arxiv:hep-th/ v1 23 Mar 1998

Transcription

1 SOGANG HEP 225/97 Generalized BFT Formalism of SU(2 U( Higgs Model Sean J. Yoon, Yong-Wan Kim and Young-Jai Park Department of Physics, Sogang University, C.P.O.Box 42, Seoul 00-6, Korea arxiv:hep-th/98038v 23 Mar 998 (Feburary 3, 998 Abstract Following the generalized Batalin, Fradkin and Tyutin (BFT method, we systematically embed the second-class SU(2 U( Higgs model in the unitary gauge into a fully gauge invariant theory. We also suggest a novel path at the classical level how we directly get a first-class Lagrangian from the original second-class one using the BFT fields..0.ef,.5.-q,.5.ex Typeset using REVTEX yoonsj@mail.lgcit.com, Permanent address: LG Corporate Institute of Technology, Seoul , Korea, and yoonsj@physics.sogang.ac.kr ywkim@physics.sogang.ac.kr yjpark@ccs.sogang.ac.kr

2 A phenomenological good example of constrained system [] is provided by the SU(2 U( Higgs model with spontaneous symmetry breakdown whose quantization is usually carried out in the so called unitary gauge. The model in this gauge is characterized by both of second- and first-class constraints. Since the strong implementation of second-class constraints in general leads to non-polynomial field dependent Dirac brackets which may pose problems, one can in principle circumvent them associated with this non-polynomial dependence by turning second-class constrained systems into first-class ones in an extended phase space [2] with a Poisson bracket structure and implementing first-class constraints on physical states. However, the BFT construction for observables such as Hamiltonian have already proved non-trivial even in the abelian case [3,4], and thus does not seem to be suited for treating particularly non-abelian phenomenological cases. In this paper we analyze the non-abelian SU(2 U( Higgs model in the unitary gauge as a non-trivial and simple realistic phenomenological example by following a generalized BFT procedure [5] which makes a simple interpretation for observables possible. Starting from the second-class Lagrangian, we systematically construct an effectively first-class constrained system. We then show that the results coincide with those obtained by gauging the secondclass Lagrangian and performing a suitable canonical transformation. This establishes the equivalence of the generalized BFT construction and the Lagrangian quantization procedure based on the addition of a Wess-Zumino (WZ term [6,7] (see also [8,9]. We also suggest an economic novel path at the classical level to obtain the first-class Lagrangian from the second-class one. Let us consider the non-abelian SU(2 U( Higgs model in the unitary gauge, which describes the bosonic part of the Weinberg-Salam Model [0], L u = 4 F a µνf µνa 4 G µνg µν + 8 ρ2 (g 2 B µ B µ 2gg B µ A µ3 + g 2 A a µa µa + 2 µρ µ ρ + V (ρ, ( where V (ρ is the Higgs potential, V (ρ = µ2 2 (ρ+v2 λ 4 (ρ+v4 with the vacuum expectation value v, and the g and g are the U( and SU(2 coupling constants, respectively. The field strength tensors are F a µν = µa a ν νa a µ + gǫabc A b µ Ac ν, (a =, 2, 3 and G µν = µ B ν ν B µ. 2

3 The momenta canonically conjugate to A 0a, A ia, B 0, B i, and ρ are given by π a 0 = 0, πa i = F a i0, p 0 = 0, p i = G i0, and π ρ = ρ, respectively. We thus have the primary constraints π a 0 0 and p 0 0. The canonical Hamiltonian density associated with the Lagrangian ( is found to be H C = 2 (πa i (p i (π ρ F a ij F ija + 4 G ijg ij + 8 ρ2 g 2 (B i 2 2gg B i A i3 + g 2 (A ia ( iρ 2 V (ρ 8 ρ2 (g 2 (B 0 2 2gg B 0 A 03 + g 2 (A 0a 2 A 0a (D i π i a B 0 i p i, (2 where (D i π i a = i πi a+gǫabc A ib πi c. Since persistency in time of the primary constraints leads to further constraints, this system is described by the set of eight constraints: ω = p 0, ω 2 = i p i 4 ρ2 gg A ρ2 g 2 B 0, ω a 3 = π a 0, ω a 4 = (D i π i a + 4 ρ2 g 2 A 0a 4 ρ2 gg B 0 δ a3. (3 The corresponding constraints algebra is given by Σ ij = {ω i (x, ω j (y} 0 4 ρ2 g 2 4 = ρ2 g ρ2 gg δ a3 4 ρ2 gg δ a3 0 U( mixed 0 4 ρ2 gg δ a3 4 ρ2 gg δ a ρ2 g 2 δ ab 4 ρ2 g 2 δ ab gǫ ( c abc D k π k mixed SU(2 δ 3 (x y (4 with det Σ ij = 0. Each block of the matrix represents the properties of the U( [4] and SU(2 Higgs model [], and their mixed properties. The matrix (4 has zero-determinant, which means that there still exist first-class constraints related to the unbroken symmetry among the full constraints. If we recombine the original constraints as follows Ω a ωa 3 = πa 0, Ω a 2 ωa 4 = (Di π i a + 4 ρ2 g 2 A 0a 4 ρ2 gg B 0 δ a3, (5 T gω + g ω3 3 = gp 0 + g π0 3, 3

4 T 2 gω 2 + g ω ρ 2 g 2[gg (D i π i 2 ω 3 gg (D i π i ω 2 3] = g i p i + g (D i π i (D i π ρ 2 g 2[gg i 2 π0 gg (D i π i π0 2 ]. (6 then, the constraints Ω a and Ωa 2 {Ω a i (x, Ωb j (y} = ab ij (x, y = while the T and T 2 satisfy first-class algebra as make the algebra second-class 0 4 ρ2 g 2 δ ab 4 ρ2 g 2 δ ab gǫ ( c abc D k π k {T 2 (x, Ω 2(y} = 4 ρ 2g (D i π i 3 Ω δ 3 (x y 0, {T 2 (x, Ω 2 2 (y} = 4 ρ 2g (D i π i 3 Ω 2 δ3 (x y 0, {T 2 (x, Ω 3 2(y} = 4 ρ 2g [(D i π i Ω + (D i π i 2 Ω 2 ]δ 3 (x y 0, δ3 (x y, (7 {T (x, Ω a i (y} = {T i (x, T j (y} = 0. (8 The SU(2 U( Higgs model in the unitary gauge thus has two first- as well as six secondclass constraints. As is well known, after breaking the SU(2 U( symmetry spontaneously, the full SU(2 U( symmetry is broken into the combined symmetry U( em. As a result of the Higgs mechanism, the vector fields, W ± µ ( = (A µ ia 2 µ / 2 and Z µ (= cosθa 3 µ sinθb µ, tanθ = g /g have acquired masses equal to M 2 W(ρ = 4 ρ2 g 2 and M 2 Z(ρ = 4 ρ2 (g 2 + g 2, while A µ (= sinθa 3 µ +cosθb µ has remained massless. In fact, the first-class constraints (6 describe this residual U( em symmetry, i.e., the existence of the massless gauge fields. We now convert this system of the second- Ω a i and first-class constraints T i into a completely equivalent first-class system at the expense of additional degrees of freedom. Note that the BFT formalism is used to recover an underlying symmetry of system, and thus we do not need to introduce auxiliary fields to the initially first-class constraints related with the residual symmetry. With this point of view, we first confine ourselves to the second-class constraints. Following ref. [2], we introduce auxiliary fields Φ a and Φ 2a corresponding to Ω a and Ω a 2 of symplectic structure { Φ ia (x, Φ jb (y } = ω ij ab (x, y = ǫij δ ab δ 3 (x y, (i, j =, 2. (9 4

5 The effective first-class constraints Ω a i are now constructed as a power series in the auxiliary fields, Ωa i = Ω a i + n= Ω (na i, where Ω (na i (n =,..., are homogeneous polynomials in the auxiliary fields {Φ jb } of degree n, and will be determined by the requirement that the constraints Ω a i be strongly involutive: { Ωa i (x, Ω b j (y} = 0. (0 Making a general ansatz Ω (a i (x = d 3 yx ab ij (x, yφjb (y, ( and substituting ( into (0 leads to the condition d 3 zxik ac (x, zǫkl Xjl bc (y, z = ab ij (x, y. (2 Then, Eq. (2 has solutions Xij ab (x, y = 4 ρ2 g 2 δ ab 0 2 gǫabc (D k π k c δ ab δ3 (x y. (3 From the symplectic structure of Eq. (9, we may identify the auxiliary fields with canonically conjugated pairs. We make this explicit by adopting the notation, (Φ a, Φ 2a (θ a, πθ a. Substituting (3 into (, and iterating this procedure one finds the strongly involutive first-class constraints to be given by Ω a = πa ρ2 g 2 θ a, Ωa 2 = V ab (θ(d i π i b + 4 ρ2 g 2 A 0a 4 ρ2 gg B 0 δ a3 + π a θ. (4 Here, V (θ = n=0 ( n (n+! (ad θn, and (ad θ ab = gǫ acb θ c, where ad θ = gθ a T a with T c ab = ǫ acb denotes the Lie algebra-valued field θ in the adjoint representation. Note that as a result of the abelian conversion such as Eq. (0 in the BFT formalism [2], we have the abelianized constraints Ω a i in the extended phase space. According to the abelianization theorem [2], given a set of non-abelian constraints Ω a obeying {Ω a, Ω b } = gǫ abc Ω c, we can always find a set of abelianized constraints Ω a such as {Ω a, Ω b } = 0, using redefinition of the constraints as Ω a = Mb aωb with an invertible matrix Mb a. From this, we see that the 5

6 effective first-class constraints Ω a i are the abelian conversion of the non-abelian first-class constraints obtained from a gauge invariant Lagrangian and multiplied with V (θ where V (θ corresponds to M a b. We will show this role of the matrix V (θ later. This completes the construction of the effective first-class constraints corresponding to the second-class ones. The construction of effective first-class Hamiltonian H can be done along similar lines as in the case of the constraints, by representing it as a power series in the auxiliary fields and requiring { Ω a i, H} = 0 subject to the condition H[J ; θ a = π a θ = 0] = H C, where J denotes collectively the variables (A µa, π a µ, Bµ, p µ, ρ, π ρ of the original phase space. However, we shall follow a novel path [5,8,9] by noting that any functional of first-class fields will also be first-class. We require BFT fields J corresponding to J in the extended phase space to be strongly involutive with the effective first-class constraints Ω a i, i.e., { Ω a i, J } = 0, which leads us to the identification H = H C [ J ]. The BFT fields J are now obtained as a power series in the auxiliary fields (θ a, πθ a, whose iterative solutions lead to a compact infinite series as à 0a = A 0a + 4 g 2 ρ 2πa θ 4 g 2 ρ 2 ( U ab (θ V ab (θ (D i π i b, à ia = U ab (θa ib + V ab (θ i θ b, π a µ = (π a g2 ρ 2 θ a, U ab (θπ b i B µ = B µ, p µ = p µ 4 gg ρ 2 θ 3 δ µ0, ρ = ρ, π ρ = π ρ + 2 g2 ρa 0a θ a 2 gg ρb 0 θ 3, (5 where U(θ = ( n n=0 (ad θ n = e ad θ. Therefore, we can take the first-class Hamiltonian n! density H C, expressed in terms of the BFT fields: H C = 2 ( πa i ( p i ( π ρ ( F a ij ( G ij ρ2 (g 2 ( B i 2 2gg Bi à i3 + g 2 (Ãia ( i ρ 2 V ( ρ 8 ρ2 (g 2 ( B 0 2 2gg B0 à 03 + g 2 (Ã0a 2 Ã0a ( D i π i a B 0 i p i (6 = 2 (πa i (p i 2 + 2, ( π ρ + 2 g2 ρa 0a θ a 2 gg ρb 0 θ (F a ij (G ij ρ2 g 2 (B i 2 4 ρ2 gg B i ( U 3a (θa ia + V 3a (θ i θ a + 8 ρ2 g 2 ( U ab (θa ib + V ab (θ i θ b ( iρ 2 V (ρ + 2 ρ 2 g 2 ( (D i π i a 2 2 ρ 2 g 2( Ω a 2 2 B 0 { g T 2 4 ρ 2 g 2 ( g U 2a (θ(d i π i a Ω g U a (θ(d i π i a Ω2 6 }. (7

7 We moreover observe from these BFT fields that the effective first-class constraints (4 can be written as Ω a = πa 0, Ωa 2 = ( D i π i a + 4 ρ2 g 2 à 0a 4 ρ2 gg B0 δ a3. (8 Note that comparing with the second-class constraints Ω a i in Eq. (5, we see that the constraints (8 are just the second-class constraints expressed in terms of the variables in the extended phase space. We can also rewrite the initially first-class constraints T i as T i [2] in the extended phase space T = g p 0 + g π 3 0 = gp 0 + g π 3 0, T 2 = g i p i + g ( D i π i ρ 2 g 2(gg ( D i π i 2 Ω gg ( D i π i Ω2 = g i p i + g U 3a (θ(d i π i a + 4 ρ 2 g 2(gg U 2a (θ(d i π i a Ω gg U a (θ(d i π i a Ω2, (9 which preserve the general properties of the first-class constraints, i.e., { T i (x, T j (y} = 0 and { Ω a i (x, Ω b j (y} = { Ω a i (x, T j (y} = 0, simultaneously. We can also easily show that the Poisson brackets of the BFT fields are related with those of the original fields in the unitary gauged SU(2 U( model, showing their form invariance between the original and extended phase spaces. As a result of the BFT construction, we have systematically obtained the final set of the effective first-class constraints ( Ω a i, T j and Hamiltonian H C. Now, in order to interpret the results of the BFT construction of the effective firstclass constraints and Hamiltonian, gauging the Lagrangian ( by making the substitution A µa µa = U ab (θa µb + V ab (θ µ θ b, we obtain ˆL = L u + L WZ, (20 where L WZ = 4 ρ2 gg B µ ( (U 3a δ 3a A a µ + V 3a µ θ a + 8 ρ2 g 2 ( 2V ab A µa µ θ b + V ab V ac µ θ b µ θ c (2 plays the role of the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW term like the case of the gauge-invariant formulation of two-dimensional chiral gauge theories [6,7]. We then have the momenta π a θ 7

8 canonically conjugate to θ a as π a θ = 4 ρ2 gg B 0 V 3a + 4 ρ2 g 2 (U bc A 0c +V bc 0 θ c V ba. The other canonical momenta π a µ, p µ, and π ρ are the same as before. Hence the primary constraints are still of the form in Eq. (3, i.e., ˆΩ a = πa 0 0 and ˆΩ 2 = p 0 0, though the dynamics is a different one. The canonical Hamiltonian corresponding to (20 then reads Ĥ C = 2 (πa i (p i (π ρ ρ 2 g 2(πb θ (V ba F a ij F ija + 4 G ijg ij + 8 ρ2 g 2 (B i 2 4 ρ2 gg B i ( U 3a A ia + V 3a i θ a + 8 ρ2 g 2 ( U ab A ib + V ab i θ b ( iρ 2 V (ρ A 0a ( (D i π i a + π b θ(v bc U ca B 0 ( i p i g g πa θ(v a3, (22 where we used the following properties of the Lie algebra-valued functions of U(θ and V (θ: U ac (θu bc (θ = U ca (θu cb (θ = δ ab, U ab (θ = U ba ( θ, U ca (θv cb (θ = V ab ( θ, V ab (θ = V ba ( θ, (V ac (θv cb (θ = δ ab, U ac (θv bc (θ = V ab (θ, (23 Persistency in time of the primary constraints with ĤC implies secondary constraints associated with the Lagrange multipliers A 0a and B 0. We again have the set of eight first-class constraints: ˆΩ a = πa 0 0, ˆΩ2 = p 0 0, ˆΩ a 3 = (Di π i a + π b θ (V bc U ca 0, ˆΩ 4 = i p i g g πa θ (V a3 0. (24 We can easily check that all the algebra (24 between these constraints strongly vanishes except {ˆΩ a 3, ˆΩ b 3 } = gǫabcˆωc 3 0. It now remains to establish the relation with the BFT results. We first rewrite the momentum π a θ in terms of Â0a as π a θ = 4 ρ2 gg B 0 V 3a (θ + 4 ρ2 g 2  0b V ba (θ. Making use of Eqs. (23 and (24, we obtain  0a = 4 ( U abˆωb ρ 2 g 2 3 U ab (D i π i b + ρ2 4 gg B 0 δ a3. (25 Comparing this with A 0a rewritten by Eqs. (5 and (8, we conclude Â0a Ã0a since  0a and Ã0a are identical up to additive terms proportional to the constraints. This weakly establishes the equivalence of µa and õa. 8

9 Furthermore, using the matrix U(θ and V (θ we can write the constraints ˆΩ a 3 V ab (θˆω b 3 = V ab (θ(d i π i b + π a θ and ˆΩ 4 g U 3a (θˆω a 3 + gˆω 4 = g U 3a (θ(d i π i a + g i p i. Performing the canonical transformation π a 0 π a ρ2 g 2 θ a, π a θ π a θ + 4 ρ2 g 2 A 0a 4 ρ2 gg B 0 δ a3, p 0 p 0 4 ρ2 gg θ 3, π ρ π ρ + 2 ρg2 A 0a θ a 2 ρgg B 0 θ 3, (26 we see that the first-class constraints shown in Eq. (24 map into the effective constraints (4 and (9 in the BFT construction as follows ˆΩ a = πa ρ2 g 2 θ a = Ω a, V ab (θˆω b 3 = V ab (θ(d i π i b + π a θ + 4 ρ2 g 2 A 0a 4 ρ2 gg B 0 δ a3 = Ω a 2, g ˆΩ3 + gˆω 2 = g π gp 0 = T, g U 3a (θˆω a 3 + gˆω 4 = g U 3a (θ(d i π i a + g i p i T 2. (27 We have found that the effective constraints Ω a 2 are just the abelian conversion of the constraints ˆΩ a 3, from which the matrix V (θ plays a role of converting the non-abelian constraints into the abelian ones. We can finally check the relation between ĤC and H C as given by (22 and (7, respectively. Making use of Â0a and the canonical transformation (26, the expression (22 for ĤC may be rewritten in the following form in order to compare with H C Ĥ C = 2 (πa i (p i ( π ρ + 2 g2 ρa 0a θ a 2 gg ρb 0 θ (F a ij (G ij ρ2 g 2 (B i 2 4 ρ2 gg B i ( U 3a A ia + V 3a i θ a + 8 ρ2 g 2 ( U ab A ib + V ab i θ b ( iρ 2 V (ρ + 2 ρ 2 g 2 ( (D i π i a ρ 2 g 2(ˆΩ a 3 2 (A 0a + 4 ρ 2 g 2(Di π i a ˆΩ a 3 B0ˆΩ4. (28 Then, we immediately obtain the equivalence relation ĤC H C since ĤC is identical with H C up to additive terms proportional to the constraints. We thus have arrived at a simple interpretation of the results obtained in the above. On the other hand, to obtain the corresponding Lagrangian from the effective first-class Hamiltonian, we should perform momenta integrations in the partition functional with the 9

10 delta functionals of the effective first-class constraints and proper gauge fixing functions in the measure [4,5]. However, these procedures could not provide a reasonable result in the non-abelian cases [8,9,] because there exist the infinite series terms in some variables such as Ã0a and Ω a 2. In this paper, we thus suggest a novel path at the classical level that one can directly get the first-class Lagrangian from the original second-class one. This approach consists in gauging the Lagrangian (, i.e., by making use of the BFT fields, A µa õa, B µ B µ and ρ ρ. Since the fields B µ and ρ in Eq. (5 do not have any auxiliary fields, the substitution is trivially performed. And the spatial components Ãia of the vector potential contain only the fields of the configuration space, and take the usual form of the gauge transformation, i.e., à ia U ab (θa ib + V ab (θ i θ b. However, since Ã0a contain the term of π a θ as in Eq. (5, we should first replace this with some ordinary fields before carrying out the above substitution. This replacement is possible because we have identical relations between the BFT fields, and these relations also contribute to show the strong equivalence of Ã0a with Â0a [4]. From the useful property, K(J ; θ a, π a θ = K( J, where K and K is any second- and its corresponding effective first-class function, respectively, we in particular observe the following relation for π a i fields: π i a = i à a 0 0Ãa i + gǫabc à b iãc 0 ( = i A a g 2 ρ 2πa θ 4 ( U ab V ab (D i π g 2 ρ 2 i b 0 (U ab A b i + V ab i θ b ( +gǫ abc (U bd A d i + V bd i θ d A c g 2 ρ 2πc θ 4 g 2 ρ 2 (Uce V ce (D i π i e. (29 Comparing these with the BFT fields of π a i in Eq. (5, i.e., π a i = U ab (θπ b i = U ab (θ( i A b 0 0 A b i +gǫbcd A c i Ad 0, we see that the following novel relations should be kept for the consistency all the times π a θ = 4 g2 ρ 2 ( (U ab (θ V ab (θ(d i π i b A 0a + U ab (θa 0b + V ab (θ 0 θ b, (30 which make it possible to directly rewrite Ã0a as à 0a = U ab (θa 0b + V ab (θ 0 θ b. (3 0

11 This is just the form of the gauge transformation of A 0a fields. As a result, gauging the original Lagrangian ( as à µa U ab (θa µb + V ab (θ µ θ b, Bµ B µ, ρ ρ, (32 we have directly arrived at the first-class Lagrangian at the classical level L(õa, B µ, ρ = L(A µa, B µ, θ a, ρ = ˆL GI. (33 Therefore, using the novel relations between the BFT fields, we can easily obtain the Lagrangian on the space of gauge invariant functionals, and our approach shows that the previous gauging process of the Lagrangian in (20 would make sense. ( 0 ρ(x+v = Finally, by defining the complex scalar doublet φ(x = 2 e igθa (x τa 2 with the auxiliary fields θ a playing the role of the Goldstone bosons, and W(θ ( 0 ρ(x+v the Pauli matrices τ a ( i τa 2 = ta, we can easily rewrite the Lagrangian (33 as ˆL GI = 4 F a µνf µνa 4 G µνg µν + (D µ φ (D µ φ + V (φ φ, (34 where D µ = µ i g B 2 µ i g 2 τa A a µ. We therefore have arrived at the fully symmetric SU(2 U( Higgs model from the starting symmetry broken Lagrangian ( through the BFT construction. On the other hand, as is well known, the unitary gauge fixed Lagrangian ( obtained by performing the SU(2 gauge transformation in the ˆL GI as φ φ = W φ, A µ A µ = W (A µ + µ W, and B µ B µ = B µ. This proves that the BFT formalism recovers the underlying gauge symmetry of the system. The main objective of this paper was to provide a non-trivial, physically interesting example for the Hamiltonian embedding of a second-class theory into a first-class one, following the constructive BFT procedure. As a result, we have constructed the effective first-class constraints corresponding to the second- and initially first-class ones, and Hamiltonian in particular obtained from the BFT fields, which process has a great advantage in this nonabelian case as compared with the usual BFT approach. We have also observed that the effective first-class constraints and Poisson brackets of the BFT fields have the form invariance between the original and extended phase spaces, which shows that the BFT fields could

12 be interpreted as the gauge invariant extension of the second-class variables to the extended phase space. On the other hand, we have also established the equivalence between the effective first-class quantities and corresponding ones obtained by gauging the second-class Lagrangian of the SU(2 U( Higgs model in the unitary gauge, and observed that the auxiliary fields θ a play the role of the Goldstone bosons. As a result of the novel relations between the BFT fields, we have finally obtained the Lagrangian on the space of gauge invariant functionals, which makes it possible to understand the role of the BFT fields in the configuration space. Finally, we hope that through this generalized BFT formalism the full unbroken symmetry of the universe will be successfully obtained from the real effective theory describing present symmetry broken phase as well as the SU(5 unified theory from the standard SU(3 SU(2 U( model. Acknowledgment Two of the authors (Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park would like to thank Prof. K. D. Rothe for his valuable comments and warm hospitality. The present study was partly supported by the Basic Science Research Institute Program, Ministry of Education, Project No. BSRI

13 REFERENCES [] P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. 2, 29 (950: Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (Yeshiva University, New York 964. [2] I. A. Batalin and E. S. Fradkin, Phys. Lett. B80, 57 (986; Nucl. Phys. B279, 54 (987; I. A. Batalin and I. V. Tyutin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6, 3255 (99. [3] H. O. Girotti and H. J. Rothe, Nuovo Cim, 75A, 62 (983; R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe and K. D. Rothe, Nucl. Phys. B426, 29 (994. [4] Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, hep-th/ [5] W. T. Kim, Y. W. Kim, M. I. Park, Y. J. Park and S. J. Yoon, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. 23, 325 (997; Y. W. Kim, M. I. Park, Y. J. Park and S. J. Yoon, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A2, 427 (997. [6] O. Babelon, F. A. Schaposnik and C. M. Viallet, Phys. Lett. B77, 385 (986; K. Harada and I. Tsutsui, Phys. Lett. B83, 3 (987. [7] E. Abdalla, M. C. B. Abdalla and K. D. Rothe, Non-perturbative methods in twodimensional Quantum Field Theory, World Scientific, Singapore, 99. [8] R. Banerjee and J. Barcelos-Neto, Nucl. Phys. B499, 453 (997; M. I. Park and Y. J. Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (to be published, hep-th/ [9] Y. W. Kim and K. D. Rothe, Nucl. Phys. B5, 50 (998, hep-th/ [0] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 264 (967; A. Salam, in Elementary Particle Physics, ed., N. Svartholm (Almgvist and Wiksells, Stockholm, 968, p.367. [] Y. W. Kim, Y. J. Park and K. D. Rothe, J. Phys. G (to be published, hep-th/ [2] M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University, New Jersey