)}{|𝐱𝐲|}.\end{array}$$

The first two terms on the right side are one-particle operators (i.e., quadratic in the field operators). Let us call their sum $`𝔸`$, which we write (formally, since $`A`$ is a differential operator) as

(16)
$$𝔸=d^3xd^3yA(x,y):\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(y):.$$

The last term is a cutoff dependent constant, which happens to be infinite. (One can show that this term is positive and, if we put in a momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and volume (infrared) cutoff $`V`$, this integral is proportional to $`V\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$.)

We can make $`𝔸`$ positive by choosing the normal ordering appropriately. That is, we choose $`P_+`$ to be the projector onto the positive spectral subspace of the operator $`A`$. Thus, we are led to the nonlinear equation for the unknown $`A`$

(17)
$$A=D_0+\frac{\alpha }{2}R,$$

where the operator $`R`$ has the integral kernel

(18)
$$R(x,y):=\frac{P_+(x,y)P_{}(x,y)}{|𝐱𝐲|}=\frac{(\mathrm{sgn}A)(x,y)}{|𝐱𝐲|},$$

with $`\mathrm{sgn}t`$ being the sign of $`t`$.

For physical reasons and to simplify matters we restrict the search for a solution to (17) to translationally invariant operators, i.e., $`4\times 4`$ matrix-valued Fourier multipliers. Moreover, we make the ansatz

(19)
$$A(𝐩):=𝜶\omega _𝐩g_1(|𝐩|)+\beta g_0(|𝐩|)$$

with real functions $`g_1`$ and $`g_0`$, where $`\omega _𝐩`$ is the unit vector in the $`𝐩`$ direction. In other words, we try to make $`A`$ look as much as possible like a Dirac operator. With this ansatz we have $`\mathrm{sgn}A(𝐩)=A(𝐩)/(g_1(|𝐩|)^2+g_0(|𝐩|)^2)^{1/2}`$. Thus, recalling (13), (17) can be fulfilled, if

(20) $`g_0(|𝐩|)`$ $`:=m_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_0(|𝐪|)}{(g_1(|𝐪|)^2+g_0(|𝐪|)^2)^{1/2}}}`$
(21) $`g_1(|𝐩|)`$ $`:=|𝐩|+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_1(|𝐪|)}{(g_1(|𝐪|)^2+g_0(|𝐪|)^2)^{1/2}}}`$
is solvable. Note that the bare mass $`m_0`$ appears in (20).

## 3. Determination of the Dressed Electron

We will find a solution of the system (20), (21) by a fixed point argument. To this end we first integrate out the angle on the right hand side. Setting $`u:=|𝐩|`$ and $`v:=|𝐪|`$ we get

(22) $`g_0(u)`$ $`=m_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}Q_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{g_0(v)}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}}`$
(23) $`g_1(u)`$ $`=u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}Q_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{g_1(v)}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}}`$
where, for $`z>1`$,

(24)
$$Q_0(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{z+1}{z1}$$

and

(25)
$$Q_1(z)=\frac{z}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{z+1}{z1}1.$$

The case of zero bare mass is particularly easy. We can choose $`g_0=0`$, in which case $`g_1`$ is obtained by integration. We get

$`g_1(u)=`$ $`u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}Q_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)\right)`$
(26) $`=`$ $`u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}u{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/u}}𝑑vvQ_1\left(\left(1/v+v\right)/2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}u[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{log}|(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)^21|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6u}}\mathrm{log}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)+1}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)1}}\right|(3+(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)^2)]`$
The function $`g_1`$ behaves asymptotically for small $`u`$ or large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as $`g_1(u)=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{4}{3}u\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/u)`$. Unfortunately, because of the $`\mathrm{log}u`$, the operator $`A`$ can never look like the renormalized Dirac operator in (7). This asymptotic expansion can be seen either from (26) or else by noting that the integrand is a continuous function, except for $`v=1`$, that decays at infinity as $`4/(3v)`$. This follows from the large $`v`$ expansion

(27)
$$vQ_1\left(\left(1/v+v\right)/2\right)=\frac{4}{3}v^1+\frac{8}{15}v^3+O(v^5).$$

For positive bare masses we solve the system (22) and (23) by a fixed point argument. To this end we define the following set of pairs of functions, for $`ϵ,\delta >0`$.

(28)
$$S_{ϵ,\delta }:=\{𝐠=(g_0,g_1)|_{u[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }]}𝐠(u)[m_0,(1+\delta )m_0]\times [u,(1+ϵ)u]\}.$$

Note that with the metric generated by the sup norm $`S_{ϵ,\delta }`$ is a complete metric space. Next define $`T:S_{ϵ,\delta }S_{ϵ,\delta }`$ by the right hand side of (23) and (22), i.e.,

(29) $`T_0(𝐠)(u)`$ $`=m_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}Q_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{g_0(v)}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}}`$
(30) $`T_1(𝐠)(u)`$ $`=u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}Q_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{g_1(v)}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}}.`$
###### Lemma 1.

If $`Y`$, defined by

(31)
$$Y:=\alpha \mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)/\pi ,$$

satisfies $`Y<9/50`$, if $`ϵ50Y/(950Y)`$, and if $`\delta Y/(1Y)`$, then T maps $`S_{ϵ,\delta }`$ into $`S_{ϵ,\delta }`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{arsinh}(x)=\mathrm{log}(x+\sqrt{x^2+1})`$, i.e., $`Y`$ grows logarithmically in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0`$.

###### Proof.

Obviously, $`T_0(𝐠)(u)m_0`$ and $`T_1(𝐠)(u)u`$.

To bound $`g_0`$ we return to (20) and note the bound (which holds in $`S_{ϵ,\delta }`$)

(32)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_0(|𝐩|)& m_0+\frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}_{|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑𝐪\frac{1}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}\frac{(1+\delta )m_0}{(|𝐪|^2+m_0^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ & m_0+\frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}_{|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑𝐪\frac{1}{𝐪^2}\frac{(1+\delta )m_0}{(|𝐪|^2+m_0^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ & =m_0[1+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }(1+\delta )\mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)].\hfill \end{array}$$

The second inequality holds because the convolution of two symmetric decreasing functions is symmetric decreasing.

Next we turn to $`g_1`$, which is a bit more complicated. We split the integration region in (21) into $`A=\{𝐪||𝐪|<2|𝐩|\mathrm{and}|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ and $`B=\{𝐪||𝐪|2|𝐩|\mathrm{and}|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. In region $`A`$ we use $`\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪1`$ and hence the contribution to $`g_1`$ from this region is bounded above by

(33)
$$\frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}_{|𝐪|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}d𝐪\frac{1}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}\frac{(1+ϵ)2|𝐩|}{(|𝐪|^2+m_0^2)^{1/2}}2|𝐩|\frac{\alpha }{\pi }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)],$$

for the same reason as in (32).

In region $`B`$ we use that $`(|𝐩|^2|𝐪|^2)^29|𝐪|^4/16`$. We also note, for the integration over $`B`$, that we can take the mean of the integrand for $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐪`$. In other words, we can bound this term as follows:

(34)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}\left|_B𝑑𝐪\frac{\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}\frac{g_1(|𝐪|)}{(g_1(|𝐪|)^2+g_0(|𝐪|)^2)^{1/2}}\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{8\pi ^2}\left|_B𝑑𝐪\left(\frac{\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪}{|𝐩𝐪|^2}\frac{\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪}{|𝐩+𝐪|^2}\right)\frac{g_1(|𝐪|)}{(g_1(|𝐪|)^2+g_0(|𝐪|)^2)^{1/2}}\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{8\pi ^2}_B𝑑𝐪\frac{4|𝐩||𝐪|}{(|𝐩|^2|𝐪|^2)^2}\frac{(1+ϵ)|𝐪|}{(|𝐪|^2+m_0^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{8\alpha (1+ϵ)}{9\pi ^2}|𝐩|_B𝑑𝐪\frac{1}{|𝐪|^2}\frac{1}{(|𝐪|^2+m_0^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{32\alpha (1+ϵ)}{9\pi }|𝐩|\mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, we obtain the bound

(35)
$$g_1(|𝐩|)|𝐩|\{1+\frac{50\alpha }{9\pi }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)\}.$$

###### Theorem 1.

If $`Y:=\alpha \mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)/\pi <9/50`$, if $`(2+ϵ+\delta )Y<1`$ and if $`ϵ,\delta `$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma 1 then $`T`$ is a contraction.

###### Proof.

Thanks to Lemma 1 we only need to establish the contraction property. We first note that for positive real numbers $`x,y,\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}`$

(36)
$$\left|\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}^2+\stackrel{~}{y}^2)^{1/2}}\right|\frac{|\eta |}{\xi ^2+\eta ^2}((x\stackrel{~}{x})^2+(y\stackrel{~}{y})^2)^{1/2}$$

where $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ is some point on the line between $`(x,y)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})`$.

Thus we get

(37)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& |[T_0(g)T_0(\stackrel{~}{g})](u)|+|[T_1(g)T_1(\stackrel{~}{g})](u)|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }dv\frac{v}{u}\left[Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u})\right)\right|\frac{g_0(v)}{\sqrt{g_0(v)^2+g_1(v)^2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_0(v)}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}_0(v)^2+\stackrel{~}{g}_1(v)^2}}|\hfill \\ & +Q_1\left(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u})\right)|\frac{g_1(v)}{\sqrt{g_0(v)^2+g_1(v)^2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_1(v)}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}_0(v)^2+\stackrel{~}{g}_1(v)^2}}|]\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}\left[Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{(1+ϵ)v}{v^2+m_0^2}+Q_1\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{(1+\delta )m_0}{v^2+m_0^2}\right]\hfill \\ & \times \left[(g_0(v)\stackrel{~}{g}_0(v))^2+(g_1(v)\stackrel{~}{g}_1(v))^2\right]^{1/2}\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }dv\frac{v}{u}[Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u})\right)\frac{(1+ϵ)v}{v^2+m_0^2}\hfill \\ & +Q_1\left(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u})\right)\frac{(1+\delta )m_0}{v^2+m_0^2}]𝐠\stackrel{~}{𝐠}\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{(1+ϵ)v+(1+\delta )m_0}{v^2+m_0^2}𝐠\stackrel{~}{𝐠}\hfill \\ \hfill & (2+ϵ+\delta )Y𝐠\stackrel{~}{𝐠}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`Y=\alpha \mathrm{arsinh}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0)/\pi `$ as in Lemma 1. In the last line we have simply noted that the integrals are smaller than the corresponding integral in (32). ∎

###### Corollary 1.

The map $`T`$ has a unique fixed point, if $`Y<1/7`$.

###### Proof.

Take $`ϵ=50Y/(950Y)`$ and $`\delta =Y/(1Y)`$ so that $`T`$ maps $`S_{ϵ,\delta }`$ into itself. Then, if $`Y<Y_0`$, the contraction condition will be satisfied. ∎

For $`\alpha =1/137`$, i.e., the physical value of the fine structure constant – the condition $`Y<1/7`$ is fulfilled for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/me^{18}`$.

## 4. Properties of the Renormalized Hamiltonian

What we have shown up to now is that the bare Hamiltonian in (4) is equivalent, apart from some additive constants, to a renormalized Hamiltonian. This renormalized Hamiltonian has the form (6), but the quadratic term is only approximately the one given in (7). What takes the place of $`D_{Z,m}`$ is given in (17) and (19). We see immediately from (22), (23) that the solution is a continuous pair of functions. We also see that as long as $`m_0`$ is not zero the functions $`g_0`$ and $`g_1`$ are positive and behave properly for small $`|𝐩|`$, i.e., $`g_0`$ is constant and $`g_1`$ is proportional to $`|𝐩|`$. To relate this to $`D_{Z,m}`$ we first factor out the constant $`lim_{u0+}(g_1(u)/u)`$ and call this $`Z^1`$. As is evident from (21), this constant $`1/Z`$ is larger than one — as it should be.

The next thing to verify is that $`Zg_0(0)`$ is bigger than $`m_0`$, since this is the renormalized mass $`m`$ that appears in (7). In other words, we have to verify that

(38)
$$\frac{m}{m_0}Z^1=\frac{g_0(0)}{m_0}>\underset{𝐩0}{lim}\frac{g_1(|𝐩|)}{|𝐩|}=Z^1.$$

We shall, in fact, prove more than this:

###### Theorem 2.

Assuming that $`Y<1/7`$, the unique solution to the equation (20) and (21) mentioned has the property

(39)
$$\frac{g_0(|𝐩|)}{m_0}>\frac{g_1(|𝐩|)}{|𝐩|}$$

for all $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

###### Proof.

Define $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\delta ,ϵ}`$ to be the subset of $`S_{\delta ,ϵ}`$ on which

(40)
$$\frac{g_0(|𝐩|)}{m_0}\frac{g_1(|𝐩|)}{|𝐩|}$$

for all $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟎}`$. If we can show that $`T`$ also leaves $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\delta ,ϵ}`$ invariant, then we have shown the wanted inequality (39) on the solution in $`S_{\delta ,ϵ}`$ (by the uniqueness of the solution on $`S_{\delta ,ϵ}`$) except for the possibility that equality also can occur. This is so, since we can apply the fixed point argument not only to $`S_{\delta ,ϵ}`$ but also to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\delta ,ϵ}`$.

Showing that (40) holds is – according to (22) and (23) – equivalent to showing that

(41)
$$\begin{array}{c}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{g_0(v)/m_0}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ \hfill >_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}Q_1\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{g_1(v)/u}{(g_1(v)^2+g_0(v)^2)^{1/2}}\end{array}$$

holds. Now, using the Inequality (40) and the fact that the factors with the roots are monotone functions $`g_0`$ and $`g_1`$ respectively, it is enough to show that

(42)
$$\begin{array}{c}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}Q_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{1}{(m_0^2+v^2)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ \hfill >_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑v\frac{v}{u}Q_1\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{v}+\frac{v}{u}\right)\right)\frac{v/u}{(m_0^2+v^2)^{1/2}}\end{array}$$

holds. To proceed, we now compare the integrands pointwise. Using the explicit expressions (24) and (25) for $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_1`$, and with $`t=v/u`$, we will have shown that the integrand of the left hand side pointwise majorizes the one on the right hand side of (42) if

(43)
$$\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{t+1}{t1}\right|<\frac{2t}{|t^21|}$$

holds for all $`t1`$. By symmetry, we only have to consider (43) for $`t>1`$. To this end we exponentiate (43)

$$\frac{t+1}{t1}<\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2t}{t^21}\right)$$

and expand the exponential up to second order. (Note that this gives a lower bound on the exponential because the argument of the exponential function is positive.) I.e., it suffices to show that

(44)
$$\frac{t+1}{t1}<1+\frac{2t}{t^21}+2\frac{t^2}{(t^21)^2}$$

which follows by direct computation.

Having established (2) we see that (44) indeed gives strict inequality in (2) for the unique fixed point in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\delta ,ϵ}`$. ∎

## 5. Interpretations of our Results

What we have done is start with the ‘bare’ Hamiltonian $`^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ in (4), in which the interaction is the closest analog to the classical electrostatic energy of a field. After some analysis, we found in section 3 that $`Z`$ and $`m`$ could be uniquely chosen so that for momenta much less than the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`^{\mathrm{bare}}=_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ plus a well defined infinite constant. Of course the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the two cases is different. Formally, they differ by a Bogolubov transformation, but in fact an inequivalent, $`\alpha `$ dependent, representation of the CAR is needed. In section 4 we showed that not only is $`Z^1m>m_0`$ but more is true, namely $`m>m_0`$, and this is comforting physically.

We emphasize that we have not ‘integrated out’ any field variables. Our new Hamiltonian $`_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ is the same as the original one — on a purely formal level. It is suggestive, nevertheless, that a good deal of the electrostatic energy has now been incorporated into the leading term $`d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)D_{Z,m}\mathrm{\Psi }(x):`$ and that the remaining interaction is somehow less important than the original one. It is, after all, normal ordered, which means it vanishes on one-electron states, if we define such states by $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|0`$, where $`|0`$ is the vacuum of the new $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. While this makes sense perturbatively, it is, however, misleading because the new vacuum (the state of lowest energy) is surely not the obvious choice $`|0`$.

If we drop the new interaction term $`𝕎_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ we are left with $`d^3x:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)D_{Z,m}\mathrm{\Psi }(x):`$ as our Hamiltonian. Unfortunately this is not the Hamiltonian of a Dirac operator (even at low momenta) because of the factor $`Z^1`$. We have called this a wave function renormalization, but that is not really in the spirit of renormalizing the one-electron states (which is what is usually done) and is, instead, a renormalization of an operator. One school, (Källén ) thinks it is proper to speak of a renormalized $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by incorporating a factor $`Z^{1/2}`$ into $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, but this changes the anti-commutation relations! Note that this formulation requires renormalizing the bare mass $`m_0`$ to $`g_0(\mathrm{𝟎})/Z`$ and renormalizing the bare charge $`e`$ to $`e/Z`$.

Another point of view is to regard $`Z^1m`$ as the physical mass and to change $`Z^1𝐩`$ into $`𝐩`$ by a unitary transformation (which is nothing other than a change of length scale). This has the disadvantage of changing the speed of light or Planck’s constant. It also would mean a different scale change for particles of different mass, e.g., muons. As opposed to Källén’s procedure, this requires renormalizing the mass from $`m_0`$ to $`g_0(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ only, but there is no need for charge renormalization.

Another possibility is to bring out the factor $`Z^1`$ as a multiplier of the whole Hamiltonian, which would mean changing the fine structure constant to $`\alpha Z`$, i.e., a charge renormalization but now from $`e`$ to $`e/Z^{1/2}`$ only. The obvious problem here is that since the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translation, this means a change of the time scale (which, again, depends on the particle in question).

Doubtless, different people will have different opinions about these matters. We do not wish to commit ourselves to any point of view. But it is our opinion that the construction of $`_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ is a significant piece of the puzzle of constructing a nonperturbative QED.

Acknowledgement: The authors thank Dirk Hundertmark for a useful discussion. Financial support of the European Union, TMR grant FMRX-CT 96-0001, the U.S. National Science Foundation, grant PHY98-20650, and NATO, grant CRG96011 is acknowledged.