arxiv:hep-th/ v1 7 Nov 1998

Transcription

1 SOGANG-HEP 249/98 Consistent Dirac Quantization of SU(2) Skyrmion equivalent to BFT Scheme arxiv:hep-th/ v1 7 Nov 1998 Soon-Tae Hong 1, Yong-Wan Kim 1,2 and Young-Jai Park 1 1 Department of Physics and Basic Science Research Institute, Sogang University, C.P.O. Box 1142, Seoul , Korea 2 Department of Physics Education, Seoul National University, Seoul , Korea October 30, 1998 ABSTRACT According to the Dirac method the SU(2) Skyrmion is canonically quantized. We newly show that the energy spectrum of this Skyrmion obtained by the Dirac method with the suggestion of generalized momenta is consistent with the result of the BFT formalism. PACS: Z, Ef Keywords: Skyrmions, Dirac Quantization, BFT formalism

2 It is well known that baryons can be obtained from topological solutions, known as SU(2) Skyrmions, since the homotopy group Π 3 (SU(2)) = Z admits fermions [1, 2]. Using the collective coordinates of the isospin rotation of the Skyrmion, Adkins et al. [1] have performed semiclassical quantization to obtain the static properties of baryons within about 30% of the corresponding experimental data. Also the chiral bag model, which is a hybrid of two different models: the MIT bag model at infinite bag radius on one hand and the SU(3) Skyrmion model at vanishing radius on the other hand, has enjoyed considerable success in predictions of the strange form factors of baryons[3] to confirm the recent experimental result of the SAMPLE Collaboration[4]. On the other hand, in order to quantize the physical systems subjective to the constraints, the Dirac quantization scheme [5] has been used widely. First of all the string theory is known to be restricted to obey the Virasoro conditions, and thus it is quantized by the Dirac method [6]. Also, in the 2+1 dimensional O(3) sigma model, Bowick et al.[7] have used the Dirac scheme to obtain the fractional spin. However, whenever we adopt the Dirac method, we frequently meet the problem of the operator ordering ambiguity. In order to avoid this problem, Batalin, Fradkin, and Tyutin (BFT) developed a method [8], which converts the second class constraints into first class ones by introducing auxiliary fields. Recently, this BFT formalism has been applied to several interesting models [9]. Very recently, the SU(2) Skyrme model has been studied in the context of the abelian and non-abelian BFT formalism [10, 11]. But, there exists some inconsistency on the constraint structure. In this paper, we will canonically quantize the SU(2) Skyrme model by using the desired Dirac quantization method, which is consistent with the BFT one. Firstly, the Dirac bracket scheme will be discussed in the framework of the SU(2) Skyrmions to quantize the baryons. The adjustable parameter will be introduced to define the generalized momenta without any loss of generality. Next, we will apply the proper BFT method to the Skyrmion to obtain the energy spectrum of the baryons by including the Weyl ordering correction. Finally, we will newly show that by fixing this free parameter the baryon energy eigenvalues obtained by the Dirac method are consistent with the result of the BFT formalism. Now we start with the Skyrmion Lagrangian of the form L = dr 3 [ f2 π 4 tr( µu µ U) e 2tr[U µ U, U ν U] 2 ] (1) 1

3 where f π is the pion decay constant and e is a dimensionless parameter and U is an SU(2) matrix satisfying the boundary condition lim r U = I so that the pion field vanishes as r goes to infinity. For the minimum energy of the Skyrmion, one can take the hedgehog ansatz U 0 ( x) = e iτaˆxaf(r), where the τ a are Pauli matrices, ˆx = x/r and for unit winding number lim r f(r) = 0 and f(0) = π. On the other hand, since the hedgehog ansatz has maximal or spherical symmetry, it is easily seen that spin plus isospin equals zero, so that isospin transformations and spatial rotations are related to each other. Furthermore, in the Skyrmion model, spin and isospin states can be treated by collective coordinates a µ = (a 0, a) (µ = 0, 1, 2, 3) corresponding to the spin and isospin rotations A(t) = a 0 + i a τ. (2) With the hedgehog ansatz and the collective rotation A(t) SU(2), the chiral field can be given by U( x, t) = A(t)U 0 ( x)a (t) = e iτar abˆx b f(r) where R ab = 1 2 tr(τ aaτ b A ). The Skyrmion Lagrangian is then given by 1 L = E + 2I(ȧ µ ) 2 (3) where the soliton energy and the moment of inertia are given by and E = 4π drr 2 [ f2 π 0 2 ((df dr )2 + 2 sin2 f ) + 1 sin 2 f (2( df r 2 2e 2 r 2 dr )2 + sin2 f )] (4) r 2 π I = 8π drr 2 sin 2 f[fπ e 2((df dr )2 + sin2 f )]. (5) r 2 Then, introducing the canonical momenta conjugate to the collective coordinates a µ π µ = L ȧ = µ 4Iȧµ (6) one can obtain the canonical Hamiltonian H = π µ ȧ µ L = E + 1 8I πµ π µ (7) 1 Here one can easily check that the Skyrmion Lagrangian can be rewritten as L = E + 2I α 2 by defining the new variables α k = a 0 ȧ k ȧ 0 a k + ǫ kpq a p ȧ q. 2

4 and the spin and isospin operators J i = 1 2 (a0 π i a i π 0 ǫ ijk a j π k ) I i = 1 2 (ai π 0 a 0 π i ǫ ijk a j π k ). (8) On the other hand, we have the following second class constraints 2 to yield the Poisson algebra Ω 1 = a µ a µ 1 0, Ω 2 = a µ π µ 0, (9) kk = {Ω k, Ω k } = 2ǫ kk a µ a µ (10) with ǫ 12 = ǫ 21 = 1. Now, using the Dirac bracket [5] defined by {A, B} D = {A, B} {A, Ω k } kk {Ω k, B} (11) with kk being the inverse of kk one can obtain the following commutators {a µ, a ν } D = 0 {a µ, π ν } D = δ µν a µ a ν {π µ, π ν } D = a ν π µ a µ π ν. (12) Then, through the canonical quantization scheme {A, B} D 1 i [A op, B op ] one can have the operator commutators [a µ, a ν ] = 0 [a µ, π ν ] = i(δ µν a µ a ν ) [π µ, π ν ] = i(a ν π µ a µ π ν ) (13) with π µ = i(δ µν a µ a ν ) ν, and the closed current algebra [M µ, M ν ] = ǫ µνσ M σ [M µ, N ν ] = ǫ µνσ N σ [N µ, N ν ] = 0 (14) 2 Here one notes that, due to the commutator {π µ, Ω 1 } = 2a µ, one can obtain the algebraic relation {Ω 1, H} = 1 2I Ω 2. 3

5 with M µ = iǫ µνσ π ν a σ, N µ = ia µ. Now we observe that without any loss of generality the generalized momenta Π µ fulfilling the commutators (13) is of the form 3 Π µ = π µ ica µ (15) with an arbitrary parameter c to be fixed later. It does not also change the spin and isospin operators (8). On the other hand, the energy spectrum of the baryons in the SU(2) Skyrmion can be obtained in the Weyl ordering scheme [13] where the Hamiltonian (7) is modified into the symmetric form where H N = E + 1 8I Πµ N Πµ N. (16) Π µ N = i 2 [(δµν a µ a ν ) ν + ν (δ µν a µ a ν ) + 2ca µ ]. (17) After some algebra, one can obtain the Weyl ordered Π µ NΠ µ N as follows 4 Π µ NΠ µ N = µ µ + 3a µ µ + a µ a ν µ ν + 5 c(c 2) (18) 4 to yield the modified quantum energy spectrum of the baryons H N = E + 1 8I [l(l + 2) + 5 c(c 2)]. (19) 4 According to the abelian BFT formalism [8, 9, 10] which systematically converts the second class constraints into first class ones, we introduce two auxiliary fields Φ i corresponding to Ω i with the Poisson brackets where we are free to make a choice {Φ i, Φ j } = ω ij (20) ω ij = ǫ ij. (21) 3 In ref. [12] the last term is missing so that one cannot clarify the relations between the BFT scheme and the Dirac bracket one. Also one can easily see that Π µ is not the canonical momenta conjugate to the collective coordinates a µ any more since Π µ depend on a µ, as expected. 4 Here the first three terms are nothing but the three-sphere Laplacian [14] given in terms of the collective coordinates and their derivatives to yield the eigenvalues l(l + 2). 4

6 The first class constraints Ω i are then constructed as a power series of the auxiliary fields: Ω i = Ω (n) i, Ω (0) i = Ω i (22) n=0 where Ω (n) i are polynomials in the auxiliary fields Φ j of degree n, to be determined by the requirement that the first class constraints Ω i satisfy an abelian algebra as follows { Ω i, Ω j } = 0. (23) Since Ω (1) i are linear in the auxiliary fields, one can make the ansatz Ω (1) i = X ij Φ j. (24) Substituting (24) into (23) leads to the following relation which, for the choice of (21), has a solution ij + X ik ω kl X jl = 0. (25) X ij = ( a µ a µ ). (26) Substituting (26) into (22) and (24) and iterating this procedure, one can obtain the first class constraints Ω 1 = Ω 1 + 2Φ 1 Ω 2 = Ω 2 a µ a µ Φ 2 (27) which yield the strongly involutive first class constraint algebra (23). On the other hand, the corresponding first class Hamiltonian is given by H = M + 1 8I (πµ a µ Φ 2 )(π µ a µ Φ 2 a ν a ν ) (28) a ν a ν + 2Φ 1 which is also strongly involutive with the first class constraints { Ω i, H} = 0. (29) Here one notes that, with the Hamiltonian (28), one cannot naturally generate the first class Gauss law constraint from the time evolution of the 5

7 primary constraint Ω 1. Now, by introducing an additional term proportional to the first class constraints Ω 2 into H, we obtain an equivalent first class Hamiltonian H = H + 1 4I Φ2 Ω2 (30) which naturally generates the Gauss law constraint { Ω 1, H } = 1 2I Ω 2 { Ω 2, H } = 0. (31) Note that H and H act on physical states in the same way since such states are annihilated by the first class constraints. Similarly, the equations of motion for observables will also be unaffected by this difference. Furthermore, if we take the limit Φ i 0, then our first class system exactly returns to the original second class one. Now, using the first class constraints in the Hamiltonian (30), one can obtain the Hamiltonian of the form [10] H = M + 1 8I (aµ a µ π ν π ν a µ π µ a ν π ν ). (32) Following the symmetrization procedure, the first class Hamiltonian yields the energy spectrum with the Weyl ordering correction [10] H N = E + 1 [l(l + 2) + 1]. (33) 8I Now, in order for the Dirac bracket scheme to be consistent with the BFT one, the adjustable parameter c in (19) should be fixed with the values 5 c = 1 ± 2. (34) Due to the factor 5 originated from the Weyl ordering correction [14], c is 4 deviated from the degenerate value c = 1 obtained in the Dirac bracket formalism without the factor 5 compatible with the BFT scheme. 4 It seems to appropriate to comment on the non-abelian BFT scheme of this Skyrme model although this scheme gives the same baryon energy eigenvalues [11]. This non-abelian scheme is mainly based on the introduction 6

8 of auxiliary fields fulfilling { Ω i, Ω j } = C k ij Ω k (35) { Ω i, H} = B j i Ω j (36) where Ω i and H are constructed as a power series of auxiliary fields as before. Then, besides ω ij and X ij to be chosen, one should find the coefficients C k ij further, which solve C k ijω k = ij + X ik ω kl X jl at the zeroth order of (35). Among many possible values, if one chooses C 1 12 = 2, ω12 = ω 21 = 1, X 11 = X 22 = 1 with the other vanishing components as in ref. [11], one would have the first class constraints having non-linear term of auxiliary fields as satisfying the constraint algebra Ω 1 = Ω 1 + Φ 1 Ω 2 = Ω 2 Φ 2 + Φ 1 Φ 2 (37) { Ω 1, Ω 1 } = 0 (38) { Ω 1, Ω 2 } = 2 Ω 1 (39) { Ω 2, Ω 2 } = 0. (40) Moreover, using the corresponding first class Hamiltonian such as we obtain H = H 1 8I πµ π µ Φ (B1 1Ω 1 1 2I Ω 2)Φ (B I Ω 2)Φ 1 Φ I aµ a µ (1 Φ 1 )Φ 2 Φ 2 (41) { Ω 1, H} = B 1 1 Ω 1, { Ω 2, H} = 0 (42) where B1 1 remains undetermined in general. This non-abelian scheme seems to work, i.e., the first class Hamiltonian (41) has simple finite sums for this non-linear theory, compared with the previous one (28), and thus it would be an adequate approach for studying such a non-linear theory rather than the abelian version of BFT. 7

9 However, there still exists some inconsistency on algebraic relations, which should be resolved. In particular, Eq. (39) in the first class constraint algebra is not consistent in the limit of the auxiliary fields Φ i 0, i.e., it does not recover the original second class structure such as (10). This kind of situation happens again when one considers Eq. (42) obtained from the non-abelian BFT scheme. Moreover, it does not generate the Gauss law constraint naturally. As a result, due to this inconsistency, one could not give a strong credit for the non-abelian BFT method compared with the abelian one even though the Hamiltonian (41) yields the same energy eigenvalues (33) as in the abelian case. In summary, we have clarified the relation between the Dirac bracket scheme and BFT one, which has been obscure and unsettled, in the framework of the SU(2) Skyrmion model. In this approach we have introduced the generalized momentum operators with the parameter, which is fixed to yield the consistency between these two formalisms. Also, in the abelian BFT scheme, we have obtained the Gauss s law constraint which could not be attainable in the non-abelian BFT one. Finally, through further investigation, the SU(3) extension of this analysis will be studied. One of us (S.T.H) would like to thank Professor G.E. Brown for helpful discussions and constant concerns. The present work was supported by the Basic Science Research Institute Program, Korean Research Foundation, Project No. BSRI Y.-W Kim was supported in part by KOSEF (1998). References [1] G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B228 (1983) 552. [2] I. Zahed, G.E. Brown, Phys. Rep. 142 (1986) 1; S.-T. Hong, Phys. Lett. B417 (1998) 211. [3] S.-T. Hong, B.-Y. Park, D.-P. Min, Phys. Lett. B414 (1997) 229. [4] B. Mueller et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997)

10 [5] P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures in Quantum Mechanics (Yeshiva University, New York, 1964). [6] M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambridge University Press, London, 1987) Vol.1. [7] M. Bowick, D, Karabali, L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986) 417. [8] I. A. Batalin, E. S. Fradkin, Phys. Lett. B180 (1986) 157; Nucl. Phys. B279 (1987) 514; I. A. Batalin, I. V. Tyutin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 (1991) [9] R. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) R5467; W. T. Kim, Y.-J. Park, Phys. Lett. B336 (1994) 376; Y.-W. Kim, Y.-J. Park, K. D. Rothe, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 24 (1998) 953; M.-I. Park, Y.-J. Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13 (1998) [10] W. Oliveira, J.A. Neto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997) [11] W. Oliveira, J.A. Neto, hep-th/ [12] K. Fujii, N. Ogawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 109 (1986) 1. [13] T.D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory (Harwood, New York, 1981). [14] J.A. Neto, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 21 (1995)