arxiv:gr-qc/ v2 6 Apr 1999

Transcription

1 1 Notations I am using the same notations as in [3] and [2]. 2 Temporal gauge - various approaches arxiv:gr-qc/ v2 6 Apr 1999 Obviously the temporal gauge q i = a i = const or in QED: A 0 = a R (1) is not a canonical gauge as it does not fulfill eq. (1.59) of [7]. However, we do not need a canonical gauge in order to fix our gauge degrees of freedom. There exist various other gauges (e.g. derivative gauges, multiplier gauges etc.). The reason for the introduction of such gauges and its justification are developed in section 3.4 of [7]. The quantization of such theories can be shown to be consistent in the frame of BRST theory only. Therefore, unfortunately, at the moment I am not able to go into details. 2.1 The direct approach see [3] - but I admit that this approach may leave some open questions. 2.2 The adding a gauge fixing field approach The idea is to introduce the gauge fixing directly in the Lagrangian: L L + B ( q i a i ) (2) with some (non-dynamical) additional field B. In fact, this can already be done for QED and we will treat it as a toy model: L = L QED + B (A 0 a), a R (3) We will get the following primary constraints: Π 0 = 0 (4) P B = 0 (5) 1

2 From the consistency equations follow the secondary constraints G + B = 0 with G being the Gauss-law (6) A 0 = a R (7) which shows that the temporal gauge appears as a secondary second class constraint. Now all constraints are second class (all constraints have non-trivial Poisson bracket with at least one other constraint) and therefore we are left with no first class constraints and four second class constraints. This shows that the terminology gauge fixing field is correct because we have no gauge degrees of freedom left. Our extended Hamiltonian reads H E = H 0 + λπ 0 + µ (G + B) + σp B + τ (A 0 a) (8) with H 0 being the ordinary QED-Hamiltonian H 1 0 = 1 2 (E2 + B 2 ) plus the gauge fixing Hamiltonian H 2 0 = B ( q i a i ) (H 0 = H H 2 0). Finally we can eliminate the Lagrange-multipliers through the complete consistency equations: {Π 0, H E } = G τ 0 (9) {P B, H E } = µ 0 (10) {G + B, H E } = σ 0 (11) {A 0 a, H E } = λ 0 (12) Thus all Lagrange-multipliers vanish weakly. It seems that we do not have any problems in the Hamiltonian formalism (apart from the well-known problems that are also existent in the Lagrangian fromulation) with temporal gauge in this approach. 2.3 The extended phase space approach - extended version In this section we use the extended phase space formalism where we treat the Lagrangemultipliers as canonical variables. The extended action is [ ] S E = d 2 x Q i P i H 0 λ i p i µ i G i (13) 2

3 with Q i = (q i, q i, S, λ i, µ i ) and P i = (p i, p i, P, p λ i, pµ i ). Of course we get new primary first class constraints p λ i = 0, p µ i = 0 (14) for the momenta of the multipliers λ i and µ i. H 0 is the physical Hamiltonian, namely the non-vanishing part of H E on the constraint surface p i = 0, G i = 0 of the phase space. In our case it vanishes. In the BRST approach we have for every first class constraint a ghost and its canonical momentum. Thus in the extended phase space formalism the number of ghosts doubles. We have now the following quadruples of constraint/coordinate/ghost/ghostmomentum: ( pi, q i, b i, p b i) (15) (G i,, c i, p c i ( ) (16) p λ i, λ i, β i, p β i (17) (p µ i, µ i, γ i, p γ i ) (18) Note that there is no coordinate corresponding to G i. Of course, all ghost-momentum pairs fulfil the (anti-)poisson bracket relation { gi, p g } j = δ ij δ(x x ) (19) The BRST charge is given by Ω = Ω min + Ω nonmin (20) Ω min = b i p i + c i G i c ic j C ijk p c k (21) Ω nonmin = β i p λ i + γ ip µ i (22) It can already be seen that the identification of q i as a canonical variable and of µ i as a Lagrange-multiplier is not a fundamental one. The structure of their contribution to the total BRST-charge is exactly the same and indeed it is a well-known fact that the separation between minimal and non- minimal sector of the theory is by no means uniquely defined (c.f of [7] for a general discussion and for its application to QED). 3

4 The extended gauge fixed Hamiltonian is given by H gf = H E + {Ψ, Ω} (23) with H E equal to a particular BRST-invariant extension of H 0 (which is in our case trivial because H 0 = 0) and Ψ is the gauge-fixing fermion. A useful class of gauge-fixing fermions is given by Ψ = p β i χ i + p γ i ξ i p b i λ i p c i µ i (24) where χ and ξ are some functions of (Q i, P i ) and are called the gauge fixing functions. Thus we get for the gauge fixed Hamiltonian: H gf = p β i {χ i, Ω min } + p γ i {ξ i, Ω min } + χ i p λ i + ξ i p µ i + λ i p i + µ i G i +µ n {p c n, 1 } 2 c ic j C ijk p c k + p b i β i + p c i γ i (25) Because of the Fradkin-Vilkovisky theorem we are free to choose the gauge-fixing fermion as we whish (c.f of [7]). We specify the gauge-fixing functions as follows: The calculation of the brackets yields H gf χ i = 1 ε ( q i a i ), a i = (0, 1, 0) (26) ξ i = λ i (27) = p β 1 i ε b i + χ i p λ i + λ i (p µ i + p i) + µ i G i +µ i c j C jik p c k + pb i β i + p c i γ i (28) Now we want to identify the quadruple ( p i, q i, b i, p b i ) with (pµ i, µ i, γ i, p γ i ) in order to reduce our extended phase space a bit. Of course this reduction is only possible if it is consistent with the Poisson structure. If this reduction is possible it corresponds to a division of the extended phase space by a trivial sub-space - similar like in the case of the inclined plane where we can either consider two pairs of canonical variables with one constraint or just on pair of canonical variables. Indeed, it follows by consistency of the Poisson brackets, that by identifying p i with p µ i we also have to identify the other variables of the quadruple. 4

5 One may feel uncomfortable about these additional constraints p i +p µ i = 0 (the other constraints are due to consitency equations) put in by hand (on the surface of constraints the identifications are trivial, because p i and p µ i are both constraints and thus vanish on it). As indicated above, the point of view taken here is that the division of an unphysical part of the phase space is allowed, as long as the Poisson structure of the remainig variables is conserved. Taking a look at the equations of motion λ i = p µ i + p i = ṗ λ i (=0 after identification) (29) we see that this results in a derivative gauge for the Lagrange-multiplier λ i (c.f. eq. section of [7]). There is a simpler way to obtain the needed identification of µ i with q i (the other identifications follow from consistency of the Poisson brackets): We just redefine the multiplier µ i in the ordinary phase space by µ i µ i = µ i q i (30) and call µ i afterwards q i, which is just a shift in q i by some constants. Because all Poisson brackets of the ordinary phase space are invariant under this trivial shift we have just performed a canonical transformation. Then we can proceed to the extended phase space formalism and obtain only the first three quadruples (15-17). After this (non?)trivial step we are left with H gf = p β i 1 ε b i + 1 ε ( q i a i )p λ i q i G i q i c j C jik p c k + p b iβ i p c ib i (31) Again we have a look at some eom s H p λ i = 1 ε ( q i a i ) = λ i (32) and we notice that indeed we have implemented the gauge q i = a i by appropriate choice of the gauge fixing functions. The Hamiltonian action is [ i + p i q i + p b iḃi + p c iċi + p β β i i + p λ λ ] i i + P i Ṡ i H gf (33) 5

6 Because of (29) we see that the momenta p λ i are not dynamical. Thus the have the status of auxiliary fields and can be eliminated by their eom s. The simplest way to see this is by partial integration of the p λ i λ i -term and using (29) (which in the language of path integrals corresponds to an integration of the λ i -fields). Afterwards we can integrate out the momenta p λ i and obtain the desired gauge conditions q i = a i (34) Our action has simplified considerably [ i + p b iḃi + p c iċi + p β β i i + P i Ṡ i ( )] p β 1 i ε b i a i G i a i c j C jik p c k + pb i β i p c i b i (35) but we still need to obtain an even simpler expression. This goal can be achieved by the observation that the eom s β i p β i p c i = ṗ β i = p b i = β i = 1 ε b i = ċ i = a k c j C jki b i b i p b i = ṗ b i = 1 ε pβ i pc i = ḃi = β i (36) = p c i c =... i show a non-trivial relation between (β i, p β i ) and (b i, p b i). Using the eom s for p c i and b i results in [ ] i p b i α i + p β β i i + P i Ṡ i + p β 1 i ε α i + a i G i p b i β i with α i = ċ i + a k c j C jki. In the next step we plug in the eom s for p b i and β i: [ ] i p β i α i + P i Ṡ i + p β 1 i ε α i + a i G i (37) (38) which is explicitly equal to [ ] i p β i 0 0 (ċi + a k c j C jki) + P i Ṡ i + p β 1 i (ċi + a k c j C jki) + a i G i ε (39) 6

7 Finally, we use the eom s of the last ghost-momentum pair, p β i and c i. For convenience we redefine the terms p β i ( 0 0 δij 0 + a k C jki) c j + p β 1 ( i δij 0 + a k C jki) c j = 1 ε ε pβ i M ijc j (40) In this case we get a non-trivial Fadeev-Popov determinant in the path integral (the constant 1 is put in the (infinite) constant of the path integral): ε W = Dp i Dq i DP i DS i det F exp i (S h + sources) (41) with and [ ] i + P i Ṡ i + a i G i (42) det F = det ( 0 ε )det ( 0 ε ) det ( 0 + X + U(X) ε 0 0 ( 0 + X + U(X) )) (43) = det ( 1 ε 2 0) [det ( 0 )] 2 det ( 0 + X + U(X) ) (44) If it were allowed to exchange the limit lim ε 0 with the evaluation of the path integral, then we would get lim det F = det ( 0)det ( 0 ) det ( 0 + X + U(X) ) (45) ε 0 which coincides with the result obtained in [3]. But even not taking the limit yields essentially the same result. The only difference is the determinant det (1 ε 2 0 ). 2.4 The extended phase space approach - reduced version This time we simplify our action from the beginning: As indicated above (2.2) we could start with a smaller phase space, where we have joined q i and µ i to a single canonical variable which we call q i. Starting with [ ] S H = Q i P i λ i p i q i G i (46) 7

8 where Q i = (q i, q i, λ, S) and P i the corrseponding momenta we obtain only three quadruples ( pi, q i, b i, p b i) (47) The BRST charge is given by (G i,, c i, p c ( i) ) (48) p λ i, λ i, β i, p β i (49) Ω = Ω min + Ω nonmin (50) Ω min = c i G i c ic j C ijk p c k (51) Ω nonmin = b i p i + β i p λ i (52) Now we choose a slightly different gauge fixing fermion: which yields Ψ = p b i χ i + p c i ξ i p β i λ i (53) H gf = p b i {χ i, Ω min } + p c i {ξ i, Ω min } + χ i p i { +ξ i ( G i + p c n, 1 }) 2 c ic j C ijk p c k + λ i p λ i pβ i β i (54) We select χ i = 1 ε ( q i a i ) (55) ξ i = q i (56) for the gauge fixing functions. They are now linearly dependent, but I cannot find any reason why this should cause any problem. Therefore, we obtain H gf = 1 ε pb i b i + p c i b i + 1 ε p i ( q i a i ) q i G i q i c j C ijk p c k (57) where we already have eliminated 1 the trivial coordinates and momenta λ i, p λ i, β i and p β i, which decouple totally from the other canonical variables 1 Both pairs have only a term of the form qp in the Hamiltonian. By eom s this just gives rise to a constant in the Hamiltonian which we may drop (or - in the language of path integrals - we can integrate them out ). 8

9 (again, we divide out a trivial subspace of the total phase space. But this time it is a trivial division as opposed to the previous one). Note that (57) already is of the desired form: It is identical to eq. (24) of [3] 2, apart from some signs due to different notations. Therefore, by a stricter analysis (namely the extended phase space formalism which treats also the Lagrange multipliers as canonical variables) we have obtained the same result as in [3]. The only non-trivial step which perhaps still may have to be justified is the limit ε 0 after the redefinitions p i ε p i and c i ε c i. 3 Conclusion Although the temporal gauge (1) is not a canonical gauge (and in the sense of Dirac therefore not a gauge at all [1]) we have shown in various approaches that it is admissable. In fact, it corresponds to something which in literature is called multiplier-gauge [7]. The most rigorous proof of the validity of such a gauge combines the methods outlined in the sections The extended phase space approch We briefly summarize the most import steps of it: 1. Starting from the Hamiltonian by a simple canonical transformation we obtain Ĥ 0 = q i G i + λ i p i + µ i G i (58) H 0 = q i G i + λ i p i. (59) 2. Using the extended phase space formalism we obatain 3 quadruples (47-49) (which is a better starting point because, after all, we reduced the extended extended phase space in our first approach from 4 quadruples to 3 anyway). 3. We choose a gauge-fixing fermion like in (24) - of course one term is absent because we have only 3 ghosts. 4. We arrive therefore directly at (31). 5. From that point we strictly follow the steps outlined in The extended phase space approach - extended version. 2 If we redefine p c i = b i and p b i = c i 9

10 6. Therefore we arrive finally at (41) which is equivalent to equation (28) of [3] if the limit lim ε 0 is well-defined and commutes with the path integral. After all, the temporal gauge (1) is an admissable gauge in our model, although I admit that this is by no means a straightforward result. A Poisson brackets {χ n, Ω min } = 1 ε { q n, b i p i + c i G i + 1 } 2 c ic j C ijk p c k = 1 ε b n (60) { p c n, 1 } 2 c ic j C ijk p c k = c j C njk p c k (61) References [1] P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, New York [2] D. Grumiller, W. Kummer, Absolute conservation law for black holes, gr-qc [3] W. Kummer, H. Liebl, D. V. Vassilevich, Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 491. [4] E. S. Fradkin, G. A. Vilkovisky, Quantization of relativistic systems with constraints - Equivalence of canonical and covariant formalisms in quantum theory of gravitational field, Ref. TH CERN (1977). [5] M. Hennaux, Phys. Rep. 126 (1985) 1. [6] D. M. Gitman, I. V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints, Springer-Verlag (1990). [7] M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princton University Press (1992) 10