arxiv:hep-th/ v2 8 Jun 2000

Transcription

1 Partially emedding of the quantum mechanical analog of the nonlinear sigma model R. Amorim a, J. Barcelos-Neto and C. Wotzasek c Instituto de Física Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro RJ Caixa Postal Brasil Decemer 5, 017 Astract We consider the quantum mechanical analog of the nonlinear sigma model. here are difficulties to completely emed this theory y directly using the Batalin, Fradkin, Fradkina, and yutin BFF formalism. We show in this paper how the BFF method can e conveniently adapted in order to achieve a gauge theory that partially emeds the model. arxiv:hep-th/991016v 8 Jun 000 I. INRODUCION he interest in emedding of systems with nonlinear constraints has een started with the works y Banerjee et al. [1]. he general and systematic formalism for emedding was developed y Batalin, Fradkin, Fradkina, and yutinbff[,3] where systems with second class constraints [4] are transformed into first class ones, i.e. they are emedded into more general gauge theories. his is achieved with the aid of auxiliary variales with the general rule such that there is one pair of canonical variales for each second class constraint to e transformed. he BFF method is quite elegant and the otainment of first class constraints is done in an iterative way. he first correction to the constraints is linear in the auxiliary variales, the second one is quadratic, and so on. In the case of systems with just linear constraints, like chiral-osons [5], one otains that just linear corrections are enough to make them first class [6,7]. Here, we mention that the method is equivalent to express the dynamic quantities y means of shifted coordinates [8]. However, for systems with nonlinear constraints, the iterative process may go eyond the first correction. his is a crucial point for the use of the method. his is so ecause the first iterative step may not give a unique solution and one does not know a priori what should e the most convenient solution we have to choose for the second step. here are systems where this choice is very natural and it is feasile to carry out all the steps. We mention for example the massive Yang-Mills theory [9]. However, for the nonlinear sigma-model and CP N 1 not all the solutions of the first step lead to a solution in the second one [10]. he same occurs from the second to the third step, and so on, making the method not feasile to e applied. More than that, in the case of the nonlinear sigma model one can not assure that these higher order solutions actually exist [10]. It is important to emphasize that this is not a prolem necessarily related to the method, what may happen is that there might e no gauge theory that completely emeds the nonlinear sigma-model. We shall address to this prolem in the present paper. We are going to study the quantum mechanical analog of the nonlinear sigma-model. he use of the BFF method in this model also presents similar difficulties in providing a complete emedding. However, we show how the method can e conveniently adapted to partially emedding it. Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we make a rief review of the BFF method and introduce the general lines of the partially emedding procedure. In Sec. III, for future comparisons, we discuss the constraint dynamics of the quantum mechanical analog of the nonlinear sigma-model, that corresponds to a particle constrained to move on a N-dimensional sphere and show the difficulties we have for totally emedding it. We develop the partially emedding of this theory in Sec. IV and discuss the time evolution and the consequences of the gauge invariance of the model into Sec. V. We left Sec. VI for some concluding remarks. II. BRIEF REVIEW OF HE BFF FORMALISM Let us take a system descried y a Hamiltonian H c in a phase-space with variales q i,p i where i runs from 1 to N. It is also supposed that there exist second class constraints only since this is the case that will e investigated. Denoting them y a, with a = 1,...,M < N, we have a, } = a,.1 where det a 0. 1

2 he first ojective is to transform these second-class constraints into first-class ones. owards this goal auxiliary variales η a are introduced, one for each second class constraint the connection etween the numer of constraints and the new variales in a one-to-one correlation is to keep the samenumer of the physical degreesof freedom in the resulting extended theory, which satisfy a symplectic algera η a, η } = ω a,. a, } = 0..5 he solution of.5 can e achieved y considering an expansion of a, as a = n=0 n a,.6 where ω a is a constant quantity with detω a 0. he first class constraints are now defined y and satisfy the oundary condition a = a q,p;η,.3 a q,p;0 = a q,p..4 A characteristic of these new constraints is that they are assumed to e strongly involutive, i.e. where a n is a term of order n in η. Compatiility with the oundary condition.4 requires that 0 a = a..7 he replacement of.6 into.5 leads to a set ofrecursiverelations, onefor eachcoefficient ofη n. We explicitly list the equations for n = 0,1,, 0 a, 0 0 a,1 0 a, }q,p + 1 }q,p + 1 }q,p + 1 a, 1 η a,0 a, 1 + a, } = 0,.8 }q,p + a 1, }η + a },1 = 0,.9 η }q,p + }q,p + 1 } }η + 3 a, 0 a, 1 } η a, 3 η = he notations,} q,p and,} η represent the parts of the Poisson racket,} relative to the variales q, p and η. he aove equations are used iteratively to otain the corrections n n 1. Equation.8 shall give 1. With this result and.9, one calculates, and so on. Since 1 is linear in η we may write 1 a = X a q,pη..11 Introducing this expression into.8 and using the oundary condition.4, as well as.1 and., we get a +X ac ω cd X d = 0..1 We notice that this equation contains two unknowns X a and ω a. Usually, first of all ω a is chosen in such a way that the new variales are unconstrained. It is opportune to mention that it is not always possile to make such a choice [7]. In consequence, the consistency of the method requires the introduction of other new variales in order to transform these constraints also into first-class. his may lead to an endless process. However, it is important to emphasize that ω a can e fixed anyway. After fixing ω a, we pass to consider the coefficients X a. hey cannot e otained unamiguously since, even after fixing ω a, expression.1 leads to less equations than variales. he choice of X s has therefore to e done in a convenient way [1]. heknowledgeofx a permitsustootain a 1. IfX a doesnotdepend onq,p, it iseasilyseenthat a + a 1 is already strongly involutive and we succeed in otaining a. his is what happens for systems with linear constraints. For nonlinear constraints, on the other hand, X a ecomes variale dependent which necessitates the analysis to e pursued eyond the first iterative step. All the susequent corrections must e explicitly computed, theknowledgeof a n n = 0,1,,...nleadingtotheevaluation of a n+1 from the recursive relations. Once again the importance of choosing the proper solution for X a ecomes apparent otherwise the series of corrections cannot e put in a closed form and the expression for the involutive constraints ecomes unintelligile and uninteresting.

3 Another point in the Hamiltonian formalism is that any dynamic function Aq, p for instance, the Hamiltonian has also to e properly modified in order to e stronglyinvolutivewiththefirst-classconstraints a. Denoting the modified quantity y Ãq,p;η, we then have a, à } = In addition, à has also to satisfy the oundary condition Ãq,p;0 = Aq,p..14 o otain à an expansion analogous to.6 is considered, à = A n,.15 n=0 where A n is also a term of order n in η s. Consequently, compatiility with.14 requires that A 0 = A..16 he comination of.6,.13 and.15 gives 0 a,a0} q,p + a 1,A1} = 0,.17 η 0 a,a1} q,p + a 1,A0} q,p + a 1,A} η + a,a 1} = 0,.18 η 0 a,a } q,p + a 1,A 1} q,p + a,a 0} q,p + 1 a,a 3} η + a,a } η + a 3,A1} = 0,.19 η which correspond to the coefficients of the powers η 0, η 1, η, etc., respectively. he expression.17 aove gives us A 1 A 1 = η a ω ax c c, A },.0 where ω a and X a are the inverses of ω a and X a. It was earlier seen that a + a 1 was strongly involutive if the coefficients X a do not depend on q,p. However, the same argument does not necessarily apply in this case. Usually we have to calculate other corrections to otain the final Ã. Let us discuss how this can e systematically done. he correction A comes from equation.18, that we conveniently rewrite as 1 a, A } η = G1 a,.1 where G 1 a = a, A 1} q,p + 1 a, A} q,p + a, A1} η.. hus A = 1 ηa ω a X c G 1 c..3 In the same way, other terms can e otained. he final general expression reads A n+1 = 1 n+1 ηa ω a X c G n c,.4 where G n a = n n m, A m} n q,p + n m, A m+} η + a n+1, A 1} η..5 m=0 a m=0 a 3

4 he partially emedding procedure we are going to apply consists in transforming into first-class just part of the constraints. Let us suppose we take M among the M second-class constraints to e converted into firstclass. here are two general steps to e done. he first one is to achieve the strong involutive algera for these constraints, namely, a, } = 0 a, = 1,...,M.6 y introducingm varialesη a ofauxiliaryvarialesand the same steps of the BFF formalism. Consequently, in the partially emedding formalism we work with less auxiliary variales than in the full procedure. Of course, the choice of what constraints we intend to convert into first-class may e a crucial point for the success of the method. he fact of having achieved a strong involutive algera for some of the constraints does not necessarily means that these constraints are first-class. We have also to convert the remaining M M ones in order to have involutive algeras with all the a. his is the second general step we have talked aove and it is achieved y treating the remaining constraints in a similar way of the quantity A that appears in.13. Denoting the remaining second-class constraints y a, with a = 1,...M M, we would have to otain a q,p,η in the same lines that à was done in the BFF formalism. In this way a, a } = 0,.7 ut, in general, the matrix a = a, } will e nonsingular, which means that the a s remain secondclass Finally we mention that the strong involutive Hamiltonian are otained in the same way as a. Further details will e displayed when we use the formalism in the example we are going to consider. In the first equation aove we are using a short notation. We do it from now on where there is no misunderstanding. Derivating the first of the equations aove twice with respect to the evolution parameter and using the second equation, we see that λ = q /q, and so we get the expected equation of motion for a particle moving on a N-dimensional sphere: q i = q q q i. 3.3 Let us now consider this theory in the canonical formalism. he canonical Hamiltonian corresponding to 3.1 reads H c = 1 p 1 λq 1, 3.4 where p i is the canonical conjugated momentum to q i. Using the Dirac constraint formalism [4] we otain that the constraints of this theory are 1 = q 1, = q.p, 3 = p λ, 4 = λq +p, 3.5 where p λ is the canonical conjugated momentum to λ. hese constraints are second class. In fact, for the antisymmetric quantities a given y.1, we have 1 = q, 14 = 4q.p, 4 = λq +p, 34 = q, 3.6 III. HE MODEL AND DIFFICULIES FOR OALLY EMBEDDING he motion of a particle on a N-dimensional sphere of radius 1 is descried y the Lagrangian L = 1 q i q i + 1 λq iq i As can e easily verified, the Euler-lagrange equations for λ and q i are respectively given y q 1 = 0, q i λq i = and one can verify that the matrix = a is regular. he Dirac rackets etween any two quantities A and B is constructed in the usual way, A,B} D = A,B} A, a } 1 a,b} 3.7 and since any quantity has null Dirac rackets with any one of the s, the time evolution generated y H c, or y any of its extensions y adding to it terms such as λ a a, gives the same result. Actually, y considering the form of the constraints, we note that 3.4 can e written as H c = λ λ, 3.8 4

5 and so, under Dirac rackets, the dynamics of the system is generated just y 1 λ. As can e verified, q i = 1 q i,λ} D = 1 q p i, ṗ i = 1 p i,λ} D = λ q q i, λ = 1 λ,λ} D = 0, 3.9 he system aove cannot e univocally solved. It contains sixteen variales in just six equations. In cases like this we examine the possiility of figuring out a solution where the first linear correction for the constrains could lead to a strongly involutive algera. his is achieved if esides Eq..14 the equations a,x c }+X ac, } = 0 X ac,x d }+X ad,x c } = which give, on the constraint surface, the same dynamics as the one generated y the Euler-Lagrange equations 3.. Let us now try to use the full BFF method for the present theory in order to see the difficulties for emedding it. he use of the method requires the introduction of four coordinates η a. We consider them such that η 3 and η 4 are the momenta conjugated to η 1 and η, respectively. Hence, the matrix ω a given y. reads ω a = he comination of.13,.14, 3.3, and 3.10 leads to the set of equations X 11 X 3 +X 1 X 4 X 13 X 1 X 14 X = q, X 11 X 33 +X 1 X 34 X 13 X 31 X 14 X 3 = 0, X 11 X 43 +X 1 X 44 X 13 X 41 X 14 X 4 = 4q.p, X 1 X 33 +X X 34 X 3 X 31 X 4 X 3 = 0, X 1 X 43 +X X 44 X 3 X 41 X 4 X 4 = λq p, X 31 X 43 +X 3 X 44 X 33 X 41 X 34 X 4 = q are also satisfied. Since the coefficients X a depend on coordinates and momenta, there is no choice where this can e achieved. In order to see the prolem of going to the next steps of the method, let us make a choice that solves 3.11: X 11 = 0, X 1 = 0, X 13 =, X 14 = q.p, X 1 = q, X = 0, X 3 = 0, X 4 = 1 p, X 31 = 0, X 3 = 0, X 33 = 0, X 34 = 1 4 q, X 41 = 0, X 4 = 4, X 43 = λ, X 44 = With this choice we have the following first-order correction for the constraints 1 1 = η 3 +q.pη 4, 1 = q.qη p.pη4, 1 3 = 1 4 q.qη4, 1 4 = 4η +λη We now have to consider these quantities into expression.11,which leads to the following set of equations 4 +q.p +q.q p.p 1 1 η 1 η η 3 η = 4q.pη 4, +4q.p +q.q 3 1 η 1 η η = 0, 8 3 +q.p +4 λ η 1 η η 4 η 1 = η 4 p.p λq.q, 4 p.p 3 η 3 η q.q η 4 = q.qη 4, 4q.q 3 p.p 8 +4λ 4 η 3 η η 4 η 1 = 4q.pλη 4 η 1, q.q λ 3 3 η η 4 η 1 = 4η 3 +q.pη q.q 4 5

6 As one oserves, this system may have many solutions. his can e verified if one writes a as X ac η η c. So each a has sixteen terms and the six equations 3.15 will involve ninety six quantities to e fixed. For any choice we make, this prolem will e enlarged and enlarged at each step of the method. We then oserve that it is not feasile to infer what is the general rule for the corrections and, consequently, this discard any possiility of otaining a closed solution. We may conclude that the use of full BFF method to this prolem is very tedious and uninteresting. IV. USING HE PARIALLY EMBEDDING FORMALISM Considering again the set of constraints 3.5, let us just convert 1 and into first class and let 3 and 4 as second class constraints. hen instead of two pair of canonical coordinated we introduce just one, that we simply denote y η 1 = η and η = π. From the solutions of the first step of the BFF method we make an analogous choice of Banerjee et al. [1] giving 1 = = q 1+η, = + 1 = q.p πq, 4.1 1, } = It is opportune to mention that this choice, which would correspond to X 11 = and X 3 = q.q of the full BFF method is not compatile with any solution for the set of equations given y Of course, the result given y 4. does not necessarily means that 1 and are first class. hey also have to have zero Poisson rackets, on the constraint surface, with the remaining constraints. We notice that this is actually true for the constraint 3, ut it is not for 4. Let us then conveniently modify the constraint 4 in order to have zero Poisson rackets with 1 and. As it was mentioned in Sec. II, this can e achieved in the same framework of the BFF formalism y taking 4 as the quantity A of Eq..13. So, the general expression for the first correction for 4 should e 1 4 = η a ω a Xc c, 4 }, 4.3 where the indices a,,c = 1, just correspond to the constraints 1 and, and ω a and Xa are the inverse of ω a and X a respectively. Considering expressions 3.4 and 3.5 we have ω a = , X a = Hence, the first correction for 4 reads q = λ p q η p.qπ. 4.5 Using.1.5 we calculate other corrections for 4. We list some of them elow pi, 4 = 3 4 = η q pi 4 4 = 4η q 4 pi,. 4.6 From these results we can infer that the general correction n 4, for n, should e n 4 = η q n pi. 4.7 We then see that the partially emedding procedure, contrarily to the use of the full BFF method, permitted us to infer the general rule for all the corrections. More than that, we can also show that the sum of all these terms to otain 4 can e cast in a closed form, 4 = λq +p pi +λη p i pi + q η +q iπ n=0 = λq +p + λ p pi + η q n, q η p.qπ 1+ η q his constraint can e further rewritten as 4 = 1+ η 1 pi q πq i +λ q +η. 4.9 It is just a matter of algeraic work to check that 1 and are actually first class, whereas 3 = 3 = p λ and 4 are second class. Using the partially emedding procedure in terms of the first-class constraints 1 and we directly otain 6

7 the partially emedding Hamiltonian H c that resemles the form of the Hamiltonian H c given y 3.8, namely H c = λ λ It is important to emphasize that it generates a consistent time evolution for each one of the constraints a. δq i = ǫ q i, δp i = ǫ 1 q i ǫ p i πq i, δη = ǫ q, δπ = ǫ 1, δλ = 0, δp λ = V. IME EVOLUION AND GAUGE INVARIANCE he first order Lagrangian for the theory descried in the last section reads L = p q +π η +p λ λ H, 5.1 where H is the total Hamiltonian H = H c +λ a a. 5. his theory must e invariant under the transformations generated y the first-class constraints. Considering that y represents any one of the canonical coordinates of the system, we have δy = ǫ a y, a } D, 5.3 where ǫ a is the parameter characteristic of the gauge transformationgeneratedythefirst-classconstraint a. he presence of the Dirac rackets here is to consistently eliminate the constraints a. We thus otain he gauge invariance of the corresponding action is then achieved if the Lagrange multipliers λ a transform as δλ a = ǫ a. 5.5 Let us finally consider the equations of motion generated y the total Hamiltonian 5.. An important point regarding the emedding procedure is that the otained theory, even though having more symmetries than the initial one, does not change its physics. In other words, thetheorydescriedythetotalhamiltonian H mustdescrie a particle moving on a sphere of radius one. If the partially emedding we have developed till now makes sense, this point has necessarily to e verified. he general expression for the time evolution of any canonical quantity, on the constraint surface, is ẏ = y, H} D, = 1 y,λ} D +λ λ 1 1,y} D λ,y} D. 5.6 his leads, after some simplifications, to the equations of motion q q i = 1 +1 q +η p i πq i λ q i, 5.7 ṗ i = π q i + πq i +λ pk +πq qi k p i πq i 1 +1 q 5.8 +η λ = 0, 5.9 ṗ λ = 0, q 5.10 η = 1 +1 q +η +λ q p.q πq 0, 5.11 π = [ 1 +1 pi πq i q λ] q +η q +λ+λ η It is a matter of algeraic work to show that the aove equations of motion are consistent with the gauge transformations defined in 5.3 in the sense that [ d dt,δ]y = 0 for any y. So gauge transformed variales satisfy the same equations of motion as the original ones. he comination of the Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8 leads to d [ q i +λ q i = dt λ q +η ] q i +λ q i 1 q q k +λ q k q i

8 As can e verified, the aove equation is also consistent with the gauge transformations. Now, under the constraint surface, it reduces trivially to d dt q i +λ q i = λ q i +λ q i 1 q q k +λ q k q i, 5.14 which oviously reproduces 3.3 with the gauge choice λ = 0, showing in this way that the partial emedding procedure introduces gauge degrees of freedom ut keeps the same physical content, as it should e. o conclude, let us recall the physical meaning of some emedding results found in literature y using the BFF formalism. For the simplest case where the first class constraints of the emedding theory are linear in the new variales of the extended space, like chiral-osons [5 7] and Aelian massive vector theory [,3], the physical meaning is that the result is invariant for a shift of coordinates [8]. For the case where constraints are not linear in these variales, like the non-aelian massive vector theory [9], the emedding theory is equivalent to the generalized Stuckelerg formalism [11]. he natural question now is related to the physical meaning of the result expressed y the equation of motion given y We can show that the result aove and the initial one corresponding to a particle on a N-sphere descried y coordinates q i satisfying 3.3 are linked y a scale transformation. In fact, performing a scale transformation over the coordinates q i in such a way that VI. CONCLUSION In this work we have considered the quantum mechanical analog of the nonlinear sigma-model, corresponding to a particle constrained to move on a N-dimensional sphere of unit radius. he Hamiltonian treatment of this model generates four second class constraints. he emedding of this theory y using the BFF formalism runs into difficulties. his is so ecause it is not natural the choice of solution in each step of the method and, consequently, one cannot infer the general rule for higher contriutions. his makes the formalism uninteresting and not feasile to e applied, ecause we would have to get an infinite numer of corrections to analyze the emedded theory. On the other hand, we have shown that the same BFF method can e conveniently used in order to emed the theory in a partial way, where just two of the four constraints are converted into first-class. We have shown that, contrarily to the attempt of using the full method, all the steps of the corrections are naturally otained and, more than that, can e cast in a closed form. Finally, we have discussed the dynamics and the physical meaning of the emedded theory. We have shown that it corresponds to a time dependent scale transformation of coordinates, suggesting us some equivalence with a geometrical conformal formulation. Acknowledgment: his work is supported in part y Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e ecnológico - CNPq, and Fundação Universitária José Bonifácio - FUJB Brazilian Research Agencies. Q i = e Λ q i, 5.15 one directly verifies that 3.3 leads to d dt Q i ΛQ i = Λ Q i ΛQ i 1 Q Q k ΛQ k Q i a c amorim@ if.ufrj.r arcelos@ if.ufrj.r wotzasek@if.ufrj.r By comparing 5.16 and 5.14 we see that λ plays the rule of minus the time derivative of the scale factor Λ, when the q s of5.14 are interpreted as the Q s of hiscouldalsoedirectlyseenfromeqs. 5.1and5.4, namely, δq i = ǫ q i and δλ = ǫ. So we see that in some sense the effect of the emedding procedure on the Hamiltonian system descriing the N dimensional rotor is related to a scale transformation. Fixing the gauge corresponds to make the scale factor constant over the time, as expected. [1] N. Banerjee, R. Banerjee, and S. Ghosh, Nucl. Phys. B ; Phys. Rev. D [] I.A. Batalin and E.S. Fradkin, Phys. Lett. B ; Nucl. Phys. B ; I.A. Batalin, E.S. Fradkin, and.e. Fradkina, iid. B ; B [3] I.A. Batalin and I.V. yutin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [4] P.A.M. Dirac, Can. J. Math ; Lectures on quantum mechanics Yeshiva University, New York, [5] R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. Lett

9 [6] Y.-G. Miao, J.-G. Zhou and Y.-Y. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [7] R. Amorim and J. Barcelos-Neto, Phys. Lett. B ; Phys. Rev. D [8] R.AmorimandA.Das, Mod.Phys.Lett.A ; R. Amorim, Z. Phys. C [9] R. Banerjee and J. Barcelos-Neto, Nucl. Phys. B ; M.-I. Park and Y.-J. Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [10] J. Barcelos-Neto, Phys. Rev. D [11]. Kunimasa and. Goto, Prog. heor. Phys